The niqab

[Ben Davis]

Those that oppose it being banned, quite often hate the mechanism that will ban it, or will hate any form of control.

Yes, I hate the mechanism that would ban it because that mechanism would be 'the infringement of the right to self-expression'. I recognise the need for certain forms of control and applaud the balance of freedoms, generally, that have been achieved in the UK. That doesn't mean there aren't improvements to be made but on the whole, I think we've got it right.

'Freedom' in this society is very limited, there are more things you can't do than those you can!

In the UK, freedom's not 'very' limited but there are sensible limits. Overall, far more things are allowed than are prohibited, here. Like I said before, public nudity is generally not allowed (there are clubs and nudist beaches though) but private nudity is legislated for (if you're nude at home and someone sees you, the watcher is in the wrong not the nude person and can even face criminal prosecution!).

It may be a religious "freedom"... but so is FGM !!!

No! Female circumcision is NOT a religious freedom. It can be a religious/cultural instruction but when it's a medically unnecessary procedure, conducted without consent, it's an unconscionable violation of bodily rights. Wearing clothes and cutting bits off people are not equivalent acts.

The Niqab is a security risk. Any dress code that guarantees one group of people anonymity is unacceptable. This has nothing to do with women or religion.

It can be a security risk, in certain situations (e.g. bike helmets in banks). That's what I mentioned before. On the whole, if someone wants to be publically anonymous, they have a right to that anonymity and it's an act of oppression to remove it, equal to the insistence that someone wears particular clothing.

The niqab is a symbol that signifies a refusal to assimilate into other cultures. A symbol that says, we will not evolve or change, but will remain a constant in history.

Not necessarily. In the main, it's a symbol of either female oppression or that someone is devoted to their religious/cultural practices.

Many who try to be tolerant towards religion and Islam in particular, accept that religion gets a “free pass” on some things, but will bite as soon as it is called “cultural”. There is an unfortunate debate on whether the niqab is required by Islam or not (there is nothing in the Quran that spells that out). So the debate goes back to religion when in fact, it has little to do with it.

Religion doesn't get a free pass from me. It needs to justify itself in the same way that every other method of social interaction does and I hold religions to the same principles & standards as secular concerns. Religious face coverings need to be examined in exactly the same way as every other type of face covering, framed by considerations of the rights of individuals to self-expression, self-determination and security.

The niqab puts the other party (non-niqabi) at a great disadvantage in any conversation.One person sees all full face expressions. One party gets a full unfettered stream of communication whereas the other limits it to audio.

Your requirement for 'full communicative interaction' is a lesser consideration than someone's right to self-expression. You might consider it inappropriate but you'd just have to learn to cope. Would you ban face tattoos because they might distract you from paying attention to what the other person's saying?