12 roses for ' Straw...
Thank God.
Talk about relief, finally a prominent political figure has finally dared to say something that some Muslims may not like. Of course what he is saying is perfectly true and should be abided. The outfits (niqabs or burkas) come across as aggressive, fundamentalist, are considered against British standards of politeness and are an out right disgrace and two fingers up to the rights of hearing impaired of the country. They are not required to wear such extreme outfits by the Qu'ran and such outfits are only worn to make an explicit statement and not for any religious value. Jack Straw is 100% corrrect to say that such outfits only make proper intergration and community relations harder. Myabe it's worth remembering that this is not a Muslim country and it is their job to intergrate and such strong, explicit outfits are not attempts at intergrating however a humble headscarf (which is sufficient in Islam) is more than tolerable and i'm of no doubt that the overwhelming majority of non Muslims in the UK would have no problems with such.
"It was "astonishing" that Mr Straw chose to "selectively discriminate on the basis of religion", said Massoud Shadjareh, chairman of the Islamic Human Rights Commission."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5410472.stm
Selective discrimination? Utter tosh! This is a move forward for creating better non Muslim - Muslim relations in such turbulant times. Not only that, it's a a step towards giving the hearing impaired their true rights, it's a step towards politeness and by dammit, it's a step towards a better Britain despite this being something of a "trivial matter".
"Mr Straw was putting women "into a very awkward position by compromising the faith they believe in and that is ill-placed", Council of Lancashire Mosques chairman Hamid Kureshi told BBC Radio Five Live. "
(Same link)
Utterly pathetic, compromising the faith?...What an idiot, and this man is the chairman of a Mosque? Maybe he better study his religion a little better because such extremes of covering are not required and are not worn by the majority of Islamic women. He was in no way compromising their faith.
In my belief this outfit should not only be discouraged but legislation passed to ban it in public for the sake of the people's comfort and the hearing impaired. If these women had any decency at all they would understand that such outfits do make people feel uneasy especially in the era of the "Islamic terrorist threat", that it makes it incredibly hard for people to read lips and it's intimidating to not be able to see somebody's mouth when they speak. Maybe if they applied a little bit of British politeness they'd take the damn things off and wear the sufficient outfit of the Hijab or one of the other styles.
Talk about relief, finally a prominent political figure has finally dared to say something that some Muslims may not like. Of course what he is saying is perfectly true and should be abided. The outfits (niqabs or burkas) come across as aggressive, fundamentalist, are considered against British standards of politeness and are an out right disgrace and two fingers up to the rights of hearing impaired of the country. They are not required to wear such extreme outfits by the Qu'ran and such outfits are only worn to make an explicit statement and not for any religious value. Jack Straw is 100% corrrect to say that such outfits only make proper intergration and community relations harder. Myabe it's worth remembering that this is not a Muslim country and it is their job to intergrate and such strong, explicit outfits are not attempts at intergrating however a humble headscarf (which is sufficient in Islam) is more than tolerable and i'm of no doubt that the overwhelming majority of non Muslims in the UK would have no problems with such.
"It was "astonishing" that Mr Straw chose to "selectively discriminate on the basis of religion", said Massoud Shadjareh, chairman of the Islamic Human Rights Commission."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5410472.stm
Selective discrimination? Utter tosh! This is a move forward for creating better non Muslim - Muslim relations in such turbulant times. Not only that, it's a a step towards giving the hearing impaired their true rights, it's a step towards politeness and by dammit, it's a step towards a better Britain despite this being something of a "trivial matter".
"Mr Straw was putting women "into a very awkward position by compromising the faith they believe in and that is ill-placed", Council of Lancashire Mosques chairman Hamid Kureshi told BBC Radio Five Live. "
(Same link)
Utterly pathetic, compromising the faith?...What an idiot, and this man is the chairman of a Mosque? Maybe he better study his religion a little better because such extremes of covering are not required and are not worn by the majority of Islamic women. He was in no way compromising their faith.
In my belief this outfit should not only be discouraged but legislation passed to ban it in public for the sake of the people's comfort and the hearing impaired. If these women had any decency at all they would understand that such outfits do make people feel uneasy especially in the era of the "Islamic terrorist threat", that it makes it incredibly hard for people to read lips and it's intimidating to not be able to see somebody's mouth when they speak. Maybe if they applied a little bit of British politeness they'd take the damn things off and wear the sufficient outfit of the Hijab or one of the other styles.
posted by Jamescoe | Thursday, October 05, 2006
<< Home