ChatterBank1 min ago
Kelvin Mackenzie Is Thinking About Lodging An Official Complain About Fatima Manji's Hajib
From his column in The Sun (the link at the bottom is to the Independent, because the Sun is behind a paywall):
I will be looking at making a formal complaint to Ofcom under the section of the broadcasting code which deals with impartiality.
Since the question of religious motivation was central to the coverage of the Nice attack, I would ask whether it is appropriate for a newsreader to wear religious attire that could undermine the viewer's perception of impartiality
http://
Do you think he has a point?
I will be looking at making a formal complaint to Ofcom under the section of the broadcasting code which deals with impartiality.
Since the question of religious motivation was central to the coverage of the Nice attack, I would ask whether it is appropriate for a newsreader to wear religious attire that could undermine the viewer's perception of impartiality
http://
Do you think he has a point?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by sp1814. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Naomi I have Muslim women friends and I can assure you Naomi that the scarves they wear, or hajib, are not imposed on them by their husbands or fathers. They are a fashion choice, an outward declaration of their religion (there choice, they do have free will) and also so I've been told , are very useful for covering up a 'bad hair' day. I suggest you take your head out of your google translated Koran and go find a real Muslim woman and chat with her. They drink coffee you know and even go to wine bars. I can pass on your info to one of mine if you like - one is a surgeon, one a medical consultant and one runs a multi-million pound franchise.
Jim360 - //If Fatima Manji wears a hijab at work, whatever her motivations, then even without the fact that the link between her hijab-wearing and the disgusting attack at Nice is tenuous at best, it's a choice that she is free to make, and breaks no code of impartiality. Kelvin Mackenzie has no point and shouldn't be given the time of day with this protest. //
If I may highlight this extract from your excellent post - this is in fact the crux of the huge debate already conducted - which took us all into a mire of religious doctrine, while steering us away from the original Question -
Was Fatima Manji and / or Channel 4 being 'insensitive' in putting her before viewers wearing a hajib to speak about a Muslim atrocity?
My response remains unchanged - that if the channel or the journalist wished to highlight her/their 'sensitivity' (?!) - it would need to be pointed out verbally, so that people realised and understood the gesture being made. A gesture un-noticed is no gesture at all.
Since that would have distracted from the news - which is why such things don't happen - no such action was taken.
Mr Mackenzie's agitation was then, and is now, to do with pushing Islam phobic buttons in his readership, and as I have advised, button-pushing is his profession, and he is very good at it.
We should not give him the oxygen of publicity - the entire reason why these atrocities are carried out in the first place.
If I may highlight this extract from your excellent post - this is in fact the crux of the huge debate already conducted - which took us all into a mire of religious doctrine, while steering us away from the original Question -
Was Fatima Manji and / or Channel 4 being 'insensitive' in putting her before viewers wearing a hajib to speak about a Muslim atrocity?
My response remains unchanged - that if the channel or the journalist wished to highlight her/their 'sensitivity' (?!) - it would need to be pointed out verbally, so that people realised and understood the gesture being made. A gesture un-noticed is no gesture at all.
Since that would have distracted from the news - which is why such things don't happen - no such action was taken.
Mr Mackenzie's agitation was then, and is now, to do with pushing Islam phobic buttons in his readership, and as I have advised, button-pushing is his profession, and he is very good at it.
We should not give him the oxygen of publicity - the entire reason why these atrocities are carried out in the first place.
RetroChic2, // an outward declaration of their religion//
Thank you for that. Tell it to Jim, will you? He insists it’s cultural. However, since the headgear is worn universally by Muslim-born women and converts alike, I’m not sure which particular culture he thinks it applies to, but there you are.
As for the rest of your post, your advice to me is based upon your own unfounded assumptions which are severely misplaced.
Jim, //Kelvin Mackenzie has no point//
In your opinion – not in mine.
Thank you for that. Tell it to Jim, will you? He insists it’s cultural. However, since the headgear is worn universally by Muslim-born women and converts alike, I’m not sure which particular culture he thinks it applies to, but there you are.
As for the rest of your post, your advice to me is based upon your own unfounded assumptions which are severely misplaced.
Jim, //Kelvin Mackenzie has no point//
In your opinion – not in mine.
Cultural and religious practices often get intertwined, but since you haven't disputed that the wearing of veils precedes Islam it clearly is, at the very least, originally a cultural practice and not a religious one. Uses can change over time but that hardly invalidates my point.
As to your last point, such as it was, that's the literal definition of opinions and adds exactly nothing to the discussion.
As to your last point, such as it was, that's the literal definition of opinions and adds exactly nothing to the discussion.
naomi24
Don't you find it ironic that the very people who condemn Islam for the subjugation of women are more than happy to dictate that these same women cannot be seen presenting the news in their chosen garb?
It must be incredibly difficult maintaining two opposing views in the same head:
"Muslim women should be free of the shackles of oppression."
"We should be able to dictate to Muslim the times that they can appear on television."
Errr...
Don't you find it ironic that the very people who condemn Islam for the subjugation of women are more than happy to dictate that these same women cannot be seen presenting the news in their chosen garb?
It must be incredibly difficult maintaining two opposing views in the same head:
"Muslim women should be free of the shackles of oppression."
"We should be able to dictate to Muslim the times that they can appear on television."
Errr...
Naomi -how about reading what real Muslim women are talking about -educate yourself out of the middle ages
https:/
https:/
Jim, The use hasn’t changed over time. Muslim women, whether they are born Muslim or are western converts who have never covered their heads in their lives, cover their heads because their religion instructs them to. Now that might not suit your preferred view, but your preferred view isn’t the issue here. That is the bottom line.
As for my last point, there is nothing to add to that particular part of the discussion. I disagree with you.
As for my last point, there is nothing to add to that particular part of the discussion. I disagree with you.
Naomi - //Now that might not suit your preferred view, but your preferred view isn’t the issue here. //
Indeed it's not.
Mr Mackenzie is not querying the reasons why Ms. Manji does or does not wear a hijab, he is asking wheter it was 'insensitive' for her to do so when presenting a news item about a Muslim atrocity and whether it was similarly 'insensitive' of her employers to allow her so to do.
That is the issue under discussion - and again we are sliding further and further away from it.
I await your return to the issue in hand with interest.
Indeed it's not.
Mr Mackenzie is not querying the reasons why Ms. Manji does or does not wear a hijab, he is asking wheter it was 'insensitive' for her to do so when presenting a news item about a Muslim atrocity and whether it was similarly 'insensitive' of her employers to allow her so to do.
That is the issue under discussion - and again we are sliding further and further away from it.
I await your return to the issue in hand with interest.
naomi24
To clarify something...
Muslims take direction on what is obligatory and what is optional in Islam from two sources. The Quran (The holy book) and the Hadith (The sayings and actions of the Prophet Muhammad).
The Quran often only gives Muslims general instructions and the details and clarification comes from the Hadith.
Because of this, there are interpretations which lead some Muslim women to wear the naqib, some the hajib and others neither.
I'm sure, like the rest of us, you have encountered many, many, many Muslim women who wear various combinations of these garments, right?
Two years ago, four of us went on holiday to Marrakech and what was noticeable was the variation in the way Muslim women dress.
It is not a hard and fast dictat laid down in the Quran.
It...just...isn't.
To clarify something...
Muslims take direction on what is obligatory and what is optional in Islam from two sources. The Quran (The holy book) and the Hadith (The sayings and actions of the Prophet Muhammad).
The Quran often only gives Muslims general instructions and the details and clarification comes from the Hadith.
Because of this, there are interpretations which lead some Muslim women to wear the naqib, some the hajib and others neither.
I'm sure, like the rest of us, you have encountered many, many, many Muslim women who wear various combinations of these garments, right?
Two years ago, four of us went on holiday to Marrakech and what was noticeable was the variation in the way Muslim women dress.
It is not a hard and fast dictat laid down in the Quran.
It...just...isn't.
naomi24
I suggest you talk to one of your Muslim friends to find out what they think. I was chatting to a girl at work about it a couple of years ago (I couldn't remember the word for the full face veil and the head scarf). I found out something interesting - in her family it was very, very optional, and she chose to wear the hajib as a statement of identification. She'd gone through a period when she was young where she was ashamed of being Muslim, and had gotten through that, and saw the scarf as a pride thing.
It was illuminating.
She also said that it was great for when she was late for work, because she could go out of the house without doing her hair.
I think she was joking.
I can't be sure.
I suggest you talk to one of your Muslim friends to find out what they think. I was chatting to a girl at work about it a couple of years ago (I couldn't remember the word for the full face veil and the head scarf). I found out something interesting - in her family it was very, very optional, and she chose to wear the hajib as a statement of identification. She'd gone through a period when she was young where she was ashamed of being Muslim, and had gotten through that, and saw the scarf as a pride thing.
It was illuminating.
She also said that it was great for when she was late for work, because she could go out of the house without doing her hair.
I think she was joking.
I can't be sure.
short excerpt from the posted article by a Muslim Woman Scholar
'The Koran neither speaks against nor in any way emphasises that form of covering. God uses the word only once in the Koran (24:31). That occurs in passing in connection with a call for moral behaviour. So there is no Koranic emphasis on such head covering. However, if God had required a special head covering, would He not have said so explicitly? The khimâr thus merely constitutes a 'fashion accessory' according to the spirit of that age. Viewed rationally, functions consciously or unconsciously associated with head coverings across the course of history – such as protection against sand or evil influences – are all superannuated today and have lost their validity. People's powers of imagination have changed.
'The Koran neither speaks against nor in any way emphasises that form of covering. God uses the word only once in the Koran (24:31). That occurs in passing in connection with a call for moral behaviour. So there is no Koranic emphasis on such head covering. However, if God had required a special head covering, would He not have said so explicitly? The khimâr thus merely constitutes a 'fashion accessory' according to the spirit of that age. Viewed rationally, functions consciously or unconsciously associated with head coverings across the course of history – such as protection against sand or evil influences – are all superannuated today and have lost their validity. People's powers of imagination have changed.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.