A British Airways employee has lost her case claiming religious discrimination over the airline's decision in 2006 to ban her from wearing a small cross on a necklace to work.

Nadia Eweida, 56, hit the headlines when she took BA to an employment tribunal claiming it effectively discriminated against Christians because they were not allowed to wear religious jewellery while Muslims were allowed to wear hijabs and Sikhs to wear bangles.

After a number of rows about religious clothing in 2006 – including the use of the veil after Jack Straw challenged Muslim constituents to show their faces during MPs' surgeries – BA backed down and changed its policy to allow all religious symbols to be worn.

But last night Ms Eweida said she had lost her discrimination case. "I'm very disappointed," she said. "The judge has given way for BA to have a victory on imposing their will on all their staff." [Link]

The ongoing debate over "reasonable accommodation" has been cause for significant unease and discomfort for many Canadians.

However, rather than demonstrating clear leadership by addressing those concerns constructively, some of our political leaders have exploited the issue for short-term political gain, creating even greater unease.

As our society becomes more diverse, it is natural for a conversation about our evolving identity to arise. However, the key to success lies in that conversation being grounded in respect and dignity rather than mistrust and division.

The dialogue should focus on how we build a community that contains respectful space for all of our cultural and religious traditions to interact and contribute within the laws and norms of a liberal society.

We are witnessing a toxic version of that conversation unfold today. Naturally, the notion of "reasonable accommodation" might mean different things to different people, and that gap in understanding is being used to polarize Canadians into "us" and "them."

Some opportunists suggest that multiculturalism is a threat to the very essence of Canada and Quebec; these fears are entirely unfounded. Aside from stoking ill-founded fears, none of the opportunists has demonstrated how one Canadian's expression of their faith or culture diminishes those of others.

How does allowing a Muslim to wear a hijab or a Sikh to wear a turban diminish the rights or beliefs of others? These expressions of faith do not require any compromise by others because they are simply individual life choices. Clearly, they are red herrings in the "reasonable accommodation" hysteria.

Of course, there may be instances when respecting someone's cultural or religious practices necessitates some accommodation, like requesting a prayer space or providing for special dietary needs. However, such requirements are both minimal and reasonable.

Last month was the 78th anniversary of Persons Day, which celebrates the date in 1929 when women were declared "persons" under Canadian law. Looking back, we might find it strange, or even absurd, that women were not legally "persons" in this country. However, I wonder if the opponents of women's rights in 1929 might have argued that such an extension of legal rights was an accommodation that threatened the "Canadian way of life."

The fear that the Canadian way of life will be lost if we accommodate others is based on a narrow view of this great country. Canada prospers because our identity is robust and open to new ideas. For example, bilingualism likely would not have survived if not for Canada's values of respect and inclusion. Some have argued that "multiculturalism" fosters division and segregation. On the contrary, it is a policy that appreciates the reality of this country by promoting healthy integration balanced with respect for difference.

Many Canadians are immigrants or the children of immigrants who emigrated from countries that brutally denied minority rights and demanded assimilation. For those Canadians, it must be disheartening to see strains of their native lands' assimilationist policies arising in Canada under the cover of a debate on "reasonable accommodation."

Rather than exploiting misunderstanding and fear, political leaders should be bringing Canadians together. They ought to reassure us that celebrating Diwali does not mean the rejection of Christmas, and accommodating Kosher dietary requirements does not mean banning the consumption of pork.

Unfortunately, the separatist parties and the governing Conservatives have been fuelling anxiety by jumping on the unreasonable accommodation bandwagon.

Xenophobia is largely driven by fear of the unknown. Political leaders can act responsibly by demonstrating that diversity is not a zero sum game; diversity holds the promise of economic prosperity for Canada and cultural richness for its citizens.

The process of nation-building is delicate and difficult. But, does that mean we should shy away from what is required to continue building the best country in the world? In this new millennium, Canada is well-positioned to leverage its great strengths and lead the world economically, politically and socially.

Our diversity is one element of our strength as a nation. Realizing that, we can become more united and cohesive than we have ever been. All we need is proactive leadership to take us there. [Link]

A process of adjustment is under way as hundreds of recent residents get used to Greenwood's culture -- and vice versa

The scent of pungent spices wafts from garages morning and night as some of this south metro city's newest residents prepare meals outside to keep cooking smells out of the house. A local produce company is growing traditional Indian vegetables. And an area high school has broadened its celebration of international cultures.

Cultural assimilation is taking place on two fronts in this city 15 miles south of Monument Circle: Hundreds of new Sikhs are adapting to life as Hoosiers, and Greenwood residents are learning about Indian traditions.

"It's something as a community that we have to sort of adjust to," said Greenwood Mayor Charles Henderson. "As much as I need to understand them, they need to understand us.

"It's a two-way street."

The changes have arrived swiftly in Greenwood, an overwhelmingly white, mostly Protestant city of nearly 45,000 just south of the Marion County line, where officials recently approved plans to open the metro area's third Sikh temple.

An estimated 2,000 Indian Sikh families have settled in the small cities and suburban neighborhoods south of Indianapolis, most in the past two years.

Many were lured by the area's lower housing costs and its crossroads location on trucking routes. The first to arrive spread the word, and the population has increased as much as tenfold in two years, some estimate.

"When I come here, I love it," said Jatinder Singh, a trucker who moved from Washington state. "I also love the people in this area."

Many of the changes are playing out in the Homecoming at University Park development off Main Street in Greenwood, home to many Sikhs and within walking distance of the site of the new temple on Graham Road on the city's eastside.

Henderson attended a recent Sikh service inside a two-story brick home in Homecoming that is serving temporarily as a temple. He was honored for supporting the Sikh community.

As they wait to move into their new temple, or Gurdwara, members of Greenwood's Sikh community worship at the house, surrounded by other homes in a typical suburban neighborhood.

After the ceremony, Sikhs gathered outside for a traditional meal of roti (similar to a tortilla), lentils, vegetables, rice and yogurt.

Henderson, 65 and a lifelong Greenwood resident, wore a suit and tie. He also wore an orange head covering, customary of Sikhs, and ate karah parshad, a sacred pudding of flour, sugar and butter distributed at the end of religious ceremonies.

"Diversity is something that a lot of people shudder at," Henderson said. "There was a time when diversity was only black and white. Now diversity is multi-colored."

Elaine and Steve Dougherty, who own S&E Produce and Flowers, have begun growing native Indian vegetables on their Clark Township farm, a short drive from Homecoming.
Local Greenwood residents have taken a liking to barq, a squash-like vegetable that Elaine Dougherty said is delicious on the grill topped with a sprinkle of Parmesan cheese.

"It's definitely changing," Elaine said of Greenwood's cultural landscape. "We have to learn to work together. They're asking things of us that we've never heard of before."

Schools near Greenwood also have been adjusting.

What started out as a Punjabi American Culture Fair last year at Whiteland High School has evolved into the International Cultures Fair at the insistence of the Indian Sikh students. The majority of Sikhs -- the world's fifth-largest religion -- live in the Punjab region of northwest India, and their first big immigration to the United States began in the late 1890s.

In addition to cultural offerings, the school has an English-as-a-new-language class, as well as resource study halls designed for students with limited English proficiency. An instructional assistant at the school is from India.

Whiteland High's demographics have changed dramatically in less than a decade. The school had a 1 percent minority population in the 1998-99 school year. The minority population now stands at 14 percent, including about 110 Sikh students.

"We're hoping the school has been a valuable asset, because this also has been a community change," said John Schilawski, assistant principal at the school. "We're hoping we can be in the forefront in helping facilitate that."

Mistaken for Muslim

As Sikhs adjust to a new way of life, some of their traditions have found their way to Greenwood.

Many are used to cooking in their garages so that pungent odors from onions, garlic and ginger do not seep into their homes, said Beenu Sikand, a Realtor who has sold about 200 homes to Sikh families.

A Sikh who moved to Indianapolis from northern India 16 years ago, Sikand also acts as a translator.

"I feel bad for all of the other Americans who live (near Sikh neighbors)," she said, trying to suppress a chuckle. "Every day and morning, they have to smell ginger, garlic and onion."

Many baptized Sikhs carry a kirpan, a ceremonial blade that resembles a dagger. Because of the dastar, or turban, long beards and sari, Sikhs are often mistaken as Muslim. The two religions are not related.

"All of this can be misunderstood," said Philip Goff, a professor of religious studies and director of the Center for the Study of Religion and American Culture at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis.

The Sikhs gave a presentation to Henderson and local police officials two years ago about their culture.

"I told them, 'This is the Sikh population. They look Muslim, but they are not Muslim," Sikand said. "They dress like that, but there is a difference."
Greenwood officials say there have been few problems.

"I don't know of any kind of harassment or any kind of discrimination against them," Greenwood Police Chief Joe Pitcher said. "It's been a good relationship."

Sikh leaders plan to renovate and move into an existing residence on the 4-acre Graham Road site, east of I-65, and use it as a temple until they're ready to build a new temple there. Last month, a city board approved a special zoning exception to allow the temple in a residential area.

It would serve about 200 families, many of whom live, like trucker Jatinder Singh, in Homecoming at University Park.

Neighbors of the temple site have voiced concern about increased traffic on Graham, which narrows from four to two lanes as it approaches the temple.

Jeannine Nelson said she and her neighbors would alert the city to any traffic snarls.

"Every time one thing goes wrong, there will be a complaint," said Nelson, 47, who lives with her husband, Don, about a half-mile south of the temple. "And every neighbor will do the same. Everyone is so unhappy about this."

Community spirit

Sikand, a Realtor for 21st Century Diversified, sold her first home to a Sikh follower in Plainfield two years ago.

Like Singh, the buyer was a trucker and just happened to stop in Central Indiana. Word got out, and the Sikh population has mushroomed. Most have come from California, New York and New Jersey.

Many discovered they could buy $200,000 homes in Indiana for what they were paying for apartments in California.

The majority of them, according to Sikand, are truck drivers, with a few convenience store owners and grocery and restaurant owners sprinkled in.

"They bought very big, nice homes," Sikand said. "They are happy."

Sikand often visits her clients in Homecoming, where she likens that atmosphere to a mini Delhi, India's second-largest city, as adults chat and children play outside.
"It feels like home," she said, "and the U.S.A."

For Sikhs such as Chanchal Singh, a leader in the local Sikh temple, Greenwood is now the place that they call home.

"We would like to tell the other members of the community here in Greenwood that from the outside we look different, but from the inside, our hearts are the same," said Singh, 37, after the ceremony last week honoring Henderson.

"We are all children of God. We have respect for each other. We want to be part of the community and help it grow. We want to support them, and we also look for support from them." [Link]

It should be a simple matter for Muslim immigrants to settle in to Canadian society: You accommodate, and we adapt

[T]he Quebec Council on the Status of Women's proposal to bar public employees from wearing religious symbols while at work reflects fear and ignorance, not good judgment. The good women of Quebec have confused religion with culture. Let's face it -- much of the current ire is rooted in misgivings about ultra-conservative Muslim practices and increasingly emboldened Islamists. But whether it is Iran or Canada, the state should not be in the business of deciding what women should wear.

[W]hy ban the hijab or the Sikh turban? There's much work to be done within the Muslim community (with full support of the mainstream) to eradicate medievalism through education, dialogue and a vigorous, no-holds-barred debate. Banning the hijab will only make this exercise more difficult.

"Reasonable accommodation" is a separate issue. Most immigrants find Canadians to be accepting and accommodating to newcomers. Our first years are difficult and scary, but ask our children and their successes speak for themselves. Of course, the cancer of racism has not been completely defeated and occasionally raises its ugly head, but by and large, new immigrants and racial minorities do better in Canada than in any other place on earth.

Contrary to this, in most Muslim countries, non-Muslims are denied equal citizenship, don't have the same freedoms we enjoy in Canada and there's little or no accommodation for their religious and cultural needs. They have to follow the law of the land, no matter how oppressive.

Muslims discover that the Canadian Charter of Rights gives them infinitely more freedoms than the lands where Islamic law is the norm. Any Muslim who has faced the wrath of religious police in Saudi Arabia, the vigilantes in Iran and rude officials in Pakistan should think twice before damning the proceedings of the Taylor-Bouchard Commission.

So why do Muslims complain when we're asked to adapt ourselves to our new home where most of us have come by choice? After all, accommodation is a two-way street -- you accommodate, we adapt.

Accommodation also places a huge responsibility on us not to make a nuisance of ourselves. Being Muslim is not only about finding a space to pray. The first words of the Koran were to "read and write" not "pray and preach." Islam is more about respect for those around us and the adoption of an impeccable integrity in our personal character rather than the parading of our costumes and the flaunting of our rituals. If my religious freedom becomes a nuisance for others, it's no longer a freedom but a burden.

So what constitutes the fine line between reasonable accommodation and unreasonable demands?

Reasonable accommodation is the multi-faith chapel at Toronto's airport, where the largest section is for Muslims. Nuisance value is the employee who insists on a separate room allocated only for her. The onus to find time and space to pray is on us, not on our teachers, employers or colleagues.

Reasonable accommodation means including Muslim books in the library. Unreasonable accommodation is the demand to ban The Three Little Pigs from schools.

Reasonable accommodation means making vegetarian or halal food available in the university cafeteria; asking for a separate restaurant is unreasonable.

Reasonable accommodation is having the freedom to wear the hijab; unreasonable accommodation is to insist on wearing face masks in public by falsely invoking Islam.

At a critical time when liberal, progressive Muslim Canadians are trying to make a dent in the dogma, it's important to let mainstream Canada know that we don't require extra accommodation; we need better accommodation for all Canadians.

For Muslims this means that instead of spending an inordinate amount of time on inane debates about the halal-ness of maple syrup, we should be engaged in a dialogue about the future of our youth, public policies, elections and the security of Canada.

Muslims are an essential part of Canadian society, whose values of secular democracy and individual freedoms are under attack by Islamists. Muslims should realize that citizenship in Canada is not based on inherited race or religion, but on a set of common laws created by men and women whom we elect and send to Parliament. Those who wish to introduce laws based on divine texts should try living in Saudi Arabia and Iran before they force the rest of us to embrace their prescription. [Link]

Hijabs, baseball caps, burkas, kirpans, green hair and Bermuda shorts -- what people wear and the way they look preoccupies Quebecers, a government commission heard Wednesday.

On its third and final day of hearings in the Montregie area, near Montreal, the Bouchard-Taylor commission on "reasonable accommodations" of religious and ethnic minorities got an earful from residents about the manner of dress allowed in schools, shopping malls and swimming pools.

Day-care worker Louise Condrain said she was shocked one hot summer day at a mall to see a woman in a burka strolling behind her husband, who was comfortably dressed in Bermuda shorts.

Robert Dubois, a father of five, said he's "seen a lot worse" than the hijab where he works, the Universite de Montreal, including students with green hair, for example.

Horeya Elmaraghi, a lawyer originally from Egypt, said she wore the veil at work in court here for eight months in 2004, the year she made a pilgrimage to Mecca, but finally stopped wearing it because people complained.

Roger Larrame, a retired union activist, said he thinks Sikh students in school wear their kirpan "like a jewel" -- out of vanity, not religious devotion.

Yves Lavoie, a Montreal fireman, said Muslim women have been told to stop wearing full clothing when they bathe at local swimming pools, and objected that his son can't wear his baseball cap in high school, even though hijabs are allowed there. [Link]

Quebecers strongly oppose almost any cultural or religious accommodation of immigrants and other minority Quebecers, according to survey findings published yesterday in La Presse. The findings are a sobering measure of the size of the problem Quebec faces and a clear indication that some political courage is going to be needed.

The poll results are dramatic: A hijab on the soccer pitch? 70 per cent of respondents are against. Turbans for Sikh Mounties? Nearly 80 per cent against. The kirpan? Female-only swimming? Male-only driving testers for Hasidic Jews? No, no, and no, by large margins.

People of common sense and goodwill can certainly disagree on many of these issues. But in Quebec's current happy social context these strikingly one-sided results - if not the entire debate - seem to us somewhat irrational.

Immigrants, by and large, integrate into our society rapidly and well. To Quebec's credit, newcomers are not parked in homogeneous ghettos. In our red-hot economy there is opportunity for all, removing the economic-fear component from the equation. You don't hear many, if any, claims that visible minorities are "coming here to steal our jobs."

So why all this opposition? One figure offers a hint: 58 per cent object to providing prayer spaces in public buildings. That's far fewer naysayers than on most such issues.

This leads us to suspect that the less visible a practice, the more acceptable it's deemed. Praying to Allah or anyone else is bothersome to fewer old-stock Quebecers if done in private; but Heaven (so to speak) help the 13-year-old girl who wears a scarf to play soccer. Even the Quebec Council on the Status of Women, an organization dedicated to social equality, is campaigning to forbid public-sector employees from displaying any overt signs of culture or religion.

It's doing this in the name of a secular state, but the subtext is far different. If an SAAQ clerk or a teacher is barred by law from wearing a hijab, a turban or a kippa, what is the message? What is retained - by adults and kids - is that there's something wrong with these symbols - and, by extension, their wearers.

There is some good news in the survey. Younger Quebecers revealed themselves to be far more accommodating than their elders. That openness bodes well for the long term.

In the meantime, it will be the duty of elected politicians to make sure that the smooth integration of these immigrants - and their acceptance - continues. The Bouchard-Taylor Commission and the water-cooler discussions it has engendered have revealed, for better or for worse, some unexpectedly deep pools of cultural insecurity, or at least anxiety, among established populations.

Premier Jean Charest has been steadfast so far, in his public comments, in supporting an open and modern society. He'll need to keep doing that, and it won't be easy.

As for opposition leader Mario Dumont, so close to taking power, and for Pauline Marois, considered by many to be the best potential premier, they could continue to profit politically by talking about the narrow "nous."

But before they do, they need to ask themselves: what kind of society will we have if we try to jam everyone into the same mould? [Link]

The group that 12 years ago fought vehemently for the rights of students who wore a hijab in Quebec's public schools is now trying to ban their teachers from wearing the Islamic headscarf and other "ostentatious" religious symbols while at work.

The Quebec Council on the Status of Women, a 20-member body that advises the government on issues relating to women, is urging the province to force public employees to remove visible religious signs when they are on the job. Aside from large Christian crosses, Sikh turbans and Jewish yarmulkes, these also include the hijab, a veil that generally covers the hair and neck, and the more controversial niqab, which covers the face, leaving only the eyes exposed.

The council argues that equality between men and women trumps religious freedoms, and that the symbols oppress. [Link]

A leading figure in Vancouver's show business community has riled local Sikhs with comments about immigrants he made on a recent radio talk show.

Controversy erupted after Bruce Allen took at swipe at immigrants, including Sikhs, during his regular "Reality Check'' rant on CKNW radio.

"If I didn't know any better, I'd say there has been a lot of immigrant bashing going on in recent months,'' Allen told listeners during a commentary that aired on Sept. 13.

He was referring to recent incidents that included complaints from the Sikh community after Passport Canada declined to issue passports to three Sikh children because they insisted on wearing religious headgear when they were having their pictures taken.

"If you're immigrating to this country and you don't like the rules that are in place, then you have the right to choose not to live here,'' Allen said during his broadcast.

"But if you choose to come to a place like Canada, then shut up and fit in … these are the rules. There's the door. If you don't like the rules, hit it. We don't need you here. You have another place to go: It's called home. See ya!" [Link]

Does the wearing a burkha, nose rings or a mangalsutra undermine a modern secular society?

In England, a woman who worked at a catering services firm at Heathrow airport, was sacked for wearing a nose ring. London's Mayor Ken Livingstone says this is an attack on her right to express her religion.

Other western countries have gone a step further. France has banned the wearing of headscarves and turbans in school whereas in England a teacher was sacked for wearing a veil.

So, does the West overreact to Asian cultural symbols?....

From nose-pins to crucifixes to turbans and the burqa, across many western countries there seems to be a suspicion of the overt display of religious identity. A crack down on cultural and religious symbols has been brewing in the West for a long time.

A law banning Islamic headscarves and other religious symbols from French schools came into effect in 2004. The normally tolerant government of the Netherlands also banned the all-covering veil worn by fewer than hundred Muslim women in the entire country in 2006.

The same year Italy put forward legislation to ban-the naqab and the burka-the Islamic veil that covers the face.

Some German states have banned teachers in public schools from wearing headscarves.

In fact in October 2006, a British Muslim teacher, Aisha Azmi was sacked for refusing to remove her veil in class.

And the recent policy of US airports to screen Sikh turbans also led to a huge uproar among Sikhs in the US and in India.

Why is Western Europe banning symbols, which represent a "conspicuous" sign of religious affiliation? Be it the Islamic scarves, the Sikh turbans or the Jewish skullcaps?

For some it is a clash of civilizations. But considering the fact that British airways suspended an employee for wearing a crucifix in 2006 it seems to be part of a difficult drive towards secularization, in an increasingly multicultural Europe.

However you take it, wearing religious symbols in public is a burning issue across Europe. [Link]

While most of Europe's estimated 20 million Muslims are fully integrated, law-abiding citizens with little sympathy for radical views, others are frustrated with government policies that keep them on the fringes of the mainstream. Originally from poor, rural backgrounds, a high proportion of Europe's Muslims came to the continent to labor in coal mines and steel mills during the 1960s and 1970s and remained at the bottom of the economic pile, ignored by politicians and business leaders while facing discrimination in housing, schools and labor markets.

European governments' failure to tackle these problems, combined with tough counter-terror measures and the rise of xenophobic parties, have heightened the sense of alienation felt by many Muslims in Europe. Muslims' search for refuge in conservative Islamic values has prompted friction with Europe's traditional secular liberalism and, in some cases aided by foreign-trained radical imams, created fertile ground for the spread of extremism in Islamic communities.

Europe's predicament causes concern across the Atlantic. Many US policymakers accuse EU governments of ignoring the security implications of young Muslims' radicalization and suggest that Europe could learn from America's 7 million Muslims who, measured by educational and income levels, are far more integrated than their European counterparts.

Muslim communities in the US and Europe certainly share some similarities, and a transatlantic dialogue would be useful in promoting best practices on integration. However, American and European Muslims face different challenges, reflecting their distinct composition, history and experience.

After the devastating 9/11 terror attacks in 2001, Muslims in both the US and Europe fell under close scrutiny, a condition that binds the two communities together. Muslims on both sides of the Atlantic tackle hard-line policies of suspicious governments, combat public prejudice and counter criticism of their faith as repressive and cruel. This in turn has prompted an eagerness among Muslims in both the US and Europe to assert their "Islamic identity." Despite pressures to conform to Western appearance and values, women in both communities increasingly wear headscarves, and a growing number of young adults attend mosques. In addition, US policy in the Middle East is a constant, painful irritant for Muslims of both continents.

Despite their common struggle against prejudice, however, US and European Muslims live in two markedly different worlds, largely because of income. Most American Muslims are well-educated, affluent and politically active. “They are better off than the average US citizen,” notes Philippa Strum of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington. Almost 60 percent are college educated, 52 percent have an income of $50,000 or more and 82 percent of those eligible say they are registered to vote. In contrast, “Muslims in Europe belong to the underclass of Europe,” says Jocelyn Cesari, an expert on Islam in Europe.

Savvy American Muslims are way ahead of their European co-religionists in terms of social standing and political clout. More active as a community, they have access to enlightened leaders and engaged in energetic, often heated debate on reconciling Islam and modern America. As a result, they’re better equipped to fight discrimination and gain respect as a minority.

America's tradition of embracing immigrants has made it easier for the diverse Muslim community – including Arabs, South Asians as well as white and African-American converts – to become part of a vast melting pot of religions, cultures and ethnic groups. Europe's small, culturally homogenous nations still find it difficult to extend a warm welcome to immigrants who, for their part, tend to retain native languages and customs, clustering in small enclaves with compatriots.

Respect for minorities is just climbing up the EU's political agenda. The German government for decades treated its 3 million Turkish population as “guest workers” requiring no special attention and expected to return home. When disaffected young African and Arab youths in France took to the streets in the “banlieues” of Paris in summer 2005 to protest unemployment and discrimination, President Nicolas Sarkozy, then the country's interior minister, denounced them as “racaille,” or “scum.” A limited outcry met his comments. Anti-immigrant rhetoric is also the norm in once-tolerant Dutch and Danish societies.

For many Muslims, practicing their faith is easier in the US than in Europe. More religious than mainly secular Europeans, Americans are less uneasy about public displays of faith and religious symbols like headscarves, banned in French state schools and some German regional government offices. The debate over the role of women in Islam raging among US Muslims – with some women fighting segregation in mosques and using faith-based arguments to reclaim women's rights – has yet to reach Europe.

While starting to group together on a national level, Muslims in Europe have yet to forge an EU-wide alliance to match the clout of pan-American organizations such as the Islamic Society of North America, headed by Canadian-born Ingrid Mattson, or the Council on American-Islamic Relations. American Muslims may feel targeted by the October 2001 Patriot Act, which increased power of law-enforcement agencies to fight terrorism, but organizations lobbying for Muslims and other professional and civil-liberties groups ensure that Muslims have no need to withdraw from the mainstream.

Most significantly, under the watch of moderate, thoughtful religious and community leaders, American Muslims show little sympathy for radical views. In contrast, European security services have identified mosques as central in the spread of radical Islamist ideologies and the recruitment of homegrown and foreign-born terrorists in Britain, France and the Netherlands. One problem is that EU governments have traditionally allowed Saudi Arabia and other conservative governments to fund mosques and imams in Europe, and evidence suggests that Al Qaeda recruiters infiltrated some mosques. As highlighted by a recent BBC survey, a majority of imams in Britain, from India, Bangladesh and Pakistan possess limited English and fail to provide a modern interpretation of the faith suited to a Western multicultural democracy.

Given such divides, EU policymakers and European Muslims often insist they can learn little from the US experience. Certainly, America's tradition as an immigrant melting pot cannot be transposed to Europe. As evidenced by heated EU debate on membership of mainly Muslim Turkey, most Europeans are also unlikely to lose their chronic fear of Islam.

But to avoid further alienation and violence, EU governments and Muslims in Europe must step off the beaten track and chart a new course for speeding Muslims' integration into the mainstream. This may require discussion of the so-far taboo question of affirmative action for Europe's Muslim minority. More importantly, instead of turning to Arab and other Islamic nations to discuss European Muslims, EU governments should examine how the US government, society and business tackle the challenge. [Link]

No symbol of cultural difference is more emotive in modern Britain than the headscarf. To many non-Muslims it represents the refusal to integrate, resistance to UK foreign policy and the oppression of women. But to wearers, the hijab has as many meanings as an onion has layers. It can even serve as a symbol of self-determination. So it is appropriate that Muslim women, hijab-wearers among them, are emerging tentatively into public life after years of invisibility within the UK's highest-profile minority.

Superficially not a lot has changed since September 11 2001 in the predominantly Muslim district on the east side of Birmingham, Britain's second largest city. The wares of the mini-markets – exotic fruit and vegetables, pots and pans and racks of clothes – still spill out on to the pavements along with the bhangra music. The men dress as they always did, in suits, sportswear or long shirts. The real difference is the proliferation among the women of hijabs, and beyond that niqabs (veils) and burqas (the all-enveloping black garment with mesh over the eyes).

Welcome to "Birminghamabad", as the locally raised comedian and writer Shazia Mirza calls it. Muslims constitute one-fifth of the city's population and their origins in rural Pakistan mean their attitudes can be conservative, even extremist. Men who allegedly plotted to murder a British soldier were arrested here. Moazzam Begg, another local, was held at Camp X-Ray in Guantánamo Bay. The city boasted a President Saddam Hussein Mosque, until a name change became expedient.

Yet east Birmingham's most recognisable Muslim figure is not a fire-breathing imam but a slight, university-educated woman who is politically radical but religiously moderate. Salma Yaqoob, 36, is a councillor for Sparkhill and a member of the leftwing anti-war Respect party, led by the controversial MP George Galloway. She wears a hijab but takes issue with the idea of Muslim women as "timid wallflowers who need rescuing". For her, the garment "is a feminist statement, showing I do not have to conform to fashion or make myself appealing to men".

Although bitterly critical of UK participation in the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, Ms Yaqoob says, "Britain is a great place to be a Muslim. Difference is accepted and you can have a complex identity. I'm much more pessimistic about [continental] Europe because intolerance is so strong there." Many of her battles have been within the Muslin community. The conservatives among them have accused her of "shamelessness" for speaking in public. But the mood is changing, she says, and some mosques now offer her a platform.

Naz Koser, a singer and arts entrepreneur, is another Muslim woman in search of venues. The main stage at the Glastonbury rock festival, one of big events of the British music calendar, would do nicely. Her pop group, the Divine Aubergines, presents the novel spectacle of women in headscarves singing in public. The name is multi-layered: "divine" because the lyrics are religious and "aubergines" because, according to Ms Kozer, eggplants "came from the east and were treated with suspicion at first". Also, women in burqas are some­times nicknamed "aubergines", being dark and rounded.

Ms Kozer does not wear a burqa or a hijab. Instead, she has facial piercings and a poetic line from the Koran tattooed on her forearm. "Doing public shows is really important," she says. "They give people a better understanding of Muslim women." Performances can be doubly controversial because some Muslims disapprove of music itself , as well as of women performing it. Ms Kozer says the fiercest criticism comes from observant women, such as the niqab-wearer who disrupted a show.

"Would the Prophet, peace be upon Him, have behaved in that way?" asks Ms Kozer, 31, "No. He would not have judged me in five minutes. He would have listened."

The struggle for British Muslim women is to forge an identity that is not imposed on them either by religious zealots or a British cultural mainstream some see as consumerist and immoral. Ms Kozer says: "My feelings vary day to day. A lot of young Muslim women really rock. But when you meet a 36-year-old who has to ask for permission to visit the shops, you feel pessimistic."

Baroness Uddin, a Labour politician, equal rights campaigner and sporadic hijab wearer, talks of the "triple discrimination" faced by Muslim Asian women in the UK. The barriers range from traditions of obedience to men in the home through to prejudice in the jobs market and public life.

Yet she says Britain is "heaven" compared with France, where the hijab has been banned from some institutions, or Islamic countries where sexism is rampant. Monica Ali's best­selling novel Brick Lane ends with a Muslim woman putting on skates and stumping cheerfully on to a public ice rink crowded with other Britons. Her real-life counterparts feel they are making progress towards acceptance too. It is just slow and wobbly going to begin with. [Link]

Gardaí tonight defended its rule banning Sikh officers from wearing a turban on duty, claiming the force was not racist but trying to be impartial while providing a state service.

Controversy erupted earlier this week after a Sikh man, an IT professional in his 20s, began training to join the Garda Reserve.

Initially he was told wearing a turban would not be a problem but later a senior officer warned if he wanted to go on duty in a station, he would have to remove it, sparking criticism about the gardaí’s alleged outdated rules.

Superintendent Kevin Donohoe of the Garda Press Office said the force was not advocating one religious belief over another and that An Garda Síochána had an effective intercultural policy.

“There is no doubt that the Garda uniform and dress standards present unique issues in accommodating cultural diversity,” he said.

“These are challenges faced by all facets of Irish society as diversity and integration more and more become real issues.

“The Garda Síochána has, historically, been seen as providing an impartial police service, policing all sections of society equally.

“Accommodating variations to our standard uniform and dress, including those with religious symbolism, may well affect that traditional stance and give an image of An Garda Síochána which the Commissioner feels the public would not want.” [Link]

A Sikh businessman had purchased a local gas station and the obligatory ribbon cutting photo appeared in the News-Banner. Shortly afterwards both the mayor and the businessman were mailed anonymous copies of the photo. The hand written caption read, “We don’t wear turbans in Bluffton. We speak English.”

[Mayor Ted] Ellis was stunned. “I always knew there was an undercurrent, but this was a graphic illustration of that,” Ellis said. Ellis invited the man to his state of the city address in 2004 and outlined his goals to promote diversity and understanding in Bluffton.

In the wake of that incident, the United Way of Wells County obtained a grant and formed a committee to look into ways of making the city more inclusive.

That initial group struggled to gain traction and craft a cohesive message. “We had trouble developing a message that would get traction,” Ellis said. One thing that quickly became clear to the committee and to Ellis was a matter of semantics.

Using the term, “diversity,” seemed to be a code word for race, where saying, “inclusivity,” led to a broader dialog on many issues. Soon the committee identified the biggest issues of inclusivity in the community as tolerance for religion and understanding the values of those living in poverty.

Ellis said the key concept behind inclusivity and getting people to understand what is at stake is getting people to connect and feel involved. Ellis said that nearly everyone can recall some time in their life when they felt excluded, or left out.

By getting people to remember what it felt like to be excluded, Ellis said he hopes to promote a dialog[ue]. [Link]

Integration Minister Conor Lenihan urged the Civil Service to adopt a policy of hiring immigrants like the Gardai (police) do then hid his blushes as it was revealed a Sikh part-time member of the police reserve is banned from wearing his turban while on duty.

While immigrant membership of police forces is well-established in many countries it is still a relatively new phenomenon in Ireland, and the Garda leadership is still reviewing how it recruits foreign nationals due to the low numbers who actually made it into the force.

Of 7,000 foreign applicants, only 200 made it through to aptitude tests. Yet Lenihan, whose portfolio is a new one in the Irish government, insisted the force was “ahead of the pack” in making efforts to get staff from ethnic communities.

Lenihan, younger brother of Justice Minister Brian Lenihan, said he had discussed with Garda Commissioner Noel Conroy the case of the turban ban on the Sikh member of the reserve.

He said the commissioner and his staff were currently considering their position about ethnic forms of headgear for members of the force and its reserve. And, he added, it was only to be expected that immigrants to Ireland must accept Irish culture.

Lenihan acknowledged that the issue of the turban is important for the Sikh community but he insisted, “If we are to take integration seriously people who come here must understand our way of doing things.

“When the president and ministers travel to the Middle East they accept the cultural requirements of the country they are operating in.”

The Sikh forbidden to wear his turban on duty is an information technology professional who, according to sources in his community, joined the Garda reserve from a sense of civic duty.

Turbans are worn by Sikh members of western police forces elsewhere, including in London and Canada. There is expectation that a compromise will eventually be reached in Ireland. [Link]

A SIKH member of the Garda Reserve is banned from wearing his ceremonial headdress, the turban.

Integration Minister Conor Lenihan last night backed up the Garda Siochana ruling, saying immigrants to this country must accept our culture.

Minister Lenihan said he has discussed the Sikh case with the Garda Commissioner Noel Conroy.

The gardai are currently forming their views about ethnic forms of headgear for members of the force and the reserve.

As turbans are worn by Sikh police officers elsewhere, most notably the London Metropolitan Police, a compromise may be reached.

Sikhs wear turbans to cover the long uncut hair worn as a sign of their commitment to their religious faith. The turban is a headdress consisting of a long scarf-like single piece of cloth wound round the head or an inner hat.

While acknowledging the issue of the turban is important for the Sikh community, the Minister supported the garda stance. "If we are to take integration seriously, people who come here must understand our way of doing things. When the President and Ministers travel to the middle-east, they accept cultural requirements of the country and the culture they are operating in. It is a vice versa situation with regard to Ireland."

The Sikh man is an IT professional, who decided to join the Garda Reserve.

Minister Lenihan said the general trend was towards wearing the designated uniform. [Link]

More than a third of British Asians do not feel British, a BBC poll suggests.

The research among the under-34s for the Asian Network found 38% of the UK residents of South Asian origin felt only slightly or not at all British.

More than a third agreed to get on in the UK they needed to be a "coconut", a term for somebody who is "brown on the outside but white on the inside".

ICM Research interviewed 500 Asian people aged 16-34 and 235 white people aged 18-34 between 4 and 12 July.

Of those polled 84% were satisfied with life in Britain and almost half thought they have more opportunities here.

All of the British Asians polled were of South Asian origin.

Half of them, and nearly two-thirds of the white people interviewed, agreed it was too easy for immigrants to settle in Britain. [Link]