the backlash begins. Man rips veil from muslim woman in street

[TheBaldyMan]

from BBC website http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/5414704.stm">Liverpool woman has veil ripped from face
Perhaps Jack Straw and all the rest of the politicians might realise that paki-bashing for political ends is the lowest you can go. I hope that they will keep that in mind that RWers need only the barest of excuses and no justification to act violently towards minorities. Don't forget that for all the headlines screaming that we are being swamped; blacks, muslims etc. are very much a minority in a white country.
There are a lot of white people and by the law of averages there are more white thickos.

[sweetheart]

1. But Jack Straw said something rather reasonable in context

As i understand it, he said that he preferred to deal with people
face to face, and that it was difficult with the veil, and i can understand,
being used to myself, seing a smile, or a frown, and reading someone's expression.

In an identity sense, it is the ultimate identity coverup, and add sunglasses
to make you visually anonymous, as much in public i can agree, but jack straw
was not discussing anything of all that, his comment had to do with meeting
people face to face, and i agree with him.

[muriel_volestrangler]

2. And it was a woman in a veil that said "face-to-face" to get him thinking

"It's really nice to meet you face-to-face, Mr Straw," said this pleasant lady, in a broad Lancashire accent. She had come to my constituency advice bureau with a problem. I smiled back. "The chance would be a fine thing," I thought to myself but did not say out loud. The lady was wearing the full veil. Her eyes were uncovered but the rest of her face was in cloth.

Her husband, a professional man whom I vaguely knew, was with her. She did most of the talking. I got down the detail of the problem, told the lady and her husband that I thought I could sort it out, and we parted amicably.

All this was about a year ago. It was not the first time I had conducted an interview with someone in a full veil, but this particular encounter, though very polite and respectful on both sides, got me thinking. In part, this was because of the apparent incongruity between the signals which indicate common bonds - the entirely English accent, the couple's education (wholly in the UK) - and the fact of the veil. Above all, it was because I felt uncomfortable about talking to someone "face-to-face" who I could not see.

So I decided that I wouldn't just sit there the next time a lady turned up to see me in a full veil, and I haven't.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1889081,00.html

[TheBaldyMan]

4. his comments are reasonable but as Blackburn MP he should

know better than most how incendiary the situation is within his own constituency. If he was well meaning his remarks are disingenuous. He has enough NF/BNP supporters in his own back yard to have some gauge of how they think and how they might react.

Read some of the comments made on his post. There are reasonable sentiments expressed but there are also more than a few of the type, "Why are muslims always getting the best of it". These could be lifted straight from the NF playbook.

I'm not saying we shouldn't be debating these matters, I am saying that expressions of disbelief, when racist attacks by knuckle-draggers start, are not good enough.

To place my comments in further context, today the BBC Merseyside news reported today of the http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/5412558.stm">conviction of a man for posting racist abuse on the commemorative website for Antony Walker, a teenager who was killed in an unprovoked racist attack (unless being black can be counted as provocation).

I live on Merseyside and can attest that there was almost universal shock bordering on disbelief at the time. Now less than 24 hours after Mr. Straw's remarks an assault on a veiled woman at a bus stop happens. This was within two minutes of where I lived in Liverpool, almost all Liverpudlians will be disgusted at the assailant's behaviour but there will be a minority who will gain a new confidence from the incident. When the assailant is arrested and charged he will probably become a cause-celebre of the extreme right-wing.

No one can now say after the fact - well I didn't know that would happen?

Especially Mr. Straw, how many months has it been since the race-riots in the NW of England?

[LeftishBrit]

6. Great points!

There's also another issue: it's an MP's job to represent and serve all his constituents, whether their clothes and manners make him comfortable or not. He's not there to have a nice social occasion for fun; he's there to do his JOB. Jack Straw has a right to feel uncomfortable around women wearing the veil; but he doesn't have a right to let it affect his duties as an MP. Unless someone is physically threatening or verbally abusive, he needs to perform his duties impartially. If he can't, then he shouldn't be in a job that requires him to deal with a wide variety of people on an everyday basis.

[mr blur]

7. Great point too! (nt)

[FBBulldog]

3. does that mean that Straw will not be communicating by phone, letter or...

email from now on then?

[sweetheart]

9. Did he get back to you on that Iraq thing?

Do they communicate with anyone from the white hall of power?
Clinically resigned to constituate regularly,
bodily in lavatories and WC's throughout the land,
spreading straw on those berries so they won't freeze in the frost,
executed leader of the 1381 peasant revolt, mr straw,
hung and silenced long ago, icommunicado.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

11. Jack Straw's comment was right, but he was still stupid to make it.

He made a fairly-heavily qualified comment about how he would prefer it if women wouldn't wear veils when talking to him because it made it harder to communicate, although obviously it shouldn't be compulsory. This is perfectly sensible and reasonable.

However, as he must have known it inevitably would, it's stirred the tabloid press into a frenzy about how wicked Muslims are, going around in veils all the time, with all the careful qualifications and clauses being ignored.

I agree with what he said, but think he was foolish to say it given who he is.

[Nihil]

5. Two sides to every story

Whilst I agree with you that there are far too many "white thickos" around,
I would also like to see the reaction of one of the "outraged" people if I
were to turn up for a 1:1 interview wearing a full face helmet or perhaps
a black balaclava with only eye-holes and a mouth-hole.

The full veil is intended for public use, not in private situations.
In the latter, it is no less intimidating than any other disguise.

Ever tried going into a bank with a bike helmet & visor?
The phrase "persona non grata" really doesn't cover it.

Ever though of going into a business interview wearing a "terrorist" balaclava?
Hmm .. is that racism that's counting against you or simple "WTF"?

Think about the aggressor mentioned in your link: "a tall white man in his 60s".
That's the sort of age that would have done National Service in Aden or possibly
even Palestine (depending on the accuracy of the witness's guess).
There was no concept of PTSD for those guys but they went through every bit
as much shit as any guy in the Middle East today.

Not everything is black & white.

[CJCRANE]

8. Just look at the headlines on the Sun today.

This whole atmosphere of muslim-bashing is psyops to keep us all concentrating on minor issues and away from the real issues of an unpopular foreign policy. It's the same tactic that the Repubs use on liberals in America - keep them permanently on the defensive.

[Nihil]

10. Ding! Ding!

Applause! :applause:

[Henny Penny]

26. Also it has the effect of pinning all the blame for what has

gone wrong on the Muslim population...

I for one find the current climate very very worrying and I really can't help thinking Germany 1930s.

[LeftishBrit]

32. I think you are right

America has Fox News; we have the tabloids. And for many years, the tabloids have been bashing immigrants, asylum-seekers and 'bloody foreigners'.

Occasionally, wearing the veil can interfere with a person's ability to fulfil some task, and then the person must decide which is more important. I actually think that the school in the news was right to object to a teacher wearing a full veil when teaching young children, some of whom had limited English; because of the communication difficulties that this would entail. (And in any case, Moslems are not required to wear the veil when interacting with young children, so she was interpreting the rules in quite an idiosyncratic way.) However, I also think that it was inappropriate for members of the government to make pronouncements on the issue, especially before the ruling on the case. This should have been treated as a local issue of an individual's employment contract, not as a matter for Cabinet ministers to judge.

[muriel_volestrangler]

12. One more aspect to consider: evidence in court

The issue of Muslim women's veils has ramifications for our trial system. The question is: should women witnesses be asked to remove the full veil when giving evidence in court? A QC friend faced the problem at the Old Bailey recently. One of the often-cited arguments for retaining the jury system is that jurors, using their common sense and experience of life, are good at assessing whether or not a witness - including an accused - is telling the truth.

Jurors make up their minds not just on the basis of the words spoken but by the demeanour of the witness, his or her body language and - importantly - facial expression. But if the face cannot be seen at all, much of the jury's capacity for judging truthfulness or otherwise is taken away. Lawyers in the trial face similar difficulties. "You cannot effectively cross-examine a witness when you can't assess how they're answering your questions," my friend claims. He raised the issue with the trial judge, who didn't feel he could do anything.

Should barristers in the case raise the point when addressing the jury? Should the judge mention it in his summing up? The verdicts in the trial my friend was in were probably not dependent on the evidence of the veiled woman, and I don't claim that there is a serious problem at the moment. But I'm sure there soon will be.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,1890965,00.html

[LeftishBrit]

13. At any rate, the judge should mention it when summing up

This is a different issue from whether Straw 'feels comfortable', as it could affect people's lives and freedom. I don't think women should be forced to remove their veils in court, but it should be mentioned as something that could make the evidence less reliable.

We should remember, however, that jurors can misinterpret the info they get from people's facial
expressions, especially perhaps when dealing with people from cultural backgrounds that they don't share (as different cultures have different conventions about how much they should hide their emotions, etc.) I suspect people are often a bit over-confident about their judgements. But, yes, a veil would make it even harder to interpret what's going on.

[Taxloss]

15. Not sure about this.

A lot of the commentary paints this as a case of Muslim women "getting away" with something, like having an added ability to get away with perjury. I fear that porejudice means it is more likely to work against them, and juries are less likely to take honestly offered testimony at face value. So, what to do?

On edit: "face value". Heh.

[sweetheart]

16. I don't buy it

The veil should come off in the courtroom, or then all persons should be allowed to give evidence in a baclava,
its not fair, and justice is waylaid by special favours granted to 1 religion in the courtroom, and pretty soon,
we're having to put all religious traditions in the courtroom, where buddhists who don't believe in killing animals
are not required to sit on leather chairs... i mean, if we want to get in to who can take offense by their religion
at various things, its just trumped up egotism, veiled in holy words.

[Henny Penny]

27. Might as well say the same about a man with a fullsome beard....

or someone who's had a stroke, or who is wearing a uniform, or sports a title, or is wearing the judges wig.

The argument seems so plausible and yet its very dangerous nonsense!

We must always make judgements about whether we are going to believe someone or not based on certain cues and certain predjudices.

The Western world is a multicultural society and its time we grew up and learned to deal with that instead of constantly trying to justify victimising a very vulnerable minority.

[muriel_volestrangler]

28. But the vulnerability is entirely their own choice

they could take the veil off any time they want. I take your point about fulsome beards, though - but it doesn't cover quite as much as a veil. But it's true I don't take people with bushy beards quite as seriously as someone who's clean-shaven. I haven't the faintest idea what you mean about "wearing a uniform, or sports a title, or is wearing the judges wig" - those seem a complete red herrings. They don't cover a face.

[Henny Penny]

29. Wigs, titles, uniforms etc. serve the same purpose in so far as

they provoke a predjudiced response of some kind. This response may predispose the listener to assume that the witness is more reliable than they actually are, or the reverse may be the case.

As for your point that "they could take off the veil any time they want"... it is ridiuclous. How can someone from that background be made to feel more comfortable or equal by being made "strip off" in this manner??

Is cultural sensivity completely dead?

[muriel_volestrangler]

30. They keep saying it was a personal decision to put it on

so they could take it off any time they want. They'd just be reverting to the open state they were in before. Why would suggesting they do that be culturally insensitive?

Wigs etc. may prejudice a response; a veil prevents transfer of information. There is a difference.

[Henny Penny]

31. And who exactly are "they"?...

Surely Muslims like Christians or Jews or any other large group have a very broad range of views. So to say "they say this" or "they say that" is already trying to shoehorn a large part of that broad spectrum into a very narrow winkle-picker indeed and its usually done for cheap political gain.

If someone says "I am not being forced to wear this veil" it does not follow that they think it would be right for them to take it off in public.
I think it is obvious that they probably mean I am not being compelled to wear this by some brutish male relative or Immam.

I don't buy this "war of civilisations" crap on any level whether it comes in the form of the crude broadsides of Fox News or the the more subtle and insidious form all too prevalent in the Grauniad and beeb these days.

[muriel_volestrangler]

34. Sorry, by "they" I mean "women who wear a face veil"

And those who have talked about it in the media have said (every single one I've heard, I think) that it was a personal choice to start wearing it - that it wasn't something they've always done.

It's not that I think they shouldn't wear it at all - but they need to recognise there are times where their interaction with wider society may need it taken off, even if men are present; and they should realise it can put up a barrier between them and other people, and so may cause them to be thought of as 'alien'.

[Taxloss]

14. This is a very tense situation indeed.

A genuine liberal dilemma. I don't think Straw's remarks were out of line - I think he has a right to his opinion, and I think he was brave to feel he could express it. He shouldn't be blamed for the actions of racist thugs. Personally, I feel that the veil is a symbol of division and oppression; nevertheless I feel very uncomfortable with the state dictating how people should dress and behave. I would prefer a ban on inappropriate slogans on kids' T-shirts, as a matter of perspective. But again there's a freedom of expression issue.

[Briar]

19. I don't see how it was brave

Straw tapped into a strong vein of xenophobia and prejudice which has seen him feted by commentators ever since. And how convenient for a beleagured government, to be seen as righteous critics of that tiny percentage of muslim women who so affront our sturdy democratic traditions by covering their faces. Given that hated multiculturalism has prevented Brits from expressing their engrained hatred of "foreigners" (unless they are French), being given this outlet has obviously earned Straw the gratitude of millions. Nor do I see how it is a liberal dilemma, or not any more than having to tolerate the existance of such creatures as the BNP or Christian Voice is. In fact the comparison between organisations promoting societal assaults and individual women making unusual dress choices points out how grossly disproportionate the response has been. And there's that word again - disproportionate - and in connection with the same group of people too - muslims. Perhaps the question should be - why does islam drive the West to hysterical over-reaction?

[Taxloss]

22. Brave because he made the remarks in the full knowledge that they would provoke this sort of

fury from many liberal commentators, brave because his own constituency will no doubt have strong feeling about the matter (he runs a direct electoral risk, this isn't simply idle metropolitan chatter). Nor do I consider the great bulk of the debate started by Straw to be "hysterical over-reaction" - something the Muslim community is sadly very guilty of if you consider those calling for Straw, Rushdie et al to be killed. Indeed, Rushdie's own intervention demonstrates that this is not a "Western" feeling, but a concern shared by liberal Muslims - are they over-reacting, hysterically? - and the debate is not over dress sense as it is over the obscuring of the face and civil society's reaction to that. You imply that all the commentary has been the product of xenophobia and prejudice, which is flat wrong. Polly Toynbee xenophobic and prejudiced? Also, Straw is not "the government". The government policy is that the veil is legal and the policy will remain that.

[CJCRANE]

23. I don't think anyone has called for Straw

to be killed..

:shrug:

[Taxloss]

24. My mistake, it was John Reid.

Omar Brooks called for John Reid to be killed. But I think that he has little love for Jack Straw either.

[CJCRANE]

25. Fair enough.

However, I've never heard of Omar Brooks but found out (Google) that he's also known as Abu Izzadeen.

I haven't heard that he actually called for John Reid to be killed. If he did perhaps he should be arrested.

I don't think he particularly represents anyone except himself and his small group of nutcases (I think he has about the same number in his group as Fred Phelps does).

[LeftishBrit]

33. My impression too

There are extremist nutters attached to most religions, unfortunately.

[Briar]

35. and most ideologies

As a former Foreign Secretary and Home Secretary, Straw will have been a target for years. All members of the government receive protection from dangerous psychopaths who believe in murderous armed intervention justified a supposed "good cause". In my lifetime, members of Government have been murdered by crazed criminals. Of course, they weren't islamists, they were the IRA.

Peter Oborne (another conservative talking sense now that New Labour has betrayed every principle and abandoned rational discourse) nails it, in of all places the Mail on Sunday.

Blair. The veil. And a new low in politics


By PETER OBORNE


Great sea changes of thought or opinion are rare in British public life,
taking place perhaps only once or twice in a generation. But there is abundant evidence that we are undergoing one now. Until only a few months ago, mainstream British politicians were extremely cautious about articulating the fears and resentments felt by many ordinary people on the subject of mass immigration.

Those who spoke out publicly (Enoch Powell's 'rivers of blood' speech is the
notorious example) were ostracised. Political parties which raised the issue
were thrust beyond the outer margins of debate - the fate of the National
Front and the BNP.

This self-restraint has now vanished. Practically every day for the past two
weeks, another minister has insulted the customs, habits or religious
beliefs of Britain's Muslim minority.

...
It is now clear that Jack Straw's comments on women who wear the veil were
not, as seemed likely at the time, the result of some random rumination. He
surely set out with the intention of putting in motion a national campaign.
In other words, Labour has made the extraordinary decision to place the
politics of religious identity at the centre of public discourse, in the
same sort of way that Jorg Haider's Freedom Party does in Austria and Pim
Fortuyn's List Party did in the Netherlands

...

http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/newscomment.html?in_page_id=1787&in_article_id=411783

[mc jazz]

17. morons in government

only criminals listen to them
this is an obvious escalation because of YOUR foreign policy

[TheBaldyMan]

18. welcome to DU McJ,

although saying that Blair's foreign policy is MINE when I and most Britons disagreed with the war in Iraq, an even greater proportion disagree with it today, is about as sensible as saying that Bush's foreign policy is American policy. The US has been defrauded in 2000 and 2004. I wouldn't point the finger at Americans.

Credit where it's due, it belongs to the Bush & Blair administrations. It's their party, we're just footing the bill.

[LeftishBrit]

20. Yes, most of us (not just on DU, but UK-ers generally) are strongly opposed to Blair's foreign

to Blair's foreign policy.

There have been many demonstrations and petitions, but Tony and pals think they know best. The only reason Tony got back in is because Michael Howard was even worse.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

21. Welcome to DU, and the UK forum

Perhaps your next post here will be more constructive and less offensive to UK DUers.