Only A Muslim Fool Would Vote Labour 

The recent furore over Jack straws comments should pose one question in the Muslim mind, should Muslims discontinue their one sided love affair with Labour?  In the highly volatile times we live in, we cannot continue to delude ourselves that Labour is the party that best represents our interests.  Or are we going to continue to court a reluctant mistress?  Jack Straws comments were unwelcome to say the least but they also reflect the growing disdain and contempt Labour holds for its historically loyal Muslim electorate.  We have to ask ourselves, why Jack Straw thought this a fitting time to make these comments.  What was driving this extremely ambitious, intelligent man to make such a statement?  Jack Straw, would have us believe that he is opening up the debate.  An excuse often used by Politician, Popes and News Moguls who wish to make offensive erroneous statements, in the full knowledge of the ensuing controversy.  Whilst still hiding behind the guise of debate and dialogue and at the same time ensuring their escape clause of “no deliberate offence intended”.  I find it hard to believe these so called leaders of public opinion fail to understand the basic meaning of debate, debate normally entails a ‘for’ and ‘against’ argument, in this case, this was simply a statement of Straw’s opinion.  But surely Straw is allowed to have an opinion, you ask?  The answer is yes, but Muslims should recognise that not only Straw but a majority of the Labour government is now unrepresentative of Muslim concerns and some might say openly hostile to the Muslim community.  

So what is Straws opinion?  He believes the niqab hinders his communication with Muslim women, because he is unable to see the reaction and expression of the veiled face, in addition he states that seeing the full face is part of British culture.  But most importantly he believes that the niqab leads to separation and isolation from the wider non Muslim community.  He may have a point, it’s true to say that the niqab hinders the full interpretation of emotions because it obscures the face, but surely a man of Straw’s intelligence or for that matter a person of mediocre intelligence, should be able to clarify any misunderstanding by asking for a verbal explanation.  As for the statement that viewing an unveiled face is part of British culture, it must be weighed against another much lauded tenet of British culture ‘Freedom of expression’.  If these women made a conscious choice to wear the niqab and it is within the rule of law, then they have the right to wear whatever they wish.  I think both non Muslims and Muslims alike would agree, that if women are being forced to wear the niqab or hijab then their right to refuse should be protected, but similarly it must be recognised that if a women chooses to wear a niqab, then providing she is not harming anyone she should be allowed to do so.

Straw’s main reason for objecting to the niqab is that it is “a visible statement of separation and difference”.  But so is the Kippah (Jewish skull cap), or the headscarves, wigs and hats that Jewish women wear, or the Sikh turban or the Hindu bindi or for that matter the cross or any style of dress anyone chooses to wear.  We are all different and we all get up in the morning and select what we are going to wear that morning which will make us distinct from others.  None of us is a template of another person we all display our individuality and our belonging to a wider community in different ways.  But there is a laudable intent behind Straw’s naive and ill thought out statements, he wants Muslims to integrate more, he wants them to merge seamlessly into the wider community.  The majority of Muslims, don’t have a problem with that, they want to have good relations with their neighbors no matter what there religion or race.  But does Mr Straw seriously think that his statements have helped integration?  The catalogue of anti Muslim rhetoric is endless, starting with the Danish cartoons; the runaway girl, Misbah; the Pope’s remarks; John Reid’s need to preach to parents; PC Bishar and finally Jack Straw’s comments on the veil.  Often the stories are not quite what they seem and in another time, would hardly warrant comment.  And yet the hysterical reporting and extreme reaction to these stories has a significant impact on our social existence.  It slowly imprints itself on our unconscious psyche, forming our opinions and reactions to each other.  Nothing happens in a vacuum, all actions have reactions.  When the non Muslim public, consistently see images of Muslims as irrational, illogical, violent people, who are in conflict with their way of life and threaten their very existence and safety within their own country.  They are understandably antagonistic.  Most people do not critically analyse what they read or see in the media.  To a large extent they have a bond of trust, and believe, most of what is printed or aired, to be true.  When these incidents occur with clockwork regularity, then a cumulative effect takes place, non Muslims begin to think that Muslims are a viable and dangerous element within their society, which must be countered and if needed violently ejected.  Jack Straw’s comments can only have added to the cumulative effect.  This was sharply illustrated by an incident in Liverpool, where a lady was attacked and her veil snatched from her face.  The deliberate and constant vilification of Muslim by high standing Labour members has directly contributed to this incident.  Any Muslims should realise that there will be many such incidents if not much worse.  And Muslims should see a wider trend of Labour using far right extremist language in order to gain cheap kudos at the expense of their vulnerable Muslim electorate.  

On the other hand Muslims see the constant criticism as an attack on one homogenous group, they are scared and angry and the feelings of victim hood are beginning to take root within their communities.  The distinction between an extremist and a Muslim have been blurred, and the Muslim community at large is feeling threatened and vulnerable.  Surely Jack Straw knew that by adding to this already smouldering cauldron he could not possibly be promoting community cohesion.  Irony of ironies is that his statement could have done nothing but driven the two communities further apart.  If Straw wanted to promote better relations he would have been better off convincing his Muslim lackeys, Ibrahim Masters et el to hold open days inviting the non Muslim community in to meet their Muslim neighbours, thereby creating a forum for the debate, that he is so eager to initiate.  In addition he might encourage non Muslims to be less hostile and more open to their Muslim neighbours instead of treating them with hatred and suspicion.  The niqab doesn’t cause “separation and difference” peoples’ entrenched opinions cause separation and difference and Straws comments have done little to elevate the emerging gulf between the two communities.

Jack Straw’s reasons for making the statement do not ring true, so what could be the real reasons for his sudden dislike of the niqab.  Rumours abound that Straw is looking to stand against Brown in the upcoming leadership contest.  As a result he has to stamp his credibility as a prospective future PM.  But why should this result in an attack on the niqab?  The answer lies in Straw’s dismissal from the foreign office. Straw made the mistake of not completely cow towing to the Neo-con and Zionist Lobbies.  During the Iran nuclear debate he stated that the American proposal of a pre-emptive strike against nuclear instillations in Iran was “Nuts”.  This resulted in Rumsfield’s conviction that the British foreign secretary was not one of ‘their boys’.  Later, this was reinforced when Condi Rice went a touring in his Blackburn constituency and realised how dependent Straw really was on the Muslim vote.  It seems that she was instrumental in Straw’s dismissal on the grounds that his Muslim constituents had too much influence over him.  She couldn’t have been further from the truth, Straw has never considered Muslim interest, because he has never had to, instead he has been confident in the surety that whatever he did, the Muslims would still vote for him.  When Blair bowed to American pressure and sacked the foreign secretary.  Straw was understandably enraged, he had always considered Blair a close and steadfast ally and yet the opportunistic Blair had sold him down the river.  The chips were down and Straw was gunning for Blair.  He soon had the opportunity to embarrass Mr Blair, when the Israel, Lebanon war broke out.  Blair had refused to condemn Israel’s use of excessive force.  Straw took the opportunity to publicly embarrass the already beleaguered leader by calling Israel’s attack on Lebanon “disproportionate”.  This bold statement was out of character and managed to anger the pro Israeli Lobby ‘Labour Friends of Israel’ an extremely influential Lobby which not only had the ear of the PM but many other influential Ministers.  If Straw had any aspiration to become usurper to the throne, he would need to make up ground with not only the Americans but the LFI.  His recent statements are simply a means to illustrate that he is not unduly influenced by his Muslim constituents and is not beyond critiquing them, without considering their influence.  We will see in coming months whether the LFI and the Neo-cons will once again embrace him to their bosoms, as if he were the errant son returned.

Straw’s statements were made out of political pragmatism.  But he is not alone in using Islam bashing as a route to public popularity, it seems a prevalent form of campaigning amongst Labour members.  Traditionally Muslims and Labour have shared a good and respectful, relationship.  Muslims have seen the Labour party as a party that embraces ethnic diversity, working for the underprivileged, with a non racist agenda.  However, can we say from past experience that Labour is still the party for the Muslims?  On Thursday night, at almost the same time, the stark contrast between the Conservative and Labour parties emerged.  On Newsnight was the right honourable Labour MP for Dewsbury, Shahid Malik.  On Question Time was Oliver Letwin, Conservative MP for West Dorset and Shadow Home Secretary.  Muslims would naturally feel that Shahid Malik would be the defender of Muslim women’s rights to wear the niqab.  But Malik’s rather garbled response, failed to even mildly criticise Straw’s statements.  In fact Malik began by explaining that straw fully supported the rights of women to wear whatever they liked on their heads.  Blatantly this was not true since Straw later admitted that he would rather, no Muslim women wear the niqab.  But the icing on the cake was when he went on to praise Straw for being honest and opening up the debate.  If Shahid Malik felt that the debate was so necessary then why didn’t he introduce it within the Muslim community, why leave it to poor old Jack.  It is good to have party loyalty but Malik needs to understand his Muslims constituents also need fair representation of their concerns.  Unfortunately he was sadly deficient when it came to that.  In sharp contrast Oliver Letwin, challenged Straws statements by pointing out that people had the right of ‘freedom of expression’ he went as far as to say that people had the right to wear what they liked, and politicians should refrain from commenting on peoples individual freedoms to dress themselves.  The marked contrast between the two opinions seems to be showing a distinct divergence between Labour’s rather jaded opinion of Muslims and the Conservative’s somewhat more rational judgement.

Cameron has made a concerted effort to move his party away from the stereotypical, xenophobic, narrow minded white middle class, male orientation that was its preserve in the 80s and early 90s.  New Conservatism is far more palatable to the Muslims then labour has become.  A review of Cameron’s recent speeches highlights how inclusive the party has become.  On the anniversary of 9/11, Cameron declared he was not a Neo-con but was in fact a Liberal Conservative, he went on to criticise the war on terror as one that omitted ‘humility and patience’.  In the same speech he criticised Guantanamo and stated that human rights abuses in Iraq and Afghanistan should not be ignored.  But most strikingly when describing the terror threat Cameron refrained from calling the extremists, Muslim or Islamic, something I personally thought a politician from any of the parties, would never do.  

At the Conservative party conference, when talking off the war on terror he stated “Defeating them will be a battle of hearts and minds, as well as force”.  On the relationship with America he wisely distanced himself from the slavish imitation of the Blair government by announcing “William Hague and I have said we must be steadfast not slavish in how we approach the special relationship”.  Unlike the coverage in the Evening Standard, Cameron did not mention Muslim ghettos in his speech he did however mention community cohesion.  In his speech he mentioned the Cantle report, which blamed the 2001 riots in northern cities on both communities living parallel lives.  Building on this report Cameron stated that “It is by contact that we overcome our differences and realise that though our origins and our cultures may vary, we all share common values”.  No mention was made of breaking up Muslim ghettos.  He did however state that faith schools should include 30% of other faiths in their student, surely this would be a positive move towards bridging the gap between Muslims and non Muslims.  If we contrast the noises coming from the Labour camp, Blair’s arch of Islamic extremism, his devoted observance to the neo-con agenda his constant, unwavering, uncritical support of the ‘War on Terror’ despite its failings and then incorporate Reid’s speech on parental responsibility and Straw’s attack on the veil, only one choice remains for Muslims and it’s not Labour.

There is a quite revolution going on in the ranks of the Conservative party, Muslims would do well to heed the grass roots change taking place and decide whether the Conservatives are worthy of their support.  On most of the Conservative policy on housing, the NHS, education, transport, and tax there is nothing objectionable.  The ethos of the party does not offend in the main, their focus on family and tradition strongly supports the Muslim traditional values.  Although there will be times when Muslim opinion and Conservative policy clash, Muslims should reflect on Labours betrayal of the Muslim electorate and try and choose that party which best supports its interests.  Muslims must make a distinction between old Conservatism and the new Conservatism of Cameron.  And then they must compare new Conservatism with new Labour which is beginning to look a little jaded and worn and frankly a little like old Conservatism.

Contributed by a Member of the Public

---