The Niqab and the burka, should they be banned from the UK

In 2012 France banned the public wearing of the niqab and the burka.  This is the only European country at this time which has taken this action.  It may be a purely political decision, but there are a lot of other reasons why wearing a niqab and burka is wrong.  For example, Dr Tarj Hargey from the Muslim Education Centre, Oxford states these coverings are a pre Islamic cultural practice, a throw back to the Byzantine and Persian empires. Dr Tarj Hargey is an Iman and has on demonstrated his dislike of these coverings by burning them in public.  Quite clearly, not all Iman's have the same view on the topic.  However, saying this, there is no mention at all in the Quran suggesting female followers of Islam should follow this practice.  Dr Hargey goes on to state this practice was used by the aristocrats of these early empires to show their ownership of women, by not letting other males gaze upon them.  The Quran instructs men and women to dress modestly the words niqab and burka can not even be found in it.  So it comes down to interpretation which  then gives sholastic Iman's the influence and power to preach to their flock, as to what they should wear or how they should react to the rest of the world.  Dr Hargey and many Europeans also agree on one thing, these coverings make women appear as second class citizens who have to follow the words of men.  The directions to cover up are misogynistic and offensive.

The face is an intimate tool of communication. It is said in language the message is 90 per cent non verbal from the actual words spoken.  In verbal communication there is a phenomenon known as the McGirk effect, where viewing the lips of a speaker helps to actually hear what they say. This is because in part we lip read as well as listen to the words spoken.  Covering up the face in any way is the kind of thing racing drivers, motor bike riders and bank robbers do.  It is associated either with anonymity or with safety in the form of a visor.  It is anonymity which comes across in public as being offensive. I've seen young males cover their faces with pull up scarves, the don't want people to see them to recognize them because they may have a nefarious intent. It is to protect themselves, because they may well be in the process of committing a crime. Which then makes me ask are these Islamic following females about to commit a dastardly deed when they cover up?  Of course not.  Yet, do they understand how this may be seen and viewed by others? I doubt it.  There is a liberal freedom in the UK to wear what you want, in most part.  Yet at the same time there is a recognition you would not walk down the street with an offensive or racist slogan written on a t-shirt.  While in another instance hiding a face if not for safety reasons is also an offensive act, in being a factor of male domination and anti-social terms, but yet it is not banned in the UK. It could very well be the UK is too liberalistic.  For, here all types of fundamentalist views are allowed to be held within the law, they coexist at the same time even if they are disliked. While then advocating it is the law of the land and justice which reigns supreme, when in fact we all know it is more of who has enough money to buy the best lawyers and then they are the ones who reign supreme.

For a Muslim woman the wearing of these coverings may be based in additional reasons than just religious.  Men will and do like to oggle women, especially if they are attractive. Or attractive to the man.  Wearing a full body covering and face covering doesn't give a man a chance to see an features of a woman at all. In so doing a woman may feel they are no longer being judged either by men or other women for what they wear or on how attractive they are.  The coverings become a shield, endorsed in the guise of religion or culture. Or indeed it could be a very self enlightened freedom of expression.  It could be said a woman wearing this covering does so through choice and free choice, but it could also be argued in Islamic circles wearing these coverings is not just a choice it is a social norm and there is a degree of social pressure, where women are coerced into this attire. In this instance the full hijab and niqab becomes a standing moving coffin. Others will argue it is not for the state to dictate what an individual wears and all persons should have freedom of choice. Which is ludicrous because if I chose to walk down the street naked it would only be a matter of time before I am arrested for indecent exposure.  People would find it offensive, but in the same instance the acknowledgement of public decency and offensive undress should apply to offensive full dressage.

The UK is celebrated as a secular country, and it's current laws are such to allow freedom of expression unless of course the intent of this freedom is abused to cause harm to other persons.  However, this harm is considered primarily when it is a real physical threat.  The law to a lesser degree tackles psychological harassment, but it is a much lesser degree. To the extend if one wishes to be offensive to other people by demeanor then it is fine.  The world is made up of a  mixed bag of people and there will always be those who are idiots, it's a fact, but probably an interpretive fact.  The bottom line is wearing a face covering is an alien aspect to the UK society, historically you will probably only find it when used to protect the face, such as in war.  It is not an every day aspect of life.  Therefore it does appear offensive, because the face is a major communicative tool and facial expressions tell a lot about a person.  So why should one person show their face while another keeps it covered up?  The answer is because the UK has now become a multi cultural society and societies within societies are both allowed to exist and at the same time be contradictory and offensive to those not part of the in group.  Ultimately it is down to the individual what they wear.  However, like the phenomenon termed Stockholm syndrome, where a kidnapped victim begins to identify with their kidnappers, the same mental bending can be interpreted of those adherents of some religions.  Unless of course you happen to be living in France in which case, being covered up in a black clothed coffin is probably known as locked in syndrome. 

Viva La France.

A need for housing which is not being realised

The UK has an ever increasing problem. There simply are not enough properties to house the population. Probably one of the truest facts of life is, everyone needs somewhere to live. We all need a home. Without a home everything else falls apart. A roof over your head is everything, it also helps to have money to pay the bills and enough to warmth and comfort to satisfy the basic human needs. Food, friendship or family, adequate shelter.  When I say home I don't mean something which is temporary, it has to be permanent and preferably not rented from a private landlord. The best choice would be owned.

There are many reasons why the UK does not have enough properties.  The population is increasing every year.  This is not organically either, immigration is higher than net migration.  Over the last two decades or even more, the number of new build properties in the entire UK has not kept up with these population increases.  It has been pitiful no matter what government has been in power.  There has always been a proportional trend for citizens of the UK to purchase their own home, so once in ownership it will stay in ownership for many years. Families no longer live in the cohesive units they used to live in. They break up. There is not the social pressure for partners to stay together.  This is a good thing for those who want to get out of a relationship so they can do so.  Unless they happen to believe in a religion which sees marriage break ups in a poor light.  Individuals and organizations own more than one property, those excess properties are used as cash cows by renting them out, we see an ever growing set of entrepreneurs have developed in an ever growing buy to rent market.  There should be a maximum number of domestic properties any single individual can be allowed to own in the UK.

As people buy their own homes, it means taking out a mortgage and a number of years paying this back.  Home owners hope the valuation of their property increases every year.  Over time the actual mortgage level drops lower than rental values and they win out on two fronts.  For banks and for home owners there is an interest in keeping property valuations high and consequently there is also an advantage in more properties not being built and synchronized with the needs of a growing population.   In a catch 22 like situation, the fewer people own their own homes the better it is for those who do own their own home.  Property ownership is static wealth, those with high mortgages are tied to banks with their burdens.  The higher demand the higher property valuations but this comes at a caveat, if interest rates increase home owners may have difficulty in paying back their mortgage.  Those with interest only mortgages actually become the most vulnerable.  In a time of recession which has been more than a decade, being in work is also one of the most valuable factors anyone can have.

The solutions can only come from a multiple fronts.  Especially when looking at the interdependent link between banks, mortgages and home ownership, which is insidious to the entire country.  A nationally owned and nationally ran bank, not one of those which has been bailed out might  be an option, but is unlikely to happen.  More stringent regulations on allowing mortgages, interest rates, the even the failure of banking institutes should be considered.  In an ever chaotic financial situation it is unfair the tax payer has to bail out banks because they are too big to fail.  If they  really are too big, then they need to be broken up, their capital held increased and the culture of awarding massive financial rewards to the few ceased.  House builders should be forced to either sell back the land banks they have or to actually build on them.  Local Authorities should be given permission to purchase and to build their own housing again, their role has previously been central in stabilizing the housing crisis, but they have been shut out. A new rent regulation should be introduced, the maximum level of rent any private organization can charge is then capped. No matter where the property is situated.  Empty and abandoned properties should also be examined, with forced purchase orders come into play given owners had sufficient time to act. 

The introduction of apprenticeship schemes which are only a few weeks long are worthless to everyone. The definition of an apprenticeship should be defined with a minimum period and a minimum standard of education associated to it.   Universities and colleges must create courses centred on vocational skills should provide vocational qualifications and those who go on these courses given financial support. The agism of apprenticeship schemes should also be examined.  People of any age should be given an equal chance to go on these schemes. You are never too young to learn, if the retirement age is increasing it stands to reason older people need to be included higher in new workforces. The UK no longer produces goods in factories and through engineering to the degree it used, the entire field of private sector industry must be encouraged and supported. Through reduced business rates, increased financial support, tax breaks and long term R & D investment.  The future of the UK has to be considered beyond the term of one or two governments.  We now should be looking 30 to 50 years ahead.  This can only be done a little bit at a time.

More jobs for more people at a higher level of skill and education will ensure they are able to have a better standard of living and so purchase their own house or afford to rent.  However, the idea is to bring down rent levels and increase numbers of available homes. These are just a few ideas some of which have been mentioned in previous BLOGs.