Following the noises being made about banning the burqa in France, I suspect that there are sympathetic rumblings in many parts of Europe. The party I helped to found, UKIP, is making noises in this direction. I suspect and hope it is purely a political machination and they aren’t serious.
Now, I am of the view that if you are coming to live in a country you should adopt as many of its customs as possible, and in the absence of proof that it is required by Islam, I regard the wearing of the burqa as refusal to integrate and damned bad manners. I have problems banning it, though.
I don’t want to get to the stage where the State decides what you can and can’t wear. You can imagine in the past we would have banned such things as jeans (except for manual workers), miniskirts and long hair (except for women).
You can make the ban conditional. For example in France they are considering banning entry into government buildings for those wearing the burqa (except presumably the courts), withholding benefits and denying citizenship. But with the conditionality you have to say what it is about those circumstances which makes the ban necessary or desirable. Presumably it would be banned in the offices of France Telecom but not if it were denationalised. Why shouldn’t you receive benefits for dressing in a particular way? If they are conditional on suitable behaviour why do we allow benefits for drug addicts? And the refusal of naturalisation: what if the woman doesn’t wear the burqa for the qualification period and puts it on once she has got her passport?
No, the only one that’s remotely viable is banning the covering of the face, motorcycle helmets included, in any organisation where there is the risk of robbery, such as Post Offices and banks. For the rest we must confine ourselves to reminding these women to their faces that they are not playing the game.
Now, I am of the view that if you are coming to live in a country you should adopt as many of its customs as possible, and in the absence of proof that it is required by Islam, I regard the wearing of the burqa as refusal to integrate and damned bad manners. I have problems banning it, though.
I don’t want to get to the stage where the State decides what you can and can’t wear. You can imagine in the past we would have banned such things as jeans (except for manual workers), miniskirts and long hair (except for women).
You can make the ban conditional. For example in France they are considering banning entry into government buildings for those wearing the burqa (except presumably the courts), withholding benefits and denying citizenship. But with the conditionality you have to say what it is about those circumstances which makes the ban necessary or desirable. Presumably it would be banned in the offices of France Telecom but not if it were denationalised. Why shouldn’t you receive benefits for dressing in a particular way? If they are conditional on suitable behaviour why do we allow benefits for drug addicts? And the refusal of naturalisation: what if the woman doesn’t wear the burqa for the qualification period and puts it on once she has got her passport?
No, the only one that’s remotely viable is banning the covering of the face, motorcycle helmets included, in any organisation where there is the risk of robbery, such as Post Offices and banks. For the rest we must confine ourselves to reminding these women to their faces that they are not playing the game.
But I don't suppose many of us will be doing that. It just might be a cross dressing karate black belt under that sheet.
No comments:
Post a Comment