Bill Carmichael: Why the burka ban is wrong

Call me an old fashioned libertarian if you wish, but this news sent a shiver up my spine. Do we really want to give the state the power to tell people what to wear?

In France, opposition has been muted. This week the National Assembly – the equivalent of our House of Commons – passed the so-called burka ban by 335 votes to one, with the enthusiastic backing of communists, radical feminists and the far right. If, as expected, it is approved by the Senate in September, the ban will come into force after a six-month explanatory period.

France isn't alone. Belgium, Spain and some Italian municipalities are enacting similar bans. Here, the Conservative backbencher Philip Hollobone introduced a private members' bill last month to ban the face veil, although it has little chance of becoming law.

These politicians recognise a rolling bandwagon when they see one. Across Europe such burka bans have the overwhelming support of the public – 82 per cent in favour in France, 71 per cent in Germany, 59 percent in Spain and 62 per cent in the UK, according to a recent survey.

Of course, there is a strong case – which I support – for banning the burka and niqab in certain places such as airports, hospitals, schools and even in private premises such as shops. But the French ban is entirely different order. It would criminalise a woman for simply

taking a stroll in the park.

French feminists argue the ban will help promote women's equality – although how you make a woman more equal by giving a policeman control over her clothing is beyond a mere man such as me.

Mr Hollobone goes so far as to say he finds the full face veil "frankly offensive". I sympathise. I don't like the veil either – I find it abhorrent for all kinds of reasons.

Labour's Jack Straw was right a few years back when he described the veil as a "visible statement of separation". It damages community relations and makes it harder for Muslim women to integrate into society.

And there is little doubt that some Muslim women are coerced by

husbands, brothers and fathers into wearing what one French MP described as a "walking coffin".

But because some people find the burka offensive is no reason to ban it. I oppose the ban for the same reason I oppose so-called hate speech laws that have seen Christians arrested for quoting verses from the Bible that some homosexuals find offensive. If you are offended – then tough, learn to live with it. Being offended once in a while is the price we have to pay to live in a free society.

Heads and pay tales

The 267,000 a year pay packet paid to a London primary school teacher was a bit of a jaw-dropper.

The GMB union singled out – there's solidarity for you – Mark Elms who runs the 400-pupil Tidemill primary school in Lewisham, complaining his huge salary was "outrageous" and "a slap in the face" to teachers and classroom assistants facing a pay freeze.

A closer look reveals things are not quite as they seem. Mr Elms's basic salary last year was 82,714 – still a substantial amount. In addition, he was paid more than 100,000 for two years work on a City Challenge programme to combat underachievement in disadvantaged areas, plus almost 20,000 in overtime payments and 45,000 in pension contributions.

So, although the headline figure is misleading, there is still a case to answer on public sector excess. How many senior bosses in the private sector would expect to be paid overtime? And public sector pensions are a disgrace that one day will have to be sorted out before they bankrupt the country.

The GMB, which started the whole furore, is opposed to any public sector pay restraint. It is also worth noting that many union leaders are paid far more than people like Mr Elms. Who do you think benefits society more – a school headteacher or a placard-waving union baron?