Ooh, Jack's set the cat among the pigeons.
Too bloody right. Personally, I'd like to ban them, even though I know that it isn't possible to do so (without banning scarves wrapped round to keep warm on a cold day, without banning scarves worn to hide facial disfigurement).
Why are these women covering their faces, their entire bodies? Some bloke on the telly, chairman of Blackburn Mosques or whatever, said it's because people shouldn't show their face to people they can marry. Ironic really, considering he was showing his face to millions on TV.
Oh, he meant women. Don't worry mate, I really didn't fancy you. Never crossed my mind to get damp with lust.
'People they can marry'. Bit euphemistic really. I think he meant shag. Can't allow his little woman to be looked on by another man in case he gets an uncontrollable urge to shag her. Well, I've met Jack Straw on a number of occasions, and we chatted, and he seemed a nice bloke, friendly, not overly warm. I didn't think he was eyeing me up and down, lusting after me, struggling to control an irresistible urge to shag me. I'm sure Jack Straw's as red-blooded as the next man*, he encounters women all the time, not especially being women, just being constituents, colleagues, shop assistants, opponents, people-in-the-street. Jack Straw isn't the type of loser who puts women down. Doesn't need to. He's busy, intelligent and confident, with a wife at least equally so.
My mother has a couple of friends who are IBVM nuns. They've been friends for sixty years. They went to a conference in Oldham about Religious Women. The nuns, that is, not my mother. There was a woman there clad head-to-foot in the veil thing, and the other women challenged her, why are you dressed like that. She came out with stuff about modesty, about holiness. So, she's in a womanspace, not any women, but specifically religious women, being all ecumenical. So it can't be about the marriage thing, because, among women, that should render the veil thing unnecessary. (It would be sheer evil to throw Civil Partnerships onto the table).
I am torn, there is a libertarian argument. You see, I hate tattoos. I don't like seeing bodies covered in tattoos. I would never have one done. I find them unsightly, and I ponder the stage at which the tattoo-wearer will regret them. But regardless of my personal feelings, if a sober adult wants to get tattooed, fine. Freedom, your body, your choice. None of my business.
If someone wants to wear ill-fitting clothes with their underwear on the outside, permit me to deride. But please, carry on doing so. Your right.
So why should I feel differently about the veil in all its different forms? Walk into a bank and see the signs saying 'remove motorcycle helmet'. We know the reasons why. Why retain face-covering veil, then. If I was to do a bank job, I'd do it in Moslem garb. Or shoplift. What are you hiding? Shopping centres ban hoodies (which I don't agree with, but it happens), so do they ban Moslem veils, too?
But I wish Jack would stick his neck out further and say "Veils are demeaning to women and insulting to men, because you're dysfunctionally sex-obsessed."
In Cairo, the capital of an Arab, predominantly and officially Islamic country, we were given a tour by an Egyptologist, who explained that in Cairo about half the women cover their heads for religious reason. Some are Christian and some are Moslem. She explained that she was a practising Moslem. Her head was uncovered. I know some highly educated and intelligent women in Britain cover their heads as a political statement, but I also believe that the majority who cover their faces are subjugated to men: economically dependent, intellectually subordinated and physically intimidated, by threat or action. There is a long standing tradition in Britain that when you deal face-to-face with people you uncover your face. Unless you have something to hide, unless you are lying.
I see no reason whatsoever to defend a custom which is explicitly about putting women down. I'm not interested in multi-culturalism when it treads on women's rights**. And I'm certainly not interested in tolerating religions, when for centuries they have been controlled by men who are frightened of women and their sexuality and thus use their physical and economic power to oppress women. I don't believe in repatriation, and I celebrate the sheer diversity of British people, culture, cuisine, life. But every time I see a woman in a veil, I see a sign saying "British men are all rapists who can't be trusted to control their raging hard-ons at the sight of a naked face."
* okay the next man happens to be John Prescott
** nor when it treads on gay rights, either (but I'm intolerant of that section of gay male culture which is overtly misogynist)
