Friday, October 06, 2006

Bishop of Durham in Cover Up Shocker

I really do despair of the Church of England. The old Bishop of Durham, David Jenkins, was fairly unique in that he didn't actually seem to believe in God. His successor, Bishop Tom Wright has done an interview for GMTV where he likens asking a Muslim woman to remove her Hijab as... well, read for yourself.

Joan Bakewell
What do you make of the dilemma that’s been posed just recently that Allah wishes women to wear the veil. How do you assess that as someone who is a profoundly steeped in your own religion, how should we respond to that?

Bishop Tom Wright
Well there are several different layers there which have to do with what it means to live as a Muslim in a culture that is predominantly non Muslim and of course there are many many Muslim women in many Muslim countries who don’t believe that it is the will of Allah that they should wear the veil, that is a disputed point within Islam itself. However we are then facing other waves of culture for instance in France where they have tried to ban Muslim veils and wearing of crosses in classrooms and that sort of thing. There you see a militant secularism which is just as much a religion in its own way which says we want to win this one and we don’t want any other ‘isms’ on the block at all. It could be only secularism, so until we can name some of those swirling forces within our culture we’re going to be very very confused, the problem has been that for the last 200 years in western culture we have fooled ourselves that religion was about what I do with my solitude and that will do, the public live as thought there was no religion and actually I think we’re now realising in the 21st century that you can’t live like that for very long it’s a kind of luxury, and we can’t afford it.

Joan Bakewell
It is difficult to negotiate the differences that exist that people assert and take the host society by surprise, do you have sympathy for Jack Straw?

Bishop Tom Wright
I haven’t studied what Jack Straw said and knowing what newspapers do it wouldn’t surprise me at all if he’s been quoted out of context…

Joan Bakewell
[Interrupts] Yes, but he himself had said because we have seen his lips move on the screen, that when Muslim women come wearing the veil which only allows them to only see his eyes, he does ask them to remove it, so he can have communication with them, and that has caused something of a stir?

Bishop Tom Wright
Yes, as the Americans say, I don’t have a dog in that fight, I don’t know quite what he was trying to get at by saying that, I mean, obviously for us we are used to facial communication where we pick up signals from each others faces and we can actually understand what we mean by the facial language and the body language so if all you have is the eyes, I can see it’s a little confusing. But if for some Muslim women that’s like saying ‘I want you to take your blouse off’ or something, then if they feel deeply embarrassed at the thought of revealing this private thing called their face to a stranger, then the last thing I want to do is embarrass them in that way.


Now, do we really think this 'blouse' comment is valid? It might be if all Muslim women wore Hijabs, but they don't. How on earth can a face be a private thing? A friend of mine has just come back from Egypt and saw very few women wearing Hijabs. Personally, I take a fairly liberal line on this issue. I believe self expression is a fundamental human right and if people want to cover themselves up that's up to them. Obviously, I would prefer people who live in this country to abide by our customs. Wearing a Hijab is something which tends to exacerbate community divides, but do we really think we should emulate France and ban them in certain circumstances. I do not.

Having said that, there are quite a few people who would be better looking if they took up wearing a Hijab... Your nominations please...

44 comments:

Anonymous said...

Iain.

Anonymous said...

Iain.
Hijab is the wrong term.

Archbishop Cranmer said...

His Grace would like to see Margaret Becket wearing the niqaab.

But Bishop Wright makes very valid cultural observations. In some societal contexts, the face may indeed be private. That it is not in the Western world is a 'clash of civilisations' which is either resolved with differential accommodation or enforced compulsion. We have surely spent the last three centuries developing the former. There is frequently a via media in these situations, and it is here that the Church of England is in its element.

Anonymous said...

I think that the blouse thing is a highly valid comment!

I'm a 22 year old muslim born in manchester and now living in london. I don't wear the hijab but just because my sense of privacy is varied from another person doesn't mean that i should impose my beliefs on someone else.

So what if some women in Egypt don't wear hijabs? Their way of living shouldn't be a standard for other muslim women.

I agree that muslims should abide by english customs and in the case of the muslim police officer he should have done his duty regardless of his personal beliefs. i whole heartedly agree with your comments on that issue. but how far do we take the whole idea of abidding by english customs? does that mean that Sikh men should not be allowed to wear turbans?

Personally i feel that people should be allowed to wear what they want to including hoodies around shopping centres!

Saira

Anonymous said...

"The Bishop of Durham, David Jenkins, was fairly unique in that he didn't actually seem to believe in God"

O Level GCE English howler Iain - something is either unique or it isn't!

Iain Dale said...

You are absolutely right and my head is hanging in shame...

Anonymous said...

Very interesting question this, much more so than the muslim policeman who didn't want to guard the Israeli embassy (that will have a straightforward answer once the facts are known - did he try to get out of it or was he relieved of the duty?)

But this one raises some important points about what it is to live in a Western society. However, in the end I am with Iain and against Jack Straw on this one: we can't be a country where the state prescribes what women should wear or not wear and beat them up if they don't conform - only barbaric places do that...

The problem is that this might just be the beginning of a serious backlash against muslims and their constant state of being insulted (at least as perceived by must of us Westerners). It is only a small number of them who have actually created this state of affairs, but by not speaking up against those, the moderate majority have failed to stop a potentially quite nasty backlash - now apparently if not supported, at least given further momentum by a cabinet minister. Bad news!

Anonymous said...

The Bish said they were trying to ban the hijab in France. No, Bish. Chirac and Jack Lange banned it in schools. They didn't try. They did it.

Human beings communicate by words and facial expressions. The burqa is a way of preventing women communicating with one another and the world outside the family. In Saudi Arabia, of course, some women are identifiable by their girth (which wearing these voluminous tablecloths encourages), but often the only way children can identify their own mother waiting outside the school for them is by her shoes. This is so abnormal as to be child abuse.

All over the world, there is only one group of people who deem it "normal" to cover their faces, and that is the Muslims. Other people of all races walk around with their faces available for the world to see and judge.

I agree that I look forward to burqas being worn in Gay Pride parades. I have said before that the entertainment industry ought to adopt the burqa, as in burqas with deep slits up the sides or back, or when the veil is lifted, reveal deep cleavage.

The important thing is, we should take ownership of the burqa and wreck it for them.

HM Stanley said...

Iain:

I think you are being a little sensationalistic here. While I am no leftie and a frequent critic of C of E PC-ness, I believe the bish is onto something here. There are two extreme models [Saudi/Iranian everybody has to wear cover in public and Turkish model..nobody can wear. Apparently the wife of Islamist Turkish PM only wears head cover on foreign trips where she can!!] between which Western democracies have to find a happy middle.

Your grace, I like the back-handed compliment of C of E being expert at finding via media.

Peter: There transvetites/gays/others galore clad in burkhas, sometimes on rollerblades, in NYC halloween/gay parades, not to mention Michael Jackson who apparently goes around Bahrain similarly attired.

Peter from Putney said...

Iain Dale said...
"You are absolutely right and my head is hanging in shame..."

Is that why you're supporting it with your left hand in an your all new pic?

The Hitch said...

I say all Muslim women should get their tits out for the lads , purely in the interest of encouraging diversity

The Hitch said...

Your Grace
You seem to be wearing a hijab in the highly glamorous portrait displayed on your blog.although you appear to be considerably less hirsute than the average Mohammedan female.

Scipio said...

Claire Short, Cherie Blair, Hazel Blears, Anne Widdecombe, Margaret Becket, Ruth Kelly.....god, the list is endless.

It's a shame that wearing the veil doesn't gag as well!

Incidently Ian, the Hijaab is the just the headscarf. The Niqaab is the face veil, the burkha the head to toe robe, and wearing purdah is the overall generic term for women who wear their faces, hands and feet fully covered, exposing only their eyes!

Anonymous said...

This issue gets ever more interesting! Saira raised the issue of Sikh men and turbans. I seem to recall a bit of a hullaballoo about them being exempt from wearing crash helmets, but I'm not certain what the current situation is; but there's a similarity. It's about the assimilation of minority cultures into mainstream society, and I think this is where we have failed. We always seem to defer to the minority cultural issue without much attempt at finding a compromise. I am currently reading Melanie Phillips' Londonistan, which seems to be making this precise point.

We seem to be moving towards ever more conflict with Islam and it will require a great effort to put right.

I would nominate Cherie Blair for a Burkha - it would suit her better than a veil!

Anonymous said...

What is happening within the Muslim community?

If you look at grainy films of say Bradford in the 60s - the traditional Muslim women from Pakistan/Bangladesh are not wearing hijabs. They are wearing the "Shalwar Kameeez". Any head coverings consist of light wispy veils only - more decorative than covering.

When I went to a school in the 70s with a 25% Muslim population, the Muslim girls were quite happy to wear trouser suits in the school colours. The only problem was that the white girls then demanded the right to wear trousers!

The bottom line is that the hijab and burkha are Arab customs - not Pakistani/Bangladeshi or Muslim as such.

I am very unhappy that this essentially alien garb (For people of Pakastani/Bangladeshi descent)seems to be taking over.

Of course the custom should not be banned - any more than the "hookers" outfits donned by many young white girls on Friday nights.

However I regard it as a retrograde step both for community relations and for the status of women - within immigrant communities and the wider society.

I am with Jack Straw on this.

Anonymous said...

CASSANDRA
"The problem is that this might just be the beginning of a serious backlash against muslims"
Oh you think . You should read this site more, it is constantly stuffed with anti Muslim tirades . They may sometimes be valid but goodness they are repetitive. Jack Straw , who I sometimes like , is being a sneaky dissembler.
He is picking on an easy target when this is scarcely the worst problem with UK Islam . We are in danger of forgetting that his party have presided over a decade of the failed multi cultural experiment .A little squabble about attire is not going to confuse me as to who is responsible . I believe this trivial jibe is deliberate and part of the outrider phenomenon .

Iain the Rickety mixed metaphor is gone isn’t it . Bring it back I liked it. View the pulse …its comedy gold

Anonymous said...

Enjoy your blog and a thought crossed my mind listening to the PM programme on radio 4 this evening. I wanted to share it with someone so i'm dumping on you!

Jack Straw has suddenly come to the fore about veil wearers in Blackburn and is getting high level media coverage about it. At first I thought this was something of a device to make Labour look touigher than the Tories after what Labour may have feared would been a good week for Cameron in Bournemouth. However, on the PM programme I heard that Condoleeza Rice was due to come to London today for a meeting with Margaret Beckett about Iran. Given Straw was swiftly deposed after mutterings from the White House following Rice's visit to Blackburn that he might be soft on Islam - could it be he is trying to look tough so he can be re-instated when Blair leaves? Just a thought. Or am I just mad and twisted?

Thanks for reading if you got this far.

Rumi

Ralph Lucas said...

... if people want to cover themselves up that's up to them.

seems to me as true as "if people want to uncover themselves that's up to them"

I agree that "it's up to you" has to be the basic principle - but moderated by common sense, respect, courtesy and an understanding of the effect and context of your behaviour.

All of us - well, most of us - temper our behaviour in this way several times every day. Straw's request seems entirely appropriate - just as someone visiting a priest might reasonably be asked to dress decently. As to why he wrote about it in the way he did ...

Anonymous said...

I think Jack Straw has a valid point here: he is not saying that the women may not wear a face covering. He is choosing not to have a conversation with her while she covers her face.

While a women has a perfect right to wear what she chooses, I have the right to choose who I talk to. Why should I be expected to put myself at a disadvantage by accepting the face cover, which make the conversation more difficult for me?h

Anonymous said...

The hijab covers neither the nose nor the mouth.

For Guido Fawkes I recommend the Burqa at all hours, perhaps with a straw.

See http://tinyurl.com/jghzp

HM Stanley said...

I am getting soooo educated here! So is the "Shalwar Kameeez" what Benazir Bhutto seems to carelessly throw over her head? Maybe Beckett and Condi should appear together each wearing one. And btw, in addition to the hijab, burqha and niqaab, there is also the Abaya, I believe from Saudi Arabia.

Also, a muslim can correct me but I think it is not called "wearing" but "doing" pudha.

Nice new pic...Iain!

HM Stanley said...

Sorry..but..."best view of the political pulse" by Adam Rickitt on flag thingie?? Is that not a rather malevolent mixed metaphor?

indigo said...

Iain, I have a suggestion. If you really want to know how one's face can be a private thing, then go and ask a few women who choose to wear a veil.

I am really fed up with this Government-sponsored trend of bash a Muslim per week. I don't want British Muslims to be reduced to the status of Palestinians in the Middle East.

Straw asking veiled Muslim women at his constituency surgery to take off a piece of clothing is improper. I lived for the first 15 years of my life in Muslim countries, and women wearing the veil does not stop one communicating with them. The veil is no big deal.

Anonymous said...

VERITY :"Human beings communicate by words and facial expressions."

I think you manage to make your points with words alone fairly effectively. God knows what the amplification of facial expression might be like.

Mayorwatch "As someone who has worked for an MP" In what capacity ,a provider of sexual peccadilloes ? Glad to hear you have since found gainful employmentcan we draw a veil over your sordid past please

Anonymous said...

RALPH LUCAS "if people want to cover themselves up that's up to them"
Suppose having looked at their picture some people wanted other people to cover their faces. Hypothetically would that be a request, you, for example would be willing to comply with?
Hypothetically ?

Anonymous said...

Indigo: 'I lived for the first 15 years of my life in Muslim countries and women wearing the veil does not stop one communicating with them.' That may well be, but the point remains: this isn't a Muslim country.

Anonymous said...

indigo - You say wearing the veil is no big deal, in which case why are they clinging on to it?

I have found that muslim women are often very aggressive - perhaps because they're not "allowed" to be aggressive at home. I believe a lot of this is point-scoring and should be discouraged. What about that dreadful, hysterical little girl in Luton, who was used as a tool by a radical islamic group - I believe they paid her legal fees - who only wanted to attend school if she could wear a "uniform" that was backward and anti-female. In the West, it is schools that should determine the uniform that reflect the standards of the host culture. If a child of mine attended school in Kuwait, I wouldn't think I had a right to object to the standard uniform. That's life.

But these individuals are in the enlightened West and must behave by Western norms. What the muslims refuse to recognise is, as the Americans say, "You have to go along to get along." It is not as though they are doing us any favours or bringing any economic advantage to our society.

And this is another problem. Previous migrants - thinking of the Jews and the Hindus specifically, but I am certain there are other groups - quickly became not only contributors to the country, but did it quickly. Within one generation, they'd excelled in the professions and they excelled in business.

hm stanley - the shalwar kameez is a rather elegant form of dress that is trousers gathered at the ankle and a long tunic. On slender women, it is very pretty indeed. Even on heavy women, it hides a lot of calories. The sarong kebaya, worn by muslim women in SE Asia is very elegant, and men like it because it is figure-hugging.

torymory - You raise some interesting points and you are correct. They began integrating tribal Arab customs into their dress. Especially from Saudi Arabia, where the full monty is the order of the day. Saudi Arabia has bang for the bucks and can finance its fundamentalism with schools, hospitals, TV stations, whatever.

Those immigrants so attracted to Saudi tribal customs should emigrate to Saudi Arabia. Which doesn't want them ...

Anonymous said...

The Bishop may have been directing his comments at MP's other than Mr Straw. I think that he is quite right to mention blouses. Obviously, any woman, whatever her religion, would be invited to remove various articles of clothing, if she was attending one of Mr Prescott's surgeries.

Anonymous said...

The whole question of integration into western society is simply not considered by most legal immigrants to western Europe. They congregate in groups, never learning more than a few words of the local language, except for their kids taught in our schools, and carry on living as they always have done. This includes, of course, the wearing of clothes that in this climate are wholly inappropriate. Religious apparel is not overtly seen in Christian western society, except for the priesthood, and this only by tradition. I have no gripe with people following a religion of choice, but I do believe that in Christian countries, the garb worn by members of other beliefs should also be restricted to officers of the church. In the current state of anticipated terror perpetrated by Muslim extremists, nobody should be allowed to cover their heads. Ordinary Muslims must accept that it is a rogue offshoot of their own faith that has caused this problem and accept the situation as a neccessary sacrifice.

Anonymous said...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/core/Matt/pMattTemplate.jhtml

BJ said...

Iain, you're saying hijab when you mean niqab. The niqab is the veil bit, the hijab is the headscarf.

Anonymous said...

David Jenkins was a very thoughtful and Godly man. If you take the trouble to read his auto-biography, that will be clear. The current Bishop of Durham seems to be making thoughtful comments.

Scipio said...

Verity You raise some interesting points, especially about communication. 78% of human communication in 'non verbal' therefore if you are covered head to foot then don't complain when you are 'misunderstood'! But, in defence of accuracy, covering the face isn't 'islamic' (most muslim women don't wear the Niqaab), it's an 'arabic' custom which possibly pre-dates Islam (I use the word possibly with caution). But the tendency is spreading as 'fundamenlatist' Islam is spreading! Not sure about the gay-pride thing - it strikes me as deliberately provocative action intended to insult a community not well known for its sense of humour! I predict gay-priders wearing burkas being met by Jihadis with placards and suicide belts advocating killing gays because they insulted islam. Mind you, that would be an interesting one for the police to deal with!!! Iain Blair would be pulling his hair out over that one wouldn't he!

On your second post "But these individuals are in the enlightened West and must behave by Western norms. What the muslims refuse to recognise is, as the Americans say, "You have to go along to get along." " I find myself in complete agreement - this is the nub of the issue - many mMuslims are here, but 'not here' if you know what I mean. They live by their own cultural norms, and then wonder why psychological walls have been built about their communities!

PS - you are right about the shalwar keemeez - my wife was given one as a gift and she looks very sexy in it! (I predict comments from Newmania on this point)

Siara made some perfectly reasonable points about how some women would feel offended, and how their sense of privacy is different from ours. It is good to hear from someone who 'knows what she is talking about' I wish we could hear more from people inside the Muslim community - especially like Siara, who in every sense seems perfetly sensible. But I wuld say to Siara that there is a difference bewteen a turban - which covers only the head - and the Niqaab, which prevents real face to face communication.

Chris H The trouble with Jack Straw's position is that he is an elected MP and has a duty to talk to all. I think requested the removal of the veil is entirley acceptable, but if he is then saying that he will not talk to them unless they do, that is wrong. But I don't think is what he is saying thankfully.

Perhaps if they refuse to remove the veil, he should put a bag over his head. In fact, I think he should do this anyway!

neil craig said...

I am continually astonished at the amount of time the media give to minor prelates of thechurch of England. After all nobody goes to church to hear them.

A few years ago I was in the Question Time audience in Glasgow. On the list of questions we were given that the BBC officially hoped somebody would spontaneously ask was one on Price Charles' role as head of the C of E.

Though they talk of little else in the pubs of Glasgow nobody asked.

Anonymous said...

On the previous Bishop of Durham's putative disbelief in God:

I thought that was a job requirement in the C of E these days?

On wearing the burca, hijab, or whatever you want to call it:

Surely the rule is quite simple. 'When in Rome, do as the Romans'.

I can assure you that's the rule that's applied to Western women in Arab countries like Saudi Arabia. There the way it worked was that if you didn't want to go along with local custom, you left the country.

Maybe we could try that here?

In any case, covering the face is not required by Islam; it is a pre-Islamic peasant custom from the Arabian peninsular.

indigo said...

to verity, indigo - You say wearing the veil is no big deal, in which case why are they clinging on to it?

Put another way, the only people making a big deal out of it are right-wing bigots.

Amazing as it may sound to people like Jack Straw, millions upon millions of Muslim women around the world in Africa and Asia and the Middle East wear the niqab AND communicate effectively with other people. You don't need to see someone's face: would radio be the runaway success that it is, would companies pay for radio ads, if you had to see the speakers' faces? Would we have mobile-phone:citizen parity, if you and the other person could not communicate effectively without seeing each other's face?

I have found that muslim women are often very aggressive - perhaps because they're not "allowed" to be aggressive at home.

Pure conjecture. Black Brit women have got a bit of a name for themselves for being very aggressive but I don't theorise patronisingly about it - I know that black Brit men complain about it.

Anonymous said...

All it says in the koran is, women should dress modestly. This usage of the niqab, the burqa and even the hijab is a construct for controlling the females in the family. muslim men are deeply misogynistic. I think they are frightened of women, and they are frightened of women because they feel inferior. Well, they got that right. Compare them to achieving Jewish and Hindu men.

This 'muslim women's modesty' is a load of bullshit. It's a control thing. 'You reveal your face, but I don't have to reveal mine because I am special.' Also, behind those niqabs, they are anonymous and very aggressive.

The sarong kebaya, worn by Muslim women in SE Asia, is very elegant. It's a long,figure hugging tunic (or sometimes it's a two piece) with a slit up to the calves in the front. The slender ones look perfectly beautiful in it. Also, because the slit is only up to the calves, they can't take really long strides,meaning they walk very gracefully.

Anonymous said...

I understand that Ruth Kelly made the remark yesterday that...

"There are no laws or regulations which control what you wear. It is just common sense that every-one has the right to choose what they want to wear."

So it's OK if I want to walk down the High Street wearing my Y-Fronts over my jeans as long as I do so as part of my religious beliefs?

Oliver Letwin, also couldn't resist trying to score Brownie points over Labour yesterday by accusing Jack Straw of espousing "a dangerous doctrine". It's about time that he engaged brain before opening his mouth

Anonymous said...

Neil:

"... Charles' role as head of the C of E. ... Though they talk of little else in the pubs of Glasgow nobody asked."

Perhaps, but in the pubs around Ibrox or Parkhead they talk of little else but religion...

----

What I've never been able to comprehend, is how one foot south of the border, the Queen is supreme governor on earth of the Episcopalian Church of England and not a member of the Church of Scotland, but one foot north, she is just another ordinary member of the Presbyterian Church of Scotland and not a member or anything else of the Church of England.

Not a lot of people know this, but the very first thing any new British monarch must do--and they must do it first, before they can formaly become monarch--is to swear to uphold the independence of the Church of Scotland and its Presbyterian form of gevernance. Also, that by Act of Parliament, the Church of Scotland is the only entity in the United Kingdom that is above the law.

Eat your heart out, Crnmer....

Little Black Sambo said...

2br02b
Another incongruity, along with the W. Lothian question, which will be got rid of when we let the Scotchmen go.

indigo said...

To verity, muslim men are deeply misogynistic. I think they are frightened of women, and they are frightened of women because they feel inferior.

This is about as accurate as, say, asserting that every man in Cheltenham is misogynistic. What is the cause of this extraordinary ignorance - do you not get out much?

Anonymous said...

Indigo:

What is the cause of this extraordinary ignorance - do you not get out much?

I suppose it could explain the extraordinary ignorance of the Muslim women who wear the veil, which is not in actual fact required by their religion.

Scipio said...

vienna woods Ruth Kelly only said that because she likes wearing spiked knickers and a hair shirt because it brings her closer to God!

Scipio said...

indigo Verity doesn't pull her punches, but she has a generally sound point here. Islam is a religion which treats women as second class citizens in the pretence of making them ' a special case'. Only in Islamic countries are women stoned to death for adultery after being raped by their relatives. Only in Islamic countries are honour killings of women accepted. Only in Islamic cuntries are women prevented from learning to drive, denied education, denied property rights, denied suffrage, forced to wear certian clothes (like the Burqua in Afghanistan and robes in Saudi/Iran etc).....the list is almost endless.

I am not saying that EVERY Muslim man is mysoginistic, or that every Muslim man is by nature a wife-beating terrorist. The vast majority are peacable enough, but probably have views of women's role in society which is more 1760 than 1960! But, there are lots of places in th world where women are treated abysmally - and most of them are Islamic countries!