It would not be British to ban the burqa
Dominic Lawson has a powerful article in today's Sunday Times called
Banning the burqa is simply not British
in which he criticises the badly-thought-through UKIP proposals to ban the burqa.
There are clearly some circumstances and jobs in which security, public safety, or the operational requirements of the job make it necessary for people to be willing to show their face - when producing a passport to prove your identity before getting on a plane, for instance. Someone who is not willing to show their face cannot expect to be appointed to one of those jobs or to access a service for which public safety would require an identity check.
This requirement is not racist or religious discrimination, and should apply to anyone, of any faith or race, whether they are insisting on wearing a burqa, motorcycle helmet, a hood, or a Darth Vader helmet.
But requiring people to show their face when there is a good reason is one thing: a complete ban on wearing a particular garment anywhere in public places or public buildings is another matter entirely.
As Lawson says, this country has evolved a "tolerant approach to open expressions of religious difference, which can be summarised by the phrase 'live and let live'.
"Christians in this country understand this well, which is why a ComRes poll last week reported that 85% of self-described Christians agreed that, whatever your faith, the law should protect the right to wear its symbols, provided they do not harm others."
Exactly.
Banning the burqa is simply not British
in which he criticises the badly-thought-through UKIP proposals to ban the burqa.
There are clearly some circumstances and jobs in which security, public safety, or the operational requirements of the job make it necessary for people to be willing to show their face - when producing a passport to prove your identity before getting on a plane, for instance. Someone who is not willing to show their face cannot expect to be appointed to one of those jobs or to access a service for which public safety would require an identity check.
This requirement is not racist or religious discrimination, and should apply to anyone, of any faith or race, whether they are insisting on wearing a burqa, motorcycle helmet, a hood, or a Darth Vader helmet.
But requiring people to show their face when there is a good reason is one thing: a complete ban on wearing a particular garment anywhere in public places or public buildings is another matter entirely.
As Lawson says, this country has evolved a "tolerant approach to open expressions of religious difference, which can be summarised by the phrase 'live and let live'.
"Christians in this country understand this well, which is why a ComRes poll last week reported that 85% of self-described Christians agreed that, whatever your faith, the law should protect the right to wear its symbols, provided they do not harm others."
Exactly.
Comments
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, and to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.
This is a qualified right in that if there are situations where a certain item of clothing becomes a health and safety or a security risk at airports then it is acceptable to ask someone to show their face (eg removing a motorbike helmet when entering a bank.)
Clothing could also be covered by Article 10 Freedom of Expression, again subject to certain restrictions that are in "accordance with the law" and necessary in a democratic society.
The act enshrines positive rights in English law (prior to the HRA only negative rights existed i.e. you could do anything as long as it was not against the law.) With 13,400 new criminal laws enacted since 1997 (an average of 3 a day) it is a comfort to know that at least there is the European Convention of Human Rights incorporated into English law.
I hasten to add this right also extends to the right for Christians to wear a crucifix.
To ban the burqa would criminalise otherwise law abiding women. This would serve only to create divisions in society. The article in the 'Times' accurately states that feminism cannot be used to impose freedom on women or use totalitarian methods to liberate people. It is exceedingly arrogant to assume that women need to have their consciousness raised. Feminism like wearing the burqa is a personal political issue and it is not the place of the democratic state to dictate how people live their lives (unless in proportionate terms it is found to harm others.) The issue should remain at the level of debate, but ultimately the individual decides on how to express personal and religious beliefs. Shami Chakrabarti, the director of Liberty, recently pointed out, there has recently been a move towards a “political and legislative culture that conflates irritation, offence, alarm and distress [which] has promoted a general fear of difference and dissent”. How can UKIP which purports to be a Libertarian Party adopt this new Labour interference with the personal life of individuals.
I sincerely hope that Dominic Lawson is mistaken in that this is the means by which UKIP wish to compete electorally with the BNP, by attempting to promote more fear. Whilst Lord Pearson is not intentionally setting out to create dangerous identity politics, I hope he pauses to reflect on the possible consequences.
State interference in our personal lives goes against the grain of British traditions following the new Labour thread of telling people what is good and bad for them. This is oppressive and against our traditions.