UKIP want to ban the Burqa

[Midas]

Hi,

clearly in a free society it is the right of the individual to call the shots.
Property and business owners should have the right to serve who they wish and if they do not wish to admit people with covered faces that should be their choice. There is no place in this argument for government to make more laws - there is already law in place upholding the rights of property owners - start getting the police to do their job.

Just as there are laws against being drunk and disorderly in a public place and or causing a public nuisance - why do people believe we need new laws related to binge drinking it is no one's business UNTIL it impinges on someone elses liberty and rights.

In principle I would agree with you, but I can see a huge number of conflicts arising, if for no other reason than the complexity of the current position under UK law. For instance if a shopkeeper refused to serve a Muslim woman unless she removed her burqa, purely on the basis of wanting to know who he was dealing with and so she could be seen on his CCTV, would he be potentially be open for prosecution under one or more laws, even though he'd be in his rights to ask a motorcyclist to remove his helmet for identical reasons?

If idiots wish to drug themselves with alcohol, heroin or nicotine that is none of the governments business.

Regards,
Greg L-W.

Again, I entirely agree in theory, however what happens when the actions of those few impinge on the majority, who are then left to pick up the undoubtedly substantial bill, both financial and social?

[octopus]

When will you get it, both are based on Judaism (where most of the bad parts come from). Christianity is a Jewish sect and Islam is a modified version of Christianity. If Christianity is based on love (in your opinion) then so is Islam. Also Allah is the same as the christian god or the Jewish

Jehovah

.

How often to you see Christians inciting people to murder, just because their faith has been insulted? Sorry Kiwi, Muslims show a lot less love than Christians. When will you get it?

[Neo2012]

Fascist, not Nazi.



Make up, not necessary, but neither does it offend our sensabilities or traditions.




If they're wearing it for that reason then they have their own issues and even less right to wear it.



No, but they're preventing others from seeing their faces. In Western tradition, hiding the identity has often been associated with criminals and misdeeds, and as such, it has become offensive to hide your identity in public. I would even consider it rude if someone wore sunglasses when talking to me.


Explain the hypocrisy.

you didn't answer;

[/COLOR] [nope, wore one to the match, no problem]
[nope, wore one to the match, no problem]

[Greg Lance-Watkins]

If only this were true. We would all be in a lovely friendly club together, without Islam calling for the slaying of Jews and Christians.
When will you get it Kiwi?
As a non-believer you know nothing of spiritual matters.

Hi,

surely it is more readily proven that those who are reliant on superstitions are likely to have less understanding of almost, if not all, matters than those who base discourse on fact rather than unsustainable fantasy.

It can easily be argued that mankind's apparent determination to invent gods to worship and blame has been the single greatest collective cause of evil on this planet, minded that aquisitive aggression is a matter of nature in almost, if not all, mammals.

Regards,
Greg L-W.

[Neo2012]

A hell of a lot more "liberal" than land of the burka, through.

so why do want to copy them?

In Portsmouth where I live you have a church and a Mosque next door to one another. You could walk into the Christian church, insult Jesus, and stand a good chance of getting out in one piece. Do the same thing in the Mosque, insult Allah - your head, body, arms and legs would probably leave the building seperately

Done it, just outside in a political discussion about political islam, no prob. does that count.

[Greg Lance-Watkins]

How often to you see Christians inciting people to murder, just because their faith has been insulted? Sorry Kiwi, Muslims show a lot less love than Christians. When will you get it?

Hi,

check out British and American prisons - I believe you will find the preponderance of those therein for murder and similar violent crimes are christians.

Consider the obscene number of women burnt at the stake in the name of christianity over the ages.

Do you not remember the slaughter of Jews and Gypsies by outspoken christians in the SS and Nazi Germany.

I see few laurels on which any god botherers may rest - whatever their chosen gods.

Consider the 10s of 1,000s of muslims slaughtered by the christians and hindus during partition in India in 1948/9

Is not a main plank of the obscene massacre of mainly muslims in Iraq by supposedly christians of the American and British politically/economically motivated army.

Christians would seem to have incited the killing of well over 1 million in Iraq and you may recal the fact that the Iraqi army was sponsored by christians in the war against Iran over many years, where as I recal around 1.8 million died.

Incitement would seem to lose its bias when challenged by facts!

Regards,
Greg L-W.

[Barry]

Not so sure about that rather wide-sweeping statement there Barry. As a lifelong atheist myself, I know a great deal more about religious matters than the vast majority of Christians I've met, including more than one priest - it come from having to know the ground you walk on in order to accurately defend it (if only the same thing could be said about most theists!) - and many other non-believers I know are in exactly the same position. You can't equate not believing in something to not knowing or not understanding it, they're very different things.

You confuse religious and spiritual. You wouldn't get it, either.

[Barry]

What about the sectarian fighting between Christian denomininations? And Jewish persecution of Muslims?

Exactly!

[Greg Lance-Watkins]

In principle I would agree with you, but I can see a huge number of conflicts arising, if for no other reason than the complexity of the current position under UK law.

Since so called UK Law is no longer valid - so what?

We are now subject to EU law NOT UK law since the apeal courts are in the EU NOT in the UK.

For instance if a shopkeeper refused to serve a Muslim woman unless she removed her burqa, purely on the basis of wanting to know who he was dealing with and so she could be seen on his CCTV, would he be potentially be open for prosecution under one or more laws, even though he'd be in his rights to ask a motorcyclist to remove his helmet for identical reasons?

Then we should be looking at improving the law NOT making more.

Since Westminster no longer has authority to make law should they not be exp[osed as the frauds they are?

Again, I entirely agree in theory, however what happens when the actions of those few impinge on the majority, who are then left to pick up the undoubtedly substantial bill, both financial and social?

What financial bill? The health service is well within its remit to minister to the health of the nation as a primary aim at the expense of the self inflicted sick. Legislators are surely within their remit IN THE EU to punatively tax alcohol as a hypothecated tax to fund the additional medical costs and policing costs.

We do not need laws against drugs we need punative laws against crime to fund drugs and similarly a crime of attempted murder for the supply of fatal amounts of any drug without a license to supply.

A lax society was easy to manage when the planet had under 2billion people 60 years ago - now we have almost 7 billion enforcement of such laws is required.

Similarly there fast becomes good cause for life sentence for institutionalised rip off by a greedy few such as Al Gore with his climate drivel, Pachauri with his carbon scams the entire IPCC for its fundamental dishonesty etc.

Regards,
Greg L-W.

[Greg Lance-Watkins]

You confuse religious and spiritual. You wouldn't get it, either.

Hi,

both are without honest provable substance and thus little more than a con trick based on utterly illogical veneration of superstition!

Regards,
Greg L-W.

[Kiwi 1691]

How often to you see Christians inciting people to murder, just because their faith has been insulted? Sorry Kiwi, Muslims show a lot less love than Christians. When will you get it?

Christians incite people to murder just as often as others. An example would be anti-abortion violence. Alot of this is committed by CHRISTIANS, many wars had a religious driver (mainly christian).

The vast majority of Muslims and Christains are nice people.

[Kiwi 1691]

If only this were true. We would all be in a lovely friendly club together, without Islam calling for the slaying of Jews and Christians.

That's easy, alot of religious people know very little about their religion. I often correct people I know about their religion.

As a non-believer you know nothing of spiritual matters.

non-believer? More like a person who likes to see peer reviewed evidence before he believes something.

[Midas]

You confuse religious and spiritual. You wouldn't get it, either.

Oh, I get it very well, but given that spirituality is based on religion and the belief in a god, there's as little basis to that as to religion itself.

[LA]

That's easy, alot of religious people know very little about their religion. I often correct people I know about their religion.

Then you are rude.
People don't have to believe or follow the ins and out of a particular religion because you think they should.

I know Christians who don't believe in the theory of evolution, and I have Christians who believe entirely in science and God - They believe both are compatible.
To state that they are wrong about their religion is ignorant to how they perceive their religion.

[Kiwi 1691]

Then you are rude.

Aren't we all at times?

[DC]

you didn't answer;

So you wore a full balaclava and weren't asked to remove it at the stadium?

[octopus]

Hi,

BIT RICH!!

You may recal it was you who having made a collection of stereotypical jingoistic remarks about Muslims who went on to say there were areas of your home town that were overun with Indians - when clearly you were unaware that very few Indians are Muslims!

There are only about 2Million Muslims in Britain, many of whom are pretty uncommited, many of whom do not practice and a number of whom have married christian or agnostic partners.

I think the Jehovah's Wetnurses and Scientology and some so called born again evangelists, not to mention some sects of house and pentacostal offer a greater threat than many muslims.

Regards,
Greg L-W.

I can be quite specific on to the numbers of Muslims in certain arears. I was speaking to a lady who cooks school meals in a Portsmouth school, and she claims that 85% are MUSLIM. How she knows this is because these Muslim children have to have a special diet, other ethnic groups have other meals - and of course she knows them. Also, at the top of Granada road Portsmouth there is a Mosque. I remember being in a traffic jam for several minutes whilst the worshipers pilled out of this Mosque, one Friday afternoon - so please don"t say there is only a hand full of Muslims in Portsmouth; I have lived here for 20 years - I DO KNOW! 2 million, or 20. I repeat again, people like myself are their best friends, if people like you, and others, choose to ignore this problem, then things could turn rather nasty for them, as many people in the cities feel we are being taken over - with fiqures like 85%, we are . It is a much for their good, as for the white majority. As I said there are some very nasty organistions out there ready to exploit the situation which none of us would want. Look at last years riots- I fear that is just the beginning. As for the other three you mention, a bit of pain at the door, but nowhere near as aggressive - AND THEY DON"T THREATEN TO CUT OF PEOPLES HEADS!

[Greg Lance-Watkins]

I can be quite specific on to the numbers of Muslims in certain arears. I was speaking to a lady who cooks school meals in a Portsmouth school, and she claims that 85% are MUSLIM. How she knows this is because these Muslim children have to have a special diet, other ethnic groups have other meals - and of course she knows them. Also, at the top of Granada road Portsmouth there is a Mosque. I remember being in a traffic jam for several minutes whilst the worshipers pilled out of this Mosque, one Friday afternoon - so please don"t say there is only a hand full of Muslims in Portsmouth; I have lived here for 20 years - I DO KNOW! 2 million, or 20. I repeat again, people like myself are their best friends, if people like you, and others, choose to ignore this problem, then things could turn rather nasty for them, as many people in the cities feel we are being taken over - with fiqures like 85%, we are . It is a much for their good, as for the white majority. As I said there are some very nasty organistions out there ready to exploit the situation which none of us would want. Look at last years riots- I fear that is just the beginning. As for the other three you mention, a bit of pain at the door, but nowhere near as aggressive - AND THEY DON"T THREATEN TO CUT OF PEOPLES HEADS!

Hi,

I agree that so called christians of various sects and cults do not threaten to cut off peoples' heads - they merely slaughter them wholesale by use of modern technology - some 1.3MILLION slaughtered in Iraq!!

Regards,
Greg L-W.

[Barry]

But what has it got to do with UKIP banning the Burqa?

[Kiwi 1691]

But what has it got to do with UKIP banning the Burqa?

Because when ever someone mentions anything that relates to Islam people like you, octopus etc spout the c**p "Christianity is great and Islam is evil".

[DC]

In all fairness Islam is not in the same ballpark as the other major religions. While it may share common roots to the other Abrahamic religions, it's vastly different in reality. Firstly, Islam includes a political system, Sharia. While both Jewish and Christian nations over history have often adopted laws based on those in the Bible/Torah, the political systems themselves weren't dictated by religion. This isn't true of Islam. Secondly, Islam is quite young as far as religions go, and as such hasn't matured, for example the Koran is still widely accepted as literal, and far less is ignored (for example huge portions of both teh Bible and Torah are ignored and consider non-relevent to today's society, even by many Christians and Jews).

[Greg Lance-Watkins]

Hi,

the problem is that from one superstitions view point all the others are wrong!

There would seem to be no greater source of evil than mankind's bizarre determination to invent gods to worship and blame!

Think of the many MILLIONS who dies at the hands of someone elses superstitions!

Regards,
Greg L-W.

[The Untalented Mr Ripley]

Hi,

I agree that so called christians of various sects and cults do not threaten to cut off peoples' heads - they merely slaughter them wholesale by use of modern technology - some 1.3MILLION slaughtered in Iraq!!

Regards,
Greg L-W.

Good point....apart from in the main it has been muslims killing muslims in Iraq, albeit you could argue that the Christian West created the conditions for the various muslim groups to slaughter each other.

[octopus]

Good point....apart from in the main it has been muslims killing muslims in Iraq, albeit you could argue that the Christian West created the conditions for the various muslim groups to slaughter each other.

Who was it that got rid of the tyrant Saddam Hussien? Who is it that"s helping to rebuild Iraq? GOOD OLD BRITAIN AND the USA, in the main. The infidel west! With a lot of dirty, western money.

[Greg Lance-Watkins]

Who was it that got rid of the tyrant Saddam Hussien? Who is it that"s helping to rebuild Iraq? GOOD OLD BRITAIN AND the USA, in the main. The infidel west! With a lot of dirty, western money.

Hi,

well actually NO - Britain was driven out after a total failure do read up on the facts. We achieved virtually nothing beyond enmity in Basra and eventually had to seek help and limp out to Basra airport and hide there until we could leave.

Perhaps you could identify what Britain rebuilt, restored, repaired or made good. Much the same goes for America who, having used 1,000s of tons of explosives and 100s of near obsolete Cruise Missiles murdered and massacred huge numbers, destroyed the electric grid, destroyed the sewage system, destroyed the water supply and failed to control any semblance of peace.

The obscene manner of execution of Hussein was a shame to all - to date due to the lies of Tony Blair & his corrupt cronies and their war crimes and crimes against humanity about 1,400,000 people have died in Iraq - no not Muslims killing Muslims but mostly US troops and military ordenance - the suicide bombers and Muslim deaths at Muslim hands is fairly minimal by comparison.

There is no aspect of the massacre of Iraqis that the west can be other than shamed by - including the 1.8Million killed in the war which America funded and encouraged between Iraq & Iran when it had put Husein in power!

May I suggest you read up some of the facts - a good start would be Dr. Richard North's book 'The Ministry of Defeat' - I understand every member of the Chilcott enquiry has read it! As have most of the related Generals.

Regards,
Greg L-W.

[JacquesMagique]

Who was it that got rid of the tyrant Saddam Hussien? Who is it that"s helping to rebuild Iraq? GOOD OLD BRITAIN AND the USA, in the main. The infidel west! With a lot of dirty, western money.

By rebuild Iraq you mean butcher their economy for the benefit of western MNCs?

[Greg Lance-Watkins]

By rebuild Iraq you mean butcher their economy for the benefit of western MNCs?

Hi,

You overlook outright theft of multi $Millions stolen both from world tax payers and siphoned off by corrupt contractors.

What percentage of the buildings utterly destroyed as a result of Tony Blair's undeniable outright corruption in collusion with hi corrupt cronies have been restored? I wonder would anyone care to list the $Billions poured in in so called aid and handled out by companies owned by New World Orderists.

WHAT was built and repaired in Iraq? Only grave yards!
Perhaps it might help to understand if you watch this but realise Bush was given the authority based on lies and distortions from fake intel. from Blair and his criminal associates and the lies of Jack Straw to Colin Powell:
No Bravery

Let us hope Chilcott rigorously and forensically exposes the crimes of Blair later today sufficiently honestly to ensure a trial is inevitable for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Regards,
Greg L-W.

[Midas]

Can we please keep this thread for discussing UKIP's proposals for banning the burqa please. There's already an Iraq enquiry thread.

[octopus]

Hi,

well actually NO - Britain was driven out after a total failure do read up on the facts. We achieved virtually nothing beyond enmity in Basra and eventually had to seek help and limp out to Basra airport and hide there until we could leave.

Perhaps you could identify what Britain rebuilt, restored, repaired or made good. Much the same goes for America who, having used 1,000s of tons of explosives and 100s of near obsolete Cruise Missiles murdered and massacred huge numbers, destroyed the electric grid, destroyed the sewage system, destroyed the water supply and failed to control any semblance of peace.

The obscene manner of execution of Hussein was a shame to all - to date due to the lies of Tony Blair & his corrupt cronies and their war crimes and crimes against humanity about 1,400,000 people have died in Iraq - no not Muslims killing Muslims but mostly US troops and military ordenance - the suicide bombers and Muslim deaths at Muslim hands is fairly minimal by comparison.

There is no aspect of the massacre of Iraqis that the west can be other than shamed by - including the 1.8Million killed in the war which America funded and encouraged between Iraq & Iran when it had put Husein in power!

May I suggest you read up some of the facts - a good start would be Dr. Richard North's book 'The Ministry of Defeat' - I understand every member of the Chilcott enquiry has read it! As have most of the related Generals.

Regards,
Greg L-W.

Actually, I am talking in the future tense, we WILL be using yours, and my money, to restore this country. In the past tense, the cost has already been billions of pounds to the westen tax payer, in waging war, and aggression - money that could have been spent at home. With respect, Greg, that is the only fact we need to read up on - because that is the only concern to the UK, which, frankly, MY only concern; saying nothing of the appalling loss of life in this unnecerssary war. Certain parts of your post I agree with; albeit for different reasons. There have been attrocities commited by coalition troops, Tony Blair should be arrested; hundreds of British service people dead or maimed for life and you know I was against the war, and our involvement. As for Saddam Hussien, he may have been a butcher, and was executed - that"s a matter for the Iraqis; that is their way.

[Kiwi 1691]

Since the Ukip appear to be dirty Libertarians it seems odd that they wish to destroy liberty and ban the Burqa. Libertarianism is a term adopted by a broad spectrum of political philosophies which advocate the maximization of individual liberty.

[octopus]

By rebuild Iraq you mean butcher their economy for the benefit of western MNCs?

Whichever way you put it YOU will be paying, just like me.

[octopus]

Christians incite people to murder just as often as others. An example would be anti-abortion violence. Alot of this is committed by CHRISTIANS, many wars had a religious driver (mainly christian).

The vast majority of Muslims and Christains are nice people.

Not saying Muslims aren"t nice people, but they need to work on their public relations a bit. I have nothing for, or against Muslims personaly, but when they demand we adopt their life in the UK, we British do get a bit upset. Christians do have better Public Relations in the UK, not saying their perfect, but not quite as intimidating.

[Midas]

Since the Ukip appear to be dirty Libertarians it seems odd that they wish to destroy liberty and ban the Burqa. Libertarianism is a term adopted by a broad spectrum of political philosophies which advocate the maximization of individual liberty.

There's a great deal more to this issue than just individual liberty though. I agree that on the face of it it's easy to say that this proposal is counter-libertarian, however equally the argument that although perhaps not explicit in the Quran, the frequently enforced wearing of the burqa by Islam, could be said to be the same. Now two wrongs don't make a right of course, but when the additional factor that under some circumstances the legal protection offered to minority groups, such as recognising this 'right' to wear the burqa, gives the minority enhanced rights over the majority, and that's surely wrong. The one aspect of this which has caused me to change my views and come down more in support of a ban than not, is that these 'right' are seen by the general public as most unfair, in particular in situations such as where an indigenous British person might be legally required to completely show his/her face by removing full head covering (say a balaclava or crash helmet) - when in a post office or bank or public building for instance - yet a Muslim woman wearing an even more covering burqa is not required to do so. Is not fairness and equality for the majority not more important than legally elevating the position of minority groups, often for no other reason than party political vote catching?

[Kiwi 1691]

There's a great deal more to this issue than just individual liberty though. I agree that on the face of it it's easy to say that this proposal is counter-libertarian, however equally the argument that although perhaps not explicit in the Quran, the frequently enforced wearing of the burqa by Islam, could be said to be the same. Now two wrongs don't make a right of course, but when the additional factor that under some circumstances the legal protection offered to minority groups, such as recognising this 'right' to wear the burqa, gives the minority enhanced rights over the majority, and that's surely wrong. The one aspect of this which has caused me to change my views and come down more in support of a ban than not, is that these 'right' are seen by the general public as most unfair, in particular in situations such as where an indigenous British person might be legally required to completely show his/her face by removing full head covering (say a balaclava or crash helmet) - when in a post office or bank or public building for instance - yet a Muslim woman wearing an even more covering burqa is not required to do so. Is not fairness and equality for the majority not more important than legally elevating the position of minority groups, often for no other reason than party political vote catching?

You may be over thinking the issue Midas, in the whole of Europe anti-Muslim ideas and actions get votes.

[octopus]

Hi,

check out British and American prisons - I believe you will find the preponderance of those therein for murder and similar violent crimes are christians.

Consider the obscene number of women burnt at the stake in the name of christianity over the ages.

Do you not remember the slaughter of Jews and Gypsies by outspoken christians in the SS and Nazi Germany.

I see few laurels on which any god botherers may rest - whatever their chosen gods.

Consider the 10s of 1,000s of muslims slaughtered by the christians and hindus during partition in India in 1948/9

Is not a main plank of the obscene massacre of mainly muslims in Iraq by supposedly christians of the American and British politically/economically motivated army.

Christians would seem to have incited the killing of well over 1 million in Iraq and you may recal the fact that the Iraqi army was sponsored by christians in the war against Iran over many years, where as I recal around 1.8 million died.

Incitement would seem to lose its bias when challenged by facts!

Regards,
Greg L-W.

Greg, if you go back through history, you will find many crimes commited by Christians, many crimes commited by jews, many crimes by every creed, colour and race; that"s human nature, you see it in every walk of life. If you talk to most people today, that live in large immigrant areas, or ghettos, their main worry is their culture being taken over by Islam. Now, you can blog all you want with fancy facts and fiqures - most of which I would dispute, (Gordon Brown doesn"t even know the true number of Muslims living in Britain) because I as you know, I don"t need data on this subject as I live among it, and see it everyday. The Burka is just another form of the Muslim community putting it"s mark on Britain. Just over 2 million you say now, 2010. Ok, what about 2050, what about 2100. Far off times, yes, but will affect future generations - and with their birthrate can easily become the minority over majority. As for your most recent claims of Christians causing middle east wars, I think politics would be more to blame than religeon, as Christainity is only a guide to most Christians, not fanatcal cult like Islam is to many Muslims. As for nazis slaughting Jews and gypsies in the name of Christanity - THAT IS SICK NONESENSE. They did it in the name of Nazism. In fact Martin Boorman was rumoured to be a Satanist, and Himmler was involved in similar practicies.

[octopus]

so why do want to copy them?
Done it, just outside in a political discussion about political islam, no prob. does that count.

I do not want to copy them, but it is them that should be copying US - IT IS OUR COUNTRY! Well, your braver person than me. But did you actually insult Islam? Unless you did, it doesn"t count. I could make some suggestions, but I am not that brave.

[uncon]

I find this difficult, but having considered it, I think the following.

The burkah is a symbol of restriction as it prevents. Having said which I also think that it is a choice and as such should be respected (lets not get into the argument about womens repression as everyone loses in this instance) If you choose to wear a burkah then certrain areas are also restricted: banks and airports for example.

You can choose to do a lot of things, but there are public restrictions that prevent you in certain places.

[octopus]

You may be over thinking the issue Midas, in the whole of Europe anti-Muslim ideas and actions get votes.

Why do you suppose that is, Kiwi?

[octopus]

Because when ever someone mentions anything that relates to Islam people like you, octopus etc spout the c**p "Christianity is great and Islam is evil".

No, Christainity is not perfect, but it does not force people to marry people they can"t stand the sight of, does not stone people to death, does not treat their women as property of their husbands and do not cut off hands. Christianity may have been guilty of some of these things in the past, but not in Christian Britain, 2010, and our women certainly don"t have to cover their faces, on the orders of their husbands. Can all of the middle east say the same?

[Greg Lance-Watkins]

Since the Ukip appear to be dirty Libertarians it seems odd that they wish to destroy liberty and ban the Burqa. Libertarianism is a term adopted by a broad spectrum of political philosophies which advocate the maximization of individual liberty.

Hi,

perhaps you could identify what you mean by 'Dirty Libertarians' and what you understand 'Libertarian' to mean in the context of 'Dirty'.

That EUkip are behaving like filth is a different matter but not one that can be blamed upon 'Libertarians' - though in this I do not include LPUK or UKLP or whatever - who one would be foolish to only attribute political ambition to in a fairly befouled position.

The issue of The Burka has only been raised by EUkip due to other events taking place within EUkip and is being used to 'Distract The Discourse' you need only read their own policy document ro realise they really haven't a clue what they are wittering about as shown by this document eMailed to me this afternoon:

UK INDEPENDENCE PARTY
POLICY PROPOSAL
ON FACE COVERINGS IN PUBLIC

26th January 2010
Policy Spokesman: Gerard Batten MEP
07843 423 864
The Need for a Policy
The UK Independence Party believes that different religious and cultural customs should be practised and enjoyed privately. Multi-ethnic societies can function successfully where there is a common belief in, and loyalty to a common set of public institutions, and laws that apply equally for all.

Multiculturalism as it is being practised in Britain, and other parts of Europe, is creating division and conflict, and with different sets rules developing for different groups of people. This situation has to be redressed and a firm message sent to all British citizens that we are all equal under the same laws.

In accordance with this the UK Independence Party has formulated a policy on face coverings in public and private places that will inevitably impact on the wearing of veils and burqas. UKIP is not opposed to the wearing of religious symbols and does not propose the banning of face coverings on the public highway.


The burka is not an Islamic requirement
Contrary to what some Islamic fundamentalists assert female face coverings in public are not an Islamic requirement. The wearing of face coverings, and indeed full body coverings such as the burka, is a cultural custom and not Islamic religious requirement. It has been banned in a number of Islamic countries.

For example, the Grand Mufti of Cairo, Ali Gomaa[1], has announced that, “The niqab (the full cover with small eye-holes or a screen ) is not only not a religious obligation but also an outfit blatantly in contrast with the Prophet’s teaching , and can be banned in places of work like banks and hospitals.” The Egyptian Minister for Religious Affairs has banned it from ministerial offices.

The Tunisian Religious Affairs Minister, Aboubaker Akhzouri[2] has said the hijab is “counter to the county’s cultural legacy”, and that it is a “foreign phenomenon” in society. We can safely conclude from these statements that the wearing of face coverings and burkas is one that divides even Islamic countries.


Proposed UKIP policy

1. All public employees shall carry out their duties with their faces uncovered; unless their particular profession requires them to cover their faces for specific tasks.


1. People will be required to have uncovered faces in all public buildings and premises.[3] For example, in national and local government buildings, post offices, hospitals, doctors surgeries, schools, colleges, universities, libraries etc. This will also apply to all transport systems, their buildings and conveyances.


1. Private organisations, businesses, and institutions will be given the option of imposing the same rule, that faces must be uncovered, in their buildings, premises and conveyances. For example, in offices, banks, shops, cinemas, theatres, coaches, buses and taxis etc.


1. Those who refuse to remove face coverings in the appropriate circumstances will be refused entry. The responsibility will be on the custodians of the premises to enforce the law, with possible penalties for non-enforcement.


1. If private organizations decide not to adopt the uncovered face rule then they cannot impose discriminatory partial restrictions on face coverings, i.e. they cannot require a visitor to remove a crash helmet or balaclava while allowing another visitor to wear a veil or burka.


1. Discretion and sensitivity will be displayed to those who may wish to cover their faces because of severe physical deformity or injury. Weddings and religious ceremonies are excluded.


1. The police will have the right to ask anyone to uncover their face on the public highway if they feel it is necessary to carry out identification in the course of their duties.


These laws should be introduced in the interests of national security, and equality before the law.

END

[1] ANSAmed

[2]http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?c=Article_C&pagename=Zone-English-News/NWELayout&cid=1160574235776


[3] The building or premises of any organisation or institution that receives any public funding.

Interestingly we have had 3 International lawyers make it abundantly clear that the invasion of Iraq was an unlawful act also Peter Goldsmith as Blair's Attourney General showed that he had no clear grounds to issue his belated construct of legal authorisation for the invasion and in the 6 hours of evidence today Blair was well rehearsed in his script and acted well but was transparently dishonest - even going so far as to deliberately and dishonestly misquote paragraph 4 of Resolution 1441 to suit his lies.

Clearly EUkip is using the idiocy of the stance of the ill informed and inept Malcolm Pearson as a smoke screen for the 'fix' engineered with The Tories and the embarrassing mess Farage has created with his collusion with racists, xenophobes and anti Jewish extremists in the EU which has shown the party to be far closer in outlook to the BNP than their leadership would wish them to be portrayed a situation Farage has utterly mismanaged in the light of his only MEP with integrity or any understanding of ethics and morality denouncing.

Nikki Sinclaire's resignation from Farage's utterly corrupt claque has left Pearson, Wheeler, Farage and the Tory party looking somewhat exposed!

Burka's are merely a ploy to distract the discourse from the crass ineptitude of Farage when called upon to think with his big head rather than just react with his little head - which EUkip are prone to following around clearing up the mess it has created!

Regards,
Greg L-W.

[Greg Lance-Watkins]

Not saying Muslims aren"t nice people, but they need to work on their public relations a bit. I have nothing for, or against Muslims personaly, but when they demand we adopt their life in the UK, we British do get a bit upset. Christians do have better Public Relations in the UK, not saying their perfect, but not quite as intimidating.

Hi,

so called christian Google Page Ranking falls rather short across all of Asia, Sino Empire, the huge majority of the world and not surprisingly The Middle East, it falls more than a little short in Malasia and Indonesia also!

Regards,
Greg L-W.

why does P.R. above turn into Page Ranking when clearly I meant Public Relations?

[Greg Lance-Watkins]

Greg, if you go back through history, you will find many crimes commited by Christians, many crimes commited by jews, many crimes by every creed, colour and race; that"s human nature, you see it in every walk of life. If you talk to most people today, that live in large immigrant areas, or ghettos, their main worry is their culture being taken over by Islam. Now, you can blog all you want with fancy facts and fiqures - most of which I would dispute, (Gordon Brown doesn"t even know the true number of Muslims living in Britain) because I as you know, I don"t need data on this subject as I live among it, and see it everyday. The Burka is just another form of the Muslim community putting it"s mark on Britain. Just over 2 million you say now, 2010. Ok, what about 2050, what about 2100. Far off times, yes, but will affect future generations - and with their birthrate can easily become the minority over majority. As for your most recent claims of Christians causing middle east wars, I think politics would be more to blame than religeon, as Christainity is only a guide to most Christians, not fanatcal cult like Islam is to many Muslims. As for nazis slaughting Jews and gypsies in the name of Christanity - THAT IS SICK NONESENSE. They did it in the name of Nazism. In fact Martin Boorman was rumoured to be a Satanist, and Himmler was involved in similar practicies.

Hi,

I guess the number of Muslims in 2050 or 2100 will be most unlikely to be effected by that which is banned by those claiming some sort of christian doctrine or values as they slaughter 100,000s of Muslims with high tech weaponry as in Iraq and Afghanistan - but rather more by the example set by those so called christians such that Islam may increasingly exposed and find it ever harder to recruit/convert in the face of the clarity of benefit of those christians - on present example I feel christianity may well be extinct in a Century as the example they set is nothing to be proud of and much to renounce.

Never mind just look at history at the number of different gods mankind has found it expedient to invent and the plethora of doctrine surrounding those superstitions.

So another one rose and vanished - they tend to last longer than States which is astonishing and they longer than empires which far outlast such false constructs as Political Unions forced upon a largely unwilling peoples be they USSR, EU, Moghul etc.

Regards,
Greg L-W.

[Greg Lance-Watkins]

No, Christainity is not perfect, but it does not force people to marry people they can"t stand the sight of, does not stone people to death, does not treat their women as property of their husbands and do not cut off hands. Christianity may have been guilty of some of these things in the past, but not in Christian Britain, 2010, and our women certainly don"t have to cover their faces, on the orders of their husbands. Can all of the middle east say the same?

Does the Middle East want to?

Regards,
Greg L-W.

[uncon]

name your three lawyers and also give me the links to the judgement you have stated here and proof that it is directly linked to the burkah

[Kiwi 1691]

Why do you suppose that is, Kiwi?

Because atheists like anything anti religion, and Christians like anything anti-any other religion.

[Kiwi 1691]

No,

Christianityis not perfect, but it does not force people to marry people they can"t stand the sight of, does not stone people to death, does not treat their women as property of their husbands and do not cut off hands. Christianity may have been guilty of some of these things in the past, but not in Christian Britain, 2010, and our women certainly don"t have to cover their faces, on the orders of their husbands. Can all of the middle east say the same?

Firstly many people on this forum have said that Christianity is full of love, and Islam is full of hate and violence.

Don't confuse covering women's faces and Islam (there is nothing in the

Koran that tells women to cover their faces). Talking about

stoning people to death is a
Jewish belief ( that's why it is in both the Koran and the Bible). In all racial or religious groups there are men that treat women as their property.

[Kiwi 1691]

Hi,

perhaps you could identify what you mean by 'Dirty Libertarians' and what you understand 'Libertarian' to mean in the context of 'Dirty'.

I don't like Libertarians.

[Barry]

I don't like Libertarians.

I knew that you would have some phobias.
Libertarianaphobia.
Godbotheraphobia.

[Midas]

I don't like Libertarians.

Why not, perhaps you'd care to be more explicit? What's wrong with the concept of people taking responsibility for their own actions in life and trying to take care of themselves rather than expecting others to do it for them - and for those others to pay for it as well?

[Kiwi 1691]

Why not, perhaps you'd care to be more explicit? What's wrong with the concept of people taking responsibility for their own actions in life and trying to take care of themselves rather than expecting others to do it for them - and for those others to pay for it as well?

Well, considering some of the least radical Libertarians in my country were given power (minister of Finance). They made huge reforms with the promise of a higher standard of living for all. The result was a higher standard of living for some and mass unemployment for others. at-lest 76,000 people lost their jobs thanks to the neo-liberal reforms. That is alot of jobs in a country as small as mine.

Plus there are other reasons, like many Libertarians being against any govt regulation. Lack of regulation is one of the big reasons behind the fiscal crisis that hit the world last year.

Libertarians are extremist nut jobs, who should be locked up for the safety of society.