I´m with you on this, Ed.

I thought Straw´s comments were naive in the sense that the veil is about restricting relationships - so that his complaint was not about a by-product but about the very purpose of the veil.

But he hasn´t called for a ban, and he is entitled to express his views.

Peter

Of course he wouldn't "stop a Sihk man wearing his turban and ask him to cut his hair before seeing him? Would he ask an orthodox Jewish man to remove his hat and kippa". None of those things stop you from seeing the wearer's face whereas veils do. Just as people have to remove crash helmets, what's the problem with asking them to remove something else which obstructs the face?

One of the reasons why I'd prefer living in the UK than in (say) Saudi is that not only can I chose how I wish to dress, but also (I like to think) the majority of people here are liberal enough not to express their disapproval simply because they have different tastes / preferences.

Straw is entitled to his opinion. I'm also entitled to mine, namely that he's an arsehole.

Is there a difference between hijabs on one hand and chadors, niqab or burqas on the otherhand? Or is it just a difference without significance?

Comments
I think you have missed the point, as have most of his critics.

As far as I can see, Jack Straw is not calling for the veil to be banned, he is simply criticising the wearing of it. A massive difference.

I personally see the veil as a symbol of the second class status of women, so I have some sympathy with Jack Straw's statement.

That said, I would not propose to stop people from choosing what to wear, and neither is Jack Straw.

Posted by: Serf | October 06, 2006 at 09:44

In 1944 Roman Catholic aircrew were (never done before, never done since) allowed to stand down, rather than take part in the bombing of Monte Cassino, not one of them did! If the decision was taken to bomb a mosque in Iraq or Afghanistan and a similar offer was made to moslem aircrew, what would be their reaction?

Posted by: David | October 06, 2006 at 09:55

David 9.55, that was a rhetorical question I hope?

In case it wasn't, see Israeli Embassy.

Posted by: Mark Wadsworth | October 06, 2006 at 10:13

Serf has the point exactly: Cllr Ameen has set up a straw man (no pun intended!) and demolished it half-heartedly.

If a man came into Jack Straw's surgery straight from a park or a building site, not wearing his shirt, then I imagine Mr Straw or one of his staff might say that they'd feel more comfortable if he put a shirt on in the surgery. I can't imagine Cllr Ameen would start shrieking about civil liberties then.

It is known anecdotally and academically that we "read" much of what we gain from a conversational interaction by looking at the other person's face. It is entirely natural, then, to feel more comfortable if you can see more of their face. Mr Straw makes a polite request, and - interestingly - no-one has ever refused it.

Mr Straw is not talking about coercing anybody, but is merely exercising his right to politely ask someone to do something for him. The pseudo-intellectual nonsense that Cllr Ameen offers demeans the real liberalism which he and I are supposed to share. It belittles the causes of genuine civil liberty infringement about which we should be making much noise.

Polite requests based on people's individual comforts and preferences are not infringing anyone's freedom; stopping people from making such requests is a deeply illiberal suggestion which should have absolutely no place in the Conservative party.

Posted by: BorisforPM | October 06, 2006 at 10:14

Many Muslims don't seem to understand the offense, disquiet and often fear that the veil causes in many non-Muslims. Veils were not worn by UK-born British Muslims before 9/11; in that context it appears to be a political statement of hostility to secular liberal values and to British society in general. While some Muslims may seek to provoke that offense, disquiet and fear in non-Muslims, I think for many it is a case of genuine ignorance of what face-covering implies in western societies such as Britain.

Posted by: anon | October 06, 2006 at 10:19

You appear to want to oppose Straw from a purely perfunctory position.

You seem to be saying "he is commenting about my religion, but he's no muslim so he must be opposed"

Straw has a profound point, about the veil being a demonstrable symbol of the parallel lives issue.

He does not insist that women remove the veil, he simply requests. He also has a female 'sit in' on all his meetings with islamic women.

Why don't you comment on the real islamic issue in Blackburn. That of women being prevented from attending some mosques?

Posted by: Jonathan Mackie | October 06, 2006 at 10:22

I could not disagree more with Imtiaz. If Muslim women want to dress in a particular way to make a political point (for that is what it often is, as the case of the schoolgirl made clear) then fine - but I or anyone else has the right to tell you that we dislike it.

Whether Muslims like it or not, it is not a cultural norm - yet - in this country for women to wrap themselves up from view. I probably wouldn't support banning it, but I am furious that Straw is being hounded for pointing out that many people find such a form of dress distasteful. I dislike looking at the backsides of women who wear those low slung jeans, and I often tell them so, particularly if one wanders into view while I'm eating. Is that a phobia too?

Muslims have shown absolutely no willingness to understand the cultural norms of Britain and to live within their limits. Am I wrong? Please correct me. My adult life began around the time of Salman Rushdie ("death would perhaps be too easy for Mr Rushdie" - thank you Sir Iqbal) - bookburnings etc on the streets of Britain!! - and has continued through to the point where police allow proselytisers for murder to scream their hatred in central London ("7/7 on it's way"). The reaction of the media to most of this has been a disgraceful silence (eg the refusal to publish the Danish cartoons, so that we could all see what the fuss was about). But whenever a politician makes a mild comment about what more could be done to further integration - from dressing less differently, to teaching more English - he or she is pilloried

The quid pro quo is: live as you wish. But stop pushing for the rest of us to celebrate every facet of your culture, or not mention in public the things we dislike. And stop using the language of "Human Rights" to support your activities - this is a Tory website, not a New Labour one. Rights are important but no Tory would expect one person's rights to take precedence over those of others in matters of cultural norms.

Posted by: anon | October 06, 2006 at 10:22

"Veils were not worn by UK-born British Muslims before 9/11" anon 10.19

Not true. I lived in Preston in the late 90s and plenty of muslim women wore the veil then.

Posted by: Jonathan Mackie | October 06, 2006 at 10:24

Compare this to the Fiona Bruce cross story... liberal PC crap. The veil is a sign of segregation backed up by religious fundamentalism. In Britain, you shouldnt have to hide your face behind a burka.

Every time a politician makes a comment about Muslim dress they get told they arent helping race relations and that they shouldnt be saying it, as this author is saying. Its complete BS. Either you have freedom of speech or you dont. Inigo Wilson gets slapped down hard for making comments which he believed. Now Jack Straw gets hit even though he has the right to freedom of speech.

Politicians have to walk on eggshells as to not hurt peoples feelings. This is PC rubbish and while I respect your right to say what you think, I disagree with you strongly.

Posted by: James Maskell | October 06, 2006 at 10:25

Ok, this is deeply worrying. I now find myself regularly 100% in agreement with Tony Blair and John Reid on Iraq / the war on terror and now Straw on veils. We have Oliver Letwin criticising Straw on this (how long before Dave does too?). This country is 92% white caucasian. Do we not have some say in how other faiths and or ethnic groups behave? At this rate, I shall be voting Labour in 09 (something I have never ever done). This issue is not just about security but about whether the UK has a distinct cultural and political future.

Posted by: MH | October 06, 2006 at 10:25

You fail to understand the difference. A Star of David, a skullcap or a cross does not conceal the face. Straw specifically refers to those veils worn by extremists which cover the entire face, not to the hijab which covers the hair.

In this country, it is customary for people to address other people in a manner that means both person's faces are visible. Imiigrant communities should respect this. There are multiple veiling options for Islamic women that allow the face to be seen.

Furthermore, a burka or other face veil is a sign of extreme oppression. It is not customarily used in Islamic countries where women have rights. You do not see Jordanians in burkas. There is a real issue with the oppression of women in Muslim countries like Afghanistan, Iran, and Saudia Arabia which you should address.

Furthermore, your post fails to note that many women in face veils may not have made that sovereign choice freely but it may be imposed on them. To have a real debate about religious dress vs. secular freedoms and oppression, you must address these issues.

It is nonsense to say that every woman in a burka chooses to wear it.

Posted by: another anon | October 06, 2006 at 10:33

"equally there is no dress code which symbolises anti-Britishness"

There are many dress codes which symbolise anti-Britishness - SS helmets and swastikas was a traditional anti-British choice in post-WW2 Britain; likewise hammer & sickle badges during the Cold War.

Posted by: anon | October 06, 2006 at 11:01

I too am worried...I find my self in total agreement with Jack Straw on this matter. It is is first time I have ever agreed with the man!!

Posted by: disillusioned activist | October 06, 2006 at 11:06

The only muslims wearing veils should be policemen on diplomatic protection duty.

Posted by: Drew SW London | October 06, 2006 at 11:07

Jack Straw ain't thick you know. He needs to keep his face in the public eye so he can get a look'in at the Labour leadership. What better way to get noticed than offer up some opinion which will rattle Moslem cages? He needs to catch up with John Reid, who has got his nose in front by taking on a bit of terrorism. Veils might do the trick for Jack.

Posted by: tapestry | October 06, 2006 at 11:07

"no matter how detrimental it maybe, in a free society we cannot force anyone to ‘integrate’ if they refuse to do so."

What a ridiculous statement from a Conservative! Of-course everyone is forced to integrate in society. Integration doesn't mean blind conformity, but it does mean that both men and women should contribute with ther fellow citizens, not hide themselves away.

What is the veil's purpose?

It is to keep Muslim women away from the looks of others deemed not worthy to look at them, or it means the Muslim woman herself is not worthy to show herself to others. Either way it is repulsive.

To defend the right to keep women locked away from society just because they are a woman is not freedom.

Posted by: Dulouz | October 06, 2006 at 11:15

I'm amazed but delighted at Jack Straw's comments especially when you consider his constituency. David Cameron should back his effort to put this subject in the public domain. The wearing of head to toe black veils is provocative and promotes social division. The message it sends (intended or not) to Anglo-Saxons is: I live in and enjoy the benefits of your Christian based civilisation but I am not part of your society, I am separate and my allegiance is
always to Islam before you and your country.

Posted by: Anthony Bass | October 06, 2006 at 11:18

This is an issue that has been blown out of all proportions by some of the more radical Islamic groups.

Jack Straw is not calling for the veil to be banned, nor is he refusing to deal with his constituents should they wear it.

He is explaining courteously that he personally finds it difficult communicating with someone who hides their face. The visitor can then choose what to do, none have chosen to remain veiled.

In a tolerant society, what can be better than explaining politely when the customs of others are causing discomfort and coming to an amicable agreement on how to proceed?

"What is most disturbing is Straw’s intransigence in that he asks for a Muslim woman to show her face if she is going to meet him, and if he is to do his duties as her MP. If as an elected councillor I refused to deal with a person who wore a cross, or a skull cap, was wearing a turban or had a Rastafarian hairstyle would I be encouraging debate on integration or displaying my irrational prejudices and abusing the power granted by the electorate?"

This, I'm afraid, is just sloppy and lazy thinking. Straw hasn't refused to deal with anyone and none of the examples here are such a fundamental barrier to face-to-face (or rather face-to-piece of cloth) communication as a veil.

Posted by: Mike Christie | October 06, 2006 at 11:20

I have to say I'm a lot more concerned by the responses of Oliver Letwin and Cllr Ameen to Jack Straw's entirely (overly?) reasonable comments, than I was to the predicatble reaction from the Marxist-Islamist MPAC-UK on Newsnight last night. Grubbing for Islamist votes is not going to benefit the Tories; while it might win praise from the BBC, Labour are well able to exploit this error to drive potential Conservative voters to Labour or elsewhere.

Posted by: anon | October 06, 2006 at 11:26

There are as many non-Muslims who refuse to integrate with Muslims as there are Muslims who refuse to integrate with non-Muslims. I see this on a daily basis in my ward - Imtiaz Ameen, Conservative councillor.

Please give an example of non-Muslims refusing to integrate with Muslims. You see, here are some examples where according to many Muslim pressure groups, I am refusing to integrate:

-- I champion the right of Salman Rushdie to write whatever he likes, without being sentenced to death
-- I believe that there should be a single common law for the entire UK
-- I don't think British citizens should routinely hide their face from their fellows
-- I think anyone who screams about 7/7 in central London, celebrating the mass murder, should be arrested
-- I demand freedom of the press and the right to criticise anyone's religious belief
-- The values of the Enlightenment, Reformation and the Renaissance are the best way to shape a western society
-- It's helpful if my fellow citizens can speak our language
-- Cartoonists can draw whatever they like
-- Schools have a right to impose whatever uniform their governors wish on their children
-- Britons found on a battlefield and implicated in the killing of British soldiers are at fault
-- Your sense of the sacred has no traction on the way I live my life, and homosexuality is not a criminal activity that should be punishable by death
-- Israel has a right to exist

I could go on. The funny thing is, without the ever-increasing fervour of Muslim "leaders", I would never have spent a second thinking about any of the items of my list. Thus reaction.

Posted by: anon | October 06, 2006 at 11:41

What right has Straw to comment on how anyone dresses? presumably he would delight in a constituent dressed in a bikini coming to see him??

How would Jack Straw and many people who have posted here like it if someone said that their dress sense was unacceptable and damaging to civil society? What about nuns who dress modestly - does Straw find that offensive. What about Goths who dress in black from top to bottom? Does he find them offensive?

Muslim women in veils are an easy target - I don't know whether jack Straw is pitching for votes in the Deputy Leadership election coming up soon in his party or is genuinely concerned about integration.

Posted by: Adam | October 06, 2006 at 11:51

I agree with Jack Straw (probably the first time I have ever done so!!!) In my view it is in no way racist or intolerant to express the view that on meeting and talking with someone you like to see their face. No one has suggested that the wearing of the veil or any other religious symbol is banned and I for one feel that to do so would be a step too far - after all I wish to be free to wear a Star of David around my neck. The problem is simply that if you cannot see a person's face when you talk to them you are totally unable (a) to see that they are who they claim they are; and (b) how they are genuinely reacting to your words. Once again the Muslim community is over-reacting.

Posted by: Sally Roberts | October 06, 2006 at 11:51

Ameen has totally missed the point. Straw just said that when he meets with these ladies he asks them to remove their veil so he can see their face. In all honestly I know exactly what he means, looking someone face to face is very important when communicating with another human being. It acts as a mask, if everyone wore masks it would be pretty intimidating out there on the streets (Never mind the practical implications of identifying criminals both through eyes witnesses and CCTV).

They have the right to wear the veil indeed, but its not a religious virtue like the hijab, and to suggest so is completely wrong. It's desert dress, how many sand storms has Blackburn seen recently?

Posted by: G-MaN Wild | October 06, 2006 at 11:51

It's very scary that I find myself in agreement these past weeks with not one, but two Labour cabinet ministers. First, I thought John Reid's boldness in addressing a mosque where hostile heckling was always going to happen was exactly the kind of thing we need to be doing to tackle extremism, and second, Jack Straw's comments on the veil were a measured and reasonable assessment of the practical problems of conducting face to face meetings with those who choose to wear the veil.

I have read his article, and listened to his interview on the radio this morning, and I am in full agreement. The question here is not whether we should 'ban' the veil, or even criticise those who wear it in accordance with their religious and cultural beliefs, it the perfectly fair observation that it makes the most basic form of communication, facial recognition, that little bit more difficult.

It is a shame that Muslim 'leaders' have sought to pounce on this, in order to justify to their own supporters that they are standing up for their interests. This story has been fuelled by these over zealous reactions, and it spoils the reasoned stance Mr Straw took.

All he said was that he respectfully asks those who wear the veil in his surgeries to remove it, and he stated that this was entirely up to them. He was happy to conduct the meeting with or without the veil. There is nothing unreasonable in that, and he has never, at any stage, suggested that it should be compulsory to remove the veil.

Why is it, that anywhere in the world, when people seek to conduct a reasoned debate about the many compex issues of Islam and integration, it is almost instantaneously shut down by the emotive howls of outrage from a minority? We can only understand each other if we are open with each other, informed candour will move this debate forward and ignorance will hold it back.

Jack Straw was not wrong, and he should be supported by those of all colours who wish to see reason and intelligence win over superstition, ignorance and intolerance.

Posted by: Alex Crowley | October 06, 2006 at 11:57

I disagree with JAck Straw.
he has no right to tell any one who wears what, like some one said on an earlier post if someone wore a bikini he would love that would'nt he.
Labour party has jus gone from bad to worse since 9/11 and attacking afghanistan and Iraq and killing thousands of innocent people, and for what OIL!
Every human should be able to wear what they want, be that a veil or bikini. and lets not start telling people what to do.
this is what causes the communication to break up, if Jack had not mentioned this then no one would be arguing about it today and no one would be worried, BUT now he has said it everyone will be talking about and avoiding women with the Veil!

Thank You!!

Posted by: Mark SMith | October 06, 2006 at 11:58

"What right has Straw to comment on how anyone dresses?"

In a country which claims to prize free speech as an essential liberty, he has every right to comment, and those he comments upon have every right to not take a blind bit of notice.

Posted by: Mike Christie | October 06, 2006 at 12:03

I wish there could be an Islamoratorium in public life. I and I suspect the vast majority of the population (including many Muslims who don't naturally identify with the hair-trigger defensive whining that pretty much any comment about Islam provokes) am heartily sick and tired of hearing about whether X is offensive to Muslims.

Muslims in Britain are entitled to wear what they like for whatever reasons they might have for doing so, just like anyone else. Everyone is entitled to their opinions about this or indeed any other matter.

Wearing the veil is clearly of great importance to some Muslims and no-one is stopping them doing so (Straw himself had said that in fact no-one had refused to remove it when asked and that he made it clear that he would not have refused to speak to the constituent had they done so). However, the modesty issue should also be looked at from the other end. Part of it manifests itself in the attitudes of some Muslim men to objectify any woman who does not wear the veil and indeed to consider any woman who might be a Muslim who is not covered up to be effectively a prostitute. This attitude then folds back on itself to make the wearing of the veil even more important to avoid any suggestion of their family members being seen in that light, even though in fact that would not be the reaction of anyone in this society other than other very strict Muslims (regardless of how they view uncovered women themselves). This is one of the ways in which the wearing of the veil is a form of social self-segregation because, irrespective of the religious merits or justifications it is a manifestation of a take on British life and social norms completely at odds with reality, amplifying the wrong reactions of a small minority of Muslims.

Posted by: Angelo Basu | October 06, 2006 at 12:12

Well "Mark Smith" says "if he didn’t mention it no one would be arguing about it today and no one worried".

The only people arguing are the Muslim community, because yet again they've blown it out of all proportion. And yes people would still be worried about it, and its naive to suggest otherwise. People always mention the fact that u can’t see some Muslim women’s faces and its a bit scary and/or intimidating. It just takes someone of prominence to get the national conversation rolling instead of us all thinking that we cant mention it.

Posted by: G-MaN Wild | October 06, 2006 at 12:21

Firstly yes, it is a complete distortion to claim Jack Straw says he wants to ban the Muslim veil. Having said that, we ban women from being naked in public - that is an "enforced dress code" - and yet islamic dress is infinitately more self-degrading. The practice takes misogny to absurd levels, as if the mere female form is a threat to civilisation itself. You can support the right of women to wear such things, but it is plainly clear the views underlying it are views the west discarding a long time in such things as the suffragette movement.

Posted by: Chris Hughes | October 06, 2006 at 12:27

Whilst I think that Jack Straw's decision to say what he did was ill-advised given his constituency and his Government position, I do agree with the thrust of what he is saying. However, I would cynically point out that it has taken him 20-odd years as MP for Blackburn to say it... there may be some ulterior motive...

This situtaion, however, does bring to mind the work of the reknowned theorist John Rawls. In his book, The Theory of Justice, he describes the 'original position' where representatives of citizens are placed behind a 'veil of ignorance', depriving the representatives, in this case Straw, of information about the individuating characteristics of the citizens they represent.

Posted by: In Like Flynn | October 06, 2006 at 12:35

the reaction of the Muslim community once again demonstrates the problems we face in this country. if an elected politician cannot comment on an issue such as this then we are indeed in deep trouble. rather than answering with reason and an intellectual debate, we are left to listen to so called Muslim leaders saying that the country is prejudiced and that those who have commented should apologise. How long is it till jack straw is threatened with a death and there are protests in the streets around the islamic world?

when will the tory leadership develop some courage and stand up for Britishness instead of pandering to every minority in society. david cameron, your party and country expects....

Posted by: Paul | October 06, 2006 at 12:49

Labour is brilliantly following the concerns of the British electorate.

For years now and with increasing pace we have been rushing to the centre of Tony's big tent. Unfortunately when we get there it will be empty.

The electorate is moving right on multiculturalism; the economy;tax;education and the health service to name but a few subjects.

We are about to waste the next three years, just as the last nine.

Posted by: Chris Mclaughlin | October 06, 2006 at 12:50

Chris - I think you are spot on there.

Labour's focus group polling must be better than ours. Blair, Reid and now Straw have all taken on previously taboo subjects. All of which accord with the mass of the public.

Straw knew the effect of his comments. It is fantastic demogogory and will probably be electorally successful.

Posted by: elrafa | October 06, 2006 at 12:56

'And women as well as men went head uncovered the whole time when in their hajj - pilgrimage - in Mecca.'

Jack Straw has every right to make comments but he showed his ignorance when he made the above comment in the original article. All women must cover themselves when they go to the pilgrimage. Its his inherent prejudices and not knowing what the veil means or stands for that has led him to make his comments. Having said that, why has it taken him 25 years to work this out - is he planning on retiring and now no longer has to pander to the muslim vote which he has shamelessly done for years.

Posted by: Adam | October 06, 2006 at 13:04

G-MaN Wild says - "People always mention the fact that u can’t see some Muslim women’s faces and its a bit scary and/or intimidating."

if your scared of a women then you will be scared of a lot of things.

my point on not arguing is that IF Jack Straw had not mentioned it yesterday would ANYONE be creating this post and talking about veils? NO! because it never came to mind and thats the way of muslim life, so let it be. Nuns also wear head scarves and veils should they also remove theirs?
i live in a mixed community and alot of women wear veils and i do not feel at all scared or intimidated.

Posted by: Mark Smith | October 06, 2006 at 13:06

You miss my point Mark Smith. It may not be being discussed in such a public fashion, but nevertheless it is being discussed. I'd rather it be discussed in the public arena and not have people think they are being degrading to muslims by mentioning the fact that it is intimidating when someone is covered up to such an extent.

The veil, (as i said in a earlier post) unlike the hijab, is NOT a religious virtue, but it is desert wear suitable for the deserts of the earth. Everyone has the right to wear what they want, just as everyone has a right to comment over what somemone wears.

Posted by: G-MaN Wild | October 06, 2006 at 13:17

Not much to add really. Much of what I think has already been said. I think more and more people are getting really tired of having certain sections of the Islamic Community dictating to the rest of us what is and is not an acceptable thing to say. This isn't Saudi Arabia guys, political discussion and dissent is tolerated here (generally).

I've always liked Jack Straw as an individual. Always seemed to be fairly 'normal' (well, as normal as you're gonna get for a politician), and he's gained further respect from me for this. Rather than a symbol of fear, I've often seen the veil as a symbol of the cultural, social and political oppression of women by men in some sections of Islamic society. I'm willing to have someone explain why I might be wrong about that, however.

Posted by: Kristian Shanks | October 06, 2006 at 13:17

Kristian

Women make that choice themselves - how can that then be oppressive? Why is it more and more women born in this country are choosing to do so - are they all being oppressed?

there is a stereotype that women who wear the veil are oppressed and treated as second class citizens. J Straw with his comments gives that credence.

Are nuns oppressed because they choose to wear modestly? of course not and its the same for Muslim women.

Posted by: Adam | October 06, 2006 at 13:26

Lets be fair Adam, whether its nuns or muslim women, your argument lacks credit as they are not the most liberated sections of society. I understand its through choice mostly, but sometimes not a well educated sensible choice.

Posted by: useful | October 06, 2006 at 13:31

There are a great many posts above and all but two disagree with Mr Ameen (Were there no Moslem women available to comment?)

I disagree with Straw for being 'wet' on the subject. If I were to go to Moslem countries I would not wear a mini-skirt and out of courtesy I would wear long sleeves too on more formal occasions. Moslems here should show the same sensitivity to the society they have chosen to live in.

In Britain the Moslems build mosques; in Saudi Arabia churches are forbidden. Until Moslems here integrate, their mosques should be limited and controlled. Their women should not wear the burka in public. How are the police supposed to do their job when you can't even be sure of the sex of the wearer?

We have no problem with our Hindu and Sikh population and accept them as British. It is only Moslems, some of whose imams preach Holy War against us, who are testing how far they can push their luck. Enough is enough .

(I agree with every point that Anon listed at 1141)

Posted by: christina speight | October 06, 2006 at 13:34

I also saw Oliver Letwin on Question Time last night. I fear the Tories are on the wrong side of this debate.

Posted by: John Hustings | October 06, 2006 at 13:49

"J Straw with his comments gives that credence."

Except of course for the part of his interview on Radio 4 last night where he described talking to a woman about her veil and how she had said it was her choice...

What is the big deal here? Straw has said that he sometimes politely asks people to stop doing something that makes him uncomfortable and they willingly agree to do it. That is hardly news.

Posted by: Mike Christie | October 06, 2006 at 13:49

"I also saw Oliver Letwin on Question Time last night. I fear the Tories are on the wrong side of this debate.

I'm afraid Oliver Letwin did seem to have firmly grasped the wrong end of the stick. Jack Straws actions, and those of the veiled women he is talking about, are surely a great example of tolerance and communication.

Posted by: Mike Christie | October 06, 2006 at 13:52

Typical Muslims. any comment no matter how true ( see the Pope) or banally obvious (Jack Straw etc)is taken as an insult. Hands are thrown up in horror! Get the fatwa's out! Lets boycott Danish goods because they have the temerity to have a free press unlike our dreadful regimes in the Gulf where you can't fart without an imans permission. Meanwhile everyone else has to put up with their ridiculous drama queen antics. What a shower!

Posted by: American Crusader | October 06, 2006 at 14:06

If we want an inclusive, integrated and cohesive society then we should ban the veil.

If find it offensive like some Muslims may find wearing mini skirts offensive and many Muslims countries ban their foreigners from wearing mini skirts.

What Muslims women are saying by wearing these silly outfits is that they want separation and they do not want to be integrated into mainstream British society.

After all if Turkey a Muslim country has banned Muslim women from wearing them then we can.

If is ignorant to say that it is in the Koran or is a religious obligation.

Posted by: Basil Blogs | October 06, 2006 at 14:17

And of course had you the temerity to take a Bible to Saudi Arabia , you could be thrown into prison and deported. The 'Stand -on-your-rights' Muslim element seems very keen to parade their religion but strangely , in the Gulf their coreligionists will not allow anyone to profess another religion, build churches , proselytise etc. Its one law for one and one for the other and most of our servile 'Public Servants' creep to this cockeyed hypocrisy. Lets hope Straw's comments encourage others to point out the glaring inconsistency in the attitudes of our 'Jihad is ok , the Crusades were bad - we can proselyise here , you can't in the Gulf,' neighbours next door.

Posted by: American Crusader | October 06, 2006 at 14:26

Incidentally Imtiaz i'm interested to read sbout yourexperiences in your part of Britain. What is your take on the sexism and homophobic intolerance that forms such a basic plank of Islamic morality and how does this translate within the Tory Party. If a Muslim is not , according to the Koran, meant to be a friend with a Jew of a Christian, and , going on traditional teaching is meant to see gays as an ambomination in the eyes of God ,how are they meant to react to the rest of society that has moved beyond these ridiculous prejudices? Aren't the issues of facial covering an expression of a similar outmoded neurosis masquarading as 'faith'?

Posted by: American Crusader | October 06, 2006 at 14:35

"After all if Turkey a Muslim country has banned Muslim women from wearing them then we can."

Sorry to be pedantic, but Turkey isn't a Muslim country, it is a secular democracy in which a large proportion of the population is Muslim.

Posted by: Mike Christie | October 06, 2006 at 14:52

Remember that advert for the British Army (used to run in cinema's I recall) about a British army officer taking the simple step of removing his sunglasses before trying to communicate with an angry man regarding access to a well?
Eye contact helped calm the man down and helped establish a dialogue between the two.

Same thing here..

Posted by: Dave | October 06, 2006 at 14:53

It seems to me that the word ‘modest’ has been highly corrupted when used in the debate about women wearing Islamic religious/cultural garb, for there seems to be nothing moderate or restrained about it, in fact it is an excessive display of religious affiliation, which can do no good to our societies cohesion when paraded down our streets.

In this Letwin, on Question Time last night, was in error in what he said (no surprise there, and one must await with concern what he's going to come up with as Policy Chief ) with the mistake of saying that the individual has a right to make choices. Yes, when making choices to be individuals, but it is a very different matter when they are making choices to set up very visible tribal groupings which is guaranteed to alienate . As such it then becomes the right of society in general to have an opinion and a right to say, no we are not going to have this self segregation, for it is not just Muslims who should dictate how our society is structured, we all have a right to a say, for we are all partners in this enterprise called Britain.

Posted by: Iain Moore | October 06, 2006 at 15:12

I,like others,am getting a bit worried as I am first of all agreeing with John Reid and now Jack Straw. Don't think for one minute that the Labour Party's Focus Groups have not alerted them to the fact that there is a change now taking place in that the majority in this Country are no longer going to put up with the pandering to minorities such as the Muslims and others. It is therefore all part of Labour reading the mood of the Country and us lagging away behind.Hence the speech by John Reid at the Mosque and now Jack Straw's latest. The Labour Party are not stupid, very far from it.So open your eyes and ears to what the mood is out there in the real world.

Posted by: Sandbagger | October 06, 2006 at 15:40

Where are the veiled Tory Muslim ladies on this thread?

Posted by: American Crusader | October 06, 2006 at 15:55

The difference between nuns who wear the veil and the Muslim women that Jack Straw was referring to is that nuns do not cover their face. When a nun refers to taking the veil, she is covering her hair, but not her face.

Which is what Jack Straw was talking about. The objection was not to dressing modestly, or even to the hijab or the "Convent veil", but to the fact that veil covers a woman's face and makes (in Jack Straw's opinion) communication harder.

Posted by: Thomas Bridge | October 06, 2006 at 16:03

Imitiaz, you are absolutely right that in a free society you cannot force someone to remove their veil. Jack Straw is just showing his New Labour authoritarian, anti-liberty side. He is also showing that he simply does not understand Muslims, after all.

Posted by: Jonathan M. Scott | October 06, 2006 at 16:04

Imitiaz, you are absolutely right that in a free society you cannot force someone to remove their veil. Jack Straw is just showing his New Labour authoritarian, anti-liberty side. He is also showing that he simply does not understand Muslims, after all.

Posted by: Jonathan M. Scott | October 06, 2006 at 16:04

American Crusader - some of the comments on this thread will ensure there won't be many Tory Muslim ladies in the near future - they'll end up joining the Lib Dems or respect or some other dodgy party who aren't so hostile.

Posted by: Adam | October 06, 2006 at 16:05

Thomas - today jack Straw said that he would prefer it if women didn't wear the veil at all. At this rate, by the end of the week, he'll insist on shorts and t-shirts only!!!! Typical socialist thinking returning after many years of lying conveniently dormant while in power.

Posted by: Adam | October 06, 2006 at 16:09

Adam
the only thing i am hostile too is a sexist , violent chauvanisitic creed that preys on tolerance to forbid discussion.

Posted by: American Crusader | October 06, 2006 at 16:12

'Mark Smith' is deluding himself if he believes veiling is anthing more than a vile practise, exactly akin to separating the fertile heifers from the herd in case the bulls get excited. Women are not cattle, the veil is a throwback for people that just can't shake the old country ways.

The point worth reading in Ameen’s latest self-serving article is that he would accept the banning of the burka and jilbab in schools and hospitals. I agree with him. It should be banned in schools and colleges for the under-18s. After that point, for example in higher education, the individual is an adult and therefore can make up her own mind.

Making sure that for at least part of their lives Muslim girls dress like everyone else (apart from the hijab headscarf) and are quite capable of going out and mixing with others in any form of dress would ensure that if they then decide to put on the burka that it is not because they have been conditioned to only feel secure while wearing it.

It would also prevent those parents who put huge amounts of pressure on girls to wear them from having it all their own way.

Ameen – it is possible to be ‘the friend of Muslims’ and not regard all their practices as sacrosanct and beyond discussion. Rather like the attitude some would like to see Britain take up towards America…

I also challenge him to find an incidence of a non-Muslim family butchering their daughter because they were planning to marry a non-Muslim. Now that’s non-integration…

Posted by: tired and emotional | October 06, 2006 at 16:15

Sorry - last paragraph is wrong... too much foam and spittle on the keyboard...

I also challenge him to find an incidence of a non-Muslim family butchering their daughter because they were planning to marry a MUSLIM. Now that’s non-integration…

Posted by: tired and emotional | October 06, 2006 at 16:17

Imtiaz

This is the Jonathan M Scott you know from Dewsbury until recently your fellow ward councillor. Just did not want you to get me mixed up with the other Jonathan M Scott who agrees 100% with you. I am afraid on this, I am with Jack Straw Imitiaz, but I do think we find so many of these things to make an issue out of when we should not. What is wrong with a Muslim women dressing in a way to respect islam norms, i.e. covering the arms and the legs and head? nothing! totally acceptable in my view but what is the full coverage of the face etc all about though? No need for it in my view. The problem will worsen if and and when we get ID cards, you can't cover up and refuse to reveal your identity if the police for example ask to check your face with your ID card? Or a post office/ bank clerk need to check your ID or immigration officials at passport control ask to see your face - the list is endless it will go on and on if we do not insist on this. There is nothing unreasonable or anti-muslim about asking someone wearing a full facial veil to remove it for the purpose of conversation or identification.

Posted by: Jonathan Scott - Conservative Vision | October 06, 2006 at 16:18

Adam / Jonathan - it may be very right on in your universities and polys but continuing to propitiate Islamists will get us nowhere.

The veil is a vile and tangible symbol of segregation.

Where do you both stand on the fact that many mosques in Blackburn refuse to admit women? What about Islam's stance on homosexuality. How do your right on views fit with that?

It is a backward religion which impoverishes its believers.

Straw is right, it is time to say enough is enough. We after all are the only country in the world that has had an islamic terror act perpetrated by British citizens.

Our very civilisation rests on this critical point and Jack Straw should be congratulated for slaying this taboo.

Posted by: elrafa | October 06, 2006 at 16:19

And Adam,

Muslim voters demand too heavy a price... no debate, no discussion, no compromise is known to them.

The country is being edged into sharia law bit by bit, any further attempts to 'understand' a bunch of people that despise us are as futile as they are dangerous..

Posted by: tired and emotional | October 06, 2006 at 16:20

The problem is that this comes as part of a long line of disproportionate reaction from Muslims.

Currently 5 Live are reporting of a concerted effort by Muslims to flood a phone vote on the issue which closed 9 hours ago, because 90% of people were backing Jack Straw.

Muslims should reflect on why it is that politicians such as Straw are seeing political opportunities in making these remarks (see also John Reid's comments on forced marriage and free speech).

Posted by: TimB | October 06, 2006 at 17:08

I don't think we should dictate what people can wear. But obviously, Jack Straw should be able to comment and advise people on what they wear. My problem is that I can't possibly imagine there are any veiled Muslim women who are turning around this morning and going, "gosh, better lose the veil -- Jack Straw says so!" And even if they did, it's not coming anywhere close to solving the serious issues concerning relations between Islamic and non-Islamic people in this country.

No, the strategy he's pursuing is pretty much as cynical as can be:

1. Poke Muslims with a stick.
2. Get predictable reaction from a vocal number in their ranks.
3. Discussion picked up by the media, newspapers, ConservativeHome.
4. He gets pushed forward as a 'tough' candidate.
5. Anti-Muslim sentiment is whipped up so a lot of moderate Muslims feel estranged from their politicians.
6. No progress whatsoever is made.

I think there is a very serious and pressing issue about the way the Islam relates to British citizenship. That's not about whether some people wear different clothes or disapprove of the Iraq war. It's about different values and different cultures and different loyalties and how to overcome those differences where possible and how to move forward when it's not.

But Jack Straw's not saying any of this. Nor is he likely to. It was a crass and manipulative piece of politics, utterly counterproductive to everybody except Jack Straw. Jack Straw owes the British Muslim population an apology for using them in this fashion. Irrespective of anyone's views on the subject matter at hand, I don't believe this is the way British politicians should be behaving. It is however, long past time for a serious, thorough, ongoing public debate on these issues.

Posted by: EdR | October 06, 2006 at 17:44

I think Jack Straw has courageously raised an important issue.

People should be free to choose what to wear, so long as it doesn't seriously offend others. In Victorian times it was socially unacceptable for women to show their legs. Times have changed, and now it is acceptable. Going topless is pretty much off limits in the UK, but ok in the south of France. These examples are about increasing exposure, but the same logic can be applied to covering up; what you can where depends on the culture you live in.

In choosing to live in Britain, people from countries with different traditions are signing up to some basic principles of British culture and society. For instance, our laws, our language, respect for freedom of speech, the rights of minorities and so on. Some aspects of imported culture are fine, but we resist those which offend our basic values. We don't want Sharia law, female circumcision, stoning to death for adultery, for instance.

The wearing of a headscarf doesn't cause offence but people are deeply bothered by the total cover-up of the full burqa. You cannot distinguish the wearer as an individual. You cannot communicate effectively, since so much of communication is in facial expression and gestures. Just as short skirts used to be socially unacceptable, now the burqa disturbs by going to the other extreme.

I don't support banning the burqa, but it is time for a public debate about it.

Posted by: Helen | October 06, 2006 at 19:35

Just for once Jack Straw is actually right about something. It is more than time that we as a Society stopped allowing the total double standards in almost all areas of life that our Muslim communities have been aggressively demanding and entirely getting from a Government so paralysed by political correctness that it has allowed a one law for a single section of the community and a different one for the rest of us situation to become the de facto rule of law.It is exactly these kind of double standards and hypocrisy that have allowed the vile BNP to prosper.

If, as David Cameron said at conference, we should suport Labour when they are doing the right thing then we most certainly ought to be supporting Jack Straw in this matter for saying the right thing. Or is this issue going to demonstrate our own double standards as a party when it comes to our relationship with the Muslims of Britain?

Posted by: Matt Davis | October 06, 2006 at 19:44

Jack Straw has produced a massive vote winner for Labour. Oliver Letwin seems to have produced a massive vote loser for the Tories.

Luckily David Davis made a point or two. But the party leadership really needs to have some guts dealing with anything.

Straw was absolutely right and it's something a Tory leader should have said ages ago.

Posted by: David Sergeant | October 06, 2006 at 19:44

People who are against the things Jack Straw and John Reid are saying,should get out on the streets and listen to what is being said in the Pubs,Coffee houses,resturants,workplaces and especially in peoples own homes.They are terrified to speak out in case the thought police have them for racial harassment.Things have come to a pretty pass when in this Country where we have prided ourselves in having free speech that people are being governed by the minorities. Time has long gone for this to be challenged and I for one will not put up with it any longer.Hope that there will be enough of us to stand up and be counted.They can't put us all in jail. We do have an opportunity to go to the Europeon Court to plead our case in any event.Where are those lily livered so called Tories willing to stand up and be counted. Wish we could borrow the Australian PM for a few months!They don't have this problem as they tell them to get on their bikes and if they don't like Australian Law then they can go to a country where the can practice their own culture.This is a Christian Country and not a Muslim one. See where you would get if you were to try to give out Bibles in Saudi. Try it if you have the guts as many Christians do. If I was a bit younger then I would be off to Australia where they don't stand for this nonsense.

Posted by: Sandbagger | October 06, 2006 at 19:53

As has been said before on this thread by more than one person, this story has been overblown from a request from Jack Straw during his surgeries to remove their veils (note just a request, not a demand) to a general demand that all Muslims remove their burkas and integrate fully with British life.

I dont defend Labour on much, but on this issue Jack Straw has a perfectly good point to make.

Posted by: James Maskell | October 06, 2006 at 19:59

This is what I mean,the Cllr who raised this issue is on the A list. Looking at the posts,does that no tell those who are on Mrs Ritchie's Committee that there are so much out of touch with what is going on in this Country. Really if this sort of thing goes on then there will be so many Tories staying at home on election days that we won't have a chance. Get real and pay attention to what is happening in the real world. I was always taught as a young Cllr that it was important to 'Listen to the People'.That is something which might execise some minds,that is if they are wanting us to be elected.

Posted by: Sandbagger | October 06, 2006 at 20:44

Very true. Of course who wants to listen to the people , might upset the PC police / Islamist appeasers in our midst and then where would we be..........

Posted by: American Crusader | October 06, 2006 at 20:48

Hmmm Strong comments, Firstly I would like to say that people should know why and when the veil was introduced in islam, one would find that the time and reason the veil was introduced was a very different society and women were being abused in that time by pervy men who had no respect for women in which case the woman was constantly under threat. This lead to women being introduced in wearing the veil for protection by hiding themselves behind the veil outdoors so no man would know who was behind the veil, it could be his sister or mother! To my understanding that is the story behind muslim women wearing the veil. Sadly I think that threat on women is still existant in a lot of parts of the world even today but I know that in our country and in our society no woman is under that threat or anywhere near that threat even though we live in a society that has rapists and peodophiles in numbers.
Indeed I would say that people have a valid point about disagreeing with wearing of the veil and I totally agree. However, at the same time if any woman wants to wear it because of her choice and expression then I think no one has the right to force her or even ask her not to wear it,FREEDOM OF CHOICE AND EXPRESSION SHOULD ALWAYS STAND AS IT IS, even though I personally disagree with the veil.
As far as Straw goes it is a political spin he couldn't give a sh.. about the veil all these years so why now? He is looking at his future and trying to get back a good position like the one he got kicked out from! I feel sorry for the law abiding Muslim women who choose to wear it being in the spotlihgt for socialist straw!
LEAVE THEM ALONE THEY HAVEN'T HARMED ANYONE!

Posted by: Al | October 06, 2006 at 21:07

Hey one thing that I think that will be good about wearing it in this country is that at least your nose and mouth are protected from breathing in a load of polluted air! I think I will start wearing it every morning on my way to work, it might cure the bad cough I have had for ages!

Posted by: Al | October 06, 2006 at 21:10

I'm still waiting to hear from the councillor about his daily experiences of non-Muslims refusing to integrate with Muslims. I would like some specific examples of what he means by this and his vision for how non-Muslims should be expected to integrate with Muslims.

I'm astonished at how strongly I feel about this, and I think it's a sign that I'm just past the point of being able to listen to any more special pleading from people who demand tolerance while being essentially intolerant towards others. It's a ridiculous state of affairs and not, emphatically not, simply a knee-jerk reaction from people the councillor might like to characterise as knee jerk right wing. I'm a centrist Tory in inner East London, happily ensconced in a profoundly multi-cultural environment.

If anything I'm angry partly through fear. If we're not even able to say "please don't walk around in disguise when you are engaging in public discourse" what's going to happen to gay people when the demand among Muslems for sharia law becomes irresistable -- significant proportions want it now.

Posted by: anon | October 06, 2006 at 21:51

Supposing one of Jack Straw's constituents asked him to take his suit off when he went around canvassing.

Women in veils are no threat, hoods on the other hand such as the zipped sort that don't allow people to see their eyes and other masks have obviously somewhat sinister intentions to allow people to avoid consequences of their actions - unless there is some kind of trend towards using veils as a means of pursuing criminal activities then it would be reasonable to reconsider this but there is no history of this in the UK. There have been instances in the Algerian liberation from the French and to a lesser extent more recently in the occupied territories although to a much lesser extent for burqua's and other similar appareil to be used to smuggle weapons or conceal explosives, but this is not what is being argued about here.

Posted by: Yet Another Anon | October 06, 2006 at 22:00

Women in veils ARE a POTENTIAL threat - that's the point! And the police have every right to know exactly who they're talking to or the veil is a carte-blanche to commit crime. It should not be accepted.

John Howard in Australia has it right. (paraphrase) "If you want to be an Australian - Welcome. If you don't like our ways - too bad. You're free to go to somewhere more congenial.

Posted by: christina speight | October 06, 2006 at 23:16

I am a muslim woman and I do not wear the veil. This is because I choose not to. I cover myself as is required and on occasion I also cover my head. I know several muslim women who do cover their heads permanently and others who wear the full veil. As far as I am aware most of the women do so through choice, not oppression. Wearing a full burkha or a veil is not a sign of oppression and male dominance in this country. However, I can understand the views expressed by so many British people that wearing the veil is intimidating and alien to them. They are entitled to their views and as we live in a democracy it is good to debate any issues which are of concern to people so they can be resolved.

That said I feel that so many issues concerning muslims are blown out of proportion by some of the muslim leaders and by the media. I have lived in Britian all my life and I consider myself fully integrated in British society; I live and work in a multicultural/multifaith area and have friends from all backgrounds. Yet I consider myself to be a good, practising muslim. I don't always agree with how some muslims behave and over react to every little remark but similarly the media should stop giving so much negative press to muslims.

As for Jack Straws comments/timing; he is using the veil debate for his own political gain. Why has he not felt the need to comment on this topic in over 20 years of serving his muslim constituents? I agree with Adam; he's either planning on retiring or trying to gain votes.

PS - to anon, muslim women have worn veils in Britain long before 9/11. I grew up in the 70's and there were veiled women even then.

Posted by: A muslim woman | October 06, 2006 at 23:21

Women in veils ARE a POTENTIAL threat - that's the point!

What a load of crap, How about women wearing knickers are a potential threat as well because they could be carrying something in them, any one could be a potential threat in a veil or not a veil. Has any veiled woman carried out any terrorist activities in this country to this day? No. Straw is'nt sying what he is saying because of any threat is he? He just wants to be a nosey so and so and have a good stare at women in his presence. What about when he speaks to women on the phone and communicates by email is he going to ask them to send their photos so he knows who he is talking to? Straw has done so much in the past 20 years to divide communities by pandering to so called muslim leaders in his constituency by handing out peerages and other sweetners to ensure that he stays in power, he has confirmed now this has nothing to do with intergration but to try and secure the deputy leadership of the labour party.

Posted by: Al | October 07, 2006 at 00:15

Some paranoid narrow minded people are putting so much rubbish on this blog! It is shocking to see so much extremism and racism, It would be good to see some comments with valid educating facts from both sides of the argument not sick racist islamaphobic rubbish.

Posted by: Kez | October 07, 2006 at 00:17

I dont know why such a big deal has been made by the media about some stupid comments by Jack Straw on a ridiculous subject such as some people dressing up in a certain way, the guy is one of the worst politicians ever,he is a lightweight who has failed in a terrible way in his party. Only Channel 4 news differs from other news they didnt give much if any coverage to the grey boring man. As far as question time goes "Well done Mr Oliver Letwin you made some factual comments on question time" good to see a politician having the balls to differ in opinion from the rest of the sheep. I think people dressed up in veils or goths or punks or tatooed faces or turbans or beards or whatever have all got the right to dress the way they want. we have no right to police peoples dress sense. Chill out everyone or the world is gonna go mad.

Posted by: Dilly | October 07, 2006 at 00:38

And the police have every right to know exactly who they're talking to or the veil is a carte-blanche to commit crime.
Jack Straw is not the police, police can have special powers and indeed do to some extent although not nearly enough to detain people and carry out searches including body searches and obtain neccessary information to carry out identification, and if neccessary this should ignore cultural and human rights objections but that is not the issue Jack Straw was raising, he was purely looking at it from the point of view of holding conversations in his constituency surgery and of social interaction generally on the streets.

Posted by: Yet Another Anon | October 07, 2006 at 00:42

The people who support the veil and insist that everyone can communicate with a veiled woman are discriminating against people who are hard of hearing or deaf, who need to lip read. They are a minority too.

Posted by: Christina | October 07, 2006 at 07:53

How many people here who say everyone has the right to wear anything they like would support the wearing of a KKK hood & outfit in public?

Posted by: anon | October 07, 2006 at 08:32

Sorry to be pedantic, but Turkey isn't a Muslim country, it is a secular democracy in which a large proportion of the population is Muslim.

Turkey is most definitely a Muslim country. What it is not, is an Islamic country. There is a difference.

Posted by: serf | October 07, 2006 at 08:54

Where I live (Slough), much has been done to reduce the "hoodies" in public shopping precincts; motorcyclists have to remove their crash helmets. This is basic security measures required for CCTV surveillance. The hiding of facial features seems very unclear to the Muslim community. Some have stated that it is a religious requirement; others state that it is not a religious requirement. If the followers of the faith cannot be clear on their own teachings what chance do the non-Muslim community have in even beginning to understand? The only message that is coming through to us is that this religion can be whatever is applicable to a follower at any one given time. We are led to believe that the teachings prohibit violence, but the believers follow the doctrine of martyrdom, and positively celebrated the killing of civilians in the bloodlust carried out under the name of Islam. Yes we do have problems understanding these people from the Muslim Faith.

Posted by: Michael Nye | October 07, 2006 at 09:12

Turkey is most definitely a Muslim country.
Turkey is a secular country in which an overwhelming majority of the population is Muslim although with large Christian minorities and historically a sizeable Jewish and Parsee minority, in fact historically most of the bad things about the Ottoman Turkish empire and later Turkey had not been to do with Islam but rather actually oppressive secularism - secularism can be just as oppressive as theocracy or athiestical oppressiveness - after all you only have to look at the Ba'athist regimes in Syria and Iraq - in many ways especially the former one in Iraq is very much in the mould of the Ottoman Turkish Empire, equally Russia, China, modern France and of course Turkey have all to some extent or other been intolerant for no good reason of harmless practices by many religious groupings, in fact the big problem in the UK is not people going around covered from head to food but rather people stripping off totally in public - there have been a number of incidents in recent years of people attempting to assert supposed rights of theirs (they claim) to walk about in public with nothing on like that fool and his colleagues who keep doing nude walks from Lands End to John O'Groats.

Posted by: Yet Another Anon | October 07, 2006 at 12:22

The people who support the veil and insist that everyone can communicate with a veiled woman are discriminating against people who are hard of hearing or deaf, who need to lip read. They are a minority too.
In situations in which that may happen then there need to be specific rules regarding people employed in situations in which they specifically will have to communicate in such a way, if veiled women fail to communicate with an MP at their constituency surgery then it is their loss and they have to take the consequences, so if they want to keep the veil on then they have to accept that they may lose out as a result - most people largely ignore the deaf and hard of hearing anyway (especially if they are young), not that they should do - but if it starts becoming a requirement that people don't wear veils in public the next thing would be rules regulating how fast people talked and with which accent and at what volume.

Posted by: Yet Another Anon | October 07, 2006 at 12:30

Christina and anon: what a load of racist rubbish! No veiled woman in this country has ever been a threat to anyone nor carried out any act of terror/violence. Leave them alone.

And Michael Nye, ordinary muslims do NOT celebrate the killing of civilians of any race/faith any more than you (I hope) celebrate the killing of muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq! Islam does prohibit violence. The extremists carrying out these attacks you speak of are not ordinary, law abiding muslims. They are EXTREMISTS. If you want to understand the teachings of Islam, I suggest you read up on it.

Posted by: Zara | October 07, 2006 at 13:08

Zara is right about extremist, they exist in all faiths and cultures , to prove it how many american and british soldiers have been charged with murder, manslaughter, torture and physical sexual abuse of iraqis? And the ones charged are probably a few percent of the total number of exremist soldiers, what about places like guantano mo bay? pure inhumanity being carried out by a country who beleives in freedom democracy and civilisation, Our democratic goverments are all goody goody on face deep down they have proven to be no different than some of the worlds most insane sick reigimes. We should clean our own acts and beliefs be proper humans before trying to change others. It is so sad to see the democracy and freedom of expression dying out in our country, I suppose we should expect it when we have a socialist goverment who got in power by stealing a few good policies from the tories.

Posted by: Al | October 07, 2006 at 14:34

How interesting it is that when an atrocity is committed in the name of Islam that muslims think they can get away with ( murdering Israeli soldiers etc) they celebrate it , but when its something they think may make them unpopular ( eg 9/11) they wheel out an old duffer in a funny hat who goes and tells Blair that this has nothing to do with Islam and that he speaks for 'the community'. They can't have it both ways - although thanks to this spineless Govt they increasingly try to.

Posted by: American Crusader | October 07, 2006 at 16:59

Not good enough to scream "vile islamophobic abuse" at people who don't like the profileration of veiled women. It's our space too; and as the veiled ones hide their skin colour from me, I don't see my reaction can be at all racist. Perhaps if the Muslim pressure groups stopped squeezing eveything through the pinchpoint of their paranoia they would see this.

PS The "you're a racist" namecalling makes me very angry - i've got turkish origin muslim friends. I had a muslim boyfriend for a while. It's nothing to do with the colour of your skin. You're born here, you're 100% British as far as I'm concerned. The anger you engender is because you act as though you have the right to force your intolerant strand of your culture onto the rest of us, and never even hear a word of criticism about it. And if the furious bloodcurdling screaming we see constantly on the television - death to British writers, death to cartoonists, death (literal) to Londoners with the temerity to travel by tube or bus, death to the pope, &c &c, isn't representative of your community - then train your anger on those people. And tell us how to help.

Posted by: anon | October 07, 2006 at 18:40

Anon Excellent comment! you are right if you are born in this land you are British, you have every right of living here what ever you are be it Muslim Hindu or Sikh even if you are a bnp extremist scum you have your rights and freedom like it or not! Many of these pothhetic human hating racists would find if they went back in their roots that 99% are hear from immigrants who came from all sorts of backgrounds and cultures. They clearly express themselves in their sick comments that they are ignorant people who dont even know how they are in existant, so it would be impossible of them to understand others in a fair and rightful way.

Posted by: Al | October 07, 2006 at 19:34

Where are these 'sick comments'?
When you say some people ' don't even know how they are in existant' what on earth do you mean?
I'm guessing here, but is english not your native lenguage?

Posted by: American Crusader | October 07, 2006 at 20:24

Oh thats 'language' not 'lenguage'
To quote our rabid little friend above , my eyesight is 'pothhetic'. And by the way darling , most civilised people spell BNP in capitals because its an acronym.

Posted by: American Crusader | October 07, 2006 at 20:30

American Crusader - you clearly have far too much time on your hands and you are full of hatred. Ordinary muslims do not celebrate bloodshed, be it Israeli soldiers, American civilians or Londoners.

Anon - I am a British born muslim woman. I do not wear a veil/burka and would never try to impose my "intolerant strand of culture" on anyone. All I want is to go about my business like every other British citizen and not be judged and criticised constantly for simply being a muslim. I have several friends of different faiths and respect everyones right to live/worship who/how they choose. We muslims do not all shout death onto anyone who dares comment on Islam and those people who do are not representative of our community.

Posted by: S.S. | October 07, 2006 at 23:52

American Crusader! eh? I thought only British people would comment on here. By the way you don't need to call me darling I haven't stated I am a woman have I?

My language is poor!

So sorry Sir I was expelled from school at a very young age for beating up a scummy bnp racist thug and putting him in hospital. I always hated violence but had no choice with this coward he kept harrasing my Muslim and Jewish freinds you see so I had to stick up for them and put my boxing in use. I left school early and trained as a Joiner hence you may find my spelling and language not very clear. I put my points accross in a quick way on here very sorry I don't have time to right essays and do spell checks. If you can't understand my quick comments no offence to me just don't bother reading them.

I hope everyone else can understand the simple statements I have made:
"existant" sorry is it "existance", accept my appologies. Excuse the spellings and language.

Anyway American Crusader are you a scummy bnp member? its just that it is the one spelling mistake you have very quickly reacted to. No problem to me if you are mate, I am so happy that this county allow even the extremist racist thugs freedom of speech. Today that gives me the confidence to beleive that the wonderful Law abiding veiled British I repeat veiled British muslim ladies will always be allowed to freely express their wearing of the veil in our multi cultural country.

Posted by: Al | October 08, 2006 at 00:42

I cannot agree with Imtiaz. I feel that some Muslims are missing the point. Jack Straw says that he asks women who wear the veil to remove it. He does not demand or order them to do so. It is still their choice and right to wear a veil, as it is Jack Straw's right to ask them no to do so. After all, they are in HIS office.

It seems things are too one sided. Muslims are promoting their right to wear the veil by denying the rights of others. They often quote the Koran saying the veil is part of their religion. This is simply not true, it is more a form of cultural expression and they are again using the believed ignorance of westerners for their own political gain.

It is not a statement of theology, but of politics. There has been much more reaction by the Muslim community against Jack Straw's request, and virtually non when a Christian soldier was attacked by a Muslim in a hospital ward. This is political correctness gone mad. Let's apply rights equally to all who live in this country, and not be biassed towards a few vocal ethnic minorities.

Posted by: Roy Clarke | October 08, 2006 at 14:02

Al
My apologies for my bitchy comments on earlier posts. I was steamed up following an earlier exchange and i should not have expreseed it in such a personal way.
My spelling is pretty ropey too incidentally.
No i'm not a BNPer.
Well following this unpleasant experience i think i'm going to retire from blogging.
Apologies again

Posted by: American crusader | October 08, 2006 at 14:13

American Crusader Thanks for your last comments, No Offence taken mate, I hope you will carry on blogging, it is good to debate in a civil way as long as we don't get personal, Just take it easy and enjoy it.

Posted by: Al | October 08, 2006 at 14:31

I think the variation on views from those who deem to be Tory supports exposes a lot.

There ie no doubt that the Tory party can hold together a "broad church" with people having different ponts of view. However for the "Broard Church" to still exist, without ripping the party apart, there has to be a common philosophy.

The comments previously posted prove that the plot is still lost as there is no common philosophy.

To me this asks the question. What belief does being be a conservative supporter actually mean? I have never voted blindly conservative, it is just that I have tended to belive in the stabilty of the philsophy over many years of voting. It is now too unstable for me to call my self a "conservative party supporter"

Posted by: Richard Moore | October 08, 2006 at 19:34

It is worrying that an A-list candidate could write such a one-sided article, misrepresenting Jack Straw's position.

I expect our priority candidates to argue their case on the facts rather than spin.

Posted by: deborah | October 08, 2006 at 22:52

Quite frankly, if you choose to live in another country (and are accepted), you should adapt to the way of life there.

Britain has never been an Islamic country and never will be.

That said, the likes of John Prescott probably would look better in a burka.

Posted by: Cllr Alexa Michael | October 09, 2006 at 00:32

'The country is being edged into sharia law bit by bit......'tired and emotional Oct 06 @ 1620.

Sharia Law is "the path that must be followed by a Muslim". It brings together elements from the Koran and the Hadith (a collection of the deeds and words of Mohammed), plus judges' rulings from Islam's first centuries. It was fixed by about the 10th century, and contains detailed instructions for practically every aspect of life.

In the West, it is most famous for its penal code: the prescribed punishments for sexual offences, which include stoning; for theft, which include amputation; and for apostasy, for which the punishment is death.

Much more important for most Muslims, however, are the parts of Sharia that relate to the status of women, to contracts and to family law. These include provisions that allow men several wives and that enshrine, in law, the inferiority of women. Women can be divorced merely by their husbands reciting "I divorce you" three times; their testimony is worth less than that of men; and they cannot marry a non-Muslim man - although it is permissible for a Muslim man to marry a non-Muslim woman.

It is parts of Sharia such as these that come into immediate conflict with Britain's secular law, which is committed to treating all citizens equally. But it is those provisions which Muslim clerics most want to cordon off from any secular influence.

Patrick Sookhdeo canvassed the opinions of Muslim clerics in Britain on the row over the cartoons featuring images of Mohammed that were first published in Denmark and then reprinted in several other European countries. Anyone still harbouring doubts about the intentions of Islam towards British freedoms and way of life should read an interesting piece by Alasdair Palmer based on Patrick's findings 'The day is coming when British Muslims form a state within a state'. The Australian Government has told Muslims in Australia that, if they want Sharia Law they will have to leave Australia or be kicked out. The British traditions of liberty, free speech and freedom of thought are all ridden over roughshod by Sharia Law. Perhaps the Government should study the Australian example.

"Freedom is usually appreciated only by those who have lost it, consequently it requires not praise but intelligent, active and continuous defence. We campaign for limited government and the fundamental freedoms essential to the maintenance of a humane and civilized society." Norris McWhirter C.B.E. (1925-2004)

Posted by: Cllr Keith Standring | October 09, 2006 at 16:32

The article posed the question:-

////If as an elected councillor I refused to deal with a person who wore a cross, or a skull cap, was wearing a turban or had a Rastafarian hairstyle would I be encouraging debate on integration or displaying my irrational prejudices and abusing the power granted by the electorate?////

Maybe you could explain how big these skull cap's, turban's, crosses and Rastafarian hairstyles were.

If the skull cap was as large as the helmet Rick Moranis wore in the spoof "Spaceballs" as a Darth Vader character (Dark Helmet) then I would expect you to ask them to remove it.

Most of the skull caps I've seen are about the size of a male bald spot.

Actually, have you EVER seen a skull-cap (or yamulka to our American readers)?

Posted by: stuart rickler | October 12, 2006 at 22:27

One young lady veil wearer has good reason to hide her identity:

http://littlebulldogs.blogspot.com/2006/10/veiled-teacher-plot-thickens.html

Tuesday, October 17, 2006

Veiled Teacher Plot Thickens

The Mirror reported that the father of the teacher suspended for refusing to remove her veil, works for a radical Islamic school. The school is called The Institute of Islamic Education and is in Dewsbury. Ofsted reported that there was an "over emphasis" on religion and that the teachers had limited understanding of the pupils' needs. Adding that "Methods, such as memorisation of text, are better suited to the madrassah (Islamic) curriculum."

Before you ask why she isn't teaching at that school, it is boys only. The Ofsted report is here.

According to the Ofsted report, the school's head (Chair of Shura) is a certain Mr Shabbir Daji. Now, I wonder if this is the same Shabbir Daji quoted by The Telegraph as a secretary and trustee of the Tablighi Jamaat movement. In that article (dated August 2006) Mr Daji was also quoted as a spokesman for the Merkazi Mosque in Dewsbury.

Remember that Tablighi Jamaat is an organisation called by the French as "an antechamber of fundamentalism". It is also planning to build a 70,000 seater mosque right next door the Olympic village in London.

Posted by: The jabberwock | October 18, 2006 at 14:54

I think it is wrong to allow a group of people to seclude themselves from society by masking their face. The veil worn in public makes it clear that 'they don't to be part of society'. In view of the reasons for the veil being worn 'men are pressumed to have no control over their sexual urges and women that don't cover are pressumed to be without dignity' i think it's highly immorally and offensive to all men and women, when this garment is worn. It judges all men to be sex beasts and women without dignity. No one should be given the right to discriminate against men and women in public. Nor should they be allowed to cry racist when challenged about showing their face. Racism doesn't come into it. Racism is a lever being used to further a right to wear a garment that is a religious symbol no less. Religious beliefs of this extremeness belong in the home or places of worship where they don't infringe on the rights of others. In addition, the veil gives out mixed messages to different people, i asked a young boy why he thought the teacher hid her face when the man came in the classroom, he replied 'the women had done something wrong and was scared of the man'. That insight from a 9 year old boy is shocking. That said, the actions of the veiled teacher teach young girls cover up its shameful to show ones body', it also teaches that women are submissive and that men are to be feared. These are indoctrinations we don't want to force onto children in schools. The veiling could also cause young boys to grow up resenting women as it tells them 'you are not worthy to share my space'.
As for the outcry in regard to jack straws request, a simple one that most of us never need to be asked 'can i see your face', i find it laughable that he was labelled as being racist. Eye tests require the face to be unveiled, so does dental treatment and operations? I take it that all veilers go without these things??? So are these people that offer these services also racist? I think not. When the racist card is played by veilers its nothing more than an attempt to get their own way. Where is my right to see who i am talking to? Racism has no place in this issue. This issus is about veilers wearing a uniform to identifiy their difference. I also perceive it as a display of their intolerance for people that are different to them. To allow a group of people to wear publically their beliefs over their head and face is intimidating, it also ensures they dont have to participate in society. The purpose of the veil is to cause a barrier, it does that with flying colours. I feel let down by the powers that be for allowing this divide to happen. Showing your face is respectful in uk. Helmets are removed out of respect, so are hoodies and hats. Why should a group of people be allowed to hide their face? No one elses difference offends me as they don't hide their face and peer out from behind a veil. This is 2007, not 700. No one should be able to make others feel as if they are not worthy. Religion has too much importance in society and it's all one sided. No one should have the right to wear a portable barrier to keep out those different to them. I do think human rights are being manipulated by veilers and that they have the upper hand. What about the rights of others that don't hide their face? We have none. Only in the workplace can a female be prevented from veiling, as it's sexually discriminating against men when they veil among them.
Communication problems caused by veils are another matter. Voices are muffled under a cloth. I could go on about this issue but i think the video of the teacher on u-tube makes clear the difficulty in understanding what the teacher was saying. She too had trouble understanding the questions put to her.
When veilers liken their right to veil to that of a surgeons, its laughable almost. Some other instances of masks worn are below: Bike riders helmet is worn to protect the head from injury should they crash.

Surgeons or dentists' surgical mask
is worn to protect from blood splashes and to prevent infection. It's also smaller and thinner and attaches around the ears. Its the surgeons/dentist duty to protect the patient and themselves from infection.

Rugby and hockey players face mask and helmet is worn to protect from injury.

Welder's mask is worn for health and saftety reasons.

Fencer's mask is worn to protect from injury.
Not veiling doesn't cause the wearer health and safety issues. Veils are also not required for speech. If they were life saving, i would accept them. If the person had a skin allergy to daylight, no one would object as exposure to light can kill people with this condition.
I think all religious dress symbols should be banned from the workplace and schools, so that no one can wear anything religious. That way the rule is fair. Schools are not there to accomadate religious requests, they are there to educate children. Religion belongs in the home and in places of worship. Until this loophole is tightened up, there will not be equality among men and women. France and Turkey imposed dressing curbs, why on earth can't the UK. On a larger scale, how do we know who we are talking too? If we can't see them....The veil is not a religious requirement in the quran and it's not compulory in Islam, so why is it choice here? How does one know all those that wear it, do so by choice? Given that females would be scared to speak out against their forcer.