Tory MP, Philip Hollobone, really is a cretin, isn’t he?
Some of you may notice that he has introduced a Private Members bill to ban the niqab and burqa. He justifies his decision on Conservative Home:
As I was sitting on the bench in the playground watching my children play on the slides, I thought to myself, “Here I am, in the middle of Kettering in the middle of England – a country that has been involved for centuries with spreading freedom and democracy throughout the world-and here’s a woman who, through her dress, is effectively saying that she does not want to have any normal human dialogue or interaction with anyone else. By covering her entire face, she is effectively saying that our society is so objectionable, even in the friendly, happy environment of a children’s playground, that we are not even allowed to cast a glance on her.” I find that offensive and I think it is time that the country did something about it.
Hollobone’s argument is disassembled by the excellent former Tory Shadow Community Cohesion Minister, Paul Goodman, here:
[F]or better or worse, I don’t like veils. But there’s a difference between allowing institutions discretion to bar them – which in some cases they already have – and slapping down a fully-fledged legal ban, as Phillip Hollobone’sFace Coverings (Regulation) Bill, which had its First Reading in the Commons today, seeks to do. I like Hollobone, who’s a plain-speaking and hard-working MP, and he knows the difference between a niqab and a hijab. But why he thinks a law should be passed to ban people from wearing what they want in the street beats me.
Hollobone’s explained previously in the Commons that he considers the veil “frankly, offensive”. But there are a lot of things that a lot of people think are offensive in modern Britain. This isn’t a good reason to ban them: being offended is part of the price paid for living in a free society. I’m not a free speech absolutist – for example, hate preachers who incite violence and hatred should be barred from Britain – but there should be a strong presumption in law that people are at liberty to do as they please. Furthermore, it can’t simply be assumed that all women who wear the burqa or niqab have been compelled to do so – or that integration can or should be enforced by bans on bits of clothing (rather than by, say, stopping taxpayer funding for translating documents).
Bungle is also on the case:
Just to be clear: I am not at all convinced by the religious arguments that say it is a requirement that Muslim women should wear the niqab or the hijab for that matter. I can’t really imagine a merciful Creator seeking to punish someone just because they didn’t cover their hair. It doesn’t really make sense. Still, if a woman wants to wear the niqab or hijab, it should be their choice and no one elses. I think that is far more British than Hollobone’s attempt at a ban.
He’s right, isn’t he?
We’ve written about Hollobone before. A couple of years ago, he was agitating over quite a different matter. The owner and chairman of Kettering Town Football Club, Imraan Ladak, decided to protest about the decision of Lloyds TSB to insist on the withdrawal of banking services by the Islamic Bank of Britain from Interpal, by putting the Interpal logo on the team shirts.
Until forced to break the link, Interpal was part of the “Union of Good” network which the Holy Land Foundation trial established was part of a Muslim Brotherhood-run Hamas funding network.
Here’s Hollobone on the subject:
The club’s decision to carry Interpal’s logo on their shirts has been supported by several MPs, including Philip Hollobone, a Conservative MP for the Kettering constituency.
He said: “Imraan Ladak is understandably upset by Lloyds TSB’s actions, in particular the fact that no proper explanation has been forthcoming. It is a great credit to Imraan Ladak, the club and the borough, that the club is seen to be involved in such a worthwhile organisation.”
So, in the world of Hollobone, women deciding to cover themselves from head to toe, to escape from a sinful world is an atrocity which cannot be tolerated.
But Hamas funding networks? No problem there!
