Jack Straw and veils - a question?

Moderators: DrVolin, 82_28, Elvis, Jeff

Jack Straw and veils - a question?

Postby Joe Hillshoist » Wed Oct 11, 2006 12:04 pm

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Quote:<br>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br><br>But he said he welcomed the "proper debate" caused by Mr Straw's remarks. <br>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br><br><br>Now THAT's what I call a real Straw Man argument! <br><br>This nonsense has been annoying me so much this week... typical propaganda, so easy... obviously get the already anti-muslim tabloid folks riled up over these muslims not obeying the rules of our country, but also get all those left-leaning anti-war types upset about how terrible it is that women have no rights in muslim society etc etc..<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Saw this on the mass psych or reich thread and wondered if a) it belonged somewhere else.<br><br>b)if I am a chauvinist bastard and insist that all women be topless and in miniskirts when I interact with them is there any difference between me and him? <p></p><i></i>
Joe Hillshoist
 
Posts: 9351
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 10:45 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Jack Straw and veils - a question?

Postby Seamus OBlimey » Wed Oct 11, 2006 1:53 pm

Yeah it was me posted the comment provoking that reply. It's a big public argument in the UK now. Not so much whether women should be allowed to wear veils, but are they distancing themselves by doing so? I think they are deliberately distancing themselves, especially in my neighbourhood where the veil was unseen until a few years ago but now a common feature.<br>It's difficult to communicate with someone who is only prepared to show you their eyes, and then only briefly. I have the same problem with anyone wearing sunglasses. If I can't see your face I don't know what you're saying.<br>We've been arguing this all week and the bottom line is "You should be allowed to wear what you want." But I'm not allowed to wear nothing in public or a blindfold to work.<br>Fascion in action.<br> <p></p><i></i>
User avatar
Seamus OBlimey
 
Posts: 3154
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 4:14 pm
Location: Gods own country
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Jack Straw and veils - a question?

Postby Seamus OBlimey » Wed Oct 11, 2006 2:17 pm

Having said that, for the top politicos to bring it up as an argument among themselves throws up other questions. Why? And why now?<br>Do they want to paint every devout muslim as an enemy just by being muslim enough? Or just stir the fear and distrust they always use?<br>I've thought for a long time that Neo Labour were paving the way for the BNP. This doesn't convince me otherwise. <p></p><i></i>
User avatar
Seamus OBlimey
 
Posts: 3154
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 4:14 pm
Location: Gods own country
Blog: View Blog (0)

Hegelian dialect

Postby antiaristo » Wed Oct 11, 2006 5:05 pm

Seamus,<br>There is ALWAYS a deeper agenda.<br>Nothing in politics happens by chance.<br>The C of E can see it coming.<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr><!--EZCODE FONT START--><span style="font-size:small;">Drive for multi-faith Britain deepens rifts, says Church</span><!--EZCODE FONT END--> <br><br>By Jonathan Wynne-Jones<br>(Filed: 08/10/2006)<br><br>The Church of England has launched an astonishing attack on the Government's drive to turn Britain into a multi-faith society.<br><br>In a wide-ranging condemnation of policy, it says that the attempt to make minority "faith" communities more integrated has backfired, leaving society "more separated than ever before". The criticisms are made in a confidential Church document, leaked to The Sunday Telegraph, that challenges the "widespread description" of Britain as a multi-faith society and even calls for the term "multi-faith" to be reconsidered.<br><br>         <br>The Church says 'privileged attention' has been given to the Islamic faith<br><br><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>It claims that divisions between communities have been deepened by the Government's "schizophrenic" approach to tackling multiculturalism</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END-->. While trying to encourage interfaith relations, it has actually given "privileged attention" to the Islamic faith and Muslim communities.<br><br>Written by Guy Wilkinson, the interfaith adviser to the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, the paper says that the Church of England has been sidelined. Instead, "preferential" treatment has been afforded to the Muslim community despite the fact that it makes up only three per cent of the population. Britain remains overwhelmingly a Christian country at heart and <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>moves to label it as a multi-faith society suggest a hidden agenda</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END-->, it says.<br><br>The leaked report follows a week of tension in which a Muslim policeman was excused armed guard duty at the Israeli embassy in London, Asian and white youths clashed in Windsor, and <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>Jack Straw suggested that Muslim women should not wear the full veil across the face in public.<br></strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><br>The report lists a number of moves made by the Government since the London bombings in July last year to win favour with Muslim communities. These include "using public funds" to fly Muslim scholars to Britain, shelving legislation on forced marriage and encouraging financial arrangements to comply with Islamic requirements. These efforts have undermined its interfaith agenda and produced no "noticeable positive impact on community cohesion", the Church document says.<br><br>"Indeed, one might argue that disaffection and separation is now greater than ever, with Muslim communities withdrawing further into a sense of victimhood, and other faith communities seriously concerned that the Government has given signals that appear to encourage the notion of a privileged relationship with sections of the Muslim community."<br><br>Insiders at the House of Bishops meeting last week, where the briefing paper was "well received", say <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>it marks a radical departure from the Church's usually diplomatic relations with the Government on the multi-faith issue. One bishop said it was the first time the Church had launched such a defence of the country's Christian heritage.<br></strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><br>The paper, entitled Cohesion and Integration – A briefing note for the House [of Bishops], argues that the effort invested in trying to integrate Muslims since the London bombings has had no positive impact on community relations and that Ruth Kelly's controversial Commission on Cohesion and Integration seems doomed to fail.<br><br>It can also be revealed that the archbishop met Miss Kelly, the Communities Secretary, last month to discuss how the Church of England could contribute. <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>Bishops are dismayed that no Christian denomination is represented on the commission.</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><br><br>The bishops' document questions how effective it will be and says the focus for solving the problem should not be placed on one particular minority but "with the 'majority' communities and in the core culture".<br><br><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>"In relation to faith, there has been a divided, almost schizophrenic approach," the briefing paper says. The Government was misguided in "scapegoating the Muslim community as the source of the problem at the same time as believing that they should be uniquely responsible for solutions". It goes on: "The contribution of the Church of England in particular and of Christianity in general to the underlying culture remains very substantial."</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><br><br>The 2001 census showed that 72 per cent of Britons describe themselves as Christian. <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>"It could certainly be argued that there is an agenda behind a claim that a five per cent adherence to 'other faiths' makes for a multi-faith society,"</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> says the document.<br><br>Mr Wilkinson, who was an archdeacon in Bradford during the riots of 2001, says the Government is wrong to see faith as the cause of a divided society.<br><br><hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/10/08/nfaith08.xml">www.telegraph.co.uk/news/...aith08.xml</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> <p></p><i></i>
antiaristo
 
Posts: 2555
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 9:50 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

yeah

Postby orz » Wed Oct 11, 2006 6:45 pm

From my point of view, it's one of those contrived 'debates' where both "sides" are totally moronic and to even be drawn into expressing your 'opinion' one way or another is to have already lost. <!--EZCODE EMOTICON START >: --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/mad.gif ALT=">:"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <p></p><i></i>
orz
 
Posts: 4107
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 9:25 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: yeah

Postby Seamus OBlimey » Thu Oct 12, 2006 12:27 pm

Sorry if I've sown some confusion here, it's a habit (no pun intended) I have.<br><br>My original post on The Mass Psychology of Fascism thread was...<br><br>-------------------------------------------------------<br>Are we seeing something similar here?<br><br>----quote-----<br><br>Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott has defended the right of Muslim women to wear veils which cover their faces. <br><br>It comes after House of Commons leader Jack Straw sparked a row by saying he asked Muslim women to take off their veils at his constituency surgery. <br><br>Mr Prescott told the BBC he would not ask a woman to remove her veil, adding: "If a woman wants to wear a veil, why shouldn't she? It's her choice." <br><br>But he said he welcomed the "proper debate" caused by Mr Straw's remarks. <br><br>Mr Straw said on Friday he did not want to be "prescriptive" but he believed that covering people's faces could make community relations more difficult.<br><br>BBC<br>----endquote-----BBC<br><br>A debate between two NeoLab MPs about whether muslim women should wear veils.<br>-----------------------------------------------------------<br><br>I should have first quoted Joe's previous post thus..<br><br>---------------<br><br>There is probably a link between the enforced repression that comes from a cold impersonal entity in a large human society.<br><br>In a small group where everyone knows everone else, actions that affect other people are not hidden. If you steal your naighbours stuff, you have to live with the consequences of their loss every day.<br><br>Not in a city tho. It seems the personal empathy kit we all have that helps us not act like a jerk all the time is not designed for emathy with people we don't know, well not when they make up the majority of people around us. Seems to have some flaw, perhaps alienation occurs because everyone we know and care about make up such a small percentage of everyone we know is around.<br><br>IE If we evolved in small roving bands of primate then tribal humans, then the people we come across will probably be known to us. We will matter to them and they to us. The functioning unit of culture is small enough for everyone to matter.<br><br>In a big city we are always seeing people we don't matter to. we mean nothing to them cos they are no one we know and vice versa. I think humans are expect to know each other. IE you should know everyone you come across well or at least be able to place them via a geneology relationship thang.<br><br>Not knowing other people when, by all evolutionary rights we should is probably a deep psychic insult, and probably does us all damage.<br><br>Heinlein probably had a point when he observed that a society is in severe decline when strangers are no longer polite or acknowledge each other on the street.<br>-------------------------------<br><br>I did not intend to continue the debate of the veil but offered it as an example of the way the state divides to conquer. Not just as in antiarsto's quote of one religion against another, more "If you're muslim, you're either with us or against us. So show it!"<br><br>But I can't agree with orz's statement that to express an opinion is moronic. This debate was not conjured up by Straw and Pressgut, it's been simmering for a few years. Banks and shops long ago asked users to remove crash helmets. Shopping centres bar hoodies and baseball caps. So to us whities it does look like others get special treatment. There, as they say, is the rub. <p></p><i></i>
User avatar
Seamus OBlimey
 
Posts: 3154
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 4:14 pm
Location: Gods own country
Blog: View Blog (0)

special treatment

Postby blanc » Thu Oct 12, 2006 2:20 pm

special treatment like not bringing prosecutions for incitement to murder in the aftermath of the publication of 'satanic verses?'<br>special treatment like not bringing prosecutions against those committing violence against female family members who don't wish to adhere to the customs of dress prescribed by their more fundamentalist brothers?<br>special treatment like publishing local govt documentation in some minority languages but not those of other less demanding groups?<br>special treatment like advertising local govt posts as requiring a particular language, which pretty well precludes the majority of applicants and results in front line posts all too often being held by those whose command of English is insufficient for the majority clients to make themselves understood?<br>I could continue with this list, but that is enough to illustrate where the debate around veils is coming from. its worth keeping in mind that a multi cultural society has more than just 2 cultures. and the head of steam behind the debate comes from the prescriptive and dogmatic approach adopted by some members of one religious group . <p></p><i></i>
blanc
 
Posts: 1946
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 4:00 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: special treatment

Postby Seamus OBlimey » Fri Oct 13, 2006 12:52 pm

Yes blanc, that's exactly the kind of special treatment, "political correctness" or "positive discrimination" they use to drive traditional left-wing voters to the far right.<br><br>And the beat goes on... <!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bradford/6046992.stm">School suspends woman over veil</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--> <p></p><i></i>
User avatar
Seamus OBlimey
 
Posts: 3154
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 4:14 pm
Location: Gods own country
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: special treatment

Postby Seamus OBlimey » Mon Oct 16, 2006 2:18 pm

And the beat goes on...<br><br>-------------------------<br><br>Kelly tells councils to identify extremist 'hotspots' <br><br>Matthew Tempest and agencies<br>Monday October 16, 2006<br>Guardian Unlimited <br><br><br>Ruth Kelly, the secretary of state for communities and local government, speaks outside the Victoria Park Plaza hotel in central London, where she was meeting representatives of 20 "key" local councils.<br>         <br>The government has told key local authorities to identify "hotspots" prone to Islamic extremism, as the communities secretary, Ruth Kelly, warned that the far right could exploit community divisions if Muslims did not root out their own extremists.<br><br>Ms Kelly held an hour-long meeting behind closed doors with representatives of 20 councils in London this morning to discuss community cohesion.<br><br>Her meeting comes after two weeks of increasingly political rows about the role of Islam in a multicultural society, sparked by Jack Straw's declaration that he asked female Muslim constituents to remove their veils when they came to see him.<br><br>The debate has evolved into a dispute over the right to wear religious symbols at work, with a Dewsbury teaching assistant who wears a veil in the classroom and a <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>British Airways employee told not to visibly wear a crucifix</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> coming under particular scrutiny.<br><br>But opposition politicians have warned Ms Kelly - <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>a member of the devout Catholic Opus Dei group</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> - against "demonising a whole faith".<br><br>The Liberal Democrats' communities spokesman, Andrew Stunell, said: "Once again the government is guilty of chasing votes, not seeking solutions.<br><br>"If ministers really want to build a strong partnership with minority communities to confront extremism, they have done almost everything wrong so far.<br><br>"Honesty about the impact of our foreign policy on Muslim communities here and abroad over the last two decades would achieve much more."<br><br>Mr Stunell said that Muslims were as appalled by terrorism now "as Catholics were by the IRA campaign 20 years ago".<br><br>"It is no solution to separate and demonise a whole faith because of the actions of fanatics," he said.<br><br>Ms Kelly - whose post was created in May this year - told the meeting that extremism was the "biggest security issue" currently faced by "major parts" of Britain.<br><br>She urged the local government representatives to consider whether they were doing enough to tackle extremism in schools, colleges and universities, and <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>whether they had identified "hotspot" neighbourhoods and sections of the community which could be breeding grounds.</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><br><br>"This is not just a problem for Muslim communities," she said. "The far right is still with us, still poisonous, still trying to create and exploit divisions.<br><br>"Extremism is an issue for all of us. We all must play our part in responding to it. <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>The world has changed since September 11 and 7/7.</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><br><br>"The government has had to change and respond to that, and we appeal to local authorities to do the same."<br><br>Yesterday, the government's race minister waded into the row over a Muslim teaching assistant's refusal to remove her veil, leading to increasingly bitter exchanges with Muslim groups.<br><br>Phil Woolas demanded that 24-year-old Aishah Azmi - already suspended - be sacked, accusing her of "denying the right of children to a full education".<br><br>Mr Woolas said that Ms Azmi's stand meant that she could not "do her job" at Headfield Church of England junior school in Dewsbury, West Yorkshire, and insisted that barring men from working with her would amount to "sexual discrimination".<br><br>But the Muslim Council of Britain condemned Mr Woolas for his "outrageous" and "reckless" foray into a "matter that should be decided by the school, and if necessary by the courts".<br><br>Meanwhile, the shadow home secretary, David Davis, attacked Muslim leaders for risking "voluntary apartheid" in Britain, and expecting special protection from criticism.<br><br>Mr Davis warned in an article for the Sunday Telegraph that "closed societies" were being created in the UK.<br><br>In an apparent hardening of the Conservatives' attitude to radical Islam, Mr Davis also supported Mr Straw's practice of asking female Muslim constituents to lift their veils during private discussions.<br><br>After Ms Kelly's meeting, Mr Davis said: "It is vital ... that the issues raised today are followed up on. What steps have been agreed by whom? Who is responsible for their follow-up and when?"<br><br>The education secretary Alan Johnson is expected further to fuel the religious debate this week by putting forward plans <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>forcing new faith schools to allocate a quarter of places to pupils who follow other religions, or none.</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><br><br>A leaked letter from Mr Johnson to cabinet colleagues set out plans to add the measures to the government's education and inspection bill.<br><br>The Church of England has already announced that it will set aside 25% of places at its new schools, but a bid to make Catholic, Jewish and Muslim institutions do the same is likely to meet resistance.<br><br>Other key officials who attended today's meeting included senior Andy Hayman of the Metropolitan police, who was representing the Association of Chief Police Officers.<br><br>Other officers from various forces around the country were also thought to have attended the meeting, as well as the chief executives from a number of local councils.<br><br>In an interview later, Ms Kelly played down suggestions that the government wanted university lecturers to report students that they suspected of involvement in Islamic extremism to the police. <br><br>It followed the leak of a Department for Education document disclosing that proposals for tackling extremism on campuses would be sent to colleges and universities by the end of the year. <br><br>According to the Guardian, which obtained the report, it acknowledged that, for some academic staff, passing information to Special Branch would seem like "collaborating with the secret police". <br><br>Ms Kelly rejected suggestions that the proposals - which are still being worked on - involved asking lecturers to "spy" on their students.<br><br>"This is about protecting students from individuals who might be out there trying to prey upon them, trying to groom them into a path towards violence and extremism," she told the BBC's World at One.<br><br>"It is important that we strike the right balance but this isn't about picking on individual students or even spying on them, it is about sensible monitoring of activities to make sure that individual students on campuses are protected."<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,,1923713,00.html">politics.guardian.co.uk/h...13,00.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br>----------------------------------<br><br>Why does a government support and finance "faith schools"? <br><br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/wholeschool/faithschools/">teachernet.gov.uk</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--> "This section contains information about faith schools and how they are working to make a positive contribution to community cohesion in England."<br><br>I can understand theology as an academic subject. But faith? <p></p><i></i>
User avatar
Seamus OBlimey
 
Posts: 3154
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 4:14 pm
Location: Gods own country
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: special treatment

Postby Joe Hillshoist » Wed Oct 18, 2006 8:46 pm

The latest I am hearing in the Aussie media is that Blair has comeout in support of Straw.<br><br>Because, get this, it creates a sense of self enforced apartheid to wear a veil.<br><br>My wife's take on this is interesting. In a society where sex has become such a commodity, she sees women wearing a veil as a way of controlling the way society sexualises them.<br><br>I live in Australia, where its warm. So for most of the year in most of the towns around here there are plenty of v sexy females wearing very little clothing. It makes for great eye candy. But...<br><br>Personally I think those women like the attention, but I don't go around ogling them or whistling or whatever. Its more like appreciating beauty. I look at the lovely landscapes around here too, and its pretty much the same thing.<br><br>But wearing a veil ... well the truth is you can still look the person in the eye. Which is the most fundamental thing about communication.<br><br>However on a meta level...<br><br>It seems that there is also a connection between the veil, and the Christian woman who was suspended for wearing a crucifix.<br><br>There is a similar thing going on with the ABC our version of the BBC.<br><br>They are thinking of warning people about shows that have "an opinion".<br><br>There seems to be a trend toward getting people to be bland opinionless units of consumption, and thats got as much to do with it all as anything else. <p></p><i></i>
Joe Hillshoist
 
Posts: 9351
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 10:45 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)


Return to Religion and the Occult

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest