John Prescott "prefers women not to wear clothes at all"

Um... I can see how people might disagree with what he said, but in what way doe it make him a "racist cunt"?

Dr Daud Abdullah, of the Muslim Council of Britain, said he could understand Mr Straw's discomfort adding that women could choose to remove the veil.

but better yet:

Conservative policy director Oliver Letwin said it would be "dangerous doctrine" to tell people how to dress.

"If a person is making a statement about how they want to dress, I think it's pretty important we live in a country where you're allowed to do that," he said.

he is in yr bluewater hugging yr hoodie

xpost

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/05/europe_muslim_veils/img/1.jpg

Which is bollox. All he said is that he finds it easier to have a conversation with someone if he can see more than just their eyes. The Respect masses, busy sharpening their knives for the next election in Blackburn are all fans of Chomsky, so surely they of all people will understand the concept of non-verbal communication...

xpost

Cabinet Minister Jack Straw has said he would prefer Muslim women not to wear veils at all.

The Commons leader said he did not want to be "prescriptive" but he believed that covering people's faces could make community relations more difficult.

Is not seeing the face of one's interlocuter really so much of a bother? We do it every day on the phone. ie, Straw's comment shouldn't be taken at face value (so to speak).

Straw would be rubbish at one of those masked balls tho.

that is a really fatuous comment and you know it.

can you just clarify?

well... yes. it's not something to legislate on but yes.

We do it every day on the phone.

in which case we're equal. part of the problem is they can read you, but you can't read them.

xpost

"If a person is making a statement about how they want to dress, I think it's pretty important we live in a country where you're allowed to do that," he said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/south_of_scotland/5405722.stm

-- the classic sounds of the seventh of january 1998 (miltonpinsk...), October 6th, 2006 10:48 AM. (Enrique) (link)

maybe 'they' prefer it if you covered your face too.

-- ken c (pykachu10...), October 6th, 2006.

i'd rather be imposing secularism than religion innit.

http://www.sentireascoltare.com/CriticaMusicale/Monografie/oldham/oldhamPIC.jpg

http://images.scotsman.com/2006/09/26/2006-09-26T195556Z_01_NOOTR_RTRIDSP_2_OUKEN-UK-HILTON.jpg

yeah, but why did he bother saying it? I mean, I prefer talking to women with big tits, but I would never say that out loud.

there are convincing arguments for integration. but when i hear brain-dead bastards spout things like that, my first response is: what the fuck is "our"? i might be a white brit, but i would NEVER align myself with you, you shit.

annd then i get cross and have to go for a lie down.

the issue here isn't about veils, or communication. it's the clumsy way that arsehole straw has blundered into this and the way it's going to spiral into something out of all proportion, as fucking usual, with tossbags on all sides coming out and spouting soundbite shite. if straw wants a "mature debate", he needs to try harder to bring one about, rather than making clumsy statements then trying to load them with caveats about "respect" and "community relations". engage brain, THEN open mouth.

i have to say that once again i am enormously impressed by the muslim council of great britain, who appear to be among the few sensible voices in the whole thing.

MUSLIM CABBIE BANS GUIDE DOG

jesus fucking christ.

correction to my own post: muslim council of britain, not great britain. if you're going to be impressed by someone, it's nice to get their name right.

at least he's got his balls on the block for once. knee-jerk right-on-ness plays straight into the hands of New Dave

i'm not sure. that's why i'm not a cabinet minister; just a dick who posts on ILE. but i can certainly clarify where i think he went wrong:

1) this story seems to have sprung (although i'm not 100% sure) from something he said in an interview with his local paper. mistake one: he should know what local hacks are like (ie dead keen to spin stories and punt them to the nationals). if the minister has a point to make, the pages of his local rag are not the best place. if he DIDN'T have a point to make, why say anything at all?

2) from the BBC (gah, i hate myself for using the BBC as a source, but hey):

Asked on BBC Radio 4's Today programme if he would rather the veils be discarded completely, Mr Straw replied: "Yes. It needs to be made clear I am not talking about being prescriptive but with all the caveats, yes, I would rather."

which seems to mean: "oh god well i suppose i'd better be honest but i really haven't thought this through i don't want to offend anyone or lose my job shit shit shit."

"with all the caveats": what is your point here, jack? first of all you say you'd rather muslim women didn't cover their faces. now you're saying there are caveats. all of which suggests you blundered into this without thinking - and that, from a fucking cabinet minister and former foreign secretary, is unforgivable.

there is an argument to be had here: about the merits of integration; about visual signifiers of difference; about the very reasons for women wearing the veils. but none of that will happen now, will it? instead lots of people (such as me) will shout and get cross and call each other racist. call me naive, but i expect a little better from our elected representatives. if he wanted to spark a debate, he needed to make clear what he meant and why he was coming out and saying it at this point in time.

You're naive

;)

but yes, "naive" is more to-the-point.

It was like that simpsons episode where bart mooning the american flag became springfield hates the USA.

What is, of course, galling is that most Muslim women I've met in Britain who choose to veil themselves to whatever degree REMOVE IT indoors anyway *unless* they're in an otherwise all-male environment. This includes chadors and jilbabs - relatively rare in Britain - and it should be noted that Straw was not discussing hijab.

Otherwise, yet another case of some man who can't dress himself for shit trying to tell women what to wear. Which makes him different from the caricatured oppressor HOW, exactly? In which case, sod off.

http://www.gatehouse39.freeserve.co.uk/gcwp/demon5.jpg

But it's a man's prerogative to change his mind.

But hasn't he made it pretty clear? He's said that, in his opinion, the full veil makes community relations more difficult and probably increases the ghetto-isation of Muslims. Aren't these perfectly fair points to make, to at least be discussed without bright sparks like noodle vague throwing the "racist cunt" thing about? Britain seems terrified to even discuss these kind of things without a lot of screeching about racism.

The cab driver refused to take the guide dog because Islam says dogs are "impure" or "unclean" depending on your reading.

Unfortunately, the blind lady he kicked out just happened to be the legal services director of the RNIB. Oopsie.

Islam's not a race, it's a choice. You can convert and become a Muslim if you're a Christian, you can't convert to become black if you're white.

xpost I'm well aware of that, Sunshine, but let's be realistic here. Also let's call Straw on anything possible cos the man is scum.

yes. and you'd think jack bloody straw - never has a man been more aptly named - would know that, and maybe handle things with a little more elegance and intelligence.

What do you mean? You really think on the basis of those pretty mild questions I'm a wicked racist troll? Is that really what you think?

Do you think Straw's words this week have made that distinction any clearer?

Careful with the "religion is a choice, unlike race" thing. It quickly becomes a statement that culture is a choice, which -- true as it may be, in some strict technical way -- tends to be untrue or at last misleading when it comes to anything that matters. (And it usually gets used as a tool to attack minority cultures, I think, to pretend that you can beat culture out of people and it's not wrong because culture is a behavior, a choice.)

Really? Most of us are free to criticize or question things that go on within our culture or religion (unless you live in somewhere like Iran). There's not a lot of point in questioning or criticizing the colour of your skin. Isn't that the difference?

jesus wept. i wonder: have we ended up with the government we deserve, yet again? but i guess it's always the way: no matter how many promises they make, they always end up pandering to the lowest common denominator. anyway, sorry, that's not the point.

the redoubtable ian bell is (predictably) brilliant in today's herald. i still think straw is profoundly ignorant rather than a cynical mastermind, but yes, this (as others have said here) is obviously macho posturing. anyway: read it yourself and make up your own mind. i think it'll be up for a couple of days before the link expires.

Of course, random cunts knocking off turbans almost certainly has racist significance, but that's neither hear nor there especially given that the widespread feelings of the Sikh (or for that matter Hindu) communities aren't nearly as politically sensitive in the current climate.

This feels so close to a "they was asking for it" argument.

But the long hair is an 'article of faith' Matt, so surely the turban has religious significance by association? Seems a fair comparison to me (regardless of the intensified stigmatisation of Muslim culture of late).

I happily admit I'm a retoric addict. I just find the idea of "Jack Straw is a racist cunt" funny as a set of words. On a further level I'll admit that Straw probably isn't racist. On a level beyond that though I'd argue that this little stunt will have racist consequences. Whether you or me can distinguish between Culture and Race isn't the issue here, though I don't see them as totally separate entities. The issue is whether a senior politician has said things which will worsen race relations in this country, and whether he's done this in order to strengthen his chances of getting a better job.

And this shit still makes me angry, and 6 words typed in anger is easier and funner than 3 paragraphs of sensible argument. I don't feel like trying to engage with the likes of Straw any more, it's painful and depressing.

Martin Kettle
Saturday October 7, 2006
The Guardian

Whatever else you may think about Jack Straw's wish for Muslim women not to wear the veil, he is undoubtedly right about one thing. As the former home secretary put it at the end of his Lancashire Telegraph article this week, there is an issue here. If there was any doubt about that, the huge response to Straw's views on radio phone-ins and internet message boards yesterday was proof of it. And since there is so clearly an issue, it is surely desirable to discuss it in public and not keep it, er, veiled.

It is beyond all doubt that Straw knew what he was doing. Few senior politicians are as painstaking in their public utterances as he is. This former foreign secretary, who so meticulously differentiated himself from Downing Street in subtle ways over Iran and even Iraq, is not a man who blunders into controversy - least of all, given that 26% of the electorate in his Blackburn constituency are Muslims, on Islamic matters. This man is running for the Labour deputy leadership. He is looking for profile, fishing for votes.

Yet it also needs to be said that Straw raised the issue in a very responsible and, if one may put it like this, a strikingly British way. The language of his Lancashire Telegraph article is worth studying. It is notable for its respectfulness, its moderation and its absolute avoidance of wider anti-Islamic or anti-religious provocation. Yes, Straw had a politically difficult and sensitive point to make. But he made it in carefully restrained and undogmatic terms that form a very creditable contrast with the far more incendiary French debate about the veil two years ago.

With heart-sinking predictability, some of the instant responses to Straw were as unmeasured and extravagant as his own remarks were measured and sober. Those on the right who want the government to target all Muslims as enemies, and those on the left who pretend that the government is targeting all Muslims as enemies, seized on this opportunity, as they seize on every other, to polarise, antagonise and provoke.

But what is so shocking or offensive about Straw's views? He tells his constituents that this is a country of freedoms and that there is no law against wearing a veil, which is correct. He adds, nevertheless, that the value of a meeting with a constituent - or indeed with anyone else - is that it allows face-to-face contact. This is also true. He therefore makes a request that women should lift their veils. He may be right or wrong to make that request in given circumstances, but it is a reasonable request, reasonably expressed, and the women are at liberty to agree with it or not. I am hard put to think of a more appropriate way for anyone to raise an issue that troubles them - and it seems from the anecdotal evidence as though no offence has been taken whenever the request has been made.

There is, of course, a wider issue here. Straw himself refers directly to it in his article. The veil is an explicit statement of separation and distance, as he puts it. It literally comes between its wearer and other people. It is impossible not to see it as a barrier dividing the individual inside from the world outside. Whether the veil is also a form of self-protection or separatism is harder to say. Not all cases will be the same. Many of us fear the latter, perhaps wrongly, although in the hoodie era it is hardly the only form of dress in modern Britain that can be read that way.

But the veil is a much more loaded statement than even a hoodie, and it is disingenuous to pretend otherwise. It is not merely a badge of religious or cultural identity like a turban, a yarmulke or even a baseball cap. It says something not just about the wearer but about the non-wearer too. It says, or seems to say, I do not wish to engage with you. It is at some level a rejection. And since that statement of rejection comes from within Islamic cultures, some of whose willingness to integrate is explicitly at issue in more serious ways, it is hardly surprising that it should be challenged.

It is important not to overstate the veil issue. Most issues concerning Muslim dress in this country are sorted out amicably and by negotiation, as Straw's have been too. Confrontations are not the norm. We need to acknowledge that there is a danger, especially at a time of such heated attention to so many other matters of Muslim sensitivity, that the veil could become a lightning rod for angrier and more aggressive feelings. That's a genuine risk. Muslims are entitled to say, as many were doing yesterday, give us a break.

But non-Muslims are entitled to ask for a break too. In a society like ours - even allowing for its many other human disconnections - there is no recent equivalent of an explicit self-separation of this kind. So the veil issue should not be understated either. Straw is right to raise it. It isn't enough to say anyone can wear what they like, still less that each person's business is solely their own affair. But there's too much overreaction and striking of attitudes on all sides too.

Don't assume, for instance, that the veiling of Muslim women is merely a sign of repressive oriental patriarchy until you have talked to women who wear the veil as something close to a feminist statement. But don't fall for the view that wearing the full veil is Qur'anically prescribed either. There are, apparently, no such references in the Qur'an. They are very much there, however, in St Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians, where the apostle writes that a man ought not to cover his head "since he is the image and glory of God", but a woman should veil hers, since "woman is the glory of man".

Both sides of this argument need to seek for and show some humility. Muslims should listen to the reasoned objections to the veil from people such as Straw, in the interests of community, and non-Muslims should also listen much more self-critically to the deep moral concerns among Muslims about western hedonism, immodesty and licentiousness. Bill Clinton carries some baggage in those areas, but he made a powerful point to the Labour conference in Manchester when he reminded delegates that the mapping of the human genome has allowed scientists to underscore how much more the human race has in common than it has dividing it. The pressing task of all public figures, not just of politicians, is to combat the cultural and religious arrogance on both sides that increasingly threatens to drown out the good sense and tolerance of the majority.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,1889746,00.html

Project much?

I find it abhorrent and as bad as anything the right wing press will spout out to be honest. I just dislike Straw mainly for his adherence to the bullshit re Iraq (ditto Blair of course). It's all well and good to criticise him for what may appear to be clumsy remarks but he talks to a lot more Muslim women than you or I do, including those wearing burqas, so I don't think I'm well placed to judge how wise his comments were really.

or rather, best left unchallenged.

hmm. i couldn't disagree more. i've not read straw's original piece, because it was written for a local newspaper. i mean, has anyone on this thread read it? or are we all going on the secondary reporting?

sure, i could find it very easily (being a hack, and having access to a wide database of such things); i imagine it's been reprinted on the web now too. in fact, i'll have a look after i post this.

but the point is that by the time this became a national story, it was no longer a primary source; the story most of us first heard or read was a report of a column. and so no matter how measured and nuanced the language of straw's original piece, the reporting was always going to be a little more simplistic/sensationalist/biased/whatever.

i said it upthread and i'll say it again: what the fuck did he think would happen? if he'd written this supposedly brilliant piece of rhetorical reasoning for the sun or the mail - or even for the indy or the guardian - hundreds of thousands more would have seen it and been able to make up their own minds. instead most of the UK - other than the few thousand who read the local paper in question - won't have seen the story in question, and will have to hunt about on the web to find it.

i think writing such a potentially inflammatory piece - which it IS, let's face it, in these troubled times - for a local paper with a tiny circulation was fucking stupid: by the time it hit the national consciousness, it was going to be twisted, even if just slightly. how did the dozy bastard not realise that?

Straw in plea to Muslim women: Take off your veils

the original column is here; i haven't read it yet. just going to now.

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.

oh right. this is measured and mature, is it? what a CUNT. "don't you see, readers? she's got a lancashire accent! she should be eating fish and chips and wearing a tracksuit."

what a wankshaft.

My concerns could be misplaced. But I think there is an issue here.

well, mebbes aye. mebbes naw. but how, in that little piece of jejune drivel, have you actually addressed anything? can open, worms everywhere, straw holding his hands up and wittering about debate.

so going back to martin kettle's piece, and the comments i made before reading the original straw article: fuck it, i shouldn't have given him the benefit of the doubt at all.

yes, the response to this proves there is an issue here; that some people do have strong feelings. but the way straw has handled it is feeble. all we can hope now is that those in the public eye who pick up the baton handle it rather more carefully.

You really find this so offensive? The fact that he inwardly laughs at the "face to face" comment? It hasn't got anything to do with the Lancashire stereotypes you're going on about.

I go on to say that I think, however, that the conversation would be of greater value if the lady took the covering from her face.

Straw's intolerance simply won't be tolerated!

xpost

Er, the fact that her face is covered with a veil. It might not be one of the great introductions in world literature, but grimly has obviously misread it as a dig about her being from Lancaster. It was clearly not about that.

My concerns could be misplaced. But I think there is an issue here.

The 'more cultural than religious' remark is key clearly. But interesting that the husband said it but not his wife (based on Straw's version of events). Is he referring to a 'Muslim culture' independent of whatever territory or larger general culture it's operating within? What are the pros and cons of this assuming there are some of both?

Straw's claim that according to the woman the burqa veil meant people bothered her less was intriguing too. Bothered her how in what way?

In part, this was because of the apparent incongruity between the signals which indicate common bonds – the entirely English accent, the couples’ education (wholly in the UK) – and the fact of the veil.

maybe i misunderstood because i can't see jack straw's face as he typed this, but it read to me to say "OMG SHE TALKS LIKE AN ENGLISH PERSON BUT DRESSES LIKE (DELETE AS APPROPRIATE)[A MUSLIM?]/[SOMEONE WHO ISN'T FROM ENGLAND]/[A FOREIGNER]"

or yeah, maybe he's an evil culturalist

and just think how difficult it'd be with the chinese ladies, all looking the same and that.

But this thread so far has pretty much proved what my first post said: that it's v difficult to discuss these things in Britain without hysteria, CUNTness, wankshafts and predictably glib comments about Chinese ladies. Is it really so bleedin difficult? Was the Straw piece really such an offensive, racist tirade against Muslims? I mean, WTF???

david, don't tell me what i've clearly grasped or not grasped. one of the problems with written communication - especially on an internet message board - is that nuances can easily be missed. you have misunderstood what i meant, but i'm not blaming you for that: i can see how it could have been read both ways. however, the fact you keep banging on about how i've "clearly got the wrong end of the stick" is starting to irritate me. just as mr straw shouldn't be telling people how to dress, could you possibly not tell me what i'm thinking?

thank you.

what i meant was that i found straw's very mention of the accent offensive. why bother mentioning it - unless, as ken says, it's to draw attention to what he sees as a dichotomy between her appearance and her accent: ie "she looks 'foreign' but sounds english".

i'm originally from lancashire myself. i went to secondary school in blackpool between 1986 and 1993 with several asian kids: one of my best friends' parents were from bangladesh, while another good pal's folks were from india. thinking about it, i'm not sure if either of them were born in the UK (i'm hoping to see them both in the next few weeks so i'll ask them then!) ... anyway, the point - and yes, there is one, thank you for bearing with me - is that neither of them had the merest trace of an "accent" - other, that is, than broad lancastrian.

today i live in glasgow, in an area with a large asian population. it's more surprising to hear someone under 30 - under 40, even - without a glasgow accent.

so why does jack straw need to draw attention to it? if he was talking about a white dude wearing a skip cap, i bet he wouldn't bother. no: he's immediately drawing attention to what he perceives as "otherness".

in answer to your question: no, the piece wasn't a racist tirade. but i find it offensive - offensively fucking stupid, for all the reasons i've outlined above. noodle vague has eloquently explained his use of the phrase "racist cunt" - ie it's more semantic shorthand for comedy value than a deeply held belief - and i've explained my problem with the whole affair. i do have a big problem with straw's mention of the accent, which was unncecessary and betrays ... well, maybe not racism as such (unless you're using the broadest definition), but certainly a slightly old-fashioned attitude that i find most worrying in a british cabinet minister.

where the fuck is the 'comedy' in such a kneejerk statement let alone the value?

so why does jack straw need to draw attention to it?

i don't know about popularity of burqas among Muslim women born and raised in Britain compared to popularity of it among those emigrating but my point was to theorise that the latter may be more likely than the former for certain reasons. and that Straw's reference to the accent may be based on this statistic - that it would be unusual to meet a woman with face fully covered yet established here long enough to have an accent he immediately recognises and would have certain associations for him that might not match what he's witnessing. the stats may well prove this wrong but i'd be surprised if this were so. in the area in which i live the burqa is certainly the type of head-dress i see least often among the many Muslim women i see on the streets. it's a sight i've not seen much at all in my life (and obv. i've never had a conversation with a woman in a burqa, unlike Jack Straw many times) but i also suspect burqas are not any more common up North in comparison to London.

but even giving straw the benefit of the doubt and assuming you're right about what he meant, the fact remains that his wording is clumsy and unnecessary and therefore open to misinterpretation. and that's my major beef here: that this was a heartily daft way for him to go about making the point (whatever point he's trying to make - i'm still not sure there's a particularly cogent one in his original spiel).

The Straw piece was a bit hackneyed in a local paper kind of way, but I don't think it merits some of the reactions it got here.

absolutely. the problem is, how best to have that debate? and when?

like i say: i think straw's made an arse of this - wrong approach, wrong time. but hey, i don't have any particularly great ideas! all i know is that improving "community relations" pretty much has to come from within communities - it can't simply be imposed from above. indeed, half-arsed attempts like straw's (all he's doing is raising a single issue, not attempting to deal with people's attitudes) just bugger things up ever so slightly further.

i don't know. i really don't know what the way forward is at all. and my mind is slightly more gin-addled than i thought, so i'm not going to even try to think about it right now :@

Ignoring the exact words that JS wrote, or said, it has made me wonder: Are you actually allowed to ask someone to remove a veil, just so you can understand them better? I am able to engage with people on a whole different level if I can see their face. I've never known muslims who wear them so haven't had a need to ask.

of course you are. why wouldn't you be?

but:

1) you shouldn't be upset if your request is refused;

2) you shouldn't go making a big deal out of it when you're a cabinet minister who really should have a better handle on how to deal with such things.

none of Straw's requests were refused tho right?

2) you shouldn't go making a big deal out of it when you're a cabinet minister who really should have a better handle on how to deal with such things.

i don't know why you keep hammering this when all that has happened is that some people are upset and angry about it but others (inc. presumably those asked to remove it) are not.

no. but a lot of people are now upset that he's been asking.

some people are upset and angry about it

yes, i forget: stoking racial tensions in a cack-handed way doesn't matter at all, does it? i don't give a flying fuck what straw's intentions were. the fact remains he's made a bollock of this, which is a) stupid and b) dangerous.

oh, and c) ... it chips away a little more at the chance of there ever being a serious debate about this and a horde of related issues. it's not too late - far from it. but our p8 lead tomorrow (mon) has muslim groups claiming they've received "a torrent of racist abuse". oh, and some C of E chappie is piping up and saying this country is becoming more intolerant of islam. this is NOT the way britain should be going.

so yes, some people are upset and angry. i firmly believe that, had straw got a brain in his head, they wouldn't be.

how is this a fact? just because it angers YOU and some other people who weren't there? how exactly do you start a 'serious' debate about such a thing anyway?

who weren't where?!

as for your second point: i've no idea. were i a cabinet minister, i'd hope to have an idea. but as i've said repeatedly blah blah drone zzz fuck's sake i'm boring myself now.

let me ask you a question instead: what possible good has straw done here?

actually, to be honest, SERIOUS debate? what kind of debate are we talking here? i mean, debate with whom? where how who moderates this discussion? what is the point of the debate? is there supposed to have an outcome? who's supposed to be in this debate? in what manner is it suppose to happen? what does one expect to happen when you effectively say "i declare that there should be a debate on [such and such]" do you expect to somehow achieve a utopia of concensus?

it's basically a win win win win situation!

what possible good has straw done here?

i think he's brought to light an interesting issue and it's encouraged me to think about it and find out more about it which i probably wouldn't have done if this had been some 'behind closed doors' thing he only discussed with Muslim leaders (who are apparently as divided on the subject as anyone else).

"Cameron: I'll ban Muslim Ghettoes"

What was that all about?

I actually read the accent/headscarf thing as a way of saying "Muslims AREN'T some strange other-ness, but ordinary folk like you and I — they don't all speak foreign, they're actually just as British as everyone else Blackburn".

Hence Straw then began pondering why she chose to dress so differently to most of his constituents.

You might not agree with his views, but I still think calling him a racist cunt is going waaay too far. And how many of the people leaping to the defence of the veiled (I think the Guardian's pet phrase for a while was "women of cover") love having a good chuckle at religious types when they're christians? Christian Odone, whose ill-informed tirade on Sky News I mentioned above, was in the Observer yesterday complaining about the Amish being so insular and downright weird.

based on Cameron's observation that we're in multicultural segregation as opposed to true integration. not sure how he plans to dissolve the divides exactly.

"No! This area breaches the Muslim maximum percentage. You'll have to move to xxx"

Good piece by Joan Smith in the IoS about the veil and it's misogynistic significance that, I think, is a better subject of debate then the one he's opened up about 'seperateness'.

it got me thinking!

No they are not.

but we all shrug and it's eventually no prob at all at all at all when done by a media

Would probably have been easier to discuss this face to face.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1072-2394934,00.html

Why Muslim women should thank Straw
Saira Khan

The veil is not a religious obligation — it is a symbol of the subjugation by men of their wives and daughters

MY PARENTS moved here from Kashmir in the 1960s. They brought with them their faith and their traditions. But they also arrived with an understanding that they were starting a new life in a country where Islam was not the main religion.

My mother has always worn traditional Kashmiri clothes — the salwaar kameez, a long tunic worn over trousers, and the chador, which is like a pashmina worn round the neck or over the hair. But no one in my immediate family — here or in Kashmir — covers their face with a nikab (veil). As a child I wore the salwaar kameez at home — and at school a typical English school uniform. My parents never felt that the uniform compromised my faith; the important thing was that I would fit in so that I could take advantage of all the opportunities school offered. I was the hockey team captain and took part in county athletics: how could I have done all of this wearing salwaar kameez, let alone a veil?

My mother has worked all her life and adapted her ways and dress at work. For ten years she operated heavy machinery and could not wear her chador because of the risk of it becoming caught in the machinery. Without making any fuss she removed her scarf at work and put it back on when she clocked out. My mother is still very much a traditional Muslim woman, but having lived in this country for 40 years she has learnt to embrace British culture — for example, she jogs in a tracksuit and swims in a normal swimming costume to help to alleviate her arthritis.

Some Muslims would criticise the way my mother and I dress. They believe that there is only one way to practise Islam and express your beliefs, forgetting that the Muslim faith is interpreted in different ways in different places and that there are distinct cultures and styles of dress in Muslim countries stretching from Morocco to Indonesia. But it is not a requirement of the Koran for women to wear the veil.

The growing number of women veiling their faces in Britain is a sign of radicalisation. I was disturbed when, after my first year at university in 1988, I discovered to my surprise that some of my fellow students had turned very religious and had taken to wearing the jilbab (a long, flowing gown covering all the body except hands and face), which they had never worn before and which was not the dress code of their mothers. They had joined the college’s Islamic Society, which preached that women were not considered proper Muslims unless they adopted such strict dress codes. After that, I never really had anything in common with them.

It is an extreme practice. It is never right for a woman to hide behind a veil and shut herself off from people in the community. But it is particularly wrong in Britain, where it alien to the mainstream culture for someone to walk around wearing a mask. The veil restricts women, it stops them achieving their full potential in all areas of their life and it stops them communicating. It sends out a clear message: “I do not want to be part of your society.”

Some Muslim women say that it is their choice to wear it; I don’t agree. Why would any woman living in a tolerant country freely choose to wear such a restrictive garment? What these women are really saying is that they adopt the veil because they believe that they should have less freedom than men, and that if they did not wear the veil men would not be accountable for their uncontrollable urges — so women must cover-up so as not to tempt men. What kind of a message does that send to women?

But a lot of women are not free to choose. Girls as young as three or four are wearing the hijab to school — that is not a freely made choice. Girls under 16 should certainly not have to wear it to school. And behind the closed doors of some Muslim houses, women are told to wear the hijab and the veil. These are the girls that are hidden away, they are not allowed to go to universities, they have little choice in who they marry, in many cases they are kept down by the threat of violence.

So for women such as them it was absolutely right for Jack Straw to raise this issue. Nobody should feel threatened by his comments; after all, the debate about veils has been raging in the Islamic community for many years. To argue that non-Muslims have no right to discuss it merely reinforces the idea that Muslims are not part of a wider society. It also suggests, wrongly, that wearing the veil affects only Muslims. Non-Muslims have to deal with women wearing a veil, so why shouldn’t their feelings be taken into consideration? I would find it impossible to deal with any veiled woman because it goes so deeply against my own values and basic human instincts. How can you develop any kind of a social relationship with someone who has shut themselves away from the rest of the world?

And if we can’t have a debate about the veil without a vocal minority of Muslims crying “Islamophobia”, how will we face other issues, such as domestic violence, forced marriages, sexual abuse and child abuse that are rife in the Muslim community? These are not uniquely Muslim problems but, unlike other communities, they are never openly debated. It is children and women who suffer as a result.

Many moderate Muslim women in Britain will welcome Mr Straw’s comments. This is an opportunity for them to say: “I don’t wear the veil but I am a Muslim.” If I had been forced to wear a veil I would certainly not be writing this article — I would not have the friends I have, I would not have been able to run a marathon or become an aerobics teacher or set up a business.

This is my message to British Muslim women — if you want your daughters to take advantage of all the opportunities that Britain has to offer, do not encourage them to wear the veil. We must unite against the radical Muslim men who would love women to be hidden, unseen and unheard.

I was able to take advantage of what Britain has got to offer and I hope Mr Straw’s comments will help more Muslim women to do the same. But my argument with those Muslims who would only be happy in a Talebanised society, who turn their face against integration, is this: “If you don’t like living here and don’t want to integrate, then what the hell are you doing here? Why don’t you just go and live in an Islamic country?”

Fostering good community relations down under.

so they like to call the kettle black face to face huh?

but maybe i meant The Daily Bastard. Or The Bastard. all the same really.

I love the idea of culpable meat.

show your working

In which case, can we have an animal control officer, please?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7357008.stm

He just forgot the throwing up part! lol geddit...

He continued: "I could sup a whole tin of Carnation condensed milk, just for the taste, stupid things like that. Marks & Spencer trifles, I still love them, one of my favourites. I can eat them for ever.

Archive footage of John Prescott

"Whenever I go to Mr Chu's in Hull, my favourite Chinese restaurant in the whole world . . . I could eat my way through the entire menu."

Fucking hell, this is like something out of Viz.

it really is, isn't it?

i'm kind of at a loss for words.

I hate that patronising posh voice he puts on, really grating.

I don't know why I'm always faintly surprised to find out that a high-profile politician has a bad diet. A friend of mine works at the Treasury and I met him there for lunch a few weeks back, and he said "yeah Gordon Brown used to eat in the canteen virtually every day, he'd always order the filthiest thing there was, burger and chips, pie and chips, he was a fat shit".

Really? Looks the picture of health to me.

Yeah, usually the Scots have a great diet.

We never go to Mr Chu's in case Prescott's cleared the kitchen out that evening.

He just forgot the throwing up part! lol geddit...

pretty much the sun's editorial line today. hmm.

there is something very, very odd about all this.

i think anything that moves the media narrative on eating disorders away from "omg size zero models" is a good thing.

I hope TAX PAYERS MONEY didn't go toward the food he selfishly threw up.

from http://www.hullcc.gov.uk/portal/page?_pageid=221,93203&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL&p_id=1639&p_mode=result&p_theme=5&p_theme_name=Environment

"Copious amounts of toxic vomit and verbal diarrhoea found in men's conveniences"

has anyone done the 'two gags' joke yet?

they have now.

how much would G Norton give me for that?

at least one (© frankie howerd, 1958)

there is nothing wrong with my resturant in hull, thanks.

Madchen did it yesterday, sry

Madchen did it yesterday, sry

SECRET BOARD ACTION >:O

ah, no it was in real life :)

Chu, Chew, DYS?

SECRET LIFE ACTION >:O

i've totally been to that restaurant
http://lolrider.com/images/mrchu.jpg

Fortunately i wasn't a victim of food poisoning or vomiting. The restaurant itself is GRAND though - it has a DANCE FLOOR in the middle, and a LIBRARY!!!?!?!???!??!

That's a garage in Hackney isn't it?

That's Rude Mercs?

still not a racist cunt

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/nov/13/jack-straw-labour-mistake-poles