Jack Straw and the Muslims!

Conar

HelterSkelter wrote:

Generally in this society we don't make opressive rules like that unless there is a good reason for it. So can you tell us how many banks have been robbed recently by Muslim women wearing veils? Or how many crimes at all have been committed by a woman wearing a veil? I was listening to George Galloway on Sunday night and he said that not one Muslim woman wearing a veil/burqa has been convicted of ANY crime in the last ten years. Doesn't sounds like the veil is much of a threat (except maybe to the intolerant people in our 'liberal' soicety).

I think the argument has become very fragmented.
Some people are arguing that they do not feel that faces should be covered, some seem to be arguing that muslim women are untrustworthy.
I think that we should ignore the latter.

Like it or not we use facial recognition as part of our day to day life.
Most people here are not saying that these muslim women are likely to go out robbing banks, carrying bombs, or even picking an argument with someone, but I and a lot of others (it would seem) would not like our society to allow people to completely cover their face just because their religion demands it (and their religion demanding it is even up for debate).
The simple fact is that,some of us at least, would not like the idea of faceless people wandering the streets. I would not allow my son or daughter to cover their face while outside unless it was halloween. I would argue the same point with my friends and extended family if they were at it too.

Surely these muslim ladies can simply wear the Hajib, isn't compromise part of living in a liberal society too?

As well as that, labelling people that don't have the same views as you as intolerant is an easy tactic. Doesn't the fact that people are openly debating this show the true free society we live in?

HelterSkelter

Conar wrote:

... I and a lot of others (it would seem) would not like our society to allow people to completely cover their face just because their religion demands it (and their religion demanding it is even up for debate). The simple fact is that,some of us at least, would not like the idea of faceless people wandering the streets.

So it is not really a free soicety then because you and others would like to dictate to people how they should dress.

Conar wrote:

Surely these muslim ladies can simply wear the Hajib, isn't compromise part of living in a liberal society too?

Maybe they can, but it is their choice to wear one. They are not harming anybody. I would like to know how many people here who are against Muslim women wearing veils have ever had a conversation with one?

Conar wrote:

As well as that, labelling people that don't have the same views as you as intolerant is an easy tactic. Doesn't the fact that people are openly debating this show the true free society we live in?

The point is that on one hand people refer to our "free soicety" but on the other they think they can tell people how to dress, it is hypocritical.

Conar

HelterSkelter wrote:

So it is not really a free soicety then because you and others would like to dictate to people how they should dress.


Maybe they can, but it is their choice to wear one. They are not harming anybody. I would like to know how many people here who are against Muslim women wearing veils have ever had a conversation with one?



The point is that on one hand people refer to our "free soicety" but on the other they think they can tell people how to dress, it is hypocritical.

Part of living in a free society is adhering to some base rules. That does not mean you are opressed.
A society without rules is in a state of anarchy.

Naturists are made to wear clothes out in public. Do you think that they are opressed?

***EDIT***
The "free" part of a free society is the freedom to discuss what you like not to do what you like.

***EDIT PART 2***
I have not spoken to anyone wearing a Niqab, but have spoken to quite a few wearing a Hajib.
Why does this matter?
I have never spoken to a PD yet I know I disagree with some of their core values.

HelterSkelter

Conar wrote:

Part of living in a free society is adhering to some base rules. That does not mean you are opressed.
A society without rules is in a state of anarchy.

Yeah but there should be a good reason for making these rules. There is no need to make Muslim women remove their veil in our soicety. Please give me ONE good reason why they should not wear the veil.

mountainyman

blackthorn wrote:

I think so far there has not been a female Muslim voice in this thread. So....

Fareena Alam, editor of the Muslim magazine Q News explores the impact of Jack Straw's
views on women wearing the veil.

Is there a transcript anywhere?

HelterSkelter

Conar wrote:

***EDIT PART 2***
I have not spoken to anyone wearing a Niqab, but have spoken to quite a few wearing a Hajib.
Why does this matter?
I have never spoken to a PD yet I know I disagree with some of their core values.

Because most people's argument against the veil is that they can't communicate with the person effictively. I want to know how many people in this thread have actually experienced this "problem" first hand and how many people are just jumping on the Muslim bashing bandwagon.

Sgt. Sensible

AdmiralNeo wrote:

Fair point about suticases etc. But wouldnt you be bothered if a Muslim got on a bus heading for o`connel street carrying a suitcase?

Only if I was one of those loonies who post rubbish like this on sites like st*rmfront. :eek:

Zombrex

Matamoros wrote:

What I was really getting at, is that there are certain situations where anyone whether they be Muslim or of any other persuasion, religious or otherwise, will, on certain occasions, have to forego their belief or principle in order, in this case, to be allowed to enter a Country.

There maybe times when you are required to strip completely naked and and someone search the inside of your ass for drugs. That doesn't mean you would be happy having a randomer do it to you in the middle of Grafton St.

The point isn't that it should never happen, the point is that if it must happen the reason should be very good and it should be done in the least humilitating away possible.

For example, even if the airport police believed that you were a child molesting serial killer drug dealer, they would still search you in a private room with someone of the same sex as you, because that would be the standard procedure.

This whole issue is about respect for another persons dignity.

mountainyman

If everyone else was happy to be naked I would be too.
At any rate Wicknight your argument is based on a false premise that those women who wear the veil do so because they feel embarassed not to.
This is not true. The veil is a statement of solidarity with politicised Islam. Those women who really feel as you suggest are unlikely to be visiting Jack Straw because they won't be able to speak English.

MM

HelterSkelter

mountainyman wrote:

If everyone else was happy to be naked I would be too.
At any rate Wicknight your argument is based on a false premise that those women who wear the veil do so because they feel embarassed not to.
This is not true. The veil is a statement of solidarity with politicised Islam. Those women who really feel as you suggest are unlikely to be visiting Jack Straw because they won't be able to speak English.

MM

Let me get this clear, are you saying that the majority of Muslim women who wear the veil cannot speak English?

Zombrex

mountainyman wrote:

but surely you don't believe that he has no right to make such a request.

Not at all, but I think such a request is very rude and ignorant.

Now Jack Straw can be as rude and ignorant as he likes, there is no law against being stupid But it is rather troubling that so many are saying "Hell yeah! You tell em Jackieboy!"

mountainyman wrote:

must be regarded as a deliberate rejection of the assimilation that many (most?) Irish people regard as desirable.

What in gods name are you basing that assertion on?

mountainyman wrote:

Given that the United Kngdom is involved in a war in which British soldiers are dying to defeat a politicised vision of Islam and that (some) women who wear the veil are doing so as a statement of their support for that politico religious vision is Mr Straw's reaction not inevitable.

Only if one some how manages to link wearing a veil in Britian with support of the Saddam regieme in Iraq or the Taliban in Afganistan. Which I don't think anyone is (or could).

mountainyman wrote:

Indeed it is to be expected that as the war on terror drags on (and it could drag on forever if that suits the American ruling class) the margin of what is acceptable will narrow and Muslims will be required to 'prove' their loyalty.

So one proves their loyalty to the British government by not wearing a veil?

How exactly?

mountainyman wrote:

In the short term this involves violations of individual rights. In the long term by compelling assimilation it may be a good thing.

Yes because as the North has taught us the violation of individual rights does lead to long term stable intercommunity relationships ... oh wait... :rolleyes:

Zombrex

mountainyman wrote:

If everyone else was happy to be naked I would be too.

Good for you. The rest of population might feel different, as they have the right to.

mountainyman wrote:

The veil is a statement of solidarity with politicised Islam.

What exactly are you basing that assertion on Mountainyman?

mountainyman wrote:

Those women who really feel as you suggest are unlikely to be visiting Jack Straw because they won't be able to speak English.

What?

Sorry but it is some times quite hard to tell if you are serious or simply trolling. I am going to assume the benefit of the doubt and ask you to clarrify that rather bizzare statement.

mountainyman

HelterSkelter wrote:

Let me get this clear, are you saying that the majority of Muslim women who wear the veil cannot speak English?

Yes and without any hesitation I assert that the majority of Muslim women who cover their faces cannot speak English.

Now as to those living in English speaking countries the situation is less clear.
A high proportion of Muslim women who wear the veil cannot speak English however I do not feel that these women are likely to be visiting Jack Straw.

The veil may be regarded as a sign of backwardness and ignorance and while I would feel sorry for women who wear it because they feel immodest without their face covered I accept their right to wear it.

Most (young) women who wear the veil in Europe affect to feel that showing the face is immdest but are being dishonest. In fact the veil is a statement of solidarity with radical Islamic fascism.

Now the swastika is a wonderful old indo european symbol but to assert the right to wear one in 1943 in England seems absurd.

Britain is today at war with radical Islamic fascism. As such wearing the veil which is perceived as a symbol of that fascism by the host community is smilar to wearing a swastika in Britain in 1943.

MM

wes

mountainyman wrote:

Yes and without any hesitation I assert that the majority of Muslim women who cover their faces cannot speak English.

Now as to those living in English speaking countries the situation is less clear.
A high proportion of Muslim women who wear the veil cannot speak English however I do not feel that these women are likely to be visiting Jack Straw.

The veil may be regarded as a sign of backwardness and ignorance and while I would feel sorry for women who wear it because they feel immodest without their face covered I accept their right to wear it.

Most (young) women who wear the veil in Europe affect to feel that showing the face is immdest but are being dishonest. In fact the veil is a statement of solidarity with radical Islamic fascism.

Now the swastika is a wonderful old indo european symbol but to assert the right to wear one in 1943 in England seems absurd.

Britain is today at war with radical Islamic fascism. As such wearing the veil which is perceived as a symbol of that fascism by the host community is smilar to wearing a swastika in Britain in 1943.

MM

Yet, none of these Women have claimed to be supporting radicalism. That is something your saying and not them. The niqab is not like the Swastika in the 1940's.

Britain is at war with who ever the hell they feel like it as long as it benefits them. They have no problems invading people who have nothing to do with terrorism and lie through there teeth about it, again and again.

HelterSkelter

Mountainyman

Totally unbelieveable!!! All I'll say is it's quite ironic how you try to link the veil with Nazis when Blair and the British Government are involved in a modern day holocaust against Muslims in the Middle East.

mountainyman

Wicknight wrote:

Sorry but it is some times quite hard to tell if you are serious or simply trolling. I am going to assume the benefit of the doubt and ask you to clarrify that rather bizzare statement.

Thank you for asking me to clarify rather than dismissing the statement out of hand. I would in fact have thought it was uncontroversial.

If we can bring it back to Jack Straw as a specific example.
He represents Bradford where the muslim population is overwhelimingly Pakistani and overwhelimingly from rural punjab. Can we agree on that?
The common practise among peasants in that community is arranged marriage which is close to forced. Can we agree on that?
so you woukd basically be tod that you were being married off to someone who lived in England a place you never had any intention of visiting and who's language you can't speak.
It is the case, statisticaly, that a high proportion of first generation subcontinental immigrant women do not learn English (though this doesn't mean no english at all- maybe as much as holiday spanish).
This would be especially true for Muslims, statistically, though in practise this has more to do with the way of life of Sylhet and Rawalpindi and I would have thought that it would be more true for anyone who was so uncomfortable with the host society that she couldn't go out without wearing a veil.

MM

BlaasForRafa

That might all have a factor if he represented Bradford. Jack Straw represents blackburn though.

fly_agaric

Helterskelter wrote:

it's quite ironic how you try to link the veil with Nazis when Blair and the British Government are involved in a modern day holocaust against Muslims in the Middle East.

*sighs* If it's a holocaust they after they aren't exactly doing a good job now are they Helterskelter. Iraqi muslims are much more efficient at killing each other.

Wicknight wrote:

the violation of individual rights

As I asked before - is it a right though?
A law banning veils in public would be repressive IMO, but what if your employer wants you to take it off to do your job? Is that a "violation of individual rights"?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/bradford/6046992.stm

mountainyman

OK he represents Blackburn.
I was looking the internet using 'Google'
I tried the following searches:
Blackburn, Kashmir, RawalPindi, Muslim, Veil
Blackburn, Muslim, Generation, caste, language,
blackburn,Muslim, biradari,kashmiri, marriage

and so on

At any rate given that I've never been to Balckburn and don't know what I'm talking about I have no idea whether or not the women jack straw met could speak english or not, nor do I know their motives.

MM

Rooshter

I’m no Germaine Greer (I’m not even a woman!), but for all the bleeding heart liberal views here, people don’t seem too bothered that it’s only muslim women – not the men – who are forced (by ‘tradition’ if not physically) to cover their heads and/or faces. (Mind you, it’s sometimes difficult to ascertain if it’s a man or woman behind all that masking.) This, to me, is more offensive than Jack Straw asking his female constituents to show their faces while addressing him, only common courtesy anyway.

C’mon – if you don’t think this covering is a senseless and backward tradition, you must admit that it is a completely misogynist, sexist attitude, totally demeaning to women in this day and age. In fact, it’s an insult to the intelligence of the fairer sex. Woops! I meant to say “the equally attractive gender”, must be PC here!

To say that the ‘to wear or not to wear’ is the choice of muslim women is a cop out. You can be sure that most of those women unfortunate enough to be born into or married into this tradition would be very, very unlikely to tell their male family they’ve suddenly changed their minds about the veil and have decided to go around ‘au naturel’. The tradition of the veil is a mark of subordination, make no mistake, along the lines of the Jews being made to sport the Star of David in Nazi Germany. One difference though – the Jews were a minority in Germany, women make up 50% of the world’s population. Or maybe that’s 51%? Perhaps one of the PC Nazis can correct me here.

DubDani

I am sure there are enough muslim who wear their veil because of their beliefs and not because they are forced.

My brother has been married to a muslim women for the last 3 years, and even though none of her female family members wear one and nobody forces her, she still wears it outside the house when my brother is not with her.

When he is going out with her, then she will not wear it. It is just her own will, and we all accept it.

oscarBravo

Wicknight wrote:

Sorry but it is some times quite hard to tell if you are serious or simply trolling.

Wicknight, don't accuse people of trolling, thanks.

mountainyman, stop trolling, thanks.

oscarBravo

Rooshter wrote:

...people don’t seem too bothered that it’s only muslim women – not the men – who are forced (by ‘tradition’ if not physically) to cover their heads and/or faces.

Yeah, I'm with you, sibling. What's more, we need to end the patriarchally opressive tradition of forcing women to cover themselves from the waist up in warm weather, when society allows men the freedom to walk around topless. Who's with me?

wes

oscarBravo wrote:

Yeah, I'm with you, sibling. What's more, we need to end the patriarchally opressive tradition of forcing women to cover themselves from the waist up in warm weather, when society allows men the freedom to walk around topless. Who's with me?

ME !!!!!!

Matamoros

What are an individual's rights? Are they written anywhere? Are there different ones for different cultures or belief systems?

Dignity and respect for example are concepts, ideals which we would like to live by as much as possible but my continuing assertion is that there are many occasions that we behave with neither.

I believe that the real struggle will be between the different belief systems battling for supremacy, the Pope's recent remarks being the beginning of a strategy of confrontation and strengthening the resolve of Catholics who privately will say that Muslims or the image that is portrayed of Muslims is disturbing them.

Finally, let the women wear their veils, they cannot cover themselves any more than that and let them ponder the nature of being an outcast in basically a liberal and tolerant country.

Zombrex

Rooshter wrote:

I’m no Germaine Greer (I’m not even a woman!), but for all the bleeding heart liberal views here, people don’t seem too bothered that it’s only muslim women – not the men – who are forced (by ‘tradition’ if not physically) to cover their heads and/or faces.

Well this issue has never been about whether Muslim women should or should not cover their faces. That is a seperate issue, and one largely up to Muslims themselves. I mean I think all religious practice is illogical and stupid. But people have a right to be illogical and stupid.

The issue here is if it is acceptable of us in western society to expect that they don't cover their faces even if they wish too, because of our culture. If a Muslim woman doesn't want to cover her face she shouldn't have to. If a Muslim woman does want to cover her face she shouldn't be expected to not do it without reason (ie without the need for security etc that requires facial recongition)

Rooshter wrote:

C’mon – if you don’t think this covering is a senseless and backward tradition, you must admit that it is a completely misogynist, sexist attitude, totally demeaning to women in this day and age.

Most western religious are misogynist sexist and demeaning to woman. Sure just look at what nuns are suppose to wear ffs.

But as I said, that isn't really the point. People have the right to believe in things that demean them. Again, look at preists and nuns that give up sex for life because the Pope tells them to. That is absurd, and in this day and age lots of people are refusing to go down that pass because of that very reason. But some still do. The question is if you are tolerent of that choice, even if you don't agree with it?

Sesshoumaru

I read an interesting article in Guardian yesterday. A muslim journalist decided to try on a full veil yoke for a day.

Muslim journalist Zaiba Malik had never worn the niqab. But with everyone from Jack Straw to Tessa Jowell weighing in with their views on the veil, she decided to put one on for the day. She was shocked by how it made her feel - and how strongly strangers reacted to it

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1923964,00.html

You can see she felt really empowered wearing the veil :rolleyes: I can only think the reason someone would wear this crap is to seperate themselves from the rest of the community or because they were indoctrinated since birth to believe women should wear them.

Can you believe that story of the english teacher wearing a veil during class? Whatever about having difficulty understanding her, what kind of message does it give impressionable young children? That women are sexual objects that drive men crazy and need to be covered up? That all men are sexual predators? and if they get just one glimpse of a mouth or nose they turn into wolves? Fair enough if they want to wear one at home or in the street. I don't agree with them wearing it, but in a secular society places such as schools should be out of bounds for religion.

Sesshoumaru

At the supermarket a baby no more than two years old takes one look at me and bursts into tears. I move towards him. "It's OK," I murmur. "I'm not a monster. I'm a real person." I show him the only part of me that is visible - my hands - but it's too late. His mother has whisked him away. I don't blame her. Every time I catch a glimpse of myself in the mirrored refrigerators, I scare myself.

I think this is my favourite part

Zombrex

Sesshoumaru wrote:

You can see she felt really empowered wearing the veil :rolleyes:

I would imagine your typical Irish woman would feel equally silly dressing up in a nuns uniform.

Sesshoumaru wrote:

I can only think the reason someone would wear this crap is to seperate themselves from the rest of the community or because they were indoctrinated since birth to believe women should wear them.

Does that hold for Catholic nuns and preists too?

Sesshoumaru wrote:

Whatever about having difficulty understanding her, what kind of message does it give impressionable young children?

That it is ok to express your religion through what you choose to wear? No?

What does having school girls taught by women who refuse to have sex and who cover up most of their bodies (ie nuns) teach young impressionable girls? That they should cover up their bodies and not have sex? Or what about the preists who also refuse to have sex, and who dress in all black? That boys should not have sex and that they should not dress in flamboyant colourful clothes?

I'm sure that is what the Catholic church hope having nuns teaching girls achieves, but it doesn't seem to work very well.

Sesshoumaru wrote:

That women are sexual objects that drive men crazy and need to be covered up?

We already teach our children that.

Look at the stink caused by that 12 year old who wore a mini-skirt into a primary school in Britan a few years ago. "A disgrace" and "the parents should be ashame" seemed to be most of the comments, despite the fact that the girl was simply following fashions she had seen on TV or read about and seemed to have little idea of the "sexual message" (not my words) she was seemingly sending out to the other pupils and grown ups.

Zombrex

Sesshoumaru wrote:

I think this is my favourite part

Yes, lets decide legal/cultural policy and norms based on the reaction of babies :rolleyes: