What do you think about jack Straw's comments was he fully justified or do you have the right to wear what you want?
Personally i think he was fully justified, he has the right to ask the question, doesn't mean that the women in question had to take off her veil.
0
Comments
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/5415478.stm
I do also believe some leniency has to go hand in hand with religion when practiced in this country. i think its great we have a multi cultural society, but as we respect other peoples religions/beliefs, people also have to respect the ways of this country. and if that means removing the veil for security reasons then I think they should have to.
for a conversation then if she didn't want to, then fine.
Its very easy to throw up the 'they come over here and don't adapt to our way of life' argument, but the interesting fact is that the vast majority of women wearing veils in this country are now British born and bred, with some only converting to Islam in the past five years.
So what is it that is making so many people living in a Western world wish to alienate themselves from their fellow society ? Is it a confidence thing ? have they become insular and guarded, and the veil, in their mind, gives them 'protection' from the outside world ?
I worry that small things like this are helping build barriers with the rest of the Western world. This country is one of the most tollerant in the world, and has a vast history of the majority accepting in colour terms, afro-caribbean, african, chinese, indians etc, and in religion terms jewish, irish catholics, sikhs and hindus etc. All those groups have largely integrated well into British communities, so why is the muslim faith wishing to provide so many barriers, and why has the more extreme interpretations of the Kuran come to the fore in the past ten years ?
Keep it sensible guys.
I believe it is a long held part of our culture that concealing the face is a clear sign of deceit and it this deception that arouses suspicion as to the motives of the person who is concealing themself. Whether you hark back to the days of highwaymen, footpads and their like or to the modern `uniform' of hoodies the motive is disguise and this is something that should be understood by those who wish to wear veils, masks and balaclavas etc.
I'm sure that were you to habitually wear a balaclava in public it would attract an awful lot of attention - mostly likely of the police kind. Would you be allowed to enter a bank, building society or similar wearing a balaclava even if you declared that it was your interpretation of your religion to wear one? I don't think so! Would it be polite or accepted were you to go and see Jack Straw or your local MP wearing a ski mask? What do you think?
Interesting also that a Muslim reporter for The Sun managed to get through passport control without removing her burka and that The Times today reports that a terror suspect managed to evade the authorities for "several" days by dressing up as a Muslim woman. A tactic used in Iraq and Afghanistan !!
I have the greatest respect for other peoples religions, but really can't see where they're coming from with this one.
How can you have effective security of any kind when certain sections of society can disguise their features supposedly in the name of religion. It is an impossible situation and one where tolerance and understanding has to be overridden in favour of out and out common sense.
I know the expression `when in Rome do as the Romans do' has been over used but it does have some relevance here.
I know that going abroad, particularly to some of the less developed countries, it is always sensible to research local customs and accepted practice in order to not unwittingly insult or offend someone. Some common expressions and gestures can be deemed offensive in other cultures and it is something that should be taken account of.
Would have banned you on style reason
Cheap they aint fella!!
But what's that to do with downtrodden Muslim women?
a couple of years ago on holiday we visited a monestry. We were told beforehand that it is appreciated if you cover your shoulders and legs when in the monestry. So despite it being 110 degrees, me and the missus donned long shirts and long trousers, as did every other Brit on the tour. We weren't forced to do it, we just all knew it was the way things were there and we respected their way of life and fitted in accordingly.
There are so many choices on how to live your life nowadays, and an equal number of opportunities to travel and relocate. I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would wish or continue to live in a Western world when you carry beliefs that are effectively anti the society you live in.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1889081,00.html
The example of the monastery you mentioned represents showing respect for the country and custom of the people you are visiting. But whether you are visiting or settling I feel it is still incumbent on the visitor/settler to generally abide by the cultures and customs of the country to which they have travelled - or indeed to which their parents or grandparents have travelled.
Absolutely right. It's called respect - something recent visitors to this country seriously lack.
Not surprised Ketman..... Wetherspoons in Sittingbourne have done the same to me for wearing a Charlton shirt when there was an England match later that day......
It would appear, from the Bluewater ban on hoodies for example, that the powers that be would answer the question posed above yes it is right.
Given that premise then Muslim women covering their faces should be subject to the same restrictions as anybody else.
Out of interest does anybody know whether or not Bluewater bans Muslim women covering their faces in the same way as they do those wearing hoodies?
Of course they don't!!!
totally justified.
just think what would happen if a western woman refused to cover up a short skirt when asked by a muslim country's member of government.
the difference is the western woman probably wouldn't have the choice.
Given that premise then Muslim women covering their faces should be subject to the same restrictions as anybody else
You aren't comparing like with like. Kids wear hoods to conceal themselves from cameras and security and there appears to be a crime element with these people participating in shoplifting etc. Removing the hoods removes that risk of being unable to be detected, so it is common sense. An Islamic woman in Blackburn wearing a veil is a cultural and religious thing and is not done with the purposes of committing or even aiding and abetting crime, while I don't like the suspicion that it's demanded by peer pressure they have the rights as individuals to wear this clothing in society. I hope that they have personally chosen to wear the veil and that it has not been forced upon them out of choice.
Not all hoodie wearers are criminals, some youths and girls wear them as a fashion accessory. One could ask why should the innocent amongst those youths and girls be discriminated against when other groups are permitted to obscure their faces with impunity?
Equally not all Muslims are terrorists. However recently all terrorists have been Muslim so surely if it is right to impose a rule against obscuring the face for crime prevention reasons as you suggest then that rule should apply to all potential criminals?
You imply all hoodie wearers are potential shoplifters, by that logic all covered Muslim women are potential terrorists hence I AM comparing like with like.
It is my view that there is a perception in society, whether the perception is correct or otherwise, that one law applies to Muslims and one law to everybody else. There is a real danger that such a perception will foster even more resentment against Muslims than exists already. It must surely be desirable to assimilate Muslims (and other ethnic groups) into mainstream society. In my opinion that is best done by treating everybody the same in this country regardless of class, colour or creed. Utopia possibly but a worthy aim nevertheless.