The niqab is a misogynist monstrosity

The link that I posted at 15:18:33 is not all there. That's why it isn't working. Not sure what happened there. Perhaps I didn't copy and paste properly. Here it is again: enlightenmentlover.wordpress.com/

I gather Jeremy Hunt was getting on this bandwagon by saying he is going to ban face veils in hospital. I would not imagine this is a huge issue and can be dealt with, one trust at a time. I don't agree with the wearing of the niquab in schools or FE colleges as you cannot access a full curriculum dressed like that e.g. science. PE etc I think that should be dealt with one governing body at a time. Ministers should butt out, as they will only put people's backs up.
Same with courts - let the judge decide. One thing's for sure, they would not be allowed to wear the full covering if they were sent to prison.
I worry about the vitamin D status of all these women and girls that are covered up so much - having to do PE with their head, arms and legs covered.

When I've been places where there is a high Muslim community I feel exposed, vulnerable and intimidated by these women in black. There's no exchange of a smile on the bus. I can't communicate with someone who hides from me and almost sort of insulted. As if I'm not good enough to be permitted to see them. I also don't like the feeling of voyeurism on their part. They can watch as if from behind lace curtained windows. I know it's probably because it's very uncommon to see a fully veiled woman in this part of the country so I'm not used to them.
Motor cyclists remove their helmets now and it's much more friendly - and polite.

Covering the face is not a requirement but is traditional in parts of the Islamic world.

Dressing modestly for both men and women is a requirement of the Qu'ran and the teachings of the prophet.

In general, standards of modesty call for a woman to cover her body, particularly her chest. The Quran calls for women to "draw their head-coverings over their chests" (24:30-31), and the Prophet Muhammad instructed believing women to cover their bodies except for their face and hands.

For men: The minimum amount to be covered is between the navel and the knee.

islam.about.com/od/dress/p/clothing_reqs.htm

Every society has norms. Our norms do not allow men to walk around naked in the streets (or women should one be daft enough to do so) and similarly does not accept people covering their faces.

I heard a nurse on the radio this evening saying that if all she was doing was giving someone pills to take they didn't need to see her face, so covering her face at work was not a problem. I am amazed that anyone with so little empathy was even accepted for nurses training. Why not replace all our nurses with robots?

Some years ago in Cairo I was told that many young women were wearing the full fig as a political challenge to the more casual and secular professional class .i assume this may have changed but there were one or two mosques we were told to be careful about and where there were fully veiled young women but hardly an older woman with a covered face. I have an intense dislike for it in this country. I'm not sure what I feel in other countries. I suspect I don't care but here it is wrong.

I did not compare the wearing of a burka with wearing a swimsuit in an art gallery, as you very well know. I said that we all conform to expectations of dress. That isn't very hard to follow.

There are plenty of Muslims,men and women who abhor the wearing of the niqab. Unfortunately they have no influence with the hard liners. For women in those communities, the pressures to conform are overwhelming.

Bags, yes, the stares and comments which girls and women are subjected to are dreadful. But it's men who need to change their behaviour. Not women who need to shroud their faces.

Sadly, certain groups of men, some Muslim, some not, have found this a very convenient peg on which to challenge structures and systems on the piggy back of a woman's right to wear what 'she' wants.

That's a sensible suggestion, vq. It's practical, and is a step forward.

Otherwise I agree with your suggestions, vamp.

It doesn't follow the teachings of the prophet. It's not a religious requirement.

I don't think women should wear the naqib although I have no problem with the hajib as it follows the teachings of the prophet. However I don't think we can stop women wearing it overnight because they expect to wear it and would feel wrong without it.

Start slowly.....courts, schools and other official places but let women still wear it in the street if they wish. Gradually they'll get used to showing their faces and hopefully will eventually feel able to give it up but we have to bear in mind that some women will never give it up because they believe they should wear it.

janea, DD1 said, some years ago, when she could understand that feeling. She was sick of all the cat calls and stares. I understand the feeling too but I don't think it justifies face-covering. It is only the face-covering that bothers me.

mice, if you let me know which links don't work, I'll try posting them again.

You did compare it to wearing a swimsuit or a see through dress in inappropriate places.

There must be enough educated Muslims who can take their own stand against this oppression if this is what it is. If we interfere too much in other cultures it can start to smack of unnecessary interference.

No, of course I don't. Once again you deliberately distort meaning. I did not say the niqab offends my sensibilities. And my objections to it are not on the spurious grounds of terrorism. I object to it as it as it is a symbol and the actuality of the oppression of women.

I have no idea what you mean about 'people who have the ability to take a stand against any woman being forced to dress in any way against her will'.

Who are you referring to? Have you no understanding of the pressure to conform in tightly knit communities?

It is only when the law in a democratic country insists on certain behaviours that oppression will cease. As I said above, Turkey, a Muslim country bans the wearing of the face covering and women there have made significant progress.

Micelf you compare the wearing of the Burks with wearing a swimsuit in an art gallery and a low cut see through dress at a court of justice. Do you mean that your objection to the wearing of the Burka simply offends your sensibilities?

I think it is a sad fact that, in this age of possible terrorism, we feel we have to object to clothing that could be used to hide explosives and suchlike. Sad but inevitable. I cannot see any other reason to not allow women to dress as they see fit.

I'm sure that in the British Muslim community there are people who have the ability to take a stand against any women being forced to dress in any way against her will. And we should leave it to them, save for reasons of our own security.

And the terrorist who escaped the vigilance of Heathrow security in a woman's robe in spite of his size 12 trainers?

Witness the gang of men wearing niqabs who carried out a raid on the jewellery department at Selfridges recently.

I don't want to get into the moral/cultural side of the debate

But when it comes to the security issue, why is it ok for shops to demand people wearing full face helmets remove them but a full face veil is ok. Are all bike riders potential criminals ? Of course not. Neither are veil wearers. But both can be used to hide your identity.

I haven't been able to access all these links, but I am in agreement that the full face covering has no place in any country.

It seems to me that those who use the argument about women's right to wear what they like are being disingenuous. Would they be happy for women to wear a swimsuit on a hot day at the National Gallery, or to wear a low cut see through dress at the high court of justice? I suspect not. We all conform to the expectations of dress in many different spheres, and this country has a tradition of tolerence of odd costumes in various places. But that doesn't and shouldn't extend to those who simply want to challenge perfectly reasonable expectations of dress and behaviour.

It's interesting that the full face covering is rare in Muslim countries, and in the one where I used to work, it was only the uneducated village women who wore it. indeed, in secular Turkey, it is banned.

There is indeed a unholy alliance between those who are pushing this attire and certain groups on the far left who see it as another way to challenge the structures of society. What is particulary distressing is to see young girls, who obviously have no choice, covered up and confined.

I heard that interview on Radio 4 with the teenager. It was just teenage showing off. 'I can be more observant than you' just try and stop me. It was sad that the interviewer treated her with false reverence.

Not had time to read all your links yet bags but I also heard a young British Muslim girl on the radio this lunchtime, not sure if it was the same one as Petallus heard.
She said that no one had pressurised her, in fact her parents had asked her not to wear it. When asked why she wanted to wear it, she replied that wearing it meant that she didn't have to compete with all her friends who wanted everything to be perfect and designer this, designer that.
She was 14.
Perhaps it does say something about our own society that a young girl feels the only way to avoid the pressures and competition is to cover her face with a niqab.

Two more articles.

Melanie Phillips says this: No one has a human right to hide from justice behind a veil.

Abhishek Phadnis says this: The silence of secularists: how the Left-Islamist alliance is winning.

Julie Lenarz says: "the burka is an affront to humanity and has no place in freedom-loving societies". She also calls it a mobile prison.

is an article by a lawyer. He puts into very clear words my own thoughts on the matter. If you don't want to read the whole article here is (one of many) a salient and logcally flawless paragraph:

"One thing at least is perfectly clear. If one sector of society can conceal their identity in public then we all can. If freedom of religion/culture/belief is absolute then it’s absolute for all religions, for all cultures and for all beliefs. If the defendant in the court case had been a white supremacist (as opposed to an Islamic supremacist) who refused to remove a KKK mask to enter a plea, what do you think the judge’s decision might have been? Would a “compromise” have been reached where, say, the KKK member would only remove their mask in front of a white person? (Altogether now…..“NO!”). It would have been dealt with on the only sensible basis possible: contempt of court."

Here is the position statement of the National Secular Society on the burka. It is incorrect to say that they are "increasingly intolerant" of others' views because their view is not, repeat not, that wearing the burka should be banned.

What they are currently doing is publishing articles about others' views, which an entirely different matter from being "increasingly intolerant." In fact, I'd put that behaviour under very tolerant.

The NSS is only intolerant of religious privilege. They stand for equality regardless of faith or lack of it. How can that be contorted to "intolerant"? It is the opposite of intolerant.