Sunday, 17 January 2010

UKIP and the Burkha Ban

I am even more pleased now that I have decided to vote UKIP having heard yesterday that they plan to ban the burka in public places. The MSM and blogosphere are as usual deeply divided, those against the move citing the "freedom to choose" rhetoric.

Firstly, the burkha and hijab are an affront to women. We have absolutely no idea how many girls or women are being forced to wear this garment against their will. The sensible thing to do is ban it to protect those that are probably living a life of purgatory with their "menfolk".

Secondly, the security of our country is threatened when people cannot be readily identified. What's the point of all the CCTV camera's if you can't see someones face? Why is it that some people are stopped from wearing hoodies in shopping centres and yet those in the "travelling tent" are allowed in?

Thirdly, it is culturally uncomfortable for the West not to be able to read someones face. What do the hearing impaired who rely on lip reading do? Completely ignore those in the garb? Infact, I would go so far as to say that it's downright bloody ill mannered not to see someone's face if you are conversing with them.

Fourth, they have been used in crimes.

Fifth, they are being worn not for religious reasons, the people that wear them look down on the decadent West. They are a way to culturally separate themselves from us. They are a political/moral statement!

Sixth, How can those who wear these garment scream about freedom of choice when they themselves advocate their "non democratic" tenets of Sharia and would like to impose them on all of us against our will or be executed?

Lastly, the freedom of choice issue. Were the British public given the freedom to choose whether we open our doors to so many people from the third world and developing countries?

NO, we were not asked! So much for OUR "freedom of choice" and if I didn't get mine, why the fuck should you get yours?

I, for one, am happy to welcome productive people from anywhere in the world who want to integrate and help build
a healthy society for our children and grandchildren to thrive in. I do not however welcome those that come over simply to abuse our hospitality and then piss on our customs and traditions! Those people will no doubt be more comfortable in a country that caters completely for their particular level of discipline to their "faith".....

Life in the UK and in much of Europe has been completely altered to appease this particular faith/political system, sometimes at the cost of our freedoms which have taken centuries to win. The Suffragettes for example suffered terribly in order for women to be treated equally and my freedom to call someone a "Paki" has been denied me (strange how it doesn't work the other way around!).

It seems totally hypocritical for these people who have been instrumental in denying so many of us our freedom of speech and freedom to choose, to complain about something that quite honestly has no place in a civilised Western country that has respect for women and upholds the traditions and customs of that countries culture.


  1. Well said young Sue - completely agree!

  2. People don't seem to realise how much this government has curtailed the freedoms of the many with the exception of the Muslim communities - all in the name of votes and nothing to do with the good of the country.

    When will we waken up?

    Folk can do what they like but when they threaten the security of the country then I strongly object.

    We have 10,000 troops fighting for the security of this country we're told, yet we accept this style of attire as the norm. I don't. It should be illegal not banned.

  3. What do the hearing impaired who rely on lip reading do? Completely ignore those in the garb?


    They don't want to be seen, I do not "see" them. Simple and it serves the fuckers right.

  4. The problem is not so much the banning of the burkha but the way that Muslim law and traditions have been allowed, with Labour blessing, to come in and begin to run parallel to our own law and culture as an alternative system.

  5. Labour are gerrymandering through a client state and mass immigration. They can only be defeated by a concerted effort to drive them from the political scene once and for all. I am a disillusioned Tory and feel strongly they are as out of touch on how angry so many people are every bit as much as labour and their mad Snotty.
    However UKIP must wait. If labour get hammered then other parties can fill the void. If Labour survive or we get a hung Parliament we'll be even more screwed than we are now.

  6. No problem, as long as motorcycle helmets, balaclavas, sunglasses, hoodies are "banned" too.
    I agree it's important to see someone's face when conversing, or when they enter a bank, etc. Most reasonable Burka-wearers would, it might surprise you, agree with this caveat. But, this should not be used as a dividing line with the BNP (as they will be the vote winners).

  7. I agree with all your points Sue but still belive that they should be allowed to wear what they want but accept the inconvenience of not being able to enter places where a hidden face might be considered a security risk. Banks, passport control, schools, Harrods etc.

    It has the advantage of identifying very clearly those Moslem women who are either making the political/cultural statement you mention or are in thrall to menfolk who would have them do so.

    Additionally it perhaps tells us something of the attitudes of those Moslem women who choose not to wear it.

  8. Here is a little something that my not be known about over the French stream.

    In Turkey, they have banned the rag from all public buildings/Offices and Universitys and schools.

    BUT! How many know that Erdogan (the President of Turkey), and his party are putting MASSIVE funds into campaigns AGAINST the rag ban in Germany and France?

  9. Totallly disagree. I'll deal with your points individually.

    1. You admit we have no idea how many women are forced to wear it. How about doing a bit of research before proposing a ban.

    2. You make the case for allowing people to wear hoodies in shopping centres. Treating someone as a suspect solely on the basis of what they wear is deeply judgemental, and counter-productive.

    3. You make a good case for covering your face being bad manners. But I don't think being ill mannered should be illegal. That is opening one huge can o' worms. e.g. I have been known to be a bit short with some people when they seem to be going out of their way to be unhelpful. Ill mannered, yes, but I'd hate to think my behaviour would warrant a ban.

    4. So you want to ban anything that have been used in a crime? The balaclava, perhaps?

    5. I don't think this is true, but even if it was, in a free society we are free to make whatever political/moral statement we like.

    6. I despise Sharia, but the burkha (I think you mean niqab, by the way) is not simply a symbol of Sharia. For some Muslim women, it is just an expression of their faith. You are applying your own interpration upon the behaviour of others. We should extend the same democratic freedoms to everyone, including the fascists who wish to restrict them. It is the only democratic course of action.

    7. An open door immigration policy is the policy for freedom. Immigration limitations are a restriction to freedom. In a free society, open is the default position.

  10. Sort of agree. That is as a general principle I am against the state 'banning' stuff. And banning people from wearing an item of clothing is bizarre. What we could do is make life difficult for burkha wearers. For example, unless your face can be seen and identified then any retailer including banks and public transport (in which I include taxis) need not serve you. Other public services like benefits offices would also not be required to deal with you. The police have the right in law to ask you to reveal your face if you should be dealing with them for any reason. Schools will require that you do not cover your face, not least on the grounds that to cover your face inhibits effective teaching and undermines discipline. And so on.

    In other words this reinforces the mores of the UK. It does not ban anything.

    Furthermore this approach will drive people to offer services to those who wish to carry on wearing burkhas. Private Faith schools, for example.

    As regards the issue as to whether women are forced to wear burkhas this attitude will only be effectively prevented by education and example.

  11. The points I have raised are purely an emotional response from me, which probably means many people feel the same way that I do.

    I don't agree that two different political systems with their own versions of the law can co-exist side by side in the UK.

    I feel very strongly that if you accept the hospitality of a country, that you abide by its customs, laws and traditions.

    I don't like the way that Muslims are given quarter at every turn, not only here but in the EU, especially considering that should I visit an Islamic state, I would be expected to adhere to their laws and traditions.

    My honest opinion is, these people have no respect for the British and what we have offered them.

    Freedom of choice is a word that is bandied about far too much. The sooner you all realise we practically live in a totalitarian police state, the better.

    If we have to be constantly policed, why should the bloody muslims get their own way constantly?

    I don't want to see mosques in my local town and I don't feel comfortable being surrounded by a group of Darth Vaders!

    I don't care if you think it's unfair. I think its unfair that the taxpayer has to pay millions to scrounging foreigners. I don't think it's fair that people who have the slightest thing to do with kids are treated as child abusers with no proof. I don't think its fair that our national flag is treated as a symbol of racism. I don't think joining the EU without a referendum was fair. I can go on and on......

    Life is not fucking fair!

    Nuff said!

  12. Have to admit I'm torn on this one. I'm not one for banning things, generally. However, in this case we're told that 'the surveillance state' is for our protection & to prevent terrorism. Well, pardon me if this sounds racist/religionist but who were the last lot of terrorists here in the UK? Exactly - Muslims. So why should we non-Muslims be spied on & CCTV'd at every turn while Muslims are allowed to hide their faces & thereby their identity & even their gender?

  13. I´m done with pussyfooting around. Here in Spain we don´t have the same politically correct hysteria. The Spanish call a "spade" a spade.