Jack Straw: The niqab makes fostering community relations difficult

[x42bn6]

Originally Posted by Black~Enthusiasm

People need protection from a potential agressor. Now, where does the burqa fit into this?

To practice martial arts is understabanble and practical. To wear the burqa is to give credit to insane fallacies that are prejudiicials to both men and women alike.

I think I've already justified that the burqa is not a sexist symbol - it may detract attention, it may not, but whatever it is, a woman's way of dressing to "protect herself" is not sexist.*

[B~E]

Oh, you, you just edited it right this moment, didn't you? Because I didnt read your case for the burqa yet.

[x42bn6]

Originally Posted by Black~Enthusiasm

Oh, you, you just edited it right this moment, didn't you? Because I didnt read your case for the burqa yet.

The issue with long posts.

Anyway, I have to go now, I'll post tomorrow. Good night.*

[B~E]

Is it humiliating for women and insulting to men? That is subjective. If a husband and wife think it best for her to wear a burqa, who are we to say that it is insulting and humiliating?

Yes, it is subjective. If if its insulting or humiliating depends on the subject's understanding of the burqa. And my point if that if the subject use western cultural criterion to understand the burqa, he will be offended or humiliated, because the logic behind the burqa goes against those western beliefs held by the subject. They oppose western culture.

Secondly, the western beliefs held by the subject are superior to those held by the "husband and wife", because they are structured according to concept such as equality, freedom and respect, while the beliefs that justify the burqa insist on creating a separation between males and females that is based on beliefs that holds no water.

And finaly, you may believe that I do not have to be offended by the signification of the burqa. But as a male, the burqa is directed against me, so I cannot ignore any more than a jew could ignore a swastika on my arm.

[Tipsy]

Originally Posted by x42bn6

I think the reason is that he holds several high-ranking positions in the United Kingdom, and one of his jobs is not to slight a large minority of the country.

The issue of Jyllands-Posten and the cartoons pops up again, about freedom of expression: my view has been that freedom of expression is a beautiful thing unless you screw it up by insulting people. If you accidentally insult someone, one apologises. If you deliberately insult someone, one is in the wrong.

But I am not condemning him as much as I condemn the idea. The British Government has a right to protect and aid its citizens, not attack them.

My view of freedom of expression (including speech, press, assembly, petition, and religion) is that they are all essential to a free country. If I want to proclaim that minority x is not human and make them a scapegoat for all society promoting genocide, I should be able to do that without any fear of legal consequences. Apologizing would be nice, but it should be in no way required. People got insulted by the civil rights movement in the United States, does that mean it shouldn't have been pursued?

Originally Posted by x42bn6

If I say, "Christian crosses are distracting, people should take them off when talking to others," is that not an attack on Christians?*

Does it matter if it is an attack? It should be your right to walk up to Christian (including me) and tell them to take off their cross (they wouldn't have to, but you could tell them to) and then tell them that Jesus was a crazed lunatic who enjoys suffering and pain and that is why he wanted to be crucified (and you can throw in he never existed while you're at it). Is it nice? Not really. But you should be able to express yourself freely.

Originally Posted by Black~Enthusiasm

If what he said is reasonable and understanable, lets call it a request and lets discuss it. If its discriminatory, defiling and offensive, lets call it an attack and lets denounce it.

Who is to decide what is reasonable? What makes them right? Who decides what is offensive? The majority? A minority? Elected officials? What makes them right?

During the United States' Civil War, many people faught not because they had slaves or supported an economic system of slavery, but because the only group of people they considered themselves better than were the blacks. The poor of southern society knew that they weren't at the bottom (and believed they could move up and get slaves, but that doesn't actually matter for this) and they would consider it insulting and demeaning to them if the civil rights movement would have taken place then. There were a lot of people on both sides (poor whites on one side and blacks on the other) who would be offended and would want talk censored about the option that they didn't favor.

(I'm not saying there was a Civil Rights movement like the one that took place in the 20th century, but some of that attitude was carried over and many people were offended by their tradition being challenged.)

And who are you to say that Jews don't control world's economy, cause wars, and whatever other grand conspiracy theories that there are out there? Who made you the judge of what is right and what is wrong? Why do you have the power to tell someone they cannot say something? Why can't I wear a swastica on my shirt and tell them they don't have a right to live and they are the bane of all society?

Originally Posted by Black~Enthusiasm

As I said above, the arguments that justify the burqa is an insult to western culture. Women and men dont need to be protected from each others. And knowing this, there is a legitimate ground for banning the thing.

Wouldn't western culture include the right to express yourself freely? If I wanted to wear a burqa, why shouldn't I? If I want to hang a confederate flag outside my house, why shouldn't I? Attacking the cultures and belief systems of others seems to be attacking western culture. You live yours and they can live theirs and no one should condemn the other unless someone's rights are enfringed upon. That is western culture.

Edit: Example edited in response to third quote.

[B~E]

- You can tell if something is reasonable not according to the the manjority or a minority, but depending on if the request is made with reason, and if it allow you to make use of your own reason. Knowing this, I would say that Straw's statement is reasonable, because he merely opened a debate with it, thus allowing us to use our reason to weight on the issue. What would have been excessive, or unreasonable, is if he would have ordered through an imperial decree the ban of the burqa, which would have prevented us the use of our reason.

- Whats make Straw right? You dont need to be right to make a reasonable request. Its only a mere request afterall. But it is always right to make one, or, at least, never wrong to do so.

- The signification of the burqa is offensive because it label me as primitive, barbaric man, who cannot control his urges, unless the woman is needlessly isolated from top to bottom. How does this point fit with your civil war exemple, I dont know. I dont understand it.

- I made myself the judge of what is right and what is wrong because I have the freedom to exercise and employ my judgement according to what is best for me and for others. Sapere Aude, a latin phrase that translate into "dare to know! Dare to be wise!" or "dare to use your own reason!" Contrary to what you may think, this is the very essence of western civilisation since the Enlightement, which can be traced back as far as Ancient Rome.

I am not attacking muslim culture, you're wrong. And those who say that this is all another defamation by the british government of its muslim community are merely demagogues of the most pitiful kind.

To wear the viel or the burqa is to put useless frontiers and bounds around the woman in reaction to an aberant perception of man. It is to limit the interaction between people, in the most explicit manner. And this, tipsy, is against western culture. I'm not asking muslim to drop their faith and become christian, I'm asking them to become western muslim, and to leave behind those useless cultural chains.

But you, x42bn6, and most folks on the political left, would leave them as they are, in their moral misery, simply because it is self-inflicted. People who think like you have twisted the values of freedom and self-determination that we own to the Enlightement, thinking that self-inflicted tyrany and ignorance is in accordance to western culture. But its not. If everyone would chose to give up the very system of belief that allowed them to chose in the first place, should we allow them? of course not!

Indeed, what did europeans do when they began to understand that they could think and act according to their own reason, and not according to a holy book or a divine ruler? They got ride of their cultural chains, and they've built a better, liberal society where individual freedom is respected and equality upheld. But now, would it make sense to let minorities, who are armed with the same principles of freedom and self-determination than us, chose to live in the opposite? In our own society on top of that?


When you're asking me who am I to dare to judge, are you insinuating that I'm not supposed to be able to make a judgement with nothing but my reason alone? Do you know when was the last time when an higher authority was obligatory need to back you, for you to express your opinion? During the Middle-Age.

[Tipsy]

Originally Posted by B~E

- You can tell if something is reasonable not according to the the manjority or a minority, but depending on if the request is made with reason, and if it allow you to make use of your own reason. Knowing this, I would say that Straw's statement is reasonable, because he merely opened a debate with it, thus allowing us to use our reason to weight on the issue. What would have been excessive, or unreasonable, is if he would have ordered through an imperial decree the ban of the burqa, which would have prevented us the use of our reason. It is not his idea that I am against, it is what you have added onto it.

- Whats make Straw right? You dont need to be right to make a reasonable request. Its only a mere request afterall. But it is always right to make one, or, at least, never wrong to do so.

I’m not talking about his comment, as I have stated I respect it merely because I am concerned with his ability to express himself freely; it is what you have added to it that I do not consider reasonable. Where I am coming from is in regards to what has happened in France – they outlawed some Islamic clothing important to Muslims (at schools, I believe, though it is the precedent that counts).

Originally Posted by B~E

- The signification of the burqa is offensive because it label me as primitive, barbaric man, who cannot control his urges, unless the woman is needlessly isolated from top to bottom. How does this point fit with your civil war exemple, I dont know. I dont understand it.

The point is, different things are offensive to different people. Something we take for granted such as racial equality is something that may have been offensive to a majority about a hundred years ago. The idea is to allow everyone to allow themselves to express themselves freely, in speech or clothing choice, and decide if either infringes upon the rights of another.

Originally Posted by B~E

- I made myself the judge of what is right and what is wrong because I have the freedom to exercise and employ my judgement according to what is best for me and for others. Sapere Aude, a latin phrase that translate into "dare to know! Dare to be wise!" or "dare to use your own reason!" Contrary to what you may think, this is the very essence of western civilisation since the Enlightement, which can be traced back as far as Ancient Rome.

You have the right to express yourself freely and decide what you think is right, that is not being denied. However, the question of what makes you right, in the sense that your opinion is worth more than another’s. You believe that the burqa is barbaric. How do you have the right to force your opinion upon others?

Originally Posted by B~E

I am not attacking muslim culture, you're wrong. And those who say that this is all another defamation by the british government of its muslim community are merely demagogues of the most pitiful kind.

Calling one of their deeply held tradition barbaric, regardless of whether it is true or not, what else would you call it? I have not once in this thread attacked the British Government, every member of it is a British citizen and has the right to express themselves freely as well. It is the action you propose I have a problem with.

Originally Posted by B~E

To wear the viel or the burqa is to put useless frontiers and bounds around the woman in reaction to an aberant perception of man. It is to limit the interaction between people, in the most explicit manner. And this, tipsy, is against western culture. I'm not asking muslim to drop their faith and become christian, I'm asking them to become western muslim, and to leave behind those useless cultural chains.

To wear the burqa is to put – that is where I disagree. You cannot force someone to make a free choice. You cannot put something on someone who consents to something. In western society you should be able to choose whether or not you want to wear your burqa. If you choose to, no one should force you to stop. If you choose not to, no one should force you to put it on. As for limiting interaction between people – since when does that trump the individual liberties of an individual?

It may be a disconnect on my part, but I simply cannot see how this is against western culture. The right to consent on things that in no way infringe upon the rights of others seems to be the philosophy of western culture.

Originally Posted by B~E

When you're asking me who am I to dare to judge, are you insinuating that I'm not supposed to be able to make a judgement with nothing but my reason alone? Do you know when was the last time when an higher authority was obligatory need to back you, for you to express your opinion? During the Middle-Age.

Make any expression you wish as long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others. If we take our culture and impose it upon others unwillingly, we have destroyed the very culture we would wish to protect.

Originally Posted by B~E

Indeed, what did europeans do when they began to understand that they could think and act according to their own reason, and not according to a holy book or a divine ruler? They got ride of their cultural chains, and they've built a better, liberal society where individual freedom is respected and equality upheld. But now, would it make sense to let minorities, who are armed with the same principles of freedom and self-determination than us, chose to live in the opposite? In our own society on top of that?

But you, x42bn6, and most folks on the political left, would leave them as they are, in their moral misery, simply because it is self-inflicted. People who think like you have twisted the values of freedom and self-determination that we own to the Enlightement, thinking that self-inflicted tyrany and ignorance is in accordance to western culture. But its not. If everyone would chose to give up the very system of belief that allowed them to chose in the first place, should we allow them? of course not!

So in turn, we are to create a moral beast that dictates what is morally acceptable? Freedom is to mean exclude freedom to consent to what you wish and self-determination is to mean someone else is to determine what you are to do? That is tyranny. That is authoritarianism. You are proposing that freedom no longer makes you free. What is worse - Self-inflicted tyranny on some or external tyranny on all? Tyranny by choice or tyranny by force?

And tell me, how can you give up the belief system that allows you to choose? That very action is a choice. The choice to not choose is a choice. If I choose not to vote, it is my choice – I have every right to not let my voice to be heard; I have every right to give up the system that allows me to choose. Do you not see the precedent created by allowing the government to legislate morality?

You say that it is moral misery to wear a burqa and you say you are not attacking Islam. You have blatantly said to their face that their religion is false. You have said that by following the teachings of their religion is moral misery. How can you possibly claim to not be attacking Islam?

As for saying leaving them in moral misery, that is not true. I am against the federal government giving aid to foreign nations, yet almost weekly I donate some of my money to that very cause. Does that mean I wish people in foreign nations to starve? There are more sides than leaving someone alone and shoving the government into their life.

I simply do not see how what you have said can exist in a free and open society:

Originally Posted by B~E

This whole line of thinking is humiliating for women, and insulting for men. They can do it in their countries, but not in the West! We have a certain cultural heritage that need to be defended, that is worth defending, and that needs to be understood and accepted by our immigrants.

[x42bn6]

Originally Posted by Black~Enthusiasm

Yes, it is subjective. If if its insulting or humiliating depends on the subject's understanding of the burqa. And my point if that if the subject use western cultural criterion to understand the burqa, he will be offended or humiliated, because the logic behind the burqa goes against those western beliefs held by the subject. They oppose western culture.

Secondly, the western beliefs held by the subject are superior to those held by the "husband and wife", because they are structured according to concept such as equality, freedom and respect, while the beliefs that justify the burqa insist on creating a separation between males and females that is based on beliefs that holds no water.

And finaly, you may believe that I do not have to be offended by the signification of the burqa. But as a male, the burqa is directed against me, so I cannot ignore any more than a jew could ignore a swastika on my arm.

The Quran also tells men to lower their gaze and not to look at women whom they do not "own", as in their spouse(s), depending on whether polygamy is practiced or not. To me, it doesn't go against Western culture - there are European and American women who choose to cover themselves in their own specific way by not wearing bikinis - but religion is different from culture and, to me, if there is a clash, then one should be able to choose. Disobeying the culture could get you arrested but disobeying your religious beliefs could hurt yourself and your relationship with God.

But, to me, to say that it goes against Western culture because the burqa protects them from men is not insulting. To say that is insulting is to state that if a woman has to protect herself from unwanted (male) attention is against Western culture. Certainly not! It's called being careful.

Originally Posted by Tipsy

My view of freedom of expression (including speech, press, assembly, petition, and religion) is that they are all essential to a free country. If I want to proclaim that minority x is not human and make them a scapegoat for all society promoting genocide, I should be able to do that without any fear of legal consequences. Apologizing would be nice, but it should be in no way required. People got insulted by the civil rights movement in the United States, does that mean it shouldn't have been pursued?

I am of the impression that you cannot make a statement without hurting people. But I would love a situation where we wouldn't have to, either deliberately or accidentally. One can argue whether a statement benefits a majority or not but the point is, someone will be hurt, and these people will have to adapt.

The British press has a bad habit of exaggerating things, though (living here, even for a few days, proves that quite well in my eyes!). What I am annoyed at is that not many are familiar with Islam and what the symbology of things as simple as the burqa mean to a Muslim, and that some important people are able to make such remarks that me, even though I am not Muslim, find it insulting.

Though, admittedly, I wouldn't be surprised if my views are such because of my time in Malaysia.

Originally Posted by Tipsy

Does it matter if it is an attack? It should be your right to walk up to Christian (including me) and tell them to take off their cross (they wouldn't have to, but you could tell them to) and then tell them that Jesus was a crazed lunatic who enjoys suffering and pain and that is why he wanted to be crucified (and you can throw in he never existed while you're at it). Is it nice? Not really. But you should be able to express yourself freely.

At the risk of being decapitated or throttled into a box so small your genitals become... Never mind.

I am of that view as well. But I am of the view that if you are going to willingly hurt someone using religion as the reason, it means it is insulting that religion as well. And I would hope that nobody would have to insult thus.

Originally Posted by Tipsy

Who is to decide what is reasonable? What makes them right? Who decides what is offensive? The majority? A minority? Elected officials? What makes them right?

A bit like our warning system, eh?

Expression of freedom is not something that should be monitored but I think everyone should not make statements that ask someone to change unless it is them as a person - but not to ask someone to change anything to do with religion (especially if that person doesn't understand that religion!), race, culture, or anything general.

Originally Posted by Black~Enthusiasm

- You can tell if something is reasonable not according to the the manjority or a minority, but depending on if the request is made with reason, and if it allow you to make use of your own reason. Knowing this, I would say that Straw's statement is reasonable, because he merely opened a debate with it, thus allowing us to use our reason to weight on the issue. What would have been excessive, or unreasonable, is if he would have ordered through an imperial decree the ban of the burqa, which would have prevented us the use of our reason.

He didn't open a debate intentionally. He made a statement that we would obviously debate over.

Originally Posted by Black~Enthusiasm

- Whats make Straw right? You dont need to be right to make a reasonable request. Its only a mere request afterall. But it is always right to make one, or, at least, never wrong to do so.

To someone in the Western world, it seems fairly feasible. But the burqa is designed to prevent people that are not of kinship to a woman from seeing her. Asking her to remove it is rather insulting.

Originally Posted by Black~Enthusiasm

- The signification of the burqa is offensive because it label me as primitive, barbaric man, who cannot control his urges, unless the woman is needlessly isolated from top to bottom. How does this point fit with your civil war exemple, I dont know. I dont understand it.

It does not! The Quran states that a woman's beauty is sacred and should not be revealed to anyone but her kin. A woman will always have the right to conceal her beauty or anything belonging to her from people she does not want to reveal it to, and likewise men too.

Originally Posted by Black~Enthusiasm

- I made myself the judge of what is right and what is wrong because I have the freedom to exercise and employ my judgement according to what is best for me and for others. Sapere Aude, a latin phrase that translate into "dare to know! Dare to be wise!" or "dare to use your own reason!" Contrary to what you may think, this is the very essence of western civilisation since the Enlightement, which can be traced back as far as Ancient Rome.

I know, which is why I'm not asking Tipsy to send your posts to the Evidence Locker.

But I still think your judgement is wrong.

Originally Posted by Black~Enthusiasm

I am not attacking muslim culture, you're wrong. And those who say that this is all another defamation by the british government of its muslim community are merely demagogues of the most pitiful kind.

He is asking Muslim women to disobey their God and the Quran out of convenience for himself (and all those who agree with him): that, what I think, is interpreted by the Muslim community. It's fairly obvious this sounds like an attack.

Originally Posted by Black~Enthusiasm

To wear the viel or the burqa is to put useless frontiers and bounds around the woman in reaction to an aberant perception of man. It is to limit the interaction between people, in the most explicit manner. And this, tipsy, is against western culture. I'm not asking muslim to drop their faith and become christian, I'm asking them to become western muslim, and to leave behind those useless cultural chains.

There is little need, to Islam, for any sort of intimate contact to occur outside of a marriage. This is not a useless barrier to protect a woman from other men (and I could argue men from women). I fail to see how this is against Western culture: a Muslim man can allow his wife or a Muslim woman can opt to talk to other men (or women) - surely this is not a frontier. It does not limit interaction, just has this strange aura of mystery.

Originally Posted by Black~Enthusiasm

But you, x42bn6, and most folks on the political left, would leave them as they are, in their moral misery, simply because it is self-inflicted. People who think like you have twisted the values of freedom and self-determination that we own to the Enlightement, thinking that self-inflicted tyrany and ignorance is in accordance to western culture. But its not. If everyone would chose to give up the very system of belief that allowed them to chose in the first place, should we allow them? of course not!

Moral misery?

Being born in Britain to a large minority, and spending time in an Islamic nation has allowed me to see how badly perceived the Western people are in Malaysia and Muslims in the Western media... It is horrendous. And this view is one of them. You say that the burqa is preventive, wrong, restrictive, and so many others? It is a choice, a choice made by a woman to protect (though you say prevent) herself from the outside demons.

The burqa only seems to cause the pain of being bloody hot under there... But the link I showed you says that, "The fires of Hell are hotter." One could interpret this as true, but I can interpret it as, "Without the burqa, I will suffer the fires of Hell and not the fires of this Earth."

The burqa is and shouldn't be restrictive in any way (though one could argue the consequences leading to that choice are poor, but I would prefer to leave this out: it's something I'd prefer not to talk about). It's only when one doesn't understand the true meaning of something fairly simple to understand as the burqa which is when we have a problem.

Originally Posted by Black~Enthusiasm

Indeed, what did europeans do when they began to understand that they could think and act according to their own reason, and not according to a holy book or a divine ruler? They got ride of their cultural chains, and they've built a better, liberal society where individual freedom is respected and equality upheld. But now, would it make sense to let minorities, who are armed with the same principles of freedom and self-determination than us, chose to live in the opposite? In our own society on top of that?

I've already argued that the burqa is not contrary to Western culture (though it is different), so I have nothing to say here.

Originally Posted by Black~Enthusiasm

When you're asking me who am I to dare to judge, are you insinuating that I'm not supposed to be able to make a judgement with nothing but my reason alone? Do you know when was the last time when an higher authority was obligatory need to back you, for you to express your opinion? During the Middle-Age.

Yes, but I don't think it was wrong for Jack Straw to express his opinion. I just think his opinion was rather stupid to be broadcast without him realising what the burqa is rather than a piece of cloth covering a woman's face to protect her.

I have no comment to Tipsy's post. And thank goodness, this post is long enough!*

[Laharl]

The problem is that you guys are missing the point entirely. Looking at it merely as a piece of cloth, that does block the face, does it or does it not inhibit communication between the wearer and the person trying to converse with them? Knowing, of course, that facial cues are some of the most commonly used during conversations?

[x42bn6]

Originally Posted by Root

The problem is that you guys are missing the point entirely. Looking at it merely as a piece of cloth, that does block the face, does it or does it not inhibit communication between the wearer and the person trying to converse with them? Knowing, of course, that facial cues are some of the most commonly used during conversations?

Perhaps you missed the point. To ask a Muslim to remove her burqa can be offensive as, to Muslims, the burqa is to shield a woman. Rather like I ask you to remove your clothes in public.*

[Tipsy]

Originally Posted by Root

The problem is that you guys are missing the point entirely. Looking at it merely as a piece of cloth, that does block the face, does it or does it not inhibit communication between the wearer and the person trying to converse with them? Knowing, of course, that facial cues are some of the most commonly used during conversations?

That's a valid point. I don't have any problem with expressing that opinion, or holding that the barqa only hinders communication. My problem is with the idea that this is something that needs to be defended against - something that infringes upon individual liberties (not that you were suggesting that, but that's what my posts have been about).

[Laharl]

And as a person he's perfectly allowed to ask them to remove it so they could communicate/relate better - just as much as they are allowed to be offended by it. Then again in today's society you have to realise that not every one will hold your morals, and your beliefs.

X42, if you asked me to remove my clothes and had a valid reason like he did. I probably would. If you asked me to drop my buda bag (Wine skin) I might do that, too. Again if you had a good reason. The difference is that I realise that some people might have a valid point to do so.

[x42bn6]

Originally Posted by Root

And as a person he's perfectly allowed to ask them to remove it so they could communicate/relate better - just as much as they are allowed to be offended by it. Then again in today's society you have to realise that not every one will hold your morals, and your beliefs.

X42, if you asked me to remove my clothes and had a valid reason like he did. I probably would. If you asked me to drop my buda bag (Wine skin) I might do that, too. Again if you had a good reason. The difference is that I realise that some people might have a valid point to do so.

But if you ask a Muslim to choose between convenience and God, they will choose God. It's fairly obvious which one this person would choose, even if a non-Muslim is thinking about this situation.*

[Laharl]

Yes, and you don't know what my buda bag represents to me. Do you? Or my silver turtle/mask symbols. But I, even as a religious person myself, would choose convenience under many circumstances (even my god Himself would "understand").

I can also see how it is a sexist symbol. I never looked at it that way. It's implying that women some how need protection from me. How AREN'T you offended by that?

[x42bn6]

Originally Posted by Root

Yes, and you don't know what my buda bag represents to me. Do you? Or my silver turtle/mask symbols. But I, even as a religious person myself, would choose convenience under many circumstances (even my god Himself would "understand").

I can also see how it is a sexist symbol. I never looked at it that way. It's implying that women some how need protection from me. How AREN'T you offended by that?

I'm not offended. But women in this age have to learn to protect themselves from people (mostly men) anyway. Consider the burqa as one of those mechanisms. And as well as an oath taken to God.*

[Laharl]

You see, that's a complete inaccuracy. In fact from what I see men need protection from WOMEN. My "Buda Bag" example is another religious symbol. It represents my closeness to my God, and is used to carry a liquid considered holy.

They took an oath to YHWH, I get that. But I, myself, am greatly offended by it. As among other things which aren't relevant here.

The difference between "them", as a group and "us" as a group is that "we" are more rational people who realise that violence would only lead to our destruction. Which would be why "we" were attacked by both christians and muslims.

[Tipsy]

Why does it matter if it is to protect men from women or vise versa? Why does it matter what significance it holds to their faith? Why does it matter if it hinders interaction? Why does it matter who it offends? Anyone who wants to wear a burqa should have that option and anyone who doesn't should have that option.

Go ahead and condemn people for wearing one or for not wearing one, both are your rights. Call them godless infidels or religious extremists and generalize them all you wish. However, I don't see how anyone can support forcing either opinion upon someone else. Express yourself as much as you want as long as you do not infringe upon the rights of another - seeing another person's face is not your right, but it is a person's right to cover their own face. It shouldn't matter if the burqa is a barbaric sexist symbol or one that protects women from men, you should have to right to wear it regardless of its symbolism or purpose.

[Arxces]

Bismillahhirrahmanirrahim
In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful

Originally Posted by Tipsy

Why does it matter if it is to protect men from women or vise versa? Why does it matter what significance it holds to their faith? Why does it matter if it hinders interaction? Why does it matter who it offends? Anyone who wants to wear a burqa should have that option and anyone who doesn't should have that option.

Go ahead and condemn people for wearing one or for not wearing one, both are your rights. Call them godless infidels or religious extremists and generalize them all you wish. However, I don't see how anyone can support forcing either opinion upon someone else. Express yourself as much as you want as long as you do not infringe upon the rights of another - seeing another person's face is not your right, but it is a person's right to cover their own face. It shouldn't matter if the burqa is a barbaric sexist symbol or one that protects women from men, you should have to right to wear it regardless of its symbolism or purpose.

Hi everyone! I am new to this forum, but I have been following this thread very eagerly. I agree with Tipsy; why does it matter? There are, however, some misconceptions I'd like to clear up.

As a practicing Muslim I believe I can offer some insight into this issue... For starters, the article of clothing that Jack Straw referred to is a Niqab, not a Burqa. The difference is very important as the former refers to the covering worn across the face, covering the nose and the mouth; while the latter refers to the entire garment that covers all of the woman's body.

Secondly, I'd like to quote the Qur'an on this issue:

"Say to the believing men that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that will make for greater purity for them; and Allah is well acquainted with all that they do. And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; and that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what must ordinarily appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their chests and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers... (continues)"

Al-Qur'an, Surah An-Nur (24:30-31)

Now the Qur'an mentions veils, but Qur'anic scholars disagree on whether the requirem is, on one end, for a covering of the hair only or is, on the other end, for the covering of the entire face save the eyes. However, Allah has made it a requirement that women be modest and conceal their beauty. Thus, some Muslim women decide to wear the Niqab, which, in their opinion, would allow them to maintain their modesty. I personally believe that Jack Straw was just not used to talking to women with Niqab, and was uncomfortable at not seeing the other's face. However, that does not excuse his statement.

Yes I agree with Tipsy that people should be free to speak as they wish, but only to an extent... A significant person like Jack Straw, however, does have a responsibility to ensure that he does not set a poor example by abusing the privilege (it is a privilege, because in some parts of the world free-speech is banned) of free-speech. And as an MP he should be able to overcome his own awkwardness towards women with Niqab. (More suspicious folks may read this awkwardness as expressed Islamophobia, but I don't think so.) I understand that there is great concern that communication may be inhibited; however it is analogous to having a phone conversation, where you can understand what the person at the other end is saying, without actually seeing them. Perhaps it is true that non-verbal communication (i.e. body language) is inhibited, but surely this is non-essential for a citizen to address her MP with.

There is also a misinterpretation about the message behind the Niqab. I believe it to be a mistake to politicise the Niqab, as a sign of radicalism. I believe that the Niqab represents the bona fide effort of a woman to protect her modesty. I do not believe that it is the intention of the women who wear it to insult men, rather it is the misguided interpretation of some individuals regarding Muslims, based on undue bias and stereotypes, that leads one to think that the Niqab sends a message about men.

As for B~E's concerns regarding Muslims' lack of integration into Western societies, there are certain values of Western culture that Muslims cannot adopt, as they contradict Islam. For instance a Muslim is not allowed to drink alcoholic drinks, and by extension not to serve alcohol, to purchase alcohol, to sell alcohol, nor is it encouraged to be near alcohol. Thus the pub, an important social vehicle of integration here in the UK, is denied to a Muslim. This is just a small example. A much greater example would be the secular foundations of the Western system, which entails the division of Religion and State. This contradicts Islam's definition of itself as not so much a religion but as a comprehensive way of life. Fazit, full integration can only occur if Western society adopts some Muslim values as well, in order to facilitate integration. Remember, to a good Muslim, Islam is absolute, thus we must make it so that integration does not compromise Islam.

And finally, we need to educate ourselves, to free ourselves from the shackles ignorance and bigotry. Let us not be bound by stereotypes. Islam advocates the equality of Men and Women, though they are assigned seperate roles. In the supposedly 'free' Western countries, could a husband still force the veil on his wife? No, the only "self-imposed tyranny" is that of ignorance and lack of knowledge. Finally, I'd like everyone to consider what real-world harm is caused by being modest. When the SARS pandemic hit East Asia, everyone wore face masks, yet there are no reports of this being problematic. Please consider the bigger issue: the pressure from the West for the Muslims to integrate...