There you go again, pointless comparisons. Anyone can see that sunglasses and hoods, however undesirable in some circumstances, are not the same at all, as they do not disguise the whole face. The only western garment equivalent would be a balaclava, see how far you would get in the local high street, let alone the bank or filling station, wearing one of those.
In some places you would be lucky to get away without an Armed Response Unit attending. In security terms what exactly is the difference between that and the Burkha?
The way I see it, there are only two reasons it is tolerated at all. 1. It is worn by women, who rightly or wrongly are seen as less of a threat. If it was worn by men it would have been banned long ago.
2. It is a Muslim symbol; and this one I don't get. I have no problem with religion, each to their own. But essentially the Muslim culture is an invasive culture, just as the Christian culture used to be. Why, when we can now look back at the wrongs that Christian missionaries have committed over the centuries, do we condone another religion attempting the same thing in our own back yard? I can only think that it some strange desire for atonement, coupled with the current trend for, at all costs, liberalism.
|
|