Reform Pledges to Ban the Burka – and All Face Coverings
Reform UK is proposing to ban the burka and all face coverings in public to aid integration and safety, Zia Yusuf, the party’s “Shadow” Home Secretary, announced today. The Telegraph has more.
Zia Yusuf, the party’s new “Shadow” Home Secretary, said on Monday that legislation banning all face coverings in public would aid integration by ethnic communities and help the public feel safe.
Answering questions after his first major speech in the post in Dover, he said it was “ridiculous” that in an era of mass CCTV people could opt out of surveillance by wearing face coverings. Nigel Farage, who was alongside him, backed the proposal.
Yusuf quit as chairman of Reform last June after a dispute about the party’s handling of its position on the burka.
He had suggested it was “dumb” of Reform’s then newest MP, Sarah Pochin, to ask Sir Keir Starmer if he would ban the burka when it was not party policy at that point.
Asked about his views on Monday, Yusuf said: “I personally support a ban on all face coverings. So that’s actually a piece of legislation that has multiple bonuses to it, because it’s going to aid integration and help people feel safe.
“If you’re walking down a pavement and someone is walking in the opposite direction towards you at dusk, and they are wearing a hoodie and a balaclava, or worse, you generally cross the road.
“In this era of massive CCTV per capita in London, or any city in the world, the people who are able to opt out of that surveillance, ridiculously, are the people who wear those face coverings.”
Farage said he had recently been at an event in Newcastle when a mob wearing Antifa face masks turned up and started smashing windows. “We’ve seen this pattern of behaviour again and again, and again makes it difficult, virtually impossible, for police to identify them,” he said. “I believe that is wrong.”
He also referred to a “political murder” in Lyon, France, where masked and hooded men kicked a French nationalist student to death on February 12th.
“I don’t want us going down that road,” he said. “I think face coverings in public are problematic for many, many reasons, not just religious ones.”
Last week, Suella Braverman, the former home secretary who has defected to Reform and is now its “Shadow” Education Secretary, said she supported a ban on the burka and niqab in public because she claimed it undermined attempts to foster integration by communities.
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
His phraseology is, of course, correct and nothing to do with his religion. Zia is of Sri Lankan descent, where the ban is in place. However, in this country, banning just the burka would immediately face a challenge on religious freedom. Banning all face coverings means that it is not a religious attack and the argument falls. Of course, in reality, the burka is a cultural requirement not a religious one and anyone arguing otherwise need only look at the vast swathes of Muslim countries where it is not required. Only those rabid offence takers in this country believe differently and will use it as another islamaphobic stick to beat us with. It is blatantly ridiculous that a motorcyclist can be asked to remove his helmet but a person wearing a burka cannot.
Will this also also include all those “Intelligent” people still wearing the medical masks, for god knows what reason?
There is an easy way to ban Burqas without even mentioning them. —–All you do is make it against the law to wear face coverings in a public place—–Problem solved. No discrimination of any kind will have taken place as you will be banning ALL face coverings equally.
I’m not a lawyer, but I do foresee a lot of legal wrangling about what constitutes a “face covering”.
Would any new law apply only to specific forms of religious face covering? If the issue is about surveillance and identifying criminals, then that wouldn’t solve the problem.
Would a face covering be deemed legal provided it didn’t cover more than a specific percentage of the face, or would certain facial features be required to be visible at all times?
Would it be illegal to wear a balaclava in cold weather, or a scarf wrapped round your mouth and nose?
Would a face mask (such as we were instructed to wear during the Covid panic) be illegal? (Some law-abiding people still feel the need to wear them.)
What about a pair of sunglasses?
Or a full-face motorcycle helmet?
It would need some very clever people to make any law on face coverings enforceable.
I think there are some very simple solutions to this. Just as councils love putting up alcohol free signs across towns, a sign designating the town as face mask free could be used, with legal exceptions for health and safety devices being worn in accordance with the law – construction workers protecting from dust, motorcyclists riding bikes etc. I am sure that anyone walking on fells or other remote countryside is not going to regard a fellow walker wrapped up against the cold as a threat, compared to a balaclava being worn in Oxford Street.
I agree
We need fewer laws, not more, and we need existing laws that are sensible to be enforced evenly and to carry appropriate penalties
Good points. I wonder how countries that (we are told) have already banned the burqa have worded their legislation.
And how is it enforced, if indeed it is. And what has been the effect, if indeed that has been measured.
Governments should not be banning things – they ban too much already.
However they could remove the exemption on religious grounds, if it is reasonably required in certain circumstances – eg banks – to remove face covering.
Not really. When in a British public place the human face must be able to be made visible at all times without argument meeting the requirements for a passport photo. How about that?
Yeah but you don’t need the balaclava on in the bank or supermarket or any public place indoors and if government are so keen on facial recognition camera’s everywhere allegedly to tackle crime then it would be kind of pointless doing that if people can just cover their faces as they see fit, and that includes a burqa
I don’t like seeing people with their faces covered for whatever reason. But I don’t think it’s the role of the state to micromanage what people wear. I just think this would piss people off and not really achieve any of the stated objectives
I was going to write something almost identical
I don’t like Burqa’s but there is lot’s of other attire I don’t particularly like.
The state has no business telling people what to wear. It’s an assault on personal freedom.
This is the equivalent of a child throwing it’s toys out of the pram. I’m pissed off there are too many muslim immigrants in my country so I’m going to destroy a freedom we have.
Those who think this won’t someday come back to bite them will have to learn the hard way. Those of us who can think ahead can do little more than sit back in disgust as the state encroaches on yet another aspect of our private lives.
A Motor Cycle Helmet or a Balaclava serves a purpose but people will almost certainly take those of in a public place indoors. You are not likely to see someone standing in a bank with a balaclava or helmet on so why should someone stand their with their face covered with anything else (burqa eg) They should not.
I sort of agree though the main purpose of this rule in banks I imagine is to prevent robbers hiding their faces. I don’t think the ladies covering their faces are very likely to rob a bank. But I think the bank should be able to make its own rules. I just don’t think the state should be involved.
How do you know there are ‘ladies’ under there?
If France can do it, why the hell can’t we?
It’s usually pretty obvious they are ladies from the shape, the way they move, what you can see of the face, the shoes. Just because France does it doesn’t make it a good idea and I would be curious to see evidence of how it is enforced and the impact. Does France have a well integrated Muslim community?
I agree – I’m not in the slightest bit comfortable with the way they are positioning it as ‘we need to ban this so all the crazy cctv state monitoring can see everyone and track them within an inch of their lives’ as being a good argument… safetyism again but on the flip side
My default position is that every single law and restriction however well intentioned it might seem can and will be used against us sooner or later
The Muslim-led Reform Party yet again plagiarizing Rupert Lowe’s policies, after vehemently opposing them and driving him out of the party.
They’ll do and say anything in order to get into No. 10, then backtrack on the lot.
Looking at that photo, I still think he reminds me of some kind of deep-sea fish…
Yep, Rupert nailed his colours to the mast first
I bet if Rupert Lowe hadn’t already pledged he’d do this then Reform wouldn’t have. It’s plain as day what’s occurring here.
Meanwhile, it’s a no-brainer that ALL face coverings in public should be banned. This is Ireland, and an example of why a blanket ban makes perfect sense, and police should be given the powers to stop individuals at will and enforce this. I’ve no idea if they’ve apprehended this dangerous psycho yet. I wonder if he’d try the same attack on a guy;
”Meanwhile in Cork, Ireland “The Woman was left with a broken orbital bone on her right eye socket” Yet more outrage across Ireland, as another cultural import randomly & viciously assaults, a passing lady in the street.”
https://x.com/BGatesIsaPyscho/status/2026225116904824931
A pointless savage attack. Horrific.
What a lousy bastard. Dirty, filthy bastard.
When I was a law student, too long ago, one of our first lessons was more laws are indicative of a declining civilisation.
Only too right as The West slips ever more into decadence.
Quad erat demonstrandum.
I agree
This will change nothing and just puts a sticking plaster on the shitshow
We’ve got lots of immigrants – it remains to be seen if that can be made into a net positive in the very long run but telling some of them what to wear doesn’t seem to me a worthwhile hill to die on
“decadence” —-Yep I was just pondering that yesterday as one of the reasons why civilizations collapse. It is amazing how you think of something one day and the same day or next day. ——–You can see how we have shrunk all the way from Empire down to being over run with migrants unable to control our own border, all because of what could be described as “decadence” which is embedded on leftist policies.
Oh good – so no more idiots wearing “anti-virus” masks.
If only. But that silver lining will be rapidly taken away and an exception made the moment they decide it.
The only laws that are any good for ordinary people are the ones everyone understands. No killing, no stealing, no physical assaulting.
The rest are not for our benefit, but for theirs. Either to extract from us or to control us.
Unless there’s another deadly, deadly virus. Then of course it’s face coverings for everyone.
Not me, never again!
I’ll wear dust masks when needed, and others for specific hazardous situations but that’s it!
I just ordered and received some potting compost, which arrived dry packed.
On the packaging it recommends you always wear gloves and a mask when gardening, I almost sent it back! Ridiculous advise, the mask bit!
I presume Yusuf will repeat that when he helps Matt Goodwin’s campaign in Gorton and Denton, where a DT reporter said “I was the only white face”, thus convincing the overwhelmingly muslim community to change from their favourite Greens to Reform.
In this amazing country, where muslims lead the fight against the muslim invasion, Surreal has become Real.
Does anyone know the odds? Green Labour Reform.
I think I read on bbc earlier that bi-election ward is 40% Muslim… so it’ll be interesting how it goes. My money is on Labour or Greens with that percentage and postal voting
I admit that I feel uncomfortable seeing people in muslim attire. There’s been a large increase in their numbers in my relatively quiet corner of London, which until 5 years ago was mainly white, some black and a smattering of ‘other’. But I’m also aware that others may feel the same way and this in turn may prompt the political reaction that I’d like to see. I’m therefore against a ban.
I am deeply uncomfortable with banning clothing. I don’t think the state has any business telling anyone what they can’t wear, with obvious exceptions.
As others have said, we need fewer laws not more. I want to shake my head, tut and look disgusted at anyone I see wearing the offensive burka or niqab without the State prosecuting me. I also want to be able to discriminate against anyone wearing one without the State prosecuting me, the same as I would discriminate anyone who wanted to work for me in a delicatessen but smelt of manure.
Reform are absolutely sh1t scared of Rupert Lowe and Restore. They are now stealing their policies having heavily criticised them. Sorry don’t trust Farage they are all part of the Uniparty system.
AIM HIGH VOTE LOWE MILLIONS MUST GO!
Okay, but the Welsh parliamentary elections are happening in May THIS YEAR, and although Rupert has loads of good ideas, what are the chances of his party fielding a full set of candidates so the people of Wales can get rid of the terrible Labour party, and their lapdogs, Plaid Cymru?
It seems to me that in Wales we have no option but to hold our noses and vote for Reform and then sort out the non-Labour parties at a later date.
I don’t support banning the burqa (it seems a bit fascist), but I hate seeing people wearing face masks.
Not a great look Reform, you could have decided this months ago, instead of waiting for Rupert Lowe to get there first