Burkas are for Burks: One Rule for all no exceptions

There would be no need to ban the Burka in countries like New Zealand and Australia if we applied the law equally without fear or favour and expected immigrants and their descendants to assimilate to Kiwi cultural norms. It is not socially acceptable or culturally appropriate in Kiwi Society to walk around wearing a full face mask in public.

We live in a country where my Australian father gets told to take off his Akubra hat when he enters a New Zealand bank but New Zealand Muslim women wearing various types of headwear that obscure their features are allowed to enter without challenge. This needs to change.

IF we’re going to have a debate about banning the burqa, a little honesty wouldn’t go astray.

A few days ago, another misleading article by Latika Bourke in the Sydney Morning Herald stated the burqa is a religious requirement. With that false proposition the reporter promptly marched off to a couple of constitutional lawyers seeking advice that a ban on the burqua would be ‘unconstitutional’ on ‘religious grounds’.

Never let the facts get in the way of an agenda.

The burqa isn’t a religious requirement, it’s a cultural garment, or more commonly – a fashion choice which conveys segregation, oppression and domination.

Nowhere in any Islamic teachings or instructions is the word ‘burqa’ nor is there a requirement for women to cover their face. The closest you’ll find is that men and women ‘dress modestly’. That’s open to interpretation.

The burqa is the full body covering, head to toe. That means the eyes, too, with a mesh for seeing.

The niqab is a cloth facial covering, with only the eyes visible (which is often misunderstood to be a burqa).

Bank robber wearing a Niqab holding up bank in Britain

The hijab is a modest veil that covers (around) the head and chest. It doesn’t cover the face.

But for this argument, we’ll consider the current burqa ban to include both the niqab and burqa, neither of which is required by the Islamic faith.

The burqa’s true origin is cultural. It stems from the Bedouin desert tribes and was used to protect them from the harsh desert sun and sandstorms. (‘Bedouin’ derives from the Arabic word ‘Bedu’ – ‘the desert dwellers’)

Bedouin women (desert nomads) (Jerusalem – 1880)

So, as far as the Constitution goes, there’s no legal impediment to banning the burqa. And  there’s a reasonable argument for its banning on security grounds.

… Just yesterday we saw the example of a couple of brothers caught on CCTV after bashing a football fan who stepped in to defend a woman.

The only way they were caught was security vision. They were immediately identified, posted on various websites, shared on facebook. Within 2 hours of the first web posting, they walked into a police station and handed themselves in

If it’s not permissible to wear a balaclava, helmet or other facial coverings into a bank, or government building then all full-face coverings must apply…

…In these times, it’s reasonable for the Government to make the right laws on grounds of security.

One rule for all.

No exceptions.


Do you want:

  • Ad-free access?
  • Access to our very popular daily crossword?
  • Access to daily sudoku?
  • Access to Incite Politics magazine articles?
  • Access to podcasts?
  • Access to political polls?

Our subscribers’ financial support is the reason why we have been able to offer our latest service; Audio blogs. 

Click Here  to support us and watch the number of services grow.

If you agree with me that’s nice, but what I really want to achieve is to make you question the status quo, look between the lines and do your own research. Do not be a passive observer in this game we call life.

You can follow me on Gab.ai