On burkas and paper bags
A Tory MP has been reported to the police for comments he made last month during a debate in Parliament about immigration. Northamptonshire Race Equality Council contacted the police to complain that , MP for Kettering (pictured, right), had described wearing a burka as "the religious equivalent of going around with a paper bag over your head with two holes for the eyes." No further action is to be taken by the police or the Crown Prosecution Service; the free speech of MPs is, of course, protected in law and parliamentary privilege gives legislators added protection.
of the comment by Mr Hollobone, part of the speech in which he expressed "huge sympathy" for those calling for a ban on the burka:
"How ridiculous would the House of Commons be if we were all to wear burkas? How would Mr Speaker be able to identify which member to call next? The voters might well prefer it, but it is the religious equivalent of going around with a paper bag over your head with two holes for the eyes. In my view, it is offensive to want to cut yourself off from face-to-face contact with, or recognition by, other members of the human race. We should certainly look at ways to tackle that issue."
Anjona Roy, chief executive of the Northamptonshire Race Equality Council, accepted that MPs speak within the House with parliamentary privilege, but claimed that their complaint related to comments made by Mr Hollobone outside the Commons in which he expanded on his views.
: "Talking about women wearing paper bags over their heads, I don't think his comments can be construed in any other way than as offensive language . . . When those comments are aimed at a particular group of women practising a religion then it will be seen as a religiously-motivated hate incident. We've had reports of women wearing burkas being spat at and women being verbally abused in the street."
Comment number 1.
At 24th Mar 2010, Scotch Get wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 24th Mar 2010, Valerie Christie wrote:This man has shown how ignorant he actually is by making this comment. IMO the burqa is something that Muslim women wear in order to dress modestly and comparing it to someone wearing a paper bag over their head is just silly. The sad thing about it is that the person making this comment is an MP and should have the sense to think before he speaks.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 24th Mar 2010, Ian Hall wrote:There is a serious issue in relation to the wearing of burkas. The fact of the matter is that in this modern age a practice which hides the identity of the individual is always going to be problematic.
That said these comments are fairly stupid and unhelpful even by the low standards of the backbench rabble who warm seats for a living at Westminster.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 24th Mar 2010, David Kerr wrote:Just one more manifestation of religious superstition I do not understand. What did the prophet have to say on the matter?
DK
Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)
Comment number 5.
At 24th Mar 2010, Heliopolitan wrote:In the eyes of many the burqa is not "dressing modestly", but an unacceptable symbol of gender oppression and religious intolerance. It is a disgrace, but changing this blinkered mindset is not easy. Ayaan Hirsi-Ali broke free; I hope others do.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 5)
Comment number 6.
At 24th Mar 2010, Parrhasios wrote:I would support a ban on both the burka and the niqab. Each nation proclaims its values by the laws it enacts. These garments make visible the oppression of women and they have no more place in society than a guest-house which refuses to accommodate homosexual couples. The fact that some women embrace their subjection is no excuse, religious freedom of expression is no excuse. We do not permit grossly harmful consensual abuse, we do not permit human sacrifice, we should not permit the burka.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 6)
Comment number 7.
At 24th Mar 2010, petermorrow wrote:Helio
I'm not being awkward for the sake of it but on another thread about the psychic you spoke of atheists standing up for freedom of belief, here you speak about 'changing this blinkered mindset'.
I'm not quite sure what to make of these comments.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 7)
Comment number 8.
At 6th Mar 2011, Silvia wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 8)
Comment number 9.
At 6th Mar 2011, Silvia wrote:I am late for this post, but have just read it now. I am a European living in Turkey, an Islamic country, I have to say, in change... whereas till now we had freedom of religion, I am not so sure about what the election in June will bring. Burka or hair/head coverage may only be defensed by women who are not under the risk of being forced to cover themselves. so when you think it is a symbol for religious freedom, you are wrong. the small number of women, who really are convinced to cover their hair, unfortunately accept an opinion that labels a whole gender guilty. guilty of being "sinful", provocating, nothing but sexual, disturbing and full of black magic power. the women are bound to cover themselves to protect the men from their instincts and non-control, they are hold responsible for the honor of the man, family, clan... accidental showing of a curl of a woman's hair or her mouth makes her to be prosecuted in burka-countries. so how can ANYBODY value a burka as a symbol of freedom for anything ???? NOT being against burka means just theorizing around....
Complain about this comment (Comment number 9)