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!!

[boxtops]

TCL-Mumping, I've seen that happen, it does. the woman in front of me going through passport control recently at Gatwick was covered and the (female) immigration officer asked her to go to one side behind a screen so she could see her face. The man with her objected strongly to a male officer, who responded "you are speaking to the Immigration Service not an ice-cream salesman, we are doing our job" - a strange comment but the bloke shut up.

[naomi24]

Good, and so he should.

[Oneeyedvic]

Okay, lets just confirm the facts here then. Going through passport control requires anyone who has a face covered to show their face (maybe in privacy). A reporter from the Sun (that bastion of good journalism) says that it didn't happen to her on one occasion, so some people seem to think that we have an open door policy.

With shops and banks, they are private institutions and can choose to implement what ever rules (that are lawful) that they wish. They are not breaking any laws. Every business has different laws for different types of people. I dare say that if there was a spate of people in burkas going into banks and committing a robbery (as has happened with motorcycle helmets), they would also ban the burka. This hasn't happened, so it is not deemed a risk.

I really don't understand what you want - it seems that you want the government to step into privately owned buildings and companies and make their customers comply with a law (which will need to be introduced) which doesn't seem to cause any harm.

With regards to what I have said about HC's comment, I really don;t understand what YOUR problem is. Simple question - can you communicate with someone without seeing their face? My answer to this is yes, easily. It happens with blind people, it happens on the internet and over the phone. For some reason HC (and presumably you) don't think that you can communicate easily if you can't see a persons face. this to me sounds like a rather feeble excuse.

[Oneeyedvic]

With regard the niqab: http://www.bbc.co.uk/...beliefs/niqab_1.shtml

////Niqab is different from hijab. Hijab refers to covering everything except the hands and face. Niqab is the term used to refer to the piece of cloth which covers the face and women who wear it usually cover their hands also. It is worn by many Muslim women across Saudi Arabia and the Indian subcontinent and is worn by many women in the West.

Historically, the veiling of the face was practised by many cultures before Islam and scholars say the adoption of its practice by Muslims was part of fitting into the society.

Although the majority of scholars agree that hijab is obligatory, only a minority of them say that the niqab is.

The scholars who do say it is obligatory are further divided by exactly what they believe needs to be covered. Some say that the eyes may be left unconcealed, while others say that everything must be concealed.

However, those scholars who rule that niqab is not an obligation do not necessarily oppose those who choose to wear it.///

Still, these scholars should apparently talk to you, since you seem to KNOW that it is not necessary (and I presume that you have come to this conclusion by reading The Koran in its original Arabic)

Or could it be that you have read a bit about it and consider yourself an expert?

[naomi24]

Vic, Oh dear. You begin by saying 'let's just confirm the facts', and then immediately invent the 'facts'. No one here has accused this country of having an open door policy.

Incidentally, never fear, your supposed intellectual superiority hasn't been compromised. The lady in question was a Sun reporter, but the report was from the Times.

As for shops and banks, you are deliberately, I think, avoiding the point I am making. The reason commercial organisations do not apply the same rules to women in burkhas as they do to others is because they dare not criticise religion for fear of being branded, and that is wrong. You ask me what I want. I want a fair society where rules apply across the board. I don't want a society where the majority are placed under suspicion and a small minority are excused for no good reason.

continued...

[naomi24]

..continued

It seems a lot of people find it difficult, or awkward, to communicate with someone whose face is hidden, and for very good reasons. Expression is important to interaction, which is why we've recently seen the controversy over the teacher who wanted to wear her burkha in class. Jack Straw says he is uncomfortable speaking to anyone whose expression he cannot see, and considers the burkha to be a visible symbol of separation and difference. He's right. It is. I would like to see everyone who comes to this country integrate, but the burkha damages the advancement of integration, and people with opinions like yours do nothing to enhance either integration or social cohesion. You say you have no issue with shops and banks banning burkahs, so I'm still at a loss to understand why you are arguing in favour of them, since all they do is drive the wedge of separation deeper, and that is detrimental to any society.

I'm not quite sure what the lesson was for, but it seems to me you're grasping at straws, so I'll ignore your rudeness.

[chakka35]

Interesting, isn't it, that no-one is the least bit interested in my point about basic human courtesy?

[naomi24]

From a western viewpoint you are right Chakka, but strictly speaking Muslim women are forbidden to speak to men, or even look at men who aren't closely connected to them, so courtesy in that respect isn't an issue for Islam.

[Oneeyedvic]

///Vic, Oh dear. You begin by saying 'let's just confirm the facts', and then immediately invent the 'facts'. No one here has accused this country of having an open door policy.///
Your stated in an earlier post that people wearing the full veil going through passport control - ie they weren't being checked. I think it is pretty clear that IF people aren't getting checked when going though, this would be classed as an open door policy. If you don't like that term, then fine, think of another, but if you really want to get into semantics, then you are ignoring the issue. FACT is that anyone going through passport control is identified despite what you think.


///As for shops and banks, you are deliberately, I think, avoiding the point I am making. The reason commercial organisations do not apply the same rules to women in burkhas as they do to others is because they dare not criticise religion for fear of being branded, and that is wrong. ////

Really. How many bank security experts do you know? How many shop owners have you spoken to who have said that they wish to ban the niqab? Incidentally, it is perfectly legal to ban it, as has been proved here: http://news.bbc.co.uk..._and_west/8021627.stm

///I want a fair society where rules apply across the board///
So do I. Rules are applied across the board. As I mentioned earlier, anyone is free to cover their face in society (as has been proved by kids wearing hoodies) - interestingly, you want to change the rues that apply specifically to one section of society.
cont

[Oneeyedvic]

///Jack Straw says he is uncomfortable speaking to anyone whose expression he cannot see, and considers the burkha to be a visible symbol of separation and difference. He's right. It is. /// That is his opinion and he is entitled to it.

Personally, I have never had a problem talking to people if I can't see their face. Funnily enough, I am doing it right now. Seems that you are as well. Funny that!

It is a symbol of separation - but so are goths, punks etc. Do you want to ban all of these as well?

///I'm not quite sure what the lesson was for, but it seems to me you're grasping at straws, so I'll ignore your rudeness.
///

I thought that is was pretty clear - but to explain it again: There are many different scholars of Islam who have studied the Koran. they have different interpretation of the Book - some believe that the niqab is required, some don't.

But for some reason, you seem to think that you are an expert on this matter as you state: ///. 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!!///

and ///strictly speaking Muslim women are forbidden to speak to men, or even look at men who aren't closely connected to them,///

These are simply interpretations by some Imams and scholars. Not a definitive.

It's a bit like saying that all Christians consider The Pope to be infallible.

[TWR]

I will initiate what I asked in the first instance, should the Belgium rule apply here? Its either a simple Yes or No. the person that blew the London Bus up, went to the local toilets changed into Muslim clothing with the Bourke & very near got away with the crime, this is what the Bourke can do. I am not talking about a Motor Bike & a crash helmet.

[Oneeyedvic]

What a load of boIIocks you talk. Here is a picture of Hasib Hussain (the chap who blew up the bomb on 7/7) moments before he boarded the bus http://en.wikipedia.o...9_am_July_7,_2005.JPG

Typical right wing propaganda - repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth.

And in answer to your question (just in case you haven;t worked it out) NO, we should not follow the Belgian proposal

[boxtops]

I will add my response, NO, to TWR's question.

[naomi24]

Vic, //Your stated in an earlier post that people wearing the full veil going through passport control - ie they weren't being checked. // No, I didn't. I said people aren't always checked, and the link I provided confirmed that. That is hardly an open door policy. Semantics? Look it up.

I think you're getting your knickers in rather a knot. Although we are indeed communicating, your argument is becoming somewhat disjointed and irrational. However, although I am aware that this conversation is making you angry, since I can't see the expression on your face I can't ascertain just how angry you are.

continued....

[naomi24]

....continued

Have you actually thought about what you're supporting, Vic? Have you ever been invited to try on a burkha and 'feel my pain'? No, you haven't. But of course it's usually the men on here who mistakenly assume they are championing the underdog by supporting the wearing of the veil. Well, I can only presume that although they've never really considered what life for a human being is like beneath a burkha, they can at least be confident that such a lifestyle will never be imposed on them. Look at this:

http://freethinker.co...ubservience%E2%80%99/

Would you like to live as she does, Vic, especially if that isn't her choice, but the choice of the men in her life? How would you like to wear such outlandish, restrictive, clothing every time you leave the house? Think about it.

TWR, a simple yes from me.

[askyourgran]

TWR a Yes from me too.

[naomi24]

redhelen, so you'd be happy to live as she does?

[naomi24]

redhelen, it seems it's you who is making assumptions. I've said none of that. It's odd that people are often quite forceful in their defence of this mode of dress, and yet when asked a simple question like 'would you be happy to live as the woman in that picture does?', they are reluctant to answer. I wonder why?