Press briefing from the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman on: Veils Debate, Iraq, Control Orders, Northern Ireland and Press Conference
Veils Debate
Put by the BBC that if people were to understand the Prime Minister’s press conference today, the Prime Minister believed that if Muslim were to integrate, they should remove their veils, the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) said that what the Prime Minister said very carefully was that he believed that the local authority had handled this issue as well as they could have done. What the Prime Minister had also said was that there was a real debate to be had about the issues of separation and integration. The important thing about what the Prime Minister had said was, however, that this was not just an issue in this country, at this time. Rather, it was also an issue right across Europe, as well as many Middle Eastern countries too.
The PMOS said that it was not just about the specific issue of the veil, but rather, the issue of integration, separation, and race relations between the Muslim and non-Muslim world, etc. This was also a debate within the Muslim community itself, which was not just one community, bur rather, a series of communities. Therefore, it was in that spirit that the Prime Minister was discussing it.
Put again by the BBC, that the Prime Minister had said very categorically that it was a mark of separation, the PMOS replied that what the Prime Minister was also saying was that this should be a subject for debate and discussion. That was something that we had said consistently. The important thing was that people did not lose sight of the broader issues because of the focus on one particular issue. As people knew, there were different issues around at the moment, and different symbols, and that affected many organisations.
Asked if the Prime Minister was of the view that the veil was cultural, as opposed to anything to do with the religion of Islam, the PMOS said that that was a matter of debate within Islam. That was a fact. Therefore, rather than the Prime Minister giving a view on that, what he was interested in was a debate. The PMOS said that the debate had different aspects: it had a religious aspect within Islam, as well as a cultural aspect in terms of the relationship between the Muslim communities and those who were not Muslim. What the Prime Minister’s view was that people could not just pretend that that debate was not there, because a) it was there, as it was within the Muslim communities and those who were not Muslim, but b) it was a debate that was being held in many different countries.
Put that the Prime Minister did seem to be taking a position on it himself, the PMOS replied that what the Prime Minister was commenting on was the way in which the local authority had handled this issue, but he did say it was a matter for the local authorities.
Put by the BBC that at one point, the Prime Minister had said that it was not an ideal way to start the debate, and that to the outside world, it would look as if Ministers were deliberately choosing to confront the position, and were we saying that that had not happened in a discussion around the Cabinet table, the PMOS said that if a Minister went up for interview at present, then they would know that this was a subject that they would be asked about. That was not a campaign, but rather, it was a fact of life. People could not go on a BBC current affairs programme (the PMOS said at this point that the BBC did not have current affairs programmes any more…) without knowing that a Minister would be asked this question. Therefore, these debates, as they quite often did, tended to take on their own haphazard momentum. Equally, however, the Prime Minister’s main message was that it was symptomatic of a much broader debate about, separation, integration, and the relationships between Muslim and non-Muslim communities, as well as between Muslim communities themselves.
Asked that if on the broader subject of integration, were we saying that there was no decision by the Government, the PMOS replied that as the Prime Minister had said, he was not afraid to take on the broader issues, as there were matters that should be debated. What we should not do was to put our heads in the sand and ignore it as it was all too sensitive. These issues were there, and therefore, they were going to be debated, whether Government joined the debate or not. The PMOS said that if the journalist’s broader question was: had there been a strategic decision, and we were taking on this issue, then the answer would be "no". However, if the question was: was there a recognition that these issues were there, and that they had to be debated as they were being debated anyway, the answer to that would be "yes".
Asked if the Prime Minister shared some people’s fears that parallel societies were being created, the PMOS replied that the very fact that the question was asked meant that there was an issue that had to be addressed. The Prime Minister’s very firm view was that we lived in a pluralist society and, as he had said in the past, one of the great strengths of this society (and we saw this after 7th July), was that we had become a pluralist society. What the Prime Minister believed was that we had to therefore face up to the issues of: did these things lead in the direction which the journalist had suggested, which the Prime Minister would not be in favour of.
Put that some leaders of the Muslim community had said that tensions were worse, not better, how was the debate going to be conducted, and would it just carry on in this fashion, the PMOS replied that we had talked about this before. Jack Straw at the start had said that he accepted it was a personal decision whether someone wore a veil or not. It was that nature of an issue; at the end of the day, it would be a personal decision. As the PMOS had said before, the reason that Ministers appeared to have commented on it was because they were kept being asked the question. Therefore, they would give a personal view, as was perfectly right and proper. Other issues had arisen, about other organisations, about other symbols. Again, that was not because someone had taken a decision to raise these issues, but because they had occurred, and as a result of sensitised awareness that had come about because of the veil issue, they got more noticed in the media. That was not a result because of some decision taken in Government.
Put that the way that the debate had been currently conducted meant that more Muslim women, and more radical Muslims would be going around wearing veils and making it a symbol of their difference, and therefore, it was likely that more people would wear veils, not fewer, the PMOS said that first of all, it was a matter of personal choice whether people wore veils or not. Secondly, what the journalist’s comments left out was that this was already a matter of debate within the Muslim communities themselves. There was not one uniform view about whether the veil was part of the religious side or the cultural side, and there were different views on whether it should or should not be worn. That was the reality. The PMOS said that again, the question suggestion that there was not already a debate going: there was.
Asked by Channel Four if the veil could be seen as a symptom, rather than a cause of separation, the PMOS said that there was a genuine debate going on within the Muslim community, as well as between the Muslim community and the non-Muslim community about issues of separation and integration. The debate about the veil fell into that debate.
Asked how we would describe the body of work that the Government was doing on this, the PMOS replied that a lot of the work that was going on for example in Ruth Kelly’s department was aimed at getting messages about pluralism, against violence or extremism out into the community. The department could produce a long list of initiatives that had been taken with local authorities etc.
Put that given that this was a debate that had started within the Muslim communities, should it not be left for the Muslim community to discuss, and what benefit did the Government see in having Government members talk about it, the PMOS replied that it was not just a debate that affected Muslims. It was also a debate that affected the relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims, and it was therefore a debate which was already going on within the community at large. Therefore, people could not put their heads in the sand and say that these issues did not exist. This debate was going on in Germany, France, Belgium, Denmark, Holland, as well as in the Gulf states and in other areas of the Middle East. The PMOS said that there was a debate that was partly going on within the Muslim communities, but there was also a debate that was about and between Muslims and non-Muslims and about the relationship between them.
Put by the BBC that the Prime Minister’s decision to pause before answering a question about whether someone could be a full member of society whilst wearing a veil was extraordinary, and that there would be outrage that someone could not be a full member of British society because of what they wore, the PMOS said that what the Prime Minister was doing was choosing his words very carefully, as this was a very sensitive issue.
Put by Channel Four that people wore all sorts of special clothing for their religion, so why should this one be more of a symbol of separateness, the PMOS replied that that was precisely was the debate was about. The PMOS added that as always, the journalist had found a clever way of trying to get him to express an opinion, but if the journalist did not mind, he was not going to do that.
The journalist said that he was flattered. The PMOS said that what he did not flatter the reporter into was saying that he always succeeded!
Asked again by the BBC if the Prime Minister recognised that some people might have viewed both his hesitation and his words on separation as offensive, the PMOS said that what the Prime Minister was trying to do was to recognise that there was a genuine debate and genuine issues, and the veil was symptomatic of a broader debate. The Prime Minister today was not trying to get involved in the debate about the veil, but rather, to signal and draw attention to that wider debate. Part of the problem came whenever the societies pretended that there was not a debate going on about issues, and part of the problem came when people therefore did not think that their politicians were representing the debates that they were having about real issues. The PMOS said that people had to be sensitive and to recognise whether personal was personal and that the political was political, but what people should not do was to pretend that there were not issues to be debated.
Asked again about the Prime Minister pausing, the PMOS said that in job interviews, when someone paused and continued in a reflective way, the PMOS always gave them credit.
Put that the Prime Minister had paused, and had then "jumped right in with both feet", the PMOS replied that if someone was going to "jump in", they would be better to reflect before they did so.
Asked if the concern was that the BNP would win votes as a result of not addressing the issue, the PMOS said that it was not as simplistic as that. Rather, it was much more complicated in that there were real issues about integration, separation and relationships that were being debated anyway in society. The Government should be aware and sensitised to that, as otherwise, the society at large was not reflected in the national debate.
Iraq
Put that the Prime Minister had made clear today that there would be no cutting and running with regards to Iraq, but was there any sense within Downing Street to re-appraise the situation, given the Baker Report and General Sir Richard Dannatt’s recent comments, the PMOS replied that as the Baker Report was not yet published, it was always wise to not comment on unpublished reports. With regards to General Dannatt, what he had said was that the objective remained a unity democratic state in which the Iraqi Government was capable of looking after its own security and there was a prosperous economy. That was precisely our view. The people in the end who would decide how long we would stay in Iraq were the Iraqi Government, as they had been democratically elected. The PMOS said that that was the flip side that those who demanded that we got out soon did not answer. What could actually be done to ensure that a democratic Government remained in place? General Dannatt did also say that he was planning force packages for 2007/8, so the idea that he was suggesting that he was cutting and running was wide of the mark.
Asked about the Prime Minister’s comments about the radicalisation of young people, and that he had said that it was absurd to say that what was going on was radicalising young people, but by saying that, was he compromising what John Reid had said at a Labour Party meeting last night, the PMOS said that he could not comment on what John Reid had said, as it was a party meeting. However, the Prime Minister’s point was that of course, people used Iraq, as they had with Afghanistan, and the presence in Saudi Arabia, as an excuse. It was not the root cause of the issue. The root cause was what had produced 9/11. That came before Afghanistan and Iraq, and the other attacks that were mounted before then. Therefore, in terms of the root cause, it was not the root cause.
Control Orders
Asked if there were any plans for them to address any terror or crime issues, the PMOS replied that he did not talk about The Queen’s speech until afterwards, as otherwise, he would be taken to the Tower, and he was sure that people would not want to be responsible for that!
Northern Ireland
Asked if it was in the St. Andrews agreement that Martin McGuiness should swear an oath, the PMOS said that there was an issue about the pledge of office which was being debated in Belfast. It was always the case after agreements that there were matter of clarification, and that was happening at the moment. The PMOS said that it would not be wise for him to jump in.
Press Conference
Asked by Channel Four if it was to be standard that experts from the public sector would give a presentation at the Prime Minister’s press conferences from now on, and could journalists put in requests for guests, such as the Chief of the Defence Staff, the PMOS said that to attempt the same tactic twice in one lobby was a bit like the scrum half that kept going down one channel, rather than using the full range! A bit obvious. With regards to picking a guest, the PMOS said that he could give a one-word answer: it had two letters, the last one being "o".
delicious
digg
facebook
