Straw ‘opposes all Muslim veils’
Muslim women in the UK who wear full veils make “better, positive relations” between communities “more difficult”, Commons leader Jack Straw has said.
Concealing a face was “a visible statement of separation and of difference”, the Blackburn MP told the Lancashire Evening Telegraph.
He said he now asks women who have meetings with him to remove their veils so they can truly talk “face-to-face”.
“My concerns could be misplaced, but I think there is an issue here,” he said.[Via BBC News]
Is he right? Does the veil represent a separation and difference or his he simply being offensive and intolerant?
Either way it seems this could be the opening of a big can of worms…
Update: NewsNow feed on this here and the BBC has a brief overview of the papers reactions here. George Galloway has picked up the scent of opportunity here. Straws original article in the Lancashire Evening Telegraph is reprinted by the Guardian here. My word, name checked and linked to on the Guardian news blog! Looks like this has become a political football, other cabinet members chipping in and the Tories have something to say too.
Update 2: Here’s a the updated BBC news piece:
Cabinet Minister Jack Straw has said he would prefer Muslim women not to wear veils at all.
The Commons leader said he did not want to be “prescriptive” but he believed that covering people’s faces could make community relations more difficult.
Mr Straw has said he asks Muslim women at his Blackburn constituency surgeries if they would mind removing veils.
Some Muslim women called his remarks insulting, but other Muslims said they understood his concerns.[Via BBC News]
I’ll give you my opinion if you first tell me if this man ought to be forced to wear a veil.
http://www.canze.org.nz/forum/hosting/br-undies.jpg
Justforfun
=>”Is he right? Does the veil represent a separation and difference or his he simply being offensive and intolerant?”
On the one hand, it could be construed as interfering with an individual’s right to (peacefully) practice her religion.
On the other hand, historically the Sikh Gurus made it mandatory for any woman entering a gurdwara to remove her veil, as it was regarded by the Gurus as an unnecessary affectation to modesty, and symbolic of the oppression of women (ie. a woman should not have to veil herself just because her beauty may “inflame” or “distract” men — it’s the men’s responsibility to control themselves).
So both sides of the argument have their valid points. Tricky question and a can of worms, as Leon has already mentioned.
Full veils are stupid IMO.
tell that to darth vadar
Kisy, please, restrain yourself on this one.
My daughter is scared of veiled women - she saw one in Birmingham once when we we visited relatives after a wedding and she was frightened by a couple of burqa clad ladies in the park we went for a walk in.
The hijab is very pleasent and can even make a lady look noble but the full veil is unsettling.
I don’t have any problem with veiled women, but I am against it in certain situations - like on a driving licence. Bit like Jack Straw then, shouldn’t wonder.
A funny story about my mother, who doesn’t wear a hijab or veil. She was raised that way, but she was also raised in a very female environment, where the only males she had contact with were family members. When she went to university in Multan, on the first day she was startled to see strange men all over the place. So traumatising was this experience, she decided to wear a full burka for the entire duration of her degree course, because she was ’scared’ of men. LOL
Obviously, but then again in part it may be meant to. Wearing a turban for instance isn’t meant to be a hidden act.
A better question would be; does anyone care? I dislike the type of ’social construction’ that he seems to be advocating. So what if they look or behave differently. An individual cannot and should not be held responsible for ‘community relations’. Putting pressure on those that wear a nikab to conform is little more than social authoritarianism.
There is nothing wrong with a personal statement of separation and difference.
I wouldn’t say offensive, perhaps intolerant - as is his right. Im more curious on what the political angle on all this is.
Im more curious on what the political angle on all this is.
To be honest me too. Straw is a crafty one to be sure but this one is a little baffling (which probably means it’s strikingly obvious if looked at right)…
Perhaps now he realises he’s pretty much a spent force, he’s decided to stand down at the next election, and as his last act, he’s throwing the constituency to the wolves.
Political angle — are we so cynical that we dont believe a politician can ever simply speak from the heart? Maybe it is something he thinks needs to be discussed.
There is nothing wrong with a personal statement of separation and difference. I agree. Communities produce great pressures to conform, and we have to work hard to allow difference to flourish.
We do too, though, have to work hard to keep communication and understanding going within the community, or separation and difference can become a point of fracture. I have particular problems with, for instance, the police spending all their time in cars and offices - they become an instrument of oppression and not part of the community.
“An individual cannot and should not be held responsible for ‘community relations’.”? Well, yes they can. It does not matter if one policeman spends all day in his car, but it does if they all do. Some behaviours are acceptable in small doses (Christians with loudspeakers outside tube stations, for instance), but uncomfortable when they proliferate. So I prefer the viewpoint that we are all responsible for community relations, and that when a particular statement of separation and difference becomes sufficiently common to cause the community unease, those who are making the statement should take the unease into account.
Jack Straw is doing no more that stating a truth - that you can’t communicate fully with someone who conceals their face - like Skyping to someone with your webcam on when theirs is not.
are we so cynical that we dont believe a politician can ever simply speak from the heart?
Working within the horrid political sphere I wouldn’t call it cynicism. In my experience cabinet level MPs never just speak from the heart, especially those as experienced as Straw.
It’s the face thing that is unsettling. A hijab, a yarmulke or turban don’t cover the face. When you can’t see the face it can be very unsettling. Simple human biology isnt it? We relate by looking each other face to face.
Ralph, are you really the Lord Lucas??
Either way it seems this could be the opening of a big can of worms…
Never has a truer word been spoken.
See a face , make a prejudice. We all do it - it is hard wired into our brains, we are designed biologically to read human faces at lightening speed. If you show your face then you have at least some control about how people ’see’ you. If you wear a veil then you have passed over this responsiblity to your ‘community’ or others and how they want you to be perceived. You are no longer in control of your image.
Is that why the veil was invented?
At the other end of the spectrum - why can’t we all walk around naked? I want to be a Jain monk for the day.
Justforfun
I could never be a Jain monk, it would mean I couldnt kill all the trapped in the living room and can’t get out daddy longlegs, which is one of my favourite pastimes this time of year.
“Muslim women in the UK who wear full veils make “better, positive relations” between communities “more difficult”, ”
Not to mention making relations with Muslim men more difficult.
Definitely a can of worms - but if I read it right he is expressly saying no only to face covering. Ie; he is not objecting to hijab/headscarves in general - given that full face covering for women is not considered acceptable when performing Haj (even though it may be publicly enforced elesewhere in Saudi) this does not sound unreasonable at all.
Without wishing to stereotype anyone who wears a full veil, there can sometimes be be a whiff of arrogance given off by some women who go for the full Ninja outfit.
Straw’s comments are astonishingly patronising, and full of racist tropes (e.g. ‘our’ culture). This is a politician telling a group of people they don’t really belong because of the way they dress, with not the least concern for the perspective of the ‘other’. It caomes as part of a drip-drip of New Labour polemic targetting Muslim communities, and you have to ask yourself why. In my view, New Labour is being true to its populism and jumping on the bandwagon of Muslim as folk demon. We’re nothing special. They’ve done it to lone Mothers, asylum seekers, gypsies, you name a marginalised group, they’ve dumped on ‘em. It’s called keeping the tabloids and the white middle class voters happy.
Wasalaam
TMA
Straw’s comments are astonishingly patronising, and full of racist tropes
Ah yes, those good old ‘racist tropes’, always handy to have when you want to misrepresent an issue. What race are you, by the way?
I am reminded of an article by Matthew Parris for last year: Never mind what the woman thinks, wearing a veil is offensive to me.
He argues that wearing a full veil in a Western society is as improper as wearing shoes in a mosque.
The problem for me is simple: Why deny me your smile? I’ll show you mine if you show me yours.
Does can of worms mean upset male muslim reactionaries.
Good link Robert, Parris argument is very persuasive and reasonable.
Yakoub/Julaybib calling Straw a racist is not going to end the debate on this topic. I do not think it is racist to bring up the issue of the oppression Muslim women face within their own communities. They live in a society in which women are equal to men they should not wear garments that confer upon them a second class status that they do not deserve.
ZinZin, I agree with you that dubbing Straw a racist is wrong, but the truth is that lots of Muslim women wear the hijab willingly and proudly, and it is perfectly possible to separate one issue from the other. The hijab is a different issue from this one altogether.
As far as I can see, Straw is asking, not demanding, that women who come to see him remove the veil for the duration of the interview, not give it up all together. Seems a reasonable request, there is no suggestion that if the decline he will terminate the meeting.
We’ve covered similar topics in the past and it is fairly clear that there is no religious requirement to cover the face, so is it really a ‘muslim’ issue? I don’t think there is a law prohibiting concealing one’s face in public so presumably any one can legally wear a mask in the street. However, unless they were clearly a ’street entertainer’ or part of a demo, I suspect that it would quickly prove untenable. Anyone care to try it? I’m guessing it would evoke suspicion, discomfort and hostility regardless of your race or religion.
Hell, I refuse to engage with anyone who wears shades while talking to me, without having a good reason. Visual impairment or very bright light are good reasons. ‘It feels comfortable’ isn’t.
Why do they wear the Hijab that is what i want to Know?
Jagdeep you are confusing the issue in one regard and that is between muslim women who have made a conscious decision to do so and young girls who do so because a male relative has told them to do it.
The hijab, veil and Burkha are gartments of oppression. The oppression of female sexuality an unhealthy obsession of Muslim men sadly.
Zinzin,
In light of the fact that some Muslim women cant wear the veil or the Burka, have they been oppressed into liberation?
Why not stick to arguing for choice no matter how strange it is. Cigarettes kill, Burkahs dont. They are choices that in places like Britian people should have the right to make.
Personally I believe that women oppressive thier sexuality with thier sexual behavior which can create unhealthy obession of Muslim or any men, sadly.
Zinzin,
Thats oppress their sexuality.
Why do they wear the Hijab that is what i want to Know?
Why don’t you ask one?
Arrange to speak to a Muslim lady who wears hijab. I’m sure you are not too frightened about doing this. (Or maybe you are?) Then speak to other non hijab wearing Muslim women, and you’ll see that unlike the issue of the face veil, there are several shades of grey involved in this particular aspect of Muslim female life, and it is an issue that Muslims contend amongst themselves all the time, including the proposition that it is an instrument of male oppression. But at the same time there are many women who wear it willingly as a symbol of their religion and are independent and educated.
Here is a tip though. Lose the belligerent and eternally hectoring tone at least temporarily, if for no other reason than to get them to speak to you openly, you don’t half come across as an angry man raging like crazy sometimes. Afterwards you can resume when you tell us about your adventures, here on pickled politics
Argue for choice?
Whose choice am i arguing for? That is a question you should ask? Acid throwers?
Lose the belligerent and eternally hectoring tone at least temporarily, if for no other reason than to get them to speak to you openly, you don’t half come across as an angry man raging like crazy sometimes.
If you met me you would be surprised.
I live in town thats 99% white so opportunities for meeting Muslim women are rather limited. I did see a women wearing a veil while shopping with the family. I was tempted to ask but thought better of it after all i did not want to make a scene and talking to a woman wearing a veil is a disconcerting prospect.
Something which Straw knows about. Women in Muslim states are treated as second class citizens the veil, Burkha and hijab are symbols of this oppression.
ZinZin why don’t you search the internet and join a forum and invite some Muslim women to join you in a discussion on the issue? You don’t have to meet them in real life. The hijab is something different to the facial veil, with many shades of grey in the issues it throws up. Anyway, just a suggestion.
“i live in town thats 99% white”
Hmm. I wonder if ZinZin (who has spent most of his time on PP talking about Muslims) needs to actually start going out and meeting some instead of basing his knowledge on second hand sources.
I tried that on MPAC. It didn’t go too well if I’m honest. Maybe I should’ve used a different name?
“i live in town thats 99% white”
Hmm. I wonder if ZinZin (who has spent most of his time on PP talking about Muslims) needs to actually start going out and meeting some instead of basing his knowledge on second hand sources.
Raz it may surprise you to find out that Britain is 90% White so towns that are 99% white are quite common.
Yesterday Raz i was defending Monsieur Redeker right to freedom of speech see Conquests and conspiracy thread.
There are times when the full veil shouldn’t be allowed- driving a car, for example, for safety reasons. People’s identity will need to be checked if they sit an exam. What about entering banks? It’s as good a disguise as a- forbidden- motorcycle helmet.
However, there is one important right that should be remembered and that is the right of people to wear silly clothes for silly reasons unless there are very good reasons to stop them. another equally important right is the right to say that people are wearing silly clothes.
Instinctively I agree with Straw, but it bring into mind a while bunch of legal issues. I think there were two cases that were relevant:
1. The French ban on religious symbols in school, which I thought was great, I really believe that everyone should wear a strict uniform in school, there’s a kind of equality in that.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3619988.stm
2. The British girl that lost her case against her school to wear a jilbab.
http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2004/06/71a2d9a8-9e51-481b-acf4-131924f61039.html
I think AsifB already said that there is a kind of competition to be the most pious and that up the ante on other girls.
Anyways back to the complete removal of the veil in Bristish society: I don’t know how you would get this to work. On what grounds is the veil offence or indecent. I mean how does it constrict on others and their freedom to exercise their choice?
I’d ban it, or encourage people to drop the veil, but as someone has already said, I already don’t understand freedom of speech, now I probably don’t understand freedom of choice
Sorry i don’t understand the point you’re trying to make.
The problem you have, and the problem jack straw has is with individuals; im always uncomfortable with the whole ‘community relations’ aspect of public argument. I am responsible for myself.
What if i don’t want to smile at you? My thoughts on this are universal btw; id never suggest a skinhead had to start dressing differently.
We haven’t quite reached the totalitarian stage where the police have powers to stop people in masks, but it obviously does draw attention. Not that there is anything wrong with drawing attention to yourself, nor are you responsible for the discomfort of others (as long as you’re within the law).
This just seems like ‘teenage hoodies’ mrk II.
Btw about his motivations; isn’t gordon brown more aggressive in his pro ‘british identity’ thinking? maybe JS is trying to shift camps?
Straw certainly has plenty of apologists. I’ve worked as a Nursery teacher in State schools with 95% Muslim intake and speaking to veiled Muslim mummies came with the territory. Oddly, all were British born and hence I could speak to ‘em without bilingual support. I’m a white bloke, but that was never a problem. I didn’t ask them to remove their veil - such a suggestion strikes me as extraordinarily authoritarian.
The only problem was when one very unveiled Mother asked me not to teach her child that ‘pigs go oink’ due to pigs being porkish and thus inherently evil. The child learned it inevitably, although not through doing Three Little Pigs - that was dropped children of the more religious parents covered their eyes at the sight of a picture of a pig! The anti-oinking mum was cross, but we talked it through. The problem was that she knew little children who used ‘oink’ to deliberately annoy elderly relatives they didn’t like! Bless ‘em!!
No doubt, half the folks commenting on here would have agreed with her request and then sold the story to The Daily Mail!
Wasalaam
TMA
I find it hard to talk to someone I can’t make eye contact with, more so when the rest of their face is covered. I don’t know if I’d go as far as asking someone to remove their veil, then again I rarely encounter anyone fully veiled. I don’t know how common full veiling is in Jack Straws area but up here the hijab seems to be the most popular covering, which doesn’t have any impact on communication.
Sahil, I completely agree with you with some Muslims girls trying to out do each other in the pious-ity stakes! At uni there was a bunch of girls who went from wearing hijabs to being fully vieled one by one. I could never tell who was who when they walked past me and didn’t feel relaxed in striking up a conversation with them. It was like they were in an exclusive club, one i could never belong to. I’m sure they were nice girls, but they just seemed less approachable than if they were just wearing hijabs and wearing the usual modest dress that goes along with it.
My friends who wear hijabs just don’t prompt the same reaction. For them their hijabs are an expression of faith rather than any kind of statement about the intensity of their beliefs. At uni atleast veils seems to denote a sense of separateness while hijabs don’t. They seem to shout ‘don’t speak to me!’ and im a girl!
I wouldn’t go so far in saying that veils create community tensions because they aren’t intrinsically harmful, I guess its just that women who are fully veiled just aren’t perceived by society as having a voice and this can only be a bad thing. Stereotypes need to be broken and this can only be with open discussion. I would never propose that all women who choose to wear a veiled be ‘unveiled’ because obviously this is a matter of personal choice, BUT i guess i just wish that people didn’t do all in their power to make themselves separate.
Also about the whole Muslim women and oppression business: I have met a hell of a lot of Muslim women who cover up as a matter of personal choice and have seen at first hand how they deflect the unwanted attentions of loud-mouthed uncouth men (who are sometimes Muslim themselves…shock horror!)
BUT the problem that then arises is that I,being a non-hijabi asian girl am seen as a legitimate target for lewd comments by idiotic men…hmmm…
On the other hand, I have also come across parents who force their young girls, some 9/10 years old to wear veils and have also heard of some girls being beaten within an inch of their lives when their parents find out that they have gone to school and college and shed their scarves…
SO their are two-sides (sometimes three) to every story.
standard burqa joke:
burqa 1: Did you shoot Straw?
burqa 2: No, I could not see him.
Absolutely any veiling is fine with me except the full veil which covers all but the eyes. To me it is a matter of public safety. Since one is identified by their face, they need to show it. If a crime is committed they cannot be identified. So a court would be weighing the need for public safety, as opposed to the need for one to be able to express and live by their religion. I vote for the former in this case.
By Muhammed that going too far even by my “Islamophobic” standards.
In short Leon it is a symbol of seperation and a rejection of secular values. I find it amusing that many Muslims disapprove of western values yet a lot of immigrants to the EU are Muslim. Contradictory?
A few points to make:
1) Calling his remarks racist is silly. That is his opinion and some may not like what he’s saying but it cannot be construed as racist. It’s rather like a Muslim person saying they don’t like talking to drunk people or don’t like socialising in a pub. Does that make you racist?
2) Funny the Daily Mail could only find the guy from the IHRC to be ‘outraged’. Well, how surprising. You burp in public and that guy gets outraged.
3) Britons have an aversion to veiled people because it is an open society. I think people have a right to air their discomfort. It’s not a can of worms, it needs to be an honest discussion. But…
4) Dictating how people should dress is unnecessarily authoritarian as Kulvinder points out. If it is outlawed in schools and some companies decide they don’t want to employ veiled women that is their right too and I wouldn’t be against that. Similarly I don’t think I’d be too comfortable being operated on by a full veiled woman who finds even talking to men face-to-face an affront to her modesty. I’m sorry but I find that taking the idea of modesty a bit too far.
susan_mayer,
Are you really going to argue that every non vieled women has a voice, especially one worth listening too? You have some women out here who dont have any or the same constraints as some Muslim women have yet they are a waste of space. Why not worry about their pathology.
Bikhair - an interesting point (as usual).
My own views on the matter are summarised quite neatly by Sunny on #47.
I don’t want ‘Dr’ John Reid or anyone else from ‘New’ Labour poking their dirty little noses into our civil liberties.
Sunny,
I don’t like the idea of telling people how to dress either and agree more or less with the views you express above.
I do think Rodger in #37 raises a sensible point regarding women being fully veiled entering banks etc, where they wouldn’t be allowed to wear a crash helmet. I’ve batted it backwards and forwards and I still can’t decide between wear what you want or the banks right to have a dress code of sorts.
I realise that banks are private companies but they are also community facilities. Whilst a high street
shop requesting people keep their faces uncovered on their premises is fair enough, I’m not sure the same is true of banks and post offices. What is to stop an armed robber dressing as a veiled Muslim woman?
I think this is a very difficult issue indeed and one I’d like to see a lot more discussion on, as it represents to me a genuine conflict between individual rights and public safety.
I’m not convinced Jack Straw is right to impose such conditions on members of the public exercising their right to visit their MP, but I’m glad he brought it up and as long as it doesn’t open a massive can of worms I shall remain so.
George Galloway is outraged:
Who does Jack Straw think he is to tell his female constituents that he would prefer they disrobe before they meet him,” says Respect MP George Galloway. “For that is what this amounts to. It is a male politician telling women to wear less.
Got this from Harry’s place. Galloways got a filthy mind.
All he is saying is ’show us your face’ as the brickie in mecca would do.
Galloway’s got a bit of a ‘reputation’ with the ladies.
[politically-incorrect translation: He’s an adulterous, licentious cheating bastard.]
George Galloway is always outraged. It’s his job, in fairness it’s quite funny twice a year or so. Mind you when he was my MP I used to love getting him to send letter to the council on my behalf. They would quake in their boots.
Here’s a little gem from ‘Josh Scholar’ on Harry’s Place:
In some cases a veil could help. For instance I would rather listen to George Galloway if he was wearing a veil - made of concrete. I’ll be happy to get a trowel and apply one for him.
THIS, however, is quite disturbing. And it’s sure sign of things to come in parts of London, Bradford, Oldham, Rochdale, Leicester, Birmingham, and (probably) Manchester. To restate the obvious one more time: in a Fourth Generation world, invasion by immigrants who do not ‘fit in’ is more dangerous than invasion by the army of a foreign state.
‘War on Terror’? Nope. It’s the real war. The global ‘War on Immigration’.
You see… [*shaking his head*]… without a responsible attitude to immigration you cannot maintain consensual policing. Let me quote a small segment from the Telegraph article:
The number of attacks has risen by a third in two years. Police representatives told the newspaper Le Figaro that the “taboo” of attacking officers on patrol has been broken.
Ba-da-bing.
[How long until the Moroccans in Belgium or Holland start their own mini-intifada against the police who patrol one of their Bantustans? My prediction? 12-18 months. Maybe less.]
Amir, stop crying, scare-mongering and playing that victim card. It’s gang violence out of control as is in many parts of America… and even Mumbai! The mini-intafada rubbish is the same as Eurabia, using terminology that has no meaning. Keep predicting.
If you don’t know what ‘Fourth Generation Warfare’ is, then I suggest you read this.
It’s the future baby.
Wow, we’re on Ralph Lucas’ blogroll. Are you the real one? Cool.
I think he has a point Kulvinder, in that communication is very much about perception. We do not perceive women in veils to want to communicate (presumably that’s why they wear a veil) and hence we find it hard to communicate.
The same could apply to the police… or really anyone. I thought Jack Straw’s statement to Sky News was quite good. The guy is in a constituency with a huge Muslim population, there is no doubt he has some local support on this too.
Sunny,
‘Amir, stop crying, scare-mongering and playing that victim card’
I’m not crying. I’m not scaremongering. And I’m certainly not playing the victim card (why would I: the rioting in Paris doesn’t affect me]. If you want to carry on with this puerile ad hominem abuse – which lacks zero analysis – then go ahead. It damages your own credibility – not mine. As for my predictions, they are based on the most recent Ramadan Riots – a sequel to the 2005 Ramadan Riots.
It’s the future. Whether you like it or not.
It’s the future. Whether you like it or not.
I’m quite liking the future actually. You’re the one who complains about it all the time. The future is brown.
As for the so-called ‘Ramadan Riots’, that is once again typical of BJ and that cretin crew. Those fights are as much about Ramadan as the recent spate of high-school killings are about Easter. But ho hum, keep stirring that pot. It has no impact with me.
Sunny,
‘It’s gang violence out of control as is in many parts of America… and even Mumbai!’
Precisely. You got it in one. Except that these people do not see themselves as ‘gangsters’. They see themselves as warriors. So the ‘intifada’ label sticks. The endless and largely cynical bilge about a ‘Global War on Terrorism,’ ‘Islamic extremism,’ ‘Islamofascism,’ etc. has served more to obscure than to reveal the strategic situation the West now faces. Islam is, and always has been, a religion of territorial conquest and political self-assertion. Moslems are a proud people and will defend their turf to the hilt. They are mentally strong and remarkably brave (one possible exception: the pan-Arab period and Israel’s golden era). What has changed in recent times is that after about 300 years on the strategic defensive, following the failure of the second Turkish siege of Vienna in 1683, Islam (or ‘Islamism’ to be more precise) has resumed the strategic offensive. It is expanding outward in every direction, and much of its expansion is violent.
These are facts. Question them if you will.
Here we come face-to-face with one of Fouth Generation Warfare’s basic ingredients, the West’s moral incapacity to defend itself. No one can doubt that the rapid arrival of tens of millions of more unassimilated immigrants (who couldn’t give a flying fuck about the culture of their adopted homeland) will be catastrophic. But no one can also doubt that the usual games will be played by feeble Leftist Establishments, with the usual results of their open-borders policies: riots, rocketing crime, educational backwardness, linguistic entrenchment, alienation and irreconcilable social divisions.
But go ahead… try and gloss over.
Amir
Sunny,
‘I’m quite liking the future actually. You’re the one who complains about it all the time. The future is brown.’
Rudolf Hess – if my memory serves me correctly – said something remarkably similar to this in a speech in Berlin just after the death of Hindenburg in August 1934. Just replace: ‘The future is brown’ with ‘The future is Aryan’.
Here, in a nutshell, is your real agenda. You’re an ethnic nationalist. Just like Louis Farrakhan and David Duke, or Gary Younge and Nick Griffin. There is something spiteful, almost malevolent, about your attitudes to Caucasian people. You seem to be implying in the above segment that the eradication of white Britons is a matter of demographic hygiene? Correct? I have contributed to your blog on many, many occasions (at some length too), and yet you repeatedly put me down for the unforgivable crime of being white.
Your anal infatuation with skin-colour is quite at odds with your so-called ‘anti-racism’. It is also at odds with your previous comment (on this very thread):
“Calling his remarks racist is silly. That is his opinion and some may not like what he’s saying but it cannot be construed as racist.”
Well, yes, it does, if your name is ‘Amir’ and if he disagrees with Sunny on immigration or multiculturalism.
Grow up.
Amir
Another mistake you make:
‘Those fights are as much about Ramadan as the recent spate of high-school killings are about Easter.’
The term has nothing to do with Islamic theology. It’s a catchy nickname – like 9/11 or 7/7. The rioting occurred, funnily enough, during the holy period of Ramadan. Or are you doubting that these incidents ever took place?
Here, in a nutshell, is your real agenda. You’re an ethnic nationalist. Just like Louis Farrakhan and David Duke, or Gary Younge and Nick Griffin.
Haha! I love winding you up.
Thats about the funniest thing i’ve ever read.
The idea that either covering your face or not covering your face has no social consequences, is absurd. Well, there are some elementary reasons to be offended by the sight of a covered face. The face is not just an area of skin provided as a handy location for the eyes and three orifices – it plays a fundamental role in human identification and communication. We need to see faces in order to read the information they provide and in order to augment verbal communication. I have heard how blind people report that they feel a power imbalance when communicating with a sighted person, because they cannot see their interlocutor’s face, but their interlocutor can see their face. We like to see faces, otherwise, why would pictures of people be so liberally scattered throughout the media, alongside newspaper articles or accompanying the blurb on the inside cover of books? We need to see faces, we look at faces when we meet people, when we communicate. It is innate.
As long as women who wear these articles of clothing understand that they appear repugnant and alien to the overwhelming majority of British (and western) citizens, fine. I would encourage Jack Straw to wear a balaclava.
Its easy to criticise Amir, Sunny but i believe he is edging towards the issue of arranged marriages and through such practices the maintenence of seperatist values in Asian “Ghettos”.
I watched Robert Beckfords polemic on multiculturalism and in conversation with an asian gentleman of say 50 years of age he told him that he had arranged a marriage for his young son not a day over five with amember of his extended family.
Such attitudes mean more veiled women. Its almost a KKK approach to women ‘touch our women and you will die’ as that is part of the values behind the veil a need to protect women from impurities such as myself.
Maybe they are veiled for a more prosaic reason; they are ugly.
Sunny - well said in #47.
Nothing to add really except, while the media and all are getting upset about whether people are behaving impolitely - or being politely modest by wearing the veil, a British Citizen is about to be executed. Mirza’s case should be a warning to us all. His case has brought a bright spotlight onto the arbitary despotism that afflicts Pakistan. Is any one safe if this is what can happen. That should be of more concern to all, because it could be anyone who returns to Pakistan.
I fear his case will just be drowned out, but lets hope his supporters have the opportunity to get Mirza the justice he deserves.
Justforfun
My main problem with Straw’s comment is this.
Who the hell is he to tell people, some of whom are BRITISH CITIZENS and just choose to follow a certain faith, what to wear? It’s a complete breach of fundamental human rights.
Why is he then not telling other British women to cover up? If it works one way, then it should work the other.
What we wear is a complete reflection of who we are, our personalities and is ultimately about our own comfort.
Instead of focusing on important problems involving economics or empowerment, he’s zoned in on something which does not help anyone, including himself.
I don’t want to talk about things I don’t know about, but I do know about the Paris riots. I was there, in North Paris, at the time. And I do think that the media, particularly outside France, fitted it to their clash-of-civillisations narrative without looking at the complexities. To me, they were ghetto riots. Not all of the rioters were North African or Arab, in fact, many of these groups have quietly ascended the social ladder and have moved out to solid, peaceful working-class areas elsewhere in Paris. Many of the rioters were West African christians and white French.
Sarkozy, as Mayor of Neuilly, contributed to the appalling ghettoisation of Paris through consistent failure to build his quota of HLM (think council) housing in Neuilly, and many other Mairies had the same approach (as a small fine was the only penalty). His inflammatory talk after that, blaming ghetto-dwellers for the existence of ghettoes was bound to provoke a reaction, particularly in France where protests are much more common. The flashpoint of the death of the young lad who ran into an electric fence reminded me of the Toxteth riots. I still feel that the Paris riots had a lot more in common with Toxteth (ghettoisation, unemployment, heavy-handed policing) than any ‘intifada’.
Rakhee: would you think a Muslim MP has the right to _ask_ (not tell) women who come to ask him question not to turn up in basque and suspenders?
What if it was a female MP, and a man in a Borat-style swimsuit:
http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2006/05/SachaBaronCohenPA_228×395.jpg
Anyone who turns that ‘ask’ into a ‘tell’ is either being disingeneous or has been successfully lied to by someone with an agenda.
People wearing a full veil make me cringe when I pass them. Young girls with whale tail thongs and their boobs shoved out make me cringe. Same thing– they are both making a statement that makes me uncomfortable but I put up with it.
However I’m sick of the rolling 24 hour muslim issue of the day news. People talk about a clash of civilisations as if it is something new. However I think we are in danger of falling into the same ‘culture war’ style of politics that took over the US years ago.
This is where the economics, class and power issues have been sucked out of politics. The news is instead consumed with constant ‘culture war’ controversies — abortion, guns, flag burning, intelligent design, obscene art exhibitions and on and on. These issues cause enormous controversy because they are so associated with identity.
Our constant Islam discussions remind me of this. In contrast to popular cliche more discussion does not work things out but just leads to further entrenched defensiveness or outrage. I just hope something real comes along to knock this crap out of the papers. Sadly news value is more and more judged by how many ‘Commentators’ choose to take it up. No offence to the poor bloke locked up in Pakistan– but where is the discussion about N Korea threatening a nuclear test?
Soru, I can’t see your link and take your point about the difference between asking / telling.
That said, I stand by my point that suggesting people should wear certain clothes in order to conform to society / what politicians think is right just doesn’t sit well with me.
Cheers for the attempt at derail Amir…prick.
Anyway, I generally agree with Straw (in the point about communication between two people); interesting to see such a well thought out and naunced point, even if he is just angling for something.
That said it’s not a huge issue in my life because although I deal with various people from the many Muslim communities I rarely am faced with the veil in the manner he describes.
It’s also interesting the growing picture we’re seeing of the government policey in this area (community relations/social cohesion/multiculuralism/etc). If this was off message Downing Street would have issued a statement effectively distancing them from it, they haven’t which means he has tacit support. How does this fit into the commission on integration and the coming Commission for Equality and Human Rights?
Ruth Kelly must be thrilled that he’s bumbling onto her patch while probably trying to impress one of the Leadership contenders!
Wow, we’re on Ralph Lucas’ blogroll. Are you the real one? Cool.
Mad! It must be him (assuming the blog is actually by him) then! Crazy.
“Pickled Politics; reaches the [political] parts other blogs fail to reach”:D
Are you asking him not to say it, or telling him?
Kulvinder -
Actually, it’s a sad indictment of what passes for logic in this place. As I said in another thread, I wish people would deal with the issues raised without constant demands about people’s backgrounds and a subsequent dismissal of their arguments as ‘that of swarthy/white types who hate clean shaven/bearded white/swarthy men’.
This is the logic of Malkit X (”You are just threatened by the power of my ethnic sexuality!”).
On the issue raised in this thread - in general I would disagree with politicians intruding into our lives in this way. One ‘remedy’ would be to aim for a society where no felt they had to be veiled, because I do think the veil ‘matters’ in the sense that your experience of other people and their experience of you is different.
As a reductio ad absurdum consider a society where everyone was veiled all the time - the fact is we are all products of our evolution, and facial expressions are an important component of our interactions with each other.
Soru, eh?
lots of people make lots of other people cringe. some outfits make others cringe etc. it’s a fair enough reaction but there’s already enough conformity about dress codes. who needs more?
Pro-hijab countries may think and probably do - that the rest of us ought to cover up more. if we don’t like that - and i certainly don’t - i don’t see that we can impose similar ideas back.
people can say that the hijab is a form of conformity dress code and in some countries it definitely is and i’m totally for people to have choice whether they want to wear it or not. Telling someone not to wear something is just as negative -in terms of liberty- as telling them they have to wear it. Both aspects use social pressure to get individuals to conform to some notions of what people ought to wear. individuals ought to be able to wear what they damn well like.
look at all the difficulty men in offices had this summer - it’s roasting outside but how many could get away with showing up in shorts and t-shirt? aggravated by the fact that women have it much easier! in this case - definitely.
in any case this approach will always backfire. Instead suggesting instead the opposite - that individuals shouldn’t have to conform to stringent dresscodes and be able to make up their own minds - and trying to encourage such freedom - is the way to go.
States ought not to interfere with what the population may or may not be wearing - such nitpicky interfering behaviour. This is what i think about the Mullahs and same goes for the non-Mullahs.
Agree with S about my responsibilities to deal with my own cringing. And Straw has a right to deal with it in his polite own way. In fact I agree with S #73 for the rest as well.
But to give my impression of the political angle Straw is getting at (to Kulvinder #9 and Leon #10), it strikes me as a similar campaign to the pre-election Tory “are you thinking what we’re thinking?”
Since media values seem to be driving the selection of news to fit a narrative of Muslim threats and the death of multiculturalism, it would not be surprising if a lot of people answer “yes, this is true, thank goodness for a politician with the guts to say so”.
Before anyone says the obvious, I don’t think there is a media conspiracy. I saw a documentary on Burma’s internal repression during sehri today. It’s there, but where will be the resonance? If Straw even raised it, it would not be seen as a relevant issue for the general news, but as a speech aimed at a particular constituency. The excitement of a broader narrative is missing.
My feeling that Islam is the new “other” for political operators to use to unite people behind their preferred kinds of Western or British or Christian or other identities. And other political operators would like to include Muslims in their political campaigns perhaps against the political class, or particular ideologies. And some Muslim identity politics have the same kinds of dynamics.
leon:
It was a reply to Rakhee, making the point that (in my opinion) it’s ok to _ask_ Straw to stop adding to the pile of scary Muslim-of-the-day stories, and hypocritical and counterproductive to _tell_ him that he can’t say what he said.
S
However I’m sick of the rolling 24 hour muslim issue of the day news.
Not the only one. I think the manatees who make up the jokes for Family Guy by picking up random balls (only makes sense if you watch South Park), are doing the same for the BBC.
Muslim…veil…Jack Straw
Muslim…Police…Israeli Embassy
Muslim…Army…NHS.
Muslim…Milk…Berkshire
On the veil issue, Olvier Letwin had it right yesterday when he said Jack Straw overstepped the mark by including the term “separation” in his criticism. It is “different” from what most of the population, but then again it doesn’t harm anyone. I don’t see how community relations will be improved by dropping the veil. At a guess, I’m sure there must be some idiot M.P in the 60s, before curry became a national cuisine and extractor fans widely accessible, who told Asian immigrants to stop cooking curries because it left a pungent odour in the air. (It was a common excuse for Asians to be refused renting places) What about wearing shoes indoors? I go bare-foot in the office (at Uni), should I cover up?
“Why is he then not telling other British women to cover up? If it works one way, then it should work the other. ”
Rakhee, muslims can and do tell other British women to cover up. It does work the other way.
Yes, people have the right to wear veils as a general rule. There are circumstances when it might be impolite, discourteous or even dangerous. I listed some examples above. A few more thoughts:
Any circumstances where people need clear and unimpeded vision- driving, as I said, for example. Mr. Straw chose the exanmple of face-to-face conversation as the one that he personally had problems with and I think it goes further. Any job that requires it might make wearing a veil a serious problem. Teachers, especially with small children, use their faces to communicate. If I was choosing a teacher one who insisted on wearing a veil would have to have other talents that far outweighed their rivals before I considered them. Doctors and nurses too. As a general rule; many deaf and hard-of-hearing people depend on lip-reading, which is rather difficult if someone wears a veil.
As for the claims made for veils, they certainly don’t act as concealment and enable people to pass unnoticed in Britain- the wearers might as well go round flapping a banner reading “DON’T LOOK AT ME!”
Story has been updated due to Straw broadening his point.
Obviously it’s not a ‘Muslim’ issue. and in any case Straw wasn’t suggesting they take the hijab off their hair but rather the bit that covers up the face minus the eyes.
the blanket term ‘removing the veil’ is misleading. either Straw should be careful of what he says or editors again are up to trying to get screaming headlines. removing the veil is ambiguous as it could mean take off your headscarf or it could mean leave your headscarf on and just take the face veil thingie off.
i’m curious as to who are all these veiled up women Straw has meetings with on a regular basis?!
raz - what she had NEVER seen a man??
goes to show segregation can lead to a big shock!
jai interesting - what you say about gurdwaras. certainly people shouldn’t have an idea that the onus is on women - obviously men should ‘control’ themselves. Regardless of what people want to wear - it should not be seen as something that if you don’t wear it you’re somehow asking for men to mess you around.
Ha ha it makes me laugh when these blokes who like to see themselves as strong authoritarian types - that Qaradawi for instance - come along and say ‘oh but we can’t have women leading prayer’. Why not? ‘oh we men would get aroused’. HA HA HA is that funny or what - what kind of wusses does he want everyone to think men are??! I mean COME ON> if they’re that pathetic they shouldn’t be allowed positions of authority - ‘why they might get aroused’.. by some unsuspecting woman, what then if a Mata Hari type comes along?! Good argument against them i reckon - use their own tricks against them. Say sth along the line..well according to Qaradawi - men are so weak they can’t be trusted and should not be allowed out of their houses without their wives/or girlfriends or something. Ho ho ho. They can’t have their cake and eat it.
If i were a man i’d be well pissed off at comments like that from Qaradawi and other folks. What a nerve - he ought to just speak for himself.
Sonia #87 - very funny. I’m going to use that. Let’s shut all the emotionally undisciplined men indoors for the sake of protecting the Ummah.
Sonia,
There was an interesting article on SM during the summer about a book an Asian woman had written sometime in the early 20th century, which involved a fictional story where the situation was reversed, ie. men were kept in purdah/seclusion, in “male only” quarters called “mardanas” (as opposed to “zenanas”).
I can’t remember if this was in the main article or if one of the subsequent commenters said this, but someone somewhere made the superb point that if men were so inflamed by the sight of unveiled women that the latter had be kept in seclusion “for their own safety”, then perhaps it is such men who need to be locked up, not the women.
Very interesting way of thinking about it, eh ? Quite thought-provoking.
^^^I wrote the post above before reading Arif’s comment (I hand’t clicked “refresh”), but it’s amusing how we both came up with the same point simultaneously !
“hand’t” = hadn’t (obviously)
Yeah I’m with you guys. Everyday there is a crisis on the news involving Muslims. There should be a moratorium on Muslim news for a week or something. These days it’s like:
And the headlines today, some controversy over Islam. And in the midlands, something horrible happened involving Muslims. Elsewhere, controversy over comments by a Muslim. And in other news, there have been protests by angry Muslims over comments about Islam. Elsewhere, some Muslims have been arrested. And finally, a Muslim family in Bolton is generating electricity by making their grandfather walk on a treadmill connected to a dynamo and creating energy saving devices to combat global warming as well as helping him get his blood pressure down.(obligatory ‘feel good’ story inserted by the news room to make sure that not all Muslim stories are negative)….great story! Oh wait, before we go just some breaking news, some Muslims have been arrested. We’ll bring you more in the ten o’clock news, or switch over to BBC News 24, for more news on Muslim controversy and the latest on the inevitable arrests next week involving Islam and Muslims
But it’s like a black character says in Nirpal Dhaliwal’s novel - Muslims have taken the heat off black men, because before 9/11 the negative spotlight was always on them!!
For me the problem is the reaction, not the comments themselves. I was a bit surprised that the niqab bothers Straw. It’s not been my experience that women who choose to wear the niqab as well as the hijab are handicapped by it in any way.
If Muslim women are being blocked from playing a full and fair part in society, it’s not going to be the niqab that’s the problem, let alone the cause.
But there’s been all this ‘waving of hands’ (Tnx Baroness Uddin) at his comments, by a few Muslims but – you can tell an election’s in the air – ALL of Straw’s political opponents.
I gather that Straw never demands that women remove their veils, he simply, it seems, invites them to do so and is ready to live with it if they say no. And there are plenty of Muslims who believe the niqab makes many non-Muslims uncomfortable, not just Straw.
Straw seems to be ready to accept that discomfort out of respect for the personal choice of the woman concerned. But that doesn’t mean that Straw shouldn’t be free to talk about what he thinks about the niqab, whether as fact of life or statement of religious commitment.
Maybe they are veiled for a more prosaic reason; they are ugly
You see ZinZin, that just proves you are obnoxious and a very hostile and rude man, and that you don’t really give a damn about Muslim women at all. Posing as their righteous advocate, in reality you’re just an obnoxious fart.
“My feeling that Islam is the new “other” for political operators to use to unite people behind their preferred kinds of Western or British or Christian or other identities”
I don’t think that a sinister intent is the main reason there is saturation of ‘muslim news’ right now, although I accept some may wish to divide and rule. Yet the main fuel is the editorial need to lead with human interest politics, and especially ‘opinion’ issues that divide. I’m not saying this is trivial, as these cases often revolve around fundamental philosophical questions of competing rights. Yet it crowds out other important topics and it snowballs and is self feeding. Are muslims angry asks poll? — well if we keep prodding them I’m sure they will be.
More particularly I think the BBC is increasingly acting like a tabloid. They need to take long hard look at themselves for displacing the headline North Korea nuclear test story with the Jack Straw remark. OK people are interested but they’re also interested in tits and bums. It’s not the BBCs job to pander.
S, I do not see it as a sinister intent behind the news. I still think there are a broad number of issues raised in the media, but the news agenda is becoming noticeably Muslim-focused. What I think makes the difference are the resonance of stories for those who put them together and those who respond with interest to them.
It seems to me that the feedback of interest is promoting “Muslim/multiculturalism not working”-type stories. And I reckon the reason for this resonance not in a sinister intent, but in a normal, human anxiety about our identities. An anxiety which has political as well as other consequences, so it can be used as a political resource. In this case it seems to define such a large part of the political terrain, with a tone of recriminations, which would suit any politician with a cold warrior kind of mentality on either side. It does not suit bridge-builders on either side.
Amir: 4th generation warfare… good grief!
Still… “the future is brown”? Hmmm… is that because of global warming?
Anyhow, I’m sure most of us are grateful Straw has brought the issue of the niqab out into the open — regardless of his careerist agenda.
I for one can’t stand the naqib and feel a sense of contempt towards anyone who wears one (Is it contempt towards the individual person or the particularly narrow value-system behind it — probably both). I can’t help it… if a person thinks I’m not worthy of even the most minimal social interaction then they’re being fucking rude to me, end of.
If they want to look like idiots then that’s up to them (as it is with Hassidics, nuns, Amishes, grungies and those yoots with the incredibly low-hanging jeans and visible pants). But if they want to make some kind of arrogant statement to boot, then they can fuck off. I mean we’re not talking about that little fellah in East is East who retreats into his parka out of bashfulness.
Vote winner? You better believe it.
Am I the only person here who thought that Straw saying this on the RADIO was hilariously funny? I couldn’t even see his eyes
who cares what some has been politician voted in through an uneducated mosque network has to say on a muslim matter.
Yes, I’m real.
S (96) is half right. The Daily Mail plays that game - entirely cynically in my view. They have found that frightening people makes for greater circulation, and (looking back over the last 30 years) they and their like have succeeded - when I was 20 I hitch-hiked everywhere, and it was v easy to get a ride. Now everyone’s scared.
Two reasons why I am interested in Straw’s sayings. Firstly the whole question of how we build what Letwin called the ‘neighbourly society’, and Cameron called something else (I’m not up to speed on the Cameroon jargon) is central to my politics. It seems to me that the solution is to look for lots of little ways of making us more comfortable with being out and involved in the community. Secondly I (and I suspect many libertarian politicians) find ourselves at a bit of a loss in dealing with Islam at home and abroad - we never had to bother about it before, and now we find ourselves ignorant and without a compass.
So it gets a bit obsessive. Reading this blog is a help, though.
I can’t help it… if a person thinks I’m not worthy of even the most minimal social interaction then they’re being fucking rude to me, end of.
Eh? How do you know they’re doing it because they think you’re not worthy of seeing their face??
arif and jai
yep.
i’d be interested in reading that book!
the argument that ‘we men’ must be protected from ‘temptation’ because we’re physically blah blah has been going for so long..( and obviously not just in Muslim societies - more like all patriarchal ones!and that crappy apple story..) it’s provided a good excuse for all sorts of things. like not being able to be faithful etc.
it’d be interesting and funny to see how people would react to turning it on its head. one the one hand we have this biological excuse offered up but at the same time we also have a biological excuse offered up for male supremacy. gotta hand it to whoever thought that one up!
there was this email re: an open letter to the home secretary and it pointed to this ridiculous site - London school of islamics - heh heh and i looked it up and one of their primary functions appear to be anti-women propaganda. one thread was titled ‘NEVER TRUST A WOMAN!’ Goodness what nutters - that sounds like it would really encourage mental stability. Of course the most annoying thing was if you responded it just turned your post into nonsense. ( the aim of that organization appears to be to ‘educate the British public about Islam’ …
Secondly I (and I suspect many libertarian politicians) find ourselves at a bit of a loss in dealing with Islam at home and abroad - we never had to bother about it before, and now we find ourselves ignorant and without a compass.
Nice piece of honesty that, it’s turning into a bit of political minefield with the press/media angles, government policies and various “community” groups all attempting to set or control the agenda…
My take on veil wearing is so non-pc, that I fully expect volleys of abuse from everyone, but here it is.
The sheer vanity of women (and their men folk), who think that they are so irresistable, that a glimpse of their hair or face is going to drive passing male strangers into paroxysms of desire leaves me breathless. I feel pretty much the same about Orthodox Jewish women who cover their hair.
I know what modest dress is, and am certainly not against it, but this is past modesty, and into a league of its own.
*Sits back and girds loins against brickbats*
*Sits back and girds loins against brickbats*
Eh?
As for the rest of what you said, I didn’t think it was controversial in the slightest. I’m not sure it’s about vanity, that said isn’t beauty in the eye of the beholder thus all women are beautiful to someone (probably kismet)?
It probably won’t be the first brickbat, but I’ll try to oblige you Chairwoman.
You assume that the reason for wearing a niqab is because they are considered fantastically irresistible.
It could be that they believe that this is the correct interpretation of modesty from a particular line of jurisprudence, despite wishing it was not so.
It could be that they feel it is comfortable for them, and enables some women to go out more confidently than otherwise. Who knows?
People have their own reasons and rationalisations. Most of the time I do things and act out of habit, comfort, conformity and would be at a loss to justify it to others. Should I make the effort if I’m not causing any harm? Sure, I try to make people feel comfortable, but at the same time I know some people will never be satisfied, so there have to be boundaries.
People make their boundaries differently. Some wear niqab and that contributes to minor tensions in society. Some pass judgment on them and contribute tensions themselves. We’re still mostly good people trying our best.
Some interesting thoughts on this here.
This bit caught my attention:
Could race be any more of a hot ‘news’ topic these days? Jack Straw had obviously planned this out in advance, relishing the prospect of getting his mug plastered across posters all over the world for a few days as he tries to raise his profile in that piece-of-crap he calls a political party.
Anybody who watched Jack Straw get hammered on Question time can see that this worm of a man is simply intetrested in glorifying himself in the public arena and will do anything to make that happen. This comment had the desired reaction, and again has re-diverted away from more important and pressing issues…like how the FUCK can Tony Blair and John Prescott still be leading this country??
What’s amazing to me is the ‘by the books’ approach that the ‘news media’ have now turned into a fine art…this 10-sec turnover, in which they literally (like a film-maker) get the 2-shot on everything…The comments…the angry reactions….more comments…more selective angry comments…copy history infomercial…paste ‘authority’ viewpoint…End..
I feel sorry for sisters who are wearing the Burqa today, they are again going to be discriminated for doing……..nothing at all!
Anyone seen the far-more telling and interesting story on CNN, about a student starting a ‘white man’s club’ due to feeling like an ethnic minority at his university campus? http://www.cnn.com
That’s an interesting story, because the guy rightly says “if there can be an afro-american society, why can’t there be a caucasian one?”
I liked this story, entirely because I had one opinion reading the headline and a completely different one after watching the report…..
Leon. One doesn’t need to know one is rude to be rude. I mean I often know I’m being rude, but sometimes I don’t and backtrack if I sense I have caused offense. Do you never do that?
Let me put it in way that you might find easier to understand: one doesn’t need to know one is prejudiced to be prejudiced. Does that tug at a chord?
Refusing to show your face to your neighbours, let alone the person you are speaking to, is bad manners IMNSHO.
One could add that it is also a symbol of repression and likely mingerdom. And yes, that would be rude.
Chairwoman you don’t say anything controversial or that most people disagree with here. Nobody has a problem with modest clothing and hijabs etc, but they do think there is something deeply unsettling and pathological about veiling your face and it moves into another league by setting up the ultimate barrier between people. It is simply unnerving. If I walked into a room and half the people were wearing black balaclavas I would feel intimidated and insulted. It’s the same thing.
One of the most interesting thing is the amount of Muslims on the CiF threads who are saying that they disagree with the face veil - this is obviously a thing that is debated within the Muslim community and something that many of them oppose.
Leon, I think Mike Marqusee misses the point a little in his article.
Leon - LOL at last remark.
I’m sure that all the veil-wearers and their supporters will say it’s not about vanity, but that must come into it, that and dominence (My women. Mine. So desirable, a glimpse of a tendril of her hair will drive a man mad with lust!).
Refusing to show your face to your neighbours, let alone the person you are speaking to, is bad manners
I feel a similar unease but never thought they did it on purpose. If they’re not aware of it being rude or causing discomfort are they really to blame? I wouldn’t hold it against them if it wasn’t purposeful but would if it was.
Anyway, you’re moving the goal posts, you said:
I can’t help it… if a person thinks I’m not worthy of even the most minimal social interaction then they’re being fucking rude to me, end of.
That’s an assumption on your part. I’ve never seen any data (or experienced this) that those wearing the veil are conciously doing so to offend. I’d like someone to show me it if I’ve missed it somewhere…
I’m sure that all the veil-wearers and their supporters will say it’s not about vanity, but that must come into it, that and dominence (My women. Mine. So desirable, a glimpse of a tendril of her hair will drive a man mad with lust!).
How are you sure that vanity must come into it, what are you basing this on?
If the veil is to prevent lust and thoughts of fornication against the woman, what I can’t understand is why shouldnt Muslim men also wear the veil in this day and age, when homosexuality is so widespread (around 10% apparently!)
I mean how do all the handsome and gorgeous brown eyed Muslim studs know they are not inciting lewd and sexual thoughts amongst gay men, who want to do various carnal things to them? Provoking them into fantasies of undressing these gorgeous specimens of manhood and doing naughty things of a homosexual pornographic nature to their unsheathed buttocks?
And what about the nymphomaniacs out there, who can’t resist the beauty and gorgeousness of the Muslim men they see, and lust after them, causing them to have sinful thoughts?
The real debate we should be having is not about Muslim women veiling themselves, but why more Muslim men also do not wear the facial veil, to save gays and nymphomaniacs from the temptation they so shamelessly promote by walking around unveiled.
Can we have a debate on this please?
Moving the goalposts? What, you mean arguing that rudeness is not defined by cognitive awareness just as prejudice isn’t?
I don’t think so. You’re ‘aving a bubble mate.
PFM, heh.
For me the problem is the reaction, not the comments themselves. I was a bit surprised that the niqab bothers Straw. It’s not been my experience that women who choose to wear the niqab as well as the hijab are handicapped by it in any way.
Rohan - agreed. But I think the reaction is to be expected, from the Muslim commentators and from the Daily Mail crowd.
I’m not so sure John Straw waded into this because of the atmosphere. He has a huge Muslim constituency and it’s not in his interests to alienate them - election or no election (he still has to win the seat back).
The problem is more that even having a discussion about this subject throws all sane conversation out of the window and people play to expected roles - Muslims become defensive, the Daily Mail crowd start showing exaggerated signs of relief.
It’s not as if the Daily Mail crowd is really interested in empowering Muslim women. That is merely an excuse. But similarly it seems the Muslim commentators don’t want to engage in a meaningful dialogue accepting that maybe some people do find it hard to deal with the veil. To them it’s a sign of Islamophobia when, if you watch an interview with Straw, anyone can see its rubbish.
So we are faced (once again) with a facile debate. So it looks as if the clash of dialogue over such issues is to be expected.
The whole shtick, from too beautiful to be seen, to look how observant I am.
Conspicuous acts of piety in themselves are vanity. My theology’s pretty erratic, I think that has a Jesuit ring to it.