Jack Straw and Veils

Glass House Fri Oct 06, 2006 at 12:03:29 PM GMT Print-friendly version Facebook

What do you think?



I'm amazed that there isn't already an entry up about this - a Labour story topping the news.

I'm sure everybody knows the story by now - Jack Straw has said that he feels that the veil, worn by some Muslim women, promotes seperateness. He says that he would rather women didn't wear the veil and requests (but doesn't insist) that they take it off when coming to meet him.


tags: , (all tags)

Display: Sort:
Jack Straw and Veils | 37 comments (37 topical)

Re: Jack Straw and Veils (#1)

by TimSwift on Fri Oct 06, 2006 at 01:48:52 PM GMT

Interestingly, there is quite a lengthy post and set of comments at Conservative home on this. The original post is by a Muslim Asian Tory councillor from Dewsbury, attacking Jack Straw (sorry, he was also the Tory candidate against JS in Blackburn in 2005). Virtually none of the commentators agreed wtih him.


Re: Jack Straw and Veils (#36)

by Anonymous on Sat Nov 25, 2006 at 12:15:41 PM GMT

yhtrhy


[ Parent ]

Re: Jack Straw and Veils (#2)

by Glass House on Fri Oct 06, 2006 at 02:11:32 PM GMT

I have to say I pretty much agree with Jack.

He's probably right that things would be better for community relations if people didn't get all veiled up? He's been measured and maintained that there should be no compulsion.

A very mature and responsible way to start a debate.


Re: Jack Straw and Veils (#3)

by mwell on Fri Oct 06, 2006 at 02:49:06 PM GMT

Unfortunately, not everyone will treat this maturely and with responsibility - at this morning's lobby, the press asked the No 10 spokes if the Government would pass a law in line with Jack's thinking.

What kind of law would that be - allow someone to make a request that the veil be removed?!

The media want to turn this into something that it's not...


[ Parent ]

Re: Jack Straw and Veils (#4)

by Glass House on Fri Oct 06, 2006 at 03:02:41 PM GMT

Still, it would be irresponsible to dodge difficult and emotive debates simply to stop the press having a field day.


[ Parent ]

Re: Jack Straw and Veils (#35)

by jonesythered on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 08:36:46 PM GMT

I would argue it is precisely comments like those uttered by Jack Straw - rather than pieces of cloth - that are responsible for damaging community relations.

It is clear that Muslims are facing a rising level of scapegoating and persecution comparable to that suffered by the Jewish people in Europe a century ago. Anti-Semitism once presented itself in the rhetoric of anti-capitalism - today Islamophobia appropriates the rhetoric of secularism.

At a time when this impoverished and besieged community face increasing intolerance, I believe that it is the duty of the Left to defend the Muslim people. It is the only hope that we on the Left have to attract the most marginalised Muslims away from Islamic fundamentalism. The only result of comments such as those made by Jack Straw will be to drive some Muslims further into the arms of fundamentalist elements.

Note that Straw wasn't even adopting a feminist argument (i.e. "that the veil oppresses women") - but rather stated that he objected to the veil as a symbol of difference. We should be profoundly disturbed by this.


[ Parent ]

Re: Jack Straw and Veils (#5)

by davidfloyd on Fri Oct 06, 2006 at 03:29:08 PM GMT

I'm not necessarily dead against Straw's position on this put I'm concerned that it's got mixed in with an avalanche of increasinly perverse anti-Muslim in the media over the last couple of days.

Whether it's policeman not guarding embassies - for as yet unexplained reasons - or Jack Straw and his veils, it's seems that the media has taken it upon itself to launch a war on Muslims.

There was a hilarious phone in on Radio 5 this morning where 90% of callers explained that they were now scared to criticise Muslims in their own 'Christian country' (but were bravely conquering those fears for the purposes of the phone in, apparently).

Today's Evening Standard indulges in the pure farce 'Muslim cabbie bans guide dog' on its front page.

The story in question is about a cab driver who refused to let a blind lady get in his cab with her guide dog allegedly for religious reasons.

While the lady in question is right to have challenged the discriminatory service she received from a shoddy cab company and an unpleasant individual, this is a page 17 of the Waltham Forest Guardian story propelled to the front page of the Evening Standard, solely in order to kick an entire religious group - who are in no way responsible for the actions of the individual concerned.

The media attitude towards Muslims is becoming increasingly unpleasant. I'm not sure how much this actually reflected by the views of the majority of the public.


Re: Jack Straw and Veils (#13)

by nickparrott on Fri Oct 06, 2006 at 06:30:56 PM GMT

I agree - but then the Evening Standard has always been a vile reactionary rag.

The problem is that the views of the public tend to gradually come to match the views of the media if a sufficient cross-section of the press take a sustained attitude to an issue over a period of time.

I fear this is going to become a vicious cycle of the press attacking an increasingly defensive Muslim community, which may understandably react by being more inward-looking and lead to more alienation and possible recruits for the militant fringes, who will be increasinly likely to lash out. And that in turn will feed the media attacks. It's a worrying situation.


[ Parent ]

Re: Jack Straw and Veils (#15)

by laurencemarshall on Fri Oct 06, 2006 at 07:28:01 PM GMT

The standard dropped the headline in the west end final.


[ Parent ]

Re: Jack Straw and Veils (#6)

by doctordunc on Fri Oct 06, 2006 at 04:22:08 PM GMT

I'm not really sure what Jack wanted to achieve by this, and why he brought it up now.  It is, after all, a much wider intervention than the debate about whether veils are appropriate in schools or in the workplace.  Or even the issue of women's rights not to wear veils.  The idea of whether a particular type of attire should be worn at all - and whether a constituent should remove such attire before speaking to her representative - is something quite new.  I suppose my kneejerk reaction is, 'what's it got to do with Jack Straw?'  After all, this isn't hoodies and baseball caps in the shopping mall.

Even if you remove the religious content of the discussion it's pretty extraordinary.  If an MP said they didn't like beards, or sunglasses, and said they would ask people not to wear such things if they wanted to speak to him or her, that MP would surely be interfering to an unacceptable level, and coming close to refusing to represent some of his or her constituents.  If you added to the mix that the bearded people were sikhs, or the beshaded ones were blind, it would change the pitch considerably.

When you put this in the context of Jack's constituency - that has a large number of Muslims in it - for him to start this debate seems all the more bizarre.  

If the rumour is true that Jack was removed from the post of Foreign Secretary because Condoleeza Rice felt that the nature of his constituency meant he couldn't afford to further upset Muslim opinion... it seems she was over-cautious!


Re: Jack Straw and Veils (#8)

by swatantra on Fri Oct 06, 2006 at 05:13:04 PM GMT

You make a valid point. It doesn't serve Straw's interests in the least coming out with a statement that antagonises his Muslim supporters. As usual he hadn't thought it completely through.
What probably happened is that he like many other people are extremely concerned that day after day there is a story, and at the bottom of it is 'Muslim' and 'Islam'. And no it isn't just the fault of the Media as has been suggested. There is something fundamental in the way Islam and Muslims have completely failed to adapt to life in Britain. The fault lies with the Community leaders, the Muslim Council and with each and every Muslim. They have to face up to reality. Living in the West means you cannot carry on the centuries old traditions that were suitable to the deserts of Arabia.
Straw decided enough is enough. He's seen the subjugation of women at first hand in Blackburn, and it must cause anguish to many liberal minded people. The situation cannot go on. Tomorrow there will be more stories where 'Muslim' and 'Islam' are the common factor. And it isn't the war that is the root cause either. Unless the Muslim Community do some real heart searching and adapt, I fear there could be a complete breakdown in community relations.
As for the Deputy Leadership, I shouldn't bother Jack. You've got absolutely no chance whatsoever.


[ Parent ]

Re: Jack Straw and Veils (#12)

by doctordunc on Fri Oct 06, 2006 at 06:00:59 PM GMT

Your experience of the contribution of British muslims is clearly very different from mine.  In my job, co-ordinating equality and diversity for an FE college where the largest minority ethnic groups are from the Pakistani and Bangladeshi communities, I do not recognise the picture of British muslims that you paint.  Clearly British muslims choose to practice their religion, and celebrate their culture in a huge variety of ways and some of those ways may seem at odds with modern Britain.  But modern Britain is not a homogenous entity, culturally, spiritually or intellectually.  Therefore, we are all at odds with another person's vision of modern Britain (believe it or not, political blogging is not everyone's idea of "normal"!!!)  Of course there are serious issues to consider in relation to some of the communities we are referring to, and you refer to the subjugation of women, etc. - but it would be a dreadful mistake to purely categorise such issues as "muslim problems".  Partly because of the problem of labelling muslims, but also because of the problem of missing problems in other parts of the community.

While the issue of the subjugation of women is related to this in part, I think it is letting Jack off the hook a little to try and claim that his point was primarily a feminist one.


[ Parent ]

Re: Jack Straw and Veils (#18)

by swatantra on Fri Oct 06, 2006 at 09:03:45 PM GMT

No his main point was of integration. Jack knows better than most and has a clear insight into the workings of the Muslim community in Britain. He has talked to and met with countless, visited their homes, attended their functions and compared Muslims here with traditional Muslims in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere. He can see that there is slowness in change and adaptation, sometimes an unwillingness to integrate, still the isolation of women in households lack of education and skills, these are virtually closed communities in some parts. It is unfair on the next generation to be restricted in this way by their community elders. Many will resist. But they have nowhere else to go. Because of the activities of the extremists and Islamobhphobia many are turning in on themselves and rejecting society altogether. It is a vicious circle. There is a complete lack of understanding between generations. There has to be more integration, and that means taking on the better British values, working under the British legal sytsem and if, as most are British citizens, putting Britain first. Ny making excuses for


[ Parent ]

Re: Jack Straw and Veils (#19)

by swatantra on Fri Oct 06, 2006 at 09:06:40 PM GMT

No his main point was of integration. Jack knows better than most and has a clear insight into the workings of the Muslim community in Britain. He has talked to and met with countless, visited their homes, attended their functions and compared Muslims here with traditional Muslims in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere. He can see that there is slowness in change and adaptation, sometimes an unwillingness to integrate, still the isolation of women in households lack of education and skills, these are virtually closed communities in some parts. It is unfair on the next generation to be restricted in this way by their community elders. Many will resist. But they have nowhere else to go. Because of the activities of the extremists and Islamobhphobia many are turning in on themselves and rejecting society altogether. It is a vicious circle. There is a complete lack of understanding between generations. There has to be more integration, and that means taking on the better British values, working under the British legal sytsem and if, as most are British citizens, putting Britain first.  


[ Parent ]

Re: Jack Straw and Veils (#14)

by nickparrott on Fri Oct 06, 2006 at 06:40:23 PM GMT

I'm not really sure what Jack wanted to achieve by this, and why he brought it up now.

Inevitably people are bringing up the deputy leadership campaign, though I really hope that isn't the case. It doesn't look good stirring up this stuff for apparent electoral reasons even if that's only the appearance and not the intention.

With some gloom I note that Straw's odds have plunged in the betting markets, as if this is obviously a bonus for him...

The idea of whether a particular type of attire should be worn at all - and whether a constituent should remove such attire before speaking to her representative - is something quite new.

I have to say this makes me uncomfortable - people don't usually come to see their MP unless it's about a pretty serious issue and I'm not sure their attire is really here or there.

There is also the issue of the power relationship - these people are coming to their representative as both a person with status and also someone whose help they seek. Is it really possible in that situation to make a request like removing the veil that the constituent truly feels able to accept or refuse? Does it really make them feel welcome in what may be very distressing circumstances?

I don't claim to have a completely firm answer in my mind but I have to say I think these are important questions which I've not seen Straw convincingly answer from what I've read so far.


[ Parent ]

Re: Jack Straw and Veils (#16)

by davidfloyd on Fri Oct 06, 2006 at 07:29:15 PM GMT

"There is something fundamental in the way Islam and Muslims have completely failed to adapt to life in Britain."

This is nonsensical statement. There's a wide variety of Muslim communities in Britain - with a huge range of different cultural traditions.

Not only is there not something 'fundamental' about how 'they' have adapted or otherwise to life in Britain, there's isn't even any significant connection between the way, for example, people who came here from Turkey and people who came from Pakistan have adapted to life in Britain.

'They' don't necessarily have more in common with each other than they do with 'us'.

If you start by portraying Muslims as a block with a single group identity - and a single set of beliefs and cultural traditions - you're having a fantasy discussion about a Britain that doesn't exist, so the prospects for any positive engagement are virtually nil.


[ Parent ]

Re: Jack Straw and Veils (#20)

by swatantra on Fri Oct 06, 2006 at 09:15:24 PM GMT

To bring about that change, that integration, then you must look at the whole block, the whole community. We know that some have taken steps and successfully integrated. But this does not help your argument. The non-muslim community will still tar you with the same brush, however much you have integrated. It is for those who have to integrated to help those who have not. That means speaking up and telling them that it is the only way. By keeping quiet they are not helping anyone, least of all themselves.


[ Parent ]

Re: Jack Straw and Veils (#31)

by davidfloyd on Sun Oct 08, 2006 at 02:23:31 PM GMT

Personally, I'm not keeping quiet on this issue.

I simply don't support a form of 'integration' that involves society telling people what they can and can't wear - except for in cases where there's a clear practical reason for doing so.

You can't deal with a whole block of unless that block actually exists. My contention is that there is now more a coherent block of Muslims in Britain than there is a coherent block of Christians or atheists. There are various groups of people who are Muslims.

It's not the responsibility of Muslims who choose not to wear veils to tell Muslims who do wear veils whether or not they should do so.

The other point wear I think wildly wrong is on the question of Muslims adapting to life in Britain.

A large number - possibly the majority - of Muslim women who wear the veil were born in Britain and have never lived anywhere else.

Their decision to wear the veil is just as much a part of life in Britain as anyone else's decision on what they do or don't wear.

None of this means I think women wearing veils is a good thing but the idea some fabled 'Muslim community' can take a decision that it shouldn't happen and somehow it will stop is completely ridiculous.  

   


[ Parent ]

Re: Jack Straw and Veils (#7)

by Anonymous on Fri Oct 06, 2006 at 04:47:17 PM GMT

Jack Straw was a very bad Home Secretary who can across as weak and indecisive. His knowledge of the law was poor and his approach to human rights was intellectually dishonest. As a Foreign Secretary he simply had nothing to say above and beyond that of the Prime Minister and President Bush. In fact he was a disastrous and foolish Foreign Secretary and it was staggering that he lasted as long as he did. It is clear now that he is an equal useless constituency MP. Not only has he used poor judgment in his stupid approach to his constituents he has once again played the Muslim card - a card which this government has played too many times in the last year.

Jack Straw should be deselected. He was able to hang on just before the 2005 election lets us hope that this episode will finally rid the party of such an imbecile.


Re: Jack Straw and Veils (#9)

by swatantra on Fri Oct 06, 2006 at 05:19:32 PM GMT

Well I think Jack tried his best. He did after all set up the Mcpherson enquiry and all credit to him, it had ramifications at all levels of society and triggered off further anti discrimnatory legislation. Not bad. As a Foreign Secretary he was marginally better than Margeret Becket and thats saying a lot. No achivements spring to mind. As for deselection. No way. His Muslim electorate will probably do that for him anyway.


[ Parent ]

Re: Jack Straw and Veils (#10)

by Anonymous on Fri Oct 06, 2006 at 05:26:29 PM GMT

Mcpherson was promised when in opposition so he had no choice. It has also proven to be wholly ignored by most public authorities including the police, who still have a long way to go. My only concern is that he will be selected as Dep leader if he does then I will leave the party (and I am a PPC).


[ Parent ]

Re: Jack Straw and Veils (#11)

by swatantra on Fri Oct 06, 2006 at 05:39:14 PM GMT

I shouldn't worry about the Dty Leader thing he has absolutely no charisma or personality. It'll be 'Jolly' Johnson.
I think the CRE, or whats left of it, has persuaded the Police Authorties up and down the land to take McPherson on board. Some are still resisting but efforts are being made, and so has progress. Still some problems with the MEt and GMP. But it'll take time to weed out the racist officers. It took real courage to set up McP, he could have delayed it but didn't. We've still got to nail the killers of Stephen Lawrence though, and we will one day.
Good luck with the PPC, I hope the seat is winnable.


[ Parent ]

Re: Jack Straw and Veils (#17)

by Anonymous on Fri Oct 06, 2006 at 07:38:35 PM GMT

If it was blunkett their wouldn't be a problem!


Re: Jack Straw and Veils (#21)

by snowflake5 on Fri Oct 06, 2006 at 09:33:02 PM GMT

I'm not sure what the fuss is about. If you read what he wrote, he doesn't object to women dressing themselves however they see fit. He just thinks that if you are having a face-to-face meeting indoors, communication is easier if you can see each others faces. He asks the lady to unveil, she has the right to refuse (though none have) and she can put her veil back on afterwards before going back out onto the street.

It's no different to someone taking off their sunglasses when they go indoors to a face-toface meeting. (yes, there are types who insist on wearing sunglasses indoors - they do it to be powerful and cool, they can see you but you can't see them - that's just rudeness.)  

I think the controversy is in the way this has been reported. I fail to see how anyone reading Straw's original comments could be offended.


Re: Jack Straw and Veils (#33)

by nickparrott on Sun Oct 08, 2006 at 04:57:19 PM GMT

I think the problem with "asking" in that circumstance is in the relationship of Straw and a constituent who has come to him for help with a personal case.

A powerful man asking a powerless woman to change the way she appears - there may be consent but nonetheless I worry that in those circumstances the woman is likely to feel obliged even if it actually makes her uncomfortable. And I think it's important as an MP in those circumstances to make people more, lot less, at ease.

It is up to Straw how he conducts his constituency surgeries - he faces the electorate at the end of the day - but I'd certainly not behave that way if I were an MP.


[ Parent ]

Re: Jack Straw and Veils (#22)

by SW on Sat Oct 07, 2006 at 07:43:02 AM GMT

It is depressing that, to make a media story, any sensible discussion is missing. Veil, hijab and niqab are being used interchangeably. Concern is being reported as potential "ban".

All religions have a history of imposing dress and behaviour codes that prevent women from participating as full citizens and symbolise their secondary status. That women must cover their heads (in many religions) while men do not have to is exactly this.

To cover the face entirely is a very extreme version of it. Clearly banning it would be unhelpful and achieve the opposite. But Jack is right - it causes problems and prevents integration. Not the non-integration of muslims per se, but the non-integration of muslim women.


Re: Jack Straw and Veils (#23)

by markmcdonald on Sat Oct 07, 2006 at 12:30:02 PM GMT

But why is it that the Muslim woman has to solve the so called problem. If it is about freedom and choice surely it is us that should review our approach!


[ Parent ]

Re: Jack Straw and Veils (#24)

by SW on Sat Oct 07, 2006 at 04:58:49 PM GMT

We should all point out the damage this kind of belief-system does. Pressurising an individual women to take off her niqab in his surgery is not the answer - saying publicly that face veils are not a good thing is. Men and women should say it - it is a male religion that invented this nonsense. But am certainly not arguing for banning them, except in certain contexts.


[ Parent ]

Re: Jack Straw and Veils (#25)

by markmcdonald on Sat Oct 07, 2006 at 08:43:43 PM GMT

I am a Barrister and in my chambers there are three female Muslim Barristers all of whom wear an Hijab. Two are of Asian origin and are human rights lawyers in both Asia and the UK. The third is Jamaican and was part of the black civil rights movement in the US. All three are intelligent, sophisticated and independent people. I believe your comment is patronising to them and (with respect) is based on an ignorance of Islam. There are many beliefs of Christianity and Judaism which some profoundly disagree with. The question is why do our leaders choose to pick on Muslims?  Many in our community are ignorant of Islam and because of that are scared of Muslims, as Margaret Thatcher found it is easy to win people over if we can appeal to their fears!


[ Parent ]

Re: Jack Straw and Veils (#26)

by SW on Sat Oct 07, 2006 at 09:26:45 PM GMT

No-one is talking about the hijab. Would it affect their work if they wore the niqab - the veil covering the face?


[ Parent ]

(Comment Deleted) (#27)

by markmcdonald on Sat Oct 07, 2006 at 09:53:16 PM GMT

This comment has been deleted by markmcdonald


[ Parent ]

Re: (#28)

by markmcdonald on Sat Oct 07, 2006 at 11:00:15 PM GMT

I know what a Niqab is. But sadly you miss the point. It is about freedom to do and wear what you want, to live the life you choose to live. If you have a problem with it, deal with it, don't criticise / victimise. Those who choose to live a way of life which is foreign from ours should be embraced not made to feel different.


[ Parent ]

Re: (#29)

by liz on Sun Oct 08, 2006 at 01:46:39 PM GMT

Sorry, I must disagree with you regarding the right to dress as one pleases.  Do you think that a judge would be impressed if you turned up in a higher court wearing unsuitable dress or with your face covered.  Do you think a jury member would be able to assess a witness if they do not have sight of them.  I regret that I find the veil intimidating and would elect not to have any contact with someone dressed in this way.  I also find it very sad that a woman has a need to cover her face and body in this way.  I can only assume they are hiding something or trying to provide a message to their own community that they are somehow more devout in their faith. We are a secular society and have a right to state that we do not want to see women dressed in this way.


[ Parent ]

Re: (#30)

by davidfloyd on Sun Oct 08, 2006 at 02:11:42 PM GMT

We aren't a secular society. The Head of State is the head of the established Church. We're a Christian country. I don't think that's a good thing but it is a reality.

Obviously there are occasions - court, passes photos and checks etc. - where it's logically impossible for someone to wear a veil.

The situation Jack Straw is talking about it different.  

"I regret that I find the veil intimidating and would elect not to have any contact with someone dressed in this way.  I also find it very sad that a woman has a need to cover her face and body in this way."

That's a perfectly legitimate personal preference and personal reaction - in your personal life.  

Women who choose to wear a veil should be (and I imagine are) aware that this personal reaction might be provoked by their choice.

I'm not clear what this has to do with public policy or the female members Muslim community as whole (to the extent that there is a Muslim community) - the vast majority of whom choose not to wear a veil and may in fact share your view.


[ Parent ]

Re: (#32)

by Anonymous on Sun Oct 08, 2006 at 03:17:12 PM GMT

"I regret that I find the veil intimidating and would elect not to have any contact with someone dressed in this way.  I also find it very sad that a woman has a need to cover her face and body in this way." That of course is your choice, it is a shame as it makes you sound like a bigot which I am sure you are not (well at least I hope your not). To answer your question, if a woman chose to wear a veil in court to address a Judge or a jury she would not be prevented from doing so. That is her right. Sadly in your world it is a right to be ignored!


[ Parent ]

Re: Jack Straw and Veils (#34)

by Optimistic on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 02:21:01 PM GMT

I'm pleased that Jack Straw has opened a debate on this. Frankly, whatever else may be said I think the wearing of such garments hideously covering a face is rude and whatever else some muslim female protagonists might say oppresive; any chance of muslim men wearing veils covering the face, no I don't think so, it is quite ridiculous and ludicrous. Those muslim women who engage in this practice will only increasingly isolate themselves from the general public.


Re: Jack Straw and Veils (#38)

by esteban on Mon Dec 04, 2006 at 01:50:48 PM GMT

s1 s2 s3 s4 s5 s6 s7 s8 s9 s10 s11 s12 s13 s14 s15 s16 s17 s18 s19 s20 s21 s22 s23 s24 s25 s26 s27 s28 s29 s30 s31 s32 s33 s34 s35 s36 s37 s38 s39 s40 s41 s42 s43 s44 s45 s46 s47 s48 s49 s50 s51 s52 s53 s54 s55 s56 s57 s58 s59 s60 s61 s62 s63 s64 s65 s66 s67 s68 s69 s70 s71 s72 s73 s74 s75 s76 s77 s78 s79 s80 s81 s82 s83 s84 s85 s86 s87 s88 s89 s90 s91 s92 s93 s94 s95 s96 s97 s98 s99 s100


Jack Straw and Veils | 37 comments (37 topical)