« Indonesia: Muslim-Christian Tensions Rising |
| Afghanistan: 13-Year-Old Jailed for Escaping Arranged Marriage »
October 18, 2006
UK: Tony Blair - Muslim Veils Are A "Mark Of Separation"
On October 5 Britain's former foreign secretary, Jack Straw, said that he found the Muslim face veil (nikab or niqab) hindered communications and was a sign of "separation".
On October 10, Tony Blair, appearing in the rain outside Downing Street, talking to BBC TV's Breakfast News, was asked about Straw's comments. He was uneasy, but said: "I think in the end, it's a matter of them choosing what they want to do....But I think the reason why Jack raised this is because these are issues that people do feel quite strongly about and they are trying to say how do we make sense of a different type of society in which we live, how do we make sure people integrate more, how do we make sure that people aren't sort of wanting to separate themselves out from the mainstream of society.... It's a difficult and tricky debate to enter into, as we can see over the past few days."
Since the debate has intensified. An assistant teacher was suspended from a Dewsbury school where she was meant to help children, for whom English was not a first language, to learn English. 23-year old Aishah Azmi wore a veil, and the children had complained that they could not understand her. Though she had not worn her veil when interviewed for the job, Azmi insisted she woul not remove the veil, which led to her suspension.
On Sunday, October 15, we wrote that the race and faith minister, Phil Woolas, agreed with the school decision to sack Azmi, and said she should be sacked. Woolas said: "She cannot teach a classroom of children wearing a veil. You cannot have a teacher who wears a veil simply because there are men in the room. She is denying the right of children to a full education by insisting that she wears the veil. If she is saying that she won't work with men, she is taking away the right of men to work in schools."
"By insisting that she will wear the veil if men are there, she's saying: 'I'll work with women, but not men'. That's sexual discrimination. No head-teacher could agree to that. There are limits in a liberal democracy. There are boundaries in a democracy and this is one of them. It's a boundary we can't cross."
The following day, the MP for Dewsbury, Shahid Malik, agreed that Aishah Azmi should be sacked, saying: "The basic thrust of what Phil says is just common sense. If you are not able to fulfil your job requirements then obviously it will be difficult for you to continue in that particular role."
And now, prime minister Tony Blair has come forward and openly said that he thinks that the Muslim face-veil is a "mark of separation". He made the comments yesterday at a Downing Street press conference. He also said that he supported the school's decision to suspend Aishah Azmi.
The news is carried by the Times, the Telegraph, the Guardian, the Independent and the Mirror.
Blair was asked if a woman who wore a veil could make a full contribution to society. He responded: "It is a mark of separation and that is why it makes other people from outside the community uncomfortable."
"No one wants to say that people don't have the right to do it. That is to take it too far. But I think we need to confront this issue about how we integrate people properly into our society."
Blair said that the decision of whether teachers were allowed to wear veils in schools was a matter for the education authority. He said: "They should be allowed to take that decision. I do support the authority in the way that they have handled this."
Asked specifically about the case of Aishah Azmi, he said: "I simply say that I back their handling of the case. I can see the reason why they came to the decision they did. Difficult though these issues are, they need to be raised and confronted."
He said there was a question about how Islam "comes to terms and is comfortable with" the modern world. He explained: "We have to deal with the debate. People want to know that the Muslim community in particular, but actually all minority communities, have got the balance right between integration and multiculturalism."
Muslims have claimed that Britain's foreign policy in Iraq and Afghanistan has fuelled Muslim extremism. Blair said of this: "It's absurd and you won't defeat this extremism until you take that argument head on. And the real problem we've got is that it has got to be taken head on in the Muslim community as well."
After the conference, a Downing Street official explained that the debate over the veil had not been engineered by ministers, but it could not be evaded. The representative said: "It isn't just a debate that affects Muslims, it's also a debate which affects non-Muslims. You can't just put your head in the sand and say these issues don't exist."
Mrs Azmi is currently awaiting an employment tribunal with Kirklees Council contesting the decision by Headfield Church of England Junior School to have her suspended. The Mirror reports that her lawyer has threatened to sue Tony Blair, claiming that his comments will interfere with the hearing.
Posted by Giraldus Cambrensis at October 18, 2006 4:40 AM
Comments
In the whole of the UK there is a small percentage of Muslim women who wear the long gown and scarf. Even smaller is the percentage of Muslim women who veil their face.
Britain is shouting out for them to integrate. Believe me, they do.
They go to markets, post offices, banks, local govt offices to pay rent/tax/ask for advice and information, parks, museums, hotels, restaurants, holiday cottages, colleges, universities.
If the veil is banned you are making these ppl house bound. Period.
It is a requirement of their religion to cover themselves, whatever their interpretation of covering is. If one believes it is the hair and body, they will cover that. If one believes it is hair, body and face; they will cover that.
So banning the veil is actually defeating the whole purpose and reason for the ban. The oppression you believe these women are under will then be real, and from the ppl that wanted to liberate and integrate them! Ironic, wouldn’t you think?
Come on ppl, open up the windows and doors of your brains and dust out the info you've been trying to cram in there. This minority group within the minority group. Is this blown-out-of-total-proportion fuss really necessary.
Posted by: Empresss ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.westernresistance.com/nav-commenters.gif)
at October 18, 2006 8:11 AM
Empress
When people come to live in our country they are welcome. But they must adopt British ways ..." when in Rome ..."
You try walking around in Saudi Arabia with bare arms or legs (even if only from the knee down) and see how long it is before you find the bare bits whipped by an iron rod wielded by a member of the muttawa.
And their religion does NOT call on them to do this. They are making a political statement of separation, and/or they are being forced into it by the less reasonable members of their community.
They insist. So we insist. It's called reciprocity.
It's not even so much what the veil is, as what it represents.
I saw that teacher's assistant being interviewed, and I could hardly understand what she was saying - what chance would little kids have?
And last but not least, I'm personally offended by it - they're really saying that if they don't cover up then we brutish men, on sight of them, wont be able to control our animal instincts and might sexually assault them. I bloody resent that.
Posted by: Sir Henry Morgan at October 18, 2006 8:59 AM
Empress, I have to say you are a classic example of an idiot and personify why we have trouble in the western nations today.
Surrender monkeys as yourself argue and side with muslims when NO muslims argue on our behalf here in the western world. They are all united in their cause to kill and enslave us and you divide us.
How dare you side and whine for muslim women!
Do you honestly think they would care or cry for you if you lived or were visiting in their islamic nations?
Of course not, you are just a kaffir and an infidel whose life is meaningless under their laws and koran.
You also need to stop claiming radical or violent muslims are a tiny minority WHEN THEY ARE ALL VIOLENT AND NEVER HAS 1 ANYWHERE ON THIS PLANET HELPED A WESTERN GOVT HELP STOP A BOMBING ATTACK ON A DEMOCRATIC NATION!!!
You are a traitor and an imbecile.
Posted by: Hungarian Crusader at October 18, 2006 10:54 AM
Hungarian Crusader,
It is no need to resort to personal insults against Empress (as well as Empress wouldn't need to resort to attacking our weak brains) !
But he makes a point : it is likely that SOME women would be confined home, wouldn't be the veil.
But anyway, if the face-covering veil is banned in every places where security needs people to be identified (i.e. in every public place), I don't think that, in the long run, there will be more women confined to home than they are with the veil. On the contrary, I think that if the State sets these kind of clear rules, in the long run, people who are trying to put islamic rules in force will finish to step back. At least if the rules of the State are strong enough, and accompanied by clear sanctions. On the contrary, if we let it be as it is, there will be more and more muslim husbands (and neighbours, brothers, etc.) who will force their wives to wear it (and confine them to home, anyhow).
In the case of this "teacher", it seems to me totally evident that she wasn't forced by her husband, but that she is a militant who is testing the boundaries to set them a little further. Unfortunately for her, and most fortunately for us and for thousands of other muslim women, this time, after so many extravagant muslim claims, our governments seem to wake up, and her attempt has failed.
As for my personal feeling about veil, even when it doesn't cover the face, it scares me ! Each time I see women in veil, in stores, in streets (except sometimes old women who have weared it from the time of their childhood), it strikes me as much as an open declaration of war...
Posted by: Spipou at October 20, 2006 1:00 AM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)