Anorak

Anorak | Ban the veil to save freedom-hating Britain from Muslim women and other perverts

Ban the veil to save freedom-hating Britain from Muslim women and other perverts

by | 16th, September 2013

A lady arrives at Blackfriars Crown Court in London today.  PRESS ASSOCIATION Photo. Picture date: Monday September 16, 2013. See PA story. Photo credit should read: Stefan Rousseau/PA Wire

SHOULD a Muslim woman be able to wear a full-face veil in court? Judge Peter Murphy, ‘no’. He says the woman charged with witness intimidation must show her face in Blackfriars Crown Court (above). She says she does not want to show her face in front of men. She wants to keep on her niqab.

A compromise is struck: she can wear the veil in all the parts of the trial where she is not giving evidence.

But her lawyers say the making her remove the veil breaches Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Which is does not.

The Judge won’t budge any further. To begin with he ruled that she must remove the veil at all times:

“It is necessary for this court to be satisfied that they can recognise the defendant. While I obviously respect the right to dress in any way she wishes, certainly while outside the court, the interests of justice are paramount. I can’t, as a circuit judge, accept a plea from a person whose identity I am unable to ascertain.”

But does he have to check her ID? Don’t the court officers do that before she enters the dock? Can’t they be women?

“It would be easy for someone on a later occasion to appear and claim to be the defendant. The court would have no way to check on that.”

No way? Well, there was a way. An officer of the court swore an oath that the woman in the dock was the same woman as appeared in a photo of the suspect. Accordingly, the suspect was allowed to enter a plea (not guilty).

No big deal, then. Justice can be done vile or no veil. Only, the veil is a talking point.

Jeremy Browne, the Home Office Minister, noted the drama at Birmingham Metropolitan College, where  rule banning the veil – to ensure individual were “easily identifiable at all times” – has been overturned following protests. Brown, rather pathetically, called for a “debate” in the issue.

“I think this is a good topic for national debate.”

David Cameron’s spokesman said the Prime Minister would be content with his children’s schools banning the veil.

Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat leader, added to the balls by  saying he would not want to prevent a debate on the wearing of veils. How’s that for being decisive?

He did then add:

“That is not the business of the state to tell people whether they wear veils or whether they have crosses round their neck, or whatever. People with different identities and faiths should be free in our country to do so.  The exception is, of course, where there are security checks and airports for instance, where the full veil is not appropriate and I do feel there is an issue with teachers in the classroom – I think they’re entitled to expect they can address their students and their pupils face-to-face and I think that is an issue and I believe it is a case where the full veil is perhaps not appropriate.”

Got that? The State won’t dictate unless the State considers is appropriate to, erm, dictate.

So. Join the debate on what a woman can be free to wear in public. The Deputy PM and his superior are already in there. The sane might care to prefer to talk to about money and war rather than what a free woman wants to wear on her head. Might it be that a young Muslim woman thinks wearing a veil is a sign of rebellion against this kind of politically-driven stupidity? Her mum didn’t wear on but she will. She wants to be her own woman.

Other have had the debate.

In 2004,the French government prohibited the wearing of ‘conspicuous’ religious symbols in schools. In April 2011, it banned wearing a veil in public spaces.

Progress?

Anyone caught wearing a full veil wearing must pay a €150 fine or / and attend citizenship classes. If you force your daughter to wear a veil, the punishment is up to year in prison and a €30,000 fine .

Belgium also voted to ban the veil. A Belgian politician judged that “we are the first to unlock the bolt that has kept a good number of women in slavery”. Wow. You can free women by removing a piece of cloth, a symbol of a militant religion. Take it off, Muslim woman and the saviour Western State will embrace you. You will be free to live and prosper in a liberal, secular society than bans certain kinds of headgear. It really is that easy. Really… Really?

French President Nicolas Sarkozy opined:

“In our country, we can not tolerate that women become captives Behind the scenes, they are isolated from all social life and they are deprived of their individual personality. The burqa is no brand of religion is in fact a sign of subservience and debasement of the evidence of the human being. That’s why I solemnly declare that it will not welcome on the territory of the French Republic! ” 

Jack Straw said the niqab is a “visible demonstration of separateness”. It’s not the cause of it. Maybe turning a veil into a debate is a sign that we are isolating the Muslim woman? Why not just let her get on with it? Why not let people wear and say what they think?

Because that veil means you might be up to no good. You might be cheating on your exams or carrying a gun. You might be a man? I used to swim at Seymour Leisure Centre. A female friends told me that woman was just sitting in the changing room. This woman was dressed in  full black robe with a veil. It turned out that she was a pervy he. I don’t know if the pervert was a Muslim or not, only that he was disguised.

But that’s it. No crimewave has been enacted by veiled women or men.

But to the righteous the burqa has becomes a big hoodie. And the Government hates hoodies. Wearing one makes you out as being a suspicious character, dangerous enough for David Cameron to threaten to hug you.

When he was Minister for Immigration, Damian Green said of the French:

“I stand personally on the feeling that telling people what they can and can’t wear, if they’re just walking down the street, is a rather un-British thing to do. We’re a tolerant and mutually respectful society.”

Green is Minister of State for Policing and Criminal Justice. Keen to dismiss the French, he’s nothing to say about a ban on hoods at Kent’s Bluewater mall:

The wearing of any item of clothing which restricts the view of one’s head/face (eg. hoods) with the exception of religious headwear.

That ban is all about the fear of youth. Jut as the burqa is about fear of Islam:

Mike Hough, Profesor of Criminology at King’s College, London, has found that fear of youth crime far outstrips its reality. Known young offenders commit around a tenth of all crime, according to statistics, but nearly two-thirds of the public thinks young people are responsible for four times that much crime.

How tolerant is that, Damian Green? We’re not all that different to the French after all.

But this is also about religion. Can it be right that the secular State bans your free choices? Why is the State so obsessed with what Muslims wear and how they live?

 

This is about the elite focusing on a sense of otherness to bind what it is to be British. Their argument are illiberal, crass and weak. The strong State would not ban; it would say go for it and if you get criticised for doing it take it on the chin and argue back. Saying the veil is wrong does not make you an Islamophobe. Saying it is right does not make you an enemy of the State. But freedom to do neither is truly dangerous…

 



Posted: 16th, September 2013 | In: Key Posts, News Comments (3) | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink