Burqa Off

During the Taliban's reign of terror a woman and her 12-year-old daughter were beaten to within an inch of their lives when the woman removed her daughter's burqa in order to help her breathe during an asthma attack.

I recall reading this in one of Julie Burchills' articles some years back. That wasn’t of course the first time id read of the horrors of Islamic treatment of women and that ludicrous garb we’re meant to accept as a modern ‘symbol’ of a woman’s 'right' to choose whatever ‘fashion’ she wants in a deeply right on liberal society.

I’ve also since read and agree with columnist Yasmin Alibhai Brown on this particular issue. She leans somewhat towards a ban: “thousands of liberal Muslims would dearly like the state to take a stand on their behalf. If it doesn't, it will betray vulnerable British citizens and the nation's most cherished principles and encourage Islam to move back even faster into the dark ages, when we all need to face the future together".

The vulnerable women she referred to included a desperate young woman who had followed her home one evening revealing from under her burqa bruises and cuts received from her deeply pious father and brothers. It left her with a number of serious questions about just what we are helping to cover up by paying not a blind bit of notice in the name of ‘rights’. She condemns what she views as a "pernicious ideology.. propagated by misguided Muslim women who claim the burqa is an equaliser and a liberator". I'd only add along with all modern day feminists and homo-lefticus who’ve since abandoned fundamental women’s rights in favour of a tacit support for religious fundamentalism.

Stifle (or not) a laugh at this little hospital number we read about earlier this week but its depressing to read that the latest ‘severe burqa homage’ syndrome hails, not from Saudi Arabia or Iran, where women fight and die daily against the shroud, but from right here in the UK.

The hilariously named ‘inter faith’ gown is designed to help you retain your modesty in surgery. Not sure what is ‘inter faith’ about it firstly and, secondly, when you’re under anaesthetic and on the surgeons table, modesty is the least of your problems and adequately handled already. I’m guessing here but surely there is no way this gown can actually be worn during surgery? That would give rise to a number of issues surely.  So this is presumably for that really long arduous journey you make on a trolley from your ward to the theatre.

NHS money is now being squandered on indulging superfluous fundamentalist beliefs. Wonderful opportunism from its designer. After all, it was always highly unlikely anyone would dare to pipe up 'but thats just daft!'.

Comments

[aileen]

The usual gowns do need a bit of renengineering.

Quoting Bob Monkhouse "what do surgical gowns and insurance policies have in common?"

"When it comes to the crunch you find you's not as well covered as you thought you were."

The asthma attack attack was disgraceful but regarding this, if it makes people more comfortable going into surgery, then surely that's not a bad thing.

[Cunningham]

Congratulations on your first blog on ATW, Alison (is it?), well-writen, as we've come to expect from you.

Don't want to contribute to the debate, but just one memory:

When my sisters were very young, the nuns in their school used to encourage them to wear a bathing suit in the bath! It's true!
I heard that even in England, about a generation earlier, this was also common advice for young wholesome ladies.

When asked why this is necessary, as no man could see the girl, the nuns would reply: "Ah, but you forgot the good God!"

Aparently they conceived (!) of the deity as some kind of Peeping Tom, whose omnipotence allowed him to see through walls and ceilings, but was ultimately foiled by good Irish linen (or polyester).

[aileen]

Alison,

I didn't realise that it was you. It will take me some time to get used to the fact that the theads are not started by David or Andrew.

Congrats on your first.

[aileen]

"but was ultimately foiled by good Irish linen (or polyester)."

Hell of an advertising slogan ;o)

[machs]

Burqa lovers! Don't forget to attend the Burqa Fall Fashion Show running this week only!

It's free so see you there!

[j0nz]

Great 1st post

"homo-lefticus" - that's hilarious

[Frank O'Dwyer]

She leans somewhat towards a ban: “thousands of liberal Muslims would dearly like the state to take a stand on their behalf. [...]

There is nothing liberal about banning a free, legal choice which harms nobody. Quite the contrary; "congress shall make no law...". If they are being forced to wear it, that's another matter, and already illegal.

[MrSmith]

Oh dear, Frank. In your fervour to be the most right-on in the land, you seem to have forgotten which land you're criticising. 'Congress shall make no law' is, I believe, an amendment of the AMERICAN constitution. A written constitution which we, in the UK, do not have.

And how in God's name do you propose to enforce a law (which I doubt exists) which criminalises 'pious' male relatives forcing their female relatives to wear those mobile tents?

[Ross]

{During the Taliban's reign of terror a woman and her 12-year-old daughter were beaten to within an inch of their lives when the woman removed her daughter's burqa in order to help her breathe during an asthma attack.}

It's a bit like that Saudi case a few years ago when the religious police stopped schoolgirls fleeing a burning building because they weren't covered up.

The burqa is a disgusting item which symbolises the abysmal status of women amoung some muslims. Banning items of clothing by law is not an approach consistant with liberty, but its use certainly shouldn't be actively encouraged.

[Frank O'Dwyer]

MrSmith,

'Congress shall make no law' is, I believe, an amendment of the AMERICAN constitution.

No shit, Sherlock? A liberal constitution, and widely regarded as the finest example of such. That being the point as I was responding to this: "thousands of liberal Muslims would dearly like the state to take a stand on their behalf."

If you could read for comprehension instead of arguing against the voices in your own head you'd understand that rather straightforward point.

Also, I wasn't criticising any land. FYI.

And how in God's name do you propose to enforce a law (which I doubt exists) which criminalises 'pious' male relatives forcing their female relatives to wear those mobile tents?

You think it's legal to force women to wear what you want? Leaving aside the small matter of beating them up? Either one of those is assault.

[Cunningham]

When I lived in Saudi Arabia you really had to be lucky betimes even to see a woman. But there was one place, on my way home from work, where a certain young Saudi woman used to rest after climbing a hill and, thinking herself unobserved, take off her veil and turn her face to the sun – and towards a well-positioned me.

I saw her first by accident one day. Id come out of a tunnel in the direction of the sun, so I could get quite close to her before she noticed me. When you (if youre a man and straight) haven't seen even a woman's face in a long time, you're really knocked out by it when you do get the chance.

I mention this because I’m sure this is part of the social-evolutionary reason for all this dressing up. It promotes lust and thus procreation. Compare this with the jaded indifference of men in the west to the sight of female flesh, where, I’ve been told by reliable sources, only the Gael unfailingly rises to the occasion!

So, who’s for population growth?

At any rate, something tells me that the moral and pro-life brigade on ATW (males) are a tad envious of certain Islamic conventions.

[Monica-Philadelphia]

Yes O'Dwyer and that's the point - it was not an American robed replicator wishing the state to take a stand it was a robed replicator unfortunate enough NOT to live the USofA. You don't make your point clearly at all and to attack someone who points out how damnably unclear you are is just not in keeping with a proper debate. Even your attack/response didn't clear it up, boldface and all. Sheesh. You would think I wouldn't have to explain that to you, you being a grown man and all.

That being said - I don't think that the state should outlaw burkas. I think that all women should be well versed in the safe handling and use of firearms. Don't want the burka? Someone beating you/attempting to rape you because you don't want to wear it? Blow the little bastard away.

Simple.

[Maggie]

I hope this covers their modesty whilst their legs are duly placed in stirrups during the birth of a child.

Give me strenth o lord to continue to live in this world of senseless stupidity perpetrated by the bearded wonder brigade.

[aileen]

"I mention this because I’m sure this is part of the social-evolutionary reason for all this dressing up. It promotes lust and thus procreation. "

Reminds me of an artilce on the issue that women in the burqa walk down the street with an everpresnt realisation of the danger that they pose to men.

Now and and agian I'm sure that's a fun thought, but not all the time when you're in a hurry to get carrots.

[alison]

This gown shouldnt be a priority. It costs £12 per burqa kit to produce vs £4 for current one. Yes the current one could do with some improvements! But without the need to pander to fundamental religious beliefs and to one particular group.

Maggie makes an excellent point re child birth. I mean, come on!

Frank - yes it may be assault..but if you read the article i linked to you will see just how much of a burden of fear these women live under. If it was as easy as running to the police then more would. YAB is asking whether the state should intervene for their sakes. An interesting argument.

[Peter]

Alison, good first post. I agree 100%.

[Frank O'Dwyer]

Alison,

Frank - yes it may be assault..but if you read the article i linked to you will see just how much of a burden of fear these women live under. If it was as easy as running to the police then more would. YAB is asking whether the state should intervene for their sakes. An interesting argument.

I did read the article but these women are not the only women being battered and not going to the police. There are women staying indoors, or using makeup and high neck jumpers, long dresses etc, to cover injuries. Should those be banned?

And what state intervention exactly? Will women be prosecuted and imprisoned or fined for wearing the burqa? Will their burqa be forcibly removed? Any such measure seems like making women property of the state instead of themselves.

Monica,

You don't make your point clearly at all

Having trouble keeping up? Too bad, I'm not going to dumb it down for you or spoonfeed you.

I could equally have referred to the ECHR or the UNDHR and you wouldn't have got that either. "Congress shall make no law..." is familiar to more people and is briefer. Besides, someone might as well get some use of that document while the US itself seems to be trialling the idea of "electing" hereditary kings.

[Colm]

I certainly belive that no woman should wear a Burqa but no matter how loathsome it is the state shouldn't ban it. Everything bar compulsion should be done to encourage women to reject it.

[alison]

Frank

The article discusses women who are FORCED to cover up their injuries with the burqa. It alleges thousands are in difficulty.

You cant simply ignore this. It appears a lot of these women are the property of the men in their family not of themselves. If they are asking the state to intervene then their arguments should be acknowledged asap.

Im divided on the issue of banning the burqa. I find it repulsive and insulting to me as a woman and to liberal ideals. At the same time I think banning it will ignite a wave of support for it and will not help these women.

Nevertheless I wouldnt simply ignore them to sit on a moral high horse waxing lyrical about what is or isnt 'liberal'.

I believe she opposed a ban but is now reevaluating her stance since receiving so many letters requesting help. She makes an excellent case.

[MrSmith]

Let's be blunt, the question is that of personal freedom. If the state allows this rot to go on, these women will have no escape, since a family which permits domestic violence for not wearing garment A will have no trouble denying the violence. If, on the other hand, the state bans the burqa, it will become that much harder to get away with it.

Dealing with it as an issue of rights, however, would never work from a political point. Much better to realise the massive danger posed by allowing people to routinely go about with their faces covered in this political climate. If I wandered around London every day wearing a balaclava which shows only my eyes, I could reasonably expect a few questions when entering a secure area. Why the double-standard?

[Frank O'Dwyer]

Alison,

The article discusses women who are FORCED to cover up their injuries with the burqa. It alleges thousands are in difficulty.

Already illegal. No new law is needed to deal with that, it would be enough to enforce what exists.

You cant simply ignore this. It appears a lot of these women are the property of the men in their family not of themselves.

Already illegal, and not solved by making women the property of the state instead.

If they are asking the state to intervene then their arguments should be acknowledged asap.

You haven't answered the question: Intervene how?

Im divided on the issue of banning the burqa. I find it repulsive and insulting to me as a woman and to liberal ideals.

That's what liberty means. People might do something you don't like. Somebody might even get hurt.

Nevertheless I wouldnt simply ignore them to sit on a moral high horse waxing lyrical about what is or isnt 'liberal'.

Appears to be exactly what you're doing.

[Colm]

MrSmith

Security considerations can be brought into play in situations where a woman will be required to remove the Burqa and that is perfectly ok (such as passport photos and checks at airports) but that is a different matter fom banning the wearing of a Burqa completely.

Persuasion is right. Compulsion is wrong. If the state is to permit the banning of the wearing of Burqas becuase it can hide the evidence of domestic violence would it then be also appropriate for the state to ban women from being allowed to live with husbands who have used domestic violence ?

[alison]

I do find your attitude of its 'already illegal' so whats their problem rather cold.

When i initially opposed the burqa in a debate here last year i wasnt aware that so many women who lived in fear of their lives over this appauling garb were seeking help at all. Neither it would seem was YAB who opposed restrictions.

Clearly the law isnt working in a way to assist these women. Why are you so keen for that to remain the case?

Im not sitting on a high horse. Im opposed tothe burqa and I feel very strongly this should be a debate at a political level.

You seem to be implying 'screw them' - this is a liberal society where 'anything goes' with recourse to the law if they need it.

So why are they asking for help and why are THEY asking for the state to intervene?

As Mr Smith puts it 'If the state allows this rot to go on, these women will have no escape'.

Youd be best off putting your question to them wouldnt you? How would they like us to help them?

'That's what liberty means'. WHAT liberty for these women Frank??!

[Frank O'Dwyer]

Alison,

I do find your attitude of its 'already illegal' so whats their problem [...]

That's not my attitude and I've not said any such thing. I've said that this problem is not the result of the state not having enough legal powers. I've not said that it isn't a problem.

Clearly the law isnt working in a way to assist these women. Why are you so keen for that to remain the case?

Do you want a debate or do you prefer to misrepresent what I say?

Your choice.

[remainder snipped unread]

[alison]

Frank,

Maybe its your style here. We WERE having a debate. I said 'you seem to be implying' and alluded to what i perceived to be a cold attitude which im sorry to say i did... but ive engaged you in a pretty thorough debate so far.

So...please correct my misjudgement of what I perceive with opinion, example, and clarification.

Instead of going all unnecessary!