BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 07 Oct 06 - 08:16 AM

Whoosh indeed Freda!
G.

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Oct 06 - 08:23 AM

It's it supid. A guest makes a polite and valid point and members start ganing up because of no name.

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: freda underhill
Date: 07 Oct 06 - 08:23 AM

i smell a fish..

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Oct 06 - 08:26 AM

I smell a thread that has been taken off topic by members.

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 07 Oct 06 - 08:45 AM

It's a storm in a teacup. Jack Straw was making a perfectly reasonable request.

I don't even mind if it's timing is directly related to Labour party internal politics, he's right, and right to say something. He's one of the best ministers we've had in the last 9 years, not that that's hard, give how usless a bunch of numpties most of them are..

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: puck
Date: 07 Oct 06 - 08:46 AM

A simple request by Jack Straw to remove a barrier to communication on an equal level, has led the media to 'hype it up' into controversy. I heard the matter being misquoted on several radio 4 news and current affairs progs. that brought the subject up during the course of yesterday, and it was being 'wound up'by the press and other politicians and political commentators to the point that the Labour Party then have to issue a statement that Jack Straw's comments do not reflect Labour Party policy. Jack Straw made a REQUEST not a demand, to an individual in an individual cicumstance in which he found himself, and felt uncomfortable with. The lady in this case felt uncomfortable with complying...OK. Jack Straw was not making a demand or threat - just a request, thats all.
Bad news day yesterday perhaps!!!!

P

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Emma B
Date: 07 Oct 06 - 08:52 AM

As freda herself pointed out the wearing of face coverings (in the form of Balaclavas or similar) is frequently used to disguise the face when commiting acts of robbery and or violence. It is not too suprising then that the deliberate disguising of features is viewed by many in the West on a scale of discomfort through suspicion to outright threat.

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: DMcG
Date: 07 Oct 06 - 11:29 AM

(again his lassy)

I find it very excessive to claim that the wearing of a veil is demoralising to women and so is wrong-a Western feminist view may make such a statement obvious but essentially both feminism and muslim are beliefs, not knowledge, resulting the the fact their is no right answer, it is a personal preference.

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Oct 06 - 11:46 AM

What about priests hiding behind a screen during confession?

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Amos
Date: 07 Oct 06 - 12:01 PM

Posturing that it is not human communication, but Man Versus Mystery.

In small communities, probably a lot safer, though.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST,Roger Knowles
Date: 07 Oct 06 - 12:07 PM

I believe Mustapha Lemal Bey had the veil problem when he wanted Turkey women to abolish wearing one, back in the 1930s.
He simply decreed that all female sex industry workers (I'm politically correct, here) had to wear a veil at all times.
In about a week hardly a veil was to be seen in the country.
Just an observation.

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Amos
Date: 07 Oct 06 - 12:32 PM

Now, there's a politician who knew something about human nature!! LOL


A

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Mrs.Duck
Date: 07 Oct 06 - 12:36 PM

The media has been misquoting Jack Straw totally claiming he said muslim women should not wear the full veil as it was a symbol of the division between the cultures. In reality he just felt that one to one conversation was difficult through a veil. None of the women asked if they would mind removing it refused!

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Oct 06 - 02:39 PM

I think this letter from today's Guardian sums up what I had in mind when I said it was essentially a question of good manners:

I regularly used to smile and say hello to a woman at my son's school who wears a niqab, but I gave up when I realised I had no idea if I was getting anything back - a smile, an acknowledgement of my greeting. As one of the 9 million people in the UK with a hearing loss, I wouldn't have heard her if she'd said anything. I need to see someone's face to have a conversation with them. I would like to make friends, but it's been made impossible for me.

Fiona Pickett
London

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: pdq
Date: 07 Oct 06 - 02:48 PM

This topic lends new meaning to the term "veiled threat".

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Oct 06 - 05:15 PM

As no political party or Jack Straw, are in any position to affect whether or not Muslem women wear the veil,we must ask ourselves why Mr Straw made his "innocent remark" in today's political/racial climate.....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Oct 06 - 06:29 PM

Why not just take it at face value for once? If you're expected to advising or helping people, and someone comes to see you to talk about some problem and theyt are wearing something that masks their face it seems perfectly reasonable to ask if they'd mind taking it off.

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Oct 06 - 06:34 PM

I don't think so, but faith is touching McGrath.

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST,folk1e
Date: 07 Oct 06 - 10:14 PM

I am going to hate myself for this but..... should all the "blacked up" morris men remove their traditional disguise?
However it does not seem that the wearers of the hadjib give me as much validity as the demand for themselves. As I understand it the wearing of the hadjib is to prevent me ( a male other than Husband or relative) from seeing their face and becoming arroused! I think that what goes on in my head is my business and resent others from displaying their preconcepions about me openly for all to see. I am willing for them to wear the dress but wish that they would understand the reason behind my opposition to it!

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST,memyself
Date: 08 Oct 06 - 12:08 AM

"As one of the 9 million people in the UK with a hearing loss, I wouldn't have heard her if she'd said anything. I need to see someone's face to have a conversation with them."

So, this Jack Straw is deaf then, is he? Now I understand.

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

Freda is quite right ...Jack Straw has brought this business up because he intends to stand as deputy leader of the New Labour party and wants to appear muscular and hard..and take on John Reid in the process.

Already a women in a veil in Liverpool has had her veil pulled off by some racist thug who shouted racist abuse at her.How the BNP will love all this publicity as it makes their racism respectable.

And this Jack Straw is the politician who is up to his neck in the blood of thousands of muslim Iraqis ,veiled and unveiled, who were slaughtered when "Shock And Awe" was unleashed with devastating consequences three years ago.

When Condi Rice came to visit his constituency a few months ago she and Straw were met by thousands of veiled and unveiled women, and muslim ,christian and secular people marching together protesting at their involvement in the bloodbath that is Iraq.
Straw is a basically a chancer and a creep! How very New Labour.
ifor

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Strollin' Johnny
Date: 08 Oct 06 - 09:36 AM

As a non-muslim, I am insulted by the apparent view of muslim males that, should my eyes alight upon the countenance of one of their women, I would immediately become a sex-crazed animal. I am going out now to riot, burn effigies, and issue death threats against muslim leaders. :-)

I'm having a laugh of course, but it does seem that a small proportion of muslims (ably supported by the usual suspects from the Department of Politically-Correct Foolishness) are actively seeking things to be insulted and offended by. I'd bet my Martin (which is worth more than my crummy pension) that the vast majority of muslims in the UK can see nothing at all wrong with what was a perfectly reasonable and polite request by Jack Straw.

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Oct 06 - 01:00 PM

So, this Jack Straw is deaf then, is he?

In fact Jack Straw is deaf in one ear. Typically inconsiderate of the man isn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: wysiwyg
Date: 08 Oct 06 - 01:11 PM

If he's partially deaf, he needs to consider adaptive equipment and strategies. Are we all to shout in the presence of every hard of hearng person we encounter? I think not. (Fun at a concert, eh? "WHAT DID HE SAY, WHAT'S HE SINGING?")

A person with a disability can easily create a workable approach and STILL respect people with whom they deal professionally. In this case, for example, an interpreter on Straw's staff might convey what the veil makes inaudible, and then Straw can read THEIR lips. "Mr. Straw is hard of hearing and your veil makes it hard for him to understand you, so I will help him."

Of course then a person might choose to make Mr. Straw's life a bit easier and remove the veil, but to require it-- to hold one's willingness to help hostage to compliance-- is an abuse of power. He's not a private individual, like an attorney who only takes cases from people who fit his parameters. If he is an MP then he should represent ALL his constituents, and it's on HIM to do his best with whatever communication skill or style they have.

This is not a matter of PC-- it's a matter of basic courtesy and appropriate behavior from a public official.

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Oct 06 - 01:27 PM

WYSIWYG all he said he does is asks people if the would consider removing the veil. I don't undertand all the fuss. Me thinks others are making their own agendas out of this.

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST,Joe Moran
Date: 08 Oct 06 - 01:31 PM

If the British government were to follow the vast majority of the British publics' wishes, they would ban the veil! As another poster pointed out, a person wearing the veil wouldn't get through passport control and be allowed into the country! Certain Muslims in Britain are going to have to decide if they want to integrate or not, because they will never integrate into British life while wearing a veil!

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Bernard
Date: 08 Oct 06 - 01:56 PM

Here's a thought...

I'm a sound engineer, and occasionally have to work on sound systems in mosques. Either repairing, or a new install, but that's by the by.

I am expected to take off any footgear - including safety boots - before entering. I wonder how the insurance company would deal with a claim should I suffer injury to my feet because I wasn't wearing safety boots? No jokes about it being 'an act of God', please!

More to the point, would I be within my rights to refuse to remove my footgear? After all, I'm not Muslim (atheist, as it happens), so I'm only respecting their wishes.

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST,memyself
Date: 08 Oct 06 - 01:59 PM

What possilbe legal basis could there be for banning the veil? Personally, I would rather see a ban on pants that offer the world a view down the wearer's buttocks whenever they crouch or sit (plumbers excepted for professional reasons). Or how about a ban on public displays of stomach-churning body-piercings?

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Oct 06 - 02:02 PM

As WYSIWYG said "a person might choose to make Mr. Straw's life a bit easier and remove the veil." It seems to me that, unless there was some overweening religious or ethical requirement not to do so, that is what good manners would indicate.

But I don't know where that assumption that he was "requiring" them to do so comes from.

This has been repeatedly stated by Jack Straw, that what was involved was a request and not a demand. And even in this thread that has been emphasised by quite a number of people. And I don't think anyone has come up with any evidence to suggest that Jack Straw was lying about tat, or that the rest of us have been misled.

There are people who have used this as an opportunity to attack the whole idea that women should have the right to wear veils if they choose to, and I think that is way over the top. If someone going about daily life chooses to wear something that makes them feel more private, such as a veil, that is perfectly reasonable. I'd rather like to have that option myself sometimes - and if they ever made a law against it I'd probably start doing it.

But that is a bit different from entering into a situation where communication is centrally involved, such as an interview or conversation, and doing something that interferes with communucation. Asking a lady to put aside her veil in those circumstances is really no different from asking someone to raise their voice rather than whispering. Not a requirement, a perfectly reasonable request, which the other party has every right to decline to comply with. Good manners are not obligatory.

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Oct 06 - 02:04 PM

Interesting. I think it would be reasonable for you to point out that you can't do the work without your safety boots. What does the law say regarding health and safety?

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Oct 06 - 02:10 PM

What possilbe legal basis could there be for banning the veil?

Security at least in some circumstances. Also, other countries have banned the veil for other reasons. See (here).

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Oct 06 - 02:18 PM

There doesn't actually have to be a "legal basis" for daft laws. I'd hope that such a law would get struck down as being an infringement of human rights, but that is slightly different.

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: NH Dave
Date: 08 Oct 06 - 03:08 PM

One of our states, Florida, IIRC, banned women from wearing obscuring veils when posing for a driver's license picture, and gutted it out over the ensuing,but very local furor, including the court challenge. The results, if you want a Florida driver's licens, you'd better come prepared to have your face photographed. No picture, no license; although they DO have provisions for people physically removed from the licensing bureaus like military stationed in other states or countries to get a no-picture driving license; with the understanding that they will convert it to a picture license the next time they are in the state. MY onwn state, NH, has similar provisons, too.

Dave

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Peace
Date: 08 Oct 06 - 03:31 PM

Had I been Straw, and known the veils would be worn, I would have worn a belaclava for the interview. That way there would have been no problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Micca
Date: 08 Oct 06 - 03:58 PM

Bernard, It could be(and probably would be) argued that by removing your safety equipment you were negligent and thus you contributed to any injury that might arise, and therefore any compensation would be reduced proportionately. I wouldnt like to stand up, in court, to defend myself or to prosecute an injury claim saying the Imam told me to take off my safety gear as I was entering a Holy Place, especially if It was a direct contravention of the HSWA or MHSWA.

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Oct 06 - 04:00 PM

I do not think a law could be drafted and enforced that banned such a garment.
There could be localised security restrictions, as with crash helmets and hoodies.
Like McGrath, many of us would challenge such a law because it would violate one of our basic values.
A person has the absolute right to choose, BUT everyone else has the right to criticise that choice if they disapprove.

The problem seems to me to be that Muslims think that their beliefs are not open to discussion, question or criticism.
They want the freedom to deny freedom of speech.

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST,memyself
Date: 08 Oct 06 - 04:19 PM

I think it is important, and not pedantic, not to speak of "Muslims" as some homogeneous monolith - we're talking here about "a few" or "some" or "many" or perhaps even "most", but surely not "all", aren't we?

We know what can happen when all members of a certain nationality, ethnicity and/or religion are tarred with the same brush.

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Oct 06 - 04:21 PM

True. The talk should center on the devious bastards who control Muslims with archaic rules and stupid laws, and also on the sanity of those who blindly follow.

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST,ifor
Date: 08 Oct 06 - 04:28 PM

I have to take issue with Keith of Hertford who makes the most sweeping generalisations of what muslims apparently"think".
This is absurd.In the same ways that there are all kinds of christians across the world so there re all kinds of muslims and indeed people of other faiths.
In the Middle East western powers have sustained dictatorships in office for many years .These dictatorships like the Saudis and the Shah in Iran are /were kept in power for decades with arms and training provided by the likes of the USA.Free speech ,yes I am sure they would like it in Saudi Arabia a country where the UK supplies billions of pounds worth of arms and where British fatcats have grown ever wealthier.
Jack Straw and his colleagues are busy expelling people back to countries like Iraq and jailing kids who are here as asylum seekers.How about showing them a little bit of freedom and tolerance?

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST,memyself
Date: 08 Oct 06 - 04:31 PM

"the devious bastards who control Muslims" -

All Muslims?

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Oct 06 - 04:53 PM

Read the statement: "the devious bastards who control Muslims with archaic rules and stupid laws, and also on the sanity of those who blindly follow."

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Oct 06 - 05:14 PM

There are no "devious bastards who control Muslims", any more than there are devious bastards who "control Jews" or "control Christians". It just doesn't work like that.

Not that there is any shortage of devious bastards in all three sister religions, and in the others, as well as in the various secular quasi-religions. But though they might have a lot of influence on some people, it's pretty limited across the board.

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Bizibod
Date: 08 Oct 06 - 05:31 PM

Oh for goodness sake !
Let good manners and common- sense prevail.PLEASE!

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Oct 06 - 05:34 PM

'There are no "devious bastards who control Muslims", any more than there are devious bastards who "control Jews" or "control Christians".'

Tell that to the Imams who sanction suicide bombings.

'Not that there is any shortage of devious bastards in all three sister religions, and in the others, as well as in the various secular quasi-religions.'

First you say there are none, then you say there are some. Clear as a bell.

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

Guest sez: Read the statement: "the devious bastards who control Muslims with archaic rules and stupid laws, and also on the sanity of those who blindly follow."

Yes, Guest, I read the statement. It says that "Muslims", without qualification, are being controlled. It also indicates a sub-group of Muslims: "those who blindly follow." So are you saying that all Muslims are being controlled, including those who do NOT "blindly follow" (and who, therefore, must be coerced or persuaded by argument to follow)? Or do you allow that there may be Muslims who are not being controlled (and who are not following, blindly or otherwise)? That is my question.

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Oct 06 - 07:03 PM

'Or do you allow that there may be Muslims who are not being controlled (and who are not following, blindly or otherwise)? That is my question.'

Of course I do. Now your question has been answered.

Veils are a form of subjugation. People who support the wearing of veils also support the subjugation of others. Seems pretty straight-forward to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Oct 06 - 07:46 PM

Control is control. Influence is influence. They are related, butbthey aren't the same. We are all subject to all kinds of influences, and people trying to influence us. That doesn't necessarily means we are being controlled,though it can add up to that.
...................................
I agree with those who have pointed out that coming in as an unamed GUEST is rather like wearing a veil. Not identical, but analogous. That doesn't mean it's a sign of subjugation. Well, it could be in some cases, but cases vary. Cases vary also when it comes to real veils.

Wearing dark glasses has a lot in common, in some ways, with wearing veils. They make it harder to read what the wearer is thinking, ansd that can be one reason for wearing them. But it can rather get in the wayn of communication, and I wouldn't blame anyone for politely requesting a wearer to take them off in some situations.

However wearing dark glasses is not generally seen as a mark of subjugation either.

Then of course there's the Lone Ranger and Zorro...

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Oct 06 - 07:49 PM

This site allows guests to post. Posting as guest is a sign of posting as guest. Nothing more, nothing less. Deal with the words, not the person.

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Oct 06 - 07:50 PM

"Of course I do. Now your question has been answered."

Thank you, and pardon me for not seeing what was apparently so obvious: that when you said Muslims, you did not mean all Muslims. I'm left wondering, though, whether you see the relation of this to my earlier point: "I think it is important, and not pedantic, not to speak of "Muslims" as some homogeneous monolith" ...

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Oct 06 - 07:59 PM

This site allows people to post as GUESTs without labels. And there's no law against wearing a veil either. And there shouldn't be. Good manners are not obligatory, but bad manners are still bad manners even when they are legal.