Straw 'opposes all Muslim veils'

Post by **spiderfrommars** » Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:53 pm

Cabinet Minister Jack Straw has said he would prefer Muslim women not to wear veils at all.

The Commons leader said he did not want to be "prescriptive" but he believed that covering people's faces could make community relations more difficult.

Mr Straw has said he asks Muslim women at his Blackburn constituency surgeries if they would mind removing veils.

Some Muslim women called his remarks insulting, but other Muslims said they understood his concerns.

Mr Straw has dismissed suggestions that his remarks are designed to raise his profile ahead of Labour's deputy leadership election.

He has yet to confirm whether he will join the race to succeed John Prescott but is widely expected to do so.

Meeting strangers

Mr Straw is Labour MP for Blackburn, where about 30% of residents are Muslim.

He sparked controversy when he told his local paper he asked female constituents visiting his surgery if they would uncover their faces.

He said he made sure he had a female colleague in the room when asking someone to show their mouth and nose - and his constituents had so far always agreed to do so.

Asked on BBC Radio 4's Today programme if he would rather the veils be discarded completely, Mr Straw replied: "Yes. It needs to be made clear I am not talking about being prescriptive but with all the caveats, yes, I would rather."

Mr Straw explained the impact he thought veils could have in a society where watching facial expressions was important for contact between different people.

"Communities are bound together partly by informal chance relations between strangers - people being able to acknowledge each other in the street or being able pass the time of day," he said.

"That's made more difficult if people are wearing a veil. That's just a fact of life.

"I understand the concerns but I hope, however, there can be a mature debate about this.

"I come to this out of a profound commitment to equal rights for Muslim communities and an equal concern about adverse development about parallel communities."

'Separateness' fears

Mr Straw stressed it was a choice for women and he was making a request and not a demand.

"What I've been struck by when I've been talking to some of the ladies concerned is that they had not, I think, been fully aware of the potential in terms of community relations," he said.

"I mean, they'd thought of it just as a statement for themselves, in some cases they regard themselves as very religious - and I respect that - but as I say, I just wanted to put this issue on the table."

He said he was worried the "implications of separateness" and the development of "parallel communities".

Tony Blair's official spokesman said the prime minister "believes that it is right that people should be able to have a discussion and express their personal views on issues such as this".

The spokesman said Mr Straw's comments were not government policy and he refused to reveal Mr Blair's views on the issue.

'Dangerous doctrine'

Mr Straw's comments have provoked a mixed response from Muslim groups.

The Islamic Human Rights Commission called Mr Straw's views "astonishing" and accused him of discrimination.

The Protect-Hijab organisation said the "appalling" comments showed "a deep lack of understanding".

But Dr Daud Abdullah, of the Muslim Council of Britain, said he could understand Mr Straw's discomfort adding that women could choose to remove the veil.

Labour's Baroness Uddin said debate was needed but perhaps not in the way Mr Straw had framed it.

She was worried he had talked about veils being a statement of separation - that acknowledged the government's failure to ensure Muslim women were "part and parcel" of British society, she argued.

Conservative policy director Oliver Letwin said it would be "dangerous doctrine" to tell people how to dress.

And Liberal Democrat president Simon Hughes: "The experience of visiting their MP is difficult enough for many people without having to consider a dress code."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5411954.stm

I noticed there'd been no discussion on this here. Has Straw made a fair point?

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Fri Oct 06, 2006 1:43 pm

I find it disturbing how certain Muslim groups get so angry over one persons right to discuss a matter in public.

Mr Straw hasnt passed a law or told ppl they cant wear the hijab etc... he has just expressed that he finds it hard to talk to ppl wearing one - i too think its hard to converse directly with someone when I cannot see thier entire face, its a bit un-settling.

In this multi-cutural democratic society, ppl have the right to openly debate such issues, why some Muslim groups find thatt offensive is beyond me and I think it just highlights the differences between an open western culture and a religious based society.

If these Mulsims want to be accepted in the western world and for non muslims to understand them better they should accept that in a western democratic society ppl are allowed to debate things, regardless of what thier god might think.

Post by **Kaylee** » Fri Oct 06, 2006 2:16 pm

What happened to the religious hatred bill? I thought it was meant to be protecting people from attrociously insensitive things like this? I sincerely hope a full public appology follows, preferably with a resignation. These aren't the sort of attitudes we need in this country.

Sigh. I'm sure a public appology will follow, prompted no doubt by banners and various effigies paraded around- either in this country or some other. I get the impression there are certain groups just waiting for another huge injustice to protest against.

I find this immensely depressing (hardly surprising considering I'm already miserable) I dread to think how regular Muslims are taking this. The kind who just want to go to work, save enough for a nice little house, raise a wee family and have a holiday somewhere nice once a year. This sort of stuff sure does the image of Islam good.

Am I the only person reminded of the exam results business? Every year we get more and more passes (about 96% pass rate now I think?), teachers have for years been saying exams are getting easier, Universities are complaining they can't tell candidates apart because exams are hopeless as a yardstick and employers saying the same thing- yet the government and various authorities insist that kids just keep on getting that much smarter.

Sooner or later, some brainbox is going to work out- 'hey, these religious groups who just sit around waiting to go nuts over something... they're trouble aren't they? Rather than worrying about upsetting them... why don't we just get on with running the country for the good of everyone?' With a bit of luck, it will be someone in the moderate Islam camp.

[appols for attrocious grammar/spelling, my brain is at about 72%]

Yaya · Post by **Yaya** » Fri Oct 06, 2006 2:21 pm

Well, the guy has a right to his opinion, for sure. I think his idea that removing the hijab furthers social development is pure ******** though.

I think a distinction needs to be made here when people say "veil". The covering of the face, the burka, is a cultural thing, not an Islamic one. The hijab, which is religion-based, covers only the hair, not the face, eyes, mouth, etc. Perhaps Mr. Straw is referencing the burka.

And I think the fact that Mr. Straw is not instituing this as a law is a crucial one. It's the man's opinion, as as much as I disagree with him, he has a right to say what he will.

And even if it were the law, then Muslims should do what they can to get it reversed. If they cannot, they are obligated to leave.

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Fri Oct 06, 2006 2:27 pm

Well he was talking about ppl who wear the 'burka' ? - I dont think his comments are ********, he prefers to talk to a face rather then a mask. I can understand that, im sure most ppl will.

But its just a feeling a preference, hes not telling ppl who wear the Burka he wont speak with them or what not, he just prefers to talk to ppl face to face so to speak.

As always it seems blow out of all proportions - i saw this Muslim lady on a TV chat show this morning claiming all sorts of stupid things about Laws and stuff being passed, and 'she chose to wear it' - no one was saying anything to the contary, ppl just hear what they want to hear sometimes.

Post by **Kaylee** » Fri Oct 06, 2006 2:27 pm

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijab#Women.27s_dress it depends which interpretation/scholar of Islam you subscribe to (with different bits of the world enforcing different scholarly interpretations).

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Fri Oct 06, 2006 2:29 pm

Yes - i heard this morning it refers to a passage that asks women to 'cover up' - some ppl belive this means, dont show your breasts and Fu off, others think it means and part of your body etc...

its all open to debate...ahem.

Post by **Kaylee** » Fri Oct 06, 2006 2:35 pm

thassit. sorry was replying to yaya- he said it was cultural rather than religious, y'all just posted before i did

Yaya · Post by **Yaya** » Fri Oct 06, 2006 4:41 pm

One basis is this Hadith:

Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu'minin: Asma, daughter of AbuBakr, entered upon the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) wearing thin clothes. The Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) turned his attention from her. He said: O Asma', when a woman reaches the age of menstruation, it does not suit her that she displays her parts of body except this and this, and he pointed to her face and hands.[2] Sunnan Abu Dawud 32:4092

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Fri Oct 06, 2006 5:38 pm

maybe im being silly but to me that sugests you can leave the facial area uncovered?

Scraplet · Post by **Scraplet** » Sat Oct 07, 2006 12:09 am

I don't see what the problem is. In a multicultural society you will, by definition, have times when you must defer your cultural preferences out of respect to the other person.

The flip side would, perhaps, to expect Jack Straw to take his shoes off before entering a Mosque in his community. And I bet he wouldn't have to be asked.

Its funny, but I've never liked this man.....most things he says wind me up. But, listening to him being interviewed on Radio 4 this morning - he sounded fair and reasonable about it all. I think he justified his opinion well, and clearly stated that he would not desire his opinon to be enforced in any perscriptive sense.

Simply, the man offered respect, and asked to have that respect returned. I think thats admirable, especially when he probably guessed what response he would get, and could have avoided it all.

However, I would like to make it clear that for many other reasons, I still think that Straw is a tosser. This just isn't one of them.

Predabot · Post by **Predabot** » Sat Oct 07, 2006 9:30 am

Goddamnit... I wrote a reply for this thread yesterday but I never submitted cause my I-time was up.. It was my first sensible post in months!

Oh well... dumb version follows: Debate 'bout wummun' rights in islam, good, government bothering with what people can or can not wear, bollocks.

There. Bah.

Professor Smooth · Post by **Professor Smooth** » Sat Oct 07, 2006 1:27 pm

With my point of view being that religions are just popular fictions, all of this amounts to people being told that their cosplaying in public is annoying.

How, exactly, do you expect people to trust you when you're covered from head to toe? Isn't this the same problem that Spider-Man faced for 40 years?

Post by **Best First** » Sat Oct 07, 2006 7:03 pm

i think the hysterical reaction to someone trying to make a stab at reasonable and mature debate is ****ing embaressing for all those whose knickers are massively in a twist.

its the same as people shouting anti-semitism when someone criticises israel, all these people are doing is either deliberately trying to stifle valid points they don't like or just indulging in general reactioary arseholeness.

Fair play to straw for trying to rise above it. The notion that he has said something "attrociously insensitive" is, sorry, nonsense.

Professor Smooth · Post by **Professor Smooth** » Sat Oct 07, 2006 8:09 pm

Well said.

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Mon Oct 09, 2006 10:01 am

Scraplet wrote: The flip side would, perhaps, to expect Jack Straw to take his shoes off before entering a Mosque in his community. And I bet he wouldn't have to be asked.

This is a good point - Straw is surely only asking u respect me as much as I respect you?

My friends and I were saying we should start a 'religion' like the FSM and we should wear giant noodle masks and hang arouns mosques appear on live debate etc...

Back to the point, im also concered about the hysteria this has caused in Muslim groups and brings me back to Islam itself, it always seems so easily wound up over [composite word including 'f*ck'] all.

This is exactly why ppl ened up voting for parties like the BNP - the backlash of PC is comming...

Post by **Best First** » Mon Oct 09, 2006 10:10 am

i'd be very careful of making statements like 'this is exactly why people vote for the BNP' if i were you...

also, for people to backlash against PC they would have to unerstand what it actually means in the first place, and then justify why why exactly they think its bad other than teh fcat that they can't deal with facing up to their own prejudices.

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Mon Oct 09, 2006 11:11 am

why should I be carefull in thinking that this is one of the reasons ppl will vote for a partie like the BNP? - im not endorsing the BNP in anyway.

im not sure I understand what your saying about the backlash - this veil debate has caused some pretty heated debate.

Post by **Best First** » Mon Oct 09, 2006 11:20 am

yes, but its not against PC is it? The backlash is mainly coming from groups who, if anything, are more likley to be beneficiaries of PC.

There’s PC.

And there’s a backlash.

Is there much correlation? No there is not.

As for the BNP there is a difference between saying “is exactly why ppl ened up voting for parties like the BNP” and saying “this is one of the reasons ppl will vote for a partie like the BNP”.

Your first comment suggests that this happening on its own will make people vote BNP, the second is more measured (although still a pretty broad sweep about a pretty complex issue).

That said I’m a bit unclear on what ‘this’ is? The Muslim backlash? the liberal backlash? The rightwing backlash? Straws comments themselves? The Media sensationalism?

As for saying you don’t support them in anyway, whilst I’m sure you don’t, either of those comments could be taken as seeing support for them as a legitimate position, if not, I’m not sure what you are advocating?

Futhermore I think there needs to be a distinction between Islam and Muslims on this one – I’m fairly sure the Koran doesn’t say ‘over react to everything’ but there are certain Muslims who are or are encouraging others to do so.

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Mon Oct 09, 2006 11:40 am

well I think ppl feel they cannot debate certain issues anymore, for example what Jack Straw has said. and then when they see the Backlash from certain Muslims, it annoys ppl.

I think the media whips this stuff up (and has alot to answer for) and this can results in ppl moving to more extream points of view. and in these situations, I think its a fair leap to belive that ppl who have the more extream views might move a step closer to the BNP?

So, what im saying, I think its probably fair to assume that news stories like this do go some way to increasing BNP votes?

Scraplet · Post by **Scraplet** » Mon Oct 09, 2006 12:20 pm

Impactor returns 2.0 wrote:well I think ppl feel they cannot debate certain issues anymore, for example what Jack Straw has said. and then when they see the Backlash from certain Muslims, it annoys ppl.

I agree. When people feel they cannot debate these issues for fear of offending someone, then the issue (and the feeling of being disenpowered) festers. This is the weapon that the far right use. They claim that the liberal media suffocates the truth and doesn't allow debate. This reinforces their claims that they are fighting to expose some truth/conspericy behind the liberal 'regime'. Low and behold, the liberal media conforms to the far rights expectations (at least enough for them to claim it does anyway!)

Not debating it empowers the extremists on the other side, too. They learn to use the 'offended' card whenever possible, to control the liberal reaction without debate. How can we discover the common ground between us and make the world a better place if we allow these people to control what we say!?!

These issues must be debated openly and clearly, to foster understanding accross all parts of the community, and also to expose the nutters with their own agendas on both sides of the debate.

Sometimes people need to be offended.

This sounds like that 'freedom of speech' thread the other day.......

Yaya · Post by **Yaya** » Mon Oct 09, 2006 5:11 pm

Impactor returns 2.0 wrote:well I think ppl feel they cannot debate certain issues anymore, for example what Jack Straw has said. and then when they see the Backlash from certain Muslims, it annoys ppl.

I too think Muslims are overreacting to this, however, I also understand why. Much of the Muslim world has become overly sensitive to stupid things like this because of the substantial big things that are currently involving them today.

Though there is plenty of blame to be placed on the Muslims themselves for their current state of affairs, there is also great injustices that are being committed against their nations. The lie that is the Iraq war, for example. The United States one-sided support for Israel. The torture of prisoners around the globe without a trial, most of whom are innocent of the crimes of which they are being accused. India can have nuclear weapons, according to the U.S., but Pakistan cannot? Israel can have nuclear weapons, backed by the US, but Iran cannot?

Such inequities have created somewhat of a paranoia in the minds of Muslims across the globe.

It is this paranoia that makes certain Muslim groups overreact to Straws words. They see these words as a stepping stone to the implementation of laws that actually will prohibit the wearing of hijab.

Post by **Kaylee** » Mon Oct 09, 2006 11:23 pm

Was sympathetic right up until...

Yaya wrote: most of whom are innocent of the crimes of which they are being accused.

...Er, how you know this, Kemosabe? Unless you have extraordinarily good psychic abilities, obviously...

Yaya · Post by **Yaya** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 2:03 am

Karl Lynch wrote:Was sympathetic right up until...

Yaya wrote: most of whom are innocent of the crimes of which they are being accused.
...Er, how you know this, Kemosabe? Unless you have extraordinarily good psychic abilities, obviously...

Not good psychic ability, just a good sense of justice.

If they are guilty, kill them. If innocent, set them free. But to keep them in chains to be tortured for two years?

Many of those in those prisons have been found innocent, without any record of terrorism. Some simply had the same name as a suspect. Read President Jimmy Carters book. Prisoners being boiled alive?

As I say, if found guilty, kill them. But give them justice, not torture.

Post by **Best First** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 7:21 am

killing people ain't justice, its revenge.

Post by **Kaylee** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 9:14 am

Yaya wrote:
Karl Lynch wrote:Was sympathetic right up until...

Yaya wrote: most of whom are innocent of the crimes of which they are being accused.
...Er, how you know this, Kemosabe? Unless you have extraordinarily good psychic abilities, obviously...
Not good psychic ability, just a good sense of justice.

If they are guilty, kill them. If innocent, set them free. But to keep them in chains to be tortured for two years?

Many of those in those prisons have been found innocent, without any record of terrorism. Some simply had the same name as a suspect. Read President Jimmy Carters book. Prisoners being boiled alive?

As I say, if found guilty, kill them. But give them justice, not torture.

I wasn't talking about how they're processed or punished, I was just concerned by your assumption that most of them are automatically innocent. I'd like to know how you derived that? Similarly in pronouncing 'most of them guilty' (the US' position), I thought it was customary to have a trial and hear evidence first.

Personally I don't very much care for the state to have the power to end human life- just because of the agony you are causing when (and it is when, unless you make the case for execution only on the hardest of DNA evidence) you get the wrong man, and because I have a hard time reconciling the moral issues caused by a state allowed to murder those who murder. If murder is wrong, it's wrong... how can it be alright for the state to deal it out, when the state is merely a collection of laws and mechanisms put into place by it's citizens, but not alright for those selfsame citizens who in theory compose the state? To assume it is just is giving the state a power beyond it's merits imo.

Although I appreciate your view stems from a divine mandate from God that it's acceptable. Which I guess explains why you believe torture to be worse than death. Depends on the torture imo but unless it were something horrifically gorey (I'd crack in about 2.3 seconds under dental torture) I'd probably say it were still preferable to a total end to your life, just because of my failure to see any evidence for something coming after.

Pain or permanent oblivion? Well, I'd certainly give the pain a try for a bit... just because the alternative is even worse.

Although the argument is moot considering that they shouldn't really be tortured to begin with.

Yaya · Post by **Yaya** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 12:51 pm

Karl Lynch wrote: I wasn't talking about how they're processed or punished, I was just concerned by your assumption that most of them are automatically innocent.

Well, what I mean is they are innocent until proven guilty.

But you need a trial for that, something they have yet to receive.

I would like to think I could take two years of torture, living in a cage, no contact with family, etc. But I can tell you now, I couldn't.

Regarding the killing of another human being, intention is everything. Yes, my religion teaches "like for like, but to forgive is better". I just don't see it as murder if one is killed because they killed another willfully. In one circumstance it is murder, in the next its justice. The intention is everything. IMO.

Post by **Best First** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 1:28 pm

Yaya wrote: "like for like, but to forgive is better"

pretty damn wishy washy for divine guidance, isn't it?

Saying innocent until proven guilty is an entirely differnt conceit to saying you know most of them are inncocent by the way.

Yaya · Post by **Yaya** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 2:17 pm

Best First wrote:
Yaya wrote: "like for like, but to forgive is better"
pretty damn wishy washy for divine guidance, isn't it?

Saying innocent until proven guilty is an entirely differnt conceit to saying you know most of them are inncocent by the way.

Not wishy washy. There is opportunity for better action in almost any circumstance, yet this does not make such action obligatory. Justice, however, is obligatory. The benefit in forgiveness comes to the forgiving, not the forgiven.

As far as knowing whether those people are guilty or not, I don't even know what their charge is, to be honest. Put it this way. I don't know whether they are guilty or innocent, but it would not surprise me that most were innocent. How many have been released thus far after three years of interrogation and torture only to be found innocent? They are released only when that particular country to which they belong make a formal demand that they be tried and released. Otherwise, they remain there. I will say that if someone wants to create terrorists, though, torturing people for three years is a damn good way of doing it.

Post by **Best First** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 3:02 pm

Yaya wrote:
Best First wrote:
Yaya wrote: "like for like, but to forgive is better"
pretty damn wishy washy for divine guidance, isn't it?

Saying innocent until proven guilty is an entirely differnt conceit to saying you know most of them are inncocent by the way.
Not wishy washy. There is opportunity for better action in almost any circumstance, yet this does not make such action obligatory. Justice, however, is obligatory. The benefit in forgiveness comes to the forgiving, not the forgiven.

uh-huh.

except the statement is "do this, but its better to do this"

Which remains indecisive.

You have previoulsy described religion as a quest for truth but you see no contradiction is a god whose divine will is "well, you can do that, although i'd prefer if you did that, but i don't mind really, both are ok"

Also, if you are a fan of the (IMO backwards, overly simplistic, unworkable, unfair and ultimately stupid) eye for an eye concept of justice then i would say that the benefit of forgiveness falls on both parties, wouldn't you? Given that the statement is that forgivenes is better meaning an alternative, meaning that people won't be killed as you so charmingly demand.

As far as knowing whether those people are guilty or not, I don't even know what their charge is, to be honest. Put it this way. I don't know whether they are guilty or innocent, but it would not surprise me that most were innocent. How many have been released thus far after three years of interrogation and torture only to be found innocent? They are released only when that particular country to which they belong make a formal demand that they be tried and released. Otherwise, they remain there. I will say that if someone wants to create terrorists, though, torturing people for three years is a damn good way of doing it.

i don't see anyone questioning any of that, just your assertion (not stated suspicion, see the subtle difference) that 'most' are innocent which appears to be based on, er, you asserting it.