Imtiaz Ameen: Straw is wrong on the Muslim veil

Imtiaz Ameen is a Councillor for the Dewsbury South Ward. He was the Conservative parliamentary candidate in Blackburn at the last election and is now on the priority list.

It’s just as well Condoleeza Rice didn’t wear a veil otherwise Jack Straw would have had a serious problem discussing important international affairs with her.

A silly and absurd statement? Absolutely, and that’s what I thought when I read Jack Straw’s extraordinary comments regarding the Muslim veil.

In Blackburn at the last general election, most of the Muslim vote was conjoined at the ballot box with Jack Straw who was seen as the friend of Muslims, and as someone who understood their religious sensitivities. For this reason alone when I read Straw’s comments I was perplexed to say the least.

Straw believes that wearing the full veil is bound to make better, positive relations between communities more difficult, because he sees the veil as a symbol of segregation. Not only is this a dangerous assertion especially in the current climate but is also inconsistent with the liberty and freedom Jack Straw sought to impose on the people of Iraq and Afghanistan as Foreign Secretary.

In a free society we cannot dictate what people choose to wear except in selective and controlled environments such as schools, hospitals and the workplace. Outside of the controlled environment, everyone is free to dress as they please. There is no universal dress code for being British; equally there is no dress code which symbolises anti-Britishness – yet that is what Jack Straw seems to suggest. He feels that if a Muslim woman chooses to wear a veil which also covers her face, she is choosing not to integrate into society. He completely misses the point. What Straw fails to understand is that a Muslim woman covering her face will do so in front of all men except her immediate family, regardless of whether they are Muslims, not as a sign of segregation but out of modesty – that is her prerogative and something she chooses to do.

Secondly, no matter how detrimental it maybe, in a free society we cannot force anyone to ‘integrate’ if they refuse to do so. This is a problem which is vexing all political parties who are desperately seeking satisfactory solutions but for which there is no quick fix.

There are as many non-Muslims who refuse to integrate with Muslims as there are Muslims who refuse to integrate with non-Muslims. I see this on a daily basis in my ward. The challenge in a free society is to build better relations between different groups to ensure future generations as well as existing ones are more accepting of each other and are prepared to live in a friendly and cordial environment – it is not to dictate dress codes or allow pre-existing prejudices to be casually aired especially by those who hold power.

What is most disturbing is Straw’s intransigence in that he asks for a Muslim woman to show her face if she is going to meet him, and if he is to do his duties as her MP. If as an elected councillor I refused to deal with a person who wore a cross, or a skull cap, was wearing a turban or had a Rastafarian hairstyle would I be encouraging debate on integration or displaying my irrational prejudices and abusing the power granted by the electorate?

Comments

[Serf]

I think you have missed the point, as have most of his critics.

As far as I can see, Jack Straw is not calling for the veil to be banned, he is simply criticising the wearing of it. A massive difference.

I personally see the veil as a symbol of the second class status of women, so I have some sympathy with Jack Straw's statement.

That said, I would not propose to stop people from choosing what to wear, and neither is Jack Straw.

[David]

In 1944 Roman Catholic aircrew were (never done before, never done since) allowed to stand down, rather than take part in the bombing of Monte Cassino, not one of them did! If the decision was taken to bomb a mosque in Iraq or Afghanistan and a similar offer was made to moslem aircrew, what would be their reaction?

[Mark Wadsworth]

David 9.55, that was a rhetorical question I hope?

In case it wasn't, see Israeli Embassy.

[BorisforPM]

Serf has the point exactly: Cllr Ameen has set up a straw man (no pun intended!) and demolished it half-heartedly.

If a man came into Jack Straw's surgery straight from a park or a building site, not wearing his shirt, then I imagine Mr Straw or one of his staff might say that they'd feel more comfortable if he put a shirt on in the surgery. I can't imagine Cllr Ameen would start shrieking about civil liberties then.

It is known anecdotally and academically that we "read" much of what we gain from a conversational interaction by looking at the other person's face. It is entirely natural, then, to feel more comfortable if you can see more of their face. Mr Straw makes a polite request, and - interestingly - no-one has ever refused it.

Mr Straw is not talking about coercing anybody, but is merely exercising his right to politely ask someone to do something for him. The pseudo-intellectual nonsense that Cllr Ameen offers demeans the real liberalism which he and I are supposed to share. It belittles the causes of genuine civil liberty infringement about which we should be making much noise.

Polite requests based on people's individual comforts and preferences are not infringing anyone's freedom; stopping people from making such requests is a deeply illiberal suggestion which should have absolutely no place in the Conservative party.

[anon]

Many Muslims don't seem to understand the offense, disquiet and often fear that the veil causes in many non-Muslims. Veils were not worn by UK-born British Muslims before 9/11; in that context it appears to be a political statement of hostility to secular liberal values and to British society in general. While some Muslims may seek to provoke that offense, disquiet and fear in non-Muslims, I think for many it is a case of genuine ignorance of what face-covering implies in western societies such as Britain.

[Jonathan Mackie]

You appear to want to oppose Straw from a purely perfunctory position.

You seem to be saying "he is commenting about my religion, but he's no muslim so he must be opposed"

Straw has a profound point, about the veil being a demonstrable symbol of the parallel lives issue.

He does not insist that women remove the veil, he simply requests. He also has a female 'sit in' on all his meetings with islamic women.

Why don't you comment on the real islamic issue in Blackburn. That of women being prevented from attending some mosques?

[anon]

I could not disagree more with Imtiaz. If Muslim women want to dress in a particular way to make a political point (for that is what it often is, as the case of the schoolgirl made clear) then fine - but I or anyone else has the right to tell you that we dislike it.

Whether Muslims like it or not, it is not a cultural norm - yet - in this country for women to wrap themselves up from view. I probably wouldn't support banning it, but I am furious that Straw is being hounded for pointing out that many people find such a form of dress distasteful. I dislike looking at the backsides of women who wear those low slung jeans, and I often tell them so, particularly if one wanders into view while I'm eating. Is that a phobia too?

Muslims have shown absolutely no willingness to understand the cultural norms of Britain and to live within their limits. Am I wrong? Please correct me. My adult life began around the time of Salman Rushdie ("death would perhaps be too easy for Mr Rushdie" - thank you Sir Iqbal) - bookburnings etc on the streets of Britain!! - and has continued through to the point where police allow proselytisers for murder to scream their hatred in central London ("7/7 on it's way"). The reaction of the media to most of this has been a disgraceful silence (eg the refusal to publish the Danish cartoons, so that we could all see what the fuss was about). But whenever a politician makes a mild comment about what more could be done to further integration - from dressing less differently, to teaching more English - he or she is pilloried

The quid pro quo is: live as you wish. But stop pushing for the rest of us to celebrate every facet of your culture, or not mention in public the things we dislike. And stop using the language of "Human Rights" to support your activities - this is a Tory website, not a New Labour one. Rights are important but no Tory would expect one person's rights to take precedence over those of others in matters of cultural norms.

[Jonathan Mackie]

"Veils were not worn by UK-born British Muslims before 9/11" anon 10.19

Not true. I lived in Preston in the late 90s and plenty of muslim women wore the veil then.

[James Maskell]

Compare this to the Fiona Bruce cross story... liberal PC crap. The veil is a sign of segregation backed up by religious fundamentalism. In Britain, you shouldnt have to hide your face behind a burka.

Every time a politician makes a comment about Muslim dress they get told they arent helping race relations and that they shouldnt be saying it, as this author is saying. Its complete BS. Either you have freedom of speech or you dont. Inigo Wilson gets slapped down hard for making comments which he believed. Now Jack Straw gets hit even though he has the right to freedom of speech.

Politicians have to walk on eggshells as to not hurt peoples feelings. This is PC rubbish and while I respect your right to say what you think, I disagree with you strongly.

[MH]

Ok, this is deeply worrying. I now find myself regularly 100% in agreement with Tony Blair and John Reid on Iraq / the war on terror and now Straw on veils. We have Oliver Letwin criticising Straw on this (how long before Dave does too?). This country is 92% white caucasian. Do we not have some say in how other faiths and or ethnic groups behave? At this rate, I shall be voting Labour in 09 (something I have never ever done). This issue is not just about security but about whether the UK has a distinct cultural and political future.

[another anon]

You fail to understand the difference. A Star of David, a skullcap or a cross does not conceal the face. Straw specifically refers to those veils worn by extremists which cover the entire face, not to the hijab which covers the hair.

In this country, it is customary for people to address other people in a manner that means both person's faces are visible. Imiigrant communities should respect this. There are multiple veiling options for Islamic women that allow the face to be seen.

Furthermore, a burka or other face veil is a sign of extreme oppression. It is not customarily used in Islamic countries where women have rights. You do not see Jordanians in burkas. There is a real issue with the oppression of women in Muslim countries like Afghanistan, Iran, and Saudia Arabia which you should address.

Furthermore, your post fails to note that many women in face veils may not have made that sovereign choice freely but it may be imposed on them. To have a real debate about religious dress vs. secular freedoms and oppression, you must address these issues.

It is nonsense to say that every woman in a burka chooses to wear it.

[anon]

"equally there is no dress code which symbolises anti-Britishness"

There are many dress codes which symbolise anti-Britishness - SS helmets and swastikas was a traditional anti-British choice in post-WW2 Britain; likewise hammer & sickle badges during the Cold War.

[disillusioned activist]

I too am worried...I find my self in total agreement with Jack Straw on this matter. It is is first time I have ever agreed with the man!!

[Drew SW London]

The only muslims wearing veils should be policemen on diplomatic protection duty.

[tapestry]

Jack Straw ain't thick you know. He needs to keep his face in the public eye so he can get a look'in at the Labour leadership. What better way to get noticed than offer up some opinion which will rattle Moslem cages? He needs to catch up with John Reid, who has got his nose in front by taking on a bit of terrorism. Veils might do the trick for Jack.

[Dulouz]

"no matter how detrimental it maybe, in a free society we cannot force anyone to ‘integrate’ if they refuse to do so."

What a ridiculous statement from a Conservative! Of-course everyone is forced to integrate in society. Integration doesn't mean blind conformity, but it does mean that both men and women should contribute with ther fellow citizens, not hide themselves away.

What is the veil's purpose?

It is to keep Muslim women away from the looks of others deemed not worthy to look at them, or it means the Muslim woman herself is not worthy to show herself to others. Either way it is repulsive.

To defend the right to keep women locked away from society just because they are a woman is not freedom.

[Anthony Bass]

I'm amazed but delighted at Jack Straw's comments especially when you consider his constituency. David Cameron should back his effort to put this subject in the public domain. The wearing of head to toe black veils is provocative and promotes social division. The message it sends (intended or not) to Anglo-Saxons is: I live in and enjoy the benefits of your Christian based civilisation but I am not part of your society, I am separate and my allegiance is
always to Islam before you and your country.

[Mike Christie]

This is an issue that has been blown out of all proportions by some of the more radical Islamic groups.

Jack Straw is not calling for the veil to be banned, nor is he refusing to deal with his constituents should they wear it.

He is explaining courteously that he personally finds it difficult communicating with someone who hides their face. The visitor can then choose what to do, none have chosen to remain veiled.

In a tolerant society, what can be better than explaining politely when the customs of others are causing discomfort and coming to an amicable agreement on how to proceed?

"What is most disturbing is Straw’s intransigence in that he asks for a Muslim woman to show her face if she is going to meet him, and if he is to do his duties as her MP. If as an elected councillor I refused to deal with a person who wore a cross, or a skull cap, was wearing a turban or had a Rastafarian hairstyle would I be encouraging debate on integration or displaying my irrational prejudices and abusing the power granted by the electorate?"

This, I'm afraid, is just sloppy and lazy thinking. Straw hasn't refused to deal with anyone and none of the examples here are such a fundamental barrier to face-to-face (or rather face-to-piece of cloth) communication as a veil.

[anon]

I have to say I'm a lot more concerned by the responses of Oliver Letwin and Cllr Ameen to Jack Straw's entirely (overly?) reasonable comments, than I was to the predicatble reaction from the Marxist-Islamist MPAC-UK on Newsnight last night. Grubbing for Islamist votes is not going to benefit the Tories; while it might win praise from the BBC, Labour are well able to exploit this error to drive potential Conservative voters to Labour or elsewhere.

[anon]

There are as many non-Muslims who refuse to integrate with Muslims as there are Muslims who refuse to integrate with non-Muslims. I see this on a daily basis in my ward - Imtiaz Ameen, Conservative councillor.

Please give an example of non-Muslims refusing to integrate with Muslims. You see, here are some examples where according to many Muslim pressure groups, I am refusing to integrate:

-- I champion the right of Salman Rushdie to write whatever he likes, without being sentenced to death
-- I believe that there should be a single common law for the entire UK
-- I don't think British citizens should routinely hide their face from their fellows
-- I think anyone who screams about 7/7 in central London, celebrating the mass murder, should be arrested
-- I demand freedom of the press and the right to criticise anyone's religious belief
-- The values of the Enlightenment, Reformation and the Renaissance are the best way to shape a western society
-- It's helpful if my fellow citizens can speak our language
-- Cartoonists can draw whatever they like
-- Schools have a right to impose whatever uniform their governors wish on their children
-- Britons found on a battlefield and implicated in the killing of British soldiers are at fault
-- Your sense of the sacred has no traction on the way I live my life, and homosexuality is not a criminal activity that should be punishable by death
-- Israel has a right to exist

I could go on. The funny thing is, without the ever-increasing fervour of Muslim "leaders", I would never have spent a second thinking about any of the items of my list. Thus reaction.

[Adam]

What right has Straw to comment on how anyone dresses? presumably he would delight in a constituent dressed in a bikini coming to see him??

How would Jack Straw and many people who have posted here like it if someone said that their dress sense was unacceptable and damaging to civil society? What about nuns who dress modestly - does Straw find that offensive. What about Goths who dress in black from top to bottom? Does he find them offensive?

Muslim women in veils are an easy target - I don't know whether jack Straw is pitching for votes in the Deputy Leadership election coming up soon in his party or is genuinely concerned about integration.

[Sally Roberts]

I agree with Jack Straw (probably the first time I have ever done so!!!) In my view it is in no way racist or intolerant to express the view that on meeting and talking with someone you like to see their face. No one has suggested that the wearing of the veil or any other religious symbol is banned and I for one feel that to do so would be a step too far - after all I wish to be free to wear a Star of David around my neck. The problem is simply that if you cannot see a person's face when you talk to them you are totally unable (a) to see that they are who they claim they are; and (b) how they are genuinely reacting to your words. Once again the Muslim community is over-reacting.

[G-MaN Wild]

Ameen has totally missed the point. Straw just said that when he meets with these ladies he asks them to remove their veil so he can see their face. In all honestly I know exactly what he means, looking someone face to face is very important when communicating with another human being. It acts as a mask, if everyone wore masks it would be pretty intimidating out there on the streets (Never mind the practical implications of identifying criminals both through eyes witnesses and CCTV).

They have the right to wear the veil indeed, but its not a religious virtue like the hijab, and to suggest so is completely wrong. It's desert dress, how many sand storms has Blackburn seen recently?

[Alex Crowley]

It's very scary that I find myself in agreement these past weeks with not one, but two Labour cabinet ministers. First, I thought John Reid's boldness in addressing a mosque where hostile heckling was always going to happen was exactly the kind of thing we need to be doing to tackle extremism, and second, Jack Straw's comments on the veil were a measured and reasonable assessment of the practical problems of conducting face to face meetings with those who choose to wear the veil.

I have read his article, and listened to his interview on the radio this morning, and I am in full agreement. The question here is not whether we should 'ban' the veil, or even criticise those who wear it in accordance with their religious and cultural beliefs, it the perfectly fair observation that it makes the most basic form of communication, facial recognition, that little bit more difficult.

It is a shame that Muslim 'leaders' have sought to pounce on this, in order to justify to their own supporters that they are standing up for their interests. This story has been fuelled by these over zealous reactions, and it spoils the reasoned stance Mr Straw took.

All he said was that he respectfully asks those who wear the veil in his surgeries to remove it, and he stated that this was entirely up to them. He was happy to conduct the meeting with or without the veil. There is nothing unreasonable in that, and he has never, at any stage, suggested that it should be compulsory to remove the veil.

Why is it, that anywhere in the world, when people seek to conduct a reasoned debate about the many compex issues of Islam and integration, it is almost instantaneously shut down by the emotive howls of outrage from a minority? We can only understand each other if we are open with each other, informed candour will move this debate forward and ignorance will hold it back.

Jack Straw was not wrong, and he should be supported by those of all colours who wish to see reason and intelligence win over superstition, ignorance and intolerance.

[Mark SMith]

I disagree with JAck Straw.
he has no right to tell any one who wears what, like some one said on an earlier post if someone wore a bikini he would love that would'nt he.
Labour party has jus gone from bad to worse since 9/11 and attacking afghanistan and Iraq and killing thousands of innocent people, and for what OIL!
Every human should be able to wear what they want, be that a veil or bikini. and lets not start telling people what to do.
this is what causes the communication to break up, if Jack had not mentioned this then no one would be arguing about it today and no one would be worried, BUT now he has said it everyone will be talking about and avoiding women with the Veil!

Thank You!!

[Mike Christie]

"What right has Straw to comment on how anyone dresses?"

In a country which claims to prize free speech as an essential liberty, he has every right to comment, and those he comments upon have every right to not take a blind bit of notice.

[Angelo Basu]

I wish there could be an Islamoratorium in public life. I and I suspect the vast majority of the population (including many Muslims who don't naturally identify with the hair-trigger defensive whining that pretty much any comment about Islam provokes) am heartily sick and tired of hearing about whether X is offensive to Muslims.

Muslims in Britain are entitled to wear what they like for whatever reasons they might have for doing so, just like anyone else. Everyone is entitled to their opinions about this or indeed any other matter.

Wearing the veil is clearly of great importance to some Muslims and no-one is stopping them doing so (Straw himself had said that in fact no-one had refused to remove it when asked and that he made it clear that he would not have refused to speak to the constituent had they done so). However, the modesty issue should also be looked at from the other end. Part of it manifests itself in the attitudes of some Muslim men to objectify any woman who does not wear the veil and indeed to consider any woman who might be a Muslim who is not covered up to be effectively a prostitute. This attitude then folds back on itself to make the wearing of the veil even more important to avoid any suggestion of their family members being seen in that light, even though in fact that would not be the reaction of anyone in this society other than other very strict Muslims (regardless of how they view uncovered women themselves). This is one of the ways in which the wearing of the veil is a form of social self-segregation because, irrespective of the religious merits or justifications it is a manifestation of a take on British life and social norms completely at odds with reality, amplifying the wrong reactions of a small minority of Muslims.

[G-MaN Wild]

Well "Mark Smith" says "if he didn’t mention it no one would be arguing about it today and no one worried".

The only people arguing are the Muslim community, because yet again they've blown it out of all proportion. And yes people would still be worried about it, and its naive to suggest otherwise. People always mention the fact that u can’t see some Muslim women’s faces and its a bit scary and/or intimidating. It just takes someone of prominence to get the national conversation rolling instead of us all thinking that we cant mention it.

[Chris Hughes]

Firstly yes, it is a complete distortion to claim Jack Straw says he wants to ban the Muslim veil. Having said that, we ban women from being naked in public - that is an "enforced dress code" - and yet islamic dress is infinitately more self-degrading. The practice takes misogny to absurd levels, as if the mere female form is a threat to civilisation itself. You can support the right of women to wear such things, but it is plainly clear the views underlying it are views the west discarding a long time in such things as the suffragette movement.

[In Like Flynn]

Whilst I think that Jack Straw's decision to say what he did was ill-advised given his constituency and his Government position, I do agree with the thrust of what he is saying. However, I would cynically point out that it has taken him 20-odd years as MP for Blackburn to say it... there may be some ulterior motive...

This situtaion, however, does bring to mind the work of the reknowned theorist John Rawls. In his book, The Theory of Justice, he describes the 'original position' where representatives of citizens are placed behind a 'veil of ignorance', depriving the representatives, in this case Straw, of information about the individuating characteristics of the citizens they represent.

[Paul]

the reaction of the Muslim community once again demonstrates the problems we face in this country. if an elected politician cannot comment on an issue such as this then we are indeed in deep trouble. rather than answering with reason and an intellectual debate, we are left to listen to so called Muslim leaders saying that the country is prejudiced and that those who have commented should apologise. How long is it till jack straw is threatened with a death and there are protests in the streets around the islamic world?

when will the tory leadership develop some courage and stand up for Britishness instead of pandering to every minority in society. david cameron, your party and country expects....

[Chris Mclaughlin]

Labour is brilliantly following the concerns of the British electorate.

For years now and with increasing pace we have been rushing to the centre of Tony's big tent. Unfortunately when we get there it will be empty.

The electorate is moving right on multiculturalism; the economy;tax;education and the health service to name but a few subjects.

We are about to waste the next three years, just as the last nine.

[elrafa]

Chris - I think you are spot on there.

Labour's focus group polling must be better than ours. Blair, Reid and now Straw have all taken on previously taboo subjects. All of which accord with the mass of the public.

Straw knew the effect of his comments. It is fantastic demogogory and will probably be electorally successful.

[Adam]

'And women as well as men went head uncovered the whole time when in their hajj - pilgrimage - in Mecca.'

Jack Straw has every right to make comments but he showed his ignorance when he made the above comment in the original article. All women must cover themselves when they go to the pilgrimage. Its his inherent prejudices and not knowing what the veil means or stands for that has led him to make his comments. Having said that, why has it taken him 25 years to work this out - is he planning on retiring and now no longer has to pander to the muslim vote which he has shamelessly done for years.

[Mark Smith]

G-MaN Wild says - "People always mention the fact that u can’t see some Muslim women’s faces and its a bit scary and/or intimidating."

if your scared of a women then you will be scared of a lot of things.

my point on not arguing is that IF Jack Straw had not mentioned it yesterday would ANYONE be creating this post and talking about veils? NO! because it never came to mind and thats the way of muslim life, so let it be. Nuns also wear head scarves and veils should they also remove theirs?
i live in a mixed community and alot of women wear veils and i do not feel at all scared or intimidated.

[G-MaN Wild]

You miss my point Mark Smith. It may not be being discussed in such a public fashion, but nevertheless it is being discussed. I'd rather it be discussed in the public arena and not have people think they are being degrading to muslims by mentioning the fact that it is intimidating when someone is covered up to such an extent.

The veil, (as i said in a earlier post) unlike the hijab, is NOT a religious virtue, but it is desert wear suitable for the deserts of the earth. Everyone has the right to wear what they want, just as everyone has a right to comment over what somemone wears.

[Kristian Shanks]

Not much to add really. Much of what I think has already been said. I think more and more people are getting really tired of having certain sections of the Islamic Community dictating to the rest of us what is and is not an acceptable thing to say. This isn't Saudi Arabia guys, political discussion and dissent is tolerated here (generally).

I've always liked Jack Straw as an individual. Always seemed to be fairly 'normal' (well, as normal as you're gonna get for a politician), and he's gained further respect from me for this. Rather than a symbol of fear, I've often seen the veil as a symbol of the cultural, social and political oppression of women by men in some sections of Islamic society. I'm willing to have someone explain why I might be wrong about that, however.

[Adam]

Kristian

Women make that choice themselves - how can that then be oppressive? Why is it more and more women born in this country are choosing to do so - are they all being oppressed?

there is a stereotype that women who wear the veil are oppressed and treated as second class citizens. J Straw with his comments gives that credence.

Are nuns oppressed because they choose to wear modestly? of course not and its the same for Muslim women.

[useful]

Lets be fair Adam, whether its nuns or muslim women, your argument lacks credit as they are not the most liberated sections of society. I understand its through choice mostly, but sometimes not a well educated sensible choice.

[christina speight]

There are a great many posts above and all but two disagree with Mr Ameen (Were there no Moslem women available to comment?)

I disagree with Straw for being 'wet' on the subject. If I were to go to Moslem countries I would not wear a mini-skirt and out of courtesy I would wear long sleeves too on more formal occasions. Moslems here should show the same sensitivity to the society they have chosen to live in.

In Britain the Moslems build mosques; in Saudi Arabia churches are forbidden. Until Moslems here integrate, their mosques should be limited and controlled. Their women should not wear the burka in public. How are the police supposed to do their job when you can't even be sure of the sex of the wearer?

We have no problem with our Hindu and Sikh population and accept them as British. It is only Moslems, some of whose imams preach Holy War against us, who are testing how far they can push their luck. Enough is enough .

(I agree with every point that Anon listed at 1141)

[John Hustings]

I also saw Oliver Letwin on Question Time last night. I fear the Tories are on the wrong side of this debate.

[Mike Christie]

"J Straw with his comments gives that credence."

Except of course for the part of his interview on Radio 4 last night where he described talking to a woman about her veil and how she had said it was her choice...

What is the big deal here? Straw has said that he sometimes politely asks people to stop doing something that makes him uncomfortable and they willingly agree to do it. That is hardly news.

[Mike Christie]

"I also saw Oliver Letwin on Question Time last night. I fear the Tories are on the wrong side of this debate.

I'm afraid Oliver Letwin did seem to have firmly grasped the wrong end of the stick. Jack Straws actions, and those of the veiled women he is talking about, are surely a great example of tolerance and communication.

[American Crusader]

Typical Muslims. any comment no matter how true ( see the Pope) or banally obvious (Jack Straw etc)is taken as an insult. Hands are thrown up in horror! Get the fatwa's out! Lets boycott Danish goods because they have the temerity to have a free press unlike our dreadful regimes in the Gulf where you can't fart without an imans permission. Meanwhile everyone else has to put up with their ridiculous drama queen antics. What a shower!

[Basil Blogs]

If we want an inclusive, integrated and cohesive society then we should ban the veil.

If find it offensive like some Muslims may find wearing mini skirts offensive and many Muslims countries ban their foreigners from wearing mini skirts.

What Muslims women are saying by wearing these silly outfits is that they want separation and they do not want to be integrated into mainstream British society.

After all if Turkey a Muslim country has banned Muslim women from wearing them then we can.

If is ignorant to say that it is in the Koran or is a religious obligation.

[American Crusader]

And of course had you the temerity to take a Bible to Saudi Arabia , you could be thrown into prison and deported. The 'Stand -on-your-rights' Muslim element seems very keen to parade their religion but strangely , in the Gulf their coreligionists will not allow anyone to profess another religion, build churches , proselytise etc. Its one law for one and one for the other and most of our servile 'Public Servants' creep to this cockeyed hypocrisy. Lets hope Straw's comments encourage others to point out the glaring inconsistency in the attitudes of our 'Jihad is ok , the Crusades were bad - we can proselyise here , you can't in the Gulf,' neighbours next door.

[American Crusader]

Incidentally Imtiaz i'm interested to read sbout yourexperiences in your part of Britain. What is your take on the sexism and homophobic intolerance that forms such a basic plank of Islamic morality and how does this translate within the Tory Party. If a Muslim is not , according to the Koran, meant to be a friend with a Jew of a Christian, and , going on traditional teaching is meant to see gays as an ambomination in the eyes of God ,how are they meant to react to the rest of society that has moved beyond these ridiculous prejudices? Aren't the issues of facial covering an expression of a similar outmoded neurosis masquarading as 'faith'?

[Mike Christie]

"After all if Turkey a Muslim country has banned Muslim women from wearing them then we can."

Sorry to be pedantic, but Turkey isn't a Muslim country, it is a secular democracy in which a large proportion of the population is Muslim.

[Dave]

Remember that advert for the British Army (used to run in cinema's I recall) about a British army officer taking the simple step of removing his sunglasses before trying to communicate with an angry man regarding access to a well?
Eye contact helped calm the man down and helped establish a dialogue between the two.

Same thing here..

[Iain Moore]

It seems to me that the word ‘modest’ has been highly corrupted when used in the debate about women wearing Islamic religious/cultural garb, for there seems to be nothing moderate or restrained about it, in fact it is an excessive display of religious affiliation, which can do no good to our societies cohesion when paraded down our streets.

In this Letwin, on Question Time last night, was in error in what he said (no surprise there, and one must await with concern what he's going to come up with as Policy Chief ) with the mistake of saying that the individual has a right to make choices. Yes, when making choices to be individuals, but it is a very different matter when they are making choices to set up very visible tribal groupings which is guaranteed to alienate . As such it then becomes the right of society in general to have an opinion and a right to say, no we are not going to have this self segregation, for it is not just Muslims who should dictate how our society is structured, we all have a right to a say, for we are all partners in this enterprise called Britain.