Official asks visitors to take off veil

Riverwind · October 7, 2006

And of all people you always know for sure who is being coerced and who is not?

No - but we can a pretty damn good guess by looking at the way cultures that force women to were viels treat their women in other ways....

myata · October 7, 2006

No - but we can a pretty damn good guess by looking at the way cultures that force women to were viels treat their women in other ways....

OK, leaving out this "cultures" thing, can I rephrase it to say that by looking at a person you can pretty damn good guess what they think and how they will behave?

Riverwind · October 7, 2006

OK, leaving out this "cultures" thing, can I rephrase it to say that by looking at a person you can pretty damn good guess what they think and how they will behave?

In this case it is irrelevant what the individual thinks. Viels are tools used to oppress women and have no place in our society just like numerous other offensive cultural practices such as polygamy.

myata · October 7, 2006

So you absolutely deny that an individual may wear a veil out of their own will and by consent?

Let's parse this statement logically:

- you see the veil;

- you know that it's "used to oppress women";

- you know that she thinks (being oppressed) and how she'll behave (as one being oppressed).

So there's no error in my previous post. Congratulations, you're gifted with a rare indeed ability to read the mind (and make absolute moralistic statements as a bonus).

jbg · October 7, 2006

In this CBC report, Jack Straw "asks muslim women to remove their veil" while visiting him. I can certainly see when it would be a justified measure e.g. for security. But as a personal preference, "for comfort" of a public official? What if someone else felt more comfort if their visitors removed their clothes? (I can certainly see how some visitors would be discomforted equally by either request). What's this "comfort" thing anyway? Aren't they supposed to be paid in proportion to the thickness of their skin?

From my information, the Muslim head covering is a relatively new addition to the religion, designed more to set Muslim women apart from greater society than to serve any real traditional function. Frankly, Jack Straw is right. Even if I'm wrong about the role of the head covering in Islam, these people are in Britain, not in Pakistan. Time for a bit of social integration.

As far as Orthodox Jews go, my experience is that most remove their yarmulkes when in Court, meetings, etc. And a yarmulke is far less intrusive than head scarfs.

Argus · October 7, 2006

The veil is a religous thing, big deal.

No, in fact it is not a religious thing. It is a cultural thing.

Argus · October 7, 2006

The point is that it is their culture not ours.

Yes, but they are in our countries, interacting with us, and I think it is incumbant upon us to make it clear that we find this cultural practice disturbing. It is, as has been said, a sign of a woman's inferiority, a removal of her status as a person. It is not something which should be encouraged in Western societies.

Argus · October 7, 2006

As Jack Straw pointed out on Thursday, we relate to people we do not know by reading their faces, and if you cannot see the face, there is a degree of "separation" that is not conducive to healthy community relations.

Integration Cannot be achieved behind a Veil

For a few Muslim girls in this country, wearing the veil is a form of oppression imposed by their families; for more, it is a form of teenage rebellion, of showing more commitment than their parents – a religious version of wearing a hoodie. In both cases, the veil becomes more than a garment sanctioned by custom: it turns into a hostile statement about the society in which the wearer lives.

Extremists must be seen

geoffrey · October 7, 2006

Would you be willing to negotiate a business deal with someone wearing a mask? I wouldn't. Seeing someone else's face is a fundemental part of face to face communication. Like I said, if someone does not want to have a face to face conversation with a politician there is always the phone or e-mail.

Riverwind is 100% right here, I wouldn't deal with someone hiding their face.

Would you be ok with allowing genital mutilation or perhaps allowing parents to keep girls out of school. The fact is there are many cultural practices that are pretty disgusting and we have to draw the line somewhere. I choose to draw the line at veils - you may choose to draw the line at genital mutilation and polygamy but we are both drawing arbitrary lines. I draw the line at any practice which I believe is used to deny rights from people (usually woman).

Right again. It's clearly a form of oppression, if you don't wear it, you get beaten/stoned. How can one choose not to? Do those that support the Taliban and other governments oppression of women really believe they choose to wear the veil for fun?! No, it's so they don't get killed.

--

Jack is right here. It's not racist, wrong, anything to ask someone to remove a face covering before entering a discussion. If any of you walked into my office wearing a ski mask, I don't think I'd be wrong to ask you to take it off. I don't see the difference. This is Canada (or in Jack's case UK), not Saudi Arabia. We have business customs that are meant to be adhered to, and one is not covering your face.

newbie · October 7, 2006

Imagine one or two of them in a police lineup. "Yeah officer, number 4. I can tell by her eyes she's the murderer." I would certainly draw the line with driver's licenses and any pic for security. I remember when we had a lot of Shieks over here and came to work in the coal mine. They had to take off their turbans and put on a hard hat, and they did so with no problem.

myata · October 8, 2006

Well, if it was made a policy, it'd be instantly challenged on the grounds of discrimination and freedom of religion. As Supreme Court already made decisions based on "reasonable accommodation", such a policy would probably be stricken down unless it can be proven that wearing a veil can bring real harm. Good luck trying to prove it. I believe that school in Quebec had a stronger case with ceremonial knife.

If, on the other hand, such decisions were left entirely to the preference of the official, one may question how far should these preferences be allowed to go? E.g. can an official express a preference to deal with young good looking women? only with individuals who are impeckably dressed including full business suit and a tie? and so on?

betsy · October 8, 2006

I was looking at the photo on the link...and I would feel uncomfortable talking to someone whose face is all covered in black, except for the eyes.

I guess I watch too many thrillers and crime movies....when they show the bank robbers having hoods on their heads with only the eyes showing. I don't know if they call those robbers' hoods baklava?

geoffrey · October 8, 2006

The more I think of it, these veils are clearly a security threat, if I was to wear a hood around town, bank ABM cameras, ect. wouldn't recognize me. I'm sure I'd be questioned at least but one of these extremists? Nope.

Complete anonymity at all times, it's definitely not equal, especially when one can refuse to remove the veil on religious grounds. These people are far greater threats to our safety to begin with, and now we allow them to hide their identities?

I say we ban this security threat and oppressive tool from our society, the French did it in their schools, let's take it a step further.

Higgly · October 8, 2006

The more I think of it, these veils are clearly a security threat, if I was to wear a hood around town, bank ABM cameras, ect. wouldn't recognize me. I'm sure I'd be questioned at least but one of these extremists? Nope.
Complete anonymity at all times, it's definitely not equal, especially when one can refuse to remove the veil on religious grounds. These people are far greater threats to our safety to begin with, and now we allow them to hide their identities?

I say we ban this security threat and oppressive tool from our society, the French did it in their schools, let's take it a step further.

A security threat. Jeez. How many acts of violence have been committed in Britain by moslem women wearing veils? Say compared to British louts wearing football club jerseys?

Argus · October 8, 2006

Well, if it was made a policy, it'd be instantly challenged on the grounds of discrimination and freedom of religion.

It is not a religious issue, but a cultural issue. There is nothing in Islam which demands women be covered in bedsheets wherever they go.

betsy · October 8, 2006

The more I think of it, these veils are clearly a security threat, if I was to wear a hood around town, bank ABM cameras, ect. wouldn't recognize me. I'm sure I'd be questioned at least but one of these extremists? Nope.

Complete anonymity at all times, it's definitely not equal, especially when one can refuse to remove the veil on religious grounds. These people are far greater threats to our safety to begin with, and now we allow them to hide their identities?

I say we ban this security threat and oppressive tool from our society, the French did it in their schools, let's take it a step further.

A security threat. Jeez. How many acts of violence have been committed in Britain by moslem women wearing veils? Say compared to British louts wearing football club jerseys?

For the simple reason of IDENTIFICATION!

Some criminal may just decide to get into drag....dressed like a Muslim woman (all covered and all) to get into a place to do a crime!

So what do witnesses have to say when asked to describe the criminal? Just the color of the eyes?

Try wearing a Jason mask and go inside a bank. Let us know what happened.

Higgly · October 8, 2006

The more I think of it, these veils are clearly a security threat, if I was to wear a hood around town, bank ABM cameras, ect. wouldn't recognize me. I'm sure I'd be questioned at least but one of these extremists? Nope.

Complete anonymity at all times, it's definitely not equal, especially when one can refuse to remove the veil on religious grounds. These people are far greater threats to our safety to begin with, and now we allow them to hide their identities?

I say we ban this security threat and oppressive tool from our society, the French did it in their schools, let's take it a step further.

A security threat. Jeez. How many acts of violence have been committed in Britain by moslem women wearing veils? Say compared to British louts wearing football club jerseys?

For the simple reason of IDENTIFICATION!

Some criminal may just decide to get into drag....dressed like a Muslim woman (all covered and all) to get into a place to do a crime!

So what do witnesses have to say when asked to describe the criminal? Just the color of the eyes?

Try wearing a Jason mask and go inside a bank. Let us know what happened.

Or try wearing sunglasses, a wig and fake beard. Or fake eyebrows, die your hair and wear a fake big nose. Or wear a really loud outfit that diverts attention from your facial features. Or all of the above. Or some of the above. This is a red herring.

betsy · October 9, 2006

The more I think of it, these veils are clearly a security threat, if I was to wear a hood around town, bank ABM cameras, ect. wouldn't recognize me. I'm sure I'd be questioned at least but one of these extremists? Nope.

Complete anonymity at all times, it's definitely not equal, especially when one can refuse to remove the veil on religious grounds. These people are far greater threats to our safety to begin with, and now we allow them to hide their identities?

I say we ban this security threat and oppressive tool from our society, the French did it in their schools, let's take it a step further.

A security threat. Jeez. How many acts of violence have been committed in Britain by moslem women wearing veils? Say compared to British louts wearing football club jerseys?

For the simple reason of IDENTIFICATION!

Some criminal may just decide to get into drag....dressed like a Muslim woman (all covered and all) to get into a place to do a crime!

So what do witnesses have to say when asked to describe the criminal? Just the color of the eyes?

Try wearing a Jason mask and go inside a bank. Let us know what happened.

Or try wearing sunglasses, a wig and fake beard. Or fake eyebrows, die your hair and wear a fake big nose. Or wear a really loud outfit that diverts attention from your facial features. Or all of the above. Or some of the above. This is a red herring.

Yes you can try all of the above too. But I bet the best disguise is still that of a Muslim woman.

Riverwind · October 9, 2006

As Supreme Court already made decisions based on "reasonable accommodation", such a policy would probably be stricken down unless it can be proven that wearing a veil can bring real harm. Good luck trying to prove it. I believe that school in Quebec had a stronger case with ceremonial knife.

You misunderstand the ruling on knives. It only applies to schools because children are forced attend school therefore the 'duty to accommodate' must meet a much higher standard. The gov't is free to ban knives in numerous other situations such as when a Sikh makes the choice to board an aircraft. I don't know if they have metal detectors set up in the parliament buildings but if they did then that would mean a Sikh would have leave their knife at the door before they could meet a politician in their office.

One thing to consider is why someone would need to meet face to face with any public official within their office in the first place. In most cases this personal meeting is used to persuade a gov't official to assist the person in a way that cannot be done over the phone or by mail. This usually implies there is something special or unique about the person's situation which the official must take into account. IOW, the gov't official has a real need to assess the sincerity of the person and a veil prevents the public official from doing their job properly. I cannot think of any example where a person would need a face to face meeting with a public official where there is no need for the official to do a 'sincerity assessment'.

geoffrey · October 9, 2006

A security threat. Jeez. How many acts of violence have been committed in Britain by moslem women wearing veils? Say compared to British louts wearing football club jerseys?

And how many murders have been commited using a a howitizer in Canada? I maintain I should be able to have one in my backyard since it's never been an issue before.

I can't believe your so blind to the threat of people hiding their identity behind 'religion.' It's not their religion, it's oppression.

Or try wearing sunglasses, a wig and fake beard. Or fake eyebrows, die your hair and wear a fake big nose. Or wear a really loud outfit that diverts attention from your facial features. Or all of the above. Or some of the above. This is a red herring.

Absolutely not. People should be easily identifiable by law enforcement people. Do they take of their veils in ID pictures? I've never heard of the situation, hopefully they are forced to reveal their faces at least for that.

betsy · October 9, 2006

There were women suicide bombers.

And with the Al Qaeda threats, plus the London bombing...I don't think it is unreasonable for any government officials to demand such a thing.

The Muslim woman should be the first one to understand that feeling...doesn't she know what's happening in England....what more, around the world?

Instead of trying to politicize this like what she's trying to do, spurring the lefties to be indignant and outrage for her (and obviously it's working)......she should just comply with the demand if she really wants to speak to Straw.

At least from random interviews done by the correspondent in London, several English people are supportive of Jack Straw. It is said that his stance may even prove to make him popular....and I wouldn't be surprised.

jbg · October 10, 2006

There were women suicide bombers.

That's a sure sign of Taliban moderation. As Taliban Jack would explain, women are being given equal opportunity to spread nails laced with arsenic via an exploding vest, causing themselves and others around them a horrible, senseless death. At least it complies with anti-gender discrimination notions of fairness.

myata · October 10, 2006

What's always puzzling to me is the effortless ease with which certain group of people advocating less government involvement in general turn around on a dime to favour strict policies on specific, especially social issues. One'd think, if you wouldn't have govt involved in educating children, building roads and providing medical assistence, maybe it shouldn't bother with people's clothing or the way they marry either?

geoffrey · October 10, 2006

What's always puzzling to me is the effortless ease with which certain group of people advocating less government involvement in general turn around on a dime to favour strict policies on specific, especially social issues. One'd think, if you wouldn't have govt involved in educating children, building roads and providing medical assistence, maybe it shouldn't bother with people's clothing or the way they marry either?

It's not a piece of clothing, it's a disguise. I don't think people should be free to disguise their identity when in negotiations with government or business.

This isn't Saudi Arabia, women can show their faces in our countries. We should be protecting this oppressed minority, not encouraging their husband's control over their lives in our free countries.

M.Dancer · October 10, 2006

We should be protecting this oppressed minority, not encouraging their husband's control over their lives in our free countries.

Surprisingly, mainly women adopt a viel by choice. I often see groups of women together, some covered tete a pied, some merely wearing a scarf and others dressed only modestly.

The neighbourhood I live in has many orthodox jews. My wife comented to me one day, sying how odd it was, that all the women should have similiar hair styles.

I told her they were wigs.....