Burka

[Limehouse]

Caz,
I have a great deal of respect for you and can see that our differences over this matter are probably due to our different experiences in life.

For example you talk about the “fraction likely to pose any risk”. Quite true, the problem is sorting out which fraction it is. Terrorists maybe evil but they are not stupid. The people they send are not turban wearing, beard sporting Koran clutching fanatics calling for Jihad whilst running around the airport clutching a fizzing orb marked “Bomb”.

They are trying to recruit exactly the opposite. Richard Reid, The Shoe Bomber, is a perfect example. Born and raised in London (his father a Jamaican career criminal – someone else who bit the hand that fed them) he did not conform to the popular concept of this “fraction likely to cause trouble” and was only prevented from committing mass murder when he was stopped trying to set off his bomb.

When it comes to terrorists there is no definable fraction to focus on, you must suspect everyone. In Northern Ireland we soon learned that the mother pushing the pram with a screaming baby inside needing a nappy changed often concealed arms and explosives underneath the babies’ mattress. A trick used by the terrorists was to stick a piece of jagged glass on to a babies arm with an Elastoplast to make it cry. The idea was a sentry was likely to wave through a crying baby to get rid of it.

Now that didn’t mean that every woman pushing a pram was a terrorist mule, but how do you insure that they are not except by treating them all as if they were. Would you bet someone’s life on it?

Charles de Menezes was shot because he was wrongly identified leaving a block of flats where a terrorist suspect was living. How much more difficult is it going to be to identify someone if they are completely covered from head to feet. It is known that some of the people responsible for the failed bombings on the 21/7 escaped wearing Burkas.

Live and let live is a wonderful concept but you have to accept there are some people in the world today who want to make sure that we don’t live – and to these people being able to wander around completely immune to surveillance because they are wearing a Burka is a gift from Allah, and one more example of just how stupid we are.

Now I’m quite sure you are horrified that there are some people who spend their entire lives never trusting and suspecting everyone, as so you should be - remember what Churchill said “"We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm."

So perhaps in the end our views are formed by the lives we have led.

But Bob - as you describe above - if terrorists are just as likely to not be wearing a Burka as wearing one - there is no real justification of banning them on the basis of preventing terrorism - is there?

[claire]

Banning burkas has little to do with eliminating the risk of terrorism; sure, they might be used by those intent on doing harm (or having just done it), but if someone is going to commit a terrorist act, then I suspect they will find a way to do it, regardless of the availability of capacious garments that can cover their faces...

As for the ongoing discussion regarding whether burka/niqab wearing women will sit and talk face to face with someone and show their face--of course they will, so long as there are only women and young children present. The offence taken at their not showing their face can only be taken by men; now, I know it's possible to take offence at the idea that they are covering themselves because men can't be trusted not to go wild with desire, but since such men should know themselves better than that, why trouble to get offended?

No, the reasons for banning burkas et cetera have little to do with these issues; they are simply an expression of discomfort over The Other. Is that their problem, or ours?

(And since the other populations of this country aren't doing a grand job at protecting vulnerable women of any race, background or creed, I don't think we can justify this discomfort on the basis of wishing to protect covered muslim women from their own backgrounds.)

Just thoughts, on a sunny Saturday afternoon.

[Robert]

It's true that, as Ally says, there might have been some change in the figures over the last few years, owing to indoctrination and so on. But I would still put the pro-hanging figure at around 70%. Remember that as the Thought Police encroach ever more upon our lives, people become reluctant to give their true opinions to strangers asking them questions. In any case, as Ally says, there
was a substantial majority in favour of it around the time it was abolished.

Limehouse and Retro, remember that we're not talking about the opinions of a "Question Time" audience or of the Church of England General Synod. We're talking about the real world here.

We can cut to the question : is anyone seriously suggesting that the vast majority of voters did NOT want Myra Hindley hung? Or what about the man and woman who were recently found guilty of killing a baby, and were sentenced to a minimum of 15 and 13 years respectively? How does the public think they should be dealt with? Or Ian Huntley, now trying to sue for Ł100 000?

[caz]

Totally agree with you, Claire.

Love,

Caz
X

[Limehouse]

It's true that, as Ally says, there might have been some change in the figures over the last few years, owing to indoctrination and so on. But I would still put the pro-hanging figure at around 70%. Remember that as the Thought Police encroach ever more upon our lives, people become reluctant to give their true opinions to strangers asking them questions. In any case, as Ally says, there
was a substantial majority in favour of it around the time it was abolished.

Limehouse and Retro, remember that we're not talking about the opinions of a "Question Time" audience or of the Church of England General Synod. We're talking about the real world here.

We can cut to the question : is anyone seriously suggesting that the vast majority of voters did NOT want Myra Hindley hung? Or what about the man and woman who were recently found guilty of killing a baby, and were sentenced to a minimum of 15 and 13 years respectively? How does the public think they should be dealt with? Or Ian Huntley, now trying to sue for Ł100 000?

Hi Robert

Well - obviously you are not affected by the actions of the 'thought police' so what makes you think the rest of us can't think for ourselves as well?

To answer your question - no - I do not want people to be hanged. Hanging is not the actions of a civilised society in my opinion. State violence is no answer to a violent society.

A society should tackle the causes of such crimes and seek to punish them adequately but humanely.

You may well have been satisfied to see Hindley swinging from a rope but what of Derek Bentley?

And what on earth has all this to do with wearing a Burka?

[Robert]

Hi Limehouse

Once again, it's not a question of capital punishment, but of democracy - or the lack of it.

Anyway, back to the burkas.

[Stephen Thomas]

Anyway, back to the burkas.

So there's these two Muslim blokes standing on the corner watching two ladies in burkas approaching and one says 'I don't fancy yours much'.

[cappuccina]

Here's a practical, but very serious problem that exists where I live...I am all for diversity, and freedom of expression, worship, etc. There are a lot of Muslims here, ranging from very liberal folks dressing completely in Western clothing, to women completely covered from head to toe except for their eyes, and I have even seen a few in burqa's(برقع)....Now, where a woman has her hair covered, but you can still see her face, I have no problem whatsoever. However, where I have been in a bank with someone where you could not see her face at all, or just her eyes, this was extremely unsettling to me and everyone else there for obvious reasons. The same is true with some teachers who get jobs in public schools and think they can teach that way....uhm...no thanks....If my child cannot see your face, you are not teaching him/her in the public school system, period.

I also have this problem, and no I am not exaggerating....I go to a grocery store that is frequented by a very multi-ethnic population, including conservative Muslims....So, you have mom and dad and the kiddies, and the younger kiddies are completely in Western clothing, while the older girls are more covered, mom is completely covered, sometimes even except her eyes, or literally in a burqa' (برقع), but dear old dad is in bikini running shorts (with hair that I don't want to see sticking out...LOL), a mesh tank top and several gold chains...

I'm sorry, but that is just ****ed up....

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE=cappuccina;142223]

The same is true with some teachers who get jobs in public schools and think they can teach that way....uhm...no thanks....If my child cannot see your face, you are not teaching him/her in the public school system, period.

I get your point, Cappucina..
Teaching is about 'communication' basically, and we use facial expressions to communicate as much as language.

I don't have a problem with headscarves at all, however I was appalled by one story that I read in the paper : the owner of a small hairdressers was taken to court for 'racial discrimination' and threatened with a hefty fine which would close her business, because she had refused to employ a job
applicant-who had all the right qualifications- unless she agreed not to wear the scarf for work. The woman explained -quite rightly- that prospective
customers always looked at the staff's hair before making an appointment,
to get an idea of their skills (presumably they cut each others), and a trendy
haircut was a prerequisite for the job.

Would you get 'done' for not employing a highly qualified make up artist who wanted to wear a burqua at your beauty counter ? I'm afraid that the answer is probably 'yes', since the burqua would not prevent the job being done.

[Robert]

Well, it's none of the Government's business who employs whom, or why - but that's a separate issue.

For personal communication, I have no problem with not being able to see their faces, since I'm more of a voice person. But I realise I might be in a minority on that. Obviously if a [I]man[I] turned up to read my electricity meter wearing a balaclava, I'd be a bit concerned! And for teaching, or giving evidence in court, etc, or in security situations, burkas shouldn't be allowed.

On headscarves, women here used to wear hats, or headscarves - those silk things - or even hairnets (Ena Sharples).

[claire]

One would imagine that, just as you see at passport control all over the middle east, and in little curtained areas at Heathrow, covered women would show their face to another woman discreetly to identify themselves in situations where such matters are important (eg. for a court appearance). We can't insist that people identify themselves simply because we like to think there might be some instance in which they might commit an offence. For the most part, in my experience (and I have lived in the middle east for a number of years previously), people are pretty pragmatic...if they refuse, then there is a problem.

As for teaching in schools--then if the teaching is done to small children, there is no reason in the world that a female teacher would cover her face like that in a classroom.

The key is the extent to which the individual is being reasonable. If she is just going about her business, shopping or strolling up the road, it doesn't matter. If she refuses to identify herself in an appropriate manner (by which I mean, appropriate to all parties, and not just some garrulous white bloke), then there is clearly cause to suggest that she is being unnecessarily militant, and possibly a cause for concern.

As for cappuccina's nasty men in revealing shorts--I hear you on that!! It sort of proves the point, though, doesn't it? Getting a load of some bloke's wares is generally unlikely to lead to any sort of erotic response!! Heheh.

[Robert]

Well Claire, the thing about a court appearance is, that if a woman is giving evidence as a witness or a defendant, it's important for the jury to be able to see her face. And men serve on juries. For that matter, the barristers and the judge must see her face too.

[Bob Hinton]

But Bob - as you describe above - if terrorists are just as likely to not be wearing a Burka as wearing one - there is no real justification of banning them on the basis of preventing terrorism - is there?

Limehouse,

It's all to do with making things easier for us and harder for the terrorist. You must imagine a terrorist as a rat who runs down a maze leading to a room. In the walls of the room are many holes, any one of which the rat could use to excape. Your job is to block off as many holes as possible and even when you have done that you will still have several left.

Allowing people on the streets of Britain in times like these to completely cover their features is just making things easier for anyone wishing to do us harm as one of our main weapons in the fight against terrorists is visual surveillance. This is even more important when the traditional wearers of the Burka come from the same grouping as the terrorists.

My objection to the Burka is mainly because of the complete lack of respect wearers are showing to our western culture. From showing disrespect, to rioting in the streets to planting bombs is a well trodden path. People who wish to integrate with the indigenous population, respecting their culture and history rarely start chucking bombs about. Now I have said before my objection is not about the Burka per se but about the act of hiding your features from others.

No one so far has ever answered my question why incomers should be allowed to show a complete lack of respect for our culture yet take to the streets rioting in defence of theirs?

[Bob Hinton]

Hi Robert



To answer your question - no - I do not want people to be hanged. Hanging is not the actions of a civilised society in my opinion. State violence is no answer to a violent society.

?

The problem with that Limehouse is the phrase "a civilised society". If this really was a civilised society we wouldn't need to hang people. Let me know when it arrives and I'll sign the petition to stop hanging. Of course state violence is the answer to a violent society, all societies are run on the ultimate sanction of violence. What do you think war is?

If a person just convicted of murder in a court refuses to go with the warder to prison, what do you think happens? Does the judge simply let him walk away because he doesn't want to use violence? No he is forced, by violence, to comply.

I can give you a list of several hundred people who have been executed who never offended again. I can also give you a list of several hundred people who weren't execute who did go on to kill again.

[Natalie Severn]

Bob,
So what happens if a person who has killed as a result of mental health problems arising from an illness such as paranoid schizophrenia, ie due to an illness of the mind that was beyond his or her control? Do we hang these people by the neck too?
Also what if,as in the case of Timothy Evans, an innocent person is hung by mistake and its later discovered that he was renting part of a serial killer"s house and hanging him was all a tragic mistake?The serial killer in question who had not yet been caught ,Christie , even went along to court and testified against the poor man.
Besides who on earth wants this country to become the laughing stock of Europe by doing an about turn to hanging in line with the kind of barbaric stuff that goes on in Saudi Arabia and Iran with public beheadings and stonings? Surely you are not recommending a return to hanging and flogging are you?