Does anyone like or support face-covering (hijab or burka)??

Exactly, G. Tuareg face-coverings are for protection from the elements, not for some silly notion of 'modesty'. Keeping sand out of your hair and eyes and nose and mouth is a very sensible thing to do. Anyone with any sense would do it during a sandstorm.

The Tuareg face sand storms. Not many of those in Bradford.
It is extremely patronising to tell another member to 'take a chill pill' - we are intelligent adults, not teenagers. We must conclude that the OP has no valid response to make when questioned.
So far, nobody has been able to say why the female face/hair should have to be hidden. Saying 'It is their tradition' is not an answer. Why is it their tradition? Nuns, presumably, enter an order voluntarily now (I am not sure that was the case in Ireland a couple of generations ago) so their decision to cover their hair is irrelevant.
The fear of being thought racist stopped police, teachers and social workers protecting hundreds of girls from abuse, either by their own families in the case of Asian girls, and from Asian men in the case of ethnically British girls.

And, as has been mentioned on another thread, they are suffering from Vit D[?] deficiency due to being covered up.

Hear hear Bags definitely [like] emoticon

The Tuareg cover their faces.

Interesting response isthis Quite chilled thanks.

I'm not sure I believe the statement that women choose to cover their faces of their own free will. I suggest that they have been indoctrinated from a very early age to regard excessive 'modesty' in women as a good thing and that, because of that, they 'choose' to be among what might be called "the most modest". I think this because it is, in global human terms, such an odd thing to do to cover your face for modesty's sake. What is there to be 'modest' about? Also, why is it only Moslem women who do this, even though it is not a requirement of their religion? Please, somebody, correct me if other people (including men of course) routinely cover their faces in public for any reason other than protection from severe weather or for crimina/dubiousl purposes. Until someone comes up with a truly rational explanation for the phenomenon, which includes an acceptance that human head hair and faces do not need to be covered for some silly notion about 'modesty', I shall continue to think that it's a weird thing to do, it's a terrible thing to make someone else do, and I look forward to its speedy demise as rationality among human beings increases with wider education.

JessM take a chill pill

Lilygran Although "taking the veil" was an expression that meant becoming a nun, I don't think they cover their faces.

I'm not at all clear about the basis for the objection to Moslem women, educated and brought up here, who choose to wear head or face coverings. One argument seems to be that we don't like to see veiled women (except for nuns - not clear about that, either). I would prefer not to see people out in the street in clothes that look like underwear or nightwear. Can I have a law against it, please? Another seems to be that it is an example of male supremacy. The women I have spoken to about this say they have chosen to dress like that of their own free will, nothing to do with what their husbands, fathers or brothers say. There are bad things happening to women all over the world but that doesn't seem to be a good reason to impose restrictions on the free choice of one group of British women.

But India has always been ahead of it's time when it comes to women and liberation; weren't they the first country to have a woman prime minister? [the second in fact; thanks wikipedia].

Agree with your last paragraph dorset - all things being equal this is not a big problem and it will probably fade away.
On culture - it is not so long - just in our GGMs days - since UK women were expected to cover their bodies, arms, legs, feet, hands, heads when appearing in public. And sometimes they wore semi-transparent veils as well.

I do not accept your accusation of aggression isthatall - you start a controversial thread. Then you become even more controversial, saying that you would deport women who walk down the street with their faces covered, and then you unwilling to discuss how on earth you would do this if UK citizens or tourists were involved. You make a statement that, to some people, might be deeply offensive and then refuse to discuss it. If you want to start debates and throw verbal bombshells into them, then you cannot expect people not to challenge you on those statements. So there are two conclusions we can draw, one is that you are just being provocative without meaning it. The other is that you reserve the right to make such statements and then not respond. That's fine. We can each draw our own conclusions. Thank you for starting such an interesting debate.

I live by the sea and frequently see muslim families enjoying themselves on the beach. It does sadden me to see the men and children in swim wear paddling or swimming in the sea. Their womenfolk sometimes in a top to toe covering unable to join in.
However, I support their right to wear it, no matter how I might feel about it. I supported the nuns in my last school who at that time were covered top-to-toe with just their faces showing.
I worked with a girl who wore a hijab[scarf] and jiibab[cloak] and as somone else has already said on this forum, was very fashionable under it all. I asked her how she felt about it. Her reply was that it was part of her tradition and religion. I support that. It's quite odd but there are girls whose families don't dress tradionally but they have chosen to do so.
I think the grandchildren of these girls will assimilate so much into our society it will probably be vastly reduced. Afterall, it isn't the law here, we don't have draconian laws if you don't wear it etc. Look at our immigrants from India in particular. As a child you never saw an Indian woman in anything but a sari. However, in this country a huge amount of British Indian girls are super fashionable and successful. Times changes things and I think this will happen here too.

Thanks for that Joan it does help me with the question ^^ that's been bothering me. It does seem to suggest that however tolerant we think we are we are all intolerant of intolerance at some point. Need to lie down and think about it

in the mid 1990s I was a member of the Ipswich Anti-racism Committee, here in Queensland Australia, in order to oppose a racist MP, Pauline Hanson. We got talking about racism in general one evening, and I brought up the fact we were all against gender discrimination as well as racial discrimination, but what if a person's race or culture means that they discriminate against women? Is it OK then to oppose such people and cultures, or would we be being racist?

We came to the decision that if anyone's actions are in defiance of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, then we are not being racist to object and oppose them. Cultural issues are not and should never be an excuse to discriminate against anyone. So if we know that a woman is being encased in cloth against her will, or being forced into a marriage she does not want, or if anyone is being demonised for being gay, then we should object.

PS
We won against Hanson - she never got elected to any public office again.

I'm not sure about the names of the different head gear, but I was watching a young girl talk on the telly last night about the lack of religion in this country. She looked quite lovely with just the scarf on, but it crossed my mind at the time that most muslim women have black hair anyway, so covering their hair doesn't stop anyone having a rough idea of their overall appearance, whereas here one doesn't quite know how someone actually looks if they wear a scarf. A friend who worked abroad for many years said it was quite liberating that, as a women she wasn't being judged by her appearance [find that hard to agree with other than it must be quite good on a bad hair day or when a spot suddenly appears on your face just as you're going out]. But, something upset me slightly a few years back [so much so that it stuck in my mind to this day]. I was in Ikea at the same time as a muslim man and various female members of his family, all with head and faces covered. That didn't bother me, but what did was that they all walked several paces behind him and, when we seemed to be in the same space he seemed to expect me to move out of the way for him. I found that very annoying. I guess it isn't the headgear that bothers me but what it represents ie separating women from men and regarding them as subserviant in some way.

Something that has been bothering me: should we be tolerant towards intolerance? Yes we pride ourselves on being a tolerant culture/ country but how far should that tolerance extend? And at what point do we then become intolerant? Too early for me to get my head around this one

Going back to absent's comment about us being self-congratulatory about gender equality. I find it helpful to think not of "our" culture and "their" culture (whoever the "our" and "their" might refer to) as separate, but as all part of human culture. Just as in some parts of the world pretty much everyone has access to clean drinking water and in other parts very few people have this, I like to look at Human achievements in bringing closer gender equality to parts of the world but not others. In every aspect of human life we don't all develop at the same rate, for multiple reasons. Water equality, gender equality, voting equality, education equality.... you name it – the variations in human achievement on any subject will vary across the world. That doesn't make it wrong to say an achievement in one area is good, or better than, a lack of achievement in the same subject in another area.

nfk, I like your comment about manners. I agree.

I have so much enjoyed reading all these posts, and it is so difficult not to agree with everyone! I like to think I am very open minded, and each to his own is my attitude, but I do sometimes feel that we are a little too liberal in this country in fear of possibly being accused of discrimination of some sort. The variety of cultures is interesting, and we are now a more colourful society which might bring better understanding for the future generations. However, being quite deaf, I do so hate to have faces covered, because I can lip read a little which is as helpful for the person I am talking to, as it is for me.

it does anoy me slightly, when I have to removed my Bike helmet etc..it is a performance..as have to first take my glasses off then my helemt then put my glasses back on, then the reverse when I leave the bank/petrol staition etc, there are a lot pf places we are not allowed in with our helmets on as they cannot see who is inside them! but it's just one of them little gripes, I can suppose I can live with it.

NannaAnna is obviously knowledgeable on this subject and I'm with her all the way - until the covering of faces in this country. I think it's extremely bad manners, if nothing else, for British visiting in Muslim countries to wander around town showing considerably more flesh than they would in a UK shopping mall. They should not do it. It's the custom of the country. It's insulting. Therefore I consider it to be bad manners for Muslims to cover themselves to completely here. Same thing.

I agree, absent, that there is still some way to go to achieve perfect gender equality in Britain, but I don't think there's any harm done by congratulating ourselves on what we have achieved, especially when compared to countries which don't appear even to have any desire to achieve gender equality.

BTW, I think there is still work to be done here and elsewhere to achieve gender equality for men as well as for women.

I agree, absent, which is why I mentioned the imbalance in Parliament - but I would still prefer to be a woman in the UK or France than in Pakistan, Saudi, etc. The struggle is by no means over but with girls/women doing so much better than boys/men in almost all academic areas I am hopeful for the future. (And I don't want to see the dominance of men replaced by the dominance of women - I want every human being to be treated equally on their merits.)

If a standard is good – for example, treating women with respect, treating them like the equals of men, giving them the same rights as men, and so forth – its 'secularity' is only relevant if the secular version of the standard is better or worse than the non-secular version. As far as good, ethical standards are concerned, I have yet to hear of a secular one that is not the equal or the superior of a non-secular one.

Before 1870 in the UK anything owned by a woman – through inheritance, gift, wages, even copyright – became her husband's when she married. The Married Women's Property Act of that year allowed her to keep her own wages. It wasn't until 1882 – only 130 years ago – that all her property stayed as her property when she married.

It wasn't until 1928 that all women over 21 were allowed to vote with no preconditions about their owning property.

In the past week the UK has just been demoted two places (down to 16 I think) in the European register of gender quality.

I think we need to be a little less self-congratulatory about gender equality in the UK.