RUTH Davidson has backed calls for Boris Johnson to apologise over his "gratuitously offensive" comments on the burka.
The Scottish Conservative leader said she believes the former foreign secretary should say sorry for comparing women wearing face-covering veils to bank robbers and letter boxes.
READ MORE: Desperate Boris tries to go full Trump in the age of the anti-role model
Davidson is the latest senior Tory to condemn Johnson for the remarks after Prime Minister Theresa May also urged him to apologise.
She was speaking during an "in conversation" event with former Liberal leader Lord Steel at the Fringe by the Sea in North Berwick, East Lothian, and described the comments as "poor form".
READ MORE: Boris is a laughing stock and Scotland isn’t feeling the love
Davidson said that while she agrees with the sentiment of the newspaper article in which Johnson made the comments – that face-covering veils should not be banned – his remarks were offensive.
"I think it's also not been shown through history that when men make sweeping statements about what women should or shouldn't wear that it goes well for them," she said.
"I think that this wasn't an off-the-cuff slip, he wrote a column, he knew exactly what he was doing and I think it crossed from being provocative and starting a debate and actually it became rude and gratuitous."
She added of his comments: "I think he should apologise for them.
"It doesn't bode well, and we've seen it in the arguments and the debate over anti-Semitism in Labour, of how we've got to a point in 2018 where we're supposed to be so much better at accepting and discussing and being open about different faiths, religions, backgrounds, social classes, all of these things, and actually we've become slightly even more siloed and treating them differently.
"If you use the analogy of Christianity, would you ever write in the Telegraph that you should have a debate about banning Christians from wearing crucifixes?
"It's the same argument but it's in a different faith so why are the parameters different for one faith and not the other?
"That's where I think you start getting these questions of what constitutes anti-Semitism, what constitutes Islamophobia, and if you have that comparator in your mind then that perhaps is a better guidance for not what you should or shouldn't say, but how you frame the debate.
"I agree with the point of his piece which was you shouldn't ban the burka, the niqab, the hijab – I don't think we should ban it – but what he said was a gratuitously offensive way of saying it."
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel