Jack Straw and the Muslims!

aslantheslayer

THe Ex British Foreign Secretary and Now Leader of the House of commons has stated that Muslim Women should take of there veils whilst in his Miinisterial Clinic.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006460447,00.html

Right or wrong it takes reall Balls for a Politician to take a stand like this!

I would say I agree with Mr Straw.

RedPlanet

aslantheslayer wrote:

THe Ex British Foreign Secretary and Now Leader of the House of commons has stated that Muslim Women should take of there veils whilst in his Miinisterial Clinic.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006460447,00.html

Right or wrong it takes reall Balls for a Politician to take a stand like this!

I would say I agree with Mr Straw.

I would say it demonstrates his intolerance toward islam and willingness to dismiss some of his constituents.

Hobbes

If only he asked all women to remove thier tops.

lostexpectation

he who does not invade countries may speak first,


headline could have read,

muslim women happy to remove veil in face to face meetings

Collie D

aslantheslayer wrote:

Right or wrong it takes reall Balls for a Politician to take a stand like this!

I would say I agree with Mr Straw.

And his stand is what exactly? Is he asking all Catholics to remove rosary beads? OPriests to remove dog collars? The guy should remember he is representing the people who elected him and not challenging their customs or religions

Hobbes

You know I actually bothered to read the news story and he doesn't say muslim women should take off the veils. Only that would they mind removing them.

He's entitled to his opinion, so are the women. If they don't want to remove them they dont have to.

Bit of a non-story.

Boggle

I saw the story on Sky yesterday. What he said is that he would LIKE for Muslim women when meeting him face to face to remove their veils. He does not impose this, just requests it and he is respectful in that he ensures that another woman is present in the room at all times.

I don't see the problem. If I want to have a face to face discussion, I would prefer to see the otherpersons face! Otherwise I might aswell be on he phone...

aslantheslayer

He Has further since on breakfast News on the BBC said he would prefer that they remove there veils.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nolavconsole/ifs_news/hi/nb_rm_fs.stm?news=1&nbram=1&nbwm=1&nol_storyid=5412640

http://news.aol.co.uk/veil-row-straw-digs-deeper/article/20061006030809990001

He has caused a massive debate in the UK, and angered some of the Muslim people.

I agree with Mr Straw that it does hinder communication.

And To be Honest I dont feel it is part of mondern day living. Now Im no expert on the Muslim faith but from what Ive seen read and seen it is not Muslim Faith that requires women to wear this, Its how the Muslim faith is practised by others.

Covering your body and face in a shroud is hardly the same as wearing roseary beads.

DadaKopf

I'll wait for women to come out and say exactly how Straw put it to them to remove their burkahs before I judge whether Straw's OK or not.

He is entitled to his view, as are women who decide to cover their faces. Though I do think it's very inappropriate for a public servant to make this request.

Sesshoumaru

DadaKopf wrote:

I'll wait for women to come out and say exactly how Straw put it to them to remove their burkahs before I judge whether Straw's OK or not.

He is entitled to his view, as are women who decide to cover their faces. Though I do think it's very inappropriate for a public servant to make this request.

Its just common courtesy. Personally I think I would find it very uncomfortable talking to someone who dresses like some ninja. I remember seeing women like this in Malaysia and I felt uncomfortable just being around them. The local chinese malaysians didn't like them much either.

Kudos to Jack Straw for taking a principled stand against this separatist mentality. Its about time someone in high office started saying what needs to be said. Our ways or the highway I say!

Zombrex

Sesshoumaru wrote:

Personally I think I would find it very uncomfortable talking to someone who dresses like some ninja.

The surely the problem is why you, and your attitude, is it not? Is the responsibility of others to make you feel comfortable?

Sesshoumaru wrote:

Our ways or the highway I say!

What exactly is "our way" ... last time I checked people in Ireland and Britian were allowed wear any clothes they feel most comfortable in. Is that not our way?

Zombrex

Hobbes wrote:

If only he asked all women to remove thier tops.

Here here. I'm glad someone final said it Hobbes, it has been brimming under the surface for a long time.

It is a total disgrace that women are oppressed by the Christian religious dogma and fundamentalism that they have to wear tops and bras that cover and hide their natural breasts. Breasts are normal, they should not be hidden for religious grounds. That is just absurd.

Do we want to support this ridiculous religious requirement! Hell no! And I'm glad Hobbes has final said it.

Any woman that does cover up her breasts is supporting this oppression, oppression of other women.

We clearly can't reason with them or expect them to just realise this because they have been brain washed by the religion itself.

The only answer is to demand that women go topless.

The sooner we rid this horribly sexist Christian dogma from our society the better. Religion has no place in fashion!

Who is with me!!

metrovelvet

Except WK that bras and tops enhance our natural beauty, curves and breasts. They are not reminders of shame and invisibility.

Just as the nuns made girls chop off their hair - here another religion makes them cover it up.

Does Jack Straw sit in a governmment building? If so it seems like it would be an obvious security measure. If messengers have to remove their helmuts..... and in big cities you now have your photo taken when entering government buildings, this seems like a reasonable request. Especially since you can hide weapons under those things.

fly_agaric

Oh God! More garbage.
Maybe that chap Branson can build a rocket and fire Blair, Straw, Reid and few dozen beburkahed Muslim good-time babes off to the moon in it?:mad:

Why can't the media give us some peace from this bs for even a week or two?

Who gives a crap if he feels a bit antsy when he talks with a muslim constituent in a full face veil?
Who gives a crap if he asks her if she'd remove it when he speaks with her and is told yay or nay?

What is gained by Jack Straw himself or the media making a massive fuss over these "burning" issues?

That's it - I'm pulling out the coax and ethernet cables and burning my newspaper...

Wicknight wrote:

Is the responsibility of others to make you feel comfortable?

It is courtesy though, isn't it?

Wicknight wrote:

The only answer is to demand that women go topless.

I'm sure breasts could really emote if we could just see them during our everyday conversations!
Some men may even prefer to "talk to the breast". Or not?

mike65

I'm with Straw on this one all he has done is ask for the coutesy of being able to converse with a contituent face to face rather than face to cloth.

Its a cultural thing (of course), in the Christian West the use of a cover on the face is viewed as being (at best) at matter for intrigue, at worst as a cover for "ner do wells" and criminals. In the west we place great value in the 'persona'. Its an extention of body language and Straw is simply reflecting his and my cultural baggage.

So where does that leave those who view the world through a narrow slit in a black veil? Distanced from the majority and the subject of suspicion. Thats one of the many Culture Gaps now opening up in the western world as it becomes less western.

Mike.

Sesshoumaru

Wicknight wrote:

The surely the problem is why you, and your attitude, is it not? Is the responsibility of others to make you feel comfortable?



What exactly is "our way" ... last time I checked people in Ireland and Britian were allowed wear any clothes they feel most comfortable in. Is that not our way?

I said it made me feel uncomfortable. But I don't particularly care what Muslims do in their own countries. I do care what they do over here. If someone came up to me and started talking to me, then yes I would prefer they removed their holy/ninja/whatever garb so I could at least see their face.

Lets not forget immigrants don't have some kind of inalienable right to come and live here. They can come and live here because we let them. There is a precondition to that privilege and its integration! Jack Straw was right when he said it leads to division in communities. Being able to see your neighbours face is an essential part of communication. Its not negotiable.

RedPlanet

Sesshoumaru wrote:

I said it made me feel uncomfortable. But I don't particularly care what Muslims do in their own countries. I do care what they do over here. If someone came up to me and started talking to me, then yes I would prefer they removed their holy/ninja/whatever garb so I could at least see their face.

Lets not forget immigrants don't have some kind of inalienable right to come and live here. They can come and live here because we let them. There is a precondition to that privilege and its integration! Jack Straw was right when he said it leads to division in communities. Being able to see your neighbours face is an essential part of communication. Its not negotiable.

I'm not familiar with this precondition of integration as you say.
Could you elaborate on that because i've a feeling the European Court of Human Rights may have an opinion.

You know, the Amish must be totally screwed if they tried coming here huh?

"Come out from among them and be ye separate, saith the Lord." (II Corinthians 6:17)

(one of the Bible versus they use to justify not integrating)

Darragh29

I'm looking at Sky News here and their corresponent Alex Crawford was just reporting from Pakistan on the earthquakes that happened over there some time ago. I was surprised to see that she was wearing a Muslim headscarf, covering her head and shoulders, not something I've ever seen teh same reporter wearing previously, probably eliminating the possibility that she is a Muslim. I should point out that this was obviously a Muslim headscarf as you would see any Muslim woman wearing on Grafton Street on any day.

My point is that here is a non Muslim woman in a Muslim country and she is REQUIRED to wear a headscarf in line with religious sensitivities appropriate to the country that she is in, so it must surely follow that a Muslim woman, if she is asked to remove her headscarf only for a temporary period of time so that a proper conversation can exist between two people, should have no problem whatsoever in doing so!?!?! Imagine the uproar we would have to listen to if Muslim women were REQUIRED to remove their headscarfs upon arrival in the UK, similar to how non Muslim women visiting Muslim countries are REQUIRED to wear a headscarf in many Muslim countries. In my humble opionion, this shows up how unreasonable and intransigent Muslim people are. When you're in Rome, do as the Romans do.

Sesshoumaru

RedPlanet wrote:

I'm not familiar with this precondition of integration as you say.
Could you elaborate on that because i've a feeling the European Court of Human Rights may have an opinion.

You know, the Amish must be totally screwed if they tried coming here huh?

(one of the Bible versus they use to justify not integrating)

Its not rocket science. Either they integrate and accept our values or they can go home. Its either that or you pander to them like the French do and what does that get you? It gets you a hostile army living inside your own borders. I don't want to see the rest of Europe turning out like this.

RedPlanet

Darragh29 wrote:

When you're in Rome, do as the Romans do.

Damn, does that mean i have to go out and get stupidly drunk every weekend since i'm in Ireland?

b3t4

Jee's mention muslim and the whole place gets over sensitive.

The guy merely asks women to remove their head scarves and does not require them to do so.

I know that I find it very hard to speak with a person who is wearing sun glasses and will always remove my sunglasses if I begin speaking with a person. I find it hard to read what they are saying without seeing their eyes.

I can see how it might be difficult to read what somone is saying without being able to see their face. He works (used to?) in a clinic surely its important in making a diagnosis to be able to read a person's facial expresions.

Not exactly similar but has anyone miss read the tone or expression of a text message simply because the person isn't physically present? I know I have.

A.

RedPlanet

I once had the opportunity to work with loads of Laotian immigrants.
They would never look me in the eye as we spoke, but would always divert their eyes. It bugged me. I couldn't figure out what was going on.
Finally i got to know one well enough that i quizzed him about it (he mostly avoided eye contact too). He explained that where they are from, it is rude and confrontational to make eye contact.
I couldn't imagine trying to force them to look me in the eye as we spoke.
In fact, i wouldn't even ask them politely to do it.

Sesshoumaru

RedPlanet wrote:

Damn, does that mean i have to go out and get stupidly drunk every weekend since i'm in Ireland?

Well if you read your history books you'd know our culture is largely based on Roman culture.

Zombrex

Sesshoumaru wrote:

I said it made me feel uncomfortable. But I don't particularly care what Muslims do in their own countries.

So you have no problem with Irish Muslims wearing the veil?

Sesshoumaru wrote:

If someone came up to me and started talking to me, then yes I would prefer they removed their holy/ninja/whatever garb so I could at least see their face.

Well with that attitude I doubt many Muslims will actually want to talk to you in the first place, so that kinda takes care of that. Problem solved.

Sesshoumaru wrote:

Lets not forget immigrants don't have some kind of inalienable right to come and live here.

They do have an inalienable right to wear their veil while here.

Sesshoumaru wrote:

There is a precondition to that privilege and its integration! Jack Straw was right when he said it leads to division in communities.

I would imagine you refusing to talk to someone one wearing a Muslim veil would be what leads to a division of communites.

This "problem" only arises if the Muslims are attempting to talk with non-Muslims in the first place, in which case they seem to be making the first step and it is you who are actually causing the division.

Sesshoumaru wrote:

Being able to see your neighbours face is an essential part of communication.

Yes because wearing a veil means you are unable to speak in English ... oh wait, no it doesn't. :rolleyes:

Its amazing that Muslim women have been able to function for centuries without being able to communicate with others!. How do they do the shopping in Tescos?!! Sign language? :eek:

Zombrex

b3t4 wrote:

The guy merely asks women to remove their head scarves and does not require them to do so.

Imagine if Jack Straw merely asked a western woman to remove her top and bra while talking to them, but not actually requiring them to do so.

I would imagine the "merely" would be dropped rather quickly from your post.

b3t4

Wicknight, I wasn't under the impression that muslim women are naked under their burkas or head scarves. Am I incorrect in believing that muslim women wear clothes under their veils?

I can see a problem with what you suggest as the women is left naked.
I do not see a problem with being asked to remove an outer garment that does not leave oneself naked.

I don't get offended is someone suggests I take off my coat and hang it on the clothes hanger if I enter someones home.

A.

wes

These Women aren't bothering anyone so I am of the opinion of leaving them alone. Sure first make the Muslim Women take of there veils and then lets make the Sikhs take of there turbans. Just another guy taking a shot at Minority of Muslim women who wear the veil (loads don't even wear it). So this is a non issue, there aren't a lot of Muslim Women who go in for the whole veil thing. I reckon this is just a way for Jack Straw to get his name in the papers.

Zombrex

b3t4 wrote:

Wicknight, I wasn't under the impression that muslim women are naked under their burkas or head scarves.

If by "naked" you mean exposing inapproate parts of their body in public, then yes they are.

b3t4 wrote:

I do not see a problem with being asked to remove an outer garment that does not leave oneself naked.

That is because you clearly don't understand why Muslim women wear the head scarf in the first place. To a Muslim they are naked.

In western society it is considered totally sexually inapprorate (even against the law) to expose certain areas of the body in public. These are the breasts and groin on a woman, and the groin on a man.

It doesn't matter if somone is wearing clothes on the rest of their body, these areas have to be covered.

We also have a sliding scale of legal yet inapproate displays of flesh. It is fine for a man to be topless on the beach, but not in work.

This is the very same logic behind the Muslim veil.

A Muslim woman who wears a veil believes that it is inapproate to expose areas of the head, particularly the hair, in public, just a western Christian women believe that it is inapprorate to expose their breasts or nipples in public.

As with Christian women their is a sliding scale of what is acceptable. Some Muslims only cover the hair, while others cover the entire face and hair.

Asking a Muslim woman to remove her veil is asking her to be naked, just as asking a Christian woman to remove her top and bra is.

b3t4 wrote:

I don't get offended is someone suggests I take off my coat and hang it on the clothes hanger if I enter someones home.

Would you get offended if they asked to see your penis (or if you are a woman, your breasts)

If a western woman went to african on charity work where it is common for the women to be topless, would you consider it bad form for the western woman to not get topless?

Because I've seen a lot of television presenters and charity works on TV wander around African tribes where the women are all hanging out, and none of the western presenters or works are ever topless. Funny that.

Flukey

Darragh29 wrote:

My point is that here is a non Muslim woman in a Muslim country and she is REQUIRED to wear a headscarf in line with religious sensitivities appropriate to the country that she is in, so it must surely follow that a Muslim woman, if she is asked to remove her headscarf only for a temporary period of time so that a proper conversation can exist between two people, should have no problem whatsoever in doing so!?!?! Imagine the uproar we would have to listen to if Muslim women were REQUIRED to remove their headscarfs upon arrival in the UK, similar to how non Muslim women visiting Muslim countries are REQUIRED to wear a headscarf in many Muslim countries. In my humble opionion, this shows up how unreasonable and intransigent Muslim people are. When you're in Rome, do as the Romans do.

There is a big difference there. In the muslim countries it is a requirement, as you say yourself, that they wear it, and the reporter wears it. It is not a requirement here that they don't wear it, as you say. So they are free to wear it if they want to. A normal and proper conversation can be had when someone is wearing one, so there is no need to remove it. OK, they do look a bit sinister when wearing one, but they do carry on a day to day life, including conducting conversations, while doing so.

It is always funny in these situations, that many of the people that complain about women being covered up and not being allowed to drink, are the same ones that will complain about young women on the streets half-dressed and totally drunk. I am sure many parents in Ireland would be happy to have their daughters safe at home tonight, rather than out on the streets in such a state. There are pros and cons to all these situations.

RedPlanet

Wicknight wrote:

If a western woman went to african on charity work where it is common for the women to be topless, would you consider it bad form for the western woman to not get topless?

Because I've seen a lot of television presenters and charity works on TV wander around African tribes where the women are all hanging out, and none of the western presenters or works are ever topless. Funny that.

Yeah it's a good point that.
Where is Darragh29 with his "When you're in Rome, do as the Romans do" now?
I think the reasons have something to do with this repulsive attitude of culture superiority that i am ashamed to see in this country.
Maybe a bit of racism too.

Zombrex

Darragh29 wrote:

My point is that here is a non Muslim woman in a Muslim country and she is REQUIRED to wear a headscarf in line with religious sensitivities appropriate to the country that she is in, so it must surely follow that a Muslim woman, if she is asked to remove her headscarf only for a temporary period of time so that a proper conversation can exist between two people, should have no problem whatsoever in doing so!?!?!

It doesn't work like that.

What we are talking about here is two different standards of inapproate flesh bearing.

We (western Christians) set the requirement that you only cover up your breasts and groin. Muslim countries have stricter requirements, that one cover their hair as well. (btw you also will be asked to do this if you enter a church in Italy).

It doesn't work in reverse. We can't expect a Muslim woman to get naked by their standards, just because we don't hold to the same standard. To the Muslim she is still naked.

Would you expect western aid workers to walk around topless in some parts of Africa just because it is ok for women to walk around topless in parts of Africa?

I would imagine that most of the woman would still feel very uncomfortable doing so, and would still choose not to do it. And they shouldn't be forced to either.

Likewise is an African tribes woman came to Ireland, we would not tolerate her walking around topless. It would be considered outragious and she would be told to cover herself up. How is this any different than in Muslim countries.

In fact Muslim countries seem a lot more tolerent about not wearing the scarf than we do about exposing say your breasts in public. Lots of women in the middle east don't wear the scarf.

Zombrex

RedPlanet wrote:

I think the reasons have something to do with this repulsive attitude of culture superiority that i am ashamed to see in this country.
Maybe a bit of racism too.

Agreed. Its the belief that our standards are correct, and everyone else is wrong.

The Africans are wrong for their women not wearing enough clothes, and the Muslims are wrong their women wearing too much clothes.

It is simply arrogance, ignorance and lack of understanding.

We are the Goldielocks of the world, we think our standards are "just right"

I really don't get the objection to the Muslim veil though. I could understand the objection if an African woman wanted to get her bits on Grafton St, but the Muslim woman already adhering to our moral standards in dress code. She just wears more to bring herself up to her own standard. What is the freaking problem. The who thing is ridiculous. "But I can't see her mouth when she talks?" So freaking what, it doesn't matter. You can hear her can't you.

fly_agaric

Wicknight wrote:

Asking a Muslim woman to remove her veil is asking her to be naked, just as asking a Christian woman to remove her top and bra is.

So can we redefine the face so it becomes just as much of an erogenous zone as a pair of breasts?
Isn't that a bit insane?
Taking relativity a bit too far?
I mean I bet those women would have been a tad upset and creeped out if Straw had asked them to flash their knockers for him instead! That would have made a much much better and more interesting story IMO.

Wicknight wrote:

Would you expect western aid workers to walk around topless in some parts of Africa just because it is ok for women to walk around topless in parts of Africa?

If the "Western" women in Africa are going to live among those no-top-wearing African women rather than just visit then maybe they could strip off out of politeness you know.
But they shouldn't be forced to do it.

Wicknight wrote:

really don't get the objection to the Muslim veil though.

I think mike65 covered it well in his post except I don't think people getting creeped out by the covering up of faces, the wearing of masks etc is an entirely "Western" cultural quirk either.

b3t4

Wicknight,
Just because someone asks me to do something doesn't require me to do it. If I get offended by something that someone asks me to do I simply do not comply to what they asked me to do.

would you consider it bad form for the western woman to not get topless?

I feel that they can choose to either go topless or not, they do not have to go topless. In this case the women also had the choice.

Also, how is a room in a clinic with at most two people in attending, concidered in public? I've had to be half naked in a GP's and I certainly wouldn't consider myself to be in the public eye when doing so.

None of the women refused to remove their veils in this case so I believe this is all a big fuss over nothing.

A.

RedPlanet

fly_agaric wrote:

So can we redefine the face so it becomes just as much of an erogenous zone as a pair of breasts?
Isn't that a bit insane?
Taking relativity a bit too far?

What you've never kissed someone before?
In fact a mouth is an orfice often used in sexual acts.
http://freemorpheus.altervista.org/_altervista_ht/lips.jpg
http://images2.nordstrom.com/images/store/boutique/smashbox/1017/lips.jpg

Zombrex

fly_agaric wrote:

So can we redefine the face so it becomes just as much of an erogenous zone as a pair of breasts?

Muslims already did. About 1,200 years ago.

fly_agaric wrote:

Isn't that a bit insane?

I think all religious beliefs are insane.

fly_agaric wrote:

Taking relativity a bit too far?

"Relativity"?

At the turn of the century showing ankles was considered the hight of erotica in Britian. Relativity has nothing to do with what is sex and what isn't. The more something is covered up, the sexier it is when it is actually revealed. Look at the fad for showing the belly button going the rounds since the late 90s.

fly_agaric wrote:

I mean I bet those women would have been a tad upset and creeped out if Straw had asked them to flash their knockers for him instead! That would have made a much much better and more interesting story IMO.

Agreed. But then a porn star wouldn't. They are often asked to get completely naked in interviews.

The issue isn't what Straw deemed approprate, the issue is what the woman herself deems approprate. So long as she isn't breaking our standards I fail to see what the fuss is about.

fly_agaric wrote:

If the "Western" women in Africa are going to live among those no-top-wearing African women rather than just visit then maybe they could strip off out of politeness you know.

I seriously doubt they would.

A lot of charity workers live in Africa for at least a few years. I have never heard or seen of any of them take their tops off in public just because the other women are, nor do I think any of them would be prepared to so.

And as far as I know the African women don't expect them to.

It seems to be just us who get upset about women not showing enough flesh.

fly_agaric wrote:

But they shouldn't be forced to do it.

Agreed.

fly_agaric

RedPlanet wrote:

What you've never kissed someone before?
In fact a mouth is an orfice often used in sexual acts.
http://freemorpheus.altervista.org/_altervista_ht/lips.jpg
http://images2.nordstrom.com/images/store/boutique/smashbox/1017/lips.jpg

*Sigh* Don't know why I did not see that coming.:) I need to get out more...
I still say it would have been a better story if Straw had asked for a little flash from his constituents...

Zombrex

b3t4 wrote:

Wicknight,
Just because someone asks me to do something doesn't require me to do it.

Ummm, yes I wonder if the next time the local pervert around my place gets called in by the guards he will use that excuse.

"Look copper, just because I asked those women to get naked doesn't mean they were required to do so. Its not my fault"

b3t4 wrote:

I feel that they can choose to either go topless or not, they do not have to go topless.

So if a man in say, a bank, asked your sister or mother to take her top off before they continue talking, you would be fine with that?

Ummm, why do I not believe you :rolleyes:

b3t4 wrote:

I've had to be half naked in a GP's and I certainly wouldn't consider myself to be in the public eye when doing so.

So if you went into the doctors for a cut on your head and he asked you to take off your trousers and pants you would be fine with that?

Ummm, again why do I not believe you ... :rolleyes:

fly_agaric

Wicknight wrote:

Muslims already did. About 1,200 years ago.

"Relativity"?

At the turn of the century showing ankles was considered the hight of erotica in Britian. Relativity has nothing to do with what is sex and what isn't. The more something is covered up, the sexier it is when it is actually revealed. Look at the fad for showing the belly button going the rounds since the late 90s.

I was trying to say that whatever the shifts of culture + time and how something taboo in one culture may not be in another some things are always more or less taboo than others. Is there not a fixed scale based on our bodies?
That exposing your breasts or your penis or whatever is always going to be a bigger "deal" than exposing your face. So making your direct comparison between Muslim face and Christian breasts or Christian full nudity [i.e. Jack Straw asking a muslim woman if she'd peal back her veil would be like if he'd asked a non-muslim to show her breasts or strip] doesn't seem very fair to me. Dramatic and effective for getting your point across but unfair.
Muslims (or some of them) may define the face as a taboo zone to be covered up but breasts must be even more taboo for them then rather than just like the face.

Wicknight wrote:

A lot of charity workers live in Africa for at least a few years. I have never heard or seen of any of them take their tops off in public just because the other women are, nor do I think any of them would be prepared to so.

And as far as I know the African women don't expect them to.

Sorry, I meant a much more permanent, settle down and have kids kind of "living" among the topless women.


To finish, I don't see why Jack Straw feels the need to have a big fancy public debate and discussion about how he personally relates to his veiled muslim women constituents (???) or why the media want to stir up a load of crap about it either. No good can come of it really IMO.

Wicknight wrote:

The issue isn't what Straw deemed approprate, the issue is what the woman herself deems approprate.

So if they were not insulted by what he did it is okay then?

Flukey

Wicknight wrote:

At the turn of the century showing ankles was considered the hight of erotica in Britian.

The turn of the century was in fact only just under 6 years ago, so that statement would not be true.

Guy:Incognito

Wicknight wrote:

What exactly is "our way" ... last time I checked people in Ireland and Britian were allowed wear any clothes they feel most comfortable in. Is that not our way?

Would you feel comfortable with some guy coming up to you with a motobike helmet on and having a conversation with you? It's common courtesy to take off the helmet and talk to someone.

Guy:Incognito

Wicknight wrote:

Imagine if Jack Straw merely asked a western woman to remove her top and bra while talking to them, but not actually requiring them to do so.

I would imagine the "merely" would be dropped rather quickly from your post.

Womens breasts are seen as a sexual part of the body that have to be covered for reasons of decency as opposed to the face which is used to see, smell, hear, communicate , eat, drink etc.

Wicknight wrote:

Would you get offended if they asked to see your penis (or if you are a woman, your breasts).

Something being "common" has nothing to do with forcing it upon anyone. Western women are free to cover up or go topless as they see fit.

Why should non muslim women be forced to wear muslim garbs when in muslim countries. If the goverment decide tomorow that we all have to wear a cross and rosary beads, should all non cristians/catholics be required to put them on when entering the country?

Wicknight wrote:

We also have a sliding scale of legal yet inapproate displays of flesh. It is fine for a man to be topless on the beach, but not in work..

Theres no law against a man being topless in work, it's down to the job. I'm a plumber and have spent quite a few days this summer without a top on hot days. No armed response units descended on me.

Wicknight wrote:

So if a man in say, a bank, asked your sister or mother to take her top off before they continue talking, you would be fine with that?

Theres absolutely no sane reason to have to see a womans breasts to be able to hold a conversation with her.

aslantheslayer

Wearing the Shroud is not part of Msulim Faith. It is a choice.

If Muslims wantto wear this in a Muslim Country then that is fine.

But the UK and Ireland are Christian Countries. So the wearing of these should be discouraged.

Wicknight suggests that the reason for the wearing is to stop flesh being shown. So with this in mind are you also saying that Christian women are Naked? Are they going around insulting the Muslim faith?

I can not go into a Bank wearing a crash Helmet, So why should a muslim be allowed to wear this? If they want to wear thid in there own home fine. But in Public this sort of dress can not be really in the best intreast of good relations and faith in your fellow neighbour.

I remeber a few years ago, all the fuss about the hoodys. And shopping Centers banning Hoodies from them. Can you imagine the uproar if they banned a muslim wearing one of these!

CiaranC

Wicknight wrote:

Well with that attitude I doubt many Muslims will actually want to talk to you in the first place, so that kinda takes care of that. Problem solved.

Youve hit the nail on the head there Wicknight. Rather than explain to a Muslim that wearing a veil during conversation makes us uncomfortable and suspicious due to hundreds of years of cultural conditioning, we should kowtow to their cultural values. Which are somehow more valid than ours, even in our own countries. We wont even mention it to them, in case it upsets them. If we do, they wont want to talk to us anyway. Of course, we'll have to remain uncomfortable and suspicious around them, but thats life. Its not just a veil thing, the same goes for free speech, sexual mores, religious rights, womens rights etc. etc.

We'll find that in fact, its just easier to ignore them. Dont speak to them, dont engage in commerce with them, dont engage them at all. Leave them in their own areas of our cities, with their own places of worship, schools, doctors, hospitals etc. We'll ignore them at government level too. Who are we to legislate for people of different values? Let them simmer for 50 years or so, and then watch the race riots explode all over the place.

Never mind that the same thing can be seen in both England and France today, that we already have a blueprint for this failure. Sure we'll go down the multicultural route too, its our duty as freedom loving liberal Europeans.

smemon

the reality is - muslim's aren't as easy going as the rest of us.

they are over-sensitive and any insults or criticism/jokes aimed at them are seen as an insult to all muslims and their god.

the fact that they actually listen to jack straw, let alone take him seriously, shows that they are paranoid and defensive. The rest of us are just laughing at all of this

metrovelvet

Why is Islam sacrosanct? Why are they above criticism? It is Islam which which imposes it's values, and have everyone morally blackmailed.

murphaph

Human beings have used the (almost) unique features of the face to recognise one another since time immemorial. I have had numerous convesations with veiled muslim women and I dislike it because I haven't got a clue who I'm actually talking to. As has been pointed out, when 'western' women travel to 'muslim' countries they adopt the local customs, I don't see why it is so unreasonable for that to work in reverse. I couldn't care less what anyone wears in out in public but when it's a face to face (no pun intended) meeting then it's customary to know who one is talking to. I don't expect everyone to agree with me but ho-hum.

Zombrex

fly_agaric wrote:

I was trying to say that whatever the shifts of culture + time and how something taboo in one culture may not be in another some things are always more or less taboo than others. Is there not a fixed scale based on our bodies?

Are you asking if a "universal rudeness" exists amoung all cultures?

No not really. And even if it did, it would be a little arrogent of us to suppose it was in fact our standards that were the universal

fly_agaric wrote:

That exposing your breasts or your penis or whatever is always going to be a bigger "deal" than exposing your face.

Not in certain parts of Africa, where women commonly do not cover their breasts. Or parts of Asia where displaying an artifically errect penis (don't ask) is common and a sign of stature amoungs a tribe.

fly_agaric wrote:

So making your direct comparison between Muslim face and Christian breasts or Christian full nudity [i.e. Jack Straw asking a muslim woman if she'd peal back her veil would be like if he'd asked a non-muslim to show her breasts or strip] doesn't seem very fair to me.

That is probably because you aren't Muslim.

fly_agaric wrote:

Muslims (or some of them) may define the face as a taboo zone to be covered up but breasts must be even more taboo for them then rather than just like the face.

That doesn't make much sense.

What, does the woman have to show something, so they better pick the face rather than the breasts?

If I said to your mother "Show me your vigina" and she said no do you think she would change her mind if I think said "Oh, ok, just show me your breasts then, the vigina might be a bit too taboo"

fly_agaric wrote:

So if they were not insulted by what he did it is okay then?

Yes, of course. But you don't "test the waters" first and then go "few! she is ok with it". I mean I could ask 100 women on Grafton St to show me their boobs, I would imagine one or two (maybe the drunk ones) actually would, and not be offended. That doesn't mean society would actually like me doing this (I would imagine I would be arrested at some point, possibly before I saw any boobage).

Zombrex

Flukey wrote:

The turn of the century was in fact only just under 6 years ago, so that statement would not be true.

You clearly where not there at the Millienum Dome when the Queen lifted her skirt up .... ummmmmmmm ... saucy

Zombrex

Stekelly wrote:

Would you feel comfortable with some guy coming up to you with a motobike helmet on and having a conversation with you?

Yes, it happened to me today. My mate Paul never takes his helmet off when chatting to us. I really don't give a sh1t, I have enough real problems without worrying about this nonsense ("Oh Paul is sooo rude, he doesn't take off his helmet" .. i mean seriously, wtf)

Stekelly wrote:

It's common courtesy to take off the helmet and talk to someone.

Well when you see a Muslim woman wearing a motor cycle helmet make sure you tell her that ...

Zombrex

Stekelly wrote:

Womens breasts are seen as a sexual part of the body that have to be covered for reasons of decency as opposed to the face which is used to see, smell, hear, communicate , eat, drink etc.

Groan .... to a Muslim a womans hair and face is seen as a sexualised part of the body.

I mean I've already explained this. What part of that do you not get?

Stekelly wrote:

Something being "common" has nothing to do with forcing it upon anyone. Western women are free to cover up or go topless as they see fit.

No they aren't. If you don't believe me walk down Grafton St topless and see how far you get ...

Stekelly wrote:

Why should non muslim women be forced to wear muslim garbs when in muslim countries.

Why should African women be forced to cover their breasts when in Ireland?

Why can't I walk naked down O'Connell St?

Stekelly wrote:

If the goverment decide tomorow that we all have to wear a cross and rosary beads, should all non cristians/catholics be required to put them on when entering the country?

The government already requires that we dress as to not

"offend modesty or cause scandal or injure the morals of the community"

Our laws are exactly the same as most Middle Eastern countries. The only difference is our "morals of the community" are different than your average Muslim country.

Stekelly wrote:

Theres absolutely no sane reason to have to see a womans breasts to be able to hold a conversation with her.

There is absolutely no sane reason why you have to see a womans lips to be able to hold a converstation with her either.

You just want to be able to see her lips. I would imagine a lot of men would also quite like to see her breasts at the same time.

It might shock people to realise, but Muslim communities have managed to communicate with each other for hundreds of years.