The niqab is a misogynist monstrosity

It might keep out the midges though, unless it trapped them inside where they could have a banquet.

Restricting freedom of movement is a big feature of the garment, you are right!

Except... another question...

Should I be surprised if I were asked to remove my stormtrooper helmet because people wanted/needed/had a right to see my face?

I'll answer that for you. No.

And what's more, I should remove it. See bananas remark about what Yasmin A-B has said on the subject of social cohesion.

Oh and a couple of other replies to other posts

RC schools vary but most will give preference to RC applicants, Headteachers have to be practising RCs and must not be divorced or have married a non-catholic! Must be able to kiss the Bishops ring!!

Think Guantanamo re western/Christians committing atrocities.

It's still face-covering that's the problem, not the clothes people choose to wear.

So, just so I understand correctly, pen, are you saying it is allright to cover one's face all the time, even when there is no need for protection purposes and when it makes other members of one's social order uneasy because they naturally associate the face-covering of social apes as WEIRD in the extreme, as well as, in any case, very rearely necessary.

?

Several of us have said, several times, that it's not the black sack clothing that's the problem. It's not the hair covering that's the problem. It's the face-covering. If anyone really thinks face-covering within our species, for no adequate reason such as necessary protection from the elements, then I'm truly and utterly amazed and cannot fathom their reasoning at all.

Sorry
If anyone thinks face-covering...[all the rest of my sentence]... is justified...

I'll rewrite that:

Several of us have said, several times, that it's not the black sack clothing that's the problem. It's not the hair covering that's the problem. It's the face-covering. If anyone really thinks face-covering within our species–for no adequate reason such as necessary protection from the elements– is justified within our species, then I'm truly and utterly amazed and cannot fathom their reasoning at all.

Oh bugger!

Still, you follow the idea, no doubt.

I say again my issue is not with face covering if it is a choice. So few people choose to do it! Out of proportion energy in discussing. Campaign on generic equality for women not the symptoms of inequality.

BAnanas that was a brilliant post. You've said everything I would have done if I had the time. I have no problem adhering to another countries required dress when visiting why on earth should we accept something so alien to our society here? The only time you used to see the niquab in London was during the summer when the wealthy Arabs arrived to escape the heat. Very sharp elbowed ladies in their shopping habits. Take a walk now in parts of London and even wearing normal Western clothes one feels somehow brazen.

If it was completely banned by law then no male could force their women to impede and alienate themselves. No statement could be made to the rest of us.

Completely agree too about the security issues in any public place.

BAnanas

Good post.

I had an anti midge hood that was a bit like a niqab. That was the fault of you Scots and your wretched midges!

They must be a wonderful deterrent to invading Scotland between May and October. Last time I went was a very pleasant midge free March.

"Campaign on generic equality for women not the symptoms of inequality".

Hmm. Good point.

But why not both?

That aside, I think the main (possibly only) difference between our views on niqab, pen, is that I do have an issue with face-covering, even when it is by choice, unless there is a good practical reason for it. In this country, there are good practical reasons not to do it (except in extreme weather such as a snow storm) as well as good social reasons.

Nobody keeps their midge head net on in court, or on the bus, or in school, etc, etc, etc.

Besides, you can see through them. Bad analogy.

My argument for why not both is because when you focus on the manifestations, such as the veil etc it adds fuel to the fire of the rabid right who whip up fear and hatred.

I have had very distressed families to try to comfort and reassure who have been targeted by the likes of EDL/BNP/NF etc having had shit posted in letterboxes, veils pulled off, kids spat on etc. These incident increase when there is a major press/media focus on issues such as we are discussing now.

I really think they can be red herrings and by focusing energy on the cause may have a more long lasting impact.

I agree banning the niqab would stop women being forced to wear it but again I say that would be oppressing women who choose to wear it (other than in the places and circumstances we've previously discussed).

How does it hurt you if a woman is walking down the street wearing a niqab? Why do you need to see her face if she's just a stranger walking by? Do you attempt to read the face of everyone you see even fleetingly in the street? If I noticed someone staring at my face as I walked by my paranoia would go into overdrive lol.

baNanas - respect.

I bow to your greater knowledge of revolting behaviour, pen.

vamp, I have not specified the need to see someone's face when just walking down the street. I, and others, have specified particular instances quite different from that where we think seeing a face matters.

I don't know really whether I'm in favour of banning niqab in public places completely. Probably not. But I think parents/carers shouldn't be allowed to make little girls cover their faces. And I don't think niqab should be allowed in schools.

Thanks Bags, Sel, POGS, Jane, I don't think I have had four people agree almost simultaneously with me before, must be a first, I shall bask in that for the rest of the day!

Oh just had a thought I probably have at least four people, possibly more, who strongly disagree with me, so I wont bask, I'll reflect instead!

Make that five (in agreement) BAnanas.

Anniebach - I find your comments about abortion insensitive and inflammatory. The right to abortion if the mother's mental/physical health was at risk was a hard fought battle.
I know a number of women who have made the very painful decision to have an abortion. I don't know any woman who has made the decision easily, and without heart searching, guilt and loss.

Like most people, I'm distressed when men/women don't make responsible choices about contraception - but to conflate that with a decision to abort any child who isn't male is simply wrong.

No-one on this thread is defending oppression of any kind. Britain's imperial past is something we all share and try to make sense of. I've seen no-one suggesting that history isn't relevant to the discussion about the niqab.

Kenan Malik, Beyond the veil, in which he argues that "the debate is much more than about a handful of women (in Western countries at least) donning the face veil. It is about how we conceive of freedom and liberties, values and identity. It is our difficulties in thinking through some of these issues that makes the burqa such a potent symbol on both sides of the debate."

Another good article by someone who is not in favour of an outright ban.