h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Blues is just on holiday.

I also have my doubts about Kea's definition of racism.

What is being described, I would say, is a form of constitutional or institutional racism - and I don't doubt that this exists.

The definition of racism itself though doesn't require that level of power surely though?

I could imagine myself holding racist views about an individual or group over which neither I nor my peers have any level of control or ability to (negatively) influence.

I think I am closer to Ed's view, it seems to me that racism is best defined at an individual level - holding one group of people to be inferior to me or myself superior solely on the grounds or their race/ethnicity.

A definition of that type can then be scaled up if required, and amended somewhat to embrace what Kea relates, and as I said, I am sure there are areas/countries where that exists (maybe most?).

Several points.

1. I think Edwards posts are mostly intelligent, amusing, and factual. I always enjoy reading them.

2. I regularly see a small number of Muslim women wearing the full veil, either shopping or collecting their kids from school. Emotionally I've generally viewed them as creatures from Mars. I've had lots of conversations, eg at my GPs surgery with headscarf wearing Muslim women and view them exactly as I would any other human being.

3. I'm at present listening to a veil wearing Muslim woman talking on BBCFiveLive. She says that it is Allah who has asked women to wear the veil. She has then gone onto say she wants to feel protected from the gaze of men, because lots of sex in society has resulted in AIDs and STDs. She may have a bit of a point I suppose, (but not the Allah bit) but I felt quite uncomfortable listening to her.

I'm worried this whole business is leading to mass beaulocks coming from all sides.

I understand the distinction between those two phrases

BUT

The way I read your comment it seemed to me that you are treating all Muslims as the same, and if that is the case then I am just saying that it may not be wise to talk about Muslims as though they are one group.

I don't know enough (anything ) about the difference between Sunni and Shi'a for example, but it seems to me that the differences between their beliefs, based on the same initial starting point may make their attitiudes etc significantly different in the areas you discuss. This is without taking into account any regional/personal differences.

You may, in fact, be right. I just disagree with the way the argument is presented.

I constantly lament my poor communication skills Johnny

Slightly off-topic but relevant:

Where the blazes *are* all these veil-wearing Muslims? I live in a small town between Birmingham and Derby that has very large Asian and Muslim communities. The landlord of my local is Indian, about 50% of the people who live on my street are Asian, there's Asian supermarkets up the road, a mosque etc.

Yet I've never seen a woman wearing a veil of any description. Plenty of headscarfs and traditional Indian dress, but no face coverings.

So what makes Muslim communities in Britain promote/accept the veil, and some totally reject it?

Fanny: >I'm at present listening to a veil wearing Muslim woman talking on BBCFiveLive. She says that it is Allah who has asked women to wear the veil.<

As I believe I posted earlier, this is untrue. The Koran instructs women to cover their breasts and not to walk in an enticing way. There is no mention of covering the head at all. This comes from tradition in some Muslim countries, but is technically not Islamic at all.

..which neatly answers your question, KerrAvon, in a prescient, simulposty kind of way

I think the interpretations on this may be driven by Imams. The veil is most prevalent in Wahhabi Saudi Arabia. There are a lot of Wahhabi Imams in Britain and a lot of Saudi funding behind faith schools, educational centres and Mosques, including the planned mega-Mosque in London.

Whereas ours are all Indian or Pakistani, who presumably don't go in for that sort of thing. Hell, I know they don't, the Indians like their ladies showing plenty of flesh .

From the Hadith and Ibid.

Mohammed's wife proves to him that it's an angel who comes to him and not Satan.

"When Gabriel came to him, as he was wont, the apostle said to Khadija, "This is Gabriel who has just come to me." "Get up, O son of my uncle," she said, "and sit by my left thigh". The apostle did so and she said, "Can you see him?" "Yes," he said. She said, "Then turn around and sit by my right thigh." He did so and she asked, "Can you see him?" When he said that he could she asked him to move and sit in her lap. When he had done this she again asked if he could see him and when he said yes, she disclosed her form and cast aside her veil while the apostle was sitting in her lap. Then she said, "Can you see him?" And he replied, "No". She said, "O son of my uncle, rejoice and be of good heart, by God he is an angel and not a satan."

When she "disclosed her form", the angel departed. Some hardline Muslims insist upon the veiling of women because of, among other things, this underlying assumption: the sight of an unveiled woman is so distressing, so deeply sinful, that it causes even the angels to flee.

Couldn't resist giving this reference. Not so much for the article, but the picture and caption. 'not a communication barrier'. Are the BBC having a laugh?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6053298.stm

"I can be convinced I'm wrong at times, ... but it will take a better man or woman than Ed to do so."

Just as I took exception to Ed's inflamatory posts, so too I find personal remarks such as this unconstructive, not that anyone probably cares. It would be helpful if we could stay on the merits of what is being said rather than on valuations of the speaker.

I think there is no legitimate reason for wearing a veil other than you want to wear one.

Recently I heard of a dance teacher told to cover up by her boss because her clothing was deemed unacceptable (I might have had a slightly different view but that's not important right now)

I have the same feelings about teenager who habitually cover their faces with all mannner of hoods, hats and scarves.

Should we be making secial cases for turbans, hijabs and crucifixes well I think not but we happen to live in a democracy and no matter how many times racists, little Egnlanders or left wingers looking to endear themselves to *right* thinking people bleat on about a law for one religion is a law for all religions is it not? Or do those hasidic jews have to get rid of their facial hair and wide brimmed hats, no they dont.

The bottom line on the BA woman is that the bible does not ask for her to wear *any* religious symbols so she isnt protected by any laws on that count. Wearing a hijab is because religous mumbo jumbo rules say its essential as with turbans, beards, dreadlocks oh you name it Im tired of the stupidity.

To answer SWLs point from a few pages back yes there has been Institutional religious/racial discrimination in this country it is being weeded out slowly and surely. As for the individual or gang type well it comes and it goes. Some people as you yourself have confessed to find it hard to differentiate between the image of drug dealing triads and a student of chinesse origin who happens to be wearing a sharp suit so they just dont bother. However there is no excuse for unthinkingly assuming that one steretype is true for all.

one love

"ours are all Indian or Pakistani, who presumably don't go in for that sort of thing."

FWIW, the population of India is roughly 80 percent Hindu, only 13 percent Muslim. I'm not aware of any requirement for Hindu women to wear veils.

Yes, I was aware the larger part of India is Hindu. Indian Hindus dress differently from Indian Muslims though, so I'm not getting confused between the two. Well, the older ones dress differently, anyway. The ones in their 30s downwards tend to be more westernised. Except in hot summers.

I have read Fanny's link and was interested to note that someone in vauge position of authority has agreed with my view and has noted that for this woman to refuse to take the veil off infront of male staff is discrimination on account of gender.....she should be taken infont of an employment tribunal and face allegations of sexual discrimination against male staff.
.
I also noted with interested that she admited in interview that sho did NOT wear the veil for job interview with a male school governor, this smacks of sneakyness in knowing full well she would wear it while working at school later on....it also weakens her "principled" stance of wearing it as essential!

JCN Smith: >FWIW, the population of India is roughly 80 percent Hindu, only 13 percent Muslim. I'm not aware of any requirement for Hindu women to wear veils.<

Sorry about the pedantry, but *only* 13% of India is about 130 million people, making India the country with the second biggest Muslim population after Indonesia.

This is a clash of cultures, pure and simple. What do we do round here? We don't wear full veils. Should we let women wear them? I suppose so. You won't catch me 'celebrating' it anytime soon though: it screams of man's inhumaity to woman. Should we let women who are talking to people all day wear them? It seems silly to do so.

Hissy fit over. But no apologies for yelling at racists, nor for making warranted accusations. I haven't had the Yikes e-mail yet. It was for what I believed was a reasoned post, but it seems that some feel that it falls outwith the acceptable boundaries of free speech. Win or lose, I shall look forward to challenging it.

SWL has obviously read his Qu'uran. Fair plays to him. Yeah...it's as stupid and mixed up as any work of scripture. You're not going to hear me defend anyone who thinks that gods pass down their words, either through angels, carved into tablets of stone, on plates of brass that can only be read with a pair of magic glasses, or through tabloid newspapers...etc. etc. In fact, I can point you all to an excellent site that will provide a lot of ammunition for anyone wishing to rubbish the Qu'uran:
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/

The error that SWL makes, however, squinting at the world through his veil of racism as he does, is to assume that all Muslims take the Qu'uran literally and all put the worst possible interpretation on it. Yes, there are some evil s out there who are a dumb as any red states Baptist...and that's *dumb*. But, of course, the Muslim world contains a wide array of opinion. There are the 30% of the Muslim world who consider themselves Sufis (a non-literalist, mysticist strand), there are the people who are only nominally Muslim, in the same way tht some still write 'CofE' on hospital admissions forms, simply out of habit. There is a strong secular tradition in the Middle East (albeit eroded over recent years). There is a definite problem with Saudi-funded proselytisation of Wahabism...but it remains a minority perversion.

To put it in context...If I were so minded, I could go to the site I linked to earlier and pull out all the disgraceful, violent, life-negating shite in the Christian scripture. Besgin with Geneisis, shall we (obviously!)? Let's start where women are shown to be fickle temptresses, human sexuality is shameful, and all humans are assumed to be basically sinful and worthy of punishment. Then work up to where God demands the kind of loyalty whereby fathers should be prepared to sacrifice their sons, or else Next time you hear me comin', you'd better run. And onward to the perverse cesspit that is Leviticus, with it's obsessions with menstruation and the slaughter of turtledoves...yadda yadda yadda...to the suffering of the unsaved in Revelations.

But...much though *I personally* don't like this stuff...do I think that Rowan Williams would have me stoned for wearing polyester-cotton underpants (Leviticus 19:19)? I think not.

So let's attribute the problems where they lie, shall we? No, I don't like veils, but then, so few women wear them that it's hardly worth raising the issue. I agree with, eg Shaheed Malik MP and the MCB that yesterday's employment tribunal made a sensible decision. I despise Wahabi-inspired islamofascism. I despise the racism that has led to the creation of disadvantaged ghettos in Britain.

But SWL lacks the critical faculties to compartmentalise these issues. In his confused and prejudicial mind, all these are lumped together under the heading of 'Muslims'. And by that he means 'All those people I see with brown skins in Dewsbury.'

I would see a few veil-wearing Muslims any time I walked into town back home. I haven't seen any in two and a bit years in Bristol (the studenty parts).

My experience has been that headscarf wearers make up a smallish minority of Muslim women, and veil wearers maybe a couple of percent. And of course last year I lived with a Muslim girl who would happily wander around the house in her underwear .