Jack Straw, the Veil Debate, and Multiculturalism in Britain
This essay examines the political and cultural controversy sparked by former British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw's 2006 newspaper article expressing discomfort with full-face veils worn by Muslim women. Using Straw's remarks as a starting point, the paper explores how the incident exposed deeper tensions within multicultural democratic societies, particularly the limits of liberal multiculturalism as a framework for managing cultural difference. The essay argues that simple tolerance is insufficient, that critical multiculturalism must account for power differentials between groups, and that questions of who speaks for whom within a culture are rarely straightforward. It concludes that genuine democratic debate requires acknowledging that cultures amplify some voices more than others.
- The Statement That Caused a Furore: Straw's 2006 veil remarks and public reaction
- Defining Culture in a Multicultural Society: What culture means and why it matters
- Why Tolerance Is Not Enough: Limits of liberal multiculturalism as a framework
- Power, Privilege, and Who Speaks for Whom: Power imbalances within and between cultural groups
- The Complexity of Veiling and Democratic Debate: Muslim women's diverse views and democratic voice
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper uses a single, well-chosen news event as a lens through which to examine broad theoretical questions about multiculturalism and power, keeping abstract concepts grounded throughout.
- It presents multiple perspectives fairly — critics of Straw, supporters, and Muslim women themselves — before complicating each position, demonstrating intellectual honesty.
- The conversational, rhetorical use of "Simple, right? Well, not really" signals to the reader that complexity is coming, functioning as a structural device that mirrors the essay's central argument.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper models the technique of using a concrete case study to scaffold abstract theoretical analysis. It moves from a specific political incident to a definitional discussion of culture, then to theoretical frameworks (multiculturalism vs. critical multiculturalism), and finally to a normative argument about power and democratic voice. This inductive approach — from particular to general — is a reliable strategy for making political theory essays accessible and persuasive.
Structure breakdown
The essay opens with the Straw controversy as a hook, then pauses to define culture as a necessary conceptual foundation. The middle sections build an argument in stages: first that multiculturalism is limited, then that power differentials are the missing variable. The final section complicates the earlier analysis by acknowledging Muslim women's own diverse views, ending with a democratic rather than a prescriptive conclusion. References are drawn from political theory and cultural studies (Bennett, Parekh, Phillips, Calhoun).
The Statement That Caused a Furore
In October 2006, former British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw did something politically problematic. He said something that many others had thought about saying but had not done so, recognizing it would be highly unpopular to voice what they also believed to be true. Because he said something that many people felt someone — as long as it wasn't them — should say, he received significant criticism. Many of those who criticized him were no doubt authentically convinced they were right and he was wrong. But others surely used their loud criticism of Straw as cover for their own at least ambivalent agreement with his statement.
What was this statement that caused such furore? His own discomfort about meeting with Muslim women who wore full facial veils. In a newspaper article, Straw wrote that full-face veils were "a visible statement of separation and difference," and that when he met with his constituents he felt more comfortable if they did not wear veils. He made it clear that he would never require a woman to remove her veil and that he always had a female co-worker present in the office when a female constituent was there. Straw, who was also the former Leader of the House of Commons, said in a follow-up interview that he felt "wearing the full veil was bound to make better, positive relations between the two communities more difficult."
There were immediate protests against Straw's comments. People attacked him as a bigot. The first female Muslim peer in the House of Lords, Pola Uddin, said that Straw — and by extension the British government — had "attacked those who would be our greatest allies in meeting the current challenges of terrorism and radicalisation… [and had created] a feeling of vulnerability and demonisation of Muslim women" (Edgar, 2006).
Others criticized him not because they thought he was wrong but simply because they would have preferred — or at least claimed — that the matter had not been raised at all. Some, like Labour Member of Parliament Harriet Harman, said that she too wished to see the veil abolished, not because it made her uncomfortable but because she sees it as a symbol and tool of oppression: "The veil is an obstacle to women's participation, on equal terms, in society" (Bunting, 2006).
The initial responses tended to be fierce — a sure sign that what Straw had said, whether he intended it or not, had touched on an issue deeply important to many people. The practice of veiling itself was not irrelevant to the debate, but nor was it central. What was central — or rather what drove the mutual shouting match, since genuine debates tend to be more dignified and less personally venomous — was the question of how tolerant a multicultural democracy must be. It is a shame, for Britain as well as for other multicultural democracies, that there was so much heat and so little light.
How it could have been any other way is difficult to imagine, for the fundamental issues involved are so important. When people fight — with swords, IEDs, missiles, or words — about the things most important to them, there will always be heat. Those who joined the debate were talking about democracy, religion, freedom, gender, and family, and about who has the power to tell each of us who we are — and who gets to say where we may call home.
References
Bennett, D. (Ed.) (1998). Multicultural states. London: Routledge.
Calhoun, C. (Ed.) (1994). Social theory and the politics of identity. Oxford: Blackwell.
Dallmayr, F. (1966). 'Democracy and Multiculturalism' in S. Benhabib (Ed.) Democracy and difference. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Parekh, B. (2000). Rethinking multiculturalism. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Phillips, A. (2007). Multiculturalism without culture. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.