Watch my short Talk TV appearance hosted by my friend Alex Phillips where we discuss the Burqa debate.The World Of Momus is a reader-supported publication.
My first contention is that ALL face coverings should be banned in PUBLIC spaces on the grounds of public safety and the prevention of crime.
No cultural exemptions.
The only exemption being medical and in that case signed off by a medical
practitioner and that subject to review.
The Human Rights Act Article 9 section 2 restricts religious practices which could be against Public safety. This proviso exists.
My basic reading of the Qur'an is that face coverings only applied to the wives of the Prophet but modesty was expected of all women ??
I also have read that Burka and Nikab only applied to certain individual muslim countries as their traditional wear for women - not universal muslim dress.
It seems to me that we need not however really go into religious aspects - which is a can of worms.
Banning all face coverings should
be a public safety issue. It would also deal with Antifa and masks in protest marches - indeed I believe the reason the police do not make uses of their section 60 powers is for fear of offending muslims
Lastly if other European countries have done so clearly there is no bar to this ban in the ECHR.
Overall I agree with you. There never really is enough time in these short slots to expand on such a topic. My main point was and remains - that we really should be focused on getting rid of people who would wear such things, enforce it on their women, or support people who wear such things because they are clearly not part of the culture here and never will be. So let's keep our focus on getting rid of those people more than introducing new laws which people will find ways to circumnavigate. And yes, there are provisos in those acts but the judiciary is already captured and will use the act in their favour not against. We actually should not have any acts that bind one government to another, it goes against the whole point of parliament. It is all a distraction, by Reform, to show people hey we mean to do something against the Islamisation, when they clearly don't. They got a Muslim chairman and they, as stated by Farage, depend on the Muslim vote in the future.
To have made this a religious topic was unnecessary. That ex Tory now Reform MP knew it would not go any where - but it has the effect of conning wavering Reform voters into thinking their Party is taking a stance on opposing Islam but they blew that impression when they took Zia back anyway. Bit of political posturing all this.
My first contention is that ALL face coverings should be banned in PUBLIC spaces on the grounds of public safety and the prevention of crime.
No cultural exemptions.
The only exemption being medical and in that case signed off by a medical
practitioner and that subject to review.
The Human Rights Act Article 9 section 2 restricts religious practices which could be against Public safety. This proviso exists.
My basic reading of the Qur'an is that face coverings only applied to the wives of the Prophet but modesty was expected of all women ??
I also have read that Burka and Nikab only applied to certain individual muslim countries as their traditional wear for women - not universal muslim dress.
It seems to me that we need not however really go into religious aspects - which is a can of worms.
Banning all face coverings should
be a public safety issue. It would also deal with Antifa and masks in protest marches - indeed I believe the reason the police do not make uses of their section 60 powers is for fear of offending muslims
Lastly if other European countries have done so clearly there is no bar to this ban in the ECHR.
Do it.
Overall I agree with you. There never really is enough time in these short slots to expand on such a topic. My main point was and remains - that we really should be focused on getting rid of people who would wear such things, enforce it on their women, or support people who wear such things because they are clearly not part of the culture here and never will be. So let's keep our focus on getting rid of those people more than introducing new laws which people will find ways to circumnavigate. And yes, there are provisos in those acts but the judiciary is already captured and will use the act in their favour not against. We actually should not have any acts that bind one government to another, it goes against the whole point of parliament. It is all a distraction, by Reform, to show people hey we mean to do something against the Islamisation, when they clearly don't. They got a Muslim chairman and they, as stated by Farage, depend on the Muslim vote in the future.
Ah Momus we both know what we really want to achieve but as the old saying goes "There's more than one way to skin a cat"
A face covering general ban has the same effect without specific targeting. Just no cultural exemptions !
Get that and no Halal and then The Adhan banned from Speaker systems as being excess noise.
No praying in public spaces for anyone.
Not more than one wife
and so on
You know.
To have made this a religious topic was unnecessary. That ex Tory now Reform MP knew it would not go any where - but it has the effect of conning wavering Reform voters into thinking their Party is taking a stance on opposing Islam but they blew that impression when they took Zia back anyway. Bit of political posturing all this.