Philip Hollobone is right; he should be supported by the public, the police and by the government. The Conservative Party MP (the ONLY one with reasonable expenses claims) has "been warned he could face legal action if he follows through on a threat to refuse to meet constituents wearing the veil". 'Women have a right to wear veil' says Liberty [Guardian].
Lawyers for Liberty have written to insisting that his stance is unlawful and that they "will be happy to represent any of your constituents that you refuse to meet because they are veiled".This is complete bollocks. Anyone also has a right to wear any of THESE, but would it be permitted, accepted, tolerated? No, of course not.
The group warns him that the UK's Equality Act and the European convention on human rights (ECHR) oblige him to avoid discrimination.
2 comments:
I can't see how a law banning the Burka could be enforced without it extending to the headgear. After all if the law just referred to 'burka' then the name of the garment would be changed. Can't see the argument about talking to people's faces works either, after all David Blunkett was a pretty good MP.
The security issue is a bit of a no-brainer as well because as wearers have often pointed out they remove face coverings when asked. I think this has more to do with cultural and religious differences then anything else.
But Hollobone is on about in his MP clinic and I agree with him. He wouldn't let anyone in in a mask or visored helmet. If they remove the veil when asked then there wouldn't be a need for Hollobone to say anything would there? The whole point is (and Liberty exacerbate the whole thing) is their "rights"; you have 'a right' to go in full diving gear (no not skimpy Speedos, the other diving)
The Blunkett thing isn't a fair comparison because it makes no difference if they were all there in the nude...and judging by his affairs I guess a few of them were!
Post a Comment