To Thread - Forum Home

The Mudcat Café TM
https://mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=95304
214 messages

BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy

06 Oct 06 - 04:45 PM (#1852257)
Subject: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST,Tunesmith

British politician has ruffled a few muslim feathers by stating that he would rather muslim women didn't wear their veils when talking to him. Anyone out there got any thoughts on the subject?

06 Oct 06 - 05:02 PM (#1852265)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: John MacKenzie

It is very disconcerting not to be able to see the face of the person you're talking to. I also find it threatening in these days of terrorism, it could be a man under there, with a bomb strapped round his waist. Difficult one to call, but I'm on Jack Straw's side on this one. Not a thing I thought I'd ever say!
Giok

06 Oct 06 - 05:09 PM (#1852271)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Amos

A gutsy statement, and I think one with merit for the reason Giok states. It also inserts the separation of church and state to a small degree by setting aside an essentially religous custom for the purposes of public discourse.

Of course it will ruffle Muslims, who (for some good and some not so good reasons) have shown over the last few years that they can be very touchy about their customs and beliefs, even when offence is accidental, imagined, or insignificant.

A

06 Oct 06 - 05:16 PM (#1852278)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: McGrath of Harlow

Hyped up nonsense, being seized upon by people with agendas to bang-on about.

I think it's a question of good manners on both sides - the polite thing to do is make clear your own preferance, but to defer to the wishes of the other party. Which is evidently what Jack Straw does. Whjat's there to fuss about?

Wearing a full veil is purely a cultural thing, like wearing a kilt is, there is no kind of religious requirement involved.

But stuff about "it could be a man under there, with a bomb strapped round his waist" is nonsense too. Suicide bombers can after all come in either sex, and are probably a great deal more likely to wear western clothing.

06 Oct 06 - 05:39 PM (#1852289)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: John MacKenzie

I'm well aware of the fact that there are female suicide bombers Kevin, but the majority are still male. Anyway if it were woman under the veil then it wouldn't BE a disguise would it?
I'm sorry, but I'm fed up with all this 'Right On' PC stuff, and as for the kilt, not many people going to ask me to take it off so's we can talk are they?
I don't fancy their chances of being picked out from a book of police mug shots either!
Giok

06 Oct 06 - 05:50 PM (#1852298)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: McGrath of Harlow

The point is, a full veil, like a kilt, is a cultural and traditional thing, not a religious observation. But unlike a kilt a full veil does get in the way of conversation and communication, and good manners would imply removing it in a conversational situation. However good manners by definition have to be a matter of free choice.

But bringing bombs into this is a nonsense and a red herring. Your actual suicide bomber is far more likely to be wearing a fleece or a donkey jacket than any kind f traditional Islamic gear. I'd feel pretty safe actually, standing next to a lady in a full veil in a queue.

And that's nothing to do with "'Right On' PC stuff", it seesm like common sense to me.

06 Oct 06 - 05:57 PM (#1852304)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: skipy

You can't wear a crash helmet in a bank or post office and expect to get served!
Skipy

06 Oct 06 - 06:06 PM (#1852308)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Emma B

or even a hat in some bars.............

06 Oct 06 - 06:12 PM (#1852315)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Big Mick

You know what? I am uncomfortable speaking to people wearing clothes. I would prefer women to stand before me naked. After all, it is purely a cultural thing to wear clothes. Yep, I think that your logic is sterling.

This is not just about a custom. This violates a very important tenet of these women's faith. You are asking them to violate a deeply held belief. You don't have to believe, but a little respect for their beliefs is in order.

Giok, the bomb thing is reaching a bit, buddy. I would say Straw would be well within his rights, if he felt threatened, to ask that they be searched. But, like this silly stance, he will have to be prepared for the consequences.

I am not any kind of religious fundamentalist, but this seems to be stretching it to me. No damn wonder there is so much strife, when people are so intolerant of one anothers beliefs.

Am I missing something here?
Mick

06 Oct 06 - 06:19 PM (#1852321)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Gervase

It's an odd call though, certainly as to who makes the concession. If you were to go to see an imam at a mosque, would you respect his wishes and cover your head and remove your shoes, or would you stay as you are and expect him to accept that?
My own feeling is that Straw is making a valid point, but that his timing is crass and opportunistic (given the pending battle for the deputy leadership of the Labour party) and that the right-wing media is going to hijack the issue whatever Straw's personal wishes.

06 Oct 06 - 06:22 PM (#1852324)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Big Mick

I know exactly what I would do, Gervase. I would honor the custom of the mosque. I would cover my head, and remove my shoes. Seems to me that is the respectful thing to do.

Mick

06 Oct 06 - 06:26 PM (#1852328)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Tootler

My reaction is "well said Jack Straw". There is too much timidly tip-toing around "sensitive" issues and pandering to the PC brigade. What he said was really just about good manners. He asked them to remove their veils, but did not insist.

A Quote from our local evening paper.

...Dr Daud Abdullah, of the British Council of Muslims said he understood. "This [the veil] does cause some discomfort to non-muslims" he said, adding that Muslim opinion was divided on the wearing of the veil.

Personally I find women walking round in black robes even without their faces covered up discomforting in a way that is not the case with women of Asian origin wearing their traditional dress. Similarly, I did not find it discomforting when I visited the Gulf many years ago. After all, it was part of their culture. It was well known in those days the wives and daughters of the wealthy were only too glad to discard their veils when they visited the West.

As far as I can observe this wearing of of a full veil seems largely confined to the Arab world and to one or two other countries. In many Islamic countries women do not seem to cover up, though they may well wear a shawl or scarf over their heads.

I remember some years ago, before all this blew up, an Egyptian woman who lives in Britain saying what has been said earlier that it is cultural. She added that the Qu'ran did not require women to be veiled, simply to "dress modestly".

06 Oct 06 - 07:05 PM (#1852357)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: wysiwyg

If he doesn't want to meet with women in veils, simple solution-- don't meet with them. A man trying to control what a woman shall do so that he can be more conmfortable wiht the discussion? Never mind the culture/religion angle-- who does he think he is?

~Susan

06 Oct 06 - 07:13 PM (#1852364)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST

He's not trying to control anyone. He's making a simple request pointing out that in out culture the face is a very important part of communication. As to showing respect, I don't feel that in Western culture one ever need respect someone else's choice. ie their religion, politics, social views etc. One had to respect those things that are not chosen, ie race, disability, injury, illness etc.
Choices can and should always be up for discussion and challenge.

06 Oct 06 - 07:41 PM (#1852377)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST

He was right. 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.

06 Oct 06 - 07:45 PM (#1852380)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Micca

If you are at Rome live in the Roman style; if you are elsewhere live as they live elsewhere. [Lat., Si fueris Romae, Romano vivito more; Si fueris alibi, vivito sicut ibi.]
Author: Saint Ambrose
Source: a version of the advice given to St. Augustine, quoted by Jeremy Taylor "Ductor Dubitantium", I, 1,

06 Oct 06 - 07:48 PM (#1852382)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Emma B

Susan - he is an MP - people come to see him by their choice to discuss any problems they have that he might be able to assist them with in that capacity. It his his contention that to cover the whole face is a deterrent to the important communication that is essential if he is to offer that kind of help

06 Oct 06 - 09:12 PM (#1852426)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: wysiwyg

... people come to see him by their choice to discuss any problems they have that he might be able to assist them with in that capacity...

Then IMO it behooves him all the more to be gracious and open to people AS THEY ARE-- not to make them jump through any hoops to gain his attention and assistance.

~Susan

06 Oct 06 - 09:58 PM (#1852443)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: freda underhill

There must be an election come up - or it's a calculated distraction from other uncomfortable issues currently facing the Labour Party.

Politicians lead - would anyone seriously have thought of the terrorist angle if he hadn't introduced it? Now people are looking at women in veils and thinking - terrorist. The same could be said of pregnant mothers - perhaps there should be a decree - all pregnant mothers to stay home, just in case thy're actually hiding a fake bomb in their belly.

Yet another reason to scapegoat women. single mothers, foreign women - all to be hated. I'm sick of it.

freda

06 Oct 06 - 10:35 PM (#1852460)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Q (Frank Staplin)

I'm with Jack Straw on this. The veils make a mockery of face-to-face communication.

07 Oct 06 - 01:14 AM (#1852510)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Emma B

Hang on Freda - I don't personally like many of Jack Straw's principles but HE never introduced the concept of "terrorist". He did however point out that this dress, which is NOT decreed by any religion, is a very extreme form of "seperation" both physically and socially. In fact many women in this country wear head covering and modest full length dress and our schools, unlike those in France, do not insist on banning such displays of "faith"
I have fought for equality for women and hope to continue to do so but I would say the same about men who adopted this mode of appearance.

07 Oct 06 - 02:56 AM (#1852519)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Mr Red

it is well established that human communications are about 75% (pick your statistic) non-verbal. Some of that is intonation which is not carried well with a second accent. The rest is visual, and I have heard it said, particularly by deaf people, that beards get in the way of understanding.

I always quote the story of an engineer working for me. He (a Sikh) went to India to find a wife. When he started complaining that his wife had back trouble and the doctor was not very good I said he could change doctors easily under the National Health. He replied it was not that easy because they chose one that spoke Irdu, at which point I told him emphatically I had no sympathy if he would not let/insist his wife spoke reasonable English.

There are are always gains and losses in such obvious statements like the veil. It affirms someones religious fervour and shows that a multicultural society is tolerant. It also is a firm statement of segregation and has to be accepted as such. If we should not be so insensitive as to denegrate the veil we should not be told to draw a veil over the obvious downsides.

07 Oct 06 - 03:10 AM (#1852523)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: DMcG

Whatever he may have said in other situations, this time Jack Straw said nothing whatever about terrorism: that's a misrepresentation of the issue.

As a non-Muslim male, I am not free to choose what I wear. It would raise no eyebrows if I went to the beach 'topless'. It would be at the border of acceptability if I went along the high street similarly undressed, and would be totally unacceptable if I turned up at a business meeting like that.
In summary, what I am permitted to wear depends on three factors:
a) What I wish to wear
b) What those I encounter find acceptable
c) The social context, which modifies both a and b.

That is true in all situations. We do not make exceptions as such for religious wear; it is simply that the social context means we are almost always prepared to accept religous wear. But even here, like the Sikh knife (kirpan), we can and do insist on changes in situations in which it is socially unacceptable.

The debate is being presented by one side as if 'a' is all that matters ("I can wear what I like") and by the other as if 'b' is the important factor ("People wearing the veil make me uncomfortable".) But that the debate is taking place is a good thing, since it is an exploration of all three factors.

07 Oct 06 - 03:33 AM (#1852527)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: DMcG

(Actually from DMcG daughter)

The point i think that has to be brought to attention is the stress on the fact that Straw asked the women-not demanded. It is important i feel, in order to acheive a multicultural society,that discussion itself of subjects such as veils or indeed any other kind of religeious statement does not cause any kind of controversy and is accepted within a group, not a matter to causiously tip toe around.

07 Oct 06 - 03:44 AM (#1852532)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST,Terry K

What pisses me off is that the issue of whether wearing the veil is "right" or "wrong" is incidental - what is causing the controversy is that the man dared to venture a personal opinion, which seems not to be allowed these days.

cheers, Terry

07 Oct 06 - 04:24 AM (#1852539)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST,Wibbly Wobbly

How would you react to being confronted by a youth in a hood and balaclava? He could claim it was cultural attire. Besides, why should I respect medieval superstitions?, especially those designed to subjugate women.

07 Oct 06 - 04:27 AM (#1852540)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: John MacKenzie

Freda, Jack Straw did not bring up terrorism, I did in the context of this discussion in order to provide a possible scenario, and I wish I hadn't becuase to certain people the word is as a red reg to a bull.
It is one of those buzz words which when they appear in an article seem to render some readers totally blind to all the other words on that page, a bit like Ireland, or Liberal you might say!
This common courtesy thing appears to be a one way street, and while we quite happily allow people religious freedom in our country, many of the countries that these people originate from, do not return the compliment. Mosques have sprung up all over the UK, while I see no churches being built in Iraq or Saudi Arabia for the use of the Christian minorities that live and work there.
Where are all the PC brigade regarding the treatment of women in some Arab counties? As a man said today, I will feel more equal when my girl friend can leave the topless beach, jump in her car, and drive to a bar for a glass of beer, in Saudi Arabia.
Yes it overstates the case, but it does point up the inequalities of tolerance on both sides.
In other words , 'Why does it always seem to be us who make the concessions?'
There is a self imposed apartheid being allowed to creep in in this country, which does no good whatsoever for integation, or the politician's buzz word multiculturalism.
Giok

07 Oct 06 - 05:15 AM (#1852562)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Emma B

On a slight thread drift I feel that it is necessary to divorce "cultural practices and preferences" from the freedom to practice any World religion. The tradition of female genital cutting is banned in the UK, even on elective surgery undertaken by mature women, although this is not so in all counties.
In attempting to avoid "Western cultural imperialism" I feel we are sometimes in danger, of being unable to discuss issues that are important to a country of many and varied cultures; or, even worse, reducing genuine attempts to the butt of satire in the same way that the initial concept of using language that was not deliberatly demeaning of any gender, race or creed resulted in the insistance on non-use of such words as manhole cover!

07 Oct 06 - 05:25 AM (#1852569)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: akenaton

Freda's right, the question is a red herring.

Straw is making his pitch for the deputy leadership.
Why do we never get wise to the ways of politicians? Maybe we really DO deserve everything we get.....Ake

07 Oct 06 - 06:21 AM (#1852590)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: freda underhill

me and my big mouth. my point is that whatever we say (you, me & the dingo) is just an opinion. but anything a politician says has more power, by virtue of who they are. and yes, i think his motive is purely political.

no, i don't support genital mutilation, jehova's witnesses or fox-hunting.

women in veils cop a lot of discrimination - they are sworn at, spat on, etc. they are the public face of Islam. and they are more likely to stay home to avoid that treatment - comments like jack straw's just provoke the worst type of people into hassling muslim women.

cultural changes happen over generations - it's unlikely that the first generation of women will willingly change. but judgements from politicians are much more likely to force people to hang on to their traditions than to abandon them.

i remember what a hoo-hah was caused when boys started wearing long hair at school (quite a long time ago, as you can guess). this is a bit the same - bitching at all those long haired boys just made it all the more fashionable.

freda (running out quickly!)

07 Oct 06 - 06:24 AM (#1852592)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: freda underhill

ps I think men with beards should shave them off - i can't see their faces. particularly folkie men with beards. it's very unsocialble and they scratch when you get close.

07 Oct 06 - 06:40 AM (#1852594)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST

Well whatever the motivation, I'm glad the issue has been raised. Like many people, I find facial expression part of a conversation (or what makes it more worthwhile than a telephone call) and additionaly, I would feel distinctly uncomfortable holding such a conversation with a person whose face is covered up.

We also live in a society where others are expected to show thier face because of concerns, eg. a motorcyclist may be expected to remove his helmet before paying for petrol - something that can cause a fair amount of inconvenience, particularly on a cold day, "hoodies" have caused concern, etc. and I consider it perfectly reasonable for a muslim to be asked to remove this optional full veil.

(Which I gather is more than Jack Straw is reported as asking - I believe he asks them to consider removing the veil).

07 Oct 06 - 06:42 AM (#1852595)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST

Freda, you are throwing in a complete red herring. The same problem would exist if it was men, not women who wore this veil. It is about covered faces and nothing else.

07 Oct 06 - 06:47 AM (#1852601)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: freda underhill

guest, for you its about covered faces. for me its about politicians fingerpointing.

07 Oct 06 - 06:51 AM (#1852603)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST

and in this case, pointing to an issue of concern to many of us. The covering of a face.

07 Oct 06 - 06:53 AM (#1852605)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: freda underhill

and the covering of an identity, guest. why do people do that?

07 Oct 06 - 06:54 AM (#1852607)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST

No, the covering up of an identity was not the issue Jack Straw raised.

07 Oct 06 - 06:59 AM (#1852610)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: freda underhill

wooooooosh!

07 Oct 06 - 07:00 AM (#1852612)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: McGrath of Harlow

This violates a very important tenet of these women's faith.

It doesn't, Mick. Modest dress, yes, and that is often interpreted to mean a headscarf. But a full veil covering the face has never been a religious requirement for Moslem women anywhere, though it has been and often is a social expectation.

It would be completely wrong if Jack Straw had been demanding that woemen should put aside their face coverings - but to say that you would prefer something is not the same as a demand. (Leaving aside the situation where the request is a veiled demand, which doesn't apply in this case.)

07 Oct 06 - 07:01 AM (#1852614)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST

Does that mean you acknowledge throwing in guest postings at Mudcat was another red herring of yours?

07 Oct 06 - 07:09 AM (#1852623)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: The Walrus

Okay, I know it's probably a first move on the Labour Pary leadership/deputy post, but that aside:

As I understood the matter, Jack straw asked women at his surgery to remove their veils during interviews (ensuring that there was a female member of his staff present at all times), and that these same women had the right to refuse - the business about his aversion to the veil generally came out as a result of newspaper and radio interviews.
I'm sure someone out there will correct me.

One point, I wonder how his female constituants would feel if, on their refusing to remove the veil, Straw were to pull on a ski mask or something similar, just to put them on an equal footing? (and before anyone jumps down my throat about it, yes, I do know it's a ridiculous idea).

W

07 Oct 06 - 07:12 AM (#1852627)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: freda underhill

Shelves of Herring [Frederic Schroers of Portland, Oregon]

It was a fine and a pleasant day,
In a supermarket I was faring,
And I walked for miles
Up and down the aisles,
As I hunted for the shelves of herring.

Shopping trolleys few
And the lines were long,
And the people, sure they took some bearing.
There was little kindness And the kids were many,
As I hunted for the shelves of herring.

O I took my catch to a ten-item line,
And at me the cashier sure was swearing;
For I'd a hundred cans of the silver darlings
That I'd taken from the shelves of herring!

Now for six long months I've been eating fish,
And my house it sure could use an airing!
And now I know, never again I'll go
For to hunt the shelves for tins of herring!

(As posted on folkinfo.org)

07 Oct 06 - 07:20 AM (#1852632)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: John MacKenzie

I think that you'll find Freda means, that your complaining about people hiding their identity while you post as a Guest, is a bit of an own goal on your part!
Giok

07 Oct 06 - 07:21 AM (#1852633)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Emma B

10 February 2004
Balaclava Ban for two Brothers Aged 11 and 12
"Two brothers aged 11 and 12 have been banned from wearing balaclavas or other face coverings under an anti-social behaviour order obtained by Manchester City Council.

It is the first time in the city that youngsters of this age have been subject to such a ban, which covers the whole of England and Wales and lasts indefinitely.

Ryner Blakeborough and his older brother James, of Newcliffe Road, Blackley, had been seen in a gang of youths wearing balaclavas to hide their identities outside a house in Crosslee Road in November, according to evidence presented to Manchester magistrates court. The gang was shouting abuse and running in and out of gardens."

Apart from disguising their identities the face coverings were regarded as threatening by residents!

07 Oct 06 - 07:22 AM (#1852634)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: freda underhill

it was a veiled allusion..!

07 Oct 06 - 07:25 AM (#1852637)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: freda underhill

balaclavas are associated in Oz with hold ups of petrol stations, banks & all night shops. so i can understand why people would be threatened.

07 Oct 06 - 07:33 AM (#1852643)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST

Nonsense, giok. Identities on Mudcat have nothing to do with what Jack Straw said. Please don't let obessions over identites over Mudcat get in the was of the fact that the feminist i9ssues are red-herrings.

07 Oct 06 - 07:37 AM (#1852646)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST, as a veil/masque substitute

I've only worn a veil very briefly, when I got married. I did it for cultural reasons, which mainly involved pleasing my mother.
However, I have worn a mask. At first I felt very self-conscious, but then I found it very liberating when I realised that (apart from people who knew me and were used to masks, and who would know me by the way I stood and moved) no-one would recognise me or be able to identify me later.
Maybe people wearing veils feel the same.

07 Oct 06 - 07:38 AM (#1852648)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Rasener

Thats a very good reason for stopping it Guest

07 Oct 06 - 07:41 AM (#1852651)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST,Tunesmith

I must say that I feel uncomfortable with "the veil". Interestingly, when Muslim women - who insist on wearing the veil - visit/emigrate - to Britain, it's amazing how their religious "rules" are "relaxed" to allow them to reveal their faces to passport control, and thereby gain entry to Britain. Being pragmatic, it might be that Western culture will never be able to fully embrace such "alien" cultural/religious practices.

07 Oct 06 - 08:16 AM (#1852664)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: John MacKenzie

Whoosh indeed Freda!
G.

07 Oct 06 - 08:23 AM (#1852667)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST

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

07 Oct 06 - 08:23 AM (#1852668)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: freda underhill

i smell a fish..

07 Oct 06 - 08:26 AM (#1852670)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST

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

07 Oct 06 - 08:45 AM (#1852678)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Bunnahabhain

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..

07 Oct 06 - 08:46 AM (#1852679)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: puck

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

07 Oct 06 - 08:52 AM (#1852681)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Emma B

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.

07 Oct 06 - 11:29 AM (#1852764)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: DMcG

(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.

07 Oct 06 - 11:46 AM (#1852771)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST

What about priests hiding behind a screen during confession?

07 Oct 06 - 12:01 PM (#1852779)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Amos

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

In small communities, probably a lot safer, though.


A

07 Oct 06 - 12:07 PM (#1852783)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST,Roger Knowles

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.

07 Oct 06 - 12:32 PM (#1852794)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Amos

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


A

07 Oct 06 - 12:36 PM (#1852798)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Mrs.Duck

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!

07 Oct 06 - 02:39 PM (#1852858)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: McGrath of Harlow

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

07 Oct 06 - 02:48 PM (#1852865)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: pdq

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

07 Oct 06 - 05:15 PM (#1852951)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: akenaton

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

07 Oct 06 - 06:29 PM (#1852992)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: McGrath of Harlow

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.

07 Oct 06 - 06:34 PM (#1852997)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: akenaton

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

07 Oct 06 - 10:14 PM (#1853111)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST,folk1e

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!

08 Oct 06 - 12:08 AM (#1853124)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST,memyself

"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.

08 Oct 06 - 08:21 AM (#1853222)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST,ifor

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

08 Oct 06 - 09:36 AM (#1853243)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Strollin' Johnny

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.

08 Oct 06 - 01:00 PM (#1853342)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: McGrath of Harlow

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?

08 Oct 06 - 01:11 PM (#1853347)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: wysiwyg

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

08 Oct 06 - 01:27 PM (#1853355)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST

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.

08 Oct 06 - 01:31 PM (#1853356)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST,Joe Moran

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!

08 Oct 06 - 01:56 PM (#1853368)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Bernard

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.

08 Oct 06 - 01:59 PM (#1853370)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST,memyself

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?

08 Oct 06 - 02:02 PM (#1853372)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: McGrath of Harlow

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.

08 Oct 06 - 02:04 PM (#1853374)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST

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?

08 Oct 06 - 02:10 PM (#1853379)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST

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).

08 Oct 06 - 02:18 PM (#1853385)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: McGrath of Harlow

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.

08 Oct 06 - 03:08 PM (#1853410)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: NH Dave

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

08 Oct 06 - 03:31 PM (#1853424)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Peace

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.

08 Oct 06 - 03:58 PM (#1853442)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Micca

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.

08 Oct 06 - 04:00 PM (#1853445)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Keith A of Hertford

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.

08 Oct 06 - 04:19 PM (#1853460)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST,memyself

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.

08 Oct 06 - 04:21 PM (#1853461)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST

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.

08 Oct 06 - 04:28 PM (#1853467)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST,ifor

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?

08 Oct 06 - 04:31 PM (#1853469)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST,memyself

"the devious bastards who control Muslims" -

All Muslims?

08 Oct 06 - 04:53 PM (#1853477)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST

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."

08 Oct 06 - 05:14 PM (#1853492)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: McGrath of Harlow

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.

08 Oct 06 - 05:31 PM (#1853510)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Bizibod

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

08 Oct 06 - 05:34 PM (#1853513)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST

'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.

08 Oct 06 - 06:21 PM (#1853551)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST,memyself

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.

08 Oct 06 - 07:03 PM (#1853585)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST

'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.

08 Oct 06 - 07:46 PM (#1853611)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: McGrath of Harlow

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...

08 Oct 06 - 07:49 PM (#1853614)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST

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.

08 Oct 06 - 07:50 PM (#1853616)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST

"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" ...

08 Oct 06 - 07:59 PM (#1853628)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: McGrath of Harlow

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.

09 Oct 06 - 03:09 AM (#1853798)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST,Tunesmith

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.

09 Oct 06 - 04:54 AM (#1853856)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST,Dazbo

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?

09 Oct 06 - 05:26 AM (#1853869)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST,Tunesmith

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.

09 Oct 06 - 06:37 AM (#1853898)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST,Bruce Baillie

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

09 Oct 06 - 08:12 AM (#1853958)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Bunnahabhain

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.

09 Oct 06 - 08:27 AM (#1853975)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: McGrath of Harlow

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.

09 Oct 06 - 10:24 AM (#1854070)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST,memyself

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.

09 Oct 06 - 11:07 AM (#1854111)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST,Tunesmith

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

09 Oct 06 - 12:21 PM (#1854168)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: McGrath of Harlow

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.

09 Oct 06 - 12:30 PM (#1854170)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST

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.

10 Oct 06 - 09:12 AM (#1854836)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Dave the Gnome

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)

10 Oct 06 - 09:18 AM (#1854839)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Dave the Gnome

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

10 Oct 06 - 03:56 PM (#1855197)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Herga Kitty

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

10 Oct 06 - 04:14 PM (#1855216)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Wolfgang

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

10 Oct 06 - 04:54 PM (#1855251)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Herga Kitty

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

10 Oct 06 - 08:32 PM (#1855408)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Mr Happy

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.

10 Oct 06 - 08:55 PM (#1855433)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Mr Happy

.........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.

10 Oct 06 - 09:01 PM (#1855440)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Mr Happy

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

10 Oct 06 - 09:55 PM (#1855483)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Nickhere

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.

10 Oct 06 - 10:25 PM (#1855499)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Nickhere

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!

10 Oct 06 - 10:27 PM (#1855500)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST,memyself

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

11 Oct 06 - 03:29 AM (#1855573)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST,Tunesmith

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.

11 Oct 06 - 03:58 AM (#1855581)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Richard Bridge

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.

11 Oct 06 - 05:23 AM (#1855626)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Wolfgang

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

11 Oct 06 - 10:11 AM (#1855810)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Paul from Hull

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?

11 Oct 06 - 11:07 AM (#1855853)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST,memyself

Okay, not Nickhere's strongest point ...

11 Oct 06 - 11:45 AM (#1855880)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: ard mhacha

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.

11 Oct 06 - 07:00 PM (#1856279)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Nickhere

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!

11 Oct 06 - 07:11 PM (#1856288)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Nickhere

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?

11 Oct 06 - 07:14 PM (#1856295)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Peace

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

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

11 Oct 06 - 09:23 PM (#1856399)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST,memyself

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 ...

12 Oct 06 - 08:40 PM (#1857356)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Nickhere

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.

12 Oct 06 - 08:57 PM (#1857372)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST

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.

12 Oct 06 - 09:58 PM (#1857421)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST,memyself

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?

12 Oct 06 - 10:14 PM (#1857438)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST

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.

12 Oct 06 - 10:29 PM (#1857450)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST,memyself

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

13 Oct 06 - 01:45 AM (#1857518)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST,a canadian citizen

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?

13 Oct 06 - 02:47 AM (#1857537)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Dave the Gnome

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

13 Oct 06 - 04:19 AM (#1857568)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Keith A of Hertford

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.

13 Oct 06 - 05:03 AM (#1857595)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Rasener

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?

13 Oct 06 - 05:09 AM (#1857599)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: John J

When in Rome....

JJ

13 Oct 06 - 07:15 AM (#1857677)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Keith A of Hertford

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

13 Oct 06 - 08:11 AM (#1857712)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Bunnahabhain

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.

13 Oct 06 - 01:53 PM (#1858014)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Wolfgang

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)

13 Oct 06 - 07:20 PM (#1858290)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST,petr

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

14 Oct 06 - 08:18 PM (#1859048)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Bonecruncher

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.

14 Oct 06 - 09:48 PM (#1859091)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST,memyself

"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!

15 Oct 06 - 04:30 PM (#1859612)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Wolfgang

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

15 Oct 06 - 04:37 PM (#1859620)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Peace

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

15 Oct 06 - 05:27 PM (#1859657)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Dave the Gnome

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

DtG

15 Oct 06 - 05:54 PM (#1859669)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Bunnahabhain

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.....

16 Oct 06 - 02:14 AM (#1860004)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST

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.

16 Oct 06 - 03:55 AM (#1860032)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST,Tunesmith

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.

16 Oct 06 - 05:54 AM (#1860098)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Richard Bridge

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

16 Oct 06 - 06:42 AM (#1860121)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST

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.

16 Oct 06 - 06:46 AM (#1860126)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Keith A of Hertford

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.

16 Oct 06 - 06:50 AM (#1860128)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Keith A of Hertford

cross story and picture

16 Oct 06 - 12:21 PM (#1860432)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST,petr

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.)

17 Oct 06 - 06:18 AM (#1861132)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: ard mhacha

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

17 Oct 06 - 07:24 AM (#1861163)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST

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

17 Oct 06 - 08:13 AM (#1861187)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST, Topsie

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'.

17 Oct 06 - 08:41 AM (#1861215)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Bunnahabhain

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....

17 Oct 06 - 12:10 PM (#1861328)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST,Andy

17 Oct 06 - 01:05 PM (#1861355)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST, Topsie

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."

17 Oct 06 - 01:23 PM (#1861365)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST,Andy

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!

17 Oct 06 - 01:35 PM (#1861372)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Rasener

Good kick em out the country then.

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

17 Oct 06 - 02:02 PM (#1861391)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Rasener

Tony Blair

17 Oct 06 - 02:49 PM (#1861449)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST

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.

17 Oct 06 - 03:51 PM (#1861500)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Rasener

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.

17 Oct 06 - 05:06 PM (#1861563)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Nickhere

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?

18 Oct 06 - 05:15 PM (#1862597)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: ard mhacha

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.

19 Oct 06 - 03:48 AM (#1862933)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Paul Burke

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.

19 Oct 06 - 12:58 PM (#1863369)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Bunnahabhain

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...

19 Oct 06 - 01:57 PM (#1863426)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Scoville

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.

19 Oct 06 - 02:12 PM (#1863442)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST

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?

19 Oct 06 - 04:29 PM (#1863559)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Nickhere

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.,

19 Oct 06 - 05:22 PM (#1863611)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST

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.

19 Oct 06 - 06:51 PM (#1863674)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Nickhere

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

19 Oct 06 - 09:13 PM (#1863771)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: dianavan

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.

19 Oct 06 - 09:37 PM (#1863789)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST

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.

19 Oct 06 - 09:39 PM (#1863791)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: McGrath of Harlow

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

19 Oct 06 - 10:52 PM (#1863815)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST,memyself

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 ...

19 Oct 06 - 11:46 PM (#1863846)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST

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.

20 Oct 06 - 04:17 AM (#1863939)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Dave the Gnome

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

20 Oct 06 - 05:08 AM (#1863969)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Paul Burke

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.

20 Oct 06 - 05:15 AM (#1863973)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Tom Hamilton frae Saltcoats Scotland

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.

20 Oct 06 - 06:00 AM (#1863991)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST

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?

20 Oct 06 - 08:36 AM (#1864103)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Paul Burke

"..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.

20 Oct 06 - 08:36 AM (#1864104)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST,memyself

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.

20 Oct 06 - 08:41 AM (#1864113)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST

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.

20 Oct 06 - 08:50 AM (#1864127)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Paul Burke

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

20 Oct 06 - 09:41 AM (#1864195)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: McGrath of Harlow

>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.)

20 Oct 06 - 09:42 AM (#1864196)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: McGrath of Harlow

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.)

20 Oct 06 - 11:03 AM (#1864286)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST,memyself

God doesn't like it when people repeat themselves.

20 Oct 06 - 11:07 AM (#1864290)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Dave the Gnome

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

:D (tG)

21 Oct 06 - 08:35 AM (#1864993)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST,memyself

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?)

22 Oct 06 - 06:37 AM (#1865521)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Mr Happy

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.

23 Oct 06 - 03:54 AM (#1866244)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Ian

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.

24 Oct 06 - 01:50 AM (#1866973)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: dianavan

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.

24 Oct 06 - 03:28 AM (#1866995)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST,Dazbo

my first 200:-)

24 Oct 06 - 06:34 AM (#1867061)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Bunnahabhain

Join a proper thread, and you can have you X-thousandth....

30 Oct 06 - 12:04 PM (#1872279)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Wolfgang

Ekin Deligüz, the German Turkish politician I have quoted above with a plea to her fellow Muslim women to put down the veil has meanwhile received several threats of murder from fellow Muslims.

Wolfgang

30 Oct 06 - 02:19 PM (#1872380)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST

Such lovely people!

31 Oct 06 - 07:19 AM (#1872869)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST,memyself

Who? All Muslims, or just the ones who made the threats? Or all of us on this thread?

10 Nov 06 - 06:24 PM (#1882647)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST,petr

heres and interesting take on the veil controversy.

Muazzez Ilmiye Cig, a 92-year-old Turkish archaeologist said bluntly that hijab — Islamic head-scarves that hide women's hair — are not Islamic at all, but a 5,000-year-old Middle Eastern tradition.

All she said was that the head-scarf, now a badge of Muslim identity for devout women in Turkey and elsewhere, was actually first worn five thousand years ago by temple priestesses in Sumeria whose job was to initiate young people into sex. They were not prostitutes; only the daughters of the rich and influential got temple jobs.

The Turkish govt then proceeded to charge her with inciting hatred..
story here

11 Nov 06 - 03:55 PM (#1883321)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Wolfgang

Religious literalists are just funny (looked at from afar) or dangerous (looked at from near). What they compeltely lack is the ability to be tolerant to a challenge of their world views from other world views.

Tell a Christian literalist about creation myths similar to the one in their book but preceeding that book by centuries they may get angry. What among scholars is a routine statement can be life threatening elsewhere.

At neuropsychological congresses, speculations that Mohammed may have been an epileptic are frequent and common, we can only be gald that so far that, among scholars, well known speculation is still not on the antennae of the Muslim literalists. Compared to that speculation, the Danish caricatures are just small fish. I wouldn't enjoy going to congresses under police escort.

Wolfgang

20 Dec 06 - 04:54 AM (#1914502)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Wolfgang

Murder suspect fled Britain 'wearing veil'

The Home Office was last night investigating claims that a prime suspect in the murder of PC Sharon Beshenivsky fled the UK by disguising himself as a veiled Muslim woman and escaping to Somalia using his sister's passport.

Wolfgang

22 Jun 07 - 01:46 PM (#2084209)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Wolfgang

Girl banned from wearing a chastity ring

A teenage girl banned from wearing a chastity ring in class took her case to Britain's High Court on Friday, arguing that her school had violated her religious freedom.

Wolfgang

22 Jun 07 - 02:06 PM (#2084229)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Ebbie

Wolfgang's Link Didn't Work for Me

23 Jun 07 - 01:52 PM (#2084959)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: GUEST,meself

The only thing more bizarre than some kid wanting to wear a 'chastity ring' is some school authority wanting to stop her ...

17 Jul 07 - 08:48 AM (#2105057)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Wolfgang

She's lost her case (link to GUARDIAN article)

Wolfgang

17 Jul 07 - 06:28 PM (#2105420)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Ebbie

This is an interesting thread. As usual I find myself off topic. I keep thinking of the Amish, especially Amish women. (It's off topic, only because with the Amish there is no issue of covering the face.)

However, in some ways I'm right on topic.

* There are people who *are* uncomfortable speaking with Amish women. I have no doubt that such a person would appreciate the effort if the Amish woman were to change her clothes to fit the norm when chatting with that person.

The Amish woman would *not* do that, for several reasons.
1. Her style of clothing is part of who she is.
2. Changing to fit the norm would be unseemly and immodest and disrespectful, not to be considered.
3. It wouldn't occur to her. If someone were to ask her to change, or if that person were to come out of th house with a change of clothing and ask her to wear them while she is on the premises, the Amish woman would be astonished and offended, even though she would be concilatory and nonconfrontational. There is no question but that she would leave as soon as she comfortably could.
4. If that person would attempt to placate her by reassuring her that the proffered clothing is modest and non-revealing and muted in color, it would make no difference. It would not be part of who she is.

Tunesmith says: "Interestingly, when Muslim women - who insist on wearing the veil - visit/emigrate - to Britain, it's amazing how their religious "rules" are "relaxed" to allow them to reveal their faces to passport control, and thereby gain entry to Britain."

That thought, to an Amish woman, would be an insulting one. The *only* female that would consider it would be a girl already in a rebellious mode, one who is in all likelihood not going to be Amish much longer.

I have known an Amish woman who was in her 80s but felt guilty about the fact that she chose not to wear her 'covering' when she was home alone. She laughed about the illogic but acknowledged the feeling.

Scoville is right when she says: "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)."

17 Jul 07 - 06:42 PM (#2105427)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Peace

Hutterites do something similar in dress and in education. It is law in Alberta that children attend school until they reach the age of 16. Traditionally--for decades, since school attendance has been enforced--Hutterites remove their kids at the age of 15; that is, they are taken out of school on their 15th birthday, regardless of when that is in the school year. The provincial government has nevr to my knowledge challenged that in court. One of those things that's kept 'quiet'.

17 Jul 07 - 06:53 PM (#2105436)
Subject: RE: BS: Jack Straw and 'The Veil' controversy
From: Ebbie

Peace, it was challenged by the US Amish. In the 40s and 50s they pursued in court the right to remove their children from school at 16. They eventually won.

While I was still a kid the Amish started their own schools. I have no idea of what percentage of Amish kids attend Amish schools; I would imagine that in rural areas where there are few Amish the kids would attend public school, as they did when I was a kid.

By the way, I remember I was 9 years old when it first struck me that if we girls all took off our clothes we would all look alike! Precocious I was not.