One of my profs kept maintaining that full covering was not necessary, since what the Qur’an said was that women must “cover their ornaments.” She wore ankle length skirts, a blouse and short coat buttoned up to the neck, and the hair scarf covering the hair completely (the long ends of which she was always tossing back over her shoulders). I had to point out eventually that in a Muslim country with Sharia operating it would not be her opinion on the meaning of the Quranic text that mattered, but that of the men and especially the Ulema. I’m sure that the Ulema would object not only to her keeping her face uncovered, but the nail polish on her toenails too. How degenerate, to let her toes be not only painted but also seen!

In a film she showed one class there were several women (Algerians) discussing covering up. One, at least, maintained that she did so because she feared rape otherwise. Mark Steyn, in “America Alone”, mentions women friends he knows in London and Amsterdam who wear Islamic dress, although not Muslims. They told him that they got verbal attacks and harassment if they went out in normal Western clothing, but when wearing Islamic clothing they were left in peace or even spoken to respectfully. In an environment where the police are unwilling to enforce the law against Muslim violence, conforming to Islamic dress codes becomes a matter of self-defense for women. And in dear old Blighty, of course, private citizens are prohibited from arming themselves for defense or even defending themselves against attack. It may end up that Texas, Alaska, Utah, and South Dakota, where women can arm themselves, will be the last places holding out against the rising tide of Islamic coercion of women into wearing burkhas, the last bastions of women’s liberation.

What are the TB/illness rates in areas that require the burqa?