Talk:British debate over veils

Mustaf Jama

I've just been googling the case of Mustaf Jama, and I don't think there's enough (or possibly even any) evidence to support the claim that he escaped Britain wearing a veil. He was actually arrested in Somalia in 2007 and extradited to Britain for trial. He denied the veil claim, and the only reports published since then suggest he simply used or modified a friend's passport and walked onto a plane. The original claim about the veil was speculation, based on an offhand response from a police officer:

Asked whether Mustaf Jama had used a full Muslim veil to evade checks, a spokesman for West Yorkshire police said: “It’s a possibility. He could have been wearing a pantomime horse outfit as well. But until we get him, we won’t know for sure."

As far as I can tell, that is the sum total of the evidence supporting the veil claims. I think it suited a popular point of view at the time, so the press ran with it. That original quote was (apparently) reported by Reuters, and this is (apparently) the original link, but it no longer works: [1]

There is some commentary to be found here: [2] [3]

News articles from after his conviction (in 2009) make little or no mention the veil claim and, when they do, it's to say he denied it. [4] [5] [6]

I haven't edited wiki before, so I don't want to just dive in. If anyone thinks this is worth pursuing, let me know and I'll make some edits. Or feel free to even do it for me! I think the whole dot-point should just be deleted, but maybe some more context could make it sensible. I'm also not sure if those blogs are reference-able for wiki. It's just a pity that the original quote was so poorly reported. 121.45.208.159 (talk) 04:46, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Considering the media coverage and the political response to it i think it is notable enough to be in this article, however the wording should be changed to balance it in favour of it being an incorrect claim instead of saying ", is believed to have dressed in a niqab in order to flee Britain" and yes the blogs are not reliable sources and can not be used. Saying something like "In (year) there was media speculation that (name and crime) had fled Britain in a niqab but the home office said it was unlikely and it played no part in the prosecution case and was denied by the suspect." (along those lines, needs better wording). BritishWatcher (talk) 12:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Other Views

I have done some editing to this piece, although less than I think it really needs. The main change is that I have put the views of the Prime Minister and the Mayor of London at the top, rather than below the views of the British National Party and the Socialist Workers Party as they were. The Express poll showed 98 per cent thought a ban on veils would be a good thing (according to the Express), not that 98 per cent supported Straw's contention. To say they supported women "losing the right" to wear veils raises all sorts of issues - better to just use the language used by the Express in citing the newspaper's report imho. Personally I think this section is too long. I appreciate a lot of work that has gone into it and have not cut anything (except the reference to one anoymous woman reportedly shouting something at a meeting). Hobson 01:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Bravo

Islamophobia is means is for muslims the veil is not a islamic clothes its not even talked or pratice about is islam but others rewite then own to look like it ITS NOT PART OF ISLAM islam law or in there holy text and what woman wear is a fashion statement and has been around for longer than islam the highest people in islamic world don't support wear it and it really must be mentioned on about its non reiligist backround as well even if his comments were insensitive if we want to keep it NPOV sharia law which is follow and what makes someone been called a muslim and what they pratice doesn't say anything about it also their seems to be a thing on here about muslims all been not white (i know thats wrong)and aren't british lots were born here not all moved hereand are very british. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.24.51.238 (talk) 12:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I just wanted to say that this is one of the best summaries of a debate I've seen on Wikipedia - an excellent list of prominent speakers on the issue. While its NPOV, it's shocking the amount of Islamophobic bull which has been printed in the name of free speach in the last few weeks. It makes me ashamed to be British. Snooo 23:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

"Sociology graduate from University of Birmingham; maintain a weblog in my spare time." Well what a surprise that is! A sociology grad weeps for the poor oppressed minorities. But, you know, there are plenty of other reasons why you should be ashamed to be British. Aren't you simply jumping on the bandwagon? It amazes me how little foresight these "art house cinema" socialist graduates actually have. We are dealing with an immense problem at the moment, with a minority who think Britain's men are drunks, the women slappers, and to be brutally honest and very politically incorrect, there is a catasrophe waiting to happen. Those who want sharia law over here must be shunned, beaten, whatever. Although, a lot of people just can't see it, the niqab issue is largely connected to this desire to bring about sharia law in Britain; and I for one am not about to let this happen. I certainly don't require some second generation Muslim brit to instruct me on moral behaviour, when he himself comes from a backwards medieval society in which the year is only circa 1400 (I.e., Iran). CaptainSurrey 23:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

" I certainly don't require some second generation Muslim brit to instruct me on moral behaviour"... "he himself comes from a backwards medieval society in which the year is only circa 1400". If hes 2nd gen.. hes a Brit.. What part is causing you trouble? --Irishpunktom\^talk 10:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. What I do know is, I'm sick and tired of leftists launching vicious attacks on any one who actually tries to engage in honest, straight debate about a subject. I don't hate Persians, Arabs or any other ethnicity adopting the Islamic religion. What I hate is people who lie about things, hide information from people. The world isn't about 10,000 years old, and it certainly wasn't made by God or Allah; I don't know this for sure, but I believe it. But then my belief is based on some evidence put forth by scientists. There is plenty of evidence that the earth is a lot older than 10,000 years. There's plenty of evidence that all the miracles that have ever happened have been those affecting only minor ailments which probably were cured by something else. And we all have heard of dopamine and the affect the anticipation of reward can have on the mind. (Just thinking you will get something good will give you something similar to an adrenalin rush.)

There's plenty of evidence that a Niqab (worn in some countries where a stricter school of Islam prevails, e.g. Saudi Arabia) upon a woman can be intimidating, scary, and can create a power imbalance between the two people engaged in talk. The veiled woman can see the person to whom she is speaking, but that person can't see the veiled woman fully, and so the veiled woman has an advantage. The advantage is due to the fact that over here in Britain, women are no longer seen as sexually dangerous beings, and therefore we don't make them cover up. But then in a society where men are increasingly being shown as equal to women or even weak up against the woman, the veiled Muslim woman would then actually be an equal woman with bizarre clothing to make her sort of mysterious and powerful.--CaptainSurrey 05:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

What is wrong with being afraid of Islam? Islamic terrorists caused 9/11, Islamic terrorists caused the London Bombings in 2005, Islamic terrorists caused the death of many of our troops and even more innocent Iraqis. Sure, Islam was considered a peaceful religion. Accept Allah or die. Islam is an idea, an idea that is pushing people to kill themselves along with many others. Why shouldn't we be afraid of Islam? --69.67.235.68 03:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC) And the people responsible for the IRA terrorist attacks were probably Catholic, what's your point? 80.193.149.95 (talk) 10:43, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Expressveil.gif

Image:Expressveil.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

"United Kingdom debate over veils"

This article's title makes absolutely no sense. British debate over veils would be better. JonChapple^Talk 10:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I've moved it. JonC^Talk 08:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on British debate over veils. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081201081554/http://www.stopwar.org.uk/documents/OPENLETTER_000.pdf to http://www.stopwar.org.uk/documents/OPENLETTER_000.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061020055815/https://www.cair.com/default.asp?Page=articleView&id=41317&theType=NB to http://www.cair.com/default.asp?Page=articleView&id=41317&theType=NB

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:44, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 8 external links on British debate over veils. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080502174219/http://www.sundaymirror.co.uk:80/news/tm_headline=-muslim-women-who-wear-the-veil-can-be-frightening---intimidating--&method=full&objectid=17890955&siteid=62484-name_page.html to http://www.sundaymirror.co.uk/news/tm_headline=-muslim-women-who-wear-the-veil-can-be-frightening---intimidating--&method=full&objectid=17890955&siteid=62484-name_page.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120204175414/http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=9881 to http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=9881
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080502133234/http://www.respectcoalition.org:80/2006/news.php?ite=1195 to http://www.respectcoalition.org/2006/news.php?ite=1195
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080502112117/http://www.london.gov.uk:80/view_press_release.jsp?releaseid=9467 to http://www.london.gov.uk/view_press_release.jsp?releaseid=9467
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120205132001/http://www.blink.org.uk/pdescription.asp?key=12978&grp=66&cat=228 to http://www.blink.org.uk/pdescription.asp?key=12978&grp=66&cat=228
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070930212553/http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article1879413.ece to http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article1879413.ece
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110910222701/http://www.bminitiative.net/bmi/en/details_home.aspx?ID=88&table=sub to http://www.bminitiative.net/bmi/en/details_home.aspx?ID=88&table=sub
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070118032713/http://www.falkirktoday.co.uk:80/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=927&ArticleID=1806381 to http://www.falkirktoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=927&ArticleID=1806381

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:38, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on British debate over veils. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080502211543/http://www.thisislondon.co.uk:80/news/article-23370004-details/It's%20selfish%20to%20wear%20the%20veil,%20says%20Straw%20aide/article.do to http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23370004-details/It's%20selfish%20to%20wear%20the%20veil,%20says%20Straw%20aide/article.do
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061029123754/http://news.independent.co.uk:80/uk/politics/article1842569.ece to http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article1842569.ece
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061023190723/http://news.independent.co.uk:80/uk/crime/article1870842.ece to http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/article1870842.ece

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:15, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on British debate over veils. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23370004-details/It%27s%20selfish%20to%20wear%20the%20veil%2C%20says%20Straw%20aide/article.do
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sundaymirror.co.uk/news/tm_headline%3D-muslim-women-who-wear-the-veil-can-be-frightening---intimidating--%26method%3Dfull%26objectid%3D17890955%26siteid%3D62484-name_page.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080502133234/http://www.respectcoalition.org/2006/news.php?ite=1195 to http://www.respectcoalition.org/2006/news.php?ite=1195
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110910222701/http://www.bminitiative.net/bmi/en/details_home.aspx?ID=88&table=sub to http://www.bminitiative.net/bmi/en/details_home.aspx?ID=88&table=sub
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061020055815/http://www.cair.com/default.asp?Page=articleView&id=41317&theType=NB to http://www.cair.com/default.asp?Page=articleView&id=41317&theType=NB

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:40, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on British debate over veils. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061102191625/http://www.brandrepublic.com/bulletins/br/article/599937/zoo-stirs-trouble-follows-star-muslim-spread/ to http://www.brandrepublic.com/bulletins/br/article/599937/zoo-stirs-trouble-follows-star-muslim-spread/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090629011503/http://www.24dash.com/news/Central_Government/2006-10-26-Immigration-staff-can-ask-Muslim-women-to-remove-veils to http://www.24dash.com/news/central_government/2006-10-26-Immigration-staff-can-ask-Muslim-women-to-remove-veils

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:43, 11 January 2018 (UTC)