BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST,Tunesmith
Date: 09 Oct 06 - 03:09 AM

Do Muslim women who wear the veil in Britain have jobs? How many firms would employ people who insist on covering their face? And if they don't have jobs, who is supporting them? Here's another question. Which women wear veils? Single, married? Do they start wearing the veil at a certain age? I assume - hope(!) - that no Muslim school girls wear the veil to attend schools.

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST,Dazbo
Date: 09 Oct 06 - 04:54 AM

I don't think it's been explicitly said here but listening to the radio last week many interviewees said that you can wear what you like in this country so how dare Jack Straw...

Well I think it is patently obviouse that you can't wear what you like. How many men have to wear a suit, collar and tie to work under pain of being disciplined up to and including the sack? Hoodies have been banned from shopping centres. Women have been arrested for breast feeding in public (i.e their breasts were not covered by the garments they were wearing). Motor cyclists have to wear a crash helmet (be-turbaned sikhs are exempted still I believe). Appropriate safety clothing has to be worn in hazardouse environments. Finally if I choose not to wear any clothes at all (except in a few specific places) I'd get arrested for indecent exposure or some such.

Also, in all the discussions about the ID card we may, or may not be getting it was never stated (as far as I heard) whether the veil wearing women would have to reveal their faces on demand. After all what's the point if you can't check the photo against the person. Anyone know if there was anything said about this at the time?

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST,Tunesmith
Date: 09 Oct 06 - 05:26 AM

Who said we can wear what we like? Who said we can say what we like? For the good of society, as a whole, there has to be certain constraints on our actions. The wearing of veils is not good for British society. It makes many people - the majority, probably, feel uncomfortable. It feels alien - in a unhealthy way - to how people should conduct themselves in day-to-day British life. That doesn't mean Britain can't embrace many "alien" aspects of emigrants culture i.e. music, food - and lots of styles of dress ( I have been known to wear a kaftan!). But, on a number of levels, the wearing of veils is not a good thing. I'm against anything overtly religious being paraded on our streets - keep it in the chuches, mosques and synagogues; I'm against anything that smacks of the subjugation of women. The veil will always be a cause of tension on the street of Britain! We need less cultural/religious friction - not more.

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST,Bruce Baillie
Date: 09 Oct 06 - 06:37 AM

...I'm with Jack, pin the bugger back!

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 09 Oct 06 - 08:12 AM

The compromise, as used in several schools, is to ask the girls or women concerned to wear a head scarf, instead of the full veil. It doesn't hide peoples faces, more than meets the Islamic requirement for 'modesty', and is used by several ethnic groups and religions, including nuns, and little old ladies with cold ears!

Which women wear veils? Single, married? Do they start wearing the veil at a certain age? I assume - hope(!) - that no Muslim school girls wear the veil to attend schools.

All women who choose to interpret the requirement for modest dress in that way, regardless of marital status. IIRC, the normal age for taking up the veil would be about 12-14, but it's dependant on the person, and their family. I think.

Re full veils in schools, Headscarves are the standard option, for the reasons above. There was a case about a year ago of one girl suing to allow her to wear a full veil. I can't remember which way it went, but it was appealed anyway. Most of the time though, the question doesn't arise, as the girls are kept out of the regular school system, and are in faith schools or at home.

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Oct 06 - 08:27 AM

It's not a matter of compulsion (though there are some people who would like to make it so - from both ends). And most Muslem women in the UK donm't wear full face veils. Most probably don't even wear a head scarf. (And of couirse some women who wear headscarfs aren't Muslim.)

Basically the argument is between people who think it's discourteous (or insensitive or whatever) for an MP to request that a veil be removed during a consultation in a constituency surgery, and those who think it is discourteous for a woman to keep her face covered during such a consultation.

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST,memyself
Date: 09 Oct 06 - 10:24 AM

You know, back in the sixties a lot of people were made uncomfortable and felt threatened by young men wearing long hair and generally looking unkempt. Many people felt these young men by their appearance were making an aggressive statement directed at them and their values. Not a few of the offended felt that these young men should be lined up and given buzz-cuts, and a swift boot in the arse for good measure. Isn't it unfortunate that this was not done? It would have established a precedent, and veil-wearing women could be given the same sort of treatment now.

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST,Tunesmith
Date: 09 Oct 06 - 11:07 AM

Wearing a veil is very different than having long hair! Britain has a history of flucuations in the length of men's hair.

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Oct 06 - 12:21 PM

Long hair doesn't interfere directly with the ability to communicate verbally, unless you stick it down your throat. Nor do turbans, headscarfs, yarmulkas, or kilts. Balaklavas do, and to a lesser extent, so do dark glasses, and also masks - and veils.

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Oct 06 - 12:30 PM

Back in the sixties, headscarves were frequently worn by the royal family. I tried one myself, thinking it would make me look like Princess Margaret, but I just looked like a Ukrainian peasant.

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Oct 06 - 09:12 AM

To answer the question about which women wera a veil I am taking a leaf out of the previously mentioned Turkish politicans book.

Only the ugly ones.

There, that should sort it out...

:D (tG)

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Oct 06 - 09:18 AM

On a more serious note there is a trend in these parts, and other areas as well I suspect, amongst young Moslem women.

They wear the modest dress and headscarf with loud western clothing ovber the top. I think it looks great. The first one I saw had a red and white floral print mini-dress over the long black one. Saw one this morning with a crop top and bright green short skirt over the other gear.

It does seem a bit of a cheat but I like they way people get round some of the more archaic 'laws'. Wonder what the stricter Immams would have to say?

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Herga Kitty
Date: 10 Oct 06 - 03:56 PM

I've just heard Frankie Armstrong on Radio 4's "In touch" programme, which deals with issues concerning blind and visually impaired people, pointing out that you can communicate with people without seeing them.

(If any of you haven't heard of Frankie Armstrong, I think you've missed a significant singer on tbe English folk scene.)

Kitty

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Wolfgang
Date: 10 Oct 06 - 04:14 PM

you can communicate with people without seeing them.

That's not the point. All over Mudcat we communicate with people without seeing them. Using the telephone I communicate with people without seeing them.

The problem is (or not) communicating with someone I see who covers his or her face.

I have no problems with students with any type of hair cover/style, but I would not admit a student with a covered face to an examination.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Herga Kitty
Date: 10 Oct 06 - 04:54 PM

Wolfgang

I was just pointing out that people with visual impairment have a different take on the issue of veils.

IIRC the point Jack Straw originally made was about the value of face to face contact, and seeing who you're talking to, and how they respond to what you're saying. He also made a different point about making a statement by what you wear, and whether or not it joins you to or separates you from the rest of society.

Kitty

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Mr Happy
Date: 10 Oct 06 - 08:32 PM

as an old wrinklie [1 ft in the gravy!], I recall a similar controversy in the 1970's or thereabouts concerning the wearing of skull protecting helmets while riding motorbikes - the target ethnic dissenters being Sikhs who needed to wear turbans at all times.

Seems a compromise was reached by wearing a head covering which could comfortably fit under a helmet.

As has been mentioned above, the full face covering is a traditional fashion rather than a religious requirement & consequently as in the case of turbans v helments, a compromise could probably be negotiated,satisfactory to all involved parties.

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Mr Happy
Date: 10 Oct 06 - 08:55 PM

.........also, as mentioned above, clothing of any kind not dependent on environmental needs is fashion.

As we are aware, until relatively recently, people living in equatorial regions didn't wear any clothes at all, other than various odd pieces to protect [or enhance the appearance of] their naughty bits!

In human history. it seems various types of coverings initially evolved as ways of keeping warm, dry, cool, or as protection from the sun, wind, rain, snow, one's occupation etc.

Over the aeons these coverings became 'traditional' 'fashions'.

But as we readily appreciate even here in the good ol' U of K, there's times when formal dress is totally impractical & yet folk controlled by the mores & expectations of the particular element of mainstream society they've become embroiled in, nevertheless must adhere to the dress code or be sidelined or punished.

I think all this control of our own individual lives is daft!

but I've lived almost all my life here in UK so have options.


Guess lots of newcomers here need to keep their 'comfort blankets 'til they're assured about their rights of self expression in their new environment.

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Mr Happy
Date: 10 Oct 06 - 09:01 PM

more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clothing

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Nickhere
Date: 10 Oct 06 - 09:55 PM

One point being made here is that women who wear the veil are 'separating' themselves socially, that the veils are a barrier to communication and are a body-language signal saying 'keep your distance'. Well, I sometimes feel that way about people who travel on public transport but are immune to the world with their iPod headphones and 'dunmph-dunmph-dunmph' bass line, or people who are totally absorbed in their mobile phones. Ban these as well, while we're at it. But I just don't get it - for ages the 'fuddy duddies' were saying that women in miniskirts were not acceptable, miniskirts were a social statement of sexual promiscuity etc., etc., and there was a loud chorus from feminists about 'a woman's right to wear what she wants' and other people's problem if they didn't like it. What has happened to that 'fundamental' right? Suddenly it seems, some women are not to be free to wear veils even if it makes them happy to do so.

Another post here proclaimed: " After all if we go to one of their counties we have to follow their customs and traditions. They can come to Britiain, live with their traditions, moan if the government of our country says something against them. No doubt some do gooder will call me racist, if their traditions are so important to them why leave their country and live in a country which is so wrong"
    Well, it seems that not only does the Western world expect Muslims to 'fit in' to the western secular model of society while these Muslims are living in the West, they also expect them to fit in even when the Muslims are living in their own countries. So firmly does the West believe in the inherent rightousness of its own social model, that it has set off to impose it at gunpoint on whole swathes of the Muslim world.

Specifically on Straw,he has suggested that Muslim women who wear the veil risk provoking a climate of fear and resentment that plays into the hands of the far right. So, to appease the far right are Muslim women to forgo the public expression of their culture and religious beliefs? Those who 'don't understand' Muslim culture might find the veil 'frightening and intimidating' he adds. Then surely that is their own problem and the way forward is to educate such people away from their ignorant prejudices. Both Straw and Gordon Brown say they believe that removing the veil should not be compulsory but it is clear they are preparing public opinion for the day when it will be so. It is part of a wider project to socially engineer the Muslim community in the UK to be more like Britishers, whatever that may be. But it fails to appreciate that society is an organic thing that develops quite naturally over time in a way that overarches legislation. Once, being British meant being Celtic, then Saxon, then Anglo-Norman and so on. It may yet mean generally being born in Britain, and raised a Muslim. That's life.

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Nickhere
Date: 10 Oct 06 - 10:25 PM

Guest asks: "What about priests hiding behind a screen during confession?"

A long time since you were in confession, Guest? Actually the priest's side of the screen is usually lit, or better lit, than the penitent's side, making the priest's face fairly easily visible. The penitent's side on the other hand is usually darker, so the priest can't really see them. The obvious reason being that a person talking about their most intimate failings might not want to do it in the full force of daylight (though I have seen open air -yet private - confessions at places like Medjugore and at certain times of the year such as Easter week). Though the parallel you are trying to draw is not very clear to me. And no, I am not a priest!

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST,memyself
Date: 10 Oct 06 - 10:27 PM

Finally, an intelligent, level-headed commentary - thank you, Nickhere. Hope you're prepared to be bashed to pieces.

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST,Tunesmith
Date: 11 Oct 06 - 03:29 AM

People can follow any religious belief they want as long as it doesn't intrude into the lives of others. Wearing the veil does! It makes a very big statement! A statement I don't want to see paraded on the streets of Britain. Already veil wearers are being attacked, and it will only get worse! Keep religion in the churches, mosques and synagogues, and not in the work place or high street. This includes getting rid of the practice of the ringing of church bells, or the next thing we'll have is Muslims demanding that every town has a call for pray eminating from a minaret.

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 11 Oct 06 - 03:58 AM

I tend to think that the advocacy of "the veil" and other similarly very concealing clothing is, whatever the protestations, largely about the control and subjugation of women. Religions often make up irrational requirements of their followers, and my suspicion is that in many cases this is cynical for it enables the religions to attribute blame and to demand something to the advantage of the organised religion by way of reparation for the alleged transgression.

Who invented the requirement (in this context) that women dress modestly? Men, for in most organised religions (including Islam) men are in charge. Is there a similar requirement that men dress modestly, to avoid inflaming the passions of women? I think not. Yet (I am sure I have heard it said) of the pleasure of sex that God (in this context the "God" of Islam) gave to man one part and to women nine parts. Something does not compute here.

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Wolfgang
Date: 11 Oct 06 - 05:23 AM

Nickhere,

regarding head phones and mobiles. I don't mind them in general if they are not loud, but I'd end any conversation with anyone if this person would use them while they are talking to me.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Paul from Hull
Date: 11 Oct 06 - 10:11 AM

Nickhere, you said:

"Both Straw and Gordon Brown say they believe that removing the veil should not be compulsory but it is clear they are preparing public opinion for the day when it will be so. It is part of a wider project to socially engineer the Muslim community in the UK to be more like Britishers, whatever that may be."

...EH?

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

Okay, not Nickhere's strongest point ...

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: ard mhacha
Date: 11 Oct 06 - 11:45 AM

I haven`t read all of the posts on this issuse, so if someone has mentioned lip-reading, sorry.
I was sitting with a friend to-day watching the BBC News a lady with a veil was being intrviewed on the subject,my friend who is partially deaf and relys a lot on lip-reading was completey in the dark as to what the lady was saying.
Personally I would feel at ease having a conversation with someone whose face I can see, and I have met some bare-faced liars in my time.

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Nickhere
Date: 11 Oct 06 - 07:00 PM

Richard Bridge wrote: that men are in charge of most of the main organised religions (Islam, Christianity, Judaism) and use thme to subjugate women. Perhaps, but in that case I'm more surprised that these religions do not require women to parade around in bikins. Demanding that they do would still be an effective form of control (if women had little or no say in the issue) while most gratifying for the men in said religions! ;-)

Tunesmith writes that religion should be kept inside mosques, churches etc, and one should not even be allowed to express one's religious affinity in public. That'd include the veil, minarets and church bells and perhaps even blessing oneself in public passing a church etc.,
I disgaree strongly.

People are allowed to express their sporting preference (Club T-shirts, singing football songs in public etc.,) their politics (leafleting, protest marches etc.,) and their sexual orientation (e.g gay men dressing or acting in a camp manner that makes their gayness obvious). If I were to suggest that these things are all 'fine as long as they are done indoors in private where they don't disturb anyone' I wouldn't be able to hear for all the screams of 'intolerant pig!' So people are allowed to express many of their beliefs and opinions in public, and act on those beliefs and opinions to demand changes in society. Why should religion be the only belief system barred from this scheme of things? If people wanted a more overtly 'religious' society (and I'm not saying that they do) then wouldn't that be an expression of democracy in action? Ellen McCormack put it very well in her book "Cuomo V.O'Connnor" when she described society where the general opinion was that 'the Church should know its place at the back of the pluralistic bus'.

Most people I've met and spoken to who are opposed to the concept of public expression of religion also generally do not believe in any God (that is, God as a personality as opposed to a nebulous concept of God as some kind of positive energy: it is possible to form a relationship with a personality, but not with mere energy, any more than you can with the power coming from the socket in the wall). As a disclaimer, may I add that I don't know if that is your case, Tunesmith, but I'd be delighted to hear if you do believe in God or not. People who don't believe there is a God are also expressing a belief system (after all, they don't actually KNOW there ISN'T a God, it is an opinion strong enough to become a belief) - one generally called Atheism. This belief, like any belief we hold dear, will inform our behaviour and actions in public and private. An atheist will say religion is a waste of time and ask that it be a completely private affair, an indoor hobby that doesn't cause an unsightly nuisance to people trying to live in the 'real' world. They will say that religions tend to impose on other people, step on their toes. They will vote, or write to the paper (or forum) or march to try and see that this is accomplished, if they feel strongly enough about it. Insofar as they succeed, their atheistic beliefs will have an impact on those around them who may not hold them. Thus they are doing the very thing they believe religions to be doing, and for which they demand they be a priavte affair. And that is the crux of the conundrum!

I myself have never believed in trying to convert anyone who didn't want it. Jesus never put a gun to anyone's head. It would be self defeating anyway. But he never hid what he was, or his ideas or beliefs and indeed went everywhere he could telling whoever would listen. Some people did listen and it changed their lives. Others found him a nusiance, so much so they killed him. But he never tried to force anyone to do what he said, which makes you wonder why they felt they had to kill him, sweep him under the carpet as it were!

If you are religious, your beliefs have to inform your actions, or else there would be no point in believing it. For example, say my religion tells me that God has said it's wrong to kill. Now this should mean that I try not to kill anyone myself (!) but furthermore I should do my best to try and stop other killing. Now it makes no sense if I kill people to do this, that would be contradictory. But it might mean that I should vote for politicians who don';t support war, that I should argue against war, murder or abortion if the issue comes up, etc., etc., so of course our beliefs are part of our everyday lives and influence our actions - atheist and montheist alike. So what if my religion tells me that I should express my religion publicy that 'no-one lights a lamp and sticks it under a pot where its light cannot be seen'? (e.g see Mark 4:21-23) Tunesmith says that wearing a veil (or presumably, blessing yourself etc.,) makes a religious statement and intrudes into the lives of others. Well, if that's all it takes to intrude...! I don't see how anyone can feel so threatened or intruded on by someone wearing a veil. Some have made the comparison with balaclavas etc., - these have no religious or cultural significance (unless one thinks of bank robberies and paramilitarism as some form of culture - though the word starts to lose meaning at that point) so I don't think it's comparing like with like. Nor does it work to try and raise the old prejudice that 'all Muslims are terrorists' since, as has been pointed out here, anyone wishing to carry out an attack is more likely to dress in a way that would attract the least attention to themselves, say as a BIg Issues Vendor (only joking, I was one myself once - a vendor, that is!). If wearing a veil intrudes, then so do headphones, mobile phones, Sepeltura or Tupac T-Shirts (if you are offended by metal or rap etc.,), punk mohicans, camp clothes and mannerisms, swearing, the list could be endless - all of these things make statements about who we are and what we think and believe.

I must admit I hate swearing and blasphemies. It grates on my ears when I hear them. There's little I can do about it except put up with it, and I realise that most people who curse don't even think about what they are saying, it's just a habit and often not even meant maliciously.

Some on the forum were mystified by my comments on Jack Straw, that debating the veil is a preclude to banning it. What I meant was, that when people / politicians want to enforce a change that they know will be highly unpopular or resisted at first, they don't just go in and make a law. They first of all get the topic diuscussed in public, and get everybody talking about what's wrong with the veil (for example). They firts of all say that they have no intention of legislating, only to discuss it. By the time they actually move to get rid of it, it is in a context where the public mind has already come to see it as a fait accompli, simply requiring the ink from the pen. We need only think of the war on Iraq. Before Iraq was invaded - a decision made in the US at any rate long before 9-11 - Iraq was all anyone was talimg about: its WMD, it's supposed links with terror etc., By the time the invasion came there was little public opposition - at first. As people realised how they'd been engineered into going along with a hidden agenda, they were furious. But too late! The dice were cast, and now the official line was changed to 'ok, maybe we got it wrong, but it can't be helped and now we must support the soliders (as opposed to putting on the brakes to think about why they are in that mess, who put them there and why)"
Stephen Lukes (sociologist) has summed up the approach in his booklet on "Power" which describes how the most effective way of exercising power is to get people to believe that what YOU want them to do is what they want to do themselves, in other words, shaping their wishes. C.S Lewis described much the same thing in his book "The Screwtape Letters"

Finally

Well, I guess I'm ready to be doubly, triply bashed now!

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Nickhere
Date: 11 Oct 06 - 07:11 PM

I also notice that sveral posts here have said something to the effect of 'if I were talking to a person, I'd prefer to be able to see their face': 1) better throw out the phone / computer, then; and 2) how many of you actually talk to Muslim women who wear veils on such a regular basis that it's a problem for you? But at least now we are all talking about how IF we wanted to talk to women wearing veils (which we might or might not actually ever do) THEN we should have the freedom to talk to her without her veil! (and so attacking her in two ways by a) imposing our view and b) saying if she doesn't accept our view it's because she's a suppressed automaton who is in need of our liberating hand, now that it's suddenly occured to us that she needs to be liberated)!!!!

See now what I mean about social engineering?

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Peace
Date: 11 Oct 06 - 07:14 PM

"Well, I guess I'm ready to be doubly, triply bashed now!"

Not by me. You write well and have expressed your considered opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST,memyself
Date: 11 Oct 06 - 09:23 PM

Very well put, Nickhere.

One thing I thought I'd mention. When I was a kid, it was not uncommon to see "foreign" women dressed all in black, which certainly distinguished them from the mainstream (in the pre-post-modern-irony days), and lent them an unpersonable air, to a kid from the mainstream, anyway. It wasn't any kind of a public issue, though, and, strange to say, the daughters and granddaughters of those women embraced mainstream fashion with a vengeance. Give this thing some time ...

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Nickhere
Date: 12 Oct 06 - 08:40 PM

memyself said:
"It wasn't any kind of a public issue, though, and, strange to say, the daughters and granddaughters of those women embraced mainstream fashion with a vengeance. Give this thing some time ..."

Absolutely! We can't simply legislate every change of behaviour into or out of existence. Some things happen of their own volition, given enough time and the right circumstances. It may take generations, but when it happens naturally, that is the most real and lasting change of all. Legislation CAN be the cherry on the cake for a change that is already a practical fact on the ground.

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Oct 06 - 08:57 PM

1) better throw out the phone / computer, then;

No there are different types of communication...

2) how many of you actually talk to Muslim women who wear veils on such a regular basis that it's a problem for you?

Why single out that particular group?

I do not care whether covering is a veil, a balaclava, a stocking, etc. whether the person is a Christian, a Muslim, an athiest, etc. whether the person is male or female or has had a sex transplant, etc. etc.

I would feel distinctly uncomcortable in what we might normaly refer to as a "face to face" conversation if the other party had their face covered. I suspect the majority of people in the UK would too.

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST,memyself
Date: 12 Oct 06 - 09:58 PM

Okay, let's re-phrase that question: How many of you actually talk to anyone with a partially-covered face on such a regular basis that it's a problem for you?

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Oct 06 - 10:14 PM

The frequency is pretty well irrelavant to me. I would find once uncomfortable.

If anything, I would expect a higher frequency and regular meeting to prove to be less uncomfortable as I might at least become a little more used to dealing with such meetings.

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST,memyself
Date: 12 Oct 06 - 10:29 PM

Ah! A sensible response, which makes an argument for tolerance and a little patience. Thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST,a canadian citizen
Date: 13 Oct 06 - 01:45 AM

i'm a canadian citizen and i'm quite used to seeing muslim women wearing headscarves and sometimes veils every day.no one here makes a big deal about it.in canada people are more likely to make a big fuss about a woman wearing a short skirt and demeaning herself in public.the muslim women wear the veil because they want to be judged by their actions and the content of their character not by how they look.this is a beautiful and spiritual idea.also,modesty is a refreshing and respected idea.who needs to see another pretty face when guys dont care about the prettiest faces out there? do you know any guys who really care about gwen stephani,christina agulara,and hilary duff just because they have pretty faces?theses girls look good but there isn't much else to them.i know an actor who recently worked in a movie called material girls with hilary duff.this actor didn't bother to hit on hilary because who gives a damn about her?

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Oct 06 - 02:47 AM

I wonder if anyone will bring a case in for sex/religious discrimination? I see it as very discriminatory that Moslem Women are allowed to wear hoods and veils in our local shopping centre yet I, as a christian male, am not allowed to.

Only a matter of time before someone jumps on the legislation bandwagon:-)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Oct 06 - 04:19 AM

News today that a primary school teacher is sacked for wearing a veil in class.
She was ok to wear it in corridors and staff room.
Inrerestingly, the Muslim Council of GB are not supporting her.
They say no need for veil with children.

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Rasener
Date: 13 Oct 06 - 05:03 AM

Has something sensible happened without uproar from the Muslim's. The only thing that concerns me, and not knwing the full facts, is why was she sacked? Was she given a chance to change her stance?

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: John J
Date: 13 Oct 06 - 05:09 AM

When in Rome....

JJ

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Oct 06 - 07:15 AM

She was suspended because she would not agree to remove it in lessons.
story

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 13 Oct 06 - 08:11 AM

One thing in that article that stands out is that the school in question is a Church of England school. That a clearly devout muslim felt comfortable working there, and colud wear her full relgious dress, except where it directly conflicted with her job is a good sign.

But if you're expected to teach English to a group of young children, many of whom have English as a second language and are still learning it, for them to be able to see your lips is very useful.

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Wolfgang
Date: 13 Oct 06 - 01:53 PM

I think I may adopt that custom. In written examinations they will not know if I watch them. That'll scare them.

Wolfgang (not serious)

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 13 Oct 06 - 07:20 PM

when I was a kid my math teacher who was from Yugoslavia related a story
from his teenage years (which would probably have been in the 50s)
he lifted a girls veil to have a look at her and the men that accompanied her - pulled out swords and chased him down the street
he was sure they would have killed him if they caught him. I dont think he was fully aware just how serious his actions were. ..

on another note, here in Canada since the early 90s police officers who are of the Sikh religion are by constitutional law allowed to wear turbans and Im ok with that. NOw one could apply the same to Muslim Women police officers who wish to wear a veil. I would definitely not be ok with that.

(sometimes ones right may conflict with someone elses - such as when
a cabdrivers convention was held in a Legion hall - the Legion hall requires all those who enter to remove headgear - which of course conflicted with the (mostly) Sikh attendees obligation to wear a turban) - the law came down on the side of the SIkhs .

similarly - all Sikhs are required by religion to carry a sword - often it is just a small ceremonial sword but there was an issue of whether such weapons may be banned from schools - and in Canada
the Supreme court ruled that they cannot be banned.
NOt sure how this works in a courtroom - where weapons are not allowed)

- finally, what about the people in Japan and other parts of Asia who wear surgical masks, so they dont infect others when they have a cold.
(when I went to Japan I thought there must be a lot of doctors around!) but talking to someone with a mask on is not too different
than a veil.
Petr

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Bonecruncher
Date: 14 Oct 06 - 08:18 PM

As John J said above- "When in Rome do as the Romans do".

It is not the custom in Christian countries for women to cover their faces, as it may be in some Islamic countries. Western women while in an Islamic country are required to obey local customs, no matter what their own religion or customs might dictate.

At the same time look around at the number of Muslims, who "do not take alcohol", in the puds and clubs with their alcoholic drinks!

As an aside, a story told to me today by a Muslim girl (uncovered) was of being on a beach at Bournemouth on a hot day this Summer. Many girls were sunbathing topless, including two girls next to her. These two girls got dressed, put on their full black dress and headscarves and walked off the beach looking like a couple of penguins!
Colyn.

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST,memyself
Date: 14 Oct 06 - 09:48 PM

"similarly - all Sikhs are required by religion to carry a sword - often it is just a small ceremonial sword but there was an issue of whether such weapons may be banned from schools - and in Canada
the Supreme court ruled that they cannot be banned."

However, it should be added that the court did place elaborate restrictions on how the knife (kurpan; not a sword in my understanding) could be carried, such that it would be utterly impractical for use as a weapon. The response to this ruling - or lack of response - seemed to indicate that the concerned parties felt they could live with this compromise. That's compromise, people; are we familiar with the concept?

"when I was a kid my math teacher who was from Yugoslavia related a story"

And we've seen how well the Muslims and non-Muslims get along in the former Yugoslavia!

"Muslim Women police officers who wish to wear a veil. I would definitely not be ok with that." Let's stick to the actual issues; there's enough hard feelings about them without bringing up hypothetical scenarios to start fretting about. I know you're just "thinking out loud", but some people are pretty worked up about this veil thing.

"Western women while in an Islamic country are required to obey local customs, no matter what their own religion or customs might dictate."

I suspect there are no shortage of instances of western women flouting local customs in Islamic countries. Besides, is this really a tit-for-tat issue? Aren't our (i.e., Western) countries liberal democracies? Or is that only when it's convenient?

"At the same time look around at the number of Muslims, who "do not take alcohol", in the puds and clubs with their alcoholic drinks!"

And how many of them are veiled women?

"a story told to me today by a Muslim girl (uncovered)"

The story she told has me wondering: Just how uncovered was she? But then, I don't want to pry into your personal life!

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Wolfgang
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 04:30 PM

Just today, several prominent Germans with Turkish origin (Muslims all of them, BTW) have called the Muslim women in Germany to lay down the veil and the headscarf.

It is not right that the Turkish man walks down the street donning the newest fashion and the wife at his side wears a long coat and the veil (Social Democrat MP Lale Akgün)

The quarrel about the scarf is not only about a piece of cloth but about belonging to the society or consciously turning the back to it. (Mehmet Daimargüler, honorary chairman of the liberal German-Turkish association)

The veil is a symbol of oppression of the women. Whoever demands of women to cover face or hair makes them to a sex object...Arrive in the Today, arrive in Germany. You are living here, so take down the scarf (Ekin Deligüz, (MP of the Green Party)

The Muslims liberals in Germany often feel left in the lurch by German liberals and left who do not support their difficult fight against a very out of date understanding of religion. Non-Muslim liberals in this discussion often do not see or do not want to realize that they support the most extrem Muslim fundamentalism that they would never dream of supporting if it would be coming from the Christian side.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Peace
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 04:37 PM

She walks these hills in a long black veil
She visits my grave when the night winds wail
Nobody knows, nobody sees
Nobody knows but me

Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 05:27 PM

Memyself - nice job of assasinating other peoples arguments. Do you have any of your own?

DtG