Please forgive this (in places tongue-in-cheek) rant in advance - the issue concerned deals with something quite close to heart at the moment - namely how hard it is to attempt to integrate into and communicate with a community notorious for its inability to practise two-way integration (and is seemingly utterly ignorant to the effects!). Having emigrated from one culture to another, I feel slightly qualified to say something about how 'integration' works (or how it should work versus how it actually works)..... You see, people (usually politicians) whitter on at length about how 'society' should embrace 'diversity' - yet at the end of the day, what one society tends to prefer is that people joining it be "just like them", so the process tends to work one way only. Some say, "If you join our culture, you abide by our laws, customs, practices, whatever, or you go back to where you came from!!!" Others say the same thing but in a much nicer way. Personally, I abide by the laws to the letter - I like freedom and not jail - but I have problems with some practices/customs - I like compromise. Now in some areas this could be a good thing (like language for example) but in others it becomes a pain in the arse. For example, I have bent over backwards to adopt customs and social manners here but every day I encounter people utterly ignorant to my own customs and social manners - so who's wrong? Neither or both? That's quite a wide question - so let's narrow it down to communication...... Here, expressions of frustration (to take just one example), often caused by simple misunderstanding or confusion, are seen as horrific outbursts of violent conduct and people feel *gasp* "threatened" (they also lack understanding of what sarcasm is) by me and one gets nowhere in the attempt to communicate something important or even urgent. Yet in my own culture back in Blighty, you the reader would more than likely recognise it as just normal frustration and more than likely not feel threatened and more than likely understand the frustration and work out a way to identify its cause and cure......it's all down to how one looks and sounds, as well as what one says...... So. Studies have identified the following and I used this information in hundreds of training sessions to thousands of people over 7 years or so in the service sector in the UK. How you look (visual impact) covers 55% importance of how you are perceived. How you sound (vocal impact) covers 38%. What you say (content) is only 7%. So if I cannot see you speaking, or adequately assess how you sound, and all I have is a muffled voice behind a veil/burkha/egg sandwich & Liverpool scarf then I'm not going to be able to really appreciate up to 90% of the message you're trying to send me! In UK culture then, people joining it should at least be made aware of how important the above is - and it has ABSOLUTELY NAFF-ALL TO DO WITH RELIGION!!!!! But the media/politicians/PC-brigade prefers to make a big deal/headlines/soundbites out of it and here's where I support Tom totally - his job is hard enough when people cannot express themselves in a way he can understand as necessary (and vice-versa). Here's where I am with MartinSGill too - it's less to me about a religion suppressing their women (different argument, I'm an evangelical humanist too!), it's more that a particular aspect of a religion is causing a significant section of UK society to be perceived as oppressed and there are clear examples of how this affects daily life (medical professionals like Tom being hindered in a role designed to HELP!). So both sides lose out - because of religion and also a socio-political minefield whereby one is accused of discrimination for one reason or another if one attempts to make a sound, reasonable point with no personal agenda or intended offence (!). Those joining UK cultures should consider how their intended messages are being received. Those already in UK culture should consider the impact of asking people to adjust their own cultural practices. There needs to be really clear communication, free from political/religious/vote-gaining/paper-selling dogma as to the benefits of meeting halfway. Then again I'm also an idealist ;) If I had my way, I'd ban religion AND politics in one fell swoop and save millions of lives a year...........!