Nick Timothy criticises Islamic veils as Conservatives review policy on restrictions
Conservative shadow justice secretary Nick Timothy said he “hates” the niqab and burqa, arguing that face coverings harm social trust and cut women off from society. His remarks at a fringe event during the party conference have renewed debate about whether the Conservatives might support restricting Islamic face veils.
Timothy said he did not know where the party’s policy review would lead, while noting that some European countries ban burqas in public places. He also argued that requiring girls to wear hijabs at state-funded schools could breach equality law, referring to a north London school’s uniform policy; the school and Barnet Council say the hijab is not required for non-Muslim pupils and is not insisted upon outside worship.
- Nick Timothy called the niqab and burqa harmful to social trust.
- He said he did not know whether the Conservatives would back a ban.
- He questioned school hijab requirements on equality grounds.
New here? Start with this
Islamic face veils such as the niqab and burqa are religious head and face coverings worn by some Muslim women. Practices vary across different Islamic traditions and communities, and many Muslim women do not wear them. The question of whether governments should restrict these garments is being debated in various countries.
Nick Timothy is a senior Conservative politician. The Conservative party is currently reviewing its policy on whether to support restrictions on Islamic face coverings in public places. His recent comments during the party conference have brought this ongoing policy review into the spotlight.
The issue reflects a broader tension between religious freedom and social integration. Some people argue that face coverings create barriers to community trust and social cohesion, whilst others see them as an important expression of religious belief and women's personal choice. Different countries have taken different legal approaches to this question, with some banning such coverings and others protecting the right to wear them.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Advocates for restrictions emphasise concerns about social cohesion and equality, arguing that face coverings impede interpersonal communication and integration into shared civic spaces. They contend that gender equality principles—particularly regarding children's education—warrant public policy protections, and that secular institutions may legitimately establish visibility standards comparable to those in other democracies, viewing this as compatible with upholding fundamental social values rather than religious discrimination.
The case against
Opponents prioritise religious freedom and personal autonomy, contending that women must have the right to choose their dress without state interference, including religious garments many select willingly. They argue that bans are inherently discriminatory, singling out Muslim practice without equal application to other groups, and risk marginalising communities whilst violating core liberal principles of pluralism and conscience. They further question whether such restrictions produce meaningful social benefits, suggesting alternative approaches better serve integration.
Americas Art Business Culture Markets World
Read the full article at the source →
Originally published by Daily Mail as “‘I hate the niqab and burqa’, declares Tory shadow justice secretary – but he admits he doesn’t know if party will back a ban on Muslim face coverings”.