Orwell summed up Newspeak in “1984”. When I first read it in the late seventies, I found the idea strangely absurd. How could anyone fall for such warping of the language? Slavery is freedom, war is peace, ignorance is strength and so on. No one could fall for it, could they? Oh, but yes, they can and do. The Telegraph’s headline says it all: “France’s burka ban is a victory for tolerance”.
No, it isn’t. It is precisely the opposite of tolerance. It is not up to the state to tell people what to wear. If women want to indulge in wahhabi desert dress, that’s up to them. If they want to suffer the subsequent vitamin D deficiency that’s up to them. If they are being coerced, well, there are other ways to deal with that – assuming that they are being coerced and that they choose to complain about it. Otherwise, it’s not the business of the state to assume that they are.
Despite some high-profile protests, France’s banning of the burka is enormously popular with the public. Unfortunately, as in Britain, almost anything politicians do that the voters approve of tends to be denounced as populisme – a particularly dread charge among the over-earnest French political class – and instead of enjoying the deserved benefits, President Nicolas Sarkozy has found himself on the defensive.
This has echoes of those comments I made a few days back about the death penalty. Just because something is popular with the mob, it doesn’t make it right and a ban on items of clothing is not and never will be right, no matter how many people like the idea. All this tells us is that there are a lot of stupid people out there who haven’t thought through the implications.
Yes, I despise the burqa just as I despise the whole of the Islamic ideology, but tolerance means letting people live their lives as they see fit, providing they cause no harm to others. And, wearing the full veil does not cause harm to others. I find it offensive, but that doesn’t hurt me. If it hurts the woman being forced to wear it, deal with the cause, not the symptom.
So what do we get in Britain? Theresa May, the Home Secretary, rules out a ban because “it would be out of keeping with our nation’s longstanding record of tolerance”, while the Leftist commentariat continues – with apparent seriousness – to suggest that the face veil is a “lifestyle choice” and essentially no different from a balaclavas worn by middle-class types on the ski slopes of Courcheval. I suspect this thinking is going to have to change.
Theresa May is right, it would be out of keeping – although given the previous government’s penchant for bans, not that much out of keeping. As for it being a lifestyle choice, maybe it is and maybe it isn’t. A bit of both, I suspect. It’s not unknown for those being oppressed to cultivate that oppression – a version of Stockholm syndrome. However, it is not the place of government to deal with such behaviour through bans on what people can wear. If there is a specific allegation, then use the existing law to deal with that allegation. Do not assume that every women who wears the veil is doing so under duress. Again, maybe, maybe not – it is not the place of government to second guess and force the issue.
I support the burka ban-but only in one special circumstance.
Because I travel a great deal, I have to constantly prove who I am at airports. The whole system becomes ridiculous when I am grilled and a wifey in a burka just waves a passport but no-one asks her to remove her veil so that they can confirm who is underneath it.
I find that mind-boggling.
One rule for all, or no rules at all.
CR.
That’s a matter for the airport, though. And I would have no more qualms about them insisting on seeing passengers’ faces than I do about banks insisting that people don’t wear their bike helmets when on their property.
Fair do’s.
But if I wanted to wear a mask at the airport they would force me to take it off. I’m almost certain I could find (or start) a religion (other than the burka-clad one) which requires me to wear a mask.
I’d put money on being stopped within feet of the entrance.
CR.
That’s what bothers me – that niqab/burqa wearers are being given special treatment over other people who wear items of clothing that obscure the face.
I wouldn’t expect to be able to wear a mask or a balaclava in an airport, a shop, a pub (though this obviously doesn’t apply to the niqab/burqa-wearing section of the population), or any publicly-funded or private business (subject to their approval). So why should they feel they have entitlements that the rest of us simply do not have?
To put it into perspective – would I be allowed in a shop that caters to niqab-wearing Muslims with a balaclava on? Case closed.
The Quiet Man has it bang on.
What would you say about a law against going about naked in public?
I hate baseball caps, but imagine the uproar if we banned them.
The hiding the face thing is fairly easily dealt with – remove all those bits of law that make it an offence to offend a Muslim. Allow property owners the right to make their own dress codes before entering the property and the matter goes away. Want to do business with a bank, shop or any other private business on their property – fine, take off the veil. Don’t want to take off the veil? Fine, take your business elsewhere. Empower the people to make wearing the veil tiresome.
Going naked? we already have laws regarding indecent exposure. Personally, I think people should be allowed to do so if they so wish – although the climate would be something of a problem. I had this argument once before in the wake of the naked cycling protests a few years back. The commenter in that instance felt that it was offensive that he and his children had to look at naked bodies. Personally, I don’t.
Re: the naked cycling, the commenter and offspring had to look at naked bodies? Someone was making them? Would it have been worse if the bodies were offensive as well as naked? Should I get dressed again?
As for the burqa ban, if some people want to wander round looking like a cross between Demis Roussos and a ninja that’s their own lookout, just as it is if they want to totter around on ridiculous high heeled shoes that fuck their feet and posture or pencil skirts so tight round the knees that they walk as if they’re trying to hold a two dollar coin between the cheeks of their arses. Trinny and Susannah are not in fucking charge and What Not To Wear is not a government function.
I know there are laws “regarding indecent exposure”, demonstrating that we already legally regulate clothing, or at least the lack of it, without much fuss about loss of sacred liberties.
Drat, misspelled my own nom de keyboard.
Unfortunately, taking that tack is going down the Tu Quoque route. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
Further to that one, I am bound by and obey the helmet law. I don’t approve of it even though I would always wear a helmet on the bike. I will, however, vigorously oppose more law based upon the same premise – even though there is a precedent that no one seems to be making too much fuss about now. They did back in 1972.
Everything you say is quite correct of course, but. The real problem as I see it is that the wearing of the Burka is not just a matter of personal preference and individual liberty, neither is the issue of coercion the main point ( as you say that can be dealt with in other ways ), the Burka is intended to be a deliberate act of rejection of the secular society in which these women live, which is why some leftists like it. They are challenging us to either ban it or accept another step on the road to Sharia, the French have decided on confrontation we, as usual, have gone for appeasement, I don’t like either option but I’m damned if can see a third way.
Just to make it clear before someone jumps on me, I don’t support a ban.
The third way is to allow us to reject their rejection. Let shops and business discriminate against people who refuse to show their faces, allow us to be robust and open about our contempt. Give us the liberty to make life difficult for those who just won’t fit in. So, remove all the diversity nonsense, repeal the hate speech laws, stop pandering to the sensibilities of religion and let us just get on with it. Sure, some will continue to wear Wahhabi desert dress. Let them. And if they find that they are refused service, that’s too bad. As Paul mentioned, the Quiet Man has it right.
All of which is a bit of a conundrum, because France is one such place – if you don’t try to fit in with them, they can be incredibly awkward.
I would agree with all or nearly all of that LR but as they say, what are the chances of that happening ?
Interesting piece at the back of the latest edition of The Road (formerly MAG News)by a chap who works in H&S in the construction industry. Hope you get to read it LR as I would greatly appreciate your comments.
This chap says that there is no actual law that says anyone has to wear PPE (yes, that’s PPE in 2 separate threads today). Basically, all the established firms have simply said “We don’t want to be hit with a big compo claim by someone who has an accident on our site. Therefore, no PPE, no job on any of our sites.” One still has every right in law to work naked on a building site, it’s just that no-one would let you.
That, of course, is another matter…
PPE use is determined by risk assessment. So, if the employer did an assessment and decided that, for example, there was no need to issue hard hats – in an environment where there was a risk of head injury, then, technically, they could. In practice, however, the HSE would challenge that assessment. The law says that the risk must be reduced to as low as is reasonably practicable and in that instance, the employer would have failed in their section 2 duty of care, so would be in breach of the law. And if they didn’t, anyone suffering a head injury while working would have a negligence case against the employer. The way the law works, you can pretty much do what you feel is appropriate for the risk. However, if you choose not to follow the CoP or cannot demonstrate ALARP then you come a cropper when things go wrong and you are asked to explain why you thought your system was better than the CoP.
That’s why they won’t let you work naked on a building site.
Having heard from the ‘elf and safety people, what would happen if burka wearers were banned from driving (if their husbands haven’t already done that), walking around in private or public buildings, boarding an airplane … based on safety issues (need for identification, obstructed vision, tripping hazard and all that)?
Again, strip away the laws that make people afraid to confront Muslims and that’s a possibility. Going back to the helmet law, there was understandable annoyance at the time, because Sikhs were allowed to wear turbans instead of a helmet. Either the wearing of a helmet is the right thing to do or it isn’t. Religious belief shouldn’t be an issue – unless the decision is a personal one with no interference from the state.
Is there a list of laws that we could give to people who ask us what’s to stop us confronting / ‘offending’ Muslims?
There is the other point that might be worth considering in that you might get quite a bit of aggro from Muslim extremist loons who might attack white people in heavily South Asian areas and the like – a lot of them seem to be little more than Asian chavs that call themselves Muslim but are just yobs.
I know there are laws “regarding indecent exposure”, demonstrating that we already legally regulate clothing, or at least the lack of it, without much fuss about loss of sacred liberties.
What would they be? I know of no such laws. There are laws about not exposing your genitals but that’s about it. If you want people locked up for wearing a burka then you have no right to object to being being locked up for wearing a ‘bollocks to Blair’ T shirt or indeed any item of clothing that the state decides arbitrarily to make illegal. It is that simple, really. Do you believe in freedom or tyranny?
Again, strip away the laws that make people afraid to confront Muslims and that’s a possibility
What would those laws be? If there are any then they haven’t inhibited Britain’s tabloid newspapers in the slightest.
The Racial and Religious Hatred Act (2006). Of course, it is supposed to allow sufficient room for criticism and even ridicule. However, in practice the police will act at the drop of a hat if a complaint is made – there was a case recently when a Christian hotelier supposedly offended a Muslim guest. Nonsense of course and the police should have treated it as such. However, they don’t. It is a bad piece of law that is entirely unnecessary and really should be repealed. Whether intended or not, such law does stifle criticism. Why else would the police be investigating someone for burning a Qur’an using he public order act?
If one goes naked, one is exposing one’s genitals, so, therefore, the indecent exposure law applies.