Jack Straw gives green light to bigotry

In the middle of August, some Muslims wrote a letter to Blair, arguing that British foreign policy was helping extremists (which, I should add, I disagreed with). Politicians slapped this down as a 'green light' to terrorists, without ever engaging in why the argument presented in the letter was wrong. So, using the same level of opprobrium, can we surmise that Jack Straw's comments are a green light to bigotry and racism?

I don't think Straw was being Islamophobic or racist, per se. For example, he opposed the publication of the Danish cartoons. In the 1980s, as a member of the Opposition, he was an advocate of private Muslim (and orthodox Jewish) schools being allowed to receive state funding. Straw's comments might be a milder exampler of so-called 'dog whistle politics', in his bid to emerge as a strongman once the scrap for the top jobs in a post-Blair government begins (if it hasn't done so already). Muslims, like asylum seekers, immigrants, single mothers and so on, are easy targets for politicians in their bid to win over certain sections of the media; whether they genuinely believe what they say is another matter. Hopefully, we won't go down the road of mainland Europe, where it appears you can base whole political agendas on just hating Muslims, and blaming for almost everything wrong. Hopefully. Plus, I think we've been here before with Straw; remember the  'bogus asylum seekers' remarks?

Other politicians appear divided (although, as someone remarked, it looks like a good cop/bad cop routine). The minister responsible for race relations, Phil Woolas, backs Straw, while John Prescott and Ruth Kelly have distanced themselves from his comments, as has John Denhman. There's the usual comments in the press, mostly which appear to be pro-Straw; from liberals like Henry Porter and Yasmin Alibhai-Brown (paywalled), to three ugly sisters in the right-wing press, Mad Mel, Richard Littlebrain and Rod Liddle, as well as their 'intellectual' champions like Charles Moore, Janet Daley and Patricia Patience Wheatcroft in the Telegraph. Some moan that they're not allowed to say what they want (only to be seen and heard saying their views regularly). Others see this as a 'fight against extremism', although I'd be surprised to see if the sort of extremism we see on television (Anjum Choudhary and his not so merry men) has made inroads into the socially conservative Gujrati community which makes up most of the Muslims in Straw's constituency. I do know some Muslims, whilst not arguing for any sort of law to ban the veil (and, it should be remembered, neither was Straw), have argued that Muslims should take up some kind of greater 'cultural assimilation' without having to compromise, i.e. adopt the hijab. That is though this might be a "debate" worth engaging in (whether you believe it is a chance to clear things up or see it as a chance to question some widely-held views), and though Straw can express his views as he sees fit, the only benefit of any such debate is between Muslims. There's also the question of the separation of church and state (if not observed outright in Britain) -- can a politician tell people what is and isn't part of their religion? You can also see a debate on the BBC between Salma Yaqoob and Rod Liddle. And what's funnier than a Communist preaching about freedom from oppression?

Well, this is. Yusuf Smith's latest post drew my attention to this commentary in today's Times by Saira Khan. Is your first reaction "who what now?" Exactly. This is hilarious. A quality newspaper like The Times, which holds a global reputation as a serious publication which represents intellectually rigorous viewpoints, is reduced to giving us a rant from someone whose claim to fame is an appearance on a reality television show. The comments expressed by Saira Khan, can be reduced to this sentence: "Some Muslim women say that it is their choice to wear it; I don’t agree." So, all her article boils down to is that she disagrees with some other Muslim women on wearing a headscarf or some other religious attire? Why are her views better then theirs? Because she's a "celebrity"? In other words, let's dispense with serious political, historical, sociological or legal knowledge to resolve social questions like these. Instead, let's join the "celebrity" craze. Thanks Rupert, for adding yet another nail in the coffin of a quality British newspaper. Can't be long now until The Scum and The Times merge into one paper...

What I would be interested in is an American view of this (apart from that of Janet Daley). Afterall, it is the country which has spawned sects and religious movements from the Mormons, to the Amish, to the Nation of Islam, and being an observant religious individual might not pose the problem it does in Europe (or does it?).

And now for some blogs (updated).

Abu Eesa: "Maybe Muslims should ‘get out’ and ‘go back to where they came from’, back to their own houses in their own country - Great Britain - rather unfortunately for the bigots. It seems that the only people who are forcing Muslim women into their homes under a real oppressive veil, a veil of hostility and fear, are those wanting to discriminate against them according to their personal prejudices under the false pretence of trying to promote interaction, integration and community relations. How much are these social ‘experts’ actually helping to solve this very real problem?"

Austrolabe: "Some people have commented that Straw has the ‘right’ to demand what he pleases of those who visit him. If they don’t like it, leave. Now, this argument assumes that no contract already exists between Straw and those that seek his services. For example, it can be deployed in favour of the Muslim taxi drivers in Minneapolis that The Australian recently railed against for refusing to carry alcohol; and it could equally be applied, for example, to support the right of Christian pharmacies not to sell contraception or the right of Christian doctors to refuse to perform abortions. This is about people’s freedom to contract and the immorality of coercing people to provide goods and services against their will."

Anarcho Muslim: ""When it comes to Muslims, sections of the British media excel in twisting the truth. Exact to its own inimitable style, The Express today follows its bizarre front-page headline (“ruin?!”) with a seemingly unconnected tale of “an unholy alliance of Muslims and far-Right extremists.” Except there is no alliance. The assertion is made solely on the basis that the far-Right British National Party is hoping to cash in on likely changes in voting patterns in Jack Straw’s Blackburn constituency, where 25% of voters are Muslim. In any other context, such fragmented thinking would be judged a symptom of psychosis. Back in the real world, which the Express only tenuously inhabits, it is evident Straw’s comments have played straight into hands of the far-right British National Party, who have stated they view the veil as “…part of the problems of a multi-cultural Britain that he and the Labour Party helped to create.""

Safiyyah: "In this rather brief analysis of the scriptural sources of the hijāb, we have looked at different interpretations of what constitutes modest clothing. That modesty is important is not disputed; the Prophet Muhammad is reported to have said, “Indeed modesty is part of faith.” What continues to be debated even today is whether (or perhaps which of) the headscarf, outer garment, or face veil are considered essential aspects of the hijāb."

Timothy Garton-Ash: "I recently took part in a degree ceremony at Sheffield Hallam University. It was a heart-warming event. Many of the graduands were Asian British women - often, I was told, the first in the history of their family to go to university - and some of them came on stage to collect their degrees wearing a hijab. There was polite applause for each student and louder cheering for a few who were especially popular. One of the loudest cheers went up for a female student in a full niqab. Clearly her fellow students knew the woman behind the veil."

Comments

[MuslimApple]

I think you will find the same range of comments in America as you do in the UK. Although, I think it would be harder for an American politician to get away with those comments due to the First Amendment protections of freedom of religion outlined in the US Constitution.

I wrote a personal reflection piece on being asked by those in authority to remove my hijab in America here.