Sharia Law in UK conflicts with Universal Human Rights

[Anthea]

Boris Johnson's burqa remarks

Boris Johnson has been accused of “dog whistle” Islamophobia by a former Conservative chair after he compared Muslim women in burqas to “letterboxes” and “bank robbers.”

Lady Sayeeda Warsi said the lack of action by the party over Johnson’s comments showed it was “business as usual.”

Labour demanded that the Conservative chair, Brandon Lewis, refer the former foreign secretary for mandatory equalities training, amid renewed calls for the party to open an independent investigation into Islamophobia in the party.

In a letter to Lewis, the shadow equalities minister, Naz Shah, said Johnson’s comments were “ugly and naked Islamophobia” and said Lewis should abide by his word to give Tory members diversity training to combat Islamophobia.

Telling the truth is a statement of FACT not Islamophobia

The party was also criticised by the Finsbury Park mosque imam, who was praised for his heroism during the terror attack last year. He said the Tory party was “in denial” over the extent of Islamophobia.

Johnson said he did not agree with a ban on the face veil, but compared Muslim women in burqas to bank robbers and rebellious teenagers. In his column for the Telegraph, he said he would expect his constituents to remove face coverings when talking to him at his MP’s surgery, comments which Shah said fell foul of equalities law.

I would like a TOTAL ban on ban on the face veil

“As a Muslim woman, I am appalled that this kind of ugly and naked Islamophobia has been published in a national newspaper and so far appears to be tolerated by your party leadership,” Shah wrote in the letter that was also sent to the women and equalities minister, Penny Mordaunt.

Shah said Johnson’s suggestion that he should be “fully entitled” to ask a constituent who came to him for advice or assistance to remove her veil was “grossly insulting and Islamophobic... it would also potentially be unlawful if he were to carry it out”.

The MP said the Conservative party had vowed to tackle Islamophobia, pointing to a ConservativeHome article where Lewis said he would set up diversity training. “If no action is taken against Mr Johnson – for example, at the very least requiring him to attend a course of training and engagement with the Islamic community – what faith can Muslim people have in your public statements?” she wrote.

Warsi, who has previously called for an inquiry into Islamophobia in the Conservative party after it was raised by the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), tweeted that the comments were “dog whistle” from Johnson. The MCB said Johnson was “pandering to the far-right” and underlined the need for a deeper investigation by the Conservative party.

The Finsbury Park imam, Mohammed Mahmoud, said there was a general lack of engagement with the Muslim community from ministers. Writing for the Evening Standard on the anniversary of the van attack that killed one worshipper and injured 12 others, he said: “Despite the rising scale and severity of Islamophobia and anti-Muslim hatred, the response from the government has been lacklustre, or worse, in denial.”

Other Labour MPs condemned Johnson. David Lammy called him a “pound-shop Donald Trump” and accused him of “fanning the flames of Islamophobia” for political advantage. Jess Phillips said she would report Johnson to the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

In his column, Johnson said schools and universities should be entitled to tell students to remove a veil if a student “turns up … looking like a bank robber”.

As a teacher I would NOT be able to teach someone wearing a veil - I need to be able to communicate with my students and facial expressions play a large part in this communication

Also, and most importantly, in lessons and exams I need to see that the people are not in contact with, and receiving information from, an outside source such as internet or friend

“It is absolutely ridiculous that people should choose to go around looking like letter boxes; and I thoroughly dislike any attempt by any – invariably male – government to encourage such demonstrations of ‘modesty’,” he wrote. Businesses and government agencies should be able to “enforce a dress code that enables their employees to interact with customers”, including by allowing them to see their faces, Johnson said

It is well known in business circles that one should remove sunglasses and prescription glasses (if possible) to improve communication. Police are also urged to do the same in order to appear more friendly and more able to calm conflict

Denmark introduced a burqa ban last week, with fines of around 1,000 kroner, following similar moves in France, Austria and Belgium BRILLIANT

Johnson said he did not support a blanket ban on wearing a face veil in the UK. “You risk turning people into martyrs, and you risk a general crackdown on any public symbols of religious affiliation, and you may simply make the problem worse,” he wrote.

The Conservative party did not respond to a request for comment.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... ia-says-mp

[Anthea]

“The eyes are the windows to the soul” a pretty common metaphor. It’s kind of a weird expression for saying that the eyes of a person are supposed to give you insight into their inner world - their feelings, thoughts, etc. So the general idea is that if you look into a person’s eyes you get an idea of who they are. If you ever looked someone in the eyes and thought “he/she looks like he/she/ is happy/sad/mean/nice” then their eyes gave you a lot of information about the person’s emotional state. You can also tell a true smile from a fake one by looking into the persons eyes while they are smiling - faking a smile is pretty easy, we do it all the time. But when someone is truly happy and smiling, the corners of their eyes crinkle - its natural. (x)

So generally the phrase means that the eyes simply tell you things about a person their words might not - its just like body language.

EYES ARE THE MIRROR (MIRRORS) OF THE SOUL -- "A person's thoughts can be ascertained by looking in his or her eyes. The proverb has been traced back in English to 'Regiment of Life' . But the proverb was known much earlier. Cicero (106-43 B.C.) is quoted as saying, 'Ut imago est animi voltus sic indices oculi' (The face is a picture of the mind as the eyes are its interpreter). The L*tin proverbs, 'Vultus est index animi' or 'Oculus animi index,' are usually translated as 'The face is the index of the mind.' The French say, 'Les yeux sont le miroir de l'dme (The eyes are the mirror of the soul). 'The eyes are the window of the soul' is a variant form of the proverb..." From "Random House Dictionary of Popular Proverbs and Sayings" by Gregory Y. Titelman (Random House, New York, 1996).

[Anthea]

Boris Johnson told to apologise for burka jibe

Conservative chairman Brandon Lewis has asked Boris Johnson to apologise for saying Muslim women wearing burkas "look like letter boxes".

Mr Johnson said full-face veils should not be banned but looked "ridiculous".

I say it should be banned for 100% logical reasons given earlier

He has been criticised by Labour MPs, some Tories and Muslim groups, who said the party was not doing enough to tackle prejudice.

The founder of the Conservative Muslim Forum said the remarks would harm community relations.

If that is what they believe then they themselves should stop the oppression of Muslim ladies

Speaking on BBC Radio 4's The World at One, Lord Sheikh suggested Mr Johnson was "using Muslims as a springboard" for his ambition to lead the Tory Party.

"It is a joke but in very, very bad taste," he said, adding that the former foreign secretary had a "weird sense of humour".

Earlier, Foreign Office Minister Alistair Burt said there was a "degree of offence" in Mr Johnson's comments.

On Twitter, Mr Lewis said he agreed with Mr Burt and called on the MP and former London mayor to apologise.

Former Conservative chairwoman Lady Warsi, the first Muslim women to sit in a British cabinet, welcomed Mr Lewis's intervention and called for disciplinary action against Mr Johnson if he did not apologise.

Labour's equalities spokeswoman Naz Shah said Mr Johnson should attend "training and engagement with the Muslim community" and called on Prime Minister Theresa May to respond.

"Clearly the Tory party has an issue with Islamophobia, but over 24 hours later the prime minister is still yet to say a word," she added.

But Conservative backbench MP Andrew Bridgen said Mr Johnson had raised an important subject in a "light-hearted way".

The reaction "says a lot about internal Conservative Party politics" he told the BBC.

Another Conservative MP, Nadine Dorries, said the government should apologise and that "Boris didn't go far enough".

What Boris Johnson said

In his Daily Telegraph column, Mr Johnson - who last month quit the government in protest at Prime Minister Theresa May's Brexit policy - was commenting on the introduction of a burka ban in Denmark.

He said he felt "fully entitled" to expect women to remove face coverings when talking to him at his MP surgery - and schools and universities should be able to take the same approach if a student "turns up... looking like a bank robber".

100% TRUE

"If you tell me that the burka is oppressive, then I am with you," he said

"If you say that it is weird and bullying to expect women to cover their faces, then I totally agree - and I would add that I can find no scriptural authority for the practice in the Koran TRUE

"I would go further and say that it is absolutely ridiculous that people should choose to go around looking like letter boxes."

He said businesses and government agencies should be able to "enforce a dress code" that allowed them to see customers' faces TRUE

But he said: "Such restrictions are not quite the same as telling a free-born adult woman what she may or may not wear, in a public place, when she is simply minding her own business."

He said a total ban on face-covering veils would give a boost to radicals who said there was a "clash of civilisations" between Islam and the West and could lead to "a general crackdown on any public symbols of religious affiliation".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45096519

[Anthea]

REMEMBER THE YAZIDIS

It is time to face up to the TRUTH

Some Muslims are peace loving

Sadly, many Kurds think they are Muslims, but fun loving, music loving, colourfully dressed Kurds are most definitely NOT Muslims

In Saudi Arabia

Men wear clothes in cool reflective white

Women wear clothes in sun attracting black, making them swelter and look like rubbish sacks, which is what Arab men treat their women like

Arab women still have very few rights and civil liberties

It is a country where men cannot even keep photos of their wives or sisters on the phones and would be punished for so doing

To be like “a bird in a gilded cage” is to live in luxury but without freedom: When wealthy Arabs come to the UK they bring their harems with them, take over expensive hotels, spend lots of money on them - a gilded cage is still a cage and these wives :living like a bird in a gilded cage.”

The good Muslim Arabs tend to leave their religious beliefs in Saudi Arabia

On coming to London, once they have installed their slaves/wives in their gilded cages, like all dutiful Muslims they spend their time in the Mosques

Not exactly

They spend their nights in the CASINOS

And I can assure you that the scantly clad, over made-up females accompanying them are most definitely NOT their wives

YES I used to spend a lot of time in Casinos, due to the expensive clientèle the food is absolutly FANTASTIC

Also, in many casinos, the tables are visible from the refreshment areas and it is really hilarious to watch these idiots lose millions

Among Arab Muslims it would appear that Islam is used solely for the purpose of suppressing and controlling females

[Anthea]

Boris Johnson 'won't apologise' for burka comments

GOOD

Boris Johnson has stood by his remarks about the burka after the Conservative Party chairman told him to apologise.

The former foreign secretary has been criticised for saying Muslim women wearing burkas "look like letter boxes" and comparing them to "bank robbers".

In reality, many robberies in the UK has been committed by people wearing burkas, including robberies committed by BLACK men and non-Muslim shop-lifters

PM Theresa May has backed calls for Mr Johnson to apologise, saying the remarks have "clearly caused offence".

Telling the TRUTH should NOT be banned

But a source close to Mr Johnson said he "won't be apologising", adding it was "ridiculous" to attack his views.v

"We must not fall into the trap of shutting down the debate on difficult issues," the source added.

"We have to call it out. If we fail to speak up for liberal values then we are simply yielding ground to reactionaries and extremists."

Mr Johnson's remarks, in a Daily Telegraph article, have provoked criticism from Muslim groups, some Tory MPs and opposition parties.

In the article, Mr Johnson said full-face veils should not be banned but looked "ridiculous".

As I stated earlier, full face covering should be banned:
for educational reasons
also for security reasons
also for health reasons

However, the founder of the Conservative Muslim Forum said the remarks would harm community relations.

Conservative Party chairman Brandon Lewis said he agreed with Mr Burt that there had been degree of offence in Mr Johnson's comments, and called on the former London mayor to apologise.
Analysis

By BBC political correspondent Susana Mendonca

The criticism pitted at Boris Johnson has largely been around the words that he used - "letter boxes" and "bank robbers" to describe Muslim women wearing face veils.

But Mr Johnson hasn't directly responded to the accusation that it is his language which caused the offence.

Instead, the statement that has come from a source close to him suggests Mr Johnson wants to turn this into a debate about whether or not women should wear the burka at all.

It is about time people said the truth

Keeping a high profile is important to Mr Johnson.

He is seen by some in the Conservative Party as a contender for leadership - particularly since his resignation in which he criticised the prime minister's plan for Brexit.

But he risks being seen as weak if he is forced into an apology by the party chairman.

So his refusal to apologise, and an attempt to now put himself on the side of "liberal values", could be an example of Mr Johnson trying to save face while maintaining his profile.

Former Conservative chairwoman Baroness Warsi, the first Muslim woman to sit in a British cabinet, welcomed Mr Lewis's intervention and called for disciplinary action against Mr Johnson if he did not apologise.

She described the remarks as "offensive and deliberately provocative, but very clever politics".

A debate about the burka should be had "in a serious way", she said, rather than "trying to get airtime and attention on an issue which he knows will resonate with a certain part of the Tory Party".
Image caption Baroness Warsi said Boris Johnson should face disciplinary action if he did not apologise

Shazia Awan-Scully, a Muslim who ran as a Conservative candidate in 2010, said she did not agree with wearing the burka but it was up to women to make up their own minds.

She told BBC Radio 4's PM programme: "Some women choose to wear it, some women are conditioned to wear it, but it's certainly out of the question for me to tell a woman what to wear."

She added that the language used by Mr Johnson showed he was "pandering to this Islamaphobic attitude bubbling away in the Conservative Party", which she said she had experienced herself.

But Conservative backbench MP Andrew Bridgen said Mr Johnson had raised an important subject in a "light-hearted way".

The reaction "says a lot about internal Conservative Party politics", he told the BBC.
What is Islamophobia?

By BBC home affairs correspondent Dominic Casciani

Last year, Zaynab Hussein, a mother from Leicester, was left fighting for her life after a man she didn't know smashed into her with his car - and then ran over her again. She was attacked because she was a Muslim.

Tell Mama, the national organisation that collects anti-Muslim attack statistics, says that the majority of street victims of such abuse and violence are women, for the same reason that Mrs Hussein was singled out: some Muslim women are easily identifiable by their mode of dress - and therefore easy to target.

Seven years ago Baroness Warsi said prejudice against Muslims had passed the "dinner table test".

And Mr Johnson's critics regard his "letter box" and "bank robber" comments as part of the problem the peer defined: normalising prejudice and dehumanising women, rather than calmly debating the complexities of the veil in an open society.

Since Baroness Warsi's warning, there has been the launch of a cross-departmental anti-Muslim working group to combat hate.

But it has been criticised as toothless, not least because the government can't agree a definition for Islamophobia.

What Boris Johnson said

In his Daily Telegraph column, Mr Johnson - who last month quit the government in protest at Prime Minister Theresa May's Brexit policy - was commenting on the introduction of a burka ban in Denmark.

He said he felt "fully entitled" to expect women to remove face coverings when talking to him at his MP surgery - and schools and universities should be able to take the same approach if a student "turns up... looking like a bank robber".

"If you tell me that the burka is oppressive, then I am with you," he said.

"If you say that it is weird and bullying to expect women to cover their faces, then I totally agree - and I would add that I can find no scriptural authority for the practice in the Koran.

"I would go further and say that it is absolutely ridiculous that people should choose to go around looking like letter boxes."

He said businesses and government agencies should be able to "enforce a dress code" that allowed them to see customers' faces.

But he said: "Such restrictions are not quite the same as telling a free-born adult woman what she may or may not wear, in a public place, when she is simply minding her own business."

He said a total ban on face-covering veils would give a boost to radicals who said there was a "clash of civilisations" between Islam and the West, and could lead to "a general crackdown on any public symbols of religious affiliation".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45096519

[Piling]

Women who wear burka all the time are going to suffer of a D vitamin deficiency, btw. It is like staying 365 days/year buried in a coffin.

[Anthea]

The main cause of Islamophobia is fear

Fear goes both ways:

The media shows very little positive information on Muslims

BUT

The media shows very little positive information on anyone or anything

Many Muslim men believe white (English) women to be prostitutes and do NOT allow their wives to have English friends

Young white (English) women do tend to dress rather scantily, does NOT make them prostitutes

A large percentage of young white (English) women do have sex before marriage

BUT

Muslims have temporary marriages - a way Muslim men have of making use of females

[Anthea]

People learn to socialise when young but girls in burkas often feel isolated from other classmates

Children play, Mulsim girls do not

Children go to each other's homes to play, Muslim girls do not, other than to visit realtions

Children love music, this is forbidden to Muslim girls

Muslim girls grow into isolated Muslim women

[Anthea]

Sharia Laws are part of the extremist threat and not a solution

Letter to Amber Rudd, Secretary of State

The Independent Review on Sharia: Sharia Laws are part of the extremist threat and not a solution

As black and minority women and human rights campaigners, we voice our dismay at the outcome of the independent review on Sharia laws commissioned by the government in 2016. Although the government has rejected formal recognition (through regulation), the way has been left open for the Sharia courts to continue to exist in a no-man’s land where they continue to produce discriminatory parallel laws while posing as an acceptable alternative dispute mechanism. Now they will be strengthened by a review that has endorsed their existence.

At the outset, we feared a whitewash but what we have seen is worse. The review is superficial, narrow and secretive; and completely lacks credibility. We protested when the Home Office appointed a theologian to lead the review and two Imams as advisers. How absurd that the Home Office now claims that the review ‘was not tasked with considering theological issues, for example whether Islam and Sharia law treat women in an unequal way’. Why then appoint three people whose only qualification for the job was their status as religious scholars?

Any review that is based on interviewing only eight women and a handful of organisations; and that provoked a boycott from most of the organisations that deal with women adversely affected by religious laws, cannot be considered legitimate. Demands for the acceptance of Sharia laws to govern family matters are part of a wider fundamentalist and ultra conservative goal to normalise profoundly misogynist values in the law and other public spaces. Our front-line experience has found clear evidence that both the intent and the process of the Sharia courts is abusive and discriminatory; that the Sharia bodies are run by organisations with links to extremist organisations; and promote the full range of fundamentalist goals such as strict gender segregation, imposition of hijabs and other dress codes, homophobia, bigotry and discrimination against non-Muslims and Muslim dissenters, blasphemy laws and attacks on apostates.

Our research also shows that they do refer to ‘courts’ and ‘Judges’, because of a clear intention of establishing themselves as a parallel law which ‘good Muslims’ must adhere to. The review suggests that that they are ‘Councils’ only and thus sanitises them.

In order to arrive at its conclusions, the reviewers conducted no investigation and ignored evidence that would have undermined their conclusions. They ignored the wider political fundamentalist drive to undermine human rights. They also ignored a considerable body of evidence submitted to the Home Affairs Select Committee in Parliament by members of our coalition and others. For instance, Maryam Namazie submitted two statements in evidence which contained details of statements made by Islamic law ‘Judges’, that exposed their wider political agenda. Knowing that hate speech and discriminatory speech is regularly erased from websites once it has been exposed, she had taken screenshots of their statements. She stated in conclusion, ‘despite all efforts to package Sharia’s civil code as mundane, its imposition represents a concerted attempt by Islamists to gain further influence in Britain’. If the reviewers did not wish to draw on our submissions, they could have applied some diligence and researched it themselves. Why did they not do so?

The coalition also gathered detailed testimony from many women. Unlike the reviewers, we did not ask for evidence solely from women who had experience of sharia courts, although we met and interviewed many who had tried to get a divorce under ‘sharia law’, were deeply traumatised by the experience and experienced further violence and abuse of their rights. We also published and put in evidence to parliament, a devastating letter signed by over 300 abused and marginalised women from all religious backgrounds expressing their fear of being controlled by religious laws.

Sweeping statements are made about the “choice” that Muslim women make to approach such councils without giving any consideration to the highly constrained religious context in which that “choice” is made. The review is utterly silent on the crucial concept of ‘zina’ (sex outside marriage), the grave sin punishable by death in many Muslim countries. It is fear of ‘zina’ which compels many women, even those with civil divorces to seek an Islamic divorce. Procedural changes in sharia councils will not diminish their role in spreading this concept; to which they provide the only ‘solution’. That is why use of Sharia bodies is increasing. Evidence before the Home Affairs Select Committee makes clear that fundamentalists insist that a civil divorce cannot be final. Yet earlier generations of women had civil marriage (as well as a Muslim marriage contract) and were satisfied with a civil divorce. Increased religious bullying is a major reason for women’s recourse to sharia, not simply their ‘conscience’. Indeed, the form of Sharia which the theologians of the panel have failed to challenge is much more regressive than Muslim personal laws in Muslim majority countries.

Unlike the review, we have shown that women cannot engage with Sharia Councils or the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal in relation to their divorce without this also impacting on their rights and freedoms in other areas. Our research shows that Sharia Courts/ Councils deal with more than divorce – they impose ‘mediation’, promote polygamy and child marriage, and interfere with child custody and criminal proceedings in relation to domestic violence. The review made no serious attempt to investigate these issues.

The review stands in direct contrast to the devastating observations made by Dame Louise Casey in her report in 2016 “women in some communities are facing a double onslaught of gender inequality, combined with religious, cultural and social barriers preventing them from accessing even their basic rights as British residents.”

A forensic examination of the operation of Sharia in Britain lays bare what fundamentalists do to achieve their goals, not merely what they think. We do not accuse them simply of ‘thought crimes’ but of promoting crimes and human rights violations.

The review is a botched attempt at consultation established with flawed terms of reference and an explicit disregard for gender discrimination. The government and the reviewers have failed the women most affected and ignored the concerns of rights advocates.

We will be providing a more detailed submission. Meanwhile, we call on you, as Home Secretary, to ensure that none of the recommendations contained in the review are implemented without consultation with those advocates who are able to make clear connections with extremism, fundamentalism and inequality. The government has, so far, failed in its duty to make an equality impact assessment, which it needs to do with the full weight of evidence before it. Continued indifference to the government’s duty to respect, protect and fulfil human rights will leave us in no doubt that there is no change to the social contract in which women’s rights are traded off as part of a process of appeasement of fundamentalists and extremists.

We look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

Gita Sahgal and Yasmin Rehman, Co-Directors, Centre for Secular Space
Pragna Patel, Director, Southall Black Sisters
Diana Nammi, Executive Director, Iranian Kurdish Women’s Rights Organisation
Houzan Mahmoud, Culture Project
Sadia Hameed, Spokesperson, Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain
Rumana Hashem, Human Rights Advocate
Nasreen Rehman, Human Rights Advocate
Gina Khan, Spokesperson, One Law for All
Maryam Namazie, Spokesperson, One Law for All

http://ikwro.org.uk/2018/02/extremist-threat-solution/

Time to face the truth

[Anthea]

Boris Johnson faces growing criticism over burka jibe

Former foreign secretary Boris Johnson is facing growing criticism over his remark that Muslim women wearing the burka "look like letter boxes".

Dominic Grieve, the ex-attorney general, said he would quit the party if Mr Johnson became leader.

Ex-Tory chairwoman Baroness Warsi said Mr Johnson's remarks could trigger a rise in hate crime.

Senior Tories have urged him to apologise but he has not done so, and has stood by his comments.

In a Daily Telegraph article, he said full-face veils should not be banned, but it was "absolutely ridiculous" women chose to "go around looking like letter boxes". He also compared them to looking like "bank robbers". TRUE THEY DO

A source close to the former London mayor has said: "We must not fall into the trap of shutting down the debate on difficult issues.

It is long past time that this and other countries, did more to protect Muslim ladies from oppression

"We have to call it out. If we fail to speak up for liberal values then we are simply yielding ground to reactionaries and extremists."

But, speaking on BBC Radio 4's The World at One, Mr Grieve - a former Remain campaigner who has previously clashed with Mr Johnson over Brexit - said his behaviour was "very embarrassing".

Mr Grieve said he would "without the slightest doubt", quit the Tories if Mr Johnson became leader, "because I don't regard him as a fit and proper person to lead a political party".

The leader of the Scottish Conservatives, Ruth Davidson, has also backed calls for an apology over what she called "gratuitously offensive" comments.

Speaking at an event in North Berwick, East Lothian, she said: "This wasn't an off-the-cuff slip, he wrote a column, he knew exactly what he was doing and I think it crossed from being provocative and starting a debate and actually it became rude and gratuitous.

"It's also not been shown through history that when men make sweeping statements about what women should or shouldn't wear that it goes well for them.

"I think he should apologise for them."

Earlier Culture Secretary Jeremy Wright said there was no reason not to have a "robust conversation" about the subject, but added: "We're not talking to our friends in the pub. We are public figures and we have an additional obligation to be careful."

A former Tory chairman, Lord Pickles, said Mr Johnson, who was foreign secretary until resigning last month over Brexit, risked "closing down" the debate with his "illiberal language".

Supporters of Mr Johnson say the row is politically-motivated and that other senior Tories have made similar remarks without such criticism.

Outspoken Johnson carries risk
By Jonathan Blake, BBC political correspondent

By saying what he did, in the way he said it, Boris Johnson was guaranteed to provoke a reaction.

The question of what Muslim women choose to wear in public is a sensitive one, around which most politicians tread very carefully.

But Boris Johnson is not most politicians. And by using language you rarely hear in the normal course of political debate, the former foreign secretary has attracted attention and criticism.

If it was his intention to remind everyone that Boris is still Boris, not afraid to say what he thinks, despite being out of government and away on holiday, it was not without risk.

Figures show a rise in Islamophobic attacks and the Conservative party faces criticism for not addressing anti-Muslim prejudice in its own ranks.

In this context, many feel he has picked the wrong time to tackle the wrong issue.

But as ever, being outspoken is at once appealing to Boris Johnson's supporters and distasteful to his detractors.
Presentational grey line

Mr Johnson, who is the current MP for Uxbridge and South Ruislip, has long been seen as a potential candidate for the leadership of the Conservative Party.

He fronted the successful Leave campaign in the 2016 EU referendum, and resigned as foreign secretary last month in protest at Theresa May's Brexit plans.

Writing in the Guardian, Baroness Warsi said Mr Johnson's remarks were "indefensible" and "have no place in the modern Conservative Party".

She said, although he was setting out a liberal position on the burka, he was doing it in an "alt-right" way, and using Muslim women as "political fodder… to stake out a leadership bid".

But mother-of-seven Tahira Noor, who has been wearing a burka for 20 years, said it was "100% my choice" and Mr Johnson's comments showed a "lack of knowledge".

She told BBC Radio 5 Live: "In today's day and age, the majority of the women who wear the burka are born and brought up in this country, are educated in this country, they've been to colleges, universities, and have understood why they want to do what they're doing.

"They're under no oppression, they're not doing it because their husbands want them to or their fathers want them to."

This is NOT what Muslim women tell me

Ms Noor has four daughters and none of them wear a burka, adding: "It's not a must, it's not an obligation."

Sahar Al-Faifi, from Cardiff, who wears the niqab, told BBC News: "I absolutely have no problem with anyone disagreeing with my choice to wear it and criticising it.

"But when you demonise and dehumanise a minority, who happen to be women of colour, I have a problem with this.

"It's not for the state, it's not for the government and it's definitely not for middle-aged white men to tell me what to wear and what not to."

Boris is bringing a genuine problem out into the open - thank you Boris

Tory MP for Mansfield, Ben Bradley, said it was not the language he would have used, but added: "Ultimately he is a journalist... and journalists want their pieces to be read.

"They want people to talk about what they have written [and] I would say that is probably the motivation."

Mr Johnson's former adviser Munira Mirza said Mr Johnson's views on the burka had been "entirely consistent" and other Conservative politicians had expressed the same view, without being called Islamophobic.

In 2013 former Justice Secretary Ken Clarke - who also opposed a ban on the public wearing of burkas - said they should not be worn while giving evidence in court. He referred to burkas as a "peculiar costume" and a "kind of bag".

Ms Mirza added: "The reality is there is a political fight here. People who frankly couldn't care less about the issues that Muslim women face are piling into Boris because Boris said it."

Conservative MP Conor Burns also defended Mr Johnson, accusing his political colleagues of "bandwagon jumping".

The member for Bournemouth West tweeted those who criticised the former foreign secretary "clearly didn't understand" his comments.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45114368

[Anthea]

Why do some Muslim women wear the veil?

Former foreign secretary Boris Johnson has been criticised for saying Muslim women wearing burkas "look like letter boxes" and for comparing them to "bank robbers" -prompting calls for him to apologise and be expelled from the Conservative Party.

But Mr Johnson's comments, which some believe will aggravate Islamophobic tensions in the UK, have also highlighted some confusion about what a burka is - as the veil revealing just the eyes is, in fact, known as a niqab.

So what actually are the differences between the various types of Islamic dress for women and what governs their choices?
Infographic showing different types of Muslim head coverings for women

Click on image to enlarge


The Koran, Islam's holy book, tells Muslims - men and women - to dress modestly. Male modesty has been interpreted to be covering the area from the navel to the knee.

For women it is generally seen as covering everything except their face, hands and feet when in the presence of men they are not related or married to.

How does dressing modestly equate with the recent trend in figure-hugging Islamic fashion garments worn overly made up ladies?

However, there has been much debate within Islam as to whether this goes far enough. This has led to a distinction between the hijab (literally "covering up" in Arabic) and the niqab (meaning "full veil").

The hijab is typically a scarf that covers the hair and neck, whereas the niqab is a veil for the face that leaves the area around the eyes clear. It is worn with an accompanying headscarf or abaya, a full-length robe, and sometimes with a separate transparent eye veil.

The burka is the most concealing - covering the entire face and body, leaving just a mesh screen to see through.

Is it a woman's choice to cover up?

I say absolutely and categorically NO

UK mother-of-seven Tahira Noor, who has been wearing a burka for 20 years, says it's "100% my choice" and Mr Johnson's comments show a "lack of knowledge".

The "majority of the women who wear the burka" she says, are born and brought up in Britain. They are "educated in this country, they've been to colleges, universities, and have understood why they want to do what they're doing," she told BBC Radio 5 Live.

"They're under no oppression, they're not doing it because their husbands want them to or their fathers want them to."

Ms Noor has four daughters none of whom wear a burka.

"I haven't forced my daughters into it because I don't have to," she said.

"It's not a must. It's not an obligation. However... [it] gets you closer to God. It's a spiritual thing more than anything else."

She is "not under an obligation" to cover her face but does so because it is "emulating" the Prophet Muhammad.

So, how does she respond if asked to remove her covering for security reasons?

"I'm happy to take my veil off," she said, citing the example of being asked to at a bank.

"When I travel, and I do travel, sometimes I don't even wear [it] because I think it's a lot easier not to [for] security reasons.

Sahar Al-Faifi, from Cardiff, wears the niqab but told BBC News she sometimes gets verbal abuse from others for her choice of veil.

"A week ago someone abused me and said 'you're an ugly terrorist' when I tried to park my car near where I live," she said.

"Two years ago, when I was passing by one department to another at Heath Hospital, someone passed by and said 'don't cut off my head you're ISIS'. It's quite painful [to hear]."

In 2014, BBC News' Shaimaa Khalil wrote about why she stopped wearing her headscarf, only to put it back on again when she became the Pakistan correspondent.

Dr Qanta Ahmed, a British-American Muslim doctor who lives in New York, does not wear a face veil and supports a ban on them.

She said the number of women wearing them in the West is increasing in part because girls begin to wear them before they reach puberty and many were not given a choice. SAD AND TRUE

What is the religious justification?

Muslim scholars have long debated whether it is obligatory to wear the burka or niqab, or whether it is just recommended.

Those Muslim scholars are ALL MALE

There have also been more liberal interpretations which say any headscarf is unnecessary, as long as women maintain the sartorial modesty stipulated in the Koran.

That holy text addresses "the faithful women" who are told to shield their private parts and not to display their adornment "except what is apparent of it".

Scholarly disputes revolve around what this last phrase means. Does it refer to the outer surface of a woman's garments, necessitating that she cover every part of her body - ie don the full niqab?

Or does it give an exemption referring to the face and the hands, as well as conventional female ornaments such as kohl, rings, bracelets and make-up?

The latter interpretation has been adopted by some of the most prominent scholars from Islamic history who favour the hijab - headscarf - option.

There are additional Koranic instructions - seen as ambiguous and therefore much debated - for women to draw the "khimar" (scarf) to cover the "jayb" (bosom/upper chest), and for "the wives and daughters of the Prophet and the women of the believers to draw their "jalabib" (cloaks) close round them".

How many women wear the full-face veil in the UK?

When contacted by BBC Reality Check, both the Women's Muslim Council and Faith Matters (an organisation which promotes integration) said accurate numbers weren't available for the UK.

But there does seem to be consensus that the figure is likely to be low.

Dr Omar Khan, director at the Runnymede Trust, a think tank that deals with race equality, said that it is likely to be "less than 1% [of the Muslim female population] - how much less is difficult to know".

Sunder Katwala, director of think tank British Future, acknowledged a lack of a "robust methodology", but said there was a "ballpark estimate in region of 3,000-5,000" with it "very unlikely to be as high as 1-2%" of the female Muslim population.

These are both estimates by experts working in relevant fields, but until specific research is carried out, it will be difficult to know how prevalent the full-face veil is.

What we do know is that in the 2011 census, Muslims represented 4.8% of the population of England and Wales.

Using the most recent population estimates, this would mean there are roughly 1.43m Muslim women living in the two countries.

If the number of Muslim women wearing the niqab were to be as high as 1% - this would equate to just over 14,000 women - but, again, the 1% figure is just an estimate.

In other European countries, the figure also appears to be low.

In 2009, a French Interior Ministry report estimated that just 0.1% of French Muslim women wore full-face veils which, at the time, equated to 1,900 women.

In Austria, a ban of full face veils in public spaces was said to affect just 0.03% of the Muslim population, according to Nilufar Ahmed, a senior lecturer in public health at Swansea University.

In Belgium between 150 and 200 women wore the niqab before a ban came into force, says Michael Privot, director of the European Network Against Racism.

Between 150 and 200 women in Demark - which banned face veils in public this month - wore a niqab or burqa on a daily basis.

That's 0.1% of Muslim women in the country, according to the Guardian.

What are the laws or customs regarding face veils in other countries?

Denmark's new law that says "anyone who wears a garment that hides the face in public will be punished with a fine"

While Boris Johnson's comments about Islamic face veils have provoked consternation among some, his defenders have said they were made as part of an argument against banning such garments. Other countries though, have taken this step.

France was the first European country to ban full-face veils - ie burkas and niqabs - in public places in April 2011, seven years after it introduced a law prohibiting conspicuous religious symbols in state schools.

It was followed a few months later by Belgium, which banned the wearing of partial or total face veils in public on the grounds of security.

Full or partial bans on full-face veils have since been in place in Austria, Bulgaria, the southern German state of Bavaria and, since 1 August, Denmark.

There have been protests against Denmark's new law, which does not mention burkas and niqabs by name, but says "anyone who wears a garment that hides the face in public will be punished with a fine".

Repeat offenders could be fined 10,000 ($1,500; £1,200) kroner.

By contrast, in Iran the law requires women to wear modest "Islamic" clothing. In practice, this means women must wear a chador, a full-body cloak, or a headscarf and a manteau (overcoat) that covers their arms.

There are posters in cities and towns comparing unveiled women to unwrapped candy and lollipops attracting unwanted attention from flies.

Recently, some Iranian women have protested against this law by taking off their headscarf in public. One woman was jailed for two years in March for doing this.

[Anthea]

MILLIONS OF WOMEN PROTEST WEARING HIJAB

Women protesting forced hijab days after the Iranian Revolution, 1979

On 8 March 1979, more than 100,000 women gathered on the streets of the Iranian capital to protest against the new Islamic government’s compulsory hijab ruling, which meant that women would henceforth be required to wear a headscarf when away from home. The protest was held on International Women’s Day, and the images show women from all walks of life — nurses, students, mothers — marching, smiling, arms raised in protest.


More than 100,000 Iranian women protested the headscarf

In the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ayatollah Khomeini severely curtailed rights that women had become accustomed to under the shah. Within months of the founding of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the 1967 Family Protection Law was repealed; female government workers were forced to observe Islamic dress code; women were barred from becoming judges; beaches and sports were sex-segregated; the legal age of marriage for girls was reduced to 9 (later raised to 13); and married women were barred from attending regular schools.


Ladies believed change could be effected by demonstrating in the streets

Almost immediately women protested these policies. The Islamic revolution is ideologically committed to inequality for women in inheritance and other areas of the civil code; and especially committed to segregation of the sexes. Many places, from “schoolrooms to ski slopes to public buses”, are strictly segregated.


From the next day everybody had to wear the scarf

The hijab today in Iran includes the choice of either a chador or a roopoosh and veil. The chador is a highly modest, usually black or dark outfit that covers the top of a woman’s head and loosely covers her body to her feet. The roopoosh or manteau is a long top similar to a trench coat. “The dress needs to be appropriate according to the Islamic custom of hijab (veil): women are not required to be veiled in front of mahramrelatives such as husband, father, son, brother, but are required to be “modest” if they are likely to be seen by na-mahram males”.


The spontaneous uprising of both women and men on March 8, 1979, was an effort
“to protect the achievements of women’s right in the [preceding] 70 years of Iranian history”

“Bad hijab” ― exposure of any part of the body other than hands and face – is subject to punishment of up to 70 lashes or 60 days imprisonment. In April 2007, the Tehran police, (which is under Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s supervision), began the most fierce crackdown on what is known as “bad hijab” in more than a decade. In the capital Tehran thousands of Iranian women were cautioned over their poor Islamic dress and several hundred arrested.

https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/women- ... ijab-1979/

[Anthea]

Boris Johnson Defended By Leading Imam Over Burka Comments

Boris Johnson should “not apologise for telling the truth” about burkas,
a leading imam has said

The former foreign secretary has come under intense pressure from Tory MPs, including Theresa May, to say sorry for describing Muslim women who wear the face covering as “letter boxes”.

But Taj Hargey, the imam at Oxford Islamic Congregation, said while Johnson’s choice of language was unfortunate, the burka and niqab are “a nefarious component of a trendy gateway theology for religious extremism and militant Islam”.

Writing in The Times, he said facial maskings were “un-Muslim” and contributed to “gender-inequality and inhibiting community cohesion”.

Johnson has yet to comment on the row triggered by his Daily Telegraph column on Monday - but has show no sign of backing down.

Critics have accused Johnson of using the row to win right-wing support in any future leadership battle.

Former attorney general Dominic Grieve said he would quit the party if Johnson became leader, while ex-minister Anna Soubry said that “many” One Nation Tories would also leave.

Lord Sheikh, the president of the Conservative Muslim Forum, said “severe action” should be taken against Johnson, including the withdrawal of the party whip.

But other Tories have come to Johnson’s defence. Jacob Rees-Mogg, the leading backbench Brexiteer, said May was “clearly wrong” to have demanded Johnson apologise.

Andrew Bridgen, the Tory MP for North West Leicestershire, said he felt “uncomfortable” speaking to a woman in a burka as you can’t see their reaction and it goes against “millions of years of human evolution”.

In his column, Johnson said Denmark was wrong to ban the burka, even if it was “oppressive”.

“It is absolutely ridiculous that people should choose to go around looking like letter boxes,” he wrote.

Johnson added: “If a constituent came to my MP’s surgery with her face obscured, I should feel fully entitled – like Jack Straw – to ask her to remove it so that I could talk to her properly.

“If a female student turned up at school or at a university lecture looking like a bank robber then ditto.”

I would be UNABLE to teach them

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/ ... zqlQjucczQ

[Anthea]

Boris Johnson facing Tory investigation over burka comments

Boris Johnson is facing a possible investigation into breaches of the Conservative Party code of conduct.

The party has received dozens of complaints about the ex-foreign secretary's comments about Muslim women wearing burkas.

The complaints will be looked at by an independent panel which could refer Mr Johnson to the party's board, which has the power to expel him.

The party declined to comment on the details of the investigation.

A Conservative Party spokesman said: "The code of conduct process is strictly confidential." A source close to Mr Johnson offered no comment.

Meanwhile more than 30 protesters have gathered in Mr Johnson's constituency of Uxbridge, calling for his resignation.

30 protesters out of a population of 66,616,180

Mr Johnson has rejected calls to apologise for saying people wearing burkas looked like "letter boxes" or "bank robbers", in a Daily Telegraph column in which he also argued against a ban on full-face veils.

Critics have accused him of stoking Islamophobia to boost his Tory leadership ambitions but his supporters have said he was speaking up for "liberal values".

It comes as a watchdog which advises ex-ministers on taking new jobs ruled that Mr Johnson broke ministerial rules by taking up his weekly column at the Telegraph without consulting it first.

The Conservative Party has been accused of not doing enough to tackle anti-Muslim prejudice in its ranks, despite an initiative to boost tolerance and diversity.

The party's code of conduct states that Tory officials and elected representatives must "lead by example to encourage and foster respect and tolerance" and not "use their position to bully, abuse, victimise, harass or unlawfully discriminate against others".

The independent panel will decide whether to refer Mr Johnson to the party's board. Possible action includes suspension of membership or expulsion from the party among other, lesser sanctions.
Cressida Dick Image copyright PA
Image caption Cressida Dick: Johnson did not commit an offence

Conservative Party chairman Brandon Lewis and leader Theresa May have both called on Mr Johnson to apologise for his comments.

The founder of the Conservative Muslim Forum, Lord Sheikh, has written to Mr Lewis demanding "serious action", while former attorney general Dominic Grieve said he would quit the party if Mr Johnson became prime minister.

A hundred Muslim women who wear the niqab or burka have signed a letter to Mr Lewis, calling on him to withdraw the Conservative whip from Mr Johnson and launch an independent inquiry into Islamophobia in the party.

"We are not forced to make these clothing choices, nor are we oppressed," the women write in their letter, which has been issued to the media by the Muslim Council of Britain.

They say Mr Johnson's words will "inflame tensions in a way that makes it easier for bigots to justify hate crimes against us".

Azmat Parveen, who attended the protest in Uxbridge on Thursday, called Mr Johnson's comments "painful".

"This is a way of life, I want to choose this way and somebody remarks on it, I can't bear it, it is very, very rude," the 68-year-old said.

"I want him to leave his seat."

'Legitimate debate'

Earlier, Metropolitan Police Commissioner Cressida Dick said that while many have found Mr Johnson's remarks offensive, officers had decided that he did not commit an offence.

She also confirmed that police have not received any criminal complaint against the former foreign secretary.

"I also know that many other people believe strongly that in the whole of the article, what Mr Johnson appears to have been attempting to do was to say that there shouldn't be a ban and that he was engaging in a legitimate debate," she added.

Asked what she made of the language used by the ex-cabinet minister, Ms Dick told the BBC Asian Network: "Some people have clearly found it offensive.

"I spoke last night to my very experienced officers who deal with hate crime and, although we have not yet received any allegation of such a crime, I can tell you that my preliminary view having spoken to them is that what Mr Johnson said would not reach the bar for a criminal offence. He did not commit a criminal offence."

She added: "I am proud to police in a liberal democracy in which people have the right to express their opinions.

"What Mr Johnson said, if it is not criminal, is a matter for Mr Johnson and his friends and colleagues and indeed for the Conservative Party."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45130532

[Anthea]

Not only are a lot of under 18 year olds forced to wear head coverings
but some even forced to wear burkas

In the UK there is a serious problem with under age Muslim girls being taken to their parents country for a supposed holiday and forcefully married - meaning they are actually SOLD to their future husband or his family

Girls married in such a way become sex slaves, often to men old enough to be their fathers, and are made to preform the most arduous and demeaning household chores. Sometimes beaten as the families seek to obtain their monies worth from the unfortunate girl

Burkas hide the signs of such beatings, the bruisings, the black eyes and eyes swollen from crying

A large percentage of Muslim ladies are subject to physical abuse and the Quran allows a man to hit his wife

As my friend pointed out previously:

Women who wear burka all the time are going to suffer of a D vitamin deficiency, btw. It is like staying 365 days/year buried in a coffin.

Another problem many Muslim ladies suffer from is depression - something they seldom seek any help or advice for

Another health problem is that caused by excessive heat - while across the UK and Europe has been in the throes of a heatwave and people have been wearing a minimum of cooling clothing, many Muslim ladies have been forced to wear heat attracting black burkas. It must have been akin to walking around in a sauna