Belgium Rules on the Bourke

[TWR]

Are they right? think about a road accident with one of these people, you stop but they carry on although you have their Reg what chance have you to recognise the driver that was involved in the accident? Should this policy apply in the UK? or are we AGAIN afraid to offend? It's getting to something when you cannot voice your views without the HR Brigade shouting, the anti racist piping up, OH by the way, I work with, I work alongside, we share the same views, this is just to clarify my statement!!

[Oneeyedvic]

/// If I entered an airport building, or a bank, or a shop, wearing a mask, I'd be made to remove it, so tell me why I am deemed less trustworthy than a woman who chooses to shroud herself from head to toe in a burkha? ///

If you are in an airport, you do need to remove your burqa to get through passport control. With regards shops, you are not obliged to unless the management / owners ask you to. If you do not wish to remove your headgear, then you are free to shop where you want. As per my second response to this question, i have no issue with shops / banks banning all headgear including the Burka.

///
As for your post to hc4361, actually, I think that's appallingly insulting. Unlike the women who choose to wear burkhas - and it is a choice - the blind have no choice./// - I am sorry if you think it is insulting, as it is not intended as such. HC makes clear that he doesn't feel communication can take place if there is no eye contact. That to me is incredibly insulting to blind people.

///. Islamic women are told they must not display their beauty and they do cover themselves for fear of attracting the attentions of men. In fact for the same reason, Islamic literature even bans them from allowing their bracelets to jangle!! ///

///It can't be religion because Islam doesn't demand that people cover their faces, so these women can't in all honesty use that as an excuse, and neither can you. ///

So which one of the above statements that you made are true? Or is it possible that there are different 'sects' of Islam who follow different teachings?

[askyourgran]

What a load of tosh. If these women want to hide themselves let them, but only in the country of their heritage where their beliefs are considered the norm, ie.not this one. It is not a religous requirement to wear the burqa nor do I suspect is bracelet jangling.

[naomi24]

Vic, I've seen women going through passport control in burkahs. As for shops, you're ducking the question. Why should someone, say, wearing a crash helmet, be obliged to shop elsewhere when the ladies in burkhas aren't? What makes him or her any less trustworthy than them?

And if you have no issue with shops/banks banning burkahs, why are you calling for tolerance?

Both statements are true. Islam commands that women dress modestly (men too actually), but it does not demand the face be covered. Most Muslim women wear clothes that cover their arms and legs, and a covering for their hair, but some take it to extremes - and often those women do not have a choice in the matter because their men make the choice for them. However, the religious apologists, for some unaccountable reason, clearly support the subjugation of women too.

I think you know exactly what hc4361 was saying. Again, you're ducking the issue - but you aren't the first on here to try excuse and to gain sympathy for burkha wearing women by thoughtlessly attempting to compare them to people with genuine disabilities.

[naomi24]

askyourgran, You doubt the ruling on bracelets?

Look here.

http://www.islamweb.n...=82000&Option=FatwaId

[askyourgran]

Sorry Naomi the link doesn't work, so I take it Islamic women don't wear bracelets then. Not that we would be able to see them under their tents so to speak.

[mibn2cweus]

Works for me . . . the link that is. And talk about a load of tosh . . . that site I mean.

[naomi24]

askyourgran: Oh yes, they wear bracelets - just not jangly ones. Here's what the link says:

It is forbidden for a woman to wear an ankle bracelet outside of her house if it jingles and produces sound which aliens can hear. Allah Says (Interpretation of meaning): { And let them not stamp their feet so as to reveal what they hide of their adornment. And all of you beg Allâh to forgive you all, O believers, that you may be successful} [24:31]. A Muslim woman should know that the feet of the woman are part of her Awrah. They should be covered from the sight of all alien men. All the Scholars are agreed on that. On the other hand, a woman can wear any kind of golden ornament . There is no harm in that. She can wear a wrist bracelet, an ankle bracelet or any other ornament. She can go out wearing them provided that no alien man sees them and that they do not produce sounds. Allah knows best.

Awrah is defined as
//parts of the body that are not supposed to be exposed to others. For men this is from the navel to the knee. For the women it is all of her body except the hands, feet, and face. //

Note: faces are not included.

[naomi24]

Hello mibs, glad you sorted that out - eventually. Haaa! :o)

[askyourgran]

Don't think I'd last five minutes wth them taking orders from blokes in nappies,

[TCL-MUMPING]

With reference to passport control and the burqa

The Home Office has confirmed immigration officers have the right to ask women wearing veils to remove them so that they can check their identity when they first arrive in the UK.

Women would be asked to lift their veil in a private area if there were "sensitive or cultural reasons" why it could not be taken off if public, Home Office Minister Liam Byrne said.

Immigration officers had to be satisfied about a person's nationality and identity and entry could be refused if they were not satisfied, the Minister added.

He was responding to a question from Conservative ex-home office minister Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham) who asked what instructions had been given to officers at borders in dealing with people wearing veils or other garments obscuring their identity.

Mr Byrne, in a written answer to the Commons, replied: "In accordance with the Immigration Act 1971 all persons arriving in the United Kingdom must satisfy an immigration officer as to their nationality and identity.

"Where there are sensitive or cultural reasons why it is not possible for a person to remove a veil or other garment at the immigration control, they will be taken to a private area where, in the case of a woman, a female officer will ask them to lift their veil so that their identity can be verified.

"Most people are usually content to do this but there are powers to refuse entry to persons who cannot be satisfactorily identified."

[Meg]

Well said gran.

[naomi24]

TCL Mumping, yes we know all that, but it doesn't always happen, so what's your point? No, on second thoughts, don't bother to answer that. We already know that too.

[TCL-MUMPING]

If you knew all that then why did you raise it as an issue?

[naomi24]

Because the guidelines aren't always followed, and therefore it is an issue.

[TCL-MUMPING]

You know that for a fact do you or are you guessing? "I've seen women going through passport control in burkahs" how do you know they were not checked elsewhere immediately before being allowed through?

[naomi24]

TCL Mumping, no I'm not guessing.

[TCL-MUMPING]

You're not guessing and you know for a fact that they were not checked elsewhere in private?

[naomi24]

TCL Mumping, I repeat, I am not guessing - I know it happens. Of course, I can't provide you with personal evidence, but I can provide this from The Times:

//Anila Baig, a columnist on The Sun newspaper, reported that at Leeds-Bradford airport no member of security had asked her to remove her niqab to check her identity against her passport picture. //

Will that do? You just can't bear criticism of Islam in any shape or form can you. Never mind.

[TCL-MUMPING]

Odd how the reporter did not go into any details about when she made the trip to Paris, no questions posed to those responsible for airport security.It all seems a wee bit vague to me and not at all convincing.

[naomi24]

With religion and its apologists denial is the norm, so no surprise there.