Video: Tony Blair calls the veil a “mark of separation”
posted at 1:47 pm on October 17, 2006 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Thanks much to kasper kasper, our man in the UK, for clipping this. The news services are already buzzing about it.
Blair, like the public, is siding with Jack Straw, but I don’t know what he hopes or expects to happen here. If the wearing of the veil is a matter of faith or “identity” then Muslim women aren’t going to take it off simply to put the infidel at ease. Parliament could, presumably, pass a law prohibiting veils outright: it’d be the legislative version of that suttee anecdote Mark Steyn keeps foisting on us, and actually wouldn’t be as draconian as some measures taken in the U.S. to help integrate minorities. But I don’t see how it could be reconciled with the UK’s quasi-constitutional tradition of religious freedom.
One of our commenters criticized me the other day for offering no solutions to hard problems like Iraq and North Korea. Well, here you go, buddy. Here’s another one for the “intractable” pile.
This story doesn’t fit here except insofar as it involves Britain and Islam, but it’s irresistible so I’m linking it anyway. How much you want to bet we’re going to see it mentioned in an upcoming Steyn column as a new metaphor for something or other? All the elements are there: Europe, the crescent, violence, and sex. Does it demonstrate how continentals seduced by the new faith turn quickly to violence? Does it demonstrate how dangerous people are capable of striking you at home, no matter how far away they seem? Or does it demonstrate that Europe is so anti-reproduction it can’t even tolerate a little harmless macking in an Internet chat room? The possibilities are endless!
Update: Count leftist Italian PM Romano Prodi among the Blair/Straw contingent.
Update: Another Steyn metaphor in the making. Heh.
Update: The latest country to oppose the veil? Egypt.
Note well:
Saleh, known in Egypt as “the women’s mufti” for her numerous fatwas, or religious edicts relating to women, rebutted on daily al-Sharq Al-Awsat, that hers was “a personal comment on an increasingly common phenomenon but which was not meant in any way to offend women.”
“There is a significant difference between the hijab, a simple veil which frames the face, and the niqab, which leaves only the eyes visible” she added. “The first is a religious duty, but the second is a sheer cultural convention, which has no raison d’etre in Islamic sources” she said.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Couldn’t he have waited until after Ramadan? I’m webraged!
Valiant on October 17, 2006 at 1:56 PM
I think the British and Europe have been at a crossroads for a while, stalled by an intentional or untintentional lack of will. I think it’s inevitable they will split on the greater issue of whether to try and cultivate European Islam, or treat it as a threat. Europe can be saved, but it’s doubtful.
Free Constitution on October 17, 2006 at 2:01 PM
This really is nuts. You bet the veil is a repressive thing. You bet it makes people uncomfortable. At some point, it would be nice for the Muslims to graduate from the 1600’s. The veil makes freaks out of people and is a testment to intellectual bondage.
When in Rome, do as the Romans. Stay in the dunes if you want to wear a veil. Otherwise, get with the program.
Shmo on October 17, 2006 at 2:04 PM
We also allowed Utah to become a state only if it prohibited polygamy. This is actually a better example, because it involves integrating a minority by forcing the minority to change. And it involves religion.
Attila (Pillage Idiot) on October 17, 2006 at 2:05 PM
My wife woke up in the middle of the night just last night. She was freaked out from a nightmare. When I asked what it was about she said she was forced to wear a veil. She threw it in the garbage at an airport in protest and thus not allowed to leave the airport grounds.
That freaked me out, ’cause she doesn’t read about this stuff, at all. She leaves that stuff to me. Yin & Yang, right?
Editor on October 17, 2006 at 2:13 PM
I mean, look at the burka. That is the most stupid garb I have ever seen in my life. It is even more stupid than rapper shorts. Imagine trying to cross a busy street in that getup. You would be a sitting duck. what about bumping a bee hive in one. Recon you would get stung? People do really stupid things, and the burka takes the cake. And these people are going to take over the world? I think not.
Shmo on October 17, 2006 at 2:22 PM
We need to get a Steyn Metaphorometer going. The chat room thing is around 5 or 6 I think, but the priests-building-mosques has got to be at least a 9.
Alex K on October 17, 2006 at 2:23 PM
Editor, there’s a popular theory (a friend told me) that couples after a while synchronize their brainwave patterns during the night. No kidding.
As for the hijab, it should be noted that Muslim clerics in Iran only discovered in 1979 that the Quran mandates it.
Niko on October 17, 2006 at 2:24 PM
Good example, but isn’t there still a few close-knit communities that practice monogamy without much law enforcement interference?
And, Allah, if what you quoted about the veils is true, then there would be no intrusion of religious rights if the burka hoods were outlawed. Besides, allowing a large portion of the population to walk around masked is problematic, as seen through the ridiculous hospital gowns that were recently designed.
Esthier on October 17, 2006 at 2:52 PM
Didn’t the Paris school system ban all headcoverings a couple of years back? I’ve not read anything in the headlines about it lately, so I don’t know if this means the policy was reversed or whether the ban has been (grudgingly) accepted, but it is a precedent for the Brits to consider.
AP? I always figured you for Steyn-esque pessimist concerning the future of Europe. And here you go goofing on the man’s wordsmithing?! The nerve!
;)
Kadnine on October 17, 2006 at 2:56 PM
AP:
I’m sorry, but I’m not quite following you here. I don’t think this had to do with a conversion per say. Unless this is some sort of metaphore for how Islam and violence always seemed to be intertwined “Religeon of Peace” not withstanding.
Timesonline:
EFG on October 17, 2006 at 2:56 PM
I’ll say! Bahrain had to establish a rule that, while women are allowed to drive cars (they’re liberal that way) they couldn’t drive while covered. Reason? Too many young studs were dressing in drag in order to cruise unchaperoned!
Yet another reason to ban the hats. Muslims seem determined to drive London back into the Victorian era. What’s next? Corsets? Feinting? Feathered fans?
Kadnine on October 17, 2006 at 3:05 PM
In this day and age of thin being so very much in, I think some women would welcome a corset. It would allow them to be as fat as they want while still being able to keep an hour glass figure under a dress.
Esthier on October 17, 2006 at 3:54 PM
Great book: Murder in Amsterdam. Talks about the issue of a religious minority that can’t/won’t assimilate into the overall culture. What’s intriguing is the Dutch still have a lot of Anne Frank angst.
Intractable–you can say that again.
Making the veil illegal is silly IMO. Attacking the symbol of the problem, not the problem.
honora on October 17, 2006 at 3:59 PM
I’m sure most of Utah practices monogamy without much law enforcement interference…
I think you mean bigamy, and yes there are some wackos in the four corners area that practice bigamy. However, the FBI and the local officals are trying to crack down on them (like Jeffs) when they are doing something beyond the “consensual adults” thing.
It is also improtant to note that the offical “Mormon” Chruch of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has not practiced bigamy since before 1900. However like most churches, the radicals offshoots have their own ideas.
“Westboro Baptist Church” being an example of an extreme offshoot of the otherwise respectable Baptist Church.
E L Frederick on October 17, 2006 at 4:26 PM
There are some very tentative signs that Europe might, just might, be starting to awake to the problem of the strong and growing anti-West Islam in its midst. The demographics are so on Islam’s side that it may be too late, but at least they’ve gotten to the point (at least England has) where talk about veiling is no longer taboo. That’s a huge step forward in itself.
I think PC Europeans know in their heart of hearts that even “moderate Islam” contains a threat to them, but they are terrified to say the truth out loud because of the PC police. What Blair and Straw are doing is unexpected and brave, and sets a welcome precedent.
Halley on October 17, 2006 at 4:35 PM
The hijab as I understand it is just a head covering and it does not cover the face. SOmething akin to what Jackie O wore in the sixties. This actually may have some religious significance – covering the head before God. WE see affinities in the Catholic as well as Jewish tradition.
The full face covering is rediculous there is no religious reason for this other than the community finds muslim men dogs-in-heat all the time. This may be true I don’t know but if the sight of a womans nose drives you into a testosterone rage that ruins all of your pure pious thoughts then all these men need to seek help or just all get together and blow themselves
up in the desert. The idea of protecting women by hiding them is stupid. These men need some anti-viagra.
DrM2B on October 17, 2006 at 4:58 PM
The burka is bonkers!
SouthernGent on October 17, 2006 at 7:21 PM
If it hasn’t been mentioned already, then I’ll offer that there seems to be a reason to draw the line at veils that, despite its power, is probably best left unstated by the officials. One ought not allow muslim women to adopt increasingly distinctive clothing, because if they do so, non-muslim women will increasingly be marked by the contrast as infidel whores.
Kralizec on October 17, 2006 at 9:06 PM
I don’t think it’s really all that much about the face-mask. I get the feeling those English are saying more and more of this: oh, yes, I think maybe we will talk about it; no, no, I think we’ll probably not set down and shut up atm, thanks.
A little pushing back. Some excuse to do a little pushing back.
Blair:
Axe on October 17, 2006 at 10:19 PM
Good for Blair. Good for Straw and his tentative test of the waters.
We should make it illegal right now.
We still have a very free country. We are allowed weapons, a lot of privacy. We are considered innocent until proven guilty. To make such a system work, we have to be able to defend ourselves with our brains as well as our weapons because we do not pre-emptively act against potential lawbreakers.
We need to be able to identify people. The face is absolutely required. It is not an option, unless you want to stay home behind closed curtains. Leaving the country is an even better solution because we do not need immigrants who will not accommodate our system.
Business people have a right to see the face of the client who may also be a potential con-man or hit-man.
Teachers have a right to see the face of who is posing as the parent.
People on the street have a right to see the face of the potential mugger standing at the bus stop.
Police have a right to see the face of anyone they approach. A masked figure in burka could be a male or a female. They do not have to risk death to make a bunch of non-assimilaters happy.
Our nation has the right to take all those who intend to buck the system and reject their immigration applications.
If they are already citizens, they should have to accommodate their fellow citizens in public or face rejection, legal discrimination, or the law.
This is not Saudi Arabia.
IMHO any business has the right to refuse to serve anyone with a covered face.
The covered face is the face of death.
entagor on October 17, 2006 at 10:42 PM
Blair and Straw good on you 2!!! Pose a totally logical question and argument for assimilation that cannot be answered in anything but a sane manner. React to that muzzies…
I WILL NOT SUBMIT!!!
GoingThere on October 18, 2006 at 10:08 AM
Comment pages: