http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8464124.stm

Don't agree with banning it myself, but there should definitely be guidelines and, if necessary, laws if it was a problem security-wise, health and safety etc. The problem is, I can't see any government grasping that particular nettle...

Pluralism is arguably Britain's greatest cultural and political contribution to civilisation. Only an ignorant [LIFTED] like Farage would think he could protect Britishness by doing away with it.

Wait wait wait, this idiot and his Party are constantly bemoaning the "nanny state" and the intrusion by government into people's liberty and now this same idiot wants to tell people what they can and can't wear!?

Can anyone say "hypocrisy"?

If Muslims (or anyone else for that matter) want to wear Burkha's then let them, I really don't see the harm in it.

Yet the police are doing everything they can to stop "hoodies" as it obscures the face and stop identification. Hmmmmmmmmmmm sounds like the same thing as a burka to me. </playing devils advocate>

I can certainly see an issue there, for example in places such as banks where you are required to remove motorcycle helmets etc, but even if worse comes to worst then surely you'd (or security would be) be more alert if someone's face was obscured, e.g. by a Burkha?

Loads of signs up in shops and office blocks requesting crash helmets to be removed so lets say same applies to Burkas what about employment rules in buildings where such notices are displayed.

Its a potentially tricky question.

Agreed it's a difficult question but then as we already have rules protecting the turban, is this really that much different?

Isnt the turban an integral part of the Sikh religion, whilst the burka isnt. Thus to demand someone to remove a turban would be asking them to go against their religion but to ask some one to uncover there face isnt.

I really have no idea, I am not an authority on Islam and thus not qualified to comment.

This is UKIP showing that they really belong in the same pigeon hole as the BNP. They offer a very polite, quiet form of xenophobia that plays nicely into the hands of the Daily Mail reading public. I expect more sinister crowd-pleasing statements like this over the next few months.

Farage is an unpleasant little man who depresses me every time he appears on the telly. That he said this is no surprise.

The burka is not part of the religion - nowhere in the Koran does it say women have to wear it.

This was debated at length by legal people in France earlier this year when the French government were talking about banning the burka in public and have now decided to do so.

He's a self important ignorant pig, and what he is proposing is a totally extreme over reaction designed to appeal to the lowest morals of the proletariat.*

That said, I don't think they should be permitted in the exact same circumstances where a crash helmet isn't. If a woman chooses to cover her identity that way, then she shouldn't go into a bank. It's her choice; simple.



*Alternative view: I'm an arrogant twit and my opinion is no more valid than his.

if someone is that devoutly muslim, they probably wouldn't be going into your typical high street bank anyway. The muslim faith (in it's more traditionalist forms) outlaws usury, and therefore the taking of or paying of interest on loans or savings. So most British high street banks simply wouldn't be acceptable to a devout muslim. There are muslim banks that neither pay nor charge interest and in fact quite a few well known banks will offer 'muslim services' which follow the same tentants. It would be interesting to see what would happen if they were to deny an interest free loan to someone who asked for such services but wasn't actually muslim...

Note that usury was also considered a sin and banned by the christian church for most of recorded history - Shylock in The Merchant of Venice is shunned not simply because he is a jew but because usury is his trade. The famous 'pound of flesh' is his fee for loaning someone money. It was only in the late middle ages, when the catholic church was particularly rich, and particularly corrupt, that the charging of fees for loaning money was.. gosh there is an official word but I can't remember it - was categorically stated by the Pope to not in fact be a sin any more (yes they have a word for that because there was a period when they were doing it quite often, provided someone paid them enough) .

Jon

I could see why they'd want to ban it in high security areas like airport, but other than that it's up to them. If they want to be treated like doormats.......

Edited for accuracy