Damian Green says burka ban would be 'un-British'

Banning the wearing of the Islamic full veil in public would be "un-British", the immigration minister has said.

Damian Green told the Sunday Telegraph trying to pass such a law would be at odds with the UK's "tolerant and mutually respectful society".

It comes after Tory MP Philip Hollobone introduced a private members' bill which would make it illegal for people to cover their faces in public.

Last week French MPs voted to ban the wearing of full face veils in public.

The bill, which was overwhelmingly approved by France's lower house of parliament, must now be ratified by the Senate in September to become law. If it is passed, it will be illegal to wear garments such as the niqab or burka, which incorporate a full-face veil, anywhere in public.

But Mr Green said such a move was "very unlikely" to be copied in the UK.

"Telling people what they can and can't wear, if they're just walking down the street, is a rather un-British thing to do," he told the Sunday Telegraph.

"We're a tolerant and mutually respectful society."

'Aggressively secular'

The minister said there were occasions when it was important to be able to see someone's face, but insisted that "it's very unlikely and it would be undesirable for the British Parliament to try and pass a law dictating what people wore".

Mr Green said that, unlike France, the UK was not "aggressively secular".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10674973

> there were occasions when it was important to be able to see someone's face

This obviously only applies with motorcycle helmets, balaclavas and party masks.


> Banning the wearing of the Islamic full veil in public

It is NOT an "Islamic" full veil. It is a misogynistic full veil, nothing more.

There is *nothing* in the Koran that determines that a woman should wear the burka
(or niqab for that matter).

Maybe I should pretend that my full-face covering is on religious grounds next
time I go into a place which objects to being unable to see my face?


> Mr Green said that, unlike France, the UK was not "aggressively secular".

So what? This doesn't have anything to do with the duty of HM government
to apply the law uniformly for all HM subjects, regardless of race, religion,
age or sexual orientation.

I support the French government's ban and I'd support one here (full-face veils).

Am I to take it from your comments that you would prefer the inequality to continue?

would probably not choose to do so were it not for cultural, spousal or familial pressure.

However, I think it's a dangerous thing for the state to start to dictate what can and can not be worn.

I'd much rather have a law which would make it illegal for anyone to compel a woman to wear one of these garments against her will. That would be difficult to enforce of course but then, an outright ban on these things would inevitably result in many of these women being prevented from leaving their homes, which would also be illegal but also difficult to do anything about.

That is the British way and it is the democratic way. The motorcycle helmet argument is a nonsense smokescreen...

(The pernicious little bill proposed is also called the face coverings regulations bill, not just burkhas, so we'd probably have people arrested on their way to bloody fancy dress parties...)

A total nonsense, nothing to do with vocal minorities, it is about telling people what to wear, proposed by a reactionary populist Tory back bencher!

if there are issues of intimidation, where men are forcing women to wear them, there are completely different laws to deal with that!

Telling someone what to wear is just vandalism of personal autonomy!

> The pernicious little bill proposed is also called the face coverings
> regulations bill, not just burkhas, so we'd probably have people arrested
> on their way to bloody fancy dress parties...

If you are driving to "bloody fancy dress parties" with something that
obscures your vision and/or hearing (e.g., a fancy dress gorilla mask or
suchlike) then PC Plod can & will stop you, demand that you remove the
obstruction and - if you refuse - nick you. (Depending on the time of
year, you might also end up providing a breath sample "just in case".)

Now if you are wearing something that is currently game for the "let people
off if it looks religious" argument ...


> The motorcycle helmet argument is a nonsense smokescreen...

Your comments suggests that you're too young to remember the Sikh helmet
debacle. Mind you, one winning argument in that case was that it should be
left up to Darwin to sort out the best option for survival of head injuries.
:evilgrin:


> Telling someone what to wear is just vandalism of personal autonomy!

Good joke.

Try it in a bank or Post Office to see just how far your "personal autonomy"
extends when it interacts with other people. Hell, these days you could find
yourself getting undue attention if you tried that in a major railway station
(much less an airport).


I'm not denying that it is timely fodder for the "reactionary populist Tory
back bencher", just that neither is it an issue to be wished away with a
foppish disregard for applying the law uniformly for all HM subjects, regardless
of race, religion, age or sexual orientation.

To repeat: There is *nothing* in the Koran that determines that a woman should
wear the burka or niqab so "religious tolerance" has zero relevance to this
particular issue.

to the 'right' to wear motorcycle helmets in banks etc! which is a nonsense smoke screen.

The argument runs that 'if i don't have the 'right' to wear my motorcycle helmet in a bank, why should they have a right to wear their burkha'

At present there is NO ban on the burkha being worn. We are all treated the same. If i or my wife chose to wear a Burkha, they are free under british law, because it is not against the law. And if a muslim woman wanted to wear a motorcycle helmet into a bank she would be asked to remove it. It IS equality under law.

Also, in many instances for identification purposes if it is necessary, women ARE asked to remove their Burkhas, which I think is quite sensible, i just object to what is also, sadly a typically British trait, that of the tyranny of the majority demanding compliance for what is such a non-issue, and using the Law as a blunt oppressive instrument, when just a bit of common sense will do.


We live in a pluralist society, and the tiny minority of women who wear Burkhas (a few thousand i believe) are causing no harm.

In British liberty, we have the right to cause offence, but not harm. If you are offended, tough!

The proposed bill is reactionary, populist and pathetic, whipped up by UKIP, tabloids and reactionary Tories.

but I also think that there is more than a tad of hypocrisy about certain groups claiming the Rights of Man while at the same time calling for legal restrictions, punishments or even death for those who publish comments or cartoons about them that they deem to be offensive. In addition anyone familiar with the history of 'veiling' in the UK will know that one place it has long been practised is amongst certain groups of young males in Northern Ireland



Even pluralist societies need to have some shared principles around which they cohere otherwise you risk the kind of sectarian divisions that scarred Ulster

:shrug:

and if you want people to refrain from wearing them (as i would prefer, to be honest), would you prefer this was done through the law or other means?

about maintaining liberty and freedoms for all, no matter who it applies to.

And i'm not sure how many burkha wearers or muslims call for the death of people who draw cartoons about mohammed etc. I don't think extremists speak for Muslims, just like UKIP don't speak for me, when they talk of Christian heritage etc. Its irrelevant to British citizens freedoms muslim or not, whether some nutters want to kill cartoonists or not. Completely irrelevant.

And its not about 'claiming' rights. Its simply that we have them...

Yes, it's unBritish, and these kinds of laws will have the opposite effect. More women will do it.

You'd just encourage people to do it as a response to such a law.

See also, SOCPA vs Mark Thomas's Lone Protests, and the anti-police photography ban vs I'm a Photographer not a Terrorist.