# Spain bans Burka



## snikpoh (Nov 19, 2007)

Just read somewhere that Spain has just banned the wearing of the Burka in public places. There is a potential fine of 405€

Anyone have any more detail?


Will the police actually try and uphold this law?


----------



## Lynn R (Feb 21, 2014)

Apparently so, yes.

http://indignado.es/espana-prohibe-el-uso-del-velo-integral-en-lugares-publicos-compartelo/

I have not found any cases of fines actually being imposed as yet, but then again I don't think I have ever seen anyone wearing a burqua in Spain, even in the biggest cities. I don't see why the police would not uphold the law. After all, Spain has already jailed parents for having FGM carried out on their daughters.


http://elpais.com/elpais/2013/05/26/inenglish/1369577191_732099.html


----------



## Pesky Wesky (May 10, 2009)

Lynn R said:


> Apparently so, yes.
> 
> http://indignado.es/espana-prohibe-el-uso-del-velo-integral-en-lugares-publicos-compartelo/
> 
> ...


I think my municipality was one of the first to do this (PP of course) quite some while ago now, as you can see in the link from Lynn which is dated 2015. They marketed it as a kind of brave, cutting edge policy, but my husband said much the same as Lynn, how many people have you seen here wearing a burka. A veil or other face coverings yes, but a burka, I think never, so a vacuous gesture it would seem.


----------



## snikpoh (Nov 19, 2007)

Lynn R said:


> Apparently so, yes.
> 
> http://indignado.es/espana-prohibe-el-uso-del-velo-integral-en-lugares-publicos-compartelo/
> 
> ...


The only reason I say that is because, around here at least, drivers are still allowed to use their mobile phones whilst driving plus many others rules are broken whilst the police happily look on.


----------



## Justina (Jan 25, 2013)

*burkas*



snikpoh said:


> The only reason I say that is because, around here at least, drivers are still allowed to use their mobile phones whilst driving plus many others rules are broken whilst the police happily look on.


well' there is quite a difference between a burka and a mobile. here in Chiclana, lots of drivers can be seen with their mobile at their ear, while I only see the headscarf rather prettily shaped on the head.


----------



## Lolito (Aug 25, 2012)

Well done. I couldn't even kiss my husband or hold hands with him when I went to Dubai, it scared me ****less trying to act 'normal' all the time, whatever 'normal' means in Dubai, that's it, but then I was in their country so I had to act accordingly and respect their laws. 

They should do the same when they come here. 

Get off the burka and get a bikini laidiiiiieeeeeeeeesssssssssss


----------



## mrypg9 (Apr 26, 2008)

snikpoh said:


> The only reason I say that is because, around here at least, drivers are still allowed to use their mobile phones whilst driving plus many others rules are broken whilst the police happily look on.




Sorry Snikpoh, that's sheer 'whataboutery'. 

Whether laws are observed or not has no bearing on their value as laws. If they are flouted, well, the argument points to stricter enforcement.

I'm 100% with Lolito on this. If I were to visit Jordan, Saudi Arabia or any country where Islam is observed as civil law and custom I would conform to those laws. Either that or I don't visit the country.
In our Western culture, my culture, obscuring the face is unacceptable. It's considered impolite. If I put a pillow case over my head to talk to you (a good idea, some might say) I would be considered odd or rude. Same if I covered my face with my hand.

We in the West quite rightly respect and make space for other cultures. But there is a limit and I feel that we are currently in danger of overstepping that limit. 
I would offend people were I to wear shorts in Saudi. A woman in a burka in Benalmadena or Bournemouth offends me. It's also dangerous. One of the 7/7 terrorists fled disguised in a burka. 
Religious respect and toleration, yes, although tell that to Saudi Arabia, Jordan etc. Try building a mosque or synagogue there. But some cultural practices are simply not acceptable in Western cultures....FGM, ritual slaughter, honour killing, lack of respect for women, clothing which obscures the wearer's face....All these things are not part of our culture. Period.

And yes, there are many aspects of my Western culture I find unacceptable. But I either try to change them or live and let live. And I have no right to impose my culture on others.
They wouldn't allow it anyway.


----------



## Lynn R (Feb 21, 2014)

mrypg9 said:


> Sorry Snikpoh, that's sheer 'whataboutery'.
> 
> Whether laws are observed or not has no bearing on their value as laws. If they are flouted, well, the argument points to stricter enforcement.
> 
> ...


I don't think people (any people) should be allowed to cover their faces in public either - but have YOU ever seen anyone wearing a burqua in Benalmádena (or anywhere else in Spain)?


----------



## Lynn R (Feb 21, 2014)

Thinking about it, what I have seen in Spain, on exceptionally cold winter days, is Spanish people of all ages out in the streets with scarves tied around their faces, completely covering their noses and mouths. I wonder if that is prohibited under the new law, and if not, why not?


----------



## mrypg9 (Apr 26, 2008)

Lynn R said:


> I don't think people (any people) should be allowed to cover their faces in public either - but have YOU ever seen anyone wearing a burqua in Benalmádena (or anywhere else in Spain)?


I haven't seen anyone murdered in Benalmadena either...but I still think there should be a law against murder.

OK, extreme example, but you get my point.


----------



## Overandout (Nov 10, 2012)

Lynn R said:


> Thinking about it, what I have seen in Spain, on exceptionally cold winter days, is Spanish people of all ages out in the streets with scarves tied around their faces, completely covering their noses and mouths. I wonder if that is prohibited under the new law, and if not, why not?


Covering your face with a cloth of any type while in the street is not prohibited in Spain!! 

It is very clear that this law only applies in situations where easy identification is required, i.e. official buildings, transport and schools. It even states clearly in the article posted that "en la calle la norma no regira", so lets not start taking this beyond its clear intentions.


----------



## snikpoh (Nov 19, 2007)

Lynn R said:


> I don't think people (any people) should be allowed to cover their faces in public either - but have YOU ever seen anyone wearing a burqua in Benalmádena (or anywhere else in Spain)?


We have at least half a dozen people (women?) who regularly wear the burka (and I mean the full burka and not hija nor niqab) in one part of Ontinyent.

So, perhaps not as uncommon as you might think.


----------



## Lynn R (Feb 21, 2014)

Overandout said:


> Covering your face with a cloth of any type while in the street is not prohibited in Spain!!
> 
> It is very clear that this law only applies in situations where easy identification is required, i.e. official buildings, transport and schools. It even states clearly in the article posted that "en la calle la norma no regira", so lets not start taking this beyond its clear intentions.


Thank you for the clarification. Snikpoh will be glad to hear that if he sees anyone out and about wearing a burqua, the police are not failing in their duty then.


----------



## mrypg9 (Apr 26, 2008)

Lynn R said:


> Thank you for the clarification. Snikpoh will be glad to hear that if he sees anyone out and about wearing a burqua, the police are not failing in their duty then.


I hope they will also not fail in their duty to hunt down those responsible for other such unacceptable cultural practices like FGM, honour killings, gender violence ..
I'd like ritual slaughter of animals as practised by Muslims and Jews outlawed too.


----------



## Pesky Wesky (May 10, 2009)

Overandout said:


> Covering your face with a cloth of any type while in the street is not prohibited in Spain!!
> 
> It is very clear that this law only applies in situations where easy identification is required, i.e. official buildings, transport and schools. It even states clearly in the article posted that "en la calle la norma no regira", so lets not start taking this beyond its clear intentions.


Lynn was not saying it should be either. She was pointing out that she has seen people in Spain sometimes obscuring their faces in winter with scarves etc and this is not prohibited, so why not.
I would presume that the reason _why_ the face covered has something to do with it, and secondly if a person with a burka is asked to show their face I don't think they would, citing religious reasons whereas the scarf user would have to reveal their identity.


----------



## Lynn R (Feb 21, 2014)

mrypg9 said:


> I hope they will also not fail in their duty to hunt down those responsible for other such unacceptable cultural practices like FGM, honour killings, gender violence ..
> I'd like ritual slaughter of animals as practised by Muslims and Jews outlawed too.


As well as the case I gave a link to in an earlier post where a couple had been jailed for 12 years in Spain for allowing their daughter to be subjected to FGM, I think the issue is treated very seriously in Spain and they are obviously keeping their procedures under review as this article shows.

https://www.theguardian.com/society...-female-genital-mutilation-protocol-catalonia


----------



## mrypg9 (Apr 26, 2008)

Pesky Wesky said:


> Lynn was not saying it should be either. She was pointing out that she has seen people in Spain sometimes obscuring their faces in winter with scarves etc and this is not prohibited, so why not.
> I would presume that the reason _why_ the face covered has something to do with it, and secondly if a person with a burka is asked to show their face I don't think they would, citing religius reasons whereas the scarf user would have to reveal their identity.


My point precisely...

Plus an element of 'When in Rome....'


----------



## bob_bob (Jan 5, 2011)

mrypg9 said:


> I hope they will also not fail in their duty to hunt down those responsible for other such unacceptable cultural practices like FGM, honour killings, gender violence ..
> I'd like *ritual slaughter of animals as practised by Muslims and Jews *outlawed too.


What do you mean Mary?


----------



## mrypg9 (Apr 26, 2008)

bob_bob said:


> What do you mean Mary?


Orthodox Islam and Judaism both have dietary laws relating to the slaughter of animals for human consumption which require the killing of the animal to be performed as a religious rite, involving the slitting of the animal's throat whist it is alive and sentient and then literally drained of all blood.
That's why religious Jews and Muslims will buy only from kosher or halal butchers.

Most people involved in animal welfare, those like me who are carnivores, regard this practice as cruel ad inhumane. In non-religious abattoirs animals are stunned before being killed.


----------



## bob_bob (Jan 5, 2011)

mrypg9 said:


> Orthodox Islam and Judaism both have dietary laws relating to the slaughter of animals for human consumption which require the killing of the animal to be performed as a religious rite, involving the slitting of the animal's throat whist it is alive and sentient and then literally drained of all blood.
> That's why religious Jews and Muslims will buy only from kosher or halal butchers.
> 
> Most people involved in animal welfare, those like me who are carnivores, regard this practice as cruel ad inhumane. In non-religious abattoirs animals are stunned before being killed.


You do know that the majority of animals killed under Halal are stunned before death in the UK? Death by Halal or Shechita is quick , how do you feel about chickens that are gassed to death or the rabbits/hare and occasionally these days, the deer I shoot (Ill be in Scotland before long for a deer hunt)?

How many bulls are stunned/knocked out before a prolonged death in front of a crowd?


----------



## Elyles (Aug 30, 2012)

Seems pretty absurd to me. Here, off the grid, nobody cares what the women wear, or don't wear. It might be like in the US when slavery was abolished on January 31, 1865. The problem was that the word did not get to Texas till June 19 of that year. Now there is a holiday celebrated by Texan African Americans called Juneteenth or June 19 to honor freedom from slavery. Maybe it will take some time for the word on the head scarves to reach here?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Pesky Wesky (May 10, 2009)

Elyles said:


> Seems pretty absurd to me. Here, off the grid, nobody cares what the women wear, or don't wear. It might be like in the US when slavery was abolished on January 31, 1865. The problem was that the word did not get to Texas till June 19 of that year. Now there is a holiday celebrated by Texan African Americans called Juneteenth or June 19 to honor freedom from slavery. Maybe it will take some time for the word on the head scarves to reach here?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Do you live off the grid?


----------



## Lynn R (Feb 21, 2014)

By all accounts, animals are not treated very well in abbattoirs where they are stunned before being killed.

Animal Aid: The 'Humane Slaughter' Myth


----------



## Lolito (Aug 25, 2012)

Why do you go off topic within a few posts? lol!

This morning, at the market, in a very small town, we saw 3 women wearing burkas, my mum said 'Oh my! it is a very hot day today, how can they wear that?', a man passing by said, 'Well, they are probably naked under all that' and the stall holder serving my mum said, 'oh well, I hope they are wearing something underneath as I have heard on the news, that the police can ask these women to take their burkas off at anytime'... 

lol!


----------



## Rabbitcat (Aug 31, 2014)

Lolito said:


> Well done. I couldn't even kiss my husband or hold hands with him when I went to Dubai, it scared me ****less trying to act 'normal' all the time, whatever 'normal' means in Dubai, that's it, but then I was in their country so I had to act accordingly and respect their laws.
> 
> They should do the same when they come here.
> 
> Get off the burka and get a bikini laidiiiiieeeeeeeeesssssssssss


To be fair kissing is banned in many countries. 

My wife has explained to that here in Ireland it and any other romantic contact are banned both in public and private .

She has adhered to this legislation throughout our marriage as she is very law abiding even to the point that she never even would risk a speeding ticket on her journey home most nights after working late at her bosses home.



Rabbitcat , back ( not) due to popular demand!


----------



## Lolito (Aug 25, 2012)

I feel for you...


----------



## Elyles (Aug 30, 2012)

Pesky Wesky said:


> Do you live off the grid?


By British standards we do. There is no hot sunny beach nearby.


----------



## Pesky Wesky (May 10, 2009)

Elyles said:


> By British standards we do. There is no hot sunny beach nearby.


A _wee_ bit of an exaggeration there on 2 counts. Living off grid means not using public utilities and it doesn't seem that you're anywhere near that. Cambio who lives in Extremadura or some of those who live in Maella and indeed a good few who live in the south are much more likely to be living off grid than someone in Jaca.
And you're right that many British people choose to live near a sunny beach after suffering years of rain, bitter temperatures and grey skies.
But many don't.
I live about as far away from a beach as you can get in Spain 

Generalisations, as you can tell, get my goat.


----------



## xabiaxica (Jun 23, 2009)

Elyles said:


> By British standards we do. There is no hot sunny beach nearby.


maybe that's an Americanism?


we'd say 'off the beaten track'


----------



## Elyles (Aug 30, 2012)

Pesky Wesky said:


> A _wee_ bit of an exaggeration there on 2 counts. Living off grid means not using public utilities and it doesn't seem that you're anywhere near that. Cambio who lives in Extremadura or some of those who live in Maella and indeed a good few who live in the south are much more likely to be living off grid than someone in Jaca.
> And you're right that many British people choose to live near a sunny beach after suffering years of rain, bitter temperatures and grey skies.
> But many don't.
> I live about as far away from a beach as you can get in Spain
> ...


T
Different cultures, different operational definitions. In the US Living off the grid can also mean living away from large commercialized areas. Entonces, they re both correct. And, when I talk about Brits, I generally exaggerate. Many Spanish love the beaches as well. In my case, I lived by the Atlantic, Pacific, Gulf of Mexico and the Sea of Japan as a youth. I fell in love with mountains as an adult.


----------



## xabiaxica (Jun 23, 2009)

We have quite a large muslim population here in Jávea, but I've never seen anyone in a burqa

most wear the hijab, & I've seen a couple wearing a niqab


last Saturday, when some of the participants in this weeks Moros (muslims) y Cristianos fiesta had a mini procession through the streets, it was interesting to see some women wearing hijabs following the parade

Last year there was a 'heated discussion' on a local fb group. Someone thought it dangerous to have such a religious parade 'in these times of terrorism'. She was shot down in flames - muslims & christians alike here accept it for what it is. A fiesta telling a story about a historical event - without any overt bad feeling on either side.


----------



## mrypg9 (Apr 26, 2008)

We are equidistant from quiet beaches and the foothills of the Sierra Bermeja.
From one side of the house we can see the sea. From the other we see mountains.

I grew up right by the sea, on the Dorset coast. I'm really happy to be spending my life near the sea now.


----------



## mrypg9 (Apr 26, 2008)

xabiachica said:


> We have quite a large muslim population here in Jávea, but I've never seen anyone in a burqa
> 
> most wear the hijab, & I've seen a couple wearing a niqab
> 
> ...


The local Spanish women's group, Pena Blanca, do a re-enactment of that kind here, repelling the Moors who attacked the town of Estepona about seven hundred years or more ago. I have been yet but apparently at some point in the proceedings the defenders, the Christians, pour liquid of some kind from the battlements of the old tower onto the heads of the attackers. I'm guessing it was boiling oil or pitch. No idea what they pour nowadays.
Whatever, it sounds like good fun and I'd like to take part.

W


----------



## Alcalaina (Aug 6, 2010)

I wonder how many centuries have to go by before such horrific and bloodthirsty events can be remembered and celebrated as "good fun"?

Still ploughing my way through La Mano de Fatima, it's all a bit too graphic in my mind at the moment.


----------



## xabiaxica (Jun 23, 2009)

mrypg9 said:


> The local Spanish women's group, Pena Blanca, do a re-enactment of that kind here, repelling the Moors who attacked the town of Estepona about seven hundred years or more ago. I have been yet but apparently at some point in the proceedings the defenders, the Christians, pour liquid of some kind from the battlements of the old tower onto the heads of the attackers. I'm guessing it was boiling oil or pitch. No idea what they pour nowadays.
> Whatever, it sounds like good fun and I'd like to take part.
> 
> W


I'm right in the middle of it this week. Last night the moors attacked the castle, tonight the christians will surrender & then tomorrow they'll take it back

Lots of noise, gunpowder & musket firing - the battles start on the beach & move around the streets

It's my favourite fiesta. The costumes are incredible - I have no idea how they wear them for so long in the heat & humidity. The main parades on Saturday & Sunday last a couple of hours

I love the music too.....not sure about the batukada we'll have at midnight tonight - I have work tomorrow...


----------



## Pesky Wesky (May 10, 2009)

Elyles said:


> T
> Different cultures, different operational definitions. In the US Living off the grid can also mean living away from large commercialized areas. Entonces, they re both correct. And, when I talk about Brits, I generally exaggerate. Many Spanish love the beaches as well. In my case, I lived by the Atlantic, Pacific, Gulf of Mexico and the Sea of Japan as a youth. I fell in love with mountains as an adult.


Me too!
We've been out to Navacerrada and Boca del Asno today


----------



## bob_bob (Jan 5, 2011)

That looks beautiful.


----------



## Pesky Wesky (May 10, 2009)

bob_bob said:


> That looks beautiful.


Yes, it is and it was a lot cooler there under the trees, next to the river and at approx 1500m, which was the all important reason for going there.
It's very easy to find too. From Madrid go to Navacerrada, a nearby ski resort, go straight on towards La Granja which is also very well known for its palace, gardens and Parador hotel. This is on the way to Segovia and before you get there you find Boca del Asno on the left. It's very busy at the weekends, but if you walk away from the car park and turn either right or left you can take a wonderful walk along the river (to the left a more difficult path) with relatively few people and during the week like today, very few.


----------



## Pesky Wesky (May 10, 2009)

Lynn R said:


> I don't think people (any people) should be allowed to cover their faces in public either - but have YOU ever seen anyone wearing a burqua in Benalmádena (or anywhere else in Spain)?


I haven't, but I don't doubt that there are places where women can be seen wearing them in Spain. There aren't many, but then there just aren't the numbers of Islamic immigration in Spain that there are in other countries. That doesn't mean that the government shouldn't be making legislation about it though. My beef was that our local government made a big song and dance about zero tolerance, and we are the party who's going to make sure this is outlawed here, when there just hasn't been a need for it. It was an easy thing to put into place and to make them look trendy and bold.

Around here you might see a hijab, al-amira and possibly a khimar. I didn't know there were so many different types. I'll have to look closer when I'm in the pueblo.

BBC - Religions - Islam: Niqab


----------



## 95995 (May 16, 2010)

mrypg9 said:


> Orthodox Islam and Judaism both have dietary laws relating to the slaughter of animals for human consumption which require the killing of the animal to be performed as a religious rite, involving the slitting of the animal's throat whist it is alive and sentient and then literally drained of all blood.
> That's why religious Jews and Muslims will buy only from kosher or halal butchers.
> 
> Most people involved in animal welfare, those like me who are carnivores, regard this practice as cruel ad inhumane. In non-religious abattoirs animals are stunned before being killed.


Why not ban industrial raising of farm animals altogether? Why not go vegan? Have you visited an abattoir? Have you seen the atrocities performed in abattoirs that are circulated on the internet? What about non-free range poultry? What about industrial pig farming? It's all incredibly cruel and inhuman and much of it more so than the ritual slaughters. Do you really believe that non-religious abattoirs stun all animals before slaughtering them and what do you think those animals have to go through prior to the stunning? And what about live animal exports? What about the conditions in which stock have to travel to the slaughterhouse? And on and on ...


----------



## 95995 (May 16, 2010)

> Originally Posted by Lolito View Post
> 
> Well done. I couldn't even kiss my husband or hold hands with him when I went to Dubai, it scared me ****less trying to act 'normal' all the time, whatever 'normal' means in Dubai, that's it, but then I was in their country so I had to act accordingly and respect their laws.
> 
> ...


You do realise, of course, that during the 60s it was not permissible in Spain to kiss in public?

On the matter of burqas etc - you are living in a country where a great many people are of Muslim descent (even those that aren't aware of it). Also the Moors contributed hugely to Spain. That possibly influence the Spanish views of Islam.


----------



## bob_bob (Jan 5, 2011)

Elyles said:


> T
> Different cultures, different operational definitions. In the US Living off the grid can also mean living away from large commercialized areas. Entonces, they re both correct. And, when I talk about Brits, I generally exaggerate. Many Spanish love the beaches as well. In my case, I lived by the Atlantic, Pacific, Gulf of Mexico and the Sea of Japan as a youth. I fell in love with mountains as an adult.


Sorry chap, off grid is off grid whether in the USA or the UK, if you are OFF GRID certainly in terms of mains electricity, more often than not mains gas and usually water you are 'off grid'. Anything else you are just playing at it. The only 'off grid' in my UK home is my radio shack which is now powered via solar panels and two small wind genies, coupled to deep cycle batteries, inverters and an LED lighting system.


----------



## Anciana (Jul 14, 2014)

Burquas are, unfortunately, very common in Sweden. So it is very visible how huge an influx of conservative muslims from the Middle east and North Africa has been to that country. Sweden accepted the most immigrants per capita of all European countries, until last fall, when 185 000 so called refugees entered Sweden amd Sweden's institutions (immigration, housing, schools) crashed or nearly crashed trying to absorb them, so imigration policy became more restrictive, But banning burquas? It would be called racism. Not thinkable there.


----------



## rspltd (Jul 5, 2016)

"you are living in a country where a great many people are of Muslim descent" If some one is a Muslim it is because they are a follower of Islam and a believer in that religion. They are not members of a race or people and therefore cannot be descendants.


----------



## Lolito (Aug 25, 2012)

It's 2016. Not 1960.


----------



## 95995 (May 16, 2010)

Lolito said:


> It's 2016. Not 1960.


I know that - just pointing out that there's some potential hipocrisy in your comment, especially since there are lots of traditions in Spain not followed by everyone but that have ancient roots. 

You moved to the UAE, I'm sure you knew at the time what the situation was regarding acceptable and legal behaviour there. You had difficulty dealing with it, despite not having a centuries-long tradition, let alone one based on religious belief.

What's actually so wrong with wearing a niqab?


----------



## mrypg9 (Apr 26, 2008)

EverHopeful said:


> You do realise, of course, that during the 60s it was not permissible in Spain to kiss in public?
> 
> On the matter of burqas etc - you are living in a country where a great many people are of Muslim descent (even those that aren't aware of it). Also the Moors contributed hugely to Spain. That possibly influence the Spanish views of Islam.


 What was acceptable back in the 1960s relating to public behaviour under a dictatorship has no relation to what is allowed by law in Dubai in 2016, though.

I can't see why the fact that there was Muslim colonisation of Spain seven hundred years ago should affect attitudes today.

The Vikings colonised England in the tenth and eleventh centuries but I don't see men wandering around wearing those helmets with horns in Basildon....

I am no great fan of multi-culturalism. I think it was a huge mistake certainly in the UK and has contributed to some of the problems we now face. We should be looking at living together in one community, not side by side in our own cultural communities.
Of course that doesn't mean you stop being a Muslim, Jew, homosexual etc. but imo we should focus on what we have in common, not the relatively superficial things that divide us.
There is still a 'core' British culture, even though it may be shifting, hard to define, localised even. After all, we Brits say how delighted we are to have the opportunity to experience Spanish culture. If we had no culture of our own, how could we possibly see a difference when we come to Spain?


----------



## mrypg9 (Apr 26, 2008)

EverHopeful said:


> I know that - just pointing out that there's some potential hipocrisy in your comment, especially since there are lots of traditions in Spain not followed by everyone but that have ancient roots.
> 
> You moved to the UAE, I'm sure you knew at the time what the situation was regarding acceptable and legal behaviour there. You had difficulty dealing with it, despite not having a centuries-long tradition, let alone one based on religious belief.
> 
> What's actually so wrong with wearing a niqab?


What's wrong with women wearing shorts?
Answer: culturally unacceptable in Dubai, Saudi etc.
Fair enough. Observe the customs or don't go there.

It is unacceptable in western culture to cover the face in most social situations. If you don't like Western habits, stay in your own Islamic culture where you can cover your face.

Why double standards?


----------



## mrypg9 (Apr 26, 2008)

EverHopeful said:


> I know that - just pointing out that there's some potential hipocrisy in your comment, especially since there are lots of traditions in Spain not followed by everyone but that have ancient roots.


There are differences between traditions, cultures and laws, though.


----------



## mrypg9 (Apr 26, 2008)

EverHopeful said:


> Why not ban industrial raising of farm animals altogether? Why not go vegan? Have you visited an abattoir? Have you seen the atrocities performed in abattoirs that are circulated on the internet? What about non-free range poultry? What about industrial pig farming? It's all incredibly cruel and inhuman and much of it more so than the ritual slaughters. Do you really believe that non-religious abattoirs stun all animals before slaughtering them and what do you think those animals have to go through prior to the stunning? And what about live animal exports? What about the conditions in which stock have to travel to the slaughterhouse? And on and on ...


Yes to all of that which is why I very rarely eat meat and am getting to the point where I shall soon not be eating it at all.


----------



## Lynn R (Feb 21, 2014)

I would like to think that in Europe we make our laws for sound reasons, ie that an act is harmfulor potentially harmful to others (killing, violence, theft,public disorder etc) rather than "if we can't do xx in their country, then they can't do xx in ours". That would just be petty and spiteful.

As I've said, in my opinion nobody should go around in public with their faces covered, for any reason, be it because of religion, because it's a cold day, because they're a motorcylist who has just got off their bike, etc. That is because I think it's a potential security risk if people cannot be readily identified. It even makes me uncomfortable that the police, in some circumstances, can work with their faces obscured. I understand the reasons for that, but I also think that it could lead to a situation where, for example, unreasonable force can be used without the officer being able to be identified.

However, it has been clarified that as the law stands in Spain burquas may be worn in the street but not in public places such as courts, schools, etc. 

My view of religious or cultural practices is that they should be allowed up to the point where they come into conflict with the law of the land, and at that point the law of the land must always take precedence.


----------



## 95995 (May 16, 2010)

mrypg9 said:


> What was acceptable back in the 1960s relating to public behaviour under a dictatorship has no relation to what is allowed by law in Dubai in 2016, though.
> 
> I can't see why the fact that there was Muslim colonisation of Spain seven hundred years ago should affect attitudes today.
> 
> ...


Well, the matter of kissing in public being unacceptable had nothing to do with Franco, it was cultural (although admittedly I don't know whether there were actual laws forbidding it - I suspect not).

I find it very interesting that you refer to Franco's dictatorship, given that it was Franco who really opened Spain up to international tourism and residency. And it was Franco who ensured that after his death Spain would be a democratic monarchy (interesting BTW how fascism is often linked to a desire to return to a monarchy).

Ceuta is still occupied by Spain although IMO it should really be part of Morocco (much like Gibraltar is still occupied by the UK although it should really be a part of Spain) - do you really think there hasn't been inter-marriage and that those people haven't relocated to Spain?

And the Brits have effectively colonised many areas of Spain, bringing with them their own culture, albeit far removed from Spanish culture. 

And how many Brits living in Spain do you know who have a reasonable command of the language or who don't maintain their British traditions?

(I'm a fan of multi-culturalism of the sort that sees people living side by side in harmony, i.e. playing the same tune but not necessarily the same instruments or the same notes.)


----------



## 95995 (May 16, 2010)

mrypg9 said:


> What's wrong with women wearing shorts?
> Answer: culturally unacceptable in Dubai, Saudi etc.
> Fair enough. Observe the customs or don't go there.
> 
> ...


I was actually just looking for a rational reply D) on the niqab issue (albeit they don't worry me at all - I lived on Australia's Gold Coast and we had a great many niqab-wearing visitors from the UAE). 

But I would definitely seriously ask what is wrong with the hijab? 

Oh, show me a country or a sub-society where there are no double standards  What's that saying? "Do as I say, not as I do"


----------



## 95995 (May 16, 2010)

rspltd said:


> "you are living in a country where a great many people are of Muslim descent" If some one is a Muslim it is because they are a follower of Islam and a believer in that religion. They are not members of a race or people and therefore cannot be descendants.


Of course they can be descendants - descendancy has nothing to do with race.


----------



## 95995 (May 16, 2010)

Someone said something about it not being appropriate to cover the face in public (can't find the post). That person has clearly never lived north of Madrid or in the Pyrenees where, depending on the harshness of the winter, it's often necessary to cover the face to stave off the cold. Long ago I spent some time in Avila in winter - I couldn't have survived if I hadn't been able to cover my face with my scarf (oh, and I've done the same in the UK) and of course if you are in the upper regions of the Pyrenees in winter you're going to cover your face. BTW is a helmeted motorcyclist travelling along a road no longer in a public place? Of course, entering a public building is an entirely different matter.


----------



## mrypg9 (Apr 26, 2008)

EverHopeful said:


> Well, the matter of kissing in public being unacceptable had nothing to do with Franco, it was cultural (although admittedly I don't know whether there were actual laws forbidding it - I suspect not).
> 
> I find it very interesting that you refer to Franco's dictatorship, given that it was Franco who really opened Spain up to international tourism and residency. And it was Franco who ensured that after his death Spain would be a democratic monarchy (interesting BTW how fascism is often linked to a desire to return to a monarchy).
> 
> ...


'Playing the same tune but not necessarily the same instruments or the same notes' produces disharmony and discord which is precisely my point about multi-culti.

Franco....I think it a stretch of the imagination to think Franco expected Spain to become a democratic open society after his death. In fact I'd go so far as to say that that was the last thing he wanted. Paul Preston's biographies of Franco and his 'heir' Juan Carlos are quite explicit on that point.

What opened up Spain was the Cold War, which because of the fear of Communism across the border in Spain led Eisenhower, then U.S. President, to abandon the persona non grata policy towards Spain in order to get Franco to allow the setting up of U.S. nuclear bases on Spanish soil.

Ceuta is not 'occupied' by Spain, neither is Gibraltar 'occupied' by Britain. Gibraltar was ceded to Britain under the terms of the Treaty of Utrecht. The citizens of Gibraltar have demonstrated in elections and plebiscites that they wish to remain British. I have no idea what the citizens of Ceuta think about their relation to Spain.


Nearly all the Brits I know in Spain speak either good or fluent Spanish. We don't know that many Brits but those we do know have lived here for many decades, some came before Franco died.


----------



## mrypg9 (Apr 26, 2008)

EverHopeful said:


> Of course they can be descendants - descendancy has nothing to do with race.


Neither has religion.


----------



## mrypg9 (Apr 26, 2008)

EverHopeful said:


> I was actually just looking for a rational reply D) on the niqab issue (albeit they don't worry me at all - I lived on Australia's Gold Coast and we had a great many niqab-wearing visitors from the UAE).
> 
> But I would definitely seriously ask what is wrong with the hijab?
> 
> Oh, show me a country or a sub-society where there are no double standards  What's that saying? "Do as I say, not as I do"


No-one has said there is anything 'wrong' with the hijab . What has been said by some posters is that it is inappropriate and culturally unacceptable for the face to be totally covered in some public places. Covering the face with anything, hoodie, helmet, hijab whatever is unacceptable in many public places and not only in Spain.

As for the existence everywhere of double standards...I don't get the point you're making. The point of this thread is that covering the face with burqua etc. is banned by law. Double standards are irrelevant. People steal...is that an argument for abolishing the laws against theft , just because the law is often broken?


----------



## xabiaxica (Jun 23, 2009)

mrypg9 said:


> No-one has said there is anything 'wrong' with the hijab . What has been said by some posters is that it is inappropriate and culturally unacceptable for the face to be totally covered in some public places. Covering the face with anything, hoodie, helmet, hijab whatever is unacceptable in many public places and not only in Spain.
> 
> As for the existence everywhere of double standards...I don't get the point you're making. The point of this thread is that covering the face with burqua etc. is banned by law. Double standards are irrelevant. People steal...is that an argument for abolishing the laws against theft , just because the law is often broken?


come to think of it - istr that most public & private buildings with public access in London insist that motorcycle couriers remove their helmets before entering the building for security reasons - at least they did when I worked there

the requirement to remove a burqa (or niqab) would be for the same reason


----------



## 95995 (May 16, 2010)

mrypg9 said:


> 'Playing the same tune but not necessarily the same instruments or the same notes' produces disharmony and discord which is precisely my point about multi-culti.
> 
> Franco....I think it a stretch of the imagination to think Franco expected Spain to become a democratic open society after his death. In fact I'd go so far as to say that that was the last thing he wanted. Paul Preston's biographies of Franco and his 'heir' Juan Carlos are quite explicit on that point.
> 
> ...


Your views and Paul Preston's. 

I remember the period extremely well and was still corresponding with my Spanish friends at the time. 

I suspect you know very well that there are a great many Brits living in Spain who don't speak the language - there are indeed some on this forum.


----------



## 95995 (May 16, 2010)

mrypg9 said:


> No-one has said there is anything 'wrong' with the hijab . What has been said by some posters is that it is inappropriate and culturally unacceptable for the face to be totally covered in some public places. Covering the face with anything, hoodie, helmet, hijab whatever is unacceptable in many public places and not only in Spain.
> 
> As for the existence everywhere of double standards...I don't get the point you're making. The point of this thread is that covering the face with burqua etc. is banned by law. Double standards are irrelevant. People steal...is that an argument for abolishing the laws against theft , just because the law is often broken?


I'm not arguing with the law and I suspect you're well aware of that. Wearing the Burqa anywhere in public has been banned for some time in France.


----------



## 95995 (May 16, 2010)

mrypg9 said:


> neither has religion.


ffs


----------



## Alcalaina (Aug 6, 2010)

Some interesting points on this thread.

In my view, banning things rarely has the desired effect. If women feel more comfortable wearing burqas or hijabs or see-through tops or whatever, let them. If they are being _coerced_ into doing so, however, that's where legislation is needed. Likewise if it's interfering with their job. It's quite clear you can't teach a class or give evidence in court, for example, if your face is covered because people may need to read your lips or see your facial expression.

Halal slaughter is IMO no better or worse than modern abbatoir techniques. What I do object to is the distance animals have to travel beforehand, often in desperately bad conditions. I remember seeing sheep-ships in Perth, WA, animals crammed in like sardines awaiting a six-week journey to the Middle East because they couldn't slaughter them in Australia and export the meat. It was against the halal rules. I don't know if this still goes on.


----------



## 95995 (May 16, 2010)

Alcalaina said:


> Some interesting points on this thread.
> 
> In my view, banning things rarely has the desired effect. If women feel more comfortable wearing burqas or hijabs or see-through tops or whatever, let them. If they are being _coerced_ into doing so, however, that's where legislation is needed. Likewise if it's interfering with their job. It's quite clear you can't teach a class or give evidence in court, for example, if your face is covered because people may need to read your lips or see your facial expression.
> 
> Halal slaughter is IMO no better or worse than modern abbatoir techniques. What I do object to is the distance animals have to travel beforehand, often in desperately bad conditions. I remember seeing sheep-ships in Perth, WA, animals crammed in like sardines awaiting a six-week journey to the Middle East because they couldn't slaughter them in Australia and export the meat. It was against the halal rules. I don't know if this still goes on.


There is still live export between Australia and Asia and there are huge issues with it (it's absolutely disgusting and it's not just the trucking to the port and shipping to Asia, it's the way the animals are treated once there - there have been absolutely shocking images filmed by an NGO in Singapore. It's an absolute furphy that they can't do the halal slaughter in Australia - it can certainly be done and not affect the halal standard of the meat, although certainly Singapore does apply significant pressure.


----------



## jimenato (Nov 21, 2009)

Although I find the hijab can be quite fetching I don't like seeing women in burqas and niqabs - I find them sinister and disturbing. 

However I see that as my problem not theirs - there are quite a few styles women wear that I'm not keen on for various reasons.

I could not justify banning them or any other item of clothing on grounds of taste or of a need to adopt the fashion standards of the host country. 

I can see that certain clothing styles might be banned or discouraged on grounds of decency in various countries and cultures but these face-coverings to not fall into that category.

I would ban any face-covering (including hoodies, balaclavas, burqa, niqab, motor-cycle helmets and anything else that makes identification difficult) in certain circumstances. 

These circumstances would include public buildings, schools, government offices and the like, also all public transport. This has nothing to do with muslims or anything like that - it's just a matter of public safety.

For private buildings (shops, banks, company premises of all sorts) that is entirely up to the proprietor.

As for wearing these things walking along the street - I think I would still ban them on grounds of security but I'm open to discussion on that one.

ETA - with the obvious exception that if it's cold, a scarf is acceptable.


----------



## Pesky Wesky (May 10, 2009)

By coincidence I've just seen a petition which gives us a different angle on this

_The Swiss region of Ticino just approved with 65% of votes the ban on publicly wearing a niqab or burka, under a fine of up to 10,000 euros. This ban condemns Muslim women who wear these clothes to live locked up at home, because of the great risk of being subjected to an unbearable economic penalty.

Even if it's considered that the niqab or the burka are degrading to women, the prohibition of these clothes and the imposing of fines it’s not the right solution to help Muslim women to freely decide their clothing. The prosecution and fines involve the disappearance of these women from public life, preventing them to access basic services such as health care and education.

_As somebody said, a ban is rarely a solution to a problem, and I can see that banning certain types of clothing wouldn't set these woman free, as the above states.

Banning people from covering faces is just not workable. I think it's a sad reflection on the society we live in to think that I couldn't bundle up on a foul day in Yorkshire for example, or Teruel


----------



## xabiaxica (Jun 23, 2009)

Interestingly, I was talking about this with my 20 year old daughter a few days ago.

She has several friends who have been raised muslim, both male & female.

Most of the mothers don't wear even a hijab, though one always has done so, but the now adult daughters have never been pressured into wearing neither hijab nor niqab.

The mother who has always worn a hijab, has recently started to wear the niqab. Totally her free choice, no pressure from her husband at all. 

If that was totally outlawed, she'd probably go back to the hijab, but I can see the point made in Switzerland.

That said, I can also see why wearers could be asked to remove them for security reasons in some circumstances


----------



## 95995 (May 16, 2010)

Agree - it should be about safety and about being reasonable.


----------



## jimenato (Nov 21, 2009)

If you could be absolutely certain that it was a Muslim woman wearing these things it wouldn't matter quite so much.


----------



## mrypg9 (Apr 26, 2008)

Pesky Wesky said:


> By coincidence I've just seen a petition which gives us a different angle on this
> 
> _The Swiss region of Ticino just approved with 65% of votes the ban on publicly wearing a niqab or burka, under a fine of up to 10,000 euros. This ban condemns Muslim women who wear these clothes to live locked up at home, because of the great risk of being subjected to an unbearable economic penalty.
> 
> ...


Banning people from covering their faces is already standard practice in some places, as I think Lynn or Xavia pointed out. In some cases it's for security reasons, in others such as in law courts or the practice of some jobs or professions it's necessary to be able to see a person's face.
The law in Spain seems to have achieved a reasonable balance. 

Nobody on this thread has said the wearing of the burqa should be banned full stop. If women want to go about covered up like that for cultural or religious reasons they should be able to do so subject to the current laws.
But I don't think it reasonable for any observant Muslim or anyone objecting on their behalf to object to such a law in a western society. Clothing and other habits can be adopted for cultural/traditional or religious reasons and it's interesting to note that often the most enthusiastic wearers of the burqa and upholding of strict religious practice in general are western converts to Islam.

I often wonder why we refer to whole societies as 'Muslim' when 99% of those put under that label may never set foot in a mosque or even be atheists. After all we rarely refer to British people as Christians . 

Banning things does actually work.....all sorts of things are banned...carrying knives in public, selling heroin, cocaine, etc., extreme pornography, selling alcohol to under eighteen year olds.
Murder and theft are 'banned'. 
Doesn't stop people from selling drugs, putting porn on the internet, stealing etc. but we wouldn't feel secure without some things being banned and a ban does indicate a degree of public disapproval..
It depends what you're banning. Selling marijuana is 'banned' i.e. illegal in most countries as is the trade in Class A drugs generally. That is a ban that perhaps should be reviewed for all sorts of reasons.

I've already said I rarely eat meat as there is so much cruelty involved in its production. I also find all blood sports vile and disgusting including bullfighting.
**** sapiens is an animal species the same as other animals.


----------



## mrypg9 (Apr 26, 2008)

What about balaclavas?


----------



## Pesky Wesky (May 10, 2009)

mrypg9 said:


> The law in Spain seems to have achieved a reasonable balance.
> 
> 
> Nobody on this thread has said the wearing of the burqa should be banned full stop. If women want to go about covered up like that for cultural or religious reasons they should be able to do so subject to the current laws.
> ...


 lll


----------



## mrypg9 (Apr 26, 2008)

​


Pesky Wesky said:


> lll


Yes, there was discussion of religious and other slaughtering practices and a poster, bob bob I think it was, brought up shooting and bullfighting.

True, banning carrying knives, pornography etc hasn't worked . Ditto sale and use of drugs.
But does that mean that the ban on carrying knives, carrying firearms, selling alcohol to minors,child pornography, drug selling etc. should be lifted just because these things take place in spite of the ban?

I think there's a case to be made for lifting the ban on sale and use of drugs. It seems to be working in Portugal.


Banning the burqa altogether seems rather illiberal. I don't like seeing women dressed like that but it's their choice presumably and many people might object n occasion to my choice of clothing.....am I too old to wear shorts in public?
Perhaps on grounds of taste and aesthetics...


----------



## Lynn R (Feb 21, 2014)

mrypg9 said:


> Banning the burqa altogether seems rather illiberal. I don't like seeing women dressed like that but it's their choice presumably and many people might object n occasion to my choice of clothing.....am I too old to wear shorts in public?
> Perhaps on grounds of taste and aesthetics...


If we took to banning wearing apparel on grounds of taste and aesthetics (I'd have a list as long as your arm) we would probably end up with a situation where both sexes had to wear the burqua at all times, because everything else would offend the sensibilities of somebody or other.


----------



## therese1 (Jan 28, 2016)

EverHopeful said:


> Well, the matter of kissing in public being unacceptable had nothing to do with Franco, it was cultural (although admittedly I don't know whether there were actual laws forbidding it - I suspect not).
> 
> I find it very interesting that you refer to Franco's dictatorship, given that it was Franco who really opened Spain up to international tourism and residency. And it was Franco who ensured that after his death Spain would be a democratic monarchy (interesting BTW how fascism is often linked to a desire to return to a monarchy).
> 
> ...


Your points are really interesting. There is much hypocrisy.
I object though to the garb muslim women wear because there are no similar rules on men covering up. And, the subservience and subjugation of women appears to be a cornerstone of current interpretations of Islamic faith. There are women trying to go about their daily business with their faces covered, with a mesh type thing across the eyes, and spectacles worn over that.
It is not untypical to see a man in vest and shorts in very hot weather, accompanied by a woman covered from head to toe, literally. It prevents children seeing and feeling their mothers, unable to read expressions etc.
In saying that it would be up to women themselves to abandon this form of dress, many have, and remain devout muslims.
There is a brilliant documentary on the banning of the veil in France. I defy anyone to watch it and not sympathise with the wearers. They were persecuted at school, suffered discrimination in the workplace, and the ban brought all the crackpot racists out into the open to accost women in the street and pull the veils away. (Similar has happened in UK post-brexit.)
I would favour the hearts and mind campaign over a definitive ban. 
And would be very wary of equating anything Islamic with terrorism as the odious creep Kelvin McKenzie did with the change 4 news anchor who wore the veil. I expect she will win substantial damages should she take him to litigation.


----------



## Roy C (Sep 29, 2012)

I think the European. Parliament should ban the wearing of the burqa throughout Europe in public places for a number of reasons, security, cultural and women's rights. I'm not sure if Turkey would still be wanting to join us though.


----------



## 95995 (May 16, 2010)

Roy C said:


> I think the European. Parliament should ban the wearing of the burqa throughout Europe in public places for a number of reasons, security, cultural and women's rights. I'm not sure if Turkey would still be wanting to join us though.


I'm not sure that this is a matter the EU Parliament can, or even should, deal with. As far as cultural reasons go, it's worth noting that different EU countries take differing views of multi-culturalism (eg. Germany low-key, France very much towards assimilation rather than integration with the view that you can practice whatever religion you wish but that it should be in private not public) and there is not a common culture across Europe. As far as women's rights are concerned, I believe there is an earlier post on this which suggests that banning does little or nothing to improve women's rights.

Given current circumstances, IMO it's highly unlikely that Turkey would be accepted as an EU member for at least another decade (Turkey is not a member, it's had an application in for decades and has an extremely limited trade agreement with the EU).


----------



## Roy C (Sep 29, 2012)

Just to add to my original post and to be fair and equal all head and face coverings should be banned in public places. Like full face motor cycle helmets when not being used on a bike etc.


----------



## Alcalaina (Aug 6, 2010)

EverHopeful said:


> There is still live export between Australia and Asia and there are huge issues with it (it's absolutely disgusting and it's not just the trucking to the port and shipping to Asia, it's the way the animals are treated once there - there have been absolutely shocking images filmed by an NGO in Singapore. It's an absolute furphy that they can't do the halal slaughter in Australia - it can certainly be done and not affect the halal standard of the meat, although certainly Singapore does apply significant pressure.


Thank you for that (somewhat distressing) update. I can still remember the sound coming from those ships, even though they were moored some way from the quay. It haunts my worst nightmares.


----------



## Alcalaina (Aug 6, 2010)

jimenato said:


> I would ban any face-covering (including hoodies, balaclavas, burqa, niqab, motor-cycle helmets and anything else that makes identification difficult) in certain circumstances.


Including these? Might not go down too well in Spain.


----------



## Alcalaina (Aug 6, 2010)

Roy C said:


> I think the European. Parliament should ban the wearing of the burqa throughout Europe in public places for a number of reasons, security, cultural and women's rights. I'm not sure if Turkey would still be wanting to join us though.


This is beyond the remit of the EU. And very few women in Turkey wear burkhas. Even the hijab was banned until 2013. Turkey is officially a secular state.


----------



## jimenato (Nov 21, 2009)

Alcalaina said:


> Including these? Might not go down too well in Spain.


The 'certain circumstances' bit of my post is relevant. 

They're OK in their place I suppose but If I were the owner of a jewellery shop or a junior school headteacher or a bus driver I would be worried about men wearing those things.


----------



## mrypg9 (Apr 26, 2008)

EverHopeful said:


> Your views and Paul Preston's.
> 
> I remember the period extremely well and was still corresponding with my Spanish friends at the time.
> 
> I suspect you know very well that there are a great many Brits living in Spain who don't speak the language - there are indeed some on this forum.




I'm no expert. Paul Preston is, ditto Ian Gibson and other scholars. I'll take their opinion. I remember that time well too. In 1967 I spent an interesting summer driving around Spain from the east, across to Madrid and up the west coast. Franco's power was very apparent. I got arrested in Ciudad Real for alleged 'dangerous driving' and got a hefty fine.

Of course I 'know very well' that a great many, perhaps most, Brits in Spain don't speak Spanish. I met a couple at a dinner I was invited to last night. But, with respect, you asked how many I knew who spoke no Spanish and who kept British ways...and I answered you: very few. But that's my experience.

There's several points raised in these posts but it seems we all agree that whatever the garment or object that obscures the face, it should be removed in certain places and contexts for various good reasons and this is in fact the current status of law in Spain.

Then there's the issue of whether the entire burqa should be banned and some countries seem to be doing this or are considering doing so. My view is that once you start banning certain forms of dress for either sex you are on a very slippery slope indeed. I read somewhere that in some UK theme parks Speedos are banned, swim shorts must be worn on grounds of 'public decency'. I read that in such places in France, it's the opposite, for health and safety reasons. My view is that the 'allowing' of the wearing of Speedos should depend entirely on the physical shape of the wearer. Try formulating a law on that!

Then there's the issue of whether the burqa is a factor in female oppression. If it's forced on the wearer as I'm sure it often is by their patriarchal culture, then it is. If they choose to wear it if their own free will, it isn't. 

As someone said, an item of clothing has got mixed up in a debate about other not really related issues...We have enough problems already without adding superfluous fuel to an already burning fire.

Spain imo has got it right. But I have a feeling it might not end here.


----------



## mrypg9 (Apr 26, 2008)

jimenato said:


> The 'certain circumstances' bit of my post is relevant.
> 
> They're OK in their place I suppose but If I were the owner of a jewellery shop or a junior school headteacher or a bus driver I would be worried about men wearing those things.


Those garments, odd and sinister as they might appear to a Spanish non-Catholic, are an essential part of Spanish culture, or a part of it. They are ceremonial, not items of everyday wear.

Ditto Islamic religious clothing as regards culture but that is an item of everyday wear for women in many Islamic countries.

And in liberal societies there are few restrictions on religious clothing of any kind. 
I don't think those Spanish guys would be allowed to parade like that along the highways and byways of Mecca. But those societies make no claim to being liberal.

Incidentally, has anyone been around a Gay Pride event and come across the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence? 'Nuns' on roller skates?


----------



## mrypg9 (Apr 26, 2008)




----------



## jimenato (Nov 21, 2009)

mrypg9 said:


> Those garments, odd and sinister as they might appear to a Spanish non-Catholic, are an essential part of Spanish culture, or a part of it. They are ceremonial, not items of everyday wear.
> 
> Ditto Islamic religious clothing as regards culture but that is an item of everyday wear for women in many Islamic countries.
> 
> ...


Quite. There are circumstances and occasions when that sort of thing is acceptable. That's not the same as wearing a disguising face covering as everyday clothing. 

So... motorcycle helmets on a motorcycle, scarf on a cold day, silly costume in an Easter parade and so on. 

Worn at other times these items are suspect.


----------



## Alcalaina (Aug 6, 2010)

I think if western society has got to the point where people are nervous if they can't see someone's face, the issue goes well beyond what people should or shouldn't be allowed to wear. This indicates a culture of fear. The next stage is allowing people to carry arms.

I'll stay here in my little Andalusian bubble, thanks very much.


----------



## 95995 (May 16, 2010)

Alcalaina said:


> I think if western society has got to the point where people are nervous if they can't see someone's face, the issue goes well beyond what people should or shouldn't be allowed to wear. This indicates a culture of fear. The next stage is allowing people to carry arms.
> 
> I'll stay here in my little Andalusian bubble, thanks very much.


I completely agree.


----------



## Pesky Wesky (May 10, 2009)

mrypg9 said:


> Spain imo has got it right. But I have a feeling it might not end here.


Yes, and I think it's as well to remind people of what Spain has actually done.
From the link that Lynn gave...
_



El Gobierno ha decidido prohibir el uso del velo integral en lugares públicos. La medida, que veta el burka —que tapa incluso los ojos con una rejilla— y el niqab —que oculta todo el cuerpo menos los ojos—, es de ámbito reducido y solo afectará a los medios de transporte, enseñanza, sanidad y edificios oficiales. Las mujeres que persistan en llevarlo allí podrán ser multadas con 405 euros. En la práctica, el Ejecutivo, de centro izquierda, calcula que se impondrán pocas sanciones porque apenas un centenar de mujeres llevan burka en el país; no ha dado datos de cuántas utilizan niqab.

Click to expand...

_So, the burka and niqab cannot be worn on public transport, in educational centres, health centres and in public buildings, but it can be worn in some shops, in the street, in the market... Interesting that the article also states what many of us have said; that very few women wear the burka in Spain anyway_.
_


----------



## Pesky Wesky (May 10, 2009)

Alcalaina said:


> I think if western society has got to the point where people are nervous if they can't see someone's face, the issue goes well beyond what people should or shouldn't be allowed to wear. This indicates a culture of fear. The next stage is allowing people to carry arms.
> 
> I'll stay here in my little Andalusian bubble, thanks very much.


Yep, I said the same earlier on.


----------



## Pesky Wesky (May 10, 2009)

mrypg9 said:


> As someone said, an item of clothing has got mixed up in a debate about other not really related issues...We have enough problems already without adding superfluous fuel to an already burning fire.


But is it really possible to separate the issues?


----------



## jimenato (Nov 21, 2009)

Alcalaina said:


> I think if western society has got to the point where people are nervous if they can't see someone's face, the issue goes well beyond what people should or shouldn't be allowed to wear. This indicates a culture of fear. The next stage is allowing people to carry arms.
> 
> I'll stay here in my little Andalusian bubble, thanks very much.


For me it's not about being nervous or a culture of fear, it's simply public safety. 

You aren't allowed to wear some items under some circumstances (motorcycle helmets in banks for instance) for good reasons. These face-coverings fall into that category for the same reasons.

BTW you, of all of us, should know better than to invoke The Slippery Slope Fallacy.


----------



## mrypg9 (Apr 26, 2008)

Pesky Wesky said:


> But is it really possible to separate the issues?


Dare I say...for thoughtful people, yes. But the media, understandably, reports events as they occur and then depending on editorial stance imposes its colouring.

Some people suppose Islam =terrorism therefore any outward signs of that faith such as the burqa for women, beards and long tunic things for men, imply Islamofascism.

When I see Hassidic Jews leaving a synagogue in Stamford Hill I don't assume automatically they are potential Zionist militants. I don't assume that people leaving a church after Holy Mass are going to picket abortion clinics.

I think it's the job of a responsible Government to inform and educate opinion on this issue.
But the Brexit debate with its irresponsible scaremongering about seventy million Muslim Turks arriving in Europe didn't hep, did it....


----------



## AllHeart (Nov 22, 2013)

mrypg9 said:


> I'm no expert. Paul Preston is, ditto Ian Gibson and other scholars. I'll take their opinion. I remember that time well too. In 1967 I spent an interesting summer driving around Spain from the east, across to Madrid and up the west coast. Franco's power was very apparent. I got arrested in Ciudad Real for alleged 'dangerous driving' and got a hefty fine.
> 
> Of course I 'know very well' that a great many, perhaps most, Brits in Spain don't speak Spanish. I met a couple at a dinner I was invited to last night. But, with respect, you asked how many I knew who spoke no Spanish and who kept British ways...and I answered you: very few. But that's my experience.
> 
> ...


I can imagine a poster campaign with a referendum vote. It would go something like this...

Yes - Ban the Speedo! Campaign Leader - Borat.









No - Don't ban the Speedo! Campaign Leader - Daniel Craig.


----------



## 95995 (May 16, 2010)

AllHeart said:


> I can imagine a poster campaign with a referendum vote. It would go something like this...
> 
> Yes - Ban the Speedo! Campaign Leader - Borat.
> 
> ...


Ban the budgie smuggler


----------



## mrypg9 (Apr 26, 2008)

AllHeart said:


> I can imagine a poster campaign with a referendum vote. It would go something like this...
> 
> Yes - Ban the Speedo! Campaign Leader - Borat.
> 
> ...


Borat is wearing a 'mankini'.. Can one actually buy these awful garments?

Strictly speaking, Daniel C isn't wearing Speedos.. It's just that he is a big boy, so to speak...


----------



## AllHeart (Nov 22, 2013)

mrypg9 said:


> Borat is wearing a 'mankini'.. Can one actually buy these awful garments?
> 
> Strictly speaking, Daniel C isn't wearing Speedos.. It's just that he is a big boy, so to speak...


The idea is that the picture of Daniel Craig is supposed to make you WANT to see him in a Speedo. LOL!


----------



## AllHeart (Nov 22, 2013)

everhopeful said:


> ban the budgie smuggler https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmzzvf6qcna


----------



## mrypg9 (Apr 26, 2008)

AllHeart said:


> The idea is that the picture of Daniel Craig is supposed to make you WANT to see him in a Speedo. LOL!



Can't find Daniel Craig but here's for you...


----------



## AllHeart (Nov 22, 2013)

mrypg9 said:


> Can't find Daniel Craig but here's for you...


That would definitely fall under Borat's campaign, in my eyes. Like you said, it would be hard to come to an agreement.


----------



## mrypg9 (Apr 26, 2008)

http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e335/tennislover2009/DSCN0162.jpg


----------



## mrypg9 (Apr 26, 2008)

Alcalaina said:


> I think if western society has got to the point where people are nervous if they can't see someone's face, the issue goes well beyond what people should or shouldn't be allowed to wear. This indicates a culture of fear. The next stage is allowing people to carry arms.
> 
> I'll stay here in my little Andalusian bubble, thanks very much.


Not sure I agree with that.

Since time immemorial people have 'feared' people who cover their faces...remember those wonderful old Western movies? The baddies always cover their faces. Ditto crime movies. Balaclavas, stockings, masks.....a covered face in our culture, especially a covered male face has always indicated that someone might be up to no good. 
I wouldn't call it fear, more like apprehension. No way a 'culture of fear'. It's normal behaviour to protect oneself by avoiding certain places in the dark, being suspicious of a stranger approaching with his/her face covered.

If we label normal behaviour a 'culture of fear' we are in danger of playing into the hands of the Daily Mail. It's equally untrue to suggest the next stage is carrying arms. That imo is an exaggeration.

I would be apprehensive if I saw someone with face covered approaching me in a secluded place....but my 'next stage' wouldn't be to apply for a gun licence.


----------



## mrypg9 (Apr 26, 2008)

And I'm not sure there are any 'bubbles' anywhere in our society any more.


----------



## Alcalaina (Aug 6, 2010)

jimenato said:


> For me it's not about being nervous or a culture of fear, it's simply public safety.
> 
> You aren't allowed to wear some items under some circumstances (motorcycle helmets in banks for instance) for good reasons. These face-coverings fall into that category for the same reasons.
> 
> BTW you, of all of us, should know better than to invoke The Slippery Slope Fallacy.


Are you suggesting that a woman should be prevented from wearing a burqa on a bus in case she is a terrorist in disguise?

To me, that's a culture of fear.


----------



## Alcalaina (Aug 6, 2010)

mrypg9 said:


> Not sure I agree with that.
> 
> Since time immemorial people have 'feared' people who cover their faces...remember those wonderful old Western movies? The baddies always cover their faces. Ditto crime movies. Balaclavas, stockings, masks.....a covered face in our culture, especially a covered male face has always indicated that someone might be up to no good.
> I wouldn't call it fear, more like apprehension. No way a 'culture of fear'. It's normal behaviour to protect oneself by avoiding certain places in the dark, being suspicious of a stranger approaching with his/her face covered.
> ...


No, arming yourself wouldn't be the next stage. It's some way down the line. First a few police are armed, then most of them, then all of them, then security guards, then volunteers, then civilians who live in high-risk areas... all done to make you feel safer.

A gang of kids wearing hoodies is scary to some people. But they are very rarely a threat to the public. They just want to look hard. More crimes these days are committed by men in suits.

Remember, the whole point of terrorism is to induce fear and change people's behaviour. It's happening already. Enhanced security measures everywhere you go, very sensible of course, but they won't stop terrorist attacks.


----------



## jimenato (Nov 21, 2009)

Alcalaina said:


> Are you suggesting that a woman should be prevented from wearing a burqa on a bus in case she is a terrorist in disguise?
> 
> To me, that's a culture of fear.


It's not about burqas and it's not about women. It's about people not wearing disguising face coverings in places where security is an issue - I'm not sure about buses TBH. I don't think I would like it if some people in balaclavas got on a bus...










... and I think in many places this should not (and probably would not) be allowed.


----------



## mrypg9 (Apr 26, 2008)

Alcalaina said:


> Are you suggesting that a woman should be prevented from wearing a burqa on a bus in case she is a terrorist in disguise?
> 
> To me, that's a culture of fear.


That's not a 'culture of fear'. It's a mindset of stupidity.

After 7/7, whenever I travelled on the London Underground and saw a Middle Eastern looking young man with a rucksack the inevitable thought crossed my mind as I'm sure it did with very many people. I'm sure that young man knew what I was thinking...

Thinking about it, I can't see the point of banning burqas from public transport. Why not ban rucksacks, suitcases, mobile phones, anything that could be used for murderous purposes.
Taken to its logical conclusion we should travel naked as we may have guns, knives, axes secreted on our persons...

But I dispute that there is a 'culture of fear'. People are more fatalistic than fearful. After all, as I said, there are no 'safe bubbles'. We all leave our homes to shop, to enjoy days out, we sometimes use airports and airlines, metros, trains, buses..

The terrorists would very much like to see a culture of fear but I hope we never live in one. I'm not curtailing my everyday activities and I'm sure you're not.


----------



## AllHeart (Nov 22, 2013)

Hundreds of years of history of how to show common courtesy and respect: Show your face and look at me when I'm talking to you. Smile. Shake my hand.

Now we have to rethink and reinvent these basic ingredients of human interactions?


----------



## 95995 (May 16, 2010)

Alcalaina said:


> No, arming yourself wouldn't be the next stage. It's some way down the line. First a few police are armed, then most of them, then all of them, then security guards, then volunteers, then civilians who live in high-risk areas... all done to make you feel safer.
> 
> A gang of kids wearing hoodies is scary to some people. But they are very rarely a threat to the public. They just want to look hard. More crimes these days are committed by men in suits.
> 
> Remember, the whole point of terrorism is to induce fear and change people's behaviour. It's happening already. Enhanced security measures everywhere you go, very sensible of course, but they won't stop terrorist attacks.


And France alas is now well on the path to that - municipal police and all sorts of other people are apparently now able to be armed (municipal police are those police who hand out parking tickets and do other minor duties).


----------



## 95995 (May 16, 2010)

AllHeart said:


> Hundreds of years of history of how to show common courtesy and respect: Show your face and look at me when I'm talking to you. Smile. Shake my hand.
> 
> Now we have to rethink and reinvent these basic ingredients of human interactions?


Hundreds of years of British or anglophone history.


----------



## Alcalaina (Aug 6, 2010)

AllHeart said:


> Hundreds of years of history of how to show common courtesy and respect: Show your face and look at me when I'm talking to you. Smile. Shake my hand.
> 
> Now we have to rethink and reinvent these basic ingredients of human interactions?


Of course not. But if someone's culture requires them to dress in a certain way and they are comfortable with that, I don't think they should be prevented from doing so by law - unless there are safety or communication issues, as I said earlier.

If you arewearing headgear that stops you driving safely, that's a safety issue. If you're hiding your face when someone needs to see your expression or read your lips, that's a communication issue. 

But if the mere act of wearing a burkha in public has become a safety issue, because we're afraid of what's underneath it, that's fear culture.


----------



## AllHeart (Nov 22, 2013)

EverHopeful said:


> Hundreds of years of British or anglophone history.


That's my point.


----------



## AllHeart (Nov 22, 2013)

Alcalaina said:


> Of course not. But if someone's culture requires them to dress in a certain way and they are comfortable with that, I don't think they should be prevented from doing so by law - unless there are safety or communication issues, as I said earlier.
> 
> If you arewearing headgear that stops you driving safely, that's a safety issue. If you're hiding your face when someone needs to see your expression or read your lips, that's a communication issue.
> 
> But if the mere act of wearing a burkha in public has become a safety issue, because we're afraid of what's underneath it, that's fear culture.


I understand your point of view. I don't agree with it. I think hundreds of years of our culture of common courtesy and respect in how we interact with each other should take precedence. Why should our way of showing respect and courtesy be less important than how a newcomer decides to dress, if their dress is in conflict? Where there is conflict, the preference should go to the home culture.


----------



## 95995 (May 16, 2010)

mrypg9 said:


> That's not a 'culture of fear'. It's a mindset of stupidity.
> 
> After 7/7, whenever I travelled on the London Underground and saw a Middle Eastern looking young man with a rucksack the inevitable thought crossed my mind as I'm sure it did with very many people. I'm sure that young man knew what I was thinking...
> 
> ...


Yes that could well be where all this leads and you will find quite a lot of people would agree with it, or at least demand that items be x-rayed all over the place.

IMHO it's very much a culture of fear.


----------



## 95995 (May 16, 2010)

AllHeart said:


> I understand your point of view. I don't agree with it. I think hundreds of years of our culture of common courtesy and respect in how we interact with each other should take precedence. Why should our way of showing respect and courtesy be less important than how a newcomer decides to dress, if their dress is in conflict? Where there is conflict, the preference should go to the home culture.


As I said, this business of smiling and shaking hands as common courtesy and respect is anglophone culture. I note you said that was your point.


----------



## AllHeart (Nov 22, 2013)

EverHopeful said:


> As I said, this business of smiling and shaking hands as common courtesy and respect is anglophone culture. I note you said that was your point.


It's not just anglophone culture, which means English speaking. It is the culture of the Europe, North America, South America, the Caribbeans....much of the world. I don't know if it was in fact the Brits who started this culture, but it really doesn't matter. The fact is this is the culture clash. Safety issues aside, there is a huge culture clash.


----------



## Justina (Jan 25, 2013)

*terror*



Alcalaina said:


> No, arming yourself wouldn't be the next stage. It's some way down the line. First a few police are armed, then most of them, then all of them, then security guards, then volunteers, then civilians who live in high-risk areas... all done to make you feel safer.
> 
> A gang of kids wearing hoodies is scary to some people. But they are very rarely a threat to the public. They just want to look hard. More crimes these days are committed by men in suits.
> 
> Remember, the whole point of terrorism is to induce fear and change people's behaviour. It's happening already. Enhanced security measures everywhere you go, very sensible of course, but they won't stop terrorist attacks.


It must have been about twenty years ago when the IRA or the Provos were leaving bombs in litter baskets, Birmingham pub etc. I arrived to Heathrow one summer and was shocked to see men (soldiers, I think), dressed in camouflage and sporting metralletes. 
The Mexican carteles were right on the ball chopping off heads, videoing their opponents being beaten to death with a baseball bat, isis just took it from there.
While I am very much in favour of a free press, the Daily Mail insists on a daily exhibition of yet another macabre scene. That must strike disgust if not terror in many people.


----------



## mrypg9 (Apr 26, 2008)

I still can't agree that we have a 'culture of fear' but if we did it would be understandable in view of recent events. If we get through this summer without some further atrocity in a crowded place in the UK, Belgium, France, Spain....anywhere in Europe ......I think it will be a miracle.

Allheart has brought what is the elephant into the room into this discussion: culture clashes and the question of precedence, assimilation, integration, multi-culturalism..
The big problem here s that like immigration, there is a reluctance to discuss these issues frankly and openly because, since Powell's notorious 1968 'rivers of blood' speech, immigration has become inextricably linked with racism.

I've said earlier what my views on 'multi-culturalism' are. There are many reasons why we should strive to unite rather than divide. Living side by side is not the same as integration and does not always lead to harmony.

There is one issue that rarely comes up when discussing immigration and that is the degree of community cohesion needed to sustain and support a contributory welfare state. If we are all individuals then we look after Number One and family. It's the American model. We don't see why we should pay taxes to support those who can't support themselves. No such thing as society. That's dangerous.

We often see posts here that refer to large concentrations of British residents (aka 'Britzones' by some) as in some ways spoiling, diluting or in vague ways threatening the existence of 'Spanish culture'. Some people tell us they want to live in places away from too many fellow Brits, that their towns or villages have very few Brits living in them..
It seems to me odd not to think in the same way about British people and newcomers from different nationalities and cultures.

Are we Brits the only nation in the world that has no culture of its own, let alone one worth preserving?


----------



## mrypg9 (Apr 26, 2008)

Alcalaina said:


> .
> 
> But if the mere act of wearing a burkha in public has become a safety issue, because we're afraid of what's underneath it, that's fear culture.


Who are 'we' in all this, though? Daily Mail readers? The easily influenced?


Count me out. I might dislike seeing a woman wrapped up in a burqa but if that's her choice, fine with me.
And with everyone else I know. We have no 'fear'.
Don't let's exaggerate. The terrorists - and sometimes the state - like to see us 'afraid'.


----------



## 95995 (May 16, 2010)

AllHeart said:


> It's not just anglophone culture, which means English speaking. It is the culture of the Europe, North America, South America, the Caribbeans....much of the world. I don't know if it was in fact the Brits who started this culture, but it really doesn't matter. The fact is this is the culture clash. Safety issues aside, there is a huge culture clash.


I beg to differ, for example the French don't smile at everyone (they think it's weird that anglophones do).


----------



## Justina (Jan 25, 2013)

*smile*



EverHopeful said:


> I beg to differ, for example the French don't smile at everyone (they think it's weird that anglophones do).


I certainly never smile at anyone in the street in the UK, but here in Spain I find that Spaniards smile very readily, although perhaps they are smiling at my dogs.


----------



## AllHeart (Nov 22, 2013)

EverHopeful said:


> I beg to differ, for example the French don't smile at everyone (they think it's weird that anglophones do).


You're splitting hairs. I'm not discussing this just to split hairs. You get my drift, right? Culture clash.


----------



## 95995 (May 16, 2010)

Justina said:


> I certainly never smile at anyone in the street in the UK, but here in Spain I find that Spaniards smile very readily, although perhaps they are smiling at my dogs.


The Spanish are I think the most genuinely warm and welcoming people I have ever come across.


----------



## 95995 (May 16, 2010)

AllHeart said:


> You're splitting hairs. I'm not discussing this just to split hairs. You get my drift, right? Culture clash.


No, I don't get your drift because you are saying that the culture is the same across Europe - I just gave you an example of how that is not the case.


----------



## AllHeart (Nov 22, 2013)

mrypg9 said:


> I still can't agree that we have a 'culture of fear' but if we did it would be understandable in view of recent events. If we get through this summer without some further atrocity in a crowded place in the UK, Belgium, France, Spain....anywhere in Europe ......I think it will be a miracle.
> 
> Allheart has brought what is the elephant into the room into this discussion: culture clashes and the question of precedence, assimilation, integration, multi-culturalism..
> The big problem here s that like immigration, there is a reluctance to discuss these issues frankly and openly because, since Powell's notorious 1968 'rivers of blood' speech, immigration has become inextricably linked with racism.
> ...


Another thing that really upsets me about this is that the proponents of wearing these religious garments claim religion as a reason under their right to religion laws, and therefore they have a legal right to wear these garments. But the thing is, I can't claim how I dress under my religion. Why should they be allowed to, when this isn't their culture to begin with? There have always been rules that we have to follow as to how we dress. The work place has rules as to how we dress. Schools have rules as to how we dress - I had to wear a quilt and a blouse in high school. In public we have rules as to how we dress - like laws against indecent exposure, places where even men have to wear tops. In golf clubs you need to wear certain clothes. On the tennis court, you need to wear tennis shoes. On a soccer field you need to wear cleats. Police officers have to wear their uniforms. Fire fighters have a uniform. Nurses and doctors have uniforms. ...OMG, there are loads of dress rules in our society. Why should they have special treatment to be allowed to wear whatever they want because of their religion? 

So even if proponents try to minimise this debate by claiming it's just what a person chooses to wear, and they shouldn't be forced one way or the other.... Well, I don't buy that argument either, because we all have dress rules to follow. Dress rules are part of our culture too.


----------



## mrypg9 (Apr 26, 2008)

EverHopeful said:


> No, I don't get your drift because you are saying that the culture is the same across Europe - I just gave you an example of how that is not the case.


There is a basic Enlightenment culture across most of Europe....but there are very many local variations, between and even within countries.


----------



## Justina (Jan 25, 2013)

*enlightenment*



mrypg9 said:


> There is a basic Enlightenment culture across most of Europe....but there are very many local variations, between and even within countries.


I first stayed in Grenoble in 1985 for 15 months and in those days I could have counted the number of scarves on three fingers and never the full robes. The women did enjoy using henna (?) on their hair wnich nowadays is ten a penny. What was most irritating to the French was the way that North African men appropriated the public seats presumably turfed out of their homes.


----------



## bob_bob (Jan 5, 2011)

mrypg9 said:


> ​
> Yes, there was discussion of religious and other slaughtering practices and a poster, bob bob I think it was, brought up shooting and bullfighting.
> 
> True, banning carrying knives, pornography etc hasn't worked . Ditto sale and use of drugs.
> ...


I raised shooting animals and bullfighting in response to your post.

Mary, you need to take a chill pill and back off a tad, your posts are not up to your usual standard and are very close to becoming offensive for some.


----------



## jimenato (Nov 21, 2009)

EverHopeful said:


> As I said, this business of smiling and shaking hands as common courtesy and respect is anglophone culture. I note you said that was your point.


The French used to shake hands and kiss an awful lot. Have they stopped doing it?


----------



## mrypg9 (Apr 26, 2008)

bob_bob said:


> I raised shooting animals and bullfighting in response to your post.
> 
> Mary, you need to take a chill pill and back off a tad, your posts are not up to your usual standard and are very close to becoming offensive for some.


With respect, I find your post offensive. Your advice is uncalled for, patronising and unwelcome.
We have Mods to determine what is personally offensive, which is of course against Forum rules.
Not one of my posts on this thread or any other is 'offensive'.

If anyone does find a post 'offensive' they have two remedies: report or put me on Ignore.

Topic closed.


----------



## jimenato (Nov 21, 2009)

AllHeart said:


> Another thing that really upsets me about this is that the proponents of wearing these religious garments claim religion as a reason under their right to religion laws, and therefore they have a legal right to wear these garments. But the thing is, I can't claim how I dress under my religion. Why should they be allowed to, when this isn't their culture to begin with? There have always been rules that we have to follow as to how we dress. The work place has rules as to how we dress. Schools have rules as to how we dress - I had to wear a quilt and a blouse in high school. In public we have rules as to how we dress - like laws against indecent exposure, places where even men have to wear tops. In golf clubs you need to wear certain clothes. On the tennis court, you need to wear tennis shoes. On a soccer field you need to wear cleats. Police officers have to wear their uniforms. Fire fighters have a uniform. Nurses and doctors have uniforms. ...OMG, there are loads of dress rules in our society. Why should they have special treatment to be allowed to wear whatever they want because of their religion?
> 
> So even if proponents try to minimise this debate by claiming it's just what a person chooses to wear, and they shouldn't be forced one way or the other.... Well, I don't buy that argument either, because we all have dress rules to follow. Dress rules are part of our culture too.


Same with turbans. Interesting though that they don't generate the same passion as face-coverings.


----------



## jimenato (Nov 21, 2009)

bob_bob said:


> I raised shooting animals and bullfighting in response to your post.
> 
> Mary, you need to take a chill pill and back off a tad, your posts are not up to your usual standard and are very close to becoming offensive for some.


Eh?:confused2:


----------



## Pesky Wesky (May 10, 2009)

Good morning!
It would be great if this was a thread that doesn't become mired in personal issues.
Please remember that there are PMs if you wish to make more personal observations as these tend to hold up the discussion of the thread, as well as change the "flavour" of threads

Have a good debating Sunday


----------



## Pesky Wesky (May 10, 2009)

jimenato said:


> Same with turbans. Interesting though that they don't generate the same passion as face-coverings.


They used to though when they were newer to British society, don't you remember?


----------



## 95995 (May 16, 2010)

jimenato said:


> The French used to shake hands and kiss an awful lot. Have they stopped doing it?


The French still do the bises (kiss on each cheek) - depending where you come from it can be 2, 3 or 4 kisses.


----------



## rspltd (Jul 5, 2016)

The turban issue could have been said to have started the era of positive racial discrimination as everyone in the UK was required to wear a crash helmet when riding a motorcycle/ moped etc except Sikhs when the legislation was introduced.


----------



## Lynn R (Feb 21, 2014)

Justina said:


> I certainly never smile at anyone in the street in the UK, but here in Spain I find that Spaniards smile very readily, although perhaps they are smiling at my dogs.


It's quite normal in the North of England, though, as is striking up conversations with total strangers at bus stops or on public transport. Perhaps that's why I feel so at home here.


----------



## jimenato (Nov 21, 2009)

Pesky Wesky said:


> They used to though when they were newer to British society, don't you remember?


No - I'm not old enough.


----------



## Pesky Wesky (May 10, 2009)

Lynn R said:


> It's quite normal in the North of England, though, as is striking up conversations with total strangers at bus stops or on public transport. Perhaps that's why I feel so at home here.


I think it varies a lot. I wouldn't probably greet people I met on the high street in Weston Super Mare, but when I'm walking along a pretty busy footpath between my dad's house and sister's, where people typically walk dogs or go out with their children, most people smile and say hello. 
I think some places in the north are well known for being friendly, but aren't others known for their monosyllabic and curt replies?


----------



## Pesky Wesky (May 10, 2009)

jimenato said:


> No - I'm not old enough.


Hmmm. What was that birthday you had recently?arty:arty:arty:


----------



## Rabbitcat (Aug 31, 2014)

Hmmmm

Have mixed feelings on this. 

I do not agree with anyone being told what they can or cannot wear. 

Some of those enthused by Western countries telling women what they CANNOT wear are the same people outraged by some Islamic countries telling women what they MUST wear .


----------



## mrypg9 (Apr 26, 2008)

Rabbitcat said:


> Hmmmm
> 
> Have mixed feelings on this.
> 
> ...


Maybe it's my age or the heat but I can't work up the energy to be 'outraged' by anything these days.
I only get worked up about some things when I hear or read other people going on about them. I guess some would call me a member of the 'sheeple'.

I'm not afraid or outraged by women wearing the burqa although I personally don't like the garment, I think it's ugly and can see that coming across a group of burqa wearing women might be mildly intimidating to the nervous, the elderly who don't go out much or small children.
The same could be said for gangs of youths with hoodies, stag party revellers in women's clothing, marching members of the Orange Order, large public demonstrations by right or left wing groups...
I used to go into Croydon when in the UK, they had a good TK Maxx there. There were always loads of police about. I asked one of them why there were so many of them. The reply was 'To reassure the public, Madam'. I said that it didn't assure me at all, it made me nervous as I thought there must be some lunatic with a machete about or some similar dreadful public atrocity likely to take place.
Point is, I think we talk far too easily these days about fear, bullying, intimidation etc.
The media has the power to create climates....but only if we suspend our critical faculties.

I still maintain that the whole culture/immigration issue has been appallingly handled in the UK in so many ways...logistical, in that there seemed to be no planning for integrating or accommodating so many new arrivals and social/psychological in that there was no national debate or dialogue about the desirability or not or the likely impact on communities of large scale immigration over a short period of time.

There has been more open participative debate on this Forum on this issue than in the UK as a whole.

I think both Everhopeful and Allheart are both right in that most of Europe shares a common Christian and Enlightenment cultural heritage but within that there are significant historical and cultural variations. 
When my friend from Prague visited she was amazed to find that people ate dinner at ten at night or later and that it was common to see children even babies out with parents in streets, cafes etc late at night. When we lived in Prague and were invited to dinner, the invitation was for seven p.m, often earlier. Young children seemed to vanish after late afternoon.
No-one smiled at you or greeted you in the streets. I thought Czechs as a whole must be the most miserable ******s on earth.
These differences are comparatively trivial but they're the things most people notice when they travel and they often crystallise into firm opinions...'the Spanish do..' 'the Czechs are...' The only constants are some aspects of human nature, it seems.


----------



## Rabbitcat (Aug 31, 2014)

Bottom line is it is either right or wrong to tell people how to dress

The West cannot have it both ways saying Iran is wrong to tell women how to dress but France/ Spain are right


----------



## jimenato (Nov 21, 2009)

Pesky Wesky said:


> Hmmm. What was that birthday you had recently?arty:arty:arty:


:tongue1:


----------



## jimenato (Nov 21, 2009)

Rabbitcat said:


> Hmmmm
> 
> Have mixed feelings on this.
> 
> ...


Lots of people are told what they can and can't wear and I don't think you would object to many of them.

Anyway for me this isn't about burkas, women and Islam. It's about disguising face coverings in security sensitive situations.


----------



## mrypg9 (Apr 26, 2008)

Rabbitcat said:


> Bottom line is it is either right or wrong to tell people how to dress
> 
> The West cannot have it both ways saying Iran is wrong to tell women how to dress but France/ Spain are right


Answer to Question One: depends on context. There are many situations in western countries where dress rules/codes apply as Allheart pointed out . 

Question Two: afaik 'the West' hasn't told Iran or any strict Islamic country how their women should dress .

Individual western nations make their own decisions usually based on what is perceived as majority opinion as to what is 'right' or 'wrong'. So some nations ban some drugs, Portugal has decriminalised all drug usage. Spain makes laws about face coverings in certain places, Poland doesn't. 

It's not a question of 'having it both ways', it's more of differences of opinion on certain issues. I might look out of my window and see a woman in a burqa and think 'How could any woman choose to wear that?!'
And if she were to see me in shorts and skimpy vest top she might think' How immodest and unseemly'.

She might also think 'And at her age too.'. She would not be thinking 'Any man looking at her would be consumed by lust and unable to control his urges'.

Sobre los gustos and all that...


A belated welcome back, by the way


----------



## AllHeart (Nov 22, 2013)

I think what I said here was misunderstood because I wasn't clear enough. I'll try again...



AllHeart said:


> Hundreds of years of history of how to show common courtesy and respect: Show your face and look at me when I'm talking to you. Smile. Shake my hand.
> 
> Now we have to rethink and reinvent these basic ingredients of human interactions?



The point I'm making about the smile is that the smile is part of our culture. Whether or not you choose to smile is your choice But you can't see a smile when the face is covered.

Whether it's a hand shake or a kiss on the cheek or a pat on the arm, part of our culture is physical contact. And physical contact is taboo within this culture in almost all circumstances between men and women.

Eye contact is also forbidden between men and women in almost all circumstances.

Showing your face, well, that's an obvious one.


----------



## AllHeart (Nov 22, 2013)

jimenato said:


> Same with turbans. Interesting though that they don't generate the same passion as face-coverings.


My post about dress code applies to turbans too, and there is still controversy in Canada about that. But, yes, it's even more controversial when the face is covered because it brings up many other issues.


----------



## mrypg9 (Apr 26, 2008)

AllHeart said:


> I.
> 
> Eye contact is also forbidden between men and women in almost all circumstances.
> 
> Showing your face, well, that's an obvious one.


Reminds me of a trip we made to New York City very many years ago...
Sandra went into a shop and asked for a pair of Raybans.
Quickfire response from young male assistant; 'Dem eyes shouldn't be covered...'

I took a group of students to Germany a few years back. We went into a public park with a lake to eat our sandwiches. A couple of middle-aged, portly Germans, male and female, came, stripped naked and dived into the lake. My teenage British students were outraged: 'Ugh! Gross!! Disgusting! Shouldn't be allowed! Someone ought to put a stop to it' etc etc.
Total nudity in parks and beaches is the norm in all the parts of Germany I've spent time in.
Imagine doing that in Hyde Park. The Daily Mail (don'tcha just love it) did a large feature last week on whether in the hot spell it were acceptable to sunbathe in public parks or one's own garden in one's underwear.


----------



## AllHeart (Nov 22, 2013)

mrypg9 said:


> Reminds me of a trip we made to New York City very many years ago...
> Sandra went into a shop and asked for a pair of Raybans.
> Quickfire response from young male assistant; 'Dem eyes shouldn't be covered...'


OMG what a horrible man - some cultures would say! 



mrypg9 said:


> I took a group of students to Germany a few years back. We went into a public park with a lake to eat our sandwiches. A couple of middle-aged, portly Germans, male and female, came, stripped naked and dived into the lake. My teenage British students were outraged: 'Ugh! Gross!! Disgusting! Shouldn't be allowed! Someone ought to put a stop to it' etc etc.
> Total nudity in parks and beaches is the norm in all the parts of Germany I've spent time in.
> Imagine doing that in Hyde Park. The Daily Mail (don'tcha just love it) did a large feature last week on whether in the hot spell it were acceptable to sunbathe in public parks or one's own garden in one's underwear.


Yes, and there are laws governing this dress code. Women going topless was just legalised in Canada in the 90s.

Since we're going down memory lane here about dress codes.... Brings to mind when I was living in Toronto in the 90s, in broad daylight I was stopped at as a pedestrian at an intersection, as the light was red. On the other side of the street was a man in Rollerblades wearing nothing but a white jock strap. People acted like he wasn't even there, which is typical in strange situations in Toronto. I struggled with the question of whether or not this was legal, while I lapped up the beautiful eye candy.


----------



## Alcalaina (Aug 6, 2010)

mrypg9 said:


> Who are 'we' in all this, though? Daily Mail readers? The easily influenced?
> 
> Count me out. I might dislike seeing a woman wrapped up in a burqa but if that's her choice, fine with me.
> And with everyone else I know. We have no 'fear'.
> Don't let's exaggerate. The terrorists - and sometimes the state - like to see us 'afraid'.


Jimenato said in an earlier post " If I were the owner of a jewellery shop or a junior school headteacher or a bus driver I would be worried about men wearing those things [burqas]." That's what got me thinking.

People are changing their holiday destinations because they are afraid of being blown up or shot at. Yet statistically they are more likely to die in an accident driving to the airport. Fear makes people behave irrationally - not just Daily Mail readers. I'd think twice myself, these days.


----------



## Anciana (Jul 14, 2014)

I used to be accommodating to all clothing choices. But after four years (2012-2015) in todays Sweden, overrun (yes, I chose this word) by mostly young men from the Middle East and North Africa, AND by their ISLAMIC organizations demanding more and more segregation of sexes, abolishment of women's rights, I do not accept burkas any longer. 

Most of the time they are NOT a free choice. They are a FORCED "choice". The islamist organizations demand "freedom" for women and girls from any contact with the opposing sex. It starts with burkas. Then they demand separate gym classes, separate swimming pools. Then they demand total policing of "their" districts, forcing women to dress in burkas and hijabs or beating them like in Afghanistan and most of Middle East. 

Swedish government long has been turning a blind eye to the complaints of Muslim women in Sweden, that their rights are being curtailed more and more with the influx of Muslims to Sweden, because, the government was concerned with not "underblowing racism" (or rather with the growing influence of an antimmigration party). Swedish government tried to cover up (forbiding the "free" press to write about it) the horrific increase of honor killing in Sweden, committed mostly by pushing offending Muslim girls from balconies of high floor flats. The statistic of such "suicides" is quite telling. And covering up all transgressions committed by Muslims.

ISLAM, conservative islam is a horribly oppressive religion and should not be tolerated in the West. Burka is a visible sign of Islam's oppression of women (even if some of them claim otherwise) and should not be tolerated in secular, emancipated societies. I stopped being liberal towards Islam after living in quickly islamizing, formerly super emancipated, even feminist Sweden. Now you can call me a racist, if you want.


----------



## mrypg9 (Apr 26, 2008)

Anciana said:


> I used to be accommodating to all clothing choices. But after four years (2012-2015) in todays Sweden, overrun (yes, I chose this word) by mostly young men from the Middle East and North Africa, AND by their ISLAMIC organizations demanding more and more segregation of sexes, abolishment of women's rights, I do not accept burkas any longer.
> 
> Most of the time they are NOT a free choice. They are a FORCED "choice". The islamist organizations demand "freedom" for women and girls from any contact with the opposing sex. It starts with burkas. Then they demand separate gym classes, separate swimming pools. Then they demand total policing of "their" districts, forcing women to dress in burkas and hijabs or beating them like in Afghanistan and most of Middle East.
> 
> ...


I most certainly do not think you are racist although some might. But that's because they are too dim to be able to separate legitimate concerns about social outcomes and other related issues from racism which is something else altogether.
We have so-called 'progressives' in the UK who think that the plight of a person in Somalia is more important than the concerns of a house-bound pensioner in Birmingham.
Such people tend to focus on 'humanity' in the abstract rather than the individual and his or her concerns.
So with those who sniff 'racism' in every corner.

I had some experience of tis when working as a Trades Union Equality Officer with the British Trades Union Congress. There was great pressure for our officers to prepare a paper on 'Islamophobia', a dodgy concept imo as Islam is a religion not a race but never mind. A paper was duly compiled after several meetings between TUC officials and members of the non-elected self-selected Muslim Council of Britain, meetings described as 'difficult' by TUC officials. The final draft contained a paragraph in which the words 'lifestyle choices' referring to homosexuality appeared. Our officials said this was at the insistence of the MCB.
I objected strongly and said I would take it to the floor of Congress which I did. I moved deletion of the paragraph, explained why and the vote was overwhelmingly to delete.
I also once moved a motion welcoming the presence of women in Iraqi trades unionism, in a society where post invasion, ironically, women's roles have been more restricted. As the speech I intended to make was about women's rights I took the opportunity to condemn honour killings, FGM and arranged marriages, practices which all occur in the UK. I was told I was a 'cultural imperialist'. I asked the complainant to make me a Tshirt with those words on the front: Cultural imperialists against FGM, honour killings and arranged marriages' and said I would proudly wear it. Again, motion carried. Congress attendees are mainly working men and women not academics or middle-class 'progressives'. Sensible folk.

If these issues are not discussed openly and honestly they will fester away underneath. The indigenous have rights too. I think the recent UK Leave the EU vote was more giving the finger to an elite governing class that ignores genuine popular concerns than a considered anti-EU vote.


----------



## AllHeart (Nov 22, 2013)

Anciana said:


> I used to be accommodating to all clothing choices. But after four years (2012-2015) in todays Sweden, overrun (yes, I chose this word) by mostly young men from the Middle East and North Africa, AND by their ISLAMIC organizations demanding more and more segregation of sexes, abolishment of women's rights, I do not accept burkas any longer.
> 
> Most of the time they are NOT a free choice. They are a FORCED "choice". The islamist organizations demand "freedom" for women and girls from any contact with the opposing sex. It starts with burkas. Then they demand separate gym classes, separate swimming pools. Then they demand total policing of "their" districts, forcing women to dress in burkas and hijabs or beating them like in Afghanistan and most of Middle East.
> 
> ...


The way I think of it, there are two groups who are against Muslim culture:

1. What is loosely called racists, if you consider the term loosely as a prejudice against a particular group of people (but like Mary says it's not the correct term). They are against the Muslim culture, as you have expressed very well.

2. People who are anti-immigration for the reason that they are against immigrants who do not integrate.

So there is a merging of some anti-immigrant groups and some so-called racist groups when it comes to the topic of Muslim immigrants.

It goes without saying this is a particularly touchy subject given the recent nasty explosion of this topic in the UK and the US. But just because the US and UK are vocal, doesn't mean they're alone in these sentiments. Someone likened this to Pandora's Box. Very fitting analogy I think.


----------



## Alcalaina (Aug 6, 2010)

I must admit I know very little about Sweden and its problems with Muslim immigrants. Anciana, would you say this is a fair analysis of the current situation? Why did it occur - too many, too fast, insufficient resource planning?

In Sweden, Land of the Open Door, Anti-Muslim Sentiment Finds a Foothold (New York Times, Jan 2015)


----------



## mrypg9 (Apr 26, 2008)

Alcalaina said:


> I must admit I know very little about Sweden and its problems with Muslim immigrants. Anciana, would you say this is a fair analysis of the current situation? Why did it occur - too many, too fast, insufficient resource planning?
> 
> In Sweden, Land of the Open Door, Anti-Muslim Sentiment Finds a Foothold (New York Times, Jan 2015)


Anciana is best placed to comment about Sweden...but pieces like this from the New York Times, written by well-paid comfortable liberally minded people, always seem to be permeated with the view that open door immigration is a Good Thing, controls are a Bad Thing.

We all agree that 'community' is a Good Thing but often gloss over the fact that all communities have boundaries of one kind or another and that there are 'deep' communities with histories and family and neighbourhood roots and ties and also the very shallow ones we often hear of today....like the 'gay community', a community united only by sexual preference yet deeply divided by income, education, social status etc.


----------



## Alcalaina (Aug 6, 2010)

mrypg9 said:


> Anciana is best placed to comment about Sweden...but pieces like this from the New York Times, written by well-paid comfortable liberally minded people, always seem to be permeated with the view that open door immigration is a Good Thing, controls are a Bad Thing.
> 
> We all agree that 'community' is a Good Thing but often gloss over the fact that all communities have boundaries of one kind or another and that there are 'deep' communities with histories and family and neighbourhood roots and ties and also the very shallow ones we often hear of today....like the 'gay community', a community united only by sexual preference yet deeply divided by income, education, social status etc.


Well it's clearly not a Good Thing if people are setting fire to mosques and voting for extreme right parties. I just wondered whether Anciana had any insight into why it got so bad in a relatively short space of time.


----------



## AllHeart (Nov 22, 2013)

mrypg9 said:


> Anciana is best placed to comment about Sweden...but pieces like this from the New York Times, written by well-paid comfortable liberally minded people, always seem to be permeated with the view that open door immigration is a Good Thing, controls are a Bad Thing.


I didn't get that from the article at all. :confused2:


----------



## Rabbitcat (Aug 31, 2014)

Well each to their own. Personally I find it inconsistent, hypocritical bordering on the bizarre to say it's ok for Western countries to dictate dress code but wrong for other nations


----------



## mrypg9 (Apr 26, 2008)

Rabbitcat said:


> Well each to their own. Personally I find it inconsistent, hypocritical bordering on the bizarre to say it's ok for Western countries to dictate dress code but wrong for other nations


Nobody on this thread has said that.


----------



## mrypg9 (Apr 26, 2008)

Alcalaina said:


> Well it's clearly not a Good Thing if people are setting fire to mosques and voting for extreme right parties. I just wondered whether Anciana had any insight into why it got so bad in a relatively short space of time.


Well, it might not be a Good Thing for you and me if people vote for far right Parties-and I'd include far Left Parties - but if the Parties are legal, then people have a right to vote for them and as you say we need to find out why.

The important thing afaic is not to assume that a person who votes for UKIP, Front National, AfD or Freedom Party is doing so because they are racist or bigoted.
Otherwise known as the Gordon Brown Fallacy.


----------



## AllHeart (Nov 22, 2013)

mrypg9 said:


> Well, it might not be a Good Thing for you and me if people vote for far right Parties-and I'd include far Left Parties - but if the Parties are legal, then people have a right to vote for them and as you say we need to find out why.
> 
> The important thing afaic is not to assume that a person who votes for UKIP, Front National, AfD or Freedom Party is doing so because they are racist or bigoted.
> Otherwise known as the Gordon Brown Fallacy.


What do you mean by the Gordon Brown Fallacy?


----------



## Anciana (Jul 14, 2014)

There are many reasons for Swedes becoming less welcoming to Muslim immigrants. I shall try to sketch briefly the main ones - in my opinion. 

The neo-liberal block of Center, Liberal and Conservative (calling itself Moderate - being conservative has negative connotations in Sweden) parties were governing Sweden for 12 years till the end of 2014. 

During that time they dismantled part of the welfare state: gave private entrepreneurs right to take care of schools, social services, migrant housing etc. not adeqeatly controlling them and the theft of public funds - in a country previously virtually free of corruption, graft etc. - started and was quickly growing in a very visible way. 

At the same time the funds for public schools, health care and other services were cut. Norway, with its oil money sucked up a lot of Swedish doctors, nurses, and other health care workers, who in Sweden were not only underpaid by Norwegian (and Danish) standards, but also overworked due to a huge - unplanned - influx of migrants, who needed - relatively - a lot more health care than the native population, even the elderly. So the natives had to wait.

At the same time the governing neoliberal trojka lowered taxes on incomes derived from employment while the tax on pensions remained unchanged, and in additions, the pensions were cut (in 2015 they were at the same level as in 2009) to finance the very generous government contributions to immigrants. So Swedish pensioners became the first large group of Swedes, who substantially increased their percentage of votes for the so called Sweden Democrats, the anti-immigrant party.

To add insult to injury statistics started showing that an average Middle Eastern immigrant needed at least seven years to learn rudimentary Swedish and half of them needed at least 10 years to land a job. The other half - never bothered to work at all. (While immigrants from Central and South America and non-muslim Asian countries showed statistically higher participation in labor force than the natives. Curious) Thus, while welfare benefits were being cut, schools faltered, waiting time for health services became longer, the previously social-democratic: workers, blue, pink and white collar started voting for an anti-immigrant party. the same trend, though in slightly lowered proportions srated to be visible among liberal and conservative voters.

Now, I do not want to suggest that very low labor participation of immigrants was entirely their fault. 

Part of the problem was/and is a very low percentage of so called simple jobs in Sweden, only 2% of such jobs while in Europe on average simple jobs constitute around 17% of such jobs. 
There was / and is/ a very high tax on labor in Sweden, making automatization of industrial and service jobs a priority, while labor unions fight tooth and nail that entry jobs be relatively highly compensated. Which makes an illiterate candidate for a job, not even knowing rudimentary Swedish both a safety risk and not worth his/her pay.

Traditionally in socialdemocratic Sweden it was practically impossible to fire anybody. So employers employed only those who they did not considered a high failure risks. In plain language: they did not hire unknowns, they did not hire immigrants, until an immigrant could show rare skills, high level of education and previous, transferable success in the labor market.

So MidEastern immigrants, even in severe labor-shortage careers like doctors, nurses, math and science teachers, had to fight for years both with ridiculously overbuilt bureaucracy to get their credentials verified and approved AND with Swedish employers preference for hiring "known quality" people from the same or similar cultural backgrounds, that is Swedes, other Scandinavians, other Europeans and at the very, very last, the most competent - and fluent in Swedish - non Europeans.

When in 2015 additional 185 000 people from Middle east and Africa, most of them Muslims y descended on this country of 8 million people, 165 000 of them applying for asylum (Afganis learning they had few chances to be granted asylum followed to Finland), Swedish infrastucture, already tearing apart, collapsed: no sufficient housing, no schools, no health care - and the Social Democratic government closed the borders, reversing its open doors policy. Yet, the flood of immigrants asking for asylum continues despite all sharpening of the access, Swedish governments loans enormous amounts of money to finance this very, very unprofitable immigration, frustrated Muslim immigrants of second generation are increasingly joining ISIS (Daesh), introducing Sharia laws in parts of towns in which they dominate, not letting police or even ambulances enter "their" areas...
A friendly, orderly little country is becoming an inferno. And there are no easy solutions to the problems.


----------



## Rabbitcat (Aug 31, 2014)

mrypg9 said:


> The important thing afaic is not to assume that a person who votes for UKIP, Front National, AfD or Freedom Party is doing so because they are racist or bigoted.
> Otherwise known as the Gordon Brown Fallacy.


I think you are being overly generous for those who vote for that rabble.

The kindest I believe I could muster would be they do not have a problem with some people being racist. The " I am not a racist I even have some black friends" brigade.

I do not think anyone who votes for overtly racist parties can hide from or excuse away fthe vile policies these groups espouse


----------



## mrypg9 (Apr 26, 2008)

Rabbitcat said:


> I think you are being overly generous for those who vote for that rabble.
> 
> The kindest I believe I could muster would be they do not have a problem with some people being racist. The " I am not a racist I even have some black friends" brigade.
> 
> I do not think anyone who votes for overtly racist parties can hide from or excuse away fthe vile policies these groups espouse


Four million British people voted for UKIP. The votes came mainly from poor rundown areas in the east, south east and industrial north and midlands.

I object to anyone writing off four million people as 'racist'. It's not that simple.


----------



## mrypg9 (Apr 26, 2008)

Anciana said:


> There are many reasons for Swedes becoming less welcoming to Muslim immigrants. I shall try to sketch briefly the main ones - in my opinion.
> 
> The neo-liberal block of Center, Liberal and Conservative (calling itself Moderate - being conservative has negative connotations in Sweden) parties were governing Sweden for 12 years till the end of 2014.
> 
> ...


Interesting..

I find it odd when politicians in the UK thank 'immigrants' for the huge contribution they make to our society. Some immigrant communities do contribute largely, work, pay taxes, do valuable and useful jobs.....some immigrant groups such as the Kenyan and Ugandan Asians and the various Indian communities fit well and easily into British society, others don't. Other communities don't contribute as yet, although given time they may well do. Recent figures I read show that only 30% of the Somali community work. This will no doubt change, given time, but it is simply untrue and rather patronising imo to bestow unqualified praise - after all, we don't single out the people of, say, Cheshire, for their contribution to the UK.

We need to talk about all the facets of immigration...we need a national debate.


----------



## mrypg9 (Apr 26, 2008)

AllHeart said:


> What do you mean by the Gordon Brown Fallacy?


When Gordon Brown was PM he went electioneering in a Northern town with high unemployment and an aide introduced him to an elderly woman, one Mrs. Gillian Duffy, who told him of local concerns that immigrants were having a depressing effect on wages and local job availability.

Not realising that the microphone in his car was switched on and connected to the car loudspeaker, Brown was heard to ask'Why did you bring me that bigoted woman?'

It turned out that Mrs. Duffy had been a Labour Party member and trades unionist for decades. To repair the damage she was invited to attend the next Labour Party Conference but the damage had already been done.
It was a huge PR disaster.

As I replied to rabbitcat, not everyone with concerns about immigration is a racist.


----------



## Rabbitcat (Aug 31, 2014)

mrypg9 said:


> Four million British people voted for UKIP. The votes came mainly from poor rundown areas in the east, south east and industrial north and midlands.
> 
> I object to anyone writing off four million people as 'racist'. It's not that simple.



Cannot agree. If you vote for parties that do not hide their unsavoury views I do not accept the - I didn't know- excuse/get out. Unpalatable though it is it's simply a fact that many from the sort of background you list are indeed racist whilst others do not have a problem voting for a party who's views are racist. No excuses


----------



## Pesky Wesky (May 10, 2009)

Anciana said:


> There are many reasons for Swedes becoming less welcoming to Muslim immigrants. I shall try to sketch briefly the main ones - in my opinion.
> 
> The neo-liberal block of Center, Liberal and Conservative (calling itself Moderate - being conservative has negative connotations in Sweden) parties were governing Sweden for 12 years till the end of 2014.
> 
> ...


That's very interesting Anciana.
So (I don't find it annoying, or "wrong" to start a sentence with so) why do successive governments give access to immigrants, so many of which you say have been proved not to intergrate and not be employable?


----------



## AllHeart (Nov 22, 2013)

mrypg9 said:


> When Gordon Brown was PM he went electioneering in a Northern town with high unemployment and an aide introduced him to an elderly woman, one Mrs. Gillian Duffy, who told him of local concerns that immigrants were having a depressing effect on wages and local job availability.
> 
> Not realising that the microphone in his car was switched on and connected to the car loudspeaker, Brown was heard to ask'Why did you bring me that bigoted woman?'
> 
> ...


Thanks for explaining that. 

Yes, that's what I like so much about Aciana's post on the previous page. I didn't reply to it well enough. She made her points so clearly that support anti-immigrant due to anti-integration and anti-culture (AKA racist) due to a culture clash. No, it's not the same as the racist sentiments that we have seen in the past and that we are familiar with. What we see now draws no parallel.

For example, I grew up with prejudice sentiments against men from Latin cultures, such as Portugal and Italy. They were considered macho, and it became unfashionable and prejudice to say so or think so. Or some would say racist.

But this treatment of women has nothing to do with being macho. This is a whole other ball of wax....a whole other kettle of fish...a completely different ballgame. This is the unthinkable to the extreme. I fear these women just as much as these men, because they both subscribe to it.


----------



## Anciana (Jul 14, 2014)

Pesky Wesky said:


> That's very interesting Anciana.
> So (I don't find it annoying, or "wrong" to start a sentence with so) why do successive governments give access to immigrants, so many of which you say have been proved not to intergrate and not be employable?


They claim to do it on humanitarian basis: Sweden as a conscience of the world. Sounds nice and noble, doesn't it? Too bad the "conscience of the world" ran out of resources and out of patience of its people.

When a week before the last election Conservative party leader and then Sweden's Prime Minister appealed to Swedes to "open their hearts" to immigrants (called refugees, no matter what their motive for trying to enter Europe") Swedish voters understood his appeal to mean "open your wallets (even more)" and the neoliberal trojka lost big - mostly to an anty-immigrant party, Swedish Democrats.

They are not likely to win in 2018, no matter that the Social-Democrat /Green coalition, supported by former communist don't seem to able able to govern, and has no plans and ideas for the future. It does not seem any party in Sweden has any ideas, except for, you guess it, Sweden Democrats, whose only "IDEA" is to get rid of immigrants. Duh.


----------



## mrypg9 (Apr 26, 2008)

Anciana said:


> They claim to do it on humanitarian basis: Sweden as a conscience of the world. Sounds nice and noble, doesn't it? Too bad the "conscience of the world" ran out of resources and out of patience of its people.
> 
> .


There are people who take a globalised view of humanity in that we are all of us of equal moral worth and that our common humanity transcends national frontiers and boundaries of any kind. Taken to its logical conclusion, this view means that a person in Somalia has the same rights to shelter, food, work etc. as a person in Stockholm.
This is a very noble idea but like many such ideals it founders on the hard rock of reality. I personally don't think it has much going for it in itself: 'humanity' is an abstraction, the human world is made up of individual men and women with very different cultural, historical, religious and personal interests. 
The affections and affinities of most humans start with their nearest and dearest, their families, partners, then ripple out to friends and to the community. Imo, that's how true communities are formed. These 'natural' communities are usually more stable.
These communities also have limits, boundaries. Most structures and organisations have, whether nation states, clubs, everything. Some people are included, others excluded. That's life.
A government which makes no distinction between its citizens and others will lose legitimacy. We can see that happening all over Europe. I'd suggest the UK Brexit vote owed much to people's perceptions, misperceptions, some would say, of being 'left behind', excluded.
It seems as if almost every government in Europe has failed in its task of handling immigration for the benefit of everyone, host community and incomers.
Most Western European countries need immigrants. We are ageing populations. We need workers to maintain the revenue base needed to provide quality public services of all kinds.
But no nation in the world operates a totally open border policy.

We never give a thought to those left behind in the countries from which the migrants come to Europe. Most of them are young, fit. What happens to the old folk, women and children they leave behind? Many have professional skills which they acquired in their home country and which we are happy to use. Doesn't Syria need doctors?

Just a few thoughts.


----------



## Alcalaina (Aug 6, 2010)

I think this open-door thing only works if everyone does it. For example if Syrian refugees had been distributed in numbers pro rata with existing populations throughout Europe, and elsewhere, there wouldn't be unbearable pressure in places like Sweden, Greece and Italy.


----------



## mrypg9 (Apr 26, 2008)

Alcalaina said:


> I think this open-door thing only works if everyone does it. For example if Syrian refugees had been distributed in numbers pro rata with existing populations throughout Europe, and elsewhere, there wouldn't be unbearable pressure in places like Sweden, Greece and Italy.


Agree, but the problems antedate the recent crisis, I think...


----------



## skip o (Aug 1, 2011)

Alcalaina said:


> I think this open-door thing only works if everyone does it. For example if Syrian refugees had been distributed in numbers pro rata with existing populations throughout Europe, and elsewhere, there wouldn't be unbearable pressure in places like Sweden, Greece and Italy.


Refugees would still probably seek to go to areas communities where there are already a good number of refugees, or people from their own countries. That is what many (most?) expats seem to do. It is natural for people to want to be around others who speak their own language and share in their own customs.

As the talk of "closing the doors" grows, I am becoming more of a proponent some sort of test to make sure immigrants / refugees are willing to live according to some of the parameters of the country they are going to. I know I can't kiss my wife or drink alcohol in some countries, and that is the price I pay for being allowed in. I wear hats in synagogues and take off my hat in churches. It is reasonable for a country to say "if you want to live here, you need to do this and not do that."


----------



## therese1 (Jan 28, 2016)

Alcalaina said:


> I think this open-door thing only works if everyone does it. For example if Syrian refugees had been distributed in numbers pro rata with existing populations throughout Europe, and elsewhere, there wouldn't be unbearable pressure in places like Sweden, Greece and Italy.


The fair share/everyone does it scenario was used as a stick to beat remainers, very successfully (if you're a brexiteer.) Oops, that's another thread.


----------



## Gazeebo (Jan 23, 2015)

Justina said:


> well' there is quite a difference between a burka and a mobile. here in Chiclana, lots of drivers can be seen with their mobile at their ear, while I only see the headscarf rather prettily shaped on the head.


A burka is not a hijab, to what you are referring.


----------



## Gazeebo (Jan 23, 2015)

Following on with the burka, as a teacher, I had to teach body language and facial expressions. If the west insists on allowing women to totally cover themselves facially, whilst socially interacting, then perhaps the governments should inform educationlists to drop these topics from the curriculum. I for one use facial expressions to gauge expression and feeling, obviously something which some religions does not allow women to express. This is an under the thumb society for a certain sex.


----------

