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

Fanny - muslim women who wish to go into those type of professions - well of course they'd be expected to not wear a veil. But just because a woman might go into that profession does not mean you can order them all to not wear the veil.

May I please reiterate my stance. I am for choice - A woman must be allowed to choose if she wears a veil or not. It can not be dictated to her. It would be like telling a woman that their husband will tell them what to do or say or what to wear. If she wishes to go into a profession where wearing a veil is infeasible, then she should be made aware of that. I am not against Jack Straw. I applaud what he said. Yet he also made it very clear that he was asking - not ordering.

As for eating - When muslim women are at home, they take off the veil, so therefore might find it easier to eat.

Again - There are so many more important issues that have to be discussed. The veil is but one, and a very small one. Once other issues such as mosques and the imans are sorted out, it may make the veil one easier to handle.

On the subject of veils, I personally think they are a very isolating thing, the head scarf is fine, the veil with the gauze type cover as well is particularly isolating since you can't even see their eyse. Indeed one of the relatives of one of the London bombers said she deliberately wore a veil for an interview to hide her indentiy, when the normal "fuzzy" picture disguise would have done just as well. Using it as a disguise does not help the current situation.
Indeed I saw 2 woman at my local shops the day after the London bombings and found the full veil to be particularly irritating at that time, and slightly unsettling as you couldn't see what they were carrying at such a sensitive time.
On the TV this morning has been the same young woman being interviewed
time and time agin, this woman has only been wearing the veil for a few days, and not until after this situation started. One of the more honest interviewers said you seem quite a mischievous person are you just wearing it to cause mischief, she just started laughing and wouldn't comment. Another interviewer just said are you wearing it to get attention.well she is certainly getting that , I have seen her interviewd live 3 times already this morning and is coming back for a fourth! Personally I feel she started to wear it to get on TV and to cause a little controversy, not something that is helpful at this particular time, She then got involved an arguement with a a muslim author who said she thought it was a backward step to wear a veil, the author had to ask the veiled young woman not to shout at her in the end.

There was a geat moment on R4's 'PM' last week. The wonderful Eddie Mair was talking to the ever-odious Melanie Philips. She said:
"It hinders communication if you can't speak to someone face to face."
He said:
"The listeners may not know this, but you and I are in different parts of London...How are we communicating now?"

Fanny's comments on the veil being an up-front political act have, I think, a lot in them. Britain is simply not the tolerant, welcoming host society that many would like to pretend it is. The veil, and other forms of Muslim dress, are one way of carving out an identity which is to some extent denied to anyone with a brown skin.

I would like to stick my neck out and make a prediction. Following Straw's comments, veil wearing *will* increase. So will hostility towards Muslims, men and women, veil-wearing or not. These are fairly predictable consequences. What on earth did Straw expect? Did he expect Muslim women all over the country to suddenly say, "You know what? You're right!" and drop the veil? Did he *really* think his words would have anything but negative consequences? Such naivety is staggering in an experienced politician. Think of it this way: When you first heard the story, did you not think "Jaysus! That's opened up a can of worms!" (Or words to that effect).

Nope, I disagree, in situations outside TV/Radio programmes, the full veil does put up barriers.
If I am just walking around my local shops and there are several asian woman and one had the full veil on I would be less likely to say good morning or nod to the full veiled one. I worked with a young asian muslim woman for a long time and she was a fantastic laugh, if she wore a full veil I would just walk past her as not reconise her.

Morning S S

You could well be right about the attention seeking aspect of the young woman on TV. Following Jack Straw'e eminently sensible 'Request@ for veil removal at certain times , there are bound to be band-wagon jumpers.

But more seriously, whilst only a small % of Muslim women actually wear a veil it was interesting to hear two news reports this morning,

1 A BBC reporter wore a veil with only eyes visible, and was waved through Passport Control....slightly alarming - and wrong!

2 A male terrorist suspect evaded the police for a number of days by dressing as a woman in full coverage. He has ben caught BTW.

Both are small points in the wides discussion currently going on , but in our own culture where facial recognition is an endemic practice, and particularly important under security conditions at airports , I think J S is right , and that women (or men!) wearing veils should be compelled to remove them for identity verification.

Under day to day conditions they should be allowed the personal choice - but be aware of the social division this must create. On that point , that is where our Govt' position of multi-culturalism has failed. We should be one culture nation , containing sub strands. A totally separate culture should not be encouraged.

Novo

>>Nope, I disagree, in situations outside TV/Radio programmes, the full veil does put up barriers.


But what's the question? Is it:
"Does the veil put up barriers?"
Or
"Is the wearing of a veil by relatively few women such an urgent, burning question that it should be kicked into prominence by a senior politician, regardless of the strong potential for negative consequences?"

Yes, it does indeed hinder communication (with men, in public). I'll accept that. But nobody's complaining about the standard, urban 'Thousand Yard Stare' which has a similar effect. I also accept that it is reasonable for women or motorcyclists to have to show their faces in certain situations were facial recognition is an issue. But that's a) easily fixed and b) not what Straw was talking about.

Why has not being able to see the faces of a few women become *such* a hot issue? Are there, perhaps, underlying factors that are little to do with veils?

It is not a new issue, I have always felt it is a hinderance to communication where as the scarf isn't. I am not sure it is such a small number as I see more around than used to. If it is becoming a fashion statement then that is sad as can cause unsettlement. When I compare the, admittedly very streetwise, muslim girl I worked with who called me a "diamond Geezer", to the veiled young woman I am perplexed.

So Gordon's throwing his worth in then!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6036377.stm

Why do I have that funny feeling so much of this stuff is connected with Labout politicians jockeying for position, post Blair?

Well, of course. They know there's votes to be won on the right.

It's strange that Rushdie's comments are given prominence there. He was asked about the issue during an interview on an unrelated topic. His artistic collaborator, Anish Kapoor, had a different opinion which is not reported.