NationStates Jolt Archive

I was just watching BBC news 24 and Jack Straw has asked Muslim women in his constituency to take off thier veil's when ever they are visit him because he believes the veil is "a visible statement of separation and of difference".

Halima Hussain, from civil liberties group the Muslim Public Affairs Committee, asked: "Who is Jack Straw to comment on negative symbols within a religion that is not his own?"

So what do people on here think?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5410472.stm

*sigh* Just when you think you've heard it all ...

their*

snip

"Have to"? no, not especially. "Probably should", yeah ok.

As for the hijab, he doesn't appear to have a problem with it. Purely from a communication perspective, the veil may cause issues with trying to 'read' people's facial expressions and could hinder clear communication between 2 people.

/my2 cents

thier*

I believe it's their.

thier*

I really should read before posting :(

It's up to the women. Who is Jack Straw or anyone else to tell someone that they should remove a symbol of their second class status? If you think you're inferior and you're happy that way, be inferior.

Oh, and the word you're looking for is their, not there or even they're.

A representative should respect his or her constituents cultural norms, regardless of whether the particular constituents in question are a member of the majority or not.

And that is an incredibly offensive and culturally insensitive request to make. Why doesn't he just go ahead and ask people of anglo-European decent to arrive in his office buck naked to remove 'visible statements of separation and difference'?

It's like asking a Christian to remove their cross, or a Jew not to wear the yarmulke.. or any number of other religious symbols people wear to non-verbally express their religious views.

thier*

To futher clarify, they should remove their veils, and put them over there, and if they don't, they're going to be under suspicion. Yeah, I'm a grammer nazi.

Personally I think if someone wants to move to the UK then they shoud be the ones to make an effort to fit in with the communities around them and they should raise their children to do the same.

Those veils are a very very powerful barrier to mixing with the rest of society, and they say a lot about the wearers opinion of women who do not wear them - further alienating them from the rest of the country. They are not conductive to good race relations.

It's up to the women. Who is Jack Straw or anyone else to tell someone that they should remove a symbol of their second class status? If you think you're inferior and you're happy that way, be inferior. If you're inferior and you know it, wear a veil...hoorah! If you're inferior and you know it...

Oh, and the word you're looking for is their, not there or even they're.

Since when did you join the grammar nazis, DC? SINCE WHEN!!??

If you're inferior and you know it, wear a veil...hoorah! If you're inferior and you know it...



Since when did you join the grammar nazis, DC? SINCE WHEN!!??

I'm not a grammar nazi, I'm just a grammar fascist.

BTW, who are you?

Thank you. I second that thought entirely (representatives should respect...). From my point of view, it's pretty rude and culturally snobbish to ask such a thing. Elected officials should be sensitive to the needs and lifestyles of all their constituents, and not just the ethnic majority.

Personally I think if someone wants to move to the UK then they shoud be the ones to make an effort to fit in with the communities around them and they should raise their children to do the same.
That's absolutely right. And if they move into a low-class, poverty stricken neighbourhood, they should immediately being swearing constantly, scratching their lice, and beating their children while smoking crack...

Fitting it isn't all it's cracked up to be...

It's like asking a Christian to remove their cross, or a Jew not to wear the yarmulke.. or any number of other religious symbols people wear to non-verbally express their religious views.

No.

A cross or a yarmulke are not a total physical barrier to a persons face. They do not literally hide that persons identity from society. They do not prevent eye contact or recognition of a person.

Seems fair enough to me. All he's said is that he prefers to speak to Muslim women without a veil, as it makes communication easier, and makes it easier to understand and get to know the women.

He hasn't said that Muslim women have to do it, or even that they should, he's just said that he prefers it, when speaking to them, if they don't, and he thinks it might be better all round if they didn't.


Although, I think the things are ridiculous anyway. Could you imagine being forced to live like this?
http://www.trans-health.com/kara/burqa.jpg

They want to wear a veil fine, though I do think it needs to be taken off for ID photos. Kind of defeats the purpose of a photo ID.

I'm not a grammar nazi, I'm just a grammar fascist.

BTW, who are you?You'll figure it out eventually.

"Have to"? no, not especially. "Probably should", yeah ok.

As for the hijab, he doesn't appear to have a problem with it. Purely from a communication perspective, the veil may cause issues with trying to 'read' people's facial expressions and could hinder clear communication between 2 people.
/my2 cents



I believe it's their.

So does botox!!!

Yeah, I'm a grammer nazi.

I'ts spelled 'grammar'. Yeah, I'm an orthographic nazi.

To futher clarify, they should remove their veils, and put them over there, and if they don't, they're going to be under suspicion. Yeah, I'm a grammer nazi.

You may be a grammar Nazi, but you're certainly no spelling Nazi.

Halima Hussain, from civil liberties group the Muslim Public Affairs Committee, asked: "Who is Jack Straw to comment on negative symbols within a religion that is not his own?"


"Who are you who asks?"

Frankly, Halima Hussain's reply is more offensive than Straw's comment. He made a request, and explained it. Her reply is basically, "how dare you have an opinion?"

I can have an opinion about things in Islam, or Judaism, or Christianity. I am allowed to express them. If anyone is offended, too bad.

I'ts spelled 'grammar'. Yeah, I'm an orthographic nazi.

Delicious!

And that is an incredibly offensive and culturally insensitive request to make. Why doesn't he just go ahead and ask people of anglo-European decent to arrive in his office buck naked to remove 'visible statements of separation and difference'?

Because we don't study the body's of people were communicating with to try and guage expressions to make sure we're understanding each other, and to guage what emotions they're feeling.

It's natural to watch a person's face when you're talking to them, facial expressions can convey so much of a conversation between people, and hiding the face can only lead to suspicion and misunderstanding.

Covering the body does not do that.

"Who are you who asks?"

Frankly, Halima Hussain's reply is more offensive than Straw's comment. He made a request, and explained it. Her reply is basically, "how dare you have an opinion?"

I can have an opinion about things in Islam, or Judaism, or Christianity. I am allowed to express them. If anyone is offended, too bad.
True, and he didn't mention it being a negitive symbol, she did..

Because we don't study the body's of people were communicating with to try and guage expressions to make sure we're understanding each other, and to guage what emotions they're feeling.

It's natural to watch a person's face when you're talking to them, facial expressions can convey so much of a conversation between people, and hiding the face can only lead to suspicion and misunderstanding.

Covering the body does not do that.

He's a big boy, this politician. Surely he can go beyond body language in order to understand what the Muslim women visiting him want to convey to him.

Delicious!

Thank you. Pedantry is such fun. And it peeves so many people.

Doh. I stumble when I am eating and typing.

He has every right to ask her to remove her veil.
She has every right to refuse.

It's a little thing called freedom; it used to be popular but it seems to becoming more unfashionable by the day. :(

No.

A cross or a yarmulke are not a total physical barrier to a persons face. They do not literally hide that persons identity from society. They do not prevent eye contact or recognition of a person.

How many Muslims do you know that recognition causes a problem for you? Do you often find yourself asking internally, "Who was that veiled woman?"

This reminds me of the argument against hats in schools (pre gang colours issue)...

I was just watching BBC news 24 and Jack Straw has asked Muslim women in his constituency to take off thier veil's when ever they are visit him because he believes the veil is "a visible statement of separation and of difference".

Halima Hussain, from civil liberties group the Muslim Public Affairs Committee, asked: "Who is Jack Straw to comment on negative symbols within a religion that is not his own?"

So what do people on here think?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5410472.stm

I think that Jack Straw has a right to talk to whoever he wants. If he doesn't want to talk to women wearing veils, that's his right. But he also can't tell them to take them off. He doesn't have that right.

Although, I think the things are ridiculous anyway. Could you imagine being forced to live like this?
http://www.trans-health.com/kara/burqa.jpg


I can see why he'd ask; those things are utterly dehumanising and remove any visible sign of individuality.

I just wonder how many veil-wearing Muslim women Jack Straw actually has dropping in on him, anyway? You think they'd get past his bodyguards?

Although, I think the things are ridiculous anyway. Could you imagine being forced to live like this?

Forced? No

Choose? Yep

He's a big boy, this politician. Surely he can go beyond body language in order to understand what the Muslim women visiting him want to convey to him.

You think that, without ever seeing a persons face, you could get the exact meaning of their words without having to constantly ask for clarification?

You think that, without ever seeing a persons face, you can build up a proper dialogue between you and someone who has come to you for help?

His point is that it brings a greater level of communication, understanding, and trust, when everybody is open and you can see the other person.

You'll figure it out eventually.

For some reason I wanted to guess that you're Sinuhue. Is my first instinct right?

Forced? No

Choose? Yep

Well, if it's a "choice" between living like that and being attacked, possibly killed, then there's not much "choice".

For some reason I wanted to guess that you're Sinuhue. Is my first instinct right?

That's exactly who I thought of.

If they are unwilling to take off their veils, they shouldn't speak with him. Simple. And those who refuse to take off their veils are most likely extremists that need to be closely monitored.

I can see why he'd ask; those things are utterly dehumanising and remove any visible sign of individuality.

I suppose, though, he'd encounter this more regularly (the other one is a burqa):
http://www.islamfortoday.com/niqab02.jpg

Hardly much better though.

If they are unwilling to take off their veils, they shouldn't speak with him. Simple. And those who refuse to take off their veils are most likely extremists that need to be closely monitored.

You're being funny? Please?

He has every right to ask her to remove her veil.
She has every right to refuse.

It's a little thing called freedom; it used to be popular but it seems to becoming more unfashionable by the day. :(
And he has every right to refuse to talk to them if they don't remove it. But he wouldn't have the guts.

I can see why he'd ask; those things are utterly dehumanising and remove any visible sign of individuality.

Utterly dehumanising? In your opinion, based on your cultural norms. It's ridiculous to think that the women wearing them all feel utterly dehumanised.

I've always thought those things we're quite silly. I mean I'm all for modesty but I think that's taking it to far.

Though I've always wondered...

How do they recognise each other? Are the hijab thingies individual, like? Y'know, certain colours and patterns for certain people? Do they have rain burqas? I'd imagine they'd be better than umbrellas. A bit hot maybe. Perhaps you'd need some kind of peak above the little window to keep the rain out. Is it wrong for me to imagine that each woman wearing one is naked underneath? Should I keep that to myself when talking to a woman wearing one? Is there such a thing as "burqa hair" and do they worry about it? Was Cousin It inspired by a a burqa? Why blue? Why not green or red? What is the appropiate action in the event of a bee or wasp getting trapped in your burqa?

You think that, without ever seeing a persons face, you could get the exact meaning of their words without having to constantly ask for clarification?

You think that, without ever seeing a persons face, you can build up a proper dialogue between you and someone who has come to you for help? You ask this, without a sense of irony, in a conversation over the internet where body language is completely a moot issue?:p

No.

A cross or a yarmulke are not a total physical barrier to a persons face. They do not literally hide that persons identity from society. They do not prevent eye contact or recognition of a person.

A veil is a choice.

The headscarf is not a barrier. The veil is no more of a barrier than a baseball cap or a hoodie.

I suppose, though, he'd encounter this more regularly (the other one is a burqa):
http://www.islamfortoday.com/niqab02.jpg

Hardly much better though.

Far better in my opinion. Eye contact is so important to human communication that removing it makes it far harder to talk 'face to face' as it were.

Personally I don't see why any woman would want to wear anything like that but meh, it's a free country.

You're being funny? Please?

Normal people do not obscure their faces with veils -- only those who are extremely devoted to religion would do such a thing. We need to take the safe course of action and monitor them to see if they have ties to a terrorist group.

That's absolutely right. And if they move into a low-class, poverty stricken neighbourhood, they should immediately being swearing constantly, scratching their lice, and beating their children while smoking crack...

Fitting it isn't all it's cracked up to be...

Haha, good point. Nobody is perfect, but not everyone is imperfect in the same way, that's why variety is a good thing to have around.

Honestly, it is no more Jack Straw's place to tell these women what to wear as it would be for him to tell any other citizen. Wearing the veil is an act of personal choice.

If they are unwilling to take off their veils, they shouldn't speak with him. Simple. And those who refuse to take off their veils are most likely extremists that need to be closely monitored.

Such extreme attitudes.

Trilby63;11768053']I've always thought those things we're quite silly. I mean I'm all for modesty but I think that's taking it to far.

Though I've always wondered...

How do they recognise each other? Are the hijab thingies individual, like? Y'know, certain colours and patterns for certain people? Do they have rain burqas? I'd imagine they'd be better than umbrellas. A bit hot maybe. Perhaps you'd need some kind of peak above the little window to keep the rain out. Is it wrong for me to imagine that each woman wearing one is naked underneath? Should I keep that to myself when talking to a woman wearing one? Is there such a thing as "burqa hair" and do they worry about it? Was Cousin It inspired by a a burqa? Why blue? Why not green or red? What is the appropiate action in the event of a bee or wasp getting trapped in your burqa?

Thanks for the mental images :p

Normal people do not obscure their faces with veils -- only those who are extremely devoted to religion would do such a thing. We need to take the safe course of action and monitor them to see if they have ties to a terrorist group.

You're completely freaking insane.

Hard one.

Up to Straw and up to the women, I suppose. If the women are desperate enough to go and see Straw, they'd have to appreciate Straw's fear of veils and remove 'em. If Straw ever moves to a constituency with a 'veiled' majority, I suggest he gets used to 'em.

You ask this, without a sense of irony, in a conversation over the internet where body language is completely a moot issue?:p

And have you noticed the frequency of smily use in informal chat online or via text? ;)

They're a poor substitute for actual body language but if you watch you'll see that posts which don't use smilies are far more likely to be misinterpreted.

You ask this, without a sense of irony, in a conversation over the internet where body language is completely a moot issue?:p

Yea, because nobody ever misunderstands something another person has written on the internet. :p

(The fact that we had to use a smiley is the perfect example...IRL there are no smileys to use )

Oh veils..

I have no problem with veils..

They make me think of belly dancers..

And have you noticed the frequency of smily use in informal chat online or via text? ;)

They're a poor substitute for actual body language but if you watch you'll see that posts which don't use smilies are far more likely to be misinterpreted.

Telephones must be extremely hard on you.

It's like asking a Christian to remove their cross, or a Jew not to wear the yarmulke.. or any number of other religious symbols people wear to non-verbally express their religious views.

Actually, it's more like asking a woman from a more Western society to remove her bra or her pants. Those who wear hijab or even a veil do it because that is what they feel is modest dress. It isn't a religious symbol per se, and in some cultures, Christian women are expected to wear scarves on their heads. The difference isn't in religion, but is in what is considered modest. I, for one, would feel very uncomfortable if I went to speak to my representative and he asked me to wear skimpy clothing just to talk to him. In essence, that is very much how these women might feel.


Personally I think if someone wants to move to the UK then they shoud be the ones to make an effort to fit in with the communities around them and they should raise their children to do the same.

Those veils are a very very powerful barrier to mixing with the rest of society, and they say a lot about the wearers opinion of women who do not wear them - further alienating them from the rest of the country. They are not conductive to good race relations.

(a) Why should people "fit in" in this way? If I do not wish to ever wear shorts, even though most people in my area do, does that make me a bad person who can't interact with society? What if most people wear dark colors and I want to wear orange?

(b) How does it say anything about the wearer's opinion of other women? I have yet to meet a Muslim woman who wears hijab that seemed to hold it against me in any way that I do not. I have yet to meet a Muslim who thinks I'm a bad person when I eat pork chops. I have yet to meet a Muslim who condemns me for not being able to read the Qur'an in Arabic. A person who follows their own religious beliefs does not necessarily think that those who believe differently are somehow inferior or immoral. The fact that you automatically jump to such a statement says much more about your attitude than that of the women who choose to wear it.

And have you noticed the frequency of smily use in informal chat online or via text? ;)

They're a poor substitute for actual body language but if you watch you'll see that posts which don't use smilies are far more likely to be misinterpreted.

You can speak the same language, be the same age, same socio-economic background, same gender, come from the same culture, and read body language to your heart's content...and yet you can never, ever guarantee that you will not have to seek clarification. If you really want to understand an issue that someone brings to you, you'd better be asking for clarification, no matter how well you think you understand it. Veil, or no veil.

Honestly, it is no more Jack Straw's place to tell these women what to wear as it would be for him to tell any other citizen.

And I'm sure he would 100% agree with you.

That's why he asks if the women would remove their veil, but doesn't make it a requirement, or tell them to.

Utterly dehumanising? In your opinion,

If it wasn't my opinion I'd hardly be expressing it now would I?:rolleyes: I really hate that expression.

based on your cultural norms. It's ridiculous to think that the women wearing them all feel utterly dehumanised.

Human communication and human interaction depend a lot on facial expressions, eye contact, and other body language. If I remember rightly then up to 90% of human communication can be non-verbal depending on the participants and the situation. So yeah, I think excluding oneself from that is dehumanising. If they still want to do it then fine, it's their choice.

You're completely freaking insane.

I would rather err on the side of caution than have a successful terror plot be executed because we were too squemish to keep a close watch on extremists. Hell, we shouldn't even let people like that in the country -- there was a recent string operation in NY which revealed that extremists are far more pervasive than previously believed:

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-10-03T231545Z_01_N03260031_RTRUKOC_0_US-SECURITY-MUSLIMS.xml&WTmodLoc=NewsHome-C1-topNews-10

We are at war. When we were at war against the Japanese, we put all people of Japanese descent in internment camps. We have to do the same thing to all Muslim extremists now, if not all Muslims period.

Actually, it's more like asking a woman from a more Western society to remove her bra or her pants. Those who wear hijab or even a veil do it because that is what they feel is modest dress. It isn't a religious symbol per se, and in some cultures, Christian women are expected to wear scarves on their heads. The difference isn't in religion, but is in what is considered modest. I, for one, would feel very uncomfortable if I went to speak to my representative and he asked me to wear skimpy clothing just to talk to him. In essence, that is very much how these women might feel.

Yet, so far, every single woman he has asked to remove their veil has agreed to do so.

"a visible statement of separation and of difference"... because they wear odd garment?

Bull.

The Irishmen have worn potato sacks for centuries, and yet meningful discussion between them and the Englishmen has occurred.

Telephones must be extremely hard on you.

Exactly. And blind people must be lost in a sea of constant misunderstandings.

HHonestly, it is no more Jack Straw's place to tell these women what to wear as it would be for him to tell any other citizen. Wearing the veil is an act of personal choice.
But it is his choice to refuse to talk with them if they wear it, which is what he should do.

I would rather err on the side of caution than have a successful terror plot be executed because we were too squemish to keep a close watch on extremists. Hell, we shouldn't even let people like that in the country -- there was a recent string operation in NY which revealed that extremists are far more pervasive than previously believed:

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-10-03T231545Z_01_N03260031_RTRUKOC_0_US-SECURITY-MUSLIMS.xml&WTmodLoc=NewsHome-C1-topNews-10

We are at war. When we were at war against the Japanese, we put all people of Japanese descent in internment camps. We have to do the same thing to all Muslim extremists now, if not all Muslims period.

Keep proving my point, friend. It's fun to read.

They want to wear a veil fine, though I do think it needs to be taken off for ID photos. Kind of defeats the purpose of a photo ID.

Indeed. But I do think that some sort of deference to the woman's modesty should be made. For instance, they could ensure that a female photographer takes the photo. If none of the people on duty that day are women, they can let her know when someone will be there. If at all possible, when the ID is checked, they could make sure it is a woman doing so.


Because we don't study the body's of people were communicating with to try and guage expressions to make sure we're understanding each other, and to guage what emotions they're feeling.

It's natural to watch a person's face when you're talking to them, facial expressions can convey so much of a conversation between people, and hiding the face can only lead to suspicion and misunderstanding.

I don't know about you, but I can generally do this fairly well by watching someone's eyes. It may help to see the whole face, but it isn't necessary.

And I can tell you that I am not automatically suspicious of someone wearing hijab or a veil, any more than I am automatically suspicious of someone wearing long sleeves or long pants or a hat.

nuns and christian sisters should do the same with that reasoning (or lack there of). incidentally, the 'veils' that you speak of isn't muslim, its an arabic tradition.

The Irishmen have worn potato sacks for centuries, and yet meningful discussion between them and the Englishmen has occurred.

*raises eyebrow*

Excusi?

And he has every right to refuse to talk to them if they don't remove it. But he wouldn't have the guts.

I disagree. If he is an elected official, I don't think he has the right to refuse to talk to any constituent just because they aren't dressed to his liking. He represents *all* of his constituents, not just the ones who have the same views on modesty as his own.

*raises eyebrow*

Excusi?You are Excusiid. I try to argue at the level this thread deserves.

Telephones must be extremely hard on you.

Ok, so I forgot to mention that tone of voice is also expressive, so sue me. Incidentally you're partly right: I do dislike talking over phones and much prefer to talk in person if it's feasible.

I don't see what the issue is here: inhibiting eye-contact and body-language does inhibit communication to a degree; this is surely undeniable. Whether it is inhibited to a significant degree is certainly up for debate. As long as he isn't refusing to talk to or discriminating against women who wear a veil I don't see the problem.

Keep proving my point, friend. It's fun to read.

Actually, I'm done. You, on the other hand, haven't yet begun to mount a counter-argument.

Those veils are a very very powerful barrier to mixing with the rest of society, and they say a lot about the wearers opinion of women who do not wear them - further alienating them from the rest of the country. They are not conductive to good race relations.

I don't at all agree with the statement in boldface. If someone wears a crucifix, I don't see that as implying any judgement of non-Christians. I simply see it as implying that they are a Christian. For that matter, if someone wears a nun's habit, I don't see that as implying any judgement of non-Catholics or non-nuns. Believing that something is the right choice for you most certainly doesn't mean that you have to believe that it's the only right choice for everyone.

(For that matter, one could easily extend this beyond religion. If I wear a one-piece bathing suit, does that mean I must have a negative opinion of women in bikinis? If I order chicken at a restaurant, does that "say a lot about" my opinion of someone who ordered steak?)

I don't see what the issue is here: inhibiting eye-contact and body-language does inhibit communication to a degree; this is surely undeniable. Whether it is inhibited to a significant degree is certainly up for debate. As long as he isn't refusing to talk to or discriminating against women who wear a veil I don't see the problem.

Agreed.

I would rather err on the side of caution than have a successful terror plot be executed because we were too squemish to keep a close watch on extremists. Hell, we shouldn't even let people like that in the country -- there was a recent string operation in NY which revealed that extremists are far more pervasive than previously believed:

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-10-03T231545Z_01_N03260031_RTRUKOC_0_US-SECURITY-MUSLIMS.xml&WTmodLoc=NewsHome-C1-topNews-10

We are at war. When we were at war against the Japanese, we put all people of Japanese descent in internment camps. We have to do the same thing to all Muslim extremists now, if not all Muslims period.


I don't mean to rude but you're a moron.

Seriously, all muslims?

Why stop there? I bet the lefties wouldn't appreciate what you're proposing. Let's chuck them in camps! After all, that's sympathising that is! Their family too, regardless of beliefs because their allience is to their family and not the government.

Now.. who else..

The opposition! Ha! Look at them! Campaigning on civil liberties to win over voters. Do they honestly think we're that stupid? I bet them terrorists put them up to it! Hating our freedom whilst simultaneously promoting freedom by proxy in order to confuse and embarrass us! Clever, but not clever enough!

Seriously..

Actually, I'm done. You, on the other hand, haven't yet begun to mount a counter-argument.

No need. From where I'm sitting, you've wrapped up my counter argument quite nicely.

But it is his choice to refuse to talk with them if they wear it, which is what he should do.

No it is not, as an elected representative he does not have the perogative to simply ignore a section of society.

Normal people do not obscure their faces with veils -- only those who are extremely devoted to religion would do such a thing. We need to take the safe course of action and monitor them to see if they have ties to a terrorist group.

So anyone with a different view of modesty than you is a terrorist?


Yet, so far, every single woman he has asked to remove their veil has agreed to do so.

That doesn't mean they were comfortable with it. If the person in power - the person you are going to for help - asks you to do something, you are much more likely to do it than you would be otherwise. If I *really* needed to talk to my representative and I thought he would only see me if I wore a tube top, I might do it. I'd also hate him for it and likely try and vote him out next term.

Ok, so I forgot to mention that tone of voice is also expressive, so sue me. Incidentally you're partly right: I do dislike talking over phones and much prefer to talk in person if it's feasible.

I don't see what the issue is here: inhibiting eye-contact and body-language does inhibit communication to a degree; this is surely undeniable. Whether it is inhibited to a significant degree is certainly up for debate. As long as he isn't refusing to talk to or discriminating against women who wear a veil I don't see the problem.

Reading a couple of articles, I partly agree. There is no harm in asking, it seems, as long as it is done respectfully. I wonder though how obligated a Muslim woman would feel when asked to do something by an important public figure. If she would do something she normally would not do. I also wonder if him being a male has any bearing.

Exactly. And blind people must be lost in a sea of constant misunderstandings.

Are you really going to claim that blindness doesn't present any kind of disadvantage? And please don't try to change the subject of debate: whether a loss of eye contact and body language inhibits communication, not necessarily simply comprehension. One of my professors had a glass eye and until we got used to it it was mildly disorientating in conversation due to the disruption of eye-contact.

Regardless your comparison is flawed: a blind individual will never be able to use eye-contact or read body language so they will adapt; a UK resident will, in all likelihood, only encounter a few fully veiled women and so it will be more disorientating, 'thrown in at the deep end' if you will.

Reading a couple of articles, I partly agree. There is no harm in asking, it seems, as long as it is done respectfully.

I agree with this, as long as he is careful not to insinuate that he will not talk to them otherwise. I think it is an impression they might get if he wasn't careful about it.

I also wonder if him being a male has any bearing.

Even in Western society, women are generally ok with being less modest in front of other women. I've undressed and even gone to the bathroom in front of my female friends - something I wouldn't feel at all comfortable with even with my closest male friends. From what I understand, Arabic and/or Muslim society is very similar. Women who wear hijab or veils remove them, generally, in front of other women or in front of their husbands. This is one of the main reasons that there are female soldiers in just about every patrol in Iraq right now - if a woman needs to be searched, the female soldier does it.

Reading a couple of articles, I partly agree. There is no harm in asking, it seems, as long as it is done respectfully. I wonder though how obligated a Muslim woman would feel when asked to do something by an important public figure. If she would do something she normally would not do. I also wonder if him being a male has any bearing.

You make a vaild point regarding the possible pressure of such a request. I suspect that this news will circulate very quickly in his constituency so that any veiled women visiting him will be aware of his views before hand. If this is the case then he shouldn't really ask anyone who turns up to remove their veil: if they're willing to do so then they will do so of their own accord.

I don't know about you, but I can generally do this fairly well by watching someone's eyes. It may help to see the whole face, but it isn't necessary.

For some people it is. Sometimes not even eyes can give the whole message.

And I can tell you that I am not automatically suspicious of someone wearing hijab or a veil, any more than I am automatically suspicious of someone wearing long sleeves or long pants or a hat.

Neither am I, but many would tend to be suspicious of somebody who is reluctant to let their face be seen.

Are you really going to claim that blindness doesn't present any kind of disadvantage? And please don't try to change the subject of debate: whether a loss of eye contact and body language inhibits communication, not necessarily simply comprehension. One of my professors had a glass eye and until we got used to it it was mildly disorientating in conversation due to the disruption of eye-contact.

Regardless your comparison is flawed: a blind individual will never be able to use eye-contact or read body language so they will adapt; a UK resident will, in all likelihood, only encounter a few fully veiled women and so it will be more disorientating, 'thrown in at the deep end' if you will.
Again, this is an adult, and a politician. Surely he can adapt.

Coming from Canada, I can't understand Newfoundlanders when they talk...that throws me in the deep end...so I ask questions for clarification. Communication is a two-way social exercise that is not solely reliant on sight.

We're not talking about removing all disadvantages. If we were, we would immediately plop this fellow into a remedial cultural exchange in order that any sort of cultural disadvantages be mitigated.

If you are the sort of person who has difficulty communicating with people who are different than you, then you ought not to be in a public office that requires you to do so.

So anyone with a different view of modesty than you is a terrorist?
Haven't you met MTAE, Dem?


That doesn't mean they were comfortable with it. If the person in power - the person you are going to for help - asks you to do something, you are much more likely to do it than you would be otherwise. If I *really* needed to talk to my representative and I thought he would only see me if I wore a tube top, I might do it. I'd also hate him for it and likely try and vote him out next term.
I quite agree.

I know I could get taken to task for giving in to dhimmi-tude, but I see this as unnecessary, as just a way for Straw to get in the face of Muslims for the simple reason that they're Muslims. Goodness knows, Muslims get incensed at the drop of a ... well, you know ... should people be pouring petrol on that fire?

Neither am I, but many would tend to be suspicious of somebody who is reluctant to let their face be seen. In your culture, this is so. But welcome to your nation, which is multicultural. You will be struck with suspicions based upon cultural norms all your life...it doesn't mean that you actually have something valid to be suspicious about.

If I hid my face from you, I'd likely be trying to hide something.
A muslim woman is preserving her modesty, not trying to hide her face from you for the same motives I might have. I don't think that is a difficult distinction to grasp.

So anyone with a different view of modesty than you is a terrorist?

No, a terrorist suspect. All of the terrorists implicated in 9/11 were extremist Muslims. People who wear veils are extremist Muslims. Therefore, we should monitor people who wear veils, QED.

Okay. Firstly, there seems to be a lot of ignorance here about the veil's place in British Islamic society.

Whether a woman decided to wear it or not is entirely her perogative, it is universally (even by extremist groups such as 'l-Hizb ut-Tahrir) seen as barbaric for anyone other than the woman herself to decide how to interpret the commandment of modesty. The women who do where it are not announcing themselves to be second class citizens, many raise a strong argument that it is a symbol of empowerment.

Secondly, I think to properly understand this issue we have to think about what our opinion would be if the religious dimension were removed. For example, if I, and some close associates, were to decide to wear pantomime masks whenever in public, whilst we might face derision, it would ultimately be understood to be a matter of personal choice.

No, a terrorist suspect. All of the terrorists implicated in 9/11 were extremist Muslims. People who wear veils are extremist Muslims. Therefore, we should monitor people who wear veils, QED.

You seem very extreme in your opinions. I suspect you are capable of terrorism.

That doesn't mean they were comfortable with it. If the person in power - the person you are going to for help - asks you to do something, you are much more likely to do it than you would be otherwise. If I *really* needed to talk to my representative and I thought he would only see me if I wore a tube top, I might do it. I'd also hate him for it and likely try and vote him out next term.

He has them already in his office, with another woman there to try and help make them more comfortable, and asks them would they mind removing the veil.

Hardly the situation you imagine or describe.

No, a terrorist suspect. All of the terrorists implicated in 9/11 were extremist Muslims. People who wear veils are extremist Muslims. Therefore, we should monitor people who wear veils, QED.

I take it one step further. We should monitor all people who can fly a plane. Or shoot a gun. Or who play Grand Theft Auto. IF they do any of these activities while wearing a veil, they should be shot on site.

You seem very extreme in your opinions. I suspect you are capable of terrorism.

Well he's very capable of trolling.

Trilby63;11768132']Seriously, all muslims?

I never said that. However, an extremely large preponderence -- say 99% -- of anti-US terrorists are indeed Muslim.

Why stop there? I bet the lefties wouldn't appreciate what you're proposing.

Lefties, while worthless, are necessary in our democratic political system. As long as they do not aid terrorists, we should let them be. However, if it turns out that a lot of terrorist aid comes from lefties, serious action needs to be taken to rectify the situation, including, but not limited to, monitoring all those who vote Democrat.

Let's chuck them in camps!

Nowadays we have the technology to closely watch their every move without sending them into camps. However, such technology comes at a price for the taxpayers. We should force all extremist Muslims to pay a "surveillance tax" -- the money will be used to monitor them.

I take it one step further. We should monitor all people who can fly a plane. Or shoot a gun. Or who play Grand Theft Auto.

Or listen to Rush willingly. Seriously.

Well he's very capable of trolling.

I move that we add this to the list of terrorist activities.

I take it one step further. We should monitor all people who can fly a plane. Or shoot a gun. Or who play Grand Theft Auto. IF they do any of these activities while wearing a veil, they should be shot on site.

I agree. I think we should monitor all people, period. Funny, I would have thought that liberals such as yourself would be against such measures -- I guess I was wrong.

No, a terrorist suspect. All of the terrorists implicated in 9/11 were extremist Muslims. People who wear veils are extremist Muslims. Therefore, we should monitor people who wear veils, QED.

Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veiling)

Non-religious veils

Veils with hats
Veils pinned to hats have survived the changing fashions of the centuries and are still common today on occasions when women wear hats. However, these veils are generally made of netting or another material not actually designed to hide the face from view, even if the veil can be pulled down, which is not always the case.

Wedding veils
An occasion on which a Western woman is likely to wear a veil is on her wedding day, if she follows the traditions of a white wedding. Brides used to wear their hair flowing down their back at their wedding to symbolise their virginity, now the white diaphanous veil is often said to represent this.

Courtesans
Conversely, veils are often part of the stereotypical image of the courtesan and harem woman. Here, rather than the virginity of the bride's veil, modesty of the Muslim scarf or the piety of the nun's headdress, the mysterious veil hints at sensuality and the unknown. An example of the veil's erotic potential is the dance of the seven veils. Sexual interest in veiled women is veil fetishism.

In West Africa
Among the Tuareg of West Africa, women do not traditionally wear the veil, while men do. The men's facial covering originates from the belief that such action wards off evil spirits, but most probably relates to protection against the harsh desert sands as well; in any event, it is a firmly established tradition. Men begin wearing a veil at age 25 which conceals their entire face excluding their eyes. This veil is never removed, even in front of family members.

:rolleyes:

No, a terrorist suspect. All of the terrorists implicated in 9/11 were extremist Muslims. People who wear veils are extremist Muslims. Therefore, we should monitor people who wear veils, QED.

Are all muslims who wear veils extremist? What's your proof?

Does being an extremist neccesarily equate with being a terrorist? I mean there's taking modesty to an extreme (which I really don't think wearing a veil is that extreme) but that doesn't mean you take any of the notions of holy war to an extreme.

Most terrorists are male. Being male they don't wear veils. QED

Apart from intolerance, what is your justification?

I agree. I think we should monitor all people, period. Funny, I would have thought that liberals such as yourself would be against such measures -- I guess I was wrong.

Oh, yeah. I'm a complete whack job too! Do I look all rancid and clotted? You look at me, Jack. Eh? Look, eh? And I drink a lot of water, you know. I'm what you might call a water man, Jack - that's what I am. And I can swear to you, my boy, swear to you, that there's nothing wrong with my bodily fluids. Not a thing, Jackie.

No, a terrorist suspect. All of the terrorists implicated in 9/11 were extremist Muslims. People who wear veils are extremist Muslims. Therefore, we should monitor people who wear veils, QED.

Ooh, this looks like fun!

All of the terrorists implicated in 9/11 had hair.
Monkeys have hair.
Therefore, we should monitor monkeys.

All of the terrorists implicated in 9/11 had penises.
Michelangelo's statue of David has a penis.
Therefore, we should monitor Michelangelo's statue of David.

Isn't faulty logic great?

Ooh, this looks like fun!

All of the terrorists implicated in 9/11 had hair.
Monkeys have hair.
Therefore, we should monitor monkeys.

All of the terrorists implicated in 9/11 had penises.
Michelangelo's statue of David has a penis.
Therefore, we should monitor Michelangelo's statue of David.

Isn't faulty logic great?
Did you attend law school, by any chance?:p

You are Excusiid. I try to argue at the level this thread deserves.

What, stupidly?

In your culture, this is so. But welcome to your nation, which is multicultural. You will be struck with suspicions based upon cultural norms all your life...it doesn't mean that you actually have something valid to be suspicious about.

If I hid my face from you, I'd likely be trying to hide something.
A muslim woman is preserving her modesty, not trying to hide her face from you for the same motives I might have. I don't think that is a difficult distinction to grasp.

No it's not. And I don't know why you seem to have got the impression that I would find it a particular problem.

But I do know that many in the UK would, especially with the recent upsurge in anti-Muslim feeling stirred up by the gutter press.

Ooh, this looks like fun!

All of the terrorists implicated in 9/11 had hair.
Monkeys have hair.
Therefore, we should monitor monkeys.

All of the terrorists implicated in 9/11 had penises.
Michelangelo's statue of David has a penis.
Therefore, we should monitor Michelangelo's statue of David.

Isn't faulty logic great?

All the terrorists who actually participated in 9/11 are dead.
There are camps full of dead people near every major city.
Therefore we should monitor cemetaries. QED.

Neither am I, but many would tend to be suspicious of somebody who is reluctant to let their face be seen.

But that is *you* applying your personal "norms" to another person. If *you* would not allow your face to be seen, that would probably be because you had something to hide - something that would arouse suspicion in others. However, I see no reason to apply that to someone of a different culture.

Suppose the "norm" in our culture were for women to walk around topless. If you then saw a woman who always wore a shirt, you might think that she was hiding something - some injury or defect in her breasts - or even hiding something under that extra clothing.


No, a terrorist suspect. All of the terrorists implicated in 9/11 were extremist Muslims. People who wear veils are extremist Muslims. Therefore, we should monitor people who wear veils, QED.

The bolded part is a flaw in your logic. People who wear veils are not necessarily extremist Muslims. Are you aware that there are white women in the US - women who have learned Islam in the US and grew up here and are *very* patriotic (although the Texans still tend to think more of their own state than the nation) and yet wear the veil?


He has them already in his office, with another woman there to try and help make them more comfortable, and asks them would they mind removing the veil.

Hardly the situation you imagine or describe.

If a senator brought another woman into the room and *then* asked me to remove my top, do you think that would really make me more comfortable? I suppose it might, from the point of view that he would be less likely to try something in front of her, but I would still be very uncomfortable with it.

Like I said before, if he is *very* careful to make it clear that he will not refuse to see them if they decide to wear it, he can make his request all he likes - but he needs to be aware of how it might make his constituents feel.

What, stupidly?

Oh, you're just upset because your potato sack is chaffing your kibbles and bits.

Again, this is an adult, and a politician. Surely he can adapt.

Coming from Canada, I can't understand Newfoundlanders when they talk...that throws me in the deep end...so I ask questions for clarification. Communication is a two-way social exercise that is not solely reliant on sight.

We're not talking about removing all disadvantages. If we were, we would immediately plop this fellow into a remedial cultural exchange in order that any sort of cultural disadvantages be mitigated.

I think it needs to be stressed here that he is asking them to remove their veils for their own benifit: the better they can communicate the better he can help them in his position as an MP. I agree with you totally that, if they don't wish to 'de-veil', then he's both legally and morally obliged to do everything he can to facilitate communication and help them with their problem.

If you are the sort of person who has difficulty communicating with people who are different than you, then you ought not to be in a public office that requires you to do so.

Sadly politicians aren't selected for their maturity and many of those who would make truly great leaders would simply refuse to run. At the end of the day it's a case of doing the best one can with the cretins who get elected.

I'm going to have to drop out of this debate now to finish my French essay before tomorrow; 'night all. :)

No it's not. And I don't know why you seem to have got the impression that I would find it a particular problem.
Neither am I, but many would tend to be suspicious of somebody who is reluctant to let their face be seen.
Alright, granted you seem to be speaking of others and their suspicions, I would still say...giving in to the lowest common denominator in this (fear, ignorance and suspicion) is not really a good choice. People make uniformed assumptions all the time...you can only live your life trying to avoid their uniformed wrath to a limited extent. In essence...fuck 'em AND their gutter press.

Did you attend law school, by any chance?:p

Heh, no, though I've thought about it from time to time.

All the terrorists who actually participated in 9/11 are dead.
There are camps full of dead people near every major city.
Therefore we should monitor cemetaries. QED.

QED, indeed! :p

No, a terrorist suspect. All of the terrorists implicated in 9/11 were extremist Muslims. People who wear veils are extremist Muslims. Therefore, we should monitor people who wear veils, QED.

http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/5136/donotfeedtrolllh4.jpg

http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/5136/donotfeedtrolllh4.jpg

Yes, yes, okay ... *sulks* But Poli's response was too tempting to resist.

No, a terrorist suspect. All of the terrorists implicated in 9/11 were extremist Muslims. People who wear veils are extremist Muslims. Therefore, we should monitor people who wear veils, QED.


Man, your logic sucks. I've never studied logic or debate but I can figure out where you're wrong: All of the terrorists implicated in 9/11 were men. People who wear jockstraps are men. Therefore, we should monitor people who wear jockstraps, QED.


Why do we have so few intelligent right-wing voices on NSG? Myrmidonisia must get so lonely.

All of the terrorists implicated in 9/11 had penises.
Michelangelo's statue of David has a penis.
Therefore, we should monitor Michelangelo's statue of David.

You're absolutely correct -- I failed to qualify which group of people wear veils. Let me try again.

All the terrorists involved in 9/11 were extremist Muslims. Only extremist Muslims wear veils, and they are a distinct and small subset of all people. Therefore, it would be a wise move to monitor all those who wear veils, QED.

Oh, you're just upset because your potato sack is chaffing your kibbles and bits.

How DARE you! I'll have you know my kibbles and bits are perfectly lubricated.

I picked number three because "should" and "can't" are very different words. I think that as a representative he has made that one of his choices. He shouldn't have, but he did. Now it is our right, and in my opinion our duty, to view this issue as part of his record when we next have an election.

My opinion is that the guy is a jerk who gets wet dreams just thinking about making dumb rules.

It's up to the women. Who is Jack Straw or anyone else to tell someone that they should remove a symbol of their second class status? If you think you're inferior and you're happy that way, be inferior.

Oh, and the word you're looking for is their, not there or even they're.

Well, it should also say veils. No apostrophe.

You're absolutely correct -- I failed to qualify which group of people wear veils. Let me try again.

All the terrorists involved in 9/11 were extremist Muslims. Only extremist Muslims wear veils, and they are a distinct and small subset of all people. Therefore, it would be a wise move to monitor all those who wear veils, QED.

But Muslim men, with a few exceptions like the Tuareg, do not wear veils, whether they're extremists or not. So you'd be monitoring Muslim women, who have not been terrorists as often as the men. Therefore, you'd be monitoring the wrong people. And wasting my tax money doing it, too.

You're absolutely correct -- I failed to qualify which group of people wear veils. Let me try again.

All the terrorists involved in 9/11 were extremist Muslims. Only extremist Muslims wear veils, and they are a distinct and small subset of all people. Therefore, it would be a wise move to monitor all those who wear veils, QED.

Don't forget bridal veils, and the veils worn by nuns (wimples?), and those thin black lacy veils that beautiful women wear to funerals in Hollywood films.

Man, your logic sucks. I've never studied logic or debate but I can figure out where you're wrong: All of the terrorists implicated in 9/11 were men. People who wear jockstraps are men. Therefore, we should monitor people who wear jockstraps, QED.


Why do we have so few intelligent right-wing voices on NSG? Myrmidonisia must get so lonely.

Umm, in theory, if a Muslim man requires his woman/women to wear veils, then he is a fundamentalist, and that would place him in the only category of terrorist that poses a threat to the US today.

However, extremist Muslims don't wear veils. Their wives and daughters do. Correction there. And its because their bodies are required to be covered.


But put simply, a Muslim terrorist would also probably require his wives and daughters to wear a veil, and possibly any other woman he encountered. Hence why Western women have been attacked in the Middle East for not wearing veils.

Yes, yes, okay ... *sulks* But Poli's response was too tempting to resist.
Aww, I feel bad now. Have a :fluffle: .

Don't forget bridal veils, and the veils worn by nuns (wimples?), and those thin black lacy veils that beautiful women wear to funerals in Hollywood films.

Obviously, bridal veils do not count. Neither do the veils worn by nuns, women at funerals, and non-Muslims in general.

But that is *you* applying your personal "norms" to another person. If *you* would not allow your face to be seen, that would probably be because you had something to hide - something that would arouse suspicion in others. However, I see no reason to apply that to someone of a different culture.

No...it's me describing what many people would think, having not come into regular contact with such clothing, if they were having a conversation with a woman wearing such clothing.

Don't forget bridal veils, and the veils worn by nuns (wimples?), and those thin black lacy veils that beautiful women wear to funerals in Hollywood films.

I'd follow them!

Umm, in theory, if a Muslim man requires his woman/women to wear veils, then he is a fundamentalist, and that would place him in the only category of terrorist that poses a threat to the US today.

However, extremist Muslims don't wear veils. Their wives and daughters do. Correction there. And its because their bodies are required to be covered.


But put simply, a Muslim terrorist would also probably require his wives and daughters to wear a veil, and possibly any other woman he encountered. Hence why Western women have been attacked in the Middle East for not wearing veils.

Terrorists thus far have shown no problems drinking, cavorting with whores, and in short breaking all muslim stereotypes, but by all means, keep going.

Aww, I feel bad now. Have a :fluffle: .

Why, thanks!:D

But Muslim men, with a few exceptions like the Tuareg, do not wear veils, whether they're extremists or not. So you'd be monitoring Muslim women, who have not been terrorists as often as the men. Therefore, you'd be monitoring the wrong people. And wasting my tax money doing it, too.

Most of what Means suggests would end up that way.

I suppose, though, he'd encounter this more regularly (the other one is a burqa):
http://www.islamfortoday.com/niqab02.jpg

Hardly much better though.

I rarely ever see something like that

http://www.iacnet.org/gateway/koran/Hijab.jpg

This is much more common, and as you can see, the face is not obstructed. This is a Hijab that woman in your picture is wearing a Niqab.

Terrorists thus far have shown no problems drinking, cavorting with whores, and in short breaking all muslim stereotypes, but by all means, keep going.

Stereotypes? Amazing that the tenets of a religion now count as stereotypes.

So, stating that practicing Christians pray is a stereotype, and that they go to church is too?

Really, though, if you were to provide an example of a convicted terrorist whoes female family members did NOT wear veils, that would work better.


At least, its more effective than snide comments with little substance or relelvance to my point.

you forgot teh myrth option!

How many Muslims do you know that recognition causes a problem for you? Do you often find yourself asking internally, "Who was that veiled woman?"

All the ones I know just wear the headscarf.

The ones who cover themselves from head to toe - well - maybe I would know them if they did not try to totally isolate themselves from the country they (or their parents) chose to move to.

Who is this guy to go and tell people to stop practicing a tradition that has existed for hundreds of years?

I rarely ever see something like that

http://www.iacnet.org/gateway/koran/Hijab.jpg

This is much more common, and as you can see, the face is not obstructed. This is a Hijab that woman in your picture is wearing a Niqab.

However, that's not what Jack Straw is talking about. He's talking about the Niqab.

You're absolutely correct -- I failed to qualify which group of people wear veils. Let me try again.

All the terrorists involved in 9/11 were extremist Muslims. Only extremist Muslims wear veils, and they are a distinct and small subset of all people. Therefore, it would be a wise move to monitor all those who wear veils, QED.

*sigh* You seem to have missed a good deal of the point. Let's take it bit by bit.

1. "Only extremist Muslims wear veils" is unquestionably a false statement. You've already heard counterexamples. Do mainstream Western brides all become extremist Muslims on their wedding days? Somehow I doubt it.

2. Even beyond the obvious falsehood of that statement, you've offered no evidence that Muslim women who wear veils are extremists. That's merely your opinion. Many Orthodox Jewish women refuse to wear short skirts; are they "extremists"? How about Jewish men who cover their heads? How about Jews who don't eat cheeseburgers? Or Christians who go to church every Sunday? At what point in the observance of one's religion does one become an "extremist" - and who decides?

3. Even if we had established that veil-wearing women were "extremists," one must still demonstrate a clear correlation between what we've decided to call "extremist" Islam and proclivity towards terrorism. You would be hard-pressed to argue that orthodoxy in and of itself breeds violence; very few nuns go on murderous rampages, after all. Clearly, there are factors beyond devotion to one's religion which may well be far better indicators of terrorist inclinations. Likewise, the overwhelming majority of Muslims do not blow things up. Correlation does not prove causation, as you really ought to have grasped from the association of terrorism with such traits as "hair" and "penises."

In short, while statement A can reasonably be said to be true, statement B is not only manifestly false but effectively meaningless, and on top of that, statement C does not even follow logically from statements A and B if B had been valid. Your syllogism fails. QED.

All the ones I know just wear the headscarf.

The ones who cover themselves from head to toe - well - maybe I would know them if they did not try to totally isolate themselves from the country they (or their parents) chose to move to.

Im pretty sure Burqas are now isolated to afghanistan/pakistan...

Im pretty sure Burqas are now isolated to afghanistan/pakistan...

And Peckham.

Who is this guy to go and tell people to stop practicing a tradition that has existed for hundreds of years?

He didn't tell anybody to stop anything

He said that, when people visit his surgery, he asks them if they would uncover their face. Not that they have to, or that he's telling them all too, just that he thinks it's better for communication.

I don't at all agree with the statement in boldface. If someone wears a crucifix, I don't see that as implying any judgement of non-Christians. I simply see it as implying that they are a Christian. For that matter, if someone wears a nun's habit, I don't see that as implying any judgement of non-Catholics or non-nuns. Believing that something is the right choice for you most certainly doesn't mean that you have to believe that it's the only right choice for everyone.

(For that matter, one could easily extend this beyond religion. If I wear a one-piece bathing suit, does that mean I must have a negative opinion of women in bikinis? If I order chicken at a restaurant, does that "say a lot about" my opinion of someone who ordered steak?)

That comment was based on the muslims I know and from a general overview of when the veil ssue has come up recently - mainly in regard to school uniforms.

Most recently in the news was a school that was 90% muslim with a muslim headteacher that had a no-veil policy, and part of the reason for it was that there was a tendancy for the girls wearing the veil to say they were better muslims than those that did not.

Well, I think it depends. Is the woman only wearing a headscarf, this is OK.

I don't have any problems, if they wear their scarfs as teachers or on passport photos, too. And to tell them to take it off is not right in my eyes.

If a woman talking to me is wearing a real veil or a burga, I would feel strange. If they live in Europe, they don't have to forget their culture - but they should accept, that Europeans aren't used to it. It would be very impolite to hide her face totally.

Im pretty sure Burqas are now isolated to afghanistan/pakistan...

ummm... this whole issue is about women who completely cover their faces - Jack Straw seemed fine talking to those wearing just the headscarf, just requesting those fully covering their faces take their veils off when talking to him.

A veil is a choice.

The headscarf is not a barrier. The veil is no more of a barrier than a baseball cap or a hoodie.

This is not about headscarfs. It is about the styles of veil that cover the enitre face.

Headscarfs do not totally conceal a persons identity or prevent you from seeing their face/eyes when talking to them.

(Incidently - baseball caps and hoodies are frequently used to conceal identity - particulary from security cameras.... so not sure what youre getting at.)

You're absolutely correct -- I failed to qualify which group of people wear veils. Let me try again.

All the terrorists involved in 9/11 were extremist Muslims. Only extremist Muslims wear veils, and they are a distinct and small subset of all people. Therefore, it would be a wise move to monitor all those who wear veils, QED.

And therein lies the very incorrect portion of your illogic. It is untrue that "only extremist Muslims" wear veils.

No...it's me describing what many people would think, having not come into regular contact with such clothing, if they were having a conversation with a woman wearing such clothing.

So you are describing other people trying to attach their "norms" to another culture. It doesn't make it any better when it is another person you are talking about.

My hair, when actually styled, looks better down than up, so I often wear it that way. However, if I were to go to India, and they were to apply their cultural "norms" to my behavior, they would assume that I was in mourning for someone, rather than just wearing my hair in the style I think looks best.

Anyone who is suspicious of a woman because she wears a veil (or even hajib) is basically thinking, "I would only cover my face/hair if I had something to hide (and/or someone forced me), therefore this woman must either be hiding something or must have been forced."


ummm... this whole issue is about women who completely cover their faces - Jack Straw seemed fine talking to those wearing just the headscarf, just requesting those fully covering their faces take their veils off when talking to him.

If we were talking about women who *fully* cover their faces, we would be discussing burquas, not veils. Veils worn by Muslim women generally cover the face except for the eyes. They do allow for eye contact.

Personally I think if someone wants to move to the UK then they shoud be the ones to make an effort to fit in with the communities around them and they should raise their children to do the same.
So that only applies to immigrants and the children of immigrants? That's good, I wouldn't want to have to make an effort to fit in with the rest of my council estate. That would mean I'd have to start smoking, drop out of university, apply for Jobseeker's Allowance and get pregnant.

I was just watching BBC news 24 and Jack Straw has asked Muslim women in his constituency to take off thier veil's when ever they are visit him because he believes the veil is "a visible statement of separation and of difference".

Halima Hussain, from civil liberties group the Muslim Public Affairs Committee, asked: "Who is Jack Straw to comment on negative symbols within a religion that is not his own?"

So what do people on here think?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5410472.stm

At least Halima didn't as for someone to execute Straw.

So that only applies to immigrants and the children of immigrants? That's good, I wouldn't want to have to make an effort to fit in with the rest of my council estate. That would mean I'd have to start smoking, drop out of university, apply for Jobseeker's Allowance and get pregnant.

The people saying muslims should start smoking, drop out of college and live off benefits to fit in with Britiah culture have even bigger misconceptions than that guy saying only extreemist muslims wear veils.

I'm an immigrant to this county too. My opinion is that if you choose to move to a country you should make the effort to not isolate yourself from the country you choose to live in. That you should not segegate yourself from the host culture. A headscarf does not seperate someone totally from the rest of british society, a full veil does - AND it is not required by Islam - it is a cultural requirement not a religious one.

I just think that people, women and men, should respect the rules of the country they decide to move to, and not to impose their own view. I wouldn't go to a muslim country without a veil, for my safety and because if I wish to be there I should definitely respect the religious and cultural uses. Otherwise I would feel arrogant...if muslims want to live where it is polite to show the face while talking, they should go along with it.
(sorry if my english is not perfect, I'm Italian)

i think people should be allowed and encouraged to do what they are culturaly comfortable and familiar with that does not cause themselves and each other suffering and harm, and not that the perceptions of one culture have any bussiness dictating this for another.

if straw's familiar culture is one of dictating the cultural values of others, i think this (and he) is (are) unfortunately one step over the line.

i don't 'support' islam or christianity, but these are cultural cusoms, and really a matter of what each individual may or may not find peace with.

of course i don't feel that anyone ought to be REQUIRED to wear, or not wear, ... ANYthing. but if it's what someone feels culturaly comfortable with, what possible gain is there for anyone in causing someone else stress and anxiety?

=^^=
.../\...

i think people should be allowed and encouraged to do what they are culturaly comfortable and familiar with that does not cause themselves and each other suffering and harm, and not that the perceptions of one culture have any bussiness dictating this for another.

of course i don't feel that anyone ought to be REQUIRED to wear, or not wear, ... ANYthing. but if it's what someone feels culturaly comfortable with, what possible gain is there for anyone in causing someone else stress and anxiety?


Straight back at you - who does the onus for not causing the other person discomfort rest on?

Are you saying that if Straw feels discomfort in talking to somebody whose culture requires concealing their face he should grin and bear it, but the person who feels uncomfortable talking without their face covered should have their culture protected?

Who decides which culture should be respected more?

It seems many here feel that foreign cultures should be protected over western ones... why?

Straight back at you - who does the onus for not causing the other person discomfort rest on?

Are you saying that if Straw feels discomfort in talking to somebody whose culture requires concealing their face he should grin and bear it, but the person who feels uncomfortable talking without their face covered should have their culture protected?

Who decides which culture should be respected more?

It seems many here feel that foreign cultures should be protected over western ones... why?

you seem to have missed the point, if not deliberately. there is no "respected more" or less involved. there is no such thing as any culture being more or less valid then another. only that the amount of suffering anyone cause increases the amount that there is and thereby the likelyhood of each of us suffering from it.

forign is a relative term. all is forign and nonforign at the same time.

chauvanism and insularity is never a good thing. no matter who'se doing it nor where.

straw is one person only, if everyone were to have to do for each and every one person, would this even be possible?

no. every person, there is no good reason or gain, for anyone to tell anyone else to not do whatever they are harmlessly comfortable with.

the women wearing vails are not telling straw he has to wear one. that is the main point here.

=^^=
.../\...

the women wearing vails are not telling straw he has to wear one. that is the main point here.

You missed what i was getting at.

Straw is more comfortable talking to someone when he can see their face, as is the norm in western culture.

Should Straw have to feel uncomfortable communicating with someone who'se face he can't see. Or should the other person remove their veil and feel uncomfortable?

This is not just about veils - it is about people having physical barriers to communication - I personally consider it very rude when people talk to me while wearing sunglasses when it is cloudy or indoors. It hides a lot of the persons expression and is a barrier to communication. Unless there's a reason to wear sunglasses, or I know the person well or it is just a short conersation I ask them to take them off.

And 'Foreign'? come on. It is pretty clear that Islam (particulary the stricter versions that require women to conceal all or almost all the face) is not the native culture of the UK, or any of the west for that matter.

You missed what i was getting at.

Straw is more comfortable talking to someone when he can see their face, as is the norm in western culture.

Should Straw have to feel uncomfortable communicating with someone who'se face he can't see. Or should the other person remove their veil and feel uncomfortable?

This is not just about veils - it is about people having physical barriers to communication - I personally consider it very rude when people talk to me while wearing sunglasses when it is cloudy or indoors. It hides a lot of the persons expression and is a barrier to communication. Unless there's a reason to wear sunglasses, or I know the person well or it is just a short conersation I ask them to take them off.

And 'Foreign'? come on. It is pretty clear that Islam (particulary the stricter versions that require women to conceal all or almost all the face) is not the native culture of the UK, or any of the west for that matter.

no, sorry, you're still not getting it.

the women wearing vails are NOT telling straw he has to wear one.

=^^=
.../\...

no, sorry, you're still not getting it.

the women wearing vails are NOT telling straw he has to wear one.

=^^=
.../\...

I know. Are you being purposefully obtuse?

Straw prefers talking to people where he can see their facial expressions - should he be made uncomfortable or put at a disadvantage so that another person can feel more comfortable?

Personally I think if someone wants to move to the UK then they shoud be the ones to make an effort to fit in with the communities around them and they should raise their children to do the same.

Those veils are a very very powerful barrier to mixing with the rest of society, and they say a lot about the wearers opinion of women who do not wear them - further alienating them from the rest of the country. They are not conductive to good race relations.

So, many have said, is my shaved head and "fuck everyone" t-shirt.

Theres a big prize for guessing what I'd tell somebody to dom who 'doesnt think im trying to fit in'.

Normal people do not obscure their faces with veils -- only those who are extremely devoted to religion would do such a thing. We need to take the safe course of action and monitor them to see if they have ties to a terrorist group.

Are your parents not giving you enough attention? Go out and chase women or something....though it may be literally in your case, in which circumstance stop.

So, many have said, is my shaved head and "fuck everyone" t-shirt.

Theres a big prize for guessing what I'd tell somebody to dom who 'doesnt think im trying to fit in'.

Well - at least you're prepared to admit you're trying to segregate yourself from the community.

Though I am somewhat surprised that if you are prepared to go about in a "Fuck Everyone" t-shirt that you get weepy about someone asking someone to remove a veil.

I think we should give them a choice to wear them or not. if they want to let them. the problem is that the men think women are immoral and the cause of lust and whatever. but its really the fact that the men cant see evil in themselves...:mad:

Yeah, I'm a grammer nazi.

HA!

I was just watching BBC news 24 and Jack Straw has asked Muslim women in his constituency to take off thier veil's when ever they are visit him because he believes the veil is "a visible statement of separation and of difference".

Halima Hussain, from civil liberties group the Muslim Public Affairs Committee, asked: "Who is Jack Straw to comment on negative symbols within a religion that is not his own?"

So what do people on here think?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5410472.stm

The veil is, indeed, a symbol of the Othering of women. It is, indeed, a way of making women responsible for men's sexual behavior. It is a shitty tradition perpetuated for shitty reasons.

But the solution is not to add yet another chorus of people telling these women how to dress. Leave them the fuck alone. They already have all the men in their lives telling them that they MUST MUST MUST dress a certain way, so why the hell would anybody want to add to their problems by telling them they MUST MUST MUST dress another way?

Everybody needs to get the hell over themselves and quit spending so much time telling women how to dress.

Score! Even New Labour is now given to castigating Islam!

Not wishing to appear racist, but thank the lord the metaphorical veil has lifted and the general public now percieve Islam as the divisive, inpatriotic insipid influence it is in the UK.

The veil is, indeed, a symbol of the Othering of women. It is, indeed, a way of making women responsible for men's sexual behavior. It is a shitty tradition perpetuated for shitty reasons.

But the solution is not to add yet another chorus of people telling these women how to dress. Leave them the fuck alone. They already have all the men in their lives telling them that they MUST MUST MUST dress a certain way, so why the hell would anybody want to add to their problems by telling them they MUST MUST MUST dress another way?

Everybody needs to get the hell over themselves and quit spending so much time telling women how to dress.

All Straw did was ask women to remove the veil so he could talk to them face to face. He didnt tell them to, he simply requested it. Its hardly his fault that they have been brainwashed/forced into wearing it in the first place.

I don't know whats worse; the women who are forced to wear the veil out of fear, or the ones who actually believe they should wear it. The Koran says dress modestly, and this applies to men and women. But men have corrupted this in order to control women.

Jack Straw has got my vote. except I was already a labour voter and dont live in his constituancy.

The veil is, indeed, a symbol of the Othering of women. It is, indeed, a way of making women responsible for men's sexual behavior. It is a shitty tradition perpetuated for shitty reasons.

But the solution is not to add yet another chorus of people telling these women how to dress. Leave them the fuck alone. They already have all the men in their lives telling them that they MUST MUST MUST dress a certain way, so why the hell would anybody want to add to their problems by telling them they MUST MUST MUST dress another way?

Everybody needs to get the hell over themselves and quit spending so much time telling women how to dress.
Thank you!

I was just starting to get really pissed off before you showed up with the dose of perspective. These poor women, jerked around by men criticizing everything they do, and of course, no matter what they do, it's always going to be wrong. Really, sometimes I wonder how there are any men left alive in the world. Women must be saints.

All Straw did was ask women to remove the veil so he could talk to them face to face. He didnt tell them to, he simply requested it. Its hardly his fault that they have been brainwashed/forced into wearing it in the first place.

I don't know whats worse; the women who are forced to wear the veil out of fear, or the ones who actually believe they should wear it. The Koran says dress modestly, and this applies to men and women. But men have corrupted this in order to control women.

Jack Straw has got my vote. except I was already a labour voter and dont live in his constituancy.
All right, try this perspective:

Jack Straw is a man in a position of power. He is a politician in his city. Presumably, he could have a negative impact on a person's life, if he wanted to. Even if that is not realistic in the UK, he is talking to immigrants from countries where it happens all the time. In particular, he is talking to women who are or have been targets and victims of hostile political powerholders. This man in power tells her to take off her veil.

At home is the woman's husband or father, also men in positions of power over her. They have the immediate power to punish her for disobeying them, even to the point of grievous bodily injury. This may be illegal in the UK, but getting punished after the fact is not going to stop them from doing it in the first place and, thus, is no help to the woman. These men in power are telling her not to take off her veil.

Now look at the woman. All she wants to do is try to figure out how to walk the tightrope between what she needs to do in mundane life (work, feed her children, run errands, etc) and what she wants to do in her religious life (be a good Muslim). But everywhere she goes, everything she does, she first has to deal with these two, testoterone-pumped morons who think they know what's best, right and proper for her and are determined, one way or another, to "open her mind" and make her see that they are right (meanwhile, in actuality -- let's ask their wives -- they can't find their own socks without help).

The women come to Jack Straw to discuss this very problem and to seek help in using the law to help them out of their cultural trap, so they can live their own lives as they see fit, with or without a veil.

And what do they get from him? The same obstructionist, controlling, critical ("Hey? What? I can't hear you with that rag over your mouth.") bullshit they get from the men who put the veil on them in the first place and who will give them shit if they take it off in front of Jack Straw.

The women come to Jack Straw to discuss this very problem and to seek help in using the law to help them out of their cultural trap, so they can live their own lives as they see fit, with or without a veil.

And what do they get from him? The same obstructionist, controlling, critical ("Hey? What? I can't hear you with that rag over your mouth.") bullshit they get from the men who put the veil on them in the first place and who will give them shit if they take it off in front of Jack Straw.

Didn't the whole thing come about when an Islamic woman said to him that she prefered talking to him without a veil - he agreed and started a policy of asking all women if they would like to take their veils off?


Now - the main arguements against this seem to mostly be "Gotta respect other peoples cultures over our own" but your point is a good one. Some of these women possibly face danger at home because of this. Does this mean we should sit and let them face danger - or try to provide a society where they feel safe to take it off. I've worded that very badly....

ummm....

It feels a bit like what you are saying is:

"These women are under social pressure to wear this and could face repurcussions if they take it off. So we should not put any request on them to take it off and leave them to live in a state where they face violence if they do"

It's all really down to personal choice. It's like this "mixing people up in cities" thing.

If people feel happy being with people originally from the same area as them, then good for them, that's their choice.

If people want to try and integrate, and move closer to the "native" Britains, a laughable concept, seeing as Britain has no really "native" population, then fair enough to them also.

The same goes for the veil - some choose to wear it - this is their right, and if they want to wear conservative dress, this is fine.

If others don't, this is fine also.

I don't think Jack Straw is really in any position to judge what's right and wrong in this case - he's not even remotely from a foreign culture, and he's also not a recent immigrant.

People might just choose to dress/act how they do until they get more acquainted to the area - and good for them, too.

I'm an immigrant to this county too. My opinion is that if you choose to move to a country you should make the effort to not isolate yourself from the country you choose to live in. That you should not segegate yourself from the host culture. A headscarf does not seperate someone totally from the rest of british society, a full veil does - AND it is not required by Islam - it is a cultural requirement not a religious one.

That makes about as much sense as saying, "A bikini does not separate someone totally from the rest of british society, a one-piece bathing suit does." If you feel totally separated from someone because of the clothing they choose to wear, that is *your* problem, not theirs. You are the one initiating separation.

Didn't the whole thing come about when an Islamic woman said to him that she prefered talking to him without a veil - he agreed and started a policy of asking all women if they would like to take their veils off?
If one woman offered to take off the veil for her convenience, why would that give Straw the idea that all women should take off the veil for his convenience?

You don't see the logical leap there?

Now - the main arguements against this seem to mostly be "Gotta respect other peoples cultures over our own" but your point is a good one. Some of these women possibly face danger at home because of this. Does this mean we should sit and let them face danger - or try to provide a society where they feel safe to take it off. I've worded that very badly....

ummm....

It feels a bit like what you are saying is:

"These women are under social pressure to wear this and could face repurcussions if they take it off. So we should not put any request on them to take it off and leave them to live in a state where they face violence if they do"
Yes, I'm afraid you have worded it badly. Follow your own argument:

Women may be in physical danger if they break a repressive cultural tradition, so rather than work with them to try to remove that tradition so that it is no longer a danger, we'll just pressure them to go ahead and break it the way we tell them to. We'll do that by publicly criticizing them and implying that they are closed-minded and prejudiced against us if they don't immediately comply with our demands. Oh, and to round it off, we will offer them NO protection against any violence they might face as a result of doing what we demand of them.

:rolleyes:

I would have no problem at all if Straw was saying something along the lines of, "This is a cultural assimilation issue. Let's work together to find the common ground. Muslim leaders assure me the full veil is not required under Islam and it is certainly not part of British life. But still, I understand that Islam has stricter definitions of modesty than secular British society does. My government wants to work with Muslim women to help them enter our society without feeling like they have to give up their Muslim identity. I'll start by letting all Muslim women who want to meet with me or my staff that they may choose whether to wear the veil or not. We place no expectations on them."

See? It would identify the problem and Straw's attitude towards it without belittling the tradition. It would be a call to dialogue, not a dismissive accusation of closed-mindedness. And it would put the power into the hands of the women to decide how they will dress. I'm not even a politician, and I was able to figure out that approach.

But that is not how Straw put it, according to the way he is quoted in the article. His attitude was belittling of the tradition and ignored the pressures the women face. He was also dismissive of the immigrant population, claiming that he was out "to open people's minds." Anyone else would be within their rights to take offense and invite him to open his own mind first. That's a great way to shut down dialogue before it even begins. Plus, his objections to the veil were all about his own convenience. The women should do remove it for him, not for themselves. Another man telling women what they can do for him -- just what every woman needs in life.

As Bottle put it, the veil is about the "Othering" of women. It is a pernicious cultural tradition that has nothing legitimate to do with Islam, and anything that anyone can do to get people to stop clinging to it is good.

But Jack Straw's approach is wrong on every point and will not have a positive effect.

I know. Are you being purposefully obtuse?

Straw prefers talking to people where he can see their facial expressions - should he be made uncomfortable or put at a disadvantage so that another person can feel more comfortable?

If someone feels uncomfortable talking to me when I'm wearing a long-sleeved shirt, should I take it off to make them feel better? Or should they grin and bear it, since I decide what clothing I will and will not wear, and I would feel very uncomfortable with it off in front of someone I didn't know?


The veil is, indeed, a symbol of the Othering of women. It is, indeed, a way of making women responsible for men's sexual behavior. It is a shitty tradition perpetuated for shitty reasons.

But the solution is not to add yet another chorus of people telling these women how to dress. Leave them the fuck alone. They already have all the men in their lives telling them that they MUST MUST MUST dress a certain way, so why the hell would anybody want to add to their problems by telling them they MUST MUST MUST dress another way?

Everybody needs to get the hell over themselves and quit spending so much time telling women how to dress.

I think you need to be careful when assuming that you know why women dress the way they dress. Undoubtedly, there are women who have been pushed into wearing hijab or veils (or even burquas) by men perpetuating sexist viewpoints. However, this is not always the case. Granted, I have never known a woman who chose to wear a full veil, but I have known several who chose to wear hijab. Some of them grew up in families that did not expect it. They have *chosen* their mode of dress, not been forced into it. They feel more comfortable and more modest wearing it.

When we *assume* that any woman who dresses in this way must have been pushed or forced into it, we are perpetuating stereotypes just as surely as those who assume that women *must* dress in this way.

I think the veils and dots and crosses of all religions should be abolished - it's all retarded to me.

I think the veils and dots and crosses of all religions should be abolished - it's all retarded to me.

So we should keep people from wearing what they want, from decorating their bodies in whatever means they wish to, because you think it's all "retarded"?

Good to know you think you're God, but the rest of us don't see it that way.

Jack Straw's got an opinion.

The Muslim veil-wearing women have an opinion.

Jack Straw asks Muslim woman to remove veil.

OMG TWO CHOICES

1. Muslim woman happily removes veil

2. Muslim woman refuses to take off veil

Straw is not saying "Remove your veil, or I shall strike you down with my non-existant white supremicist powers," he's asking a woman to do a favour for him so that it makes his life a little bit easier.

Everybody's talking like the woman doesn't have a choice whether to comply or refuse, which is the most prejudiced thing in the first place - both against women and just the individual themselves.

So we should keep people from wearing what they want, from decorating their bodies in whatever means they wish to, because you think it's all "retarded"?

Good to know you think you're God, but the rest of us don't see it that way.

I'm fine with people wearing shit because they WANT to wear shit, but if it's for religious reasons then it's by default -retarded-.

Yes I'm biased towards athiesm and agnosticism, but I think the world would be better without any of this crap.

The thread asks a question, I answer it - I don't ask for a holier-than-thou random coming in and insulting me for it.

I'm fine with people wearing shit because they WANT to wear shit, but if it's for religious reasons then it's by default -retarded-.

I see. So people who disagree with you on religious matters - or apparently even consider them at all - are "retarded"?

Meanwhile, if someone wants to wear something because of their own religious reasons, how does that fit into your little world?


The thread asks a question, I answer it - I don't ask for a holier-than-thou random coming in and insulting me for it.

Wow, if that isn't the pot calling the kettle black. You're the one who thinks everyone should live by your opinions, and that anyone who doesn't is "retarded", but somehow I'm holier-than-thou? That's amusing.

I see. So people who disagree with you on religious matters - or apparently even consider them at all - are "retarded"?

Meanwhile, if someone wants to wear something because of their own religious reasons, how does that fit into your little world?



Wow, if that isn't the pot calling the kettle black. You're the one who thinks everyone should live by your opinions, and that anyone who doesn't is "retarded", but somehow I'm holier-than-thou? That's amusing.

A: To some level, yes. I can still respect them, and interact with them normally, but always in the back of my mind there'll be that thing going "This guy really believes there's an invisible man in the clouds", so I can't take him entirely seriously.

B: If they want to wear it because of their religion then they don't want to wear it. It's their religion telling them to wear it. It's their religious culture telling them to wear it. It's them wanting to fit in.

C: I don't "think everyone should live by my opinions", I simply believe the world would be a better place without religion. And yes, you're holier-than-thou because I answered a question the thread asked. I don't see anywhere where the thread asked you what your opinion of my opinion was.

Very amusing indeed.

If someone feels uncomfortable talking to me when I'm wearing a long-sleeved shirt, should I take it off to make them feel better? Or should they grin and bear it, since I decide what clothing I will and will not wear, and I would feel very uncomfortable with it off in front of someone I didn't know?
Just so. Well put.

I think you need to be careful when assuming that you know why women dress the way they dress. Undoubtedly, there are women who have been pushed into wearing hijab or veils (or even burquas) by men perpetuating sexist viewpoints. However, this is not always the case. Granted, I have never known a woman who chose to wear a full veil, but I have known several who chose to wear hijab. Some of them grew up in families that did not expect it. They have *chosen* their mode of dress, not been forced into it. They feel more comfortable and more modest wearing it.

When we *assume* that any woman who dresses in this way must have been pushed or forced into it, we are perpetuating stereotypes just as surely as those who assume that women *must* dress in this way.
When I see someone dressed in a manner very different from myself, I do not just assume they were forced to dress that way by someone else. In some cases, I might wonder about it, but I know that it can perfectly well be completely voluntary, too, so I do not operate on the assumption.

Also, I try to avoid imposing my own values on others. I may think the veil is a symbol of second-class status for women, and I may be unwilling to accept such status for myself. But I am under no delusions that my viewpoints are everyone's viewpoint. Other women may not see it as second-class status at all, and it is not my place to tell them they are wrong about how they view themselves. Some women may be willing to accept such status for one reason or another. Again, it is not my place to tell them they are not allowed to choose a lifestyle I wouldn't want for myself.

What I am saying -- and what I think Bottle is saying, too -- is that it should be the woman's choice. We are tired of all these men pressuring women to choose what they want us to, one way or the other.

If a Muslim woman chooses to wear the complete veil, she should not have to justify her choice to Jack Straw.

However, if a Muslim woman is being forced to keep herself separate from society under threats or pressure from other people, she should be able to find help in British society to get out of such a situation. That does not mean she will suddenly cast off all Islamic style dress. It just means she will be free to make her own choice, not live under the control of others.

And if some women choose to remain controlled because they feel safer that way or for any other reason, well, it might make me uncomfortable, but their lives are not about me. Just like their lives are not about Jack Straw's comfort or convenience.

A: To some level, yes. I can still respect them, and interact with them normally, but always in the back of my mind there'll be that thing going "This guy really believes there's an invisible man in the clouds", so I can't take him entirely seriously.

Tell me, what religion claims that there is an invisible man in the clouds? While I'm sure there may be someone who believes that, I have yet to meet one.

B: If they want to wear it because of their religion then they don't want to wear it. It's their religion telling them to wear it.

A person's religion, just like a person's philosophy, a person's viewpoints, or a person's emotions, is part of them. It cannot "tell them" to do something any more than my viewpoint that a person should try to remain healthy "tells me" not to eat cake for every meal or binge drink. Because I believe that a person should try and remain healthy, I attempt to eat healthy foods, and I drink in moderation.

You seem to think religion is necessarily some outside force bearing down on a person. It is not.

It's their religious culture telling them to wear it. It's them wanting to fit in.

If they wanted to "fit in", they'd wear the same thing as the majority of people around them, no matter how uncomfortable it made them feel. If it were a matter of "fitting in", no women in Western countries would wear hijab.

Of course, you are once again assuming that religion is an outside force, rather than an individual point-of-view.

C: I don't "think everyone should live by my opinions", I simply believe the world would be a better place without religion.

So, if I said, "I think we should abolish beer, because I don't like it and I think people who drink it are 'retarded'," that wouldn't be a suggestion that everyone else should live by my opinions? It would just be me saying that the world would be a better place without beer?

And yes, you're holier-than-thou because I answered a question the thread asked. I don't see anywhere where the thread asked you what your opinion of my opinion was.

In case you haven't noticed, these threads are generally a place for discussion. If you don't want to discuss something, then place your opinion and stop reading after that - you're obviously not interested in the rest of the thread.

Commenting on your suggestion that we should "abolish" the habits of people dressing as they wish isn't "holier-than-thou." You have no obligation to answer my comment. But it will add to the discussion that the rest of us are having.

What I am saying -- and what I think Bottle is saying, too -- is that it should be the woman's choice. We are tired of all these men pressuring women to choose what they want us to, one way or the other.

If a Muslim woman chooses to wear the complete veil, she should not have to justify her choice to Jack Straw.

However, if a Muslim woman is being forced to keep herself separate from society under threats or pressure from other people, she should be able to find help in British society to get out of such a situation. That does not mean she will suddenly cast off all Islamic style dress. It just means she will be free to make her own choice, not live under the control of others.

I agree with all of this. Force, pressure, threats, etc. should not be an issue either way. No one should pressure her to wear it, and none should pressure her not to.

Tell me, what religion claims that there is an invisible man in the clouds? While I'm sure there may be someone who believes that, I have yet to meet one.

Any religion that believes in a god almost always sees them above them, in heaven or the clouds or the sky or the stars. There are those that see them in the earth itself, they're the exception, though my rule still applies.


A person's religion, just like a person's philosophy, a person's viewpoints, or a person's emotions, is part of them. It cannot "tell them" to do something any more than my viewpoint that a person should try to remain healthy "tells me" not to eat cake for every meal or binge drink. Because I believe that a person should try and remain healthy, I attempt to eat healthy foods, and I drink in moderation.

You seem to think religion is necessarily some outside force bearing down on a person. It is not.

Anyone who's ever been more than one religion would disagree with you. They're the same person regardless of what they believe.



If they wanted to "fit in", they'd wear the same thing as the majority of people around them, no matter how uncomfortable it made them feel. If it were a matter of "fitting in", no women in Western countries would wear hijab.

Of course, you are once again assuming that religion is an outside force, rather than an individual point-of-view.

Fitting into their religion is more specific than fitting into the culture of their nation, especially if their parents and friends are of the same religion.



So, if I said, "I think we should ban beer, because I don't like it and I think people who drink it are 'retarded'," that wouldn't be a suggestion that everyone else should live by my opinions? It would just be me saying that the world would be a better place without beer?

Yes, you would just be saying the world would be better without. It doesn't automatically suggest that you would, given the chance, wipe beer off the planet, but that you would think it to be the best manner in which to go.



In case you haven't noticed, these threads are generally a place for discussion. If you don't want to discuss something, then place your opinion and stop reading after that - you're obviously not interested in the rest of the thread.

Commenting on your suggestion that we should "ban" people from dressing as they wish isn't "holier-than-thou." You have no obligation to answer my comment. But it will add to the discussion that the rest of us are having.

Generally, yes. And you can discuss all you want, but discussing is somewhat of a different situation than what you did. You didn't ask me anything with the intent of learning from the response, it sounded more like you just being condescending.

Granted, I may just be testy today. Been feeling a bit off, like someone's been constantly tapping me on the head in the same spot. I apologize for being too defensive.

I agree with all of this. Force, pressure, threats, etc. should not be an issue either way. No one should pressure her to wear it, and none should pressure her not to.

It has been my experience that the more you pressure a person to make a change, the less likely they are to do it.

Many (not all) Muslim women feel intense pressure to wear the veil from their traditional cultures, whether they really want to or not. What is forgotten is that many Muslim men also feel intense pressure from the same traditions to insist on women wearing the veil.

You don't ease that pressure by applying more pressure, this time pressuring them to give up on those traditions and adopt yours.

An environment with less pressure, in which women are permitted to dress in anyway they deem appropriate without being questioned or confronted about it, is more likely in the long run, to see more Muslim immigrants giving up the full veil for headscarves, as they become comfortable in their new home. Eventually, British society will be able to tell the difference between Muslim women who choose the veil and those who are forced into it. And hopefully, there will be Muslim women there to help the latter.

Any religion that believes in a god almost always sees them above them, in heaven or the clouds or the sky or the stars. There are those that see them in the earth itself, they're the exception, though my rule still applies.

Untrue. Many ancient religions thought that, because they saw the clouds or the skys or the stars or the heavens as something separate from human existence. These days, you'd be hard pressed to find someone who thinks that a deity resides in any of those places (with the possible exception of pantheons which include gods of various natural attributes).

Anyone who's ever been more than one religion would disagree with you. They're the same person regardless of what they believe.

Again, you are trying to make religion some pre-set number of "beliefs" that one just chooses from. Anyone who is religious has been "more than one religion", because a person's religious viewpoints (like any other viewpoints) change with time, with experience, with examination, etc. A person who once thought that the government should give no help to anyone but now supports some social welfare programs is still the same person - but their viewpoints have changed.

Yes, you would just be saying the world would be better without. It doesn't automatically suggest that you would, given the chance, wipe beer off the planet, but that you would think it to be the best manner in which to go.

Actually, that statement actually does say that. When you say that something should be abolished, you are making the statement that it should be, in essence, "wiped off the planet." If you say that something should be banned, you are making the statement that no one should be allowed to do whatever is being banned, under threat of punishment if they do not comply.

Generally, yes. And you can discuss all you want, but discussing is somewhat of a different situation than what you did. You didn't ask me anything with the intent of learning from the response, it sounded more like you just being condescending.

Once again, this seems to be a case of projection. Your comment was condescending - calling people "retarded" and suggesting that their viewpoints should be abolished. I responded in much the same way that I would to any such comment. I don't need to learn from someone who thinks that others are "retarded" for disagreeing with them or having different customs any more than I need to learn from someone who thinks that [insert ethnicity here] are inferior because their skin is a different color or that [insert sexuality here] should be denied civil rights.

Granted, I may just be testy today. Been feeling a bit off, like someone's been constantly tapping me on the head in the same spot. I apologize for being too defensive.[/b]

I apologize if it was not your intention to be condescending in the first place, but it certainly seemed that way.

Untrue. Many ancient religions thought that, because they saw the clouds or the skys or the stars or the heavens as something separate from human existence. These days, you'd be hard pressed to find someone who thinks that a deity resides in any of those places (with the possible exception of pantheons which include gods of various natural attributes).



Again, you are trying to make religion some pre-set number of "beliefs" that one just chooses from. Anyone who is religious has been "more than one religion", because a person's religious viewpoints (like any other viewpoints) change with time, with experience, with examination, etc. A person who once thought that the government should give no help to anyone but now supports some social welfare programs is still the same person - but their viewpoints have changed.



Actually, that statement actually does say that. When you say that something should be abolished, you are making the statement that it should be, in essence, "wiped off the planet." If you say that something should be banned, you are making the statement that no one should be allowed to do whatever is being banned, under threat of punishment if they do not comply.



Once again, this seems to be a case of projection. Your comment was condescending - calling people "retarded" and suggesting that their viewpoints should be abolished. I responded in much the same way that I would to any such comment. I don't need to learn from someone who thinks that others are "retarded" for disagreeing with them or having different customs any more than I need to learn from someone who thinks that [insert ethnicity here] are inferior because their skin is a different color or that [insert sexuality here] should be denied civil rights.



I apologize if it was not your intention to be condescending in the first place, but it certainly seemed that way.

I generally sweep your entire post and disagree. So tired of debating for today. Nothing's coming out to a middle ground, so I'm just going to insist we agree to disagree.

And he has every right to refuse to talk to them if they don't remove it. But he wouldn't have the guts.

Not quite so true as he is their elected represenitive (I think his area has a significant minority of muslims) he is required to speak to them

I just think that people, women and men, should respect the rules of the country they decide to move to, and not to impose their own view. I wouldn't go to a muslim country without a veil, for my safety and because if I wish to be there I should definitely respect the religious and cultural uses. Otherwise I would feel arrogant...if muslims want to live where it is polite to show the face while talking, they should go along with it.
(sorry if my english is not perfect, I'm Italian)

Your english is very good, better than some others where english is their first language.:)

If someone feels uncomfortable talking to me when I'm wearing a long-sleeved shirt, should I take it off to make them feel better? Or should they grin and bear it, since I decide what clothing I will and will not wear, and I would feel very uncomfortable with it off in front of someone I didn't know?

If you choose to move from your culture into a culture where it happens that wearing long sleved shirts is viewed as an impediment to communication then it might be the polite thing to do while you are living there.

Personally - If I go to the middle east I would be happy to wear clothing to the standards of the culture of whichever country I am in. If a country demanded/expected standards that I was not prepared to meet then I would not go there. When I ahve been in other muslim countries I made sure I did not go out topless or in a pair of shorts excapt when I was in areas where that standard of dress was not expected.

When I go about Europe there are several touristy places in hot areas that have signs stating that anyone in a particular area - climbing the steps to the castle in Monarco for example (or last time I went there was...) - must wear a minimum amount of clothing. Men should not be topless (or bottomless) and women should be wearing a top and a skirt as minimum. Does anyone here thing that violates peoples sensitivities? Is it wrong for them to ask a minimum standard of dress when tourists visit a popular historical area?

Would the people protesting about this upsetting Muslims also be prepared to cover themselves up when traveling in more conservative cultures so as not to offent sensibilities in places they visit? Or would they feel it is their right to cause offense? Vice-versa - should people coming here dress in a way that is fitting with western culture, or should they dress in a manner that goes against it?


Back to Mr Straw - he has not demanded the women visiting him take off their veils he has asked them. Is that wrong?
He did not demand that muslim women remove veils, he has said that in his opinion it would help with integration. Is it wrong for him to speak his opinion? Is his opinion immoral? Is it rascist?
Hell - even the Muslim Council Of Great Britain agrees with him to an extent...

If you choose to move from your culture into a culture where it happens that wearing long sleved shirts is viewed as an impediment to communication then it might be the polite thing to do while you are living there.

I disagree. I think it is much more impolite to expect someone to expose themselves in a way they feel is inappropriate than it would be for them to cover themselves in a society that normally doesn't.

You're basically saying, "You should undress yourself and feel naked for my benefit. If you don't, you're being rude."

Personally - If I go to the middle east I would be happy to wear clothing to the standards of the culture of whichever country I am in. If a country demanded/expected standards that I was not prepared to meet then I would not go there. When I ahve been in other muslim countries I made sure I did not go out topless or in a pair of shorts excapt when I was in areas where that standard of dress was not expected.

The difference here is that you were not being asked or expected to reveal more of your body than you felt comfortable doing. You probably feel comfortable being in front of people without a shirt or a in a pair of shorts. But you aren't going to feel like you are naked or immodest if you wear slacks and a shirt.

I would happily dress *more* conservatively to make people feel comfortable, as long as the request was not unreasonable. If I were in a society where people would be uncomfortable if I wore a short skirt, for instance, I would refrain from doing so. However, I would not consider it a matter of "politeness" if someone asked me to wear something that I felt was too revealing. I would be uncomfortable doing so, I would feel naked, and I would consider the person who asked me to do so rude, not myself.

When I go about Europe there are several touristy places in hot areas that have signs stating that anyone in a particular area - climbing the steps to the castle in Monarco for example (or last time I went there was...) - must wear a minimum amount of clothing. Men should not be topless (or bottomless) and women should be wearing a top and a skirt as minimum. Does anyone here thing that violates peoples sensitivities? Is it wrong for them to ask a minimum standard of dress when tourists visit a popular historical area?

Once again, you are talking about a "minimum" amount of dress here. You are talking about asking people to wear some minimum standard of clothing, not applying a maximum. There is a difference between asking someone to put on a shirt and asking them to remove it.

Back to Mr Straw - he has not demanded the women visiting him take off their veils he has asked them. Is that wrong?
He did not demand that muslim women remove veils, he has said that in his opinion it would help with integration. Is it wrong for him to speak his opinion? Is his opinion immoral? Is it rascist?
Hell - even the Muslim Council Of Great Britain agrees with him to an extent...

As long as he makes it absolutely clear that removing the veil is not a requirement to talk to him, or receive his attention as a representative, I have no problem with him asking if a woman is willing to remove it.

I do see his stance that a woman dressing in a way she finds to be immodest would "help with integration" as a problem. Basically, I see it as his problem. If people dressing the way they feel is appropriate is a "barrier to integration", the person preventing the integration is the one who has a problem with it, not the one wearing it. It suggests that "integration" means "be like us," rather than "be a part of our community."

No.

A cross or a yarmulke are not a total physical barrier to a persons face. They do not literally hide that persons identity from society. They do not prevent eye contact or recognition of a person.

Nor do the veils! I mean really, I don't think we have to worry about this that much. They're not 'hiding' because they always wear them, so that is what they always look like.
Things may be different in Britain but it doesn't bother me that some women wear veils.
I sometimes wear a head-scarf over my face if it is cold. I certainly don't want that not allowed because it would lead to a cold nose but I would take it off indoors. BUT that is not part of my religious tradition to wear that, it's simply a practical matter when it is cold.

Oh no!! He made a request that they remove their veils!?! They can choose not to?! End of world!!!!11.

Bah. I don't see the fuss. The media just jumps on anything these days and makes it out to be OMG ANTI-MUSLIM.

Well - at least you're prepared to admit you're trying to segregate yourself from the community..

Where did I say this? Copy and past or link please.


Though I am somewhat surprised that if you are prepared to go about in a "Fuck Everyone" t-shirt that you get weepy about someone asking someone to remove a veil.

I'm soft on ordinary people...thats me..the proverbial bleeding heart fucking liberal......

I disagree. I think it is much more impolite to expect someone to expose themselves in a way they feel is inappropriate than it would be for them to cover themselves in a society that normally doesn't.

Ok... would you feel comfortable being in a society that requires you to wear a full veil? A burka?

Say you felt it dehumanised you - should you go out in jeans and a t-shirt or should you respect the society and put up with feeling dehumanised?

And also - why does the culture which demands greater 'modesty' get precedence over a culture that does not? Is a culture that does not demand modesty inferior?

Things may be different in Britain but it doesn't bother me that some women wear veils.
I sometimes wear a head-scarf over my face if it is cold.
Headscarf =/= Veil. A veil is essentially a mask. It conceals almost all a persons physical identity and hides almost all facial emotions.

Where did I say this? Copy and past or link please.
Well - you state that if someone tries to tell you you're not trying to fit in as you'r wearing a t-shirt that says "fuck everyone' you'll tell them to presumeably 'fuck off'. This strongly implies you do not wish to be seen to be fitting in and are happy with this. If this was not the implication you wished to make then apologies for my interetation of it. Do you seroiusly go about wearing such a t-shirt? Really?

Ok... would you feel comfortable being in a society that requires you to wear a full veil? A burka?

Say you felt it dehumanised you - should you go out in jeans and a t-shirt or should you respect the society and put up with feeling dehumanised?

And also - why does the culture which demands greater 'modesty' get precedence over a culture that does not? Is a culture that does not demand modesty inferior?

If a muslim woman thinks that way about her Niqab than she should be able to take it off. But Many muslim woman do not want to take off their veils. Why should we force them to do otherwise?

Well - you state that if someone tries to tell you you're not trying to fit in as you'r wearing a t-shirt that says "fuck everyone' you'll tell them to presumeably 'fuck off'. This strongly implies you do not wish to be seen to be fitting in and are happy with this. If this was not the implication you wished to make then apologies for my interetation of it. Do you seroiusly go about wearing such a t-shirt? Really?

Another net psychoanalyst.....great stuff. I'm not in the military. Its not a dictatorship. I vote, work and pay the taxes. I don't worry about the number of piercings somebody has, or hasn't, the amount of ink they have or haven't and I don't give a crap if two of the same gender "get jiggy" with each other provided both are of age. And what would I say to somebody who brought up some objection to any of the above activity?................... Yes, very good. Its not about "fitting in", its about living in a free society.


And yes, I do have such a t-shirt, which I bought from here.http://www.shocktees.com/product/tshirts/film_logo/tshirt-fl0005/index.html

Ok... would you feel comfortable being in a society that requires you to wear a full veil? A burka?

No, I wouldn't.

Say you felt it dehumanised you - should you go out in jeans and a t-shirt or should you respect the society and put up with feeling dehumanised?

I probably wouldn't go out in jeans and a t-shirt in such a society. Wearing a full burqua because of the expectations of someone else, I feel, would be too great a burden on me. It would be impolite of them to ask. However, I would be careful to dress modestly in such a culture (no short sleeves, nothing tight or revealing). I would probably wear hijab.

And also - why does the culture which demands greater 'modesty' get precedence over a culture that does not? Is a culture that does not demand modesty inferior?

It isn't a matter of culture, precedence, or inferiority. It is about the individual and interactions between them. It is a matter of what you are asking someone to do. Asking someone to put more clothing on (within a certain extent) is not an undue burden upon them. It isn't going to make someone feel exposed and is unlikely to make someone feel uncomfortable (maybe a little hot). On the other hand, telling someone to take off clothing that they are accustomed to wearing - clothing they feel is required for modesty - is going to cause discomfort, likely a large degree of it. It is going to cause someone to feel exposed.

If I am wearing a sleeveless shirt and I walk into a nice restaraunt and they ask me to put on a sweater to meet their dress code, that is not an undue burden on me. It isn't going to make me feel uncomfortable or exposed. If, on the other hand, I were to walk into a restaraunt and I were asked to remove my shirt before entering, I would feel insulted, objectified, and uncomfortable.

No culture is taking precedence over another or being seen as superior or inferior. The issue is the modesty of the person involved, and how asking them to change their mode of dress will affect them.

I probably wouldn't go out in jeans and a t-shirt in such a society. Wearing a full burqua because of the expectations of someone else, I feel, would be too great a burden on me. It would be impolite of them to ask. However, I would be careful to dress modestly in such a culture (no short sleeves, nothing tight or revealing). I would probably wear hijab.


So you feel it is acceptable for a woman (or man)to wear clothing offensive to a local culture if you feel that culture is too restrictive?

It isn't a matter of culture, precedence, or inferiority. It is about the individual and interactions between them. It is a matter of what you are asking someone to do. Asking someone to put more clothing on (within a certain extent) is not an undue burden upon them. It isn't going to make someone feel exposed and is unlikely to make someone feel uncomfortable (maybe a little hot). On the other hand, telling someone to take off clothing that they are accustomed to wearing - clothing they feel is required for modesty - is going to cause discomfort, likely a large degree of it. It is going to cause someone to feel exposed.
Who decides what is a reasonale extent? I seem to be getting demonised here for stating that someone in the west should adhere to western standards of communication where facial expressions are an important part of communication, but you seem to be saying you ahve the right to say what is and is not a reasonable demand in requireing someone to cover themselves? Why do you get to decide what is a reasonable level for someone to be required to cover themselves but I don;t get to say what I think is a reasonable expectation for someone to meet in uncovering themselves in a culture not noted for facial concealment? Particulary since your definition of modesty in a few areas on earth would result in severe punishment of women who choose such an 'immodest' dress style. In some places the hajib is totally unacceptable - are you saying this is wrong?

Another net psychoanalyst.....great stuff. I'm not in the military. Its not a dictatorship. I vote, work and pay the taxes. I don't worry about the number of piercings somebody has, or hasn't, the amount of ink they have or haven't and I don't give a crap if two of the same gender "get jiggy" with each other provided both are of age. And what would I say to somebody who brought up some objection to any of the above activity?................... Yes, very good. Its not about "fitting in", its about living in a free society.


And yes, I do have such a t-shirt, which I bought from here.http://www.shocktees.com/product/tsh...005/index.html
Where's the psychology - you imply something, I point it out and you then imply agreement...

And where do gay men/women with tatoos and body piercings come into the pros and cons of facial concealment when communicating with people from a culture where facial expressions are a core part of communication?

Your arguement seems to be "It's the other persons fault if they're offended" and you seem to feel it is your right to wear your T-shirt about - say outside a primary school? And that it's a parents fault if they are upset at you wearing such a shirt about their kids?

Now. Not to imply ANY connection between the burqua and the following - if someone wears a swastika outside a jewish school is it the viewers fault if they are offended by it or is it the wearers? After all - it's about society accepting all people yes? Including Nazi bastards? Or only people you agree with?

Where is the line drawn between the wearers responsobility for the viewers reaction and the viewers responsibility for their reaction to something they find offensive?

Where is the line drawn between the wearer being responsible for makign the viewer uncomfortable and the viewer being at fault for being uncomfortable in response to the wearer?

<snip>
Where is the line drawn between the wearers responsobility for the viewers reaction and the viewers responsibility for their reaction to something they find offensive?

Where is the line drawn between the wearer being responsible for makign the viewer uncomfortable and the viewer being at fault for being uncomfortable in response to the wearer?

I don't know how things work in the UK, but in the US, a person is allowed to dress in any manner that does not violate the law. The US has laws against public nudity but no laws against covering the body, even to the extent of covering every part of it.

If the way you choose to dress makes other people uncomfortable but is not illegal, then it's basically just up to you to sort out your social relationships. Deal with restaurants that demand jackets and ties. Deal with people who are afraid of punks and goths. Deal with xenophobes who freak out at the sight of traditional garb from foreign countries. Get used to the stares of small children and the barking of dogs, if necessary.

Men can dress as women. Women can dress as men. White kids can dress like black kids. Members of religions can wear their garb. People who do not belong to religions can cop the garb anyway, if they want. It's nobody's business but their own. It sure as hell isn't yours or mine. If their dress choices make me uncomfortable, well that's just tough for me, isn't it? It is not their job to dress to please me. Who am I to them? Nobody, that's who. And the same applies to you and Jack Straw.

Fortunately, it is mutual. You don't have to dress to please them, either.

Personally I think if someone wants to move to the UK then they shoud be the ones to make an effort to fit in with the communities around them and they should raise their children to do the same.

Those veils are a very very powerful barrier to mixing with the rest of society, and they say a lot about the wearers opinion of women who do not wear them - further alienating them from the rest of the country. They are not conductive to good race relations.

I have to agree with this general statement. It is not on the native community to fit in with new immigrants rather the immigrants should adhear to what is the norm in the community. Really I do not get people that move to other nations that do not change there customs and or do not make an effort to learn the new language. It seems extremely odd to me. Then to top it off some of them complain about how they are treated because they have not made an effort to fit into there new home nation.

So you feel it is acceptable for a woman (or man)to wear clothing offensive to a local culture if you feel that culture is too restrictive?

I think it is acceptable for any human being to wear whatever they damn well please, as long as they aren't creating some sort of health hazard or refusing to follow the dress code standards on private property. I think it is *polite* to make a reasonable effort to follow local "standards" of dress. However, if doing so makes the person uncomfortable, then the effort required to follow said standards is unreasonable.

Who decides what is a reasonale extent?

The individual being asked to do something. If someone else is asking another person to dress for *their* convenience, then only the person being asked to add or remove clothing can deem that request reasonable or unreasonable.

I seem to be getting demonised here for stating that someone in the west should adhere to western standards of communication where facial expressions are an important part of communication, but you seem to be saying you ahve the right to say what is and is not a reasonable demand in requireing someone to cover themselves? Why do you get to decide what is a reasonable level for someone to be required to cover themselves but I don;t get to say what I think is a reasonable expectation for someone to meet in uncovering themselves in a culture not noted for facial concealment? Particulary since your definition of modesty in a few areas on earth would result in severe punishment of women who choose such an 'immodest' dress style. In some places the hajib is totally unacceptable - are you saying this is wrong?

Once again, you are entirely missing the point. It *isn't* ok for you or I to decide what is a "reasonable level for someone to be required to cover themselves." It *isn't* ok for you or I to decide what is a "reasonable expectation for someone to meet in uncovering themselves." I can decide what *I* feel comfortable wearing and you can decide what you feel comfortable wearing. I can determine what cultural "norms" make me uncomfortable and you decide which make you uncomfortable.

You also still seem to be missing the huge difference between asking someone to cover more and asking them to get more naked. Which would you be more comfortable with: Being asked to wear slacks instead of shorts? Or being asked to walk around public in nothing but a thong speedo? There is a huge difference in the level of discomfort that might be caused when a person is asked to remove a piece of clothing they feel uncomfortable without vs. being asked to add an article of clothing. People are more likely to be distressed over a feeling of exposure and vulnerabilty vs. a feeling of, "Wow, I'm wearing more clothes than normal today."


I have to agree with this general statement. It is not on the native community to fit in with new immigrants rather the immigrants should adhear to what is the norm in the community. Really I do not get people that move to other nations that do not change there customs and or do not make an effort to learn the new language. It seems extremely odd to me. Then to top it off some of them complain about how they are treated because they have not made an effort to fit into there new home nation.

Xenophobia much? An immigrant is not a visitor - they are a citizen of the country. They are a part of the community, just like everyone else. You are basically stating that they can only truly be part of their new country if they remove their own identity and become just like you. Let's all conform and pretend that we don't come from different backgrounds, that we don't have different viewpoints, that everyone *has* to fit in. If someone is mistreated because they are "different", that is entirely the fault of the bigot mistreating them. It has nothing to do with whether or not they make an effort to be just like you.

I was just watching BBC news 24 and Jack Straw has asked Muslim women in his constituency to take off thier veil's when ever they are visit him because he believes the veil is "a visible statement of separation and of difference".

Straw is way off the mark. For a start the angst of appearing before a strange man in a state of undress, sounds like a perfect barrier to communication to me, and if a person is accustomed to not appearing in public sans-veil, then in that person's mind they are in a state of undress without the veil.

Even setting that aspect aside, Straw's conclusions rely on the false premise that he is adequately able to interpret the facial expressions of a group of people whose facial expressions he is utterly unfamiliar with.
Seeing the faces of people whose cultural mannerisms you are unfamiliar is as likely to mislead as to inform, so communication is no better off for it.

Halima Hussain, from civil liberties group the Muslim Public Affairs Committee, asked: "Who is Jack Straw to comment on negative symbols within a religion that is not his own?"
The answer to Halima's question is obvious, Jack Straw is Jack Straw. His comments should be based on their motivation and their correctness (both evidently being seperate aspects whose relative importance is determined by the purpose of judging the comments).

So what do people on here think?
I think Jack Straw is wrong, but unless his motivations are questionable, it wasnt unreasonable for him to comment as he did.


Personally I think if someone wants to move to the UK then they shoud be the ones to make an effort to fit in with the communities around them and they should raise their children to do the same.
I entirely agree, although I suspect we differ greatly on what is entailed in 'fitting in'.

Those veils are a very very powerful barrier to mixing with the rest of society, and they say a lot about the wearers opinion of women who do not wear them -
Do they? I missed that message, I also am rather doubtful of it.

further alienating them from the rest of the country. They are not conductive to good race relations.

They are a piece of cloth, they dont prevent the passage of sound. The problem is a wall of silence, not a veil of cloth. If people could discuss the matter constructively the alienation factor could be addressed. They alienate because they are 'alien' aka unfamiliar. It's entirely human to be scared of the unfamilar and uncomprehended. That's why provided the motivation was one of better relations, I dont find it unreasonable for Straw to have commented as he did. If people respond reasonably with reasonable discussion then the real problem - the wall of silence that perpetuates the alieness of veils can broken down.

They want to wear a veil fine, though I do think it needs to be taken off for ID photos. Kind of defeats the purpose of a photo ID.
I think it would be better to offer everyone the alternative of finger id. It isnt necessary to force people to show their faces to id them. The technology to offer as an alternative finger print identification is cheap and readily available. If initially it requires a small surcharge (to pay for the technology outlay) on each id issued with finger (either rather than or if someone wishes as well as) photo id, that certainly seems fair. ID systems should be as unobtrusive as possible, especially if the ID is a virtual necessity.

It's natural to watch a person's face when you're talking to them, facial expressions can convey so much of a conversation between people, and hiding the face can only lead to suspicion and misunderstanding.
It seems quite natural to assume that facial expressions are cross-cultural, but in fact facial mannerisms are culturally specific. Misunderstandings and the suspicions they cause are as likely to arise from the misinterpretation of culturally unfamiliar facial expression mannerisms as from not seeing someone's face.

As for being a manifestation or admittence of inferiority (as indicated by various posters throughout the thread), I have to say it sure isnt my experiance. Women in veils approach me and strike up conversations, I'm too shy to do that myself so they are clearly more socially confident (and dare I say in this aspect at least liberated) than this anglo western woman.

I was just watching BBC news 24 and Jack Straw has asked Muslim women in his constituency to take off thier veil's when ever they are visit him because he believes the veil is "a visible statement of separation and of difference".

Halima Hussain, from civil liberties group the Muslim Public Affairs Committee, asked: "Who is Jack Straw to comment on negative symbols within a religion that is not his own?"

So what do people on here think?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5410472.stm
I think that Jack Straw's support for the war on terror is a demonstrable "statement of separation and of difference".

BTW, is this a "straw poll"? :p

*deep breath*

Right, first of all I'd like to congratulate all the people who eventually stopped feeding the troll earlier on in the thread. Good work, guys ;)

Now, the whole tradition of the Muslim burqa/niqab/hijab is outdated and has no place in modern society. Don't try and refute this, please, because it's true. Otherwise, it would be universally worn and I'd agree with it. Also, don't try to come up with a clever analogy (as is common practice, or so I have surveyed so far in this thread) because analogies don't carry.

The trick here isn't to apply pressure to the women wearing their strange Arabic-traditioned garments, or the men forcing them to wear them. No. The problem here is that we live in a society where we are inherently suspicious and xenophobic. The key is integration of cultures.

In the past this was done by the assimilation of arriving cultures into those who had already arrived. Take my family, for instance. My great-grandfather emigrated from the mountains of Cyprus to Camden town. He raised his children in English and not Greek, and they spoke this language around the house. However, they continued to be raised in the Orthodox Christian faith.

This in itself went a bit cock when my Orthodox Christian grandfather married my Catholic grandmother, causing widespread arguments, schisms, and ultimately dividing her family. As a result my parents, and subsequently I, have been raised in no religion. This is a good thing. Religion poisons minds. Religion makes people wear outlandish garments, jewellery in the shape of archaic methods of capital punishment, funny little hats. It also makes otherwise decent people perform outstanding atrocities to other, otherwise decent people, just because of their differing religions.

I say the way forward is to abolish religion. I'm not saying that you have to abolish your belief in God, I'm just saying you have to abolish your link to God via a series of rich organisations who try to use you as pawns against their foes.

I was just watching BBC news 24 and Jack Straw has asked Muslim women in his constituency to take off thier veil's when ever they are visit him because he believes the veil is "a visible statement of separation and of difference".

Halima Hussain, from civil liberties group the Muslim Public Affairs Committee, asked: "Who is Jack Straw to comment on negative symbols within a religion that is not his own?"

So what do people on here think?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5410472.stm


Not that this is important unless you're taking exams soon, but an apostrophe is only supposed to be used either to replace letters (eg: "we didn't do that") or when implying ownership (eg: "I found a letter... the letter is John's letter"). Oh and "their" is the one used when referring to people (not "there", which is referring to a place)

I think it is acceptable for any human being to wear whatever they damn well please, as long as they aren't creating some sort of health hazard or refusing to follow the dress code standards on private property. I think it is *polite* to make a reasonable effort to follow local "standards" of dress. However, if doing so makes the person uncomfortable, then the effort required to follow said standards is unreasonable.

The individual being asked to do something. If someone else is asking another person to dress for *their* convenience, then only the person being asked to add or remove clothing can deem that request reasonable or unreasonable.

Once again, you are entirely missing the point. It *isn't* ok for you or I to decide what is a "reasonable level for someone to be required to cover themselves." It *isn't* ok for you or I to decide what is a "reasonable expectation for someone to meet in uncovering themselves." I can decide what *I* feel comfortable wearing and you can decide what you feel comfortable wearing. I can determine what cultural "norms" make me uncomfortable and you decide which make you uncomfortable.

You also still seem to be missing the huge difference between asking someone to cover more and asking them to get more naked.


*looks at what I posted while really drunk last night* *shudders*

Ok. The point I was trying to make is that you said you feel it is acceptable to determine the maximum level of coverage if you went to a nation where women are *required* to wear a full burqua. And that (assuming you're female, or writing from a female perspective) if you went there you would wear a hijab. Which in such a country would be illegal and against the moral standards expected of that country. But you seem to feel that you have the right to decide your *maximum* level of dress, even when that maximum is against moral sensibilities of your locality. And that any wearer can determine a maximum level of dress. Which in many parts of the world is plainly not true.

Should women be *forced* not to wear the nijab or burqua? I don't think so. (Although I think they have no right to wear ANY facial covering for a passport/driving liscence/official ID photo. Kinda defeats the point of bothering with a photo...). I do however think it is true that they make integration with the rest of the nation they are moving to much harder, while headscarves do not (as much at least - they mark someone out as 'different' but they do not hide a persons identity. I think it is reasonable to say that the full coverings hinder comunity relations. I think it is also reasonable to ask someone to remove a full covering if it is making you uncomfortable in conversation. In a nation where different standards are expected I think it is reasonable for them to ask you to put on a full covering, and that you should agree - or not go to that country.

I supose the full veil is just very alien to me. When I was growing up about 50% of the girls I knew wore the Hijab so I'm pretty used to it and even without the religious overtones I think it can be a very nice way for a woman to dress. But the full covering I ahve a lot more difficulty with as it is (literally) a barrier. It is like talking to someone wearing a pair of sunglasses and a balaclava - you get no sense of the emotion that you get when talking to someone where you can see their face.

I wonder how many people slating me actually have a lot of friends who wear the full coverings?


Now - Is it acceptable for a country to *demand* women remove veils? Or would only an Islamaphobic even suggest such a thing? What about the much less conservative Hijab? Unreasonable? Racist?

Damn those Islamaphobic Turks for banning even scarves in Civic areas.


EDIT: Flicking throught the BBC "Views from Muslims" on this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/5413352.stm

Saquia: "Actually, I've started wearing the headscarf.... I haven't really noticed much change in the way most people react to me. But I do seem to get more respect from Muslims."

Najeeba: "I think when some women wear the full-face veil it can become a barrier."

Saquia states that she does not think it is a barrier, in contrast to Najeeba.

Who decides what is a reasonale extent?
?

Why should somebody be in a position to decide what is "reasonable" in such a matter?


I seem to be getting demonised here for stating that someone in the west should adhere to western standards of communication where facial expressions are an important part of communication, but you seem to be saying you ahve the right to say what is and is not a reasonable demand in requireing someone to cover themselves? ?


The difference between the West and those less liberal parts of the worlds is supposed to be freedom of the individual. Yet here you fucking are........


Where's the psychology - you imply something, I point it out and you then imply agreement...?

I never implied anything.


And where do gay men/women with tatoos and body piercings come into the pros and cons of facial concealment when communicating with people from a culture where facial expressions are a core part of communication?

Just after a precedent has been set with the removal of "facial concealment" for those who feel it nessecary by those who like to force their ways on others.


Now. Not to imply ANY connection between the burqua and the following - if someone wears a swastika outside a jewish school is it the viewers fault if they are offended by it or is it the wearers? After all - it's about society accepting all people yes? Including Nazi bastards? Or only people you agree with?

Where is the line drawn between the wearers responsobility for the viewers reaction and the viewers responsibility for their reaction to something they find offensive?

Where is the line drawn between the wearer being responsible for makign the viewer uncomfortable and the viewer being at fault for being uncomfortable in response to the wearer?

I have no idea. Thats why I take objection when some liittle Gauleiter starts laying lines about the place.

It is like talking to someone wearing a pair of sunglasses and a balaclava - you get no sense of the emotion that you get when talking to someone where you can see their face.
.


You get a good idea from the way they point the gun at you.

..the Muslim burqa/niqab/hijab is outdated and has no place in modern society. Don't try and refute this, please, because it's true. Bush is the smartest US president ever. Don't try and refute this, please, because it's true.

Why should somebody be in a position to decide what is "reasonable" in such a matter?

They said they were happy to comply with a request to cover up as long as that request was reasonable. I asked who gets to decide what is reasonable. Which was a relevent question.


I never implied anything.

I have no idea. Thats why I take objection when some liittle Gauleiter starts laying lines about the place.

Ok, as you don't like people reading between the lines of what you say can you spell it out a bit more. Do you feel it is OK for someone to walk about with a swastika on their shirt? If someone is offended by a swastika is it the viewers fault or the wearers?

You (apparently) feel it is ok to wear a tshirt that says "Fuck Everyone', which is about the same as actually saying "Fuck You" to everyone you see. If someone says to someone "Fuck You" is it the speakers fault or the listeners fault if they are offended?

Why do you wear such a shirt anyway?

Do you feel there is a line somewhere but are unrepared to state where you think it is? If so, why not?

Gun thingey...
I was thinking more about skiing...

To futher clarify, they should remove their veils, and put them over there, and if they don't, they're going to be under suspicion. Yeah, I'm a grammer nazi.

"Grammer?!"

Are you a spelling nazi as well? :)

*deep breath*

Right, first of all I'd like to congratulate all the people who eventually stopped feeding the troll earlier on in the thread. Good work, guys ;)

Now, the whole tradition of the Muslim burqa/niqab/hijab is outdated and has no place in modern society. Don't try and refute this, please, because it's true. Otherwise, it would be universally worn and I'd agree with it. Also, don't try to come up with a clever analogy (as is common practice, or so I have surveyed so far in this thread) because analogies don't carry.

The trick here isn't to apply pressure to the women wearing their strange Arabic-traditioned garments, or the men forcing them to wear them. No. The problem here is that we live in a society where we are inherently suspicious and xenophobic. The key is integration of cultures.

In the past this was done by the assimilation of arriving cultures into those who had already arrived. Take my family, for instance. My great-grandfather emigrated from the mountains of Cyprus to Camden town. He raised his children in English and not Greek, and they spoke this language around the house. However, they continued to be raised in the Orthodox Christian faith.

This in itself went a bit cock when my Orthodox Christian grandfather married my Catholic grandmother, causing widespread arguments, schisms, and ultimately dividing her family. As a result my parents, and subsequently I, have been raised in no religion. This is a good thing. Religion poisons minds. Religion makes people wear outlandish garments, jewellery in the shape of archaic methods of capital punishment, funny little hats. It also makes otherwise decent people perform outstanding atrocities to other, otherwise decent people, just because of their differing religions.

I say the way forward is to abolish religion. I'm not saying that you have to abolish your belief in God, I'm just saying you have to abolish your link to God via a series of rich organisations who try to use you as pawns against their foes.
Although you raise some interesting points, I think you gave the wrong response. Religions do not need to be abolished. Wars need to be abolished.

If wars were abolished would anybody really care what care what people wore to demonstrate their religion? I doubt it very much.

Warmongers have had since the beginning of time to figure out that wars accomplish nothing except lay the seeds for the next war. It is time to give peace a chance. If all the monies that are spent on armaments were used to aid the destitute and the dying, there would not be a starving soul on the planet and most diseases would be erradicated.

God's will is for us to love each other, not to kill each other. The sooner we figure that out, the better.

That's like asking a goth not to wear so much cheap jewelry. Some do some don't. Let others choose their appearance, and persecute those who don't want them to.

Bush is the smartest US president ever. Don't try and refute this, please, because it's true.

Bush isn't the smartest, he is the most sensible and understanding. He is a Truman. Where the most wisest and sensible president would have to be Abraham Lincoln. Never really understood, he is the most contreversial of all. Second would be George W. Bush, next would have to be Franklin Roosevelt, then Bill Clinton etc.

Sensibility is also of intelligence. George W. Bush is a person who is simple and understanding. Many of those who disagree, merely can't understand him because of their own ignorance of him from far left slandering propaganda has polluted their opinions of him.

But quite off subject Mr. OceanDrive.

That's like asking a goth not to wear so much cheap jewelry. Some do some don't. Let others choose their appearance, and persecute those who don't want them to.
Nobody should be persecuted.

I agree with what Straw is saying, but I don't think he goes anywhere near far enough. He should have said that such dress is completely unacceptable in western society and should have backed it up with new laws curbing islamic dress. We certainly wouldn't be alone in Europe. France and several German states have banned headscarves in schools (One German state even banned them among civil servants, which is an impressive show of resolve). Italy and a Belgian city have even banned the ninja outfits, in all public places.

It's time this country left political correctness behind and showed that it is the responsibility of immigrants to assimilate, and that it's not the responsibility of the native population to make any concessions whatsoever.

I agree with what Straw is saying, but I don't think he goes anywhere near far enough. He should have said that such dress is completely unacceptable in western society and should have backed it up with new laws curbing islamic dress. We certainly wouldn't be alone in Europe. France and several German states have banned headscarves in schools (One German state even banned them among civil servants, which is an impressive show of resolve). Italy and a Belgian city have even banned the ninja outfits, in all public places.

It's time this country left political correctness behind and showed that it is the responsibility of immigrants to assimilate, and that it's not the responsibility of the native population to make any concessions whatsoever.

Thats not political correctness, its freedom of expression.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/05.html#1
''The Free Exercise Clause . . . withdraws from legislative power, state and federal, the exertion of any restraint on the free exercise of religion. Its purpose is to secure religious liberty in the individual by prohibiting any invasions there by civil authority.'' 178 It bars ''governmental regulation of religious beliefs as such,'' 179 prohibiting misuse of secular governmental programs ''to impede the observance of one or all religions or . . .

Thats not political correctness, its freedom of expression.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/05.html#1

With respect, what the US Constituion says is completely irrelevant to me.

Right, first of all I'd like to congratulate all the people who eventually stopped feeding the troll earlier on in the thread. Good work, guys ;)

And, with that in mind, I probably shouldn't respond to your statement either. But I will anyways, if only to keep discussion going between those who *don't* think they are infallible.

Now, the whole tradition of the Muslim burqa/niqab/hijab is outdated and has no place in modern society. Don't try and refute this, please, because it's true. Otherwise, it would be universally worn and I'd agree with it.

That has got to be the most idiotic statement made throughout this entire thread. I could just as well say that tennis shoes are outdated and have no place in modern society because they are not universally worn and some people don't agree with it.

Newsflash: Your personal opinion of something does not decide what is and is not acceptable throughout all of society. You are not God. You can decide what is acceptable for you. When you start trying to tell others what they find acceptable, you have overstepped your bounds.

Meanwhile, as has already been discussed, hijab (at the very least) is not a strictly Muslim tradition.

The trick here isn't to apply pressure to the women wearing their strange Arabic-traditioned garments, or the men forcing them to wear them. No. The problem here is that we live in a society where we are inherently suspicious and xenophobic. The key is integration of cultures.

Precisely. The people who are suspicious and xenophobic of anything "different" from them are the problem. "Integration" doesn't mean "be just like us." An integration would mean that we would form a society that includes all of those within it. The onus is on *both* groups to form that bridge. And it would appear that it is generally those who take the "be just like us or you aren't a part of our society" stance that are a barrier to that integration.

Ok. The point I was trying to make is that you said you feel it is acceptable to determine the maximum level of coverage if you went to a nation where women are *required* to wear a full burqua. And that (assuming you're female, or writing from a female perspective) if you went there you would wear a hijab.

Indeed. And since those countries would trample my civil rights, as they already have the women within them, I would not travel to such countries and boost their economies. If I went to a country where hijab was generally expected, I would wear it. I would not travel to a country where hijab was required by law.

It is acceptable for every individual to decide what their maximum level of coverage would be. Any government that does not allow that is unacceptable.

Should women be *forced* not to wear the nijab or burqua? I don't think so.

Nor should they be pressured not to do so. If they feel that modesty demands the hijab, niqab, or burqua, then they should be able to wear it. And, if we are to live in polite society, we should be just as willing to deal with a woman wearing niqab as we would a woman wearing a tube top.

I do however think it is true that they make integration with the rest of the nation they are moving to much harder, while headscarves do not (as much at least - they mark someone out as 'different' but they do not hide a persons identity.

(a) Niqab does not hide a person's identity. You can still tell one person from another without seeing their entire face.

(b) Maybe they do make integration much harder, but that is the fault of those who are suspicious of the mode of dress, not of those wearing it. If you cannot deal with someone who dresses differently from you, then *you* are the problem with integration, not the person who happens to dress differently.

I supose the full veil is just very alien to me. When I was growing up about 50% of the girls I knew wore the Hijab so I'm pretty used to it and even without the religious overtones I think it can be a very nice way for a woman to dress. But the full covering I ahve a lot more difficulty with as it is (literally) a barrier. It is like talking to someone wearing a pair of sunglasses and a balaclava - you get no sense of the emotion that you get when talking to someone where you can see their face.

You don't get any sense of the emotion a person is expressing when wearing sunglasses and you can't see their hair? I don't want to be insulting, but that sounds kind of like a social ineptitude on your part. I have no problem talking to someone wearing either and being able to determine their emotional state.

Now - Is it acceptable for a country to *demand* women remove veils? Or would only an Islamaphobic even suggest such a thing? What about the much less conservative Hijab? Unreasonable? Racist?

No. It is not acceptable for any country to demand that any citizen remove any clothing that is not, in and of itself, some sort of security risk (and I can't think of many that are - maybe a vest made of dynomite or something). Only a xenophobe of some sort would suggest such a thing.

It is equally unacceptable for any country to demand that any citizen wear niqab, hijab, or burqua.

Damn those Islamaphobic Turks for banning even scarves in Civic areas.

They are violating the civil rights of their citizens. They are doing it more to try and emphasize the secularity of their government, but did not do anything to reach that goal when they started making women undress for them.

I agree with what Straw is saying, but I don't think he goes anywhere near far enough. He should have said that such dress is completely unacceptable in western society and should have backed it up with new laws curbing islamic dress. We certainly wouldn't be alone in Europe. France and several German states have banned headscarves in schools (One German state even banned them among civil servants, which is an impressive show of resolve). Italy and a Belgian city have even banned the ninja outfits, in all public places.

It's time this country left political correctness behind and showed that it is the responsibility of immigrants to assimilate, and that it's not the responsibility of the native population to make any concessions whatsoever.

LOL! Assimilate? Your country is the borg now!

Good to know that the normal variation in human beings is an anathema to you.

"BE JUST LIKE US OR YOU CAN'T BE A PART OF OUR COUNTRY!"

How is that different from, "BE THE SAME SKIN COLOR AS US OR YOU CAN'T VOTE!" or "HAVE A PENIS OR YOU CAN'T PARTICIPATE IN GOVERNMENT!" or "BE CHRISTIAN OR YOU CAN'T BE A PART OF OUR COUNTRY!"

The problem here is not the people who are "different'< it is your inability to accept that some people are different - and that there is nothing inherently wrong with being different.

LOL! Assimilate? Your country is the borg now!

Good to know that the normal variation in human beings is an anathema to you.

"BE JUST LIKE US OR YOU CAN'T BE A PART OF OUR COUNTRY!"

How is that different from, "BE THE SAME SKIN COLOR AS US OR YOU CAN'T VOTE!" or "HAVE A PENIS OR YOU CAN'T PARTICIPATE IN GOVERNMENT!" or "BE CHRISTIAN OR YOU CAN'T BE A PART OF OUR COUNTRY!"

The problem here is not the people who are "different'< it is your inability to accept that some people are different - and that there is nothing inherently wrong with being different.
Islamic dress is the most overt symbol of a culture which is intent on dragging society back to the dark ages. It needs to be cracked down on. These people know what they're getting themselves into when they dress like this. If it's that important they can go to somewhere which would suit them more, like Iran. A lot of people in this country certainly wouldn't miss them.

Let's see what this post really says, eh?

Islamic dress is the most overt symbol of a culture which is intent on dragging society back to the dark ages.

"Some Muslims want to institute a society like that in the dark ages. This means that all Muslims fit that bill."

Funny, I've known quite a few Muslims that don't want to "drag society back to the dark ages." In fact, they disagree just as vehemently with the actions of those who seem to as you or I. And yet, they will wear what they feel comfortable. Strange, that....

And you are STILL ignoring the fact that things like hijab are not "Islamic".

These people know what they're getting themselves into when they dress like this.

"These people know there are bigots that have a problem with their decisions when they make them. However, they are smart enough to know that the bigots' opinions simply don't matter."

If it's that important they can go to somewhere which would suit them more, like Iran.

None of the Muslims I know would be suited well by Iran. They are much too dedicated to the principles of freedom of religion, freedom of expression.....well, freedom in general.

A lot of people in this country certainly wouldn't miss them.

I really don't care about what bigots would or would not miss.

Newsflash: Your personal opinion of something does not decide what is and is not acceptable throughout all of society. You are not God. You can decide what is acceptable for you. When you start trying to tell others what they find acceptable, you have overstepped your bounds.
An extreme example (but then covering the enitre face could be viewed as extreme too...) Say Straw prefers meeting his constituants while he is completely naked standing on his desk - it makes him feel more comfortable. If a woman (or man) visiting his office is offended by this is it their fault and their problem? Or should straw be expected to cover up for the comfort of those visiting?


Meanwhile, as has already been discussed, hijab (at the very least) is not a strictly Muslim tradition.
The Hijab is not the issue here.


Precisely. The people who are suspicious and xenophobic of anything "different" from them are the problem. "Integration" doesn't mean "be just like us." An integration would mean that we would form a society that includes all of those within it. The onus is on *both* groups to form that bridge. And it would appear that it is generally those who take the "be just like us or you aren't a part of our society" stance that are a barrier to that integration.
I would say the onus IS on both groups. But rests to a much greater degree on the group coming into a culture than the native culture.


It is acceptable for every individual to decide what their maximum level of coverage would be. Any government that does not allow that is unacceptable.
Again - is it acceptable for Straw to decide that his maximum level of coverage is a leather thong? If someone visiting him feels awward with this and feels the government should make him wear more clothing are they unacceptable?


(a) Niqab does not hide a person's identity. You can still tell one person from another without seeing their entire face.
You must be a lot better at telling different peoples eyes apart than me then.


(b) Maybe they do make integration much harder, but that is the fault of those who are suspicious of the mode of dress, not of those wearing it. If you cannot deal with someone who dresses differently from you, then *you* are the problem with integration, not the person who happens to dress differently.
This is saying the host culture should integrate with the incoming one, not vice versa.


You don't get any sense of the emotion a person is expressing when wearing sunglasses and you can't see their hair? I don't want to be insulting, but that sounds kind of like a social ineptitude on your part. I have no problem talking to someone wearing either and being able to determine their emotional state.

Maybe were thinking of a different type of balaclava. Mine covers the mouth, resting on top of the nose. If a person wears sunglasses with it all you can see is a bit of skin around the nose. If you would not find it very difficult to pick up on facial expressions when all you can see is some skin around the nose then your 'nose skin reading' abilities are much better than mine and anyone i have ever met.

Islamic dress is the most overt symbol of a culture which is intent on dragging society back to the dark ages. It needs to be cracked down on. These people know what they're getting themselves into when they dress like this. If it's that important they can go to somewhere which would suit them more, like Iran. A lot of people in this country certainly wouldn't miss them.

and that party political broadcast on behalf of the BNP was brought to you by somewhere.

utter shite. no doubt you are sitting there typing in american style jeans and t shirt.

An extreme example (but then covering the enitre face could be viewed as extreme too...) Say Straw prefers meeting his constituants while he is completely naked standing on his desk - it makes him feel more comfortable. If a woman (or man) visiting his office is offended by this is it their fault and their problem? Or should straw be expected to cover up for the comfort of those visiting?

Once again, you fail to see the difference between asking someone to wear *more* clothing and asking someone to wear *less* clothing.

The Hijab is not the issue here.

There are those in this thread who have called for the outright banning of the hijab. It obviously is an issue as well.

I would say the onus IS on both groups. But rests to a much greater degree on the group coming into a culture than the native culture.

I disagree. New citizens are no less citizens than old ones. And if you want "native culture", you'd be hard pressed to find it. Every culture (especially in the West) is already a hodge-podge of different ideas, different viewpoints, different customs, etc. The onus is on *everyone* to find what they have in common and build from there.

Again - is it acceptable for Straw to decide that his maximum level of coverage is a leather thong?

Yes, if he is on his own time. However, his employer (in this case, the people) can determine a minimum standard of dress that he must meet while doing his job. If they decide that this standard is "business casual," then he will have to wear business casual, or he can lose his job.

This is saying the host culture should integrate with the incoming one, not vice versa.

No, it is saying that integration isn't a one-way street. When you integrate two things, *BOTH* are involved. What you are asking for is not integration, but, as Somewhere put it - assimilation. You want them to become like you and you are trying to call that "integration." Integration would involve those who dress one way and those who dress another both working to form a common community.

Maybe were thinking of a different type of balaclava. Mine covers the mouth, resting on top of the nose. If a person wears sunglasses with it all you can see is a bit of skin around the nose. If you would not find it very difficult to pick up on facial expressions when all you can see is some skin around the nose then your 'nose skin reading' abilities are much better than mine and anyone i have ever met.

I was thinking of ones that cover up to the chin. Of course, now your comparison is obviously faulty. A person wearing niqab does not cover their eyes.

Of course, if I actually know someone, I can read them, even when dressed in such a manner. Have you ever been skiing?

Once again, you fail to see the difference between asking someone to wear *more* clothing and asking someone to wear *less* clothing. [quote]
Well - you ahve said you think it is wrong to demand a woman wears the hijab, but you feel it is right to demand other minimum levels of clothing?

[quote]
I disagree. New citizens are no less citizens than old ones. And if you want "native culture", you'd be hard pressed to find it. Every culture (especially in the West) is already a hodge-podge of different ideas, different viewpoints, different customs, etc. The onus is on *everyone* to find what they have in common and build from there.

Where in western culture has it been usual for people to cover their faces in day to day dealings?


Yes, if he is on his own time. However, his employer (in this case, the people) can determine a minimum standard of dress that he must meet while doing his job. If they decide that this standard is "business casual," then he will have to wear business casual, or he can lose his job.
Ok, the MP is an islamic woman (or anyone really) and one of her constituants wants to meet to discuss something. He only feels comfortable wearing nothing at all. Who is at fault if the woman feels akward? Remember - theres no shortage of nudists and naturalists out there.
Can an employer determine a minimum standard of dress?
Why is it ok to discriminate against people who prefer to wear less?


I was thinking of ones that cover up to the chin. Of course, now your comparison is obviously faulty. A person wearing niqab does not cover their eyes.
Even without the sunglasses it's not easy. and the burqua covers even more.


Of course, if I actually know someone, I can read them, even when dressed in such a manner. Have you ever been skiing?
When you know pepole well these things are not issues, but an MP does not know everyone well. The issue is getting to know someone, not dealing with someone you already know.

I use mine for mountain climbing/trekking, but skiing is much more common which is why i used that example.

Well - you ahve said you think it is wrong to demand a woman wears the hijab, but you feel it is right to demand other minimum levels of clothing?

Demand? No. Politely ask? Yes. And is it polite to accomodate that person? Generally, yes.

I have made it exceedingly clear that it is not one person's place to *demand* that anyone else dress for their own comfort.

Where in western culture has it been usual for people to cover their faces in day to day dealings?

What does that have to do with the price of eggs in China?

Ok, the MP is an islamic woman (or anyone really) and one of her constituants wants to meet to discuss something. He only feels comfortable wearing nothing at all. Who is at fault if the woman feels akward? Remember - theres no shortage of nudists and naturalists out there.

Complete nudity brings up sanitation issues. However, if the man is wearing less than she feels comfortable with, she can politely ask him to put on more. If he would feel uncomfortable doing so, and refuses, then it *is* her problem. If he asks her to take off her clothing and she would feel uncomfortable doing so, it is *his* problem.

But, once again, we get into the issue of asking someone to put more clothing on (generally not an issue) vs. asking them to remove it. I, for one, am going to have much less of a problem with putting on a sweater to cover my shoulders because someone is bothered by a tank top than I am taking off the tank top because someone is bothered by not being able to see my breasts.

Most people are going to feel more comfortable putting more clothing on than stripping below their own personal minimum level of coverage up until the point that the clothin itself becomes restrictive. After all, our own culture includes different minimum standards of dress for different activities. That which is generally seen as appropriate to wear at a beach-side cafe will likely not be accepted at a formal restaraunt or an opera.

With respect, what the US Constituion says is completely irrelevant to me.

Fine, go ahead, save western liberalism by destroying everything its ever stood for and bring europe back to a time more like the 1300s.

Criminalizing dress because it looks "foreign" goes against everything western thought stands for, and is much more akin to the thinking of jihadists, regardless if its for a more "uniform" society or not.

Demand? No. Politely ask? Yes. And is it polite to accomodate that person? Generally, yes.

I have made it exceedingly clear that it is not one person's place to *demand* that anyone else dress for their own comfort.

What does that have to do with the price of eggs in China?

Not much. You were saying western culture is a hodge podge of different styles and dress standards. I asked where in western culture is covering your face (except for when outside in the cold) a day to day practice? Uncovered faces are an almost universal western cultural standard.


Complete nudity brings up sanitation issues. However, if the man is wearing less than she feels comfortable with, she can politely ask him to put on more. If he would feel uncomfortable doing so, and refuses, then it *is* her problem. If he asks her to take off her clothing and she would feel uncomfortable doing so, it is *his* problem.

Bizarre. You feel it is the womans problem if she is not comfortable dealing with a naked man who refuses to wear clothing?

They said they were happy to comply with a request to cover up as long as that request was reasonable. I asked who gets to decide what is reasonable. Which was a relevent question....

As often as humanly possible, the individual.


Ok, as you don't like people reading between the lines of what you say can you spell it out a bit more. Do you feel it is OK for someone to walk about with a swastika on their shirt? If someone is offended by a swastika is it the viewers fault or the wearers?....

Think that might be a Godwin there.....


You (apparently) feel it is ok to wear a tshirt that says "Fuck Everyone',

Correct.


which is about the same as actually saying "Fuck You" to everyone you see.

Its fair to state that that is indeed a possible interpretation


If someone says to someone "Fuck You" is it the speakers fault or the listeners fault if they are offended?

To a certain extent, alowing of course that they take that particular view you've outlined. it is actually the "listeners" reaction. "Fault" would not be the best term.


Why do you wear such a shirt anyway??

Because I find it amusing, and why not? I'm nearly 4 decades on this planet, and being a 'big boy' can do as suits me on my own time, generally. The days of wondering what others think as a major rationale for my choice of habedashery are long over. I suggest you likewise remove the stick from your behind.


Do you feel there is a line somewhere but are unrepared to state where you think it is? If so, why not???

O. a photo of child sex abuse - something like that.

Think that might be a Godwin there.....

It was not intended to be a nazi comparison or to define someone as nazis - I picked that as it is a well known symbol that I think it is fair to assume everyone has at least an idea on who the nazis were. And a symbol that many would not like to see people wearing. Basically as an easy group to pick out.

Without Godwin - can you state wether you feel it is ok for someone to walk about with a swastika? And if someone is offended it is the wearers fault or the viewers?


To a certain extent, alowing of course that they take that particular view you've outlined. it is actually the "listeners" reaction. "Fault" would not be the best term.
Can you clarify what this means? If the listener is offended but does not react it is the listeners fault for them being offensed for not being culturally broardminded not to be offended by someone coming up and saying 'Fuck You'? Or do you consider the listeners reaction (emotionally, verbially or physically) the listeners fault or the speakers fault?

If 'fault' is not the best term then what would be?

It was not intended to be a nazi comparison or to define someone as nazis - I picked that as it is a well known symbol that I think it is fair to assume everyone has at least an idea on who the nazis were. And a symbol that many would not like to see people wearing. Basically as an easy group to pick out
Without Godwin - can you state wether you feel it is ok for someone to walk about with a swastika? And if someone is offended it is the wearers fault or the viewers?.?

Its a matter of personal expression. The combination of the symbol and its assocations is bound to lead to reactions. "fault" is again rather the wrong way of puting it.


Can you clarify what this means? If the listener is offended but does not react it is the listeners fault for them being offensed for not being culturally broardminded not to be offended by someone coming up and saying 'Fuck You'? Or do you consider the listeners reaction (emotionally, verbially or physically) the listeners fault or the speakers fault?



Again you imply the mostnegative interpretation combined with the worst possible reaction in the mind of the viewer to create a scenario which fits your agenda.

So much of multiculturalism, hypocrisy of Democracy :D (The new dawn era)
"When you point a finger at someone, three fingers point back at you." (Chinese proverb.)

Fine, go ahead, save western liberalism by destroying everything its ever stood for and bring europe back to a time more like the 1300s.

Criminalizing dress because it looks "foreign" goes against everything western thought stands for, and is much more akin to the thinking of jihadists, regardless if its for a more "uniform" society or not.
Personally I wouldn't go as far as criminalising all islamic dress, I would probably just ban it in schools and all government departments. Regardless of how far I would go, you're going a little over the top by saying that doing this would bring us back to the 1300s. Plenty of European countries have some kind of curbs on islamic dress and they're still very modern. What I was saying is that what is said in the US constitution is completely irrelevant to someone from Britain. America isn't the center of the universe.

This is an issue that needs not talked about. If women want to wear their veil's let them, if they do not wish to wear them then they most likely were not wearing them in the first place. In a nation with rights they should have the choice to wear them.

Its a matter of personal expression. The combination of the symbol and its assocations is bound to lead to reactions. "fault" is again rather the wrong way of puting it.

Again you imply the mostnegative interpretation combined with the worst possible reaction in the mind of the viewer to create a scenario which fits your agenda.
Can you provide a better way to put it? Or the intepretation you intend?

Incidently - what is your take on the nudity scenario I mentioned? If Straw feels more comfortable being nude (and there are plenty of nudists out there) and a woman coming to see him is offended - should he cover up? Should he be required to cover up?

Should school teachers be allowed to be nude?

Nudity is an extreme case, but then so is a burqua.

Not much. You were saying western culture is a hodge podge of different styles and dress standards. I asked where in western culture is covering your face (except for when outside in the cold) a day to day practice? Uncovered faces are an almost universal western cultural standard.

And your question and comment are entirely irrelevant to the point. What we call "Western society" is already non-homogeneous. It already contains multiple viewpoints and multiple styles of dress and multiple customs. Adding another isn't going to break it.

Bizarre. You feel it is the womans problem if she is not comfortable dealing with a naked man who refuses to wear clothing?

How is that bizarre? Our reactions to things are our own. Who else's problem could it be?

A philosopher is sitting on the side of the road. A man walks up to him and says, "You are no better than a dog." The philosopher answers, "Thank you." When the man expresses his confusion, the philosopher answers, "Dogs are loyal and kind. They see the good things in life and enjoy them."
The philosopher could have chosen to be insulted, as was obviously intended. Instead, he chose to interpret it as a compliment. If he had chosen otherwise, whose fault would it have been if he was insulted?

Nudity is an extreme case, but then so is a burqua.

I really fail to see, at least in my minds eye, the similarity between a naked penis and a woman in a burqua - obviously you don't have this "problem". Again, you are determined to stretch to extremes to make a point which in reality does not exist.

I really fail to see, at least in my minds eye, the similarity between a naked penis and a woman in a burqua - obviously you don't have this "problem". Again, you are determined to stretch to extremes to make a point which in reality does not exist.

Good morning all :)

Well - Demrepublics seems to think the same principles apply as to who sould feel offended and the rights and wrongs of nudity as they do to full coverage. Was just seeing if you were the same.

Personally I can see the difference, i'm just scoping out your views.

On a scale of body coverage a full coverage of everything including the eyes is an extreme, you can't cover any more. Nudity is the opposite extreme. You can't cover less. And as I said - there's plenty of nudists out there we demand cover up except in dedicated 'free civil rights zones for nudists' on isolated beaches and private property where fences are high enough. We arrest them otherwise.

BTW - can you give your intepretations and such to the other question I asked in the post you replied to? You know my intepretation and seem to disagree with it, I would like to know yours if you don;t mind.
It already contains multiple viewpoints and multiple styles of dress and multiple customs. Adding another isn't going to break it.
There are common trends across those viewpoints. Facial coverage in day to day communication is strongle outside those trends. The Hijab does have plenty of precident in western culture as women in a large number of subcultures do cover their hair. Is it slighty more coverage than standard - but not outside the precident. Facial coverage is however alien to western culture.

Your philosopher example is both good and bad. Bad in the sense that if someone says something to you with the intest of causing offense i think it is pretty fair to say they are responsible for said offense. Saying they're not would be like saying the victim of an assult is responsible for feeling the pain of being punched, as they could with the right midset take pleasure from it.
It is a good example as it deals with intent - if a woman puts a full veil or a burqua on with the intent of seperating herself from western society who is responsible for difficulty in integration. For full relevence you have to know how many choose this to seperate themselves and how many do it out of choice/indoctrination to protect their modesty. A question neither of us, or anyone, can answer.

This is an issue that needs not talked about. If women want to wear their veil's let them, if they do not wish to wear them then they most likely were not wearing them in the first place. In a nation with rights they should have the choice to wear them.
If an issue can't be talked about then there is a very very big problem. Talking about things is one of the only ways to come to understandings on things. I don't agree with Nodonia or Demrepublics but I ahve learned about their viewpoints. Maybe eventualy we'd come to some understanding, although it's largely caught up in hyperbole (right word?now - *cough*mostly my faiut*cough* (though I think the thread will most likely die soon). When there is an issue and you don't talk about it because you are afraid of the reaction the chances are it'll grow and the end result will be far worse than the consequences you feared would happen if you talked.

An extreme example (but then covering the enitre face could be viewed as extreme too...) Say Straw prefers meeting his constituants while he is completely naked standing on his desk - it makes him feel more comfortable. If a woman (or man) visiting his office is offended by this is it their fault and their problem? Or should straw be expected to cover up for the comfort of those visiting?
Are you saying that the UK does not have laws regarding nudity in public places and no professional standards for behavior in the workplace? You seem bound and determined to ignore the difference between being naked and being clothed.

A woman being clothed does not violate or offend the cultural traditions of western society in any way at all. Western culture wears clothes, and western women cover their faces frequently. In fact, until major changes in fashion during the 20th century, it was common for western women go out veiled.

A woman or a man being naked in front of strangers IS out of keeping with western cultural traditions. So to compare one to the other is not valid.

In fact -- and again, I can only speak for the US, but I'll be surprised if the UK is all that radically different -- there are laws that govern nudity. If I walked into my local pol's office for an appointment and he met me naked, that would be indecent exposure, unless the office is inside his own home, where we're allowed to be naked if we like, according to several court decisions in lawsuits where one neighbor claimed to be traumatized by the sight of another neighbor's hairy ass.

But the point is, western culture has taboos about nudity. It has no taboos about being dressed.