Former foreign sec - he's just an MP now.

The last line is quite important - should be its own entry.

Re Straw, I suppose the new For Sec hasn't achieved the same level of celebrity (notoriety?).

Jack Straw is now Leader of the House, which is to say that he manages government business in Parliament, so he's still a fairly heavy hitter. The actual Foreign Secretary is Margaret Beckett, for whom the words loyal nonentity could have been invented.

Speaking as a Brit I thought he was being creepy, since my interpretation of "modern" when applied to nations means "without a dress code." I also don;t think a member of parliament shoud be telling his employers, ie members of the public, how to dress.

Yes, indeed, forgot. Tired. Never post late. I forgot Beckett exists.

Speaking as a Brit I thought he was being creepy, since my interpretation of "modern" when applied to nations means "without a dress code." I also don;t think a member of parliament shoud be telling his employers, ie members of the public, how to dress.

Rubbish, expressing an opinion as to what might be preferable is hardly "telling" anyone anything. Indeed by your logic, which is lacking at best, MPs should never express any controversial opinion and thus utterly abdicate leadership. Puerile tripe that is.

Nah.

If they want to wear a niqab, a Halloween mask or a Klansman's mask, let 'em. If they want to remove, they can remove; if you ask them to remove, maybe they should, maybe they shouldn't.

If not, then not, who cares? (Unfortunately, apparently alot of people one way or the other.)

The being offended part is over the top but if people want to wear a propeller on their head for religious reasons, let 'em. Especially if one is a public representative. "I may not agree with your right to look like a ridiculous tent with holes, but I'll fight to the death for your right to do it."

(crossposted from Lounsbury, if people are discussing it here)

It appears the outrage industry is a good deal bigger in Britain than elsewhere in Europe. I don't know why exactly, but I can always whank on about it...

Seems the Brits have opted to diminish problems with new religions and ethnicities by giving a little ground, and keeping down the public vitriol, a cultural Laissez faire policy, but only with regard to minorities. Unfortunately, the result has been that religious groups, from Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus to all types of Christians, have found out outrage works, by virtue of victimization. I have followed MediaWatchWatch a bit, it's surprising how easily the British political elite buys into that.

The British two-party political system is also doing a terrific job of hindering public discourse, and keeping out the oddballs. Not very democratic, though. I somehow have a hunch Blair's Christianity might have something to do with it - we all remember the atrocious Religious Hatred bill, defeated by one vote.

Also, the Brick Lane controversy demonstrated how this policy effectively hands power to bigoted gits within the community. Repression happens within minorities as well as between minorities and a majority.

Mr Hogan:

I absolutely agree that the women have the perfect liberty (with some exceptions, such as having to show their faces to public security agents) to be walking tents.

However, I did not read Straw as calling for idiotic French style anti-liberal legislation, merely encouraging by mere suasion the women not to wear the Niqab. And I agree.

Hear, hear. Most muslims I know, which includes women wearing headscarves, find the niqab revolting. I can't blame Straw for venting that opinion but knowing the man's defence of the war in Iraq and the GWOT I cannot but wonder whether he has an agenda beyond women's dresscode.

I have always found Straw to be largely straight up. While as a politician I am sure his remarks have more than one object, I don't think there is an anti-Islamic angle. Anti-radical, yes, anti-Islamic, no.

A little something here on Time. Not a very good article, but a different perspective on difference. Echoes my thoughts on identification too, and the melting pot role of public schools. Oddly enough, says Denmark has taken steps similar to France's headscarf school ban, when nothing of the sort has happened, and then says nothing at all about Turkey. Uninformed.

Also, Muslim organisations report deluge of hate mails, threats and attacks since Straw's remark. If that is true, Brits' tolerance was only skin-deep. I have always found London very relaxed culturally, if not the most of all the places I've visited. Maybe the spiral has begun there too. Possibly some Hindus want to stir up something too with Muslims, though that is entirely speculation on my behalf.

That such a little remark should end up on the number three spot on Google News points to far larger issues beneath the apparent issue at hand. The 'rights' argument is just as irrelevant as it was with Pope Benny's choice of quotation.

the Islamic equivalents of country bumpkin snake-handling evangelical inbreds

Hey! I'm a snake-handler and I resent your stereotyping of us!

Seriously, I'm glad that a person known for being supportive of Muslims has spoken up. Niqab is not like veiling; I can identify a person who wears hijab. (A while ago I met a Muslim blogger at my uni; I was able to identify her from a photo on her blog, despite the voluminous chador.) Straw is right to point out that quite a lot of communication is not through words but through facial expressions, etc, and given his obviously genuine committment to multiculturalism, it is not too much to expect something back.

It's particularly important that Straw is seen to be supportive of Muslims; when Australia's Prime Miniature John Howard makes such comments about niqab, even moderate Muslims in Australia won't support him, whereas if (say) Petro Georgiou mentioned it, as a request, moderate Muslims would probably be more willing to discuss the issue.

In the interests of being even-handed, here is a vox pop of Muslim women from the Beeb. Given that Straw's statement has caused these people to emphasise the separation of church and state, perhaps this kerfuffle is a good thing.

My favourite reason for wearing niqab was the lady (not in the article above, I'm afraid) who said she wore it because she kept perving on good-looking guys, and wearing the niqab reminded her to keep her eyes on the ground. Maybe I should wear it, I could go a 16-year-old page right about now...

Great post. I particularly empathised with the unpeeling of the Salafi 'offenderati' stance.

This may be of interest folks:
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/sunny_hundal/2006/10/we_are_being_played_like_footb.html

ha! he didn't quote all your insults, L. Played like little green footballs, yeah.

A civil lawsuit comes to mind here in Denmark. A few salafi people in Denmark have sued Jyllandsposten, using, among other things, the argument that the cartoons caused offense to 1.2 billion Muslims. They were rightly asked how they could speak on the behalf of all those people, which of course they can't.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bradford/6046992.stm

Now this, this is bloody ridiculous, how do you expect to communicate with children who can't see you?

Deserves its own comment, you're right it's ridiculous.

Muslim Community Outraged Over Local Firing

Performer in "Exotic" Show Fired For Refusing to Remove Niqab