Perspectives on the veil debate

There has been a very mixed response to Jack Straw's comments about the veil wore by Muslim women. Oliver Letwin said it would be dangerous to tell people how to dress, other conservatives took different angles on the debate.

Paul Goodman, Conservative MP for Wycombe and regular contributor to ConservativeHome, in a letter to the Telegraph:

"To most non-Muslims and some Muslims, veiled faces are an icon of societies in which Muslims are legally and socially privileged above citizens of other religions. They are thus an obstacle to integration, and in that sense I agree with Jack Straw. We live under the Crown, not a Caliphate, and under common law, not sharia law."

Today's Telegraph leader looks at why the comments were apparently so controversial:

"Mr Straw has touched a raw nerve because he has not talked in the abstract but has focused on one of the most emblematic symbols of Muslim life. Self-appointed representatives of the Muslim community say he has no right to discuss the issue. As an elected member of the Government, he has every right – unlike most of them, who have been elected to nothing."

The most common misquote on this is that Straw called for a ban of the veil, he didn't - he was starting a debate on the matter, and that's what we're having (see yesterday's YourPlatform article by Imtiaz Ameen). As today's Times leader notes:

"These are not questions that will disappear if public figures or private citizens decide that it would be “causing trouble” to intrude into them."

And Martin Kettle in today's Guardian:

"since there is so clearly an issue, it is surely desirable to discuss it in public and not keep it, er, veiled."

That is the difference between a free society and theocracies like Saudi Arabia, after all.

Deputy Editor

Comments

[christina speight]

You see "a very mixed response" to Jack Straw. Well, not here on yesterday's blog you didn't!! The consensus was overwhelmingly ANTI-veiling and tthere were more criticisms of Straw for being weak than for being wrong.

The BBC News SAID that the overwhelming number of messages supported Straw.

From personal observation almost all are against the veil including a woman Moslem check-out operator I have known for years. "Silly women" she said. "They're just trying to create a quarrel"

[Death's Dark Veil]

Charles Moore has a brilliant article on the subject in today's Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/10/07/do0701.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2006/10/07/ixopinion.html

Personally, I'd go further. The best way to empower moderate, anti-veil elements in Muslim communities is to give them the most effective weapon in the armoury of persuasion when they are debating the issue with extremists:

"Look, your antics are offending and upsetting the rest of society and making life harder for the rest of us Muslims. We are being shunned, abused and even attacked. Only by showing that we are loyal citizens who wish to fit in and gain the approval of our fellow Britons will we turn this tide of antagonism towards us. The British people are sick of us so we had better change our bolshy ways before it all ends in tears."

[Sally Roberts]

I was in Smiths this morning and talked to the very friendly hijab-wearing assistant at the checkout (it wasn't too busy!!) She agreed totally with Jack Straw. I do think this debate is being blown out of all proportion.

[Jack Stone]

Today the veil. Tomorrow the skull cap. The day after the cross. People have a right to wear what religious symbols they chose to and our society would be a lot poorer if we made people ashamed and frightened to wear what they please.
We should celebrate our diversity and differance not condemn or be frightened by it.

[Monday Clubber]

Goodman and Baker are right, as are Straw and Reid.

I respect the rights of Muslims to behave as they wish in their own lands, but those who live here cannot be permitted to impose rules which run counter to the principles of Western Democracy.

We are going to have to grasp this nettle sooner or later and we cannot do it with Pollyannaesque tripe of the stamp of that included by Cameron in a little-noted backwater of his conference speech

Earlier this year Sir Nicholas Winterton also spoke for British people of every colour and creed when he stated.

"The Australian Government has spelt out bluntly what it expects of its ethnic minority communities and we in the UK should do the same.

"They should stop politicising dress, such as wearing the hijab and burkha, they should learn English, they should not return to their homelands to get a spouse, cease forced marriages and accept once and for all that the United Kingdom is not, and never will be, an Islamic state."

That's the authentic Conservative view.

[christina speight]

And in these terrorist times it is just not acceptable for people to hide their identity in a veiled costume. Criminals use masks and stockings; hooligans use hoods. These are not acceptable either.

Otherwise it would be carte-blanche for any criminal of either sex or race to dress in a burka and avoid prosecution and/or conviction.

[Monday Clubber]

Well, Christina, Cameron's conference speech showed that he has already deftly moved on from hug-a-hoodie to hug-a-burka.

Of course we're only too familiar with the perverse liberal habit of cosying up to criminals and extremists in order to grab votes, so it's no surprise that the Bluelabour hand of friendship is being extended to Islamofascism.

No doubt when the opinion polls really turn sour "Hug-a-BNP" will be unveiled.

[TomTom]

People have a right to wear what religious symbols they chose to and our society would be a lot poorer if we made people ashamed and frightened to wear what they please.

The chadoor is no more a religious symbol than the suit of armour worn by Christian knights.

The only reason the chadoorm veil, jilbab etc is seen on the streets is the huge influx of women from Kashmir in the past decade since Labour started unrestricted immigration and men imported wives not likely to integrate into British society.........but to remain subservient and live on state benefits.

[disillusioned activist]

Exactly Christina. It's the security aspect of all this that concerns me

In Kuala Lumpur,the Malay Muslim women wear the hijab and I have no problems with that.Their hair is covered and they are modestly and smartly dressed, which I believe is all the Koran requires, but crucially their faces are not hidden.

However I find the veiled/ burka clad 'women' very threatening especially at airports. Who knows who or what could be hidden under those robes.(Wasn't it John Simpson who escaped from Afghanistan in a burka some time ago?) How DO the security staff cope with these people?

It is interesting to read the reactions and comments on the BBC's 'Have Your Say' board. Jack Straw has received overwhelming public support and Ollie Leftwing (surprise suprise) has shown by his comments how out of touch the Conservative High Command is with regard to public opinion on this matter

[Mark Fulford]

Government can not legislate to ban certain types of clothing but, even so, Jack Straw has done a good thing to raise the issue.

When I travelled in the Middle East, the group I was with was always very careful to observe local customs. If we hadn't, the local displeasure would certainly have made itself know and, in any event, we didn’t want to be thought of as disrespectful Westerners.

The Muslim community has to realise that Yes, they can wear what they choose, but also Yes, others can read meaning into any choice. It’s contrary to British culture to hide our faces so, when somebody does, and insists upon it, they’re provocatively rejecting British customs in favour their own. It’s a dangerous state of affairs and the solution lies within the Muslim community: their choice is integration or increasing tension.

[Sean Fear]

Very well said Mark.

Oliver Letwin would have done well to engage his brain before commenting on this issue.

[TomTom]

Oliver Letwin would have done well to engage his brain before commenting on this issue.

In just how many elections has Letwin said something stupid to give Labour a campaign issue ? Letwin is one of the least credible members of the Conservative Shadow Cabinet...........in fact he has negligible credibility after repeated foot-in-mouth exercises............this was the man who stated

"go out on the streets and beg" to avoid sending his children to an inner city comprehensive, a report says.

The Eton-educated politician said he would give his right arm to go private in the London borough of Lambeth, where he lives during the week, according to the Evening Standard.

yet Cameron tells the proles that is their lot, no grammar schools or selection..........just Eton

[Julian Williams]

It seems to me that many more women are wearing these veils. Why? My undertstanding is that covering the hair with a scarf is a religious requirement, but the veils are not. Could it be that the wearers are becoming defensive about their religion and expressing their identity loudly. If this is reason it is very bad news becaused it is one more indicator that Islamic groups is closing themselves off from the rest of society.

Asa lecturer writing to R4 put it; it is very difficult to teach someone when all you can see is a pair of eyes. The eyes are expressive, but without seeing the whole face it is impossible to know how they are reacting to your conversation.

This is true, the veil, whilst charming, is a big barrier to effective communication. I find it threatening that these people are closing themselves off.

I want to hear the voices of moderate Muslims more, and less from their fanatics who should be squashed by their own moderate voices.

[TomTom]

Government can not legislate to ban certain types of clothing

Oh yes it can, and oh yes it does !

[Mark Fulford]

Oh yes it can, and oh yes it does !

Sounds like you're setting me a challenge for what to wear next Conference. Go on then...

[Patsy Sergeant]

I assume that the fully veiled Muslim women will have the benefit of a conventional British education, and thereafter be able to go to University, so two comments that I heard somewhere on yesterday's television (I can't remember where), might cause a pause for thought!!

A person said, 'Would I want my dentist drilling my teeth to be a fully veiled muslim woman'? NO, and, 'Would I want to be examined in hospital by a fully veiled muslim woman, or any fully veiled woman?' NO.

[Monday Clubber]

Letwin is one of the least credible members of the Conservative Shadow Cabinet

The man is arguably a bigger buffoon than Boris Johnson and about equal in terms of gluttony.

I still haven't stopped laughing about his "moment of madness" when he let some total strangers into his house in the middle of the night while clad in underpants.

Hmm. That was a very odd affair, wan't it?

[TomTom]

That was a very odd affair, wan't it?

Must be an Old Eton ritual ........

[TomTom]

Sounds like you're setting me a challenge for what to wear next Conference. Go on then...

Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994

See Parts IV, V, VI

Public Order Act 1986
Public Order (Amendment) Act 1996
Public Order Act 1936

Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005

Civil Contingencies Act 2004

Don't forget the joy of the English Legal System is that Judges make law and you could be the cause of whole new precedents as the Public Order Acts are extended and expanded...........

[Sally Roberts]

Hadn't thought of that, Patsy! No I wouldn't either - I want my dentist or doctor to be able to see exactly what she is doing!!!!

[Mark Fulford]

TomTom, rather than naming acts, could you tell me what I've got to wear in order to break the law?

[Yet Another Anon]

However I find the veiled/ burka clad 'women' very threatening especially at airports. Who knows who or what could be hidden under those robes.(Wasn't it John Simpson who escaped from Afghanistan in a burka some time ago?)
No, actually john Simpson sneaked into Afghanistan using a Burqua; there is no signs that there are incidents of veiled people holding up banks or blowing things up in this country and for Muslim men to start dressing up as such would be an extreme measure and really going almost as far against the rules of Islam and indeed most major religions in dressing up as someone of the opposite religion as it would be possible to go, both the Koran and the Bible require men and women to be distinctive in terms of attire and hair styling, in the Bible too women are forbidden from cutting their hair and many Jewish Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox Christian groups require women to be veiled, in the Plymouth Brethren, Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland, Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster and among Hutterite and Amish groups modesty is required for both sexes and women are required to cover their hair in church, in the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland and Plymouth Brethren additionally they are forbidden from wearing trousers or anything that pertaineth to the man (such as kilts) and breaking these rules anywhere is forbidden and means automatic expulsion from the church. The Free Church of Scotland and Reformed Presbyterian Church of Scotland and affiliated denominations also have rules requiring modesty (In the case of the Presbyterian denominations it comes from an interpretation of the Seventh Commandment forbidding Adultery which is gone into extensively in the Longer Catechism of the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1647) and actually a woman wearing a veil would no doubt be quite welcome wheras a woman with a shaved head in jeans would not be admitted to a building in the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland and would be liable to abuse.

Historically in much of Northern Europe people covered themselves up to a great extent, especially women.

While I haven't heard of women in veils in this country causing much trouble I have heard of a group of people dressed as clowns holding up a bank - I would personally have no problem if the state decided to ban people from painting their faces and wearing silly clothes, what about cars - no one knows what is inside a car, someone fills a car with explosives and drives it into a building far more explosive power could be delivered than under a Burqua or in a rucksack - why not ban private cars, after all if a Burqua is a worry the scope is far greater for a car or a lorry for that matter? It needs to be ensured that police have wide ranging powers to check anyone with no rights to defence of privacy, but banning burqua's in public would make little difference to stopping terrorism and actually add to hostilities over it.

[Sally Roberts]

Yet Another Anon - your explanation of how various religions expect their women to dress is very interesting and I did not know about the various Christian groups' strict regulations. I do know that orthodox Jewish women (I am a Liberal Jew) have to have their heads covered if they are (or have ever been) married. In addition they are not allowed to wear any form of trousers - that's why if you ever visit Brent Cross Shopping Centre on a Sunday you will find lots of young women wearing long denim skirts and either a beret, a snood or a scarf completely covering their hair. They do not however cover their faces.

[anon]

It's the face covering, not the hijab, that is the symbol of extremist Saudi-inspired political Islamism and which is unacceptable in this country. I teach, I am not prepared to teach a burka wearing student with their face covered, any more than I would teach a student in a KKK or SS outfit. It is extremely hurtful, offensive and derogatory to expect me to do so.

[Jack Stone]

Personally I find comparing the burka with a KKK or SS uniform offence and totally uncalled for. Don`t you realise that given the chance muslim`s would also have faced the same fate as the jews.
There is about as much chance of a act of terrorism in theis country being done as a result of a women wearing a viel as a monk wearing a cassock.
I find much of what as been written is racist, intolerant and nasty.It seems to me that we should be proud of the fact that we live in a country where so many nationalities, religions and cultures live side by side in relevant peace. We as Conservatives should be standing up for peoples right to be differant not wishing everyone came from the same identi-kit brand.

[anon]

"Don`t you realise that given the chance muslim`s would also have faced the same fate as the jews."

Given that during WW2 the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem recruited large numbers of Muslims to the SS (primarily for genocide against Serbs in the Balkans) and that these Muslim SS were given special dispensation by the Nazi leadership to have the same status as German SS, I find that unlikely.

[Penfold]

The Koran does not specify the wearing of the veil, but merely suggests that women dress modestly so as not to inflame passion.
The use of veils and enveloping clothing is a dictat from the radical leaders of Islam who are enforcing their interpretations of the faith. This is part of the fundamentalist approach that the clerics are taking to protect Islam from the west.
These clerics see the West and its impact as dangerous to the faith and a possible loss of their hold on the reins of power and control.
Making women wear enveloping clothing reinforces the cultural differences and forces the individual to live a ghetto existence only mixing and socialising with members of the faith. This segregation is essential to the radicals and clerics in ensuring their control, maintaining power and being the sole representative to the outside world.
We see therefore members of so-called councils and forums etc who claim to be the voice of their culture, they are in fact the embodiment of the repression and the segregational movement that Islam promotes to highlight and reinforce its difference and separateness fron the rest of our society.
Jack straw's comments only touch the surface of a very deep and damning schism that is being imposed on our society by outside influences, whose ultimate aim is the Islamisation of the west.

[Yet Another Anon]

They do not however cover their faces.
I didn't say that all Orthodox Jews did but there are some Hasidic sects that have this requirement and pretty much don't let married women out of the house, as I understand it it is less frequent in this country than in parts of New York and in Israel. There have been problems with some sects notably in New York and Israel apparently over women police officers patrolling the areas and in Israel with female members of the IDF.

[Sally Roberts]

Yet Another Anon, you are quite right about some ultra-orthodox women being compelled to stay very much in the background. It is not quite so prevalent in this country but certainly in New York and Israel as you rightly say it happens. There are some areas, notably the Mea Shearim district in Jerusalem, where if you are a Western woman and you venture in without dressing extremely modestly you are liable to be abused or even have stones thrown at you. This only goes to show how fundamentalism is to be found in all religions, not just Islam!

[TomTom]

There is about as much chance of a act of terrorism in theis country being done as a result of a women wearing a viel as a monk wearing a cassock.

Care to share your equations with us Jack ? I am sure you have worked out the polynomials, so how about giving that essential proof of your statement ?

[Philip]

I completely agree with disillusioned activist at 13:49 7 Oct that "Jack Straw has received overwhelming public support and Ollie Leftwing (surprise suprise) has shown by his comments how out of touch the Conservative High Command is with regard to public opinion on this matter"

While it is a principle of freedom that people should wear what they want, I presume there have always been limits as to what it acceptable to society as to wearing too little or too much: whether from the point of view of decency on one hand, or as in this case, hiding one's identity - it has been pointed out, criminals and thugs who wear hoods do so to prevent identification.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of what Jack Straw said, once again some Labour politicians seem more in touch with public concerns over crime, security etc than the "Conservative High Command" due to the latter's obsession with being ultra-liberal.

[Patsy Sergeant]

Television's constant camparison of muslim women and the burka, to Sikh men and their turbans is extremely spurious!

A) The Sikh turban does NOT cover the face, and the burka does.
B) The problem with the Sikh turban was entirely to do with road/passenger safety and crash helmets, and of course in the case of policemen, the policeman's helmet versus the turban.

There is absolutely no comparison between these two cases.

[Londoner]

It may be true that Jack Straw's remarks are popular and Oliver Letwin's not, but Oliver is right and certainly more based on liberal conservative values. Whatever gaffes he may occasionally have made, you can be sure with Oliver that he is trying to express his honest opinion - there are not many politicians you can say that about and I prefer it to those who just try to pander to whatever the popular irrational fear may be at any time.

It is no coincidence that this has only come up since 7/7 - it's a sort of respectable tilt at diversity and those different from ourselves. When French schools started banning certain religious dress I am sure I was not alone in thinking "thank God we have more embedded liberal values than France's Islamophobia and mono-cultural Statism" - but now we seem to be threatening to go down the same path.

And remember that Jack Straw's remarks were all based on the ridiculous proposition that you cannot communicate with someone unless you can see their face. So the telephone, emailing, blogging etc are all hopeless means of communication are they? And where does that leave David Blunkett? Presumably he has never been able to communicate effectively at his constituency surgeries. Jack Straw is an intelligent man so this totally illogical rationale cannot be his true reason. Charitably, he is uncomfortable with the different culture, and attitudes of (and towards) women, that veils imply. Less charitably, he sees votes in it, including probably from non-veiled Muslim women who might resent the "holier-than-thou" implications they see in others wearing veils.

So, come on Tories, where are your/our instincts towards people having the freedom to behave in private matters as they like, where is the liberalism, even the libertarian streak in us? The fact that Oliver Letwin appears to be one of the few to stand up for such values in the face of the current hysteria is to his great credit. That Charles Moore (a personal friend of Oliver's as it happens) should side with Straw is to me a cause of sadness, but no great surprise as so much of what Charles writes now seems to be based on a profound fear of Islam.

[SimonNewman]

You should read this article before attacking Straw, Londoner:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,6-2394934,00.html

I'm on the side of the many, many Muslim women who agree with Straw.

[ChrisM]

67% polled are opposed. One man - a minister - is in support. Democratic Britain? The solution - a referendum on all issues that throw up such strong public support. The alternative? Paternalistic politics that results in a pent-up anger amongst the people of this land.