Jack Straw says to women "Take off your veils"

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 07 Oct 2006, 09:26

Oh boy... here we go again...

I'm referring to the remarks made by Jack Straw in an article telling some Muslim women he thinks they should remove their veils they wear (not the headscarves but the one that completely covers their face) as it would be better for community relations etc, when I heard him explain it he wasn't ranting and raving, he was just giving his opinion. He said he found it hard to have a face to face conversation with someone when he couldn't actually see their face - and while I know there are other forms of communication, body language, hand gestures, tone of voice etc I kind of agree with him on this.
He did say he respected their decision to wear (or not) wear it if they wanted, which is fair enough

I'm sure Slasher will answer this but even though some women do, I don't think the veil is compulsory.

IMO:
If Fiona Bruce is banned from wearing a very tiny cross when reading the news - in case it causes offence to other faiths, some Muslims shouldn't be allowed to wear the veil either

Kids are banned from wearing hoodies because it makes CCTV identification difficult and may seem intimidating apparently, how is this different?

BiscLimpkit · Post by **BiscLimpkit** » 07 Oct 2006, 09:40

Yeah I don't think they should wear veils either for the reasons you mention.

Yi-Long · Post by **Yi-Long** » 07 Oct 2006, 13:43

Not sure how it is on other countries, but in Holland many people seem to make a big deal out of veiled women walkinga round, yet when I'm in Utrecht or Amsterdam I very VERY rarely see them anyway, so those (maybe) couple of hundred women that are dressed like that... so what? They dont bother me... it's their own choice if they wanna dress like that, as far as I'm concerned.

And if they want to communicate with me, they can. And if their veil makes it hard for me to hear what they're saying, I'll just say ' WHAT?'. Simple.

Cant say it's a big issue for me, personally.

Shen · Post by **Shen** » 07 Oct 2006, 14:37

i agree with Yi, a viel doesnt matter, actually there are a few young girls at college who wear the burkas, you can hear them perfectly, in actual fact you dont see the veil, eventually you learn to just see the person.

personally i think jack straw is a prick, would he ask a sikh man to remove his turban, or a jewish guy to remove his skull cap? would he get pissed off becuase he couldnt shake a jewish womans hand? i doubt it...

in Leeds actually there are quite a few muslim women wearing the veils, so maybe im just used to it. but even so i think tis pretty unfair to ask people to remove their religios clothing.

actually there was a big uproar about the burkas a while ago, saying that htye shouldbt be allowed to wear them in public becuase it scares kids and such,...lol pricks, just teach your kids about the divrsity of culture and they wont be afriad any mroe wil lthey, but then that actually requires effort...

i just dont see the point in squabbling about what people wear, when really its myuc more productive to tackle the bigger issues like war/violence/governmental lies etc etc.

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 07 Oct 2006, 15:03

No Shen you're right he wouldnt ask a Jew to remove his skull cap etc, of course not

But the newsreader Fiona Bruce was asked to remove a very small Christian cross by the BBC, Straw voices his opinion and there is uproar (well disappointment anyway) which is double standards IMO.

Maybe you would work harder to know someone if you could only see their body language not their face, and had to be more expressive, I don't know

Shen · Post by **Shen** » 07 Oct 2006, 15:28

i dont agree with the fact that she had to remove her cross, we are all enittled to our beliefs and the stuff we wear for those beliefs should be nobodys concern except the wearer.

well i dont really get on with people in general, have like a social aversion thing going on so i dont make an effort to know anyone lol! but yeah i mean the fact that these people spoke to me in college, it didnt bother me that i couldnt see their face...the most expressive part of the body is the eyes IMO i dont need to see a persons face to speak to them. we speak on the phone right? we dont see peoples faces then, but no-one makes a fuss about that, same thing really IMO.

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 07 Oct 2006, 15:30

True, good point

And of course we're all talking here and can't see each other

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 07 Oct 2006, 15:37

I rarely agree with Jack Straw but I think he's right this time.

Wearing a traditional dress is one thing... but covering up the face like some bloody ninja is another.

It's stupid, misogynist and has nothing to do with religion.

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 07 Oct 2006, 15:53

How is it misogynist, Mark?
I sort of agree with him too BTW, its free choice to wear/not wear the bhurka and he respects that (he said that) but he just gave his opinion

tom2681 · Post by **tom2681** » 07 Oct 2006, 16:57

No woman should have to hide her face IMO.

.
.
.

That's why I'm gonna create a new religion with a new dress code.
All women who adopt it must wear bikinis at all times during the summer, and transparent coats during the winter.

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 07 Oct 2006, 17:20

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 07 Oct 2006, 21:42

grim_tales wrote:How is it misogynist, Mark?

Because it's a cultural aspect born out of male desire to keep women silent and hidden (note the covering of the mouth). Some misguided women in Britain may now "choose" to wear a veil but that doesn't reflect the majority who have little choice nor the oppressive origins of the garment. It has nothing to do with Islam.

Kurgan · Post by **Kurgan** » 07 Oct 2006, 22:34

Whilst Mark's not entirely correct, he's not entirely wrong.

Now chew on that for a while

OK, the full-on face veil isn't asked for in religion; just a scarf to cover the head and hair.
The face can be completely uncovered, as can the feet below the ankles, and the hands, er, below the wrists (that last part sounds grammatically incorrect, but what the hell).
In very few places is it 'enforced' to total coverage, though. It is a choice for a lot of women.

As for what Straw's said, well, he can say what he likes, and provided it was only an opinion and not some sort of legislation that's coming into effect, then I don't care. He was voicing an opinion and can say what he likes.
I personally like seeing people's faces, and do agree with him to a certain extent. But as long as he understands that it's not his decision to make, then all's well. Provided we don't go down the path of the French.

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 08 Oct 2006, 00:40

Well Muslims moan so much about what we wear its about time someone got stuck into them. I have heard so many times them bitch over skimpy outfits english women wear etc.., we say anything back and it gets on the news, go figure. Nothing new there.

Its pathetic this crap gets the top story on the news, flipping hell get a grip on life! Thousands of people dying every day in countrues thru mass murder, or some silly comment about muslim face wear, mmm hard deceision to pick whats the top story there

Straw can say what he wants, its not the law so it doesnt matter.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 08 Oct 2006, 01:49

I generally agree with what Kurgan said... but which part of my post was not entirely correct? If you mean about 'it' having nothing to do with Islam, I was talking about the covering of the face. That's cultural, and isn't specifically mentioned in the Quoran, right? I know that women are ideally supposed to "cover-up" under Islamic guidelines, though there seems to be a varied idea as to the extent of coverage required? Some go the whole hog as Kurgan mentioned (ie. covering the hair, above the ankles and wrists), whilst others stop at simply covering their breasts and upper legs (and many girls, not just Muslims, can relate to that). I would expect that the more a girl covers up the more likely you are to find a domineering parent behind them. It's not impossible that a young girl would grow up wanting to cover-up (almost) entirely without any pushing or suggestion... but fairly unlikely if they've been raised intigrated. Very few people truly want to be seen as outsiders. Would I force women to stop wearing traditional clothing that covers everything but the face? No. Would I like to see women dress more openly (and westernised)? Yes. Would I ban women from wearing veils? Under some circumstances, yes. If I were an employer I wouldn't allow it, if I ran a shop I wouldn't accept it anymore than I would a "hoodie", or anymore than a bank manager would a crash helmet. It's culturally devisive, visually unpleasent and wholly unecessary unless you happen to think civilization stopped progressing in 1200AD? Some of the more liberal members of the forum will protest that Muslim women should be able to wear whatever they choose... but would it be acceptable for a woman of any race to slink around in a boob tube and denim cut-offs in Iran? No need to answer that.

BiscLimpkit · Post by **BiscLimpkit** » 08 Oct 2006, 10:36

Yup well said Mark.

Shen wrote: the most expressive part of the body is the eyes IMO i dont need to see a persons face to speak to them. we speak on the phone right? we dont see peoples faces then, but no-one makes a fuss about that, same thing really IMO.

No offence but that's ridiculous and I think you're seriously kidding yourself. Whether you realise it or not, only a small fraction of a conversation is verbal. If you think that the rest is expressed solely in the eyes then you are mistaken. Sorry.

Also your phone comparison is remarkably poor. If I speak to someone on the phone, it is very likely that I will know who they are (and probably very well). Therefore, I don't need to gaze into their eyes, facial expressions etc, unless the conversation topic was that sensitive that I would need to talk to them in person.

If I speak to a stranger and I can't see their face, then I would prefer them to either show their face or I would see no purpose in continuing the conversation.

IMO viel's look ridiculous. Each to their own but I find it no more chavvish than a ned wearing a burberry cap at 45 deg.

thelostdragon · Post by **thelostdragon** » 08 Oct 2006, 11:20

BiscLimpkit wrote:IMO viel's look ridiculous. Each to their own but I find it no more chavvish than a ned wearing a burberry cap at 45 deg.

Well done, saying "in my opinion". You wouldn't believe what looks rudiculous in MY opinion. 8)

Shen · Post by **Shen** » 08 Oct 2006, 13:09

BiscLimpkit wrote: No offence but that's ridiculous and I think you're seriously kidding yourself. Whether you realise it or not, only a small fraction of a conversation is verbal. If you think that the rest is expressed solely in the eyes then you are mistaken. Sorry.

depends how versed you are at understanding peoples tone and eyes...from ones eyes you can tell alot...if one is lying, scared, happy, whatever...eyes just arent a pretty thing on the face too see out of you know..

Also your phone comparison is remarkably poor. If I speak to someone on the phone, it is very likely that I will know who they are (and probably very well). Therefore, I don't need to gaze into their eyes, facial expressions etc, unless the conversation topic was that sensitive that I would need to talk to them in person.

but you speak to people online right...you dont ALWAYS know them, yes its not verbal blah blah blah...but wtf is with seeing peoples faces?! does it really matter? i mean come on, be grateful that peopel are actually speaking to you, instead of the whole cultural division of , i'm not speaking with you becuase your this or that...maybe i just have no problem with not seeing peoples faces when i speak and can pretty much tell when one i being sincere and such and dont get this whole argument about "omg their wearing veils i cant see their face" :O no shit dumbass thats what a viel is designed for...to make something dissapear. (not aimed at anyone in particular so dont start)

If I speak to a stranger and I can't see their face, then I would prefer them to either show their face or I would see no purpose in continuing the conversation.

really, now that i find so hard to fathom, just because again i never saw the need to see peoples faces...what if they were REALLY ugly, would you want to see their face then?

(j/k)

faces are just cosmetic, yes they are individual (Excpet identical twins) and such, but if i face is so important but i just dont see the point in having to "see" the physical body, outlined, properly or what...in the end its what the personlity and such is like...i dont go for the consmetics and the physcials and shit.

we have other senses than just the 5 main senses, its seriously about time we started using them

and WHY is everyone expending so much energy on this?! i mean, like there isnt much more important things to put energy into than if woemn want to cover their faces...like romero said thousands are dying everyday, but do people really know or care? nope theyr rather, once again attack the muslims for something

BiscLimpkit · Post by **BiscLimpkit** » 08 Oct 2006, 17:35

Shen wrote: and WHY is everyone expending so much energy on this?!

It's just you tbh (check out your essay). I can't really be assed discussing such a trivial topic any further, as everything has pretty much been said. Besides as mentioned, there are far more important things to worry about. I'm just gonna walk out of this knowing that I'm right. 8)

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 08 Oct 2006, 18:51

I don't think Straw was talking about passing a law, just giving his opinion about the veil/burka, I don't think the veil is mentioned in the Qu'ran (sp?)
I personally agree with what Mark said TBH, though it is a woman's choice to wear what she wants to wear to an extent.

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 13 Oct 2006, 09:59

There was another case of this happening, where a Muslim English teacher ay a primary school (I think) refused to move her veil when teaching a class of kids. Presumably she knew what the rules were when she took the job on, and she was offered a compromise that she was allowed to wear her veil in the corridors/staffroom but she said no. Some of the kids (who are from ethnic backgrounds BTW) have complained they can't understand her, what she is saying because they can't see her face or her lips move. Even the Muslim council of GB has said the teacher was wrong in what she said.
I have no problem with her wearing the veil outside the class, that is fine, but it must be doubly hard if you're teaching a class and yet the kids can only focus on your eyes?? Isn't that hard particularly for young kids?
As I said IMO she can wear what she wants OUTSIDE of class, of course but would we send a teacher to teach a class in a crash helmet or balaclava? I think not!
Rant over

Shen · Post by **Shen** » 13 Oct 2006, 15:10

grim_tales wrote: but would we send a teacher to teach a class in a crash helmet or balaclava? I think not!
Rant over

you would if you knew what some of the highschools are like

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 13 Oct 2006, 17:38

A white schoolgirl was ARRESTED and THROWN IN JAIL because she complained when her teacher asked to complete a project with five Asian pupils who didn't speak English. Apparently she was "being racist".

You couldn't make this shit up!

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 13 Oct 2006, 17:41

indeed. Utterly ridiculous. Was it known before hand the pupils couldn't speak English?

Yi-Long · Post by **Yi-Long** » 13 Oct 2006, 21:29

Markgway wrote:A white schoolgirl was ARRESTED and THROWN IN JAIL because she complained when her teacher asked to complete a project with five Asian pupils who didn't speak English. Apparently she was "being racist".

You couldn't make this shit up!

Sounds ridiculous indeed...
Maybe she was being racist in the way she formulated the complaint?
Why dont the girls speak English?