To Hijab or not to Hijab

[Montmorency]

Do tell me what kind of cultural shocks Syrians resettling in Gulf states would face. Headgear-related? Lack of tribal identity?

There is more in the world than culture, as you understand. Even leaving aside political and institutional social structures, there is of course economics, geography, ecology...

Jordan is a heavily-subsidized state, and it's government is well-organized. Lebanon, however, while organized is organized along partisan and sectarian lines such that it would be very difficult to produce a unified response to future refugee political agitation. Pointing out that the Syrians have not overwhelmed Lebanon right now? I might as well say the same for Europe.

Look at this map of Lebanon: http://data.unhcr.org/syrianrefugees/country.php?id=122
Now Jordan: http://data.unhcr.org/syrianrefugees/country.php?id=107
Might as well point out Egypt as well: http://data.unhcr.org/syrianrefugees/country.php?id=8

Note the distributions and explain how the distributions in Lebanon do not threaten stability?

The war will end someday, at which point surplus refugees could be repatriated by force if encouragement turns out to be inadequate.

Yep, totally a trivial enterprise to repatriate millions by force. Are you working with Donald Trump's campaign, by any chance?

If integration is not the goal, then secure and carefully-managed internment camps would be necessary, of the sort that housed the Japanese-Americans during WW2. That isn't the case and neither the West nor the Arab countries nor the refugees would agree to a program involving such.

On that note, a relevant bit of trivia: during WW2, the ethnic Japanese of Hawaii were never interned. Can you guess why?

[AE Bravo]

How they dress
Hold hands in public
Kiss in public
Drink in public
Live together if not married.
Discuss religion that is not Islam publically.

Live there if they don't have a job.

Drink in public - where can you? Go to a bar
Live together if not married - not true
Discuss religion... - also not true
Live there if they don't have a job - rightfully so

What do you mean "middle east?" That is a sweeping generalization of 5 million square miles sir.

None of these bans come close to the banning of the hijab or the harassment the wearers suffer, including countless instances of rape you will rarely find in stable Muslim countries. The level of oppression is much stronger on your end I'm afraid.

[rory_20_uk]

Drink in public - where can you? Go to a bar
Live together if not married - not true
Discuss religion... - also not true
Live there if they don't have a job - rightfully so

What do you mean "middle east?" That is a sweeping generalization of 5 million square miles sir.

None of these bans come close to the banning of the hijab or the harassment the wearers suffer, including countless instances of rape you will rarely find in stable Muslim countries. The level of oppression is much stronger on your end I'm afraid.

The Gulf Cooperation council then.

Living together when not married is illegal in Qatar, UAE and SAudi Arabia punishable with 1 year in jail and then deportation.
Discussing religion which could be taken as trying to convert a Muslim which is also illegal - and people have been killed for such acts in Islamic states.

You seriously think that jail time and deportation is not as bad as being locked up and deported??!? And I doubt that many Islamic countries have reliable crime statistics - absence of reporting is hardly evidence of absence. Then of course the Saudis sent in troops and tanks to, erm, help the rulers in Qatar - of course that is not oppression apparently.

[AE Bravo]

Oh there is oppression, I just meant that when it comes to that towards foreigners it's much stronger in the west.

Qatar and Saudi Arabia are wahhabi so yes. In the UAE, I assure you that you can live with whoever you want. These Sharia Laws are only present to appease whatever is left of the relegated religious institution, my uncle lives with an Australian chick and he is a colonel in the interior ministry. No harm no foul, because nobody in their right mind cares who you sleep with as long as you don't rub it in everyone's faces.

It's true people have been killed for "such acts," but you say Gulf Cooperation Council. You mentioned two Wahhabi states yet fail to mention Kuwait and Oman along with the UAE. I think you'd be surprised by all three. Not to mention I've seen widespread PDA in Egypt, Morocco, Algeria, Lebanon (Beirut and south), and my own country. Only in Dubai of course, nowhere else.

And I doubt that many Islamic countries have reliable crime statistics - absence of reporting is hardly evidence of absence.

Everything is reported. You conveniently assume this because we camel jockeys are all the same.

Then of course the Saudis sent in troops and tanks to, erm, help the rulers in Qatar - of course that is not oppression apparently.

You mean Bahrain. I don't see how this is oppression against foreigners?

[Montmorency]

Everything is reported.

Can you be more exact? On its face, what you say means that every legally-actionable episode that occurs within the jurisdiction of a given Arab state is reported.

In reality, most instances of, for example, mugging, pickpocketing, or minor fraud are not reported anywhere in the world, so that can't be the case.

What are you trying to say then?

[Pannonian]

Can you be more exact? On its face, what you say means that every legally-actionable episode that occurs within the jurisdiction of a given Arab state is reported.

In reality, most instances of, for example, mugging, pickpocketing, or minor fraud are not reported anywhere in the world, so that can't be the case.

What are you trying to say then?

He's trying to say that, as an ex-pat, he has an overly rosy picture of the country he left behind.

[AE Bravo]

Treason, sedition, rape, murder, embezzling, laundering, heists, political assassinations and even courts with no due process are openly revealed to the public. Say what you want about these "dictators" but they are known to tell it like it is. It's the bedouin way.

[Viking]

Jordan is a heavily-subsidized state, and it's government is well-organized. Lebanon, however, while organized is organized along partisan and sectarian lines such that it would be very difficult to produce a unified response to future refugee political agitation.

What kind of agitation? With what purpose?

Pointing out that the Syrians have not overwhelmed Lebanon right now? I might as well say the same for Europe.

Actually, I said I hadn't seen signs that the political situation in Lebanon has gotten worse because of refugees from Syria, not that the country hadn't gone belly-up yet. The comparison with Europe becomes rather different, then.

Look at this map of Lebanon: http://data.unhcr.org/syrianrefugees/country.php?id=122
Now Jordan: http://data.unhcr.org/syrianrefugees/country.php?id=107
Might as well point out Egypt as well: http://data.unhcr.org/syrianrefugees/country.php?id=8

Note the distributions and explain how the distributions in Lebanon do not threaten stability?

I am not sure about the exact point you want those maps to illustrate. Millions of refugees could become a veritable force if they all acted towards a common goal in an organised manner (de facto or otherwise); e.g. if they all swarmed the streets to protest. I think it should be possible to tell well in advance before something like that would happen, and take effective measures to prevent it from happening (sweetening the pill or enforce a curfew).

I would like to point out that I was never advocating for Lebanon to take in more refugees; that's something Saudi Arabia & co should do. They might even be able to relieve Lebanon without taking in more than they can handle. Shia refugees could possibly be taken in by Iran.

Yep, totally a trivial enterprise to repatriate millions by force.

It doesn't have to happen over night. Give it a few years - most would have left on their own volition by then.

If integration is not the goal, then secure and carefully-managed internment camps would be necessary, of the sort that housed the Japanese-Americans during WW2. That isn't the case and neither the West nor the Arab countries nor the refugees would agree to a program involving such.

I am not sure that would be necessary. I believe a lot of refugee camps in the area effectively work a lot like that. A significant fraction of them might walk out of the camp from time to time, but that isn't necessarily a problem.

On that note, a relevant bit of trivia: during WW2, the ethnic Japanese of Hawaii were never interned. Can you guess why?

Could be many reasons. Why?

[Montmorency]

What kind of agitation? With what purpose?

I'll leave it to you to imagine why displaced persons in refugee camps might cause trouble at some point. More specifically, that would become entangled with local sectarian and political contests, which the refugees could easily recognize themselves as having a stake in and holding some influence over.

Actually, I said I hadn't seen signs that the political situation in Lebanon has gotten worse because of refugees from Syria, not that the country hadn't gone belly-up yet. The comparison with Europe becomes rather different, then.

It amounts to the same, as what's really the problem in both the Middle East and Europe is economic malaise. With the European economy doing well, refugees are A-OK for menial labor. With the Syrian/Egyptian/Libyan economy doing well, there is less incentive to take actions that would reopen the scabs that can lead to the infection of civil war. These forces cannot be separated, and neither can their resolutions or exacerbations.

But a simple way to sum it up is just that we are much more sensitive to a sharpening in the European crisis; given that Lebanon has existed in a state of endemic crisis for decades now, it is more difficult to perceive the impact of the refugees. Until the massacres begin, at any rate.

Millions of refugees could become a veritable force if they all acted towards a common goal in an organised manner (de facto or otherwise); e.g. if they all swarmed the streets to protest.

In fact, it is organized movements that are more easily managed than general unrest. Just look at China.

that's something Saudi Arabia & co should do.

With Saudi Arabia, the situation is even more volatile. Given the ecology of the area, isolated concentration areas are necessary unless the refugees are spread throughout the urban centers, a move which would quickly prove disastrous. The Saudi economy survives on foreign labor and royal patronage through networks of privilege. Adding millions of destitute Syrians to the mix would spur popular revolt.

Could be many reasons. Why?

Demographics and geography. In the territorial states, ethnic Japanese were a tiny minority spread over a large area. In Hawaii, the ethnic Japanese were over 1/3 of the population -a plurality - concentrated in a small space. The rest falls out of these facts.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Treason, sedition, rape, murder, embezzling, laundering, heists, political assassinations and even courts with no due process are openly revealed to the public. Say what you want about these "dictators" but they are known to tell it like it is. It's the bedouin way.

Really?

So Assad fessed up to using chemical weapons on his own people?

Oh, wait, he's an Assyrian, isn't he - so he doesn't count.

What about the web of lies Gaddaffi span over the Libyan economy?

Anyway - in many states in the Middle East even non-Christians are required to cover their heads, so why shouldn't some Western states ban it?

[AE Bravo]

That was a response to comments made about GCC states. Assad and Gaddaffi aren't bedu. I should have been more clearer, was referring to the relatively progressive sheikhdoms.

Anyway - in many states in the Middle East even non-Christians are required to cover their heads, so why shouldn't some Western states ban it?

Because some of these western countries make big claims for themselves just like these backwards conservative Arab countries do. If you're on the better side of the spectrum there's no need to parallel their paranoia.

[Viking]

@Montmorency

Even if one accepts the idea that these refugees would have a high probability of causing the relevant states to disintegrate (which I don't), it is not given that having Europe accept them is the better alternative. If it were the better alternative, then we would have to expect that the countries in the ME over time gradually would become more stable.

Without such a promise, we would risk seeing streams of refugees from the ME arriving in Europe every now and then. Over decades or centuries, Europe could become a place no more stable than the ME itself.

[Husar]

Anyway - in many states in the Middle East even non-Christians are required to cover their heads, so why shouldn't some Western states ban it?

Where is the superiority of our ways if we make our ways just like their ways?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Where is the superiority of our ways if we make our ways just like their ways?

If it's OK for them to be barbarians why isn't it OK for us?

Personally, I would ban covering the face in public places but make it legal on the street - that way you can wear a scarf when it's cold but when you come inside you take it off.

Currently watching a documentary on this and what comes through is that the Muslim women don't appreciate that the face veil specifically is highly offensive to a lot of Britons. That's not to say that the violent attacks and verbal abuse are in any way justified, they're not, but it's clear the gulf of understanding is on both sides.

[Husar]

If it's OK for them to be barbarians why isn't it OK for us?

Who said it's okay? I want to welcome them to Germany if they are sick and tired of their dictatorships and the oppression. The hijab has little to do with that as long as they want to wear it.
And the more important question is, do you want to be a barbarian and live among them?

Personally, I would ban covering the face in public places but make it legal on the street - that way you can wear a scarf when it's cold but when you come inside you take it off.

Then I would also ban goth clothing, punk haircuts, not having hair at all and other clear symbols of people who obviously despise our mainstream societies and do not want to be part of them. And then we should burn all the books that criticize the mainstream society, jail all computer hackers and people who use encryption or passwords because we are an open society and the internet is a very public place.
And since I don't trust people who do ungodly things behind closed curtains, ban curtains, too.

[Pannonian]

If it's OK for them to be barbarians why isn't it OK for us?

Personally, I would ban covering the face in public places but make it legal on the street - that way you can wear a scarf when it's cold but when you come inside you take it off.

Currently watching a documentary on this and what comes through is that the Muslim women don't appreciate that the face veil specifically is highly offensive to a lot of Britons. That's not to say that the violent attacks and verbal abuse are in any way justified, they're not, but it's clear the gulf of understanding is on both sides.

I've worn a balaclava outside when it was really, really cold. As soon as I was inside, I took it off. Same with the scarf raised to cover the nose. Always combined with thick gloves and lots of layers of clothing. All of which tended to be sympathetically laughed at by onlookers, who recognised the cold but were perhaps not quite so extremely affected.

Who said it's okay? I want to welcome them to Germany if they are sick and tired of their dictatorships and the oppression. The hijab has little to do with that as long as they want to wear it.
And the more important question is, do you want to be a barbarian and live among them?

Then I would also ban goth clothing, punk haircuts, not having hair at all and other clear symbols of people who obviously despise our mainstream societies and do not want to be part of them. And then we should burn all the books that criticize the mainstream society, jail all computer hackers and people who use encryption or passwords because we are an open society and the internet is a very public place.
And since I don't trust people who do ungodly things behind closed curtains, ban curtains, too.

Some things fit the definition of being socially undesirable, but since they grew up here, they get more of a pass (although hoodies are synonymous with juvenile delinquents, to the point of being satirised in Hot Fuzz). If these things are socially undesirable and they've been imported here, why give them this free pass? It's not as though our society makes huge demands of them to fit in.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Who said it's okay? I want to welcome them to Germany if they are sick and tired of their dictatorships and the oppression. The hijab has little to do with that as long as they want to wear it.
And the more important question is, do you want to be a barbarian and live among them?

Saudi Arabia - that's all I want to say.

Then I would also ban goth clothing, punk haircuts, not having hair at all and other clear symbols of people who obviously despise our mainstream societies and do not want to be part of them. And then we should burn all the books that criticize the mainstream society, jail all computer hackers and people who use encryption or passwords because we are an open society and the internet is a very public place.
And since I don't trust people who do ungodly things behind closed curtains, ban curtains, too.

Except I said banning covering the face - you can still see a Goth's face.

[Husar]

Some things fit the definition of being socially undesirable, but since they grew up here, they get more of a pass (although hoodies are synonymous with juvenile delinquents, to the point of being satirised in Hot Fuzz). If these things are socially undesirable and they've been imported here, why give them this free pass? It's not as though our society makes huge demands of them to fit in.

Why are certain dress codes socially desirable or undesirable in the first place? Beyond not enough clothing or dirty/smelly clothing does it not get a bit superficial? And wasn't the west once proud of letting people develop such tastes individually? Being gay was once not socially desirable, was that okay? Socially desirable can quickly end in group pressure, suppression of individuality etc. It's a slippery slope. Today it's a burka, tomorrow male ear rings and sooner or later everyone wears a black suit.

Saudi Arabia - that's all I want to say.

Why?
Do you think it's okay if they are barbarians and enforce that on some of their citizens or what is your point?

Except I said banning covering the face - you can still see a Goth's face.

I thought it was part of your wider point about people who do not want to fit in, but maybe it wasn't or you and Pannonian have become one in my mind. ;)

[Montmorency]

Even if one accepts the idea that these refugees would have a high probability of causing the relevant states to disintegrate (which I don't), it is not given that having Europe accept them is the better alternative.

Oh, I wasn't saying so, just pointing out the pitfalls to that alternative.

[AE Bravo]

If it's OK for them to be barbarians why isn't it OK for us?

First you started out by saying "some European countries" and now it's "us." So which is it? It's not ok for anyone, they can all go to hell.

Saudi Arabia - that's all I want to say.

But that is a hellhole, do you mean you'd like to be a hole too?

Not a good look to point your finger at the world's anus pit and say "but they're doing it too!"

[Kadagar_AV]

First you started out by saying "some European countries" and now it's "us." So which is it? It's not ok for anyone, they can all go to hell.

But that is a hellhole, do you mean you'd like to be a hole too?

Not a good look to point your finger at the world's anus pit and say "but they're doing it too!"

Retort:

Yes, it is a hellhole.

I can agree with you, that it is (among) the worlds anuses.

However, what, OH WHAT, make you think we in the west have a better ability to care for African/Arabic internal strife and religious needs, than Saudi Arabia?



How come Muslim migrants are flocking to Sweden, and not Saudi Arabia?

You don't exactly need a fish under your nose to smell something fishy.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Why?
Do you think it's okay if they are barbarians and enforce that on some of their citizens or what is your point?

No, but I think it's worth pointing out that we're happy to traffic with them, despite it being a terrible place for women.

I thought it was part of your wider point about people who do not want to fit in, but maybe it wasn't or you and Pannonian have become one in my mind. ;)

No, it was about my specific point that Muslims, specifically, do not share our cultural mores. That is a big problem if they want to live in our society. Apparently Americans don't share our cultural mores either - but that's a different question.

First you started out by saying "some European countries" and now it's "us." So which is it? It's not ok for anyone, they can all go to hell.

Banning a viel in public makes the country "hell"? Please. Now, I'll happily admit I don't understand modern Islamic culture - it looks universally crap compared to, say, 12th Century Islamic culture - but the point is very simple - that people who live in Europe should conform to a basic level of common courtesy and in my opinion covering the face in public violates that very basic level of courtesy.

This is why Muslim women are attacked on the street when they wear the veil - because a significant number of Europeans, and African Christians, find it highly offensive that they refuse to show their faces in public.

Personally I think it's ostentatious piety, divisive, and arrogant - and I think it poses a real problem from a security point of view. What's interesting is that it has become more popular int he last two decades, in fact as Islamic terrorism has become more of a problem more and more Muslim women have gone from bear-headed to scarf, to Hijab, to Niqab. There was even a girl, in full Niqab, talking about how everyone reacted when her mother came to pick her up from school the first time wearing a Hijab.

The. First. Time. So, for a few decades this woman was apparently fine with having her head uncovered, then suddenly one day she starts to cover it in public, and that then provokes a reaction. Now, is it the right reaction? No, it is not, but it's an understandable one because many of these woman have recently made a choice to start dressing like they live in the Middle East and not Europe and that's a deliberate statement of separation.

But that is a hellhole, do you mean you'd like to be a hole too?

Not a good look to point your finger at the world's anus pit and say "but they're doing it too!"

See above - you can't have morals and traffic with the Devil, it doesn't wash.

[Pannonian]

Why are certain dress codes socially desirable or undesirable in the first place? Beyond not enough clothing or dirty/smelly clothing does it not get a bit superficial? And wasn't the west once proud of letting people develop such tastes individually? Being gay was once not socially desirable, was that okay? Socially desirable can quickly end in group pressure, suppression of individuality etc. It's a slippery slope. Today it's a burka, tomorrow male ear rings and sooner or later everyone wears a black suit.

The suspicion of people who have their faces covered pre-dates the current issues with Muslims, as the balaclava was a symbol (and cliche) of terrorists long before the burka entered everyday language. Wear one outside socially acceptable conditions (ie. when it's bloody freezing), and you can guarantee dirty looks, and extra attention paid to you to make sure you're not causing trouble. The current most common item of clothing used for that purpose is the hood drawn over the head and as much of the face as possible, and that's synonymous with troublemakers (I've seen shops prohibiting more than x number of youngsters inside at any one time). The burka and other Muslim garments do the same job, and at a minimum is subject to the same suspicion, but in addition is a mark of identifying oneself with a foreign state. One, moreover, that has attacked us on our home soil, and continues to undermine our state, on one hand luring youngsters away with the promise of a foreign state that's supposedly more in tune with them, and on the other hand making demands of us to allow them a say (cf. articles in the Guardian and other mouthpieces claiming their way to be the natural way for humanity).

Given that I'm not too impressed with British citizens who proclaim a preference for the US over the UK, and the Americans are supposed to be our closest friends and closest cultural kin, I have absolutely no sympathy for people who are even more alien to us, who make even more demands of us, who deliberately set out to go against cultural norms that even natives are subject to. Islam claims to be a state in and of itself, and in recent years has proclaimed its own official state. With its effective state of war with us, I see no reason to stretch our societal tolerances to allow for people who identify themselves with that state.

[Montmorency]

you can't have morals and traffic with the Devil, it doesn't wash.

Does it ever strike you that you are chopping at the branch on which you stand?

[Pannonian]

First you started out by saying "some European countries" and now it's "us." So which is it? It's not ok for anyone, they can all go to hell.

But that is a hellhole, do you mean you'd like to be a hole too?

Not a good look to point your finger at the world's anus pit and say "but they're doing it too!"

I'd rather point to the world's anus pit and say, let them stew in their own hell hole. I want nothing to do with them whatsoever. They can practise cannibalism or anything else they want for all I care. As long as they don't do it over here. Anyone who thinks it's ok to bring these cultural features over here against our objections can bugger off back whence they came.

[Husar]

No, but I think it's worth pointing out that we're happy to traffic with them, despite it being a terrible place for women.

And what does that say about us? As Monty said, you seem to be chopping at the branch on which you stand.

No, it was about my specific point that Muslims, specifically, do not share our cultural mores. That is a big problem if they want to live in our society. Apparently Americans don't share our cultural mores either - but that's a different question.

Ok, what mores? The ones that allow us to support the people who make them flee in the first place if it supports "our interests"?

Personally I think it's ostentatious piety, divisive, and arrogant - and I think it poses a real problem from a security point of view. What's interesting is that it has become more popular int he last two decades, in fact as Islamic terrorism has become more of a problem more and more Muslim women have gone from bear-headed to scarf, to Hijab, to Niqab. There was even a girl, in full Niqab, talking about how everyone reacted when her mother came to pick her up from school the first time wearing a Hijab.

The. First. Time. So, for a few decades this woman was apparently fine with having her head uncovered, then suddenly one day she starts to cover it in public, and that then provokes a reaction. Now, is it the right reaction? No, it is not, but it's an understandable one because many of these woman have recently made a choice to start dressing like they live in the Middle East and not Europe and that's a deliberate statement of separation.

What I don't get is how wearing the veil is arrogant, especially if the husbands want it. I've also had a colleague at work who started to dress "more religious" at one point, but pretty much all colleagues agreed that her husband wanted it, it just did not fit her. It was strange because people knew her in a different way, but I don't think anyone found it arrogant. It's not too different from people becoming more christian, just more visible.

The suspicion of people who have their faces covered pre-dates the current issues with Muslims, as the balaclava was a symbol (and cliche) of terrorists long before the burka entered everyday language. Wear one outside socially acceptable conditions (ie. when it's bloody freezing), and you can guarantee dirty looks, and extra attention paid to you to make sure you're not causing trouble. The current most common item of clothing used for that purpose is the hood drawn over the head and as much of the face as possible, and that's synonymous with troublemakers (I've seen shops prohibiting more than x number of youngsters inside at any one time). The burka and other Muslim garments do the same job, and at a minimum is subject to the same suspicion, but in addition is a mark of identifying oneself with a foreign state. One, moreover, that has attacked us on our home soil, and continues to undermine our state, on one hand luring youngsters away with the promise of a foreign state that's supposedly more in tune with them, and on the other hand making demands of us to allow them a say (cf. articles in the Guardian and other mouthpieces claiming their way to be the natural way for humanity).

The balaclava and the hood seem to have gotten their image from the actions of the ones wearing them, what have wearers of burkas done to us to deserve the same scrutiny? I don't think the vague point of covering the face is the only reason, police do that as well and everybody should know that the burka does not make one part of a criminal gang, that's really far-fetched. That's not to say I like to see them, I think it is a sign of religious extremism and oppression, but the link you draw is just weird.

Even weirder is to say that the burka would make one a supporter of some state, does not seem to make any sense whatsoever, especially in the case of the IS since the burka long predates it and to assume that all women wearing them support ISIS seems even more far-fetched.

Given that I'm not too impressed with British citizens who proclaim a preference for the US over the UK, and the Americans are supposed to be our closest friends and closest cultural kin, I have absolutely no sympathy for people who are even more alien to us, who make even more demands of us, who deliberately set out to go against cultural norms that even natives are subject to. Islam claims to be a state in and of itself, and in recent years has proclaimed its own official state. With its effective state of war with us, I see no reason to stretch our societal tolerances to allow for people who identify themselves with that state.

Again, how can you assume that all women wearing burkas identify themselves with the caliphate? Or even that they all demand something?

[AE Bravo]

However, what, OH WHAT, make you think we in the west have a better ability to care for African/Arabic internal strife and religious needs, than Saudi Arabia?

Caring for "religious needs" (as far as hijabs go) doesn't take much effort bruh bruh.

How come Muslim migrants are flocking to Sweden, and not Saudi Arabia?

Yes, you guys are getting bamboozled sorry. Not that they'd be happier in Saudi friggin Arabia.

I'll happily admit I don't understand modern Islamic culture

There's no such thing.

Personally I think it's ostentatious piety, divisive, and arrogant - and I think it poses a real problem from a security point of view.

Although I don't care for the personal part, I only ask (from the start of the thread) how in the world is this a security concern. What has happened so far?

Anyone who thinks it's ok to bring these cultural features over here against our objections can bugger off back whence they came.

They're still in your country and they're parading their cultural features so what are you on about exactly? You must be the minority butthurt.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Does it ever strike you that you are chopping at the branch on which you stand?

That rather depends on the point I'm trying to make, doesn't it?

And what does that say about us? As Monty said, you seem to be chopping at the branch on which you stand.

Well, me personally, I've never been a fan of the Saudi's - if they were monarchs who enforced a liberal standard of living it would be different (as in Jordan or even Bahrain) but as things stand the country's only saving grace is that it has avoided a civil war.

Ok, what mores? The ones that allow us to support the people who make them flee in the first place if it supports "our interests"?

I don't support those states - I have repeatedly and consistently argued in favour of supporting popular revolutions in the Middle East for several years now. In particular, I have argued we should actively support them BEFORE they turn violent and if it is not practical to achieve overthrow of the regime in this way then to support the secular opposition militarily.

What I don't get is how wearing the veil is arrogant, especially if the husbands want it. I've also had a colleague at work who started to dress "more religious" at one point, but pretty much all colleagues agreed that her husband wanted it, it just did not fit her. It was strange because people knew her in a different way, but I don't think anyone found it arrogant. It's not too different from people becoming more christian, just more visible.

Well, in your example the husband sounds like a thug but more generally there IS an element of arrogance to it. It says "look, see, I am a Muslim". I work with several girls who wear the Hijab, and absent that you would not be able to tell they were Muslims - they swear, they sit on chairs with their feet tucked under them, they wear lipstick and blush... So it's just about being SEEN to be Muslim, and in the UK with our history of religious violence ostentatious religious displays are unwelcome bordering on offensive.

Again, how can you assume that all women wearing burkas identify themselves with the caliphate? Or even that they all demand something?

One might presume that all women wearing the Burkha think all women should wear the Burkha.

There's no such thing.

Oh of course there is, the Hijab, the Niqab, the hats the men wear, having the Koran exclusively in Arabic. These are all cultural rather than religious markers. As I recall there's no mention of a woman covering her head in the Koran or the Hadith - you have to go back to the Torah for that. Actually, side point, there's at least one instance where the Prophet basically quotes the Torah in the Hadith - it's the passage relating to rape.

Although I don't care for the personal part, I only ask (from the start of the thread) how in the world is this a security concern. What has happened so far?

Several women have evaded border security wearing the Burkha, one terrorist escaped the country wearing his sister's Burkha. More generally the face veil prevents identification against photo ID and the Burkha is large and Bulky enough that you can hide a broken down assault rifle or an explosive belt under it.

They're still in your country and they're parading their cultural features so what are you on about exactly? You must be the minority butthurt.

Easy to dismiss, but the level of violence directed against Muslim women suggests that the population generally is unhappy.

[rvg]

Well, in your example the husband sounds like a thug but more generally there IS an element of arrogance to it. It says "look, see, I am a Muslim". I work with several girls who wear the Hijab, and absent that you would not be able to tell they were Muslims - they swear, they sit on chairs with their feet tucked under them, they wear lipstick and blush... So it's just about being SEEN to be Muslim, and in the UK with our history of religious violence ostentatious religious displays are unwelcome bordering on offensive.

Okay, so the hijab says "I'm a muslim", and you don't have a problem with the hijab. Buka also says "I'm a muslim", but you do have a problem with it. Why?

One might presume that all women wearing the Burkha think all women should wear the Burkha.

Let them think whatever the hell they want to think, or are we now going to punish people for thought crimes?

Several women have evaded border security wearing the Burkha, one terrorist escaped the country wearing his sister's Burkha. More generally the face veil prevents identification against photo ID and the Burkha is large and Bulky enough that you can hide a broken down assault rifle or an explosive belt under it.

I would blame the incompetent border guards or customs agents for this.

Easy to dismiss, but the level of violence directed against Muslim women suggests that the population generally is unhappy.

Yeah, it truly sucks to be a muslim woman. Enslaved by her kin and also piled on by the society at large.

Don't get me wrong, I do not consider hijabs or burkas to be something positive. I also can see how those can be offensive. My point is that the right to offend is a cornerstone of a free society.

I don't think there's anyone at the org who is more anti-islam than I am. I'm not on their side, I'm on the side of freedom.

[Montmorency]

That rather depends on the point I'm trying to make, doesn't it?

No. Witness the contradiction:

I don't support those states - I have repeatedly and consistently argued in favour of supporting popular revolutions in the Middle East for several years now. In particular, I have argued we should actively support them BEFORE they turn violent and if it is not practical to achieve overthrow of the regime in this way then to support the secular opposition militarily.

Not even becoming an anchorite could save you from the inconsistency.