It was bound to happen; the robbers who stole GBP1 million worth of watches from Selfridges disguised themselves in burqas, which hid their faces, and under which they could carry the tools they needed.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jun/08/burqa-gang-watches-selfridges

I believe the burqa is banned in France, and rightly so. You need look no further for a reason.

I quite agree, but one of the arguments against I recall the last time this came up was that such a ban would be "UnBritish", as if dressing like a walking postbox and thus excluding all interaction with fellow citizens is somehow British. I doubt anything will happen until multiculturalism is in full retreat, which may take a while yet.

I believe the burqa is banned in France

it is not banned if the face is exposed.

This matter has been gone-over many times in the past couple of decades, and the British decision has been to allow people to dress as they wish, or as their beliefs dictate. The burkha, the niqab, the sheitl, an archbishop's frock or any other form of dress is allowed in the UK.

I realise that there are security problems here, but what would you do - impose dress codes or allow freedom of choice?

The British way:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/outdoors/outdoor-activities/10103552/Naked-nation-why-are-Britons-so-keen-on-public-nudity.htm

The muslim way :

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/sex/10105935/Miss-World-2013-bikini-ban-why-its-no-victory-for-feminists.html

I believe the burqa is banned in France

it is not banned if the face is exposed.

At least that means that the person inside can be recognised, photographed, identified, sexed (usually). But you can still carry a bomb in the rest of it.

You can carry a bomb in a City businessman's briefcase, or a shopping basket.

You can strap one to your body under a sweater or windcheater as easily as under a burkha.

No, it is the ability to see and identify someone that is necessary for security and for that a niqab is acceptable, an abbaya with face veil or a burkha is not. This should be explained to all immigrants and visitors prior to coming to the UK, and then let them make up their minds whether or not they wish to continue with their journey.

For anyone already here who wishes to remain veiled, let them stay indoors - but on the streets all features should be able to be seen by the CCTV cameras for possible facial identity checks.

PoorSucker dances around Samui in a miniskirt....no one bats an eyelid.....although admittedly he has yet to threaten to blow up the nearest BigC.

Quite a few SF guys in Afghan used a burka for ease of getting around, though the boots were a bit of a giveaway..!

Quite a few SF guys in Afghan used a burka for ease of getting around, though the boots were a bit of a giveaway..!

John Simpson tells the story of being smuggled into Afghanistan wearing a burqa.

But what people do in Afghanistan is up to the Afghans; what people can do in Britain should be up to the British.

Quite a few SF guys in Afghan used a burka for ease of getting around, though the boots were a bit of a giveaway..!

John Simpson tells the story of being smuggled into Afghanistan wearing a burqa.

But what people do in Afghanistan is up to the Afghans; what people can do in Britain should be up to the British.

What's more offensive a burka or some overwelght, drunk slob in clothes that might fit someone 6 stone lighter, passed out in the gutter after a "good night out", after a skinful and a "halal kebab" or 3...?

What's more offensive a burka or some overwelght, drunk slob in clothes that might fit someone 6 stone lighter, passed out in the gutter after a "good night out", after a skinful and a "halal kebab" or 3...?

I quite agree, folium, but the drunken slob is not a security risk; the person wearing a burqa may be.

Quite a few SF guys in Afghan used a burka for ease of getting around, though the boots were a bit of a giveaway..!

John Simpson tells the story of being smuggled into Afghanistan wearing a burqa.

But what people do in Afghanistan is up to the Afghans; what people can do in Britain should be up to the British.

What's more offensive a burka or some overwelght, drunk slob in clothes that might fit someone 6 stone lighter, passed out in the gutter after a "good night out", after a skinful and a "halal kebab" or 3...?

Personally I find the walking postbox far more offensive than the drunken slob. The former though disagreeable is exercising their free will, whereas the Niqab is a symbol of female subjugation and a barrier to interaction with the native culture. There is but an illusionary choice whether to wear one or not when threats of violence and honor killings force compliance.

Then there is the recent horrific case of a Muslim woman who worked for a lingerie shop in London being followed by a woman dressed in a Niqab who threw acid in her face scarring her for life. This is the toxic sludge at the bottom of the barrel of multiculturalism and should be banned today.

Your views seem to be as extreme as the example you cite.

Also the burqa and the niqab are different, as the burqa hides the face, as does the abbaya with veil, whereas the niqab and the chadoor allow the face to be seen.

Do you also disapprove of the Queen wearing a headscarf, or the ladies at Royal Ascot wearing stupid hats? This is a woman thing, in many instances. Many women prefer to wear scarves to maintain an amount of privacy. Also to blend in with the other women around them and as a decoration. My mother, a strong Anglo-Catholic, would wear a scarf in most weathers as a matter of habit. As does my sister.

I frown on the covered face, as being a security risk in this day and age, and believe that this is only suitable for motor-cyclists and security guards as a protection (to be removed at all other times). We should be open in our current society if we have nothing to hide, even if only to demonstrate that we have nothing to hide.

One sees EDL members with scarves over their faces, one sees youths with hoods pulled forward to hide their faces from CCTV cameras - these are as bad as burqas in our society. Ban all methods of hiding one's facial features (unless, like Tutsiwarrior, you're pug-ugly )

Yes, it's not the burqa as a religious symbol that I object to, so much as anything which hides the face so that the wearer cannot be identified.

Mind you, the niqab (if I have the right one!) also drastically changes the appearance of a woman. I had a girl in one of my classes at university who wore the niqab. She was an attractive girl, and a good student. Halfway through the term, she appeared in class without the niqab. She was stunning! The hair made all the difference (and I'm gay!).

Your views seem to be as extreme as the example you cite.

Also the burqa and the niqab are different, as the burqa hides the face, as does the abbaya with veil, whereas the niqab and the chadoor allow the face to be seen.

Do you also disapprove of the Queen wearing a headscarf, or the ladies at Royal Ascot wearing stupid hats? This is a woman thing, in many instances. Many women prefer to wear scarves to maintain an amount of privacy. Also to blend in with the other women around them and as a decoration. My mother, a strong Anglo-Catholic, would wear a scarf in most weathers as a matter of habit. As does my sister.

I frown on the covered face, as being a security risk in this day and age, and believe that this is only suitable for motor-cyclists and security guards as a protection (to be removed at all other times). We should be open in our current society if we have nothing to hide, even if only to demonstrate that we have nothing to hide.

One sees EDL members with scarves over their faces, one sees youths with hoods pulled forward to hide their faces from CCTV cameras - these are as bad as burqas in our society. Ban all methods of hiding one's facial features (unless, like Tutsiwarrior, you're pug-ugly )

First my apologies for confusing the word for headscarf with the face veil, it is only the obscuring of the face I object to. As for the EDL covering their faces has it occurred to you that even though EDL members do not belong to an illegal organization and are exercising their democratic right to protest their opponents go out of their way to find their identities and employers such as local government sack people for this alone, as recently happened to a Leeds City Council worker. It is indeed ironic that EDL members have to conceal their identities to protest against those who permanently conceal theirs in order to hold themselves separate from the rest of us.

I take your point.

There should not be any comeback if people are peacefully protesting, whatever their political views. Similarly there should be no risk to one's job, unless the views held are deemed to be incompatible with the function of the job (e.g. in GCHQ, MI5/6, sensitive police position, etc.) or other social activity, such as the Rochdale Council decision noot to allow a UKIP couple to foster a child, when they were already proven foster parents.

To me hoods, masks and veils are an indication of doubtful intent, even face masks in a flu epidemic. But then I'm a suspicious bugger and would rather thump 'em than hump 'em.

I take your point.

There should not be any comeback if people are peacefully protesting, whatever their political views. Similarly there should be no risk to one's job, unless the views held are deemed to be incompatible with the function of the job (e.g. in GCHQ, MI5/6, sensitive police position, etc.) or other social activity, such as the Rochdale Council decision noot to allow a UKIP couple to foster a child, when they were already proven foster parents.

To me hoods, masks and veils are an indication of doubtful intent, even face masks in a flu epidemic. But then I'm a suspicious bugger and would rather thump 'em than hump 'em.

And thump 'em you shall! I think we are far too prone to make allowances for people; that's a great part of Britain's current problems.

Yes, it's not the burqa as a religious symbol that I object to, so much as anything which hides the face so that the wearer cannot be identified.

Mind you, the niqab (if I have the right one!) also drastically changes the appearance of a woman. I had a girl in one of my classes at university who wore the niqab. She was an attractive girl, and a good student. Halfway through the term, she appeared in class without the niqab. She was stunning! The hair made all the difference (and I'm gay!).

Close Iranian friend of mine travels from time to time. First thing she does after the plane takes off is remove her niqab. It doesn't see the light of day until she is just about to land back in Tehran.

Ban the burka? That's a tough one....

There was a thread a short while back about immigration where a poster stated he couldn't do things over the phone in Thai but had no problems doing it in person (in Thai). Facial expressions are very much part of how humans (at least) communicate in all walks of life and I think most would agree that sometimes a letter, email or Skype/phone call just doesn't do the job. Face to face communication is part of who we are at the deepest level, a fundamental aspect of humanity.

You can consider France's actions as a ban if you wish but in reality it is not, it is the lifting of a ban.

Yes, it's not the burqa as a religious symbol that I object to, so much as anything which hides the face so that the wearer cannot be identified.

Mind you, the niqab (if I have the right one!) also drastically changes the appearance of a woman. I had a girl in one of my classes at university who wore the niqab. She was an attractive girl, and a good student. Halfway through the term, she appeared in class without the niqab. She was stunning! The hair made all the difference (and I'm gay!).

Close Iranian friend of mine travels from time to time. First thing she does after the plane takes off is remove her niqab. It doesn't see the light of day until she is just about to land back in Tehran.

Ban the burka? That's a tough one....

There was a thread a short while back about immigration where a poster stated he couldn't do things over the phone in Thai but had no problems doing it in person (in Thai). Facial expressions are very much part of how humans (at least) communicate in all walks of life and I think most would agree that sometimes a letter, email or Skype/phone call just doesn't do the job. Face to face communication is part of who we are at the deepest level, a fundamental aspect of humanity.

You can consider France's actions as a ban if you wish but in reality it is not, it is the lifting of a ban.

There are two different issues here, the need to see someone's face to facilitate communication, and the one this thread is about, the need for the face to be exposed so that the person can be easily identified for security purposes.

Yes, it's not the burqa as a religious symbol that I object to, so much as anything which hides the face so that the wearer cannot be identified.

Mind you, the niqab (if I have the right one!) also drastically changes the appearance of a woman. I had a girl in one of my classes at university who wore the niqab. She was an attractive girl, and a good student. Halfway through the term, she appeared in class without the niqab. She was stunning! The hair made all the difference (and I'm gay!).

Close Iranian friend of mine travels from time to time. First thing she does after the plane takes off is remove her niqab. It doesn't see the light of day until she is just about to land back in Tehran.

Ban the burka? That's a tough one....

There was a thread a short while back about immigration where a poster stated he couldn't do things over the phone in Thai but had no problems doing it in person (in Thai). Facial expressions are very much part of how humans (at least) communicate in all walks of life and I think most would agree that sometimes a letter, email or Skype/phone call just doesn't do the job. Face to face communication is part of who we are at the deepest level, a fundamental aspect of humanity.

You can consider France's actions as a ban if you wish but in reality it is not, it is the lifting of a ban.

There are two different issues here, the need to see someone's face to facilitate communication, and the one this thread is about, the need for the face to be exposed so that the person can be easily identified for security purposes.

Just adding a bit of depth.

There is no question that people's faces should be able to be seen and there is no justification (zero, zilch, nada) why this should, if needs be, not be enforced. The real question, which your OP points to, is why is this not already the case?

There is a much wider problem here which the UK is unwilling to address and that is unsubstantiated claims. What follows may seem off topic but it addresses the question of 'why' there is no ban on the burka and specifically why the government/s are unwilling to address the wider situation.

Fraudulent Mediums Act 1951

The Fraudulent Mediums Act 1951 was a law in England and Wales which prohibited a person from claiming to be a psychic, medium, or other spiritualist while attempting to deceive and to make money from the deception (other than solely for the purpose of entertainment). It repealed the Witchcraft Act 1735, and it was in turn repealed on 26 May 2008 by new Consumer Protection Regulations following an EU directive targeting unfair sales and marketing practices.

There was a call at the time and after for this to include religious bodies but it went unheeded. And so things continued (unchanged) until the mid 2000s when the UK was called to task by EU law. Despite huge support we only got (in 2008)....

The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008

27. After section 218 of the Enterprise Act 2002 insert—

“218A Unfair commercial practices: substantiation of claims

(1) This section applies where an application for an enforcement order or for an interim enforcement order is made in respect of a Community infringement involving a contravention of Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market.

(2) For the purposes of considering the application the court may require the person named in the application to provide evidence as to the accuracy of any factual claim made as part of a commercial practice of that person if, taking into account the legitimate interests of that person and any other party to the proceedings, it appears appropriate in the circumstances.

(3) If, having been required under subsection (2) to provide evidence as to the accuracy of a factual claim, a person—

(a)fails to provide such evidence, or

(b)provides evidence as to the accuracy of the factual claim that the court considers inadequate, the court may consider that the factual claim is inaccurate.

(4) In this section “commercial practice” has the meaning given by regulation 2 of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.”.

(Please note that the above quote is off the UK government website and therefore copyright free.)

Religious bodies were off the hook yet again.

UK governments are unwilling to introduce legislation of a secular nature if it could in any way impede religion of any faith unless the have NO other choice. An example of this is Labour and the HoL being reformed. When they realised that the Bishops would HAVE to be removed they backed off, right off.

To make it a law to show the face while out is correct in every way and would pass through in minutes but down the line it would mean that those who don't would be in trouble. Because those in trouble would also be people of faith (gullibility) it's just not going to happen. A quote from the late C Hitchens could perhaps shed light on just why the terminally deluded are so fearful of ceding even so much as an inch of power....

“Many religions now come before us with ingratiating smirks and outspread hands, like an unctuous merchant in a bazaar. They offer consolation and solidarity and uplift, competing as they do in a marketplace. But we have a right to remember how barbarically they behaved when they were strong and were making an offer that people could not refuse.”

Such a law would also cover full-face motor-cycle helmets.

Whilst riding a bike these helmets are a safety measure and should not be removed. When dismounted from the bike it is useful to remove the helmet.

Somewhere in this forum I seem to recall a newspaper article about a veiled woman being stopped for a motoring offence and her sister turning up in court to accept the charge. In the Vicky Pryce / Chris Huhne case this resulted in jail sentences, but I do not think this happened with the two veiled women, although I am open to correction.

What about beards? They also serve to hide facial characteristics. Should we outlaw beards, medical face masks, scarves around the face in winter?

This whole matter is very difficult to implement.

Yes, it's not the burqa as a religious symbol that I object to, so much as anything which hides the face so that the wearer cannot be identified.

Mind you, the niqab (if I have the right one!) also drastically changes the appearance of a woman. I had a girl in one of my classes at university who wore the niqab. She was an attractive girl, and a good student. Halfway through the term, she appeared in class without the niqab. She was stunning! The hair made all the difference (and I'm gay!).

Close Iranian friend of mine travels from time to time. First thing she does after the plane takes off is remove her niqab. It doesn't see the light of day until she is just about to land back in Tehran.

Ban the burka? That's a tough one....

There was a thread a short while back about immigration where a poster stated he couldn't do things over the phone in Thai but had no problems doing it in person (in Thai). Facial expressions are very much part of how humans (at least) communicate in all walks of life and I think most would agree that sometimes a letter, email or Skype/phone call just doesn't do the job. Face to face communication is part of who we are at the deepest level, a fundamental aspect of humanity.

You can consider France's actions as a ban if you wish but in reality it is not, it is the lifting of a ban.

There are two different issues here, the need to see someone's face to facilitate communication, and the one this thread is about, the need for the face to be exposed so that the person can be easily identified for security purposes.

Just adding a bit of depth.

There is no question that people's faces should be able to be seen and there is no justification (zero, zilch, nada) why this should, if needs be, not be enforced. The real question, which your OP points to, is why is this not already the case?

There is a much wider problem here which the UK is unwilling to address and that is unsubstantiated claims. What follows may seem off topic but it addresses the question of 'why' there is no ban on the burka and specifically why the government/s are unwilling to address the wider situation.Fraudulent Mediums Act 1951

The Fraudulent Mediums Act 1951 was a law in England and Wales which prohibited a person from claiming to be a psychic, medium, or other spiritualist while attempting to deceive and to make money from the deception (other than solely for the purpose of entertainment). It repealed the Witchcraft Act 1735, and it was in turn repealed on 26 May 2008 by new Consumer Protection Regulations following an EU directive targeting unfair sales and marketing practices.

There was a call at the time and after for this to include religious bodies but it went unheeded. And so things continued (unchanged) until the mid 2000s when the UK was called to task by EU law. Despite huge support we only got (in 2008)....The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008

27. After section 218 of the Enterprise Act 2002 insert—

“218A Unfair commercial practices: substantiation of claims

(1) This section applies where an application for an enforcement order or for an interim enforcement order is made in respect of a Community infringement involving a contravention of Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market.

(2) For the purposes of considering the application the court may require the person named in the application to provide evidence as to the accuracy of any factual claim made as part of a commercial practice of that person if, taking into account the legitimate interests of that person and any other party to the proceedings, it appears appropriate in the circumstances.

(3) If, having been required under subsection (2) to provide evidence as to the accuracy of a factual claim, a person—

(a)fails to provide such evidence, or

(b)provides evidence as to the accuracy of the factual claim that the court considers inadequate, the court may consider that the factual claim is inaccurate.

(4) In this section “commercial practice” has the meaning given by regulation 2 of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.”.

(Please note that the above quote is off the UK government website and therefore copyright free.)

Religious bodies were off the hook yet again.

UK governments are unwilling to introduce legislation of a secular nature if it could in any way impede religion of any faith unless the have NO other choice. An example of this is Labour and the HoL being reformed. When they realised that the Bishops would HAVE to be removed they backed off, right off.

To make it a law to show the face while out is correct in every way and would pass through in minutes but down the line it would mean that those who don't would be in trouble. Because those in trouble would also be people of faith (gullibility) it's just not going to happen. A quote from the late C Hitchens could perhaps shed light on just why the terminally deluded are so fearful of ceding even so much as an inch of power....“Many religions now come before us with ingratiating smirks and outspread hands, like an unctuous merchant in a bazaar. They offer consolation and solidarity and uplift, competing as they do in a marketplace. But we have a right to remember how barbarically they behaved when they were strong and were making an offer that people could not refuse.”

Talking of witchcraft here is a perfect demonstration why even on removing face coverings there is a deeper basic incompatibility between lands of secularism and lands of religious fanaticism.

http://frontpagemag.com/2013/raymond-ibrahim/saudi-police-arrest-flying-naked-african-sorceress/

The combination of the words flying naked African and sorceress is priceless. The prospect of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people residing in the UK and having such beliefs is indeed terrifying.

Such a law would also cover full-face motor-cycle helmets.

Whilst riding a bike these helmets are a safety measure and should not be removed. When dismounted from the bike it is useful to remove the helmet.

Somewhere in this forum I seem to recall a newspaper article about a veiled woman being stopped for a motoring offence and her sister turning up in court to accept the charge. In the Vicky Pryce / Chris Huhne case this resulted in jail sentences, but I do not think this happened with the two veiled women, although I am open to correction.

What about beards? They also serve to hide facial characteristics. Should we outlaw beards, medical face masks, scarves around the face in winter?

This whole matter is very difficult to implement.

There are certain fairly obvious exceptions, HB.

Surely the key point would be willingness to remove the 'mask' when asked to do so by an appropriate authority. But a CC camera is not an appropriate authority! Obviously the details need a lot of working out.

At present, a veiled woman cannot be asked to remove her veil.

She can be by an appropriate person if it is necessary to confirm her identity.

For example at passport control; or even when taking a driving test.

As far as the driving test is concerned, if she refused to do so the test would not take place.

Even if a ban were passed enforcing it would be another matter.

http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/2/9/73877/World/International/Police-check-of-veiled-woman-sparks-clashes-near-P.aspx

Police fired tear gas and rubber bullets to disperse an angry crowd in a town on the outskirts of Paris where clashes erupted on Wednesday night after they questioned a woman wearing a full facial veil, which is banned in France.

Even if a ban were passed enforcing it would be another matter.

http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/2/9/73877/World/International/Police-check-of-veiled-woman-sparks-clashes-near-P.aspx

Police fired tear gas and rubber bullets to disperse an angry crowd in a town on the outskirts of Paris where clashes erupted on Wednesday night after they questioned a woman wearing a full facial veil, which is banned in France.

Don't need tear gas and rubber bullets - just use a herd of pigs. Or several herds, driven in from all sides. And put the arrestees in the back of the trucks that brought the pigs in.

In their desire to paint all Muslims as evil, what some posters seem to have forgotten, or more likely choose to ignore, is that the robbers involved in the event which started this topic are not female and from the names of those caught so far, Sam Curtin and Connor Groake, almost certainly not Muslim!

I have seen no evidence that those female Muslims who choose to wear burkas in the UK, and they are a small minority, have ever used their burka to prevent identification while they are committing a crime.

Not that a fact like that will stop the prejudiced from making their pathetic comments like that in the post above.

Robbers wear full face crash helmets, shall we ban those?

Robbers wear ski masks, shall we ban those?

Both left and right wing thugs who infiltrate otherwise peaceful demonstrations so they can cause violence cover their faces with scarves and masks; shall we ban those?

What about wrapping a scarf round you face on a cold winter's day, shall we ban that?

If you want to ban one item of clothing that covers the face in case the wearer is a criminal, then you must ban all; otherwise the criminal will simply wear something else.

The robbers are not female and not Muslim, BUT they are taking advantage of the latitude allowed to Muslims.

We are talking about Britain. The wearing of a burqa conflicts with British custom AND makes the wearer unrecognisable. AND, though I quite agree that posters are overzealous in blaming all Muslims for a few terrorist acts, NEVERTHELESS most terrorists are Muslims (the Irish are largely pacified).

BUT I agree that, if you take this to the limit, you would have everybody with short back-and-sides, AND, if they had to wear some headgear, sporting a bowler.

In their desire to paint all Muslims as evil, what some posters seem to have forgotten, or more likely choose to ignore, is that the robbers involved in the event which started this topic are not female and from the names of those caught so far, Sam Curtin and Connor Groake, almost certainly not Muslim!

I have seen no evidence that those female Muslims who choose to wear burkas in the UK, and they are a small minority, have ever used their burka to prevent identification while they are committing a crime.

Not that a fact like that will stop the prejudiced from making their pathetic comments like that in the post above.

Robbers wear full face crash helmets, shall we ban those?

Robbers wear ski masks, shall we ban those?

Both left and right wing thugs who infiltrate otherwise peaceful demonstrations so they can cause violence cover their faces with scarves and masks; shall we ban those?

What about wrapping a scarf round you face on a cold winter's day, shall we ban that?

If you want to ban one item of clothing that covers the face in case the wearer is a criminal, then you must ban all; otherwise the criminal will simply wear something else.

A couple of valid points but other than that what you have said is nothing short of silly.

Robbers wear full face crash helmets, shall we ban those?

Did they happen to be on a bike at the time?

Robbers wear ski masks, shall we ban those?

Did they happen to be skiing at the time?

I am anti Islam, not anti Muslim. I someone does not understand the difference then they should stay out of the game.

The robbers are not female and not Muslim, BUT they are taking advantage of the latitude allowed to Muslims.

What latitude?

The freedom to practice their religion?

The freedom to wear what they like; within the limits of public decency?

Two freedoms, among many, which most of us in the UK hold dear.

Muslim women wearing burkas are not the only people walking around our streets with their faces covered.

Most Islamist terrorists are Muslim; most PIRA members are Irish.

To blame all Muslims for the actions of Islamist terrorists is as irrational as to blame all Irish for the actions of the PIRA.

Notmyself; you have obviously never seen a motorcycle courier walk into an office block; they never remove their helmet and very rarely even lift their visor.

You have obviously never walked round a British city in winter and seen the many types of wear, including ski masks, used by all sorts of people to cover their faces.

You are correct; I do not understand how you can be anti a religion but not anti those who practice it; are you saying that were they to convert to a different religion they'd be acceptable to you?

And don't come that old pony about Islam and the Koran being dedicated to killing unbelievers; I could quote at length from the Bible passages saying exactly the same.