http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... dress.html

The outspoken atheist Professor Richard Dawkins has re-ignited the furore over the burka, describing it as a ‘full bin-liner thing’.

The 69-year-old author and scientist told of his ‘visceral revulsion’ when he sees women wearing the controversial Islamic clothing.

But he stopped short of calling for the UK to follow the French in banning them, insisting such legislation would not be in Britain’s liberal tradition.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z0wkKqocnE

His comments prompted fury among Muslim groups who accused him of being ‘ignorant’ and ‘Islamophobic’.

Professor Dawkins made the comments in an interview with Radio Times discussing his forthcoming documentary about the dangers of faith schools.

Last night he stood by his remarks and told the Daily Mail: ‘I do feel visceral revulsion at the burka because for me it is a symbol of the oppression of women.’

But he admitted he was reluctant to advocate banning any item of clothing.

He said: ‘As a liberal I would hesitate to propose a blanket ban on any style of dress because of the implications for individual liberty and freedom of choice.’

Last month the French government voted to ban from public places the burka, which is like a cloak covering the entire body, and the niqab, a piece of cloth covering the face, while Belgium and Spain are set for similar votes.

But Immigration Minister Damian Green effectively ruled out the UK following suit, arguing a ban would be ‘rather un-British’ and run contrary to the conventions of a ‘tolerant and mutually respectful society’.

However, some 67 per cent of UK voters want full-face veils to be outlawed.

Seyyed Ferjani, of the Muslim Association of Britain, said of Professor Dawkins’ comments: ‘I think it is ignorant and Islamaphobic.

‘This kind of thing has been on the rise for some time. Britain is a diverse and free society.

‘It is a woman’s choice if she wishes to wear a burka, a niqab or not. Why does it matter to this man what a woman is wearing?

‘We should be encouraging respect and understanding for each other.’

Professor Dawkins made his comments ahead of his documentary arguing for the abolition of faith schools.

In Faith Schools Menace?, on More4 next week, the Oxford University evolutionary biologist says religious schools encourage social segregation.

He asks why public money should be spent labelling children on the basis of ‘something as arbitrary as religion’.

His investigations for the documentary left him shocked. In one Muslim school in Leicester none of the pupils believed in evolution.

He said: ‘Their first recourse was not “what’s the evidence?” but “what does the Koran say?”.’

It is not the first time Professor Dawkins, who is the author of books including The Selfish Gene and The God Delusion, has attracted criticism for his views on Islam.

In 2008, he said: ‘It’s almost impossible to say anything against Islam in this country, because you are accused of being racist or Islamophobic.’

● The interview with Professor Dawkins is in Radio Times, out today.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z0wkKzuuxT

I agree with Dawkins that the burka is a symbol for oppression. I hesitate to use "revulsion", however. Women choose to wear burkas and for some it is a symbol of their spirituality. I agree with him that the french law is a problem. The french law takes choice away from women. Some argue that by passing a law you prevent women from being forced to do something. I argue that, while this may be true, you are also taking away a woman's decision to choose to wear the burka. Therefore, you replace a husband or community with the state. Ultimately, the goal is for women to feel empowered enough to think for themselves. Some people make decisions that are different than mine. That is part of a diverse and varied world. Very interesting post, Chris. Thank you for sharing.

I have to say I feel pretty much exactly as Dawkins describes. The niqab and the chadri seriously disturb me. Especially in Toronto, when it's 40 degrees with humidity (104 for you Amerikans), it seems like an outright health risk. It's hard to accept that this is a religious issue and therefore we cannot argue it - it seems it's a human rights issue. Religion is not about reason, though; if anything, it's against reason. So one can't really try and get in a logical debate about it. However, I also agree with Dawkins that I'm leery to ban any item of clothing.

My ideal solution would be to have services in place for women who want to leave their religion and culture. I think it's difficult for women to say no to wearing those religious garments without being ostracized. If there was somewhere for them to go if they are turned out of their family, then they would have a choice to say "No, I will not wear that" and I would feel more comfortable with the fact that anyone wearing a niqab chose to be in that position (though of course that wouldn't necessarily be true, but it would be more likely to be true).

People are tying their hands behind their backs a little bit too much and you can't do that with religion. Religion is a virus and it needs to be stopped.

You cannot limit or abolish freedoms to annihilate religion. That's unthinkable. The only way to destroy religion is to constantly shed light on how ridiculous it is and create a general public feeling of strong animosity and 'revulsion' for it. That's all you have to do. There shouldn't be toleration for this kind of thing. We shouldn't be teaching toleration for religion. It's just too dangerous in my opinion.

In summation, there shouldn't be laws - but the public zeal should be anti-religion.

seespotrun2008 wrote:I agree with Dawkins that the burka is a symbol for oppression. I hesitate to use "revulsion", however. Women choose to wear burkas and for some it is a symbol of their spirituality. I agree with him that the french law is a problem. The french law takes choice away from women. Some argue that by passing a law you prevent women from being forced to do something. I argue that, while this may be true, you are also taking away a woman's decision to choose to wear the burka. Therefore, you replace a husband or community with the state. Ultimately, the goal is for women to feel empowered enough to think for themselves. Some people make decisions that are different than mine. That is part of a diverse and varied world. Very interesting post, Chris. Thank you for sharing.

Women choose to wear their burkas??? Not really. If they don't their husbands will beat them up and their family will disown them. I don't see how somebody would choose to wear it without the familiar and societal implications!