shuggy's blog
As I read the article, Jack did not lecture anyone, but tended rather to have nice conversations around the issue. It also sends out a message to those women for whom it is not their own choice but someone else's that there is support for refusung to wear it.
Hmmm - don't you think expressing a preference about what other people should wear is a rather odd way of supporting people's right to control their own appearance?
For once, I find myself agreeing with you, Shuggy. What the cock is that shit?
Why should I have to have a face to face meeting with someone wearing a mask? it's not as though wearing it is compulsory for a devout Muslim.
That's not the point, jeffrey. I'm not saying that this isn't an issue but since it's one that deals with social customs and how people relate to each other, we don't really need the input of the Leader of the House of Commons, do we?
Why should I have to have a face to face meeting with someone wearing a mask?
I mean, is this really a problem? Are you compelled to do this on a regular basis? It might be construed as being rude to cover your face when someone talks to you. But then again, it might also be so to tell someone to remove an item of clothing. Whatever - people can sort this out between themselves, don'tcha think?
I don't know if this has been mentioned by anyone else here or elsewhere but Jack Straw suffers from partial deafness. This may go a long way to explaining his attitude to the veil and it inhibiting communication.
(and I've not read anything about the whole sorry piece of shit that this subject has elicited so excuse me if this has been brought up before).
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/de...06-07-
20a.469.0
If you ban the veil because it eliminates the eye contact intimacy you expect in face to face meetings, then you'd have to insist that motorcycle couriers always raise their visors when they dash in to a newsagent to buy cigarettes; and people would have to be forbidden to wear sunglasses, once they were in conversation. The whole thing is ludicrous and we should be wasting our time on it.
Jack hasn't advocated banning the veil. I think he made a good point when he mentioned that one of the woman said she was glad to speak to him face to face, and I understand that he, likewise, would like to see the facial reactions of the person he is talking to. He has merely put something up for debate, and there is nothing wrong with that, except that some people can't handle it, especially ones who are already feeling a bit vulnerable, and others like to jump on the bandwagon. In reading Jack's face it seems to me quite a decent, honest one, whilst Tony Blair's is the face of a zealot. I guess you're probably right that he's getting himself noticed for the impending battle for the labour leadership, à la Reid, but wish that wasn't the case. Why does the world have to have an ulterior motive? Guess I misread his face. Veil or no veil - what's the difference since we're all wearing masks anyway, by the looks of it. Have talked myself into a depressed, cynical mood.
Shuggy,
How can someone as keen on Burke as you are think that MPs are their constituents' employees?
How can someone as keen on Burke as you are think that MPs are their constituents' employees?
Ha ha - selectively keen, Paulie.
It's not so much the shrouds that these women wear but the fact that in Islam they are considered to be less than a man. They can be killed if their menfolk believe they have brought their fmily into dishonour, they have no choice over their matrimonial partner, and can be divorced by the incantation of a simple formula, in some Islamic countries their genitals are sliced off, they are deliberately kept uneducated...need I go on? And, this is empowerment? Also, in the Times it said that one excuse is that it is a sign of piety to wear the full rig. Fine, so the women who only cover their heads and bosoms are less pious and are also immodest for displaying their faces? Will we then see then being stoned to death on the streets of London by angry mobs some day soon?
I think it is clever Labour spin - and, no, I don't believe Straw decided on his own to do this. What he has said is unexceptionable - he has the right to ask, the woman has the right to say no. But he's distancing Labour from British Muslims at a time when its close connection to them is doing undoubted political damage. He has wrong-footed political opponents who have felt the need to chip in in defence of Muslim rights.
Ultimately, the only point he's making is that he is as entitled to ask to have his customs respected (it's plain rude, not to say disturbing, in our culture to speak to someone from behind a mask) as his constituents are to have theirs.
At a time when many of the majority population feel that anyone's customs take priority over theirs, that's a very smart move. And the more Muslim extremists denounce him, the more popularity Labour will gain.
What do you call people who deliberately conceal their identity behind head to foot clothing in order to emphasise separateness from those around them, and who believe they are innately superior to those not like themselves?
That's right.
The Ku Klux Klan.
There's no difference. Both are evidence of intolerance, unwillingness to assimilate into a society with multiple belief systems, and so on.
They are also often a clear example of unacceptable male dominance over how someone lives their life. Women aren't chattels, but the veil implies they are. It also helps set up a destructive "holier than thou" "arms race" that is destructive to moderate Muslims attempts to integrate into wider society.
Quite frankly, I have come to the opinion that the wearing of the veil has to be banned in public. Anyone whose beliefs are so extreme that they cannot tolerate this is too extreme for a secular democratic society and is free to leave and go to some Theocratic Hell Hole if they wish.
Commenting by HaloScan
