Latest news with #JackStraw
The Guardian
2 days ago
- Politics
- The Guardian
Once again, British politicians want to ‘ban the burqa'. But this time, I've never felt so afraid
Here we are again, debating the right of Muslim women to wear what they want. Last week, the Reform UK MP Sarah Pochin asked the prime minister, Keir Starmer, if he planned to follow other European countries and prohibit burqas. Then the leader of the opposition, Kemi Badenoch, called for bosses to be able to ban the burqa in the workplace. Following the example of the former Labour minister Jack Straw, who in 2006 sparked the first burqa debate by asking constituents at his surgeries to remove their face coverings, she stated that she does not see constituents at her surgeries if they have their faces covered, 'whether it's a burqa or a balaclava'. These comments from politicians hoping to appease rightwing voters have real repercussions for the safety of Muslim women like me. Muslim women, especially those who wear coverings ranging from the headscarf known as the hijab to the full body and face covering known as the burqa, have become a symbol in UK politics of migration and integration. They – or perhaps the perceived oppressive men in their lives – are outsiders who refuse to live by British values. When politicians call to ban the burqa, they position themselves as defenders of a way of life under threat from outside forces. The timing of this cannot be ignored. Reform, which triumphed at the recent local elections, warns in its manifesto that 'unchecked migration has pushed Britain to breaking point'. The Conservatives, keen to claw back any defecting voters, have positioned themselves as equally tough on immigration and integration. When our national leaders parrot catchy soundbites such as 'ban the burqa', what they are really doing is normalising Islamophobia by making it part of mainstream political conversations. Islamophobic incidents rose by 375% in the week after Boris Johnson called veiled Muslim women 'letterboxes' in 2018. As a visibly Muslim woman, I have never felt as afraid as I do right now. Last summer's far-right riots targeting mosques and calling for Muslims to be taken off the streets are etched into my mind. I was born in this country, it's my home, yet I can't shake a feeling of unease. The irony of this debacle is not lost on me. Last time I checked, Britain prided itself in not being the sort of country that told women how to dress. States that do dictate women's clothing (see: Iran) are vilified as misogynistic and ultra-controlling: the antithesis of the enlightened, liberal west. Why, then, is it OK for the government or corporations in Britain to interfere with the autonomy of women who happen to be Muslim? Of course, some will say that face coverings are inherently misogynistic, and so banning them is about protecting Muslim women. But why should politicians get to decide what is oppressive and what isn't, without ever really consulting us? It is disingenuous to pretend that Muslim women are uniquely prone to victimhood. Can we truthfully say anything about the way women are expected to live our lives isn't rooted in patriarchy? Whether it's the bikini or the push-up bra, miniskirts or high heels, as women we are conditioned to shape our identity under the watchful eye of the male gaze. But I'm sure you've heard all of this before, because yet again, here we are: Muslim women defending their right to choose how they exist in British society. What is really being obscured are more pressing issues: inequality, a lack of affordable housing, crumbling public services, a struggling NHS. This was as true in the early 2000s as it is now. Nadeine Asbali is a secondary school teacher in London and the author of Veiled Threat: On Being Visibly Muslim in Britain
Sky News
20-05-2025
- Politics
- Sky News
The Wargame: New Sky News and Tortoise Media podcast series simulates a Russian attack on UK
A top team of former government ministers and military and security chiefs have taken part in a wargame that simulates a Russian attack on the UK for a new podcast series announced on Wednesday by Sky News and Tortoise Media. Among the line-up, Sir Ben Wallace, a former Conservative defence secretary, plays the prime minister; Jack Straw, a former senior Labour politician, resumes his old job as foreign secretary; Amber Rudd steps back into her former role as home secretary and Jim Murphy, a secretary of state for Scotland under Gordon Brown, takes the position of chancellor. The defence secretary is played by James Heappey, a former armed forces minister. Lord Mark Sedwill is the national security adviser - a position he held for real under both Theresa May and Boris Johnson, while General Sir Richard Barrons, one of the leaders of a major defence review that is due to be published in the coming weeks, plays the role of chief of the defence staff, the UK's top military officer. Baroness Helena Kennedy, a barrister and expert on human rights law, appears as attorney general, while Lieutenant General Sir David Capewell resumes his former role as chief of joint operations, the UK's warfighting commander. Russia. It also explores the reliability - or otherwise - of key allies like the United States in a crisis. Asked why he wanted to take part in the project, Sir Ben said: "I think it's really important that we demonstrate to the public how government makes decisions in real crises and emergencies and let them understand and hopefully be reassured that actually there is a process and it's at that moment in time that no matter what people's party politics are, people pull together for the right reasons." Launching on 10 June, the five-part podcast series will give listeners the chance to experience the kind of wargame that is genuinely tested inside government. The only difference with this version is that nothing discussed is classified. The tagline for the series is: "Russia knows our weaknesses - but do you?" Written and presented by me, The Wargame pitches a fictional British government, led by Sir Ben, against an imagined Kremlin in a high-stakes contest that draws on the real-life knowledge and experience of the cast. The series begins a few months in the future, with the prime minister and his top team assembling for a COBRA emergency meeting as tensions escalate with Moscow. Keir Giles, a Russia expert, author and senior consulting fellow at the Chatham House think tank, is playing the part of the Russian president. He leads the Russia team, made up of fellow experts. The British side has little idea about what is about to unfold, but they are about to find out. "Ordinarily when this red team gets together, and we have done this before, we run rings around the opposition, partly because Russia has the initiative, partly because Russia has the tools, partly because Russia has the will and the determination to cause damage sometimes in ways that the opposition - whether it's the UK, NATO, another victim - doesn't imagine before the game actually starts," Mr Giles said. The scenario was devised and overseen by Rob Johnson, director of the Changing Character of War Centre at Oxford University and a former director of net assessment and challenge at the Ministry of Defence. "We are trying to raise awareness through this war game to say, look, let's have a look at what might happen," he said. "Unlikely and low probability though it is, so that we can start to put some measures in place and remind ourselves about how we used to do it - use history as our weapon, if you like, in that regard." He describes the events in his game as very low likelihood but high impact. That means a low chance of it happening but catastrophic consequences if it did. The Wargame is an exclusive collaboration between Sky News and Tortoise Media, now the new owners of The Observer. The first two episodes will premiere at 00.01 on 10 June across all Sky News platforms. Episodes three and four will follow on Tuesday 17 June, with the final episode airing Tuesday 24 June. The release comes as the UK government prepares to publish its Strategic Defence Review and as Britain and its allies prepare to meet for a major NATO summit next month.
Yahoo
07-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
It's America's duty to mediate Asia's crisis
The line of control slices like a sword cut across the mountain ranges of Kashmir, the Himalayan territory bitterly disputed by India and Pakistan for almost 80 years. Time and again, the enemies have come to blows only for calm to be restored, often with American mediation. Do not assume that the pattern must always repeat itself. The latest crisis was triggered by a heinous terrorist attack on a tourist camp inside Indian-administered Kashmir last month, claiming 26 civilian lives. India retaliated on Tuesday by striking nine targets in Pakistani-administered Kashmir and elsewhere in its neighbour. As a spiral bloodshed threatens to take hold between two nuclear powers, who will mediate a resolution? We could once have assumed that America would step forward to lead a concerted effort to broker de-escalation. When India and Pakistan mobilised for war in 2002, Colin Powell, the late US secretary of state, engaged in shuttle diplomacy between New Delhi and Islamabad, joined by our then Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw. Will anything like this happen now? Donald Trump scorns the idea of an American obligation to resolve distant crises, even between nuclear-armed states. Today his only comment was: 'I just hope it ends very quickly.' But it may not end just by itself. The leaders of India and Pakistan surely understand the potentially catastrophic consequences of further escalation. Having skirmished along the line of control for decades, they are adept at managing their rivalry, signalling resolve to domestic audiences while also offering subtly conciliatory messages to decision-makers on the other side. Today's statement from the Indian defence ministry was a masterpiece of this genre, announcing 'focused strikes' on 'terrorist infrastructure' inside its neighbour, while also stressing that 'no Pakistani military facilities were hit, reflecting India's calibrated and non-escalatory approach'. Today, Pakistan's own retaliation seems both inevitable and imminent. If General Asim Munir, the Pakistani military chief, achieves a similar balance between robustness and restraint, this crisis could yet dissipate. But General Munir may have no wish to de-escalate. His proclaimed doctrine, after all, is to return a heavier blow than any that Pakistan receives. He also leads a morally bankrupt military establishment which has for decades armed and hosted terrorist groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba, whose sole purpose is to attack India. Whether Mr Trump wishes it or not, America is the only credible mediator in this crisis. The EU does not have the geopolitical weight. China, as Pakistan's closest ally, is mistrusted by India. It was, in retrospect, an unfortunate coincidence that Sir Keir Starmer should have concluded a free trade agreement with India on Tuesday only hours before the latter fired missiles at Pakistan. In any case, Britain can only have a credible role if America takes the lead. Marco Rubio, the US secretary of state, will be fully aware of the risks of an uncontrolled crisis between two enemies with over 300 nuclear warheads between them. Unless calm returns soon, he should ask his boss for permission to begin a new round of shuttle diplomacy. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Telegraph
07-05-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
It's America's duty to mediate Asia's crisis
The line of control slices like a sword cut across the mountain ranges of Kashmir, the Himalayan territory bitterly disputed by India and Pakistan for almost 80 years. Time and again, the enemies have come to blows only for calm to be restored, often with American mediation. Do not assume that the pattern must always repeat itself. The latest crisis was triggered by a heinous terrorist attack on a tourist camp inside Indian-administered Kashmir last month, claiming 26 civilian lives. India retaliated on Tuesday by striking nine targets in Pakistani-administered Kashmir and elsewhere in its neighbour. As a spiral bloodshed threatens to take hold between two nuclear powers, who will mediate a resolution? We could once have assumed that America would step forward to lead a concerted effort to broker de-escalation. When India and Pakistan mobilised for war in 2002, Colin Powell, the late US secretary of state, engaged in shuttle diplomacy between New Delhi and Islamabad, joined by our then Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw. Will anything like this happen now? Donald Trump scorns the idea of an American obligation to resolve distant crises, even between nuclear-armed states. Today his only comment was: 'I just hope it ends very quickly.' But it may not end just by itself. The leaders of India and Pakistan surely understand the potentially catastrophic consequences of further escalation. Having skirmished along the line of control for decades, they are adept at managing their rivalry, signalling resolve to domestic audiences while also offering subtly conciliatory messages to decision-makers on the other side. Today's statement from the Indian defence ministry was a masterpiece of this genre, announcing 'focused strikes' on 'terrorist infrastructure' inside its neighbour, while also stressing that 'no Pakistani military facilities were hit, reflecting India's calibrated and non-escalatory approach'. Today, Pakistan's own retaliation seems both inevitable and imminent. If General Asim Munir, the Pakistani military chief, achieves a similar balance between robustness and restraint, this crisis could yet dissipate. But General Munir may have no wish to de-escalate. His proclaimed doctrine, after all, is to return a heavier blow than any that Pakistan receives. He also leads a morally bankrupt military establishment which has for decades armed and hosted terrorist groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba, whose sole purpose is to attack India. Whether Mr Trump wishes it or not, America is the only credible mediator in this crisis. The EU does not have the geopolitical weight. China, as Pakistan's closest ally, is mistrusted by India. It was, in retrospect, an unfortunate coincidence that Sir Keir Starmer should have concluded a free trade agreement with India on Tuesday only hours before the latter fired missiles at Pakistan. In any case, Britain can only have a credible role if America takes the lead. Marco Rubio, the US secretary of state, will be fully aware of the risks of an uncontrolled crisis between two enemies with over 300 nuclear warheads between them. Unless calm returns soon, he should ask his boss for permission to begin a new round of shuttle diplomacy.
Telegraph
15-03-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
Jack Straw urges Starmer to back away from ECHR
Jack Straw, a former Labour home secretary, has urged Sir Keir Starmer to back away from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Mr Straw has questioned the 'utility' of Britain being bound by the convention and said human rights are 'safe enough' under existing UK law. The Cabinet veteran, who also served as foreign secretary and justice secretary under Sir Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, criticised the lack of a 'democratic override' on the Strasbourg court that enforces the convention. He also said the court's judgements were of 'lower quality' than those delivered by British judges. He cited the Human Rights Act (HRA), introduced by Sir Tony's government, as an adequate guarantee of rights. Mr Straw is the first Labour grandee to call for Britain to reconsider its position on the ECHR. This week it was revealed that Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, is reviewing how an article that guarantees the right to family life is being applied by immigration judges. The Home Secretary wishes to ensure that it is being applied in a 'sensible' and 'proportionate' way. It follows a number of cases reported in The Telegraph that revealed how Article 8 was being used to keep foreign criminals in Britain. These included an instance where an Albanian criminal won the right to stay in the UK after claiming his son had an aversion to foreign chicken nuggets, citing the convention. In another case, a Pakistani paedophile jailed for child sex offences evaded deportation by claiming it would be 'unduly harsh' on his own children. On another occasion a Jamaican drug dealer avoided deportation after he promised to only smoke cannabis and not sell it. The man claimed that being deported back to Jamaica would breach his rights to a family life under Article 8 as he had three young children in the UK with his wife. Mr Straw wrote in a letter to The Times: 'Given the undoubted success of the HRA, the question that must now arise is: what utility is there in the UK being bound any more into the Strasbourg court? Not much, is my answer. The convention articles are safe enough within our own HRA.' The HRA enshrined key ECHR rights into UK law, meaning that appeals could be made in British courts rather than in the Strasbourg court, which is made up of 46 judges from the member states of the Council of Europe. And Mr Straw appeared to throw his weight behind Government plans to water down Article 8 of the ECHR, which has been repeatedly used to block deportations. Writing in The Telegraph, Sir Michael Ellis, a former attorney general, has also called for Britain to leave the convention because 'it's a body that has badly lost its way'. Sir Michael argued that 'it protects not the rights of society but those of the antisocial'. He wrote: 'It's time for the UK to take our leave. Yes, the left will squeal and portray the UK as falling into despotism – but they will be wrong. The ECHR is not sacrosanct, it isn't the high priest of jurisprudence, whose words will be imparted through the Eons like the wisdom of Solomon. It's a body that has badly lost its way. It protects not the rights of society but those of the antisocial. It damages respect for the law with its offensive and highly damaging rulings. 'Withdrawal from the ECHR will not be a panacea to the UK's problems with international law. Our lexocracy (my word for the rule of lawyers, rather than the rule of law) also includes our own Human Rights Act, as well as a rather out of control concept of judicial review and other problems which have allowed our judges to become a law unto themselves. These things will all have to be addressed – but withdrawing from the ECHR would be an important first step.' Lord Sumption, a former Supreme Court justice and one of the country's most senior legal minds, has also called for Britain to leave the convention, saying it lacks democratic accountability and has 'arrogated to itself the right to decide between competing public interests'. When he ran to be leader of the Conservative Party, Robert Jenrick, the shadow justice secretary, also advocated withdrawing from the ECHR. Kemi Badenoch, the Tory leader, has yet to make a decision on whether it is her party's policy to leave the ECHR.
