To Veil or Not to Veil: Is that the Question?

[belboid]

As I've made perfectly clear, I don't like Straw and never have, and I certainly have no intention of defending him. But I am interested in the perfectly valid debate. So let's have that rather than discuss Straw, who we all agree is a twat.

but context is all innit? So we can either discuss it i a total abstract - pretty dull for most of us I imagine for whom the points would be fairly obvious (don't really like it blah blah......freedom of expression ..... blah blah.... roots in womens oppression ... blah blah......) or we could place it in the context that the comments were actually made in.

 

[danny la rouge]

but context is all innit?

Yes, OK, let’s talk about context. Do you mean the context as in who opened the debate? Or do you mean the context, as in the fact that it is becoming increasingly difficult to question or criticise religions?

For example the fact that a conviction for the most trivial Public Order Offence – including “insulting behaviour” can bring a maximum jail sentence of 7 years, if the offence is deemed to be “religiously aggravated”. This was rushed through Parliament by David Blunkett in the Anti-Terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001, Section 39. Convictions have been secured under these provisions, even for someone for wearing a tee-shirt with a message deemed to be offensive to Christians.

For example the lengths the Government went to curtail freedom of expression the Racial & Religious Hatred legislation, which although eventually toned down was passed in January.

For example the fury unleashed by religious groups on Jerry Springer the Opera and the play Behzti.

For example the religious lobbyists who demand the right to continue discriminating against gays. (And who had a letter published in the Telegraph today to that effect).

Or do you mean the context of the fact that the Q’ran does not ask for women to cover their faces, only to dress modestly? In which case we need to ask why is it ‘modest’ for a woman to cover all but her eyes, but not ‘modest’ for a man to do so? This is a cultural stipulation, an interpretation of Islam. And it needs to be questioned and challenged.

Or do you mean the context of why women seem to freely desire to take part in their own oppression? Is there a parallel with female circumcision? Because where that happens to young women they seem to chose it, and where it happens to infants it seems to be female midwives and mothers who perpetuate it. Do we step back from criticising that? I think not.

And this just touches the tip of the iceberg. But I am not going to step away from a debate just because I don’t like the person who started it. This is a debate that needs to happen. And in the context of worrying religious reactionary conservatism, it needs to happen now.

 

[belboid]

Astoundingly, yours is an even less 'context based' comment than Jack Straws were danny. It ignores entirely the current increase in islamophobia (and whilst we can all argue about to what extent that phenomenon exists, there cant really be much doubt that it does do) and the reasons many women adopt the veil.

'Is there a parallel with female circumcision?' you ask/ I'd have to say, not much of one. As you note, when that vile practise is carried out it as at the behest of an adult (often the mother or other female carer), and as such it is very different to a woman choosing to cover up her face. If you want a better comparison, I'd put forward the way many young women in western culture adopt so called 'raunch culture' - and believe that the way to be popular is to act and/or dress 'like a slut'. Both are examples of women colluding with an oppressive view of women, but ones which are freely chosen - to the extent that any such decision in this culture can really be 'freely chosen'.

As to it becoming more and more difficult to criticise religions, I also think you are grossly over-egging the pudding. The tabloids and talk radio hosts don't seem to have much problem attacking islam, in particular. Neither do vast numbers of message board posters. There's much more such criticism than there has been for decades. The difference is (partly) that followers of those religions are now more likely to speak up and say 'thats a load of bollocks'. That there are some liberal types for whom that means no criticism can be allowed can't be deined. But they are still a small minority (even if they make up a fair proportion of bbc editorial types) and can fairly easily be argued against (as indicated on this and other threads).

You do not succeed in making any connection between government actions (& I wholly agree that at least some of the recent religious hatred laws are quite reactionary) and things like Springer & Behzti. The latter two were both clearly reactionary protests and should have been oppsed by 'progressives' of any shade. However the question of why one religion should be protected by law but not others is a very valid one, and another that needs addressing. Sadly, in the current climate, the debate is veering towards 'protecting' all religions rather than the none that I'm sure we'd both rather were the case.

The question must surely be tho, as we agree that the veil is not something we would really want women to wear, how do we positively promote such attitudes? Simplistic attacks on the wearers - saying to them 'you are the problem' is hardly going to work is it? Indeed it is more likely to drive people more into the arms of those reactionaries who are 'defending their cultural rights'. Straws remarks were just such a simplistic one-sided attack and a debate startd on reactionary premises is much harder to move onto progressive ones, than a debate started on progressive premises in the first place.

 

[Kenny Vermouth]

I reckon certain women should be forced to wear the veil.

These would include:

Cherie Blair
Margaret Beckett
Julie Burchill
Ruth Kelly
John Prescott

 

[belboid]

oh so witty Kenny, as per usual.

 

[TonkaToy]

oh so witty Kenny, as per usual.

Mate, looking at your tag and your location, you seriously need to lighten up and get some perspective in life.

 

[belboid]

fuck off

 

[William of Walworth]

I was born in London, but brought up elsewhere. When I first moved back to London in 1981, I lived just up the road from Whitechapel for the first two years. In those days, in Whitechapel High Street, Brick Lane, Bethnal Green Road, etc., I literally never saw any Asian women in a niqab, and relatively few in hijabs even.

Nowadays, a lot more hijab wearing, and even somewhat more niqab wearing, in that area and elsewhere ...

Now I've read plenty on Urban and elsewhere giving various reasons why both hijab wearing has increased and why (perhaps more recently) even the small minority of niqab wearers has increased.

I think any meaningful debate/discussion on here, a site like this where limited numbers of practising Muslims post, depends on us having a clearer idea of the reasons why ...

 

[FridgeMagnet]

I don't think it's possible to have a meaningful discussion at the moment.

The whole "integration" / "veil" thing is so amazingly politically loaded, and such an attempt to manipulate people into discussing things in the way the government and the various promoters of the agenda want, that even talking about whether they're right or wrong promotes that. I don't want to sit around discussing questions brought up specifically to focus attention on a specific group to justify repressive legislation, continued war and distraction from the actions of the government. So I won't.

I'll discuss media strategies though. This one draws on the highly successful Republican agenda-setting tactics over Iraq, I'd say. (In fact, I just saw a bit of FOX News where they had one of their "discussion" programs on the topic "should universities spy on students?" based on the instructions given to universities here - there's a bit of feedback going on.) "What should we do about the threat from Saddam?" translates to "what should we do about the threat from the veil?"; it's all about focussing attention on something, though in this case I don't think there's quite such a specific policy goal in mind.

 

[Groucho]

The so called 'left' 'feminist' 'secular' arguments for banning the veil amount to veiled concessions to a racist agenda. You can't impose a version of 'liberation' on people from outside. Otherwise some feminists would want to ban make up and short skirts and others would want to make short skirts compulsory as a symbol of liberation.

A woman's right to choose to refuse to wear or to wear (and to refuse not to) the veil/headscarf/make up/short skirts etc must surely be upheld as a basic human rights issue.

 

[Random]

I don't think it's possible to have a meaningful discussion at the moment.

And I think that was one of Straw's intentions.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

And I think that was one of Straw's intentions.

Yuh, the idea of him actually wanting to promote meaningful, civil discussion for the benefit of humankind... well.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

I don't think it's possible to have a meaningful discussion at the moment.

The whole "integration" / "veil" thing is so amazingly politically loaded, and such an attempt to manipulate people into discussing things in the way the government and the various promoters of the agenda want, that even talking about whether they're right or wrong promotes that. I don't want to sit around discussing questions brought up specifically to focus attention on a specific group to justify repressive legislation, continued war and distraction from the actions of the government. So I won't.

I'll discuss media strategies though. This one draws on the highly successful Republican agenda-setting tactics over Iraq, I'd say. (In fact, I just saw a bit of FOX News where they had one of their "discussion" programs on the topic "should universities spy on students?" based on the instructions given to universities here - there's a bit of feedback going on.) "What should we do about the threat from Saddam?" translates to "what should we do about the threat from the veil?"; it's all about focussing attention on something, though in this case I don't think there's quite such a specific policy goal in mind.

Spot on

As to the goal, I expect they're quite keen to distract everybody from the Lancet / Gen Dannatt and the fact that Iraq and Afghanistan are increasingly obviously utter disasters, something that the Lancet / Dannatt only serve to clearly confirm, so it might conceivably be something to do with all that stuff.

Another strong possibility is that their expensive political consultants have identified what one might call the "BNP vote" as a critical segment and so they need to make a bid for it without being seen to be too obviously doing so by their few remaining activists and loyalists (assuming that there are any left with a functioning sense of smell)

 

[portman]

but context is all innit? So we can either discuss it i a total abstract - pretty dull for most of us I imagine for whom the points would be fairly obvious (don't really like it blah blah......freedom of expression ..... blah blah.... roots in womens oppression ... blah blah......) or we could place it in the context that the comments were actually made in.

Yes but - most people know Jack Straw is an opportunist and knew what he was doing when he made the comments about the veil a few weeks back (feels like a bloody lifetime ago to be honest!). The same applies to all the other politicians who have jumped on the bandwaggon since then.

But if we discuss the somewhat heated issue of the veil in the context you seem to be suggesting - namely some opportunist, populist machinations from a bunch of discredited government ministers and Labour MPs, then what are we discussing? How the government have screwed up over Iraq and Afghanistan and are trying to get public opinion back onside? To be honest I think most people realise that and the groundswell for pulling the troops out is pretty large - there is not much the government will be able to do to reverse that. So if we accept your parameters, there isn't going to be much of a discussion because all we would be doing is stating the bleeding obvious!

The point is that if Jack Straw hadn't have made those comments and the other government ministers and Labour MPs had not said anything, the issue of donning the veil, what it means, why is it being done and what does it mean for social cohesion would have been raised sooner or later anyway. Sure some of the right wing media have lept upon this issue with glee but they wouldn't have done so if there weren't some genuine concerns about social cohesion in the community at large.

People are genuinely worried about what they see as a growing divide between some sections of the Muslim community and the rest of British society. If you live in or near an area with a high concentration of Muslims, the fact the more women are donning the veil is noticeable. Like it or not, some people feel a bit frightened by what they see as one section of the community shunning the majority. I'm participating in the discussion, not because I want to stir things up but because I want to work out a way of bridging a growing gulf before things start to get really tense. That means having to confront some fairly difficult issues by having as open an honest a discussion as possible. Which is a bit difficult when the mildest criticism of the attitudes of some Muslims is met with accusations of racism...

 

[FridgeMagnet]

People are genuinely worried about what they see as a growing divide between some sections of the Muslim community and the rest of British society. If you live in or near an area with a high concentration of Muslims, the fact the more women are donning the veil is noticeable. Like it or not, some people feel a bit frightened by what they see as one section of the community shunning the majority. I'm participating in the discussion, not because I want to stir things up but because I want to work out a way of bridging a growing gulf before things start to get really tense. That means having to confront some fairly difficult issues by having as open an honest a discussion as possible. Which is a bit difficult when the mildest criticism of the attitudes of some Muslims is met with accusations of racism...

No, hold on for a second. I live near Shepherds Bush and work around Notting Hill and neither are exactly Muslim-free. Headscarves abound and the full hijab isn't that uncommon, you see it a few times a week at least. I've not seen any particular increase, or any "shunning" - it's just people muddling along in the same city, they don't talk to each other all the time and stick to their own groups a bit, but that's London, everybody does that, even when they all speak the same language and have common backgrounds.

I've never heard anyone talk about the Polish menace, and why aren't Poles integrated, after all, they speak in their own language and hang out with other Poles... except the fash of course who will go on about immigrant crime... and there's no evidence to show that any bombings or anything have evolved because of lack of integration. All the people responsible seemed to have plenty of community contact.

And it's hardly as if nobody can talk about Muslims without being called racist is it? It happens all the time, the papers are full of people talking about Muslims and Islam and how they don't integrate, and there's only a tiny response to even the most blatantly racist commentary. Christ, Urban is full of it, and people are generally polite, which is in itself rare.

The "growing gulf" you speak of is down to the mainstream culture becoming more intolerant, I'd say, rather than the minority culture becoming more separate.

 

[portman]

I was born in London, but brought up elsewhere. When I first moved back to London in 1981, I lived just up the road from Whitechapel for the first two years. In those days, in Whitechapel High Street, Brick Lane, Bethnal Green Road, etc., I literally never saw any Asian women in a niqab, and relatively few in hijabs even.

Nowadays, a lot more hijab wearing, and even somewhat more niqab wearing, in that area and elsewhere ...

Now I've read plenty on Urban and elsewhere giving various reasons why both hijab wearing has increased and why (perhaps more recently) even the small minority of niqab wearers has increased.

I think any meaningful debate/discussion on here, a site like this where limited numbers of practising Muslims post, depends on us having a clearer idea of the reasons why ...

I have heard some explanations stating that the increase in wearing the hijab and niqab is an expression of outright rejection of the government's conduct of the war on Iraq and to a certain extent Afghanistan as well - not to mention the ongoing Israeli assault on Palestine and the demolition of the Lebanon.

The first thing that struck me on hearing this was that it is a very personalised form of protest. It may give the wearer some satisfaction in that they are openly expressing their contempt for a government that has presided over the slaughter of countless thousands in Iraq. But what does donning certain items of clothing achieve in mobilising people of all races, creeds and faiths (and none) around a demand to pull the troops out? Where is the argument that can be taken to people in places like Basildon - people who are privately very cynical about what the government tells them about the situation in Iraq but need convincing that some kind of action needs to be taken?

What strikes me is that far from drawing people towards a firmer anti-war position, the wearing of the hijab and niqab is being perceived as a snub to the majority community, and is pushing people away. But we do live in an era of gesture politics and I suppose this is its logical conclusion.

I have also heard reasons for wearing the hijab and niqab that centre around a rejection of Western consumerism, the over sexualisation of popular culture and a desire to get off the fashion treadmill. To a certain extent, I have some sympathy with some the thinking behind this, particularly the rejection of consumerism, but feel the expression of it has gone too far. Again, it's perceived as a snub and some of the language used in condemnation of young women who do let it all hang out so to speak is not only insulting but is inevitably going to lead to divisions. There are important issues that have been raised by some young Muslim women but I feel that they could have been forwarded with a little more tact...

 

[audiotech]

Yes but - most people know Jack Straw is an opportunist and knew what he was doing when he made the comments about the veil a few weeks back (feels like a bloody lifetime ago to be honest!). The same applies to all the other politicians who have jumped on the bandwaggon since then.

But if we discuss the somewhat heated issue of the veil in the context you seem to be suggesting - namely some opportunist, populist machinations from a bunch of discredited government ministers and Labour MPs, then what are we discussing? How the government have screwed up over Iraq and Afghanistan and are trying to get public opinion back onside? To be honest I think most people realise that and the groundswell for pulling the troops out is pretty large - there is not much the government will be able to do to reverse that. So if we accept your parameters, there isn't going to be much of a discussion because all we would be doing is stating the bleeding obvious!

The point is that if Jack Straw hadn't have made those comments and the other government ministers and Labour MPs had not said anything, the issue of donning the veil, what it means, why is it being done and what does it mean for social cohesion would have been raised sooner or later anyway. Sure some of the right wing media have lept upon this issue with glee but they wouldn't have done so if there weren't some genuine concerns about social cohesion in the community at large.

People are genuinely worried about what they see as a growing divide between some sections of the Muslim community and the rest of British society. If you live in or near an area with a high concentration of Muslims, the fact the more women are donning the veil is noticeable. Like it or not, some people feel a bit frightened by what they see as one section of the community shunning the majority. I'm participating in the discussion, not because I want to stir things up but because I want to work out a way of bridging a growing gulf before things start to get really tense. That means having to confront some fairly difficult issues by having as open an honest a discussion as possible. Which is a bit difficult when the mildest criticism of the attitudes of some Muslims is met with accusations of racism...

That's an excellent post portman (I seem to recall you posting elsewhere btw?).

The debate could be stultified even further if we get significant numbers of people who believe that it's all down to Muslims and their refusal to accept criticism (which clearly is not the case and relates to some fundamentalists and out of touch imam's).

The danger is that all this turns into polarised, communal hostility where only the fundamentalists of both Islam and the far-right gain.

Both of course are very similar in their separatist views. Let's not forget that the present BNP leader Griffin, in his 'third position' period courted a number of Islamic fundamentalist groups not so long ago.

 

[portman]

No, hold on for a second. I live near Shepherds Bush and work around Notting Hill and neither are exactly Muslim-free. Headscarves abound and the full hijab isn't that uncommon, you see it a few times a week at least. I've not seen any particular increase, or any "shunning" - it's just people muddling along in the same city, they don't talk to each other all the time and stick to their own groups a bit, but that's London, everybody does that, even when they all speak the same language and have common backgrounds.

London I think is a bit of a special case in many respects. I was thinking more of the former mill towns in the north where economic decline is a major problem for the whole community but has hit the Muslims particularly hard in towns like Burnley and Dewsbury. That is a clear case of economic malaise coupled with limted government resources adding to divisions as the two side of the community are forced into competition for a shrinking slice of the pie. That's when divisions and tensions are at their starkest and that is the climate the far right thrive in.

Sure there are deprived areas in London and all too often, the Bengalis and Pakistanis seem to bear the brunt of it. However, there are always opportunities for people to work their way up and out and I would say that tensions between the Musilms and everyone else in London are nowhere near as bad as in the north.

One thing that does exacerbate tensions is the growing influence of identity politics. A form of politics that has grown in influence as more wide ranging and ambitious projects to achieve economic and social justice have been marginalised in an age where the neo-liberals are telling us 'there is no alternative to the market'. Hence the strength of identity politics which is seen as one area of life where people still feel they can have some influence. I think diversity is great - it's what makes London a fascinating city to live and work in. The problems come when identity politics becomes the be all and end all.

Identity politics in a depressed northern town with few economic opportunites is only going to have one outcome. Increased divisions and tensions as rival factions compete for scarce resources - or failing that, simply for some attention.

 

[danny la rouge]

Astoundingly, yours is an even less 'context based' comment than Jack Straws were danny.

What context? Perhaps you mean a climate of racism? If that is what you mean, say so.

It ignores entirely the current increase in islamophobia (and whilst we can all argue about to what extent that phenomenon exists, there cant really be much doubt that it does do) and the reasons many women adopt the veil..

I do not recognise the nonsensical notion "Islamophobia". It is a meaningless piece of jargon, that seems to suggest dislike of a set of ideas is akin to racism.

There might be racism towards Muslims, but that is "racism towards Muslims". Not "Islamophobia".

 

[Bernie Gunther]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schismogenesis

 

[FridgeMagnet]

London I think is a bit of a special case in many respects. I was thinking more of the former mill towns in the north where economic decline is a major problem for the whole community but has hit the Muslims particularly hard in towns like Burnley and Dewsbury. That is a clear case of economic malaise coupled with limted government resources adding to divisions as the two side of the community are forced into competition for a shrinking slice of the pie. That's when divisions and tensions are at their starkest and that is the climate the far right thrive in.

Sure there are deprived areas in London and all too often, the Bengalis and Pakistanis seem to bear the brunt of it. However, there are always opportunities for people to work their way up and out and I would say that tensions between the Musilms and everyone else in London are nowhere near as bad as in the north.

One thing that does exacerbate tensions is the growing influence of identity politics. A form of politics that has grown in influence as more wide ranging and ambitious projects to achieve economic and social justice have been marginalised in an age where the neo-liberals are telling us 'there is no alternative to the market'. Hence the strength of identity politics which is seen as one area of life where people still feel they can have some influence. I think diversity is great - it's what makes London a fascinating city to live and work in. The problems come when identity politics becomes the be all and end all.

Identity politics in a depressed northern town with few economic opportunites is only going to have one outcome. Increased divisions and tensions as rival factions compete for scarce resources - or failing that, simply for some attention.

Sure, from what I can tell the situation is different outside of London. I don't have any personal experience, clearly, so it's hard for me to say, but from what I hear there are what basically amount to ghettoes in many places.

But you don't blame people who are ghettoised for living in ghettoes, it's a phenomenon repeated throughout history that's basically economic. People bond together on common factors when that's what they've got in common with their neighbours and other people are shitting on them. I can hardly see "identity politics" as being to blame for that - it happens all the time, and it's rational behaviour, you end up with a group of people in the same situation that you can act in concert with. Any period, any setting, you can point to that happening.

As you say, it's economic malaise and a bunch of people being set against each other to compete for what's left. All this discussion of "integration" is just there to deepen the divisions and make them smaller. The more we pay attention to the bloody government saying "integrate, why are you not cracking down on extremists" as if that was anything to do with anything, the more divisions arise.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

In his first major anthropological study, Bateson studied the Iatmul tribe in New Guinea. From his fieldwork, he concluded that an Iatmul village is nearly perpetually threatened by fission of the community because it is characteristic that intense and growing rivalries occur between two groups. It puzzled Bateson that usually the community does not disintegrate. He found that one elaborate event heading off a blowup is the elaborate "Naven" ceremony which entails tranvestism and buffonery.

source

 

[William of Walworth]

The so called 'left' 'feminist' 'secular' arguments for banning the veil amount to veiled concessions to a racist agenda. You can't impose a version of 'liberation' on people from outside. Otherwise some feminists would want to ban make up and short skirts and others would want to make short skirts compulsory as a symbol of liberation.
.

Straw man Groucho. I'm fairly sure (?) I haven't seen more than the very occasional post (generally shouted down, anyway) from anyone here on Urban, least of all from a feminist, a secularist, a leftie or just from a generally interested person, calling for the veil to be banned.

I've seen quite a few posts from Respect or Respect-aligned people trying to do what portman suggests here though -- make genuine discussions (on here) more difficult with accusations of racism and Islamophobia :

People are genuinely worried about what they see as a growing divide between some sections of the Muslim community and the rest of British society. If you live in or near an area with a high concentration of Muslims, the fact the more women are donning the veil is noticeable. Like it or not, some people feel a bit frightened by what they see as one section of the community shunning the majority. I'm participating in the discussion, not because I want to stir things up but because I want to work out a way of bridging a growing gulf before things start to get really tense. That means having to confront some fairly difficult issues by having as open an honest a discussion as possible. Which is a bit difficult when the mildest criticism of the attitudes of some Muslims is met with accusations of racism...

Not to mention the EXCESSIVELY loaded accusation of 'secularist fundamentalism' from someone who's apparantly a socialist

To that extent I disagree with FridgeMagnet when he said it's impossible/really difficult to hold a meaningful discussion at this tiime. Why should Jack Straw/the etablishment/the mainstream media monopolise this discussion?

Can we not take it in our own direction? That's what portman is trying to do and fair play to him ...

 

[portman]

Sure, from what I can tell the situation is different outside of London. I don't have any personal experience, clearly, so it's hard for me to say, but from what I hear there are what basically amount to ghettoes in many places.

But you don't blame people who are ghettoised for living in ghettoes, it's a phenomenon repeated throughout history that's basically economic. People bond together on common factors when that's what they've got in common with their neighbours and other people are shitting on them. I can hardly see "identity politics" as being to blame for that - it happens all the time, and it's rational behaviour, you end up with a group of people in the same situation that you can act in concert with. Any period, any setting, you can point to that happening.

As you say, it's economic malaise and a bunch of people being set against each other to compete for what's left. All this discussion of "integration" is just there to deepen the divisions and make them smaller. The more we pay attention to the bloody government saying "integrate, why are you not cracking down on extremists" as if that was anything to do with anything, the more divisions arise.

I certainly don't blame people who 'are ghettoised for living in ghettoes'. What I was getting at in my earlier posts is that identity politics is now a substitute for a more ambitious political project of achieving economic and social justice. The defeat of the labour movement in the 80s (helped in no small part by their own ineptitude) means that any notion that the prevailing neo-liberal worship of the market as the dominant force in society can be challenged has been sidelined.

Hence a situation where there is a passive acceptance that there is no alternative to market forces as the basis on which society is organised - something all three main parties have signed up to. This is regardless of the consequences which can mean very high levels of unemployment and very few opportunities for escape. This is where identity politics comes into its own - people accepting that the economic fundamentals cannot change so instead, they focus on where and what they are by affirming their identities.

So in an area beset by economic decline with dwindling government resources available to make life any easier, we have a situation where communities defined by a sense of their own identity are in competition with each other for scarce resources. In other words, people who to a greater or lesser degree, are experiencing the same problems, instead of acting together to secure their common interests, are divided and fighting each other. Community activists in Birmingham pointed out that it was competition between the black and Asian communities over scarce resources and funding that was a contributory factor in the riots in the Lozells area of the city. Blame cannot be apportioned to any section of the community in these cases - their plight has to be seen in the context of a wider political and economic malaise. In other words, it's the triumph of divide and rule.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

I certainly don't blame people who 'are ghettoised for living in ghettoes'. What I was getting at in my earlier posts is that identity politics is now a substitute for a more ambitious political project of achieving economic and social justice. The defeat of the labour movement in the 80s (helped in no small part by their own ineptitude) means that any notion that the prevailing neo-liberal worship of the market as the dominant force in society can be challenged has been sidelined.

Hence a situation where there is a passive acceptance that there is no alternative to market forces as the basis on which society is organised - something all three main parties have signed up to. This is regardless of the consequences which can mean very high levels of unemployment and very few opportunities for escape. This is where identity politics comes into its own - people accepting that the economic fundamentals cannot change so instead, they focus on where and what they are by affirming their identities.

So in an area beset by economic decline with dwindling government resources available to make life any easier, we have a situation where communities defined by a sense of their own identity are in competition with each other for scarce resources. In other words, people who to a greater or lesser degree, are experiencing the same problems, instead of acting together to secure their common interests, are divided and fighting each other. Community activists in Birmingham pointed out that it was competition between the black and Asian communities over scarce resources and funding that was a contributory factor in the riots in the Lozells area of the city. Blame cannot be apportioned to any section of the community in these cases - their plight has to be seen in the context of a wider political and economic malaise. In other words, it's the triumph of divide and rule.

Fair enough, I see where you're coming from a bit better now, and I'd generally agree.

My point is that following the agendas dictated by Straw, Kelly et al and treating their nonsense as if it was something worth discussing just helps to deepen divisions, because their agendas are inherently divisive. They try to reinforce the idea of intrinsic differences, that there's some problem with a certain section of the working class that makes them bad; that's all they're interested in. Every time they make a statement it's to point the finger at someone, at best. The first step is to reject the finger-pointing; independently we can get together and talk about other things which might be causing division, but to do that on the basis of their agenda is suicide. We need to unite first.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

To that extent I disagree with FridgeMagnet when he said it's impossible/really difficult to hold a meaningful discussion at this tiime. Why should Jack Straw/the etablishment/the mainstream media monopolise this discussion?

Can we not take it in our own direction? That's what portman is trying to do and fair play to him ...

William: when we start talking about "issues" because Straw has said them in the media rather than because we've thought of them ourselves, he's won.

 

[William of Walworth]

William: when we start talking about "issues" because Straw has said them in the media rather than because we've thought of them ourselves, he's won.

I disagree, we can talk about them on our own terms (as indeed you and portman are doing now). I'm sure you're not arguing that people like Straw should go ignored or uncontradicted? If anyone was to advocate that, I think that's counterproductive.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

I disagree, we can talk about them on our own terms (as indeed you and portman are doing now). I'm sure you're not arguing that people like Straw should go ignored or uncontradicted? If anyone was to advocate that, I think that's counterproductive.

I'm not holding to Straw's agenda. I'm specifically avoiding any reference to veils and whether we should ban them or whether they're divisive or any of that rubbish.

If I *were* to address that, even to say "no, he's wrong and here is why" then I'd be giving in to his agenda. What he says should go ignored, uncontradicted and un-thought-of, because discussing it means that his agenda has dictated what I say and think about. The most anyone should say is "what Straw has said is irrelevant bullshit".

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Would it be appropriate to mention media frames here?

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Hey, why not, it's better than falling foul of them....