Monday, June 29, 2009

Ban the Burka!!!


Even in the rural shires, where I am staying, you cannot escape the Islamisation of Britain.

I have just had a few days in the Cumbrian Lake District and saw several large groups of muslim immigrants, sometimes with the womenfolk wearing burkas and hijabs.

At least they were let out of the house, I guess.

I recall many years ago when working at the Derby Evening Telegraph, writing a front page story called 'Indian Country' which featured the looney left Derbyshire County Council subsidising coach trips to the Peak District so ethnic minorities would learn to enjoy the countryside rather than feel 'intimidated ' by the near 100% ethnic white population that live in the shires.

Anyway, here we are, 15 or so years later and there are obviously sufficient numbers of Indians or muslims or whatever to gather around Windermere in large groups, or hang about the Travelodge in Kendal.

In some some ways it is heartening to see such groups enjoying the delights of a rural Britain built up by its indigenous peoples over the centuries.

The quaint stone houses, the well-kept gardens, the colourful tubs of flowers hanging everywhere.

Which brings me on to Burkas.

French president Nicholas Sarkozy announced a plan to ban them, sparking off a global debate.

And while Gordon Brown will never have the balls to do so, despite having ministers of that name, the issue gained a fair prominence in the media.

There were articles in the Sun and the Daily Mail naturally, interviews on BBC Breakfast and Iain Dale has just blogged a piece on the subject.

As for me, I fully agree with Mr Dale.

Burkas turn women into chattels of their husbands and as others note, there is nothing in the Koran demanding them.

I would also add another reason why Britain as well as Australia and New Zealand should ban the burka, and that is to force a bit more integration from the Muslims into our Western way of life.

For those unhappy with this, well we can always show them the nearest airport.

If such muslim extremists find such Christian societies so objectionable, then why live here.

If they want to live in an Islamist theocracy, there's plenty in the Middle East where they can go!

And yes, when I hear of Briain having 80-odd Sharia Courts, I do despair and can only long for the day when Britain has a government that will stand up for its peoples and culture.

I also hope New Zealand can learn from Britain's mistakes too!


17 comments:

Anonymous said...

Of course the state should tell people what they can and can't wear and throw people in jail who don't comply. It's called freedom people!!

God you're a genius.

Judge Holden

Psycho Milt said...

You walked straight into that one, Fairfacts. I also was going to ask how the love of freedom is expressed by having the state tell people what they can and can't wear.

Not to mention: if you write posts about how much you dislike seeing foreign-looking people in your country, assumptions get made about you - know what I'm saying?

Psycho Milt said...

To which we could add: do the Jewish Beth Din courts that have been operating in Britain for centuries also cause you despair? Will you stand up for British tradition and culture against them? Let's see a post!

Simon said...

Some Moslem women in western countries are forced to wear the burka. They have no choice.

Governments shouldn’t tell what people should wear however at the same time when ever Clark turned up to some Moslem meeting he was always wearing a head scarf.

Nanny state is always telling people how to live their lives the religious nuts fit right in.

Anonymous said...

What a spectacularly incoherent post Simon. Are you related to Fearfacts?

Judge Holden

Rakaia George said...

As human societies we depend upon non-verbal communication using facial expressions to navigate though our interactions with other people.

Burkas quite simply wall the wearer off from the rest of society...is it wrong to insist that if you live in our society, you at least show your face?

Still, I doubt you'll be seeing Gore-tex Burkas at the top of Blencathra any time soon.

Anonymous said...

How can you complain about a 'nanny state' and then say you want the state to monitor what people can and can't wear?

Simon said...

Yes anon good point. Libertarians like Judge Holden are right. There is no difference between the state worshiping left and those who worship imaginary sky friends.

Socrates said...

PM - Whilst I agree with your criticism of FFM, I think your point about Jewish courts in Britain has some problem. I think you may want to consider these differences:

1- The Jewish faith does not have a history of forced conversion, nor does it particularly have a history of intolerance to others faiths. The establishment of Shara law within the state could be seen as a bulkhead by radical forces within Islam for undermining western law and rights.

2- The Beth Din Courts are purely civil and work comfortably within the framework of the British law. Would any Shara equivilants be happy to be so constrained?

Psycho Milt said...

I don't see any problem. The Muslims are asking for civil Sharia courts similar to the Beth Din - civil matters only, with the results recognised by British law if the participants are both adherents of the religion and have both agreed to take their dispute to the religious court. It's either OK or it's not, isn't it?

Personally I dislike the concept of separate religious courts in principle and would prefer Britain rejected the whole concept - but rejecting Muslim courts while accepting Jewish ones is simply unjustifiable.

Anonymous said...

Well these people intimidate me with their garb.

It is my right not to feel intimidated in the country of my birth and the Gumints responsibility to ensure I do not feel intimidated.

Therefore it line with the Gumints responsibility to me and my rights I require the Gimint ensures I am not intimidated.

How they do this is their problem. Not mine.

Funny how I dont expect my rights to be worth a tinkas damn.

gd

Socrates said...

“I don't see any problem. The Muslims are asking for civil Sharia courts similar to the Beth Din - civil matters only, with the results recognised by British law if the participants are both adherents of the religion and have both agreed to take their dispute to the religious court. It's either OK or it's not, isn't it?”

I don’t have a problem as long as any decision taken within the religious court does not breach A: a constitutional guarantee, or B: is so inconsistent with secular law as to be diametrically opposed to the intent of secular law. From my understanding and reading of this, the Beth Din (as does the church law courts run by the Anglican church) fulfils both these criteria. The propositions for Sharia courts that I have seen do not.

Anonymous said...

"Well these people intimidate me with their garb.

It is my right not to feel intimidated in the country of my birth and the Gumints responsibility to ensure I do not feel intimidated."

Is that supposed to be an argument GD? People in non-western clothing scare you and the government has a duty to use its coercive powers to ensure you don't get scared? I don't like carnies myself. Small hands etc.

Judge Holden

FAIRFACTS MEDIA said...

Yes, I do see the contradiction concerning freedom here.
But there has beem much said about women been forced to wear burkas.
Today, in a letters section of one of the dailies, perhaps the Daily Mail, one of the writers noted the burkas only come in black.
Why can't they come in a range of colours, the writer noted.
Indeed, why not a range of floral prints, dots, stripes and a variety of other designs.
I am sure that if such things did happen, it might make the burka more acceptable.
It is because we see them in just black that the dress seems more about treating women as men's chattels rather than human beings.
Thus, while I accept the argument about the 'freedom' to wear a burka, I feel that in many/most cases it is a false freedom, with the wearer typically being forced to do so.

Anonymous said...

Awwww would you be less afwaid of the mean old burka if it was in a nice floral print? You take the piss out of yourself Fairy, honestly.

Anyway, your response to the supposed problem of some people allegedly being told what to wear is to get the state to force everyone to wear approved clothing? Why do you hate freedom?

Judge Holden

Psycho Milt said...

I feel that in many/most cases it is a false freedom, with the wearer typically being forced to do so.

On the basis of...?

Really, this is just the right-wing equivalent of the "I find that offensive" that wet liberals are so fond of, and just as ridiculous.

WAKE UP said...

The bottom line is that these dumbshit burqa-wearers and their pig-ignorant, obsessed, loony chauvinist husbands, fathers and brothers have migrated to (or worse, have been born in) Britain because it's a BETTER PLACE TO LIVE.

But not for much longer. Stupid bastards. You can lead a Muslim to modernity, but you can't make him GET IT.