Report comment

Surely the Court has it right here. The burqa is a garment, nothing more or less: it is a public disguise essentially intended to prevent one man seeing another man's woman, an intention which is founded on holding women as the property of their husbands and whose lives can be directed and supervised directly by their husbands whether they like it or not.. I guess that this is not the activity European governments want to promote or condone because those things were jettisoned long ago in the West (because people do not choose to be male or female - they just come into the world as one or the other, in the main - there are some half and halfs of course, who must also not suffer discrimination). This is why we have sex discrimination legislation all over the Western world. It is a fine principle and worthy of acceptance by all who choose to live here.

What was being sought from the Court was a declaration that it is permissible to wander through the streets anonymously amidst an assortment of others who are identifiable by their faces. This allows an unfair advantage to those who are anonymous, protecting them from identification by means ordinarily available to law enforcement agencies. It is also strikes me as vaguely insulting to others not to be able to communicate visually with someone sharing the pavement or only communicate one-sidedly. There have been case of gross abuse as well: mild examples such as people refusing to be identified against bus passes and gross cases such as men dressed up as women with the intention of carrying out terrorist outrages or of escaping justice by dressing misleadingly or anonymously.

Secondly, the burqa is only worn by women, which appears to treat them differently from the way men may be made to dress, because the burqa is actively enforced as female garb, whereas men are never required to wear it. It matters little whether or not someone choose to wear it voluntarily; the mere fact that it is or can be enforced culturally or religiously may be sufficient for a state to take the view that it may be safer to disallow it on the ground of sex discrimination.

Interestingly, someone raised a point about public nudity. It is not normal in Western Europe for people to wear nothing at all in public but in Britain it is not unlawful unless there is an objection. Organized events like the famous annual naked bike rides, which are held for legitimate campaigning reasons (road safety etc) are held to be lawful even if someone should object, and these activities seem almost wholly beneficial and constructive.