Jack Straw

ziggy_encaoua · Post by **ziggy_encaoua** » Fri Oct 06, 2006 4:57 pm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5411954.stm

Okay I know this story concerns Moslem women but in broader terms It’s a politician telling people how they should dress is a dangerous presentment

Charlie · Post by **Charlie** » Fri Oct 06, 2006 8:55 pm

I heard the BBC story on Radio 4 this morning. There were women squawking indignantly right, left and centre. I fell to wondering what would happen if a politician told men they must wear ties, or some other item of clothing. We'd probably say nothing but quietly ignore him (or her).

Charlie

Departed Member · Post by **Departed Member** » Fri Oct 06, 2006 11:58 pm

For the first time EVER, I'm finding myself agreeing with what Jack Straw is (ham-fistedly) trying to say. He isn't trying to tell folk what they should/should not wear, just the effect it may have on other people. The dangerous precedent is caving in (benchmark of New Labour) to those who 'protest the loudest'.

iain · Post by **iain** » Sat Oct 07, 2006 12:13 am

amazing!! straw, for perhaps the only time in his whole career, is not a mealy mouthed, middle of the road, fence sitting pacifier, gliding around tricky situations with a cheery wave, riding a slippery toboggan woven from artfully imprecise phrases.

how can anyone determine if an individual is bringing a heartfelt plea or acting under duress when their faces are completely hidden? the whole medieval idea of walking around in a flowing black rubbish bin is being described for what it is: a block to communication and a disposal unit for individuality. modern cowards do indeed use a burkha of email and politically correct corporate-speak to polish the turd of their true intentions, but there is no need to force ordinary people to hide in a pillar box when trying to communicate.

the burkha is only a symbol proclaiming that the men in some societies are completely unable to control themselves when presented with the female form, and to compensate for their chronic degeneration, women must become non-people in public.

nobody dares to come out and say this, and I doubt straw intended to stick his head above the parapet this way. I expect he will soon decorate his head with a huge bush of distracting and self-cancelling arty phrases and be last seen scurrying on all fours into the forest, his exposed butt cheeks quivering with fear as he dives for cover. but for once he has actually said something with meaning, however unintended it may have been!

ziggy_encaoua · Post by **ziggy_encaoua** » Sat Oct 07, 2006 7:01 pm

Charlie wrote:I fell to wondering what would happen if a politician told men they must wear ties, or some other item of clothing. We'd probably say nothing but quietly ignore him (or her).

Charlie

My point is that politicians shouldn't be telling people what to wear period! But you should expect that from me being something of a libertarian

Departed Member · Post by **Departed Member** » Sat Oct 07, 2006 11:22 pm

ziggy_encaoua wrote:My point is that politicians shouldn't be telling people what to wear period! But you should expect that from me being something of a libertarian

But that's the point WE are trying to make! The bloke ISN'T telling anybody what to wear/not to wear, just that he feels uneasy when confronted with a veil, not the person wearing it. There are an ever growing number of moslems who now consider the veiling as 'repression', never mind the rest of us! Those who champion it, if they were employers of these women, would be held to book under Equal Opportunities whether the women complained or not - unless you're a 'libertarian' like, err, Jack Straw?

iain · Post by **iain** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 2:57 am

exactly--and remember this is "call centre britain" where the majority of answers to queries are "the compoo-ah says nah". that's if you can first get through the tape recorders telling you your call is important, and that calls may be monitored for training and security purposes, to reach this fount of wisdom.

common sense is in short supply and you'll be lucky if you encounter one instance of it during a working day. so it doesn't surprise me that nothing the government does or doesn't do actually makes sense.

RichardA · Post by **RichardA** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 2:18 pm

What Straw said was totally out of order, who does he think he is, and I also heard that a news reader was told to remove a small Crucifix she had from a chain around her neck crazy or what

isobar · Post by **isobar** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 6:40 pm

Richard A wrote:I also heard that a news reader was told to remove a small Crucifix she had from a chain around her neck crazy or what

A different argument altogether, though one for which I suppose a reasonable argument might also be made. Badges of religious faith are more or less of an issue depending on one's line of work, and personally I don't think it affects the impact of the news if the reader chooses to display their badge.As to what Jack Straw said, the argument seemed a practical one rather than anything to do with religion, at least at first, although it seems to have developed into a bit of a 'when in Rome' discussion by now.

iain · Post by **iain** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 7:30 am

hmm.. in response to Richard A, I don't get this. why can't a guy who is paid to communicate with his constituents request that he see their faces while they deal with what are presumably very important issues? maybe they are talking about domestic violence, which is not uncommon in a male-dominated culture.

if I was him, I'd say the same. there are a lot of women who do not like wearing a face covering. would you like to be forbidden from showing your facial expressions to those you want to communicate with so much that you travel to their constituency offices? maybe you would, but not everyone does it of their own free will. he's clearly aware of that, and he's saying if they want to take it off, it can be blamed on him instead of them. they could always not go and see him if they feel so strongly about wearing a mask.

I just can't see the problem with him stating his preferences. But I guess in a PC world, people are forbidden from stating the obvious. Constantly in fear of being accountable for their own thoughts, their words change fro bullets into feathery pillows. Dangerous psychopaths are "behaviorally challenged", the grotesquely fat are "clinically obese" and lying politicians are merely "economical with the truth". Well, here's to common sense!

Bravehearts.us · Post by **Bravehearts.us** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 1:19 am

I wonder if they would be allowed to wear them in a court here in the States. I know they wouldn’t be able to work where I do and keep them on.

Big and Bashful · Post by **Big and Bashful** » Sat Oct 14, 2006 4:10 pm

Eeh it's great to be back online!
As usual the press distort what the man said. He told nobody to take their veils off, he asks them if they wouldn't mind removing their veils in meetings with him. That's very different to ordering them to take their veils off, even though it doesn't make as big a headlines.
Telling people how to dress? oh no he isn't!

Skirt Chaser · Post by **Skirt Chaser** » Wed Oct 25, 2006 7:55 pm

iain wrote:the burkha is only a symbol proclaiming that the men in some societies are completely unable to control themselves when presented with the female form, and to compensate for their chronic degeneration, women must become non-people in public.

Funny how that worked out, since men had the problem you would think the fair thing to do would make them wear blinders. :rolleyes:

iain · Post by **iain** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 7:35 am

the discussion now has changed to a teacher who wore a full veil--the students complained because they couldn't hear her muffled voice and didn't like that they had no idea what her facial expression was.

school asked her to remove it (she hadn't worn it for the job interview).

all of a sudden, everyone's turned it into a religious issue--her rights are being trampled, islam is being crushed, etc etc. what a load of hooey! they couldn't communicate with her and she couldn't communicate with them! kinda essential for a teacher, eh?

when small children can't see a teacher's face, or a tv presenter's face, they get anxious. so the first thing teachers and presenters of kids are taught it: look at them continually. watch children's tv and you'll see this all the time.

how can someone communicate when covered in a black sheet like some kind of spooky ghost? nowhere in the koran does it oblige women to wear this nonsense, by the way!

Departed Member · Post by **Departed Member** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 10:14 am

They've tried to argue that asking the ladies to remove their veils is tantamount to asking a lady to remove her bra (or whatever), claiming that it is an 'intimate'/'legitimate' item of clothing - utter nonsense! If folk want to wear veils, they should be aware that it is highly likely (in the Western world) to be regarded as 'divisive'. I'm glad the school upheld the childrens' complaints on this occasion.