
A burqa ban won't protect or unite Britain – it will divide us
It wasn't surprising to hear newly elected Reform MP Sarah Pochin call for a ban on the burqa – such calls resurface from time to time.
What was surprising, however, was her decision to use her very first parliamentary question to raise this issue, rather than ask about pressing concerns such as the cost of living, NHS pressures or the rise in crime levels. Instead, she chose to single out and stigmatise Muslim women, making unfounded claims about public safety.
On reflection, though, Prime Minister's Questions (PMQs) provided a high-profile national platform, making it an ideal stage to stir further negativity towards Muslims.
Unsurprisingly, Suella Braverman, known for her history of making disparaging remarks about Muslims, quickly added her voice.
Targeting Muslims has become a convenient marketing tool for some right-wing politicians – a tactic used to gain support, attract media attention and generate publicity, regardless of the real-life consequences.
Only a tiny minority of Muslim women in Britain have adopted the face veil (niqab) or the burqa – a long garment covering the entire body from head to foot, including the face.
With a Muslim population of around four million, there has been no formal attempt to measure how many women wear the veil – but estimates suggest the number is likely to be only in the hundreds or low thousands. Similarly, in other European countries, estimates range from just 300 to 2,000. So why does such a small number attract so much public and political attention?
The most common arguments used to justify prohibiting the veil in public are actually irrational. Tired and prejudiced tropes are used, such as suggesting women are being forced to wear the veil and need to be 'liberated', that it is a threat to public safety, that it is an obstacle to integration, or that it is simply visually offensive.
Let's examine each of these claims more closely.
Debates around women who wear the face veil are often driven by assumptions rather than grounded in evidence. In reality, the vast majority of Muslim women who choose to wear it do so voluntarily and for a variety of reasons – religious, cultural or personal. For many, it's an expression of faith, identity, modesty or spiritual commitment. Some even find it empowering, as it shifts the focus from appearance to character.
Yes, there are cases where women may be pressured or forced to wear the veil – but these are instances of domestic abuse and coercive control, which require targeted support and awareness, not sweeping bans. I run the Muslim Women's Network Helpline, and in our 10 years of service, we've encountered only a handful of such cases.
Concerns about identity concealment are often tied to public safety, yet there is no credible evidence linking the burqa to security threats in the UK.
Security protocols already exist in sensitive settings (e.g. banks, airports and courts), where face coverings may need to be removed temporarily for identification purposes – and such situations are managed respectfully and without incident. This public safety narrative seems more about stoking fear than addressing real risks.
Also, why is there so much anxiety about the anonymity of veiled Muslim women, especially in a world where much of our communication now happens online – through emails, social media and digital platforms – where anonymity is commonplace?
Many people conceal their identities online to spread misinformation or abuse, yet this form of anonymity rarely provokes the same level of scrutiny by the same politicians.
Claims that a burqa ban will promote community cohesion and integration are likely to have the opposite effect – deepening divisions instead. When any group feels threatened or pressured to conform through such hostile measures, they are more likely to become even more attached to how they express their identity.
For the small minority of women who wear the veil, it may bring personal, social or economic challenges, but it remains their choice. Meanwhile, the vast majority of Muslim women who do not wear the veil continue to face significant social and economic barriers that are often overlooked.
If concerns about integration and community cohesion were genuine, politicians would prioritise addressing the systemic discrimination and inequalities these women regularly experience.
Some argue the burqa should be banned because it is considered offensive. Not everything that is offensive is prohibited.
For example, in the UK, the right to offend is protected as part of freedom of speech, allowing the expression of unpopular or controversial views provided no harm is caused and laws are not broken.
Similarly, while some may find the burqa visually offensive, the right of Muslim women to express their identity in this way must also be respected, because their clothing does not harm anyone.
It is clearly a frightening time for Muslim women, especially those who are visibly identifiable by their clothing.
Coded language by politicians that normalises hostility towards Muslims, fuels fear and hatred, and deepens societal intolerance, is making them feel unsafe.
I therefore urge parliamentarians across all political parties to reject divisive rhetoric and commit instead to policies that address gendered anti-Muslim discrimination.
Muslim women must be empowered to make independent choices about their own bodies – whatever those choices may be – and they must be able to live with dignity and equality.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Telegraph
27 minutes ago
- Telegraph
House of Commons apologises after trans barrister used women's lavatory
The House of Commons has apologised after allowing a trans woman to use female-only lavatories. Robin Moira White, a trans barrister who is a biological male, was told to use the ladies' lavatories in Portcullis House last week before being questioned outside by two women's rights campaigners. It follows a Supreme Court ruling in April that trans women are not women under the Equality Act. The judgment led to the Government saying trans women should use lavatories according to their biological sex. Ms White, who was at Portcullis House to attend a women and equalities committee in which the Supreme Court judgment was discussed, was challenged outside the lavatories by campaigners Kate Harris and Heather Binning. Ms Harris, the co-founder and trustee of the LGB Alliance advocacy group, told The Times: 'We were in the mother of all parliaments and it was not adhering to the law. It was not the fault of staff, who clearly have not been trained in how to deal with these issues.' Commons apologised in email The Commons apologised to Ms Harris and Ms Binning in an email seen by The Times. 'You noted that an individual, understood to be biologically male, had seemingly been directed to the female facilities,' the email said. 'At this point you made it clear that you were uncomfortable, left the facilities, and reported the matter to members of my team. 'We acknowledge that it is likely the individual you complained about should have not been directed to the female facilities and we apologise for that.' The email also drew attention to the parliamentary code of conduct which provides 'clear guidelines as to how we expect all users of the parliamentary [estate] to interact with each other'. The incident raises questions around how the Government is implementing the ruling of the Supreme Court, and whether women's spaces are being actively protected. Authorities 'reviewing facilities' A House of Commons spokesman told The Telegraph: 'We continue to act in full compliance with the law as set out in the Supreme Court's judgment and we remain committed to treating all those who work in or visit Parliament with respect, providing support to colleagues where needed. 'Like many organisations, we are awaiting full guidance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) on this issue and are reviewing the facilities that are available on the estate.' Following the Supreme Court ruling, the EHRC told employers, pubs, shops and hospitals that they must all act in line with the Supreme Court ruling and that women-only spaces such as lavatories should be protected. The EHRC said: 'In workplaces and services that are open to the public, trans women (biological men) should not be permitted to use the women's facilities and trans men (biological women) should not be permitted to use the men's facilities, as this will mean that they are no longer single-sex facilities and must be open to all users of the opposite sex.'


Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Starmer has been forced into this. Don't let this inquiry become a new cover-up
In January, Sir Keir Starmer accused opposition MPs expressing concern over grooming gangs of 'amplifying what the far-Right is saying' and 'jumping on a bandwagon'. Having fought tooth and nail against any public inquiry into the scandal for months, he now appears to have conceded they were right all along, announcing that he has accepted Baroness Louise Casey's recommendation of a full statutory inquiry. So that's that. Judged by his own words, the Prime Minister is jumping on a far-Right bandwagon. It demonstrates how absurd his reflexive statement was, but it also illustrates exactly how this scandal was permitted to go on for so long: an instinctive urge to protect the narrative of a cohesive multicultural nation built through immigration, with a few far-Right malcontents, rather than a deeply divided society where neutral enforcement of the law could lead to chaos on the streets. The reason the grooming gangs were not dealt with earlier is simple: a generation of politicians and state officials acted as if it was in essence better for society if children were raped by these gangs and officials covered it up, than if the state was to act to stop the violence and risk 'tensions' between communities. Read that again. And now read what they allowed to happen. In Telford, Lucy Lowe died at 16 alongside her mother and sister when her abuser set fire to her home. She was pregnant when she was killed, and her death was used to threaten other children. In Rotherham, the father of a 15-year-old rape victim was told by police officers the assault might mean she would 'learn her lesson'. The ordeal had been so brutal she required surgery. Children were 'doused in petrol and threatened with being set alight'; parents who tracked down their daughters and tried to rescue them were arrested by the police. In Oxford, a child was raped by four men simultaneously; 'a red ball was placed in her mouth to keep her quiet'. And this was allowed to go on because officials were terrified of being called racist, terrified of stoking community tensions. In Manchester, police officers aware 'the offending target group were predominantly Asian males' were 'told to try and get other ethnicities'. In Telford, when the council became aware that taxi drivers were offering children rides for sex, it leapt into action and suspended licensing enforcement. In Rotherham, a police officer stated that the town would 'erupt' if the routine abuse of white children by Pakistani heritage men became public knowledge. And remember: these are the stories that have come to light despite the state's reticence to investigate fully. As Conservative MP for Keighley Robbie Moore stated in the Commons in January, the scale of offending in Bradford, for instance, has still to be fully investigated; what is eventually uncovered may well 'dwarf' that uncovered in Rotherham. Now it is vital to make sure that this does not become another cover-up. We need answers rapidly; we need names; we need the full publication of evidence, witnesses compelled to give testimony from police officers and council workers to ministers. And we need to be honest about the sort of society we are today, and what we'd like to be. If the cover-up of mass rape of children is the price of preserving the status quo, it isn't worth paying.


Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Labour would reward Hamas by recognising Palestine
Labour's ability to harm the UK's best interests knows no bounds. Hot on the heels of surrendering British sovereign territory to Mauritius, Sir Keir Starmer is actively thinking of weighing into the complex, sensitive matter of Palestinian statehood. As Israel moves to neutralise the existential threat posed by Iran's rapid dash for a nuclear bomb, Whitehall has naively been consumed with the idea of recognising a Palestinian state. At this perilous moment of uncertainty the UK should be standing rock solid with Israel and the US against the enemies of peace. Some think unilaterally declaring Palestinian statehood would be a symbolically significant step and a means to promote peace. It would be nothing of the sort, but it would be foolish to dismiss it as an empty gesture. On the contrary, the move would add fuel to the fire of the bitter war in Gaza, undermine the prospects for a lasting peace between Palestinians and Israelis, and harm the UK. It is worth considering what that state would look like. Putting aside the fact that there are no agreed borders for such a state, we must contend with the painful reality that this state would likely be governed by Hamas. Is Labour seriously going to provide legitimacy to a bloodthirsty Islamist group that is banned in the UK? This gift to Hamas will dramatically hinder efforts to secure a ceasefire and the release of Israeli hostages. Even if a Palestinian state was to be governed by the Western-backed Palestinian Authority, this is itself a corrupt and deeply unpopular entity which pays salaries to convicted terrorists and administers a school curriculum rife with the glorification of terrorism and anti-Jewish racism. It is hard to see this statehood move as anything other than a reward for terrorism. Terror groups will be licking their lips at the prospect of achieving their goals off the back of violent atrocities. And what will China and Iran think as they eye-up their respective invasion of Taiwan and quest for a nuclear weapon? The diplomatic damage would be immediate and far-reaching. The US has urged the UK not to go down this path and threatened diplomatic consequences. It would be reckless to jeopardise efforts to secure a crucial trade deal with Washington, harming thousands of British companies and jobs at a time of acute economic instability. The UK's once proud reputation as a trusted broker on the international stage would be left in tatters and we would have surrendered our status as a nation committed to supporting its allies in the fight against terrorism. Labour wouldn't only be rewarding terrorists and extremists in the Middle East. It would dramatically embolden those here in the UK, endangering the British public. The weekly hate marches we have witnessed across the country since the October 7 massacre have been a source of national shame, and shone a light into the hateful forces within our own society. The UK's Jewish community continues to bear the brunt of record levels of antisemitic violence and needs our full support, not foolish student-style foreign policy interventions. In pandering to Islamist extremists to shore up its own vote, the Labour Government will not only signal that bullying and intimidation works but risks unleashing an ever-greater terror threat. Recognising a Palestinian state in the context of October 7 would reiterate the moral bankruptcy of Sir Keir's failing Labour Government. It should be utterly rejected. Instead we need to double-down on peace through strength. We must fully support Israel in their hour of need, as they battle to remove Iran as a nuclear threat to us all.