Apparently these passport control officers thought that asking this Muslim woman to show her face would have been “Islamophobic.” The obvious problem, of course, is that the person inside the niqab could have been anyone. We have recently seen men use niqabs and burqas to conceal their identity and commit crimes and to escape from police custody. It’s simple common sense that in any situation where one is required to show identification, one should be required to show one’s face. But this is not an age of common sense. Not by a long shot.
“Woman did not show face at Heathrow Airport,” from Asian Image, February 28:
Passport control officials have been criticised by Tory MPs for “waving through” a woman without asking her to remove her full-faced veil.
Philip Davies told the Commons he witnessed the scene at Heathrow Airport as a woman underwent checks to enter the UK after flying in from Saudi Arabia.
He insisted all women wearing a “full Islamic veil” should have to compulsorily remove it so they can be identified by immigration officials.
The MP for Shipley was backed by his Tory colleague Philip Hollobone (Kettering) as he suggested women wearing a burka or a veil should be treated in the same way as those who wear balaclavas.
Mr Davies claimed this “sensible” application of the rules might remove public support for Mr Hollobone’s “draconian” Face Coverings (Prohibition) Bill.
Men are also increasingly dressing up as Islamic women in burkas to commit crimes, Mr Hollobone claimed.
Terror suspect Mohammed Ahmed Mohamed went missing last November after changing into a burka at a mosque, although Keith Vaz, chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, said he could not recall any other incidents of that nature.
Speaking during a Commons debate, Mr Davies told Mr Hollobone: “I saw recently at Heathrow Airport a woman in full-faced veil come up to passport control and was waved through without having to remove her veil.
“Now, I thought that was against what the Government expected at immigration control.
“But would you agree with me that if we didn’t have this kind of politically correct pussyfooting around over issues like that, and making sure that people in a veil were treated in exactly the same way as people in a balaclava, then perhaps the public support for your Bill today – which I accept is there even though I don’t fully go along with it – perhaps that public support for something as draconian as your Bill wouldn’t be there in the first place if those kind of rules were applied more sensibly?”
Mr Hollobone replied he would not call his Bill draconian, adding: “I share your outrage, as I’m sure will my constituents, that anyone should be waved through at passport control if their face is covered.
“And that outrage would apply to someone wearing a full-faced balaclava as it would to a woman – well, we suppose it’s a woman – wearing a burka or full-faced veil.
“And of course there are an increasing number, small but an increasing number, of incidences where criminal acts are taking place with men dressed as Islamic women in full burkas and there’s a very real concern here that, if you like, criminals are using this get-out of full Islamic dress to commit criminal acts, which of course brings Islam into disrepute.”
Mr Davies later added to Mr Vaz: “I and (Mr Hollobone) clearly believe that at passport control everybody who comes into this country wearing a full Islamic veil should be compulsorily required to remove that veil to identify themselves. That’s the point we’re making. Do you agree with that or not…?”
But Labour’s Mr Vaz was critical of Mr Davies for his stance, telling him: “I think we need to leave it to the immigration officer. You are many things but you are not a trained immigration officer, unfortunately.
“But maybe we should consider that as part of the training of MPs in the future.”
Maybe they should consider a modicum of common sense and concern for the security of British people to be part of the training of MPs in the future. But then Mr. Vaz would lose his seat.
Medina says
“…criminals are using this get-out of full Islamic dress to commit criminal acts, which of course brings Islam into disrepute.”
Yes, and Islam is already an overloaded freight train of disrepute, completely off the rails. There is no place in a free society for criminal religions masquerading about.
Salah says
“The obvious problem, of course, is that the person inside the niqab could have been anyone. ”
We all know that in Islam, War is Deceit. But when it comes to wearing women’s clothing…it’s more than that!!!
http://crossmuslims.blogspot.com/2010/03/transvestite-muhammad-mahomet-le.html
Islamisdeath says
They purposely degraded the Christian Nun. Its part of the war on Christianity.
Roger says
Islam declared war on non islam
And all others are declared war on Christianity.
Gharkad says
Labour’s Mr Vaz: “You are many things but you are not a trained immigration officer, unfortunately.”
So what is Mr Vaz saying? That unless you are a trained immigration officer you can’t know if you can identify someone in a burka or niqab, or that unless you are a trained immigration officer you don’t have the right to even comment on the need to be able to identify persons entering or leaving a country. What magic training allows an immigration officer by sight to reliably detect the identity of a masked person before them? Is Mr Vaz a trained immigration officer, otherwise why should we listen to him either if only ‘trained immigration officers’ are allowed to comment or have a view?
The only way I might agree with Mr Vaz is if fingerprints were taken at every point a normal person would otherwise be asked to identify themselves at immigration control, and that these would be checked off against fingerprints on the passport itself. I suspect that this would be foiled by the burka/niqab-wearing refusing to take off gloves that are supposed to protect them from the lascivious glances of men who are not family. Iris scan anyone?
In Australia, a niqab-wearing women was allowed to walk free from a court after making a false charge of assault by a police officer after she successfully argued that the Crown could not prove that she was the one who submitted the false complaint as the complaint submitter was wearing a niqab. I believe that the law was changed soon after to close such a loophole. Of course a handwriting analysis seemed to have been inadequate to make the determination of identity.
valhalla says
That niqab woman – accused the police man who stopped her for a traffic offence of trying to rip off her face covering -only that it was caught on -camera in the policemans car -he- would have lost his job and his -good reputation -when she appeared at the police station -she couldn’t be identified as the same woman as she had the niqab on -she -lied and got away with it -you wouldn’t get a licence wearing a -balaclava -how did she get one wearing the niqab?-rules -should -apply to every one -equally -no exceptions.-why the defference to muslim women??
Paleologos says
Robert,
As Mark Steyn has noted, the UK is probably lost.
Am I looking at that photo right?
Are they using muslims in security?
Are they insane?
Why not just get foxes to watch the chickens?
R/
Paleologos
Sovereign Man says
I had the displeasure of transiting through Heathrow twice recently (on the same trip). I will never fly into the UK ever again.
I witnessed male mohammedan security guards yelling at and belittling travellers standing in the huge lineups, and head-to-toe mohammedan-uniform clad females conducting security screening. I personally was stopped and ordered to empty my carry-on luggage twice, both by hijab-wearing, rude, nasty moslem girls in their early twenties. The second one had a cold or flu went through my bag touching all of my things while wiping her nose constantly on her nitrile-gloved hands. When I got home, I was sick with whatever her disease was for two weeks.
It isn’t foxes watching the henhouse, it’s barbarians in the holdfast.
bonnie loranger says
I totally agree with you. I have been subjected to the same treatment going through Heathrow. several custom agents were Muslims wearing hijab. In Toulouse France they were not wearing hijabs but they were young and rude Muslim females and males. They truly hate us.
veggiedog says
More than the UK is lost. This PC will be the death to all of us. The backbone of civilized men and women seems to be lost. If the Progressives win and dis-arm America all will be list. This coming from someone eho was very liberal before the current Administration. Born in the early 50’s i may not see the ultimate downfall but i cry daily for my child. And the young, most hsve no clue and believe what they were taught by their Muslim faculty (now how did this happen). Sad times my friends.
mrsb says
American flag on the wall though.
veggiedog says
Could it be international arrivals? Just saying.
Bronson says
I think that picture is a fake as I’ve never seen a security area as empty. That said the point is still valid, my own anecdote being in an immigration queue arriving into Australia and noticing a Caucasian man waring a beanie being asked to take it off but a muslima at the head of another queue being asked (by the female official) to remove the just face covering but left everything else on.
Paleologos says
Bronson,
Robert would not use a fake photo, unless the point he was making was an obvious statement of sarcasm.
… and OH YEAH DOES AUSTRALIA HAVE A MUSLIM PROBLEM! …
go here to find out how bad …
http://sheikyermami.com/
R/
Paleologos
David says
Keith Vaz is either stupid or lying. One of the failed attacker in 2005 went to Italy by using his sisters passport and presumably her burka. So at least twice terrorists have used burkas to escape security.
Aardvark says
He’s not stupid…
joeb says
I passed through Luton Airport in the UK in September a couple of times. Luton is one of the islamic strongholds in the UK. The security hall is pretty big, and has scanners from one side to the other, about a dozen maybe.
When I passed through, over half the security staff were muslims; men with no-tache beards, and women in hijabs. I had my hand luggage searched twice by a hijabbed security guard.
Tommo says
Vaz is a Muslim and key figure in the Home Office Select Committee. He has the power to investigate – or not, all aspects of immigration and border controls. What he says in public isn’t what he repeats in the mosque. Another Muslim lawyer holding high government office is Nazir Afzal, Chief Crown Prosecutor who decides what cases end up in court.
Cerrabella says
ah yes Mr Vaz… http://english-passport.org/2014/01/05/british-labour-mp-welcomes-romanians-to-england-and-then-a-secret-police-probe-into-mysterious-500000-deposits-to-his-personal-bank-account/
Aardvark says
Mr Davies later added to Mr Vaz: “I and (Mr Hollobone) clearly believe that at passport control everybody who comes into this country wearing a full Islamic veil should be compulsorily required to remove that veil to identify themselves. That’s the point we’re making. Do you agree with that or not…?”
I most emphatically do NOT agree with that! I think anyone who attempts to come into this country wearing a full Islamic veil should be on the next flight back.
Ade says
There are hundreds of Muslims of Pakistani descent working in Heathrow. Hundreds in security, and numerous more in passport control. The surrounding areas of heathrow are homes to hundreds of Pakistani, and Heathrow is a big local employer. We all know they will help their ‘brothers’ regardless of the society and its rules of the country they inhabit. How this is not a security hole is beyond me.
Tommo says
Gatwick is full of Muslim workers too mostly drawn from the nearby Islamist town of Crawley. They are employed in security sensitive positions such as baggage handlers and hold loaders. Every opportunity is given to them to slip a bomb onboard. It’s as though the management want a disaster to happen. Perhaps they are Muslims too.
Diann Vail says
I don’t recall hearing about nuns blowing up anything – however – have heard of many hijab wearing women doing it. This is absolutely ridiculous to the point of insanity.
Sydney Ellis says
My information from the Lakemba Mosque Women’s Association in Sydney Australia is that the face veil is only mentioned once in the Koran and it is in reference to the prophet’s wives. There is no religious requirement for the face veil. It is a big con like halal. If you reply with an E-Mail address I will forward a copy of the reply I got. As Sydney is now gender neutral the woman thought I was a woman wanting to become Muslim. I asked about the veil because the First Lady of Indonesia goes bare headed. Thanks.
Brian C. Hoff says
Some muslim woman want to be more pious by wearing the veil so what your problen with the veil.
Gharkad says
Some people want to visit their bank branch whilst wearing a full face motorcycle helmet; so what’s the problem with that?
Some people don’t like their photograph in their passport and want to deface it or paint over it; so what’s the problem with that?
Some people don’t like carrying around a wallet or purse with driving licence or don’t want to show it as proof of who they are and whether they are licensed to drive: so what’s the problem with that?
Some people want to riot whilst wearing ‘V for Vendetta’ masks: so what’s the problem with that?
Some people want to give testimony in court whilst wearing niqabs or burkas; so what’s the problem with that?
Some women don’t want to wear the veil and yet don’t want to be doused with acid in some islamic countries: so what’s the problem with that?
David says
When these Muslim employees get mad over something & decide to turn, & things go bad in a big way, the enablers who set them up should be held accountable as well.
WakeUpBenders says
The picture shows a nun in the united states. subtle clues are the giant american flag in the background and the nun outfit.. If you really believe this story or anything else on this website (which might as well be called “thisispropaganda dot org” because you idiots would still believe it) Then i am a rich African princess being held captive by cocoa farmers, send me £15,000 i will be able to bribe my way free, claim my riches and marry you so you can share my wealth.
Sincerely,
A white English atheist with some common sense.
voegelinian says
I’ve never seen giant American flags in any American airport. The fact there’s an American flag there, in fact, indicates it’s a section of the airport (an airport NOT located in the USA) for passengers boarding planes that are bound for the USA.
Dabigragu says
Nice try idiot.
gravenimage says
The absurdly self-styled “WakeUpBenders” (I presume this is a shortening of “truth benders”, i.e., ‘liars’—although “Bender” is also used as a pejorative term for male homosexuals) wrote:
If you really believe this story or anything else on this website (which might as well be called “thisispropaganda dot org” because you idiots would still believe it)
……………………………………
What “WakeUpBenders” and others hope you will miss is that except for a few editorial pieces, all the stories at Jihad Watch come from the *mainstream press*.
There is nothing “Islamophobic” about Asian Image—or about the Associated Press, Reuters, Agence France Press, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, or the many other news outlets sourced here.
Many, in fact, tend rather to the “politically correct” in their editorials.
So—would “WakeUpBenders” and their ilk have us believe that every story of dhimmitude and Islamic savagery is simply made up out of whole cloth, even when the source is clearly not biased against Islam?
Another questing—what, exactly, is WUB claiming is false? That the MP actually reported seeing a Muslimah with a face covering waved through security? That he reported it, but was not being honest? Or that this did indeed occur, but that—somehow—it is “bending” to opine that such an occurrence is problematic? If the latter, then in what way?
You will never hear anything so specific from a troll such as WUB—merely hoping to give the appearance of casting doubt is considered sufficient.
gravenimage says
“Questing” should, of course, be “question”.
joeb says
The picture is not from Heathrow airport, and doesn’t claim to be either, at any point. Try engaging your brain before getting angry to the point of making a fool of yourself.
See my earlier comment.
Unfortunately, it appears some readers need to be spoonfed this stuff.
Gary Woods says
Once again the Super-race of blessed one destine to rule the Earth are given a special dispensation for the Laws in non-islamic Nations soon be become another Caliphate thanks to the spineless weasel PC yahoos in Charge that bought the BIG-LIE that Muslims are a RACE and it would be Racist to question someone in a beekeeper suit holding a quran. These are test-runs by the Jihadists to send women first to see what happens, THEN the men put on the Ninja suits with their suicide-bomber packs. No wonder the HollyWood elites and Politician’s will often use a Private Gulfstream jet to get around, they know the truth but choose to pretend to be the Tolerant ones condemning the fabricated Islamophobia .
gravenimage says
test
Sydney Ellis says
This is an answer I got to the question of the religious requirement of the veil. Because my first name is now gender neutral, the woman thought I was a female. This was from the United Muslim Women’s Association in Australia.
Hi Sydney Ellis,
To give you a little background – the practices of Islam are established through the Quran, the Sunnah of the Prophet, then by the Sahabi and then by scholars in context over time. There are very few ‘hard and fast’ rules in Islam, other than performing the five pillars, avoiding what is clearly forbidden as written in the Quran (alcohol, pork, adultery etc etc). Even here, there is an acknowledgement that men are easily tempted and easily go astray. As a result, the scholars over generations have compiled the rules of Shariah – just as in Australian law there is legal precedent, rulings that are referred to in successive similar cases – and applied them in the context of each country.
Now to the hijab. There is one verse only in Quran that specifically applies to wearing the scarf – or hijab, and that is in Surat An Noor – (24:31) where women are told to draw their head scarf over their bosoms. Many Muslims cite another verse relating to veiling of the face from Surat al Ahzab, but this is applicable only to the wives of the Prophet and specifically states so before and after this Surah.
Now, coming back to your question. When a Muslim accepts Islam they step out on the Sirat al Mustaqim – the Straight Path, and endeavour to fulfil the requirements as best they can. For those who do well, they pray the obligatory and the sunnah, fast the obligatory and Sunnah, make dua, wear the hijab ,eat halal etc etc. For those who struggle with their souls, they may sometimes pray or fast, they may have difficulty eating halal and avoiding what is haram, and they may find it too difficult to wear the hijab. To each is their reward, and only Allah swt knows whether they could have achieved more or not.
For each of us it is a personal journey, and your question is good because it shows you want to be sure that you are doing the right thing, so for that may Allah swt grant you Guidance. My advice is, focus on what will make it easier for you to understand and know what is pleasing to Allah and help you to achieve it – by mastering your obligatory prayers, avoiding what is forbidden and reading the Quran or sitting in the company of good Muslims as often as possible. For some people wearing the hijab is easy (for me I have worn it since converting 36 years ago) for some it is more difficult. That is your decision between you and Allah. But it is not the most important part of your religion – being close to Allah is.
All the best and may Allah s.w.t make easy for you the path through this life, and remove any misunderstandings or incorrect advice in my email. I hope this has helped you,
Wassalaam alaikum,
Silma Ihram
FakeCoke says
Oh I see! How Eazy English to be fooled
dumbledoresarmy says
What matters about this story is that two British MPs, Philip Davies, MP for Shipley, and Philip HOllobone, MP for Kettering, are showing an inclination to resist Islamisation.
Mr Hollobone has proposed a Face Coverings (Prohibition) Bill that would render illegal the wearing of the Slave Mask in public in the UK.
Mr Davies was prepared to public criticise the permitting into Britain of a woman in the Slave Mask who was not required to confirm her identity.
British jihadwatchers, here posting or lurking: get behind these two MPs and PUSH. Hard.
Write to Mr Hollobone and tell him you are totally in support of his Bill. If you’re one of his constituents, give loud and hearty thanks that you’ve got a bloke with a modicum of commonsense representing you, and do your darndest to encourage him…and educate him some more. Give him a copy of Sookhdeo’s “Islam in Britain” and Sam Solomon and Elias Muqdisi’s “Al-Hijra: The Islamic Doctrine of Immigration”. If you’re not lucky enough to be one of his constituents…write to or ring or even personally *visit* your *own* MP and tell him or her that you would want them to *support* Mr Hollobone’s Bill.
Mr Davies is on record as saying – “I and (Mr Hollobone) clearly believe that at passport control everybody who comes into this country wearing a full Islamic veil should be compulsorily required to remove that veil to identify themselves.”
Write to Mr Davies and tell him you agree. And tell him to “follow through” and back Mr Hollobone. Mr Hollobone’s proposed Bill is not draconian in the least…it is simply commonsense.
Ring, visit, email, and *write*. Deluge the in-trays of both Davies and Hollobone; be brief, be polite and friendly, be to the point. See if you can’t ginger up Mr Davies a bit more; and give Mr Hollobone lots of encouragement. If Mr Hollobone, MP, gets *thousands* upon *thousands* of proper letters, on paper, signed with people’s names, expressing support for his Bill, from people all over the country, he will be encouraged to persevere. I am sure he will be getting plenty of Hate Mail and threats; but the trick is to shower him with Love Mail, to the point where it will drown out the Hate Mail.
The Muslims do a *lot* of lobbying and make a lot of noise.
But there are still many, many *more* native British than Muslims in the UK, and if all Islamosavvy persons in the UK resolve to get together and make noise, they can make more noise than the Muslims, and they represent a lot more Votes.