The Only Case Against The Burqa

VennerRoad By VennerRoad, 24th Nov 2016 | Follow this author | RSS Feed
Posted in Wikinut>Writing>Religion>Islam

Of all the garbage spouted about Islam, none is more vacuous than that peddled by those who want to ban the burqa.

The Only Case Against The Burqa

However you transliterate it: burka, burkha, burqa...the controversy is real - manufactured, but real. The burqa is not really a religious issue and is certainly not a requirement in Islam, which calls only for modesty in dress and in life generally. Like modest men, modest women are less likely to offend people, so that is something to be said for it. More generally, the burqa is part of a religious/national/cultural dress code. As explained here previously, dress codes are not part of some grand conspiracy of patriarchal oppression.

In this article, Daniel Greenfield wants to have it all; the burqa covers up abuse, we are told, which brings to mind an old joke, what advice did Mike Tyson give Chris Brown? “Don’t mark her face next time.”

The burqa justifies sexually assaulting women who don’t wear the veil - which is probably why rape is capital in Iran.

The burqa excludes women from civil participation. And the evidence for this is?

The burqa segregates women, something that is said to be dehumanising. Of course, if women are segregated from men, then men are segregated from women, so perhaps they are both dehumanised? Let’s not stop here though, is an all-male football team segregated and dehumanised? Perhaps we should integrate public toilets. Or perhaps not.

The wearing of the burqa is enforced through violence. On the contrary, in France, women who choose to wear it are tyrannised by the state, as we have seen on French beaches recently where even women whose faces were covered were ordered to take off their swimwear. Like the man said, you couldn’t make it up.

France is particularly hot not only on the burqa but on all religious symbols. Leaving all this nonsense aside, there is one, and only one reason wearing the burqa should be limited: security. When you walk into a bank or building society you may see a notice asking motorcyclists to remove their helmets. Does any reasonable person think that is unreasonable? Likewise, airports and other sensitive areas may restrict not simply the burqa but all facial coverings. Again, this is reasonable, and the proof of this pudding is in the eating, namely in recent years two outrageous crimes have been committed by young women dressed in full Islamic garb, women who were not Moslems.

In December 2012, Naomi Oni was the victim of an acid attack in East London. The woman responsible was her now former friend Mary Konye who carried out this act of barbarism for the most trivial of reasons. She was given a 12 year sentence, one that was not a day too long.

The following month saw that rarest of creatures, a female paedophile, kidnap a 5 year old girl from a Philadelphia nursery. Christina Regusters was just nineteen years old when she committed this crime which left her young victim needing major surgery; she was given a 40 year sentence.

As evinced by these two shocking crimes, there are legitimate reasons for a woman to show her face in public, those reasons are concerned with security, and nothing else.

Tags

Burqa, Christina Regusters, Mary Konye

Meet the author

author avatar VennerRoad
Independent researcher based in South East London.

Share this page

moderator Peter B. Giblett moderated this page.
If you have any complaints about this content, please let us know

Comments

Add a comment
Username
Can't login?
Password