Wednesday, 20 January 2010

Burqa off

I must admit, I'm still reeling from the shock of finding out that underneath his agreeable and articulate demeanour, Farage was just a politician after all. This burqa-banning nonsense was a real body-blow to the vision that you didn't have to be a swivel-eyed loony to want out of the EU.

Anyway, it's left to a libertarian to come up with the only sensible answer to all this stupidity:

Seriously, so what if certain groups of the population don’t live as the majority do, or live by different social norms? Farage [for it is he] is right when he says that the minority should not enforce their ways upon the majority, but it works the other way round too. The majority have no place enforcing their social norms on the minorities.

OK, so I’ve made it clear that I don’t think banning the Burqa will do any good whatsoever, and that UKIP are themselves the biggest Burqs of all. Now, here’s how, when people are given genuine freedom of conscience as well as of association, we can expect things to play out:

By allowing people to choose for themselves at the individual level if wearing a Burqa, or indeed anything of the sort, is the right choice for them, we maximize their freedom of choice of lifestyle. As there is nothing about wearing a Burqa per se that is violating the rights of others, it’s a peaceful act and therefore shouldn’t be banned. In public spaces such as tax payer funded streets, etc, wearing the burqa should be permitted, after all, the people inside them have already been forced to pay up their share! On top of that, people should be allowed to wear burqas in their own private homes. I’m pretty sure no one has suggested otherwise. At least, no one worth speaking of.

The flipside is that there should be no legal/coercive means to force people to accept burqas in their business, homes, etc. For example, UKIP go on about how, for example, you can’t wear motorcycle helmets in banks for security reasons. Those buildings are the business premises of a private organization, and they should be entirely free to set their own rules and security measures. Natwest want no face covering clothes of any kind in their branches? That’s fine. There should be no coercive method of forcing them to accept them against their will. They may, of course, go the other way and allow them. Also fine. Voluntaryism is the ideal.

The same goes for (privately owned) shopping centres, the kind that don’t allow hoods up (they exist?), for the same reasons.

In short, at all levels, relationships should be voluntary, NOT coercive.


Weston Bay said...

Hmm... A bit of intelligent thought here might help here.

The Burqa is, amongst many Muslim women, the clearest expression of their faith and if that's their personal choice then that's fine. I have no problem with it. However in certain countries, Iran for example, the Burqa is pretty much mandatory and quite blatantly indicates their second-class status. Now this should be condemned without reservation by anyone, Left or Right, who believes in individual freedom of choice and the dignity of the singular human being.

This story also shows what an utterly unprincipled, opportunist bunch of arseholes UKIP are these days. But then you can expect nothing less from a bunch of ex-Tories.

richard said...

the banning of tartan, or of "wearing of the green", certainly got Jock and Paddy to respect the English Crown.

Furor Teutonicus said...

How many people have been stoned to death, or otherwise killed, in Europe for "not conforming to a dress code"?

But THEY do.

Anonymous said...

My first reaction - foot meet bullet, but...
Shhh don't tell anyone, but have you noticed how many people are talking about UKIP? More mention of UKIP in the MSM than for the three lettered abbreviation? Usually there exists a UKIP shaped hole in the media. Perhaps dear ol' Nige is not so silly after all - and what's a bit of controversy between friends? Further it raises a valid point - the vote on Mark Wadsworth's blog shows how close the gut reaction is to supporting a ban (33% + 8%for, 'only' 50% + 4% against, 6% not bothered out of 163 votes and before someone starts stuffing the poll).
Let us pray to Allah that it will be talked out simply because UKIP should not become one of the mainstream bansturbators and a ban would be just too good for the rabid Islamists.


I am Stan said...

I just cant bring myself to support banning an item of clothing...whatever it means to some.NO NO NOOOOO!

Shug Niggurath said...

To make a truly equal law perhaps UKIP should instead advocate the banning of women wearing anything more than a swimsuit or underwear when they are out in public. It'd be like Brazil except with more erect nipples (and penises I'd wager).

Keep us all happy chappies.


Anonymous said...

The position that everyone should be allowed to wear what they want, would be fine in a homogenous people with an homogenous culture.

This is not the case in the UK.

Our politicians have forced multi-culturalism upon the UK.

Not a single vote has been cast, or even solicited, to support multi-culturalism.

We are on the way down a slippery slope that may end in civil war and Sharia law being forced upon the losers.

And the winners, having turned this country into a replica of the thirld world hell-holes they sought refuge from, will then be faced, like locusts, to find another country to ruin.

Pogo said...

I'm with "Shuggy"..!!! :-)

And, "anon"... If there ever were to be a civil war between the extreme forces of Islam and the rest of us it won't end up with Sharia being imposed. There are over a million holders of legal firearms and shotguns in the UK...

permanentexpat said...

Wearing the Burka if fine by me...but what is clearly wrong in OUR SOCIETY is facial concealment.

Should you think I am wrong, try walking into your friendly bank or jewellers wearing an eyeholed will be considered anything but friendly & the consequences could be painful.
...and don't write any crap about muffling up against the cold.
This country is the midden that it is because of liberal idiots determined to 'do the right thing' as they crassly see it.

Anonymous said...

"There are over a million holders of legal firearms and shotguns in the UK..."

Shooting clay pigeons and pheasants is not the same as combat.

Pogo said...

Shooting clay pigeons and pheasants is not the same as combat.

That's true. Charging zealots are a much bigger and slower-moving

Anonymous said...

"Charging zealots are a much bigger and slower-moving target"

so what are you waiting for tough guy?

Furor Teutonicus said...

permanentexpat said...

wearing an eyeholed balaclava..

"Ski masks" I believe they are called. They are banned here (Germany). Unless you are skiing, or working at the top of a 50 meter pylon in mid winter or something.

Joe Blogs civilian is also banned from wearing stab and bullet proof vests, various items of military uniform, German and foriegn, and a few other things.

So the German Government do not have the excuse "You can not ban items of clothing".

I will also remind you Brits about the Town police clauses act 1847, which makes it illegal to "be abroad (Outside of ones dwelling) at night with the face masked covered or disguised".

So all this bloox abouit "you can not ban items of clothing" is a crock of shite THERE as well.

IF the will was there "burk and hairs" are ALREADY illegal in given circumstances.

Pogo said...

@anon: so what are you waiting for tough guy?

In my case, my pension. :-)

I don't understand your agressive response - mind you, it is fairly typical of the "anonymous keyboard warrior", a big man at his PC and a "6-stone weakling" when his mummy lets him out to play - I merely commented that should it come to a civil war that there are a lot of people in this country who are already armed, many with shotguns (ever seen the effect of a solid-shot from a 12-bore? The moulds were distributed to the Home Guard during WW2 and there's still quite a lot of them around.) but not a small number with considerably more "punchy" weapons. That taken as a truism, the "opposition" are likely to be heavily outgunned.

As to target selection, do you see anything incorrect in my statement that a man is a larger and slower-moving target than a game bird?

Oh, BTW, I've done military service, how about you?

Perry de Havilland said...

yes, very disappointing indeed.