Downing Street Says » Veils Debate

Put by the BBC that if people were to understand the Prime Minister’s press conference today, the Prime Minister believed that if Muslim were to integrate, they should remove their veils, the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) said that what the Prime Minister said very carefully was that he believed that the local authority had handled this issue as well as they could have done. What the Prime Minister had also said was that there was a real debate to be had about the issues of separation and integration. The important thing about what the Prime Minister had said was, however, that this was not just an issue in this country, at this time. Rather, it was also an issue right across Europe, as well as many Middle Eastern countries too.

The PMOS said that it was not just about the specific issue of the veil, but rather, the issue of integration, separation, and race relations between the Muslim and non-Muslim world, etc. This was also a debate within the Muslim community itself, which was not just one community, bur rather, a series of communities. Therefore, it was in that spirit that the Prime Minister was discussing it.

Put again by the BBC, that the Prime Minister had said very categorically that it was a mark of separation, the PMOS replied that what the Prime Minister was also saying was that this should be a subject for debate and discussion. That was something that we had said consistently. The important thing was that people did not lose sight of the broader issues because of the focus on one particular issue. As people knew, there were different issues around at the moment, and different symbols, and that affected many organisations.

Asked if the Prime Minister was of the view that the veil was cultural, as opposed to anything to do with the religion of Islam, the PMOS said that that was a matter of debate within Islam. That was a fact. Therefore, rather than the Prime Minister giving a view on that, what he was interested in was a debate. The PMOS said that the debate had different aspects: it had a religious aspect within Islam, as well as a cultural aspect in terms of the relationship between the Muslim communities and those who were not Muslim. What the Prime Minister’s view was that people could not just pretend that that debate was not there, because a) it was there, as it was within the Muslim communities and those who were not Muslim, but b) it was a debate that was being held in many different countries.

Put that the Prime Minister did seem to be taking a position on it himself, the PMOS replied that what the Prime Minister was commenting on was the way in which the local authority had handled this issue, but he did say it was a matter for the local authorities.

Put by the BBC that at one point, the Prime Minister had said that it was not an ideal way to start the debate, and that to the outside world, it would look as if Ministers were deliberately choosing to confront the position, and were we saying that that had not happened in a discussion around the Cabinet table, the PMOS said that if a Minister went up for interview at present, then they would know that this was a subject that they would be asked about. That was not a campaign, but rather, it was a fact of life. People could not go on a BBC current affairs programme (the PMOS said at this point that the BBC did not have current affairs programmes any more…) without knowing that a Minister would be asked this question. Therefore, these debates, as they quite often did, tended to take on their own haphazard momentum. Equally, however, the Prime Minister’s main message was that it was symptomatic of a much broader debate about, separation, integration, and the relationships between Muslim and non-Muslim communities, as well as between Muslim communities themselves.

Asked that if on the broader subject of integration, were we saying that there was no decision by the Government, the PMOS replied that as the Prime Minister had said, he was not afraid to take on the broader issues, as there were matters that should be debated. What we should not do was to put our heads in the sand and ignore it as it was all too sensitive. These issues were there, and therefore, they were going to be debated, whether Government joined the debate or not. The PMOS said that if the journalist’s broader question was: had there been a strategic decision, and we were taking on this issue, then the answer would be "no". However, if the question was: was there a recognition that these issues were there, and that they had to be debated as they were being debated anyway, the answer to that would be "yes".

Asked if the Prime Minister shared some people’s fears that parallel societies were being created, the PMOS replied that the very fact that the question was asked meant that there was an issue that had to be addressed. The Prime Minister’s very firm view was that we lived in a pluralist society and, as he had said in the past, one of the great strengths of this society (and we saw this after 7th July), was that we had become a pluralist society. What the Prime Minister believed was that we had to therefore face up to the issues of: did these things lead in the direction which the journalist had suggested, which the Prime Minister would not be in favour of.

Put that some leaders of the Muslim community had said that tensions were worse, not better, how was the debate going to be conducted, and would it just carry on in this fashion, the PMOS replied that we had talked about this before. Jack Straw at the start had said that he accepted it was a personal decision whether someone wore a veil or not. It was that nature of an issue; at the end of the day, it would be a personal decision. As the PMOS had said before, the reason that Ministers appeared to have commented on it was because they were kept being asked the question. Therefore, they would give a personal view, as was perfectly right and proper. Other issues had arisen, about other organisations, about other symbols. Again, that was not because someone had taken a decision to raise these issues, but because they had occurred, and as a result of sensitised awareness that had come about because of the veil issue, they got more noticed in the media. That was not a result because of some decision taken in Government.

Put that the way that the debate had been currently conducted meant that more Muslim women, and more radical Muslims would be going around wearing veils and making it a symbol of their difference, and therefore, it was likely that more people would wear veils, not fewer, the PMOS said that first of all, it was a matter of personal choice whether people wore veils or not. Secondly, what the journalist’s comments left out was that this was already a matter of debate within the Muslim communities themselves. There was not one uniform view about whether the veil was part of the religious side or the cultural side, and there were different views on whether it should or should not be worn. That was the reality. The PMOS said that again, the question suggestion that there was not already a debate going: there was.

Asked by Channel Four if the veil could be seen as a symptom, rather than a cause of separation, the PMOS said that there was a genuine debate going on within the Muslim community, as well as between the Muslim community and the non-Muslim community about issues of separation and integration. The debate about the veil fell into that debate.

Asked how we would describe the body of work that the Government was doing on this, the PMOS replied that a lot of the work that was going on for example in Ruth Kelly’s department was aimed at getting messages about pluralism, against violence or extremism out into the community. The department could produce a long list of initiatives that had been taken with local authorities etc.

Put that given that this was a debate that had started within the Muslim communities, should it not be left for the Muslim community to discuss, and what benefit did the Government see in having Government members talk about it, the PMOS replied that it was not just a debate that affected Muslims. It was also a debate that affected the relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims, and it was therefore a debate which was already going on within the community at large. Therefore, people could not put their heads in the sand and say that these issues did not exist. This debate was going on in Germany, France, Belgium, Denmark, Holland, as well as in the Gulf states and in other areas of the Middle East. The PMOS said that there was a debate that was partly going on within the Muslim communities, but there was also a debate that was about and between Muslims and non-Muslims and about the relationship between them.

Put by the BBC that the Prime Minister’s decision to pause before answering a question about whether someone could be a full member of society whilst wearing a veil was extraordinary, and that there would be outrage that someone could not be a full member of British society because of what they wore, the PMOS said that what the Prime Minister was doing was choosing his words very carefully, as this was a very sensitive issue.

Put by Channel Four that people wore all sorts of special clothing for their religion, so why should this one be more of a symbol of separateness, the PMOS replied that that was precisely was the debate was about. The PMOS added that as always, the journalist had found a clever way of trying to get him to express an opinion, but if the journalist did not mind, he was not going to do that.

The journalist said that he was flattered. The PMOS said that what he did not flatter the reporter into was saying that he always succeeded!

Asked again by the BBC if the Prime Minister recognised that some people might have viewed both his hesitation and his words on separation as offensive, the PMOS said that what the Prime Minister was trying to do was to recognise that there was a genuine debate and genuine issues, and the veil was symptomatic of a broader debate. The Prime Minister today was not trying to get involved in the debate about the veil, but rather, to signal and draw attention to that wider debate. Part of the problem came whenever the societies pretended that there was not a debate going on about issues, and part of the problem came when people therefore did not think that their politicians were representing the debates that they were having about real issues. The PMOS said that people had to be sensitive and to recognise whether personal was personal and that the political was political, but what people should not do was to pretend that there were not issues to be debated.

Asked again about the Prime Minister pausing, the PMOS said that in job interviews, when someone paused and continued in a reflective way, the PMOS always gave them credit.

Put that the Prime Minister had paused, and had then "jumped right in with both feet", the PMOS replied that if someone was going to "jump in", they would be better to reflect before they did so.

Asked if the concern was that the BNP would win votes as a result of not addressing the issue, the PMOS said that it was not as simplistic as that. Rather, it was much more complicated in that there were real issues about integration, separation and relationships that were being debated anyway in society. The Government should be aware and sensitised to that, as otherwise, the society at large was not reflected in the national debate.

2 Comments »

In Northern Ireland for many years we have dealt with our own problems. Now with the mass influx of immigrants from Europe we are facing new problems which whilst still dealing with our homegrown difficulties, we are adament that we do not want a new set.

In a recent newspaper article I saw that Northern Ireland had become one of Europe’s racist hotspots. I can’t say I’m surprised, or approve, but the way events have been unfolding, I can see why so many people are annoyed at the influx of immigrants. Let me explain…

If an immigrant gets a council house, someone born, bred, and brought up in this country has one less chance of accomodation. The same scenario is evident when an immigrant takes a job. It is a nonsense to suggest that they help the economy flourish. We existed before they came, and will exist long after they’re gone. How annoying is it when you can’t even go to a local shop or multinational restaurant in your neighbourhood without hearing the staff giggling and conversing in a foreign language. If you’re working in an English speaking country, in your place of work, English should be spoken at all times. After all, not all foreigners speak great English, so in effect, this might help to improve their oral skills, or atleast help them to get my order correct occasionally.

General immigration would be fine. But how can anyone deny that we are being exploited and overwhelmed by immigrants from countries such as Poland. Soon it’ll be Romania and Bulgaria. On a slight tangent, other immigrants from further afield that end up in the UK; what’s that all about? What ever happened to the law that states that they must seek sanctuary in the first country they arrive at other than where they originated or face deportation? Why should we therefore ever accept anyone from for example, Africa, who has arrived in the UK from France? It doesn’t add up.

Our nurses don’t fully understand what we’re telling them in hospitals and I personally can never get any technical help for things such as my phone, internet etc because I can never understand the foreign person on the other end of the phone or they cannot understand me.

My last concern is with these schemes set up to aid the influx of immigrants and in some cases help them settle into a community and give them assistance if they face hostility. Money is obviously being diverted from other places to fund these schemes. For example, if the police set up a protection group, money is taken away from another area, possibly from a unit that deals with rape, buglary, assaults etc, simply to protect others who have never paid into the economy here at all.

When laws are made to protect certain groups who until recently did not even exist in this country, they rest of us face greater restriction and time spent dealing with immigrant related protection laws, is time not spent dealing with other issues that affect the vast majority of us law abiding, tax paying, English speaking citizens.

I am not against immigration at all. What concerns me though is when immigrants are admitted to this country and they are not bringing with them something that will aid us, and instead they seek to bleed us dry through benefits, housing, or make us feel like we are the ones who cannot speak our language. If they’re not willing to contribute, I don’t want them. If they don’t aim to follow our laws and integrate into our society then I don’t want them. If they’re illegal immigrants from a country other than another island, we shouldn’t have to take them.

We’ve been the soft touch for far too long already. Lets end this now before it goes too far. It’s already getting to that point. Demand something is done. It is not wrong to express your views in a free speaking country, and others do not have to agree with you, THAT IS YOUR RIGHT!
Comment by David — 20 Oct 2006 on 11:22 am | Link
Interesting piece of writing you put up.

I however have issue with your comments regarding immigration and how it in a sense justifies the backward racism typical of Northern Ireland.

I am a (non-Polish) immigrant myself, and I ask you these very simple questions:

If the people already residing in Great Britain took all the jobs available, will there be any jobs left for the immigrants?

Do you know what portion of the unemployment rate of the UK is actually of a voluntary nature?

If Liverpool did not have 26% of its male population registered as permamnently disabled (and therefore eligible for welfare benefits), would there be any vacancies for the immigrants?

Do immigrants not take jobs that are already available and vacant? Do you know of any instance where a Briton holding a job and performing effectively in that role was dismissed in favour of an immigrant?

You do not seriously expect to stay "on the dole" and still have a workforce that remains untainted by immigrants. Wake up Britain, get proper jobs or be grateful to the immigrants!!!
Comment by Mujungu Johnson — 14 Dec 2006 on 2:06 pm | Link

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Post a public comment

Name (required)
E-mail (required)
(You must give an email address, but it will not be displayed to the public.)
Website
(You may give your website, and it will be displayed to the public.)

Comments:

This is not a way of contacting the Prime Minister. If you would like to contact the Prime Minister, go to the 10 Downing Street official site.

Privacy note: Shortly after posting, your name and comment will be displayed on the site. This means that people searching for your name on the Internet will be able to find and read your comment.

Original PMOS briefings are © Crown Copyright. Crown Copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of HMSO and the Queen's Printer for Scotland. Click-use licence number C02W0004089. Material is reproduced from the original 10 Downing Street source, but may not be the most up-to-date version of the briefings, which might be revised at the original source. Users should check with the original source in case of revisions. Comments are © Copyright contributors. Everything else is © Copyright Downing Street Says.

» Tuesday, October 17, 2006

Veils Debate

2 Comments »

Post a public comment

Search

Supported by

Recent Briefings

Archives

Links

Syndicate (RSS/XML)

Credits

Enquiries