NationStates Jolt Archive

Not the reaction you might think...

I dislike the veil. But last year, when I spent a month reporting from all over Afghanistan, I wore one the entire time — because Afghan society cannot yet tolerate unveiled women, and I wanted to connect with people and do my job effectively. I could have gone bare-headed, but it would have sent the hostile message that I didn't care about integrating with the society around me. Did I enjoy having to reconsider my anti-veil stance? Of course not. I detested how wobbly the veil made my beliefs feel, and I trashed it on my flight out of Kabul. But I was the one who had gone to Afghanistan; Afghanistan had not come to me. That made it my responsibility to deal with how my presence affected those around me.

I've thought about this constantly since the debate erupted in Britain over whether Muslim women should wear full-face veils. Prime Minister Tony Blair has backed calls by his party's parliamentary leader, Jack Straw, that Muslim women in Britain should refrain from covering their full faces, particularly when dealing with the wider society. The indignation of British Muslims — their refusal, really, to even have a conversation about the issue — strikes me as particularly delusional, given the climate of post-9/11 Europe. It would be like me traipsing as an American into hostile, post-Taliban Afghanistan, imagining I could bare my hair without alienating those around me. To expect this would involve an unhealthy relationship with reality.

The fact that the issue in Britain does not seem to be the veil per se, but the more extreme full-face covering known as the niqab, the comments of Blair and Straw seem perfectly reasonable to me. Neither of them asked Muslim women to abandon their belief in hijab, or the custom of veiling, altogether. Both zeroed in on the niqab, a minority practice considered extreme by even mainstream Muslim standards. (The niqab tradition is confined to certain regions of the Muslim world, parts of the Gulf, and Pakistan; a similar covering is known as the burqa in Afghanistan.) I come from a Muslim family and have spent years living in various Muslim communities around the Middle East. Every single Muslim female friend I've had, from pious to secular, veiled to vixen, has been unable to befriend, or even hold a proper conversation with a niqab-wearer. The young son of a close friend, raised in a large Muslim family in a large Muslim country, calls them "ninja ladies." Covering the face, whether in Yorkshire or Beirut, seems to send a universal message of separateness. If the full-face veil is considered creepy by many Muslim women in the Middle East, why wouldn't it cause a twinge of unease among ordinary British people with no tradition of veiling at all?

The idea that women in niqab can assimilate properly into a community or be effective as teachers distresses me, because it is at heart disingenuous. Clearly, meaningful social exchange requires a face. And the argument that non-verbal communication is inessential only addresses half the problem. The obscured woman, who can see her interlocutor clearly through her slits, is enjoying contact with a face; it's the other party, conversing with a tiny black tent, that bears the burden of the discomfort. It would be more sincere for niqab-wearers to say that they accept the cost of refusing to compromise on the niqab; that it will be considered provocative by their non-Muslim fellow citizens, that it might slow their own assimilation into British society.

It's no coincidence the British debate surrounds a teaching assistant who refused to take off her full-face veil around male colleagues. Niqabs in school are an even more delicate issue than niqabs at the supermarket or the park, for teachers serve as role models to children, and the niqab sends a controversial message that may or may not be appropriate in the classroom. Even more so than the headscarf, the niqab is premised on the traditional Muslim belief that uncovered women are sexually stimulating to men, who are presumed to be incapable of controlling themselves. In a Muslim society where many men hold such an ugly view of their own gender, perhaps a heavily veiled woman connotes no insult. But to a Western man living in a culture with very different norms of gender relations, the idea that a woman is covering her face and body because she considers him a potential sexual predator can seem deeply disrespectful.

Non-Muslim adult men may find this unpleasant, but in a diverse society, they are probably expected to just deal with it. Schoolchildren are a different matter altogether. They may not be briefed on the roots of such Islamic mores, but they'll still wonder why they can't see their teacher's face. I wouldn't want a niqab-wearer as a role model for my child, and I wouldn't want to explain that his teacher considers her bare face somehow immoral. It is ironic that living in an Islamic theocracy, this is something I would never have to do, while non-Muslim British parents are being asked to do so on grounds of cultural tolerance.

None of this is to say that I consider the wearing of the more commonplace form of hijab, a headscarf, objectionable. If people, British or otherwise, feel uncomfortable because a woman has a scarf on her head, that's not a concern to be taken seriously. Men who wear unattractive baseball caps make me uncomfortable, but I've gotten used to the world not being aesthetically designed to my taste. No, the issue is very specifically the niqab, and the obstacle it poses to human interaction and smooth integration. What does seem obvious is that the assimilation of British Muslims is a troubled process, and that intrusive squares of cloth should remain an open, but peripheral debate.

Oooppsss

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1547572,00.html

"I could have gone bare-headed, but it would have sent the hostile message that I didn't care about integrating with the society around me."

So, we have to "integrate" with Muslim societies lest we send a "hostile message", but Muslims don't have to "integrate" with our societies?

Typical Muslim arrogance.

"I could have gone bare-headed, but it would have sent the hostile message that I didn't care about integrating with the society around me."

So, we have to "integrate" with Muslim societies lest we send a "hostile message", but Muslims don't have to "integrate" with our societies?

Typical Muslim arrogance.

You should read this before you comment. Makes you seem stupid.

I don't think women should be forced to not wear a Niqab(freedom of expression you know), but it would help to integrate them into western society.....

I used be against people wearing things that were a prominent display of their religion. (Hijabs, crosses, funny hats, turbans, bangles whatnot), then I realized that they are actually a fantastic labor saving device. (For me).

You should read this before you comment. Makes you seem stupid.

He cares less about being stupid than being able to trash Muslims and blab about how evil and barbaric Islam is and how they should all be exterminated.

I don't see why people choosing to cover their faces is such a big deal, it doesn't seem so bad to me. If I was going to ban something, it'd be this (http://www.highheelshoemuseum.com/images/yasmina1.jpg). I just don't understand why women would choose to wear such things.

I don't see why people choosing to cover their faces is such a big deal, it doesn't seem so bad to me. If I was going to ban something, it'd be this (http://www.highheelshoemuseum.com/images/yasmina1.jpg). I just don't understand why women would choose to wear such things.

Nobody's talking about banning anything. Some people in the UK feel like the full face, burqa style covering makes it harder to assimilate into UK culture and harder for people to accept women who wear them. Some people also feel that teachers wearing them sends the wrong message to UK children. They are asking the very few Muslim women who wear them to not wear them in public or while teaching their children. No one is talking about forcing them not to. The article is written by a Muslim woman who agrees.

"I could have gone bare-headed, but it would have sent the hostile message that I didn't care about integrating with the society around me."

So, we have to "integrate" with Muslim societies lest we send a "hostile message", but Muslims don't have to "integrate" with our societies?

Typical Muslim arrogance.
You really have it out for Muslims don't you? Not just extremists, all of them.

Anyway, it is sensible that the reporter wears a veil in Afghanistan. It is also sensible that Muslims do not wear it in Britain.

He cares less about being stupid than being able to trash Muslims and blab about how evil and barbaric Islam is and how they should all be exterminated.
Not defending Mitanni here, but can't you go a thread without falsely accusing someone of desiring genocide?

Nobody's talking about banning anything.
I've heard talk about banning them, although thankfully most people don't agree with that.
Some people in the UK feel like the full face, burqa style covering makes it harder to assimilate into UK culture and harder for people to accept women who wear them.
I don't get all this talk about ''fitting in'' to UK culture, many of these women were born and raised in England. They're as British as I am. What exactly are they suposed to fit into anyway? There is no uniform that every British person wears. Should these muslim women dress like chavs or goths?

If people refuse to accept them, then it is not the fault of the women choosing to wear the veil. I think that people should be accepted whether their face can be seen or not. I'm sure that everyone here agrees, seeing as we can't see each others faces but still enjoy talking to one another.

Some people also feel that teachers wearing them sends the wrong message to UK children. They are asking the very few Muslim women who wear them to not wear them in public or while teaching their children. No one is talking about forcing them not to.
That particular teacher who was suspended was on the news today. She was saying that for integration to happen then women wearing veils should be allowed in the workplace and schools, so that others can become used to seeing women covered and realise that it is not such a big deal. I think that she made a good point.

Yes, people are talking about forcing them to stop wearing veils in public. I for one think that it's a bad idea.

The article is written by a Muslim woman who agrees.
Yes, I realised that.

So, we have to "integrate" with Muslim societies lest we send a "hostile message", but Muslims don't have to "integrate" with our societies?

Typical Muslim arrogance.

Given that the Muslim author of that article was saying the exact opposite, you've just made yourself look really stupid.

Not defending Mitanni here, but can't you go a thread without falsely accusing someone of desiring genocide?

I'm sorry, did you think it's a false accusation in this case?

I think there are a couple of distinct parts to this question.

1. Muslim women wearing veils in public.

When the author of the article goes to Afghanistan she CHOOSES to wear a veil. The important point being that she chooses to because she, and people she interacts with, would be uncomfortable otherwise, but she could have gone without the veil is she had wanted too. The least a western society can do is offer the same choice. Is it a good thing for peoples comfort that someone chooses to wear a veil.. no I don't think so.. but they should be able to if they really want to.

2. Muslim teacher wearing a veil in class.

I think this is a different issue. And dependant on the type of class she is teaching and the age of the children. Learning to interpret adult's facial expressions is an important part of a child’s education. I think if you are teaching young children then removing that connection is probably not a good thing.

The teacher in the middle of the situation makes a good point that the children may well gain something from the experience of learning from someone in a veil .. but my question is, at what cost? A math teacher could teach the whole years maths class in binary. The kids would learn a lot about binary.. it would be a valuable lesson... but is it worth the sacrifice made. I think the same is applicable when contrasting the lesson of dealing with someone in full headdress and learning about expression and social interaction.

If the teacher is going to teach maths to high school kids then, fine its unlikely to interfere. But if she is going to be teaching kindergarten then it would be a problem, and so an employer should have the right not to employ her on the basis that she would be unable to perform her job. Same way as if your music teacher was deaf. They may be an excellent teacher but they wouldn't be able to give the children everything they need.

I think there are a couple of distinct parts to this question.

1. Muslim women wearing veils in public.

When the author of the article goes to Afghanistan she CHOOSES to wear a veil. The important point being that she chooses to because she, and people she interacts with, would be uncomfortable otherwise, but she could have gone without the veil is she had wanted too. The least a western society can do is offer the same choice. Is it a good thing for peoples comfort that someone chooses to wear a veil.. no I don't think so.. but they should be able to if they really want to.*snip*Western society obviously does offer them the choice, unless there are some veil police going around teh UK that I haven't heard about. The point she's making is that she made the choice to assimilate a little into the culture she chose to go to. She's lamenting the fact that some of the people who choose to come to her country don't make the same choice.

I don't get all this talk about ''fitting in'' to UK culture, many of these women were born and raised in England. They're as British as I am.
They may happen to have a piece of paper which says they can live here but they still subscribe to a foreign culture which has no place in Britain.

What exactly are they suposed to fit into anyway? There is no uniform that every British person wears. Should these muslim women dress like chavs or goths?
Nobody's talking about a specific uniform here, but when women wear niqabs then they're deliberately opting for a conspicuous symbol. When they start trying to rock the boat then they have to expect to be disciminated against. Same as if I turned up to school wearing a suit of armour.

"I could have gone bare-headed, but it would have sent the hostile message that I didn't care about integrating with the society around me."

So, we have to "integrate" with Muslim societies lest we send a "hostile message", but Muslims don't have to "integrate" with our societies?

Typical Muslim arrogance.

Nope she says muslims SHOULD intergrate. At least lighten up a little. Keep the headscarf, lose the Full body Grim reaper look.

They may happen to have a piece of paper which says they can live here but they still subscribe to a foreign culture which has no place in Britain.

Finally, someone who agrees with me, at least partially. The piece of paper means nothing to me.

Nobody's talking about a specific uniform here, but when women wear niqabs then they're deliberately opting for a conspicuous symbol. When they start trying to rock the boat then they have to expect to be disciminated against. Same as if I turned up to school wearing a suit of armour.

Point in case: on Wednesday, I went to school as the Grim Reaper for the last day of school (everyone was dressed up). Afterwards we went to the mall. I got a few funny looks there.

I don't get all this talk about ''fitting in'' to UK culture, many of these women were born and raised in England. They're as British as I am. What exactly are they suposed to fit into anyway? There is no uniform that every British person wears. Should these muslim women dress like chavs or goths?


There actually used to be a british culture - I've read about it in George Orwell books and essays - but it was abolished in the mid sixties for not being "right-on" enough.

There's odd pockets left here and there. I've no doubt new labour will dispense with them as soon as possible however.

Why is it that christians are always trying to tell muslims what to wear? You never see muslim people saying "That Tony Blair should stop wearing that suit. It's to primitive."

I have an idea: POLITICIANS CAN GET THEIR NOSE OUT OF WEAR IT DOESN'T BELONG!!!

There actually used to be a british culture - I've read about it in George Orwell books and essays - but it was abolished in the mid sixties for not being "right-on" enough.

There's odd pockets left here and there. I've no doubt new labour will dispense with them as soon as possible however.
It's unfortunate how many people in this country seem to take pride in the way this country has been turning into a land with no culture of its own. We seem to be always either apeing america or trying to appease every cultural minority who lands here, while denying our own culture and history while perpetuating this myth that we've been this wonderful multicultural society for thousands of years. It's a shame the way this country's going.

It's unfortunate how many people in this country seem to take pride in the way this country has been turning into a land with no culture of its own. We seem to be always either apeing america or trying to appease every cultural minority who lands here, while denying our own culture and history while perpetuating this myth that we've been this wonderful multicultural society for thousands of years. It's a shame the way this country's going.

Yeah must be terrible, the world coming to you rather than you coming to them. Cultural identity is a problem these days because the world is a smaller place. International travel and communication make it easy to bring the rest of the world to your doorstep.
The rest of the world has had to deal with being westernised for centuries and now the reverse is happening.. its going to be tough but I imagine you will have to deal with it the same way they did. Maintain your culture personaly but don't expect everyone to join in.

Why is it that christians are always trying to tell muslims what to wear? You never see muslim people saying "That Tony Blair should stop wearing that suit. It's to primitive."

I have an idea: POLITICIANS CAN GET THEIR NOSE OUT OF WEAR IT DOESN'T BELONG!!!

Funny idea: why don't bank robbers all decide to wear such garments? It renders them almost impossible to identify, and they can claim it violates their religion to remove it. ;)

It's unfortunate how many people in this country seem to take pride in the way this country has been turning into a land with no culture of its own. We seem to be always either apeing america or trying to appease every cultural minority who lands here, while denying our own culture and history while perpetuating this myth that we've been this wonderful multicultural society for thousands of years. It's a shame the way this country's going.

It's actually very sad. There is this sort of assumption that since the UK was a result of multiculturalism in the past there was nothing unique about it, and so it could just be dispensed with at no great loss.

I disagree. What irks most is that, by and large, the people who were all to willing to dismiss britishness and its traditions as hidebound and worthless, are exactly the same type of people who now grumble about 'chavism'. Yet they can't see the connection between the loss british identity and the rise of chavish behaviour.

Anyway, it is sensible that the reporter wears a veil in Afghanistan. It is also sensible that Muslims do not wear it in Britain.
Or at least not making such a big deal of people saying they prefer a woman not to cover her face, since in Western countries you can wear whatever the heck you want.

Yeah must be terrible, the world coming to you rather than you coming to them. Cultural identity is a problem these days because the world is a smaller place. International travel and communication make it easy to bring the rest of the world to your doorstep.
The rest of the world has had to deal with being westernised for centuries and now the reverse is happening.. its going to be tough but I imagine you will have to deal with it the same way they did. Maintain your culture personaly but don't expect everyone to join in.


How has "the rest of the world has had to deal with being westernised for centuries"? You mean like the ottoman empire, china...? What exactly.

How has "the rest of the world has had to deal with being westernised for centuries"? You mean like the ottoman empire, china...? What exactly.

Does colonization ring a bell. You know, Spain, Portugal, France, the UK?

Does colonization ring a bell. You know, Spain, Portugal, France, the UK?

Well that's imperialism though, isn't it.

Point in case: on Wednesday, I went to school as the Grim Reaper for the last day of school (everyone was dressed up). Afterwards we went to the mall. I got a few funny looks there.

Should've offered free palm readings.

Well that's imperialism though, isn't it.

Practiced by Western countries, wasn't it?

Practiced by Western countries, wasn't it?

Not always. Obviously.

Anyway the two things aren't the same.

Not always. Obviously.

Anyway the two things aren't the same.

So, according to you the West didn't use imperialism to impose its culture?

Why do I speak European languages then?

In Phila. we fixed that problem....bank robbers chose to wear the Muslim Garb (as we choose to call it)...so now we just shoot or kick ass all the garb wearers so they tend not to wear the stuff...Its hard to get stuff done when people are either running away from you or surrendering and hitting the " call the cops button " every place you go ...:p

For every new thing that is banned by the tyrrany of majority, we move one step closer to totalitarianism. As much as I detest the very idea of subjugated women being forced to hide their face in public by a backwards and borderline evil culture, actually banning veils cannot be a good thing.
For schoolteachers however, it is entirely different. Psychological studies have shown that 80% of human interaction (in person) is non-verbal. ie: facial expressions, body language etc. I for one wouldn't want my children to be taught the lessons of life by text messaging or any other type of restricted medium, so I agree with the school which sacked the woman for refusing to show her face in public.
Apparently she didn't even wear it for her job interview so she obviously had some kind of agenda. Arrogant bitch.

So, according to you the West didn't use imperialism to impose its culture?

Actually, quite often not I would imagine. If they had, I would suppose the process couldn't really happen in reverse now could it?

Why do I speak European languages then?

Your parents spoke them I would imagine. Either that or you live somewhere where they are spoken. Hardly dispositive at any rate. If you are saying it is owing to imperial policy then you have to explain why some people in the UK can speak urdu but not english.

Practiced by Western countries, wasn't it?
Well the Arab countries got to practise it before in Africa, then the Western ones thought they'd join up in the game. Poor Africans get screwed every time. :p

Actually, quite often not I would imagine. If they had, I would suppose the process couldn't really happen in reverse now could it?
European imperialism erased a good number of cultures around the world, some completely, some almost completely. In the cases of Africa and Asia the impact was limited because of geographical isolation, short period of occupation, high population, or military might, all of which meant Europe couldn't wipe them out as completely as in America or the Pacific Islands; but it doesn't mean the process didn't happen there.

Your parents spoke them I would imagine. Either that or you live somewhere where they are spoken. Hardly dispositive at any rate. If you are saying it is owing to imperial policy then you have to explain why some people in the UK can speak urdu but not english.

But the place where I come from is nowhere near Europe. I speak no American languages, except for a few words of things and places; and my traditions are mostly European too. Was it not Spanish Imperial policy that caused this? Or else how do you explain it? Happy vibes from Spain?

Some people in the UK can speak Urdu but not English because the process of Imperialism was different in their part of the world, much more difficult for Britain then and there, but that doesn't mean there wasn't one, and parts of their culture may have been influenced by it, even if not their language.

How has "the rest of the world has had to deal with being westernised for centuries"? You mean like the ottoman empire, china...? What exactly.

So Countries that were "Colonised" didn't have to deal its effects on their culture? You think Indians didn't have a sense of cultural loss from when the Raj was around. You think Malaysia was exactly the same pre British rule and Post? Europe has been bringing its culture (whether through force or otherwise) to the rest of the world litereally for centuries.

I am in no way saying it was a bad thing.. but having to deal with outside influence on a cultural heritage is pretty much par for the course for most of the world... the idea that a few minority groups in the UK are resonsible for the death of british culture is a bit rich. Thats all I was saying

Well the Arab countries got to practise it before in Africa, then the Western ones thought they'd join up in the game. Poor Africans get screwed every time. :p

Yup. That's for sure. The first big imperialist were the Egyptians, though, long before the Arabs. Their cultural achievements still find echo today having influenced the Middle East and Greece.

The other great dominators have been the Chinese. If it hadn't been for the complacency of some emperors (caused by lack of global competitors to keep them on their toes) the world would be Chinese now instead of European.

I'm sorry, did you think it's a false accusation in this case?
Yes. It is also a false accusation in Ny Nordland's case.

Why is it that christians are always trying to tell muslims what to wear?
I don't think Christians have anything to do with this. It's unwise to assume all Britons to be Christians.

Or at least not making such a big deal of people saying they prefer a woman not to cover her face, since in Western countries you can wear whatever the heck you want.
It would be nice if that principle could be followed absolutely, but for the sake of peace, dialogue and tolerance the extreme coverings where the face cannot be seen, should not be worn in a multicultural society. I have no problem with hair and neck coverings.

Actually, quite often not I would imagine. If they had, I would suppose the process couldn't really happen in reverse now could it?
That is absolute bullshit. If Britain didn't impose it's culture through imperialism why is Ireland 99% English speaking, for example? Maybe you don't know history but between the 17th and 19th centuries the British actually outlawed the teaching of Irish.

Yup. That's for sure. The first big imperialist were the Egyptians, though, long before the Arabs. Their cultural achievements still find echo today having influenced the Middle East and Greece.

The other great dominators have been the Chinese. If it hadn't been for the complacency of some emperors (caused by lack of global competitors to keep them on their toes) the world would be Chinese now instead of European.
Ugh, let's just say I am glad things didn't quite turn out that way. Just makes me laugh though when people think that Europe is the only continent in the world to have colonial superpowers with violent streaks - almost all the continents had their share of these.

European imperialism erased a good number of cultures around the world, some completely, some almost completely. In the cases of Africa and Asia the impact was limited because of geographical isolation, short period of occupation, high population, or military might, all of which meant Europe couldn't wipe them out as completely as in America or the Pacific Islands; but it doesn't mean the process didn't happen there.

That's genocide. And clearly wrong. It is not however westernization.



But the place where I come from is nowhere near Europe. I speak no American languages, except for a few words of things and places; and my traditions are mostly European too. Was it not Spanish Imperial policy that caused this? Or else how do you explain it? Happy vibes from Spain?

Some people in the UK can speak Urdu but not English because the process of Imperialism was different in their part of the world, much more difficult for Britain then and there, but that doesn't mean there wasn't one, and parts of their culture may have been influenced by it, even if not their language.

You see you agree with me actually. Imperialism does not necessarily lead to westernization. It can, but one does not have to follow the other. Nor has the entire world been westernized for centuries either. Which is the point I was originally addressing.

You see you agree with me actually. Imperialism does not necessarily lead to westernization.

Of course not. Imperialism is just a way to do things. It doesn't have to lead to westernization and it doesn't have to be caused by the West. However, the current westernization age started with European imperialism, which started centuries ago and touched practically the entire world, in the same way that World War II was a world war even though plenty of places didn't see any action. I.e. all cultures have been touched by westernization (positively as well as negatively) though not everyone directly or in the same measure.

So Countries that were "Colonised" didn't have to deal its effects on their culture? You think Indians didn't have a sense of cultural loss from when the Raj was around. You think Malaysia was exactly the same pre British rule and Post? Europe has been bringing its culture (whether through force or otherwise) to the rest of the world litereally for centuries.

I am in no way saying it was a bad thing.. but having to deal with outside influence on a cultural heritage is pretty much par for the course for most of the world... the idea that a few minority groups in the UK are resonsible for the death of british culture is a bit rich. Thats all I was saying

I didn't say there were no effects on the culture. (Though by and large they were smaller than you suggest in east asia). What I am saying is that it wasn't a wholesale westernization effort. For the most part it was economic and not cultural exploitation.

And we are obviously talking at cross purposes. I don't blame immigrants for the death of british culture per se. I actually blamed the british themselves for not valuing it.

In Phila. we fixed that problem....bank robbers chose to wear the Muslim Garb (as we choose to call it)...so now we just shoot or kick ass all the garb wearers so they tend not to wear the stuff...Its hard to get stuff done when people are either running away from you or surrendering and hitting the " call the cops button " every place you go ...:p

Correct me if I am wrong, but did you just say that where you are from, you shoot people based on what they wear? So much for rule of law.

That is absolute bullshit. If Britain didn't impose it's culture through imperialism why is Ireland 99% English speaking, for example? Maybe you don't know history but between the 17th and 19th centuries the British actually outlawed the teaching of Irish.

Ireland's not in the west now?

Seriously anglo-irish history goes back a lot further than the 17th century. It has nothing to do with european colonialism and the rest of the world. It's not like Ireland was this little undiscovered country until oliver cromwell happened to notice it across the sea. There is far more to it than that.

Of course not. Imperialism is just a way to do things. It doesn't have to lead to westernization and it doesn't have to be caused by the West. However, the current westernization age started with European imperialism, which started centuries ago and touched practically the entire world, in the same way that World War II was a world war even though plenty of places didn't see any action. I.e. all cultures have been touched by westernization (positively as well as negatively) though not everyone directly or in the same measure.

And conversly the cultures of the places that were colonized effected the colonizers. What I am objecting to is the notion that there has been some all out effort - driven through imperialism - to turn the entire world into a carbon copy of western europe (read france, spain, UK, portugal) going on for centuries.

Westernization has only been going on in that fashion since WWII, and mostly as a response to the cold war.

And conversly the cultures of the places that were colonized effected the colonizers. What I am objecting to is the notion that there has been some all out effort - driven through imperialism - to turn the entire world into a carbon copy of western europe (read france, spain, UK, portugal) going on for centuries.
Add Germany and Holland to that list, as both were major colonial powers. Such an effort would be ridiculous of course - Western Europe isn't monolithic, as anyone can attest that each of those countries has huge differences between one another.

I didn't say there were no effects on the culture. (Though by and large they were smaller than you suggest in east asia). What I am saying is that it wasn't a wholesale westernization effort. For the most part it was economic and not cultural exploitation.

Oh, there was. Very conscious and very wholesale. The Spanish looking to convert all newly discovered lands to Catholicism, the Dutch taking resources and labor in the East Indies, Britain taking on the "white man's burden", the US forcing markets open in Asia, etc. etc.

All of these were wholesale efforts to get other cultures to act and behave like the West. Economic exploitation does count because it depends and impacts on culture, in many cases forcing peoples to change their religion, language, and traditions in order to make it easier for the West to trade and deal with them.

And we are obviously talking at cross purposes. I don't blame immigrants for the death of british culture per se. I actually blamed the british themselves for not valuing it.

This is true and is happening in a number of countries. In an effort to be accommodating to new immigrants (and perhaps through a misplaced sense of blame) many have also failed to appreciate their own culture and enrich it. The problem is that this creates the conditions for a backlash.

Add Germany and Holland to that list, as both were major colonial powers. Such an effort would be ridiculous of course - Western Europe isn't monolithic, as anyone can attest that each of those countries has huge differences between one another.

Yes, I forgot the Netherlands. Dutch East indies and all. You could add belgium to this list I suppose as well.

Germany was rather ephemeral as an imperial power however, don't you think?

In any case I was just hitting the biggies.

Yes, I forgot the Netherlands. Dutch East indies and all. You could add belgium to this list I suppose as well.

Germany was rather ephemeral as an imperial power however, don't you think?

In any case I was just hitting the biggies.
Ephemeral, yes. Did it leave an impact though? You bet. There are still German settlers in Southwest Africa and South Africa. Germany didn't really do much colonising, but it left its mark out there. Belgium could definitely be added, yes.

This is true and is happening in a number of countries. In an effort to be accommodating to new immigrants (and perhaps through a misplaced sense of blame) many have also failed to appreciate their own culture and enrich it. The problem is that this creates the conditions for a backlash.
I would add that the problem is also that this diminishes cultural variety throughout the world - when cultures start losing respect for themselves, they die. Although many discount this, I think they do so foolishly - cultures are the culmination of generations of traditions and a way of life. Letting them just perish is always a shame.

Oh, there was. Very conscious and very wholesale. The Spanish looking to convert all newly discovered lands to Catholicism, the Dutch taking resources and labor in the East Indies, Britain taking on the "white man's burden", the US forcing markets open in Asia, etc. etc.

All of these were wholesale efforts to get other cultures to act and behave like the West. Economic exploitation does count because it depends and impacts on culture, in many cases forcing peoples to change their religion, language, and traditions in order to make it easier for the West to trade and deal with them.

In the case of the spanish, I don't disagree. But when I said wholesale, I meant worldwide. There has not been a concerted effort to make everyone outside of western europe: dress; speak; think; purchase, and behave, like the western europe going on for centuries. Which is why I originally tossed out the examples of the Ottoman Empire and China. (Now post WWII we could argue otherwise, but perversely the real effort to westernize the entire world has co-incided with a decline in the appreciation of western culture in the west itself).

Ephemeral, yes. Did it leave an impact though? You bet. There are still German settlers in Southwest Africa and South Africa. Germany didn't really do much colonising, but it left its mark out there. Belgium could definitely be added, yes.

To be fair to the germans - not that doing that is my wont - they have probably had a disproportionate effect because of their cultural influence on other european powers, rather than directly through colonization.

I would add that the problem is also that this diminishes cultural variety throughout the world - when cultures start losing respect for themselves, they die. Although many discount this, I think they do so foolishly - cultures are the culmination of generations of traditions and a way of life. Letting them just perish is always a shame.

It's logically impossible for a culture to "lose respect for itself". A culture is pretty much by definition the things a person respects and holds dear, so if they don't respect something, it's not part of their culture. The biggest mistake so-called "defenders of culture" make is assuming that culture has anything to do with the borders of nation-states. There isn't a British culture today, and there wasn't one for most of British history. People were Cockney, or Cornish, or Welsh, or person-from-some-random-tiny-village. These days, people are chavs, or goths, or "normal people", or Muslims, or Dungeons and Dragons players. There isn't a British culture, and by extension there certainly isn't a "western culture", though many cultures in the west do share certain traits.

To be fair to the germans - not that doing that is my wont - they have probably had a disproportionate effect because of their cultural influence on other european powers, rather than directly through colonization.
Very true.

*snip*
All of which I am aware - however, when one culture starts holding itself back out of fear of offending another culture, it begins self-destructing. As you said, by definition a culture is those things that people place value on. If they are too afraid to, then the culture will die. I will argue that there is a Western culture, and that it is made up of a subset of cultures (which are then further divided downwards and so on - ultimately people will feel more loyalty to the more "localised" or "personalized" cultures). This would amount to the same thing you said, but in a reverse fashion.

Ireland's not in the west now?

Seriously anglo-irish history goes back a lot further than the 17th century. It has nothing to do with european colonialism and the rest of the world. It's not like Ireland was this little undiscovered country until oliver cromwell happened to notice it across the sea. There is far more to it than that.
Ireland is just one of dozens of possible examples, how about Canada or the large portions of west Africa that are francophone?

Ireland is just one of dozens of possible examples, how about Canada or the large portions of west Africa that are francophone?
Wasn't Canada settled by Anglos and French to begin with?

Very true.


All of which I am aware - however, when one culture starts holding itself back out of fear of offending another culture, it begins self-destructing. As you said, by definition a culture is those things that people place value on. If they are too afraid to, then the culture will die. I will argue that there is a Western culture, and that it is made up of a subset of cultures (which are then further divided downwards and so on - ultimately people will feel more loyalty to the more "localised" or "personalized" cultures). This would amount to the same thing you said, but in a reverse fashion.

The culture won't die, because at any time the people have to have something as their culture. The culture simply loses some aspects, and gains others, but claiming that at one point it's the old culture and at another the old culture's dead is trying to place an essence that doesn't exist. If people stop caring about occasionally seeing women with veils on the streets (or if, conversely, a culture starts caring less about wearing veils) then the culture is not dying, one aspect of it is changing. That in no way means that the rest of the culture is going to radically change, or disappear, or "die", merely that the culture has moved from holding one belief to holding another.

Wasn't Canada settled by Anglos and French to begin with?

It was settled by (I guess one could call them) Siberians to begin with. Then there was a tiny amount of settlement by Vikings much later, then finally Anglos and French. And then the Anglos colonized the French.

It was settled by (I guess one could call them) Siberians to begin with. Then there was a tiny amount of settlement by Vikings much later, then finally Anglos and French. And then the Anglos colonized the French.
So then how does this amount to Westernisation? One Western power colonizing the other.

The culture won't die, because at any time the people have to have something as their culture. The culture simply loses some aspects, and gains others, but claiming that at one point it's the old culture and at another the old culture's dead is trying to place an essence that doesn't exist. If people stop caring about occasionally seeing women with veils on the streets (or if, conversely, a culture starts caring less about wearing veils) then the culture is not dying, one aspect of it is changing. That in no way means that the rest of the culture is going to radically change, or disappear, or "die", merely that the culture has moved from holding one belief to holding another.
I'll put it another way then - I am interested in conserving those elements of Western cultures (the very basic ones, such as civil liberties) which I find to be most valuable and worthy of preservation. These are aspects of the culture which I would not consider subject to sacrifice - I wouldn't want to be part of any culture which allowed such ideals to erode. I am also against Statist intervention in forcing integration upon unwilling domestic populations. This distorts a culture's organic element.

Ireland is just one of dozens of possible examples, how about Canada or the large portions of west Africa that are francophone?

No, Ireland is not one of dozens of examples at all. Ireland is part of europe and therefore has no place in this discussion. Jesus; we might as well be talking about Hanover or Bernicia or something.

Wasn't Canada settled by Anglos and French to begin with?

Hmm, eastern Canada had 'skraelings' or somesuch according to the vikings. I don't know if they were year round residents however. (Most likely not given the descriptions).

So then how does this amount to Westernisation? One Western power colonizing the other.

The Anglo, French, and sort-of-but-not-really Vikings (as in sort of included, not sort of Vikings) colonized the Siberian colonists.

I'll put it another way then - I am interested in conserving those elements of Western cultures (the very basic ones, such as civil liberties) which I find to be most valuable and worthy of preservation. These are aspects of the culture which I would not consider subject to sacrifice - I wouldn't want to be part of any culture which allowed such ideals to erode.

All very understandable, (though I would take issue with the concept that there is some sort of slippery-slope cultural "erosion" process at work), but it doesn't really relate to what's being argued here with culture. Few nations are restricting their own civil liberties (or cultures thereof) in capitulation to immigrants. If anything, civil liberties tend to erode in the opposite direction, as backlash against immigrants or in attempts to make them assimilate.

All very understandable, (though I would take issue with the concept that there is some sort of slippery-slope cultural "erosion" process at work), but it doesn't really relate to what's being argued here with culture. Few nations are restricting their own civil liberties (or cultures thereof) in capitulation to immigrants. If anything, civil liberties tend to erode in the opposite direction, as backlash against immigrants or in attempts to make them assimilate.
There is a growing number of incidents that would indicate otherwise though - a growth in deleterious mentalities, not so much on part of the minorities themselves, but on part of those who pander to their every whim. For instance, a Judge in the UK which recently ruled that all a rapist had to do to right his wrong was to apologize to his victim. Why? Because the fact that he was Indian (ie of a foreign culture, ergo somehow not aware that Swedish women in Britain weren't fond of being raped) was a mitigating factor... These negative mentalities, in turn, lead to said backlashes. It's highly cyclical. This is why I speak of not compromizing certain values.

The Anglo, French, and sort-of-but-not-really Vikings (as in sort of included, not sort of Vikings) colonized the Siberian colonists.
Lol so they westernized some former colonists. I see. I think then the Africans (and some Asian & American regions) are the only cases of actual original colonization (although Africa, in certain parts, is debatable, given that it already had been colonized by Arab invaders) and subsequent Westernization.

There is a growing number of incidents that would indicate otherwise though - a growth in deleterious mentalities, not so much on part of the minorities themselves, but on part of those who pander to their every whim. For instance, a Judge in the UK which recently ruled that all a rapist had to do to right his wrong was to apologize to his victim. Why? Because the fact that he was Indian was a mitigating factor... These negative mentalities, in turn, lead to said backlashes. It's highly cyclical. This is why I speak of not compromizing certain values.

Hmm...I would have to say that the justice system (or indeed the legal system) is hardly part of any culture besides it's own, and that culture doesn't care very much about civil liberties, except in terms of their political use. If the question is more about whether actual civil liberties are threatened, though...yes, it's probably a dangerous precedent to let someone's "culture" determine the outcome of a case. The point at which courts and parliaments start believing that their systems of laws and rights are dependent on culture and history rather than on abstract moral rules (however inaccurate those may be), is the point at which civil liberties start to crumble. Countries don't need to universally impose culture, they need to universally impose law, and they need to recognize the difference between those two things.

Lol so they westernized some former colonists. I see. I think then the Africans (and some Asian & American regions) are the only cases of actual original colonization (although Africa, in certain parts, is debatable, given that it already had been colonized by Arab invaders) and subsequent Westernization.

By Siberian colonists I meant what Canadians call Aboriginals or First Peoples (because Canadians are uber-PC), and what Americans call Native Americans or Indians. There were significant amounts in Canada, and they got genocided/assimilated/westernized only a bit less than the American ones.

Hmm...I would have to say that the justice system (or indeed the legal system) is hardly part of any culture besides it's own, and that culture doesn't care very much about civil liberties, except in terms of their political use. If the question is more about whether actual civil liberties are threatened, though...yes, it's probably a dangerous precedent to let someone's "culture" determine the outcome of a case. The point at which courts and parliaments start believing that their systems of laws and rights are dependent on culture and history rather than on abstract moral rules (however inaccurate those may be), is the point at which civil liberties start to crumble. Countries don't need to universally impose culture, they need to universally impose law, and they need to recognize the difference between those two things.
And this is exactly what I mean - this Judge should not have seen culture as a mitigating (or aggravating) factor. He should have even-handedly laid down the law. Now, how much a legal system is part of a culture is debatable - ultimately the laws and practises of each nation (or even community) are partially influenced by cultural considerations (in the West, besides Roman Law and Common Law, customary practises are considered to be a source of law, even if minor). This is a digression though - what essentially matters is that the Judge enforces the rules of the system in the most equitable manner. It's when this ceases that all else begins to erode. As you said, the State's only role is to universally impose law in this case - not culture, and I agree. Culture is something organic - the law is something borne of reason. Hopefully I have made myself clearer now.

And this is exactly what I mean - this Judge should not have seen culture as a mitigating (or aggravating) factor. He should have even-handedly laid down the law. Now, how much a legal system is part of a culture is debatable - ultimately the laws and practises of each nation (or even community) are partially influenced by cultural considerations (in the West, besides Roman Law and Common Law, customary practises are considered to be a source of law, even if minor). This is a digression though - what essentially matters is that the Judge enforces the rules of the system in the most equitable manner. It's when this ceases that all else begins to erode. As you said, the State's only role is to universally impose law in this case - not culture, and I agree. Culture is something organic - the law is something borne of reason. Hopefully I have made myself clearer now.

Thus we end up basically agreeing aside from terminological and rhetorical issues, and talking about a topic that has nothing to do with niquabs (or however they're spelled). And I'm off.

Thus we end up basically agreeing aside from terminological and rhetorical issues, and talking about a topic that has nothing to do with niquabs (or however they're spelled). And I'm off.
Yep, fairly standard night on NS. :) Nighty.

Veil is now banned in hospitals...

http://www.express.co.uk/news_detail.html?sku=564
The veil is banned in hospitals
16/10/06
By Johanna Leggatt, Cyril Dixon and Gabriel Milland

THE backlash against the veil grew yesterday as it was banned from hospitals.

Muslim medical students were barred from wearing it when they talk to hospital patients.

The move was ordered to "help to aid good communications" between Muslim medical students, their colleagues and patients.

Race minister Phil Woolas demanded the sacking of a primary school teaching assistant suspended for refusing to remove her veil in classes.

He said Aishah Azmi, 24, "put herself in a position where she can’t do her job" at the Church of England school in Dewsbury, West Yorkshire.

Also, Shadow Home Secretary David Davis accused Muslim leaders of taking Britain towards "voluntary apartheid" by expecting preferential treatment.

The bar on a full-face veil was ordered at Birmingham University school of medicine. Chiefs decided that Islamic women can cover their faces in lectures and around campus but not in the "clinical environments" of hospital buildings and GPs’ surgeries.

Its women Muslim students must show their faces if they are talking to patients in hospital or surgery or if they are in meetings with other medical staff.

The school has 450 students of all faiths and sends them for practice to a number of different hospitals and primary care units, including the University Hospital of Birmingham NHS Trust.

Only in the sterile surroundings of an operating theatre can they cover their faces – with regulation surgical masks.

A spokesman said: "We do not place restrictions on the wearing of headscarves by staff or students, except in cases where they are required to work in a clinical environment.

"This is particularly the case when it involves direct contact with patients. In these cases students are allowed to wear a headdress as part of their religious observance, as long as it does not cover the face.

"This is necessary to help aid communications with patients and other colleagues."

Last year, Imperial College in London banned students from wearing Islamic headscarves in a security clampdown in the wake of the London suicide bombings.

Security guards were ordered to challenge "unrecognisable individuals" and throw them off the campus if they refused to expose their faces – despite protests from the college’s large Islamic contingent.

But the issue has sparked debate among young Muslims who are studying to become doctors and conflict has arisen between students and patients.

One report in the student version of the British Medical Journal outlined the difficulties witnessed by students and fully-trained staff.

"Although no one is deliberately obstructive or discriminatory against such students, there is a tension between the needs of the students, the expectations of the medical profession and the needs and expectations of the patients," it said.

Aideen Soke, policy officer for the Council of Heads of medical Schools, told the magazine: "Most schools would expect students’ faces to be visible at all times.

"When this was discussed by the council’s education sub-committee, it was believed that covering the face while meeting a patient is unacceptable as it breaches the duty ‘to make the care of the patient your first concern’ and to ‘make sure your personal beliefs do not prejudice your patient’s care’.

"There was general agreement that many patients would be upset by meeting a student or doctor who insisted on keeping their face covered."

Although the General Medical Council has not published any guidance on the issue, it has issued a statement warning of the possible dangers.

It said: "We do not consider that wearing a face veil, in and of itself, necessarily has any effect on a doctor’s ability to practise medicine.

"However, good communication between patients and doctors is essential to effective care and relationships of trust, and patients may find that a face veil presents an obstacle to effective communication."

Yesterday, Birmingham’s move was backed by Higher Education Minister Bill Rammell who said he supported universities which banned Muslim students and staff from wearing the veil.

"Many teachers would feel uncomfortable about their ability to teach students who were covering their faces," he said.

Muslim Labour MP Khalid Mahmood, whose constituency is in Birmingham, said: "We have to consider the safety and security of all, as there are times when people must be identified.

"Removal is fine where professional issues are called into question, when doctors and nurses meet with patients."

The debate was sparked by Commons Leader Jack Straw’s admission that he asked Muslim women to remove their veils at his constituency surgeries.

Former Home Secretary Mr Straw said he felt the veil made community relations "difficult" and removing it would improve communication. On Saturday, scores of Muslims protested outside Mr Straw’s morning surgery in Blackburn.

Shadow Home Secretary Mr Davis warned that isolated Muslim communities would create more home-grown terrorists and claimed Labour had a "confused, confusing and counter-productive attitude towards integration".

Muslim leaders risked "voluntary apartheid" in Britain and there was a feeling that some expected special protection from criticism, he said.

He added: "Religious leaders have to understand that they should not try to change Britain."

An interesting article by a muslim journalist who experiments with the niqab

http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,1924101,00.html

'Idon't wear the niqab because I don't think it's necessary," says the woman behind the counter in the Islamic dress shop in east London. "We do sell quite a few of them, though." She shows me how to wear the full veil. I would have thought that one size fits all but it turns out I'm a size 54. I pay my £39 and leave with three pieces of black cloth folded inside a bag.


The next morning I put these three pieces on as I've been shown. First the black robe, or jilbab, which zips up at the front. Then the long rectangular hijab that wraps around my head and is secured with safety pins. Finally the niqab, which is a square of synthetic material with adjustable straps, a slit of about five inches for my eyes and a tiny heart-shaped bit of netting, which I assume is to let some air in.

I look at myself in my full-length mirror. I'm horrified. I have disappeared and somebody I don't recognise is looking back at me. I cannot tell how old she is, how much she weighs, whether she has a kind or a sad face, whether she has long or short hair, whether she has any distinctive facial features at all. I've seen this person in black on the television and in newspapers, in the mountains of Afghanistan and the cities of Saudi Arabia, but she doesn't look right here, in my bedroom in a terraced house in west London. I do what little I can to personalise my appearance. I put on my oversized man's watch and make sure the bottoms of my jeans are visible. I'm so taken aback by how dissociated I feel from my own reflection that it takes me over an hour to pluck up the courage to leave the house.

I've never worn the niqab, the hijab or the jilbab before. Growing up in a Muslim household in Bradford in the 1970s and 80s, my Islamic dress code consisted of a school uniform worn with trousers underneath. At home I wore the salwar kameez, the long tunic and baggy trousers, and a scarf around my shoulders. My parents only instructed me to cover my hair when I was in the presence of the imam, reading the Qur'an, or during the call to prayer. Today I see Muslim girls 10, 20 years younger than me shrouding themselves in fabric. They talk about identity, self-assurance and faith. Am I missing out on something?

On the street it takes just seconds for me to discover that there are different categories of stare. Elderly people stop dead in their tracks and glare; women tend to wait until you have passed and then turn round when they think you can't see; men just look out of the corners of their eyes. And young children - well, they just stare, point and laugh.

I have coffee with a friend on the high street. She greets my new appearance with laughter and then with honesty. "Even though I can't see your face, I can tell you're nervous. I can hear it in your voice and you keep tugging at the veil."

The reality is, I'm finding it hard to breathe. There is no real inlet for air and I can feel the heat of every breath I exhale, so my face just gets hotter and hotter. The slit for my eyes keeps slipping down to my nose, so I can barely see a thing. Throughout the day I trip up more times than I care to remember. As for peripheral vision, it's as if I'm stuck in a car buried in black snow. I can't fathom a way to drink my cappuccino and when I become aware that everybody in the coffee shop is wondering the same thing, I give up and just gaze at it.:p :D

At the supermarket a baby no more than two years old takes one look at me and bursts into tears. I move towards him. "It's OK," I murmur. "I'm not a monster. I'm a real person." I show him the only part of me that is visible - my hands - but it's too late. His mother has whisked him away. I don't blame her. Every time I catch a glimpse of myself in the mirrored refrigerators, I scare myself. For a ridiculous few moments I stand there practicing a happy and approachable look using just my eyes. But I'm stuck looking aloof and inhospitable, and am not surprised that my day lacks the civilities I normally receive, the hellos, thank-yous and goodbyes.

After a few hours I get used to the gawping and the sniggering, am unsurprised when passengers on a bus prefer to stand up rather than sit next to me. What does surprise me is what happens when I get off the bus. I've arranged to meet a friend at the National Portrait Gallery. In the 15-minute walk from the bus stop to the gallery, two things happen. A man in his 30s, who I think might be Dutch, stops in front of me and asks: "Can I see your face?"

"Why do you want to see my face?"

"Because I want to see if you are pretty. Are you pretty?"

Before I can reply, he walks away and shouts: "You fucking tease!"

Then I hear the loud and impatient beeping of a horn. A middle-aged man is leering at me from behind the wheel of a white van. "Watch where you're going, you stupid Paki!" he screams. This time I'm a bit faster.

"How do you know I'm Pakistani?" I shout. He responds by driving so close that when he yells, "Terrorist!" I can feel his breath on my veil.

Things don't get much better at the National Portrait Gallery. I suppose I was half expecting the cultured crowd to be too polite to stare. But I might as well be one of the exhibits. As I float from room to room, like some apparition, I ask myself if wearing orthodox garments forces me to adopt more orthodox views. I look at paintings of Queen Anne and Mary II. They are in extravagant ermines and taffetas and their ample bosoms are on display. I look at David Hockney's famous painting of Celia Birtwell, who is modestly dressed from head to toe. And all I can think is that if all women wore the niqab how sad and strange this place would be. I cannot even bear to look at my own shadow. Vain as it may sound, I miss seeing my own face, my own shape. I miss myself. Yet at the same time I feel completely naked.

The women I have met who have taken to wearing the niqab tell me that it gives them confidence. I find that it saps mine. Nobody has forced me to wear it but I feel like I have oppressed and isolated myself.

Maybe I will feel more comfortable among women who dress in a similar fashion, so over 24 hours I visit various parts of London with a large number of Muslims - Edgware Road (known to some Londoners as "Arab Street"), Whitechapel Road (predominantly Bangladeshi) and Southall (Pakistani and Indian). Not one woman is wearing the niqab. I see many with their hair covered, but I can see their faces. Even in these areas I feel a minority within a minority. Even in these areas other Muslims turn and look at me. I head to the Central Mosque in Regent's Park. After three failed attempts to hail a black cab, I decide to walk.

A middle-aged American tourist stops me. "Do you mind if I take a photograph of you?" I think for a second. I suppose in strict terms I should say no but she is about the first person who has smiled at me all day, so I oblige. She fires questions at me. "Could I try it on?" No. "Is it uncomfortable?" Yes. "Do you sleep in it?" No. Then she says: "Oh, you must be very, very religious." I'm not sure how to respond to that, so I just walk away.

At the mosque, hundreds of women sit on the floor surrounded by samosas, onion bhajis, dates and Black Forest gateaux, about to break their fast. I look up and down every line of worshippers. I can't believe it - I am the only person wearing the niqab. I ask a Scottish convert next to me why this is.

"It is seen as something quite extreme. There is no real reason why you should wear it. Allah gave us faces and we should not hide our faces. We should celebrate our beauty."

I'm reassured. I think deep down my anxiety about having to wear the niqab, even for a day, was based on guilt - that I am not a true Muslim unless I cover myself from head to toe. But the Qur'an says: "Allah has given you clothes to cover your shameful parts, and garments pleasing to the eye: but the finest of all these is the robe of piety."

I don't understand the need to wear something as severe as the niqab, but I respect those who bear this endurance test - the staring, the swearing, the discomfort, the loss of identity. I wear my robes to meet a friend in Notting Hill for dinner that night. "It's not you really, is it?" she asks.

No, it's not. I prefer not to wear my religion on my sleeve ... or on my face.

I think it is particulary noteable how she states that many/most muslims find the full face veil to be alienating and an extreme practice that hinders communication and acts as a barrier - and they even have a culture of veils.

Of course - there's a raft of people to tell us that westerners who do not even have a culture of veiling are not allowed to think the same. That would be intolerant and islamaphobic.

There actually used to be a british culture - I've read about it in George Orwell books and essays - but it was abolished in the mid sixties for not being "right-on" enough.

There's odd pockets left here and there. I've no doubt new labour will dispense with them as soon as possible however.

You can't "abolish" a culture. I think you're confused. I commend you for trying to read about what culture is, but you don't seem to be quite there yet.

I'd be curious, though, to know how you define culture.

And this is exactly what I mean - this Judge should not have seen culture as a mitigating (or aggravating) factor. He should have even-handedly laid down the law. Now, how much a legal system is part of a culture is debatable - ultimately the laws and practises of each nation (or even community) are partially influenced by cultural considerations (in the West, besides Roman Law and Common Law, customary practises are considered to be a source of law, even if minor). This is a digression though - what essentially matters is that the Judge enforces the rules of the system in the most equitable manner. It's when this ceases that all else begins to erode. As you said, the State's only role is to universally impose law in this case - not culture, and I agree. Culture is something organic - the law is something borne of reason. Hopefully I have made myself clearer now.

customary practises are a fundamental pillar of the UK's unwritten constitution so they are not minor. :p

Woman wearing burkas!
Somebody call The Fashion Police!!!! da na nana na na na!

Yes. It is also a false accusation in Ny Nordland's case.

And you base those conclusions (note that contrary to what you said you ARE defending New Mitanni here, and now NN... huh) on what, exactly? Your own undying optimism, or perhaps you just don't want to think about the possibility that, gasp, extreme bigotry exists?

You know if british people go to arabia they would integrate into the society there, so it is only fair that it works the other way.

My 2 cents.

You know if british people go to arabia they would integrate into the society there, so it is only fair that it works the other way.

My 2 cents.

They would? So like, they'd give up that CoE thing, the women would wear face cloths, they'd only speak English at home, and they would endorse unquestioningly Saudi Arabia's political system at all times?

I doubt it, mate. ;)

but say u cant show ur legs, or something, in arabia (not sure if this is true) they would respect that. it works the same for hiding something that should be shown

The world is pressuring women to take off their veils and they are saying no. Why?
Because they like the way they look?
Because they are more comfortable with them/ they are used to them?
Because they want to rebel?
Because they are afraid to take them off? (Afraid to take them off when the recieve discrimination for wearing them?)
Because they are devoted to their religion?

HELLO!!! i do believe the official religion of britain is christianity not an islamic lovefest

almost 91% of the folk in britain are white... so it is more important that they are happier than the tiny proportion of muslims.

EDIT:: thats not racist btw... im just tryin 2 say how ridiculous it is

Does anyone else think that there will be an increase in the number of women choosing to cover their face after all this media hype? All this talk of veils is starting to make me want to wear one, and I'm not even a muslim.

Why can't everyone be happy?:(

Does anyone else think that there will be an increase in the number of women choosing to cover their face after all this media hype? All this talk of veils is starting to make me want to wear one, and I'm not even a muslim.

Me too. Girls here who cover their heads always have pretty eyes and skin tone.

the solution to that :: ban them!

customary practises are a fundamental pillar of the UK's unwritten constitution so they are not minor. :p
I've studied the UK legal system to an extent. Customary practises account for it partially, but Roman and Common law principles are far more potent.

Does anyone else think that there will be an increase in the number of women choosing to cover their face after all this media hype? All this talk of veils is starting to make me want to wear one, and I'm not even a muslim.

I've had people suggest that I wear a veil, and I'm neither a Muslim nor a woman! I wonder if they're trying to tell me something.

I've had people suggest that I wear a veil, and I'm neither a Muslim nor a woman! I wonder if they're trying to tell me something.

Maybe they think that you're so cool that you must be a ninja. They hide everything but their eyes.

They would? So like, they'd give up that CoE thing, the women would wear face cloths, they'd only speak English at home, and they would endorse unquestioningly Saudi Arabia's political system at all times?

I doubt it, mate. ;)

He has a point. Quite a lot of Western women who go to Muslim countries - inlcuding female journalists in Iran, for example - do cover up in the Islamic style. Also, no one in Europe forces Muslims to convert to Christianity, as you know, so that comparison isn't entirely accurate.

He has a point. Quite a lot of Western women who go to Muslim countries - inlcuding female journalists in Iran, for example - do cover up in the Islamic style. Also, no one in Europe forces Muslims to convert to Christianity, as you know, so that comparison isn't entirely accurate.

And the people in Iran are not forcing those journalists to convert to Islam, they're forcing them to comply with cultural standards. Sort of like a European woman who is used to swimming topless being force to cover up on american beaches.

He has a point. Quite a lot of Western women who go to Muslim countries - inlcuding female journalists in Iran, for example - do cover up in the Islamic style. Also, no one in Europe forces Muslims to convert to Christianity, as you know, so that comparison isn't entirely accurate.

The thing is, Western women don't "integrate" or get "assimilated" into Muslim culture just because they go there, in the way that apparently some people expect Muslim immigrants to "integrate."

There are some woman that should be required to wear a veil and a BURKA and maybe a force field....but other than that the law should be that they are all naked...:eek::D

All the traffic accidents that would cause....weeeeeeeeeeeeeee....

In general, it is a person's right to wear on his head: a fool's hat, a helmet, a bucket, a beer can, and, of course, a veil.

However, while I am anti-racist, I'm not pro-multiculture. People immigrating into another country should be ready to leave their culture at home. We don't need as many of these as we have. This is especially so for religion. Considering the problems muslim have living the western way (like cartoon war), mandating to leave your religion at home would be a very good thing, even despite lowering civil rights.

But that's justified, because it concerns removing a culture which can not accept these rights, and your rights end where other person's begin.

Replying to 2nd person to post: Wow. Please, refrain from ignorant comments like that one and read the article.

Thank you.

To Vault 10: Your post brings up a good point. I think the only way to settle it is if Muslims lived in non-western societies.

Truly, it's sad when one culture cannot get along with another lest killing, racism, prejudice, stereotypes, or insults occur. :(

The cultures in which the wearing of the veil is acceptable are in Muslim counties that usually oppress the women who wear it. These women would not be able to undertake activities such as teaching, practicing medine etc.

In western culture women undertake an active role in such activies as teaching and practicing medicine etc.

This means that the wearing of the veil in western culture is a problem.

Someone brought up in the western culture does not want to be taught by someone wearing a veil or have a doctor look at them if the doctor was wearing a veil

The current issue of the wearing the veil in the UK is a political one and not a religious one. It is another example of how some muslim extremists are trying to cause trouble and the libral elitists who fall over backwards to appease minorities in the UK are now being hoisted by there own petards.