This has been a real test of Labour politicians. It is the first time in years that there has been a hard choice about women's rights - and many failed miserably. Here is a conflict between two principles - respect for a religious minority and respect for women's equality. For a host of reasons, some honest, some cowardly, an alarming number of leading Labour voices got it badly wrong. But from the top, only silence. Over religion, segregation and education, Tony Blair has led his party badly astray through his own religiosity and by misunderstanding the effect of personal "choice".
When it comes to something as basic as women hidden from view behind religious veils, is it really so hard to say this is a bad practice? Because some racists may jump on the bandwagon to attack Muslims, that's no reason to pretend veils are OK. Meanwhile, Labour has given away yet more state education to all the religions - 42 of the first 100 expensive academies gifted to Christian groups, seven new Muslim schools, with 150 in the pipeline. Why, in this least religious of nations?
The veil turns women into things. It was shocking to find on the streets of Kabul that invisible women behind burkas are not treated with special respect. On the contrary, they are pushed and shoved off pavements by men, jostled aside as if almost subhuman without the face-to-face contact that recognises common humanity.
The classroom assistant in a Church of England school in Kirklees removed her veil for a job interview, but now expects to go veiled in corridors or whenever she might meet a man. What does that say to children about the role of women as victims and men as aggressors? Of course it should be banned in all places of education, and the community cohesion minister is the right person to say so. The veil is profoundly divisive - and deliberately designed to be.
No one need be a Muslim to understand the ideology of the veil, because covering and controlling women has been a near-universal practice in Christian societies and in most cultures and religions the world over. Western women have struggled hard to escape, but not long ago women here were treated as chattels and temptresses, to be owned by men and kept out of men's way, to be chaperoned, hidden, powerless under compulsory rules of "modesty". Women's bodies have been the battle flag of religions, whether it's churching their uncleanness, the Pope forcing them to have babies, the Qur'an allowing wife-beating, Hindu suttee, Chinese foot-binding and all the rest.
Jack Straw questioned the veil when he found it was not fading out, but increasing in his constituency. No one would ban it in the street: where would fashion dictatorship end? But between teachers and pupils, or public officials and their clients, the state should not allow the hiding of women. No citizen's face can be indecent because of gender.
Prescott, Hewitt, Kelly, Hain and others failed the test, saying it was women's "choice": can they really believe that's the whole story? Here is an uneasy blend of nervousness about racism and fear of already angry Muslims. It was left to Harriet Harman to make the unequivocal case for women's rights: "If you want equality, you have to be in society, not hidden away from it," she said. "The veil is an obstacle to women's participation on equal terms in society." No nonsense about choice. It took feminist leaders like her to fight for women's rights, often against a majority of oppressed women who at first "chose" to think them outlandish and unfeminine.
Harman is astute about the way choice is culturally determined: do women really choose the female roles societies assign them? She is not alone in meeting Muslim woman who are appalled that their own daughters might adopt the veil as a political gesture. It's a danger to other women's "choice" if all "good" Muslims are forced to prove their faith by submission. Linda Riordan, the Halifax MP, says she talks to many veiled Muslim constituents who feel oppressed by it; it's not their choice at all. "And when I see women driving in veils, I am horrified at the danger."
There is only one answer: a completely secular state. It is astonishing that a Labour government has led the country into such a morass. Things are far worse than they were 10 years ago. Labour stood by as Blair gave religion more political influence, leaving one-third of all state schools under religious control.
Alan Johnson, the education secretary, has been allowed to make only a small improvement to today's education bill, obliging new religious schools to offer 25% of places to children outside the faith. (He and many ministers would probably phase out all religious state schools - but no chance under Blair.)
Meanwhile, segregation gets worse, with a third of schools now religious. The Young Foundation's study, The New East End, warns that in Tower Hamlets white parents have taken over four church secondary schools, making them virtually all white, so neighbouring secular schools have become 90% Bangladeshi. Church schools aid segregation: the Institute for Research in Integrated Strategies finds that the number of children taking free school meals at C of E and Catholic schools is lower than the average in an area. That means nearby schools take more, magnifying the difference. Selection is the secret "ethos" of church schools. Everyone knows it - I have just met an Enfield taxi driver whose wife goes to church to get their child into a church school. Is that choice?
As Christian hypocrisy keeps poor children out, others demand their own religious schools. The Leicester Islamic Academy turns state school next year, but the duty to accept 25% non-Muslims may not trouble it much. The principal said on The Moral Maze that all girls must wear the school uniform, both the hijab and the head-to-toe jilbab. Not much choice there. The Commission for Racial Equality says trust schools and parental choice are leading to parents choosing schools of their own ethnicity.
Will the next Labour leader be brave enough to confront growing segregation? If so, start by ending all religious state education. It would be popular: a Guardian/ICM poll finds 64% of voters think "the government should not be funding faith schools of any kind". Desegregating schools is a matter of fairness: Muslims have the poorest communities with the worst schools, and are in danger of increasing isolation and anger. The veil is another totem of that danger.
Comments
October 17, 2006 01:42 AM
"Everyone knows it - I have just met an Enfield taxi driver whose wife goes to church to get their child into a church school."
I'm deeply impressed by your sampling techniques. Is 'everyone' now a Enfield taxi driver or what does 'everyone' mean.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 03:04 AM
`She is not alone in meeting Muslim woman who are appalled that their own daughters might adopt the veil as a political gesture`
Very interesting lines compared to the succession of native Brit bearded lefty males who`ve turned up over the last few days saying they now realise the veil is a fine thing! But then they`d know better....
I think Polly Toynbee dwells on Christianity too much here. There won`t be a Christian theocracy in place here in the near future. There are very few real Christians, and even most of them don`t want one.
The choice is really
A a secular state as Polly advocates
B a `secular` state increasingly pushed around by Islam until lots of major concessions have been made and a tipping point reached
Choice A would be easier to enforce today than it will be in 5 or 10 years time.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 03:10 AM
Polly fantastic article. Human rights are universal and to deny that is to be racist yourself. There may be an issue with a woman choosing to wear a veil for her own reasons, so I don't think we should be blanket in our condemnation- but the sentiment of your article is what I think is wonderful- keep writing this stuff.
http://gracchii.blogspot.com
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 03:36 AM
Tony Blair is a weak thinker who somehow feels viscerally that religion is a "good" thing (probably because he mistakenly thinks that you need some sort of religious ethos to behave ethically, a fact the very existence of people like Polly, Richard Dawkins and, dare I say, myself refute), and so is in favour of increasing faith schools. He is then perplexed and confused when this doesn't lead to children from different schools and segregated communities playing together in one big peace-loving funfest. His vision is of Britain as a broad Church of England where no one feels aggrieved over the beliefs of others; what he is incapable of comprehending is that in faith schools such as Catholic and Islamic ones, the children are taught that they are necessarily superior to those who do not share their "one true faith". Blair has failed on every count, not least in education, which has been a disaster under his leadership. And Brown wouldn't be much better. It's time for complete and total separation of church and state, as secularism is the only way to assure that we none of us become second-class citizens.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 03:52 AM
Dear me how the worm has turned. A bit late now to notice that "multi-culturalist" dogma has nurtured a cultural kernal in Britain that is completely, dangerously opposed to the values of a secular, humanist democracy including the freedom of women.
I don't know but what did you write about Ray Honeyford all those years ago Polly? Perhaps you should have gone to Bradford yourself and drawn your own conclusions from the evidence of your own eyes.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 04:05 AM
@redsquare - Bradford is not the centre of the UK - multiculturalism works very well in most of the country. There are bound to be trouble spots but which country doesn't face these issues? The UK is by far (maybe except for Ireland) at managing diversity than other European countries - I am tired of hearing the multi-culturalism project knocked by those who seem to extrapolate for the whole country on the basis of a ridiculously small and unrepresentative sample.
But, back to the article, do away with faith schools - at least those with exclusive entry policies. This is a mixed country and people need to mix at an early age. Or it'll just be like Belfast - segregated, insular and an economic dog. Diversity if properly managed fuels economic growth - no wonder London is richer than the whole of Belgium.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 04:23 AM
"The UK is by far (maybe except for Ireland) at managing diversity than other European countries "
Didn't this myth blow itself up last July. But I'm not quite sure what Polly is arguing about. She notes that instances of veil wearing have increased (I've never noticed veils at all and I live in a mixed area) but blames religious schools for.
But whats wrong with Muslims asserting themselves -its an assertive religion after all. A lot of peple in this country are just not comfortable with that. The British secularism that Polly alludes to was an outcome of history, but things change.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 05:00 AM
Excellent article and long overdue. As I said in an earlier post it's not muslim women you need to talk to about the veil and oppression, it's the men that Ms Toynbee so accurately describes who have the answers.
In years to come we will look back at Mr Blair's flirtation with christianity and other religious groups and uncover the corrupt and illicit dealings it masks. And people will wonder how we allowed it to happen.
As for those opportunists in the Labour leadership - Prescott, Hewitt, Kelly, Hain, well let them reap the fundamentalist vote and share the same bed as the islamic-marxists of Respect. Their constituency manifestos will make interesting reading.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 05:05 AM
"The classroom assistant in a Church of England school in Kirklees removed her veil for a job interview, but now expects to go veiled in corridors or whenever she might meet a man. What does that say to children about the role of women as victims and men as aggressors?"
Possibly it doesn't say very much to children about the role of women as victims and men as aggressors. Perhaps the modes of dress of the school staff reflect the different groups therein; no doubt the school staff is made up of a similar mix of different groups, as is the society the children encounter outside of the school.
"The veil is an obstacle to women's participation on equal terms in society."
But the woman in question is participating on (presumably) equal terms in the world of work.
This article might carry more weight if the author had spoken to some veil wearing women rather than conducting research by hearsay and random conversation with taxi drivers.
I'm all in favour of a completely secular state by the way. And i don't think faith schools of any kind are a good idea. However proscribing the dress of one particular group sounds worryingly divisive.
"She is not alone in meeting Muslim woman who are appalled that their own daughters might adopt the veil as a political gesture"
Surely trying to proscribe veil wearing would only make this gesture more popular?
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 05:14 AM
The stable door is being bolted after the horse has left.
The moment that we allowed opt-outs from animal welfare laws with regard to halal and kosher meat, as well as the Sikh opt-out from the compulsory wearing of crash helmets on motorbikes, we established the precedents that led to the disintegration of the principle of all subjects being treated equally under the law.
All segments of our society now regard respect for the law and the culture of this country as a plastic concept to be moulded and divided to the agenda of special interest groups. The only solution is a uniform education policy to embrace all; and this entails the dissolution of all faith-based schools within the state sector. Nobody is willing to root out this thistle as the electoral backlash from those religious groups would be horrendous. So we'll 'manage' the problem without facing it squarely and honestly and it will fester further.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 06:20 AM
Polly - "The veil turns women into things. It was shocking to find on the streets of Kabul that invisible women behind burkas are not treated with special respect."
Yes, absolutely. Once a woman is "invisible" in her burka, how much easier it was for those Talib bullyboys to hit, whip, and even kill her, and to deny her medical care, education, work etc. The burka and its variants dehumanise so thoroughly - how much easier it must be to despise, hate and harm someone when you cannot see her face, her fear, her pain. The burka etc are adjuncts of tyranny, just as surely as the yellow stars were for Jews in Nazi Germany. It's appalling that women in free countries would *choose* to wear this instrument and symbol of oppression.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 06:34 AM
I share much of Ms Toynbee's dislike of the veil, and support her calls for a secular state, but on the issue of women wearing veils, what exactly is there to be done as long as some women want to wear them. A liberal state is not a state that only permits liberal views, after all.
If we want to stop people wearing the veil, how exactly do we go about it? Maybe there are a few veiled British women who long to rip the thing off and would do if only they were not so terrified of their fathers, brothers and husbands. Should they choose to make a stand on this issue and remove their veils anyway, the state should support and protect them in this choice to its best ability. However, I imagine that the majority of this tiny and not terribly significant minority would, if required to show their faces in public, feel about as comfortable as Ms. Toynbee would were she to be required to go out naked from the waist down. This may seem ridiculous to many of us (self-included) but then, it also seems to me to be none of our business.
In the end, either we advocate that people should be free to dress as they see fit, for their own reasons, or we do not, and accept that we should be subject to a state approved dress code. I feel that support for the latter position would greatly compromise anyone's claims to be a champion of liberal values!
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 07:06 AM
Kimpatsu - you say
"Tony Blair is a weak thinker who somehow feels viscerally that religion is a "good" thing".
Nicely put. It's very much in Blair's nature to indecently suck up to those who he takes to be more powerful than himself. He always has done, eg. his recently-revealed grovelling left-wing dissertation to Michael Foot when Foot was the leader of the party, and his embarrassing right-wing slavering to Bush and Murdoch are well known. So - when it comes to grovelling to the powerful, who can be more powerful than The Big G Himself?
Seems that Blair has been begging the Pope for some time to visit the UK, but the Pope's having none of it, he no doubt knows an opportunist chancer when he sees one (apart from the Vatican's opposition to the invasion and occupation of Iraq, of which Blair is personaly and directly culpable).
P.S. I agree that Blair is a 'weak thinker' Kimpatsu, despite having the best education money can buy, an intellectual he cartainly ain't. He's definitely an accomplished ham actor, but you don't need a posh education for that.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 07:22 AM
Somewhere long ago Polly T did not measure up to parental expectations and dropped out of one school and later St Anne's College, Oxford. Since then she has railed against the established nature of England like some frustrated seven year-old.
She calls for more..............but the society I live in today is one that has very largely been formed by views of persons like her and like Woy Jenkins. This is not an England of high morality, of a forceful Church of England, of strait-laced Government Ministers and Victorian rectitude.
This is a country run by the '68 Generation for whom Politics Was Everything, and now they have turned the electorate into a Population That Loathes Politics & Politicians
We have lived the life-cycle of the Polly T's of this world, their every whim and crackpot scheme has been implemented until we live in a world depicted by Hieronymous Bosch
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 07:36 AM
Ruth Kelly's commission for community cohesion deliberately left out faith schools, presumably due to her and Tony Blair's religiosity. There have been no reports of the commission consulting the National Secular Society or the British Humanist Association either.
The only way to stop this pandering to superstition it would seem is for atheists and agnostics to become radicalised. Only then will government pay any attention to the majority of people in this country who are not active religiously or are agnostic or atheist.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 07:36 AM
@ Makz - "In the end, either we advocate that people should be free to dress as they see fit, for their own reasons, or we do not, and accept that we should be subject to a state approved dress code."
That's only one possibility - by no means an inevitable one, and one that personally I wouldn't support. Adults should be free to wear what they want - be it a burka or a Swastika t-shirt. But the rest of us are also free to exclude people wearing such things if we consider them to be inappropriate in particular contexts. An employer might decide not to employ, or to sack, someone in a face-veil if he or she considers that the face-veil is offputting for customers, clients or colleagues, or that it poses a health and safety hazard. High security premises such as banks and airports may decide not to admit entrance to people whose identity is concealed. Publicly-funded schools may decide to forbid teachers and pupils from wearing the face-veil on their premises. etc.
In short, yes, people are free to wear conspicuous ideological insignia and clothing; but the rest of us must also be free to exclude those wearing it from spheres where it is deemed inappropriate for one or more reasons.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 07:41 AM
Polly - great article. I do not always agree with you - generally when you are talking about economic policy, taxation etc - but on this area you have always been clear, consistent and right
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 07:46 AM
Makz: -
"If we want to stop people wearing the veil, how do we go about it?"
Ask the Turks?
Something else - it should be drummed into the next Prime Minister every day that that is what he is; the Prime Minister, the First Minister among equals, and not some pseudo-president.
And the sycophants like Hewitt, Hain, Blears, Prescott and all should be kept on the back benches.
It is not only Blair who lacks intellect - just look at the mostly anonymous, lickspittle members of his cabinet.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 08:05 AM
"Will the next Labour leader be brave enough to confront growing segregation? If so, start by ending all religious state education."
Polly, if the next Labour leader is currently a member of the Cabinet, he or she will have given assent to the policies you rightly decry. The only hope is that the Labour Party elect as leader someone like John Denham who can change policies without appearing hypocritical. But, given the seriousness of this issue - alongside other emerging live issues to do with security, identity registers, road pricing andd energy - whoever is elected must go to the country for a mandate within 12 months of taking over.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 08:48 AM
"P.S. I agree that Blair is a 'weak thinker' Kimpatsu, despite having the best education money can buy, an intellectual he cartainly ain't. He's definitely an accomplished ham actor, but you don't need a posh education for that."
No??
What's the public school system for then but superficial gloss?
What's striking about Nulab is the extraordinarily low level of their human capital.
Jack Straw - correctly predicted the inevitable outcome of the Iraq lunacy, but lacked the bottle to make a stand
Margaret "Defra" Beckett
Blunkett started out his ministerial career with "inclusivity" in education, absolute lunacy which further damaged the ailing and fundamentally unsound comprehensive system, and doubtless chipped away at social mobility even further. Went on as he he started blowing millions on a ridiculous "e-university", now turns out he was completely mad, wanting to mow down the inmates of Lincoln jail with machine gun fire.
Gloomy Gordon, of the psychological "issues", the money lenders best friend(personal debt *3 since '97) - very prudent, very vibrant
The Prophet of Helmand, John "nae a shot" Reid
Dire and desperate
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 09:19 AM
It is NOT astonishing that a Labour government led by tony blair has managed to lead the country into this religious quagmire on the contrary it is and was entirely predictable. Faith schools have no evidence base for success. Reports today also point out the huge cost to the taxpayer of letting religious bods – MEN with no knowledge or qualifications run schools! The next BIG mistake will be the CEHR and allowing the religious strand to give religions the right to be excluded from practicing equality and permit them to discriminate against whoever they like! Why leave out criticising community’s minister Ruth Kelly – Roman Catholic extremist – if we are to describe everyone by their faith or not - her appointment and influence in the cabinet is a disaster for the secular!
Next we will have chemist shop assistants refusing to sell the morning after pill, birth control, campaigns against birth control classes etc. Women’s rights attacked daily !!
Get rid of Blair now before he destroys more lives as well as in Iraq.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 09:25 AM
I've found the veil debate quite incredible - when it first made the cyber pages of CiF I thought I knew my position: since then I have changed my mind back forth with different variables like security, personal choice, religious freedom etc holding sway. This is the first article that I think I almost (so many caveats) agree with. I do not find the idea of more faith-based schools comforting. I'm an atheist for what it's worth, and never worried about faith-based schooling before. Should I now? Hell, I'll read someone elses comment and probably cange my mind again...Damn - I thought I knew what my position was, rrrrr
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 09:26 AM
Madam Toynbee, I agree with everything you write.
Religion has no place in the State except as an object of study. Defining the commons is a bit more difficult though, but it certainly includes restrictions on what children are allowed to wear and dress code whilst representing the State.
What you Brits really need is a written Constitution to settle this issue.
I am waiting for several next fusses after veils and the good General before you get your act together. It might even be around Biggles' transition into Grumpy or not. Now there's an issue of Constitutional importance.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 09:28 AM
Excellent article, Ms Toynbee. The most thought provoking article I've read on religious integration since this whole debate started.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 09:28 AM
"Something else - it should be drummed into the next Prime Minister every day that that is what he is; the Prime Minister, the First Minister among equals, and not some pseudo-president."
Very true - at the first Nulab cabinet meeting the craven uselessness of these people was amply demonstrated. Tony wanted the Dome and the "cabinet" by and large didn't - they didn't have the temerity to put up any resistance to the Dear Leader's express wish, he pissed off to a prayer meeting or something - and they rubber-stamped it, result being an expensive and embarrasing fiasco.
So we had King Tone the Usurper of constitutional proprieties - and the rest is history; Iraq, faith schools..... And some people say that Sir Richard Dannatt over-stepped the mark!
The Tories were pretty bad, by any standards - but it is undoubtedly true that people like Clarke, Heseltine, Hurd were of higher personal calibre than the rubbish now in office.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 09:31 AM
The scandalous situation of educational segregation in Tower Hamlets goes back over twenty years and it doesn't just involve secondary schools. However it's not simply a matter of parents manipulating the system (let alone "taking over schools") but of an entirely unholy compact between some parents and the (primarily Catholic) church schools to their mutual advantage. The problem initially was a failure by the Inner London Education Authority to apply its own policies to an area in which church schools played an over-dominant role and the population was projected to rise as a result of the growth of the various immigrant communities and the planned redevelopment of docklands. In turn the ILEA's failure was partly due to the influence the Catholic church had in the (old) Labour Party in Tower Hamlets (an influence based on the size of the Irish and Scots-Irish communities). Today the resulting segregation suits sections of both white and non-white communities and the new middle classes who hold the balance of power between them in the borough have no interest in addressing it - even assuming that there were any short term solutions available.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 09:31 AM
Thank you radished -
Yes, you're right in that one of the aims of public schools is to teach the skill of presentation and promotion of self and aims. I guess that's one of the points of so-called 'debating societies'.
P.S.I would suggest radished that if you are going to quote someone, that you attribute the source of the quote. This leads to clarification and enables readers to check the context of the quote. They can't do that unless they know where the quote comes from.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 09:33 AM
I think those here who say that the horse has already bolted are right - it is too late to row back (to mix a metaphor).
"Multi-culturism", it is now clear, was always going to lead to such problems with or without faith schools (not that I saw it myself); particularly with such an aggressive political faith as Islam. As the television reporter John Ware has put it - Islam and politics is an incendiary mix. And with some 1.3 billion co-religionists worldwide to bach them, British Muslms have become more "sassy" than their parents as the Guardian's Hitz-Ur-Tahir (sp?) journalist wrote a week after 7/7, we are surely in for a lot more of it.
Did you see Ian Hislop's reaction to the veil question on last week's HIGNFYou? Satirically exagerated of course but spot on, I think. (For those who missed it he started out with "Oh so we get the question that gets us killed" to large applause!)
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 09:33 AM
Good article. I was brought up as a Catholic but my mother's view was that she did not want her family educated by "men in skirts" (it is only now that it is apparent that the label should have been "paedophiles in skirts"). Religion is and should be a private matter. It has no role to play in areas such as health and education. If politicians had balls, there would be no "state religious schools" which is as daft a notion as I have ever heard.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 09:38 AM
Shlick
It was me! (A bit earlier).
Couldn't bear the thought of another run round the mulberry bush of the veil.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 09:38 AM
Hurrah! A Polly article I can cheer!
Mostly.
Downsides: "Gives racists a chance to attack muslims" - again, we seem to be stumbling into the unreal world where islam is a race. T'ain't.
"Hypocritical christians keep poor children out of church schools" - Polly, even poor people are allowed to go to church. I checked.
And then, that we couldn't have expected this fuck-up from labour....ah yes we could. When I was working at Index on Censorship we were asked to contribute, informally at first, to consultations on the planned Citizenship classes - this would have been in 97 or 98 I guess - the panic that greeted our submissions and my questions indicated that the clash of rights had never been properly anticipated, that no one had any idea how to resolve the inevitable conflicts in the classroom between someone who, as an example, demanded their right to be openly and proudly gay, and another pupil who stated that their religion stated this was an abomination, and that the rights of both should be supported.
There are, perhaps, paths through this quagmire - but there are not paths that avoid all offence and controversy, yet this is what Labour expected. Our suggested topics for citizenship discussions were all shot down - far too controversial - although a few of my own articles made it into course materials to warp young minds. Exxxxxxxxxxxxxxecllent.
Overall, wishful thinking typified early days Labour - everything would be just great, if people were nice, these little conflicts wouldn't flare up, we could just ignore them. Didn't work. Never works. And here we are.
Oh, and please, Harman? Gawd. Would this be a joint deputy leadership position, with her sister too? Or has she figured out yet that joint deliberations on confidential issues is a bit naughty? She seemed to have some trouble getting her head round that last time.
But overall Polly, 8/10.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 09:42 AM
Excellent article Polly. Perhaps the future PM who is sensible enough to face this issue could consult the Scottish Executive who have been trying hard to face up to Sectarianism here by integrating Catholic schools with State schools (take out the Catholics and what is left in ovewhelmingly Protestant) in the teeth of bloody minded opposition from the Catholic authorities. Their experience should be invaluable to a UK govt seeking to end the problem in England.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 09:42 AM
Polly, Richard Dawkins as well as the vast majority of Guardian readers can find limitless examples of where the practice of Christianity in particular and religion generally has diminshed society. The practice of a faith is not the same as what the faith itself stands for. Christ sought to emancipate the oppressed, women in particular.
Similarly, Church schools have virtuous origins but have become abused by both providers and users.
As a community, irrespective of our religous beliefs, we can reflect on how the teachings of the world's great religions have developed our society, or alternatively we can use them as a scapegoat for the failings of humanity.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 09:43 AM
It's astonishing that Polly still thinks this is a Labour government after 9 years of continued Thatcherite policies.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 09:44 AM
Marksa-
'I'm deeply impressed by your sampling techniques. Is 'everyone' now a Enfield taxi driver or what does 'everyone' mean.'
My parents' neighbours discovered God to get their son into a church school. If you know middle class people with kids who live in areas with bad schools and faith schools, you'd know this behaviour is rampant.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 09:46 AM
Polly doesn’t look at the benefits of the veil if it were adopted by Western women. All those accusatory looks would be covered by the niqb (is she smouldering or she being a passive, loyal wife?). When asked “Have you been drinking?” we wouldn’t have to mutter something about “I just popped out to get a newspaper and well, it was on the way”. Now we could reply, “Sorry, didn’t catch a word of that, love.” Plus some old designer queen could come up with a sexy, off-the-nose veil for when we are in the mood for luuuuurve…
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 09:49 AM
"Labour Government" Good grief Polly I thought you more intelligent!. This is not a Labour Government, it is a NEW Labour Government, something which is profoundly different.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 09:54 AM
surely faith schools must be illegal. It is against the law to differentiate people on race colour crred or religion. The Gov't hass no legal right to divert tax payers money to religious institutions.
Everyone seems to think the veil is a mattrer of womens rights. I don't think anyone should have the right to spy on their neighbours from behind the veil.
Why should we have to take second place becasue we do not believe in organised religion that teaches bigotory and racuial and class superiority. I would certainly be prepared to put my moral credentials beside those of Tonmy Blair, George Bush any Ayatollah and any Bishop.
Faith schools only reinforce the belief that their should be differenbt laws for thos of faith. The Catholic Church believes this with respect sexual offenders.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 09:55 AM
Well said, Polly! But what are the chances of us getting anywhere on this with that tiresome God-botherer Blair, and the likes of Ruth 'Opus Dei' Kelly and co. around? Organised religions still have major problems with the idea of treating women and gay people as fully human.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 09:59 AM
Salamis -
"If politicians had balls, there would be no "state religious schools" which is as daft a notion as I have ever heard".
Perhaps if we had more politicians without balls we would have an infinitely more balanced and sensible government.
Given the content of your post, suggesting politicians should be ever more male is an interesting one..!
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 10:01 AM
Excellent article Ms Toynbee.
I am glad that Jack Straw brought the issue up, but he did so in such an innocuous manner that the real issue at hand has been ignored. The fact is, in a secular, fair and just society, where everyone is equal and participates to the full extent of their ability, there can be no place for the veil. How far is it a woman's "choice" that her gender should make her be "modest", to visually partake in age-old notion that women should be submissive, hidden from society's view (implicitly - men are society, and women are irrelevant).
I'm not surprised that Labour politicians are such lazy thinkers on this matter, women's rights are never to the forefront of the Labour movement. I was so happy when Harriet Harman wrote in the New Statesmen that veils had no place in our society. Only she out of all politicians had the clarity of thought and courage of her convictions to make, quite honestly, the only clear-headed comment.
This isn't just a British Muslim issue, it's an issue for all British women.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 10:07 AM
I have been fascinated the past 3 years or so that the word "multiculturism" had so suddenly disappeared from the lips of the Britsh Cabinet.You would have to trawl the archives to find out the last time one of them said the word in the spirit of the early optimistic days of cultural diversity under New Labour.
Writing from Scotland with its Catholic and Protestant schools my advice is we do not want to go down the road to Faith schools in the UK.
One of my old jokes about the English, in the spirit that I consider the English to be my first cousins in the UK is that I envy them.They are merely harmless racist xenophobes.Here in Scotland we teeter towards being sectarian,bigoted,racist xenophobes and we pay a heavy price.
The UK needs to go into reverse gear and all schools to be of a secular nature.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 10:07 AM
Polly Toynbee's has got his analysis wrong. I would suggest Polly Toynbee to read a bit of sociology, and societal evolution and development. state schools in any country focuss on the majority (Muslims in Muslim countires, non Muslims in non Muslim countries), the schools set up by the religious organisations are meant to help their communities (religious or practicing community). I am from Pakistan, I had studied in state schools, college and university. Here morning began with the recitation from Koran, singing praise to Mohammad. This is also the case with the school run by different Muslim groups, private or religious.
I have taught in Christian schools. Here, the morning began with a prayer, it does not mention Christ, nor Mohammad, a prayer and no one is favoured and offended by reciting this prayer or singing a song in the morning. The Christian schools are inclusive though they were started to help the poor, oppressed Christians who would not allow to study their religion in state schools. They will study Koran and every thing about Islam.
The colleges and universities are a place to be controlled by the group started by religio-political parties in Pakistan. These groups would not let men and women sit, talk and study together. They will force this by force, beating men and women who refuse to accept their orders.
Polly Toynbee has been saying lots of things about Christianity. I know Polly Toynbee hates Christianity but I do not hate Polly Toynbee. He needs to furnish his arguements becuase the arguements given do not prove what has been trying to prove.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 10:08 AM
Very good article Polly. But all the time we have a government willing to consider 'Faith' as enjoying privilege, this is going to continue. Opinion formers need to represent this 'faith' as what it is - just another set of opinions. And we need an inquiry into Peter Vardy's business activities.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 10:13 AM
I couldnt agree more about the need for a secular state. But isnt personal choice a part of women's rights? Polly's article seems like a rallying cry for feminists to oppress women. Instead of bullying the individual women themselves to ignore their cultural background, perhaps changing things from the top would be a better idea. I know the veils are symbols of male superiority, but forcing women that actually believe in them to have them removed is oppression too. The only thing to do is to educate. There wont be any results for a long time, but at least there isnt any antagonising of an already pretty strong feeling of victimisation.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 10:15 AM
@ asharjkhokhar:
I think you'll find Polly Toynbee is a woman. As she does not obscure her face, you ought to be able to tell.
@ anyone who'll read it:
Polly Toynbee's analysis omitted the Obs story at the weekend: the Cabinet's religious tendency (chiefly Blair and Kelly) are apparently trying to backtrack from the goods and services elements of gay rights legislation despite the various promises and assurances.
If religions want to indoctrinate the next generation, they can do it with their own money, not mine.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 10:15 AM
Too little too late by the likes of Polly Toynbee. She should be embarrassed by her own failure not to heed warnings from the 1980s about the consequences of establishing of more faith schools. Society will pay for this by an increase in violence.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 10:22 AM
i think the UK like France should be secular, I went to School in the North of Scotland 1940's, primary school was Catholic but the senior Acadamies were mixed which I think is about right.
My late French wife did attend a Convent for a couple of year's but all State school's were secular.
Ulster is a terrible example of faith school's.
the Church of England for many is an assumed religion, in the Navy if a guy said he had no religion we just put him down C/E, agnostic was not recognized.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 10:26 AM
What a lot of fuss about such an almost non-existent problem. In our society apparently less that 5% of the polulation is islamic and of that 5% less than 0.1 practice the wearing of veils! As far as I know the only teacher wearing a veil has been used to extrapolate it to the entire islamic culture and populaton. Was it really worth it? Or, were the politicians all working to a different agenda of mudslinging and maligning to accelerate the islamophobia? As a non-muslim I am skeptical about the motives of wimps like Jack Straw. It is a sad day when Polly Toynbee joins in the fray in support of Straw.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 10:32 AM
A fantastic, and badly needed article. I'd like to add two points of support if I may.
First, wasn't it the hideous oppression and inequality of the burqa that was used to rally support for the war in Afganistan and demonstrate the fascistic nature of the Taliban regime? It's odd how five years later we are having a debate over whether it's OK for women to cover themselves head-to-toe as an act of submission to God. For God, one should really read "a religion under strict male control" - is there any other kind?
My second point is that if Father Blair wants to see the true consequence of his state funded Faith Schools, he should look to the west of Scotland. State funding of religiously segregated schooling has worked really well there, hasn't it? Do we really want the rest of Britain to suffer the kind of religious divisions that still define Glasgow?
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 10:33 AM
"in Tower Hamlets white parents have taken over four church secondary schools, making them virtually all white, so neighbouring secular schools have become 90% Bangladeshi"
As an agnostic TH resident who is forced to home educate his two small children due to the fact that English is not even the first language of the majority of children in many of the borough's schools, I can say from experience that the situation is the reverse. People have no choice but to opt out of local state schools exactly because, as Toynbee says, some "have become 90% Bangladeshi". How typical of someone who probably lives in Hampstead to assume the opposite.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 10:34 AM
Women who wear skimpy tops and jeans that reveal camel's toes, part of their buttocks, and goodness knows what else, may wear them out of choice, or they may dress like that under pressure from their peers, their boyfriends or whatever. Much as I dislike that kind of gear, and feel that it's undignified, far be it from me to take women to task for wearing it. Likewise, I don't ask men why they're wearing what they wear – even if they're going around displaying too many square centimetres of beer belly. But then, I'm not an MP. Women who wear niqabs, hijabs, jilbabs, burqas, abayas, khimars or any other items of Islamic dress probably do so for a variety of reasons. Why should they have to justify why they wear them, or only be allowed to wear them if their reasons are deemed "politically correct" by the newly self-appointed dress code police?
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 10:49 AM
It's not religious hypocrisy that has given us the rise of faith schools. It's the hypocrisy of left-wing politicians who don't want to be seen to advocate selective education, but don't want to abolish it entirely. If parents were able to trust good local state schools to educate their children, then they wouldn't be looking for all these opt-outs.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 10:49 AM
"It is astonishing that a Labour government has managed to lead the country into this religious quagmire."
Why? They have led the counrty into so many others.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 10:50 AM
Polly - another excellent article.
Waltz, Kimpatsu - couldn't agree more.
As a fully fledged 'left winger' / 'liberal' I've always hated religious schools but i've done much (too much!) hand wringing over the veil issue. Now I've come off the fence with a vengance. The veil/burkha is a slap in the face for womens' rights and I find it offensive. It is a deliberate denial of hard fought battles for equality. Western women who convert to Islam (issues or what?) are being deliberately provocative by wearing such symbolic items of clothing.
By all means, wear what you like (unless it's a school, government department etc) but do not expect other people to like it or to not treat you differently -after all you are making your views perfectly clear.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 10:50 AM
Are we simply too insecure in our beliefs to demand the immediate move by governent toward a fully secular state as administered by our elected representatives?
Some simple rules such as the banning of any religious symbols in public buildings, state infrastructure etc. and the immediate commencement of withdrawal of all state funding from religious organisations, faith schools or religious 'charities' would be entirely in line with the values and ideals of the majority of the british public and would treat each individual citizen of the UK equally to boot. I stress the word majority here, not everyone would like it, however, compromise in line with the opinions of the majority and equal (if not ideal) treatment of all individuals by the state are to my mind the two fundamentals of the democracy we are so proud of and so eager to spread across the world.
If these principles are not upheld at home we are all hypocrites and if we do not demand their application then we are cowards.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 10:54 AM
I agree no public funding should go to faith schools. I believe they are devisive. We read this morning that Catholic and Jewish schools are resisting attempts to influence the proportion of children taken from outside their faith, saying it is no business of the state. Yet they are more than happy to take public money. They have lobbied hard for exemptions to the proposed act protecting gays and Lesbians from discrimination in the provision of goods and services. It looks like the religious Blair and Kelly are bending over backwards to give exemptions to them so that they can also exclude gay and lesbian pupils or pupils with Gay or Lesbian parents, or refuse to countenance the participation of gay and Lesbian people or organisations in community and school life. They also would deny their pupils education about homosexuality and sexuality.
It seems that discrimination in all its forms is discouraged by this government unless it is justified by religious dogma or firmly held religious bliefs, then it is fine. Why should the irrational and discriminatory beliefs of a minority of religious people be protected and valued over the real lives of the rest of us? (There are diverse interpretations amongst the believers of all religions) It is not good enough to say I will treat some people abominably because I believe my God says they are bad or inferior. It is not good enough for the state to support this and to give religious organisations funds to do so.
Today if Catholic adoption agencies said they would have to close rather than adopt children to black couples, that would not be acceptable no matter how strongly they believed it or how embedded in religious doctrine it was, yet they have asked for and it looks like the government will give them the religious exemption to deny adoption services to gays and lesbians. If any organisation is recieving public funding they should be providing services aimed at those in need in an equitable manner and if they can't do that job then funding should go to an organisation better able to do it.
I am horrified at how far this government has and will go to support religious organisations and their bigatory. Thankfully the ridiculous proposed legislation to outlaw any criticism of or insult to religion fell or we'd be in an even worse mess now. Religious organisations and individuals have generally sought to suppress criticism, behaviour that runs contrary to their doctrine and the voices of others with contrary beliefs. It isn't surprising that Blair has gone down this road, I am surprised that the rest of Labour has allowed him to do so.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 10:56 AM
The problem is that the veil is not a religious requirement of islam. (whereas the headscarf is)and the people who make the cultural rules such as "women must wear the veil" are not god but men. This is shown by Jihadisbad who uses the Quran to show that women must be obediant, i.e. it is not a matter of choice and not a statement that they must wear a veil, which is in some of the male interpretations of the Quran.
I live in a muslim country, not many women wear the veil here, but just across the border in Saudi they have to, it is enforced by the (male) religious police, they also can't drive, and they can't freely associate etc. etc.
I agree with freedom of religious observance in a secular state, just as I am free to be an aetheist in this muslim country, but I observe their cultural norms of dress in public out of respect to my host country, if I didn't like it I would leave.
The same should be true of people in Britain, i.e the observance of cultural norms, then we would get a bit closer to an egalitarian secular society.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 10:59 AM
An excellent article.
This issue of the veil might appear exaggerated given that so few women wear it, but it is important in illustrating how the extreme naivety of Government and media has finally broken down to be replaced by an understanding that the multi-cultural state has failed - lo and behold a multi-cultural nation isn't just about eating curry, speaking a second language and listening to salsa - it is also about groups with sometimes diametrically opposing philosophies of life living side by side, whereby the slightest remark made by members from one group about the other risks provoking a violent reaction and a further defensive entrenchment.
A multi-cultural state can only survive under an authoritarian regime such as the Soviet Union, or where there is the official promotion of fervent nationalism which embraces all communities such as in the USA. Thankfully neither alternative is acceptable to most in Britain. Given that religion is the fundamental divisive factor in British society today (and it's not only about Islam - the animosity which exists between many Christians and atheists is sometimes just as virulent) the only solution which remains is to have a truly secular society where religion of all persuasions are confined solely to the home and to the house of worship. We can just hope that eventually the UK will become a melting pot rather than the romantic but inevitably doomed notion of a multi-cultural nation. The alternative is a further Balkanisation of Britain.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 11:00 AM
What a lot of muddled thinking from both Polly and the comments.
First, I agree that faith schools are bad and divisive. They are an obstacle to integration and a barrier to communication, and they lead to a kind of voluntary apartheid (any of this sound familiar?)
However ironies aside, they have very little to do with womens choice of dress. I agree that forcing a woman (or anyone else) into any kind of attire or lifestyle is wrong and unacceptable. But forcing a woman (or anyone else) OUT OF any kind of attire or lifestyle is equally wrong.
Which is more patronising and sexist?
1. A Muslim man saying 'my wife is so delicate and vulnerable she cannot be allowed to uncover her face'
2. Or a smug white newspaper journalist saying 'your wife is so delicate and vulnerable that she cannot be allowed to cover her face.'
Close call, innit?
The fact is that (a few) Muslim women are telling us that they are wearing veils for a variety of complex reasons relating to religion, politics, personal identity etc etc etc. And the great and the good in Westminster and Fleet Street are flatly refusing to listen to them, and insisting that their *true* reasons for donning a Niqab are all about oppression and sexism. Well sorry Polly, but I think that is quite oppressive and sexist, and dare I say it I think it has a slightly racist overtone as well ('these poor little Muslim women are so oppressed they can't even choose their own clothes.') It reminds me of the colonial mindset of charging in to civilise the savages, to protect them from themselves.
Yes, please keep religion out of education, and where possible out of politics as well. But also please keep your politics out of people's religion.
Apart from anything else - if you reallly wish to reduce the numbers of women wearing the niqab, then you are all going about it in completely the wrong way. The more you try to intimidate, harrass and bully Muslims into your way of thinking, the more likely they are to turn round and say 'screw you' by covering their faces. I have no doubt that the fastest acceleration we have ever had of veiling in Britain has happened over the last 2 weeks. I reckon if I were a Muslim woman I'd be wearing a veil now too, if for no other reason than to piss off the likes of Jack Straw and Polly Toynbee.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 11:00 AM
I am a rather suspicious of calls for a secular state - the Church of England is woven into the Constitutional fabric. I know a lot of people say the Constitution doesn't exist, and that and if it does it's just a rusty hoop of rubbish and all the rest of it. But the fact is that, although I would be the last to deny the checks and balances need greatly strengthening as the King Tone the Usurper episode amply demonstrates, we have rubbed along pretty well thus far.
The prospect of President Broon the Money- lenders friend wouldn't do much for me
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 11:01 AM
Spot on.
In English speaking countries the use of facial expression and eye contact is a sign of respect. It is also integral to understanding a person’s point of view, to grasp humourous concepts and to connect over silence. To me, this [veiled] assertion of religious identity is chipping away at the very thing that binds our diverse communities – the English way of expressing ideas.
To remove this aspect of communication from schools and government offices would be the greatest offense, a sign of disrespect towards the way most English-speakers conduct business and pleasure.
Secularity of government and schools should be stubbornly defended as a matter of English speaking custom in regards to the veil. It is unfortunate that in our public, everyday way of communication, that custom will be shaped by religious empowerment.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 11:03 AM
I think we need to address the issue of faith schools pretty quickly - its only a short way down the line before they start teaching creationism or ID.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 11:05 AM
The full veil may represent 'choice' for some British Muslims who wish to reject their hosts' culture - partly because of a legitimate disgust at our foreign policies - but worldwide it is not just a *symbol* of oppression but also a *means*.
By taking this choice these women grant legitimacy to this oppression.
They might well cover their hands because they are covered in the blood of their sisters.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 11:09 AM
The state isn't truly secular at the moment. Bishops and other religious leaders sit in the House of Lords which is a law-making institution.
But yes, I totally agree that to protect human, women's, homosexual rights, the state needs to become and remain secular.
I would like to see faith schools banned as part of this evolution. We fought hard for our rights, now we need to stop them being eroded - religion should be a personal and private thing, NOT a law.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 11:13 AM
More extreme secular fundamentalism from Ms Toynbee
"No one need be a Muslim to understand the ideology of the veil, because covering and controlling women has been a near-universal practice in Christian societies and in most cultures and religions the world over. "
One need not be a Muslim to understand it -but one need be able to understand that different items of clothing mean different things to different people. For some a crucifix is the ultimate symbol of goodness; for others it's a sign of imperialism killing and darkness.
In Afghanistan many women may see the veil as a symbol of opression , many others see it as an expression or a part of their culture/faith/tradition.In the UK the wearer may well see it as something that protects them from the sexualisation of females that is rampant in this society.
Its unlikely two wearerers of the veil would agree on its meaning for them.
"No citizen's face can be indecent because of gender."
Again your applying Christian worldview to islam - Islam doesnt view the human body or sexual releationships as indecent -in fact 100 years ago the same europeans who now criticise Islam and Muslims for their prudishness were condemning them for their sensuality. The idea is the same : you must conform to our ideas
"No nonsense about choice. It took feminist leaders like her to fight for women's rights, often against a majority of oppressed women who at first "chose" to think them outlandish and unfeminine."
Extraordinary fascistic nonsense - "WE know better than you though this is not what you want for yourselves"
"Harman is astute about the way choice is culturally determined: do women really choose the female roles societies assign them? She is not alone in meeting Muslim woman who are appalled that their own daughters might adopt the veil as a political gesture"
Typical socialist garbage - the veil is done for religious not political reasons
"It's a danger to other women's "choice" if all "good" Muslims are forced to prove their faith by submission. "
But this is a line of argument for banning the veil or even the hijab because it makes others feel less religious - - in fact you dont know the reality of the Muslim community - such people are often derided by other Muslims
"There is only one answer: a completely secular state"
Toynbee reveals her dictorial attitude "there is only one answer" - spoken like a true believer Polly
"The Leicester Islamic Academy turns state school next year, but the duty to accept 25% non-Muslims may not trouble it much. The principal said on The Moral Maze that all girls must wear the school uniform, both the hijab and the head-to-toe jilbab. Not much choice there."
Well they do have the choice of not sending their kids there. Ironic you should complain about lack of choice while seeking to ban all religious schools!
So how do you learn about Muslims views? from listeneing to the Moral maze!! - bet you didnt speak to a single Muslim to write this tripe - dont need to - "I will form my opinion from my own prejudices and speak only with those who confor to them"
Not sure our head of state will be too chuffed with that
"Muslims have the poorest communities with the worst schools, and are in danger of increasing isolation and anger. The veil is another totem of that danger."
Who's use will probably increase not decrease because of the attck on it
"western women have struggled hard to escape, but not long ago women here were treated as chattels and temptresses, to be owned by men and kept out of men's way, to be chaperoned, hidden, powerless under compulsory rules of "modesty"
but what western woman want isnt necessarily universal - remeber that many women in the Muslim world are fighting for the right to wear the hijab and veil - for them its a religous symbol and one of identity - your attempts to erase Muslim identity and create some awful homogenous block where everyone looks alike wont work
Ultimately in a free society its none of your business what people choose to wear or where they choose to educate their kids - its the ultimate secular hypocrisy -insisting on every freedom for your self while denying it to religous people
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 11:14 AM
Super article; just excellent.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 11:15 AM
redsquare - "I don't know but what did you write about Ray Honeyford all those years ago Polly? Perhaps you should have gone to Bradford yourself and drawn your own conclusions from the evidence of your own eyes."
I too would like to see what, if anything, she wrote about Mr Honeyford.
For those who aren't familiar with the disgraceful treatment of this man, here are some recent articles:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/07/14/nhon14.xml
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-2330258,00.html
"It has all been a long time coming. Some 22 years ago Ray Honeyford, the previously obscure headmaster of Drummond middle school in Bradford, suggested, in the low-circulation right-wing periodical The Salisbury Review, that his Asian pupils should really be better integrated into British society.
"They should learn English, for a start, and a bit of British history and a sense of what the country is about; further, Asian (Muslim) girls should be allowed to learn to swim despite the objections of their parents (who did not like them stripping down even in front of each other). Muslim kids should be treated like every other pupil, in other words.
"For these mild contentions, Honeyford was investigated by the government, vilified as a racist by the press, ridiculed every day by leftie demonstrators outside his office and was eventually hounded from his job. He has not worked since."
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 11:18 AM
Suggesting that womens decision to wear the veil is 'socially determined' and that this therefore negates the political importance of this choice is a dangerous line of argument. Its certainly true to a large extent that cultural and societal factors influence this decision, however this would also be equally true in cases where society, and I believe Polly herself, would want to suggest the choice has profound importance. Whether we are religious at all, or which religion, for instance can largely be traced to our parents religious background, our school uprbringing etc. Surely however not even secularists would want to suggest a state has rights to intevervene against people making this choice. Or take a secular example. Do people really choose to be leftwing. Being born to leftwing parents, going to university etc increases our chances of choosing to be leftwing. This choice also then is to a large extent socially determined. Could the tory party therefore suggest the choice to vote labour should not be respected.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 11:22 AM
Jihadisbad – You forgot to mention St. Paul commanding wives to obey their husbands in the Christian New Testament, as well as commanding slaves to obey their masters ( this last bit is standard fare in sunday Church sermons in prisons and similar institutions’. Surprise surprise).
Thank you jeremyjames – You confused me to start with, but after going over your comments I found there was a slight allusion to my post when you rounded off yours, but you didn’t quote me directly, which is a different matter. If you had quoted me directly, I know you would have attributed it, as you did for Makz.
P.S. Apologies to all you pedants out there for me saying absolutely nothing about the article in question. The most I do regarding Polly's articles these days is skim them. This is the woman , correct me if I'm wrong Polly, who approved and advocated bombing the shit out of the very independent and sovereign state of Afghanistan because women wore veils and burkas. Since the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan countless people have been killed, maimed and tortured. The killing and destruction under US and UK tutalage carries on daily. And the funny thing is (depending on your sense of humour), even more women in Afghanistan now wear veils and burkas than before Polly saw the 'issue' as gounds for approving and advocating an unprovoked war of aggression (yes, I know about 9/11), which inevitably, absolutely inevitably, led to the carnage and destruction that is now so commonplace in Afghanistan, the large majority of it caused by the invasion and occupation. And another funny thing, is that Polly is proud to have marched against the war in Vietnam. Presumably because women in Vietnam not only don't surf but don't wear the veil either.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 11:24 AM
For once I can agree with PT, generally speaking. It was however the liberal left who got us into this mess - by its blind devotion to multiculturalism - in the first place.
Separate Church and State as in France, ban relious symbols from all of our schools and other national institutions and generally ensure that religion is kept firmly out of politics, as in, er, that other secular State, the USA.
You can't actually prevent politics from being hijacked by fundies, whether or not you have strict separation, that is the problem, as Muslims have the vote too.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 11:24 AM
I agree with pretty much everything Polly Toynbee has written.
Personally, I would like to see the UK as an unequivocally secular state, with no state involvement in any religious sects at all, certainly no state funding or tax exemptions for faith schools.
I would like to go further too and remove all religious education from the curriculum in state schools. That would most certainly ban the teaching of such nonsense as "intelligent" design or creationism.
It would be refreshing for this country to finally wake up and cast of the remaining tatters of a state established faith too.
As to the veil, it is not an issue of faith. Islam does not demand that women are veiled, the instruction is for women to "dress modestly". Veiling and other extreme dress codes are just male imposed oppression of women.
I would like to see all veils, burquas etc banned from public buildings. If women wish to wear a headscarf, fine. Anything more is not necessary.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 11:24 AM
It is such a shame Polly that you think all Muslim women are being forced to wear the hijab. I have lived here all my life, a Muslim student who has grown up to make my very own choices. I wear the hijab and nobody has forced me to wear it.
Why are people all of a sudden speaking on my behalf and telling me that I am oppressed by the peice of cloth I place on my head and the modest clothing I choose to wear. Clothing I might add, that comes from the average high street stores, I don't go shopping in a Islamic centre for my day to day clothes, I certainly do not get given my clothes by my parents. I choose my colors, my styles everything. My choice.
Yes, true, there are women out there who have been forced to wear the niqab or even the hijab, however, that is due to their parents or spouse's ignorance of Islam. May I add it is even un-islamic to enforce this upon a woman if she does not want to do it, because there is no gain out of her wearing it if she does not feel its beauty.Therefore, the real problem is not that there are too many Muslims practicing Islam,the problem is that most Muslims are practising things other than Islam, mainly their cultures from back home.
Personally, I am wrapped up , because I am a gift, I feel special. I hear you say I have been indoctrinated. Say what you wish to this..but I feel far more special than if I was to show off the beauty I was given to everyone around me. I keep my beauty for people who are special to me. No males order me, no males abuse me and no males beat me! You need really get your facts right and maybe talk to Muslim women who are choosing to convert, who are choosing to wear the hijab.
Personally, I do not agree that the niqab is a must in Islam. I believe it is more of a cultural practice and that is why you find it's practiced heavily by ceratin cultures which do oppress women. But let me tell you something, not every Muslim you see is a reflection of Islam..don't look at Muslims go to the religion itself and meet those on the other side of the fence, maybe you will understand that we women want to be given the choice and the freedom to do what we like. We are arguing the same case, for those who are forced let them be given the Islamic right to be able to choose to take it off..and for those of us who have chosen to wear the hijab or even the niqab let them also do what as they wish.
I am happy. So please do not speak on my behalf. I am happy to be a Muslim woman..I am not tied down in any way infact I will grow to be a politician and an educated one! I certainly do not need feminists and secularists to argue my case for me. I can look after myself. Thank you.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 11:26 AM
Ms Toynbee,
A quite excellent article that cuts through a lot of the nonsense that has surrounded this debate. Although exactly which Brigadoon Scotland muscle guy lives in with this statement, beggars belief:
"Excellent article Polly. Perhaps the future PM who is sensible enough to face this issue could consult the Scottish Executive who have been trying hard to face up to Sectarianism here by integrating Catholic schools with State schools (take out the Catholics and what is left in ovewhelmingly Protestant) in the teeth of bloody minded opposition from the Catholic authorities. Their experience should be invaluable to a UK govt seeking to end the problem in England."
Clearly it is desireable for there to be separation of Church and State. Blair and Kelly have a lot to answer for.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 11:27 AM
Ms Toynbee,
A quite excellent article that cuts through a lot of the nonsense that has surrounded this debate. Although exactly which Brigadoon Scotland muscle guy lives in with this statement, beggars belief:
"Excellent article Polly. Perhaps the future PM who is sensible enough to face this issue could consult the Scottish Executive who have been trying hard to face up to Sectarianism here by integrating Catholic schools with State schools (take out the Catholics and what is left in ovewhelmingly Protestant) in the teeth of bloody minded opposition from the Catholic authorities. Their experience should be invaluable to a UK govt seeking to end the problem in England."
If that is indeed the situation it has been conducted in complete secrecy.
Clearly it is desireable for there to be separation of Church and State. Blair and Kelly have a lot to answer for.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 11:30 AM
It saddens me that such an article has to be written; that theatres are besieged by differing religious groups when an 'awkward' play is put on; that the most powerful country on earth plays god-squadder in chief. That Polly can't be writing about something more important to society as a whole is a terrible indictiment of the intellectual capacity (or lack) of this Government. Wearing or not wearing veils can be discussed until the cows come home but that is a minor issue compared with the mess that education is getting into with faith schools increasing. I would be relatively happy for a woman to choose to wear a veil of some sort (even if I can't for the life of me understand why) as long as there is a strongly secular state structure to prevent its abuse: it is the latter that is lacking. So while I support Harman's and Toynbee's comments about feminism in relation to the veil we really do have to get to the root of how we want our state to operate. Christianity may be practiced by a relatively small number but until the C of E is disestablished huge confusion remains as to the position of that religion compared with others. The veil is a symptom - let's address the real issue.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 11:33 AM
Here we go again with the 'veil = victimhood' brigade.
What utter stupidity to suggest so, and even more stupid to claim that it's down to nasty horrible brown men with beards, or that fictitious conspiracy known as the 'patriarchy'.
It's not a symbol of (male-imposed) victimhood, and the women wearing it don't need rescuing. Harass some other minority group.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 11:35 AM
Polly rightly starts to tell us that the veil doesn't help womens' rights in Britain. Then she returns to her usual boring rant about church schools being selective and being advantageous only to those who know how to play the system. This is a bit rich coming from someone who had the resources to provide her children with a top class private education. I have nothing against private schools but I resent middle-class socialist toffs preventing people who haven't her resources any choice in their childrens'education. Unlike her readers, she obviously doesn't realise that she is a hypocrite of the highest order. Returning to the veil. Can you imagine how boring and isolating it would be if everyone walked around covering their faces and you could never recognise anyone,including your friends.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 11:35 AM
Tony Blair's elevation of faith groups to special status has been a disaster. We need to roll back the disproportionate influence of these groups as soon as possible, and it begins with getting rid of all faith schools. If people mix as children - as I did growing up in Leeds - they grow up without - or at least less - predjuduce and some understanding of other communitties. Faith schools are machines for growing diviseness and ghettoes. It is ironic indeed that the Labour movement, which has been important in advocating equal rights for women has produced a government that is tacitly supporting the re-introduction of patriarchy. The veil is a symbol of the control of women. If the veil is tolerated in the work place, it sends a message to patriach's that women can participate economically while continueing to be seperated socially. This is not a useful message, and we will not be doing any favours to young British Muslim women who wish to fully participate in British society if we say it's OK to wear the veil in the workplace.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 11:41 AM
Well, if the government get their way, and ID cards come in, I wonder what they'll do about thousands of women declaring that they have to have a picture on the ID card which shows only their eyes?
I hope that the iris recognition systems are up to scratch!
Anyone want to join my new paper-bag-on-my-head religion, and scupper the ID cards scheme altogether?
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 11:44 AM
Good article, Polly.
AllyF:
Islam is not a religion, it is a race, as has been pointed out ad nauseam, but people like you will not listen, will you? Get it through your head, once and for all, Islam IS NOT A RACE!!! Is that simple enough for you? If I criticise the Catholic church, that does not make me a racist. If I criticise Methodism, that doesn't make me a racist. It is the worst type of trendy liberal leftist wanker who presumes that all Muslims are the same race, a presumption often shared, by strange coincidence, by neanderthal BNP types. Strange bedfellows, what?
Hojareturns:
Muslims, Christians, Jews, Sikhs, Buddhists, Madonna-style Kabbalists, Jedis are all free to believe whatever the hell they like; just don't expect the state to fund your little magic societies. Religion is between the believer and whomever he or she conceives their god as being; it has fuck all to do with education. You say keep politics out of religion; fine; keep religion out of education, and we'll do just that.
As to this veil nonsense; nobody is proposing to ban the blasted thing. Wear whatever you like, just don't be surprised when people react negatively to you.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 11:45 AM
"Of course it should be banned in all places of education, and the community cohesion minister is the right person to say so" is a Non sequitur.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 11:46 AM
There is no reason why the rational individual cannot state that a person who professes religious faith is deluded.
There is no reason why the rational individual cannot state that a person who creates social tension by observing the mores of their 'faith' rather than those of society is deluded and antisocial.
And there is no reason why the rational individual cannot state that a person who adheres to a convention of their 'faith' and in doind so acts in violation of the law is a deluded criminal.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 11:53 AM
Light at the end of the tunnel, a little sanity at last -- Thanks be to God!
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 11:58 AM
Not much to add to Polly's excellent article except perhaps this: The chador is back in Iraq, and especially in Brit-controlled Basra, which was once one of the most pluralist and relaxed cities in the ME, thanks to bible-banging Bliar's bloody crusade against Islam. US- and British-trained Shiite death squads and morality police are spreading terror in Iraq thanks to Western armed "liberation."
Oh and perhaps also this: The handful of Western terror victims in revenge for which over a million Afghans and Iraqis have been slaughtered by the West, and the entire Muslim population of the planet is blamed, were in fact the victims of the West's "major non-NATO ally" Pakistan, the country that gave us the Taliban:
-------------------------------------
http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4976002-103677,00.html
The Pakistan connection
There is evidence of foreign intelligence backing for the 9/11 hijackers. Why is the US government so keen to cover it up?
Michael Meacher
Thursday July 22, 2004
The Guardian
Omar Sheikh, a British-born Islamist militant, is waiting to be hanged in Pakistan for a murder he almost certainly didn't commit - of the Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl in 2002. Both the US government and Pearl's wife have since acknowledged that Sheikh was not responsible. Yet the Pakistani government is refusing to try other suspects newly implicated in Pearl's kidnap and murder for fear the evidence they produce in court might acquit Sheikh and reveal too much.
Significantly, Sheikh is also the man who, on the instructions of General Mahmoud Ahmed, the then head of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), wired $100,000 before the 9/11 attacks to Mohammed Atta, the lead hijacker. It is extraordinary that neither Ahmed nor Sheikh have been charged and brought to trial on this count. Why not?
Ahmed, the paymaster for the hijackers, was actually in Washington on 9/11, and had a series of pre-9/11 top-level meetings in the White House, the Pentagon, the national security council, and with George Tenet, then head of the CIA, and Marc Grossman, the under-secretary of state for political affairs. When Ahmed was exposed by the Wall Street Journal as having sent the money to the hijackers, he was forced to "retire" by President Pervez Musharraf. Why hasn't the US demanded that he be questioned and tried in court?
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 12:01 PM
Crikey, a P Toynbee article I can more or less agree with.
Yes, "faith" schools are divisive and should not be encouraged or supported by the state in any way. They are also famously close to TB's heart, so why did you urge us all to "hold our noses" and vote for him, Polly?
In fact, all subsidies and tax breaks should be removed from all schools outside the state system, and these resources devoted to producing a decent secular state education for all kids. To hell with "choice" - if all schools were decent, nobody would need it. And we wouldn't have to put up with endless whining from middle class breeders about the trials of finding the "right" school for their little darlings, or insane state education policies from people who've never experienced state education in the first place.
Religion is a personal matter, so do it on your own time/money, not at the expense of the taxpayer.
As for veils, yes, they seem to be a blatant symbol of a refusal to accept the privileges/duties of equality for women in our society. So make a clear rule that extreme religious costumes are not appropriate in public life e.g. for teaching assistants in schools. Again, what a woman chooses to wear in her own time is up to her, but we do not have to accept inappropriate dress in the public sector. I probably wouldn't get a job as a (male) teacher if I turned up dressed in nothing but a silver thong and a feather boa, after all. But we have to apply the rules fairly, not just against Muslims.
So we need to define some clear boundaries between the religious/secular environments and learn to tell the difference.
But the current political/media frenzy over this issue has the strong stink of diversion about it. I don't entirely see why a tiny minority of Muslim women choosing inexplicably to wear tents, or Sikhs wearing turbans or Orthodox Jews wearing funny hats for that matter, is necessarily more of an urgent threat to social integration than gangs of white youths chanting racist slogans, or apparently well-integrated Muslim fanatics being brainwashed into murdering their fellow citizens. Which one really causes more pain and damage to our social fabric, however much we might dislike the tents or hats?
And while we're all panicking over Muslim women, what is the Dear Leader up to behind our backs? Softening us up for war on Iran?
I dunno - sometimes it's hard to know if you're being too cynical...
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 12:04 PM
Great article. I've never posted before but this makes it worth the effort. Keep it up Polly.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 12:10 PM
But what I'd like to know, as I asked before, is whether the government intends to clamp down on the fitting of darkly tinted windows to vehicles using public roads.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 12:10 PM
Here, we've had segregated "faith school" education in Northern Ireland for the last century or more, and there've never been any problems there. I don't see what all the fuss is about. People have a right to choose, and if they choose the vote for Sinn Fein IRA we should respect that, for instance.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 12:13 PM
Pandering to any religion in the 21st century is ridiculous. Priests are only men - usually - and as fallable as all men. The days of the Inquisition are long gone. Let's keep it that way.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 12:15 PM
Our society, without Christian teaching, would not exist.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 12:17 PM
At last the voice of reason following the flood of white, middle aged, male columnists praising burkha-clad women.
There is an articl on the Guardian website today by a muslim woman who wore the niqab for one day as an experiment. Her description of how uncomfortable it was (and this is Autumn in England, not Riyhad in August), and the effect it had on other people, particularly children, should be required reading for all those liberal idiots who have been fulminating about misguided women having the 'right to choose' this dreadful mode of dress.
It is not the equivalent of a Sikh's turban or a nun's wimple. It is more in keeping with the masochistic customs of hairshirts in christians, spiked metal bands worn around the thigh by Opus Dei members, or in more extreme form the self-flagellation ceremonies, particularly popular in Shia cultures.
SICK!
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 12:23 PM
Good point underpinning the comments from AllyF and zavaell about the veil being only the most prevalent symbol of the current debate, and also about respect for genuine choice as described by Babylon2006. Rational discussion of all the issues is not helped by the religio-secular faultline which exists in the UK through only nominal official religions and which also needs to be addressed. Faith should be a private practice; it doesn't say much for those of faith that the state is expected to *teach* whatever their faith is on their behalf outwith their own homes and time.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 12:25 PM
I am actually coming around to Polly's point of view because her secularist regime would be so draconian that people would soon start flooding back to the Churches.
What a bunch of fanatics some of these secularists who have posted on this thread are. Do we really want to go back to Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Mengistu et al? A few corrections here:
1. Christianity does not see sex as shameful. It supports monogamous marriage in order to ensure that both parents play their part in the bringing up of any children that may be the fruit of a sexual relationship. Christianity opposes the banalisation of sex but sanctifies it within marriage and recognises it is crucial to the survival of humanity.
Christianity does, however, oppose casual sex as it is unlikely that two parents who have little in common or little interest in staying together will face up to their responsabilities as parents.
2. Far from being divisive, religion is often a unifier. If any organisation deserves credit for creating a united England out of a load of warring tribes it is the early Christian Church. In other cultures too, religion has often unified nations torn apart by clan rivalry. Much of the tensions coming to the surface in Britain now are precisely because we have lost our historic identity. We are now redescending into a nation of warring tribes because there is no God to unify us.
3. Christianity (and also Islam) recognises that every human life is equal in the eyes of God. Male, female, slave and freeman, Jew and gentile etc...The fact that some humans do not see this is not the fault of God.
4. The Pope does not force anyone to have babies. Marriage is an institution that is entered into by free choice by both partners. There is no required number of babies any married couple is expected to have. Once a baby is conceived, of course, it has the same rights as any other human, regardless of its gender, race, social status or any disability he or she might have.
5. If Polly would take the blinkers off she would recognise that most religions at the time they were founded have advanced the status of women. It's thanks to Christianity that we don't think women are there just for having babies and the role of women in the history of Christianity is well documented. Christians were pioneers of education for women.
6. Religious people, like all British people, have the right to protest at a play or something else if they don't like it. Provided they keep those protests peaceful.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 12:25 PM
fortyniner, "Priests are only men - usually - and as fallable as all men"
I'm afraid they are not, most men are not under enforced celibacy and are therefore less likely to develop an attraction towards children. To cite only one example, according to estimates by Vatican investigators, one in 10 of Brazil's priests was involved in some form of sexual misdemeanour. Makes you wonder what the real figure is...
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 12:33 PM
"The veil is a symbol of the control of women"
So? Anything that sets women apart from men can be said to be a symbol of women's identity and therefore a symbol of the control of women.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 12:37 PM
Georgeat4:
"Islam is not a religion, it is a race, as has been pointed out ad nauseam, but people like you will not listen, will you? Get it through your head, once and for all, Islam IS NOT A RACE!!! Is that simple enough for you?"
Very simple thanks George. Now try reading what I wrote again and have a think about it.
______________________
"the great and the good in Westminster and Fleet Street are flatly refusing to listen to them, and insisting that their *true* reasons for donning a Niqab are all about oppression and sexism. Well sorry Polly, but I think that is quite oppressive and sexist, and dare I say it I think it has a slightly racist overtone as well ('these poor little Muslim women are so oppressed they can't even choose their own clothes.') It reminds me of the colonial mindset of charging in to civilise the savages, to protect them from themselves."
_____________________
I'd suggest to you (and to Polly T) that if veils were mostly being worn by white women, then you might dislike their decision, you might consider the decision to be harmful and isolationist, but you would at least listen to the reasons the women give as to why they make the decision before condemning them.
We've seen countless news reports and comments appear over the last two weeks, in which Muslim women give their reasons / justifications / explanations for choosing to wear a niqab. And shock horror, unlike most people here (or in Farringdon Road) I've actually talked to a couple of them myself. The reasons they give vary, but there is always a strong sense of free choice and free will expressed.
And yet again and again, these explanations are simply dismissed as being irrelevant. I have yet to get a satisfactory explanation as to why these opinions are not worth considering, so I can only assume that the reason is because the opinions of these non-white women are considered to be less valuable than those of politicians or newspaper columnists, who invariably know better than the women themselves.
Now, I've been reading Polly T's opinions for about 25 years and I know full well that (whatever other faults she may have) she is no racist. But I think she has fallen for a stereotype about Asian families, and Muslim families in particular, that the women have no free will and only do what their menfolk tell them to do. That is a stereotype, it's a false stereotype, it's a dangerous stereotype and I think amongst many other things it is a slightly racist stereotype as well.
Yes, Islam is not a religion. But that doesn't mean that racist attitudes cannot be pegged onto discussions about Islam. They can be and they often are. Just read some BNP propaganda if you don't believe me.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 12:38 PM
Splendid article Polly (and goodness knows, I'm not always a fan).That a supposedly progressive government (pause for bitter laughter) should be flirting with and pandering to such medieval nonsense is frankly appalling.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 12:39 PM
I have clashed with PT before:
http://cricketandcivilisation.blogspot.com/2006/07/impoverished-polly-toynbee-again.html
On this issue I am closer to agreeing with her. Religious schools start children off on the wrong foot. We should have secular schools which refer to religion only as an object of study, nothing more, and leave it to them to make their own minds up when they leave school. It seems to me that to indoctrinate the young into one particular religion is a recipe for no end of subsequent social division. On the other hand, teaching children that all religions (or all anything else) deserve equal respect is absurd - there are some funny people out there. Some think it is ok to stone people to death for adultery. Some think that female genital mutilation is a good idea. Some think that women in general are inferior. Some think that you have to grow beards, and should wear an item on your head other than a crash helmet when riding a motorbike. We need to teach children to examine competing doctrines and ideas closely, and decide for themselves what is right or wrong.
Having said all that, if people decide for themselves they want to wear the niqab or any other item of clothing, they should have the right to do so in a free society - be it crosses for BA stewardessess or veils or whatever. The tricky bit is working out which of them are doing so by choice and which are doing so by compulsion. Equally, I am all for the burgeoning Islamic women's lib movement, which aims to bring about equality for Muslim women from within. Perhaps they can take inspiration from the English suffragettes of a century ago. Christianity manages largely to avoid criticism in this country because it has been brought up to date with most current ethical principles, albeit sometimes slowly and reluctantly. Islam, hardly present in the West until very recently, had no such updating process and feels very threatened by it.
http://cricketandcivilisation.blogspot.com
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 12:49 PM
I wonder how many posters on the CIF or other such blogs have actually been won over by an opinion that they did not originally hold...
Not many, if any...The columnist give an opinion and everyone else says, well 'And I think'....
I'm feeling it anymore, not feeling it at all......
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 12:50 PM
This is the same kind of elitist narcissism that leads 'avowed secularists' such as Madonna to select, buy, and abscond with little black babies in the same manner as the European slave traders who came before her.
I don't believe Polly even touched upon the only subject that matters: the quality of education. It's not religous schools that are floundering. Based on their commitment to it, it's quite clear that religionists simply care more about education than secularists. So rather than actually do something, let's write CiFs about how those damn churchies are using Labour to screw everything up. Ironic to say the least.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 12:51 PM
"She is not alone in meeting Muslim woman who are appalled that their own daughters might adopt the veil as a political gesture. "
Those Muslim women may like to point out to their daughters that if they *were* to start wearing it as a political uniform, they may be committing a criminal offence under the 1935 Public Order Act (which prohibits the wearing of political uniforms).
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 12:54 PM
Maisonmascara, you say that "You people brought us colonialism, slavery, nuculer weapons, chemical weapons, third world debt, the IMF, wars, inquisitions".
I'm sorry to have to tell you that I had nothing to do with any of them.
You go on to say "You are a hateful people. This will come to haunt you after your death when you will meet God."
Well in the extremely unlikely event that any sort of God exists, I'd be quite happy to talk to him about all the reasons I don't believe in him.
But such vitriol from you is quite amusing...is this the sort of attitude that was taught to you as you were "brought up as a Muslim but was educated as a Catholic private school"?
You do much to promote a secular society with those sort of comments, thanks!
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 12:55 PM
maisonmascara, you're a hypocrite. You enjoy the benefits of secularisation as much as I do. The only plan Muslims know about is the one the imam tells them. Thank God you're a minority.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 12:56 PM
Great Polly,
I agree with you all the way. At the risk of being termed and sound like a broken gramophone record, we must still carry on with our secular thoughts. We must make sure that the women are treated as equals in private and business world. One of the reasons why Muslims are left behind economically is that their women are locked up in four walls, are not apposition to broaden their horizon, as they are not allowed to go out and talk and make friends. Such “prisons” make them slightly handicapped. They are not in a position to help children achieve their potentials in schools and life thereafter.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 12:58 PM
maisonmascara
"You people"
Who is "you people"?
"brought us colonialism,"
Saladin?
"slavery,"
Arab slave traders, who were operating for centuries before the Europeans re-entered the market (and still are)?
"nuculer weapons, chemical weapons,"
I notice you do not mention biological weapons - famously used by muslims to spread the black death throughout Europe.
"third world debt"
Eh?
"the IMF"
Guilty to that one.
"wars, inquisitions. Do you have no shame."
Dunno about shame - but certainly a rather better knowledge of history than you appear to possess.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 12:58 PM
''Do we really want to go back to Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Mengistu et al? ''
Hitler and Stalin both had religious upbringing and Hitler referred to himself as a Catholic in many of his speaches. His hatred of the Jews had a religious basis.
''Christianity does, however, oppose casual sex as it is unlikely that two parents who have little in common or little interest in staying together will face up to their responsabilities as parents. ''
There is a thing called contraception. Sex is not just about making babies.
''Much of the tensions coming to the surface in Britain now are precisely because we have lost our historic identity. We are now redescending into a nation of warring tribes because there is no God to unify us.''
We lost our 'historic identity' when the Christians displaced the pagans.
''Christianity (and also Islam) recognises that every human life is equal in the eyes of God.''
Except those he commands you to kill.
''The Pope does not force anyone to have babies.''
No, he opposes contraception and abortion which amounts to the same thing.
''If Polly would take the blinkers off she would recognise that most religions at the time they were founded have advanced the status of women.''
Those they don't burn or stone to death?
''Religious people, like all British people, have the right to protest at a play or something else if they don't like it. Provided they keep those protests peaceful. ''
Yes, they do. Pity that their protests are usually accompanied by death threats though, isn't it?
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 12:58 PM
ThomasY: Are you serious?
You implicitly compare British secularists with Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin etc. Why not make an equally valid (and offensive) comparison between British religious people and all the other murderous fanatics in history, from the Crusades and the Spanish conquest of the Americas to modern jihadis and fundamentalists of all faiths?
"Far from being divisive, religion is often a unifier."
Yes, because we can all unite under the one banner of hatred for the unbelievers. (By the way, the Welsh and Irish were Christian before the English arrived, but it didn't stop the "unified" Christian English nicking their land, did it?)
"Christianity (and also Islam) recognises that every human life is equal in the eyes of God. Male, female, slave and freeman, Jew and gentile etc...The fact that some humans do not see this is not the fault of God."
Haven't you seen how religion is exploited to entrench and exacerbate territorial conflicts like Northern Ireland, Kashmir or Israel/Palestine?
Anyway, this old excuse - "Religions don't kill people, people kill people" - doesn't wash, and claiming special moral virtues for religious people (why no Buddhists or shamanists in your list?), defies all the evidence of history.
But of course George Bush's "faith-based" policies have proved so much less disastrous than the boring old "reality-based" approach, haven't they?
The fact is that some religious people are good, and some are not, just like non-religious people. Religion may inform moral behaviour, or be used to justify immoral behaviour. (I can recommend AC Grayling's little book "What Is Good?" for anyone seeking a brisk review of the philosophical distinction between ethical and religious values, for example).
Religion has to belong to the personal sphere, because the state should not control or endorse one religion over another. And we should respect and value people as human beings, not on the basis of their faith or lack of it.
And in an imperfect world full of people with different religions, encouraging division through "faith" schools etc is like giving flame-throwers to children.
If we carry on doing this, we're all going to get burned.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 01:03 PM
Religion is all about controlling women and their bodies. Men need it, but women certainly don't.
Free women from religion. Only a completely secular government will give women equal rights with men.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 01:06 PM
So to sum up: France was right about Iraq (although we slagged them off at the time).
France was right about headscarves (although we slagged them off at the time).
Can anyone see a pattern emerging?
Couldn't Blair just get on the phone to the Elysee to see what we should be doing next?
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 01:07 PM
Excellent article.
Perhaps we should import the U.S' approach to separating state and church,though even when enshrined in a costitution they are also a good example of how a band of opportunistic(peudo)religious nuts can still hijack a country and government policy.
Muslims are only 5% of the British population and a tiny minority of this minority is made up of the women who wear the veil
I think that muslims in general are already tarred by the bombers brush(another tiny minority within the minority)
The veil is very damaging to Islam because the majority in Britain will identify muslims with the minority who wear the niqab(or semi-burka).The veil-wearers are in danger of creating the impression that all muslim women are like this, or that Islam is inherently repressive.
A visit to many muslim countries will show tnat even there the niqab wearers are in a minority.
Today's frontpage article: 'Even other Muslims turn and look at me' clearly shows this,and vividly illustrates the physical and mental suffering of the muslim writer who wore it for just one day.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,1924101,00.html
As a society we have a "live and let live" mentality which allows people to pierce,tattoo or make weird and wonderful (or not) statements about themselves or the group they belong to.
But a person who arrives for a job interview with a tattooed face must know his dream of being a bank manager(or most jobs to be honest) is destined for failure.
Likewise a veiled woman going to the same interview...or most other jobs to be honest.
Can you believe that most people if they have a choice of candidates would choose to spend the following ten years with a colleague in front of them whose face is completely covered? Or have the same person represent their company at a conference or business meeting?
This means that the wearer is destined to bear the consequences, social and economic(like the tattooed or punk etc),of their particular statement. Is this the best way to escape the poverty and lack of opportunity that many in the muslim community suffer?
While I have no problems with a person's choice (some nuns take vows of silence and seclude themselves too) My problem with the veil is that I am never sure that it is the woman's free choice and that she is not the victim of a repressive family or society.
My silence in the face(or lack of) of a victim can seem as if I and society at large are condoning her treatment and repression.
We cannot ignore that there have been many "honour" killings of women who decide to spend their life with someone of their choosing. In Britain many mixed couples are in hiding,often having to change job and location to escape the killers hired by families to wipe the stain on the family's "honour". Similarly, in Saudia Arabia many a girl has been stoned to death or drowned in the family well for having the wrong boyfriend or shaming the family in some way.
In this climate, I see the burka or semi-burka as a form of repression.
Women who have the freedom to wear it or not should make the sacrifice not to, so we can "see" who the ones who are forced into it,and maybe help them.
(Secularists should be happy about the veil as perhaps it is the catylyst for some honest debate and ultimately the separation of state and church which would have been unthinkable in the climate of cosy nothingness of the C of E)
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 01:09 PM
Very well said Polly. There are two simple truths here as far as I see it. First, women are not the property of men regardless of what may be written in religious texts. Second, schools are for learning, not for religion.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 01:12 PM
Camera: The report you mention states that one in 10 Brazilian priests may be sexually active - not that one in 10 may be paedophiles. Most of those who are active are active with consenting people of legal age. I suppose the flip side of the report is that nine out of 10 maintain the vow of celibacy.
Priestly paedophilia remains very rare when compared to the prevalence of the problem of paedophilia in general society. Perhaps you should ask why organisations like the NHS administer contraception to children under the legal age and then refuse to investigate why the children need contraception and with whom they intend to use the contraceptives? It can only be for a criminal purpose.
If stopping paedophilia is your aim you should take a long hard look at current secular society as well.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 01:14 PM
“But the woman in question is participating on (presumably) equal terms in the world of work.”
No she definitely isn’t. She is a teaching assistant so has to work with another person who is qualified. If that person is male she refuses to interact with the kids fully. What do you expect her employers to do stop men working in certain classrooms (illegal), let the children suffer and ignore it (parent have complained and could sue) or ask her to change her stance (as they have done). I can’t see anyone who has complained that the school has overreacted who has made a suggestion about what those parents should do whose children are slipping behind because of her except that they should respect her right to ruin their children’s education. Not only do I feel this woman shouldn’t win a payout but also that she should be classed as having made herself voluntarily unemployed.
I agree on the need for secular schools but I also think that women should be allowed to wear veil if they want. However we could and should ban it from being worn where there is a danger to others such as driving and operating certain machinery and they have to accept that this means that they can’t effectively do certain jobs which require a dress code for health or safety or in the interests of doing the job effectively. Muslims have the right to opt out of mainstream society as much as hippies, or tree-huggers, commune joiners or monks and priests. What they don’t have is the right to not expect criticism if they then claim state money while freely making choices that make them hard to employ. That is equality.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 01:17 PM
Finally some sense, I am always amazed how Europeans forget how hard they fought for equality and women's rights when it comes to veils? How can veils and even the hijab ensure equality? Liberal muslims like myself are against both so it doesn't help when westerners -headed by their governments- side with the extreme views of islam in the name of 'personal choice'!
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 01:19 PM
ThomasY in Reply to your post
1, Look at the commandment "Thy shall not covet thy neighbours wife." If your a man and your neighbours wife is extremely good looking your going to covet her. Not acting on the desire is what is required but this is something completely different and the difference is at the core of the problem of the churches unrealistic attitude to sex.
I have casual sex and so do all my friends some with more success than others. We have all not had a child out of wedlock. In the vast majority of children born out of wedlock there birth was caused by not using contraceptives. In the age of the pill and easily availible condoms your arguements outdated and flawed. Sex for pleasure is just as important to a couple as sex for children.
2, I agree that the church can unify but how much of that unifing to the New Faith of Christianity was by choice and how much was by forced conversion. Look how many pagans are left. I think it wouldn't be to much of a stretch of the imagination to think that some awfull things happen to those who didn't convert.
"We are now redescending into a nation of warring tribes because there is no God to unify us" Like all people who seek total unification you seek everybody to unify under your banner. If we made the state fully liberal secular this would allows much more freedom than either a christian or muslim Theocracy.
3, Faiths have never recognised everyone as equal. Those without faith have always been labeled less. Catholics profess the creed that says you are of the one true faith and until recently they belived you spent eternity in the fires of hell otherwise. Some protestants say you have to be born again to be saved. Jews believe they are the choosen people and Muslims call non believers infidels.
4, The catholic churches attitude is that contraceptives are against the will of God. Banning cantraceptives removes one of the greatest changes is the history of womens rights and that is the ability to control how many babies they have. Even within marraige a women severely limits her choice and her families choice if she can't control how many children she has. But asking a pious single male organisation to understand this is pointless.
5, Religion may have forwarded womens rights 1000's of yrs ago but in the last 200 they have done nothing but hold them back. Nobody could possible argue that womens rights are better respected by religion over secularism. In every religious based society be it the societies in the dark ages or the theocracys in the middle east or the quasi Theocracy in Ireland women rights where neglected.
"Born of Adams rib" hardly sugests equality.
6, I actually agree with you. The right to protest is paramount. But remember freedom of expresion should include the right to Blaspheme and attack religions. Something the churches aren't keen to allow. Why do we have special laws protecting religion?
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 01:22 PM
I posted this on a dying thread about the veil the other day which may be of interest:
On the subject of repression(usually males repressing females - funny that), the recent article "Of Bonds and Bondage" is depressingly illuminating and shows what short memories we have when we in Britain adopt our cultural superiority complex. Here is a snippet:
Of Bonds and Bondage
http://books.guardian.co.uk/departments/generalfiction/story/0,,1882137,00.html
In her latest novel, The Vanishing Act of Esme Lennox, Maggie O'Farrell tackles the complex nature of sibling relationships and the harrowing hidden stories of women incarcerated in mental asylums for decades for "transgressive" behaviour. She talks to Sarah Crown about family ties and a shocking chapter in British history.
...Where, I wondered, did the germ for the story come from?
"...I suppose it was kicked off the Community Care Act that Thatcher passed in 1990, which led to the closure of lots of the old Victorian asylums. As the inmates were released into the community, stories of women - it was almost always women - like Esme began to emerge. They fascinated me. A friend told me about his grandmother's cousin who'd been put away when she was 19 because she'd eloped, and had been inside ever since. She died in there, in the end. The stories were deeply, deeply shocking - and there were so many of them. There's a scene in the book in which Iris looks through the patients' admission notes in the asylum record room, and the cases she reads about are all real."
She pauses briefly, then goes on. "What's really astonishing is that I've given several readings of the book, and at every single one people have come up to me and said, this happened to my grandmother, this happened to my aunt ... I met a woman last night who told me her great aunt had been put away at the age of 14 because she'd been raped by a priest and her family hadn't believed her when she told them. And she died there, in her 70s. It's a shocking, shameful chapter in our history. And it went on for a very long time."
Indeed, it's the present tense nature of the thing that is so disturbing. In her landmark work The Female Malady: Women, Madness and English Culture, the academic Elaine Showalter explores the history of labelling socially transgressive female behaviour (suing for divorce under the 1857 Divorce Art, for example) as insanity and dealing with it accordingly, but by focusing on the life of one women in the very recent past, O'Farrell lends the situation a worryingly contemporary air.
"As recently as the 1950s, a man could commit his wife or daughter to an asylum with just a signature from a GP," she points out."
Lest we forget.
It's a freedom thing. Not necessarily a muslim thing.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 01:24 PM
Here's the compromise:
The religious should leave state funded schools alone
just as the state doesn't make private religions secular.
Religion has no place in the common education of everyone, it is divisive for upbringing in general, and in education in particular. It would promote separation and, ultimately, racism, so it should just stay out!
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 01:25 PM
**GCSE in Logic, question 1**
Identify the basic logical flaw found in both the following statements:
Women in Kabul are forced to wear a veil, therefore women in Bradford must be forced not to wear it.
People in Turkey are not allowed to mention the Armenian massacres, therefore people in France should not be allowed to deny it.
(5 marks)
Students in the remedial class may find the folowing resource helpful:
http://www.opendemocracy.net/faith-europe_islam/two_veils_3989.jsp
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 01:25 PM
Polly - very good, very sensible. I'll add my voice to those saying that the UK should be a secular state. Believe what you want but don't expect any public funds for your religion.
Babylon2006 - I'm glad you're happy to be a muslim woman - but Polly wasn't saying all muslim women are forced to wear the hijab as you suggest - merely suggesting that some may be forced or pressured into wearing the niqab - something which you also appear to believe.
Disveteran - "Our society, without christian teaching, would not exist". So what? Our society, without Greek philosophy, the Roman conquest and countless other events, also would not exist. Many of our values are shared by christianity but that does not mean that they are exclusive to christianity.
If the state is to be identified with christianity, which sect do you choose? C of E? RC? Wee Frees (or Presbyterian Jihad as Billy Connolly calls them)?
georgeat4 - "Islam is not a race" - Yep, absolutely right, it's not. However, many of its adherents in this countries are of minority, often brown, races, so there is a definite crossover between racists and muslim-bashers at times. I'm not for a moment suggesting that you are either by the way. Of course it should be able to criticise any religion without being immediately shouted down as a bigot.
Niqabs - If you want to wear one, it's absolutely your right to do so. However, it is also the right of employers and the state to insist on certain reasonable dress requirements for employees and for staff in high-security areas to be able to identify people entering those areas. It's also my right to think wearing a niqab is a bit weird and possibly not the best step for women's rights you might have made.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 01:40 PM
Parental choice. If you want to pass on your deluded opinions to your offspring, use your own money to pay a person in a cloak to perform the rituals. I do not pay taxes to fund indoctrination. Not only (Bewley, above) are women not the property of men, but children suffer abuse from the belief that they are their parents' property.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 01:41 PM
I was surprised by the writer encountering so few other women wearing the veil as she moved around London.I live in Hackney and women wearing the niquab plus veil are a common sight and yes surely all people of good sense and of all faiths would recognise that this is regrettable.
I do not know for sure if more women are now choosing to wear the veil but it wouldn't surprise me.My guess is that this is just another symptom of the poisoned relationship that now exists between the West and the Muslim world.More and more young men are drawn to Islamic fundamentalism and thoughts of jihad as a reaction to what they see happening to fellow muslims in the Middle East. The illegal war and the carnage in Iraq has given so much added emphasis to the sad fate of Palestinians over the past 50 years. I suspect that the extreme assertion of Muslim faith involved in wearing the veil is all part of the same thing, a defensive reaction, on the part of a minority, to perceived injustice and persecution.
If I am right in my analysis a lot of the discussion that is now taking place around the wearing of the veil is not as relevant as it seems. The way forward would be finding political solutions in Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan etc.,replacement of political leaders such as Bush & Blair, defusing the tensions that exist between the West and the Muslim world.When this is done it then becomes possible to start healing the wounds, to talk constructively about how the large muslim populations that are now a part of modern Europe can be more happily integrated into a redefined European culture. I fear a progressive "Euro-Islam" cannot easily develop whilst the present tensions persist. Blair Straw & Reid are unable/unwilling to acknowledge this and as a consequence every word they utter on the subject is likely to make the situation worse, even when the words are well-intentioned.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 01:44 PM
TomasY, I personally know two cases of people who were abused by priests when they were children. This could be an incredible coincidence or it could be just the norm, but the scandals that have rocked the Catholic Church over the last couple of years in all corners of the world lead me to believe the latter.
You are correct in pointing out that 10% of misdemeanours in Brazil are not necessarily with children, but given the Vatican tendency to cover up the cases they know of and move the priests from one location to another without punishment, there is no way of finding out. A survey of U.S. Catholic dioceses conducted by the Associated Press found that over a thousand priests were accused of molesting children in the US and more than half of the dioceses had yet to be investigated by them! Given the hypocrisy of the Chuch in all matters related to sex, unlike you I would not conclude that nine out of 10 maintain the vow of celibacy, but that many are simply not cought or their misdemeanors are not disclosed by the Vatican.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 01:54 PM
To be fair, multi-culturalism is a red herring in the argument against state schools - it leaves the discussion open to racism and ignores the problems faith school segregation has been causing for generations - there is a reason to concentrate on christianity.
I grew up opposite a catholic primary. I walked past it every day to go to my securlar primary school - past the shouts, insults, regular fights. And the ABSOLUTE separation of 2 groups of children being taught they were somehow different and who rarely mixed outside of school as well as being segregated within.
Leave religion aside and simply understand how damaging this segregation is - it has contributed to ongoing issues of sectarianism in various areas of the UK for decades. This is NOT a modern issue - but Blair is clearly exacerbating the problem.
Faith schools are an unacceptable part of society. And if a faith chooses to segregate its young - without their informed consent but with the bigotry of the parents - then the taxpayer should NOT have to pay a penny towards propagating those personal beliefs.
As for the key point it is clearly true - religion oppresses and does not protect women. It never has and never will. But women's rights are far from the only reason why a secular state is the best way forward.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 01:59 PM
A very good article, Polly. In all the endless Guardian threads about veilling only one poster has pointed out that in England and Wales it is a criminal offence under English law 'to go masked' in a public place. The government and the police presumably know this but don't have the courage to publicise or enforce it.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 01:59 PM
It should be the right of every consenting adult to hold such barmy views as they enjoy and wear strange impractical clothes if that is their choice. Similarly they should be allowed to eat unhealthy foods, drink unhealthy drinks and even smoke cigarettes so long as nobody else has to suffer from it.
In our tolerant and liberal society we increasingly do not prescribe unhealthy behaviours : we tax them. So it should be with religion.
Some religions are more harmful than others, Christianity & Islam for example, and these would be rated as "Category A" religions subject to heavy taxes. Most religions could be in "Category B" whilst the religions that are so wishy-washy as to be almost indistinguishable from agnosticism such as Buddism and traditional Anglicanism could be almost untaxed in "Category C".
Thus the treasury's coffers are topped up with money to spend on exciting science projects for the schools and more university places for Physics & Engineering students at no cost to society.
Our society protects minors from harmful influences like hardcore pornography and we should apply the same measures to religion before it corrupts impressionable young minds. Some sort of exemption for pre-lingual babies in traditional naming ceremonies could be made we should be banning the under 18s from all religious premises and placing restrictions on the sales of religious products.
Like hardcore porn I doubt it will ever go away and will probably be available on the internet for anybody with a credit card. This is how it should be.
Tolerated yes, but approved of and subsidised - no.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 02:00 PM
For those of you who can read French, I thoroughly recommend reading this interview with Algerian novelist Mohamed Kacimi published recently in Libération.
http://www.liberation.fr/transversales/weekend/209081.FR.php
On the question of Islam and women, here's what he has to say:
Question: La femme, convoitée et interdite à la fois : l'un des noeuds de cette crise ?
Answer: Il se situe essentiellement autour de la femme et de la sexualité. Avec l'obsession de «l'honneur», du regard des autres sur «nos» femmes. Dans le langage des religieux, la femme est qualifiée de «Aouara», c'est-à-dire de «honte». Pour dire cette obsession, il faut souligner que la plupart des titres islamistes que l'on vend dans les rues du Caire ou de Rabat portent essentiellement là-dessus, on y trouve comment punir sa femme, comment maîtriser la créature de Satan, comment contrôler ses instincts, etc. Je suis interloqué d'entendre évoquer «la volupté du monde arabe», les Mille et Nuits, à chaque fois qu'il y a une crise ; de voir ces quelques penseurs qui nous ressortent les «délices» d'une civilisation qui a produit les harems, et le hammam, et «l'Orient». Ce n'est pas parce que quelques figures ont traversé quinze siècles d'obscurantisme, à cause de quelques moments privilégiés à Bagdad, Damas ou Cordoue, qu'on peut occulter ou, pis, magnifier toute cette histoire de lente décadence qui mène l'homme, aujourd'hui, à ce culte de la mort et à ce déni de l'amour. Tout comme il fonctionne sur une foi aveugle dans les textes, l'islamisme peut-être également perçu comme l'émanation et l'expression d'une profonde misère sexuelle collective. La femme réelle est voilée, occultée, interdite, déclarée par la plupart des pays comme mineure pour mieux exalter les «vierges du Paradis». Comme si tout ce qui est vivant faisait de l'ombre à Allah !
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 02:02 PM
Babylon2006
*I wear the hijab and nobody has forced me to wear it...
I choose my colors, my styles everything. My choice...
Personally, I am wrapped up , because I am a gift, I feel special...but I feel far more special than if I was to show off the beauty I was given to everyone around me. I keep my beauty for people who are special to me.*
You feel that your body and hair are oh-so-special that mere mortals on the street aren't allowed to see even glimps or lines of it, while you don't think the same about your face. You don't think that your face is as special as your body? If you really felt that you are special you would go all the way and wear also niqab. You don't seem to live up to your principles.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 02:04 PM
Boring I know but if a woman chooses to wear a veil of her own free will that is good even if she is making a political statement. That's the thing about political statements. Not everyone likes what you say but that is their problem. If a woman is bullied and coerced into wearing it by her husband, father, brothers etc that is bad. It's a bit like sex really. If a woman consents that is ok. If she does not that is rape and is definitely not ok.
If a shop worker chooses to wear a veil, so what? But the classroom assistant does present a problem. I have no doubt also that veils may present a health and safety problem in other jobs. In those cases, the woman has to make a choice between unveiling or not taking the job.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 02:06 PM
This is a convoluted, contradictory and lazy article. On the one hand Toynbee argues that the veil is decisive and an obstruction to muslim women participating in all aspects of society, and yet calls for veiled women to be excluded from all places of education – how does excluding women from public office because they wear a veil encourage such women to participate more fully in society??
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 02:07 PM
Yes, early feminists had to face the opposition of many women; but their campaigning for the freedom of women to vote and enjoy a higher standard of work and education did not restrict the freedom of other women, or even involve telling them what to do. Exhorting women to lose the veil, and certainly banning it in certain situations, does. That doesn't make it wrong, but it makes it more than just another simple question of feminism.
Many young Muslim women tell us they feel opressed by the constant need to appear beautiful, and find the veil a liberation from that constant pressure. With eating disorders on the rise, those who seek to oppose the veil on purely feminist grounds need to respond to these claims more thoroughly.
To dismiss women's choice of the veil as "nonsense" ignores a key, recurring issue for feminism: what to do with those who reject the equality (or the particular brand of equality) others choose for them?
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 02:12 PM
JennM, I don't think men need religion any more than women. I'm not religious, neither of my brothers are, none of my male friends either. Are all your male friends/relatives religious? I think the more vigorous forms of Islam in this country are more about fear of cultural dilution of Islamic heritage than a more fervent religiosity. Frankly, I couldn't give a f**k about disaffected Muslim youth; join the club arseholes, I don't know many 'white' youth who aren't 'disaffected' at some point, jail's full of 'em.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 02:34 PM
Gladstonian. Surely your" so I don't think we should be blanket in...." is some piece of veiled irony? Now wouldn´t it be lovely(All I want is a...) if someone could find a command in the Koran telling all male muslims that they have to wear a full veil,and a burka on special days,and that female muslims can grow a beard if they so choose.Seriously,though, no secular state should allow any religion to have its way.Faith and religion are matters private. There should be no public demonstrations used by most religions to show the world that they are here.You should practise your faith in your church or mosque or at home.And I personally would be obliged to many sportsmen/women and public figures(e.g. actors) if they did not manifest their beliefs in public.To see footballers coming on to the pitch and making a sign of the cross is just the pits.Let´s hope that muslim footballers or more likely cricketers do not begin to kneel towards Mecca.My parents were Irish catholics but they never went around trying to bring that fact to others attention.They went to church, and prayed at home. Me? I am an atheist;have been for thirty years.My children have no religion. Their friends are mostly religious.They juat do not talk about it and get along in harmony.There are fanatics in all religions,and ouside religion;however an extremly high percentage of muslims do seem to want their faith to impose itself on our democratic principles. "East is east and west is west and never the twain shall meet" At the moment this would sadly seem to be true.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 02:35 PM
Sometimes it's good to sit back and observe without any sort of emotional involvement. Religions are all the same, there is hardly anything new since Zoroastrianism or Greek Mythology. The same stories with character with different names...
Religions and their God evolve with time and progress, extremist Islam prevails in Medieval parts of the world. There God/Allah is still considered as a Demiurge. Christianism is more or less the same, it's a bit older and had to revisit the Old Testament with the new and imporved New Testament including the Dyionisos/Yeshua story that was going to be a success for supporting the Roman Empire who already feeled the benefits of switching from Polytheistic Pagan pantheon to a Mono/Sun God framework that proved to be very beneficial to revolutionary Pharaoh Akhenaton. While I'm not an Atheist as I believe it requires the same sort of faith to be certain that there is no God, I find it very difficult to believe any religion whatsoever. Because of the role it had supporting a civilisation/empire with political/imperialist agendas that have nothing to do with God nor the life improvement of the population that feed and support this empire. All Abrahamic religions falls into the same bracket.
But spirituality and metaphysics are an emotional obsession to mankind. Religion provide the metaphysical answers in return of your.... soul and obedience; Still one of the most successful way to manipulate people... although still second to money.
BTW, good article. while I agree that full veil is not adequate for teachers as it makes the job impossible to do... and it applies for a lot of jobs. somewhat I'm amused by the fact that wearing the full gown is a sign of total submission to the male master smaller version of demiurge God and usually women treated like that are forbidden to work.... but Money must still have the best of the most extreme.
contradiction: a clear sign of the 21st century.
peace to all
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 02:35 PM
WoollyMindedLiberal
Oppression of religion has occurred many times in the past and has caused the religions in question to grow even more, so your 'ideas' may not work.
Relating exposure to religion to exposure to porn is ridicules. Most people who are religious do not go around causing distress but try to live their lives in a good way and desire to help other people. How is Christianity an 'unhealthy behaviour'. I can not understand how I have been corrupted by christianity, my parents are christians but all my friends through school were not (these people had much more influence over me then my parents at that time). I have been exposed to and experienced both sides and chosen for myself.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 02:36 PM
'Will the next Labour leader be brave enough to confront growing segregation? If so, start by ending all religious state education. It would be popular: a Guardian/ICM poll finds 64% of voters think "the government should not be funding faith schools of any kind".' It is possible such a leader might arise, but very improbable. Presidents and prime ministers do not in general want a rational electorate. As to the 64% figure, well, the British electorate was against the invasion of Iraq. But these are not democratic times, even if some, most conspicuously presidents and prime ministers, wish to tell us otherwise.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 02:36 PM
If complex human civilization has any future (which is looking more and more doubtful with the growing fresh water crisis and carbon heating problems), it will be a result of finally casting off and forever rejecting the puerile, infantile fantasies of religion.
Deluded old men protecting their regressive, patriarchal privileges are the truest enemies of humanity and the future of civilization. Tony Blair and Dubya are not just war criminals, they are the enemies of the future. Religion sacrifices the future on the altars of the past, in order to preserve a long outdated maledom hierarchy. For the state to be promoting and financing private religious schools at the expense of publicly-funded education is criminal.
It is hateful and deeply depressing the way people like Ms. Toynbee keep ignoring the enormous elephant in the room. New Labour is to the right of Thatcherism. New Labour is the most dishonest government of the last century. Wake up, Polly. Quit supporting these vicious scumbag liars!
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 02:36 PM
Gladstonian. Surely your" so I don't think we should be blanket in...." is some piece of veiled irony? Now wouldn´t it be lovely(All I want is a...) if someone could find a command in the Koran telling all male muslims that they have to wear a full veil,and a burka on special days,and that female muslims can grow a beard if they so choose.Seriously,though, no secular state should allow any religion to have its way.Faith and religion are matters private. There should be no public demonstrations used by most religions to show the world that they are here.You should practise your faith in your church or mosque or at home.And I personally would be obliged to many sportsmen/women and public figures(e.g. actors) if they did not manifest their beliefs in public.To see footballers coming on to the pitch and making a sign of the cross is just the pits.Let´s hope that muslim footballers or more likely cricketers do not begin to kneel towards Mecca.My parents were Irish catholics but they never went around trying to bring that fact to others attention.They went to church, and prayed at home. Me? I am an atheist;have been for thirty years.My children have no religion. Their friends are mostly religious.They just do not talk about it and get along in harmony.There are fanatics in all religions,and ouside religion;however an extremly high percentage of muslims do seem to want their faith to impose itself on our democratic principles. "East is east and west is west and never the twain shall meet" At the moment this would sadly seem to be true.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 02:48 PM
AllyF: you reply to me:
"I think that is quite oppressive and sexist, and dare I say it I think it has a slightly racist overtone as well ('these poor little Muslim women are so oppressed they can't even choose their own clothes.')"
My original point, that you are confusing race and religion still stands. If I am patronising Muslims, how is that racist? What makes you think that all Muslims are non-white? Even if they were, it still would not make your accusation valid. Their race is incidental to my comments, not the target of them. If all Catholics were white, and I criticised Catholicism, that would not be racist either. If I said things like 'bloody brown people, always wearing veils and not fitting in', that would be racist. If I say things like 'bloody Muslims, always wearing veils and not fitting in', that is not.
Try and differentiate between the two criticisms, it is quite important.
As to your further point re. the BNP, I think you will find that I mentioned that in my original post, but to repeat it (as far as I can remember it): "the other people who believe that Asian=Muslim=Asian are the neanderthals in the BNP. Strange bedfellows, what?"
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 02:48 PM
maisonmascara wrote,
"You people brought us colonialism, slavery, nuculer [sic] weapons, chemical weapons, third world debt, the IMF, wars, inquisitions. Do you have no shame[?] When will you realise that you do not own other people[?]"
Firstly: yes, as a British citizen, I do feel some shame at many of my predecessors' beliefs and policies. Maybe that's why I am (a) an atheist, and (b) concerned that as an ex-colonial power, this country now helps to right the other wrongs you mention (including, ahem, Bush II's mispronunciations). I would also add environmental degradation. And secondly: I never did think I owned other people.
Now I'm bemused as well...
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 02:49 PM
1
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 02:50 PM
WoollyMindedLiberal's idea of taxing religion is excellent - and since Jesus preached that taxes should be paid ('render unto Caesar...') Christians at least cannot object!
Funds raised could be used to finance deprogramming centres for 'recovering believers'.
Everyone wins.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 02:54 PM
Great article from a lady I more often than not disagree with. The problem is where do we go from here. Religious people and groups are so vocal that they 'teenager like' stomp around making threats until they get their way. Something about sqeaky wheels getting the grease.
On the other hand the majority of people in this country are athiest or agnostic (even when they are loosely aligned with a religion) and want to live in a society that preaches a respect for others stemming from hundreds of years of progressive thought. Unfortunately our protests tend to take place in the form of blog comment. Even our vote has become useless in a land of shite political parties. Unless we become radicalised, and our very thinking contradicts this, the views of the majority will continue to be drowned out.
State funded faith schools are an abomination. Anyone who says they do not encourage segregation is pushing a different agenda.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 03:13 PM
A total and utter disgrace that we have superstitious freaks running this country. Bring back democracy, I say, fully. No one person, crazy Blair or pious nutcase Ruth Kelly has ANY right whatsoever to make decisions on behalf of others. Blair has no human right to make decisions on his own on ANY issue. Each issue should be decided by maority after parliamentary debate. To bring about true democracy all that needs to happen is to abolish the party whip. End of. I am opting out of party politics. I have no wish ever again to have put my vote on a piece of paper which gives any one human being the right to make massively important decisions on the behalf of other people. I might say - on behalf of other 'innocent' people. I refuse to endorse crazy superstitions so I will not vote again, for anybody. As for the veil and the primitive-intelligences who can twist logic so badly that shrouded in a dank black piece of cloth gives them freedom and makes them pious, purlease. Anyway - as far as Islam and Christianity and Judaism and all the darn rest are concerned, I know for an absolute fact that the fairies at the bottom of my garden made the world. It is they I worship and I demand the right or a Fairies at the Bottom of the Garden faith school to be set up to which I will send all my children. Actually no, I'll send my cats. I don't have children. Too crazy a world. Actually, I won't even send my cats. All the religious nuts including Blair and Kelly will be forced to send their darling infants to my school. So - THERE!!!!!!!!!!!
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 03:14 PM
AA261176 sez: "On the one hand Toynbee argues that the veil is devisive and an obstruction to muslim women participating in all aspects of society, and yet calls for veiled women to be excluded from all places of education – how does excluding women from public office because they wear a veil encourage such women to participate more fully in society??"
My guess is that you won't get an answer on this one....because what it comes down to is that people such as Toynbee consider themselves the ultimate measure of what every poor wretched Muslim woman can be; in short, unabiding narcissists.
And here's the problem with secularism - it offers nothing humans innately desire: meaning, moral guidance, kinship, connectedness with something bigger...everything we need to make sense of the world. Secularism is simply the absence of something else (ie, religion), nothing more.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 03:19 PM
Georgeat4:
"If I said things like 'bloody brown people, always wearing veils and not fitting in', that would be racist. If I say things like 'bloody Muslims, always wearing veils and not fitting in', that is not."
___________________________________________________________
If you believe that 'bloody Muslims, always wearing veils and not fitting in' is NOT a racist statement then we will just have to agree to disagree.
But let's assume for a moment that you are right. Let's assume that if I say 'all Muslims should be kicked out the country or shot' then I am not making a racist statement. Assume that if I assault someone in the street for wearing Islamic dress, that is not a racist attack. Assume that if I refuse to give a job to a Muslim or refuse to work alongside a Muslim, I am not being racist. Assume that if I shout obscene threats at a Muslim in the street I am not being racist.
Fine. I may not be a 'racist', but am I any better a person because of that? Are my crimes any less hurtful or damaging for not being 'racist'? Of course they are not.
The attitudes underpinning some people's attitudes to Muslims are formed in exactly the same way as racist attitudes are formed - negative stereotyping, prejudicial assumptions, dehumanisation, generalisation to all from the acts of the extremes, etc etc etc. Perhaps you'd like me to come up with another word to describe the 'quasi-racist' attitudes towards Muslims. Personally I don't like the word 'Islamophobic,' but I'll use it instead if you prefer? Or perhaps you'd like to come up with a brand new word that does the job?
But in the end it doesn't matter. A rose by any other name smells just as sweet. A racist by any other name stinks just as bad.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 03:21 PM
@ Krisco: I'm one of those who agree with a lot of what you write, and what you say about religion is incontrovertible, but I don't think "it's a sad day when Polly Toynbee joins in the fray in support of Straw". No one with his stomach in working order could care much for Straw's abject deference to the great Tony Blair, but as an Englishman he was damn well right in what he said about the veil. The day is just a little bit better when someone with Polly's gumption and intellectual honesty speaks out fearlessly in favour of rationalism.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 03:22 PM
There seems to be a lot of agreement here that a fully secular state is at least a partial answer to a number of questions in the Uk today.
We need to write to MPs, asking their position on this, maybe create a party.
What do we want?
No faith schools.
Whe do we want it/them??
Now.
Having grammatical trouble with my chant.
Does anyone know a website or embryonic party I can join?
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 03:23 PM
@ Krisco: I'm one of those who agree with a lot of what you write, and what you say about religion is incontrovertible, but I don't think "it's a sad day when Polly Toynbee joins in the fray in support of Straw". No one with his stomach in working order could care much for Straw's abject deference to the great Tony Blair, but as an Englishman he was damn well right in what he said about the veil. The day is just a little bit less sad, I would say, when someone with Polly's gumption and intellectual honesty speaks out fearlessly in favour of rationalism.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 03:24 PM
Well, I've seen everything now! Who would have thought that Polly Toynbee (who usually manages to generate such argument on these threads - not least from frothing-at-the-mouth right-wingers abusing her and other posters) would manage to attract a huge thread with the greatest degree of agreement I've ever seen on CiF or anywhere else ... 99.9%?
I too agree with her. I'm also enormously encouraged by the obvious support - and I think growth of and growing support - for a secular state and secular education ... hoorah, hoorah, hoorah, I really feel so happy at the moment. It seems that in their opposite ways of being both totally barking and universally loathed by any sane and intelligent person, Looney-Tunes fundo-Christians like Blair&Bush and extremist Islamicists have woken slumbering public opinion to the need for re-grounding of government and education in secularism ... Oh frabjous day!
One thing - as other posts have hinted at. In regards to 'religious garb' and in other ways, the 'observant' are demanding not 'equality' with others but privilege ... special treatment. Of course people can wear what they choose in their private life (but should realise that how they are treated by others WILL be affected by that - whether they are veiling themselves, disporting near-naked bodies in inappropriate situations or garbing themselves in some other unusual manner), but both law and societal convention do and always have had certain requirements.
Sometimes these are strict uniforms, but frequently suits for men and equivalents for women. To suggest that these are human rights or freedom issues is complete madness, but most people reading this will be perfectly aware that if they refuse to dress in certain ways they will not be able to continue in their jobs. For the religious to then come along and demand exemptions from these laws/mores is for the religious to demand preferential treatment over the non-religious and that is wholly unacceptable.
For some years now the police have been able to demand that protestors on marches etc. remove any mask or hindrance to their identity so that they can be filmed/photographed. On entering banks, post-offices and other establishments one is often required to remove even sunglasses. At security in airports even hats have to be taken off. Are the religious gaining exemptions from all these requirements too, that the rest of us must observe?
Was it not John Simpson who managed illegally to penetrate the security apparatus even of some despotic fundamentalist state by donning the burka as disguise to hide his true identity and purpose?
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 03:29 PM
''The attitudes underpinning some people's attitudes to Muslims are formed in exactly the same way as racist attitudes are formed - negative stereotyping, prejudicial assumptions, dehumanisation, generalisation to all from the acts of the extremes, etc etc etc. Perhaps you'd like me to come up with another word to describe the 'quasi-racist' attitudes towards Muslims. Personally I don't like the word 'Islamophobic,' but I'll use it instead if you prefer? Or perhaps you'd like to come up with a brand new word that does the job?''
Or, just as logically:
''The attitudes underpinning some people's attitudes to Nazis are formed in exactly the same way as racist attitudes are formed - negative stereotyping, prejudicial assumptions, dehumanisation, generalisation to all from the acts of the extremes, etc etc etc. Perhaps you'd like me to come up with another word to describe the 'quasi-racist' attitudes towards Nazis. Personally I don't like the word 'Naziphobic,' but I'll use it instead if you prefer? Or perhaps you'd like to come up with a brand new word that does the job?''
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 03:31 PM
"And here's the problem with secularism - it offers nothing humans innately desire: meaning, moral guidance, kinship, connectedness with something bigger...everything we need to make sense of the world."
Eh... it offers science - that helps us make some sense of the world, indeed you'd probably be cowering in the corner every time you heard a clap of thunder convinced it was a sign from god if science hadn't come along to convince you otherwise.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 03:34 PM
Did all this kick off because Jack Straw wanted a woman to remove her veil before he was willing to talk to her? I tell you this, with or without a veil it still would have been like talking to a brick wall.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 03:36 PM
Generally speaking, Catholics give a child a better education than Polly Toynbees do.
This is in part because of the Catholic ethos of the schools.
They succeed because they don't operate on Polly principles. This makes the Pollys of this world angry; and bigoted.
Pollys want the Catholic schools to become Polly schools; but there is already a woeful oversupply of Polly schools which is one reason why Catholic schools are so popular. But take the Catholic out of Catholic schools and you risk ending up with a Polly school.
The sad fact is that the greatest exponents of irrationality, bigotry, hypocrisy and curtailment of opportunity are more often than not the Polly Toynbees.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 03:55 PM
Camera:
Science and religion are not incompatible so let's not open up a false science/religion divide. Science existed and was encouraged in religious societies both Christian and Muslim (yeah ok Galileo was treated badly) as a general rule.
Many great scientists have been deeply religious, many religious people have done much to promote secular learning. However, science can be abused just as religion is sometimes misused (science gave us the atom bomb, zyklon gas and the ability to commit mass murder in many different ways). Science can not explain everything.
Regarding your two friends, I hope they reported the culprits to the police and that they were appropriately punished. But I repeat my earlier assertion that paedophilia in the priesthood is a relatively rare phenomenon when compared to paedophilia in the community at large, even in the US. But don't label all priests who are tempted into a sexual act with a consenting adult as abusers. They are human too and will sometimes fail to live up to the standards they set for themselves.
Can those of you who are arguing for religion to be excluded from public life please tell me which atheist society you would uphold as the model we should follow? Soviet Russia, Mao's China or Pol Pot's Cambodia? It's funny how the least tolerant people on this thread seem to be the secularists.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 04:03 PM
why has so little worn by so few caused so much debate....u'd swear someone just opened a burka superstore!
the politicans must be laughing their heads off now, having once again successfully duped nearly everyone.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 04:03 PM
DogTherapist:
_________________________________________________________
Or, just as logically:
''The attitudes underpinning some people's attitudes to Nazis are formed in exactly the same way as racist attitudes are formed - negative stereotyping, prejudicial assumptions, dehumanisation, generalisation to all from the acts of the extremes, etc etc etc. Perhaps you'd like me to come up with another word to describe the 'quasi-racist' attitudes towards Nazis. Personally I don't like the word 'Naziphobic,' but I'll use it instead if you prefer? Or perhaps you'd like to come up with a brand new word that does the job?''
________________________________________________________
I’m not going to dignify this with an answer. You're either pathologically deluded or spectacularly stupid, and I doubt I'd get far arguing with you either way.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 04:05 PM
I believe the good old US of A prohibits religious symbols in state buildings.
Not a great fan of the States, but that will do for me.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 04:08 PM
goodness me,a toynbee article i can actually agree with.amazing what a break from extolling the virtues of nulabour can do!
but what is important,and what she only barely touches on,is bliar's part,with the added help of his little 'miss opus dei' friend,in all this.despite campbell's famous dictum of bliar 'not doing religion',the man though not officially wearing his closet catholicism on his sleeve has in fact been driven by his religious fundamentalism and has promoted the visions of all the religious fundamentalists.and the present government's efforts to demonise muslims has only given that religion's fundies the oppurtunity to promote the more repressive parts of their religion under the cover of being a persecuted religious minority.
such is the pernicious legacy of t.bliar.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 04:14 PM
ThomasY, a society with "religion excluded from public life" does not have to be an "atheist society". The USA, for example, excludes religion from public schools etc, but is one of the most fundamentalist christian countries in the world.
Identifying atheists with Pol Pot isn't very tolerant.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 04:16 PM
AllyF, you couldn't argue your way out of the open end of a paper bag.
...
''Can those of you who are arguing for religion to be excluded from public life please tell me which atheist society you would uphold as the model we should follow? Soviet Russia, Mao's China or Pol Pot's Cambodia? It's funny how the least tolerant people on this thread seem to be the secularists.''
Again, a religious nutjob spits his dummy out because he can't take criticism.
Where, in the comments above, are atheists calling for the extermination of believers?
Stalin was raised in a seminary, Hitler was Catholic, Pol Pot went to Catholic school.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 04:18 PM
"Can those of you who are arguing for religion to be excluded from public life please tell me which atheist society you would uphold as the model we should follow? Soviet Russia, Mao's China or Pol Pot's Cambodia? It's funny how the least tolerant people on this thread seem to be the secularists." My own feeling, ThomasY, is that the term "public life" should be left out of the matter. To take a case in point, there is nothing particularly public about a man's decision to stay home instead of going to mass, although during the Inquisition such a decision could have landed him in trouble. But to imply that what secularists want is consonant with the principles of the USSR, Mao's China, or Pol Pot's Cambodia is less than accurate. Where the USSR is concerned, incidentally, it should be noted that Communism was in essence a religion. In any case it is not clear that secularists on this thread or elsewhere are intolerant. A true secularist is a rational creature rather than a dogmatic one, and if he is not dogmatic then he is likely to tolerate religious people more readily than they tolerate him. In countries like Britain it is unquestionably owing to the thrust of secularism in recent centuries that with few exceptions a man is free to choose between the dictates of organized religion and those of his own conscence.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 04:29 PM
Dogtherapist; Your analogy with Nazi was a fitting argument
Ally F; You 'couldn't argue your way out of a paper bag'. Finding refuge in calling someone stupid betrays a lack of imagination at best and more likely idiocy.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 04:35 PM
Marksa, first comment, and too clever by half.
But if you think that sampling techniques will provide salvation, you've got the leadership of a new religion. Where do we come to worship you?
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 04:45 PM
People are generally stupid. Politicians are generally greedy populists.
Politicians generally promote stupidity that will make them richer.
peace*
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 04:46 PM
It's surprising to see how many non-muslim experts on Islam there are in Britain today... all climbing out of the woodworks making claims that "Islam is this and Islam is that".
In the Netherlands we had this same discussion stoked up by the populist politician Fortuyn 4 years ago. Eventually everyone got so bored with the topic and now the Dutch really couldn't care less anymore. The whole veil debate is just a fad stirred up by populist politicians and journalists who don't give a toss about muslim women. They're just in it for their own spot in the limelight.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 04:47 PM
ravcasleygera - good point. The problem with some feminists (not all that would be an unfair generalisation) is that they claim to speak for all of their sisters. Does PT claim to know the minds of muslim women? Does she "know" that they do not wear it out of choice? It reminds me of Clare Short who claimed that "women hate pornography". What arrogance. Some women hate pornography. Some don't care one way or the other and some like it.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 04:49 PM
camera:
Unfortunately, even when the science is explained, many religious nuts will not accept it.
Following the tsunami affecting Indonesia, Thailand, Sri Lanka, among others in 2004, some Muslim and Christian 'leaders' in those countries took advantage of the tragedy to suggest the cause was their particular god being angry because the people killed, injured, made homeless etc had not been good enough muslims, christians or whatever. Not that there had been a massive earthquake under the sea because of tectonic movement.
It was heartbreaking to see a young Indonesian muslim man, interviewed a few weeks after the tsunami. He had lost his entire extended family, his home, livelihood (fishing) and just everything. Except his faith in Allah. He said Allah must be angry with him. That it was his fault he had lost his family because he must not have fulfilled his duties as a muslim, and he would try harder in the future so that Allah would not send another tsunami.
For religious people those comments would have given them a lot of comfort, reaffirmed their faith in their god, and they would have been happy that the young man may have lost everything but still had his faith.
As for me I just felt sick, and desperately sad.
Surely, if you suffer such a great tragedy, if anything cofmorts you it is knowing that it was an unavoidable.'act of nature' rather than the revenge of an angry God?
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 04:49 PM
I am interested as to why Polly Tonybee would think that religious education is what is separating society. Catholic schools have been in place in N Ireland and in the mainland UK for years. People have pointed to the Catholics being educated in N Ireland as one of the reasons that society was so divisive. If that is the case then why isn't mainland UK a divisive society when we have so many Catholic schools here too?
I am afraid there is always an external factor. In N Ireland there is conflict between Republicans and Unionists. Now in the UK there's a divide between the Muslims and the rest of British society. Again people are pointing at the schools. Using schools as a scapegoat for a failing wider government policy (in this case Iraq) is at best a convenient diversion for the government from the real problem, and worse plays into the hands of some of the intolerant 'liberals' of the likes who post into this page.
It seems the liberals who claim to be after a tolerant society want no-one but themselves in it.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 04:49 PM
ThomasY,
I'm not quite sure where you find a connection between those of us who want to end the indoctrination of children in faith schools with a desire to impose Stalinism. Personally I find Spinoza offers the best way of living a humanist and spiritual life, I see him a bit as a Western Buddhist without the reincarnation (but no-one else has ever compared him in that way so I've probably missundestood everything he wrote). But the last thing I would ever do is put my children in a school which preached that Spinoza held all the answers to life.
Give the kids a break, let them decide for themselves when they are old enough to understand that there are different interpretations to why we are here, instead of imposing what you believe in their minds.
"Science and religion are not incompatible" - I also don't want to go into that but to limit yourself to only mentioning the persecution of Galileo is ludicrous.
Neither reported the priests to the police because they were both small children at the time and were to ashamed to tell their parents. The problem lies there, the vast majority of cases are never reported because the children feel too humiliated to tell anyone until much later in life, and as I said earlier when priests are denounced, the Vatican just move them over to another location so that different children can be abused.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 04:59 PM
wils, historically virtually every catholic in northern ireland went to a catholic school; and the 'state' schools were effectively protestant schools.
In Britain many catholics go to non-catholic schools, and the intake of genuine state schools is diverse. The main separation in britain is class: many christian schools select middle-class children. In some parts this translates in terms of race too (white catholic schools in London, white flight from inclusive comprehensives).
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 05:05 PM
Oh FFS. Right, against my better judgement and in response to JohnBrown & DogTherapist... here's why there is no sense whatsoever in the comparison between racism/Islamaphopia and 'Naziphobia'
Both racism and Islamophobia work by taking one aspect of a person's identity (their race or religion) and from there assuming negative traits... whether criminality, propensity to violence, religious fundamentalism, domestic oppression etc etc etc. Islam is a religion with around 1.5 billion adherents around the world. Like all religions it can be (and is) interpreted for good or evil; applied with moderation or zealous fundamentalism; followed with gentleness and humanity or with brutality and violence.
Nazism on the other hand is a murderous ideology of hate and genocide. That is not a prejudice, it is a matter of historical fact.
Hating someone for being a Nazi is an eminently sensible position to hold. By attaching themselves to Nazism they sign up to everything it stands for - racial superiority, cultural intolerance, genocide. Hating someone for being an Al Qaida terrorist would perhaps be a reasonable parallel. But that is not what you did. The vast majority of Muslims in the world are not Al Qaida terrorists and reject them utterly.
By drawing a parallel between Nazism and Islam you reveal a belief that all Muslims follow a belief system that is inherently evil and dangerous. That is so incorrect as to be off the scale. Stupid and idiotic are about the most charitable words I can come up with to describe you.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 05:05 PM
Thank you Polly for perhaps the best article I have read on this subject in recent weeks.
Thank you curious1 for reminding us of the oppressive practices that were perpetrated against women in this country until very recently.
Frant - you probably won't find a political party that espouses the secular cause, but do check out the National Secular Society website at:
http://www.secularism.org.uk/
And one last comment. Polly says:
"Women's bodies have been the battle flag of religions, whether it's churching their uncleanness, the Pope forcing them to have babies, the Qur'an allowing wife-beating, Hindu suttee, Chinese foot-binding and all the rest."
Hidden amongst that "all the rest" is female genital mutilation (FGM), a catch all description of the barbaric practice of clitoridectomy, and the even more brutal infibulation. FGM is practised widely in muslim Africa, inflicted on young girls by their mothers and grandmothers, and although illegal in the UK, it still goes on. I have mentioned this a number of times on related threads over the past few weeks, and been met with resounding silence.
I wish Jack Straw would raise this issue and ensure it no longer has a place in our society.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 05:15 PM
An excellent article Polly. Very brave and sensible comments – what a contrast to the shameful rubbish that was written by Madeline Bunting in the Guardian last week.
The cowardly feminist journalists, like Ms Bunting who are now endorsing the veil should stop to think how fortunate they are to be living in a liberal secular society where they have the right to make the choice, unlike the millions of Muslim women throughout the Muslim world who do not have the choice and must conform to this ritual embodiment of male dominance and oppression. It’s all very well saying that those who do so are exercising choice but many of them are doing so often under pressure from family, and those that are genuinely exercising choice are playing into the hands of the fanatical male Islamic extremists who will as a consequence of their actions pressurise all Muslim women in this country into wearing the veil.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 05:23 PM
Lionel, Radius and Dog Therapist: I was not accusing all secularists of supporting dictatorship. I was asking which Atheistic society you knew of made a better job of defending human rights than a religious one or at least one that tolerates religion?
Dog Therapist. Firstly Hitler was indeed a baptised Catholic (presumably the choice of his parents as is the case of most babies unless he was remarkably advanced for his age). All his political career seems to suggest he was Atheist. He banned Church schools (sounds familiar?) and repressed Catholic and Protestant Churches and a whole section of the Nuremberg trials dealt with the Nazis attempts to suppress Christianity. He based his racial laws on bogus science (eugenism) not religion and eliminated disabled children by abortion and euthanasia and those he considered inferior.
Stalin did go to a seminary as a youth but left and became the leader of the biggest mass murder movement in history which was viciously anti-religious in its nature. Presumably he left the seminary because its teachings of "love your neighbour" were not really what he was looking for. Pol Pot learned his Communism in the French Communist Party and was another Atheist despot. I fail to see the relevance of what school he attended.
Lionel: "A true secularist is a rational creature rather than a dogmatic one, and if he is not dogmatic then he is likely to tolerate religious people more readily than they tolerate him."
I think if you read this thread, Lionel, you will see there are many very dogmatic secularists including Ms Toynbee herself. Where is your evidence that atheists are more tolerant or rational than religious people?
Radius: Apologies if you were offended by the Pol Pot remark and I was not trying to tar all Atheists with the same brush. I was merely trying to point out that secularists who claim that secularist or Atheist regimes are necessarily more benign than religious ones are on somewhat dodgy historical ground.
Anyway off for tea now. Might be back later.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 05:38 PM
"Where is your evidence that atheists are more tolerant or rational than religious people?" @ThomasY: Please, I said nothing whatever about the tolerance or rationalism evinced by atheists.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 05:39 PM
ClareLondon: shouting and yelling, stamping your feet and puffing your cheeks with outrage won't change human life or history. You demand an end to politicians (Blair, Kelly)who have committed the ultimate crime of --wait for it!--disagreeing with ClareLondon. An enormity, I agree. You and Polly Toynbee are petulant footstampers who cannot understand that your own positions are not normative.
I am an atheist of long standing, but I also understand that religious belief cannot be wished (or shouted) away.
Religious belief and the veil are distinct issues as any fool who is capable of reading a Penguin translation of the Quar'an would know. All that is required of muslims MALE AND FEMALE is modesty of dress.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 05:42 PM
I agree that state-funded education should be secular in character. The government should also work on eliminating all forms of religious ideology and discrimination from UK laws (e.g. Act of Settlement, official status of C of E, Church of Scotland)to create a state with a full legal and ideological separation betweeen church(es) and state.
I don't agree with the attempts to ban/restrict the wearing of the veil or any other sign of religious affiliation or belief (e.g. BA's rules against wearing visible crucifixes). This type of action *could* be in violation of Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights:
ARTICLE 9
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.
2. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. (Source: http://www.hri.org/docs/ECHR50.html#Convention)
I hope that somebody affected by these restrictions takes a court case so that the law on this issue can be clarified.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
October 17, 2006 05:46 PM
Whereas it is self evident that segregation starts at schools the arguments used by Mrs. Toynbee are indefensible. Nor the dress code condemned by the author is co