Topic: Freedom of speech

[jooneyisdagod]

I find it rude, I find it excluding, but I find a ban on clothing a clear infringement on freedom of speech.

I know there are reasons why people feel it represses women, but banning a piece of clothing won't alter that.

I don't think it actually infringes on freedom of expression. In fact, I don't think many women willingly want to cover themselves from head to toe. In most cases they do it because it's a social custom that they don't know any better about or it's because they actually do know better but can't wear what they like out of fear. In rare cases, you have women that insist on wearing it because they believe it to be the ultimate form of modesty and that wearing it makes them a better muslim but does that really hold true ? Is wearing a burqa or not wearing one truly representative of one's adherence to the Islamic faith ? Is that what makes a good muslim ? I don't think it does so but that is an argument for the theologians to waste their time over.

What I do find infringes on freedom of expression is the actual insistence religiously, socially and culturally on wearing a burka. I don't think the women are given a fair choice without many nefarious consequences to actually express themselves as they would like. And if there really isn't a fair choice, then it's not really a choice at all and that infringes on one's freedom to express themselves.

[Veinticinco de Mayo]

I find it rude, I find it excluding, but I find a ban on clothing a clear infringement on freedom of speech.

I know there are reasons why people feel it represses women, but banning a piece of clothing won't alter that.

In reality it will probably lead to women being more oppressed as the more hardline families may now not even allow them out of the house

[Veinticinco de Mayo]

I don't think it actually infringes on freedom of expression. In fact, I don't think many women willingly want to cover themselves from head to toe. In most cases they do it because it's a social custom that they don't know any better about or it's because they actually do know better but can't wear what they like out of fear. In rare cases, you have women that insist on wearing it because they believe it to be the ultimate form of modesty and that wearing it makes them a better muslim but does that really hold true ? Is wearing a burqa or not wearing one truly representative of one's adherence to the Islamic faith ? Is that what makes a good muslim ? I don't think it does so but that is an argument for the theologians to waste their time over.

What I do find infringes on freedom of expression is the actual insistence religiously, socially and culturally on wearing a burka. I don't think the women are given a fair choice without many nefarious consequences to actually express themselves as they would like. And if there really isn't a fair choice, then it's not really a choice at all and that infringes on one's freedom to express themselves.

It is clearly an infringement of freedom of expression as the law cannot legislate on the motives for someone is wearing what they are.  It could be through personal choice and as such it is an infringement of that choice.  Is the infringement worth it?  On balance I think not, the Burqa will be eradicated, and it should be, through education and progress not through banning legislation

[jooneyisdagod]

It is clearly an infringement of freedom of expression as the law cannot legislate on the motives for someone is wearing what they are.  It could be through personal choice and as such it is an infringement of that choice.  Is the infringement worth it?  On balance I think not, the Burqa will be eradicated, and it should be, through education and progress not through banning legislation

The law does legislate based on motives though. But you are right that it could be personal choice but how many others cover themselves up from head to toe ? Men or women ? Clearly covering from top to bottom is found only among female members of a particular community. So what is it about this particular community that makes them cover themselves ? It's the idea that covering oneself is equable to modesty. I'm tempted to make a value judgment here but that's not for me to do so.

On the other hand, that is exactly what the community does and thereby removes the choice for women to dress as they please. I can't off the top of my head think of a single culture or subculture where women are covered from top to bottom. Clearly, take that religious element out of the equation and suddenly you don't find any women making the free choice to cover themselves. So the question for me comes down to whether or not the women actually have the choice to make for themselves. If they're told that they're a part of a religion that they cannot leave and that the religion dictates that they have to wear a burqa and cover themselves from top to bottom, is it really a choice between whether or not they wear it ?

The choice here for those that follow more puritanical strains of Islam is between having Allah bless you for being so modest and having Allah possibly find that you weren't modest enough in life and condemning them to whatever punishment he deems sufficient and if you're a believer, this is a no-brainer. But is this a real choice ? I don't think it is.

But there is a bit more to it. Burkas are only banned in public places and not in homes. So if a women should feel so inclined to cover herself from top to bottom, then she can freely do so at her home. The burqa ban is also part of a wider ban on clothing that covers the face as the French deemed that visual recognition of people was important for societal integration. And the European Human Rights court has upheld the ban as well.

[TepidT2O]

In reality it will probably lead to women being more oppressed as the more hardline families may now not even allow them out of the house

I agree.  What seems like a simple solution will actually be harmful.

A clear infringement of expression, people should be allowed to follow their religion provided it doesn't impinge on the rights of others.

Education and integration is the key (as you say).  Ensuring that these women are educated properly is of vital importance so that they truely have freedom of choice.

[TepidT2O]

The law does legislate based on motives though. But you are right that it could be personal choice but how many others cover themselves up from head to toe ? Men or women ? Clearly covering from top to bottom is found only among female members of a particular community. So what is it about this particular community that makes them cover themselves ? It's the idea that covering oneself is equable to modesty. I'm tempted to make a value judgment here but that's not for me to do so.

On the other hand, that is exactly what the community does and thereby removes the choice for women to dress as they please. I can't off the top of my head think of a single culture or subculture where women are covered from top to bottom. Clearly, take that religious element out of the equation and suddenly you don't find any women making the free choice to cover themselves. So the question for me comes down to whether or not the women actually have the choice to make for themselves. If they're told that they're a part of a religion that they cannot leave and that the religion dictates that they have to wear a burqa and cover themselves from top to bottom, is it really a choice between whether or not they wear it ?

The choice here for those that follow more puritanical strains of Islam is between having Allah bless you for being so modest and having Allah possibly find that you weren't modest enough in life and condemning them to whatever punishment he deems sufficient and if you're a believer, this is a no-brainer. But is this a real choice ? I don't think it is.

But there is a bit more to it. Burkas are only banned in public places and not in homes. So if a women should feel so inclined to cover herself from top to bottom, then she can freely do so at her home. The burqa ban is also part of a wider ban on clothing that covers the face as the French deemed that visual recognition of people was important for societal integration. And the European Human Rights court has upheld the ban as well.

But being able to wear a burqa at home is a pointless liberty as that's the one place they don't want to wear them.

[Veinticinco de Mayo]

Jooney, from a legal perspective if somebody says that it is their choice to wear something then it is impossible to distinguish whether that choice is truly free, influenced by culture, driven by a desire to fit in with peers, driven by a fear of bucking religious rules or brutally enforced by the family. 

From a more philosophical position you can argue about how many of our clothing choices are truly free, slavish followers of capitalist lead fashion advertising that we all are.

So, any ban is a restriction on freedom of expression.  Don't equate this with me supporting the wearing of the Burqa, it is not, it is I don't like what you wear but I will defend your right to wear it.

As I understand it you seem to fundamentally misunderstand the garment anyway as I think women are more free not to wear it at home - the requirement to wear it is when strangers are present I believe. 

[jooneyisdagod]

But being able to wear a burqa at home is a pointless liberty as that's the one place they don't want to wear them.

Liberty is just that though. The actual usefulness of it doesn't really come into it does it ? Just look at the freedom to practice religion for an example.

And again, I would argue that rather than home being the one place where they don't want to wear a burka, it is simply the one place where they don't need to wear a burka.

[TepidT2O]

Liberty is just that though. The actual usefulness of it doesn't really come into it does it ? Just look at the freedom to practice religion for an example.

And again, I would argue that rather than home being the one place where they don't want to wear a burka, it is simply the one place where they don't need to wear a burka.

True, but to them it's a pointless distinction.

Much more important that these women are educated in the mainstream school system and that they are not sent to Islamic schools where they may not be educated about the world out side of Islam.

I think this is the real issue and is most damaging.  Banning clothing just seems petty and discriminatory.

[Magix]

The ban also extends to hoods, balaclavas, helmets, any face concealment when not on a motorcycle. In the context of upholding France's secular values (nothing exclusively religious) and security, the law seems fair to me.

[Veinticinco de Mayo]

The ban also extends to hoods, balaclavas, helmets, any face concealment when not on a motorcycle. In the context of upholding France's secular values (nothing exclusively religious) and security, the law seems fair to me.

First they came for our nativity scenes, now...

http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-penitents-parade-through-the-streets-on-maundy-thursday-in-saugues-69445078.html

I presume that a legal bid to halt all Holy Week penitent parades is just around the corner, yet strangely France has not had a problem with these for many years.  You think this law is not religiously motivated then you are kidding yourself

[Dr. Beaker]

First they came for our nativity scenes, now...

http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-penitents-parade-through-the-streets-on-maundy-thursday-in-saugues-69445078.html

I presume that a legal bid to halt all Holy Week penitent parades is just around the corner, yet strangely France has not had a problem with these for many years.  You think this law is not religiously motivated then you are kidding yourself

You're really going to melt into the background in that kit.

[Magix]

First they came for our nativity scenes, now...

http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-penitents-parade-through-the-streets-on-maundy-thursday-in-saugues-69445078.html

I presume that a legal bid to halt all Holy Week penitent parades is just around the corner, yet strangely France has not had a problem with these for many years.  You think this law is not religiously motivated then you are kidding yourself

But I didn't say it isn't religiously motivated. To uphold secularism, to exclude religion from civil society is a motivation involving religion after all. I'm not fully familiar with French society, but isn't that a parade for Holy Week, and not an afternoon stroll on the street? Has there been a Muslim celebratory (or not) parade where the burqa has been banned?

[Corkboy]

Unholy silence

In the Middle East, blasphemy laws are the favoured way to silence dissent

The Middle East is by almost any reckoning the world's worst region for freedom of expression. Reporters Without Borders, a press freedom lobby, puts war-torn Syria 177th out of 180 countries on its latest annual ranking, in 2014. Iran is 173rd, Sudan 172nd, Yemen 167th, Saudi Arabia 164th. The highest any of the region's countries make it is 91st, with Kuwait, which has a democracy of sorts. According to the Pew Research Centre, a think-tank, as of 2012, 14 of 20 Middle Eastern countries criminalise blasphemy and 12 of 20 make apostasy—leaving Islam—an offence.

Restrictions bite not only on what is said in the media or public forums. Some countries, including Iran and Syria, have large numbers of security agents who listen in to private conversations on the street or in the market, and use reports from informers who shop their neighbours for badmouthing the regime. Taxi drivers can earn handsome supplements by filing reports on their customers. Only at the dentist, runs a popular Arabic joke, is it safe to open your mouth.

Freedom of expression is particularly curtailed where it concerns politics, sexual matters or Islam, the region's main religion. Even secular or less devout leaders refuse to grant religious freedom, in part to keep hardline clergy and their followers happy, and in part to extend their totalitarian rule into their subjects' private lives. One example is Saudi Arabia, where the ruling family imposes harsh penalties based on sharia law because it rules in tandem with the puritanical Wahhabi clerics. Being openly gay is not tolerated anywhere except in central areas of Beirut, Lebanon's capital, and charges for "debauchery" are not uncommon. The region offers almost no space for legal protest; some countries set ridiculous requirements for protests to have official permission before going ahead—which is only granted when the protests are pro-government. Vague national-security laws and emergency laws allow prosecution for almost anything that rulers do not like.

Mocking Jordan's monarch is a criminal offence punishable by prosecution in a military court, but when King Abdullah of Jordan (pictured above with the French president, François Hollande) attended the demonstration on January 11th in Paris to express support for free speech in the wake of the Paris attack, some found ridicule hard to suppress. How could he march in defence of freedom of expression abroad, they asked, when he is such a serial abuser of that freedom at home? Last June he expanded the remit of an anti-terrorism law to include public criticism of the king or his allies. His spooks trawl social media for dissenting Jordanians to arrest. On December 18th the deputy leader of Jordan's branch of the Muslim Brotherhood was tried before military judges for a colourful posting on his Facebook page denouncing Jordan's allies in the Emirates. Salafi preachers who decline to opine in favour of coalition attacks on Islamic State are sent back to jail. "Everyone in Jordan is assumed to be a terrorist until proven innocent," says an embittered Islamist.

A few days after the king marched in Paris, his security forces beat back protestors heading for the French embassy in Amman. In recent years the king has closed hundreds of news sites for lacking a licence, and ordered those that still operate to appoint editors more likely to toe the government line. An irate taxi driver criticising the king stops himself as he passes a police post in the capital, and then punches the air with his fist to illustrate what might befall him should he speak out.

Egypt's constitution says freedom of belief is absolute, but only guarantees freedom to practise their religions to Muslims, Christians and Jews. That leaves atheists unprotected, and the government, which appears to see homogeneity as desirable and likely to make ruling easier, has recently been cracking down on them. In June it announced a campaign to confront the spread of unbelief. Since a farcical survey in December which found that Egypt had a suspiciously specific 866 atheists, and that this was more than any other country in the Middle East (no mention of the fact that Egypt is also the region's most populous country), the persecution has worsened. On January 10th a court in Idku sentenced Karim Ashraf Mohamad al-Banna, a student, to three years in prison for saying on Facebook that he was an atheist, which, the court decided, counted as "insulting Islam".

Although cases for apostasy and depicting the Prophet Muhammad make the news, many of the region's Muslims agree that such offences should be penalised. Mr Banna was reportedly harassed by his neighbours for his views, before the state got involved.

source

[Veinticinco de Mayo]

But I didn't say it isn't religiously motivated. To uphold secularism, to exclude religion from civil society is a motivation involving religion after all. I'm not fully familiar with French society, but isn't that a parade for Holy Week, and not an afternoon stroll on the street? Has there been a Muslim celebratory (or not) parade where the burqa has been banned?

The point is that French society is riddled with non-secular Christian tradition which is not leglislated against, or has not been until the current attacks on Islam.

As Tepid Water and I were saying before one of the key drivers of hardline Islam is the perception that Islam is under attack. I have seen the change in colleagues that I have worked with for many years.  Legislation like this simply makes matters worse.

The solution is education and inclusivity not prohibition

[Dr. Beaker]

The solution is education and inclusivity not prohibition

In this country, I believe, we have inclusivity and 'education'. I don't suppose it's perfect, but it never will be. If you are a muslim with a basic education and a bit of oomph you're probably going to get a job. You mix with non-muslims at work and socially, pick-up on what we're all about etc. Largely we all seem to get on. Some are more tempted into our evil ways than others but, whatever, it's pretty friction free - and it's educational both ways. This isn't particularly how things work in France.

The problem here is (with the inclusion thing) it's the ones that haven't got the basic brains or the oomph (not everyone is blessed) - they ain't going to get jobs, and it's far easier for someone without brains to blame other easily identifiable enemies than it is for them to acquire some brains (see how well UKIP is doing for instance). How we get around that one I don't know, but maybe the local mosques should take the lead. It's far better for them to put their house in order than the infinitely uglier scenario of 'us' trying to put it in order.

[Magix]

The point is that French society is riddled with non-secular Christian tradition which is not leglislated against, or has not been until the current attacks on Islam.

As Tepid Water and I were saying before one of the key drivers of hardline Islam is the perception that Islam is under attack. I have seen the change in colleagues that I have worked with for many years.  Legislation like this simply makes matters worse.

The solution is education and inclusivity not prohibition

Does concealing one's face promote inclusivity though, or does it foster its own discrimination? Is the average non-Muslim employer less likely to hire a burqa-wearing woman, for instance, because he/she can't read her face? If someone wears a ski mask into a bank they'll be told to take it off immediately, or they parade around in one in public they'll be stopped and questioned. So on that principle, burqa-clad Muslim women should be dealt the same. But they aren't in some places. Because religion.

Other than the burqa ban, are there other legislation which is seen as discriminatory against Islam? Is the burqa a religious artefact (does the Qur'an say it's a must) or more a cultural one imported from Saudi Arabian wahhabism and radical Islam?

Even if burqas are a non-issue, hardline Islam -- any fundie ideology -- will find something to be attacked by to justify their reprisals.

[Ken-Obi]

Is the burqa a religious artefact (does the Qur'an say it's a must) or more a cultural one imported from Saudi Arabian wahhabism and radical Islam?

There's no word to describe it in English - it's a "should" and is stated clearly in the Qur'an, is certainly not a cultural thing; they only look the same because it is modeled to the ones used in the homeland of Islam.

I am surrounded by Muslim women everywhere I live - throughout my life not a single one of them have felt pressured to don the headscarf or the burqa, many don't even use it. When they do put it on, it is done so willingly in the name of religion and do not suffer when doing so, none of their civil rights affected. The religious teachers do advise who don't but never compelled them to do so because - in the words of a friend who is a religious teacher - this is a petty issue of personal choice in comparison to greater social justice e.g lifting those who needs help escaping the cycle of poverty.

[Magix]

There's no word to describe it in English - it's a "should" and is stated clearly in the Qur'an, is certainly not a cultural thing; they only look the same because it is modeled to the ones used in the homeland of Islam.

Oh. This is the confusing bit for me because other Muslim scholars say otherwise, that the code of dressing is mentioned in the Qur'an by way of the Arabic definition of hijab, and burqa isn't explicitly stated in the holy book. That it's more about observing a proper code of conduct than dressing austerely. A source I read, for instance, says

For women: Cover your chest (24:31); Lengthen your garments (33:59) and for both sexes; The BEST garment is righteousness and modest conduct (7:26).

http://www.quran-islam.org/articles/part_3/the_burqa_%28P1357%29.html

I am surrounded by Muslim women everywhere I live - throughout my life not a single one of them have felt pressured to don the headscarf or the burqa, many don't even use it. When they do put it on, it is done so willingly in the name of religion and do not suffer when doing so, none of their civil rights affected. The religious teachers do advise who don't but never compelled them to do so because - in the words of a friend who is a religious teacher - this is a petty issue of personal choice in comparison to greater social justice e.g lifting those who needs help escaping the cycle of poverty.

Yeah, I think this is a good teaching which should apply to all religious instruction.

[Veinticinco de Mayo]

Does concealing one's face promote inclusivity though, or does it foster its own discrimination? Is the average non-Muslim employer less likely to hire a burqa-wearing woman, for instance, because he/she can't read her face? If someone wears a ski mask into a bank they'll be told to take it off immediately, or they parade around in one in public they'll be stopped and questioned. So on that principle, burqa-clad Muslim women should be dealt the same. But they aren't in some places. Because religion.

Other than the burqa ban, are there other legislation which is seen as discriminatory against Islam? Is the burqa a religious artefact (does the Qur'an say it's a must) or more a cultural one imported from Saudi Arabian wahhabism and radical Islam?

Even if burqas are a non-issue, hardline Islam -- any fundie ideology -- will find something to be attacked by to justify their reprisals.

I wouldn't necessarily cast my workplace as being typical but there are lots of Muslim staff and I don't think that there is a single Muslim woman.  How a burqa looks to a prospective employer is as much of a non-issue as retaining the freedom to wear the Burqa at home.

As for the last comment, the key to inclusion and education is that it breeds moderation and understanding rather than exclusion and fundamentalism.

[Magix]

As for the last comment, the key to inclusion and education is that it breeds moderation and understanding rather than exclusion and fundamentalism.

But moderation and understanding should work both ways here. If a French Muslim woman can't accept the rationale behind the ban, for secular and security reasons, that her quality of life is sorely diminished by it, then she should consider moving to, say, Britain where the burqa is allowed. There's the freedom of choice afforded to choose her lifestyles.

Can someone move around freely in a ski mask? Same rationale.

[Veinticinco de Mayo]

Aha... the if you don't like it here then fuck off argument.

Perhaps they want to live in France, a more tolerant and inclusive France
Liberte Egalite Fraternite and all that

[Corkboy]

Can someone move around freely in a ski mask?

I remember they used to be quite popular in Belfast.

[Magix]

Aha... the if you don't like it here then fuck off argument.

Perhaps they want to live in France, a more tolerant and inclusive France
Liberte Egalite Fraternite and all that

No, it's the freedom to fuck off argument. So should non-Muslims be able to wear ski masks all day long outside too, if the burqa is allowed? Because some believe in Skiism. Liberte Egalite Fraternite and all that.

[Corkboy]

Aha... the if you don't like it here then fuck off argument.

That sounds very National Front'ish alright but there's something in it. Muslim immigrants who now live in Europe usually come from societies where freedom of speech is not prized or valued. So does "inclusive" mean Europe should forego its hard earned standards so as to adapt for immigrants, or should it be the other way around?

[Dr. Beaker]

Whatever happened to the eminently sensible 'when in Rome' argument.

[TepidT2O]

That sounds very National Front'ish alright but there's something in it. Muslim immigrants who now live in Europe usually come from societies where freedom of speech is not prized or valued. So does "inclusive" mean Europe should forego its hard earned standards so as to adapt for immigrants, or should it be the other way around?

The trouble is that the jihadists talk about "Muslim land"...they mean the Middle East I suppose.  They see determined that the west should stay out of the Middle East.

However, I've always found it surprising that jihadists from the west always return back to the west.
Makes a slight mockery of the idea of Muslim lands if the jihadists aren't even prepared to live there.

[BoRed]

That sounds very National Front'ish alright but there's something in it. Muslim immigrants who now live in Europe usually come from societies where freedom of speech is not prized or valued. So does "inclusive" mean Europe should forego its hard earned standards so as to adapt for immigrants, or should it be the other way around?

Freedom is freedom. Freedom of speech includes the freedom to choose not to speak. Freedom to show your face and freedom to cover your face. That's not foregoing our standards, that's applying them to the letter.

[Corkboy]

Freedom is freedom. Freedom of speech includes the freedom to choose not to speak. Freedom to show your face and freedom to cover your face.

Do we have that total freedom? I can't show up in court wearing a ski mask. I can't go into my local bank wearing a clown mask. If my kid's teacher showed up wearing a mask, I would not be pleased. In our "western" societies, covering up your face is simply not acceptable unless it's in the comfort of your own home.

[TepidT2O]

Do we have that total freedom? I can't show up in court wearing a ski mask. I can't go into my local bank wearing a clown mask. If my kid's teacher showed up wearing a mask, I would not be pleased. In our "western" societies, covering up your face is simply not acceptable unless it's in the comfort of your own home.

Not total freedom, because you need to be identifiable in court and the jury need to judge if you are telling the truth.

Elsewhere, where communication would be inhibited in a job, then it would of course be appropriate to ban ones face being covered.

Walking down the street isn't really an issue.

[Veinticinco de Mayo]

Do we have that total freedom? I can't show up in court wearing a ski mask. I can't go into my local bank wearing a clown mask. If my kid's teacher showed up wearing a mask, I would not be pleased. In our "western" societies, covering up your face is simply not acceptable unless it's in the comfort of your own home.

Peter Thornley made a career out of it.

[Dr. Beaker]

Peter Thornley made a career out of it.

So they can cover their faces, as long as they wear speedos.

[KiNki]

Obviously everyone needs Muslim sensitivity training.

[macca888]

Peter Thornley made a career out of it.

So they can cover their faces, as long as they wear speedos.

For your delectation, a story told to me almost word for word by an ex professional wrestler that I posted on here a while back.

Tell you what Fats, I'll tell you a boss story and I swear this is true (well as true as it was told to me). I was gonna stick this in the auld arse thread after me and Chopper were having a crack about the auld wrestling, but fuck it, I'll stick it here. This auld fella I used to work with was a proper 70's wrestler, used to fight at The Stadium and was on the telly after the ITV 7 on World of Sport type of wrestler. Kent fucking Walton, happy days! He was one of The Shilelagh Brothers. Anyway, he told me the fucking funniest story I've ever heard in my life and I'll tell you it just the way he told me it.

"Anyway Sean, we'd had a card on at Leeds. Me, Pat Roache, Rollerball Rocco and Kendo Nagasaki * (they all used to call him Ken even though his name was Pete) go out for something to eat. Well Ken had his head shaved for the wrestling with a big tatt on hes head, but when we went out, he used to wear a hairpiece. So we're in this gaff having a scran when half the Leeds team turn up bevvied. Bremner, Clarkey, Hunter, Giles, the fucking lot of em. So Clarkey and Bremner decide to take the piss out of Ken. He's not arsed like cos he's a big lad, and we'd have fucking ploughed them all. So a few more bevvies, and Clarkey and Bremner get a bit brave, walks over to us and knocks hes toupee off. Ken says "do that again and you're fucking dead." So what does he do? Bremner starts snarling and Clarkey walks up, throws his piece on the table and slaps him on the top of the fucking head. Next thing, Ken gets up, Kamikaze Crashes Clarke right on his fucking head, grabs Bremner by the throat and one handed hangs him by his jacket on the fucking coat hook. The little fucking midget was dangling off it and Ken says "Now you lot can pay for our scran or I'll fucking kill youse all. Then we fucking scarpered sharpish."


*I'm sure that was the line up he told me, but to be honest, i was fucking pissing meself that much, I can't remember properly.

[Veinticinco de Mayo]

Whatever happened to the eminently sensible 'when in Rome' argument.

Great when on your hols but mass immigration always brings something of itself along, it generally enriches, be it pizza, textiles, bagels and reubens or curry.

[Yorkykopite]

Great when on your hols but mass immigration always brings something of itself along, it generally enriches, be it pizza, textiles, bagels and reubens or curry.

That's true, but the burka does seem to violate something precious about the host culture. It looks medieval because it is medieval. It looks aggressive. It seems to say "I don't belong, and I don't want to belong". It certainly looks oppressive. And - once you learn the reason why it's worn - it looks accusatory ("If I wasn't wearing this you'd probably rape me").

Waves of immigration have benefited the UK in so many ways. But the UK and British democratic culture can also be of enormous benefit to immigrants too. We talk of the obligations we have to immigrants and we generally understand what they are and welcome those obligations. I think immigrants also have an obligation to the culture they emigrate to.

I probably wouldn't to ban the burka like the French. Though I wouldn't allow it in schools or hospitals or government buildings. But I would expect Muslim women to try and discard this piece of ancient body clothing.

There again, it's not always the women who make the choice is it? A bit like arranged marriages. Sometimes they do make the choice, but often the custom is imposed upon them. I think we all feel that's wrong. 

[GreatEx]

In this country, I believe, we have inclusivity and 'education'. I don't suppose it's perfect, but it never will be. If you are a muslim with a basic education and a bit of oomph you're probably going to get a job. You mix with non-muslims at work and socially, pick-up on what we're all about etc. Largely we all seem to get on. Some are more tempted into our evil ways than others but, whatever, it's pretty friction free - and it's educational both ways. This isn't particularly how things work in France.

From my experience I can say that is not true at all. I worked with more Momo's than I can count, and Muslim colleagues - both practicing and non-practicing - would be just as much a "part of the team" as anyone else when it came to social gatherings and the like. Given that the typical French post-work get-together is a meal, the observant Muslims simply wouldn't take wine with theirs (and those of a more secular slant drank the fucking house down). I'd say this is more inclusive than the UK where people go to the pub after work to stand around with a pint in both hands, which is the kind of activity that excludes Muslims. The only time I remember any "Islamic tension" was when I left my first job and the team chipped in to buy me a box of wine, and one Muslim colleague was upset that his money had been used on alcohol. Others felt that he was being over-sensitive and that surely it's the recipient's values that matter. It caused some resentment, for about 3 or 4 hours.

France seems to get a bad rap on Islam because of some disgruntlement in the banlieues, but the outside world doesn't even notice the vast majority of French Muslims because they're an integral part of mainstream society, moreso than anywhere else I've been (well you know, except for Morocco, Egypt,...).

[Dr. Beaker]

From my experience I can say that is not true at all. I worked with more Momo's than I can count, and Muslim colleagues - both practicing and non-practicing - would be just as much a "part of the team" as anyone else when it came to social gatherings and the like. Given that the typical French post-work get-together is a meal, the observant Muslims simply wouldn't take wine with theirs (and those of a more secular slant drank the fucking house down). I'd say this is more inclusive than the UK where people go to the pub after work to stand around with a pint in both hands, which is the kind of activity that excludes Muslims. The only time I remember any "Islamic tension" was when I left my first job and the team chipped in to buy me a box of wine, and one Muslim colleague was upset that his money had been used on alcohol. Others felt that he was being over-sensitive and that surely it's the recipient's values that matter. It caused some resentment, for about 3 or 4 hours.

France seems to get a bad rap on Islam because of some disgruntlement in the banlieues, but the outside world doesn't even notice the vast majority of French Muslims because they're an integral part of mainstream society, moreso than anywhere else I've been (well you know, except for Morocco, Egypt,...).

Badly constructed on my behalf. I was really referring to job opportunities etc. It has always felt a bit tinderbox-like to me, even before nine eleven, never mind the present problems.

[GreatEx]

French Muslims don't have equal work opportunities? Sorry, I'm not sure what you're getting at, can you expand?

[Veinticinco de Mayo]

From my experience I can say that is not true at all. I worked with more Momo's than I can count, and Muslim colleagues - both practicing and non-practicing - would be just as much a "part of the team" as anyone else when it came to social gatherings and the like. Given that the typical French post-work get-together is a meal, the observant Muslims simply wouldn't take wine with theirs (and those of a more secular slant drank the fucking house down). I'd say this is more inclusive than the UK where people go to the pub after work to stand around with a pint in both hands, which is the kind of activity that excludes Muslims. The only time I remember any "Islamic tension" was when I left my first job and the team chipped in to buy me a box of wine, and one Muslim colleague was upset that his money had been used on alcohol. Others felt that he was being over-sensitive and that surely it's the recipient's values that matter. It caused some resentment, for about 3 or 4 hours.

France seems to get a bad rap on Islam because of some disgruntlement in the banlieues, but the outside world doesn't even notice the vast majority of French Muslims because they're an integral part of mainstream society, moreso than anywhere else I've been (well you know, except for Morocco, Egypt,...).

The Muslim lads in our team will not even go anywhere that is licensed so even most meals are a no go.  If we want to go out for a meal as a team then we need to go to somewhere that does not serve alcohol at all.  This includes some fine curry establishments to be fair.