Not too late

At a short notice Lord Pearson has been asked to be interviewed on today's World at One on the subject of the proposed French ban on the burqua in public.

The veil will probably be banned in France

Nabila Ramdani writes in the Guardian about the "veil debate" in France and assumes that the law will go through. For come reason she assumes that the debate in France to do with that very French concept laïcité is somehow far more intellectual and sophisticated than in Britain though she does signal her dislike of President Sarkozy by saying that he "was widely criticised for targeting full-veil wearers as part of his Ukip-style national identity debate". It is, however, hard to get away from the notion that the wearing of the veil, whether the women in question choose to do so or not (mostly nobody asks them) is at odds with Western ideas of equality between the sexes in legal terms and opposition to gender apartheid.

Other countries are moving towards that ban

The news from Belgium is that the parliamentary Interior Affairs Committee has unanimously endorsed a Bill that would outlaw the wearing of burqua or the niquab or any other veil in public places. This will now go to a full parliamentary debate before the end of April.

New Europe reports that the European Commission has reacted cautiously both to this and to the continuing discussions in France:

A Commission spokesperson said that they were concerned at the move, but initially it was a matter for member states, but they would be watching the issue and examining any bill put before the Belgian lawmakers very closely as it may fall foul of EU anti-discrimination policy.

The same article also quotes Lord Pearson on the subject as saying:

It is good to see that the French and the Belgians are moving in our direction on this important issue.

One has to overlook the routine reference to UKIP as being extreme right-wing. A media outlet like New Europe is unlikely to understand that those political definitions long ago outlived their usefulness.

UKIP is not alone

Back to the vexed subject of the burqa. The Financial Times reports that neither UKIP nor President Sarkozy are alone in wanting to ban the burqa.

More than half of voters in four other major European states back a push by France’s Nicolas Sarkozy to ban women from wearing the burka, according to an opinion poll for the Financial Times.

As Mr Sarkozy presses ahead with plans to ban the wearing of the burka in public places, the FT’s latest Harris poll shows the move is not just strongly supported in France, but wins enthusiastic backing in the UK, Italy, Spain and Germany.

From the poll we see that 70 per cent favour a ban on the all-enveloping garment with a veil (niquab) in public places in France, 65 per cent in Spain and 63 per cent in Italy. The percentages were somewhat lower in Germany and the UK - 50 and 57 per cent respectively.

In discussing the story, the FT showed its lack of understanding that the burqa is not just an item of clothing that some women choose to wear. It is a symbol and the reality of a system in which women have far fewer rights. Their word in courst is worth half of that of a man; they have no right to education or free choice in career or marriage; it is very questionable whether they have any decision in whether they want to hide themselves completely away from society around them.

Yet the article says:

The strength of feeling in the UK and Germany may seem particularly surprising. Britain has a strong liberal tradition that respects an individual’s right to full expression of religious views. But here, some 57 per cent of people still favoured a ban. In Germany, which is also reluctant to clamp down in minority rights, some 50 per cent favoured a ban.

The burqa is not a religious symbol or apparel; it is a cultural one and its purpose is to negate and defy the very liberal tradition and individual freedom that is referred to in that paragraph.

Argument about the burqua ban

UKIP's policy on the burqua - a ban on it in public places - is clearly controversial but also popular with the majority of the public. The burqua, let us be clear, is a complete covering of a woman and it includes a veil, with or without a gap for the eyes. We are not, therefore, talking about a headscarf or a long cape.

It is worth considering one argument against the ban and that is the potential imprisonment of Muslim women in their homes, if their men will not allow them out on the street without a niquab (a veil). Were that to happen it would prove our argumen; the immediate greater discomfort for the women would then make it easier for us to fight for their real freedom. But the arguments that speak of free choice or describe the burqua as just an item of clothing do not show any understanding of the problem.

Dominic Lawson published an article in the Sunday Times on January 24, entitled Banning the burqa is simply not British. Unfortunately, he showed no understanding of what the burqa really was, what it signified and cheerfully admitted that he saw few women wearing them where he lived though that did not stop him from lecturing those who lived in different areas. He knew better on that and other subjects, such as how much freedom a woman in a Muslim family even in Britain had to choose whether she veiled herself or not.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch replied the following week with a letter:

DOMINIC LAWSON says that “banning the burqa is simply not British” and would betray our principles of freedom and liberty (Comment, last week). The burqa is a symbol of Islam, which, in its worldwide quest to replace our Judaeo-Christian culture, is the source of nearly all modern terrorism. It has no separation of powers, being a political, legal and religious system rolled into one; the penalty for leaving it, or for insulting it, is death. All of it is based on the Koran, and is encapsulated in sharia, a medieval legal system of flagrant gender apartheid.

Men are superior to women because “Allah has chosen them one above the other”, so a woman’s testimony in court is worth half a man’s (Sura: 2:282). Only men can give evidence in rape and adultery cases, which also carry the death penalty. Sura 4.34 says that if a man fears his wife is being disloyal, he should beat her, and Suras 2:229 and 230 allow men to divorce their wives without reason. Hardly very British.

And yes, Mr Lawson, all this is happening in a town near you, and it won’t be long before it invades the appeasing comfort in which our political class lives. For years it castigated as racist anyone who dared to warn about uncontrolled immigration. Now it is sowing another wind by refusing to face up to the reality of Islam.

At least the article was an admirable contribution to the debate we so urgently need to have, especially with the vast majority of mild, non-burqa- wearing Muslims who are our friends, and I thank you for that.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch
Leader, UKIP

That an open debate is essential becomes clearer by the day.