It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Straw 'opposes all Muslim veils'

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 03:32 AM
link   
Cabinet Minister Jack Straw has said he would prefer Muslim women not to wear veils at all.




The Islamic Human Rights Commission labelled the article "astonishing" and accused Mr Straw of discrimination.




I think it rather astonishing that Muslims should be allowed to wear viels in countries which are under attack from muslim fundametalist.

I believe it causes a great prblem for the intelligence community eg if a veiled person were suspected of carrying a bomb or the like there of, all they would have to do is enter a mosque and you would never tell them one from the othere. therefore i believe the anti terror branches work would be made more easier and pehaps at least make it more difficult for attacks to carried by zealot jihads.

Is this just my opinion or what do others think. ? news.bbc.co.uk... for full storey




posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 03:36 AM
link   
wasnt it actually that Mr Straw admitted that when he meets with muslim women who wear the veil, he asks them to take it off....if they dont want to, fair enough.
I think this has been blown out of all proportion. Its a personal request when he is meeting....hes not saying, oi you lot....take off your veils.

I agree with him too. As he said, the point of a face to face meeting is so that you can interact with a person better than say, in a letter or email. So that interaction is lost if you cant even see the persons face.



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 03:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by geek101
Its a personal request when he is meeting....hes not saying, oi you lot....take off your veils.


Actually, he is, although he's trying to be polite:

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."



I agree with him too.


Just for once. so do I. I think there is an extent to which, if you're going to move to a country, you should, while retaining your individuality and culture, be prepared to adapt. If I were to move to Saudi Arabia I should be prepared to forgo alcohol. If Muslims move to the UK they should be prepared to lose the veil, for the reasons you state, although headscarves I think are perfectly acceptable. And they should accept that the people who live here already don't want Sharia, thanks. If they want to live by Sharia, then live in an Islamic country. But honour killings and the like have no place here and we should be adamant about that.



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 03:58 AM
link   

Former foreign secretary Jack Straw said Muslim women who wore full veils made community relations "more difficult", sparking criticism on Friday from Islamic groups.

Straw, now Leader of the House of Commons, said a veil was "a visible statement of separation and difference" and that he felt much more comfortable dealing with people with their faces uncovered.

Writing in his local paper, Straw said he was concerned that "wearing the full veil was bound to make better, positive relations between the two communities more difficult".

"The Muslim community does not need lessons in dress from Jack Straw," said Nazreen Nawaz, of the radical Hizb ut-Tahrir organisation.

"He has once again shown that for Cabinet ministers it is open season on Muslims and Islam."

Source.


I see a lot of sense in what he says. I do not think these comments show that "it is open season on Muslims and Islam", though, if you look at some peoples opinions on this very board, Nazreen Nawaz may well have a valid point as well.

I don't see why any of us should be surprised by this, after all, we've already witnessed the demonisation of people who choose to wear hoodies:



A children's charity has hit back at a controversial ban on hooded tops by urging young people to boycott the shopping centre which imposed it.

Bluewater in Kent said the move is not a complete ban, but an attempt to clamp down on what it sees as intimidating behaviour.

The Children's Society has called it "blatant discrimination based on stereotypes and prejudices".

Source.



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 04:05 AM
link   
This is true geek101 but imagine if you went around in a veil you would probably be arrested if not harrased.



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 04:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by rich23

Originally posted by geek101
Its a personal request when he is meeting....hes not saying, oi you lot....take off your veils.


Actually, he is, although he's trying to be polite:

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."



I agree with him too.


Just for once. so do I. I think there is an extent to which, if you're going to move to a country, you should, while retaining your individuality and culture, be prepared to adapt. If I were to move to Saudi Arabia I should be prepared to forgo alcohol. If Muslims move to the UK they should be prepared to lose the veil, for the reasons you state, although headscarves I think are perfectly acceptable. And they should accept that the people who live here already don't want Sharia, thanks. If they want to live by Sharia, then live in an Islamic country. But honour killings and the like have no place here and we should be adamant about that.


Agreed well put rich23



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 04:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by reaper2

Originally posted by rich23

Originally posted by geek101
Its a personal request when he is meeting....hes not saying, oi you lot....take off your veils.


Actually, he is, although he's trying to be polite:

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."



I agree with him too.


Just for once. so do I. I think there is an extent to which, if you're going to move to a country, you should, while retaining your individuality and culture, be prepared to adapt. If I were to move to Saudi Arabia I should be prepared to forgo alcohol. If Muslims move to the UK they should be prepared to lose the veil, for the reasons you state, although headscarves I think are perfectly acceptable. And they should accept that the people who live here already don't want Sharia, thanks. If they want to live by Sharia, then live in an Islamic country. But honour killings and the like have no place here and we should be adamant about that.


Agreed well put rich23


I agree as well. The UK is known as an open and tolerant country (most of the time) but if some muslims choose not to fit in then it's no wonder the BNP have a base to build on.

The veil isn't even a requirement for muslims as far as I'm aware. It's more of an arab cultural thing. Bosnian muslims don't wear them, do they?

Edited for spelling (really must get a decent spill chackur)

[edit on 6/10/06 by jimboman]



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 04:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by jimboman
The veil isn't even a requirement for muslims as far as I'm aware. It's more of an arab cultural thing. Bosnian muslims don't wear them, do they?


I now understand why Muslims are so unhappy about this. It seems that the average UK citizen is not even prepared to learn more about the people before they jump up and down and try to change the way the Muslims live. The fact is that the veil is worn by "strict" Muslims and is not worn by more modern Muslims, although they will wear one when visiting someone who follows the faith strictly. It would bring great shame on a woman's family should her face or any part of her body other than her hands be seen by any male other than her husband, son, brother or father. Much like Christian women would be shaming their families should they walk around bare-chested but this is acceptable and encouraged in some African cultures. Just as a matter of interest, I am not Muslim but I have many friends of all religions and, when inviting them to my home, I find out what is acceptable in their religion and accommodate them as much as I can. I do not serve bacon and eggs to my Jewish friends and I do not expect my Muslim friends to remove their veils when my husband is home. Simple. I do not think that these people are asking too much. All they want to do is cover themselves and everybody is having a hissy fit. I understand that you do not want people walking around and performing honour killings but this applies to every religion, i.e. you don't want anyone to be killing anyone else regardless of the reason. Are you going to demand that the Jews must eat non-Kosher food in the UK so that they can "fit in"? Are you going to ask Buddhist men to put trousers on so that they will "fit in"? Once you start dictating to people about little things like what they can wear, what will be dictated next?!



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 05:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by LovingSoul
Once you start dictating to people about little things like what they can wear, what will be dictated next?!


I visited a Jewish synagogue in Prague and one of my mates who was wearing shorts was not allowed in because his knees were showing. He went back to the hotel and put some trousers on. He grumbled, but complied with their wishes as a mark of respect.

Unacceptable or not? Because by your logic my friend has being persecuted.

I can't believe I'm saying this, but i actually agree with Jack Straw. (Professional help is being sought... ;o) )



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 05:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by glastonaut
I visited a Jewish synagogue in Prague and one of my mates who was wearing shorts was not allowed in because his knees were showing. He went back to the hotel and put some trousers on. He grumbled, but complied with their wishes as a mark of respect.
Unacceptable or not? Because by your logic my friend has being persecuted.


A misunderstanding has occurred here I think. I do not have a problem asking a man with a hat on his head to remove the hat when entering a cathedral (respect for another's religion) and I'm glad your friend changed into trousers out of respect for another's religion. This is different to some Jewish person coming up to you in the street and asking you to please put trousers on as it is their culture or whatever. What I am saying is that one needs to respect cultural differences in every day life. I would not expect everybody to start wearing veils because some people have to in terms of their culture but, by the same token, you cannot expect everybody NOT to wear veils just because it is part of your culture. This is the point I am making. Live and let live. This has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with terrorism! It is a slight on every Muslim person and almost all of them are not terrorists. Just as every Irish person is not necessarily in the IRA! What I am trying to get across is that we need to stop tarring everyone with the same brush.



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 06:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by LovingSoul
This is different to some Jewish person coming up to you in the street and asking you to please put trousers on as it is their culture or whatever.


Is it different though? The situation described above is dependent on location. If this happened in his country then I would either comply or carry on regardless. If I chose the latter then I have accepted that this may cause tension or may attract criticism. However if he was in my country saying that then his remark will fall on deaf ears as he has no right to force me to comply with his culture when I am home. Personally, when abroad, I comply with local custom. If i didn't, then I can hardly complain if someone takes offence.


Originally posted by LovingSoulWhat I am saying is that one needs to respect cultural differences in every day life.


I agree 100%. Its just that this respect seems to be flowing in one direction only. Are the marks of respect in a Western society of less value than those of an Islamic society?



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 06:47 AM
link   
I understand that ones who completly cover themselvs do so beacause their beauty would distract men side ways and make them commit sin.
But saying this can't the same be said for women ?? are women not attracted to handsome men ?? can't they also be distracted and feel lust ??

i think it time these women woke up and realised they are in a liberal country and there is no good reason to wear hijab, men are not uncontrollabe animals and if they are they should be locked up.



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 06:52 AM
link   
I do agree with Jack Straw on this one. He has every right to ask if they would remove the veil, since he leaves it up to them decide to or not.

It should also be known that many muslim women are FORCED to wear the veil. It is essestially a form of control by an extremely patriachal society. To asume that they are only worn by free choice is wrong. In Jack Straw's constiuency, the vast majority of muslim women don't wear the veil.. but I personally know of many of Straw's constituents who have been forced to do so against their will.... usually if they dare to "dishonour" the family by falling in love with the "wrong" guy.

Then it's often the Hijab and a one way ticket to Pakistan for them.. It is a VERY widespread problem, and Jack Straw is
actually SERVING the interests of most of the muslim women in his town by raising the issue.



[edit on 6-10-2006 by nowthenlookhere]



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 07:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by reaper2
Cabinet Minister Jack Straw has said he would prefer Muslim women not to wear veils at all.



The Islamic Human Rights Commission labelled the article "astonishing" and accused Mr Straw of discrimination.


I think it rather astonishing that Muslims should be allowed to wear viels in countries which are under attack from muslim fundametalist.


It's a matter of what clothing they're comfortable with in their culture. Would you demand that all Mormon women wear pants because of the actions of a few Mormons (there's a group of polygamists here in the southwest who regularly set off confrontations with the police)?

Would you demand that all Catholics quit wearing crosses because of the actions of the IRA terrorists in Ireland?


I believe it causes a great prblem for the intelligence community eg if a veiled person were suspected of carrying a bomb or the like there of, all they would have to do is enter a mosque and you would never tell them one from the othere. therefore i believe the anti terror branches work would be made more easier and pehaps at least make it more difficult for attacks to carried by zealot jihads.


The intelligence community doesn't run around looking for people with veils (exclusively women and only about 2% of the Muslim community or less, by the way.) To date, I can't think of a single bomber/terrorist who has worn a veil in public (though they mask their faces when talking to cameras/media.)

Would you rather the intelligence community spend their time hovering around veiled Muslim women, waiting for them all to attack, or would you rather them spend their time looking for the un-veiled and modern-dressed radical extremists who HAVE been the problem in countries other than Saudi Arabia and the Middle East (where they dress in robes as part of the culture and may have a scarf around their faces in sandstorm conditions)?



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 07:23 AM
link   


The intelligence community doesn't run around looking for people with veils (exclusively women and only about 2% of the Muslim community or less, by the way.) To date, I can't think of a single bomber/terrorist who has worn a veil in public (though they mask their faces when talking to cameras/media.)



Im not saying intelligence should of have followed these women or possible men around for no other reason than a hijab, i was just stating someone who has hidden their appearance and concealed thier form could present a problem if they were under suspicion.

[edit on 6-10-2006 by reaper2]



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 05:18 PM
link   
It's just been reported (Friday late evening) that
a guy in England has just 'torn' off a muslim lady's
head covering and hurled racial abuse at her.

2006 nuh?



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 05:30 PM
link   
As a Judeau-Christian, I admire Muslim women who choose to wear the veil. I always try and give a pleasant smile to my Muslim sisters behind the veil. I wear snoods, and the 'Star of David'; I would not like it if I was told that I wasn't allowed to wear either, or both of them.

Jack Straw may not have realised the impact his statement would make to the Islamic community. I respect their rights to wear the veil without any harassment from the government, or members of the public.

The other thing is that as long as they are not forced to cover up with the veil and that is their choice to wear it then they have my full support.

Freedom of religion and freedom of expression are civil liberties. To force somebody to change their mode of dress to appease another is an infringement of their human rights.



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by LovingSoul

Originally posted by jimboman
The veil isn't even a requirement for muslims as far as I'm aware. It's more of an arab cultural thing. Bosnian muslims don't wear them, do they?


I now understand why Muslims are so unhappy about this. It seems that the average UK citizen is not even prepared to learn more about the people before they jump up and down and try to change the way the Muslims live.



Here is a decent BBC article regarding restrictions placed on religious dress throughout Europe. I found some of it somewhat surprising



For the past 80 years Turks have lived in a secular state founded by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, who rejected headscarves as backward-looking in his campaign to secularise Turkish society...

In September 2004 local politicians in the north of Italy resurrected old laws against the wearing of masks, to ban women from wearing the all-over burqa...

The city of Maaseik, on the Dutch border, has banned the niqab, which covers the whole body except for the eyes...


[edit on 6/10/06 by Implosion]



posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 03:12 AM
link   
If the girls really want to wear a veil, that is OK. However, muslim girls are often forced to wear a veil. I went to school with a girl, whose father would beat her if she didn't wear a veil. At first she wore it, and then she would take it off at school, and then put it back on before she got home.

The problem is that Arab culture has traditions, which aren't compatible with democracy. In the United States, most muslims meet other people, and are usually assimilated after at most a generation or so like everyone else. That is the great virtue of the corruption American culture, which greatly angers the muslim fudnamentalists. However, Europe doesn't seem as skilled at assimilating other cultures. Arabs seem much more able to maintain their culture in Europe, which causes problems.



posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 06:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by crontab

The problem is that Arab culture has traditions, which aren't compatible with democracy. In the United States, most muslims meet other people, and are usually assimilated after at most a generation or so like everyone else. That is the great virtue of the corruption American culture, which greatly angers the muslim fudnamentalists. However, Europe doesn't seem as skilled at assimilating other cultures. Arabs seem much more able to maintain their culture in Europe, which causes problems.


The prevailing theory in Europe is one of multi-cultural rather than mono-cultural. This appears to be a direct knock on affect of rampant PC'ism where people are afraid to stick up for their own culture, but at the same time, being told to "celebrate" (this is the buzz word at the moment) the differences of others.

This theory is back to front. By "celebrating" differences, you serve only to highlight them. Couple this with a backward looking mentality of certain parts of some foreign cultures and you end with different communities segregating each other.

If, here in the UK, we had "coerced" the immigrants to assimilate and add to our culture, rather than doggedly holding onto their own at the expense of ours, come what may, then I doubt we would have seen such a segregation and have these problems now. PC'ism is the root cause and is a direct result of WW2 and it's horrors.

Fear of causing offence, even when what certain groups do is completely against the cultural norm for the local's, prevents many from airing their views and causes resentment.

Here in the UK, local councils spend fortunes on "race relations commitees" and multiple language literature. This also causes resentment in the majority English population who have to pay for the foreigners to get their forms in Punjabi or Urdu and at the same time, preventing immigrants from assimilating, instead, they group with their own kind, don't speak the language and carry on as if they were back in darkageistan or whatever. On the flip side, if we went to their country, even for a holiday, we would be expected to comply with cultural norms and usually will not have an issue doing so.

This veil malarchy is an example of somethign which is completely against the cutural norm for English society. If someone goes around with their face covered, it usually means your up to no good. Also, a major part of actually communicating with someone is the facial langauge. How on earth are we supposed to communicate with what is, for all intents and purposes, a walking tent? You don't know who they are, you can't see their facial expressions and is completely contrary to the way things are done here.

Anothing to add, is that the Burka is NOT mandatory in Islam. It is an Arab cultural thing and was around before Islam. You do not see Iranian women wearing the Burka often.

The concept of Hijab also applies to men as well and only involves covering from the ankles up and the top of the head, rather like in Victorian times here, something not commonly understood, so if these women aren't forced to do it, why are the men seemingly allowed to opt out of covering themselves also?

It all boils down to the sexually oppressive nature of Islam.

The men seemingly cannot control their urges, so the women must be covered, as if it is their fault. Women get stoned for being raped in Sharia courts, for crying out loud!

And before anyone slams me for being anti-Islamic, don't forget the sexually repressive nature of the Catholic Church and see what happens as a result of that. Peadophilia amongst priests, AIDS, uncontrolled population rises which lead to poverty....

Seems to me, it's fine to celebrate other cultures, providing your not White, because then your a racist.

Dont dare question anyone else's culture, because that is wrong, we have to celebrate it....

So when do we celebrate our own?

When can we look out for what WE, the majority and indigineous population, feel is culturally acceptable?

[edit on 7/10/06 by stumason]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join