1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice

Ukip want to ban the burqa and sharia law!

Discussion in 'Personal' started by delmamerchant, Apr 23, 2017.

  1. delmamerchant

    delmamerchant Established commenter

    I wonder, are Ukip becoming seemingly Islamaphobic or are they just concerned for our safety and British culture? Ban the burqa, what next? Dreadlocks, wigs that many Jewish women wear or is it just face coverings that they object to?
     
  2. Mr_Ed

    Mr_Ed Established commenter

    Until this morning, I would have been onboard with this, however listening to Maajid Nawaz on LBC I changed my mind. Wearing the Burka is un-British (it is the opposite of integrationist), he acknowledged that, but to put a legal block on it, is un-British too.

    He also explained that nowhere in the Koran is it mandated that women cover their faces and he should know.

    One good point was this: if we ban the burka (legally) how can we complain when countries like Saudi Arabia enforce it? We couldn't.

    However, one important thing in the radio discussion was this: he consented that anywhere that helmets are forbidden, e.g. banks, petrol stations, airports etc. the same rule should apply to the burka and I agree with that. Equality is key.

    P.S. Basically, all the UkIP people should just give up now, if they want to stay in politics just join the Conservative party: grammar schools and a full Brexit, what's not to like?
     
    Landofla, Dragonlady30 and nomad like this.
  3. NoseyMatronType

    NoseyMatronType Lead commenter

    First of all, I would assume that UKIP are referring to the niqab (a face veil which leaves the eyes visible) rather than the burka.

    The burka is a form of dress that is associated with the Taliban, isn't it? Not even the eyes are visible and there is a cloth grille that completely conceals the face. If so, this is something I have never seen any Muslim women wearing in the UK anyway.

    Perhaps someone can clarify this point.

    Anyway, niqab-wearing women in the UK are actually more akin to the Plymouth Brethren than the Westboro Baptist Church (though they do regard homosexuality as an abomination).

    These two articles by the researcher Anabel Inge are very useful when it comes to explaining the Salafi-quietist version of Islam followed by niqab wearing women. Anyone contributing to this thread would be well advised to read at least the first one before doing so. My own preconceptions were certainly challenged by them.

    http://www.radicalisationresearch.org/deba...salafi-muslims/

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-...n-a7436611.html

    Leaving aside the fact that it's Nuttall, one issue here is whether a liberal democracy should tolerate intolerance as manifested by groups who wish to withdraw from society and take no part it but are not a threat.

    My initial feeling is that we should, in order to demonstrate the virtues of democracy as a superior system to that maintained by, say, Salafi-jihadists or any other anti-democratic ideology.

    On the other hand, Salafism is utter nonsense as far as I can tell. I can't think of any academic historians of Islam who would concur with very much of the view of the salaf (a term explained in Inge's articles) maintained within this community. So do we really want to give breathing space to such an absurd movement?

    Again, my answer would be 'yes'. This is so that Salafi theology can be contested within the public arena, in the same way that, say, Creationist anti-evolutionary Christian ideas have been, or conservative Christian opposition to civil partnerships and gay marriage.

    Where the niqab proves to be obstructive from a legal point of view (e.g. when giving evidence in court), perhaps specific arrangements could be put in place.
     
    Last edited: Apr 24, 2017
  4. peakster

    peakster Star commenter

    Forget UKIP - they're done
     
  5. BillyBobJoe

    BillyBobJoe Established commenter

    No, UKIP aren't becoming Islamophobic, they've always been so. They just need a new usp so are saying it louder. They're the political wing of the EDL.
     
  6. Flere-Imsaho

    Flere-Imsaho Star commenter

    UKIP have always wanted to do this, haven't they?
     
  7. FrankWolley

    FrankWolley Star commenter

    Saudi Arabia also bans the drinking of alcohol. We allow it. What's the problem if we were to ban full face covering, and they don't?
     
    Rozario123, xmal, wanet and 1 other person like this.
  8. Oscillatingass

    Oscillatingass Star commenter

    Totally irrelevant because UKIP wont get a single MP let alone form a government. I presume it is a last desperate attempt to get some publicity.
     
    InkyP likes this.
  9. nomad

    nomad Star commenter

    Religion be damned. All of it. The issue should be whether, as a society, we permit face covering in public or not.

    While, as a species, we clothe ourselves, the face is the primary means of recognition of other individuals. Fact!

    It needs to remain uncovered, other than for medical and/or industrial reasons, of course.

    As for Sharia Law, every group in society has their own rules and expectations. Companies have terms of employment, schools have rules, churches have canon law, local councils have "keep off the grass" signs and even families usually have their own rules. Sharia Law is fine by me for those who wish to comply with it, provided it is accepted that the laws of the country take precidence for those who live here.
     
    Last edited: Apr 24, 2017
  10. InkyP

    InkyP Star commenter

    Presumably they will also be banning this
    [​IMG]
     
  11. nomad

    nomad Star commenter

    I hope so!
     
  12. FrankWolley

    FrankWolley Star commenter


    I'd be happy with that banned too...:)
     
    Dragonlady30 and nomad like this.
  13. Oscillatingass

    Oscillatingass Star commenter

    me too
     
    nomad likes this.
  14. Burndenpark

    Burndenpark Star commenter

    How far would you insist on your intolerance stretching?
    People going to fancy dress parties? Kids doing Trick or Treat? Folk dancers? cyclists and pedestrians wearing face masks? facial tattoos? Scarves in cold weather?
     
    colpee and InkyP like this.
  15. Nanook_rubs_it

    Nanook_rubs_it Star commenter

    Or even beards or make-up?
     
  16. grumpydogwoman

    grumpydogwoman Star commenter

    You're kidding me???

    There are some faces that would do very well to be covered. A full face-veil, a hoodie, a balaclava and a spit-mask wouldn't be enough for some faces I could mention.

    Oh, well. Since you ask.

    How about this one? We should actually make the niqab compulsory for this fella. You'd know whom to avoid!

    1405962350-419.jpg.gallery.jpg

    Also for Gove, Prince Andrew, Farage and...... It's a long list.


    niqab-09bg.jpg
     
    colpee and Laphroig like this.
  17. lanokia

    lanokia Star commenter

    Should come to where I live.... see them every time I go to the town centre.
     
    Landofla likes this.
  18. NoseyMatronType

    NoseyMatronType Lead commenter

    Lanokia, do you mean this?

    [​IMG]

    As opposed to this?

    [​IMG]

    If so, thanks for letting me know. I've lived in and around Muslim communities where it is not unusual to encounter Salafi women. But I've not come across any burka wearers up to now.
     
    lapinrose and palmtree100 like this.
  19. Burndenpark

    Burndenpark Star commenter

    Beards I'd intended putting on the list, I think make up is usually less transformative.
     
  20. lanokia

    lanokia Star commenter

    First picture doesn't show for me on this machine...

    I've seen this
    [​IMG]


    And the second picture you posted.
     
    Landofla and NoseyMatronType like this.

Share This Page