Straw doesn't know his head from his face

Managed to find Jack Straw's whole article. Reads like something colonial from the days of the Raj.

But he's also hopelessly ill-informed:

And women as well as men went head uncovered the whole time when in their Hajj – pilgrimage – in Mecca.

Head uncovered? I thought this was about the niqab, the veil covering the face. Because it's certainly not true - women do not uncover their heads during the Hajj.

There are other troubling parts to his argument:

 

... 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.

You could easily substitute "veil" for "hijab" in this sentence, and indeed any Islamic practice you care to name. Later in the article:

Would she, however, think hard about what I said – in particular about my concern that wearing the full veil was bound to make better, positive relations between the two communities more difficult.
 
It was such a visible statement of separation and of difference.

Again, where does this line of thinking stop? Someone else could make a similar argument that the headscarf is also a "visible statement of separation and of difference" making "positive relations" "more difficult". The grounds of Straw's argument are weak and dangerous.

The Prime Minister meanwhile has refused to rule out a legal ban on the niqab:

Asked if there were any plans to enshrine in law the removal of veils in public places, such as MPs surgeries, the PMS replied that though the matter was being publicly debated, it did not make it a matter of future Government policy.

He voluntarily defended Straw's right to "have a discussion and to express [his] personal views", but did not similarly defend a woman's right to wear what she wants. It's funny how the last couple of days, all these defenders of freedom of expression have disappeared.

Comments

[David Duff]

Always perplexing the problems around the edges of the cutural 'tectonic plates' as they graunch against each other.

Can I assume that if an Anglo-Saxon woman walked through a Muslim area wearing a see-through blouse and no bra you will be as quick to defend her right to do so?

I hope not because the vast majority of women who tend to display themselves in such a manner are usually rather ugly and on aesthetic grounds alone should be advised to cover up. Equally, of course, to Anglo-Saxon eyes the sight of a woman covered head to toe with only the eyes showing is just as ugly, and for myself, I would not wish to discuss anything at length with a woman in such a garb. (I hasten to add that I would not ban her from wearing it - except on security grounds in certain special places, and the office of a former Foreign Secretary who led a war against some Arabs might be one such place! - but equally I would feel entitled to voice my opinion on the subject.)

[joe90]

a Muslim area

- the answer is contained in your question

Not being an Anglo-Saxon myself, I know that if said female tried to walk into my local Roman Catholic chapel or Church of Scotland church she wouldn't be welcome.

I know for a fact she won't be allowed into St Peters in Rome.

Walking through a 'Jewish Area' with a swastika on your t-shirt has nothing to do with democracy or western values etc it is intended as an insult -
- I suggest, if people want to give deliberate offence to others then the consequences are on their own heads

Religious observance, for some people, is not an option but it is a requirement and what makes them who they are -
- if you want a world filled with homogenised humanity then emigrate to North Korea

Now, where is my t-shirt that says 'F**CK THE ENGLISH'?

[joe90]

Choke back the nausea and delve further into the existence of the entity known as 'Jack Straw' -
- famous for attacking his own constituents
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/jack_straw/blackburn>Jack Straw

Notice the name of the website
"They work for you" -

In Jack's case, it should read
"He attacks you, behind your back, in public - but not to your face, 'cause you've got a veil on missus, and that would be improper"

On Jack's CV,
you won't find him boasting that he is famous for the ultmate crime of 'unprovoked aggression' (against Iraq), the crime Hitler is guilty of -
- so if you want to portray Jack Straw as Hitler, this would be an accurate description -
- unlike trying to say Saddanm Hussein or Gabal Abdul Nasser were Hitlers etc etc, which is just hyperbole and completely uncalled for.

[joe90]

It would be nice to know what issues Jack Straw does agree on with his constituents, such as -

- the destruction and privatisation of the NHS

- womens rights to choose abortion

- spending £6.5 billion on massacring Iraqis, just recently

- the deliberate putting in harms way and massacring of British soldiers for a pack of New Labour lies, just recently

- the fact that British democracy doesn't work, if it ever did

- the fact that he is one of the world's leading criminals, guilty of mass-murder on a scale so vast, the number of his dead victims is completely uncountable

[Infidel & Kafir Watch]

While this women veil was used as a smoke screen to divert attention from a Terror plot in which the Police raided a house believed to be a bomb factory. Their belief became reality when all the equipment and tools was found to make a terrorising and devastating terrorist plot to kill 100’s of people. The only difference was that this time around it was a White non-Muslims and a Nazi BNP member who once stood up for election in his local region.

So, why did this story miss the news headlines? After all Jack Straw thinks that banning the veil is more important than reporting on this terror plot by an infidel and Kafir to kill his own people and the worst thing is that the media agree with straw that the veil is far more important issue since Muslims and Islam is involved.

If you infidels and Kafirs don’t believe me then here is the news report which speaks for it self. I wonder how many of you will decide to keep this bomb factory story a top secret?

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=9882
http://www.burnleycitizen.co.uk/display.var.951775.0.exbnp_man_faces_explosives_charge.php
http://www.pendletoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=8&ArticleID=1806619

[David Duff]

Good, old 'Joe90', thus named because he never uses one word when ninety are available, my question was whether or not our host would leap to defend the right of a woman in a see-through blouse to walk through a Muslim area - he being a *Muslim* not a Roman Catholic or a 'Wee Free'!

[Sohaib]

All this speculation about Straw's real motives in making these comments now, and the obvious truth has been missed...

He wanted people to read his blog! 131 comments so far on this article, and zilch on all the previous posts.

He should try and get onto the Guardian's Comment is Free, as I'm sure the horrible people who lurk around there waiting to spout bigoted comments would be ready to congratulate him on every new word.

[DrM]

David Daft, who would this woman in your little "see-through blouse" fantasy be? Joe90 has made excellent points. The real question is if she would be allowed to strut her stuff in a non-Muslim "area." Probably not, given thats its indecent exposure punishable by law.

[David Duff]

No it is not "indecent exposure" and whatever *you* consider to be the "real question", *mine* has yet to be answered - would our host defend the right of a woman to be 'clothed' in such a manner in a Muslim area? A simple 'yes' or 'no' will suffice.

[Osama]

David, I'm not quite sure what these "Muslim areas" are, but surely if we are to draw the correct analogy you're attempting, it would be whether a woman could wear a see-through blouse in a non-Muslim area? After all, we're not seeing the veil all over Kensington and Chelsea are we? In which case the answer is yes, and presumably since you brought it up, they do.

[Osama]

David, I'm not quite sure what these "Muslim areas" are, but surely if we are to draw the correct analogy you're attempting, it would be whether a woman could wear a see-through blouse in a non-Muslim area? After all, we're not seeing the veil all over Kensington and Chelsea are we? In which case the answer is yes, and presumably since you brought it up, they do.

[joe90]

A right to give offence isn't a right, its an outrageous racist provocation -
- and I'm sure I could dream up all sorts of thought experiments to prove whatever I want, with regards to other peoples ways of life and and show how backward they are -

Do you have the right to walk through a 'Jewish area' wearing a swastika t-shirt - yes or no?

[DrM]

So David Daft(btw dullard its a violation of the law to wear see-thru blouse in any "area."), would you be as kind as to wear a swastika as per Joe's request in a "jewish area" A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice.

[Kashmiri Nomad]

I believe that Jack Straw's motivation in making his now infamous outburst regarding the niqab is quite plain and simple.

Mr.Straw is a politican and as such has only one principal governing his public and private life and that is self preservation of his career and pension.

The last general election saw his majority in Blackburn cut to around 8,000 votes. In a constituency with around 30% of the voters Muslim Mr.Straw's support of the war in Iraq has left a "bitter taste" in the mouth of those Muslims. He has realised this and is playing to the white working class Islamophobic voters in order to make up support he lost from the Muslim community.

It is quite simple Mr. Straw has never wanted a debate aboout this issue since 1979 when be became an M.P. I wonder why all of the sudden he has "concerns" now ? Maybe his instinct for self preservation is driving this latest discussion about the niqab.

[joe90]

Guess who Jack Straw,
(the MP who, instead of representing the interest of his consttuents prefers to attack them)
is selling billions of pounds worth of weapons to?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/5262120.stm>Saudi Arabia buys 72 Eurofighters

http://www.caat.org.uk/publications/countries/saudi-arabia.php>The Arabian Connection: The UK Arms Trade to Saudi Arabia

And he doesn't mind, even if Saudi Arabian women are forced to practice this -
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3417739.stm>Saudi Arabia's veil challenge

No scruples some people!

[joe90]

It's funny,
but when Jack Straw was Foreign Secretary, and big fat juicy arms contracts were being negotiated with the moth-eaten House of Fraud, I didn't recall Jack objecting to Britsh arms firms doing deals with them.

It's probably just me, I'm sure Jack Straw isn't a hypocrite -
- so, if anybody knows the whereabouts of Jack Straw's objections to dealings with the House of Fraud, I'd be much obliged if you could let me know where I can find them!

[joe90]

Speaking personally, the people I feel most uncomfortable talking with perma-tanned politicians in expensive, perfectly pressed suits with a record of shameless mendacity. Jack Straw's complicity in the lies that led to the invasion and occupation of Iraq makes him responsible for divisions both domestic and foreign of far greater consequence, far greater menace to us all, than any woman walking the streets of Blackburn with her face veiled.

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/mike_marqusee/2006/10/post_487.html>Double Jack's standards

Some people feel uncomfortable speaking to young women with a bare midriffs or large white men with union jack tattoos, but no cabinet member is administering public lectures about their choices.

[DrM]

Well thanks for bringing up those inconvinient facts Joe, I hope you're proud of yourself!

[ainelivia]

"David, I'm not quite sure what these "Muslim areas" are,".

Osama, I'm sure Trevor Brooks/Izzadine knows, i remember he said that to John Reid, didn't he? "How dare you [John Reid] come into a Muslim area....". Yes I do believe that is how he prefaced his heckling.

So I'd imagine that TB (imagine the same initials) would know where these areas are. Perhaps David could ask him, Trevor seems to the authority on areas and non areas.

[joe90]

I'm over the moon DrM,
and I don't know if you have noticed, my learned friend, but it's almost Wednesday and New Labour MPs have yet to publicly imply people who follow the great Islamic Faith have something not quite right about them, espeicially if they happen to be their constituents -
- the week is nearly over and still no terrorist scare stories either -
- what's going on?

[David Duff]

Osama, if I may say so, you rather weaken anything you have to say if you ask deliberately naive questions like: 'what is a Muslim area'? You and I and everyone reading this blog knows perfectly well what was meant. And I note that you still deflect a straight answer.

The fact is that other people's dress codes are highly dislikeable by other people either from the aesthetic point of view - fat girls showing their distended stomachs, orthodox Jews with their ringlets and ridiculous homburg hats, and so on. Or from a social point of view - women being clothed from head to toe with nothing visible except the eyes - it says so much about their men, don't you think?

Now, I feel free to say what I like about these dress codes and that is a freedom I enjoy and cherish. It is a freedom of which Jack Straw availed himself. My question to you remains the same: Do you wish to see that freedom curtailed and if you do, is it in one particular case or every case?

[ainelivia]

Haven't seen this mentioned anywhere in the media, or anywhere else.

Jack Straw is partially deaf.

http://www.deaftoday.com/news/archives/004704.html

[Osama]

David your comments here are a fine example of the need to be on the offensive. It is abundantly apparent that it is your side of the argument that is attempting to curtail what people can wear, not mine. Yet, you put the question to me. It should be you that answers it. I will defend the right of anyone to wear whatever they want. The hypothetical example you raise would be a simple one as to public decency if it is too OTT. Fact is though that this is not a real issue. You're the one advocating meddling in people's dress sense.

[David Duff]

Naughty, naughty, Osama, I have nowhere suggested that there should be a general ban on people wearing what they wish, I am merely defending the right of Jack Straw, and me, and you, to express our opinions on it and to *ask* that certain 'costumes' be changed in certain circumstances. You *appeared* to be denying that right to express an opinion and I am merely giving you the opportunity to rebut that misunderstanding - if such it be.

[joe90]

Let me get this straight -

- Osama is for people's own right to choose

- David Duff is for people's own right to choose -
- David Duff is also for the right to freedom of opinion, which is being curtailed in some way, by Osama objecting to Jack Straw using his position of power and privilege to slag off his female constituents, who are of a certain religious persuasion, about their dress-sense in public -

- apart from the fact, it is a deeply religious matter for the people involved, and any questions of religion should be handled with care by nominally secular politicians and their secular parties

I can just imagine a similar argument being put that people's rights to expressing themselves by wearing a swastika t-shirt are being curtailed by anti-democratic Jewish people who don't want to fit in etc etc.

David Duff you haven't moved the discussion on one iota mate -
- do people have a right to wear a swastika t-shirt in a 'Jewish area', if they don't isn't that denying a person's right to freedom of expression?

Does Jack Straw have the freedom to say absolutely anything he wants to in public, regardless of who he insults?

I notice Jack Straw doesn't insult the rich buyers of British arms of Saudi Arabia who insist women wear a veil in public.

Do I have the freedom to object to what Jack Straw says, and who is ever going to hear what I have to say, compared to a former British Forign Secretary and New Labout MP?

Face it David Duff,
New Labour MPs are using their position of influence, privilege and power to abuse a vulnerable and visible minority for their own cheap political benefit -
- using others as scapegoats is nothing new and neither is pleading that you are only expressing your democratic freedom of opinion -
- it's a bit rich that some nobody is standing up for Jack Straw's freedom of opinion - in a real democracy this is usually the other way round, the MP stands up for and protects their constituent's freedom of expression - not in Jack's case alas!