Monday 26 July 2010

 
Burka ban Tory MP could face legal action
      The cited Equality Act 2006 does not apply here as it "prohibits both direct and indirect discrimination on the grounds of a person’s religion or belief." No religion dictates the wearing of niqab, burqa or any other mask (though some perverters of the faith may pretend theirs does).  
     Let us suppose that there is a country where it is the custom for women to cover their hair and dress modestly in public.  When I am there, I could:  1) Respect the local culture and encourage my wife and daughters to wear a suit or a dress and a head-scarf   2) Disrespect the local culture and encourage my wife an daughter to go bare-headed in shorts and tank tops as they would in their own culture.   Which do think is the civilised way to behave, which the rude pig approach?
    I oppose a "ban" on burqas: the state's coercive power is not appropriate here. It is not for the government to legislate on civilised politeness versus rude boorishness. And yes, any Muslim female may behave as a rude, culturally insensitive, boorish pig, ignoring the local culture, if she chooses to do so. As can any person of any faith. 
    Some argue  that it is not anyone's business to decide what a given religion does or does not require: if the practitioner believes a niqab/burqa required then that is not only her choice but, because her belief is "religious," it is a choice that should be protected from any discrimination.
    I would be careful about allowing anyone to determine what their religion says is "necessary" and then giving that dress or behaviour special protected status. What, for example, if skinheads declare that their branch of Christianity requires the wearing of large swastikas? Granted, the state should not legistlate against this, but should it be given specially protected status?

Comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]





<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Subscribe to Posts [Atom]