Once again, political leaders are meddling in matters they scarcely understand and it’s Muslim women who are the target this time. Last week, Reform UK MP Sarah Pochin stood in Parliament and demanded that Prime Minister Keir Starmer consider banning the burqa, following the example of certain European nations. Barely had the outrage settled when opposition leader Kemi Badenoch waded in, suggesting that employers should be permitted to bar burqas in the workplace altogether.
Badenoch went further, proudly proclaiming she refuses to meet with constituents who wear face coverings, “whether it’s a burqa or a balaclava.” The comparison was as offensive as it was ignorant, equating an item of spiritual and cultural expression with criminal disguise. It echoed the rhetoric of former Labour minister Jack Straw, who in 2006 lit the fuse on Britain’s first mainstream burqa row.
These remarks are not random. They are calculated. Designed to court the right-wing vote, they toss ethnic minorities under the political bus in exchange for headlines and applause at party conferences. But this posturing comes at a cost and will not borne by the politicians. It will be borne by women on buses, in supermarkets, and walking their children to school, who now must fear harassment simply for how they dress.
This is more than culture war theatre, it's a dangerous escalation. Once again, minorities are being used as ideological battlegrounds. Once again, British politics turns to scapegoating rather than understanding. Today it's the burqa; tomorrow it will be the hijab. The day after, the turban, the kippah, the cross. We’ve seen it before when Sikh men in Southall were beaten for wearing turbans, when Jewish children faced slurs for their skullcaps, when anyone ‘visibly different’ was treated with suspicion.
This episode comes hot on the heels of the government’s latest immigration white paper, a document soaked in suspicion and steeped in the language of exclusion. From visa crackdowns to threats of deportation, the paper doubles down on the idea that immigrants are a burden rather than a benefit. Together with this renewed attack on the burqa, it forms a clear pattern: a politics increasingly defined by anti-immigrant rhetoric and identity-based fearmongering.
According to the UK Home Office, anti-Muslim hate crimes have consistently made up a significant portion of all religious hate crimes in recent years. For instance, in 2023, nearly 40–45% of religiously motivated offences were directed at Muslims.
Social media monitoring groups indicate a sharp rise in online Islamophobic content, especially during campaigns around burqa bans while different surveys show that around 60% of British Muslims report experiencing prejudice or discrimination at least once in their lifetime, ranging from verbal abuse to social exclusion.
Distraction, division, and dog whistles
Muslim Women’s Network UK (MWNUK) expressed that the comments by the newly elected MP were deeply troubling. The organisation strongly stated that the suggestion that the burkha is a threat is a tired and prejudiced trope. Muslim women who choose to wear the burqa or any other form of religious dress, are simply exercising their fundamental rights to freedom of expression and belief. The rhetoric by Sarah Pochin MP undermines social cohesion and further endangers Muslim women, who already experience disproportionate levels of hate crime and discrimination.
MWNUK CEO, Baroness Shaista Gohir, stated, “Political leaders play a crucial role in shaping societal attitudes, and it is evident that some MPs intentionally use coded language to normalise hostility towards Muslims and appeal to anti-Muslim sentiment. This pattern of anti-Muslim rhetoric has existed for some time and was particularly intensified by certain Conservative MPs during the previous government.
“This is a frightening time for Muslims — barely a week passes without a public statement reinforcing harmful stereotypes, fuelling fear and hatred, and deepening societal intolerance. Muslim women who wear the headscarf are especially vulnerable and made to feel unsafe.”
A spokesperson from Muslim Council of Britain said, "Last week in Parliament, a Reform UK MP proposed a ban on the burqa - an idea not backed by her party and widely condemned. Within hours, headlines were swirling and social media debates were raging.
“But this is not new. It's a textbook example of two well-worn strategies: "Flooding the zone" to overwhelm the public space with noise and provocation to drown out real issues and "dead cat strategy" of dropping a shocking story on the table to divert attention from urgent and uncomfortable truths.
“These tactics are designed to divide us, distract us, and derail the public conversation. And they're often deployed when there are far more pressing issues being ignored. At the Muslim Council of Britain, we refuse to be baited by manufactured outrage. We will not amplify fringe distractions.
“Instead, we will continue to focus on what matters to all Britons: cost of living crisis, the strain on our NHS and the need for unity, dignity, and real solutions. Let's not fall for distraction. Let's work together-for the common good of our country and everyone who calls it home."
Labour MP Naz Shah called Pochin’s question “click-bait, dog-whistle politics,” noting that in her Runcorn and Helsby constituency, Muslim women represent just 0.4% of the population and there may be no burqa wearers at all.
“If the local MP is concerned about crime or security, it’s probably not the imaginary woman in the burka she should be focusing on,” Shah added.
Akeela Ahmed MBE, Co-chair of the British Muslim Network, said, “It is disappointing that once again how Muslim women dress is the topic of conversation. The number of Muslim women in the UK who wear a face veil or what is known as the burqa is very tiny. Despite this, their fundamental human right to choose how they dress and what they wear is often hotly debated in the public domain with calls to “ban the burqa”. In the UK we have worked hard for democratic and liberal values, and the right for freedom of expression.
“It would go against those if the state began to tell women how they can and can’t dress. Some use these debates to homogenise and stereotype British Muslims in ways that demonise them which can lead to increased anti-Muslim hate crimes and targeted abuse of visibly British Muslim women”
Hollow protests and the politics of convenience
The whole debate around burqa has also unmasked a side of politics of convenience. For a brief period, many in the Muslim community and other ethnic minorities, Zia Yusuf, now the former Chairman of Reform UK, represented a hope that Sarah Pochin’s inflammatory call to ban the burqa would be challenged from within the party. His resignation was hailed as a rare act of political integrity: a public stand for human rights and dignity over party loyalty.
But that stand was short-lived. Within days, Yusuf quietly returned to a party that not only refused to condemn Pochin’s remarks but has since amplified its divisive rhetoric. Reform UK’s leadership issued no rebuke, no clarification — only tacit approval through silence.
Yusuf had recognised the danger, at least briefly. His resignation statement criticised the party’s descent into culture war politics and identity-based scapegoating. So what changed? Reform UK has not softened its position; if anything, it has grown more hardline and Yusuf has swiftly shifted his tone, raising troubling questions about political conviction and personal credibility.
n recent remarks, he echoed the party’s hardline stance on immigration, speaking of “unsustainable migration” and embracing border control rhetoric. In doing so, he didn’t just rejoin the party, he adopted its worldview. What little moral authority his resignation had earned evaporated with his return.
Yusuf had the opportunity to lead by example. Instead, he folded and in lending his name and platform back to Reform UK, he legitimised the very forces he briefly opposed. His selective protest, abandoned the moment it became politically costly, is more than disappointing; it is enabling. In a moment when silence is complicity, Yusuf’s reversal is worse: it signals surrender.
Yusuf has since been reassigned to lead the party’s newly minted “Doge Unit”, a cost-cutting initiative with a name seemingly inspired by Elon Musk’s branding antics. The appointment has been widely dismissed as a diversion from more pressing national debates.
Britain deserves better: from its politics, its representatives, and those who claim to speak for its diverse communities. If we do not demand more, we risk sliding deeper into a politics that feeds on fear, division, and manufactured outrage.
