The freedom to engage in a particular behavior does not preclude the ability of others to judge whether that behavior is good/bad/appropriate/moral/immoral.

The "choice" to wear the veil or burka in Western society is wrong. Period.

This has nothing to do with "Islamophobia", but with the sloppy "progressive" thinking that stops all discussion with the line "we must be tolerant and respectful of other cultures."

No, we don't.

Western Civilization has an expression when we talk about people who have behaved in an dishonorable manner "s/he should be ashamed! s/he should never show their face in decent company again!"

The veil is a public symbol of humiliation. It is demeaning. That a female chooses to publicly demean herself doesn't lessen that humiliation. Westerners are not "uncomfortable" because of the difference, but because they are so accustomed to women as autonomous beings competing equally with men to be faced with such an obvious proclamation of unworthiness creates a feeling of embarrassment on the observers part.

This isn't a headscarf or wearing long sleeves or other modest clothing. This is a public statement that a woman is so shamefully different from a man she has to hide her face in public. If the veil was such a wonderful statement of piety, then Muslim men should be hiding their face in public too.

I'm only sorry that some Westerners have been so cowed by multi-culturalist chic they have to frame their arguments in gooey "I feel uncomforable" rather than being forthright in declaring "This is a bad idea because ..."

A female may choose genital mutilation on "cultural" grounds... does that mean we cannot have an opinion that such choice is wrong?

Wow! absolutely amazing article. Probably the best atricle i've found browsing on the web, trying to understand the pros and cons of this debate. You make so much sense. I'll buy it.

Congrats! you've earned my utmost respect!

Are women permitted to go unveiled in public in Saudia Arabia? No. Why not? Because it is contrary to religious belief there. My belief here in the UK is quite clear that it is wrong for either sex to conceal their face in personal dealings.

Whose faith is right? In Saudi Arabia, presumably as the state religion, Islam takes precedence. In the UK, the official religion is Christianity. Therefore if I as a Christian ask a Moslem woman to respect my beliefs and remove her veil while we talk, should she not do so?

Or do Moslems in the UK actually believe that their religion is superior and the rest of us should make all the concessions they demand while they make none? This is not just dismissive of our religion but also rude and offensive on a personal level.

First of all Roxana, your requirements of dealing with an unvieled woman rather than a veiled one has nothing to do with your christian beliefs (please point me to the bible where it does say that people, when they deal with each other have to be able to see each other's faces) but more to do with what you're personally comfortable with. So really there's no question about respecting your religious beliefs.

Instead of debating endlessly on a "veil" - why not educate ourselves on why these women wear it, and just respect them for the choice they've made. They do it as part of their religious beliefs... let's learn about it and tolerate that. Maybe it's time to look at them in a different way, without hate and fearfulness. Because, as much as we'd all like to criticise them for the way their dress make the 'greater society' feel, it's not a very easy thing for them to do in a western society like ours.

And for all you veiled women out there - reach out to your 'non-veiled' colleagues, neighbours, friends... heck, stop people in the street if you can and educate them about why you really wear the veil and explain to them that you are not here to intimidate or frighten them. Let them know that you have made a few life choices, important to you and why you feel they should respect you for it. Let's not make the veil a taboo subject. Discuss it openly - you have nothing to be ashamed about.

This is a sad reality of it all - anything new and alien will always be intimdating. So, let's educate!

I do respect the decision of Muslim women to wear the Viel. But I agree with Jack Straw in one thing that it will be more comfortable talking to somebody face to face rather than talking to a face covered in veil.
I do not want to mix up religion or faith with this controversy. It is just easy to talk to someone face to face. And as a non-expert in Muslim religion, I do not know the significance of the Veil for muslim women. But one thing is for sure, it is making them a separate group and is causing discomfort among normal people while interacting with Veiled women.
Pakistan's Ex- Prime minister was a lady and was a very educated Muslim women. I have not seen her in veil in any international meetings.
So I do not think veil has anything to do with Muslim religion; it is more showing the culture in which most Muslim women was brought up.
It is 21st century and I think, it is time for change. Even though it(Veil) might be interpreted as created for protecting women, I believe in today's world , society is giving enough protection for women, whether they belong to Muslim or any other religion and in today's situtaion, the viel is mostly unnecessary.

But I am against Jack Straw's idea of not allowing Muslim women in veil to his office. We should empower Muslim women and they should be given assurances of freedom and they, like the pakistann Ex-Prime minister, will one day come out of the Veil.

Regards,
Johney

I'm a non white muslim woman and I'm appauled by the increase in the use of the veil by young muslim women. it is a political statement, a way of spitting in the face of this country and it's history. anybody who has the slightest understanding of what women have done here to gain the rights and representation that we have should be correctly annoyed by this adolescent and ignorant display of childishness.

The comments about the telephone and the wearing of dark glasses completely miss the point that we know and accept things about the people we are communicating with in this way you don't talk to a cold caller in the same way as you address your mother do you?

You are foolish to see it for anything more than this and you are helping discredit islam by giving head to this pathetic story.
Look at the way the media is running with this. it's only a very few muslim women who do this, and it is generally at the behest of men.

Anyone who says this is not the case has precious little understanding of Islam and islamic communities.

"it is true that non-Muslims in Britain are often intimidated or made uncomfortable by a veiled woman, but the problem lies with them, not the veiled woman."

Nonsense. Muslims are trying to impose their peculiar customs, one at a time, on western society. Next we will hear that muslim policemen in London refuse to stand guard duty at the Israeli, or any other, embassy or institution.

Islamophobia??
Islamophobia was launched in 1996 by a self-proclaimed "Commission on British Muslims and Islamophobia." The word literally means "undue fear of Islam" but today it is used to mean "prejudice against Muslims", with this dramatic perversion of the meaning: ment to do one thing,isolate people with questions, fears, disbelief in islam, and put them all under one roof....."Muslim Haters". Today we are being blackmailed by Islamophobia, just look at what happens when someone speaks out about his/her beliefs on the veil: utter condemnation from all sides, or when someone draws an image of there prophet, the side of islam which we including most muslim groups fear, apears and marches in our capital city burning crosses and flags and carrying signs reading "death to all those who oppose Islam"...do all the Non-muslims have a reason to fear islam...Yes we do.
British Muslims now have Sharia in areas of finance and mortgages; halal food in schools, hospitals and prisons; faith schools funded by the state; prayer rooms in every police station in London; and much more. This process has been assisted by the British government through its philosophy of multiculturalism, which has allowed some Muslims create a state within a state in the UK. even if you are a staunch christian or a blatent athiest you have to admit that the equal rights advocated by our government is nothing more than one sided, and its has been all the Islamophobics, in the true meaning of the word who have been handed the dirty end of the stick.

I live in a country where strict laws exist to prevent racial vilification of anyone ... but I don't think it applies to the English. I am of the understanding that not vilifying them can lead to many forms of social ostracism and may also constitute social suicide.

When speaking to a Pom, most native-born people find it neccessary to avert their eyes from the lilywhite skin, and we'd much rather they got a suntan as soon as they arrived; learned that heaven is cold beer and warm pies, not the other way around; rugby is played by 15 men not 10; cricket is a life-or-death obsession not a genteel summer pastime, and that it's OK to make small talk about more than the weather.

Still, it's their right to be the way they are, whether we like it or not. And most assimilate, kind of, eventually.

However, the one thing I'll never forgive them for is stealing the corner of our flag and using it as their own. Bastards.

Veils were originally supposed to shield men (not women) from the "temptation" of seeing women's faces. Alas, most of the muslim women I've seen are pretty homely by anyone's standards, and looking one full in the face is hardly going to inspire the impetus to rape & ravishment in ANY male.

Currently the canard is that it preserves the modesty of a woman - which is utter bullshit, a half-assed excuse for ensuring male dominance by imposing its symbol, the veil/burqa, on women to remind them they are nothing more than chattel & second class citizens.

This may be the law & custom in the arab/muslim states, but it isn't in Britain or the US or any other western nation. Westerners try for the most part to respect customs of the middle eastern nations; middle easterners can damn well start to respect the customs & laws of the western countries they migrate to - and that includes dropping the veil/burqa as well as adhering to western notions of law & order, and not the barbarism that reigns back in the pissholes they come from. If they love the old eastern customs so much, they should go back to where they started. They should NOT be expecting the west & everyone in it to conform to them, nor should any westerners or their countries or governments do so.

As for Islamophobia, I can't think of a better religion to be phobic of. From the inception, muslims have proven over & over again that theirs is no religion of peace or equity, but a religion of oppression, violence, and double talk. It sure as hell isn't fundamentalist Zen Buddhists or Jains or Amish out there bombing, cutting off heads, & ramming airplanes into buildings; it's MUSLIMS, and nobody else.

"the one thing I'll never forgive them for is stealing the corner of our flag and using it as their own. Bastards.

I'm with you on that, Stan. But you Aussies do sound more British than the Average Canadian does. And if you want to seriously run the Brits down, you guys need to learn to write "favorite" instead of "favourite," and say "zee" instead of "zed"...

To stick to the topic here and not to trip up on one's veil, I want to note that the identifiably Moslem women who have commented here do not like this business with the veil. Hmmm...

Where I live, religious women cover their hair. This is true of both Moslems and Jews. This is done on the grounds of modesty as dictated by the standards of the two faiths. Speaking as a police volunteer respnsible for the security of the citizens around me in a country where a head covering could easily hide a bomb or detonating device, I would never ask either a Jewish or Moslem woman to uncover her hair for me if there were a female soldier who could do it instead.
On my list of priorities, and any rabbi would agree with me, saving a life comes far above sparing modesty. I have the feeling that if the Moslem women here were asked (or forced?) to wear a veil, the men would suffer and the women would tell them to go a somewhat hotter abode...

Noting as I do that the identifiably Moslem women here do not seem to think that a veil confers "freedom" as it were, what has me curious is why the Heathlander, who, to my knowledge, is not a Moslem or a believer of any variety, undertakes its vehement defense? I wonder if he would like to add the practice of female genital mutilation to his causes celèbre under the rubric of "celebrating differences in a multicultural society"?

Islamophobia is perfectly warranted.

See also: London, Madrid, Beslan, Bali, etc etc

You make no mention of the security issue. If I walked down the street with my face masked in this way I would be stopped by the police. Why should others be treated differently, particularly against a background of extremist terrorism which might be a motivation to conceal identity?

That's a tough and rational line you've drawn and defended appropriately. Frankly I have to agree w/you in general. My concern however, is that to the extent that you disregard what those fm Islamic societies have to say about the veil's representation, then you may be going to far in defending those women who wear it in secular society. Their wearing of the veil could indeed come not fm simple social pressure but fm fear and we would need to get to the root of that issue too. If they fear those members of their community who might harm or extradite them fm the group, that too would be wrong and cause for taking action. Agreed that this should have nothing to do w/Mr. Straw's discomfort, but we also can't ignore the possibility that irrational behavior can come from the veiled women's side as much as fm those in secular worlds, and so we need to become more sensitive to the meaning carried by wearing of a veil (not just assume that it's a purely religious observation), much like we are now sensitized by the meaning behind the wearing of a "swaztika" .

Mr.Straw has run out of issues . He seems to forget that his job is to represent the interest/s of his constituents - veiled or otherwise. And that they can vote him out, at the next available opportunity, if he failed to do that. The veil represents a protection to a chaste woman from the lustful and evil eyes of lewd men and women. Jack straw is no angel ! My suggestion? Jack Straw needs to take a basic course in Islam - Islam 101 - so he understand that the veil ( a form of protection from unwanted attention ) is not required for Jack to meet his mother, wife, sister or a daughter because he is not a potential source of damage for them. For all other women in his presence, even for a justifiable need of communication, Islam commands a strict code of conduct lest this woman - the one who is charged with the honour of giving birth to the humanity- be tarnished in any way whatsoever.

The Wayfarer, NY

Perhaps he should, Muhammad. Perhaps all Muslims should be required to take courses in assimilating into the culture in which they've chosen to live as well.

Darleen, The veil is NOT "a public symbol of humiliation" In my opinion a woman who is almost naked in a magazine is a symbol of humiliation for women. A veil isnt meant to degrade women, it's meant for just the opposite. I think it is completely disrespecting women when you put them on a billboard almost naked as opposed to women wearing a veil. If you think America doesnt disrespect women, you must be blind. look around, look at all of the women who are ogled upon and looked at each day in the most disrespectful manner. By the way, Pakistan is a Muslim country, and they had a female president in power. THAT is how women are equal, not how much skin women show.

Donnie, culture has nothing to do with wearing a scarf. just because I live in America and I was born here doesnt mean I'm going to prance around in a miniskirt because that is what conforming to an American Society means. There are plenty of people from India who wear saris in downtown dc. Why are we not questioning what they are wearing? Is it because you can still see their faces? Why is covering your face any different than wearing something besides American clothes?

Darleen: 'The freedom to engage in a particular behavior does not preclude the ability of others to judge whether that behavior is good/bad/appropriate/moral/immoral.'

It doesn't - I explicitly said that, if he thought there was an issue, Jack Straw had not only the right but the duty to to raise it. I think he was wrong not because he rasied it, but because of what he raised.

'The "choice" to wear the veil or burka in Western society is wrong. Period.'

Why, though? I assume you must have a very good reason, in order to criticise someone for apparently harmlessly exercising their right to freedom of expression.

'This has nothing to do with "Islamophobia", but with the sloppy "progressive" thinking that stops all discussion with the line "we must be tolerant and respectful of other cultures."'

We should be tolerant and respectful of other cultures that aren't harming us and that aren't breaking the laws of our society. Of course, being tolerant and respectful does not rule out criticism, but no-one said it did.

'The veil is a public symbol of humiliation. It is demeaning. That a female chooses to publicly demean herself doesn't lessen that humiliation'.

Firstly, of course it does, byt anyway; why do you get to decide what the veil is a symbol of? What if I decide that your trainers are a symbol of public humiliation. Does that mean you should take them off? All those women who choose to wear the veil because they feel comfortable in it...who are you to tell them that no, actually, what they're doing is publicly humiliating themselves, and would they please stop?

'This isn't a headscarf or wearing long sleeves or other modest clothing. This is a public statement that a woman is so shamefully different from a man she has to hide her face in public.'

No, it's a public statement, mostly, that the woman wants to wear a veil and feels free to do so. That is a good thing. Now, I'm not saying there aren't cases where women feel forced to wear the veil, and that is obviously a bad thing. But where they want to...it is a symbol of nothing less than free expression.

'A female may choose genital mutilation on "cultural" grounds... does that mean we cannot have an opinion that such choice is wrong?'

There is, of course, a difference. Self-harm due to indoctrination is one thing; a fashion choice is quite another. The difference is suffering; genital mutilation causes huge suffering, whereas wearing a piece of cloth over your head is completely harmless.

Binny: Thanks.

roxsana: 'In the UK, the official religion is Christianity.'

Erm...so? Unlike S. Arabia, the UK is a secular society, and that's something I'm extremely thankful for. It means that Christians, with their crazy cultish beliefs and practises, have no more influence on me than other religions, with their crazy cultish beliefs and practises. But as long as they don't try and impose those practises on me, that's fine. It's great that, unlike Saudi Arabia, here in the UK we have a multi-cultural society that, in theory, allows people to follow their own cultures as long as it doesn't break the common law. Are you saying you want the UK to become like S. Arabia??

'herefore if I as a Christian ask a Moslem woman to respect my beliefs and remove her veil while we talk, should she not do so?'

No, she shouldn't, because in the UK we don't value Christians higher than Muslims. And, again, that is a very very good thing.

'Or do Moslems in the UK actually believe that their religion is superior and the rest of us should make all the concessions they demand while they make none?'

Hang on, let me get this straight. So by daring to cover their bodies with cloth, Muslims are declaring their religion is superior and are demanding you make concessions? What? I suppose that by daring to breathe or pray in their own homes, they are demanding you make concessions too. That's ludicrous.

'his is not just dismissive of our religion but also rude and offensive on a personal level.'

It's not dismissive of 'our' religion, but even if it was...so what? I'm dismissive of all religion, and that's OK. As to offensive and rude...you can't be quite sure it was intended that way, and so the issue is, as I say, not with the veil but with people like you who for some reason get offended by it.

vanessa: "This is a sad reality of it all - anything new and alien will always be intimdating. So, let's educate! "

Exactly!

'It is just easy to talk to someone face to face. And as a non-expert in Muslim religion, I do not know the significance of the Veil for muslim women. But one thing is for sure, it is making them a separate group and is causing discomfort among normal people while interacting with Veiled women.'

Yes, it is causing discomfort among some people (I wouldn't say 'normal' people...), but the problem is with them, not the woman wearing the veil. Yes, it might be easier to talk to someone face-to-face if you aren't used to talking to someone with a veil. The solution? Get used to talking to someone with a veil!
As to the separate group...yes, veil wearing women are marked out as Muslims, which is a separate group from non-Muslims. So? We all belong to many different groups. When I wear a Liverpool FC t-shirt, I'm marking my self out in a separate group. When Hindus wear those red dots on their foreheads (can't remember the name) or Christians wear crosses or jews wear kippas, or when school children wear school uniforms...they're all marking themselves out as part of a separate group. Society can function with many different groups, as long as all those groups abide by the common law.
If by 'separate' you mean isolated, then perhaps, but again that is more to do with people being uncomfortable with veils than the veils themselves.

'But I am against Jack Straw's idea of not allowing Muslim women in veil to his office.'

I would be too, but he does allow women to wear veils in his office. He requests that they remove it, but are completely free to decline, as he makes sure to point out to them.

anila: 'it is a political statement, a way of spitting in the face of this country and it's history.'

Why?

Bliffle: 'Nonsense. Muslims are trying to impose their peculiar customs, one at a time, on western society.'

Of course they aren't. They aren't trying to make you wear a veil, are they? When you put on a baseball cap, are you imposing your sense of fashion on others? No, because you aren't trying to make others wear baseball caps too.

'Next we will hear that muslim policemen in London refuse to stand guard duty at the Israeli, or any other, embassy or institution.'

It's not the same at all, but anyway - the policemen in question did not request to be moved because of political or religious beliefs, but because he feared for the safety of his family in Lebanon. Which is absolutely perfectly reasonable.

anon: 'he word literally means "undue fear of Islam" but today it is used to mean "prejudice against Muslims"'

I used it to mean 'undue fear of Islam' which is the correct meaning, even if the former often leads to the latter.

'Currently the canard is that it preserves the modesty of a woman - which is utter bullshit, a half-assed excuse for ensuring male dominance by imposing its symbol, the veil/burqa, on women to remind them they are nothing more than chattel & second class citizens.'

You're missing something. There is no need for a 'canard', because Muslim women do not need to justify their decision to wear a veil to you or anyone else. It doesn't matter if you think its bullshit, although if you do then go ahead and say so. You, like them, have a right to free expression. But don't take it upon yourself to tell them what and what not to do, for they have as little reason to warp their lifestyle to fit your views as you do theirs.

'This may be the law & custom in the arab/muslim states, but it isn't in Britain or the US or any other western nation. Westerners try for the most part to respect customs of the middle eastern nations; middle easterners can damn well start to respect the customs & laws of the western countries they migrate to - and that includes dropping the veil/burqa as well as adhering to western notions of law & order, and not the barbarism that reigns back in the pissholes they come from.'

Is that what you call 'respecting' Middle Eastern customs? Pissholes? Ignoring that, you are correct to demand that people who move to the UK (as everyone else who lives here) should respect our laws. They should respect our customs, just as we should respect theirs. They don't have to OBEY our customs, just as we don't have to OBEY theirs. See?

'They should NOT be expecting the west & everyone in it to conform to them

They aren't. You're the one expecting others to conform to your views.

Ruvy: 'Noting as I do that the identifiably Moslem women here do not seem to think that a veil confers "freedom" as it were, what has me curious is why the Heathlander, who, to my knowledge, is not a Moslem or a believer of any variety, undertakes its vehement defense?'

Firstly, there have been maybe two or three Muslim commenters here - not necessarily representative. There obviously are many Muslim women in Britain, the majority according to Ruth Kelly and others, who want to wear a veil even though they do not feel coerced. If that is the case, it doesn't matter if you point to a billion other Muslim women who hate the veil, because all that matters is that those women who choose to wear one not out of coercion have the right to do so, and shouldn't be pestered not to.
As to why I chose to right the article...well, I suppose we could conduct a four-hour long discussion analysing my possible motives and reasons and blah blah but I don't really want to. I think we should focus not on me but on the wordses.

A_Name: Islamophobia, by definition, is unwarranted, and at any rate the veil has nothing to do with Bali/London/9.11 etc.

Adam: 'You make no mention of the security issue.'

I make no mention of it because that was not a reason put forth by Jack Straw or any of the other commentators I read. I don't think it is much of an issue; we seemed to have found ways to manage so far. If it really is one, then that's something else. I'm talking about whether Muslim women have a principle right to wear a veil, whether it is a help or hindrance to multi-culturalism here in the UK and whether Jack Straw was right to ask them to remove it because it marks them out as separate and makes him, and others, feel uncomfortable.

p-air: 'Their wearing of the veil could indeed come not fm simple social pressure but fm fear and we would need to get to the root of that issue too.'

It certainly could, and if fear or coercion has anything to do with it, it is completely wrong and should be stopped. That is the case with most things. I took the words of politicians and journalists and the Muslim women to whom I quoted as fact when they said that the majority of women in the UK wear the veil because they want to. Certainly, very few of the girls that went to my school (about 40% of which was comprised of Muslims - I went to school in Hounslow) seemed to be wearing the veil of fear, although undoubtedly some were. That's why I make the constant qualification; I'm only talking about women who wear it out of choice free from coercion and fear.

"'Next we will hear that muslim policemen in London refuse to stand guard duty at the Israeli, or any other, embassy or institution.'

It's not the same at all, but anyway - the policemen in question did not request to be moved because of political or religious beliefs, but because he feared for the safety of his family in Lebanon."

"...he feared for the safety of his family in Lebanon."

Really? Who did he fear? The English? The Israelis?

No, he feared they would be targeted by radical Islamist group if it was found out that their son was guardin 'the enemy'.

Oh. So he feared recriminations if he did his civic duty? Thus, the islamic rabble of Lebanon creates civil policy in London. How odd that anyone would consider that legitimate.

Indications are, based on interviews by various western female journalists with 'native' muslim women, that they wear the veil because if they don't, muslim men will either rape them, beat the crap out of them, or kill them. Some 'freedom', huh? If burqas conferred privacy and security, then why don't we see men rushing to put it on, hmmm? This is typical muslim gender control & harrassment of women, nothing else, and no amount of muslim blather & lies by the muslim males can justify it or cover that fact up. Overwhelmingly, where muslim women have been given the opportunity to ditch the burqa, they have done so. Look at Afghanistan. Women threw their burqas away by the truckloads, and only resumed them when the Taliban came back & forced them to put them on again. Perhaps the west should offer muslim women sanctuary, and ship all muslim males over the age of 5 back to point of origin. Muslims - the men, that is - are nothing more than a rabble of culturally barbarian bullies, and always have been.

Something tells me, Jamie, that for all your spririted defense of the "freedom" of Moslem women to wear the veil, that Nancy has it on the money. In many places, if Moslem women do not wear the veil, they fear being raped, beaten or worse... I have not seen Arab women wearing a veil in Israel and I think I understand why.

Ah, freedom in a multicultural society. Isn't it lovely?

Bliffle: It is entirely reasonable for someone to simply request that they be moved for fear of the safety of their family. Of course, if that request is then refused he is under obligation to serve duty nonetheless, but if the same job can be performed by someone else then it makes no sense to put someone in harm's way unecessarily.

Nancy/Ruvy: As we've already noted, things a quite different in Afghanistan then here. In Afghanistan and countries like it, the oppression of Muslim women by men is far more widespread and socially acceptable, and yes, the veil has historically been used as a tool for oppression in these countries. Consequently, it is unsurprising that when given the chance, the women chose to embrace their new found freedom by getting rid of their veils.

In Britain, there's a different picture. While oppression and subordination of women still goes on, it is less frequent, and there are definitely women here who wear the veil out of choice, because they feel comfortable in it or whatever. In fact, these women would seem to be in the majority. As to interviews, I've provided a link in the article to BBC interviews of 4 Muslim women none of whom support Straw's stance on this. In the Independent article I linked to, but on the paper version (it isn't on the internet, for some reason), there were interview of three Muslim British women, and either two of three (cnt remember) of these disagreed with Straw's stance. So if we're talking about interviews, all the evidence I see points to the fact that there are women in the UK who wear the veil because they truly want to. The question is, should they, and should we take it upon ourselves to ask them not to? I gave my answer in the article above.

I'm floored by the racism I'm seeing in Britain. Americans don't seem to be quite as worried about veils, and we had 3000+ people killed by people who liked to call themselves Muslims. Muslims should not have to change their ways to make everyone else happy. If you have a problem with them, deal with it--it's your problem, not theirs. This is an ugly case of blaming the victim. There have been plenty of situations when a change made people uncomfortable, but it didn't make it wrong. Surely lots of men were uncomfortable dealing with female doctors, lawyers, etc., but most of them got over it. Muslim women wear the veil because their religion requires it, just like Jewish people avoid pork. It's sick to me to ask them to lose the hijab. And it's not like some of this stuff is so bizarre, folks. Nuns cover their heads. And what do we do about the costumed characters at DisneyWorld? Should they be forced to show their faces? The Western world looks so bad right now. We invade countries, kill hundreds of thousands of civilians, and topple governments. And when the people affected by all this bombing try to seek refuge elsewhere, they're just attacked again. George Bush and Tony Blair should be soundly ashamed.

Ann: Britain has a hell of a lot more muslim migrants than the US, and it's a truly liberal country that does a lot more hand-wringing over human rights and social justice issues than does the US. The comparisons don't wash.

The wearing of the full veil (and this is all this is about), is often nothing more than a political statement in support of radical islam rather than a genuine desire to be seen as a pious believer. Britons don't bat an eyelid when they see women in the street wearing the hijab (the head covering, with open face) it's that commonplace.

But the wearing of the full veil in a country that prides itself on its tolerance - and let's face it, Britain is probably the most liberal and democratic in the true sense of the word of all the world's western democracies, including the US - has created a backlash even there.

However, under normal circumstances it wouldn't be an issue: but this latest drama is about a public school teacher who applied for a job wearing a hijab. No problem.

Then on the day she started she had taken to wearing the full veil. The kids complained they couldn't hear her.

The Brits have thrown open their doors to the poor, the oppressed, the hungry and the weak and are simply asking that those who come to live in the country adopt some British values in exchange. Fair enough, too, in the wake of the London bombings.

They are also asking for muslim clerics to preach in English, condemn terrorism and ban literature that encourages jihadist thought. Being muslim and being British (or American, or Australian) are not mutually exclusive, but learning about the values of those who give you succour is just polite and shows a commitment to those who have kindly offered you a new chance in life.

STM: the kids didn't complain, and in any event that was not what caused all of this. It all started when Jack Straw wrote that newspaper column.

Secondly, I agree that people who live in a society have to share some basic common values (and this has absolutely nothing to do with the London bombings). Otherwise society could not function. So, one value that everyone has to adopt is to respect the supremity of common law.
Fashion choices do not come under those basic values people must accept in order for our society to function.

You ask that Muslims learn about 'british values' (whatever they are), but in actual fact what you're asking is that they adopt them for themselves. That is tribalism of the most primitive order - 'you can only live wth us if you act like us. Ug.' The fact is that one of the most important 'British values' is that of tolerance and freedom of expression, and by wearing the full veil Muslim women are exercising the latter and testing the former.

You ask that Muslims learn about 'british values' (whatever they are), but in actual fact what you're asking is that they adopt them for themselves. That is tribalism of the most primitive order - 'you can only live wth us if you act like us. Ug.'

Jamie, It seems tolerance for many Muslims applies only to the west being tolerant of them. Not vice-versa. They can't have it both ways.

All I can say Jamie is that British values are good values ... or they used to be.

Now the pendulum has swung too far the other way. Good on Jack Straw for telling these buggers where to get off. And yes mate, the kids did complain, although it wasn't the reason that particular drama came to light - but they DID say they couldn't hear her.

Mate, if people want to practice a radical form of Islam, which is often what the wearing of the full veil suggests, and to mark yourself as being VERY different, I suggest: bugger off and practice it somewhere else. I also suggest not migrating to non-muslim western democracies in the first place. Embrace what's on offer or choose something else.

Simple.

But don't play on the good graces of a tolerant people whose patience is fast running out, and then complain about it.

According to the Koran, women should dress modestly, not make eyes at people, and cover their ornaments. If Muslim women decide to cover their face, they're making an arbitrary choice that was not insisted on in Mohammed's revelation.

You can accuse Jack Straw of cultural insensitivity for his 'veils make me nervous' shtick, but not of religious insensitivity. The easiest thing to accuse him and his ridiculous, water-treading party of is cynical political opportunism.

Hmmph. And people say there's no room for interpretation in Islam . . .

I wonder if the Islamophile who wrote this article would also complain about the opposite extreme, namely Nudophobia. There is a "culture" that, instead of believing in being completely COVERED, instead believes in being completely UNcovered.

The Islamofascists (i.e. ALL Muslims) are often heard to complain mightily about how OFFENDED they are at having to look at scantily clad Western women (demanding, for example, that certain "offensive" billboards be removed in or near THEIR communities).

Now let's just pretend for a moment that Heathlander were actually an Imam having a position of authority and respect among Muslims, equivalent to the position Mr. Straw occupies among Native White Christian Britons. And suppose that this pious piece of shit had occasion to entertain a woman from the Nudist culture who decided to appear in front of his startled eyes completely naked. Would he be defending her right to do so, saying that (paraphrasing) "there is no 'issue' with clotheslessness; the issue is one of intolerance among some (strike 'white Britons') Arab Muslims to people of different cultures."

I DON'T THINK SO!! [Personal attack deleted]

i just just shoved multiculturalist hypocrisy up my ass. i didn't really notice anything different. it's like shoving "happiness" or "sadness" up there. like shoving "socialist ideology" up there. it's like farting in reverse i suppose.

respect for other cultures is something most of us would hope everyone would have. unfortunately, it's not the case. white people are just as guilty as muslims are guilty. i thought you, of all people, would know that.

i mean, who really gives a fuck if a woman wears a veil? are we going to get nervous at funerals? "oh god, that weeping widow... she's got a veil! is a bomb far behind? call the bomb squad."

STM: I don't think the kids did complain - and in any case, she taught them with the veil off. She only wanted to put the veil on when a male member of staff was in the room.
But the issue of the veiled teacher is separate from the issue of veils.

You can call veiled women 'buggers' (although it doesn't portray you in a flattering light), and you can call the practise of wearing a veil 'radical', but all that matters is that some women want to put a piece of cloth over their face, doing so is not instrinsically harmful to anyone else and so they are absolutely witin their rights to do so.

You then revert to primitive tribalism/nationalism again - essentially, 'if you don't obey what I say, piss off, because I'm white and my family have lived in Britain longer than yours, so my opinions are worth more than yours.'

No. You have no more a right to define 'British culture' as any other British citizen, and you certainly have no right to impose your definition on to others.

M. La Spliffe: actually, there is a debate in Islam about whether the full veil should be warn, and frankly, if a woman says she wants to wear a veil because of religion then I don't see how anyone can say 'no, your religion doesn't command it'. It would be like a catholic going up to a protestant and saying, all matter of factually, that their interpretation of the Bible is wrong. To me, its all bunk because religion is a load of rubbish, but as to interpretation, there can be no one definitive religious interpretation.

Not that it matters. Religion doesn't grant any extra protection to ideas or practises, but to say religion has nothing to with women wanting to wear the veil is flatly false.

Richard Brodie: If ones ignores the innaccuracies ("Islamophile"), the mindless insults ("pious piece of shit") and the racism ("Islamofascists (i.e. ALL Muslims)"), there isn't much left in your comment except a simple analogy - which fails in its purpose because I have absolutely no problem with nudists whatsoever.

Jamie, Catholics do go up to Protestants and tell them their version of religion is all wrong. In fact, they had wars about it. Remember?

The difference is, Catholics, Protestants and most other Christian groups are open about revelations secondary to the Bible, whereas Muslims claim direct revelation from the Koran. And the Koran doesn't tell women to wear veils that cover their face.

That's why I can say that Muslim women and Islamic thinkers are making an arbitrary choice when it comes to veiling the face, and why I can say 'no, your religion doesn't command it.' All debates on wearing the veil within Islam are shaped by this.

You have no more a right to define 'British culture' than any other British citizen

Wrong. If STM's ancestry has called Britain their home for countless generations, then he has infinitely more right to "define British culture" than do some immigrants who have just arrived bringing with them a FOREIGN culture which they would like to see first co-exist with and then ultimately (when they have achieved a demographic majority) REPLACE his.

And make no mistake about it, that is exactly what the goal of Muslims is - to TAKE OVER Europe and replace Western Civilization with a ruling pan European Islamic Caliphate.

stm can DEFINE british culture however he wants. doesn't change what british culture IS.

"the goal of Muslims is [...] to TAKE OVER Europe and replace Western Civilization with a ruling pan European Islamic Caliphate."

paranoid much? the vast majority of muslims just want to live, make some money, raise a family and die happy.

the vast majority of muslims just want to live, make some money, raise a family and die happy.

I'm sure that's been true of "the vast majority of muslims" all throughout the last 1400 years during which Mohammed's religion has conquered civilization after civilization - trying several times and so far failing to conquer Europe.

Unfortunately it is not "the vast majority of muslims" who make history. It is the radical ideologue leaders. And if Europeans don't start having enough babies to replace themselves, then when Muslims outpopulate them THEY WILL take advantage of democracy to replace democracy with Sharia Law, and the Europeans will receive a well-deserved Dhimmitude.

Okay Jamie,

You want to defend the right of Moslem women to wear a veil - good and well. Do you think you cn stand up and defend the right of a fellow Jew to blow a shofar on Rosh haShana? Or is that too much to ask? Or perhps you can just be honest and say you don't give a damn for fellow Jews?

Police Minister Supports Police in Western Wall Shofar Incident
Wednesday, October 25, 2006 / 3 Cheshvan 5767

The Knesset held a mini-debate Wednesday morning on the arrest of a young man for blowing a shofar at the Western Wall this past Rosh HaShanah.

Several Knesset Members of the National Union party had submitted a Knesset query to Public Security Minister Avi Dichter, who oversees the police department, regarding the arrest. The basic thrust of all the queries, to which Dichter responded today, was: "How can it be that in a Jewish state, a man is arrested in the middle of prayers at the Western Wall on the holy day of Rosh HaShanah for blowing a shofar?"

The circumstances of the case, as reported on Arutz-7 almost a month ago, were as follows: On Rosh HaShanan morning, a group of worshipers were in the midst of the Mussaf prayer, at the area known as the Kotel HaKatan, the Small Western Wall (pictured). The Small Wall is a northern extension of the Western Wall, standing opposite the presumed spot of the Holy of Holies of the Beit HaMikdash. The service was thus one of the most solemn prayers of the Jewish year, taking place at Judaism's most sacred widely-accessible location.

As is customary according to Sephardic practice, the shofar (ram's horn) is sounded several times on Rosh HaShanah, including during the silent recitation of the Mussaf prayer. When 20-year-old Eliyahu K. began sounding the shofar during the prayer, Border Guard policemen entered the area and began trying to pull him away. However, Eliyahu did not cooperate or move, as one may not move one's feet while reciting the silent prayer.

As one eyewitness later told Arutz-7, "The policeman then called on his radio and said that [Eliyahu] was in the middle of praying and that they would arrest him afterwards - but the order came back to arrest him right then." The police started dragging him out, and when they stopped for a moment, he got up and resumed his prayers. This procedure repeated itself until the policemen finally allowed him to complete his prayers.

Eliyahu was finally arrested, and was released hours later after being ordered not to frequent certain areas of the Old City; the latter order was rescinded nearly a week later.

Adding insult to injury in the case was the police refusal to acknowledge the eyewitness accounts. Instead, Police Spokesman Shmulik Ben-Ruby repeatedly told Arutz-7 that Eliyahu was blowing the shofar "after the prayers were finished" and that "he had already been blowing enough" and was therefore asked to stop. This, in spite of the fact that several participants confirmed that Eliyahu and the others were in fact in the middle of prayers when the incident occurred.

MKs Benny Elon, Uri Ariel and Zevulun Orlev, all of the National Union/National Religious Party, submitted Knesset queries to Minister Dichter. They demanded to know how a shofar-blower at the Western Wall could be arrested on Rosh HaShanah by a Jewish government. In addition, MK Elon emphasized that the police account differed from that of several eyewitnesses.

In Dichter's response today, he said that the policeman was within his rights in using the force he used, in consideration of the fact that it was the beginning of Ramadan, tensions were high, "and in his judgment, the correct course of action was to stop the shofar blower."

MK Benny Elon responded that the police version of what happened contradicted that which many eyewitnesses said actually occurred. He asked the minister to check into the incident again, offering to provide him with the telephone numbers of participants in the prayer service. He also said that the policemen had behaved illegally by interrupting the worshiper in the middle of his prayers.

MK Zevulun Orlev said that he was very disappointed by Dichter's answer, "because I thought that the government of a Jewish State would allow what the British government did not. It is well-known that the anti-Semitic British Mandate government persecuted a shofar-blower at the Western Wall. [The reference is to the late 1920's, when the British attempted to appease the Arabs following violence at the Wall and forbade shofar-blowing there. At the conclusion of the Yom Kippur services in 1929, a man named Moshe Segal blew the shofar - and was immediately arrested by the British. Though he had fasted for the previous 25 hours, the British detained him without food until midnight, when he was finally released. Nearly 40 years later, following the first Yom Kippur service at the Wall under Israeli sovereignty, shortly after the Six Day War, the shofar was again sounded - by Moshe Segal.]"

"Ever since the Six Day War," Orlev continued, "the shofar is sounded at the Wall on Rosh HaShanah as an intrinsic part of the prayer service, and it has never been forbidden. The police know that the shofar is sounded, and they can make the proper preparations in advance. The Moslems, too, will not object, for there is a status quo allowing every religion to keep its commandments. The only reason that they would object is for nationalistic reasons, and then the police must deal with this."

Orlev concluded, "To say that when a Jew blows the Shofar on Rosh HaShanah under a Jewish government at the Western Wall consists a disturbance of the peace is total insanity. I ask the minister if he would be willing to reconsider the matter, in order to have a policy whereby Jews can fulfill their mitzvot [religious commandments] all along the Western Wall, including the Small Wall."

MK Menachem Porush (United Torah Judaism) noted that in addition to the shofar problem, just the very fact that the police disturbed a worshiper in the middle of his prayer is grounds for strong complaint.

Arab MK Muhammed Barakeh also spoke up, saying, "I am not expert in the details of the case, and I can also understand the minister's answer about the sensitivity of the location and that it could lead to all sorts of tensions, but I think that no one, whoever he is, should be disturbed in the middle of his prayers."

Dichter responded again, saying, "There is no status quo at the Small Wall, as I said before, meaning that there are no set arrangements as there are at other places such as the Machpelah Cave. Rather, the policeman is allowed to use his judgment, whether at the Small Wall or any other place, even if it be a holy site. The policeman has an absolute right to use his judgment regarding the danger of a public disturbance - even if someone is in the middle of the Amidah or any other prayer - based on the considerations of Ramadan and the Moslems passing through the area and the like..."

"Regarding the matter in general," Dichter said, "we must look into how we can allow several things at once: Moslems passing through the area, Jews praying there, Jews blowing the shofar, respecting both religions - and how to do all this [a smile began to appear on his face - ed.] in a way that properly befits the State of Israel, this is something that I promise to look into."

Asi Talmon, spokesman for the National Union party, later told Arutz-7 that the MKs intend to press the matter with further queries to Minister Dichter, in the hope of ensuring that the incident does not repeat itself.

paranoid much?

Your core vocabulary consists of three words: "xenophobia", "racism", and "paranoid". Are you paranoid of xenophobic racists, like myself, who wear your kind of insults as a badge of honor?

Richard Brodie: you're being hysterical. I feel no need to waste my time arguing with someone who, when he looks at a Muslim, thinks they are trying to take over the world, and runs home to make more babies to ensure this doesn't happen.

Ruvy: why do you always try and turn everything onto back onto the subject of Jews being hard done by? This was an article about the veil debate, and about rising Islamophobic hysteria in Britain (typified by the shrill Richard Brodie). I'd never even heard of a 'shofar' until that article. Where is the relevance?

M. La Spliffe: my point was that a) there is a debate about whether Islam demands the full veil and b) religion is completely arbitrary anyway. There's no difference between someone saying they believe their religion commands them to wear a veil and someone believing it doesn't. Religion is a personal thing - all religions are completely open to interpretation, as history has shown.

zingzing: Let me clarify. Of course STM can produce his own personal definition of what he feels makes British culture. Every one of us can do so. But the only collective British culture, the only 'British culture' that everyone has to share in, is that which is enshrined in law. And although each of us may have our own ideas about what consitutes 'Britishness', none of us should expect anyone else to pay any attention to them, except when they cross into those basic, collective values enshrined in law.

The whole idea of a British culture is pretty antiquated, and I can't see what useful purpose it now serves (except in the sense of those basic values enshrined in law).

Jamie, my point was that your point wasn't really a point. Islam is more open to interpretation than most people feel it is, but the decision to wear a veil is far more cultural than religious because of the way Muslims' relationship with the Koran is supposed to work. This remains true no matter how arbitrary a set of fairy tales you, personally, consider religious faith to be.

I'm afraid I don't understand your point. Many of the women who I've heard speaking about why they chose to wear a full veil (for example, a lady spoke about it on Question Time on Thursday) say that they were it out of choice, to get 'deeper' into their religion. It's a religious as well as cultural matter.
(Of course, all this is irrelevent in terms of the actual veil debate, but nevertheless I can't see what you're going on about...)

Alright. These women are going beyond the demands of religion in wearing a veil over their face. They're choosing to do something Allah, as such, never asked them to do and that the women in Mohammed's family probably didn't do.

Using religion as a motive and defence for doing so - well - it's lousy theology and I don't see why it should be respected as theology. It would be like a Christian thinking Jesus didn't want him to drink carrot juice. That would be madness - unless the Christian came from a culture where botulism ran rampant and over time it had got easier to teach children carrot juice was evil, rather than carrot juice used to give you botulism. The difference is, Christians can get away with writing a new book or starting a new church to enshrine such things. Muslims can't because of their relationship with the Koran. They don't have a religion you can make up as you go along; they have one remarkably coherent text that is open to interpretation, and basta.

This DOES tie into the present veil debate with Straw. I doubt his motives; I think he's a policial opportunist playing into British fears by stirring up anger; but he's arguing from a cultural perspective (veils make it hard for me to communicate one on one) about a cultural construct (I wear a veil to preserve my modesty) which doesn't make complete sense in the society where it is being carried out (one where men are dissuaded from assaulting women by a more or less functioning rule of law - maybe a little less in Yorkshire).

So, while I disrespect Straw's motives, and I feel women should be allowed to wear little seal pup bikinis in front of their classroom if they damn well want to, I also respect Straw and any other non-Muslim's right to talk about being uncomfortable about having a face-to-face conversation with a veiled woman without being treated as though they're pissing on a whole religion.

Heathlander says: I have absolutely no problem with nudists whatsoever.

I don't either, as long as they confine their disrobing to private places. But we're talking about PUBLIC places here, aren't we?

So be clear with us. Do you have absolutely no problem WHATSOEVER with nudists going around completely naked in public, and nudist TEACHERS having no clothes on while in front of a classroom of children?

Remember, these are situations in which you advocate Muslim women being able to appear with their faces completely COVERED.

Your answer will tell us whether my analogy fails or not - i.e. whether your advocacy of multiculturalism is hypocritical.

M. La Spliffe: "These women are going beyond the demands of religion in wearing a veil over their face."

But they would disagree with you. And, since religion is open to interpretation, there would be little way of proving that either one of you were right.

"Using religion as a motive and defence for doing so - well - it's lousy theology and I don't see why it should be respected as theology."

But no-one's using it as a defence. It is, for some, a motive - but they don't need to provide a motive or a defence. No motive is needed. All that matters is that some women want to wear veils, which are instrinsically harmless.

"I also respect Straw and any other non-Muslim's right to talk about being uncomfortable about having a face-to-face conversation with a veiled woman without being treated as though they're pissing on a whole religion."

I absolutely support the right of Jack Straw to raise the issue, although I think he was wrong to do so. And I've never said that by doing so, he was "pissing on a whole religion".

Richard Brodie: "emember, these are situations in which you advocate Muslim women being able to appear with their faces completely COVERED."

No, that's false. I don't think women should be allowed to wear veils wherever. For the sake of argument, let's assume that wearing a full veil means a teacher can't give a lesson as well, and so children's education suffers, because they can't see her face or whatever. Then teachers should not be allowed to wear veils. I've never said otherwise.

Likewise, I would not support the right of a chef to work naked, because it would be unhygienic. The principle that we should apply to it all is this: people should be allowed to do whatever they watn as long as it does not harm anybody else.

But, for example, if a couple wanted to just take a walk in the park completely naked, then I would have no problem with that (unless it is illegal, in which case I would have a problem with them breaking the law. But I don't think it should be illegal).

Good god, Jamie, I don't care what you said about Straw. I'm talking about the reality of the backlash against him.

You're treating this issue like someone who doesn't know or care anything about the varieties of faith, so why you're arguing about how you think the interpretation of religion works when it comes to a faith as coherent in its precepts as Islam, I've got no idea . . .

Finally, if these women didn't have to provide a defence or motives, why appear on Question Time to talk about their religious motives for wearing the veil? In a participatory society we have to explain and defend our motives all the time. Especially when the actions that come out of them make other groups in the society uncomfortable.

The vast majority of the backlash against Straw, what little there is of it, is not because people think he didn't have a right to say what he did, but because they thought it was irresponsible, opportunistic, cynical and, well, wrong.

"You're treating this issue like someone who doesn't know or care anything about the varieties of faith, so why you're arguing about how you think the interpretation of religion works when it comes to a faith as coherent in its precepts as Islam, I've got no idea . . .

I'm not arguing about how interpreting religion works. I can't think of a more boring subject to talk about. It's just that several times now you have said that Islam doesn't command women to wear the veil, and so this is a cultural as opposed to a religious issue. I've said that, in fact, the women themselves see it as a religious issue and there is debate in the Islamic community about whether Islam requires the veil or not, and so this is most definitely a religious as well as cultural issue. I've also said several times that whether or not it is a religious or cultural or both issue doesn't matter even one iota.

"Finally, if these women didn't have to provide a defence or motives, why appear on Question Time to talk about their religious motives for wearing the veil?"

Because people keep asking them, demanding them even, to give reasons, and so they chose to. But they didn't have to. My point is that whether or not any of us approves or disproves of a woman's reason for a wearing a veil doesn't matter. All that matters is that wearing the veil does not intrinsically harm anyone, and so women who choose to wear one should not have to deal with people constantly 'tut tutting' and demanding they remove it.

"All that matters is that wearing the veil does not intrinsically harm anyone, and so women who choose to wear one should not have to deal with people constantly 'tut tutting' and demanding they remove it."

Except, obviously, that's not all that matters, or this wouldn't be an issue.

And what you say several times doesn't get any closer to right each time. I like the fairness and removal of your non-religious point of view, Jamie, but you're just not engaging with the question as it stands.

let's assume that wearing a full veil means a teacher can't give a lesson as well, and so children's education suffers, because they can't see her face or whatever. Then teachers should not be allowed to wear veils.

In a way, wearing a veil could be advantageous to a child's education. Facial expression is often used as an effective way of communicating disapproval - as when a child might want to express his opinion that multiculturalism is a crock of shit. In this case he could avoid being quite so brainwashed, if a veil concealed the teachers frown!

I would not support the right of a chef to work naked, because it would be unhygienic

Not if he didn't piss in the soup!

if a couple wanted to just take a walk in the park completely naked, then I would have no problem with that (unless it is illegal, in which case I would have a problem with them breaking the law.)

Well hopefully Europeans will make wearing veils in public illegal, as a prelude to kicking the Mulsims out of their countries completely - well, not literally kicking them out, but offering irresistable repatriation incentives, a la the BNP's sensible proposal.

M. La Spliffe: It's all that should matter. Obviously, as you point out, some people think that other things matter, like whether or not they feel 'uncomfortable'. I think they're wrong, and I've tried to explain why in the article.
I think I am engaging with the question as it stands. I have given my answer to such questions as 'is wearing the full veil a barrier to integration/a mark of separation?', 'should women wear the veil?', 'should women have the right to wear the veil?', 'should Jack Straw have said what he did?'.

I think those are the important questions, and I have tried to answer all of them.

Richard: You're obviously not being serious, and I'm not going to waste any more time answering you.

Tell me Jamie, aren't you just a little bit jealous (not to mention ashamed) that I am still free to express a non-politically correct point of view, while you and your fellow Britons have frittered away that right for yourselves?

Richard in #40 sez...
*Are you paranoid of xenophobic racists, like myself, who wear your kind of insults as a badge of honor?*

well now, no need to be paranoid when the individual proudly asserts that they are a xenophobic racist

so, nothing to be paranoid about...

"know your Enemy"

Excelsior?

Jamie: For God's sake grow up. You are starting to sound like a high-school debating captain who's just sat on the pointy end of a pencil.

I define "the buggers" (and as you know, in the UK it's a term that's in general usage to describe anyone who's annoying you) as muslims who are pushing the boundaries of what others will tolerate (in a very tolerant society), not as a perjorative term for muslim women.

I have every right to define what British values are, as a holder of dual citizenship, in the same way that muslims have every right to define what muslim values are (God knows they DO let me know).

Here's an example: today in Sydney, which also has a very large muslim population, the Sheik Hilaly, the local muslim leader, has said that western women who wear skimpy clothes are responsible in some if they are sexually attacked because they invite it by their dress.

It's not the first time he's expressed such sentiments.

This is a city where the past few years in the courts have seen some dreadful gang rapes by muslim boys and men on local girls (most were girls, rather than women). Of course, in once case the men involved blamed "cultural differences". The evidence painted it differently. It is part of the reason why simmering tensions spilled over into rioting at the beach last year (sparked by some lebanese boys who bashed up a lifesaver who told them to behave).

People just get sick of the bullshit, mate. As I've said, wear the hijab if you must. I have just driven my daughter to school in a very anglo suburb of Sydney and passed a woman wearing the hijab. Normally, were this debate not taking place, it wouldn't even have registered. Not a problem, but marking yourself out as an adherent of radical muslim though - which is really what a full veil signifies - is in my view an exercise in pushing the envelope to see how far you can go before you start pissing people off.

We are among the most tolerant societies on the planet, yet even in these places there is a backlash. It's not blind tribal/racist stuff. It's just railing against the double standards of people who think they can do whatever they like.

It's more like, we invited you into our home but you keep shitting on the carpet. All I'm saying is, use the toilet please like everyone else.

"I have every right to define what British values are, as a holder of dual citizenship, in the same way that muslims have every right to define what muslim values are (God knows they DO let me know)."

Exactly. You hit the nail on the head. It is your citizenship that gives the right to define for yourself what British values are. Just like those veiled women, who also have British citizenship, have a right to define for themselves what British values mean to them.

Neither of you have the right to impose on each other your own interpretations or definition of what constitute 'British values'. The only universal British values are those enshrined in British common law.

"People just get sick of the bullshit, mate."

I don't see how your story was relevent. Perhaps it was to illustrate that people connect, falsely, extremism with things like the niqab or hijab, and so eventually they just get 'sick of the bullshit' and say 'to hell with it all'. But the connection is false.

"Not a problem, but marking yourself out as an adherent of radical muslim though - which is really what a full veil signifies - is in my view an exercise in pushing the envelope to see how far you can go before you start pissing people off."

What, you think that really Muslim women are just sitting around joking, seeing how far they can push it before being told off, like naughty schoolchildren? Come on.

The full veil doesn't signify extremism, except in instances where it has been forced on the woman. Where a woman is wearing it out of choice, it is a symbol of freedom of expression and religious freedom, two values which I would have thought are very Western and progressive.

"It's not blind tribal/racist stuff. It's just railing against the double standards of people who think they can do whatever they like."

First of all - what double standards?

Secondly, its not that they can do whatever they like. They are bound by the law, as is every other citizen. What you seem to object to is that, as with every other citizen, they also get the right to wear whatever the hell they want, so long as it doesn't harm other people.

"It's more like, we invited you into our home but you keep shitting on the carpet. All I'm saying is, use the toilet please like everyone else."

That's a nonsense. Just for a start, it is their home as much as it is yours. They are British citizens, as are you. And just as they can't say, 'we're inviting you in to our home, so do as we tell you and cover yourself up, because we feel "uncomfortable" looking at bare flesh', so you have no right to say the exact same thing to them.

Actually, I have every right to say whatever I want (within reason). In my view, what I say IS within reason and very moderate compared to some of the blithering nonsense thrown up around this stuff.

And sadly, British common law often foolishly dictates bizarre scenarios that give rights to people who don't want us to have any under their world view of what is right and wrong.

Yet that being the case, all I'm saying here is that it differs from mine. My ancestry as a Briton goes back thousands of years and I resent people who want to take advantage of that history and that very liberal society of which I am part (and not just because of a piece of paper informing me I'm a citizen), to tell me that I should reassess what my values are.

The values that are important to me are compassion, tolerance, freedom of speech and the right to a fair go. Everyone is Britain has a right to expect those things. But when people are taking advantage of that, perhaps it's time to tell them where to get off.

I notice you didn't respond to my comment about Sheik Hilaly's comments, which also included a line about women wearing skimpy attire being akin to an abandoned, uncovered "piece of meat" - in other words, I presume, help yourselves. He asked, if cats came and ate it, whose fault would that be ... the meat or the cats'.

Although that is in Australia (Australian common law is virtually identical to British common law, so the same arguments apply) it is these kinds of attitudes, particularly among some (not all, by a long shot) muslim men, that are where the problems are arising.

It is right for us to question this stuff. In my view, the wearing of the full veil is dictated by the mores of muslim men, rather than women.

But that's another agument.

You know, Jamie, I can scarcely believe what I read from you!

The original article defending the use of the veil is something I would expect from Jamal, a fellow writer for Blog Critics Magazine. He lives in Britain and is a Moslem, and this is an issue that could legitimately concern him.

You take up the cudgels for Moslem women to wear the veil - this, in spite of the fact that Moslems, when they get pissed off at Jews like you, call them their dogs, (al yahud kalabna) and usually follow such a demonstration of sentiment with some kind of violent rioting behavior. So your attitude could be taken as the sign of the liberal minded fellow - until you say (comment #41) that "until you mentioned it in this article, I never heard of a shofar." You grew up in Israel and you never heard of a shofar, Jamie? What insular rock of secular ignorance was your family hiding under there? Did they hate Judaism that much that you learnt nothing of it while living there?

When I gave you the opportunity to defend the right of a fellow Jew to worship in his own homeland when persecuted by police, you shrugged it off with all the ignorance of a dumb Hiloni (Hiloni means "helenist" or secular; not all Hiloni in Israel are dumb)) with no education at all except video games and TV. I know that you are not that stupid.

And even a dumb Hiloni in Israel, snigger as he might at religious Jews, knows what a shofar is.

Jamie, you argue at these issues like Mistress la Spliffe says you do, with no feel for them at all. And while you make an awful big stink about Britsh values, you don't give a damn about your own - the ones you hide and run away from. And you argue your points like a debate captain sitting on the pointy end of a pencil trying to get marks for skill, like Stan Denham describes you. The two of them have got you described like a red nosed shilling (go ahead, look it up, you might learn something - both about coins and authenticity) and that is no compliment.

STM: "My ancestry as a Briton goes back thousands of years and I resent people who want to take advantage of that history and that very liberal society of which I am part (and not just because of a piece of paper informing me I'm a citizen), to tell me that I should reassess what my values are."

Unless you feel that the length of someone's 'ancestry' in a certain place determines the value of their opinion, that's completely irrelevent. No-one is demanding you reassess anything. Has anyone tried to force you to wear a veil? The only one telling other people to reassess their values is you.

"But when people are taking advantage of that, perhaps it's time to tell them where to get off."

Do you call exercising those rights 'taking advantage of them'? If you disagree with people who exercise those rights, you are, in effect, disagreeing with the rights themselves.

Why would I respond to Shiek Halily's comments? As I said in my reply, I can't see how its at all relevent to this discussion. A woman choosing to cover her face with a cloth is completely different from a Shiek going around saying that women who have been raped deserve it for the way they have been dressing. One is an expression of progressive and liberal rights, the other is a stupid idea that should be debated in public to show how stupid it is. I can't see your point.

Ruvy: You're doing your usual thing, where if you have nothing to say about the actual article, you launch into a long analysis about me as a person - an impressive feat, considering all you know of me are the articles I have published here. Invariable, you conclude that I hate myself because I'm Jewish and that I have betrayed my 'brethren' and my Jewishness.

Yawn.

Firstly, I was not brought up in Israel - I left when I was three. Since leaving, I have not spent even one second looking into Judaism and its rites, because it doesn't interest me. I care very much about my own values, some of which include the right to freedom of expression and freedom of religion. Where I feel they are being violated, or are in danger of being violated (as here), I try to speak out. It's quite simple. This article had absolutely nothing to do with Jews, Jewishness, shofars or Israel, which is why I didn't, and won't, waste any time talking about those subjects.

And if you read above, I think you will find it is others making a 'stink' out of British values, not me. I think the whole idea of 'British values' is anachronstic and nonsensical.

I don't have to like the veil. I have some treasured friends who because of lifestyle choice, genetic inclination, social situations or one of many other reasons, could ligitimately be put to death in countries which allow the shiria to be the foundation of their legal systems for not better reason than mohammed says this or that is bad.

So in choosing to dress in this way, and be percieved as a pious muslim, the people who do this are also aligning themselves with some aspects of islam which I abjure.

Can someone help me reconcile myself with the notion that I should stand up for someone who seems to be going out of their way to proclaim that some of my friends and family are worthless.

I don't see how you can reconcile yourself with that notion, but I also don't see how it's relevent here.
Who, exactly, is proclaiming that your friends and family are worthless?

As you said, in some countries women are forced to wear the veil. That's terrible, and the thing that's terrible about it is not the veil, but the coercion. In this society, there are women who wear the veil out of choice, and so there is no coercion. Hence, it's not terrible at all.

So who exactly do you feel is 'going out of their way' to proclaim your friends and family worthless?

Jamie: I still think you sound like a High-School debating captain.

Get off your own pedestal for a moment and consider the current stink I have been discussing with you in relation to the wearing of both the hijab and the veil.

Hilaly, in Australia, believes that unless women cover themselves, and stay in their homes "covered", they are making themselves targets for rape. In essence, he was quite clearly commenting on the long sentences handed down by the courts in the past couple of years to some horrific incidents of gang rape by separate groups of muslim men and boys (who it must be said are not the only males serving rape sentences in Australian jails).

The two things are very much related, in that the wearing of head and body coverings by muslim women is largely a dictate brought about by the mores of muslim men.

The full veil takes it all one step further, and has no place in the modern world.

It is up to us to fight anachronisms such as this, and the skewed thinking that goes with it, rather than "Brtitish values". One comes from liberal, free thought ... the other from a school of thought that would have us turn the clock back many, many hundreds of years.

This skewed thinking, too, has no place in modern Britain ... or modern anywhere, for that matter. The full veil is medieval in its conception and does nothing for the rights of women. And as Jack Straw has said, it may even encourage racism.

And BTW, the children at that Church of England school (the other part of this drama) did complain that they couldn't hear their teacher from behind the veil. I thought the fact they gave her a job in the first place and agreed to her wearing the hijab showed how much Britain is not any longer a racist society.

There have been the usual "scratch the surface" whispers, but let's look clearly at this: This is a religious Anglican school that hired a muslim teacher, for heaven's sake.

The only problem they had was with the full veil, which she didn't wear or mention at the interview. She's fighting it in court, of course, and the British taxpayer once again will be funding it. The whole thing's absurd and another bloody-minded exercise in boundary pushing to see what the reaction will be.

"I still think you sound like a High-School debating captain."

So you keep saying, but I don't know why. What do you want me to do with that? Fine, maybe I do, so what? Comments like this are just meaningless. Anyone can say them. Look, I can too:

S.T.M, get off your high moralising horse for a second and consider the real issue. You sound like my janitor.

It doesn't mean anything, so let's stick to the issues.

"The two things are very much related, in that the wearing of head and body coverings by muslim women is largely a dictate brought about by the mores of muslim men."

I don't see how that follows at all. Something can only be a dictate if it involves coercion. In this country, most women who wear the veil do so out of choice. So there's no dictate. Furthermore, because British Muslim women who wear the veil do so out of choice, they are able to give reasons for why they made that choice. And I haven't heard any woman say she wears the veil because she wants to surrender herself to the 'mores of muslim men'.

"This skewed thinking, too, has no place in modern Britain ... or modern anywhere, for that matter. The full veil is medieval in its conception and does nothing for the rights of women."

Well, to be fair, I think that it is a bit unreasonable to expect a piece of cloth to do something for 'the rights of women'. It's a piece of cloth! And as I said, I would have thought that freedom of expression is a very liberal, progressive value, and one I most certainly want to see in modern Britain.

"And as Jack Straw has said, it may even encourage racism."

Yes, he said that, and I explained in the article why I disagree. Yes, in order for racists to be racist, they need to have something to be racist about. In this case it's the veil. But in the battle between Islam and Islamophobia, or Judaism and anti-Semitism, or any group against any discrimination, who's side should we take? Should we combat the veil-wearers, the Jews and the minorities or should we combat the racists? The answer seems clear to me.

"And BTW, the children at that Church of England school (the other part of this drama) did complain that they couldn't hear their teacher from behind the veil."

All the newspaper accounts I've read of the story say the children didn't complain, and that she taught them unveiled. She only put on the veil when a male member of staff was present.

But anyway, as I've said, the principle is that people should be allowed to do whatever they like so long as it does not harm other people. So if, in this case, the children's education was harmed by her wearing the veil, then she should either take it off or quit. But we're talking about in principle here. Just like even thought I may be against, for health and safety reasons, construction workers wearing stilletos, I am not against stilletos in principle.