“makes you suspect they wouldn’t have had a problem if only they’d all dressed as 12th century monks .”

But they didn’t, did they ? Or as 21st century nuns, come to that.

Why don’t they say what happened? Did they get any stares, or cat calls, or abuse?

Or maybe, in this _relatively_ tolerant land of ours, they had a normal day?

But if they think this was worthwhile, will they dress up as Christians (he he) and hang around outside some London churches at service time, and ‘gain an appreciation’ of what Canon Michael Ainsworth maybe feels like (2008: the Times: “…beaten up and insulted in what appears to be a “faith hate” assault by Asian youths…”)

Or as Sikhs with turbans..or jews with skull caps…

O maybe dress up as Emos and hang round corners to see what abuse they might get?

Or in short skirts and etc ad hang around on dodgy kerb crawling roads?

Or as geeky swat school kids, with specs and satchels overflowing with books?

Or …

or maybe better still do an job swap with Pakistan police staff, and see how Muslim women feel there?

Or Gaza, where ‘Honor killings account for virtually all of the murders of Palestinian women in these areas’

or dress up as the two Afghani boys in my small market town, (who nice leather jackets), who were beaten up in their own homes.

By hooded, gloved, religiously motivated thugs.

Who spoke the same Dari language with a lightly different accent as the victims.

Who told them that if they didn’t go back to being Muslims….

sorry, back on topic now…

Neil: did you imply that: all secularists are ‘bile-soaked’ or that all ‘jihad watch people who warn of dhimmisation’ are ‘websores’ ?

Blimey I’ve heard of “cultural cringe” but this takes the cake.

Some people think secularism is a rather important principle.
I certainly do.
I hope that doesn’t make me “bile soaked” but if it does, well, so be it.

What is Just Visting blabbering about? Can anyone tell?

Some people think secularism is a rather important principle.

For the govt, yes. What’s that got to do with this?

Erm, perhaps the fact that the author referred to “bile-soaked secularists” objecting to this piece of silliness.
So perhaps you should ask him?

Still I look forward to the met police dressing as orthodox Jews and having a wander round E1.
I can see lots of scope for this kind of thing.

Erm, perhaps the fact that the author referred to “bile-soaked secularists” objecting to this piece of silliness.

Yes. He’s referring to the people mentioned above. He’s not attacking secularism is he?

Still I look forward to the met police dressing as orthodox Jews and having a wander round E1.

Sorry, what does this have to do with Jews? Is your insinuation that the police bend over backwards to Muslims? Perhaps they’ve been infiltrated?

Why don’t people bring these analogies when it comes to stop and search?

Anti-racism as an excuse to dress up?

Yes he could have said “bile-soaked bloggers” – but he didn’t, did he?

Just asking.

I mean we are all secularists here, aren’t we?

Aren’t we??!

PS – I know the weather’s shit but what’s happening with our climate bet?

Hmm.

I agree that the rentaquote responses from the Christian Fundies and the anti-tax bores aren’t at all impressive.

But I’d like to know a lot more about South Yorkshire Police’s ‘In Your Shoes Days’.

I think it’s legitimate to ask whether police officers also feel the need to dress up as hoodies, goths, Orthodox Jews, homeless people, flamboyant old-fashioned stereotypes of homosexuals, or whatever, in order to empathise with all sections of the community.

How exactly are they deciding which cultural groups are deserving of this sort of police attention? And where they are getting advice on what shoes exactly should they be wearing? Were the local Muslim women who joined the police in this exercise wearers of the niqab?

I’d also question whether South Yorkshire Police press department could have handled this better. Presumably they released the photo and the quotes – or at least invited journos along. It’s therefore reasonable to criticise the police on the grounds that they should have done a better job of presenting this sensitively: i.e. not apparently suggesting that they view the typical Muslim woman as a niqab wearing recluse!

I feel you are too quick (too “unthinking”?) to defend the police on the grounds that they don’t write blogs and might not have had media training. It’s unfortunate but a feeling of culture clash can be sensed amongst the public (and measured, whether in opinion polls or BNP votes) in many UK towns and cities. We should expect our police service to do a better job of presenting its efforts to manage such clashes – this sort of thing is too important to simply give them the benefit of the doubt and a free pass to be ‘well-meaning even if mistaken’.

The whole story has a very silly season edge to it but since you yourself admit that the “experiment was imperfect” and it is concerned with some pressing (and emotive) social issues it was inevitable that “bile-soaked secularists” and “anti-caliphate comrades” (I will admit to belonging to both these groups) amongst others were going to have many good reasons to pick it apart.

By the way, the post-pasting editing option is a brilliant development!

Just Visiting,

As delighted as I am to see my post warranted 5 comments from you alone, I don’t suppose you could just have them as one long comment in future is there?

As for the attempt to engage in whatabboutery; sorry, but I’m not playing. I think the police should always strive for the best possible understanding of the communities & social groups they’re serving, and that includes everyone, not just Muslims. But if you think SYP’s actions in this case were fundamentally wrong, just say so and explain how they’ve truly damaged (a) the principles of a secular society, and (b) the police’s own ability to its job. Ta.

cjcjc,

Some people think secularism is a rather important principle.
I certainly do.
I hope that doesn’t make me “bile soaked” but if it does, well, so be it.

Pardon the pun, but good lord… I wrote a post for this very site (http://bit.ly/i7Wkc) about defending the secular values of the U.N. So if I did think that of all secularists, then I’d be describing myself as well. I had thought it was obvious that ‘bile soaked secularists who squat in blog comments sections’ could be understood as ‘people who sometimes leave twattish, ill-thought-out comments on other people’s blog posts’, but perhaps not. My way was more fun to write, at least.

Jako,

Thanks for the comment. I’m actually quite prepared to stand behind the description of the commentators linked to as ‘unthinking’ because I don’t think they’ve demonstrated a willingness to actually think the matter through. All the commentary I’ve read on the matter has been pretty poor and hasn’t sought to consider if, rather than being some simpering appeasement of the religious, there might at least have been some decent thinking behind the police’s motives & aims.

Like you, I’m a staunch secularist, a fairly ordinary atheist and someone who’s quite happy that the principles of British society aren’t under threat from Islam’s nutty fringe. But I get the feeling that sometimes those things can get in the way of considering something on its own merits, and it would just have been nice to ponder the story without resorting to the easy option of criticism.

I do think you have a point, though, about us being slightly hampered by the lack of information. Perhaps the police have handled the matter poorly; perhaps they weren’t fully prepared for the kind of attention they’d get when it came out, and for those reasons, perhaps a bit more of the information you’re asking for would be appropriate so that anyone who does want to consider the case more objectively can do so. But again, none of the folks I’ve criticised in this post have close to postponing their judgement until they know more about it.

By the way, this report from Tuesday night’s Look North might be of interest.

http://bit.ly/3D3HLK

What might be of note is that the police are considering extending the scheme to other community groups. I wonder whether it’ll receive quite so much attention when it’s not Muslims they’re working with…

Before you criticise a man you should walk a mile in his shoes. That way, you’ll be a mile away and you’ll have his shoes.

Sorry, but this whole exercise was complete arse.

Burkhas are simply the most visible form of oppression among Muslim women. Maybe if they were barred from talking to male colleages in the staff canteen or walk behind them on patrol they might have learned something but as it is they’ve just helped legitimate the burkha.

And frankly Sunny, your attempt to tar Cjcjc as an Islamophobe for his perfectly sensible objections are just tacky.

I think the perfectly reasonable explanation for why they chose Islamic dress is because it is an issue that keeps cropping up recently and because of the obvious visibility of the burkha and niqab. To devote a day to such an experiment is hardly a huge or wasteful commitment.

Shatterface:

“Maybe if they were barred from talking to male colleages in the staff canteen or walk behind them on patrol they might have learned something”

I’m sure the three women are capable of formulating an idea on what that might be like without actually doing it. While I don’t like the burqa I’m sure there are Muslim women who do genuinely prefer wearing it, and I’m sure there are Muslim women who are subsequently discriminated against for doing so. If we are to avoid the French idea of ordering women to be free then we need to try some novel approaches to issues such as this and that means occasionally undertaking experiments that produce mixed results.

And frankly Sunny, your attempt to tar Cjcjc as an Islamophobe for his perfectly sensible objections are just tacky.

Huh? Jeez, why do people start waving around race cards so quick? I’ve sparred with cjcjc long enough to know he’s not that.

Anyway, Neil – it’s Douglay Murray and assorted crew. What did you expect? These guys live for such ‘controversies’.

I must admit I haven’t stopped chuckling since I read about this bizarre initiative.

Imagine the scene – a crusty ‘sarge’ informing his underlings that they would have to walk round the city on a hot day dressed in oppressive mediaeval clothing.
How where the candidates selected – was it the most liberal or the most suspect officers who were chosen, or perhaps it was just names out of a hat?

Leaving aside the fact that this sort of garb epitomises the very worst sort of male anxiety about women, particularly confident self-expressive women, what on earth has been actually learned by it?

It reminds of similar escapades when attractive young actors use special effects to give themselves the appearance of an ‘oldy’ so that they might see the world through the eyes of another disadvantaged group.

Now if the ENTIRE Yorkshire police force dressed in Burkas, etc for a year or more then we might be onto something – otherwise this is simply tokenism of the most fatuous nature?

was it the most liberal or the most suspect officers who were chosen, or perhaps it was just names out of a hat?

Shhhhhhhhhhh! They came from Sheffield, too close to Barnsley.

South Yorkshireites will be insulted by that, from a West Yorkshireite, everyone else will just scratch their heads.

Some other categories of people who require extra empathy because of people who are liable to be judgmental about their dress:

men in pinstripe suits.
men who wear bow-ties or cravats.
men who wear dark-blue blazers with metal buttons.
people in tweed suits and deerstalker hats.
women who get called sluts and prostitutes by certain members of the community because they choose not to wear very much in the way of clothing. Particularly if they feel like going for a stroll in, say, Alum Rock.

the list is endless.

In particular I’d like to see Ipswich police wearing balaclavas to demonstrate their empathy with this balaclava-wearer:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2006/10/19/veil-demo-by-dad-in-balaclava-115875-17955610/

It will indeed be entertaining to see how they pursue this with other groups.
Though I suspect they won’t – primarily because they can’t.
Others will prove a little more difficult than just hiding in a tent.

Will they be “blacking up” for example?
(Though I recall there was a documentary in which someone did that with unhappy results.)
How exactly might they disguise themselves as Chinese?
Or gay?

Sunny,

Anyway, Neil – it’s Douglay Murray and assorted crew. What did you expect? These guys live for such ‘controversies’.

True, true. But I’d still, perhaps naively, hoped their response would’ve been slightly better than “WTF?! What’s community engagement got to do with policing?”

A&E

Imagine the scene – a crusty ’sarge’ informing his underlings that they would have to walk round the city on a hot day dressed in oppressive mediaeval clothing.
How where the candidates selected – was it the most liberal or the most suspect officers who were chosen, or perhaps it was just names out of a hat?

Well, it happened in January, so they may not have been sweltering too much. According to the police, they were selected because they were all community engagement officers, so even if the ‘in your shoes’ experiment was a bit novel, they would’ve still been working with these kinds of groups whatever clothes they were wearing.

Neil: did you imply that: all secularists are ‘bile-soaked’ or that all ‘jihad watch people who warn of dhimmisation’ are ‘websores’ ?

I don’t speak for Neil, but it’s entirely clear that anyone who uses the terms ‘jihad’ or ‘dhimmi’ in any context other than “those stupid fucking bigots who think the terms ‘jihad’ and ‘dhimmi’ are relevant to race relations in the west should go and fuck themselves” is, indeed, a websore.

10.cjcjc. I think one thing worth pointing out is how minorities treat each other. A friend of mine who is a GP and Hindu had a bad time with abuse from muslim men of Pakistani origin when she worked in Yorkshire.

The rise in attacks recorded on Jews : it would be interesting to see who was a doing this; perhaps the BNP or muslims?

There is also the question of how muslim women who do not want to wear the hijab are treated by muslims who consider the hijab or being veiled as vital to their religion. I hope the Sheffield Police spend far more time discussing social issues with Anne Cryer, MP for Keighley.

@28 – well there was an example of “jihad” in London, a large city in the west, on 7/7/05, wasn’t there?

Thanks for posting the link to the BBC report, Neil. However, listening to the police officers explaining why they carried out this exercise has not reassured me. Infact, the more I think about it the more convinced I am that this has been a really bad idea.

Whoever is in charge of the press department at South Yorkshire police has not handled this well. This story has come to public attention only because the police have willingly promoted it to the press: released the photograph, made the officers available for interview, etc. This was not necessary. If the point of the exercise was simply to help community engagement officers to do their job by dressing them up in niqabs (questionable in itself, but that’s a different point) there was no need to publicise it.

So what are the police motivations? Clearly they want to be seen as proactive and imaginative in their community engagement efforts. Perhaps they also want to emphasise that they are in no way prejudiced. All very laudable; but whilst it’s good to see the police giving attention to these issues (whatever the moron from the TaxPayers Alliance says) surely it was obvious this was always going to backfire and result in hostile coverage?

Firstly the wearing of the niqab: a controversial decision in that only a small minority of Muslim women choose to wear it. By suggesting that the police need to dress up in the most extreme and conservative clothing associated with Muslims in order to emphathise with the Muslim community the exercise has (unwittingly) helped to reinforce crude stereotypes.

Secondly, in the post-exercise interview with the Beeb one of the officers wearing the niqab said that she felt she was receiving lots of negative attention, especially from staring children. Perhaps this was unfairly edited by the reporters, but it comes across as the officer chastising children for staring at women in niqabs! Objectively speaking, the niqab is very distinctive and antisocial clothing – it’s inevitable that people wearing it will stand out. Of course they’re going to be stared at. The police officer could have used better words to describe the experience without seemingly suggesting that there is an onus on the rest of the population to be entirely comfortable with niqabs.

Thirdly, if this is indeed only one part of a continuing programme of community engagement officers dressing up as other cultural minorities then the police should have prepared a full list of planned exercises to provide to the press. Otherwise it just seems that, once again, Muslims are being singled out as the difficult, problematic ‘Other’, something that I’m sure many Muslims do not appreciate. I’ve looked at the SY police website and can’t find any more info on this programme – despite it receiving so much attention in recent days!

In short, the South Yorkshire police have made “unthinking criticism” of their actions too easy. It was asking for trouble. I mean, did the press officers really think that the right-wing tabloids would ignore a story like this during the silly season? Or that people would refrain from concluding that this is simply further evidence of the authorities pandering to the reactionary elements of Islam? Even though I have great faith that the police were well-intentioned, this sort of simple-minded and poorly planned stunt will probably only serve to hinder community relations. There are better ways of police community enagement – ones that will not result in so many negative headlines!

Good grief, some of the comments here are so depressing, so negative, so spiteful, utterly breathtakingly stupid.

Great piece Neil, I for one think the idea by the South Yorkshire police is a brilliant one, a real effort at some experimental and challeging thinking to engage with a section of the community and to gain a better level of understanding.

The response you point to as well as the vile attitudes on display here makes me sick, some people are so thick and myopic, it frustrates the hell out of me.

For what it’s worth, I also found the best kind of youth work was outreach, where, sometimes with police, sometimes with other community workers, I walked round the streets at night and engaged with young people on their turf and their terms and in their situation to try and gain a better feel for what they experience.

Not only did it gain respect, it also showed them I was willing to put my money where my mouth is, in turn this led to a better working relationship which in turn led to better outcomes for the young people, reduction in crime in the neighbourhoods and also dialogue between agencies and the people they were there to help.

Anyone who has a problem with that kind of thinking has either a prejudice that they can’t shake off or is thick.

How’s this for a crazy idea: has anybody bothered to ask the Muslim community how they feel about it? I see responses from the Centre for Social Cohesion, the Christian People’s Alliance and the TaxPayers’ Alliance, but nothing from anybody even vaguely related to the actual target community in question.

Hey, why don’t we ask the freakin’ BNP, the UDF, or my local bloody bowling club while we’re at it? Anybody but Teh Mooslims!

@33 – I think that’s a good idea, though I’m not sure how you go about asking a “community” – you’re not suggesting they’re all alike are they?
Anyway I doubt that the majority want to be associated with the burkha-wearing/enforcing brigade.

But the police are accountable to everyone, aren’t they (well, in theory – of course in practice they are hardly accountable at all) – so everyone is entitled to comment.

Oh dear.

Dunc has a valid point, the community in question are not represented by comment.

And indeed, everyone is entitled to an opinion but not opinions are of equal value or quality.

Can we get away from “communities” and stick with individuals?

It doesn’t work like that does it? As in that thing called real life.

I’m pretty sure you could find a Muslim community group at least as representative of their constituency as the the Christian People’s Alliance or the TaxPayers’ Alliance are of theirs. If the latter are OK to ask for comment on this initiative, why not the former?

I think you’d struggle to find a Muslim group less representative of the average Muslim than the TPA is of the average taxpayer. Maybe “Muslims For Booze, Pork And Casual Shagging” would do it…

Jako,

Thanks for providing the one thoughtful critique I’ve seen so far. Regarding the revelation of this scheme, I’m still not entirely sure that it was ‘promoted’ by the force. For one thing, it happened in January, and it’s a bit odd to publicise something 7 months after the fact. For another, I can’t see any reference to the event on the police’s news feeds, and they’re generally quite keen to promote any neighbourhood policing they do. I suspect they didn’t volunteer this information, and possibly mismanaged it when it was revealed, but I could be wrong.

To be honest, I don’t consider the backlash this has caused as evidence that it was a really bad idea. Sometimes public bodies will have to make potentially unpopular decisions if they feel like they serve a general public good. Now, if the backlash were to be so severe that – rather than just upsetting some guy at Standpoint or TPA – it actually served to worsen relationships in the city & with the police, then I would agree, but I’m going to bet my beer money that it hasn’t happened. So for me, a mismanagement of the media response doesn’t mean it was a bad idea; it could just be a good idea, sold badly.

The othering of Muslim women you warn about is certainly a risk, but it presumes that this othering had not already occurred long before this experiment, as a consequence of everything that’s happened since 2001. I believe that’s wishful thinking. On the contrary, I think an argument can be made that the attempt to bring these people into the city centre could be seen as an attempt to diminish the othering which already occurs.

This is one incident which lasted just a few hours; the Muslim volunteers shared their experiences with the police officers and the police officers did the same with these volunteers. Judging from the police’s response and the reactions of the one volunteer interviewed, both parties took away something valuable. If that’s true, and there have been no discernable worsening of relationships in the city, then I think it’s been an overall success.

Beyond that, the main objection of the piece was what I saw as the dominance of easy, comfort zone condemnations & an inability to properly consider either the potential benefits or pitfalls. If more people had reacted to this story as thoughtfully as you have, then this post would never have been written.

@28 – well there was an example of “jihad” in London, a large city in the west, on 7/7/05, wasn’t there?

So anything Muslim related has to come back to the terrorist attacks?

I was replying to #28.

I think it’s a perfectly reasonable reply.

(I would agree with him that “dhimmi” doesn’t have much relevance.)

Neil – I didn’t realise the exercise happened in January. It does indeed seem odd that it’s only come to light now.

Hi All

Surely a key point here is that they (the police officers) went out dressed as only a small minority of British Muslim women do yet the line here is being pedalled that this dress is representative of all British Muslim women. It clearly isn’t.
I suspect rather alot read this story with dismay as it does look like SYP have fallen for the Islamist line on atire for muslim women.

I live in Leeds and even in areas with a high muslim population a niqab or burkha is extremely rare. Long may that continue. I think that in the UK such items should not be worn. To many the covering of the face is rude and inherently sepratist and hardly demonstrates trust and integration.

TCH

Has no one thought of getting some male Muslim burqa-enthusiasts to dress up and go out for the day?

Now that might teach them something.

@44:

Good grief, yet more bigotry, this thread has turned my stomuch with the negative attitudes and hateful rumblings. Regarding how people want to dress, let them get on with it, I find men in bad shoes, white sock and Burtons chinos deeply, deeply offensive but fuck it, let the twats wear what they want.

@45:

Are you a Daily Mail reader? You’d be best off leaving comments there.

Daniel Hoffman – Gill, specifically which comments do you find “so depressing, so negative, so spiteful, utterly breathtakingly stupid” ?

@46:

No I’m not a Daily Mail reader. What’s your point? You may feel that men should dictate what women wear, but I’m uncomfortable with the idea.

You may feel that men should dictate what women wear

Name someone on this thread who’s saying that. I dare you.

Excuse me Neil? Are you a Daily Mail reader?

@WhatNext?!

Excuse me Neil? Are you a Daily Mail reader?

Of course I am. And I’m a Guardian reader, a Telegraph reader, a Financial Times reader, a Weekly Standard reader, an American Prospect reader, a National Enquirer reader, an Atlantic reader and a reader of the official publication of Liverpool Football Club.

None of which has anything to do with your poisonous insinuation that Daniel Hoffman-Gill believes men should dictate what women should wear.

So either substantiate your claim or walk on.

Has anyone visited Kabul lately? Or Riyadh? You see fewer women there dressed in “muslim costume” than you might expect. Of course that isn’t because they experience racism, it’s because women there are expected to go out in public only when accompanied by a male family member.

Now, I have no doubt that one of the more hysterical/less intelligent contributors to this thread will leap in with a condemnation of the racism they may feel is inherent in that remark but, should any of you choose to do so, please explain to me whether you accept that a state of affairs such as the one I describe above (and it does exist) indicates oppression of women in those countries? That oppression is justified by a particular view of islam. I am not claiming for one second that all interpretations of islam condone/require the subjugation of women, but the situation of women in some countries is clear evidence that some interpretations do. Does anyone consider it at all possible that some of the women in the UK who choose to dress in that manner may not be doing so entirely of their own free will? Does anyone consider it possible that some women in the UK who dress in that manner do not go out in public a great deal because of the sexism inherent in their own communities rather than any experience of negative reaction from the general public when they do?

Criticism of this particular aspect of islam is neither racism nor bile – soaked secularism. I would suspect that a sizeable majority who visit this site have fairly pronounced views on women’s rights and it’s strange to see the reaction of some when these rights are discussed in the context of islam.

The exercise by South Yorkshire Police was an inane publicity stunt that went badly wrong, calling it anything else really doesn’t make much sense.

I know I’m getting a bit off – topic here, but as a bile – soaked secularist, I can’t resist asking another question. When did we start moving back to the view that religions are a special case? I mean any religion, not just islam. When was it decided that religious views are more deserving of respect than political views? Or scientific views? I have no issues with acknowledging the right of people to follow any religion they choose, provided that they don’t harm others in doing so (not a criterion which is always adhered to, eh?) but I don’t see why we should afford the views, the actual philosophies, themselves any respect whatsoever. I believe I should be allowed to offend Tories, members of the BNP and anyone else I disagree with by criticising their views and I think the same logic applies to religions. Treating them with the peculiar sensitivity which is becoming the norm is senseless (like religion).

Richard:

The reason I didn’t name and shame in my comment was that I didn’t want the endless comment tit-for-tat that would ensue, it’s not that someone is going to go: “you’re right, I am a vile racist”, they’ll argue the toss and in doing so waste my tiem and theirs. Hence I kept the statement general so as to avoid such incidents.

As for your predictable but tedious: “try that in Saudi Arabia” it misses the point utterly and drags the discussion away from the topic at hand by trying to make comparisons about other nations and ours. Waste of time and pointless really but predictable as that is what people of a certain bent to when het-up by any efforts to offer some level of humanity to those of the Muslim faith in the UK.

Yes, we could be mean-spirited and cruel, just as many nations around the world are but we’re not, thankfully and using those nations as a yard stick by which to measure political actions is never a wise move, esp. when the agenda is an anti-Islamic one.

To be clear, I can’t stand religion and I feel all is fair when it comes to attacking it but I can’t bury my head in the sand and pretend that it doesn’t mean the world to millions of people, hence, if some of those millions of people make up a community I’m part of, any efforts on my part to try and form some wider sense of community is the best thing to do; it’s about goodwill not bad.

You approach everything from such a negative, backs to the walls view it makes everything a conflict.

You can’t live like that…well you can but you’ll be lonely and depressed.

Whatevernext?!?!?!?!!?!?!!??!:

Neil has you down, best to go quietly.

Yes well, they focused on Islam, not patriarchy, so they wouldn’t have to look at themselves and what their own culture would look like taken to its logical extreme.