Want to ban the burka? Try asking the women like me first
It wasn't just a mishearing.
It was a reminder that in this country, politicians feel entitled to debate our clothing, our faith and our freedom - yet still stumble over the word burka. They discuss what Muslim women wear, but can't pronounce it correctly. It's not burger, and it's not burk-ah. It's boorkah.
The very least politicians can do, before legislating our lives, is get the name right.
Some might argue that since some Muslim-majority countries have banned the burka - that makes it a legitimate position. Morocco, Tunisia, and others have imposed restrictions, often in the name of modernisation, national unity, or security.
Runcorn and Helsby MP Sarah Pochin questioned Keir Starmer in Prime Minister's Questions whether he would follow some European countries lead in banning the burka. pic.twitter.com/oyhZClOArr
— Sky News (@SkyNews) June 5, 2025
But authoritarianism should not be confused with liberation. The outcome is the same: women's agency is erased, and the state decides how we appear in public. That isn't empowerment - it's control, dressed up as reform.
In 2015, a white man approached me and asked: 'What colour is your hair under your veil?' I replied: 'It's pink,' but didn't ask him what colour his hair had been before he went bald.
That moment stayed with me because it revealed how people feel entitled to interrogate Muslim women.
I later wrote a book about that experience, My Hair Is Pink Under This Veil, chronicling my decision to wear the hijab and the questions, assumptions, and aggressions that came with it. The burka, like the hijab, has become a symbol onto which people project their fears, fantasies and frustrations.
But behind every veil is a person - thinking, choosing, living.
So when politicians like Sarah Pochin suggest banning the burka, they're not just mispronouncing a word, they're speaking for women like me without asking our opinion. Women like me who are voters, writers, public office holders and community builders. Our identities cannot be legislated away and our voices won't be silenced - not by policy, not by prejudice, not by fear.
This is discrimination, and it's happening in a country where 61% of young women from racial minorities already report facing bias at work.
The debate around Islam, inequality and integration shifts with every headline, political soundbite, crisis or act of violence.
Against this backdrop, Muslim women have had to fight to carve out our place in society.
How can we speak of integration in a Brexit era when Muslim women are still labelled "submissive" and white men feel emboldened to tear veils from our heads in public? When Muslim girls grow up amid poverty, deprivation, drug abuse and exploitation? When gender-based Islamophobia intensifies under the guise of national cohesion?
We must ask what the veil means - not just to Muslim women, but to those who react to it. Is it a personal expression of faith and identity? A misunderstood political symbol? Or a mirror exposing the anxieties of modern Britain?
Right-wing and nationalist forces have long exploited the veil as either a symbol of oppression or defiance, and labelled it something to fear.
I remember working on the Isle of Dogs in East London when the British National Party had a councillor elected. Combat 18 roamed the streets. A Muslim grocer had a pig's head flung into his shop in broad daylight.
There was one estate where I had to support two Bangladeshi families to relocate after repeated hostilities. One mother had her headscarf pulled off while walking her children to school. The racists shouted: "Rights for whites".
A local police station had to assign female officers to escort children to Quranic classes. In another case, a white woman filed a complaint against her elderly Muslim neighbour for planting coriander instead of roses in her garden. When I asked if the woman had broken any tenancy rules or caused disturbance, the complainant said no, but insisted: "She's gotta learn to be like us. British."
When Boris Johnson made his "letterbox" comment in 2018, several older Muslim women asked me if he owned a hairbrush, and said they'd gladly send him one if not.
That same weekend, I was travelling with a group of women when a man let us board the train first. One of the women wearing a niqab was the last to get on. As she stepped through the doors, he laughed and said: 'Hold on, you forgot the letterbox.'
He thought it was a joke, just quoting the former prime minister.
This is the landscape Muslim women navigate: a Britain where our plants, our clothing, our languages and even our presence are subject to judgment.
And still, we show up - as doctors, nurses, teachers, CEOs, activists, artists, engineers, journalists, scientists, academics, councillors, carers and community organisers.
Because we believe in a Britain where Muslim women are trusted to define our own visibility - not questioned, not punished and not erased.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
37 minutes ago
- Yahoo
‘One in four councils could lose money' under Government's funding proposals
Around a quarter of councils in England could lose money under the Government's proposed reforms to how local authorities are funded, analysis has found. A report from the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) said the changes would create big 'winners and losers' as ministers attempt to address perceived unfairness in levels of core funding across the country. Sir Keir Starmer's own council, Camden in north London, will be hit by the reforms when taking inflation into account, the IFS added. The think tank said Camden, along with other inner London boroughs including Westminster, will have less money to spend on services even if they increase council tax by the maximum amount allowed. Whitehall will provide a minimum level of funding, a so-called funding floor, for council leaders during the changes, but the IFS said overall cash for inner London town halls would be 11-12% lower in 2028-29 in real terms. The paper said: 'Around one in four councils would see real-terms falls in overall funding under the Government's proposals, with around 30 on the lowest funding floors seeing real-terms cuts of 11–12%. Conversely, another one in four councils would see real-terms increases of 12% or more.' The changes, which will come into effect from next year, are being consulted on by ministers. The Government plans to create a new methodology to assess local authority needs relatively and factor in population and deprivation. It will also assess need for adult and children's services. Overall spending will fall for 186 councils and rise by the same total sum for 161. One in 10 will see a fall in overall funding, while one in 10 will see an increase of 10% or more. The overall Government spend on local authorities will not change. The changes will be phased in across three years, from 2026/27 to 2028/29. Kate Ogden, co-author of the IFS report and a senior research economist with the think tank, said: 'England has lacked a rational system of local government funding for at least 12 years – and arguably more like 20. It is therefore welcome that the nettle of funding reform is being grasped, and some councils will benefit substantially under the new system. 'But the changes will sting for those councils that are assessed to currently receive too high a share of the overall funding pot, and so which lose out from moves to align funding with assessed spending needs.' The proposals are criticised in the report as 'not particularly redistributive to poor, urban areas of England'. It cites South Tyneside and Sunderland councils being among those to lose out from the reforms as slow population growth is accounted for. The report added: 'It is somewhat surprising that, on average, councils in the most deprived 30% of areas would see very similar changes in overall funding over the next three years to those for councils in the middle 40% of areas.' It noted that rural areas, which feared being badly hit by changes, will benefit from a 'remoteness adjustment' which will compensate areas with higher needs due to being far from large towns. London will gain the least, with a cash-terms increase in funding of 8% in the next three years. Analysis by the London Councils collective has highlighted the risk of the funding 'dramatically underestimating' needs for local services in parts of the capital. It noted the city has the highest rate of poverty in the country when housing costs are factored in. Outside the capital, the East Midlands (22%) and Yorkshire & the Humber (19%) are set to see the biggest increases in funding, with the South East set to see the smallest at 13%. However, the proposals have been criticised by youth charity the National Children's Bureau, which said it was 'significantly concerned' about the way the Government plans to work out needs for children's services. Ms Ogden added: 'The Government should consider giving highly affected councils which currently have low council tax rates greater flexibility to bring their council tax bills up to more typical levels to offset funding losses. 'More generally, reform of council funding allocations is just one part of the financial sustainability puzzle. Efforts to reduce demands on, and the cost of providing, local services through reform and the use of new technology will also be vital.' A spokesperson for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government said: 'The current, outdated way in which local authorities are funded means the link between funding and need for services has broken down, leaving communities left behind. 'That's why we are taking decisive action to reform the funding system so we can get councils back on their feet and improve public services, with the IFS recognising that our changes will better align funding with councils' needs.'
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Pete Buttigieg Listed These 4 Ways The Trump Admin Is Making Americans' Lives "Worse," And It's So Simple Yet So True
Former secretary of transportation Pete Buttigieg is being applauded online for his recent, simple breakdown on all the ways Donald Trump's chosen cabinet is negatively impacting Americans' lives. While sitting down for NPR's Morning Edition, Pete insisted that Democrats need to change their approach if they want to reach voters. "We do have to look at what we're doing that makes it hard to hear what we have to say," he told host Steve Inskeep. "Too often we talk in terms that are academic. When we're talking about deeply important things, like freedom and democracy, we still have to have a way of talking about it that relates to how everyday life is different." Related: As an example, Pete shared ways our "everyday life is different and worse" under Trump's presidency, because, as he said, "When you have an autocrat in power, he can get away with appointing incompetent people over very important things in our lives." To start, he said, "Right now we have the secretary of defense — in charge of defending the American people — who was accidentally texting military strike information to journalists." This, of course, is in reference to reporting from the Atlantic that claimed the magazine's editor-in-chief, Jeffrey Goldberg, was mistakenly added to a Signal group chat where former Fox & Friends Weekend host, now Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, discussed sensitive war plans. "We have the person in charge of American public health, who is a quack who doesn't believe in medicine, and now measles is on the rise in America," he continued. Here, Pete is referring to Health Secretary RFK Jr., who commonly and vocally questions the safety of vaccines and even suggested the measles vaccine causes autism in children. Now, 20 years after measles was declared to be eliminated in the United States, outbreaks are popping up around the US as the public grows skeptical of vaccines under the new administration. Related: "We have a secretary of education — in charge of your kid's educational well-being — who has spoken about the importance of 'A1,' which means she does not understand that the acronym is AI, which means she does not understand the most important development affecting education in our lifetimes." Education Secretary Linda McMahon — yes, the former CEO of WWE — confused AI technology with A1, the name of a popular steak sauce. While speaking at a summit in April, McMahon said, "A school system that's going to start making sure that first graders, or even pre-Ks, have A1 teaching in every year. That's a wonderful thing!" Pete continued, "We have a secretary of homeland security who sat on funding and did not allow it to go to Texas during the floods for at least two days for no good reason." Finally, we have Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, who reportedly decided to enact a rule requiring her personal sign-off on any grant or contract over $100,000. The move was heavily criticized amid the deadly flooding in Texas earlier this year, as some argue the signature delayed getting aid to those who needed it. Related: "So these things do affect you," Pete concluded. "Not for academic reasons, but because of what happens when you have a loss of accountability. Those are the kinds of things I think we need to talk about before anybody can hear us." A clip of Pete's simple yet effective explanation was shared to X, formerly known as Twitter, where it garnered over 1.7 million views and over 1,000 comments. By and large, people are calling Pete's breakdown "brilliant." One person said, "This breakdown of the incompetence of the administration is simple yet brilliant. And the reality of how they're affecting peoples' REAL lives is heartbreaking and infuriating." "Last thirty seconds should be mandatory listening," another agreed. "The loss of accountability over trumps horrible yes men stooge picks for cabinet undeniably makes your life worse as an American. It isn't up for debate." Others called Pete "the best communicator in US politics"... Related: ...and insisted, "This is who We The People employ!!!" Talks like this have made Pete a favorite amongst voters looking to the future of the Democratic Party. And even some abroad. What are your thoughts? Let us know in the comments. Also in In the News: Also in In the News: Also in In the News:
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Rachel Reeves must raise taxes to fill £51bn black hole, warns think tank
Chancellor Rachel Reeves must raise taxes immediately in order to plug a fresh £50bn hole in public finances, a UK thinktank said on Wednesday. According to the National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR), UK government finances have been hit by slowing economic growth, a weak jobs market and the cost of Labour's U-turns on welfare spending. NIESR recommended "a moderate but sustained increase in taxes" including reform of the council tax system to make up the shortfall. It also suggests that the government could raise revenue through changes to the scope of VAT, pensions allowances and prolonging the freeze in income tax thresholds, which is set to end in 2028. Reeves is now on course to miss her borrowing targets by £41.2bn, NIESR predicted in its report, facing an "impossible trilemma" of big tax hikes, spending cuts or a change to fiscal rules that she has said are non-negotiable. NIESR added that if she also wants to restore the £9.9bn of headroom maintained since last year's budget, she must raise taxes or cut spending by £51.1bn in the autumn budget statement. In its manifesto, Labour promised not to raise taxes such as income tax, VAT or national insurance on "working people". Read more: UK taxpayers 'subsidising' S&P 500, says LSEG boss NIESR nudged up its forecast for British economic growth for this year to 1.3% from its forecast of 1.2% in May. However, it cut its projections for all the following years up to 2030, largely due to the impact of US president Donald Trump's trade tariffs on the global economy. The forecasts are significantly weaker than those of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), whose projections underpin the government's tax and spending plans. NIESR expects 1% growth in 2028 compared with the OBR's 1.7%. Stephen Millard, NIESR's deputy director for macroeconomics, said the difference between those forecasts and NIESR's £41bn estimate of the shortfall probably lay largely in the think tank's lower forecasts for economic growth. It comes just a year after Rachel Reeves attacked the Conservative government for leaving an alleged £22bn black hole in the public finances. But shadow chancellor Mel Stride claimed the black hole was a result of Labour's 'economic mismanagement'. Stride said: 'Labour will always reach for the tax-rise lever because they don't understand the economy. Businesses are closing, unemployment is up, inflation has doubled and the economy is shrinking. And Labour are refusing to rule out more damaging tax rises on investment.' The news on Wednesday came as separate figures from HMRC showed almost 2.6 million people will be forced to pay tax on their savings this year, up by over 120,000 from 2024. The average saver who receives a bill will pay £2,300, according to analysis by stockbroker AJ Bell. Read more: Trending tickers: AMD, Novo Nordisk, Snap, Walt Disney, Super Micro and Glencore Will the Bank of England cut interest rates? How to reclaim overpaid pension taxError while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data