Latest news with #facecovering
Telegraph
a day ago
- Politics
- Telegraph
Politicians must not shy away from any public debate on face coverings
SIR – Nigel Farage is quite right to call for a debate on the subject of people covering their faces in public, and brave to consider making it a Reform UK policy. It is clearly part of our culture that people's faces are visible. This is very important in looking to protect the public against criminals and others who wish to hide themselves behind any form of face covering. There are people who like to believe that it is part of their religion to cover their faces, but all politicians must know this is not a specific religious teaching. Face covering is unacceptable in our society and any political party knows that policy on the matter risks losing votes from that element of society that demands women cover their faces in public. Politicians need to raise divisive subjects, rather than evade them, and make difficult decisions for the benefit of social cohesion. Jonathan Longstaff Buxted, East Sussex SIR – I fully support Sarah Pochin, the newly elected MP for Runcorn and Helsby, in calling for a ban on the public wearing of the burka (report, June 8). If France, Denmark, Belgium and others are prepared to resist this affront to their way of life, then what is stopping us from doing the same? Will Forrow Dawlish, Devon SIR – Several European countries have banned the wearing of full facial coverings in public, both for security reasons and to tackle a lack of integration into their indigenous populations. We should follow suit. Peter Rosie Ringwood, Hampshire SIR – I would add to Dr Chris Staley's list of unacceptable face coverings (Letters, June 7) the keffiyeh, as worn by militant protesters who seem ashamed to show their faces. Gordon Cook Torquay, Devon SIR – It is a pity that while Kemi Badenoch opposes sharia courts ('Badenoch: Let bosses ban burkas in offices', report, June 8), she has said nothing about their Sikh counterpart. Sikh courts have no precedent in India. In fact, they are alien to Sikh traditions: even during the Sikh rule in the 18th-century Punjab, there were no exclusive Sikh courts. Moreover, once you accept Sikh courts, you indirectly accept that Sikhs are fundamentally a different people, and hence deserve special treatment. The creation of these courts has been a great victory for those Sikhs who want to live not as Sikhs of Britain, but Sikhs in Britain. To create social cohesion and communal harmony, Britain needs a uniform civil code, not separate religious courts. Perhaps that is the reason why the Supreme Court of India has consistently demanded the abolition of such courts.
Daily Mail
2 days ago
- Politics
- Daily Mail
Kemi Badenoch says she refuses to meet burka-clad constituents as Tories back allowing bosses to ban female staff from wearing Islamic veils
Kemi Badenoch has revealed she refuses to meet or speak to constituents who cover their faces as she backed allowing bosses to ban female staff from wearing burkas. The Conservative leader said she had a rule at surgeries in her North West Essex constituency that 'you have to remove your face covering, whether it's a burka or a balaclava'. It came as she backed allowing office managers to bar staff from wearing the traditional Islamic robe for women, which has only a transparent veil allowing them to see. However she stepped back from the idea of a nationwide ban on the garment, saying there were bigger issues when it came to integration. Her remarks came after Reform's chairman Zia Yusuf quit following a row over the subject after his colleague MP Sarah Pochin urged the Prime Minister to ban the burka 'in the interests of public safety'- before rejoining on Saturday night. Her position on burkas appeared to go further than that of shadow home secretary Chris Philp today. He agreed that 'employers should be allowed to decide whether their employees can be visible or not'. But asked if he would also ban face coverings at surgeries in his Croydon South constituency, he said: 'I have in the past spoken to people obviously wearing a burka – I represent a London constituency – but everybody can make their own choices, that's the point she was making, each employer should be able to make their own choices.' Mrs Badenoch said Britain could enforce a ban on burkas but what needs to be addressed are pressing issues around integration. She added that sharia courts and first-cousin marriage are an 'insidious' barrier to integration. She said: 'If you were to ask me where you start with integration – sharia courts, all of this nonsense sectarianism, things like first cousin marriage – there's a whole heap of stuff that is far more insidious and that breeds more problems. 'My view is that people should be allowed to wear whatever they want, not what their husband is asking them to wear or what their community says that they should wear.' She added: 'If you come into my constituency surgery, you have to remove your face covering, whether it's a burka or a balaclava. 'I'm not talking to people who are not going to show me their face, and I also believe that other people should have that control. 'Organisations should be able to decide what their staff wear; it shouldn't be something that people should be able to override.' France is just one of a number of countries that have already banned the burka. But Mrs Badenoch said: 'France has a ban and they have worse problems than we do in this country on integration. So banning the burka clearly is not the thing that's going to fix things.' If employers started to tell staff to remove any religious clothing, they could face legal issues under equality and human rights laws on the grounds they were being discriminating. An organisation would have to demonstrate its ban was for a legitimate reason, such as ensuring health and safety or enabling effective communication.
