The Burka is British?!

[Far away]

BBC News - Damian Green says burka ban would be 'un-British'

I think he must be dismissed from his duties at once. There is not bigger step against democracy and freedom than allowing the burkas....If he does not understand that, he is not a conservative.

[Barry]

Toby Young also thinks he is wrong on this point.
By refusing to ban the burka, Damian Green is supporting the humiliation of millions of British women – Telegraph Blogs

[fubar]

Lets give them what thay want Completely ignore them, that way once thay see that it doesn't mean anything the Burka will disappear,

[Far away]

Lets give them what thay want Completely ignore them, that way once thay see that it doesn't mean anything the Burka will disappear,

Not at all! If you ignore them, they will take steps forward and forward, step by step, step by step...

It is time the West to stand for it`s values...

[fubar]

Not at all! If you ignore them, they will take steps forward and forward, step by step, step by step...

It is time the West to stand for it`s values...

I think you out of step as you put it we as a people keep picking on the wrong enemy we have to look at the government who are responsible for this as it,s all part of the plan for a multi cultural society whether we like it or not the only way to stop this is to direct your anger at this government. The rest will be sort out later,i suppose you wish for a revolution, don't wait to long I think it might be a revolution of one.

[The Silver Eagle]

BBC News - Damian Green says burka ban would be 'un-British'

I think he must be dismissed from his duties at once. There is not bigger step against democracy and freedom than allowing the burkas....If he does not understand that, he is not a conservative.

Absolutely, but the truth is due to that statement he is a "phony" Conservative who believes that women are lower than cattler after all.
They believe dominance is one that must reign therefore superiority of the women helps them to see this mental fabrication.

One day Freedom will be recognized once again and Churchill's words will be remembered. The British blood
that was spilled to protect there own country as we did ours for the sake of their current Freedoms they pursued
will flow back home where those who still remember their History.

The women live a life that covers there beauty and life long within the grasp of the tyrant.

[soloman]

I do enjoy reading a ridulous headline like this one!

If the clothes women wear is a right and over-rides security issues then we might as well give up any attempts to keep our country secure.

Banning burkas in the UK would be 'rather un-British', says Green | Mail Online

[Midas]

This is a quite good article which puts the other side of the story, that by continuing to allow the burka we are silently condoning the oppression of Muslim women - By refusing to ban the burka, Damian Green is supporting the humiliation of millions of British women – Telegraph Blogs

[Barry]

This is a quite good article which puts the other side of the story, that by continuing to allow the burka we are silently condoning the oppression of Muslim women - By refusing to ban the burka, Damian Green is supporting the humiliation of millions of British women – Telegraph Blogs

I posted that post number 2!
Great minds think alike.

[Barry]

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/m...40_677149c.jpg
Perhaps she should wear a burkha...

[Midas]

I posted that post number 2!
Great minds think alike.

Oops, sorry Barry, I missed that one.

[Far away]

Absolutely, but the truth is due to that statement he is a "phony" Conservative who believes that women are lower than cattler after all.
They believe dominance is one that must reign therefore superiority of the women helps them to see this mental fabrication.

So, this is not conservatism!!! Not at all! Did Margaret Tatcher believed in this? Absolutlely not!

[Far away]

I think you out of step as you put it we as a people keep picking on the wrong enemy we have to look at the government who are responsible for this as it,s all part of the plan for a multi cultural society whether we like it or not the only way to stop this is to direct your anger at this government. The rest will be sort out later,i suppose you wish for a revolution, don't wait to long I think it might be a revolution of one.

In a certain aspect you are right, but I don`t think the government is the only one, who is responsible. First of all, which government? Governments are different. Secondly, the proces of immigration, etc. is a historical one, i.e. it lasts a decades yet.

Those signals, for wrong multiculturalism, etc. comes not only from the governments, and not from any governemnt. Multicultural society? OK. But not when one culture denies the very fundamnet of the other, not to mention, that the negative culture is immigrant culture.

After all, they all came to the West because the West is good, but the West is good because of the centuries of Western values, which now they do deny!

This is like classical virus infection, I am sorry if I sound rough, but if someone escapes from something wrong and tries to bring that wrong to the new place.... that someone brings destruction and nothing else.

[Barry]

So, this is not conservatism!!! Not at all! Did Margaret Tatcher believed in this? Absolutlely not!

Margaret Tatcher (sic) is still in the land of the living, Far away, so it is "does M.T. believe in this?"
Oh, hang on, why is it relevant what Maggie thinks about the Burkha? I never saw her wearing one, although I think she wore a headscarf on occasions.

[Far away]

You are right, of course. I ment her political activity time, that`s why I said "did". After all, I am a foreigner

The relevance of her opinion on the women (not the burkhas - my post was an answer to the one about the superiority, etc.) is, that she has very adequate and very democratic point of view, and if now some "conservative" shares other, "anti-women" opinion, than he/she is wrong and this is not conservatism.

Headscraf used to be part of the women dress in the 60-ies, so it is natural Maggie to wear it.

[Barry]

I see you are from Bulgaria, just wanted to add that I did not intend any offence, apologies if it seemed that way.
I tried to find a picture of Maggie in a headscarf....

[Far away]

No offence and no problem at all, your remark was correct. Yes, I am from Bulgaria, that`s why my nick is Far away and that`s why some mystakes sneak in my posts.

I think in the end of 60-ies there is some renaissance of the Headscarfs as a part of women clothes, and, besides, maybe that`s beacuse of the cold.
Headscarf is OK, because women choose to wear or not to wear it (the only exclusion is during the Russian orthodox church service, but no problem if the lady do not wear it).

Burkha is a symbol of... you know what.

[fubar]

In a certain aspect you are right, but I don`t think the government is the only one, who is responsible. First of all, which government? Governments are different. Secondly, the process of immigration, etc. is a historical one, i.e. it lasts a decades yet.

Those signals, for wrong multiculturalism, etc. comes not only from the governments, and not from any government. Multicultural society? OK. But not when one culture denies the very fundamental of the other, not to mention, that the negative culture is immigrant culture.
.

In one way you are quite right consecutive governments have implemented a policy of immigration i see as yet this coalition has done little or nothing to stop the influx on immigration and why is this well thay can't or won't??? EU Masters and open borders but thay can if thay wish??? after all rules can be broken. Was it not Margret Thatcher, said Get on your Bike or was it the home secretary I can't say which to be sure ??? little did we realize that the whole of the world would be fighting to get here even if Maggie only meant to say be prepared to travel further afield like wherever their was work in England ???I bet bike sale's went through the roof. LOL
,

After all, they all came to the West because the West is good, but the West is good because of the centuries of Western values, which now they do deny!
.

Quite true, could you not say that the intention was to break the moral and ethical values of other counties especially when you look at what this government and others have done in the past like you say we have a history of immigration and most if not all came over to become a little part of England most to share in it's sense of freedom Freedom from persecution and tyranny and some to just to earn a living but all would embrace England as there own and were proud to be called English or British. Now we have a culture clash mainly Muslim as thay try to impose there religion over us as thay have sharia law taking precedence over our own.the Government wishes for greater integration but all i see is more division as with separate systems that govern the Muslim communities Thats not integration that's division with intent,

This is like classical virus infection, I am sorry if I sound rough, but if someone escapes from something wrong and tries to bring that wrong to the new place.... that someone brings destruction and nothing else.

Well said. at some point we would have to ask why would a government promote integration and then condone construct,design a system that divides, not only thay puts two cultures at odds with each other that in other countries has created Riots on the street's, after 7/7 you would have thought the Proverbial poo would have hit the fan if the people believed that the Muslims were the real enemy. This to myself is an exorcise in creating a common enemy to wage war within in England.

We all forget the importance of the English language to become English you speak English The English language is a global language but when learned in England it is the History Of England.No speeky English Causes division.

[The Silver Eagle]

So, this is not conservatism!!! Not at all! Did Margaret Tatcher believed in this? Absolutlely not!

What kind of Conservative here in the U.S believes that women should not be considered equally treated as men?

One who is incomplete and shares another party's view which they would not be considered completely a Conservative.
Of course any who have dignity in what rights a women is allowed to equally have would not abide by this cover-up!

Women are just as equal as men and what Iran displays of it's women is that they are only these objects of usage in
life for desire till they no longer need them.

If a women cheats on her husband she is considered for execution by the man.

If the women do not abide the rules of their family heritage then they might as well be stoned or killed
in their opinion because women are not considered anywhere NEAR as independant and rightful. Women
cannot pursue their own goals or live their own life!

In this article a teen who is Americanized is living the way she wants, but her father comes to kill her.
This isn't the only case that has happened, there is many more. Including one where a 13 year old girl
was decapitated in her own car!!!

Besides the Welfare fact I have deep sympathy for these tormented women. They have no control and
if they dare to step out of this line this is the consequence!

http://www.riverfronttimes.com/2010-03-31/news/honor-thy-father-muslim-honor-killing-in-phoenix-arizona/

[Scooby]

I don't really care about the Burka or the Niqab, if they want to wear them let them, but they must not be excused or given special treatment, if you go through any sort of security control, then you have to show your face, if you go into a bank likewise and there should no attacks on people who refuse to deal with persons wearing the garments, they have as much right as any to their choices. Wearing a Burka is a choice not a right and it should be given NO special provisions.

[octopus]

About as British as curry.

[Far away]

In one way you are quite right consecutive governments have implemented a policy of immigration i see as yet this coalition has done little or nothing to stop the influx on immigration and why is this well thay can't or won't??? EU Masters and open borders but thay can if thay wish??? after all rules can be broken. Was it not Margret Thatcher, said Get on your Bike or was it the home secretary I can't say which to be sure ??? little did we realize that the whole of the world would be fighting to get here even if Maggie only meant to say be prepared to travel further afield like wherever their was work in England ???I bet bike sale's went through the roof. LOL
,
Quite true, could you not say that the intention was to break the moral and ethical values of other counties especially when you look at what this government and others have done in the past like you say we have a history of immigration and most if not all came over to become a little part of England most to share in it's sense of freedom Freedom from persecution and tyranny and some to just to earn a living but all would embrace England as there own and were proud to be called English or British. Now we have a culture clash mainly Muslim as thay try to impose there religion over us as thay have sharia law taking precedence over our own.the Government wishes for greater integration but all i see is more division as with separate systems that govern the Muslim communities Thats not integration that's division with intent,

Well said. at some point we would have to ask why would a government promote integration and then condone construct,design a system that divides, not only thay puts two cultures at odds with each other that in other countries has created Riots on the street's, after 7/7 you would have thought the Proverbial poo would have hit the fan if the people believed that the Muslims were the real enemy. This to myself is an exorcise in creating a common enemy to wage war within in England.

We all forget the importance of the English language to become English you speak English The English language is a global language but when learned in England it is the History Of England.No speeky English Causes division.

Indeed! There are some obligations, which must be considered and fullfiled by anyone, who wants to share a foreign counries values for his/her life. First of all, the language, secondly - every human being is free to live accordings his/her tradiotions, but when and if some customes are in conflict with the local one - sorry, but the immigrants should yield. Otherwise they commit an aggression against the locals. After all, we all have to respect to any locals whose countries we visit, haven`t we?

[Far away]

About as British as curry.

I don`t think so - nobody obliges ppl to eat curry, right? It is a matter of values, not of kitchens.

[octopus]

I see you are from Bulgaria, just wanted to add that I did not intend any offence, apologies if it seemed that way.
I tried to find a picture of Maggie in a headscarf....

Not quite so intimidating - you can see her face; I think a lot more British.

[octopus]

I don`t think so - nobody obliges ppl to eat curry, right? It is a matter of values, not of kitchens.

I am not so sure, personaly. After all, we are dealing with control freaks.

[AngloChimp12]

See? This is what I mean; all we need is religion trying to involve itself in politics, it's so annoying. If we're anything, we're protestant, that's how the monarchy was, that's how it should be if anything.
Burka's are not British, they're headwraps' for desert-dwellers, the Queen's probably trying not to cause a media circus for wearing a skullcap or a kippah because we all know how much the Muslim-groups' would hate that, no racism intended, it's just how it is these days.

[soloman]

I don't really care about the Burka or the Niqab, if they want to wear them let them, but they must not be excused or given special treatment, if you go through any sort of security control, then you have to show your face, if you go into a bank likewise and there should no attacks on people who refuse to deal with persons wearing the garments, they have as much right as any to their choices. Wearing a Burka is a choice not a right and it should be given NO special provisions.

Well said, can we keep this to the top of the list so we don't go over the majority view too often!

[Scooter]

About as British as curry.

Curry, the dish invented by British Army Chefs serving in India.........

[Midas]

Curry, the dish invented by British Army Chefs serving in India.........

No, that's not true, a bit of an urban myth. The British in India might have been the ones who first used the word 'curry' - which derives from a Tamil word meaning 'gravy' - and they brought it back to the UK, but it was 'invented' many centuries ago and like most food is in a constant state of evolution and adaptation.

But it's got little relevance to the burka......

[DaveUK]

I find it hard to believe that in a reitively liberal and tollerant country like Britain, there is so much reactionary rubbish over an item of clothing.
Where do we draw the line in claiming a right to be offended or intimidated by a garment or the way someone looks? And since when did we claim the right to legislate against being offended?
The right wingers that are jumping all over this demagoguery are doing exactly what they claim to hate about the left, pandering to percieved political correctness and calling for legislation.
The arguments of racists like Ferage, that it should be banned because it's a symbol of the oppression of women, seem to be too poorly thought out to see that by legislating to force people not to wear them is the exact same oppression in reverse.

I had a meeting in an American style bar the other night, called STARS. On one wall was a US flag. It offended me. I conducted the meeting, drank me beer and left. I won't go into that bar again. Do I think they should be banned from displaying a flag that offends me? Absolutely no way.

In my local town I regularly see a guy that has tattoos all over his face, steel studs embeded into his bald scalp, large bits of steel stuck into his face. His appearance offends me. Do I think he should be prevented from looking that way? No way. He's free to dress and look as he chooses.

What I tend to do if I see something that offends me, but is otherwise harmless, is look the other way. To those that are offended or intimidated by women wearing Burkas, try looking the other way. It's much cheaper and far less reactionary than legislation.

[Midas]

I find it hard to believe that in a reitively liberal and tollerant country like Britain, there is so much reactionary rubbish over an item of clothing.
Where do we draw the line in claiming a right to be offended or intimidated by a garment or the way someone looks? And since when did we claim the right to legislate against being offended?

But surely the point is not so much the free choice of people to wear whatever clothing they wish, which I doubt anyone has a problem with, but the fact that wearing the burka is a/ a symbol of male domination of women, still exercised to a large degree by Muslim men in this country and which is totally at odds with the modern western approach to life, and b/ it gives a minority group privileges over and above those given to indigenous British citizens. Some people may choose to look at this issue from the point of view of being offended, but that's not the real issue here is it? If Muslim women choose to wear a burka of their own free will, but have to conform to requests to remove it whenever asked, in the same way a motorcyclist has to remove his helmet, I doubt there's be much of a problem. If you went into a bank or post office wearing a balaclava, you'd rightly be told to remove it - why should a Muslim woman not be subject to the same rule?

[Scooter]

No, that's not true, a bit of an urban myth. The British in India might have been the ones who first used the word 'curry' - which derives from a Tamil word meaning 'gravy' - and they brought it back to the UK, but it was 'invented' many centuries ago and like most food is in a constant state of evolution and adaptation.

But it's got little relevance to the burka......

Still off topic here, I didnt bring the subject of curry into the thread. It was first mentioned by somone else , which was fine by you.
As soon as I mention it you jump all over it, I see you have a beef with me, care to elaborate?
Still Curry as a dish was invented by the British Army using local ingredients whilst in India, did the Indians have a Dish called Curry before the Brits?

[DaveUK]

But surely the point is not so much the free choice of people to wear whatever clothing they wish, which I doubt anyone has a problem with, but the fact that wearing the burka is a/ a symbol of male domination of women, still exercised to a large degree by Muslim men in this country and which is totally at odds with the modern western approach to life, and b/ it gives a minority group privileges over and above those given to indigenous British citizens. Some people may choose to look at this issue from the point of view of being offended, but that's not the real issue here is it? If Muslim women choose to wear a burka of their own free will, but have to conform to requests to remove it whenever asked, in the same way a motorcyclist has to remove his helmet, I doubt there's be much of a problem. If you went into a bank or post office wearing a balaclava, you'd rightly be told to remove it - why should a Muslim woman not be subject to the same rule?

It does indeed reprisent an aspect of Islam that is alien to western culture and freedom.
I also agree that for the sake of convention and security, in certain curcumstances it should be expected that such a garment be removed from the face.
Rather than a blanket prohibition, I would like to see more emphasis from our law making and social institutions on reassuring Muslim women that their rights as women are protected in this country, and that their freedom to choose whether to wear or not to wear a Burkah be protected and actively enforced.
If it is the case that many women wear them because they are forced to by their menfolk, a blanket prohibition won't help them, because if these men have such dominance over them, they'll just stop them leaving the house.

[Greg Lance-Watkins]

Absolutely, but the truth is due to that statement he is a "phony" Conservative who believes that women are lower than cattler after all.
They believe dominance is one that must reign therefore superiority of the women helps them to see this mental fabrication.

One day Freedom will be recognized once again and Churchill's words will be remembered. The British blood
that was spilled to protect there own country as we did ours for the sake of their current Freedoms they pursued
will flow back home where those who still remember their History.

The women live a life that covers there beauty and life long within the grasp of the tyrant.

Hi,

what is your home language?

Regards,
Greg_L-W.

[octopus]

Curry, the dish invented by British Army Chefs serving in India.........

Out in India, yes. Hardly fish and chips through.

[Greg Lance-Watkins]

Still off topic here, I didnt bring the subject of curry into the thread. It was first mentioned by somone else , which was fine by you.
As soon as I mention it you jump all over it, I see you have a beef with me, care to elaborate?
Still Curry as a dish was invented by the British Army using local ingredients whilst in India, did the Indians have a Dish called Curry before the Brits?

Hi,

I thyink you will find the word curry draws its origins in India but as a style of food it almost certainly draws its origins North of the Himalayas - it is/was a Chinese food.

Curried and highly spiced foods tend to be the food of very hot climates where food requires that degree of spices to hide the taste of rotting as the temperature predicates against food lasting.

Just as in cold climates the mid winter feasts ate the salted meats that were at the end of their edible lives - the huge tradition of Wass Heil was a product of the thirst caused by so much salt.

By the way to 'have a beef' curry would have been very extravagant in most of India.

Regards,
Greg_L-W.

[Midas]

Still off topic here, I didnt bring the subject of curry into the thread. It was first mentioned by somone else , which was fine by you.
As soon as I mention it you jump all over it, I see you have a beef with me, care to elaborate?
Still Curry as a dish was invented by the British Army using local ingredients whilst in India, did the Indians have a Dish called Curry before the Brits?

I was simply correcting a factual error, nothing else. I've already said where the word 'curry' came from, and that's a Tamil word கறி, which means gravy, the phonetic pronunciation of which is 'kari', which became anglicised to 'curry', so yes, the Indians did have a dish by that name long, long before the British arrived.

[Hugnkiss]

I don't really care about the Burka or the Niqab, if they want to wear them let them, but they must not be excused or given special treatment, if you go through any sort of security control, then you have to show your face, if you go into a bank likewise and there should no attacks on people who refuse to deal with persons wearing the garments, they have as much right as any to their choices. Wearing a Burka is a choice not a right and it should be given NO special provisions.

At last someone with some sense. I am flabbergasted (don't you just love the English language) at the comments on here. Please can someone explain to me how BANNING women from wearing a Burka is any different from MAKING them wear it?? Some women want to wear it! If they don't want to wear it and are being made to do so, that is a marital problem for which there are already associations in place to help such women. I agree totally with Scooby that where matters of security are involved they should adhere to our rules and show their face.

I think some people are getting mixed up with what is 'a right' and something that they just don't like. If a Burka clad woman makes you feel uncomfortable, I'm afraid that's just unlucky. Banning things is a very slippery slope to go down. Where should it end? If enough people are intimidated by teenagers in New Rocks, skinny jeans and sporting tatoos should we ban that? We have not long ago gone down the crazy road of tarring all hoodie wearers with the same brush by shops banning any such individual who has dared to wear a top that my also serve to keep their head warm, brandishing them a thief, hoodlum or vandal (possibly with a can of spray paint in their pocket). It's crazy.

One of the things that draws people to this magnificent country of ours is the freedom and democracy we live by. Yes, we must ensure that it stays a balanced democracy but dictating to women what they can and cannot wear is not the way to do it.

[Midas]

It does indeed reprisent an aspect of Islam that is alien to western culture and freedom.
I also agree that for the sake of convention and security, in certain curcumstances it should be expected that such a garment be removed from the face.
Rather than a blanket prohibition, I would like to see more emphasis from our law making and social institutions on reassuring Muslim women that their rights as women are protected in this country, and that their freedom to choose whether to wear or not to wear a Burkah be protected and actively enforced.
If it is the case that many women wear them because they are forced to by their menfolk, a blanket prohibition won't help them, because if these men have such dominance over them, they'll just stop them leaving the house.

Muslim women would appear to already have more rights than indigenous British women when it comes to this issue; they are excused the need to show their faces in circumstances which anyone else would have to - you don't see that as being unfair, wrong and divisive? Why is trying to implement a law to 'reassure Muslim women' better than insisting that the current law means for all and doesn't give any one minority group elevated status that the indigenous majority don't have?

[DaveUK]

Muslim women would appear to already have more rights than indigenous British women when it comes to this issue; they are excused the need to show their faces in circumstances which anyone else would have to - you don't see that as being unfair, wrong and divisive? Why is trying to implement a law to 'reassure Muslim women' better than insisting that the current law means for all and doesn't give any one minority group elevated status that the indigenous majority don't have?

I think I've already stated that for reasons of security, they should be expected to remove anything covering their face.
It seems to me that Muslim women are the only group being subjected to this kind of reactionary attitude. We wouldn't dream of dictating to Nuns in Holy orders how they should dress, or telling Sikh and Hindu women they cannot wear Sari's, or an anglican minister not to wear a dog collar.
What current law are you refering to? What current law restricts or prohibits what people can or cannot wear in public?

[Midas]

I think I've already stated that for reasons of security, they should be expected to remove anything covering their face.
It seems to me that Muslim women are the only group being subjected to this kind of reactionary attitude. We wouldn't dream of dictating to Nuns in Holy orders how they should dress, or telling Sikh and Hindu women they cannot wear Sari's, or an anglican minister not to wear a dog collar.
What current law are you refering to? What current law restricts or prohibits what people can or cannot wear in public?

You're trying to twist what I'm saying, there's a world of difference between a burka and a sari or a habit or a dog collar; the very fact it covers the face is the problem. Of course there's no law that dictates what someone should and shouldn't wear; the point is that certain minority groups are given a different legal status when it comes to wearing certain items of clothing under certain circumstances, if the law applies to one group, it should be applied to everyone, period.

[soloman]

You're trying to twist what I'm saying, there's a world of difference between a burka and a sari or a habit or a dog collar; the very fact it covers the face is the problem. Of course there's no law that dictates what someone should and shouldn't wear; the point is that certain minority groups are given a different legal status when it comes to wearing certain items of clothing under certain circumstances, if the law applies to one group, it should be applied to everyone, period.

Well said Midas!

[Scooter]

I was simply correcting a factual error, nothing else. I've already said where the word 'curry' came from, and that's a Tamil word கறி, which means gravy, the phonetic pronunciation of which is 'kari', which became anglicised to 'curry', so yes, the Indians did have a dish by that name long, long before the British arrived.

Then you specified that it was off topic didnt you?
Tamil? Is this an indian language? I believed it was a sri lankan language.
The dish known as curry in the UK in modern times is not tamilese gravy it is a specific dish requiring a specific set of ingredients, those ingredients were first put together byBritish army cooks whilst serving in India. Many of those ingredients were selected locally because they were available and they were great at hiding the smell and taste of the rotten meat used to feed the troops.
I never saw a Tamil eat a curry, I saw a few stand without pants at Heathrow airport once.

[Greg Lance-Watkins]

At last someone with some sense. I am flabbergasted (don't you just love the English language) at the comments on here. Please can someone explain to me how BANNING women from wearing a Burka is any different from MAKING them wear it?? Some women want to wear it! If they don't want to wear it and are being made to do so, that is a marital problem for which there are already associations in place to help such women. I agree totally with Scooby that where matters of security are involved they should adhere to our rules and show their face.

I think some people are getting mixed up with what is 'a right' and something that they just don't like. If a Burka clad woman makes you feel uncomfortable, I'm afraid that's just unlucky. Banning things is a very slippery slope to go down. Where should it end? If enough people are intimidated by teenagers in New Rocks, skinny jeans and sporting tatoos should we ban that? We have not long ago gone down the crazy road of tarring all hoodie wearers with the same brush by shops banning any such individual who has dared to wear a top that my also serve to keep their head warm, brandishing them a thief, hoodlum or vandal (possibly with a can of spray paint in their pocket). It's crazy.

One of the things that draws people to this magnificent country of ours is the freedom and democracy we live by. Yes, we must ensure that it stays a balanced democracy but dictating to women what they can and cannot wear is not the way to do it.

Hi,

how does this 'hug a hoodie' - 'Ban a burqa' thing work anyway?

I was in Bristol the other day and was struck by the incredible elegance and imaculate presentation of 3 women in high heeled boots and black burqas as they got into the back of a black Roller driven by a chauffeur who handed in their many shopping bags - clearly they were enjoying themselves on a shopping trip laughing and chattering and as I walked past one stepped back and in her boots she was about 5'9" slim and apologised in clearly University educated English.

I responded with one of the 2 or 3 Arabic phrases I remember which had all three of them respons in Arabic - I laughed and said in the 60 years since I had left Bahrein I had only visited the Middle East a few times and had forgotten my Arabic, Bahreini dialect as i had Urdu, Hindustani & Gujeratti! We spoke for a few minutes and they left on their way.

I am certain had any security or even courtesy need have arisen they would have discreetly uncovered showing faces exquisitely made up with the best of make-ups the world has to offer and immaculately applied kohl.

I came home to a picture of a butt ugly woman plastered in cheap looking tattoos and chunks of metal and pondered at just how much better off she would be wearing a burqa or even a paper bag!

The burqa provides modesty and the elegance we often see whilst acting as a social leveller or a shelter for inadequates.

Next time you have the opportunity and engage with an Arab in a burqa smile and say hello - you may be surprised.

You are less likely to be mugged by a lady in a burqa than a hoody plastered in tattoos and chunks of metal I believe you will find!

Regards,
Greg_L-W.

[Greg Lance-Watkins]

Then you specified that it was off topic didnt you?
Tamil? Is this an indian language? I believed it was a sri lankan language.
The dish known as curry in the UK in modern times is not tamilese gravy it is a specific dish requiring a specific set of ingredients, those ingredients were first put together byBritish army cooks whilst serving in India. Many of those ingredients were selected locally because they were available and they were great at hiding the smell and taste of the rotten meat used to feed the troops.
I never saw a Tamil eat a curry, I saw a few stand without pants at Heathrow airport once.

Hi,

Tamils are Southern Indians Kerrula and the like - there are many also in Singapore and also Fiji, the Northern Part of the island of Ceylon is largely Tamil seeking to break away from the construct that is Sri Lanka with 40 years of insurrection and terrorism mainly led by the Tamil Tigers seeking to creat a Tamil homeland, Tamil Naidoo.

I believe that you will find that curry pre dates The Indian Army by at least a Millenia and was a recognised form of food in China before that.

Gravy to the Indian is a thick sauce made mostly from marinade not the dire dribble as maarketed by British supermarkets in granular form and tasting almost exclusively of salt, sugar and chemicals 'Ahhhh! Pisstoe'.

Regards,
Greg_L-W.

[DaveUK]

You're trying to twist what I'm saying, there's a world of difference between a burka and a sari or a habit or a dog collar; the very fact it covers the face is the problem. Of course there's no law that dictates what someone should and shouldn't wear; the point is that certain minority groups are given a different legal status when it comes to wearing certain items of clothing under certain circumstances, if the law applies to one group, it should be applied to everyone, period.

Not at all. If there is no law dictating what people should or shouldn't wear, I fail to see what different legal status these people are enjoying, or maybe I've missed something. I've yet to hear of an instance where any woman wearing the Burkah has refused to remove their face covering in an airport, bank, hospital, or any other situation where one would expect for the sake of security and convention to see someones face.
Unitl that happens I don't see how it's a legal status issue, mearly a cultural one.

[Hugnkiss]

You're trying to twist what I'm saying, there's a world of difference between a burka and a sari or a habit or a dog collar; the very fact it covers the face is the problem. Of course there's no law that dictates what someone should and shouldn't wear; the point is that certain minority groups are given a different legal status when it comes to wearing certain items of clothing under certain circumstances, if the law applies to one group, it should be applied to everyone, period.

In the 1970's it was quite common to see men and boys in balaklavas to keep out the cold - I don't remember a public outcry that we were in danger from these people. Maybe in the 1970's the hard working English people had better things to occupy their time than making such a hoohar about such minor things. As an English woman I often don a scarf around my nose and mouth and a hat plonked on my head to keep out the cold - granted its not my best look - however, it is my chosen look. If the Burka were banned then surely my right to keep out the cold in such a manner should be lost, otherwise there is no justice. My Grandmother is rarely seen without a headscarf - at 93 she's unlikely to change her ways, and as far as I know nobody has ever reported her as a threat to society.

Where is there a law that gives certain minority groups a different legal status? I know of no such law. Are there certain areas where groups of people in this country appear to be given priority?? Yes maybe, and those issues need to be addressed but not by banning what people wear. It's time English people started focussing on issues that really matter such as why people who drink drive and kill someone only get 8 years in prison? Why paedophiles are allowed protection? Why have we allowed "Being a mother" become a second class status? Too much Jeremy Kyle and Eastenders is polluting our society, glorifying being a stagnant member of society.

We allow women in this country to walk around with skirts so small you can see next weeks washing (or not in some cases) drink until they can't stand, know their name or find their way home - is it possible that this can be just as dangerous to certain deranged members of society? Or is that ok because they are only putting themselves in danger?? IS there a chance that a woman wearing a Burka is a crazed maniac who wants to blow herself up in the name of religion - possibly, but just as equally not possibly.

Someone said on here that it is the Governments way of making us a multi-cultural society - er... aren't we already, we have always been a mixed society? Tolerance of each other is the only way that people can move forward and make this world a better place. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean you have the right to ban it. Look the other way if a woman covering her beauty is too much. As long as she is no threat to society and happy to show her face when necessary she should be allowed to wear a bag on her head if she wants to.

[Midas]

In the 1970's it was quite common to see men and boys in balaklavas to keep out the cold - I don't remember a public outcry that we were in danger from these people. Maybe in the 1970's the hard working English people had better things to occupy their time than making such a hoohar about such minor things. As an English woman I often don a scarf around my nose and mouth and a hat plonked on my head to keep out the cold - granted its not my best look - however, it is my chosen look. If the Burka were banned then surely my right to keep out the cold in such a manner should be lost, otherwise there is no justice. My Grandmother is rarely seen without a headscarf - at 93 she's unlikely to change her ways, and as far as I know nobody has ever reported her as a threat to society.

Where is there a law that gives certain minority groups a different legal status? I know of no such law. Are there certain areas where groups of people in this country appear to be given priority?? Yes maybe, and those issues need to be addressed but not by banning what people wear. It's time English people started focussing on issues that really matter such as why people who drink drive and kill someone only get 8 years in prison? Why paedophiles are allowed protection? Why have we allowed "Being a mother" become a second class status? Too much Jeremy Kyle and Eastenders is polluting our society, glorifying being a stagnant member of society.

We allow women in this country to walk around with skirts so small you can see next weeks washing (or not in some cases) drink until they can't stand, know their name or find their way home - is it possible that this can be just as dangerous to certain deranged members of society? Or is that ok because they are only putting themselves in danger?? IS there a chance that a woman wearing a Burka is a crazed maniac who wants to blow herself up in the name of religion - possibly, but just as equally not possibly.

Someone said on here that it is the Governments way of making us a multi-cultural society - er... aren't we already, we have always been a mixed society? Tolerance of each other is the only way that people can move forward and make this world a better place. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean you have the right to ban it. Look the other way if a woman covering her beauty is too much. As long as she is no threat to society and happy to show her face when necessary she should be allowed to wear a bag on her head if she wants to.

With all due respect I don't think you're comparing like with like; it's not just a matter of what they wear, it's the circumstances under which they are required to wear it, and the way we concede to that, which is at odds with our own conventions.

The burka is both a symbol of male domination of women which is wrong to start with, and although the chances are, as you say, small, it can be a security risk - it wouldn't necessarily have to be a women underneath it would it. However my main objection is, unlike the parallel with a headscarf, the woman concerned is a/ not allowed to take it off and b/ we concede to that in circumstances when you would take your headscarf off voluntarily. Not only in certain buildings but as a matter of social convention; if you were to come into my office or house to talk to me, you'd voluntarily remove your scarf, it would be plain rude to keep it wrapped across your face when you're talking to someone, yet Muslim women wearing a burka seem to be exempted from that convention and it would be me who would be in the wrong if I insisted that she did or refused to deal with her if she didn't.

People are supposed to be treated as equal and political correctness came about in efforts to try to ensure that, yet we're now in a position where we're actually allowing minority groups to have more rights than the majority, and political correctness is wrongly being used to support that view.

[Hugnkiss]

With all due respect I don't think you're comparing like with like; it's not just a matter of what they wear, it's the circumstances under which they are required to wear it, and the way we concede to that, which is at odds with our own conventions.

The burka is both a symbol of male domination of women which is wrong to start with, and although the chances are, as you say, small, it can be a security risk - it wouldn't necessarily have to be a women underneath it would it. However my main objection is, unlike the parallel with a headscarf, the woman concerned is a/ not allowed to take it off and b/ we concede to that in circumstances when you would take your headscarf off voluntarily. Not only in certain buildings but as a matter of social convention; if you were to come into my office or house to talk to me, you'd voluntarily remove your scarf, it would be plain rude to keep it wrapped across your face when you're talking to someone, yet Muslim women wearing a burka seem to be exempted from that convention and it would be me who would be in the wrong if I insisted that she did or refused to deal with her if she didn't.

People are supposed to be treated as equal and political correctness came about in efforts to try to ensure that, yet we're now in a position where we're actually allowing minority groups to have more rights than the majority, and political correctness is wrongly being used to support that view.

You say its a symbol of male domination, you may be right in some cases but I know for a fact that you are not 100% right. In my previous profession I came across many women who, by choice, wore a Burka. I asked them openly why they wore it and they were proud in their response and reasoning, and clear that they wore it by choice. So what of these women? Is it ok to prevent them from wearing what they choose? I'm sure if a woman came into your office for any reason and you asked her to remove her face covering she would, if she wouldn't and if you felt you couldn't take her as a client you have every right not to take her on. If she were in your office as a work colleague and refused to remove her Burka, so what, you know who she is, you know she isn't a terrorist or a man disguised as a woman so if she chooses to wear it whats the problem? If she were in your home, then I assume she is a friend and would be comfortable enough to remove her face covering or you would be comfortable enough for her to keep it on - either way, she is no threat to your safety.


Again, I think there is some confusion between what we feel is acceptable and what is a safety issue, and just because you don't like something, doesn't mean you should ban it.

If we are talking about issues where men dominate their women by making them wear a Burka I suggest you tread very carefully or you will have a very long list of issues to deal with and start banning. The desire for a man to be dominant over a woman is not unique to a select section of the Muslim Community - even if it were, I fail to see how you are helping their cause by banning the wearing of it. All you would do is make them prisoners in their own homes as that particular kind of man is not going to say "ok dear, you can go out in your shorts today - I lose"

We in Britain have the luxury of freedom of choice; you can't take that away from people just because you don't like it. The security issue has already been addressed in that they should be made to prove their identity if necessary, the same as a biker is asked to remove his helmet-but some don't.. I was outside a bank recently wear someone using the cashpoint had his helmet on - I presume he must have walked the streets from his bike to the bank wearing it - obviously he had not been asked to remove it.

In my youth there were boys wearing parkas with a target on the back, I doubt half of them knew or believed in what that symbol meant, they just just liked the music that went along with the fashion. Were some of them violent? Yes. Were most of them violent? No, of course not. Could they have concealed weapons under those big baggy coats? Of course they could. Were people intimidated by them, yes, did we shout to ban them? NO! The same went for bikers, rockers, punks. And trust me, to some of them their music WAS their religion!
I am amongst the people who would be more comfortable if I could see the faces of everyone walking by, but that’s my issue not theirs. I think its probably an ancient human need but it still doesn’t make it a right. What we ALL have the right to is to be treated with respect, dignity and kindness.

[Nicholas]

The Burka according to the three main parties is 'British' only due to the fact that they have all supported an endless invasion to these shores of crescent hordes from the third world and given them passports, which make them civically 'British' and nothing else. Anyone with an ounce of sense knows that it isnt British and a disgusting sign of islamism and a good pointer towards its views of woman.