But she said she had given a speech on women's rights in Saudi Arabia - where women are banned from driving - and refused to support the Lib Dems' boycott of the visit of Saudi King Abdullah, saying it was important to engage in dialogue and exchange views to "find cultural change".

I wonder would she have said the same about apartheidt South Africa. Somehow, I doubt it.

OT David, take your kids to see macbeth in crumlin road jail! Loads of teenagers with their parents were there and you'll see shakespeare done properly. They had the witches out in the old court yard, where the prisoners walked about, and the main body in the circle done on 3 levels. They got the teenagers from the audience to sit at the banquet table, and utilised the crowd and surroundings with great effect. Educationally for kids its not to be missed, a few quid is all it costs - it would be very well worth it for them.

Typhoo,

It sounds marvellous and of course it is a wonderful play.

Sounds great, Typhoo. Wish I were in Belfast.

Ironic for this snake of a lawyer to be paying lip service to this issue given she defended a young woman wearing that revolting black garb last year - who as it transpired, was put forward by a sinister sounding islamist group using her for their own propaganda. Stupid cow. She's like so many of her profession: full of sh1t

I wonder if this is linked to a new government emphasis (pretty good one i reckon). Just readthis in the Times

"The pamphlets have come to light as the Government prepares to enlist Muslim women to play a bigger role in isolating violent extremism within their communities. Hazel Blears, the Communities Secretary, will announce today the creation of an advisory group as part of a drive to give Muslim women a higher national profile and to allow their voice to be heard alongside that of Muslim men".

Ms Blears will tell a conference in Central London that the Government is to focus on teenagers and young people, the development of mentoring schemes for people aged between 16 and 35 and the huge expansion of work with women and youngsters in local communities.

“I think there has been a serious lack of strong, positive role models for both Muslim men and women. I think women’s voices are heard in the family but have not been heard in public as much as they should,” Ms Blears told The Times.

She added: “Women are impatient on this issue. They are practical and realistic. They have huge influence inside the family and I just don’t think they have been able to exercise that influence in the way they should.”

In her first big speech on tackling violent extremists, Ms Blears will say that they have moved from the mosques to gyms, cafés and snooker halls. She will add that extremists are using new media to put across slick and seductive messages aimed at men aged 16 to 35"

I actually thought the interview was very good. I think she is right to focus on how women are treated accross the world and how culturally and religiously there is a hang up on how women dress. I thought the interviewer had a good point when she asked if Cheerie thought, that other cultures seen young women here scantly dresses, drunk etc and have perhaps decided well that is not what we want. I don't think we want it either.
I think in this instance she has a good point in focusing on the individual woman, who ammay want to dress in a certain way culturally and still have no barrier in employment. The trouble is the two things, culture and religion clash. How do you have a professional doctor dressed in such garb, where movement could be restricted. If a woman is subservient in her religion why should she expect to be any different in any other areas of life?

The point was she states regards this clothing being OK "provided they are freely undertaken". I dont accept that it is possible to fully guarantee this, or that families will do anything but influence young female susceptible members and there is no guarantee women are not forced into it. Indeed this has been shown to be the case previously. Cherie on that score managed to shoot herself in the foot, she is a total hypocrite and in view of her defence of that child last year is the last person who should be contributing to a discussion on this issue.

We should be actively seeking to discourage it and disown it and we are not doing nearly enough. Im fast coming back round to the conclusion that if more is not done immediately, rather than in a mealy mouthed wooly fashion, then we should move to an outright ban. We can no longer afford to offer up platitudes on this debate. When i see one of these women i know are dressing for the theatrical appeal i make my feelings known to them just as they are making theirs known to me. Dumb bints the lot. Same as any other woman that goes along with a religious duty that allows patriarchy to call the shots.

I can't say I disagree with you Alison, but a ban would stop all individual choice - which I'd have some difficulty with.

As you well know Typhoo im emphatically pro choice. However wearing this garb is not a matter of life or death to those who choose it whereas it is to those who dont - so where do you strike a balance? Equality is a fundamental belief in a liberal democracy and we are busily chucking that out of the window for religious platitudes. One journalist found this out to her horror last year when she was followed home by a young woman for whom the veil was being used to mask physical abuse. Since then ive seen nothing robust by way of arguments to counter this. Yes it is about striking a balance. But i would favour a ban in all schools. Thats the price they pay for the privilege the West affords.

A ban in all schools is a good idea, and is different to a total ban. But the govt is copping out since they now say its up to the school what the students wear, therefore a heavily populated muslim school could allow the wearing of this stuff. I know you are pro choice, thats why a ban call from you surprised me. Tricky stuff finding the balance. Your comments on Cheerie generally are spot on.

Typhoo

We are talking about religious and cultural rights which need to be balanced and are easier to balance in my view - but you could say in the same way abortion isnt permitted right up until 9 months, there is a balance struck.

I think wearing a simple headscarf is perfectly acceptable and encompasses religious tolerance and choice. It should be the preference. Im totally in favour of a ban in schools though.

Here though is an interesting argument in favour of a total ban which i keep finding makes more sense. Apologies for the length.

http://www.alibhai-brown.com/archive/article.php?id=68

(nb Shabina Begum was was defended by Cherie the Lawyer).

"The pernicious ideology is propagated by misguided Muslim women who claim the burkha is an equalizer and liberator. In a film I made for Channel4 I met an entire class of teenagers at a Muslim secondary school in Leicester who told me negating their physical selves in public made them feel great.

Should the nation support all demands in the name of cultural or religious rights? In several schools already Muslim parents are refusing to let their girls swim, act or take part in PE, interference I personally find appalling.

This is a society which prizes individual autonomy and the principle of absolute gender parity.

The burkha offends both these principles and yet no politician or leader has dared to say so. Even more baffling is the meek acceptance of the burkha by British feminists who must be repelled by the garment and its meanings. What are they afraid of?

Afghani and Iranian women fight daily against the shroud and there is nothing ‘colonial’ about raising ethical objections to this obvious symbol of oppression.

The banning of the headscarf in France was, in fact, supported by many Muslims. This spring Shabina Begum took her school to Appeal Court for refusing to let her ‘progress’ from the hijab to the jilbab, a full body cloak. She won the right. For many of us modernist Muslims this was a body blow and today we fear the next push is well underway for British Muslim woman to wear the body cage of Afghani women under Taliban.

...within this broad liberalism, there are still restrictions and denials for the sake of a greater good. Nudists cannot walk our streets with impunity, and no religious cult can demand the legal right to multiple marriages.

Thousands of liberal Muslims would dearly like the state to take a stand on their behalf. If it doesn’t, it will betray vulnerable British citizens and the nations most cherished principles, including liberalism. Worst of all it will encourage Islam to move back even faster into the dark ages instead of reforming itself to meet the future.

Alison: We lawyers prefer the label "excrement enhanced" to full of sh1t if you must know.

"This snake of a lawyer" made me chuckle.

>>other cultures seen young women here scantly dresses..., and have perhaps decided well that is not what we want. I don't think we want it either.<<

Speak for yourself!