Jack Straw thinks Muslim women should be seen and not heard
Today Jack Straw said he asked his Muslim women constituents to remove their veils in front of him so that he can "see what the other person means, and not just hear what they say".
If he's having trouble with "face-to-face" conversations, perhaps he should ask David Blunkett for some tips?
If he's having trouble with "face-to-face" conversations, perhaps he should ask David Blunkett for some tips?
posted by Shelina Zahra Janmohamed at 23:10
29 Comments:
I commend this to the house...
Very good image. I get the message.
The veil actualy encourages me to LISTEN to what the person is saying. Politicians should listen more and pronounce less.
Think Mr Straw misses his condi and rice and would like to see some more curry and rice in his lancashire hot(s)pot during the bleak winter months
http://www.dashboardmohammed.com/store.html
Shelina.. this exactly the reason we want people like you. You are doing a terrific job for the Community.. If only there more Shelina's like you.. Keep up the good work.
Surely he's saying the women in question should be seen and heard? He's not saying to stuff the veil in their mouths, is he?
Yes of course, the veil is a symbol of liberation throughout the world. Lets think of those countries where it has been mostly heavily observed. Oh yes. The Taliban in Afghanistaon.
Let's get real about this. This just removes one presure (fashion perhaps) and replaces it with a uniform
Yes of course, the veil is a symbol of liberation throughout the world. Lets think of those countries where it has been mostly heavily observed. Oh yes. The Taliban in Afghanistaon.
Let's get real about this. This just removes one presure (fashion perhaps) and replaces it with a uniform
I don't know how I am meant to speak or even if I am permitted to speak to a woman wearing a veil.
I walk to school each morning and to most people I greet Good Morning and I have got to know them, but the veil creates a barrier. What do I do?
Jack
"Can I interact with people as I walk down the steet - this is what is important to me" You say this on Newsnight.
I too want to interact with muslim women. But I can't, if I do not know who is walking past me in the street.
I have my sight, unlike David Blunkett and would like to use it as I suspect he would if he had it.
The problem is men, not women. The solution may be found in the teaching of Jesus, who focuses on men. See Matthew's gospel, Chapter 5: 27-30 if you are interested
Hi Shelina,
I saw you on the BBC newsnight program.
Unfortunately, we cannot rationalise multiculturalism as a celebration of differences. Religion, by its very definition gives rise to conflict. Do not Muslims claim one thing and Catholics another?
These are not differences on our perception of the beauty of a railway station, or the preservation of a national monument and its worth. These are differences about our very way of life and our beliefs about God. Indeed, the Islamic faith represents one view which is condemned by the Catholic Church, and vice versa.
Only those without a firm conviction in their faith could claim that multiculturalism would even represent a possibility for the way forward.
It is the larger percentage of muslims that take their faith seriously that has lead to the increase in tension.
Islam, despite the protests of your leaders, has never and clearly does not represent peace.
If your Islam does, then history is clear, it is not the Islam the Mohammed preached.
Hence we have tension in our streets. Islam does not teach compassion to those who don't believe and a tolerance of other faiths.
Would you be comfortable with a neighbour who claimed that God had shown him the light and that all others should be forced to convert or die? Whether or not he started acting on those beliefs openly, I am sure you would not feel comfortable with him around. And thus you know how the British population feel towards Muslims, who without being openly direct about their beliefs, nevertheless preach anti-Western politics as a fundamental ground of their faith.
If racism is a misunderstanding and a bias against people without checking the facts, then the light shines through; a dislike of Islam and a lack of tolerance to the increasing Islamic subculture developing in this country is not racism. It is a ready acceptance of the facts.
Peace and God Bless.
Maronite Warrior.
Just watched you on BBC2 Newsnight, thanks for being a voice of sanity.
My opinion is that Straw is simply going for the "White English Bloke Vote". The Labour Party are well-aware that David Cameron is a major threat. Muslim-bashing by Charles Clarke, and John Reid etc. has played very well with the tabloids before, so Straw is playing exactly the same cynical game.
Speaking as a Scottish white male I'd say:
"wear whatever you like and ignore the tossers" ;-)
Jack "Alf Garnett wannabe" Straw is getting far too much publicity for this nonsense.
Trying to dictate fashion and dress to Muslim women, under the guise of "promoting integration"... how typical of New Labour spin.
Large beards can be intimidating and can make it very difficult to read a man's expression... perhaps Britain should follow the lead shown by the Dictator of Turkmenistan and ban them too.
Nearly 40 years ago, when I was a teenager, I lived on a council estate. I dressed like a hippy, and had long hair and a beard. My opinion at that time was that it should not matter what I looked like, but that others should accept me for who I was. However, I was in the minority, and the other people on the estate ridiculed me for looking and behaving differently from them, even though my appearance posed no threat to them, and I made no attempt to hide my identity in any way. I didn't change, but continued to wear my chosen wardrobe, complete with long hair and beard, and moved away from the estate to make my fortune in the World. This included going to university in my mid 20's as a mature student, as I had left school with no formal qualifications. By the time I left university at the age of 28 I came to realise that in order to find a job fit for a graduate in Britain, I would have to change my physical image from that of a long haired and bearded hippy, to one of a short haired, well groomed, clean-shaven and besuited young man. In short I had to conform to the social norms in this country if I wanted to be accepted as an employable person.
You support women who choose to wear the veil, so I assume you would also support me if I walked around your estate with long hair, a beard, and dressed as a hippy, as it is my choice. I also assume you would support my stance if I chose to continue to have long hair, a beard, and dress as a hippy and went for a job in a role where meeting the public formed a major part of the work. If you did that I would be happy to have your support, although I am sure there are many in this country who would think that taking such a position on personal appearance was counter-productive, especially if the work involved dealing with the public.
However, would you also support youths who choose to wear hoodies, and hide their faces as much as possible? After all, it is just their decision to look like that, and you should accept them for who they are, not what they look like. But now we have a problem. You may not, but I would certainly question their motives for wanting to hide their faces from the rest of humanity, and experience has shown that those youths who hide their faces often do it to avoid detection on CCTV cameras when they are perpetrating illegal acts. Furthermore, there is a history in this country of masked outlaws, whether it be Dick Turpin in his face mask, or bank robbers wearing stockings on their heads. History shows us that masked individuals are dangerous to us.
With the above in mind, would you like to now state that in all cases covering of the face should be accepted as a right of the individual, even if it means allowing youths to hide their identities when they commit criminal acts? Or would you agree with me that due to past experience in this country of criminals masking their faces in order to hide their identities when committing criminal acts, there is a legitimate concern among the general population about people who choose to mask their identities in public?
Can you now in all seriousness separate the wearing of the veil by muslim women from the masking of their faces by people who wear hoodies? They both want to hide their identities from the rest of us for reasons that are not clear to anyone else but them. But as we are not privy to their motives, we have to assume that masking the face is meant as a way of avoiding recognition, and in this country that normally implies a threat. It frightens those of us who don't hide our faces, and indicates that the person hiding their face wants to gain an advantage over us.
I therefore think that someone in public life like Jack Straw, who has to meet the public on many occasions as part of his job, must fear anyone who arrives in his office wearing a face mask of any kind, as it forms both a physical and psychological barrier between them. He is put at an instant disadvantage in any communication with the masked person, as they can disguise their non-verbal communication (body language) whereas he cannot. So I fully understand his position when he politely asks that people who visit him in his professional capacity level the playing field by removing the mask and showing their facial expressions to him, as he reveals his facial expressions to them. Only the equality of open face to face communication can lead to equality of respect. From my own life experience of the last 56 years I would say that no-one can fully respect another if that other hides their face behind a mask, whatever their gender, religion, or race.
So wear a veil if you like, but be prepared to suffer discrimination, be marginalised, and even ostracised by the indiginous population, as I was for being different on the estate I grew up on, but understand that in the case of the veil, the physical and psychological barrier you choose to create by wearing it frightens the local British Anglo-Saxon population, to whom masked individuals have historically posed a threat. If you want to be accepted into our society then you will have to conform to what is considered the norm in the country you now live in, and that means the equality of allowing others to see your face as you see theirs.
David Blunkett joke was cooooold, but I couldn't help to chuckle.
By removing a muslim womans veil do they honestly think it will achieve the 'integration' they keep rambling on about because from where i see it it doesn't have a clear sense of direction. It needs to be addressed on other levels such as breaking down the class barriers that are more a cause of concern than whether a stranger on the street will be more willing to say hello to you if they can see your face!
There is a ridiculous amount of misinformation going on about what Straw said, and what he wants.
All he says is that he _asks_ Islamic women to remove their face-coverings - while talking to him so he can do his job to helkp them.
Not order. Not demand. Just ask. It is a way to communicate better with them, not to stop their voice being heard.
But obviously people want to be offended...
Have Muslims considered this point that, the U.K. is an open friendly sort of place that has strong traditions of tolerance and has offered over the years a safe secure and generous home for people of all cultures etc.
Good manners, and tolerance have possible lead to ordinary people being too polite, but an increasingly hostile set of Muslim organisations seem daily to bombard this countries media, with demands for special consideration.
The sight of a women covered head to toe is frankly, weird to the average Brit (those of us outside of metropolitan centres), I accept that it may well be by choice of women to dress like this but fear it is more likely pressure from a male dominated society.
My point is that this country has a traditional manner of acceptable dress and even nuns don’t find it necessary to cover their face. It just seems that this new fashion, for that is clearly what it is, by definition (increased popularity) shows a lack of respect for what is considered normal behaviour.
This fashion for habjab or what ever the Berk er, is nothing other than a calculated insult to the citizens of this country. I am convinced that no British national would travel to Saudi Arabia, and not wear modest clothing for one most importantly it would be an insult and secondly they probably be arrested and to be fair quite rightly so.
Perhaps the most insulting aspect of this whole sorry attitude is the reason women often give for wearing head stuff this nonsense that it liberates them from being judged on appearance, well this is fine accept that the subtext of this, is, that the average British male is so sex crazed that the sight of someones nose is going to result in an uncontrolled attack of lust. I would even accept this were it not for the many times young Muslim men have suggest that all western women are whores if they don’t wear this nonsense, plainly and simply it would seem that Islam is ironically obsessed with sex, hence the need for modesty.
I know that most Muslims are decent people, many of whom are adjusted to western values, but for those who are not adjusted to European freedoms, why torture yourself, go live in a predominantly Muslim country where you can enjoy your alternative freedom.
I’m sorry I have to post this anonymously but I honestly would not feel safe, knowing how tolerant many isolated Muslims are, who don’t interact as you do.
I think you raise a lot of very good points, and I commend your sensitivity and what I interpret as your genuine concern and desire to work through these issues.
With regards to Muslims demanding special consideration, there is a symbiotic relationship going on between the media/policymakers and some of the loud voices in the Muslim community. The media decides to make huge stories out of events, and creates hyperhysteria. For example this week on one day we had three "muslim stories" running.So Muslims feel they are being attacked and have to respond (i make no judgement here on the rights or wrongs of the media or the organisations). And when Muslims respond then they are told they demand too much. But if they say nothing, isn't there a risk of protection and rights being eroded by the precedent that saying nothing will set? It's a tough balance to achieve.
As for women who cover assuming all men are sex crazed objects, i think there is a failing on the part of Muslims and in particular Muslim women to really explain what hijab or niqab is all about. And that's probably because they don't understand it in depth themselves. There is some understanding, but at some point it just "feels right", and if it feels right then women should be allowed to wear it. After all, women fought tooth and nail to wear short skirts and no bras. So what's the big deal about women wearing more clothing rather than less?
I have a slightly different view of the concept of hijab. For me, its about creating modesty in your dress and your behaviour which then frees you to interact with men (for women and vice versa for men) so that the risks that can in some cases come with hanging round with the opposite gender, are minimised and you can have good healthy relationships. (we can discuss what this means if you wish).
I think that whilst the concept of covering requires modesty of dress, it is still a requirement to be aesthetic, and dare i say it, appealing, not in a sexual way, but just nice to be around. This is an embodiment of one of the great sayings of Islam "God is Beauty and He loves the Beautiful." I personally do not see the contradiction in a Muslim (male or female) being both modest, as well as nicely turned out and pleasing to the eye.
I would struggle to talk with someone wearing the type of veil where the eyes are covered with something that looks like the confessional grid, but if one can see the eyes, as with the standard niqab, then one has access to the proverbial 'windows of the soul.'
Not sure I disagree entirely with Jack Straw's discomfort, but on the other hand there are more than enough Western women roaming the streets by day and - more often by night - wearing little more clothing than could be fashioned from a pair of niqabs sewn together! Does JS similarly require such women to cover up a bit more when talking with them one wonders?
Shelina says "After all, women fought tooth and nail to wear short skirts and no bras."
Actually no women fought to wear short skirts but to wear trousers in the workplace. The girl in the short skirt and the the muslim woman in the veil are both subjected to wearing what a man wants her to. And the subjection is subtle in both of these extremes.
I am sorry to see girls wearing the veil, the scarf erases their identity - the veil, erases their voice!
Wear what you like, but don't pretend to yourselves that this uncomfortable hot habit is your true choice.
Interestingly if you read The Beauty Myth by Naomi Wolf, she discusses that the most appropriate clothing for women in the workplace is long modest clothing where they are more covered rather than less. This means they are taken more seriously. The concept of covering (and i'm speaking for the hijab or headscarf) is the same.
I think your view that women are forced to cover is rather old hat colonialist stuff. I for one, along with all my friends who cover, do it by choice. Please don't feel sorry for us.
I'm disappointed not to find solidarity from within the women's movement for the right of women to dress as they choose. The situation of Muslim women is far from ideal and much work needs to be done. It doesn't help when Muslim women who do empower themselves are then subjected to all this criticism.
You need to help, not hinder.
On the matter of the erotic - not that this much troubles me in general as it were these days - is not the showing of the eyes the Achilles heel [to mix body parts] of the whole niqab debate?
John Donne certainly maintained that eye-to-eye contact ['Mine eye in thine, thine in mine'] was Route One for seduction and I'm pretty sure he was on to something here.
Unless I have this wrong the alternative custom [Hindu in origin?] of a pierced nose is intended to draw away the lustful gaze of the man from the limpid and treacherous pools that are the eyes, to the far less erogenous nose.
But then what then of the all-pervasive habit of wearing dark glasses that cut off all contact with the person's eyes? So-called 'celebrities' don't seem to be able to see unless hindered by a sheet of black plastic. Is it the spurious air of unobtainable mystery that makes them so the more desirable? Naw...doesn't work for me.
Jack Straw in mirrored shades? Not a happy thought!
My problem with the veil has nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with the fact that I'm hard of hearing and rely on lipreading to understand what someone else is saying.
You have the right to wear whatever you want, but if you're going to wear something that covers your mouth, be it a veil or a bushy mustache, I will also exercise my right to refuse to communicate with you. Freedom cuts both ways.
Hi Shelina, You maybe interested in my new art exhibition "Sweet Dreams" to be initially exhibited at Lancaster University Chaplaincy Centre 16.10.07-26.10.9.07 (Arts Cuncil sponsored).
Please see www.whatmakesmelaugh.com and follow link for Sweet Dreams. About the sweet dreams of women who wear the niqab.
Cheers Christine
Just a short observation, maybe muslim women want to be covered so men like muhammad will not see their beauty and/or age and want to play with them. As he (Muhammad) was very surprised when his friend married a woman his own age who was not a virgin. Or maybe they wear it not to attract jealousy from the other women in their plural marriages.
Sorry, I honestly cannot take anyone in a hijab or a face mask talking to me seriously. /: We receive many social cues from body/face language, such as a smile and a frown or a grimace.
In this instance, I agree with him about removing it, but I cannot impose my own cultural and personal morals on anyone, so I won't even try.
Sorry, I honestly can't take anyone seriously who doesn't respect a person for who they are rather than what they wear.
However, I think we are in agreement about not imposing cultural and personal morals, and perhaps this is a shared point where we could begin a dialogue?
In the middle of a PhD on Ethics: Islam, the West and tolerance.
From the lot been reading (upwards of 60 journal articles so far) what intolerance that exists in Islam is more to do with prevalent tribal customs and traditions superimposed on Islam's original teachings. For example, after Jews were expelled from the Christian Iberian Peninsula in 1492 and forced by Portuguese Christians to convert in 1497, many Jews fled to Muslim-ruled Morocco. Likewise, the ruler Mohamad V of Morocco protected his Jewish citizens from the Nazi's in WW2. However, the Vichy French handed theirs over to the Germans.
Muslim countries DO have intolerance in them. But so do predominant Christian countries as does Israel (ever heard of the trend of Ultra-orthodox Jews spitting on Christians?)
The world is not as black and white as some simpletons would like to perceive it in their little TV-news led minds.
Btw: I am an agnostic.
Anonymous - very insightful comments which I think are often overlooked in what has become a very polarised discussion. People assume that everyone with a particular label is 'good' and everyone with a different label is 'bad' without actually identifying their behaviours and actions and judging them on their merits. Good luck with your research.
Post a Comment
<< Home