‘Jack – Don’t bite the hand that feeds you’

Jack Straws latest comments on ‘lifting the veil’, bringing the very sector of the community that swings his vote and gives him his electoral victories which have helped to build his career shows he has no respect or regard for the very sector of the community upon which he relies upon at election time.

 

Jack has not requested the veil to be removed, he claims he will not attend anyone in his surgery unless they are willing to remove their veil – this is surely a DEMAND not a request.

We will discuss more on whether he has any rights to make this demand or not  not later but it has brought back memories for me. I studied at an all girls convent school in Preston and I remember my father telling me that an all covered lady (the Headmistress who was a Nun) who also had her head covered in a Hijab style had told him that if his girls were to come to that school they would have to show their legs as they would have to wear the uniform. I recall my father saying that his response had been to her that if she was willing to show her legs he would allow his daughters to do the same. The result? The headmistress agreed that we could wear the uniform with a close fitting white trouser under the uniform. Speaks volumes doesn’t it?

Before attacking other religions or cultures cast a glance at your own and you will see that your own does not tell you much different. If you wish to disregard your religious and cultural values is a different matter but does not affect the fact that they do exist.

 

Freedom of Speech

Religion and culture are two items which often go hand in hand with each other and are often confused. They are practiced in varying degrees of strictness, some people practice their religion others are in name only. Some are orthodox, some have discarded all culture and value. Often this is displayed in dress as well as behaviour as can be seen with the dress of the Quakers and Nuns as well as the different types of dresses worn by muslims.

Majority remain moderate in all societies. Therefore to use the views of the minority to uproot and give opportunity to small thinking biased and prejudiced people who believe in freedom of speech for themselves but forget about freedom of expression for the other is completely wrong, disruptive and divisive in society.

Whilst mentioning this I should like to say that the Conservative Party MP, David Davies is also out of order insinuating that such dress code is making Britain into an apartheid system. Such comments only lead to more divisions and separation of the cultures as inevitable resentment comes into play.

It is difficult to reconcile how Jack Straws or David Davies comments will help to aid ‘positive relations between the two communities’ when he has given the excuse for divisions to open up and attack an element that has not been thought of being attacked in this country before. Namely, dress.

 

In a country where the dress code originates with wearing full dresses over the entire body and including hats to cover the head often with a veil to cover the face, this is rife hypocrisy.

Just because majority in this country choose to wear provocative clothes which could be found to be offensive by others with breasts protruding for all to see, stomachs showing and encouraging half the backsides to show in daily wear does not make it compulsive dressing for everyone.

It beggars belief that these people who wish to discard their own religion and culture now wish to impose their beliefs on others who wish to retain their chastity and modesty.

If we can tolerate these people we can surely tolerate the people who wish to remain silent and in the background.

One would have thought it was a duty of politicians to encourage integration in behaviour as well as words not to assist in divisions by sparking off controversy by blaming an entire minority in a misrepresentation of an issue which is only held by a few.

 

Thanks to Straws comments incidents have already occurred involving assaults by people pulling the veils from women.

This is a start, where is it all to lead and where do you draw the line in dictating what others should or should not wear?

Freedom of speech is limited to where it does not affect or incite violence on others. But Jack would know that being one of the Ministers involved in passing such laws or were those laws only passed to silence the Muslims? When muslims feel they have a right to be called British and have equal rights to have their views heard that is when you know that the process of integration has started. Silencing their voices and thoughts cannot assist the integration process.

But what else can you expect from someone who was involved in decisions which on their own rules is guilty of war crimes?

 

Gone are the days when women were being forced to cover their heads or wear veils. After the ‘emancipation’ age of women who tried to integrate in this society without success, despite wearing the same clothes, came the era of acknowledgement and realization of the values of religion and culture.

Now, the women who wear the Hijab or veil do so because of their own wish and belief. This is a natural reaction to when a persons belief is attacked. The desire to know more about it and what it stands for. Through this discovery, many learnt there was more peace in the religion and culture than in discarding it and the natural response of protecting what is sacred and personal to yourself.

The more Islam has been openly attacked I have seen the intellectual non-muslims turning to read and understand it before they make their comments. Thanks to this I have now personally seen more converts to Islam than ever before who in their voyage of discovery have found something in it that is lacking elsewhere.

The ones who make volatile comments are generally the ignorant people who know nothing of the religion they wish to attack. Invariably, ignorance breeds fear and violence. So how is Jacks comment going to help forge ‘better positive relations’ between the communities when all he did was give fuel to such people?

 

The voice that is really speaking is again the voice of male chauvinism albeit from a different angle.

After all, the veil is worn so that no man (indiscriminately) should see their face (except husband, father or brother), the veil is removed when in front of women or close family members. Therefore, there is no reason why this would prevent the ladies choosing to wear it not lead intelligent, articulate and active lives.

The only people being excluded are men and the ones objecting will be the ones who, whilst keeping their own wives away from certain societies will find it offensive if they are not able to fulfill their own lurid desires of scanning women.

This so called liberated society for women in which from shampoo to chocolates are sold by display of the female form and using the woman as a sex symbol of pleasure and in which many professions still remain male dominated where the only means of succeeding is to accede to the desires of the males with regards to dress and attire wreaks of male chauvinism.

 

Issues of security can easily be protected by having a lady check beneath the veil before anyone even goes into Jack Straws surgery. So that is clearly not the issue. So what is the issue Jack?

You claim you wish to see the persons face in having dialogue – may I remind you that according to psychology, the part of the body most expressive in obtaining face to face dialogue is the EYES and you may recall these are not generally covered even if the veil is worn.

So what is your problem – why do you need to see the faces – is it to satisfy your male ego that you are not being excluded by them? Why do you need such an intimate dialogue with them when they are only coming to your surgery for advice, not to endear themselves personally to a man of position and rank?

Would you ask a punk rocker or such like who has a weird hairdo to change his hairstyle otherwise you would not do your job? Or a woman who came provocatively dressed to change her attire? I think not.

 

If you feel you have the right to make conditions to do the job for which these very people voted you in to do and feel you have a right to unveil their wives then maybe next time they should also make it conditional that they wish to see your wife in a very liberated British outfit of a skimpy bikini and parade in front of especially Asian men, before they are willing to give you their vote.

Sounds different when it concerns yourself doesn’t it? Think about it Jack………………

 

Please send us your viewpoints by letter or preferably by email to thewhitecastletrust@yahoo.co.uk will attempt to print as many as possible. Remember to secure your views and your future in this country you will need to become active and write in.