Real freedom means being able to wear a veil

There has been a vibrant debate about whether Muslim women should be entitled to wear a veil in public. Now the debate has reached a new pitch with this story:

A man who was being hunted for the murder of a policewoman is understood to have escaped from Britain by disguising himself as a veiled Muslim woman.

Does this conclude the argument?

I don't think it does.

Despite my opposition to all kinds of fundamentalism, I think that a liberal society ought to be able to withstand a few people exercising their free choice to wear a veil. And it is important to understand that, difficult though it is for many us to comprehend, it is a free choice.

This story is not about the veil, it is about airport security. It is unbelievable that they are busy checking my 6 year old son's bottle of still water, causing huge queues, while letting a wanted man waltz through security dressed as a woman, without having arrangements in place to check his face.

Comments

[Bob Finbow]

The veil is a mask - nothing more, nothing less. If anyone and everyone can go anywhere they like in a mask without being challanged then you have a point. That would not be the case, certainly not with the young and in areas with high crime rates. Add to this the fact that the current terrorist threats come from members of that religion whose adherents wear the veil and there is a valid case for inhibiting this absolute freedom of what to wear. If someone walked around in public stark naked, other than in a designated nudist (or naturist) area, they would be stopped although they demonstrably have nowhere to hide illicit weapons and can be clearly identified. It would be because others feel uncomfortable with it and the law takes this into account. So should it be with veils.

[bernard michael]

What happens if someone walks into a bank with a Richard Nixon, or Who ever, mask on.I know what would happen here in America. They push the alarm.

[Andrew Berman]

Well, maybe. On the other hand, Freedom is always balanced by other needs, such as public safety.

And face it--- any country-- even a liberal democracy-- has a right to put boundaries on its culture. Boundaries are by definition in opposition to liberalness, but that doesn't make them less moral. It just means you have to make thoughtful decisions. In this case, you are importing a culture which has large elements which are very contrary to your history, indeed, contrary to the very notion of liberal democracy. It seems reasonable to place restraints on it.

[Terry Collmann]

The veil is NOT just a mask, it represents a statement by the veil-wearer about me I find objectionable - "you cannot see my face because you will turn into a rapist if you glimpse my visage" - and it makes a statement about women and their status with regard to men that I find utterably objectionable - "my face must remain hidden because I am the property of my husband/father". In addition, in Western societywearing a mask is regarded everywhere as threatening: bank robbers wear masks, executioners wear marks, the Ku Klux Klan wear masks. Why should we be asked to alter our attitude to masks to accommodate something that is a symbol of repression and rejection?

[Stephen]

The cartoon is clever but here is the difference, and it relates to airport security.

Nobody would have any issue asking those youths to pull their scarf down and take off their hats so they could be looked at.

I dont care if Muslim women want to wear a veil. But there can be no sensitivities or different treatment given to them than anyone else who chooses to wear a face covering garment. Next time walk through airport security with your scarf covering your face and a hat on....see what security does.

If security can treat a muslim woman wearing a veil the same as you or your six year old wearing a scarf over your face then I have no problem.

To be "liberal" about it, then all things are treated the same. As soon as you start exempting items for one and not the other you are discriminating, as in making a choice.

Should a Muslim woman getting a drivers licence in the UK be allowed to keep her veil on for the license photo?

[Hyder Ali]

Freedom to wear veil in private, away from banks, shops, high streets, public transport utilities and Government offces, should be permitted. But, it should be prohibited along with hoods, masks & motor cycle helmets in public area where these could be used to hide identities and intimidate the public. Otherwise, someone could exercise his right to wear balaclava to go to banks and rob it at convenient point. After all, does the authorities allow anyone to walk nude in public? Far too long, the western countries courted muslim countries to the extent of adopting a shameless servile posture.

[Black Death]

So that terrorist guy got out of the UK by wearing a veil and posing as a Muslim woman.

Well done, London. Bow to your new masters.

[Verity]

I agree with Terry Collman but I would take the argument further. As the veil is not mandated in the Koran and as the mothers of these girls did not wear veils, and as veils are worn only by a few back "home" in Pakistan, the statement these girls are making is: "I reject your culture and your mores. I reject everything about this country and your religion. And I want you to know this in no uncertain terms."

These are aggressive young women. And there is the additional pugnacious statement that wearing a veil shouts out at passers-by: "I can see you, but you cannot see me. Therefore, I have the advantage."

This is triumphalist and is a deliberate provocation and it is rubbish to say it's required by their religion - not that that is pertinent. We must ban the wearing of veils in public.

[Lyle Smith]

In a free society Muslim women should be allowed to wear the veil. The problem is figuring out whether or not it is their free choice, or the choice of some man in their life.

A lot of Muslim women freely choose to cover their heads or wear the veil, which I have no problem although I think it is fundimentally patriarchal. A lot of Muslim women, however, feel a lot of pressure to cover their head or wear the veil. I do have a problem with that, but I'm not sure how society could prevent that from happening, but by allowing Muslim men time to mature and get comfortable with Muslim women showing their bodies off.

[JohnAnnArbor]

This is a game, a deadly one. First, there are loud complaints about the "humiliation" about being asked to remove the veil, or even for Westerners to talk about them. This results in a typical Western reaction of trying to accomodate "diversity" by going out of our way not to offend the veiled. Then--surprise!--a criminal uses the cover of a veil to escape.

We cannot let the constant drumbeat of predictable claims of "humiliation" stop us from basic security practices. USAirways isn't allowing it to happen even after the "flying imams" incident in Minneapolis recently, much to the airline's credit. That was a planned attempt at weakening security measures and making American security agents, flight attendants and pilots less likely to confront suspicious behavior if that behavior happens to be exhibited by a Muslim. The imams claimed "humiliation" (ever note that word is ALWAYS used for these situations?) and made very public protests. But their stories were completely different from those of the rest of the people involved. These imams counted on a cowed Western culture to accept their claims at face value and lower our security accordingly. Don't let it happen. USAirways isn't.

[Manuel Alvarez]

Real freedom? Free choice?

Have the muslim women freedom to take off the veil?

This story is not about the veil, is about the sense of fault of western civilization, our hang ups. This sense in your police makes this huge mistake.

From the bottom of the world, best regards (Andalucia, Spain), best regards.

[Verity]

JohnAnnArbor - All these showdowns are staged and are provocative. A young (well, she was a student, so we presume she was young, although, not having xray vision, we can't be sure) got on a public bus in Manchester and tried to use her bus pass. The driver insisted that she remove her veil so he could be sure she was the woman in the pass photo.

She refused, of course, as this was the whole point. The driver, to his credit, did not allow her on the bus. And - quelle surprise! - she made an issue of it with the bus company and even had the impertinence to suggest that she work on a programme to "educate" their bus drivers. The bus company quite rightly stood by its driver, but this was the first deliberate step - and they will hammer away at it - to getting special concessions for Islamic women not to be required to show that their faces match their bus passes.

USAirways was correct. The imams incident was rehearsed and staged. These people are aggressors, not victims. On no account must they be allowed to roam the streets masked. It is a deliberate assault on our culture.

[Ron]

REAL freedom means allowing men to weir the veil as well.

[Ibnezraster]

So why do Islamic nations such as Turkey, attempting to keep a secular state, ban the veil Mr F? This is clearly far more than a personal piety, but a major political symbol.

[olivebranch.]

Well the guy who is supposed to have worn a veil to flee the UK was'nt the first when Bani Sadr of Iran was President he fled Iran wearing the Chador supposedly.What amuses me about the veil worn in the UK is that in very few Islamic countries will you see such all encompassing veils,very conservative wives of Mullah's in the IRI have their faces covered completely with a fine veil,the women in the UK seem to be making a statement ie look at me I am a Moslem!

[olivebranch.]

Well the guy who is supposed to have worn a veil to flee the UK was'nt the first when Bani Sadr of Iran was President he fled Iran wearing the Chador supposedly.What amuses me about the veil worn in the UK is that in very few Islamic countries will you see such all encompassing veils,very conservative wives of Mullah's in the IRI have their faces covered completely with a fine veil,the women in the UK seem to be making a statement ie look at me I am a Moslem!

[Mark in Reading]

Real freedom means being able to wear your country - in your thinking, in your breathing, in your beliefs, in your traditions, and in your assumptions.
These are all denied to us as normal white British people. We were never asked whether we wanted immigrants,let alone the veil. If you are going to smother our thinking, our breathing, our beliefs, our traditions and our assumptions then you do not know what this country was or is.
The killer should not have been here in the first place - he has sought refuge in the exact place we were allegedly protecting him from - Somalia. The veil is a red herring for all of us - it presupposes that government has a special obligation to these kind of people - who I actually have nothing against in principle even if their religion does advocate murder in the form of fatwa. If they they have such special rights then what happened to our original right to a country. We have half a country now - they have two.

[Verity]

Ibnezraster makes a telling point: "Why do Islamic nations like Turkey ban the veil?" (Strictly speaking, Turkey is officially a secular nation, although around 98% of the population is Islamic. But this doesn't weaken Ibnezraster's point.) Despite a 98% population of Moslems, the legislature went ahead and banned the veil because they are aware that it is a radical political weapon worn to provoke a reaction, and it is dangerous. And they should know.

Turkey does tolerate the hijab (headscarf), although it is not encouraged. Tunisia, again, with practically the whole population Muslim, has also banned the niqab. However, unlike Turkey, they adopt a more direct stance on the hijab. It's allowed, but headscarf-wearing women are denied entry to public buildings like government buildings, post offices, schools, etc.

The niqab is not required anywhere in the Koran. It is not even mentioned. Women are merely enjoined to dress "modestly" - as, indeed, are men.

Further, if it is a "religious requirement", why does Jordan's Queen Rania not wear one? She and King Abdullah are very devout.

The niqab is being employed in the West purely for political purposes, as a tool of aggression. It must be banned as being contrary to the ethos of a highly developed and open Western democracy.

[John Whittle]

Real freedom means that Muslim women should be allowed to wear veils?

Only Muslims? Only women?

How do we know that the veil-wearer is either?

[Nick Beard]

"This story is not about the veil, it is about airport security." Well, yes it is about airport security - but it goes deeper than that. The story is also about the special treatment of people who wear this oppressive symbol. Would you have written the same had the person excaped wearing a Ku Klux Klan hood and not been challenged? I think not. The veil is just as offensive to me as the KKK outfit - yet the former is tolerated while the latter (thankfully) would not be.

[Blackstone]

The lack of wider Islamic cultural context and information is the problem with well meaning claims for freedom by Danny and the liberal elite. The veil means support for clerical Muslim government in global Islam, hence the ban by secular Muslim states. So Danny is urging freedom to signify support for an illiberal society, ruled by the clerics, whose societies deny freedom of religion, criticism, and thought to others - Danny urges us to promote a walking symbol intolerance. In Basra now women are forced by religious rulers to wear the veil: under secular Saddam they had freedom not to. Mullah Finkelstein?!

[Bob]

Total freedom exists nowhere, especially where it contradicts public safety. That anyone, let alone a murderer on the run, can escape scrutiny by simply dressing as a Muslim woman in a burka, is political correctness gone insane. We all submit to infringements of our personal liberty when travelling by air - removing shoes, submitting to 'frisking' by security guards, having hand luggage xrayed and the like. And yet Muslim women are immune to simply lifting the veil for an ID check!

In a more general context, that Muslim women choose to imprison themselves in a burka and marginalising themselves in a modern, free and cosmopolitan western society, is a tragedy.

The Koran does not prescribe such dress for women. It is the Muslim male, following a backward, desert nomad culture who controls his 'property', 'his' women by such means. And Muslim women are 'brainwashed' into accepting their prisons from childhood.

[d h rowlands]

I suppose it s easier to convince yourself that you re a good muslim by wearing a veil and making a spectacle of yourself than actually working on the quality of your spiritual/daily life by improving your humility, compassion etc.
Also - there must be muslims who don t teeter on the edge of hysteria all the time. The media should them much more visible and ignore the nutters.

[Henry Percy]

An absurd notion. Wearing a veil surely has nothing to do with freedom and everything to do with constraint. In the first place it is an anti-social device, specifically designed as such in the society that produced it. It has no place in British society. If the people concerned were sufficiently disregarding of their original society to abandon it, it is nothing more than rampant hypocrisy to insist on it's tenets here. I suppose you could argue that that at least is a marked characteristic of this country.

[John Gresham]

The thing that always surprises me is that devout Muslims support the wearing of the veil. What does it say about their God? That the pinnacle of His creation, man, is so flawed that he must be protected from seeing a female face, less he becomes so inflamed with lust that he cannot control himself. Can anyone square the circle?

[lamplighter]

Why waste any more time debating this nonsense. The issue is not religious freedom or freedom of expression but of public safety. The veil, is as many have stated a mask plain and simple. 'Hoodies' are not going to be permitted to check in at the airport wearing a mask nor should anyone else. I remember boarding a ship in another country recently when six veiled women also boarded. All passengers stared and some displayed obvious anxiety. Why should we concern ourselves with the sensitivies of mask wearers when they don't give a damn about ours. Common courstesy demands that they observe our customs when in public in our countries as we would observe their customs in their countries. If the Islamic world wants my respect they must severely punish inappropriate wearing of the veil by criminals and terrorists before demanding we respect their right to wear one in our country. The Somali who recently escaped Britain by wearing the veil should be charged by his own people for bringing Islam into disrepute by using a 'religous' symbol to hide his criminal behaviour

[A Parkar]

How inaccurate and emotional some of the comments are on this blog. Firstly, even if the veil has nothing to do with Qur'anic conjunctions, it could be a wholly be a British product for all I care, the fact is, people choose to wear it for reasons other than causing harm to other people. So they have a God given..or is is Blair given right to where it.

Secondly, multicultural Britain is not a bunch of middle-class white citizens taking curries, nice sarees, steel bands from peoples cultures and disregard anything that challenges their values of modesty, sexuality or morals.

Third, it is not equated to the offence caused walking naked in the street. Thank God, there are a few values of modesty still left, and certain parts of the body are still regarded as private in this MTV world. If people want to emphasise their modesty, there are causing no offence. You cannot force people to talk to you.

About 2% of Muslim women wear the veil...that is of course, of a total 3% Muslim population in this country...Furthermore, the 7/7 bombers and no outer-looking 'Islamicness' about them. Shaven faces, Western clothes. Theres something a little inaccurate about this debate.

Those equating the veil to armed robbers wearing a mask, are like equating the nun isolating her life to her ministry with a person causing a threat to social cohesion by disengaging. Just let people live, stop intimidating your values without having first questioned them.

And those of you talking about our values, and 'their back home values'..get over it. Some of 'us' are more educated about this country, its policies and colonies, and therefore, according to our great home office, more 'British' then any of you. Our passports are just as red as yours.

Start addressing the real issues, and stop using the veil as a scapegoat to defend a declining, and still pretty imperialist culture.

[DJ]

Freedom? What nonsense -- there's no such thing in any ordered society, as a moment's thought will confirm.

For example, I am not free to drive at 70 mph in a 30 mph zone; I am asked to take off my crash helmet in a bank.

And so it goes -- personal freedoms have always been and always will be balanced by a responsibility to the greater society without.

The real villain in all of this is liberal guilt, which dictates consideration to all except the host society. In the end, it is a nihilistic attitude which eventually dooms that same society to lose its way through lack of a firm sense of self, duty, honour, and responsibility.

[Jason]

We have invested huge amounts of money in security cameras around the country. We hear that we are picked up by 300 cameras a day on average. If this loss of freedom is the price we as members of society have to pay for security and improved policing, then so be it.

But why should somebody have the right to opt out of this on the basis of their own freedom. That surely means that Muslim Women are freer than the rest of us!

[James]

I'm all for muslim women wearing the veil, but in a muslim country, not here in the Uk where it should and must be banned.

[moob]

driving licenses and passports have pictures of our faces on so they can be easily identified as our own. everyone’s face is individual, that's why the system works so well. without seeing a persons face you can not successfully identify them. it would not be so difficult to have a room at airport security for ladies who wish to wear the veil to be identified my a female member of staff. humans have got where they are today by being adaptable. things change. so must we.

[kevin richard]

If the moslem immigrant feel offended by removing the veil, its very simple, go back to where you come from.Our politicians should not be afraid to be label or called a rascist or be afraid to loose election.It baffles me why the west is afraid to confront and ban the veil or mask in our society.

[Scalpelblade]

Real freedom? Real freedom means that NO woman should HAVE TO wear a veil in public!

[sm from Reading]

Hi, just wondering how many veiled women have escaped being given an ASBOs or thrown into jail for a heinous crime due to their veil???!!!

I bet most of the little Englanders who have contributed so far in this blog have not seen or even know of a veiled woman! This is a non-issue. For those who say ‘send ‘em back home’ well these veiled freaks are born and bred in the UK so treat them as you would any other British citizen. Why does liberty and freedom in this country only extend to binge drinkers and adulters?

[James]

The solution is simple: if you use any form of mass transport -- plane, bus, train, boat -- you cannot wear anything which conceals your identity. If you have a problem with that, rent a car.

[Jai Khosla]

The veil should be allowed if Muslims countries allow non-Muslim women to not wear the veil, Muslim countries allow non-Muslim faiths to be practised in Muslim countries freely, when Saudi Arabia allows the building of churches, temples, synagogues, in Mecca, Medina and the rest of Saudi Arabia, when Islam allows Muslims to leave Islam without the fear of being killed for apostasy as Islam demands.

[Tony Fellows]

We should hold a referendum on what religious clothing is acceptable. France bans the veil, Turkey bans it. Saudi Arabia bans the carrying of a bible. And Britain - well it allows anything just to be nice. Freedom is a word which has had its day. In these times of suicide bombers and Islamic pressures to rule the world, we have to make a choice - either they conform or get out.

[Jason]

sm from Reading said "I bet most of the little Englanders who have contributed so far in this blog have not seen or even know of a veiled woman!"

Are you not missing the whole point? How do you suggest getting to know a person who never shows their face?

[Verity]

DJ says: "The real villain in all of this is liberal guilt,".

No, the real culprit is controlling socialism/fascism. I am surprised that others not see that the socialist fascististas - from Blair to uppity workers in Labour councils - have been using Islam and unlimited immigration as a rod to beat the backs of the British; and indeed, the formerly free British have allowed themselves to be so cowed they don't speak out. They fear being styled 'Little Englanders' or xenopobic - laughable in an age when everyone is taking cheap weekend breaks in Europe. Or,better yet, 'Islamophobic'. A phobia is an irrational fear. Given that all the participants in the Madrid railway station bombings, London Transport bombings, 9/11 outrage, Bali bombings, and numerous sickening kidnappings and beheadings have been exclusively Muslim, caution vis-a-vis Islam seems eminently rational to me.

Meanwhile, the Muslims, unaware that they are tools, are pushing their luck to advance their programme, from stupid, attention-seeking young women provoking confrontations in veils (remember the recent teacher of English to Urdu-speaking immigrant children refusing to remove her veil so the children could see her lips as she pronounced the words?) to the Muslim Council's Bangladeshi immigrant Abdul Bakri yesterday styling the British "Nazis."

And no, Jai Kohsia, allowing the veil in public here should not be dependent on reciprocity by Islamic countries. It is against British law to mask one's identity in public. That is how we run things here. Our law.

[Commenter]

Perhaps, Mr Finkelstein, you should have contacted Ruth Gledhill of the Religious blogsite of The Times before entering this issue on your own blogsite. Miss Gledhill helpfully posted, several months ago, via www.FaithFreedom.org the supporting Hadith (Bukhari) which explains the Koranic passage about women covering themselves. (Hadiths are collections of the words and conduct reported on Mohammad whom Moslems regard as a "prophet" and the Hadiths of Bukhari and Muslim are regarded as the most reliable transmitters.) Anyhow, it seems Mohammad's "wives" were allowed out by him to 'answer the call of nature' and 'relieve' themselves which they did and were observed by male followers of Mohammad. These men were apparently scandalised at the sight of almost naked women defecating and, upon asking Mohammad what should be done, Mohammad thought it over and eventually said the women should 'cover up.' He didn't mention anything about the male 'peeping toms.' There you have it, folks, all explained. Thereafter, whenever Mohammad captured a woman in battle (he was a warlord who spent a large part of his life as one)he would either "marry" her (it states in the Koran that a captured woman, even if married, immediately becomes a Moslem's slave and her first marriage is rendered non-existent)and therefore "cover her" with some cloth or, if he chose to keep his captured woman as a concubine or slave, he didn't require her to "cover up." We are talking, therefore, about the customs of a 7th century warrior's cult and its view of women as property. Presently in Western countries, Moslem organisations offer bribes (about Euros 500 per month to Moslem families to make their wives and daughters wear headscarves or masks) or Moslem men threaten women (Moslem and non-Moslem) or clerics issue fatwahs ordering women to wear them. Or criminals use them to evade capture. Drop the nonsense about 'modesty', 'religious observance,' 'tolerance': this is about power, control AND sharia by stealth in the West. BAN IT EVERYWHERE.

[Alan Grocock]

Any society that has the most basic of laws is not free. You may if you wish say that the society of liberal but free it is not. Laws and rules are there so that people may conform to the general wishes of the many and so it should be in this case. One of the problems in Britain is that you can make any law and rule that you want and there is always someone that will jump up and say I am an exception and these exception are considered making it very often an unfair society.

[Umair K]

As a Muslim i think i should clear up some misconceptions:
1. The veil is a legitimate opinion within in Islamic law and has been around for some time. some scholars argue that the veil is not mandatory others disagree. but the underlying point is, it is an accepted Islamic rule.
2.Muslims countries do NOT represent Islam. They are run by a bunch on tyrants, dictators and despots (and thats me being nice) who are so out of sync with Islam its shocking. To tell these guys to sort out X,Y or Z is like telling a teenager to clean his room, it falls on deaf ears.
But the fact is, these countries dont say they uphold freedom and liberties. The UK on the other hand does, and therefore any ban on the Niqab is an outright denial of these same liberties it claims to champion.
3.Sadly, Muslim women, who wear the Niqab are being attacked for a problem that is nothing to do with them but the airport security personnel.
I really dont think there would be the same reaction if somebody used a Bible or Torah to smuggle something out of the UK. I honestly cannot imagine anyone shouting that these religious folks dont need to carry such books or something absurd as that.
The fact is that Islam is different, it has its own viewpoints and ideas. But a cultured society, in my view, is about accepting that ppl have different views, even when you do not agree with it.
I hope that helped

[Verity]

Commenter is correct, although whatever it says in the hadiths, the veil as desert attire predates Islam by hundreds of years.

Surely all one has to do is look at it to realise that it is designed to keep blowing sand out of the eyes, noses and mouths of nomads. The Sahara has very strong winds. Similarly, men in desert regions wear face-covering keffiyahs for the same reason. It has nothing to do with Islam, which came along centuries later. And there isn't too much sand blowing through the larger cities of Britain.

To all those people who think being masked in public is some sort of religious obligation, I am guessing that you have never visited an Islamic country. Other than Saudi Arabia (and perhaps Iran), I do not believe anywhere else actually mandates the wearing of the veil. It's not much worn at all in Jordan, and Queen Rania herself does not wear it. It's banned by law in Turkey and Tunisia. Not many women in Pakistan wear it. Benazir Bhutto used to wear a lacey headscarf loosely draped around her head and shoulders, but it certainly wasn't a face covering.

All this liberal "understanding" and "tolerance" is based on ignorance.

The wearing of the niqab in the West is an act of aggression, provocation and hostility and should be met accordingly.

[GM]

I certainly have sympathy with your poistion on the freedom to wear the veil. Yet this case does raise questions about the principle of asylum and the global asylum regime that are more fundamental than the veil and security, which seems faily easily resolved (i.e. allow the veil to be worn, ensure it is lifted for security checks).

These difficult questions are addressed on this blog: http://www.icar.org.uk/?lid=8181

[Yasir]

While i appreciate that that freedom has to be balanced against security, there is another point tobe raised here, about the kind of society we want, the kind of values Britian claims to uphold and how it is percieved around the world if it begins to contradict those.

People may argue that security is greater than any values- but think about what this means. Britain could lock up all muslims, or extradite them all. In theory, this may make the country safer, but it also means that the country can no longer claim values such as being innocent until proven guilty, everyone being equal before the law and freedom to practice religion openly.

This may sound an extreme example, but if you are one of the many innocent, law-abiding muslim women wearing niqab, Britain certianly does not feel like a place of high values at this moment in time.

[Trond]

The problem may not be so much about freedom, as about responsibility.
By concealing your identity, you claim not to accept responsibility. This may be OK in a dictature, but not in a democracy, where we all have to be responsible.

[imli]

Is it also OK to wear a swastika?

The veil in any form is a political statement made by Islamists. Moderate muslims do not wear it, because they don't want to because of all the negative things it signifies.

People who dress to depress should not be surprised when society avoids them.

[Abidah Sawsan]

If I were a hoodie or little old lady with headscarf there wouldn't be a debate. As I'm a niqaab wearing person there's suddenly an issue.Why?

[Anjana Dutt]

Come on guys, there is no such thing as real freedom although we all want and desire it. Wearing the veil is nothing to do with religion. Religion is far more deep and spiritual. Islam teaches us to be human. Any religion that tells us to kill people is not religion. The veil is an outward expression of the Islamic faith but does not tell us anything about the divine or the divinity of the Islamic religion.

There are people who abuse the wearing of it by saying that it is a demonstration of their faith when in actual fact they want to cover their body for some reason or rather. What is Islam and what is not has certainly confused people so the best thing is to learn the Koran and find out what is true Islam. I think Muslims are getting flustered about the wearing of the veil for nothing. It is trivial, tittle tattle. Wearing the veil in this day and age is not suitable but wearing it during the times of the prophets may have been. Any silly billy will know when to use it and when to remove it at appropriate times. It takes an intelligent and normal Muslim to do that.

[Tom]

Why is it that Muslims so often seem to miss the point when defending the indefensible? Umair K. states that Islam is different, it has it own viewpoints and ideas. Fine, but if that’s so, why not live in a place where such viewpoints and ideas are accepted by the majority? Why should the majority in the UK accept ideas and behaviour they find abhorrent? After all, Muslims the world over are more than reluctant to accept ‘different views, even when they do not agree with them’, so why should we in the UK be any different.

And finally, the point is not about smuggling something out of the UK, but hiding not only one’s face, but an entire human body in a garment the examination of which would instantly lead to the usual bleating about Islamophobia, the war on Islam, and the rest of the junk Muslims trot out as a matter of course when someone disagrees with something they do or say. Don’t treat non-Muslims as utter fools, if you want to be taken seriously. I hope that helped.

[Dick]

Umair K, you say that any ban UK on the niqab is an outright denial of the liberties the UK claims to champion. This is nonsense: no country champions complete liberty in all spheres, for that would lead to anarchy. There has to be a consensus which, even if enforced by law (e.g. speed limits, to take one of countless examples), is accepted by all.

The niqab is felt by most non-Muslims to be a repulsive accoutrement, a sign of a woman’s lower status compared to men. In addition, there is the argument Muslim men advance to defend the practice which is that even the sight of a woman’s hair inflames the fires of lust in their loins. This may be true of Muslim men in Muslim countries, but the UK is not a Muslim country, Muslim men form a small minority of the population, (around 1%), and there are strict laws preventing any male, Muslim or otherwise, from molesting a woman.

From this it follows that the argument produced in favour of the niqab is not valid in the UK, and its wearing not only unnecessary; it is also, by implying that the wearer would otherwise be molested, designed to give maximum offence. Muslim men may behave appallingly towards women in Muslim countries, but I, and just about every non-Muslim man in the UK, will not thank you for suggesting that we also do.

[Liam Jarndyce]

Well we all know which side this article is coming from. What? No fair and balanced reporting?

How about this, we ALL get to wear masks all the time, for whatever reason we want. My church suddenly declares that we must veil ourselves.

Now I get to walk into a bank disguised, just like the privileged Muslims.

Oh wait, you want special freedoms just for THEM...Okay, I understand now.

[Dennis Richardson]

"Freedom to wear a veil"...

hehe, that's rich.

How about freedom to be in jail, freedom to wear handcuffs, freedom to not get to vote, freedom to be forced to the back of the bus, freedom to be told who to marry, freedom to be murdered by your family if you are raped...

These women aren't free. Far from it.

[MG]

Abidah Sawsan - in answer to your question: A youth wearing a hoodie (western-styled clothing-a fashion item-OK). Little old lady wearing headscarf (she's keeping her ears warm-OK). Woman wearing a niqaab (SHOWS SHE DOES NOT WANT TO BE PART OF BRITISH SOCIETY, SHOWS SHE IS NOT FRIENDLY-IN FACT JUST THE OPPOSITE) Advice: When in Britain, fit in with the culture, (just as we do when visiting Pakistan, etc.) If you're not able to do this, you have a choice to go back to where you feel you fit in with the society there.

[Niqabi]

Ok, I wear niqab (face veil)and I'm BRITISH - born and bred (As are many who wear the veil). Just want to reply to some comments:

Women who want to wear the veil should 'go back' to their own countries:
A: I can trace my ancestors (from all sides) back hundreds of years - all are irish or British. So how can I 'go home'? I am home! I am british but I am also muslim. Being muslim and British is as valid as being atheist and British, Christian and British, Jewish and British or anything else. Our ancestors were pagans anyway. Islam IS now part of 'British culture', and we just want to be accepted.

The veil isn't in islam and its just a political statement:
A: A small minority of muslim women wear it. We want to be left alone to live our lives as we want, not to be political statements. The evil that was perpetrated on 7/7 was done by people in normal western clothes. No veil-wearing women in the UK or USA or Europe have been involved in any of these attacks (Evil acts which are not islamic - and contrary to teachings in Quran that says that no innocent people can be killed, even in war). The problem is not the veil but the (wrong) perception that veil = terrorism. And this has to be corrected - covering does not mean that you are a terrorist or support such causes. As for saying the veil is not islamic. The veil IS a part of islam - yes some scholars oppose it, but most say it is recommended and others say it is necessary. But it is a debate that has lasted for centuries between scholars who have studied islam all their lives.

Its a 'safety concern'
A: I wear the veil ONLY in the presence of unrelated adult males (not kids). I have flown through heathrow - and like everyone else I have a passport with a clear picture of my face (although I have a headscarf- as a nun might have too). Muslim women in veil go through the same security checks as everyone else - we don't just get waved through - infact we usually get MORE checks. I lift my veil for any female security or offical that requires it. IF that guy went through airport security in niqab (and this report is not confirmed as a fact) it means security weren't doing their job. Surely it would have been obvious he was a man when his passport was checked or he opened his mouth. And would raise immediate suspicion. In theory he could just have used his brothers passport or a fake one - he would have less attention and it wouldn't be such a risk!

[pcj-the]

Ho Ho Ho, yet again around the same old merry circle. Liberty will be strangled by the liberties it gives. "The price of freedom is constant vigilance" has several aspects: not just protection from external aggressors but protection from an overarching state that would erode personal freedoms for political reasons, protection from "total freedom zealots and would-be tyrants" who would use demands for their rights to freedom to bring about anarchy or a dictatorship religious or political. Those of us in modern western societies have no real concept of what it means to be enslaved in a non-liberal society. Too often we identify small slights "as being against our rights" and pride ourselves on how well we have done if we acquiesce in helping others to obtain their rights, whilst giving no thought to the fact that gaining total rights for everyone has as its end product anarchy!
Firstly, the poster who says the veil is Islamic, as if not wearing it was somehow an expression of that society's freedom and tolerance towards its women is disingenuous at the very least. The argument has raged backwards and forwards for centuries in the Islamic world with no clear cut "yes" for it being required.
The poster who referred to "dressing modestly" was closest to the truth, but then, religious truth (in any religion) depends on just which faction of it you ask for an answer, doesn't it?
Most disconcerting, however, is the constant whining of "the oppressed victims" that we get every time an Islamic view/cultural or religious aspect clashes with that of the majority of the UK population's views/cultural or religious aspects.
Over many centuries, often paid for in blood, we fought for and won and defended our rights and freedoms that enabled us to establish a country in which we would extend freedom to others, many times protecting (often religious) minorities along the way. We did not say that "freedom" meant we would give those minorities the right to chisel away at the structure of our country to turn it into a more acceptable political/religious state for them. That is still the gist of the situation, whether we are talking about migrant workers or homegrown religious zealots.
You want freedom to do your religious thing your way...fine...you got it in this land of the free, provided you remember that I, and many others (the majority) have the right to live our lives our way, without conceding our freedoms to your religious strictures.
If we find young women adopting a style of dress that speaks to us of repression or even worse given the present situation appears to be no more than a "direct political provocation" then do not be surprised if we take exception to it.
As for the poster who tried to play the "more British than you" and the "colonial guilt" card: forget it sunshine, I know several British Muslims who know less than I do about the culture their families came from, so does that make me "more Islamic than them?" Oh and I don't buy into the colonial guilt bit either: too often the locals were only too willing to grab power and participate in the grand scheme of things too!
The final line is this: you want to practice your religion here, fine, so long as you don't shove it up my nose and take away my freedoms....you want a grand Islamic state/Shariah rule/the Caliphate even...then go find somewhere else!

[BJM]

I live in an Islamic country where these peoples ideas of western mores comes from american soap operas. On the whole the men think western women can't wait to go bed with them, this is compounded by their pent up sexual frustration caused by the lack of any outlet for their feelings. I have found that a woman in the street is stared at continually if she does not wear some form of muslim headwear and clothes. But instead of the thought 'the more she covers up the safer she is', I would suggest that the covering of the face should be banned - unlike the Victorian era do most men in the western world still get a titillating thrill from an exposed ankle? I think not. Except for holding hands, any form of affection is frowned upon in public, women are not to look at men or it may be taken as an immediate invitation to sexual congress. An innocent smile to a stranger can have dire consequences, of which if it did happen then blame would lie solely on the loose morals of the woman. So have a good think about that when you next hug and kiss your significant other in public or give the postman a cheery hello!

[adam]

I'm with Finkelstein on this. I don't even think that it's that important an issue, frankly, except that it illustrates that there exist people who'd use a legislative sledgehammer to crack a nut. We knew that anyhow, of course.

[Mara MacSeoinin]

Since when does democracy have a dress code? The current initiative to suppress Islam, under the pretext that Muslims will be helped to ‘integrate’ into British society, is a remarkable departure from that which this nation claims to uphold: freedom. The claim that certain individuals may be upset, intimidated and even frightened by the veil worn by some Muslim women is a demonstration of an almost breath-taking double standard. Ironically, it completely overlooks the fact that, conversely, many individuals in Britain are upset by the amount of flesh bared by Western women on a regular basis, particularly on the front of ‘lad-mags’, that which used to exclusively occupy the top shelf of newsagents but are now accepted by our ever-more excessive society. Britian has confused liberal behaviour with libertine extremes, and the call for those women to bare more flesh than that with which they are comfortable is a call to conform to those extremes. Modesty is not acceptable. Will nuns be forced to abandon the habit or monks their robes, lest they offend those who find any demonstration of faith unnatural?
Of course this will never be the case; for though religion is derided, Christianity is deeply imbedded in our cultural history, and it would be inconceivable that Blair, in attempting to present Britain as an exemplary, ideal land, would remove something so fundamental to the culture. The call to remove the veil is yet another example of Islam’s negative image – an image imposed by the West for the past four hundred years, and one which it exploits. The veil is represented as primitive, dangerous, and reflective of a culture that is hostile to Western norms. The idea of women subjugating themselves wholly to male rule is repugnant; but it is equally repugnant for the West to pretend that Western women are not subjected to the same domination. Whether a woman is forced to strip or to bare all, she is still corresponding to the age-old stereotype that women are wholly sexual beings.
The over-emphasis upon female sexuality in contemporary Britain – that which is supposed to be so liberating and permit women to ‘express’ themselves unchallenged – is actually women’s undoing. They are objectified by a male audience; they are not celebrated or respected for their intellect, but for having the perfect breasts, buttocks or legs. Women are invited by tabloid newspapers to send in pictures of their breasts in order to compete for the title “Best Breasts in Britain”; men are invited to send in photographs of their girlfriends so that they can compete for the dubious title of “High Street Honey” and be ogled by thousands of male readers. Women have never been more of a trophy object that in our current society; 90% of advertising is aimed at women between the ages of 18 and 45 in order to dissatisfy themselves with their appearance, which will be remarkably rectified by the application of the latest cream, lotion or potion. They are more at risk from rape or sexual molestation than ever before, with the added jibe that those wearing a short skirt are ‘asking for it’, according to the last public poll. Women are pushed and pulled in every direction – by the media, the advertising industry, and the false consensus of their peers – and are positively forced to spend vast amounts of money achieving the perfect ‘look’, without which they would not be acceptable and thus accepted. Without advocating the veil – it is dangerous on health reasons, as it prohibits the wearer from receiving enough sunlight, which leads to brittle bones – Western women would be much better off if they covered up a little. Surely it is better to be judged not by the flawlessness of the skin but by the content of the character?

[Firozali A.Mulla MBA PhD]

Daniel
I can only talk about my experience when I have traveled by train. Then if you ask me about the train I will tell you but reading from the book I am sure I will fail many time short of the well used words I would like to paste.
All the comments if they are from ladies they know how they feel. Read them. Gents cannot tell what is in the public loo of the ladies how will they comment on the veils of the women?

[Afnan]

If you think of it, when you judge a woman's beauty, you will first look at her face, not her body. Her body may come second. What vieled women are trying to hide is thier beauty.
This does not mean that vieled women are scared of getting raped.
For the women who wear the veil by the choice of their husband, they are not scared but they respect their husband and for their love they wear the veil. If she did not want to, she can simply get divorced.
But there is one thing, veiled women can take off their veil to other women, therefor, it is not hard for airport security to create a room with a security woman to check vieled women who do not want to take off their veil.