to call my husband a racist?

[RosieandJim89]

We are looking at holidays at the moment and despite DH saying just a month ago that Spain was predictable and a dirty, he now won't consider anywhere else as its "safe". I suggested a few other places such as Turkey and he said no as he will get arrested for touching me . He will not listen to reason and then came out with "I won't go to a muslim country". I asked what he meant by this and he said they are all like Egypt - dirty and dangerous (his experience) and he doesn't agree with their way of life. He also brought up the shooting on the beach in Turkey to which I pointed out the incident in Paris, London Bombings, 9-11 etc. He said they were different. I could get passed it if it was a one off but when I suggested Morocco earlier in the week he came out with "I am not comfortable with taking DD to a muslim country" and another time he said he was "Wary of muslims".
I have always known that he didn't like the muslim culture which I understand as it is very different to our own but this is something else.
I got frustrated after a while and told him that I do not intend to holiday in Spain alone the rest of my life and that I did not want to discuss the matter further as realising my husband was racist was something that was not easy to take. He says he isn't but I think this conversation suggests otherwise. Happy to be told IABU or overreacting on this but I don't think I am :(

in what way am I dodging the question? My original response to you acknowledged that all countries whose majority religion is Islam have bad HR records. My point is that there are a lot of countries with bad HR records, most of which are not Islamic, so identifying Islam as a factor leading to HR abuse is fallacious.

You do realise that there are non Muslim countries other than Spain don't you?

I think you need to apologise to your DH. Labelling someone a racist just because they don't agree with you is pretty low.

Er, nope. You said:

Let's not pretend that Islamic countries have the monopoly on human rights abuses and prejudice....

Which a) contains no acknowledgement at all that majority Islamic countries have poor human rights records, and b) is a minimising statement (well someone in Myanmar is imprisoned so therefore it's fine for me to financially support regimes which cut gays heads off, or publicly flog teenage girls who have sex before marriage or constitutionally sanction persecution of minorities.

You have admitted in your most recent post that you can't think of any Islamic countries which have a good human rights record. But you've now added the fudge that these are 'nothing to do with Islam'.

A new question then. Please can you name the Muslim majority countries where human rights abuses are not linked to Islam and Islamic law? I would be able to take a fairly educated guess that if you can name any then they're probably countries with pretty brutal dictators who suppress Islamic extremism. I'm struggling to think of any of those though, Hussain and Gaddafi are gone. Maybe some of the more obscure -stans?

My original response to you acknowledged that all countries whose majority religion is Islam have bad HR records. My point is that there are a lot of countries with bad HR records, most of which are not Islamic, so identifying Islam as a factor leading to HR abuse is fallacious.

That is not a sound argument.

It has the same logic as this:

"I have acknowledged that all diseases caused by eating lemons are fatal. My point is that lots of fatal diseases are not caused by eating lemons, so identifying eating lemons as leading to fatal illness is fallacious."

The fact that there might be other factors that lead to HR abuses does not say anything about whether Islam is a factor.

100% correlation would suggest there might be some kind of causal connection.

I have been to many wonderful Muslim countries (including Morocco and Egypt) so the culture for me is not a major issue (altho i have had some unpleasant very unsettling experiences there too). So that would not be an issue for me. However i wouldn't go to many of the countries you listed as i do fear a terror attack. My dh works in counter terrorism and he would never go or allow me to take the children to those countries. It is a lot easier for someone to walk along the beach macheteing tourists than it is to get bombs and guns into european cities. All you need is a lone wolf. If i was childless i might risk it, but not now and my DH has seen too much so he is probably over cautious.

My point is that saying that "all Islamic countries have human rights' abuses" may be true but it's a misleading statement if you consider that this is true of basically all non-"first world" countries. It picks out a characteristic (Islamic) that is irrelevant in this context

is islam really irrelevant though?

A recent article I read (I think guardian, not daily mail) pointed out that in the many usual rankings of world universities, not a single one in the top NUMBER (number I forget, but perhaps 200 or so) lies in the muslim world. I actually didn't believe that stat, but given that claim is so extreme, I imagine it isn't far from untrue. A number of top universities are not in the richest part of the world (eastern bloc, Russia, China and India). One of the reasons cited was the lack of free speech and thought in those countries, often stemming from blasphemy laws.

As for the OP, I do think the husband is a little over the top. There is a huge range of violence in the muslim world from extreme to very tolerable, though I think right now you won't have your pick of countries.
It sounds like his objections are a mixture bigotry and fear for your family's safety. He may be wrong about the safety issue (I haven't looked), but I can see why he might think it's not safe.

Islam is a religion, not a race. You can be anti Islam - it does not make you a racist. The difference between race and religion is that you cannot change your race. You can change your religion.
So you can call him a bigot - but not a racist.

Saying that not only Islamic countries abuse human rights is definitely not a minimising statement. I am an active member of Amnesty, and I avoid travelling to and supporting countries with bad HR records. However, I think it's important not to mix up correlation and causation, and taking principled stand on human rights doesn't mean succumbing to racism and prejudice. I'm well aware that Islam is used to justify horrific behaviour, but that's not the same thing as Islam inevitably leading to abuse. The rhetoric of Christianity is also used to support terrible abuses in much of Africa, but that doesn't mean that Christianity leads to human rights abuse. Socialism has obviously been used to justify terrible things, but not every Corbynite wants to send those who disagree with them off to the gulags.

North Korea is not big on Human Rights. Not big on religion either.

It isn't racist to dislike the fact that in some cultures, women and cultural minorities have no equality, and to be reluctant to expose your daughters to that.

Billsikes - that's a really good point actually. I was being a bit facetious, and was also rushing so didn't really think it through. But I think to a certain extent I stand by my point. I would take a destination on a case by case basis. I wouldn't automatically rule out a country based on the predominant religion. I would rule out a country based on personal safety, which would include a good hard look at the current political climate there. Not hysterical rumours but whether travel there is recommended. I would also rule out somewhere that had an appalling human rights record, whatever the religion. And I think that is what it comes down to. Not to demonise a whole group of people based on which imaginary friend they talk to, but how do they actually treat each other and visitors?
And as someone else said (and it's not a politicians answer) which countries anywhere have a faultless human rights record? The USA for example is not known for its adherence to Islamic law but Guantanmo Bay was not exactly a shining beacon of justice and respect for human rights and if you were wanting to consider a human rights record as a reason not to go somewhere then this would be as valid surely? (Possibly not now but certainly a few years ago).

"I have acknowledged that all diseases caused by eating lemons are fatal. My point is that lots of fatal diseases are not caused by eating lemons, so identifying eating lemons as leading to fatal illness is fallacious."

No, this analogy begs the question - you're talking about diseases CAUSED BY eating lemons, here what is under discussion is what causes hr abused (or whether or not lemons cause the disease). A better analogy is - out of 200 people, 10 have eaten lemons in the last 24 hours, and 50 have died. All the 10 lemon eaters were among the 50 dead. Therefore the lemons must be a factor in their deaths.

TBH - I'm not even sure that it's worth getting into these abstract arguments. I guess if you want to think that all Muslims are horrible bigots then you will. I need to get on with my work but I have to say that I find it extremely upsetting on a personal level to read these kinds of bigoted attitudes. I am white but grew up in a town with a big Muslim population and, cliché though it is, many of my dearest friends are Muslims. I think that if you actually got out there and met some people from a different background from you, you might find it harder to make blanket statements about religions in this way.

whether or not Turkey is safe for holidays this summer is IMO a valid question. it's noticeable [we're trying to book now] that many holidays there have sold less well than was once the case, seems to be a fair bit of spare capacity.

though on balance I think it is safe.

Queen - like Christianity maybe? After all, there are plenty of fervent Christians who are not tolerant of minorities such as LBGT people. In the USA, a country identifying as Christian, black people are in the middle of a massive struggle to be recognised as having lives of equal value to those of white people. And in the UK, look at the people who are still not happy that women can now be vicars etc, and refuse to worship at a service led by a woman. And as mentioned, in parts of Africa Christianity is at the root of a lot of violence especially towards women.

I agree TFP. The main Turkish Mediterraen holiday resorts are far away from Syria and Turkey is very dependent on tourism so the authorities are probably putting a lot of effort into reducing the risk of attacks etc so their tourist industry doesn't go the same way as Egypt and Tunisia.

The attacks in Paris, Brussels and London, Madrid and elsewhere show that the risk of terrorism isn't confined to Muslim countries and there is a risk everywhere.

A better analogy is - out of 200 people, 10 have eaten lemons in the last 24 hours, and 50 have died. All the 10 lemon eaters were among the 50 dead. Therefore the lemons must be a factor in their deaths.

Nope, that's not equivalent to your argument at all.

You argument was closer to

"Out of 200 people, 50 have died. 10 of the 50 have eaten lemons in the last 24 hours. It is fallacious to suggest any causal or correlative link between eating lemons and death for those 10 people."

You claimed that the fact that HR abuses happen in non-Muslim countries makes it fallacious to claim a between Islam and HR abuses.

When clearly there can be more than one cause or HR abuses.

Nobility you have singled out human rights abuses but in fact there were other reasons given in BillSykes post as to why they would avoid holidaying in Muslim countries. For example, are you saying that it's pure coincidence that Muslim countries do not offer equality for women? Because I believe that's actually quite an integral part of their culture. Same goes for LGBT rights. Religion is not irrelevant or a coincidental factor when discussing the lack of equality in Muslim countries.

Not quite but I'd go along with this

"Out of 200 people, 50 have died. 10 of the 50 have eaten lemons in the last 24 hours. It is fallacious to insist that there is a causal link between eating lemons and death for those 10 people. Particularly when there are other factors which link all 50 of the dead."

(Clearly I wasn't denying correlation.)

I have worked and travelled extensively around north Africa and the middle east, and while I marveled at the history, cuisine and culture on offer it is absurd to think that western women in many of these places do not get a hassle free experience. While attitudes in places like Marrakech, Istanbul and Jordan are improving (mostly through the introduction of special tourist police) there is often still a strong misogynistic, conservative undercurrent just beneath the surface, especially so in more rural areas. My previous travels to these regions were as a single bloke and my biggest concerns back then was the unrelenting hassle from faux tour guides and street hawkers, it was however, a stark contrast to what my wife had to put up with when we revisited these areas as a couple, she was groped, hit on by sleazy would be Lotharios and called all sorts of names because she did not hand out her phone number or want to engage in conversation with these men. She respected local dress code but that did not stop the constant chorus of ‘hey pretty lady’ wherever she went. Egypt, by some distance was the worse place in terms of aggressive, pushy and damn right rude behavior with one incident resulting in a physical altercation when one scumbag grabbed my wife by the arm when she told the guy to piss off after several minutes of him following her and verbally abusing her. While we undoubtedly had plenty of positive experiences and fond memories of visiting these places they were unfortunately marred by the above issues. The Ops husband may be ill informed about the specifics of some of these countries and articulating himself in a clumsy manner but there is unfortunately more than a grain of truth with his concerns and screaming ‘wacist’ is not really going to change what is evidently a problem with some of these destinations.

However, I think it's important not to mix up correlation and causation

It's important not to falsely separate them too. Overwhelmingly human rights abuses in Islamic countries are rooted in and perpetuated and justified by religion. And specifically Islam.

You're not executed for being gay in Saudi Arabia because the regime there justifies it through an irrational hatred of Freddie Mercury's music and tight white vests. Maldivans aren't banned from practicing any other religion other than Islam because they think hijabs are a better fashion choice than tiny metal crosses.

It's not a coincidence that HR abuses and Islam tend to coincide.

China & India contain nearly one third of the world's population, both have massive human rights issues, and neither are majority Muslim countries.

We went to Morocco recently and had a great time with no hassle.

Queen - like Christianity maybe? After all, there are plenty of fervent Christians who are not tolerant of minorities such as LBGT people.

Yes, and I wouldn't go on holiday to any Christian country which had a legal system which codified extreme discrimination against gay people either. For example I'm not going on holiday to Uganda ant time soon.

In the USA, a country identifying as Christian, black people are in the middle of a massive struggle to be recognised as having lives of equal value to those of white people.

I think that you're confusing people having unpleasant attitudes with a legal system which codifies and legitimises discrimination on the basis of race, sexuality or religion. The equality of black people is very much enshrined in law in the US (and Muslims for that matter too) no matter how difficult it is to change individual attitudes. That is a very different kettle of fish from countries like the Maldives where it's illegal for people to be any other religion but Islam, or Pakistan, where discrimination against minority cults is actually legitimised, justified and encouraged by the constitution.

And in the UK, look at the people who are still not happy that women can now be vicars etc, and refuse to worship at a service led by a woman.

Again, you are confusing individual attitudes with law. Somebody preferring a church with a male vicar is extremely different from a country where you can be arrested for driving a car or doing things like travelling, having medical procedures or holding jobs or office without the permission of your male 'guardian', who is another legal requirement.

You could start avoiding Egypt now, even getting there is dangerous....
I really liked Marocco, but then I had police escort on part of my trip, dedicated bouncers in clubs, and we stayed in modern neighborhoods in all the cities we were in. The only place when we were relatively free and had little hassle was Essaouira. Marocco is a beautiful country, but some of the attitudes are rotten.
Turkey was fine, beautiful with lovely people, but two of the places I stayed in were bombed lately. I will not go back, especially because of that and the PoS president they have there.
Tunisia is out, try as they can, but their security is shitty.
I would love to go to Jordan, see Petra, i admire their royale family and government, but flying out seems to be tempting the devil these days.

On another note, try Corsica. It is heaven on Earth :)

Chaz the answer to that is don't go on holiday to India or China and support their repressive regimes either. Not 'well somebody is in prison in China therefore it's fine for me to support a regime which cuts gay men's heads off'.