News & Politics - "Take off the veil" urges Cabinet Minister

Papri · 10-08-2006, 04:46 AM

From the BBC

Cabinet minsiter urges Muslim women to take off veil

Quote:

Cabinet Minister Jack Straw has said he would prefer Muslim women not to wear veils which cover the face.
The Commons leader said he did not want to be "prescriptive" but he believed that covering people's faces could make community relations more difficult.

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

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

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

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

Meeting strangers

Mr Straw is Labour MP for Blackburn, where between 25% and 30% of residents are Muslim.

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

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

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

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

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

And the impact this may have had:

Straw's words spark veil attack

Quote:

A leading Muslim has blamed Jack Straw's comments for an attack in which a woman's veil was torn from her face.
The woman was attacked in Liverpool by a man shouting racist abuse, the day after the former foreign secretary criticised veils that cover the face.

Mohammed Akbar Ali, ex-chairman of the Liverpool Islamic Institute, said Mr Straw should have known better.

Merseyside Police, who say the attack was a hate crime, met Muslim leaders on Saturday to hear their concerns.

Mr Akbar Ali, who was involved in the campaign to free Liverpool hostage Ken Bigley in Iraq, said the attack was no coincidence.

"I put the blame squarely and without any hesitation on Jack Straw," he said.

"He's a responsible member of the government and is in a constituency with a large number of Muslims - he should have known better than make such a statement."

Mr Straw, Labour MP for Blackburn and leader of the House of Commons, said he believed covering faces could make community relations more difficult.

He said watching facial expressions was an important part of contact between people.

Mr Straw said he asked Muslim women meeting him at his constituency surgeries to remove their veils.

'Fear and resentment'

Meanwhile, Communities and Local Government Minister Phil Woolas has backed Mr Straw, warning that the wearing of full veils could provoke "fear and resentment" and play into the hands of far-right activists.

He said there was a need to "debate this issue" to break a "vicious circle" of misunderstanding between communities.

The minister said there was a need to "explain to people who are fearful of traditional Muslim dress the motives and the contexts of that and explain to the British Muslim people the effects that their actions can have if they are misunderstood".

Okay, I agree what anyone has the right to initiate debate. I don't think people should have to watch what they say all the time, as that only increases resentment and misunderstanding. I do however, think this is way out of line. He's doing his job in his surgeries, and it's entirely inappropriate for him to comment on anyone's style of clothing. Evidently the women wouldnt be AT these surgeries if they couldn't or didnt want to communicate, so the veil is irrelevant. It seems to me he was just exercising his powers of control and sends out a message - "I'm not going to do what you say, unless you contravene your own ideology and dress according to how I want." It's dictatorial and wrong.

And I think that the Local Government minister's comments were just inane. How is it enhancing community relations if you demonise what a person wears, and basically claim that the only way to to have debate and minimse cmmunity hostilities is by assimilation.

Do people find the beard of Orthodox Jews intimidating? Does anyone ask they to shave it off? How about traditional Amish clothing? Sikh turbans? All of these are clothes that identifiy a person's religion; I understand that covering the face might seem strange, but it's really not for a government figure to pass judgement on.

chicah · 10-08-2006, 04:55 AM

I understand his point, but this is about religious freedom. There was a big debate in Norway about this a while ago, because someone wanted to deny students to wear veils that covered your face, or deny women to wear a veil at work.
In that case you should deny Amish-people to wear their veil, or nuns shouldn't be allowed to wear their nun suit in public. Jews shouldn't be allowed to wear their hats. But all of these people with different beliefs should be allowed to wear exactly what they want. If a christian person is allowed to wear a cross, muslims should be allowed to wear veils. It's a religious symbol for them.

**sum1** · 10-10-2006, 05:37 PM

Papri · 10-10-2006, 05:43 PM

I don't think it's right to make such sweeping generalisations. Maybe in some cases, that's true - but how do you explain those women who actually choose to wear it? I doubt they'd choose to if it really did "keep them down".

And about it "not being required in Islam"; it's all down to interpretation. Some people think it is neccessary, others don't think it is. You can't tell someone what to believe.

**sum1** · 10-10-2006, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Papri (View Post)

I don't think it's right to make such sweeping generalisations. Maybe in some cases, that's true - but how do you explain those women who actually choose to wear it? I doubt they'd choose to if it really did "keep them down".

People often choose to go with things that keep them down. That's well-documented with regard to the oppression of women.

Papri · 10-11-2006, 12:38 AM

I think that's insulting to the general intelligence of women. Assuming that they can't make the distinction of choosing what to wear, and by making the generalisation that wearing an item of clothing is a form of "oppression" is, in my opinion, far more oppressive.

And the point here is not really about the Islamic obligation (or not) to wear a veil, but that Jack Straw, someone whose JOB it is to serve his public regardless of race, religion, gender and, indeed, apparel feels he have the right to request the removal of a item of clothing in his surgeries! He claims that it makes face to face conact easier; while that may be so, this is coming from a guy with years of political experience, both face to face, over radio, tv, phone - a multitude of situations where he's addressed a faceless audience. He couldn't possibly tell me that a veil somehow inhibits his ability to speak to a constituent.

**sum1** · 10-11-2006, 02:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Papri (View Post)

I think that's insulting to the general intelligence of women. Assuming that they can't make the distinction of choosing what to wear, and by making the generalisation that wearing an item of clothing is a form of "oppression" is, in my opinion, far more oppressive.

It's not insulting to the general intelligence of anyone. It's a well established fact of how oppression works that people often happily go along with what oppresses them. And there are plenty people who don't happliy go along with it, people who are pushed into it and also people who don't dream of going without it but would if the option was given to them.

Papri · 10-11-2006, 02:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sum1 (View Post)

And there are plenty people who don't happliy go along with it, people who are pushed into it and also people who don't dream of going without it but would if the option was given to them.

I'm not saying there aren't people who may be pushed into doing something, and I'm not saying that's right. But the option to be able to wear something that they want without consantly having to defend themselves, be heard as constituents and viewed as equals in society should also be there.

I don't go to my MP to be told how to dress, and he stepped way over the mark.

**sum1** · 10-11-2006, 03:05 AM

ceilirose · 10-11-2006, 08:41 AM

Straw is out of line on this. He's projecting his own opinion/prejudice (?) onto these women. I find it more offensive that this man is trying to dictate what a woman can or can't wear to suit his sensibilities. It's religious expression, respect it even though personally you don't agree with it or even understand it. Better yet he should educate himself on why women do in fact wear the veil and why some chose not to.

Lexis · 10-11-2006, 10:14 AM

To be honest, I don't think Straw his prejudiced - I think he is simply reflecting the feelings of a section of British society. I'm not sure what the Muslim population is like in the US/Canada and how it spread out but in the UK, there is a lot of concern and debate about Muslims in our society.

As a country, we were so shaken by the fact that 4 men - British men - attacked us on 7/7. It sparked off a whole lot of soul searching - how did these men get to be like they were? Friends and neighbours kept saying they were just like other guys of their age, playing football and cricket, one worked in his parents fish and chip shop. And yet, look what they became.

Now, I'm not agreeing with Straw and I think he didn't represent his points that well but I see where this is coming from. We had one of our race relations experts saying Britain was becoming ghetto-like, with racial groups sticking together and not mixing as a whole community.

But on the substance of the debate - I personally don't feel we can tell people what to do on this issue. It's a personal choice. That said, I can see how it does put up a barrier between people. I remember when I was a little girl (about 5 or 6), my mum was walking me home from school and as we turned a corner a woman wearing the full veil almost knocked into us. I screamed because she scared me.

Of course, my mum explained that it was part of her religion to dress like that but my mind couldn't wrap itself around it. Why would you want to hide yourself away? How did that serve God? Now I'm older, I understand their reasoning and respect someone's right to choose how to dress but a part of my mind still thinks it does put up a barrier between people. But again, this is based on my limited experience - most Muslims I know wear the hijab.

AlexEvans · 10-11-2006, 11:09 AM

You can respect a right to choose, and still be offended by the choice. As Sum1 has pointed out, the veil has been predominantly a symbol of subjugation and is also rooted in horribly bigoted views of both men and women. (Many people probably wear them without thinking about it. It's still offensive to those who know the history.)

Seeing another person's face is an essential element of one-on-one and small group communication. If someone isn't interested in a face-to-face conversation, why come into Straw's office, as opposed to calling or e-mailing?

Not that this is unique. Some people on this thread have offered other examples. Ostentatious modes of dress set you apart. Covering your face does so even more. And there are plenty of people who don't wear religious dress who still contrive to set themselves apart from society and offend others. Still, covering the face goes furthest towards isolating yourself (or being forced to isolate yourself in many cases).

I've met quite a few Muslims in Canada. Some set themselves apart, others are very much a part of the society around them. It's a choice, and those who want to be a part of things are, in my experience, welcomed.

ceilirose · 10-11-2006, 11:55 AM

Lexis - I can understand why Britain is dong soul-searching about what's happened with native born Muslims being part of 7/7 and this summer's past threat.

What I can't understand is why the veil is being the issue here. What problems there are probably go deeper than what a woman of the Muslim faith wear. I just find it an odd statement coming from him. To be fair and depending what part of the US you grew up - you come into contact with all sorts of religious groups. Is a nun in a full black and white habit less threatening than a Muslim woman in a veil? Or has society just been conditioned to respect that more? Some Hasidic Jewish women wear head coverings (not sure of the exact term) and no one would think of telling them to take it off. Or telling Amish women not to wear what they wear. Or any other religious group for that matter.

There should be more education/dialogue with Muslims to overcome this IMO.

elisheva · 10-11-2006, 02:06 PM

While I think the veil is generally based on a profoundly sexist mode of throught, we have no way of knowing who is wearing the veil out of thoughtful religious choice and who is wearing the veil because of family or community coercion. A step like this only alienates people who potentially need help from their MP.

Brian, I don't think the "face-to-face" point is valid - whether you are showing your face or not, I think many people get the impression (probably true) that actually showing up and speaking to someone is more effective than simply calling or e-mailing - you and your petition are more likely to be remembered. And it makes people feel connected to the political/democratic process, which is an invaluable effect.

Does this apply to only the veil that covers the face and not, for ex, the hijab which does not cover the face?

ETA - NY Times article about what Lexis mentioned:

Quote:

Across Europe, Worries on Islam Spread to Center

By DAN BILEFSKY and IAN FISHER
Published: October 11, 2006

BRUSSELS, Oct. 10 — Europe appears to be crossing an invisible line regarding its Muslim minorities: more people in the political mainstream are arguing that Islam cannot be reconciled with European values.

“You saw what happened with the pope,” said Patrick Gonman, 43, the owner of Raga, a funky wine bar in downtown Antwerp, 25 miles from here. “He said Islam is an aggressive religion. And the next day they kill a nun somewhere and make his point.

“Rationality is gone.”

Mr. Gonman is hardly an extremist. In fact, he organized a protest last week in which 20 bars and restaurants closed on the night when a far-right party with an anti-Muslim message held a rally nearby.

His worry is shared by centrists across Europe angry at terror attacks in the name of religion on a continent that has largely abandoned it, and disturbed that any criticism of Islam or Muslim immigration provokes threats of violence.

For years those who raised their voices were mostly on the far right. Now those normally seen as moderates — ordinary people as well as politicians — are asking whether once unquestioned values of tolerance and multiculturalism should have limits.

Former Foreign Secretary Jack Straw of Britain, a prominent Labor politician, seemed to sum up the moment when he wrote last week that he felt uncomfortable addressing women whose faces were covered with a veil. The veil, he wrote, is a “visible statement of separation and difference.”

When Pope Benedict XVI made the speech last month that included a quotation calling aspects of Islam “evil and inhuman,” it seemed to unleash such feelings. Muslims berated him for stigmatizing their culture, while non-Muslims applauded him for bravely speaking a hard truth.

The line between open criticism of another group or religion and bigotry can be a thin one, and many Muslims worry that it is being crossed more and more.

Whatever the motivations, “the reality is that views on both sides are becoming more extreme,” said Imam Wahid Pedersen, a prominent Dane who is a convert to Islam. “It has become politically correct to attack Islam, and this is making it hard for moderates on both sides to remain reasonable.” Mr. Pedersen fears that onetime moderates are baiting Muslims, the very people they say should integrate into Europe.

The worries about extremism are real. The Belgian far-right party, Vlaams Belang, took 20.5 percent of the vote in city elections last Sunday, five percentage points higher than in 2000. In Antwerp, its base, though, its performance improved barely, suggesting to some experts that its power might be peaking.

In Austria this month, right-wing parties also polled well, on a campaign promise that had rarely been made openly: that Austria should start to deport its immigrants. Vlaams Belang, too, has suggested “repatriation” for immigrants who do not made greater efforts to integrate.

The idea is unthinkable to mainstream leaders, but many Muslims still fear that the day — or at least a debate on the topic — may be a terror attack away.

“I think the time will come,” said Amir Shafe, 34, a Pakistani who earns a good living selling clothes at a market in Antwerp. He deplores terrorism and said he himself did not sense hostility in Belgium. But he said, “We are now thinking of going back to our country, before that time comes.”

Many experts note that there is a deep and troubled history between Islam and Europe, with the Crusaders and the Ottoman Empire jostling each other for centuries and bloodily defining the boundaries of Christianity and Islam. A sense of guilt over Europe’s colonial past and then World War II, when intolerance exploded into mass murder, allowed a large migration to occur without any uncomfortable debates over the real differences between migrant and host.

Then the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, jolted Europe into new awareness and worry.

The subsequent bombings in Madrid and London, and the murder of the Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh by a Dutch-born Moroccan stand as examples of the extreme. But many Europeans — even those who generally support immigration — have begun talking more bluntly about cultural differences, specifically about Muslims’ deep religious beliefs and social values, which are far more conservative than those of most Europeans on issues like women’s rights and homosexuality.

“A lot of people, progressive ones — we are not talking about nationalists or the extreme right — are saying, ‘Now we have this religion, it plays a role and it challenges our assumptions about what we learned in the 60’s and 70’s,’ ” said Joost Lagendik, a Dutch member of the European Parliament for the Green Left Party, who is active on Muslim issues.

“So there is this fear,” he said, “that we are being transported back in a time machine where we have to explain to our immigrants that there is equality between men and women, and gays should be treated properly. Now there is the idea we have to do it again.”

Now Europeans are discussing the limits of tolerance, the right with increasing stridency and the left with trepidation.

Austrians in their recent election complained about public schools in Vienna being nearly full with Muslim students and blamed the successive governments that allowed it to happen.

Some Dutch Muslims have expressed support for insurgents in Iraq over Dutch peacekeepers there, on the theory that their prime loyalty is to a Muslim country under invasion.

So strong is the fear that Dutch values of tolerance are under siege that the government last winter introduced a primer on those values for prospective newcomers to Dutch life: a DVD briefly showing topless women and two men kissing. The film does not explicitly mention Muslims, but its target audience is as clear as its message: embrace our culture or leave.

Perhaps most wrenching has been the issue of free speech and expression, and the growing fear that any criticism of Islam could provoke violence.

In France last month, a high school teacher went into hiding after receiving death threats for writing an article calling the Prophet Muhammad “a merciless warlord, a looter, a mass murderer of Jews and a polygamist.” In Germany a Mozart opera with a scene of Muhammad’s severed head was canceled because of security fears.

With each incident, mainstream leaders are speaking more plainly. “Self-censorship does not help us against people who want to practice violence in the name of Islam,” Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany said in criticizing the opera’s cancellation. “It makes no sense to retreat.”

The backlash is revealing itself in other ways. Last month the British home secretary, John Reid, called on Muslim parents to keep a close watch on their children. “There’s no nice way of saying this,” he told a Muslim group in East London. “These fanatics are looking to groom and brainwash children, including your children, for suicide bombing, grooming them to kill themselves to murder others.”

Many Muslims say this new mood is suddenly imposing expectations that never existed before that Muslims be exactly like their European hosts.

Dyab Abou Jahjah, a Lebanese-born activist here in Belgium, said that for years Europeans had emphasized “citizenship and human rights,” the notion that Muslim immigrants had the responsibility to obey the law but could otherwise live with their traditions.

“Then someone comes and says it’s different than that,” said Mr. Jahjah, who opposes assimilation. “You have to dump your culture and religion. It’s a different deal now.”

Lianne Duinberke, 34, who works at a market in the racially mixed northern section of Antwerp, said: “Before I was very eager to tell people I was married to a Muslim. Now I hesitate.” She has been with her husband, a Tunisian, for 12 years, and they have three children.

Many Europeans, she said, have not been accepting of Muslims, especially since 9/11. On the other hand, she said, Muslims truly are different culturally: No amount of explanation about free speech could convince her husband that the publication of cartoons lampooning Muhammad in a Danish newspaper was in any way justified.

When asked if she was optimistic or pessimistic about the future of Muslim immigration in Europe , she found it hard to answer. She finally gave a defeated smile. “I am trying to be optimistic,” she said. “But if you see the global problems before the people, then you really can’t be.”

Dan Bilefsky reported from Brussels, and Ian Fisher from Rome. Contributing were Sarah Lyall and Alan Cowell from London, Mark Landler from Frankfurt, Peter Kiefer from Rome, Renwick McLean from Madrid and Maia de la Baume from Paris.

Across Europe, Worries on Islam Spread to Center - New York Times

Papri · 10-11-2006, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lexis (View Post)

Now, I'm not agreeing with Straw and I think he didn't represent his points that well but I see where this is coming from. We had one of our race relations experts saying Britain was becoming ghetto-like, with racial groups sticking together and not mixing as a whole community.

This is slightly OT but the concept of "ghettoisation" really bothers me. People hear a phrase coined by the media and jump all over it - I live in England and while there certainly are areas with more Muslim/Asian people, I'd hardly call it ghettoised. If you look at the reasons why people want to move to certain areas, it makes perfect sense - they want to be near halal shops, food stores, a mosque....I'm sure there'd be just as much outcry if Muslims suddenly all decided to up sticks and move to the leafy suburbs, and then request a mosque be built to accomodate them. Instead, many choose to live near facilities which suit them. So the natural process of having certain community areas is natural - it only becomes a problem if people are so insular that they have NO contact at all with other communities. The same applies equally for "Muslim ghettoes" and the WASP suburbs.

And just look at ex-pats in Spain for example - they all want to move to the same-ish area to be near OTHER expats, British pubs, restaurants, English speaking areas - are they contributing to a ghettoised community? If the above applies, then yes.


Fan Forum > General Discussion > News & Politics > "Take off the veil" urges Cabinet Minister