The big debate

Spare a thought today for the poor women that Jack Straw exposed in more ways than one yesterday. They may wear the niqab for all sorts of reasons, but the minimum that will be happening to them within their families is a sense of embarrassment at Straw's revelation that he disrobed them, and maybe worse.

But Straw doesn't care, as long as he gets his "debate". It's absurd how these ministers keep popping up calling for a debate in their speeches and articles, only for them to slink back into their Westminster bubble after opening up a hornet's nest.

We do need a debate about a lot of things regarding the Muslim community, but not with Jack Straw choosing the topic and the timing. He's had thirty years to raise these points of advice with his Muslim constituents, but chooses now, in a newspaper article to do it.

We are witnessing a spiralling race to the bottom as to which party can malign the Muslim community the most. The Tories have professed reform on the environment, sexuality, racism and social justice, but their new found optimism does not extend to the Muslim community.

In one of the late night moments that I am less proud of, I was watching the Tory conference on the Parliament channel a couple of days ago. One of the delegates from Islington started on an astonishing rant from the podium about how Muslims weren't integrating, that they're doing nothing about terrorism, that they come to meetings with the government and demand shariah and Muslim bank holidays. He left the stage to rapturous applause.

David Cameron took his turn. He leaked his "Ban Muslim ghettos" line to the Evening Standard in advance. The point I make to him and Straw is that the issues you raise may well be true. But the manner in which you do it, and the result which you achieve in the media and then on the ground, smacks of insincerity.

Let's leave aside serious analysis just now of what ghettos are, whose fault they are and what the result of this is for community relations. Does the Conservative leader think that Muslims choose to live in squalor? I wish he had sent a positive message out to us - that you have among the worst social indicators in poverty, education, crime, employment and housing of any group in this country and a Tory government want to help lift you out of it.

Surely if people are sincere, then they try to engage people on the best of terms?

I like to think I'm a pretty well integrated Muslim. But I despair when I see the talk of the gutter that we've seen over the last couple of days. It's men and women like me who should be taking these "debates" to the Muslim community. There are big problems and we need to address them.

Instead we find ourselves constantly on the defensive, battling against the fallout from the likes of Straw, Cameron, Kelly, Reid, Blair or whoever else wants to appear tough, talking tough to the Muslims.

Comments

[Sporty Muslimah]

This was just another excuse at bashing the Muslim, quite an easy target aren't we :(

[Julaybib]

Jazak Allah for this coherent and considered assessment of the issues surrounding Straw's recent comments.

[Proud Kaffir]

Why is it that western women are told to respect muslim customs and cultures when they are visiting muslim countries. Examples of this include dressing modestly and not going out with men who are not their husband nor fathers. Yet muslims in the uk need laws to be changed to fit their lifestyle, isn't this rather hypocritical?

[keith Malone]

Kaafir if you or any of you Kaafir friends don't like living in muslim countries then f**k off back to the infidel lands.

[Yusuf Smith]

"Proud Kaffir": there are actually not that many countries in the Muslim world where non-Muslim women cannot go out without a chaperone. Saudi Arabia is the only one now, I believe, which places restrictions on women's movement.

When you're a tourist in someone else's country it is only good manners to respect local sensibilities. In fact, many Muslim countries allow foreign tourist women to undress on the beach as long as they dress decently when they go into town - the same being true in Europe, of course. (How many women do you see in bikinis on the streets of Brighton?)

[joe90]

PK standing up for the rights of British women abroad, 'appen.

Never mind British women at home being told what they should and shouldn't be wearing in public by a sexist, racist, male politican, 'appen.

As me old mam used to say -
"Son, hypocrisy starts at 'ome, 'appen!"

[ainelivia]

There are many occasions when an MP is being asked to make a decision based only the facts as presented by person in front of them. Making the wrong decision can seriously damage their credibility and ultimately their ability to help other constituents.

Many of the cases brought to surgeries require the Member to be satisfied of the attendee’s identity and/or honesty.
Being unable to see who you’re talking to or their expression and reaction can be a serious issue in such cases.

[joe90]

So says the expert on absolutely every sitution in life you are ever going to come across -
- so no matter what your profession is or your particular calling - our resident tabloid agony aunt expert is on hand tell us all the blindingly obvious, as well as to tell us all, its our own fault Jack Straw is completely hopelss, and not his -

I would have thought that slagging off the dress sense of your own constituents to be a bit risque, but no -
- as long as your exposed cleavage and bosoms are hanging over Jack's desk, then he'll be more than happy to see you, and say no more about it and his dalliance with you to the tabloid press -
but wear a veil!!

[joe90]

Didn't Jack Straw constantly lie, over a prolonged period, about the threat defenceless, innocent Iraq posed to the UK only just recently?

I mean, Saddam posed a 45 minute threat to the very existence of the UK, back then, according to him, I seem to remember.

This hasn't been pointed out, in any of the news articles covering his latest comments about the threat veils pose to the very existence of the UK, as we know it!

[ainelivia]

Way off topic, again? Eh Joe?

By the way, some of the comments that you made in your first comment here, are extremely sexist and offensive to women. But then your concerns for women, are probably non-existent. Your main concern is for your own self-promotion.

Add to that your continuing abuse, vindictive and venomous racism, you are in no position to judge anyone else, never mind Jack Straw.

If, you are such a paragon of virtue, why aren't you Prime Minister?

[Sunny]

Yeah but this is what politicians are always like - opportunistic, full of badly judged and ignorant quotes that do not reflect reality. This is why we have so much political apathy in this country: it doesn't just apply to Muslims, it applies to working classes too across the board.

It applies to all minority groups, other than middle class conservatives and liberals, that politicians do not regularly communicate with it.

It is down to people from those communities themselves to try an better themselves and have a debate about the things that matter Osama. You cannot rely on Jack Straw or tony Blair.

But guess what, the "community leaders" are too busy discussing conflicts in foreign countries because those issues get the angry boys fired up rather than bread-and-better local issues or civic involvement issues. The latter are not sexy enough.

And don't think I'm finger pointing just at Muslims here, this applies to Hindus and Sikhs equally too. Who wants to talk about domestic abuse, FGM, honour killings? Let's talk about Israel, Khalistan, India!

[DrM]

Sunny boy, why are you bringing up FGM? A bit lost are you? You, Malone and the other gutter snipe trolls ought to get a room.

[Sunny]

DrM - when you grow a brain feel free to engage in intellectual discourse.

[Martin]

Osama,

Though no doubt well-intentioned from your own point of view, your post exemplifies many of the difficulties our nation faces.

According to the 'diversity index' published by the Office of National Statistics last week, the social indicators of Muslims are shocking. As one citizen speaking to another without the barrier of religion between us, this is a bad thing. It's wrong. The potential of Muslims living in the United Kingdom is being wasted. It is inhumane and uncivic; it cannot continue.

Dealing with the cause is the difficult bit. Secular ideology isn't the answer. Pace the rantings of Joe90, who seems to think that I'm some sort of robot, my own civic beliefs are informed by the teachings of the American conservative philosopher Russell Kirk, who taught that true conservatism is the abandonment of ideology.

The problem with all ideologies is that they eventually fail. Things go fine for a while until they are presented with a problem for which they cannot find an answer. With German National Socialism, that moment was the Battle of Stalingrad. With Soviet Communism it was the fall of the Berlin Wall. With so-called 'neoconservatism', it was Hurricane Katrina.

Ideology hurts little people while ideologues weld power and get rich. Multiculturalism fits the definition of a secular ideology like a glove in that it makes a fetish of its teachings. Multiculturalism is founded on an oxymoron; it demands tolerance - but the problem with that, from my perspective and perhaps that of a great many others, is that it's a tolerance which only ever seems to be demanded one way, from natives towards all comers. 7/7 showed that British multiculturalism hasn't worked. That was its real point of no return, its Berlin Wall moment.

As citizens and taxpayers together we need to work out where we go from here.

Living in the UK, you not only need to speak English but to speak it well. This is an accomplishment many natives cannot achieve, I know, but that's the consequence of a politician having had the bright idea of unleashing ideologues onto the education system. It can be fixed.

Straw is a politician; like all politicians everywhere, regardless of nation, religion or culture, the purpose of his existence is to seek and hold power. That's why he shilled for Blair on the invasion of Iraq - perhaps that motivated his comments on the veil.

But even cynics sometimes speak the truth. The veil is not a product of the native culture. It has no precedent in native history. Regardless of the motives for its being worn it is a barrier - a barrier which didn't exist before and which multiculturalism tells natives they must accept; without ever telling them why.

One of the consequences of living in a free and open society is that freedom from offence is not an option; something which the pious Catholic and the pious Muslim encounter every day of their lives upon being exposed to a culture rooted not in values but merchandising. Commercial television and 'Beyond the Fringe' have a lot to answer for.

If it's offensive to Muslims to say so I'm sorry, but the health of the culture and the unity of the nation demands that citizens be able to see each others' faces when they address each other.

If Muslims cannot make this simple gesture then, from my point of view, sadly they face some tough choices. The brutal reality of history, Osama, is, as you know, that culture will always come out. A poster on another thread has made the daft remark that I might be happy with the violence that's flared up in Windsor over the last week. It's appalling, and should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. It is anti-cultural; not the historic way Brits do things, the reactions of cornered animals.

But Sajad Ahmed Rana's blatant preference for Islam over the law of Scotland is also anti-cultural. The thugs of Windsor do violence to bricks and mortar, things that can be repaired; Rana does violence do the rule of law.

Apologising for him was not your finest hour.

So, just for once, let's see a perceived concession from Muslims. It might do us all a power of good.

[ainelivia]

Gura mait agut Martin: who seems to have brought much needed sense to this thread in the form of his post above. Some interesting points you have raised here Martin, things to ponder.

[Osama]

Ainelivia, so is it not possible to write or email our MPs now because they can't see our faces? Can't speak on the phone?

Martin, multiculturalism is blamed for the whole thing at the moment, the BBC framed their reporting of the last few days on that hook. The alternative policy over the last few decades would have been to take recent immigrants and assimilate them. I'm not sure which aspects of British society they would have foisted upon them - maybe make them ditch curry for fish and chips, take them out of their 18-hour-a-day-7-days-a-week jobs to make ends meet for English and citizenship classes, make them wear jeans and tshirts, make them convert to Christianity, and maybe even inject them with the same skin condition Michael Jackson has.

The result I submit would have been the same. Any wave of immigration to these isles ahs been met with poverty on the part of those who came. Ask the Catholics, and they didn't have much changing to do. It will take a few years for this to level out, but there are no silver bullets.

[DrM]

Sunny, I used to think that you(like Marty) were a gibbering idiot. Now, after reading your latest post, I have a much lower opinion of you. If you're going to say something that ignorant, you could at least fake a stroke. Your fecal fascist roots are showing. As I said earlier get these pathetic trolls and yourself a room, I'm sure you'd enjoy their cream in your coffee.

[kl]

Why shouldn't Jack Straw start a debate "choosing the topic and the timing"?

[Osama]

kl, if you weren't able to quote from it, anyone would think you hadn't read my post.

See Ian Bell in today's Herald for more

[Martin]

Osama, a few quick thoughts -

1. Nobody emigrated to the United Kingdom under duress. Your comment seems to suggest assimilation should have been a coercive process. That should not have been necessary. Instead, some of those who have come have not felt the need to attend to their own assimilation. If they are uncomfortable, then they have nobody to blame but themselves. When in Rome...

2. You're both right and wrong about the poverty element amongst new migrants. The Saudi princes, Pahlevi-era Iranians and nouveau riche Russians who populate London all have the means to support themselves. Similarly, the establishment of the NHS led to the vacuuming up of medical personnel from the Third World (a great injustice to those nations deprived of their most talented people in order to satisfy the British appetite for healthcare, but that's an argument for another time). Many of the immigrants working within it arrived with skills to use and jobs to go to.

However, for the unskilled, yes, there was poverty. And perhaps this is where what is happening now differs from what has happened before.

The Muslims are not getting off the ground floor in the way that Irish, Italians and Poles did. Muslims are not bad businesspeople; but at this stage in the migration cycle such a large bloc of Muslim poor should not exist.

Ahem, it's a magic, not a silver, bullet that might be needed. As the late, great Ronald Reagan said there are no easy answers, only simple answers; but there might be some things that can be done to improve this problem, which is not good for Muslims and not good for Britain.

The globalisation process has been described by Stephen Roach, the Chief Economist of Morgan Stanley, as nothing more than an arbitrage of labour between the First and Third Worlds. That means Muslims in the Third World will benefit at the expense of those in the First, until their wages meet in the middle. Globalisation is not good for Britain, which means it's not good for British Muslims. It needs to stop.

Coming from a migrant background should not ever deter any citizen from discussing immigration. It is an observable, empirical phenomenon that the people most hurt by mass immigration are the poor, unskilled and low-waged. If too many British Muslims have poor social indicators then mass immigraton is not helping them. It needs to stop.

Osama, I hope you felt better after your wee rant about fish and chips and Michael Jackson; but such talk is not going to solve the problem. What you describe are some of the ways in which British culture expresses itself - but they are not the culture in its entirety; and it's also foolish to think they are.

As for the value added by this discussion's 800 pound elephant in the room to the lives of Muslims, one has one's thoughts...but it would be impolite to express them...

[joe90]

Nobody emigrated to the United Kingdom under duress

- of course some people do, ask Irish immigrants for instance -

- or Scots, forced off their land into lousy industrial central belt towns and cities, who head south for a better life becuase that is where the wealth, that has been stolen off them, has been concentrated

[joe90]

Many brilliant points Osama - and some I wouldn't even have known existed,
ie the disrobing of females and the humiliation caused within the family!

The BBC Radio news bulletins on Radio 3 today reported Muslims groups objecting to Jack straws comments. Well, I'm not a Muslim and I object, and I also object to the way the BBC is trying to imply only Muslims are objecting. My objecting has nothing to do with my 'ethnic' background, except the one I share with everbody else, which is having the democratic right, and freedom to express myself, in the way I want to. They seem to be implying only Muslims can possibly object to Jack Straw's new constuency rules (why he didn't demand these standards before, will be interesting reading) thus conflating other supposed objections by Muslims elswhere (ie Denmark cartoons, London coppers objecting to Israeli Emabssy duty etc).

The BBC gives the impression only Muslim folk are taking offence at Jack Straw's sudden publicly announced revelations of what he gets up to, in the privacy of his local constituency surgeries, with his some of his female constituents. This seems to be an attempt to maufacture an 'us and them' type artifical confrontational agenda, so beloved of the western mass media, thus creating the very 'ghettos' they seem to be complaining about. Isn't this Straw attitude to free expression going to be a barrier to some of his female constituents wanting to attend his surgeries but won't for fear of Jack's hang-ups about veils?

I can easily imagine Straw's statements being made by some Apartheid South African politician. I can also imagine this kind of public lecturing to some of our most vulnerable sections of the community, demanding that they need to 'integrate' themselves better, coming straight out of some fascist regime like Franco's Spain or Stalinist Russia. British society is not monolithic, never has been and never will be, despite the best efforts of the British Establishment and its cohorts like Blair, Cameron and The Daily Mail to make it so. The impression that stalwarts like Straw and Cameron give is that, what they object to about Muslim folk is their own personal choice not to 'integrate', and prefering instead, to live in a ghetto of their own construction, or prefering to wear a veil - reduced to mere equivalents for the rest of non-Muslim Britian to deciding what book to read or choice of shoes to wear.

To conflate being forced to live in a ghetto with religious observance is a travesty of democracy. Religious observance is something powerless people can control but is their perfectly legal democractic right to choose to do, and is nothing to apologise for or be defensive about. Those attacking such practices should attack all religions not just one whenever it suits their own fading, sinking professional political career prospects. Being forced to live in a ghetto is nothing the inhabitants should be ashamed about either, or apologise for, - but the existence of any ghetto is one any government, the world over, should be ashamed of.

At what point willl people like Blair, Straw Cameron etc be satisfied that 'integration' is complete? It seems an open ended and entirely arbitrary demand and one not easily ameanable to rational measurement, which I think that is the whole point of making it. The powerful interests who make these demands of others, far weaker than themselves, can never be held to account, unlike the targets of their public denunciations. Straw, Cameron, Blair et al can always say they are satisfied/not satisfied, it's entirely up to them. It doesn't matter what efforts their targets make to towards meeting their objections, they can always be held accountable for not having done enough to meet this unquantifiable demands. This is a common authoritarian device for population control.

Typical New Labour, as it sinks under the weight of its own anti-democratic catastrophic policies, it blames the victims of those policies. Blaming, especially, those they know are among the weakest sections of our own community, the ones least able to respond, the ones least represented, and the ones who only ever get an equal platform in the British media only if they are shouting at John Reid in public!

[Sunny]

Now, after reading your latest post, I have a much lower opinion of you.

I'm so hurt DrM. No really, I'm crying here. If you ever uttered something of intelligence I'd actually take your opinion seriously? Fecal fascist roots my arse.

[joe90]

at this stage in the migration cycle such a large bloc of Muslim poor should not exist.
- apart from the fact there is no such thing as a 'migration cycle', you've just invented it - to blame poverty on the poor is nothing new, and is a rhetorical device not used solely on Muslims alone by pontificating racist ignorant bores

the late great Ronald Reagan
- the guy was a first class moron -
- nobody ever went to him for advice once his presidency was over -
- this is a guy who thought trees caused pollution!
- at talks in Iceland, Reagan promised Gorbachov to get rid of all US nuclear weapons - when his controllers found out they nearly had a collective heart-attack - he hadn't a clue what the world was about

[joe90]

Martin talks about the 'a nation' and the 'unity of the nation' -
- both of these ideas, in his sense, are neo-nazi -

There is no such thing as the 'British nation', never was and never will be -

- it is an invention of the English Eastablishment and their various lackey's among the Scots, Welsh and Irish -