Actually, Perry, a couple of points.

First, those women and girls who sally forth in burqas have been indoctrinated, brainwashed and bullied since birth to believe that they are second class humans and their uncovered faces are a crime. I believe this is against their human rights.

They are taught by the behaviour of Islamic males at large that if they sally forth sans burqa, they will be regarded not as free women, but whores. I believe this is against their human rights.

They will also be regarded by ignorant and moronic Islamic males as inviting rape thereby. I believe this is against their human rights.

Ergo, donning the burqa as a result of indoctrination and intimdation is a breach of their human rights even if they don it apparently of their own free will.

Finally, I actually don't give a monkey fart about the "human rights" of Islamic women - the aforegoing was just for the sake of turning the argument upside down - but I do care about the rights of the Dutch to interact with other human beings on a normal basis; the basis practised by human beings, save in Islamic areas, throughout the world. That is, being able to judge a person by their facial expressions. One is robbed of these essential human clues when one party to the conversation has a black bag over its head. There can be no equality of conversation when one party remains hidden.

It would be useful if there was a way to publicly identify the men who 'own' the women in the burqas. They're the ones I want to boycott/shun/insult. Locking the burqa bound women out of public life may just be helping those men keep power.

Verity's right about the facial expressions. I even get upset with dark tinted front vehicle windows. It's important to see the face of the person you are dealing with.

People should be free to wear they want. On the other hand, it does send a message to the muscum that they haven't go the monopoly on being outraged - and when push comes to shove, just watch us be unreasonable too.

First, those women and girls who sally forth in burqas have been indoctrinated, brainwashed and bullied since birth to believe that they are second class humans and their uncovered faces are a crime. I believe this is against their human rights.

You may be correct in some cases... and then again, you are almost certainly not correct in other cases.

Some women really may wish to wear burqas and why should the state decide they cannot? Now if a Muslim woman chose to sue her husband for abusing her for forcing her to wear a burqa, well that would send a splendid message... but if she insists on wearing a burqa, it is a horrendous idea to use the power of the state to punish her for her idiotic beliefs.

does that mean 'offensive' clothing can be banned, such as, say, a mini-skirt that some Muslims with sexual hang-ups find offensive?

Rewrite:
"does that mean 'offensive' clothing can be banned, such as, say, a G-string that most people without sexual hang-ups find offensive outside the privacy of the home?

I renewed my daughters passport this week and notice that it is not acceptable in photographs for anyone to wear a hat - unless they are a female muslim. I know it is a scarf tied tightly around the head hiding the hair and ears and not a full burqua but it is still one rule for some and another rule for others.

At work, I recently had to deal with a Muslim man and his completely covered wife. I ascertained by proxy that she wanted to take out her dole money (now there's a surprise - another productive member of the welfare class), however she didn't say a single word. He did all the talking for her, had authorisation to transact on all her accounts. It was all above board - or at least I jumped through all the necessary hoops.

However, this scenario made me think that the scope for fraud is enormous. Our brains have evolved staggeringly large chunks of space to recognise the minute differences of an individual's face. This is probably the major factor when we determine who we are dealing with and thus how we deal with them.

The burqa circumvents this primary discriminatory device. Why should those who don such a confusing garment be afforded anywhere near the leeway of one who shows their face freely? Of course it's discrimination. Rightfully so.

"They're the ones I want to boycott/shun/insult. Locking the burqa bound women out of public life may just be helping those men keep power." - Midwesterner

I don't agree. With their twerpy attitude, these men will feel shunned by extension - thus reinforcing their well-earned sense of inferiority.

In any event, it doesn't matter how the men feel. It is the women who are being oppressed.

"... then again, you are almost certainly not correct in other cases." - Perry de Havilland

You would have to show me an adult woman who had never been forced to wear a burqa as a little girl and an adolescent girl, yet suddenly decides, completely off her own bat, to wear one as an adult. Not gonna happen, Perry, except in the case of loony tunes, attention-seeking converts to Islam.

Also, burqas place a big stamp on a woman. It reads: VICTIM. Along with this suppression of her facial features, facial expressions and personality, we don't know what else has been done to these women in the name of "Islamic modesty" - as in clitorectomies; as in being forced to marry a cousin from her ancestral shit hole; as in being warned not to date a normal boy on pain of death.

As far as I'm concerned, the evidence is all in. No burqas in a civilised society.

"does that mean 'offensive' clothing can be banned, such as, say, a G-string that most people without sexual hang-ups find offensive outside the privacy of the home?

No, I do not think they should be banned and if you go to the West End of London and hang around outside certain clubs, you will see people wearing very little indeed. I just think people should be able to ban people from entering their property for any reason whatsoever. The state should not get involved.

"They're the ones I want to boycott/shun/insult. Locking the burqa bound women out of public life may just be helping those men keep power." - Midwesterner

I don't agree. With their twerpy attitude, these men will feel shunned by extension - thus reinforcing their well-earned sense of inferiority.

In any event, it doesn't matter how the men feel. It is the women who are being oppressed.

"... then again, you are almost certainly not correct in other cases." - Perry de Havilland

You would have to show me an adult woman who had never been forced to wear a burqa as a little girl and an adolescent girl, yet suddenly decides, completely off her own bat, to wear one as an adult. Not gonna happen, Perry, except in the case of loony tunes, attention-seeking converts to Islam.

Also, burqas place a big stamp on a woman. It reads: VICTIM. Along with this suppression of her facial features, facial expressions and personality, we don't know what else has been done to these women in the name of "Islamic modesty" - as in clitorectomies; as in being forced to marry a cousin from her ancestral shit hole; as in being warned not to date a normal boy on pain of death.

As far as I'm concerned, the evidence is all in. No burqas in a civilised society. Geert Wilders is a hero.

Although I think Verity is far too dismissive of the rights of islamic women to wear what they want, she has a point about facial recognition in normal human interactions. When a guy goes into a bank, for instance, it is sensible security policy to take off a motorcycle helmet, sunglasses etc. We expect to see what a person's face looks like. It is something that is biologically hardwired.

That said, Perry's point is sound. Dress code is none of the state's business, although I might draw the line at nudity in city centres.

James made the point I've been wanting to address.

I've been reading the book 'Blink'. In one test, students were given a 2 second, silent video clip of an instructor and then asked to state an opinion on that instructor regarding the instructors teaching skills. The results correlated almost perfectly with their opinions after they had been in the instructor's class for a semester.

I have occasionally experimented with mouthing but not speaking words in a noisy environment. Paying extra attention to letting my face speak. Eye's especially. Afterward, amost everyone I have done this to could swear they heard my words.

I can assure you from personal knowledge, face is very important to communication.

For me the big problem is one of identity. You dont know who is under that sack, could be the proper dole claimant/ student sitting an exam/person taking a driving test, and then it could be a ringer.
The other thing is that it comes accross as a sort of 'one upmanship', see how much more islamic I am than you.
Apparently muslims find it offensive to be asked to join the human race.....good.

Rather than banning burqas directly - the law should act against the implicit threat of forced coercion that accompanies the act of wearing (or not wearing) certain items of clothing. It is already regarded as criminal behaviour to wear (or even be in the posession of) balaclavas in certain circumstances. The same rule should be applied to burqas and anything else used to control masses people through this form of blatant intimidation.

You cannot enter a bank wearing a motorcycle helmet, because experience has dictated that it's a classic disguise in the event of a hold-up.

It would be interesting if a spate of bank robberies were committed by burqa-clad bandits. I wonder if practicality would override political correctness in such a case.

There exists no right NOT to be indoctrinated or brainwashed, Verity. To say so misconcieves 'rights'.

Specific examples of free will being hampered, YES, but perhaps we could exert our collective force upon EVERYONE who we think may be indoctrinated? Sorry, but the only valid moral philosophy relates to individuals, not groups or collectives.

And therefore, no rights are being violated here, except the rights of those who may not now be able to wear a burqa even if they want to!

if you go to the West End of London and hang around outside certain clubs, you will see people wearing very little indeed ..

I was in the West End some weeks ago and visited Groucho's with a 'literary' friend -- but perhaps that's not what you mean by 'certain clubs'. Most people, both inside and outside, were wearing quite a bit (well, it was early February and minus 2 degrees ...)

But do you seriously believe that it should not be illegal for a man or woman to walk naked down, say, Oxford Street in the middle of the day?

A naked male with an erection?

A naked male with a semi-erection?

A naked male with an erection but with his penis covered by a hand-towel?

Libertarians, discuss this crucial issue!

Facial cues are all important not only to human society, but to higher animals as well. A snarling dog is a threat not just to us, but to another dog. We know bloody fine what that dog's intentions are. Cats have an enormous portmanteau of expressions. Ears up; ears back and pointed in fury; ears way, way back in fear; eyes open and mouth relaxed in friendliness; ears straight up and eyes wide open in amusement.

Both cats and dogs are adept at reading the expressions of their owners. It is a normal part of being part of the animal kingdom.

And the ability to read the face of another person is instintual. How many times have you almost been convinced by someone, and then there's suddenly a very, very subtle and momentary shift in their expression, and you think, "He's lying."? I'll bet your instinct has saved you from being sold a pup on more than one occasion.

I think they should be free to wear burqas in the privacy of their own home, but they should not force this abnormality on the rest of us outside their own premises.

Libertarians, discuss this crucial issue!

It is hardly a crucial issue. I think 'threatening behaviour' is not tolerable and under some situations approaching someone whilst naked and whith an erection would certain be reasonably seen as threatening behaviour... but I really think that social pressures regarding nudity should be enough most of the time. If shops and restaurants will not allow you in if naked, and people will not hire you, that should be all that is needed. Society works if allowed to and social pressures are very effective most of the time when not regulated out of existance.

This is nonsense.

Are you really saying that someone should not be free to hide their face in public if that is what they want?

Maybe scarves will be next.

"if that is what they want?" - John Wright

It's only what they want because they have been threatened by their fathers and brothers and the neighbourhood boys have called them "sluts" if they go out without it.

Exactly Verity "It's only what they want because they have been threatened by their fathers and brothers and the neighbourhood boys have called them "sluts" if they go out without it."

The "freedom" to wear a burqa is a false freedom because it is by threat of violence that the "need" to wear it is spread.

That's possibly true (and, as Perry pointed out, quite possibly untrue in many circumstances). For the most part, it appears to be just typical religious tradition.

My concern is the door that this approach is cracking open. I believe that 90% of religious people are indoctrinated to some extent. But that doesn't mean we should ban one of their traditions to 'help' them escape from it.

(I love most of your comments, by the way. :-)

Joe-

NOT ALWAYS!

And why not say the same about other religious or ethnic dress?

A friend of mine works in a hospital and tells me he gets more and more burqa'ed up patients who seem unable to talk on their own. Standard NHS procedure is that if a woman or child is being tested they are told before to bring a friend/parent along plus a nurse is usually called in to act as a witness. The burka types however never bring a woman friend but always a male relative who watches all stages of the test. Just to make things worse they won't remove the burqa although they will expose small areas of skin but only if the male gives his approval. Once the electrode has been attached the skin is covered. So by the end of the procedure you end up with what looks like a sack with wires coming out :) The male answers all questions even when the patient is asked if something hurts.

The "freedom" to wear a burqa is a false freedom because it is by threat of violence that the "need" to wear it is spread.

Then prosecute people for violence and intimidation, not what they wear. The state has NO biz setting dress codes. Likewise doctors and nurses should refuse to listen to anyone except the patient and if they do not like that, tough shit. If they want to get treated, they need to adapt to western social norms just as in everything else.

Unfortunately extreme Muslim dress for women is often used by Muslim men to separate the rape-able women from the non-rapeable ones.

How does one go about ensuring that this does not happen without banning the burqa?

I am with Perry on this one. People should be free to wear whatever they want - burqa or bikini or blue jeans.

It doesn't matter if they've been indoctrinated to want to wear them - once they are adults they get to choose for themselves.

However, I think there are limits imposed by the need to be able to identify people in certain situations. So, a woman can wear a burqa if she likes but must "de-hood" when she enters a bank or when she gets her drivers license photo taken.

I also think people who conceal their face in public reasonably should expect to receive more attention from the police - as concealing one's identity is a strong facilitator for crime.

Susan, I think we have to base everything we do upon human rights. It is a right to be free to wear whatever you expressly desire. It is also a right to be free from rape. Uphold those two rights, and we are doing the RIGHT thing.

The NHS is drowning in "cultural sensitivity". They would pay attention to a horse pawing at letters spread on the floor with its foot on behalf of a female patient if that's what some bonkers imam (sorry for the tautology) told them is "our religious tradition".

How do you suggest, Perry, that someone with a severe case of Stockholm syndrome, is going to claim violence and intimidation against the males in her family? She has been held captive all her life.

Anyway, as I said at the top, I couldn't care less about them. But the Dutch should not have to accommodate themselves to something so primitive and uncivil, and dangerous.

John and Perry, Intimidation is not about the wearing of dress - its about intimidation: Full stop!

Intimidation is illegal- therefore (at this point in time) burqa wearing should be likewise.

Where Islamism is concerned there is no freedom involved in burqa wearing.

"I think we have to base everything we do upon human rights." - John Wright

Incorrect. There is way too much emphasis on the individual and their "human rights" and not enough on the body of civil society.

Apart from anything else, it is extremely rude to hide your face from people you are dealing with. Expecting to be taken seriously while wearing a pillowcase is not just rude, but is a sign of a mental condition.

The rights of Dutch society come above the rights of anti-socially inclined individuals, and anyone who wears a bag over her head when out of the house and expects people to deal with her as an equal is very arrogant.

There is way too much emphasis on the individual and their "human rights" and not enough on the body of civil society.

You are Tony Blair. I claim the Westminster Gazette prize.

Actually, it depends on whose burqa is being gored, to mix a metaphore.

To illustrate, I will use a Samizdata post from a short while back:

A permissable burqa

Now THAT I could get behind. Beside. Befronted, Be-Blither...

holding comments for approval now?

Was it the link to another samizdata post?

The "freedom" to wear a burqa is a false freedom because it is by threat of violence that the "need" to wear it is spread.

Then prosecute people for violence and intimidation, not what they wear. The state has NO biz setting dress codes. Likewise doctors and nurses should refuse to listen to anyone except the patient and if they do not like that, tough shit. If they want to get treated, they need to adapt to western social norms just as in everything else.

We are still working the bugs out of the new system, so comments may be a bit troublesome until we get the technology squared away.

Yes, this is a dreadful proposal. But what surprises me is that I can't find anything about it on Dutch news-sites. Then again, we've just had council elections (one voting day for all councils in the country) and the government lost. Labour (PVDA: literally, Party of the Workers) and the Socialist Party (SP) won. It's said that in the major cities as much as 80% of - ahem - 'foreigners' voted for Labour. So the country's said to face a turn to left, with general elections next year.

Apparently 20% of votes were protestvotes. The CDA (christian-democrats), the largest party in the coalititon, have now said that the government must explain policy even better. The SP is a typical protestparty. It's very, uh, "action" driven, springing into gear and protesting for the little guy. Of course, all of this lead may run into the ground, but government policy looks like suicide to me.

So please excuse me while I fail to find this Burqa-issue very interesting. I'd be very surprised if this ever manages to pass through the House. The CDA will not want to look like radicals and the PVDA will certainly not vote for it.

NoProblem, just curious more than anything.

Perry, you are taking several separate issues that are currently combined in the burqa dilemma (fashion, freedom, and vicious intimidation)and then inexplicably stating that the combination must be treated as a single issue of freedom. Why? Any dilemma that is combined with a mixture of several issues must be viewed in the new light of what it entails in its entirety: Or else we would happily take the computer with us into the bath! :)

Not at all, Joe. In fact I am treating how people dress and the fact some people are subject to intimidation/violence as quite seperate issues. The state has no role in the first and certainly does in the second.

Perry, "I am treating how people dress and the fact some people are subject to intimidation/violence are quite seperate issues. "

Why do that when in this case they are combined in the one issue?

Separating them into unrelated issues is like sitting at the computer but refusing to touch the keyboard because that would be typing- which is a separate issue!

Susan, I think we have to base everything we do upon human rights. It is a right to be free to wear whatever you expressly desire. It is also a right to be free from rape. Uphold those two rights, and we are doing the RIGHT thing.

Reasonable thoughts, sir.

Reality: Muslims riot, kill and burn every time one of their "brothers" is prosecuted for raping a girl, especially an infidel girl. Judges, legal officers and witnesses, and the girl herself and her family, are violently intimidated.

Soon, the legal establishment just learns to "look the other way" as it is already doing in places like France and Sweden, and "slutty" Western women who live on the fringes of Muslim ghettoes already don the veil to keep from being attacked.

What then?

You are dealing with a mentality that thinks like the Mafia. And women and girls -- especially "slutty" Western women and girls -- are on the front lines of their "jihad."

Are we the ones who get tossed out of the boat first, followed by the Jews and the gays?

Don't let the burqa and the niqab take root in our socities. Your wife, your daughter, your sister, your mother -- they are the ones who will be paying the price.

I meant to say in my last comment:

The state is automatically involved because the safety of the people as a whole is at stake

The burqa is not the issue, the fact some people are using violence to impose their views, THAT is the issue. To ban someone from wearing a burqa is absurd. If a wierd non-Mulsim woman, or hell, a wierd MAN decides to wear a burqua, is that going to be illegal?

Banning clothing is preposterous when what should be done is refusing to tolerate AT ALL the violence and intimidation that leads many (but NOT all) to wear the burqa. Socially people should not pretend the norms of how some muslims behave towards women are tolerable. They are not and fact should be make clear to them, right in their faces, and no apology offwered if they are offended by other finding their behaviour offensive.

And when there is evidence of violence and abuse, it should be investigated like any other criminal matter should be investigated and the fact they are muslims make not one iota of difference.

Hear, hear Perry.

I blogged on this issue today here.

I keep hearing about the difference between the ideal approach we should take and the "reality". That's the reason we have an ideal, so we can CHANGE the reality.

Perry, has there ever been a thread on Samizdata discussing the wearing of masks to conceal ones face in public places and right-of-ways?

I'm having trouble with the search function and thought you might recall.

Guy Herbert, you are so funny I almost smiled.

What I meant, and phrased badly, is that everyone is encouraged to be a special case now. The cohesion of society doesn't matter as much as someone getting their personal quirk legalised. Like that loathesome little girl in Luton who wants to dress as a faceless blog to come to school. To hell with the school unform; to hell with the school's identity and rules. She is special and needs to be catered to. This just doesn't work.

Hey wait a minute here..... a tax. A tax on burquas. It's an idea. Muslim ladies who wear them can show their licence for wearing one of the most obnoxious piece of clothing ever. One thousand pounds a year for starters. We protect their civil liberties snort bahahaahaaa

Perry, forgive me because you are our generous host, but this comment is infuriating: "The burqa is not the issue, the fact some people are using violence to impose their views, THAT is the issue."

Hello? A Muslim woman who has been indoctrinated since childhood is going to go to the police and tell them she's been beaten because she asked to be allowed to go out without a burqa? Or maybe she's been "disappeared" for having such a slutty notion and the neighbours in the (self-imposed) ghetto never heard a thing? And neither did her own mother.

Verity, With you on that "loathsome girl from Luton". Her case was backed by some very nasty caliphatists.

I've always thoguth the burkha (and similar forms of Islamic dress) pathetic. Certainly from the first time as a kid on Holiday I saw the muzzie birds paddling in the sea in full tent while everyone else was in more suitable beach attire. It is patheic because it isn't even in the Koran ("dress modestly") it's a throwback to dark age Arab tribal antics (arguably Islam isn't much more than a codification of those). Now, I believe that people should be able to express their religious identity by and large in their dress. I have no problem with a Turban or a Yamulkah - and not just because we're not at war with Sikhs or Jews.

But this isn't religion, it's tribal practise from 1400 years ago originally carried out by people who drank camel urine. There is no reason why anyone in Holland would want to dress like this unless they're brain-washed, mad, doing a promotion for a camping goods store or coerced.

I don't believe in "Human Rights", I believe in rights - the absolute rights of everyone. The rights of the Locke and Payne et al. These are individual rights. "Human Rights" are too easily hijacked by groups. Islam has no concept of individual rights (I not e that as of today Danish Muzzie clerics are still demanding an apology from the government of Denmark for the actions of individual Danish citizens). Islam is too taken up with the concept of the Umma to care about the individual who wants to be different, innovative or critical.

They are therefore stuck with a mindset in which womena are property to be protected. The burkha is the bike-lock on their women. It controls them and reinforces this "ownership" It is a way of thinking that is alien to the modern West.

The burkha is a symbol of submission, not freedom religous or otherwise. Supporting it is akin to supporting the "voluntary" wearing of chains by black people in the US South after the civil war.

I'm not comfortable with the government telling me what not to wear, but it is the much lesser evil than guttersnipe religous fanatics telling anyone what they must wear. The burkha is the first step to forced marriage, rape, honour killing and (for those brave enough to abandon it) the H2SO4 facial.

It is deeply ironic that the proponents of the burkha say it stops women being objectified when that is exactly the point of it.

I suppose ( pace Godwin) that there are those who would argue in favour of the "right" to wear yellow stars or pink triangles, on the grounds that, at least technically, it was optional.

Perhaps if it were men who were so degraded, some of the comments above might be a little less breezy.

Nick M - You comment: With you on that "loathsome girl from Luton". Her case was backed by some very nasty caliphatists.

Not only that, but it's being pled by the arrogant (and not very talented) and privileged Cherie Blair. Hmm, am I misremembering, or did some of her children attend an inner city school that's 80% Islamic? I don't recall reading about that. I think they went to selective schools.

Strange, I don't have any problem at all with the yarmulka or the Sikh turban - perhaps because they are private symbols of religious devotion and are not used to intimidate. The burqa is a threat because, if you are terribly unfortunate enough to live in an Islamic settlement in Britain or Europe, it will be used to control non-Islamic girls and force them to obey Islamic customs. This is so disgusting I can't find the words.

Then get out there and WIN the culture war against these people, that is what I am trying to do by saying it the way I see it.

LOUDLY say that if you are being threatened by your family, that is against the law and in this country you have a right to not be threatened. When the tide and pervasiveness of culture goes against them as it did against racists, who are now delightfully socially unacceptable, that is what we need to do to these people. We need to turn their own daughters against their whole system, but you do not do that by making burqas illegal with the force of law (believe me, in the long run if you do, mini-skirts will be made illegal one day too as the logic is as clear as day. Clothing is expression and expression must be free regardless of how loathsome it is).

It IS doable with enough will to make it impossible for Muslim women to avoid hearing the message they are oppressed if only the damn state stops threatening to make it illegal to upset people. I think some fundimentalists know we could turn their own women aghainst them which is what the more clear headed Islamo-fascists (not an oxymoron) hate us so deeply.

I suppose ( pace Godwin) that there are those who would argue in favour of the "right" to wear yellow stars or pink triangles, on the grounds that, at least technically, it was optional.

I have seen people wearing yellow stars and pink triangles at anti-ID card demos. Would you make that illegal?

Perry de Havilland writes:

"I have seen people wearing yellow stars and pink triangles at anti-ID card demos. Would you make that illegal?"

Context, as ever, is everything. One of the delights of English Common Law is that we expect it to be interpreted.

Ordinarily, I would go to the ramparts with you to defend the right of anyone to wear anything they choose. But that's the point: the only woman who would choose to wear a burqa is one who has been brutalised.

Perry - I admire your spirit and resolve.

But by the time someone has been indoctrinated from birth for 20 years - and has possibly suffered horrendous physical violence - as in a clitorectomy - it would be a most unusual woman who could untangle the burqa that had been imposed on her mind.

Hirsi Ali is such a sterling, brave example, she keeps being held up as a hero, which she most assuredly is. Irshad Manji is another one. But Perry, to come up with the western notion that people have no fear of throwing off their chains in safe societies won't wash. There have been two stonings to death in civilised France. Islamic women who breach the rules - whether it's refusing to wear a burqa or having an affair or foolishly allowing themselves to be raped - provoke utter, vengeful fury in the stupid Islamic male. I keep saying, these people are Stone Agers. Men, even teenage boys, are much stronger than women. Sons can intimidate their mothers and their sisters.

It is not so easy for these women to speak out, Perry. The black Americans were not embedded in white families - and by saying this I am not trying to take away in any way from their heroic struggle. But Islamic women live in Islamic families. Sadly, in the title of that movie of the Eighties, they're "Sleeping with The Enemy".

They're not a mass of separate people who can take courage and strength from one other. Each owes her allegiance to her family, where she is also the victim.

For once I disagree with Perry and agree with most of what Verity has posted above.

Indeed, IMHO, there is a simple way of dealing with all of this:

No one should be allowed to cover their face in public, whether with a burqa, hood or any other means -- not because of the lack of human interaction through facial expression that Verity alludes to, but because of non-discrimination. After all, if I run around with a balaclava in public, I'll be arrested. If I run around with a burqa or hijjab or whatever the hell these things are called, that is deemed virtuous.

That just can't be right.

hm has a point. Hoodies are banned from shopping malls and supermarkets - and a particularly officious supermarket told an 83 year old woman that her little hat was a security risk.

Why are burqa wearers elevated to privileged class status over normal Brits? I use the word 'normal' intentionally. Burqa-wearers are, sadly, not normal. For any woman/girl complicit in her own demeaning, aberrant is not too strong a word.

hm has a point. Hoodies are banned from shopping malls and supermarkets - and a particularly officious supermarket told an 83 year old woman that her little hat was a security risk.

Shopping malls and supermarkets are private property and can enforce whatever dresscode they like. One proper way to fight the hijab would be to encourage shop owners to refuse entry to people wearing them. If there is indeed "broad public support" for this measure in the Netherlands, it should be too tought to get just such a campaign started.

But please let's not go the step of letting the state enforce dress codes!

Preview is your friend. Of course this:

If there is indeed "broad public support" for this measure in the Netherlands, it should be too tought to get just such a campaign started.

Should read: "...it shouldn't be too tough to get..."

Verity, Perry,
Hirsi Ali is undoubtedly a remarkably brave and resourceful woman. But even that wasn't enough for her. She neded a slice of luck. She was sent from Somalia for an arranged marriage in Canada via Schipol. It was there she took her opportunity and why she's in Holland now. We can't expect eveyone to be as courageous, as smart or have that chance to defect.

There is a culture war. Verity, your point about intimidation is important. The burkha isn't there just to intimidate the wearer. It is there to prevent "civilians" talking to its wearers, striking up friendships, influencing them maybe.

GCooper is 100% to point out the importance of context. If you're kinked that way a ball and chain is fun for some in an S&M context, but as day to day wear for 100s of millions of women - surely there is something wrong, deeply wrong.

Burkhas are actually quite expensive in third world countries - much more so than other attire. Under the Taliban this was important because their ultimate desideratum was to keep all women indoors as sex-toys and baby-mammas. The Taliban were Islam (esp. Sunni Islam) taken to its absolute logical conclusion.

To all those apologists for Islam who trot(sky) out that old saw about how the crimes of Islam are "nothing to what white Europeans have done" I have usually one answer - "female emancipation". There are many others, but I find this one stops the lefties (who always wanna seem "feminist" in their tracks).

There is no possibility of dialogue with Islam except via depleted uranium. And Let's hope the UK replaces Trident with an absolute mother, because we're gonna need it. Whether the world needs Riyadh, Tehran, Islamobad, Baghdad... is rather a moot point.

I believe it was a pub that told the woman to remove her hat - which is their right because they're a private enterprise.

A state that has the power to tell people how to dress is just what fundamentalist Islam wants because that could be corrupted to their ends. However Islam will never win out in a society that values freedom above all else.

Nick M-

We had to destroy the village to save it?

I agree with you that these regimes are horrid, but nuking them is hardly going to liberate all the women living there. It's certainly not a rational step to take to eliminate the burqa!

Nuking would only ever be justified as self-defense against an invasion - not as a means for liberation, surely!

Joshua,
I never said anything about liberation.

mark adams,
You trivialise the point beyond belief. In anycase they're called "public houses" for a reason.

We are at war against Islam, not pub landlords (although I make an exception to that about the Landlord of The Union in Levenshulme - where they employ the most awful folk band on a Sunday afternoon).

No, I suppose you didn't. But lines like this are confusing on that point:

To all those apologists for Islam who trot(sky) out that old saw about how the crimes of Islam are "nothing to what white Europeans have done" I have usually one answer - "female emancipation". There are many others, but I find this one stops the lefties (who always wanna seem "feminist" in their tracks).

If you really believe that one of the reasons Islam is bad is because they oppress their women, it seems counterproductive to nuke the innocent oppressed.

You trivialise the point beyond belief. In anycase they're called "public houses" for a reason

Right, and I am called "Joshua," so I must be the savior of mankind?

Whatever they're called, if they're private property the owners can enforce whatever dress codes they like. It's their space, not yours.

mark adams - "However Islam will never win out in a society that values freedom above all else."

Are you mad? Are you referring to Britain as "a society that values freedom above all else?"

Britain doesn't value freedom. It has had a taste for fascism since the Fabians, and now the Facism of political correctness because it's dressed in frilly knickers and "makes people feel good about themselves", whatever the hell that means.

Good grades and achievement give the same effect, although more difficult.

Forty percent of Islamics in Britain favour their primitive, tribal shariah law, although they were born and "educated" in Britain.

Twelve per cent were canny enough to say they "don't know". So make that 52% of these famed "moderate muslims" who want shariah imposed on enlightened, civilised Britons, yet they're apparently in a minority? Fifty-two percent is no longer a majority? Is this something to do with arabic numerals?

If 52% want their desert tribal shariah imposed on civilised Britain, yet 52% no longer constitutes a majority under this shariah of the British press, especially the BBC, where is this notional "vast moderate majority" hiding? Is this doing your head in, or have I had one glass of wine too many?

Islam is winning out by sheer politically correct intimidation. What a way to lose a war, eh? Especially a war that should never have been allowed to become even a tiny skirmish. Yet was planned by the fifth column known as the British government.

I didn't say I wanted to nuke the camel-jockeys. I'm suggesting that we may need a good nuke capability either to coerce, or if it came to it, to ripple the shit out of them from Morocco to Malaysia.

As far as "the oppressed" are concerned I care, but I care more about this poison being spread in the UK (and the rest of the civilised world). I care about English girls being forcibly married to first cousins in Pakistan or Yemen. I care about that much more because I think we can do something about it. We can beat Islam here and what it does to it's slave women here. I think the Islamic nations are so deeply infected that I know not what to do about them but contain them, or destroy them.

Earth has a gangrenous limb - invent a "wonder-drug" in very short order or amputate. Any better ideas?

Fascinating discussion. A couple of things struck me about the points being made.

It is interesting to see the approach of a minimalist like Perry in contrast to the approach of a current politcal type like the Dutchman.

Wilders immediate thought is to make a rule that brings the coercive power of the state into the situation. Perry's proposes to let people hash this out amongst themselves.

I would suggest that we are in the over-regulated situation we are in because Wilders' method of dealing with any issue has been the default response for far too long a time.

The idea of letting individuals work these things out in their own ways is controversial even here, not least because the we are so thoroughly saturated with the "there oughtta be a law" mindset. In most situations, the non-legalistic solution isn't even considered.

There are stores and gas stations around my area which have introduced a finger-pad method of speedy payment. A small scanner compares the fingerprint of the customer to the exemplar on file, and then charges the pre-arranged credit card.

It does not seem far fetched to extend this model to any situation in which there is reason to doubt the ability of one side to ascertain the true identity of the other. The same result could be attained with retinal scans.

If the situation were reversed, and an Islamic administration in Holland, (not too far fetched a possibility in some countries, unfortunately) proposed that shorts be banned because they were offensive, some of the people here arguing that offensive clothing be banned would be very indignant, indeed.

There are any number of cultures around the world in which the norms of male-female relationships are not based on equlity of the sexes. It might be somewhat cavalier to label thousands of years of cultural tradition as unacceptable, or illegal, just because it does not conform to current Western standards.

I humbly suggest that women who want things to change are very capable of bringing that change about, given a legal structure which protects them from violent intimidation and assault. What is required is a non-corrupted legal system which applies the laws without regard to political correctness or political cowardice.

And if any of this makes Verity mad at me, I concede, and regret ever even thinking the thought in question.

I've been married for decades. I know my place.

The clothing that people wear is no business of the state. The state already regulates far too much of the minutae of our lives we shouldn't give them another inch.

People are falling prey to the ridiculous (but sadly common) idea that problems can be solved by passing laws. There are already laws against intimidation and violence and in some respects against wearing masks. Enforce those laws evenly.

Although there are cases of girls rebelling against their secular families and covering themselves I would agree that, in most cases, women who are wearing a burka are doing so against their free will or have been so indoctrinated as to have no sense of free will. But, if you think that banning wearing the burka in public would stop that intimidation you're dead wrong. The most immediate consequence would probably be that those women would not be allowed out of their houses at all.

When will we learn? Laws don't help!

veryretired, ResidentAlien,
Very naive. This has nothing to do with the law of the land. It is to do with the parallel law - sharia. Any aspect of family/civil/criminal law in the UK hardly touches the self-policing sharia mini-states which occur in the (self-imposed) inner-city ghettoes of the UK (and elsewhere). Cutting it root and branch is the only thing that will work.

This is not about legalism or alternatives. It is about Islam. How many muslims blog here (other than trolls)? They need to be taken down. One way or another.

Nick m,

If i'm not mistaken, you were alluding to nuclear weapons further up the post. Pardon me while I do not take your intellectual credentials very seriously.

It has everything to do with the law of the land and the desire by some to use the legal power of the state to make life unpleasant for a group they don't like in the hope that group will go and live somewhere else.

I don't get your point about Muslims blogging here but given the abuse dished out to the last overtly Muslim poster is it any wonder that they don't post here.

If somebody wants to dress in a certain way it is none of my business and certainly none of the government's. If somebody wants to follow a certain religion, it is none of my business. I could not care less. On the other hand if somebody acts towards me in a hostile way, conspires to or actually harms me then they become an enemy I do care, will defend myself and have the power of the state behind me.

If somebody wants to remove my freedom to wear a burka he puts himself in the same category as those who wish to prevent me from owning a gun or taking cocaine. The fact that I have no current inclination to do any of those things does not lessen the guilt and arrogance of anybody who wishes to stop me from doing so.

veryretired,
Yes, nukes are a very useful tool to have. Either to use, or to threaten with. I do not see how that reduces my "intellectual credentials".

Did you tie flowers to the chainlink at Greenham Common in the 80s? If not, what's wrong nukes?

ResidentAlien,
We pass like ships in the night. This is not a point about government against Joe Public, it's about Islam against everyone else.

Islam is not a religion like Christianity, Buddhism or a number of others. It is a personality cult produced by an extremely evil man who had the nastiest ideas in the last 2000 years. It ought to be treated as such and eliminated. If you can't see that, assume the position (facing east, on your knees, bend forwards, part your cheeks and hope muzzie brought the vasoline).

Resident Alien: But, if you think that banning wearing the burka in public would stop that intimidation you're dead wrong. The most immediate consequence would probably be that those women would not be allowed out of their houses at all.

Who gives a shit?

I'm not in the business of saving humanity. I just don't want to be assaulted by religious maniacs in the guise of "modest" women, which is an aggression and I resent. These women/girls are making a statement, whether willingly or unwillingly. Who cares? . The burqa is a nasty and aggressive thing that has no place in the enlightened West.

veryretired, or may I call you veryboring? - you got a reputation here for incisiveness, but that has been diminishing as one trite, Garrison Keiller folk wisdom after another has been smugly intoned.

Don't have the impertinence to compare me to your wife. The number of years you personally have been married has absolutely nothing to do with the value - one way or the other - of the thoughts I offer here.

You say: "But, if you think that banning wearing the burka in public would stop that intimidation you're dead wrong. The most immediate consequence would probably be that those women would not be allowed out of their houses at all." I don't necessarily agree, but as I have said several times above, I don't give a shit. If they want to be complicit in their own abasement, that is not my business. But I don't want their bizarre practices in my face. Please let them practise their SM in the privacy of their own homes.

These women are aggressive. They will intentionally knock into you in a queue (if you're a woman) because you can't identify them. They use their anonymity as a weapon. I really have no interest in their fates. Concealing the faces of 50% of human beings is twisted, bizarre and utterly abnormal.

I have absolutely no humanitarian interest in their fates, but I don't want them blighting with their presence my ancient, enlightened civilised society.

Verity,
Thank you for bringing some sanity to the proceedings.

And so, to bed - as a former memeber of our ancienct, enlightened civilisation put it.

(And he once buried a whole parmesan cheese so it would evade the damage wrought by the Great Fire of London).

Verity,

I'm very sorry to see you descending to personal insult and shrewish hysteria every time someone disagrees with you about this subject area.

I don't see much point in attempting to have a rational discussion with you or your accolyte Nick when you are apparently prepared to accept anything up to and including genocide as a solution to the problem.

Have a nice time talking to yourself.

Pepys buried a whole Parmasan cheese during the Great Fire of London? How cool is that!

The problem isn't so much the burqua as what lies behind it..... and I don't mean a frightened, cowed, uneducated, three-paces-behind female. The burqua hides a veritable midden of mediaeval male bigots who have quite clearly stated ( as I have reminded you all many times) that they would prefer to see you dead.
With the enormity of threatened violence hanging over them you will see very little support for those brave female Muslim "Pankhursts" among their sisters. Who can blame them.
And here we're rattling on about clothes & PC.
With all respect, forget the women and concentrate on the very clear & present danger which is a threat to what freedom is left to us....(pause for laughter)
I am sure that, among our posters, there are those who thought Enoch Powell was an idiot.....Well, think again.........and make it bloody quick!

veryretired - a little bit of a thought fascist, aren't we? The folk wisdom, and all, disguising your intolerance of dissent, dropping away at a rate of knots? I won't trouble the readers with responses to your overwrought accusations.

You have turned out to be a typical, preachy, lefty, drab Garrison Keiller. "shrewish hysteria every time someone disagrees with you about this subject area."

Would you have had the nerve to draw such a characterisation of any of the men posting here - and they are all men, save me? You picked on the one woman to use the words "shrewish" and "hysteria" against. How bloody pathetic.

Tackle the arguments, if you are able, however many decades you've been married, and see if you can prevail, there's a good chap.

Permanent Expat - your post went up before mine, but I could not agree more. The burqa is a symptom of a deadly disease.

I just don't want to be assaulted by religious maniacs in the guise of "modest" women, which is an aggression and I resent.

If somebody actually (physically) assaults you, they have committed a crime. If the physical assault only rises to the level of bumping into you in a queue then I would suggest you ignore it. (This is also more likely to be due to the burka-wearer's restricted visibility than any agression.) If you are just saying that you can't bear the sight of somebody dressed in a certain way then you have a right to your opinion but no right to use the power of the government to oblige people to dress the way you want.

The issue of not being able to have eye contact does bear more serious examination. If, for example, a bank decides not to do business with somebody who covers their face then they should have every right to do so. Also, it is perfectly OK to insist on unveiling when taking photographs for identification purposes. In general, social pressure and instinctive discomfort in the presence of veiled people will be more effective in unveiling women than laws.

I do care about the "human rights" of women who are mistreated by abusive men in Islamic societies. Women in the West gained equal legal rights because men came to recognize that there was an economic benefit to be had from allowing women to go out to work and participate fully in society. Unfortunately, because of the tremendous edifice of government subsidy to help the "disadvantaged" that economic incentive is all but gone. We need to cut back government and stop subsidizing those men who refuse to allow their women to go out to work.

The burqa is a symptom of a deadly disease.

Agreed.

I can't wear a hat indoors. I don't know if there is any law against it but I don't want to be an asshole.

Resident Alien - all easier said than done. I think many women will be able to report incidents of being nudged or pushed by women in burqas. Remember, they think we're inferior. (They think we're dhimmis and are incensed that we haven't yet recognised it.) Shariah can't come fast enough for them. Many of them are unbelievably aggressive - but not against men, because of course, their "religion" forbids them to touch men who aren't family members. Trust me. They're aggressive. I don't pity them at all.

Josh,

Exactly. Social pressure is what changes behaviour. The Burka is only a symptom of misogyny and misogyny spreads far beyond the Muslim community. Wearing a full burka is extremely rare in the UK. I lived in a Northern English inner city slap bang in the middle of one of the biggest Muslim communities in the country for four years and NEVER saw a woman wearing a burka. Muslim women commonly covered their hair with a veil but hardly ever went even as far as covering their necks or chins. To me it didn't not seem particularly unusual and certainly not offensive. I had elderly female (white Yorkshire) relatives who thought that going out to the shops without a headscarf was vaguely indecent.

The only place in England I have ever seen a person wearing a burka is in the West End of London.

"Exactly. Social pressure is what changes behaviour. "

Oh, yeah. A litle polite nudging and folk disapproval is going to defeat Islam.

The eye contact / identification thing is important. It is an added bonus to the camel jockeys that these commonplace requirements of the modern world - in banks, passport control etc. that their imposition of the burkha gives a new spin on centuries of oppressing women.

Re: Hoods in shopping malls.

Indeed, those are private facilities, but lets take the more extreme example, i.e. balaclava.

If you go out anywhere in public wearing one of those, you can rest assured you will be arrested.

So what distinguishes a balaclava from a full face burqa? Nothing.

Here's an EU driver's licence (no indication whether it's been photoshopped, but alas, everything's possible in Dhimmiland):

http://www.fotoalbum.nl/albums/userpics/12636/normal_Rijbewijsvoordehelefamilie.jpg

To me there are a number of separate issues here.

- wearing a burqa.

- a male (I will not call such types "man") not allowing a woman to speak for herself.

- the behaviour of individuals, organisations and the state towards people wearing the burqa.

The first is hard to limit per se and we should not go there.

The second should not be tollerated by State institutions and I would recommend that individuals and corps do the same.

On the last point, the State can and SHOULD say, as they do in Turkey, that they will not tollerate such dress in their organisations, just as they will not tollerate nudity, erect penises etc (unless they are in the business of selling such, of course!).

The State should also be free to say that no benefits can be claimed by people so covered. I do know for a fact that women only in the company of women can disrobe even in the strictest regimes. Alas, this is a neat and typically very sneaky way of creating 'women only' areas and services.

I am of the view that the first step to banishing such garb is to have a flat and total intollerance of the "male representative" for burqa'd women when in mixed company. This entrenches language barriers (no need to speak other than "old country" tongue) and all the issues with filtering, distortion and most of all DEPENDENCE.

If I am expected to take off my bike helmet going into the bank - and I am, then muslim women can take off the burka. If its to show my identity for the cameras, then it applies to them too, or it applies to neither of us. If I am subject to arrest for going out in a balaclava, then so should any muslim who covers his/her face at a demo, we're all equal aren't we?
Oh, but I forgot (and I expect banning or abuse for this - freedom of speech is only for those who think the same way after all) most muslims are non-white, so we get the automatic race card being played.
For those who disagree, do you think that schoolgirl would have been allowed to wear a burka if she was a blue eyed blonde?

If I am expected to take off my bike helmet going into the bank - and I am, then muslim women can take off the burka

Yes, but a bank is private property and they should indeed have the right to decide under what terms and conditions they allow people to enter. What I am objecting to is the state setting dress codes.

But the state does set a dress code, i.e. the state stops us from wearing balaclavas in public or, for that matter, wearing nothing at all.

So either the state does away with does rules or RoPer females do away with the burqa.

What hm said!
The point I was making is that there is a bias towards muslim ways "Oh, we mustn't offend them", "Oh, we must respect their culture" Why? What is it that makes them superior to me? No Perry, while your points are well made, you ignore the elephant in the room.
Do you see him there? Over in the corner, big grey bastard! And on his side is written "Laws which are not applied equally to all, are no laws at all"
No masks for me, no burkas for them.

PIMF

does = those

I see the Religion of Peace (My Ass) has murdered - ooops! - executed - hostage Tom Fox. We should not criticise them or bring up our breakfast over this as it part of their rich culture and we must respect it.

If hoods are illegal, and they should be because they are, in the end, aggressive, then burqas absolutely must be illegal for the law to be enforced fairly. In fact, hoodies should immediately start charging discrimination when they're fined for their apparel.

Burqas should also be required to be removed for the collection of free money at the Post Office. Why would the British worker wish to hand over his cash to an ambulatory black blob? And why are they on welfare anyway? They should be working and contributing to the country they are currently using as a squat.

And here's the Catch 22, even if they tried to get a job, no employer in his right mind would hire an anonymous zombie in a burqa to chase his customers away or for all that Islamic drapery to get caught up in machinery. The burqa would then hie itself - or its husband or its seven-year old son would hie it off to Cherie Blair's chambers and bring a civil action for religious discrimination. That's another fine old mess you've got us into, Ollie.

And no, if the Luton schoolgirl had been a blue-eyed blonde she would never have been allowed to bring her case and would have been labelled an attention-seeker and self-glorifier. Of course, blue eyed blondes tend not to hide their light under a bushel and such a case verges on the realm of the impossible.

TimC is right to note that allowing male representatives to speak for these ambulatory black blobs reinforces the language barrier.

I've sometimes wondered whether the way to proceed is to make a point of engaging burka'd women in conversation - stopping them to ask the time, or the way to the cashpoint or the nearest tube, in short, treating them like normal human beings. Maybe the braver of us could wolf-whistle...

I guess, though, that most of the time they won't (be allowed to) answer.

Ian - They would have a heart attack (hey! now there's an idea!) if a male not in their immediately family addressed them at all. And to their mind, this is not being "treated as normal human beings". It is an assault and highly improper of you to address them. It doesn't matter what the custom of the country is.

I keep saying - and you should be grateful to me because my banging on resulted in someone posting a photo of L'il Kim almost wearing a burqa - that we should sexualise the burqa. Take it away from them. Wreck it for them.

The very top fashion designers always include a couple of way OTT jokes in their collections - things that no one of sound mind would consider as even a possibility for ordering. They should start playing around with the burqa for those OTT moments in their shows.

A skin-tight chador, for instance, with a slit up to the thigh bone and a burqa with sequined red pouty lips. A burqa with little blinking lights. A chador with a cut-out peek-a-boo top. A chador with a saucy bustle.

Once it was sexualised and men started wolf-whistling at these Islamic blobs on the offchance that they intended to be provocative, they would think twice about going outdoors in one of these outfits.

In fact, I am going to try to find out how to contact Vivienne Westwood who is just the gal to try something like this.

I keep saying this: wreck the burqa for them. Take it away from them.

Verity, have you been peaking at my up and coming collection for Paris? For shame, it's nothing but industrial espionage! Seriously though, good idea. It's got a spin on it. The alternative, blitzing them with our culture only seems to work sporadically. The Saudis haven't lightened up since Desert Storm introduced them to thousands of US female soldiers driving (the shock!) and toting guns (the horror!) and wearing trousers (I've had a stroke!).

The ID point is of course vital. How do we know there aren't two small boys in there, one on the others shoulders? How do we know there is anything in there at all. I know that sounds mad, but you wonder when you see BMOs (Black Moving Object - US Mil slang from Desert Storm).

How long till some male NHS A&E doc who saves the life off the unconscious contents of the bag, but has to cut it off in the process, gets in trouble for violating the "human rights" of the burkhster?

Burqster. I like that. I'm going to send an email to Vivienne Westwood. She is just the type to do this.

We really have to take away the value of the burqa and chador from them. I know! Lily Savage should appear in a drag queen's version of the chador! - although I think he doesn't do Lily Savage any more, does he?

We need drag queen's to take it up! Not a lot to work with, but some