BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 05:54 PM

On the slight diversion of alcohol and the Koran, I believe the best translation of the relevent phrase into English is a prohibition against drunkenless, not drinking. It is just the conservative interpretaition that turns this into a complete ban.

Moderation would be a wonderful thing.....

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Oct 06 - 02:14 AM

While what you say has merit, Big Mick "This violates a very important tenet of these women's faith", I would add that it shows great deal of respect for the Muslim faith of both men and women.

It was glib.

Jack Straw can prefer anything he wants, but that doesn't mean he should state his personal preferences aloud, in public. It shows disrespect for the cultural beliefs and traditions of others.

Jack Straw's perspective is ethno-centric.

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST,Tunesmith
Date: 16 Oct 06 - 03:55 AM

This is pc gone absolutely crazy! Here are a few points! 1. Women wearing the veil can't function properly in British society because, for one reason, they can't - won't - be employed by the vast majority of businesses 2. their veil creates a barrier between themselves and mainstream British life. 3. Their veils create unease and suspicion within British society. 4. Such obvious - in your face - expressions of religious beliefs are offensive to many people.5. The suggestion that showing their faces to men will drive men to become unhealthily lustful is an insult to the male population. 6. The wearing of the veil is offensive to many British women as it is a symbol of the subjugation of muslim women. 7. The veil is a big hindrance in efforts to integrate muslims into British society.

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 16 Oct 06 - 05:54 AM

And what about the airport worker in Ireland who has just been sacked for wearing a cross or cruxifix (reports seem to differ)?

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Oct 06 - 06:42 AM

I think tunesmith's point about refusing to show her face to her male colleagues makes this woman's position untenable. In our society such demonisation of men is deeply offensive. I for one would refuse to work with her and would be very angry to be considered a threat.

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Oct 06 - 06:46 AM

Richard, you are thinking of the British Airways lady from UK who was suspended for wearing a very small cross.
Hijabs and bangles are allowed because it is impractical to hide them.

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Oct 06 - 06:50 AM

cross story and picture

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 16 Oct 06 - 12:21 PM

memyself.. while I may be thinking out loud, I am following a logical conclusion that follows from the ruling that Police OFficers of Sikh religion in Canada are allowed to wear a turban.
If that is the case a female muslim police officer could insist on wearing a veil as well.
the chances of it coming to this are quite slim.
the reason it doesnt come up so much is not that these women cant of wont be employed - it is probably likely that their husbands wont allow them to work. (Id say there are two reasons some women wear the veil - either they are for traditional religious reasons - or it has become a kind of symbol of protest - in which religious orthodoxy is taken up as a rebellion against the west and parents who dont have a strong religious background.

- on a slightly different note
the tradition of wearing head scarfs in greek orthodox religions - such as one would find in Russia and other parts of Eastern Europe.
also was originally for religious reasons, but later became a cultural tradition. My grandmother wore a head scarf in what was Czechoslovakia (where the religion was mostly Roman Catholic - but over a thousand years ago was Greek Orthodox, in fact Moravia in the 8th century is where the Greek missionaries Cyril (hence Cyrillic) and Methodius arrived.)

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: ard mhacha
Date: 17 Oct 06 - 06:18 AM

A reall fascinating article on wearing the Niqab in todays Guardian, by Moslem reporter Zaiba Malik.

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Oct 06 - 07:24 AM

A headscarf is classed as religious clothing... a veil is most definitely NOT!

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST, Topsie
Date: 17 Oct 06 - 08:13 AM

I remember friends who had been to Turkey in the sixties telling me they had seen girls wearing veils and miniskirts - an interesting interpretation of the requirement for 'modest clothing'.

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 17 Oct 06 - 08:41 AM

FDollowing that logic, you could wear a veil, and nothing else. Yor body may not be modestly dressed, but you can't tell who it is....

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST,Andy
Date: 17 Oct 06 - 12:10 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST, Topsie
Date: 17 Oct 06 - 01:05 PM

That reminds me of the (apocryphal?) story about an Oxford don and several male students sunbathing naked on the river bank. When a punt full of young ladies came past, the studens hurriedly covered up their nether regions, but the don calmly held a book in front of his face, saying,
"People recognise ME by my FACE. I don't know about you fellows."

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST,Andy
Date: 17 Oct 06 - 01:23 PM

Sorry for the above,hit the wrong key!
However, to continue and in response/support to Tunesmith's posting, I agree that this is PC gone a bit too far. Tunesmith points out that:-

(1) Women veil wearers can't function properly in British society because they can't, or won't be employed by the majority of businesses.

Question. Do they really want to be employed? If not, why not?

(2) The veil creates a barrier between themselves and British life.

Question. Is that the intention?

(7) The veil is a hindrance to the integration of muslims into Britain.

Question. Do they really want to integrate?

As a person who works with people from many countries, of many religious beliefs, customs and cultures, I genuinely feel that there are numbers within these, who do not wish to be employed,or engaged. They appear to be comfortable in maintaining barriers between themselves and mainstream British life and have little desire to integrate, preferring to exist on 'the fringes'. In Yorkshire there are various cities, in which certain areas are microcosms of other countries. These areas have existed for years as I recall personally. The folk there maintain their traditional ways of life and have little need or wish to engage effectively with mainstream British society. The people there are majority Asian (or other). The language spoken in the street and home is of Asian origin (or other). The customs observed are of their own country/culture. They watch T.V programmes beamed from their own country by satellite. They need little or no spoken English to exist quite comfortably within their own surroundings, which they rarely leave.In short, these folks have social, family, community life and entertainment without the need to engage with the mainstream. Considering all this, is it not surprising that some of these people feel inclined to stick two fingers up at our way of life and sensibilities? They don't need us!

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Rasener
Date: 17 Oct 06 - 01:35 PM

Good kick em out the country then.

Daily Express quote "98% of readers answering a poll, want the veil to be removed"

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Rasener
Date: 17 Oct 06 - 02:02 PM

Tony Blair

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Oct 06 - 02:49 PM

Guest Andy
Your description reminds me of many British people living in Spain, speaking English among themselves and hardly bothering to learn Spanish, eating English food and watching Sky TV.

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Rasener
Date: 17 Oct 06 - 03:51 PM

Guest
But they do go on the beach with almost nowt on and a hanky on their head LOL

When I lived in Holland, I spoke Dutch and ate Dutch food and married a Dutch girl and integrated. And why not, I was in their country.

However i do agree with you Guest, becuase I saw so many Brits come to Holland, never learn't the language, stuck with all the other Brits and then got homesick after 6 months and went home within a year.

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Nickhere
Date: 17 Oct 06 - 05:06 PM

Again it has been suggested that the veil is a hindrance to communication. For some people, sunglasses are a hindrance to communication - that's one of the reasons why they are so popular with Spooks (the idea is that if you can't see the eyes, it's much harder to guess the emotions and feelings). There's a lot more to communication than simply watching someone's lips move (unless, fair enough, you are a lip reader - someone already mentioned that in relation to a TV interview, subtitles would probably do fine in that case). Indeed, the next time you are talking to someone try to focus just on their lips alone - and just watch as surreality creeps in. The nose has only a marginal role to play in communication as far as I know. On the whole, I'd prefer to see someone's eyes if I had to choose, which the veil allows. A smile can be seen in the eyes as much as on the mouth. And is anyone asking Muslim womemn what they'd like to do? It seems, as I've suggested before, that what THEY want for themselves is the last item on the agenda. Let 'em wear veils and crosses and skullcaps, and show ourselves to be the tolerant society we claim to be! If we are not allowed to show our beliefs in public, the next thing we won't be allowed express our beliefs verbally in 'case they offend someone'. We will be allowed to express them at home in private, of course, talking to ourselves like nutters. Meanwhile the material, secular world will be free to publicly express its opinions and beliefs as it likes.

BTW: Guest said ") better throw out the phone / computer, then;

No there are different types of communication..."

Yes, indeed, and one of them might be talking to someoen who is wearing a veil if they want to. Sometimes I have to talk to someone who is wearing a FCUK T-shirt, which I find offensive (whatever the name of the company, it clearly chosen for its resemblance to the word f**K, and I hate bad language). Should I ask them to remove it or cover it up?

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: ard mhacha
Date: 18 Oct 06 - 05:15 PM

One thing to be said in the veil wearers favour, they are not included in the loud-mouthed, drunken sluts that take over our towns every weekend.

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Paul Burke
Date: 19 Oct 06 - 03:48 AM

What disturbs me is the alliance that seems to be developing between left- wing feminists (who want women free to discard the veil) and the right (who want to spite the Moslems). The feminists would in other cases angrily reject attempts to "blame the victim", but because of another agenda are quite happy to see a social panic build up on the basis of someone "disturbing people by looking different".

I'd call that a problem for those who are being disturbed, just as having long hair was a problem for the rednecks, not the hippies.

So- look at who your allies are in this controversy- the tabloids, the New Labour nutcases who took us into the Counter-Jihad, the BNP. If that doesn't give you to think, you've lost it.

A prediction- although Labour's agenda in this is to improve their showing in Oldham, Blackburn (why did I think of Blackburn?) and Barking, the result will be a huge upsurge in suipport for racism and the BNP.

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 19 Oct 06 - 12:58 PM

Just because you happen to support something that some less than nice people do, it doesn't automatically make you wrong. Think of the west, stalin and Hitler for the biggest example of this...

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Scoville
Date: 19 Oct 06 - 01:57 PM

If the veil is a hindrance to integration of Muslims in Britain, isn't it just as big a problem that Brits (Americans, whoever) can't seem to get over it?

Most religions who do not follow modern Westernized fashion do so partly to separate themselves from the prevailing culture, anyway (this goes for the Amish, Mennonites, etc., as well). Heck, it applies to punks and goths, too, even though they aren't a religion. So what if they want to be separated? Why should they be forced to dress like everyone else?

And while I think that if you move to another country you ought to be prepared to at least learn the language, driving rules, etc., I'm opposed to forced integration. It usually happens on its own after a couple of generations, anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Oct 06 - 02:12 PM

I still think the big point is; how is she making her male colleagues feel. There's something totally sexist going on here. She will expose her face to children and women but not to a male teacher with whom she shares the staff room. She will not unveil for the children if a male teacher is in the room. How must these men feel?
To be regarded as so unclean, unmoral and licentious that they would feel lust for her at the sight of her face? That she is so aware of their masculinity rather than their personality that she cannot bring herself to trust them?
Someone should reverse this discrimination and try to see a man's point of view.Surely they (we) too have a case?

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Nickhere
Date: 19 Oct 06 - 04:29 PM

Scoville asks: "So what if they want to be separated? Why should they be forced to dress like everyone else?"

That's a good point. My belief is that western governments are currently drifting to the right. This does not mean that they necessarily oppose traditionally 'leftist' agendas such as euthanasia, abortion etc., but rather they are very keen on tightening the grip of centralised government on all civil and moral power. We see more and more of the Nanny state these days, where central government and its associated branches and departments feel more and more entitled to poke their noses into every aspect of our lives and regulate them. People have often commented on the 'Eurocracy', the way in which the EU increases interference in all aspects of our lives. National governments simply follow suit, or implement the will of the EU like some kind of regional governers. This is the form of government that inherently distrusts its civilian population, fears it to an extent, and consequently feels the need to exercise tight control over it. The population is relegated to the status of 'minors' with government doing all the thinking. They would prefer to see a population that thinks, acts, buys, sells and now, dresses, in a predictable and more-or-less uniform way. It reminds me of the ideology of the blue boiler suits worn by the average "comrade in the people's republic of China".
There are at least two ways to account for this: 1) central humanistic government is taking over from the medieval form of the Church, the only institution to exercise such levels of control over European people in former times. This view sees central government as a new kind of humanistic church, its legal codes as a new kind of Holy scripture for a secular godless world. 2) another view is that government is basically on the payroll, or at least in the pocket of big buisness. 'Big Buisness' would like to see a more uniform population, since it is easier to market products to a predictable market. Most religions clash with this kind of materialism by focussing on another world, and so present a direct challenge to this materialistic ideology. This might be the principal reason so many of the main religions are coming under attack - that expressions of religious affiliation are considered to be offensive. They are indeed offensive - to the sensibilities of a materialist, since they directly challenge that view by stressing materialism cannot satisfy the needs of the soul. It's easy to see how this message directly contradicts most advertising, which promises to fulfil all your needs (while simultaneously creating them!).

There are probably plenty of other theories about why integration is top-of-the-agenda (though wasn't the pluralism we so prided ourselves on all about embarcing difference, or perhaps it was simply a way to challenge the monolithic religions) such as Islamophobia etc.,

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Oct 06 - 05:22 PM

There are many of us secluarists without souls who also don't believe in materialism. History shows dissident communities inside a majority community always leads to violence and eventually separation and hatreds. We should have learned from humanity's history by now. There is no reason for thinking Britain will be any different. If you want to know just where we are going read "Defying Hitler" by Sebastian Heffner. And yes, before you attack me, it is possible to stand outside human behaviour and see what is happening again without being a supporter of the results.

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Nickhere
Date: 19 Oct 06 - 06:51 PM

Secularists have souls,too. No intention of attacking you!

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: dianavan
Date: 19 Oct 06 - 09:13 PM

The veil is no different than the regalia of any other religion. I find it creepy to talk to men in three piece suits and men in uniform. It interferes with my ability to freely communicate with them but I don't state my opinions in the media.

You're wrong about feminists being right-wing allies. If a woman wants to wear a veil, its her business. Nobody, however, should be forced to wear the veil by a government. That does not give us the right to invade Muslim countries. If so, we should be attacking Saudi Arabia. Politician use religion as an excuse to wage war when they are trying to gain an economic advantage.

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Oct 06 - 09:37 PM

For a sklightly different angle on all this:

The Burka Band

"An all singing burka clad girl group from Afghanistan could become the new Spice Girls as they make waves across Europe.
The Burka Band are a heavy metal trio who sing and rap clad in burka's (the full hijab which covers a woman's whole body including her face) and are Afghanistan's first serious pop band since the fall of the Taliban.
The mystery group from Kabul was created by a German record company who were in the country holding music workshops for locals."

And here they are in action from YouTube.

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Oct 06 - 09:39 PM

That GUEST there was me - I used a different browser and forgot to log on for it.

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST,memyself
Date: 19 Oct 06 - 10:52 PM

I've been away for awhile; checking back in I find that I've been asked if I have any of my own arguments as opposed to criticisms of other people's arguments. In response, I'll say that I have made an argument or two in the course of this thread, but since my own thoughts on the matter seem to jibe with those Nickhere has expressed so eloquently, I've seen no need to say much more. But since I've been challenged, I'll make a few points to clarify my own stance:

- I don't know exactly what went on in Mr Straw's office, and to be honest, I don't really care. I think this is more another instance of the news media making fools of a whole lot of people than anything else.

- I don't think there's anything wrong with people being bothered by the veil, wishing it would go away, and coming on here and bitching about it. However, I am disturbed by the suggestion made in a number of posts, overtly or by implication, that government should force women not to wear veils. This indicates either an alarming lack of understanding of democracy or an alarming desire for an authoritarian political system.

- What do I think should be done? Nothing in particular - get on with your lives, and if you have dealings with a woman in a veil, treat her with the same respect and consideration you would give anyone else and get on with it.

I think that's about all I'll say on the subject, since this seems to have become yet another thread in which the argument isn't going anywhere ...

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Oct 06 - 11:46 PM

The veil is no different than the regalia of any other religion.

It is. It covers the face. Most people in the UK do not like communicating in front of people whose faces are covered up. It makes them feel uneasy and can make communication difficult.

At least a little bit of common sense was applied with this ruling today.

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Oct 06 - 04:17 AM

It was I who challenged you to make your own arguments, memyself, so thanks ever so much for replying - And with very good arguments too.

The point you make about the press is one I liked particularly. It is a dichotomy, when we talk about freedoms, that the freedom of the press is regularly discussed. The press must of course be free but to what extent? Should they be free, as in this case, to stir up bad feelings against a sector of the community that could well do without it? I think not. I stopped believeing the press and all 'news' coverage many years ago when I realised that every single one of them gives only their version of the truth.

Knowing what is going on is one thing. Being told what to think is another. The press do indeed have an awful lot to answer for. What we see about riots and demonstrations in the Moslem coutries lead me to conclude that their press is as bad as ours as well. If we can believe what we see of course;-)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Paul Burke
Date: 20 Oct 06 - 05:08 AM

The press will stir up whatever feelings they feel will sell papers to their chosen market, and if the state and others are not prepared to apply discrimination laws, there's nothing to stop them.

But lets make the sides parts of the issue clear:

Forcing anybody to dress in a particular way, unless its really necessary, is wrong. Some categories of occupation require the public to know who they are dealing with, so policemen, the forces, firemen, staff in hospitals, need to be obvious. Others can be dealt with by an identifying badge.

So forcing women to wear veils is wrong. It is to be classed with undesirable (to us) cultural customs like genital mutilation, "honour" killings, the treatment of people as property etc.

And forcing women NOT to wear veils is wrong, unless overridden by necessity. It comes into the same category as banning the use of Welsh by schoolchildren and hangin' men and women for the wearin' of the green.

Support women who discard the veil if they want to. Support women who wear the veil if they want to. It's really as easy as that.

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Tom Hamilton frae Saltcoats Scotland
Date: 20 Oct 06 - 05:15 AM

in the koran (spelt wrong) there is no mention that women have to wear the veil, so they are disobeying Allah who is their god. however if they want to wear a veil then so be it.

mind you this teacher was in a room for her interview and there was a man present but she hadn't her weil on.

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Oct 06 - 06:00 AM

I've raised this point above and it's still not being addressed. it was raised, peripherally on Question Time last night. That is that the veil is an insult to men in our society. This teacher would only wear it in the presence of men because she feels she cannot trust them sexually. How does this make them, and the rest of us feel? To be constantly given the signal that we are in some way unclean is not part of our society. Could I ask women to reverse the feeling? How would they feel if men made a visible statement of their uncleanliness and threat every time they entered a room?

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Paul Burke
Date: 20 Oct 06 - 08:36 AM

"..to be constantly given the signal that we are in some way unclean is not part of our society.."

Yes it is. Try going and sitting next to the kid's playground, and monitor the reactions. People have been cautioned by the police just for taking photographs of children who were not their own, in order to identify persistent vandals.

Many women feel threatened by the soft porn image portrayed by advertising, and we should support those who stand out against it.

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST,memyself
Date: 20 Oct 06 - 08:36 AM

Okay, I said I wasn't going to carry on with this, but since Guest seems to really want a response, here are two - no, three - for the price of none:

1) You must feel unusually insecure if you take the veil as a personal insult.

2) I am even more insecure, and I take any clothing on women as an insult to me. By covering their bodies, women are forever giving me the message that I'm a sex-crazed maniac.

3) More seriously, I would assume that the veil has as much to do with a woman's personal modesty as with "distrust" of men (putting aside the issue of whether she has been bullied into wearing the veil). It is extremely self-centric, if I may put it that way, to think that the veil can be nothing but a statement about you.

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Oct 06 - 08:41 AM

Not about me, but about men and their attitudes to us. In their own country the men MAY be untrustworthy because of their attitude to women, but as western women seem to have no problem with us I don't see why those choosing to be part of our society should have a problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Paul Burke
Date: 20 Oct 06 - 08:50 AM

Ah, I see what GUEST's problem is. He thinks that Moslems are all immigrants.

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Oct 06 - 09:41 AM

>I>no mention that women have to wear the veil, so they are disobeying Allah No mention of carrots or potatoes in the Koran either. That doesn't mean eating them involves disobeying God. (Allah is just the Arabic word for "God" - as used by Arab speaking Christians as well.)

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Oct 06 - 09:42 AM

no mention that women have to wear the veil, so they are disobeying Allah No mention of carrots or potatoes in the Koran either. That doesn't mean eating them involves disobeying God. (Allah is just the Arabic word for "God" - as used by Arab speaking Christians as well.)

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST,memyself
Date: 20 Oct 06 - 11:03 AM

God doesn't like it when people repeat themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Oct 06 - 11:07 AM

Too many potatos and carrots can make you repeat...

:D (tG)

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST,memyself
Date: 21 Oct 06 - 08:35 AM

I guess there's not enough real news these last few days - the Canadian media (well, CBC radio at least) has apparently decided to try to turn this matter into a public hub-bub here. I just heard one of those "some people think" reports - you know, "in Britain, a Muslim woman was suspended from her job for refusing to remove her veil - some people think the same issue could be raised here" - then they run around Toronto asking supposed experts and authorities what they think about this, hoping that some silly person will say something provocative that they can use to stir up excitement and cheap news. Jeesh! To quote a wise man, "I shall retire to Bedlam". (Okay, kids: who was that wise man?)

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Mr Happy
Date: 22 Oct 06 - 06:37 AM

Ms. Aishah Azmi seems inconsistent in her dress code.

Apparently wore western style apparel for job interview - no veil even though panel member included a male.

Guess she knew it would've been unlikely she'd've been considered for the position.

I feel she has a number of options if she wants to remain employed:

1.Observe employers dress code.


2. Apply to work in establishment for people/children with visual impairments.

3. Continue to wear her mask - but seek work in an occupation or geographical region where wearing such garb is not an issue.

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Ian
Date: 23 Oct 06 - 03:54 AM

Am I correct in thinking that the phrase "To Take the Veil" means that a woman has become a novice nun. A Christion mode of dress the veil is worn as part of the habit.
The practice remains in use with the veil being part of the wedding dress in that christian ceremony. The veil is removed only after the couple are wed.

As the veil has been worn in the UK since the crusades, At that time worn more as a fashion item before intergrating it into part of the uniform of a group within the christian religion. I would have thought that we would have got used to it by now.

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: dianavan
Date: 24 Oct 06 - 01:50 AM

I was thinking the same thing, Ian.

...and I do understand why a woman would wear a veil.

If you are an attractive, young woman, it is very difficult to be taken seriously. Men are much more interested in your appearance than what is in your brain or what you have to say. In some ways, a veil becomes an equalizer.

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST,Dazbo
Date: 24 Oct 06 - 03:28 AM

my first 200:-)