The fashion and thought police

The war on terror has created some unlikely allies. When George Bush told us he was bombing Afghanistan in order to liberate women, many found that particularly hard to take. One of the more distasteful features of the wave of attacks on Muslims in recent weeks has been the sight of feminists lining up to support Jack Straw in his demand that women should not wear the veil in his presence.

Women who claim they believe in liberation really should know better. The women’s movement of the 1960s was anti racist, coming out of the civil rights and anti war movements in the US. It was against cultural imperialism for the same reasons. Indeed, many African Americans turned to traditional dress to reject western culture and to assert their identity.

Why are people who espouse their ideas today attacking some of the most oppressed women in the name of liberating them? Why are they backing a privileged man who is in a much more powerful position than his constituents by supporting his version of 'What not to wear'? New Labour's very own equivalent of Trinny and Susannah no doubt has many delightful versions of integrated outerwear. But shouldn't we be telling him it's none of his business?

Some feminists assume that any Muslim woman who wears the veil or the hijab does so because of social and family pressure. Even when Muslim women assert in the strongest possible terms that this is not true and that they have made this choice themselves, they are not believed. The term for that is patronising. It's bad enough to be patronised by a man like Jack Straw but when others join in you could forgive most Muslim women for thinking that they are not being treated as serious human beings but as the goods of their husbands and fathers.

A pretty sexist assumption when you come to think about it.

Another unlikely ally is General Sir Richard Dannatt. It's a once in a lifetime thing when you think about it for the head of the army to denounce a war in which his soldiers are engaged. But that's what he's done and there's nothing Tony Blair can do about it. The US wanted to tell Dannatt off but even Blair couldn't allow that.

So vindication for the anti war movement. But the more they lose on the war the more they attack Muslims. That's true of Dannatt as well, who clearly thinks it's all been downhill since the 1950s and who fears the 'Islamist threat' in Britain.

The latest twist in the war against Muslims is the announcement that the Department for Education wants university lecturers and staff to spy on Muslims or people who are 'Asian-looking', and report them to Special Branch. This government document claims those from 'segregated' backgrounds are more likely to be radical than those who have 'integrated into wider society'.

How can they tell? I take that to mean if you wear the veil or hijab you can expect to be spied on or reported to the authorities. So it's What not to wear with a nod to McCarthyism. Nothing like destroying democracy in the name of saving it.