As debate has decended to a level of emotion I hadn’t anticipated, let me try to put across a few points. Why do we get so worked up with the Muslim issues -isn’t that the bigger question?? Why do you all care? If the answer is our society is turning into a less open society, then you would do better to turn your attention to er.. let’s see Trident, NHS, causes of poverty but we seem much happier to scrutinise the antics of a minority within a minority within a minority. Try scrutinising the antics of majority, the powerful who have the power to really mess up cohesion, common civility and then we can look at the Muslims. At moment attention on Muslims is disporportionte.

Would Jack Straw have considered David’s Blunkett’s blindness a threat to communication?

Kulvinder – you made the point on disabilities much more admirably than I can…

On issue of Muslims threatening free speech – if it’s open season on all religion, why don’t we all start insulting , jesting all religions, then we can in fact, claim to have an open society where all religions are scrutinised.

Amir

Framing the debate as though Muslims are threatening free speech is as good as saying the BNP are representing freedom of expression through hate speech.

As I understand it – even the chief architect of free speech, J S Mill wouldn’t gone as far as saying that unfettered free speech doesn’t exist in this country – why should we deny this principle of harm against Muslims? Any reason? Open society or open season??

Muslims needing protecting against harmful effects of free speech isn’t paternalistic unless you argue that whole basis and terms on which western liberalism is paternalistic – some would argue liberalism is paternalistic, and so don’t buy into liberalism. That ‘s position held by libertarians.

My point is that Muslims have the right to protest, as any group do, against offensive sentiments against their religion. Why we do all get upset when Muslims peacefully exercise their right to challenge? I am not talking here about the extremists in the Islamic camp whose actions are criminal – but the actions of ordinary Muslims when they see denigration of their faith. As bloggers on this site know – there is religious protection for some faith groups in this country and not all. No prizes for guessing which religion it is that isn’t protected. This isn’t demanding paternalism, or asking to be treated like kids. It’s asking for equal treatment and value as members of British society. Point is Muslims don’t have it or feel it and are forever reaping the pain from what Osama and his criminal friends created.

Amir

On integration…..Hmmm. there is a lot of emotion in your response, not sure I do emotions… But yes, there are scores of books written on pros and cons of integration – you have a view, others don’t like it. But it’s not a prima facie duty for all immigrants to ‘integrate’ by law, thank god. Integration was dumped in the 1960s for a reason – it seems odd that young people seem keen on reviving it. Not sure what you mean by turning inner cities into little Indias . I thought this was the preferred strategy for UK tourism and regeneration – to pull in money. Money speaks which is why the likes of Birmingham and London are keen to capitalise on Little Indias, Chinas and whatever else is exotic. You’re on the wrong side of money, capital, commerce – dare i say it – ‘integration’.

El Cid

Liberty spokesperson made the reference to the hijab but perhaps it was meant to refer to the nikab.

From what I am to understand, the wearing of the burkah or the veil for muslim women has nothing to do with religion. There is nothing in the Koran that asks women to cover themselves, let alone enshrouding themselves, with the exception of their eyes. It is pure tribal tradition that asks this of Muslim women, and nothing more.

Whenever it has arisen british judges have refused to sanctify a particular viewpoint/interpratation of religious practise.

To ask that western nations accept readily and fully the total enshroudment of Muslim women, without concern for the foreign nature of such a practice,is arrogant and misguided. The demand that open societies embrace and encourage a practice that many consider oppressive shows direct disregard for western culture.

What do you mean by west? How are you defining it? There is no requirement in law for them to act in a manner you say is foreign and oppressive. They are not showing any disregard for british culture in the only truely measurable use of that word.

Mr. Straw has asked that women in full veil, remove it when in conversation. His claim that it impedes full conversation is valid. Despite the fact that some would like to believe that the eyes are the window to the soul, many who choose to live openly would prefer to speak to an individual, unencumbered by the cloak of an over zealous, “religious” dictum.

Communication isn’t necessarily dependant on facial expression in the manner you think. Apart from the fact we’re not even communicating or expressing ideas to one another at this moment with anything approaching the contact someone wearing the nikab would have; you’ve ignored those with disabilities who cannot join in ‘full conversation’ yet can contribute as fully as anyone else. Stephen Hawking can neither speak nor use facial expressions at a level suitable for ‘flowing open conversation’ yet his teaching ability isn’t questioned. The ability to express ideas and interact with someone else isn’t dependant on clothing.

To ask that western nations accept readily and fully the total enshroudment of Muslim women, without concern for the foreign nature of such a practice,is arrogant and misguided. The demand that open societies embrace and encourage a practice that many consider oppressive shows direct disregard for western culture.

Mr. Straw has asked that women in full veil, remove it when in conversation. His claim that it impedes full conversation is valid. Despite the fact that some would like to believe that the eyes are the window to the soul, many who choose to live openly would prefer to speak to an individual, unencumbered by the cloak of an over zealous, “religious” dictum.

Imran Khans argument is that Muslims are under threat and their sensibilities should be given higher priority than our rights to offend or insult them.

Rowshun agreeing with such arguments as put forward by Khan does Muslims no favours it suggets that they are immature children who need an over-protective parent. Treat Muslims as adults and allow them and everyone else freedom of speech airing our complaints and grievances about each other is better in the long run than holding our tongue and hope the problem goes away.

If immigrants don’t want to integrate then they shouldn’t be here in the first place. If these “poor” and “oppressed” peoples want to turn OUR inner-city space into miniature versions of Bombay or Islamabad, then they should move to Bombay or Islamabad

That isn’t saying anything though, like the phrase ‘political correctness’ its just fluff. What do you mean by integrate? They’re free to live as they wish provided they break no laws. The law is the only objectively measurable ‘culture’ we have. It is quite literally how we do things. Your claim to ownership of that land is not recognised, their freedom to turn their houses into little mumbais or islamabads is.

I’ve never understood the argument for ‘integration’ particularly when people start to compare Saudi Arabia (a dictatorial monarchy) to the UK (a constitutional one), those that go there obey the laws of the land as they are required to. Those that come here do likewise. Ad-hoc arguments about how you want people to live are meaningless. You don’t matter.

Raz,
Bollox.

(I) ‘…the debate was framed as though Muslims were threatening freedom of speech in this country’

Actually, that is how “reality” frames the debate. Islam makes very big claims for itself. In its art, there is a total taboo on representing the naked body, and, in some instances, the human form tout court. The prohibition on picturing the prophet is apparently absolute according to Sunni Islam. So is the prohibition on pork and alcohol or, in some Moslem societies, music or dancing or pre-marital sex. Free speech is regarded as a criminal act if it used to denigrate the prophet or scold the religion. Okay, fair enough. Let a devout Moslem abstain rigorously from all these. But if he or she claims the right to make me abstain as well, he offers the clearest possible warning and proof of an illiberal intent. Thanks to three decades of mass immigration and idiotic multiculturalism, we have helped create a miasmic element of illiberal intolerance dressed up as ‘Global Civility’ (as well as a repulsive campaign to demonize Jews dressed up as so-called “anti-Zionism”). Note: That’s what happens when you fuck about with the cultural fabric of a free society.

(II) ‘I think Shami did well to expose the hypocracy in arguments that ask Muslims to ‘integrate’ (I hated this word in the 60s and hate it now)’

If immigrants don’t want to integrate then they shouldn’t be here in the first place. If these “poor” and “oppressed” peoples want to turn OUR inner-city space into miniature versions of Bombay or Islamabad, then they should move to Bombay or Islamabad. To think otherwise is to think like an imperialist. I hate imperialism. And so did your comrades back in the 1960s.

Amir

I think Shami did well to expose the hypocracy in arguments that ask Muslims to ‘integrate’ (I hated this word in the 60s and hate it now) but by the same token we attack their right to peacefully co-exist and practice their religion.

I don’t have a link otherwise would’ve posted it.

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/article1870842.ece

Disgraceful.

Just that im a pervert and i would really appreciate it if wimmin were not allowed to wear veils, its spoils all my fun!

veil teacher suspended

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-9184353144432289069&q=islam

who’s got issues with the ‘niqab’ – the full veil thing is what we’re talking – well some people do – why shouldn’t some muslims have issues with it? goodnes ims sure lots of different individuals have different opinions. check out the link i pasted in 241.

theres nothing wrong with women who wear hijab expressing their opinions of wanting their sisters to wear the hijab. wether they do or not is their own decision. which elders are you talking about? the same ones who chased white women, drank alcohol and the women who sit around watching tv and gossipping? lol.

the issue is this, most british people find the idea of not being able to make a judgement on a person purely by seeing their face uncomfortable. this is brought about culture, the culture of judging a person through their appearance. in other words prejudice. they are not able to make that decision.

just as the muslim woman is arguing to wear the veil. the british people are asking to be allowed to make that judgement on the way a person looks.

and btw who are the non-english who have issues with the hijab? indian (hindus/sikhs?)

For starting a debate Straw is criticised. The reaction of the said Knobhead is irrelevant as Straw didn’t tell him to do it. His reaction is his responsibility not Straws.

However it is nice to see you blame Straw for someone elses actions. Muslim fundis and their apologists blame the murders and other crimes committed in the name of being offended onto the individual giving the initial offence.