In November 1990, a left-wing British Labour MP publicly celebrated the downfall of Conservative Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher. Jubilant before the television cameras, he declared the country should be delighted it has got rid of this "wicked, wicked woman."
For many in the liberal-minded majority who had felt disenfranchised by more than a decade of right-wing rule, the statement was simplistic to say the least. Thatcher had been ousted, not by the electorate, but by her own party. The Conservatives --with their divisive, socially retrogressive policies-- were still governing. Revealing the depths of their ruthlessness, they had cut down their leader the moment she had become an electoral liability.
And it worked for them. John Major became prime minister and achieved what Margaret Thatcher would not have achieved had she remained in office. He won the 1992 election for the Conservatives.
Now, more than a decade and a half on, the same MP who had showed such a penchant for black-and-white thinking --Jack Straw-- has plunged head first into one of the most delicate and complex cultural issues in modern British society, namely the custom observed by some Muslim women of wearing a veil over the face. Straw calls the veil a "visible statement of separation and difference," and has warned that he intends to ask women who come into his office to remove it.
Although Straw, now the Leader of the House of Commons, claims to have opened a much-needed discussion on the topic his comments have, in fact, opened debate only on the part that rankles with him personally --the discomfort he, and other non-Muslims, feel concerning the veil. His published pronouncements have shown no attempt to understand the cultural significance of the custom from the points of view of the women in question.
He explains that "in our society," we need, "to read their faces," in order to feel comfortable with cultural differences. What bothered him most in one recent interview with a married couple was the "apparent incongruity between the signals which indicate common bonds --the entirely English accent, the couples' education (wholly in the UK)-- and the fact of the veil."
***
What Jack Straw lacks in imagination and understanding, he has more than made up for in raw ambition. He is no longer left-wing. Nobody in Tony Blair's government is. But he is the Leader of the House of Commons and has always been one of Tony Blair's stalwart cabinet ministers.
Through the country's top offices Straw had assiduously conformed to every conservative societal trend. As Home Secretary he once famously spearheaded the Blair government's obsession with "anti-social behaviour" by exhorting members of the public to go out and confront miscreants. This was after Straw himself --accompanied by several highly-trained security personnel-- had challenged a twelve-year-old boy for spitting in public.
More recently, as Foreign Secretary, he became as hawkish as the Blair government could desire, often sounding more like a minister for propaganda than one who held a genuine portfolio.
Now, as suspicion and misunderstanding of Britain's Muslim population reaches an all time high, Straw has decided that, once again, his insight is required.
It is a cruel truth that the simplest way for a politician to rally support is to echo a popular prejudice. Sadly and predictably, he has been praised both inside and outside the UK.
Chancellor Gordon Brown, Blair's likely successor, has publicly agreed with his colleague. On October 11 The New York Times treated Straw's comments as though they were leading a new trend in intellectual thought, suggesting his words "seemed to sum up the moment."
Islam is a prime target for prejudice. The very name has already been tainted by thoughtless media writers who apply a negative suffix as in "Islamic fundamentalist," or "Islamic terrorist," so that by constant association, the popular view of the Muslim world is darkening. Muslim leaders who have no connection at all to violence are being berated for their "silence" over terrorist attacks and inflammatory comments.
No one calls the pastors across the U.S. to personally account for civilian deaths in Iraq, and no one calls random Catholic priests to account for the anti-Semitic remarks of certain high profile Catholic filmmakers. But Western or nominally "Christian" society is actively trying to homogenize the Muslim world so that all are accountable for what one says or does.
A leader genuinely interested in racial tolerance and understanding would make it his or her urgent business in such a climate to avoid uninformed criticism of Islamic customs. It is clearly time to redress the imbalance, so what are Straw's motivations for doing exactly the opposite? His avowed wish to begin a debate on this issue seems disingenuous to say the least. His whole career has been about declarations of opinion rather than conversation.
***
Part of the Western disease is that we think we've got racism beat. The UK, along with many comparable countries, is sorely disconnected from its own troubling history. Racism is ageless in Britain; the fear of the alien among us is etched into the landscape.
In 1290, the Jews were expelled from England, their property taken by the crown to provide the funds for one of Westminster Abbey's stained glass windows. Roma people were expelled in 1530. It is well documented that Britain's black population experienced the constant indignity of "stop and search" police tactics, especially in the 1980s. The Irish have remained one of Britain's constant scapegoats with internment without trial continuing into the late twentieth century.
We don't have to look far to see the shameful process of cultural ostracism repeating itself afresh.
I see it in the words of the Leader of the House of Commons.
Paul Butler, originally from the UK, is a St. John's-based writer. His website is www.paulbutlernovelist.com
for internet marketing, web site design, development, promotion, and maintenance.
