Straw’s unease over veil

TO intrude into how someone chooses to present himself is an act that cannot help but test individual sensitivities. The way people dress is both a matter of personal choice and community tradition and any questioning of it, however thoughtful and well-intentioned, is likely to provoke a reaction.

When the questioner is a senior minister and those whose are being questioned are female Muslim constituents who wear the full veil, the potential for resentment and misunderstanding is extreme indeed. That means that there is undoubtedly a requirement for clarity and consideration. But it does not mean there is a necessity for silence.

Jack Straw is a man of intelligence and discretion who has worked over many years with his Muslim constituents and sometimes shared their point of view, as when, earlier this year, he questioned the publication of Danish cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad. So he will certainly have thought carefully before writing this week in a local newspaper column about his unease at dealing with those of his Blackburn constituents who visit his advice surgery dressed in the full veil, or niqab.

His reference was exact, not to the hijab, or headscarf, worn by many (although not all) Muslim women, but to the covering of the face in a private meeting, something which he found troubled him and which he chose to discuss. He did so in considered tones with reference to specific experiences, although he will have known too that his remarks would be used in a wider context.

His concern about the niqab was partly practical: “I felt uncomfortable about talking to someone ‘face to face’ who I could not see.” But more profound was his fear that the increasing use of the full veil was “a visible statement of separation and difference”. Its spread, he suggested in a BBC interview on Friday morning, was a sign of the rise of “parallel communities”. And that is surely something society should want to discuss and respond to, not hide from.

Mr Straw made it clear that in raising the issue he was not questioning the right of women to wear the niqab if they chose. He accepted that wearers may have made a choice of their own (although social pressures may also be immense). But he pointed out that the use of the full veil has consequences, both for the wearer and for how the wearer is seen. It puts a literal barrier between citizens, an obstacle to interaction rather than a bridge between people and in that it adds to social divides that already exist. Mr Straw’s remarks certainly echo an unease that is shared by many voters, an unease that among some people must have its roots in prejudice. But he was not voicing prejudice and his reasoned comments attempted to lessen separation and alienation, not spread it.

The niqab may bring benefits but for a wearer there may be costs too in terms of contributing to and advancing in society. Mr Straw is no less on such a woman’s side than those who defend her choice. Anger is inappropriate.

Some will argue that a minister who helped plan and execute the Iraq war is not best placed to challenge Muslims on how they behave, and it is true that British and US policy in Iraq and beyond has played a role in fuelling a sense of exclusion and anger.

— The Guardian, London

Method in madness

NORTH Korea has gone ahead and conducted the nuclear test it promised last week — in total defiance of the international community. There are serious implications of Pyongyang joining the club of nuclear weapons states for Asia and the world at large. It is the eighth country — and arguably the most unstable and most dangerous — to develop nuclear weapons.
In doing so, North Korea has not only ignored the calls by its neighbours such as South Korea and Japan but also paid no attention to stern warnings delivered by the US and China, the latter being its close ally and source of all its crucial supplies. In a rare show of unity, the UN Security Council passed a unanimous vote on Thursday warning Pyongyang of serious consequences if it tested the nuclear weapon. All this of course proved pointless with Pyongyang going ahead with the test.
This only goes to show the North Korean regime’s contempt for the world opinion. But then national interests and actions have never been dictated by concerns about global popularity.
In any case, Pyongyang’s action trains spotlight on the clear and present danger our world faces in the reckless regime led by maverick Kim Jong Il. The world community would ignore the ‘Dear Leader’ at its own cost. Paradoxically, this is what he wants, too. Kim wants to be taken seriously by the world, especially by the US, which he loves to hate.
In flaunting his nukes and constant sabre-rattling with his neighbours, the North Korean leader is not only underscoring his nuisance value but is desperately seeking help too. So Kim may be mad but there’s a method in his madness.
It is hardly a secret that North Korea, with all its bravado and excessive arrogance, is in deep trouble in every sense. Isolated from the rest of the world, its economy has collapsed. There are reports of thousands of North Koreans dying of starvation as the country battles the effects of repeated famines. Lucky ones manage to flee to China Korea or South Korea. North Korea is critically dependant on aid from its arch-rival, South Korea, and the UN. This is a country that is going through a grave existential crisis. Which makes it all the more dangerous to its neighbours and the world at large.
This is why the international community will have to deal with the North Korean regime with patience and perseverance. Any punitive action against Pyongyang could further isolate the country and end up punishing its imprisoned people. North Korea’s nukes must be neutralised with diplomacy and persistent engagement with the regime. This is the only way to prevent a dangerous nuclear arms race in Asia Pacific. And this is the only way to rein in the nuclear North Korea.

—Khaleej Time