Official Report 372KB pdf
The next item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S7M-01375, in the name of Thomas Kerr, on face coverings in public places. The debate will be concluded without any question being put. Members who wish to contribute should press their request-to-speak button now.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes the ongoing debate across Scotland, and particularly in Glasgow, regarding the wearing of full-face coverings, including the burqa and niqab, in public places; recognises that legislation in Scotland already provides police with powers to require the removal of face coverings in specified circumstances where there are reasonable grounds to believe that they are being used to conceal identity in connection with criminality or disorder; notes the Scottish Government’s current position that existing police powers are sufficient; further notes that a number of European countries have introduced restrictions on face coverings in public places, and notes calls for the Scottish Government to set out its assessment of the potential benefits of introducing further restrictions on full-face coverings in public places, including consideration of public safety, individual liberty and community cohesion.
17:26
I begin by once again thanking Stephen Kerr for backing the motion in order to allow Parliament to hear this debate. I know that we disagree on the issue, but it is really important that our Parliament is used for the democratic process of debating an issue, even if members disagree with it.
I know that the debate has caused a bit of a stooshie, but, when we cut through the noise and the nonsense, at its heart is a simple belief that, in a free and open society, people should ordinarily be able to see one another’s faces. The ability to see the person we are speaking to is not some trivial social—
Will the member give way?
On you go.
Does he accept that, in a free and open society, it is up to people—women—to decide what they wear?
If the minister had waited, I would have come to that point my speech. I know that she is eager to get in, but I will come to the points that I am going to address, and I do agree with her.
The ability to see the person we are speaking to is not some trivial social convention; it is fundamental to communication, identification, trust and public safety. That is why Reform believes that Scotland should introduce a clear and comprehensive ban on face coverings, including the burqa, in public places.
The burqa and other forms of full-face covering present a particular challenge because they entirely conceal the identity of the person wearing them. A modern democratic society depends on people participating openly in public life. Communication matters in our schools, universities, courts, public services and workplaces, and being able to identify the person standing in front of us matters.
Will the member take an intervention?
Can I finish my point? I will take interventions, but I want to finish this part of my speech.
A person entering a court cannot simply insist that their identity should remain concealed; a person sitting an examination cannot reasonably expect to conceal their face from those supervising it; and nobody should expect security staff to accept an unidentified person entering a sensitive building such as the Scottish Parliament.
I will take the intervention before I move on.
I am really baffled why we are even debating this. The motion talks about a “debate across Scotland”, but I am not aware of anyone debating this. What hard evidence does the member have to show that what a woman wears constitutes a public safety debate? I want evidence, please.
There appears to be some confusion across the chamber. I am not surprised that the member does not understand, because there seems to be some confusion here. The debate is about banning face coverings—all face coverings. If I remember correctly, the member’s own party leader called for face coverings to be banned.
Will the member take an intervention?
No—I am finishing my point.
The member’s own leader called for face coverings to be banned. That debate took place over the summer, and that is why we are debating the matter here. I am not surprised that members seem a bit confused, because of how they anticipated the debate, but we have made it very clear that it is about face coverings.
Let us consider—
Will the member give way?
No, I will not.
Will the member give way?
I will give way—to Stephen Kerr. [Interruption.]
Sit down please, Mr Kerr.
Members of the public in the gallery are very welcome to observe, but you are observers and clapping is not allowed, I am afraid. You are very welcome to be here tonight.
I call Stephen Kerr.
The debate, according to the motion, is about those who wear face coverings to engage in criminal activities, which by no stretch of the imagination would include people who may be wearing face coverings for another reason. Would the member address the subject of the motion that he lodged, which is about face coverings and police powers in relation to being able to anticipate criminal activity? That is what the motion actually says.
If I can make some progress in my speech, I will address all those points. I know that members are very agitated and want to speak, but, if I can finish my speech, we may get to those points.
Stephen Kerr makes an important point. When I asked the question, the cabinet secretary said that Police Scotland currently has the powers to deal with face coverings. Police Scotland has been clear that it does not feel that it has those powers. Members from across the chamber have continually said that they want a ban on face coverings, and that is what the debate is all about.
Let us consider the burqa. At least 24 countries around the world have acted to ban it. In Afghanistan, the burqa is legally enforced. We are all aware that family members here, in Scotland, are forcing their own women to wear this medieval piece of clothing. Human Rights Watch argues that the burqa symbolises systematic subjugation, shifting the responsibility for male behaviour and temptation on to women’s bodies. The burqa is the clearest example of a piece of clothing that imprisons women and undermines their dignity. Whether someone is wearing—[Interruption.] I will get to speak at some point, I am sure. Whether someone is wearing a—[Interruption.]
Please sit down, Mr Kerr. We will hear the member who has the floor. I ask members not to make comments from a sedentary position.
Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer.
Whether someone is wearing a burqa, a balaclava, a full face mask or another piece of clothing that prevents their face from being identified, the same principle should apply. That is both fair and easy.
Will the member give way?
No, I will make progress. I think that I have taken enough interventions, and I am certainly not taking one from the member who is requesting one.
We also need to consider the message—[Interruption.]
Excuse me. I am sorry, Mr Kerr, but can you sit down again? I remind everyone that the debate should be conducted through the chair, please. Members should not make direct comments to one another across the chamber.
We need to consider the message that we send about integration. Coming to Scotland means that people should integrate with ordinary Scots in our way of life—no ifs, no buts. When we consider people coming to Scotland and contributing to our communities while at the same time participating in the shared public culture of this country, the burqa has no place within it.
When people are interacting with Scots in ordinary public life, their faces should be visible. The burqa is sometimes defended simply as an expression of personal choice. However, it is clear to everyone that it is a medieval piece of clothing that is often forced upon many women in Muslim households by their male family members or communities. It is restrictive, it is oppressive and it has no place in modern Scotland.
Will the member take an intervention on that point?
Yesterday, we had a debate on Europe. It is not just here, in modern Scotland; the burka has no place in France, Belgium or Austria, to name but a few countries, because they have imposed a full ban.
Will the member take an intervention on that point?
The member has made it clear that he is not taking interventions at the moment, and he is concluding his speech. If your request to make an intervention is not accepted immediately, please sit back down.
Let us consider reasonable limits imposed by public authorities on individual freedoms every day where wider societal interests are involved. The right to drive does not include the right to drive dangerously. Freedom of speech does not include the right to make threats. Religious freedom does not mean exemption from every generally applicable law. Personal freedom does not mean an unrestricted right to conceal your identity in every public setting, even if it is by wearing a burqa. That is not intolerance; it is the balancing of individual liberty with the legitimate interests of Scotland.
Does the member accept that, on the streets of Glasgow, not a single woman in a burqa and not a single woman in a niqab has threatened anybody? It is men with balaclavas covering their faces who are running down the streets and threatening people—and he is content to speak at the demonstrations that those balaclavad racists are speaking at.
I will stand up for a fair approach. I want to see balaclavas banned as much as the burqa.
It is interesting, because members on the Government benches debated Europe for two hours yesterday but I do not hear them objecting to Belgium, Denmark, Austria, Switzerland, Bulgaria, Luxembourg or France all having banned the burqa. It just happens to be when we are speaking on these benches about trying to make modern Scotland better that we are attacked—
It is racist.
It is not racist, and how dare the member say such a thing? How dare she say such a thing—[Interruption.]
Members!
—when she sits in the same chamber as the Green Party, which is racist? [Interruption.]
Members, will you please let the speaker be heard? I am again near the point of naming people. I do not want to do that, so can we please hear Mr Kerr?
Scotland should be confident enough to say that there are certain basic expectations in public life. We should be able to see each other, we should be able to identify each other when necessary and we should not be afraid to uphold those principles simply because doing so may be considered controversial. A Scotland that believes in integration should encourage people to participate in shared public life, and a Scotland that takes public safety seriously should not be afraid to insist that, in ordinary public spaces, people’s faces should be visible, no matter what piece of medieval and oppressive clothing they are wearing.
That is why I and Reform believe that Parliament should support a ban on face coverings, including the burqa, in public spaces. It is a matter of safety, identification and integration—and, ultimately, it is about maintaining an inclusive Scotland where women do not feel forced into covering their faces. That is why I lodged my motion to support the idea of banning all face coverings and not just one.
17:36
At the beginning of speeches in members’ business debates, it is customary to commend the member who lodged the motion for bringing the issue to the chamber for discussion. However, many members may think, understandably, that that should not be done in this instance, because of the unnecessary and, as we have heard, deliberately provocative and Islamophobic inclusion of a reference to a particular religion in the wording of the motion.
Freedom of expression and freedom of thought, conscience and religion are, rightly, key aspects of human rights law, including in the European convention on human rights. That is relevant and important to us all today and every day. David Hume’s courage in challenging the religious principles of the Christian church in centuries past led to a key legacy of the Scottish enlightenment and one that we should protect.
Ben Macpherson is one of the more thoughtful members of this Parliament. There is nothing in the motion about banning anything, so Thomas Kerr has given a speech based on a completely fictitious motion. I am surprised that, rather than playing into the narrative that this is about banning the burqa, we are not confronting what the motion is actually about, which is those who wear face coverings and engage in criminal or intimidatory behaviour. That is what the motion says.
That is shameful.
It is not shameful.
Aye, it is.
That is what the motion in the Business Bulletin says—
Thank you, Mr Kerr. No props, please.
As I have often said, I defend people’s right to challenge others and discuss issues. That is what it means to be liberal and to believe in democracy. What I condemn is the singling out of the great religion of Islam in the motion. I would do similarly if it singled out the great religions of Christianity and Judaism, or any others.
I chose to speak in this debate because I acknowledge that the issue of face coverings is being discussed in communities around the country, including the one that I serve. I will say more about that shortly. However, let me be very clear before I proceed that, apart from with regard to some very specific settings, such as where people wear uniforms or that sort of thing, we should agree as a democracy that no person should obligate, instruct or pressure any other person on what they should or should not wear. That is fundamental to freedom of expression, and it is particularly relevant to religious dress.
The rest of this Official Report will be published progressively as soon as the text is available.
Previous
Decision Time