I see the whole issue of how to spell burkha has reared its ugly head again. Which is an unfortunate choice of phrase as some may say that it is only the rearing of ugly heads that requires them to be covered by burkas in the first place. As it is a foreign word, however, giving it its correct spelling isn't really important
I've written about banning berkas twice before, back in January this year, when UKIP adopted the policy and also in June 2009. Having reread both posts I don't take back a word. I don't agree with a ban, and those two posts, hopefully explain why while at the same time making it pretty clear that I really don't like buerkas.
In the posts I get tied up in knots of my own logic by saying things like we are too tolerant for our own good yet we ban too many things, and that everyone should have the right to dress how they want (punks, goths) but people shouldn't feel the need to set themselves apart from other parts of society even though people (such as punks and goths) often dress in different ways precisely for that reason.
Basically I want to tread the line between being seen to be liberal and non-anti-Muslim by not banning bhurkaz while having the freedom to say that I think people shouldn't wear them. And making arguments that are precisely those used by people who support the ban.
PS while we're at it I don't like Michael Buerk or berks either but I wouldn't ban them. Well, maybe Michael Buerk I would. He works for the BBC, doesn't he?