Jack Straw and the Muslims!

Conar

wes wrote:

As for the Super Market example that is hardly the same. We are talking about a minority even among Muslims. What you describe is something akin to civil disobedience or a precursor to a crime.
I do think that in a matter of security it would be okay to ask them to take of the Burqa and if they don't want they can take there business elsewhere.

Perhaps I have gone a bit overboard here but it was just to demonstrate my point.
Wasn't the issue though that these women would be insulted at being asked to remove their Burka/Burqa?
Do you think people would be within their rights to refuse to speak to someone in the full gear or refuse them entry to their shop? (Honestly wondering what your opinion is here, not looking to start a row or anything)

wes

Conar wrote:

Perhaps I have gone a bit overboard here but it was just to demonstrate my point.
Wasn't the issue though that these women would be insulted at being asked to remove their Burka/Burqa?
Do you think people would be within their rights to refuse to speak to someone in the full gear or refuse them entry to their shop? (Honestly wondering what your opinion is here, not looking to start a row or anything)

I don't think your looking to start a row, your comments are reasonable. Hell your far more reasonable than other people on this thread.

You have every right in the world to not speak to someone if you don't want to for whatever reason. You don't like there head gear than thats your issue and you might miss out on a interesting conversation because of some cloth. I personally don't see how it would be hard to talk to them as long as I can hear there voice clearly. Its not an issue for me to communitcate via voice alone. i understand that for some this is an issue and I also don't have a problem with someone asking a Woman to take the Burqa off, but the Women also have a right to be annoyed by it no matter how silly it is.

Of course a shop can refuse someone if they think someone wearing a Burqa could be a threat to security. In my opinion that is reasonable and shops do reserve to refuse admission

Zombrex

Conar wrote:

On the other hand I am sick of religion being an excuse for people to do things that other people would not be able to do.

What?

Any Irish woman can wear a Muslim veil if she wishes.

Conar wrote:

This I feel affects people.

Everything one does effects those around us. The question isn't if it effects people, the question is if it negatively effects people enough to warrent action to be taken. This doesn't. The mild pecularity or discomfort (I still find it hard to understand how someone would actually claim this makes them uncomfortable) does not out weight the rights of the Muslim woman, or the feelings she has towards the issue.

Conar wrote:

Wicknight if you were to hold a job interview and a woman arrived in her full headgear etc I take it from your comments that you would not discriminate against her in any way.

No, of course not.

Conar wrote:

Now, if I a simple Irish man turned up for an interview in a ninja outfit (not trying to be offensive, please bear with me here) would you discriminate against me for it?

I assume by "discriminate" you mean be suspecious that you were a little bit nuts for wearing a ninja outfit outside when you are clearly not a ninja. Yes I would be suspecious of why you were wearing the ninja out fit. I would probably just ask you and hold my judgement until you have given you an answer. If you said something like "I wear this because I am secretly a ninja" I might then go "Thank you, we will call you...."

But there is nothing out of the ordinary with a Muslim woman wearing the traditional Muslim dress. I know exactly why she is wearing it, and it isn't because she is a nut case.

For example, I wouldn't bat an eye lid if a Scotish man was in the pub wearing a kilt. On the other hand I would certainly bat an eye lid if a Dublin man was in the pub wearing a ladies dress. At the same time, to quote Austin Powers, that is his bag baby.

Just because I can find some instances of a person covering their face strange, that doesn't mean I find a Muslim woman doing it strange.

I understand what the woman is doing, and why she is doing it. It isn't unusual or strange at all.

Conar wrote:

So when you see people disagreeing with your views on how we should treat people, do not assume that we are simply being ignorant or that we just don't like people that look different, maybe we simply don't agree with them in some of their customs.

I accept that people will be intolerant etc. That is a fact of life. But just because some people are intolerant doesn't mean that is a good thing, or that this intolerance is justifable.

I would point out though that some of the comments on this thread do demonstrate that the post clearly has no idea why Muslim women wear a veil in public, such as the rather silly comment that they are free to wear the veil in the privacy of their own home :rolleyes:

Conar wrote:

At the end of the day, we are Irish people, governed buy an Irish electorate, ruled by OUR Irish constitution. And we, yes WE should have the right to say what flies in our country.

I was under the impression that civil and religious freedom "flies in our country". Perhaps I was wrong.

If you can find the law that a Muslim woman breaks by wearing the veil I would love to hear it.

Would you feel equally strong about an Irish Muslim woman doing this, or is only because they are foreigners?

Conar wrote:

Would you think it fair if Jack Straw spoke to them from behind a partition?

If he wanted to yes. I might ask why, but then you can ask any Muslim why she wears a veil.

Conar wrote:

Different things are socially acceptable in different places. Some people may curse a lot in their homeland, even in front of children. This should not give them the right to do so in our country.....or for British people in their country.

So wearing a veil is like cursing in public? How exactly?

How does wearing a veil break any of our public decency laws, or even standards?

Zombrex

Conar wrote:

I would find this offensive.

Why?

If you met a burn victim who had his face covered for medical reasons, would you find it offensive or uncomfortable that he could not show you his face while talking to you?

Is it the fact that you can't see the womans face, or is it the fact that she chooses to hide it from you? Is it because of the fact that covering the face is a visiable expression of her religion, or is it simply that it is new and unusual?

The fact of the matter is that we are fine with people covering their mouth when they talk, so long as they have what we determine to be a justifiable reason. If the reason isn't justifable we consider them as being rude.

The problem here is that people do not consider a Muslim womans issues on the matter to be a justifable reason, because we in the west view Islam in a quite negative light already

Conar

Wicknight wrote:

I would point out though that some of the comments on this thread do demonstrate that the post clearly has no idea why Muslim women wear a veil in public, such as the rather silly comment that they are free to wear the veil in the privacy of their own home :rolleyes:

You stated earlier that a Muslim woman would feel naked without her headdress and compared it to an Irish woman showing her breasts or groin.
You also laugh at someones obvious mistake at saying that they can wear it at home. If this is so proposterous then how can you compare an Irish woman being seen naked to a Muslim woman being seen without her Burka?
How many Irish women do you know that entertain at home while naked?

Wicknight wrote:

I was under the impression that civil and religious freedom "flies in our country". Perhaps I was wrong.

You are taking me out of context here, but perhaps I was being a little unclear. I actually meant that we have the right to discuss it and decide for ourselves as Irish people whether we think that these matters are acceptable. Just like you have the right to attack (and I do feel that this is what you are doing) peoples views that you disagree with.
If you were a little less angry and a little more composed I think your view would be listened to by more of the people here.

Wicknight wrote:

If you can find the law that a Muslim woman breaks by wearing the veil I would love to hear it.

Again not what I meant. Wes as a Muslim himself seems to be able to follow what I am saying. Why do uyou insist on twisting peoples words. It only harms your argument in the long run.

Wicknight wrote:

Would you feel equally strong about an Irish Muslim woman doing this, or is only because they are foreigners?

I would most definitely feel equally as strong about an Irish woman doing this.
Again, to reconfirm, I do not dislike Muslims, be they Irish, French, Albanian, or Afghani........I do however dislike organised religions, but that is a seperate matter.
Why do you insist on trying to turn this into a race issue?

Wicknight wrote:

So wearing a veil is like cursing in public? How exactly?

How does wearing a veil break any of our public decency laws, or even standards?

Twisting my words again.
I was comparing them, not stating that they were the same thing.
I thought that there were no laws against cursing, rather just aiming abuse at someone, I am quite possibly wrong about this.
Just because you don't have an issue with talking to people whose face is completely covered does not mean that others don't, just like the way some people have no problem with cursing while others deplore it.

Conar

Wicknight wrote:

If you met a burn victim who had his face covered for medical reasons, would you find it offensive or uncomfortable that he could not show you his face while talking to you?

No.

Wicknight wrote:

Is it the fact that you can't see the womans face, or is it the fact that she chooses to hide it from you?

As mentioned before it is due to the fact that I cannot see the womans face.

Wicknight wrote:

Is it because of the fact that covering the face is a visiable expression of her religion, or is it simply that it is new and unusual?

You provide 2 options here, neither of which I would chose. Thank you.

Wicknight wrote:

The fact of the matter is that we are fine with people covering their mouth when they talk, so long as they have what we determine to be a justifiable reason. If the reason isn't justifable we consider them as being rude.

I would also chose not to speak to someone that covered their mouth unless they had a valid medical reason or similar.

Wicknight wrote:

The problem here is that people do not consider a Muslim womans issues on the matter to be a justifable reason, because we in the west view Islam in a quite negative light already

Perhaps that is some peoples problems.
Perhaps even most, though I doubt it.
I do not consider religion to be a valid reason for anyone doing anything.
A religion is only deemed a religion when enough sheep join the flock.
If half the world turned devil worship (which I feel would be as valid as being a Christian as you can't have God without the devil) then I would still not advocate the sacrificing of chickens, lambs, virgins or anything else.

oscarBravo

Conar wrote:

...I feel that in this day and age it is expected that one should see a persons face when in public.

By whom is this "expected"? Why?

Conar

oscarBravo wrote:

By whom is this "expected"? Why?

I would have thought that this was a general feeling amongst people, but I obviously cannot vouch for everyone hence stating "I feel....".

As I mentioned earlier, the hoodie incident in UK caused a bit of a storm.
People didn't like the fact the groups of youths were hiding behind their hoods.

Halloween is the only time of year I can think of that peoples faces being covered is widely accepted.

I would like to start another thread with a vote to see how people feel about this.
I am genuinely interested.

Conar

Just to add to this, I think that from an early age our society teaches us not to hide our faces and to look at our peers/superiors when we speak to them.
We are not allowed wear hats or makeup or those kinds of things in school.
It is often considered rude to wear a hat indoors especially in a place of work or formal setting.

I've also seen a documentary where it showed that facial recognition is a skill that we have when we are born but lose over time as it begins to specialise.
Children at 6 months old can recognise the diference between the faces of diferent lemurs for example, but as the brain developes, and we obviously don't see to many lemurs in day to day life we lose that ability.

This is also why a lot of western people find it difficult to differ between simlar looking African people or Asian people and vice versa even though thos same African people would have no problem distinguishing between them. It is all a case of what we are used to. (Please please please people don't think I am saying that all black people look the same).

I simply feel that we as people find it much easier to communicate face to face rather than face to Burka, or over the phone etc.
You will probably find that video calling will become more common in the future for this reason. Job interviews are normally face to face etc.
Like it or not our faces are the primary methods of identifaction and the primary indicators of mood.

Once again though I would like to reitterate that I think the Burka's that do not cover the face are fine. I do have a problem with the full facial coverage ones though.

aslantheslayer

Does anyone remember the British School girl last year?

She was told to remove her cross that she was wearing. The Headmaster went onto say

"As a Christian I don't have to wear a crucifix but Sikhs don't have that option and we have to be understanding. We live in a multi-faith society."

What a load of Bollo**s

http://atangledweb.typepad.com/weblog/2005/12/crucuifix_banne.html
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/British_schoolgirl_told_to_return_home_for_wearing_crucifix

Zombrex

Conar wrote:

I would also chose not to speak to someone that covered their mouth unless they had a valid medical reason or similar.

So you believe the only justifable reason one should cover their face when talking to you is if they medically are required to.

Conar wrote:

I do not consider religion to be a valid reason for anyone doing anything.

Well ok. I suppose not much point arguing with that.

You don't believe that a person has religious freedoms, or the right to believe what they want. I would disagree, and I would hope most of the population would as well.

Conar wrote:

If half the world turned devil worship (which I feel would be as valid as being a Christian as you can't have God without the devil) then I would still not advocate the sacrificing of chickens, lambs, virgins or anything else.

You are comparing wearing a Muslim veil to sacrificing virgins?

Zombrex

Conar wrote:

You stated earlier that a Muslim woman would feel naked without her headdress and compared it to an Irish woman showing her breasts or groin.

I did.

Conar wrote:

You also laugh at someones obvious mistake at saying that they can wear it at home.

I did, because it showed they have absolutely no idea why the Muslim woman wear the veil in the first place.

Conar wrote:

How many Irish women do you know that entertain at home while naked?

How many Irish people do you know who never get naked at home?

Conar wrote:

I actually meant that we have the right to discuss it and decide for ourselves

We don't decide if a Muslim woman should or should not wear a veil in public. We decide if the Muslim woman has the right to decide herself.

In fact, we already did decided this, hence my point out our society being about religious and civil freedom.

If you disagree with religious freedom (as it seems you do) then you have to argue that for everyone, not just Muslims.

Conar wrote:

Why do you insist on trying to turn this into a race issue?

Because Irish people regular cover there faces, for a wide range of reasons, and have done for years, and I've never seen it turn into an issue.

Conar wrote:

Twisting my words again.

I'm not twisting your words, you are repeatable using extreme examples as arguments. If you don't think these extreme examples are the same then why are you using them as examples?

Conar wrote:

I was comparing them, not stating that they were the same thing.

If they aren't similar why are you comparing them?

Hobbes

aslantheslayer wrote:

She was told to remove her cross that she was wearing. The Headmaster went onto say

Most schools have a jewellery ban. Whats the issue exactly? Are you saying the Catholic religon requires children to wear a cross?

Zombrex

aslantheslayer wrote:

What a load of Bollo**s

Agree with you 100% there aslantheslayer. Sounds like the principle was being a dick

Zombrex

Conar wrote:

Just to add to this, I think that from an early age our society teaches us not to hide our faces and to look at our peers/superiors when we speak to them.

That is very true.

Conar wrote:

We are not allowed wear hats or makeup or those kinds of things in school.

True again, but that isn't for the above reason.

Conar wrote:

It is often considered rude to wear a hat indoors especially in a place of work or formal setting.

That is true again, but again it isn't because it hides the face.

Conar wrote:

I simply feel that we as people find it much easier to communicate face to face rather than face to Burka, or over the phone etc.

Is that a reason not to communicate with someone over the phone? Would you find it impossible to do so over the phone, or rude if the person wished to discuss something with you over the phone?

This goes back to my point that people often communicate with each other without being face to face. And this hasn't been an issue. I have never recalled anyone claim that it was rude to talk to someone over the phone.

aslantheslayer

Hobbes wrote:

Most schools have a jewellery ban. Whats the issue exactly? Are you saying the Catholic religon requires children to wear a cross?

What I am saying is that a school refuses a Child to wear a cross. Her Beleif is obviously Christian. A Cross as we all know is a deeply symbolic symbol of christianity. But the principle tells her to take it of as its not "Multi Cultural"

So In other words bugger your Christian faith.

However A Seik who wears a bracelet as part of there faith, Can wear jewllery in school, as this is part of there religion.

So this brings me back to the OP. A muslim is asked to take of her Burka and it creates all this fuss. However when a Christian girl, In A Chrisitan Country is asked to take of her Chrisitan Symbol as it may upset other Faiths who are allowed to wear there symbols, we are just expected to shut up and take it?

Im sorry but i think its our of order.

And this is where racial tensions start.

Political Correctness and the Human Rights Law have screwed us all up!

RedPlanet

Well, a cousin of mine in America was asked to discontinue wearing his crucifix at a public school as it was deemed offensive by his peers.
A cross however was acceptable.
America is predominately protestant as we know.
Now i can empathize that some may find a twisted, contorted figure of a man nailed to a plank of wood a bit gross and therefore inappropriate for public display.
However a simple article of clothing covering most the face is not.
For example people in northern climates frequently cover their faces against the cold similarly.

Infact maybe Burka predates Islam, perhaps people living amidst sandy deserts would cover their faces against the blowing sand. Maybe it evolved that women should always do so to protect their beauty from the elements.
Some research is in order...

Here's a site worth viewing:
http://www.geocities.com/hijabhypocrisy/

oscarBravo

Conar wrote:

I simply feel that we as people find it much easier to communicate face to face rather than face to Burka, or over the phone etc.

In a country with 105% mobile phone penetration, I don't think we are too troubled by the thought of non-facial communication.

Conar wrote:

You will probably find that video calling will become more common in the future for this reason.

Honestly, I doubt it. The very thought of video calling leaves me quite cold. It's already possible, and very few people bother to do it.

aslantheslayer wrote:

However when a Christian girl, In A Chrisitan Country is asked to take of her Chrisitan Symbol as it may upset other Faiths who are allowed to wear there symbols, we are just expected to shut up and take it?

Who says we're expected to shut up and take it?

aslantheslayer

RedPlanet wrote:

Well, a cousin of mine in America was asked to discontinue wearing his crucifix at a public school as it was deemed offensive by his peers.
A cross however was acceptable.
America is predominately protestant as we know.
Now i can empathize that some may find a twisted, contorted figure of a man nailed to a plank of wood a bit gross and therefore inappropriate for public display.
However a simple article of clothing covering most the face is not.
For example people in northern climates frequently cover their faces against the cold similarly.

Infact maybe Burka predates Islam, perhaps people living amidst sandy deserts would cover their faces against the blowing sand. Maybe it evolved that women should always do so to protect their beauty from the elements.
Some research is in order...

Consider that in Western Culture, Witches are traditionaly known for there black dress. Evil is considered black/dark. Many now consider Islamic terrorists with the Burka.

Now as stupid as this all seems, it is no different to your claim about,

" a twisted, contorted figure of a man nailed to a plank of wood a bit gross and therefore inappropriate for public display."

As A catholic I find your comments offensive against my spiritual beleifs. So how should I re-act?

Should I act like Muslim people do when there faith is attacked or should I act like a good Irish Chrisitan?

RedPlanet

aslantheslayer wrote:

Should I act like Muslim people do when there faith is attacked or should I act like a good Irish Chrisitan?

I think your reaction is hypocritical
http://www.geocities.com/hijabhypocrisy/

fly_agaric

Wicknight wrote:

How did this issue turn from one of Muslim veils to us makig all the adjustments to allow muslims to fit in?

I wasn't talking about you or me + how we live our lives specifically. I was thinking more generally about changes in the way things are done in the UK (or here?) [in the context of my remark about give and take on these kinds of issues].

Should employers be able to expect their employees to drop the veil for face-to-face customer service jobs. For teaching perhaps? Should students have to deveil in class so the teacher can see their faces?
Some "equality" legislation could be brought in to make it illegal for employers to make such demands but then maybe they would on the sly decide its not worth the bother employing strictly religious muslim women who won't ever remove their veils in public - maybe needing more laws.

I can see alot of work for lawyers about these issues if wearing a veil across your face 100 % of the time in public becomes some sort of personal right covered under freedom of religion.
Do you think it should be a right?

On a more minor level but still creating difficulties + needing changes:

Security? Assuming we would still expect the women to deveil for the various types of photo-id + the checking of same...

Special areas for the checking of veiled women by female staff. Special facilities for prepping photo-ids for said women (automated or "manned" by female staff). Special facilities at banks for veiled women? (people going in person to their branch is dying a death anyway I suppose).

Zombrex

aslantheslayer wrote:

we are just expected to shut up and take it?

Who expects you to "just shut up and take it?"

According to the article even the county council were siding with the girl on this, although as Hobbes points out it seems to be more a clever student using a loop hole to try and get around wearing jewellery in school against the formal dress code.

You are either for this type of religous expression our you aren't. You are right, it is hypocracy to be for one form and not the other.

But which are you? From your previous posts you don't seem to be for this type of religious expression. Surely because you think that Muslims should not wear a veil you also think that Christians should not wear crosses, and you agree with the princple?

Hobbes

aslantheslayer wrote:

What I am saying is that a school refuses a Child to wear a cross.

They weren't refusing them to wear a cross. They were refusing them to wearing jewellery. The story (which I went and checked up on) is what the headmaster said what the contention was.

This is more the kid acting the prat then anything else. I can still remember my schooldays and people were forever trying to break/bend the uniform laws. I recall one clever muppet wearing his tie on his head because he said he was still wearing his uniform. He got sent home for it.

bonkey

aslantheslayer wrote:

Consider that in Western Culture, Witches are traditionaly known for there black dress. Evil is considered black/dark. Many now consider Islamic terrorists with the Burka.

And catholic priests.

Lets not forget catholic priests. They too have traditionally worn black, and been accordingly associated with the devil and evil.

Zombrex

aslantheslayer wrote:

Should I act like Muslim people do when there faith is attacked

You mean complain? I think you already are ....

fly_agaric

RedPlanet wrote:

Here's a site worth viewing:
http://www.geocities.com/hijabhypocrisy/

We've been discussing veils, not headscarves. I know its related but there are more legitimate arguments on the side of those who would not like to see wearing such veils in public at all times become a right (even if they don't agree with any kind of ban either).

RedPlanet

fly_agaric wrote:

We've been discussing veils, not headscarves. I know its related but there are more legitimate arguments on the side of those who would not like to see wearing such veils in public at all times become a right (even if they don't agree with any kind of ban either).

I'm not sure that's clear at all.
I think some posters are talking about an Afghan Burqa and some any variety of Hajib

Victor

Conar wrote:

She will need to do so for passport photo's and or use of her passport, going to the dentist, I'm sure there are more but I'm tired so I'll leave it there.

And the veil can be removed for the female dentist, etc.

Conar wrote:

I do not have any problem what so ever with these Burka's:
http://www.americansforunfpa.org/atf/cf/%7B867FAB06-64CA-4EBC-9A7A-D57C957C8B6F%7D/BURKA%20MOM.JPG

But it covers here entire face. It doesn't even have an eye slit.

fly_agaric

RedPlanet wrote:

I'm not sure that's clear at all.
I think some posters are talking about an Afghan Burqa and some any variety of Hajib

In anything I posted here I just had in mind stuff that covers your face rather than your head/hair.
I've never, ever seen anyone wearing a burkha either here or in the UK. People covering their hair doesn't actually present any practical problems in most situations or require changes to accomodate it (other than attitude) in the way a veil does.
In Turkey say [a country with some bans on headscarves] the objection is (I think) based on what the headscarf means as a symbol to some people (religious fanaticism, an attack on the secular nature of the state, backwardness, oppression of women).

babyvaio

aslantheslayer wrote:

THe Ex British Foreign Secretary and Now Leader of the House of commons has stated that Muslim Women should take of there veils whilst in his Miinisterial Clinic.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006460447,00.html

Right or wrong it takes reall Balls for a Politician to take a stand like this!

I would say I agree with Mr Straw.

I think if that really is what he sad, then he's been drowning in his own dumb ignorance without even seeing it.