Helen Martin: What not to wear is a question of equality

WE HAVE so many crucial, global problems to solve that it's a wonder world leaders and politicians have time to devote to "what not to wear". But, yet again, the burkha has raised its pillar box head, with France's President Sarkozy considering imposing a national ban, and some British MPs and MEPs, not to mention Muslim and secular organisations, piling in with their twopence worth.

TV presenter Matthew Wright has contributed his view that the burkha is offensive to British men because it suggests they are so weak-willed and unstable that the mere sight of a feminine forehead or a dainty chin could turn them into sexual predators.

If we are going to rank clothes by offensiveness I would put fat girls in crop tops and low slung minis or sausage-skin jeans way above the burkha. . . which is not to say I don't find them both equally ridiculous.

The Koran demands modesty, not a complete cover-up. The burkha was primarily designed to protect women from desert sand storms – and there aren't too many of them in Princes Street or Oxford Street.

Then again, it's equally valid to say the kilt wasn't designed so that men could wear skirts. It began as an all-purpose, warm garment – a blanket Highlanders could sleep in on wild, chilly, heather-strewn moors then quickly wrap around themselves as day wear while they continued on their week-long treks across the country unencumbered by excess baggage. It's equally anachronistic. Yet Scotsmen still wear it with pride today.

In essence, the burkha is no more "offensive" than that, or even a traditional nun's habit.

It is however, foreign. Which leads me to its major flaw. Dark-skinned people require more exposure to sunlight than fair-skinned northerners in order to produce sufficient quantities of Vitamin D. It is no coincidence that rickets is primarily a condition suffered by Asian and Arab immigrants in the UK (particularly women and children) who compound what is, for them, too little sun by wearing clothes that are simply too covering, the worst of which is the burkha. It may be that woman want to wear it, or it may be that their men impose the silly garment on them. Neither situation would respond to any sort of legislation other than that formed by Muslim leaders.

If the only people who suffer from the burkha are those who wear it, why should it bother the rest of us? They choose, they take the consequences.

And there's the heart of the matter. If we have any problem in this country, or France for that matter, it is when these consequences impinge on the rest of us. Banning the burkha isn't the answer. Managing those consequences is.

Facial communication is necessary and desirable in a whole host of occupations, from teaching to medicine to customer care. It is as daft to employ a burkha-wearing woman as a teacher in a British school or a nurse in a hospital as it is to employ her as a welder with a blowtorch. Regardless of what colour she is – and there are a considerable number of white, native British women who have become Muslim and now wear the garb – any woman has to accept that insisting on a particular style of dress limits her job prospects and opportunities.

The problem is that exercising that little piece of common sense when it comes to the burkha results in accusations of racial or religious discrimination.

If a girl insists on wearing a skimpy bra top and a micro mini and having a tattoo of the devil on her arm, she's not going to get a job in a funeral parlour. She's not an ideal recruit for a bank, nor would she make the grade as a prison officer.

A bloke who defends his right to wear the kilt all day and every day isn't going to make a great swimming pool attendant.

I'm happy to defend people's rights to wear what they like from a Borat mankini to a burkha. . . providing they accept the consequences of that decision. That goes for all of us. It's not discrimination, it's equality.

Weighty argument
AN extensive, 12-year study has revealed what we knew all along. The obesity bar is set too low and body mass index, or BMI, is not an accurate indicator of health or perfect weight.

In fact you are statistically more likely to die if you are either extremely obese (a BMI over 35) or underweight (a BMI below 18.5) than if you are "normal", "overweight" (a BMI above 25) or even obese (a BMI over 30).

One doctor involved points out that being moderately heavier in middle age might create reserves the body can call on when weight loss kicks in with old age and loss of appetite.

It's not an excuse to pig out and be unhealthy. But it is an excuse to chill out, relax, stop worrying yourself to death and have another potato.