Thursday, 1 September 2016

Burqa ban in UK? It should happen soon.

The papers are feigning shock at the results of a YouGov survey that suggests the British public favour a Burqa ban by 2:1. The ban would enjoy wider support if it were not portrayed as a racist assault on Moslems rather than a measure to ensure equity, justice and fairness. 

The Hijab and Chadoor (1 and 2 above) are really no different to a nun's wimple - or to the sight of all women in a catholic church wearing headscarves to cover their hair, a sight I remember well from youth. However, it is the Niqab and the Burka (3 and 4) that cause real problems. 

What is the biggest cohort of unemployed persons in Britain? Moslem women. The unemployment rate - and therefore poverty, disadvantage, poor health, disease, deprivation and exclusion - amongst Moslem women is sky-high. We must, for their own good and that of our nation, get these Moslem women out of their houses and into work and off benefits. However, the Niqab and Burqa are as good as making these women unemployable - they present insurmountable barriers in any job that requires communication and are a significant health and safety hazard in many working environments in which goods, machinery, plant or equipment is moving about. Getting your Burqa caught on a loose heavy steel staple on a conveyor belt and being dragged into deadly machinery is no joke. 

So whilst Moslem women are quite free to adopt this dress at home, I'd suggest it just presents too many hazards and disadvantages to be permitted in public. The danger to others is clear; imagine being stuck behind women in Burqas when a department store is on fire and is being evacuated; they cannot safely read exit routes or instructions and could delay others, leading to death and serious injury. 

Sorry, for their good and for ours, these things must be banned in public. And soon, before innocent people die. 


Span Ows said...

Excellent; agree entirely.

Anonymous said...

For their own good?
Next let's ban smoking...for their own good....and drinking, for their own good...and sugar, salt and fat...ah to hell with it. Let's go the whole hog and ban all meat...for their own good.

Those four words lead to tyranny.

Cuffleyburgers said...

I disagree, I think it would be a stupid move.

You cannot talk about protecting freedoms and them start prescribing what people may or may not wear.

I agree with the principle of specifying that the face should be visible in court for example, and I was considerably annoyed on renewing my passport to see that head coverings are accepted in photos only for arab women as far as I can see.

I think it would be acceptable to require that voluminous clothing which may permit the concealment of weaponry or other nasties may require in some circumstances additional checks and delays.

But a blanket ban (a ban on blankets??) - no that is not consonant with our fundamental values.

More important is to stop accepting rule breaking in existing walks of life because of some misplaced fear of causing offence. That is an insult to the law abiding majority whose lives are being disrupted a lot by mass immigration.

No sharia. No allowing shop assistants to choose not to serv bacon or alcohol. etc An end to faces such as Winterval, or schools not having nativity plays.

This hypersensitivity is as stupid and counterproductive as the idea of a blanket arbitrary burka ban and possibly more so as the injured party is the indegenous majority.

It doesn't seem to me to be a difficult balance to get right and I find it depressing in the extreme that so many people in positions of authority fail to grasp the simple principle.

Anonymous said...

Whatever the sex I have no interest in what Muslims wear. Futhermore I have no interest in their views or opinions - on anything. I've seen enough to know they will be the number one threat to the way of life of Northern Europeans for the remainder of this century. A point will come, a few decades from now at most, when it's their way or no way in some parts of England.

Right now there are fifty-six Muslim countries and birthrates predict many more will added. What women wear could be an irrelevance here 80 years from now. The future is sameness. The UN mandate (Peter Sutherland) to de-homogenize all white nations is dependent on Muslims especially to undermine the nationhood of the host. Virtually the entire European political class welcomes and supports this once-only mass ethnocide of white peoples.


Cuffleyburgers said...

I don't share Steve's oft stated pessimism regarding our civilizational demise but he is only wrong if we the decent people of the UK and our European neighbours, as peoples and as electorates stand up and hold our political classes to account (I shudder to use the word elites - that somehow implies merit).

At the moment the evidence is they either hell bent on destroying our political and cultural heritage or they are totally blinded by Groupthink into ignoring a major peril.

I hope Brexit is the start of a process to get our country back (for the British) and indeed our continent back for all the decent majority in Italy, France Germany who deserve better than this astonishing betrayal.

It's not too late by any means, but for christ's sake we've got to get a grip.

Anonymous said...

Thew problem I have with this proposition is that its a manifestation of something else - the unwillingness of the west to defend its culture against Islam. It's tokenism.

What we should be saying is that Islam is a shitty culture and multiculturalism is bollocks... and Islamophobia is nitwitted shite.

However the establishment wont do or say of these things so we're stuck with the tokenism of burqa banning.

Anonymous said...

Cuffleyburgers said @ 17:31

'I don't share Steve's oft stated pessimism regarding our civilizational demise..'

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing - Edmund Burke

‘Rotherham-Style’ Abuse Scandal: Police Accused of Failing to Act


Anonymous said...

The answer it would seem lies in what you have written - Don't give them benefits in the first place. This would surely force them to make compromises.

Anonymous said...

I agree with Anon. 20:01

Islam is the enemy of everything that we thought we believed in and ALL these head coverings are just the visible tip of the cultural iceberg. They would be just as much a risk to us if they wore 'western' clothes.

We should be openly ridiculing this death cult and not giving it special protection.

It's the cult we should be banning, not the garb.

Span Ows said...

Many of these comments are missing the point: yes we could ban Islam, close mosques, stop Sharia, end Halal, 'send them home' or bomb them into extinction BUT the start point has to be somewhere and as every single thing I list above WILL NOT HAPPEN as a 'first' then the start point needs to be somewhere; if that somewhere is a minor push-back against their fucking ridiculous clothing then good.

anon 2 said...

Indeed, Raedwald, you may well remember the garb of Anglo-Saxon women in your own day. Head coverings were not always the province of Mozzies. The state of undress favored at present is a latter-day phenomenon and, I daresay, related to the anti-Christian approach to what its adherents are pleased to call 'life.'

As to our current reactions to FACE-coverings - I've long maintained that the blank space behind the blackness is empowering. It leaves us not knowing who or what we are dealing with. If any of your readers can bring themselves to look into the slit - the arrogance of the return gaze might convince some that these (?)females are thoroughly enjoying life at our expense. They prefer not to lower themselves to the level of working women.

Oh -- and btw --- I have it on personal assurance from one of their cultural/country women: they don't wear the things at home. The usual competitive and cupiditous standards hold in that setting.

Once more, I say the Aussies have it right - "Don't bite the hand that feeds you" should be our approach to them.

Budgie said...

Span Ows has a point: if we don't start with the obvious we will never get round to the insidious. The Niqab and the Burqa are provocations. They are not required by Islam.

More to the point our society depends upon visible facial expression to display meaning and honesty. Face coverings make the user cut off from our open society and unable to integrate.

DeeDee99 said...

Agreed. I'm not bothered if Muslim women cover their hair, or their hair and shoulders.

But the Niqab and Burka have no place in a modern western society. They are not only a danger to themselves they are a danger to wider society. And that isn't just accidental danger; there's also the possibility of deliberate attacks on other citizens by members of a community which have failed to integrate and support terrorism to impose their beliefs on others.

Bernard said...

"Getting your Burqa caught on a loose heavy steel staple on a conveyor belt and being dragged into deadly machinery is no joke."

I'm sure it won't be long before someone thinks of one,
While we are waiting - try this.

A young boy asks his father, "Dad, what's that weird hat you are wearing?"
The father said, "Why, it's a 'chechia' because in the desert it protects our heads from the intense heat of the sun."
"And what is this type of clothing that you are wearing?" asked the young man.
"It's a 'djbellah' because in the desert it is very hot and it protects the body." said the father.
The son asked, "And what about those ugly shoes on your feet?
His father replied, "These are 'babouches", which keep us from burning our feet from hot sand in the desert."
"So tell me then," added the boy.
"Yes, my son?"
"Why the hell are you still wearing it in Bradford?'

Mr Ecks said...

It is being used by the boss classes as a sop to con the mugs that they are doing "something2.

A waste of time.

Stop anymore arriving. Take the vote off them. Stop subsidising their breeding program. Outlaw bigamy. One wife or jail.

That would do so good.

The scum of the state telling you what you can wear is just obnoxious.

rapscallion said...

Normally Radders I agree with you wholeheartedly, but not on this one. I'm with Anonymous and his "For their own good?" line. I think the word is "Bansturbators" who clearly get off on pissing on everybody's bonfire by banning things they don't like. Like smoking, or sugar, or meat, or people who vote UKIP or who voted for Brexit, or (insert you own preference here). At what point do you stop?

I understand your point and your reasoning, but the time for action is long past. All this should have been addressed 40 years ago. Banning the burqa will achieve the opposite of what you want and make them feel even more oppressed than they feel now.

We should be attacking the death cult of Islam - not the clothing.

Brightside Bob said...

"...get these Moslem women out of their houses and into work and off benefits..."
Yes indeed, we could even, oh I don't know, have positive discrimination to help them perhaps.
After all, those tens of thousands of vacancies (apparently...) urgently need filling.

Poisonedchalice said...

There is very little good about Islam; especially if you are female. I do have a problem with banning such clothing, as it sends the wrong message to the "authorities" - those that like to restrict freedoms. Where I see such clothing NOT fitting with our values is any position in public service. I generally don't like such veiled clothing but on balance, I think I like state intervention even less. Now if the state does want to intervene, how about stopping importing such people and their backward beliefs in the first place?

Paul said...

One thing: the burqa is almost never seen in the UK. It is pretty much limited to Afghanistan.

No, it's the niqāb that we see in Europe.

Dave_G said...

Must be 'me' as I think it's bad manners to even wear sunglasses (especially the mirrored variety) when talking to someone.

Indeed I recall a TV info 'ad' that illustrated the 'offence' that could have been inferred by a British soldier wearing sunglasses and speaking to a raghead - and such soldiers being advised (trained?) to remove them when talking to the natives.

If it's good enough for us, it's good enough for them.

Poisonedchalice said...

@ Dave_G
Yes, I was thinking this only recently. I remember that ad for the Army very well. When I am in sunny climates and I need to speak to someone, I always remove my sunglasses as a matter of courtesy.

90% of human communication is non-verbal and this must be well understood by all that want to suppress what needs to be stated openly

Anonymous said...

DP111 writes..

Most Muslim women do not work

1. As they have a far more important call of duty - to create more Muslims, and thus conquer Christendom, the goal of Islam since its inception.

2. They wear a Hijab or other identifying garb as "an in your face" statement that they will take over.

3. Muslim women wear a Hijab etc, as an IFF signal to a knife or gun wielding Jihadi, not to harm her as she is a Muslim, and on a special mission.

Anonymous said...

Why are two of the fuckers ticked?