Monday, 11 April 2011


Well done President Sarkozy and co for making the wearing of the Islamic niqab (face mask) illegal as of today.

It will, no doubt be the cause of much disquiet and a few ructions and it will provoke a wave of protest from those who believe that it is over the top to ban an item of clothing but it's the right thing to do if Islamic fundamentalism is going to be halted. Of course, much more will be needed to stop the fanatics but banning the veil is a good start.

Why do I say such things which are bound to produce a few challenging comments?  Because of the following:-

Wearing the niqab is.....
  • Anti social
  • Potentially a grave security risk
  • Rapidly becoming a symbol of extremism
  • Demeaning to women
  • Not British
  • Separatist
  • Unequal

If you believe that banning an item of clothing is too much like state control of the individual remember we already have it in this country.:-
  • Shopping centres that ban "hoodies"
  • Banks that ban motor cycle helmets
  • Hotels and restaurants that insist on ties/jackets (for males)
  • Customs Offices, passport controls, immigration counters all ban face coverings (except for Muslims)
And also, as a man, I could not walk down Tooting High Road wearing a veil without being arrested for a possible breach of the peace!

 Not that I've tried it out!

Believe me, if we do not act soon, we are only a few years away from parts of our cities becoming 'no go' areas to women who do not cover their faces (Christians as well as Muslims).


  1. Ok I will be the first to comment. I thought, at first, you were a woman when I read this post but you’re not, you’re a man, a well. I think you should stop and look at the bigger picture for a moment and ask yourself if you will feel the same when they ban you from going to mass or speaking Jesus’ name in public. I think you have a thing about Muslims that you are not facing up too. Decisions like this should be left to the Muslim communities to decide not a New World Order (NWO) puppet like Sarkozy who is busy bombing the crap out of Libya for some oil for his masters while pretending to care about the people of that country. Why anyone would want to congratulate Sarkozy for anything is beyond me. The only affect this will have is to antagonise the Muslim communities even more. Sarkozy did this for a reason and the reason being. Its Frances’ time for a false flag blood bath, think 9/11 or London 7/7, and Sarkozy needs an excuse to blame the Muslims when whatever it is they ‘NWO’ have planed happens. Watch out for some terrorist attack on Paris blamed on Muslims.
    It’s time to wake up my friend and start seeing the truth before it’s too late. This has nothing to do with Veils and more to do with laying the ground work for a false flag operation on the people of France.

  2. Oh and by the way, you mentioned that a veil is a potentially grave security risk.
    Here is another potentially grave security risk. 6 year old security risk.

    it’s a good job she is not wearing a veil, isn’t it?

  3. A challenging blog post. My mum and dad (and my Church) taught me to respect all that is good in other religions. I think this is the correct and rational path. I have a sneaking suspicion that many Muslim woman are people living their faith as they find it. Their outward signs of their lived faith challenge some people. I would suggest wearing a veil is not a big issue, the big issue is how we bring the Gospel into their lives. How do we spread the Good News within the Muslim community. Rather than sending missionaries abroad perhaps we need to send them closer to home!

  4. Thanks Paul. My view is that the veil is not a part of the established Muslim faith, it is an addition that has the potential to become more potent. I agree re the missionary work although any evangelising on our part would probably mean imprisonment!

  5. "And we,with our unveiled faces reflecting like mirrors the brightness of the Lord, all grow brighter and brighter as we are turned into the image we reflect..." (2Corinthians3.18)

  6. Richard, I do not think legal issues would be a blocker to preaching the Gospel within the Muslim community in the UK, USA or EU. I think the issue would be who would do it. Who would? Bishops? Priests? Deacons? You or me? I guess this may show what our faith is about.

  7. Paul, I was just thinking of the Christians up in Manchester (I think) who were arrested while handing out literature (harmless)about 3 months ago.
    It should not stop us I agree.

    Patricius- good quote.

  8. I've had this spat with a couple of female friends which turned out to be liberal v repressive (me). I don't buy the argument that it is part of our freedom for women to be invisible, any more than I buy the argument that women have the right to sally into the public sphere barely-clad like small town hookers. Neither has the remotest connection to feminism or women's rights.
    Such extremes would have horrified those noble women who fought, suffered the torture of forced feeding and died so that women should become more than just mere adjuncts of, and subservient to, half the population.
    Both extremes are about control of women as objects, rather than as fully-formed human beings.
    Which is why I am not surprised that so many men seem to fly the false flag of liberalism in supporting women's "right" to wear the burka or the niqab. This is nothing to do with freedom. It's about keeping women in their place; the reverse side of the same coin which advocates and celebrates sexual free-for-all and abortion.
    Thank God there are enough men and women who see it for what it is: a dishonest and illusory non sequitur.

  9. I think the right to religious freedom trumps your concerns. If not we'd have no defence in arguing against the religious dress of monks, nuns and priests.

  10. Sorry, we'd have no defence against arguing against those who would seek to bank the above.

  11. Laurence, only the face veil to be banned no wimples! Not that nuns wear them these days, it's all M & S (not even St Michael)!

  12. First, it has been said many times there is nothing in the Koran that demands or requires veiling the face. So the religious angle falls, which is why I didn't mention it.
    Secondly, Richard's point about religious dress is key. I'd add that if abnegation of personality is required then you'd have to ask why the men wear baseball caps, jeans and t-shirts and don't all sport full beards.
    Thirdly, there is no equivalence between dressing modestly, as in wearing the hijab, and complete obliteration.