the veil in recent events

I think so, though he must have known the likely reaction. TBH, this is always a difficult thing - should you criticise a community that is already under attack, knowing that it will be jumped on by racists, or do you keep quiet about things you don't like about it in the interests of some mythical social harmony.

Fairly obviously I think we should criticise one and all.

Regards,

martin

no i don't think Jack Straw was trying to be racist but once it was out it was always going to frame all discussion in such a manner. I do think Jack Straw was talking shite when he moved from a position of "personally i ask people to remove the veil" to one of it contributing to racial division.

I mean being lectured by a government minister on such a matter is abit like Jack the ripper giving you a bollocking for demeaning women cos you've just cracked a blonde joke, or like Jack giving a lecture on internet etiquette.

French thing is not racist by the way. The law is fairly old and was instituted when there were few or no muslims in France iirc. However it was widely ignored and has been enforced in a racist manner (like most laws in France)

I think the French ban is clearly racist. It was a clear attempt to pander to a rising anti-Arabic/immigrant sentiment in France by updating old principles so that they directly challenged Muslims in France.

I think this also completely misses the context in which the statement was made. Clearly we are in a situation in which Muslims are one of the new enemies. And Straw's attempt to paint himself as the reasonable-minded public servant simply trying to speak on an open and equal basis to women coming to his MP's surgery is obviously complete nonsense - he's a top-ranking (although recently demoted) government minister meeting with some of the least empowered people in the country!! As I understand it, he made these comments in a local newspaper interview in his local constituency (Blackburn - with a high Muslim constituency) - I really don't think we can believe that he is so naive or politically inexperienced to be unaware of the likely response to this. In fact I'm inclined to think it was an attempt to cash in on the recent controversy surrounding Muslims and raise his profile after his recent demotion for not being tough enough on Iran.

well obviously the veil and the balaclava are completely different. But I certainly think that if you wanted to wear a balaclava for a legitimate reason, say you had some kind of skin condition, e.g., then there would be absolutely no reason to sack you for it.

I sort of agree with this, and we had another debate at the time of the veil statement in which I said so - see here. The point for me is that criticism of some of the more reactionary elements of Islam should not be made by the even more reactionary elements of the British state - and when they are, it's more important, for me, to point out the huge power imbalances between members of the New Labour government and Muslim women in Britain, than it is to support the sentiments of the government's critique.

well, that's exactly what Chirac and Raffarin were arguing at the time, but I think it's difficult to deny that it was directly targeted at the veil in reality.

ok, so now your argument is what? you obviously don't really believe this. That any argument can be made to sound reasonable/legitimate?

what relativist stuff? - I was making a clear case for tolerance and equality. That's hardly relativist. You, on the other hand, seem to think that an argument involving aliens could be made to sound reasonable - that seems pretty relativist to me.

right, whereas islam and chistianity et al have wonderfully rational bases for their beliefs

i didn't follow it closely so i'm kind of taking Jef's word for it tbh. there are several leaps required for the law itself to be racist, firstly from 'religious symbols' as the letter of the law to islamic veils in practice, then to see islam as a 'race' and not a belief system.

You seemed relativist by suggesting a muslim's veil is justified whereas John. or my balaclava isn't on grounds of some kind of unspecified cultural autonomy/authenticity, like when people excuse female genital mutilation on grounds of 'cultural difference'.

ok i see what you're saying - its no business of the state to tell people how to dress - agreed. meaning always elludes language

ahh, the tried and tested legal test of 'honest belief', or 'are you a pisstaker or just an irrationalist' . fair enough.

yeah like i say i don't know the details so i'm not going to argue the toss. i just took Jef's word for it pretty much on the grounds of geography, which isn't exactly becoming of scholarly rigour

30 for me, i'll try and think of something controversial

well obviously I agree, as this is what I've been trying to argue. But why, then, don't you view Jack Straw's attack, in a very similar context, in the same way?

well it isn't, clearly, but was the law specifically aimed at muslims, or were they simply the most visible religious presence in a political game over the Proud Secular Traditions of the French Nation? I mean it seems just as likely it was opportunistic politicking as racism per se, like the turkey-france tit-for-tat over whether you must or must not deny the armenian genocide ...

yeah maybe, but i'm going home in 5 minutes

Wanka!

i repeat,

people debate what people wear all the time you precious knob. and since the debate hit the headlines and is an active one you can't make it go away by ignoring it but rather you have to engage with it in order to show how ludricous it is and furthermore the social forces that have engender it and which are veiled (fuck that just gave me a hard on) behind it.

well that's a fantastic freedom. Why would not wearing the veil stop them doing any of that?