There is nothing much these days, in the realm of public affairs, that excite me or provide any material degree of enthusiasm. Hence, I take my little nuggets of pleasure wherever I can find them. Occasionally, an exquisite irony will do.
Take the predictable storm over the comments of Jack Straw concerning the Islamic veil, the incidence of which is widepsread and growing on these shores. To my mind his observations are both fair and reasonable:
In his interview with the BBC’s Today programme, he said it is important in face-to-face meetings that both sides can see each other.
A plausible practical explanation. But what has much broader political impact is his belief that veils which cover the face are a “visible statement of separateness” that is “a barrier to social integration”.
Speaking for myself, I would go further. I find the veils (and particularly those black ‘tent-jobs’) rather sinister and creepy. That may not be the intention behind them but that is what they communicate to me and, while others may take a different view, I submit that not by any stretch of a sane mind could either Mr. Straw’s or my views be regarded as racist.
However, we do not live in sane times and, not a few nanoseconds after Mr. Straw’s words left his mouth, a whole troupe of the usual suspects were hopping up and down yodelling the ‘R’ word at the top of their lungs. Indeed, it took only a few hours Grievance Machine to get its gears in full spin:
The first sign of a racist reaction came in Liverpool on Friday when a man snatched a veil from a 49-year-old woman’s face after shouting racist abuse. Yesterday, protesters took to the streets of Mr Straw’s Blackburn constituency to vent their anger.
A ludicrous and hysterical response one might think, yet it is a response which has been nurtured, fostered and actively encouraged.
Seven years ago, and following on the recommendations of the Macpherson Report, the government instructed the police to adopt the recommendations into a formal set of guidelines which defined a ‘racist incident’ as:
“any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person.”
That interpreation is so wide as to amount to a form of administrative intimidation, designed to deter people from making the kind of remarks, even in private, which Mr. Straw has now made quite publicly. Surely the government of Western liberal democracy would insist on some degree of objectivity, no? Er, no:
In his Action Plan on the Report, the Home Secretary said that the Home Office would “ensure that the Inquiry’s simplified definition of a racist incident is universally adopted by the police, local government and other relevant agencies”.
And who was that Home Secretary? Yes, of course, it was the very same Mr. Jack Straw.
So here is some advice for you if you happen to be among the League of the Outraged: march yourself off to the nearest cop shop and report that you perceive Mr. Straw’s views as racist. The police are then obliged to record it as such. I doubt very much whether it would go any further than that but, who knows, word of it may just reach Mr. Straw.
If he not to be quite hoist by his own petard then, at least, his petard can be picked up and wielded like a wet fish to slap around his stupid head.
Macpherson is a Freemason and Freemasonry had a role in the Lawrence business – one of the policemen was a Mason as was Norris’ father who was under observation by Customs & Excise. Better to create a racist smokescreen than expose fellow Freemasons.
Anyway, women in black winding-sheets is to de-humanise and de-personalise. I see a woman dressed like a shrouded corpse struggling to lift something in Asda but fail to help…………….is she a) a Thing b) going to turn all weird c) incoherent in English d) will I be i) arrested ii) stabbed iii) humiliated…………………….so treat her like a pillar of salt and pass by
What on Earth has racism got to do with it?
Granted, though, that I can appreciate the infinite scope of an individual and not the law being able to define ‘racism’.
I think people are giving Jack Straw too much credit for his ‘stance’. With one hand, New Labour giveth (instructing Police to inform Muslim communities before conducting anti-terror operations – so the terrorists with real support can escape). With the other, they taketh away (Home Secretary renowned for pro-Muslim stance says he would like tiny concessions from 30% of the voters in his constituency). Of course, it works both ways. New Labour can tell the Muslim communities they respect them and don’t think they’re all terrorists, by making the Police risk the rest of us with those ridiculous community informing procedures. Meanwhile they can tell the rest of us they’re working on integrating Muslims properly and getting rid of all the gender-discriminating customs, having John Reid make firm speeches, and so on.
Personally I’d rather Jack Straw spoke to women in veils and the Police didn’t inform one specific religious part of the British population that they were planning anti-terror operations against it, whilst not extending the same insane courtesy to the rest of the British populace.
Thaddeus wrote:
I think that’s a nice one.
A useful warning to all those in government who think their job is not sometimes more than a match for their ability, or that short-term appeasement of the masses is what they should be about.
Best regards
It’s all too easy to hoist Jack by one of his many inconsistent views. After he pushed through the Terrorism Act 2000, in which you could be prosecuted for receiving encrypted information which was of a terrorist nature, even if you could not decrypt it and did not know that was what it contained, many civil liberties activists emailed the Home Office encrypted emails with subjects that suggested that they contained terrorist information. No one has yet to be charged under that provision of the Act.
Also it is good to hear a vigorous refutation of the theory (which, unfortunately embodied in too many laws nowadays) that enshrines a ‘victim’s’ perception as defining the nature of an offence. The Religious Discrimination Act of 2004, as well as many companies’ bullying and harrassment policies define an offence as something that is ‘perceived’ as bullying, harrassment, or religious discrimination.
This is obviously a huge problem, as it fails to define what behaviour is acceptable on any objective measure. I can control my behaviour, I cannot control others’ perception of it. The idea that other people should be the arbiters of acceptable behaviour, or the concomitant current theory that ‘giving offence’ is something against which we should have legal protection is unacceptable in a rational human society.
However, it is a shame that you chose such a ridiculous example with which to make your point. You would like someone’s right to wear what they choose infringed because “I find the veils (and particularly those black ‘tent-jobs’) rather sinister and creepy. That may not be the intention behind them but that is what they communicate to me.”
You have fallen into exactly the sort of self-pitying mindset that characterises New Labour thought on anything. Just because it gives you offence, just because it makes you frightened, just because you find it sinister does not make it wrong. Grow up and put one on yourself. Or choose not to. But realise that having the choice is what adult behaviour is about.
> You would like someone’s right to wear what they choose infringed …
Would he?
> There are chicks wearing burqas in England?
I’ve not seen burqas, no, but I have seen women top-to-toe in black, showing nothing but their eyes. That’s Scotland, not England, so you’re probably right that it’s an anti-weather measure.
“You would like someone’s right to wear what they choose infringed…”
Where on earth did you read that, Mr. Tapley?
There are chicks wearing burqas in England? Probably just trying to keep warm and dry. LOL
I’ve not seen burqas in England or the US, just white headscarfs (no different than a nun or Mennonite). Of the matching bright silk that goes with their outfits (most likely east Asian).
Ever notice the feet of the burqa babes? They tart them up because it’s the only display of beauty they can do. Stripper shoes, bright red nail polish on their toes, toe rings, etc. Foot fetishist’s dream.