LETTERS to the editor are not accompanied by a photo of the writer – why should they? But here I am engaging with you, and hopefully you’ll keep reading. We’re communicating. And all you have is my name at the end.
I understand that some people might make assumptions, but I promise you, I am neither a letter box, a bank robber nor an apologist for women who decide their own dress code. Politics of identity, gender, culture and religion, when undertaken in the name of Western democracy, seem to have become some totem that supersedes choice and self-determination.
No-one would want to see or condone the oppression of women, be that being told what to wear, where to go, or any of the other tyrannies that deny us our rights and opportunities. There are so few women here wearing the full covering, we do not know how many choose to do so. It would seem though that the imposition of a ban, full or partial, even extending to burkinis, in other parts of Europe, is meant to bring some “freedom” to previously oppressed women. Either way, the assumption is that women, and now it’s Muslim women, don’t know what’s good for them and they need to be told by others.
Then there is the diversionary tactic of “integration” into society and if you’re still reading, we know face-to-face isn’t always required. How much do we accept via social media with nothing more than a click on a mouse and the trust that the “profile” we exhibit, the information we share, is true? But if we are talking about the need for integration – and I believe it’s a diversion – I am reminded of my Jewish friends who tell me of their families fully integrated within Germany in the 1930s, but who didn’t survive that Holocaust. I remember the Bosnian Muslims and their integration prior to being hunted, put into camps and their extermination.
But why just Muslim women in this instance? How would women, any women, all women, show they are integrated? And into what? Whose opinion, whose dictate would prevail? In this day and age (as in the past) women are objectified constantly and possibly, universally.
I have never watched Love Island, but wonder due to all I have seen in the press if that programme is meant to represent what younger women here should aspire to: physically, emotionally and with career potential in mind? If copied, would that be a sign of integration? Funny then, that Muslim women have been targeted before to demonstrate their integration by being the eyes and ears in communities, scoping out possible terrorists and maybe bank robbers whilst assisting the Prevent strategy.
Boris Johnson is quick to ridicule Muslim women for their appearance, but presumably he found Prince Charles, all dressed up, complete with sword, swaying to drums acceptable since it was to support rUK’s Saudi allies and, oh yes, help with trade deals. Did he go out to ridicule women in Saudi Arabia and their dress code? Is Boris cozying up to the Trumps, Bannons and Robinsons of this world since he feels that the far right wing is the future, or that their supporters here will vote for a like-minded candidate either in a leadership bid, or worse, as Tory leader going into a General Election?
Picking on any minority, and the weaker members within any minority, is not the sign of a leader seeking to create an inclusive society. Nor will holding minorities up to mockery create a safer society. But it is a demonstration of persecution.
When aided and abetted by media, social platforms, and worse, perpetuated by politicians and their parties, you have to query the mindset that can generate such “debate” and dogmatic beliefs.
And I truly fear the long-term motives and vision for the future as envisaged by Boris and his supporters.
Selma Rahman
Edinburgh
READ MORE: Boris Johnson to be probed by Tory bosses over burka comments
HAVE you noticed how our politicians are partial to wearing thick cotton white shirts and heavy dark suits? Not to forget that ever-so-practical neck attire: the tie. They accompany shiny, black, leather-soled shoes. Just the ticket for your 35-degree London, Mr Johnson! You do not have far to look to see “silly” clothing! Burka or just burk, Mr J?
Peter Barjonas
Latheronwheel
I WAS so impressed and enlightened by David Crines’s well-informed response to Jim Fairlie’s letter (whose letters, by the way, I also so enjoy reading).
But as David explains, the UK can hold a referendum and as a result, invoke Article 50 to leave the EU and it is that easy! The EU complies and respects that decision, despite its inevitable negative impact for all.
However, the Scottish Government requests (cannot inform) to hold a second referendum to leave the equal group of UK countries and is refused. It says it all.
Kate Reid
Edinburgh
READ MORE: Letters: The EU’s sovereignty is limited and clearly defined
I HAVE read the National since day one with no complaints concerning front page headlines or photos. However, I must rebuke the paper regarding your front page line-up of pictures of assorted British politicians (August 7). To inflict mug shots of the gaggle of ne-er-do-wells on the public with no prior health warning bordered on irresponsible, given the possible psychological impact on Scots who who had blotted out the memory of puffed-up hypocrites like John Reid, Helen Liddle, wee Dougie Alexander – aaargghhh – enough!
As the pictures rendered me incapable of writing this without the timely assistance of some medication and a lie-down, if you plan a similar montage of infamy in future, could you please give prior warning? This would enable me to take a couple of calm-me-down pills before perusal.
Malcolm Cordell
Broughty Ferry, Dundee
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here