Should wearing a burqa be banned in the UK?

Re banning FGT's post, Gransnet generally is over-moderated. Other interactive sites I go to are hardly moderated at all and posters sort themselves out pretty well without being dictated to by some poster who feels offended or by a sensitive mod.

I did not read any post by FGT I wish I had. I doubt if she said anything illegal. Even if she had done so ,nearly everyone here is an anonymous persona ;is it possible to slander an anonymous persona? I must ask ChatGPT !

ChatGPT: " What is defamation under UK law?
In the UK, defamation includes:

Libel (written or published statements)

Slander (spoken statements)

Since online posts are written, they would generally fall under libel, not slander.

For a statement to be defamatory, it must:

ChatGPT:
"Lower someone in the estimation of right-thinking members of society.

Cause or be likely to cause serious harm to the person's reputation (per the Defamation Act 2013).

Be "of and concerning" a specific person. "

I was wrong then. Chat GPT includes online personas in "specific persons".

I think reporting someone is a serious issue and the reporter should identify themselves and the reason for the report. A lot of unnecessary upset can be done to someone who has been banned.
I think it's better to let a post I believe to be offensive to stand and let others see it and respond as what is offensive to one may not be to someone else.
As we are all adults I don't think we need to be sheltered from whatever is posted on here. We can deal with it ourselves.

Caleo

Wyllow, There may be more of a Muslim presence online in forums for young people.

I hope women will not be oppressed forever but banning the burqa in this country is too dictatorial except as some said for reasons of public safety.

Cariad has a good attitude of curiosity towards how others live,(re trying on a burqa) and Cariad tells a good story. I hope Cariad you will not be intimidated.

Thank you for that comment.

I am curious about how and why other people live besides ourselves. Yep...I have been told often ITRW that I should be a writer - but.....errrrm....now I've finally got the time = there's AI out there doing a lot of writing - and often pretending to be a person. It's still very primitive at the moment - there was certainly an obvious error in an apparent "true life" tale on YouTube about the new pope the other day. Point of the tale being how the writer had met the Pope years before and he had predicted two things for him - one of them being he'd meet "her" in a bookshop. Errrrm....earlier in the narrative he'd already referred to a wife. So AI isn't very good at all yet - and I've caught it out often as not being a person after all that wrote something - but I know all sorts of creative people are very concerned for their careers.

Re "intimidated" - you should see who I used to work for = eek! NO chance after having them for an employer for years - and they'd got intimidation down to a T - and practiced on their own employees. Whew - that was a "job and a half" I am so delighted retirement freed me from eventually. They had a technique I referred to as "Surround Sound" - ie they would "surround" people from all sides and have a go from all sides - in every way they could think of (usually their poor employees....). I used to stand back from it mentally and analyse how they were operating - real "listen and learn" time that was...

It isn't necessarily that we can't deal with it, it is that GN has legal obligations, so if I, for example say Caleo is a shoplifter ( sorry Caleo you were the poster above me in the thread!) then GN could face some level of responsibility if Caleo complains. I support free speech almost unconditionally but I don't really expect MN to take on the legal consequences of a free for all.

Many Muslims in our area wear long flowing robes. The main differences between the men and the women are
1. Men tend to wear white or cream with a cute little hat. They don't wear black or other colours.
2. I’ve never seen a man wearing all-enveloping flowing robes topped with a total head covering, only women.

Although I suppose we wouldn’t know.

You make a good point there wooden spoon, I agree with you. I live in a town which has welcomed Muslims since the 1960s, you hardly ever saw women wearing the burka. I would say I saw a significant increase when our brave soldiers went to Afghanistan to fight the Taliban. To me that was an underneath way of supporting the Taliban and antagonising the natives. A previous poster said the wearing of the burka had declined but I have to disagree in my opinion it's increased.

Caleo

Re banning FGT's post, Gransnet generally is over-moderated. Other interactive sites I go to are hardly moderated at all and posters sort themselves out pretty well without being dictated to by some poster who feels offended or by a sensitive mod.

I did not read any post by FGT I wish I had. I doubt if she said anything illegal. Even if she had done so ,nearly everyone here is an anonymous persona ;is it possible to slander an anonymous persona? I must ask ChatGPT !

I agree - it's not as bad as Mumsnet for that.

It does cater for this older agegroup here. I'm mentally picturing everyone else on it as being late middle aged upwards (I may - or may not - be right on that one) and it's designed specifically for this older agegroup.

With that fact = one would assume most of the people posting on here did not grow up in "politically correct times". Most of us grew to adulthood in an era like the 1970s and it feels very odd to see most of our Society watching their words and hardly daring to say anything much. Oh btw - and "we've" cancelled some of your comedy programmes and even books from that sort of era. None of us saw anything wrong with that back then and most of us still don't see anything wrong with it. If we do - then we just think "Well that was the times and it certainly made life one heck of a sight easier to say what we think - and no-one would bat an eyelid." There was no worrying whether someone trying to be fashionable and politically correct would leap on you for doing nothing wrong/saying nothing wrong.

"Freedom of speech" I remember it well #sighs. It wasn't totally the case that we had that then - as there were occasional problems (eg I remember an employer of mine complaining about a letter I'd written to our local newspaper). I answered his cheeky darn interfering comment in a polite tone of voice and just said "Writing a personal letter - as myself - in my own time and not mentioning anything to do with my job. Perfectly legal - nothing wrong with it". They still started cobbling together an excuse to "make me redundant" and did so!!!!!! So they weren't paying for my time after 5pm at night - but they acted as if they did so. Point being - there were attempts to curtail our "right to freedom of speech" even back then - but they weren't nearly as frequent and as bad as they are these days.

Yep...re what people are wearing in Britain....and admits I struggle to get my head round why people sometimes don't adapt their way of dressing accordingly (if only because our climate dictates a certain way of dressing).

Cue for emigrating to Denmark in the early 1970s (errr yep I came back again a few months later....) and I went out there with long hair, heels, maxi dress of the time. I took a good look round and went to a hairdresser and had a "Danish" haircut (short and a bit boyish - rather than my flowing locks), bought several pairs of clogs and jeans and went a bit more "colourful" than us. It took me only a week or two before everyone was assuming I was Danish - until I opened my mouth and started speaking....

There is the law of the U.K. and there is the “spirit of GN” (whatever that is)

So when someone is banned, one has to assume that GN has deemed that , that person has broken one or both of the rules.

I also suspect that they may have received prior warnings about posts - although I don’t know. But banning someone for one post seems a tad excessive.

The law allows freedom of speech except

Legal Limitations and Restrictions:
Hate Speech:
Laws prohibit speech that incites hatred or violence against individuals or groups based on various factors, such as race, religion, or sexual orientation.
Defamation:
Defamatory statements, both libelous (written) and slanderous (spoken), are not protected and can lead to legal action.
Incitement to Violence:
Speech that incites violence or illegal activities is not protected and can have legal consequences.
Public Order:
The Public Order Act 1986 addresses threatening or abusive words or conduct that could cause harassment, alarm, or distress.
Other Restrictions:
Limitations also exist for things like obscenity, pornography, copyright violation, and breaches of privacy.

So given the topic, I suspect that rule about hate speech was broken, but I could be wrong.

Nannee49

The whole massive topic of cultural differences needs airing. As a society with real, hard won freedoms, we do need to examine any cultural practices which cause hurt, harm, distress, worse.
It's all very well to say "most burka wearers I know just pop it on for the school run" without examining what would happen if they didn't pop it on.
We all have to get along with mutual respect but it can't flow all one way. If the burka has no religious significance which needs to be respected then it is just another cultural practice hypocritically hiding behind the sanctity of a creed.
If it was banned would it be an act of freedom for women chafing under the oppression of it?

We all have to get along with mutual respect but it can't flow all one way. If the burka has no religious significance which needs to be respected then it is just another cultural practice hypocritically hiding behind the sanctity of a creed.

You have said it so much more eloquently than I could have done.

We are examining (loosely) Islam, specifically, in this thread - but the principle must apply to any religion or creed that imposes limits on individual human rights. If we make an exception for one, then justifiably, people will question that and demand similar exceptions. Then the whole concept of freedom / human rights, is lost.

AGAA4

I think reporting someone is a serious issue and the reporter should identify themselves and the reason for the report. A lot of unnecessary upset can be done to someone who has been banned.
I think it's better to let a post I believe to be offensive to stand and let others see it and respond as what is offensive to one may not be to someone else.
As we are all adults I don't think we need to be sheltered from whatever is posted on here. We can deal with it ourselves.

I missed the 'offending' post - but I wholeheartedly agree with you.

Dickens

AGAA4

I think reporting someone is a serious issue and the reporter should identify themselves and the reason for the report. A lot of unnecessary upset can be done to someone who has been banned.
I think it's better to let a post I believe to be offensive to stand and let others see it and respond as what is offensive to one may not be to someone else.
As we are all adults I don't think we need to be sheltered from whatever is posted on here. We can deal with it ourselves.

I missed the 'offending' post - but I wholeheartedly agree with you.

Except that GN must comply with the law - so it isn’t quite so simply as you are implying.

Tbh, I wouldn’t be surprised if FGT wasn’t reinstated after a short period.

She has such kind and thoughtful posts - just mad moments😄😄.

I don't think I have seen a post that actually breaks the law on GN.
I've seen many posts by FGT and she can be blunt but breaking the law?
Interpreting hate speech can be difficult too unless it's an obvious slur on another poster about their race for example.
I've been on GN for a long time and I'd be hard pressed to find a libellous post
Perhaps others have seen one?

yanda

You make a good point there wooden spoon, I agree with you. I live in a town which has welcomed Muslims since the 1960s, you hardly ever saw women wearing the burka. I would say I saw a significant increase when our brave soldiers went to Afghanistan to fight the Taliban. To me that was an underneath way of supporting the Taliban and antagonising the natives. A previous poster said the wearing of the burka had declined but I have to disagree in my opinion it's increased.

I spent a part of my youth in north London. There were a fairly large number of Muslims, together with Irish Catholics and native Brits, living in my (long) road.

Apart from one unpleasant episode - which didn't involve either of the above - I don't remember any animosity between cultures or creeds.

When there were birthday parties / anniversaries etc, neighbours were invited and attended.

... we just did 'multi-culturalism' without any instructions, so to speak.

But that was then.

I missed the offending post, a thread such as this is going to obviously attract conflicting opinions, I'm conflicted myself as to 'banning', I can appreciate the one argument against that 'personal freedom' as opposed to a multitude of arguments for the ban. That aside I wish the person who has caused FGT to identify themselves, it's the least they could do, "you have the right to be offended" but at least give your reasons otherwise sneaky, covert and cowardly to do this to a well liked poster who is having a lot of personal anxiety. It's quite apparent FGT often wears her heart on her sleeve, and I imagine at a time of heightened emotions this ban will cause her another layer of unnecessary upset.

I don't think anyone should cover their face for a variety of reasons including security. Motorbike riders are required to remove their helmets for the same reason. I've also read on occasion about teachers wearing the veil and I don't think that's right. There is no religious requirement to wear the veil, none whatsoever. It is purely cultural. If a cultural practice leads to security issues, or someone not fulfilling their job to its fullest potential, then it cannot be justified. To clarify, I am not talking about head coverings or covering up one's body, just the face..

I'm appreciating the points WWM is making actually, it does give some insight into why the Mods do delete a post.

I find I appreciate their relatively light touch on moderation, (having experienced another board that is excessively heavy) it makes me feel sort of safe that there are boundaries becuase it really isn't "nice" out there in the world of SMedia.

Letting posts stand that we as individuals find offensive but we can read for ourselves, and chose to comment or not.

But if it crosses the lines WWM outline that is what GN needs to follow.

Not particularly bothered either way regarding banning the burqa. I just hope the women are wearing them out of choice and not being forced to.

TerriBull

I missed the offending post, a thread such as this is going to obviously attract conflicting opinions, I'm conflicted myself as to 'banning', I can appreciate the one argument against that 'personal freedom' as opposed to a multitude of arguments for the ban. That aside I wish the person who has caused FGT to identify themselves, it's the least they could do, "you have the right to be offended" but at least give your reasons otherwise sneaky, covert and cowardly to do this to a well liked poster who is having a lot of personal anxiety. It's quite apparent FGT often wears her heart on her sleeve, and I imagine at a time of heightened emotions this ban will cause her another layer of unnecessary upset.

I'm wondering if FGT said anything more controversial than politicians have said, including our ex-Prime Minister. These remarks have been published in the wider media too.

It is very wrong to ask the person who reported the post to identify themselves.

First we have no idea whether anyone did indeed report the post - it simply could have been picked up by GN.

Secondly the decision to delete a post is always the sole decision of GN - so whoever reports has nothing to do that decision.

Lastly for someone to be banned i would assume (I might be wrong here) that GN has had cause to warn that person more than once. If someone is banned after just one post then it was bad judgement on GNs behalf, or it must have been so bad that it was astoundingly so!!

There is a delicate matter as regards banning and personal circumstances.

The fact that many of us have various difficulties in our lives that may or may not result in perhaps blurting something out in news and politics we might not have otherwise done.

I am talking in general here, but it could happen to many of us including me!

So on the one hand we might say, "Oh, that should be taken into consideration" but on the other is "well, not all people experiencing great difficulties reveal it in GN."

It is very wrong to ask the person who reported the post to identify themselves

Agree.

It’s always HQ’s decision whether to delete the post or not, I’m sure half of all posts reported aren’t deleted.

And as for the person/ people admitting they reported the post , what happens then? Are they reported for reporting?

GN only looks at posts that have been reported Whitewavemark.