Who would have thought that the latest threat to our civil liberties would come from a comedy swimming costume that appeared inspired by a spoof film character?
Yet the Burkini is very real. It is a cross between a bather and a burka – something that allows Muslim women to go for a dip or a paddle at the seaside without the risk of upsetting their husbands or community elders and so getting ostracised or their heads chopped off.
It sounds like the mankini (below) – of Borat fame – but is the very antithesis in that unlike the foul pouch-thing sported by comedian Sacha Baran Cohen, its intention is to cover up as much of the body as possible, leaving only the face and feet visible. I don’t think we’ll be seeing Rebecca Addlington in one any time soon.
The Burkini in itself of course isn’t really a threat to anyone, and there’s nothing wrong with anyone wanting to wear one, but the danger comes when it is seen as the embodiment of a creeping sense of the invasion of Muslim society into British culture, those little stories that pop up here and there about Sharia law now being imposed in communities in Britain, about school pupils allowed to flout the dress code rules because it suits their religion.
And because with the burkini comes Muslim swimming sessions at leisure centres across the country. Everyone has to adhere to a strict code (T-shirts and shorts/leggings that cover below the knee) or they will be booted out.
Imagine the uproar that would be caused by Christian-only sessions? Yet through the left-dominated thought process that has blighted common sense in recent years everyone is now far too terrified of being branded racist should they dare complain about any aspect of Islam.
The Burkini (banned in France by the way on hygiene grounds) also puts other women in a difficult position. Not all Brits enjoy ripping off their clothes and plunging in – it takes a lot for some to don a costume or bikini and show off their bits and pieces they’d rather be kept under wraps.
If you are of fragile mind on such issues, seeing someone appear with one of these absurd contraptions will only undermine your self-confidence further. It screams ‘look at me looking down at you in your nakedness’.
While it and everything else is being done in the name of inclusiveness, it appears to be having, thank goodness, the opposite effect. Ian Cawsey, the Labour MP for the North Lincolnshire constituency of Brigg and Goole, said: "I don't think that in a local authority pool I should have to wear a particular type of clothes for the benefit of someone else. That's not integration or cohesion."
Another Labour MP, Anne Cryer, said: "Unfortunately this kind of thing has a negative impact on community relations.
"It's seen as yet another demand for special treatment. I can't see why special clothing is needed for what is a single-sex session."
If you’re talking inclusivity then why not let everyone in at the same time and let them wear what they want (within sensible reason)? Pandering to the religious demands of the minority will only lead to community division.
Then of course we have Jim Fitzpatrick, the Labour MP who walked out of a Muslim wedding recently because he and his wife would be segregated and forced to sit apart. Fitzpatrick received the predictable backlash by those who accuse him of being insensitive to Islamic needs and that old favourite, “playing the race card”, but no-one took his needs into consideration.
A custom in Britain has always been to sit with your wife at a wedding, so when he is prevented from doing so why is he wrong to feel so uncomfortable?
Is complaining about it playing the race card, or enforcing it in the first place playing the race card?
The comments by Sir Iqbal Sacranie, former head of the Muslim Council of Britain, sum it up nicely. “It shows a lack of interest...to engage with people of different backgrounds.”
Nothing there about showing a lack of interest in your guests’ backgrounds, just the usual one-way street of “our way or you’re wrong”.
Finally we now learn that under Islamic law, (which elements in our society, including the Archbishop of Canterbury, want to see incorporated into British law) new legislation in Afghanistan will allow husbands to starve their wives if they refuse sex, and to keep on starving them until they relent.
Aside from the obvious jokes, how long before there are mutterings over here about Muslim communities installing such a regulation?
Then again, there is a simple solution for Muslim women wanting to avoid sex – just dress up in a Burkini. They’re so ugly it would put your husband off sex for life, and leave you in peace to enjoy your dinner.
Posts
