Cameron's Multicultural Wake-Up Call

[mardi gras skin]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704364004576131940794840176.html

Multiculturalism is a deeply misunderstood idea. That was one of the reasons for its political success. People were led to believe that "multiculturalism" meant multiracialism, or pluralism. It did not. Nevertheless, for years anybody who criticized multiculturalism was immediately decried as a "racist."

But the true character and effects of the policy could not be permanently hidden. State-sponsored multiculturalism treated European countries like hostelries. It judged that the state should not "impose" rules and values on newcomers. Rather, it should bend over backwards to accommodate the demands of immigrants. The resultant policy was that states treated and judged people by the criteria of whatever "community" they found themselves born into.

In Britain, for instance, this meant that if you were a white English girl born into a white English family and your family decided to marry you against your will to a randy old pervert, the state would intervene. But if you had the misfortune to be born into an "Asian-background" family and the same happened, then the state would look the other way.

This is segregation. A high brow version of separate but equal. What is the upside to this form of multiculturalism? I don't even understand why this would be entertained much less implemented. While obviously divisive for state cohesion, it also seems like it would divide people groups and subject one part of your population to more onerous laws than other parts of your country.

I remember when Chancellor Merkel made a similar remark but I didn't take the time to understand what she was talking about and it sounded extreme. This time, I get where she's coming from.

[jpyaks3]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704364004576131940794840176.html

This is segregation. A high brow version of separate but equal. What is the upside to this form of multiculturalism? I don't even understand why this would be entertained much less implemented. While obviously divisive for state cohesion, it also seems like it would divide people groups and subject one part of your population to more onerous laws than other parts of your country.

I remember when Chancellor Merkel made a similar remark but I didn't take the time to understand what she was talking about and it sounded extreme. This time, I get where she's coming from.

Can you show me where the laws are different for different people. Here is a hint its utter bull****. This is just another Sharia law is coming (or is already here) bull**** alarmist op-ed. The actual law system isn't different its just that in arbitration courts you can use whatever law you want to decide civil things as long as all parties agree. The key is that it can't break any British laws. So the law part is absolutely bull****, because Jews have had Beth Din courts for centuries which serve the same purpose as what some people are going nuts about in the UK. Same with Judge Judy stuff here in the states or really any other arbitration court anywhere.

Yes it is important to assimilate immigrants into a culture but its also important to realize that first generation immigrants no matter their background probably won't fully assimilate, its a long slow process. It happened with the Irish, Italian, Chinese and many other groups immigrating to the United States throughout our history. What is absolutely counterproductive is the groups like the BNP and some conservative groups here attacking immigrant populations with xenophobic hateful language because that doesn't advance any reasonable discussion.

[mardi gras skin]

jpyaks, is there any distinction between multiculturalism as it is practiced in Europe and multiculturalism as we understand it here in the States? Because this article and others I've read are claiming that there is a distinct difference but you seem to be saying that there isn't.

[jpyaks3]

jpyaks, is there any distinction between multiculturalism as it is practiced in Europe and multiculturalism as we understand it here in the States? Because this article and others I've read are claiming that there is a distinct difference but you seem to be saying that there isn't.

I think they are largely similar, the difference is that there are quite a few openly racist/xenophobic parties that exist and are somewhat successful in Europe such as the BNP and other far right and ultra nationalist groups that simply would not be kosher here because of our history of welcoming all people (in theory). This means that there are more clashes between immigrant populations and more established parts of society. There is a lot more xenophobia and frankly racism present in Europe and I think thats why it is portrayed differently because racists have a pedestal through some of these far right parties.

This article loses credibility because it claims something that is demonstrably false; different laws for different people. Thats simply not true.

[mardi gras skin]

This article loses credibility because it claims something that is demonstrably false; different laws for different people. Thats simply not true.

Ok, forget the first article then. It just happened to be the one link from Real Clear Politics, but I have no desire to defend any op-ed columnist. I'm sure you're right and he's a shill as most of them are. So lets start with this article:

http://www.torontosun.com/news/torontoandgta/2011/02/07/17188881.html

A prominent voice in Canada’s Muslim community said British Prime Minister David Cameron was “spot on” when he insisted British multiculturalism has failed.

And just like Britain, Canada’s will fail, said Muslim Canadian Congress founder Tarek Fatah.

He said Monday that, like Britain, Canada has been too tolerant in allowing Muslim immigrants to settle into closed communities, some of which preach Islamic values and a hatred toward the West.

“The Canadian multicultural model has failed, as the British model has,” said Fatah. “When first generation (Muslims) are more loyal to Canada than the second generation, then we have sufficient evidence to say that multiculturalism has failed.”

“The newcomer finds solace in his or her own community,” said Fatah, “and when there is states-sponsored multiculturalism, there are people who make money out of the marginalization of these people.”

Obviously the source is not a right wing xenophobe. Fundamentally, what I'm reading from this and many different sources is that European model multiculturalism is leading to a fracturing of nationalism and a fracturing of the population.

[DRSmith]

Interesting after finding a source that was not a right wing one that has been accused of racism I found some interesting things out about the speech, in a sense what he is advocating is limiting certain that that cause radicalization, now if this is applied muslims then all sorts of radical rhetoric should come under this banner.

[jpyaks3]

Ok, forget the first article then. I have no desire to defend an op-ed columnist. Lets start with this article:

http://www.torontosun.com/news/torontoandgta/2011/02/07/17188881.html

It just happened to be the first one on google, but there are several similar articles. Fundamentally, what I'm reading from many different sources is that European model multiculturalism is leading to a fracturing of nationalism.

I think they need to work on better methods of assimilating new immigrants but I think a lot of these problems comes from the ultra-nationalist ideologies that are much more prevalent/mainstream in Europe than in the United States, there needs to be room for immigrant populations to work their way into their new societies while retaining their own culture to some extent. That isn't a fast process and its often a rocky process.

I am honestly not extremely well versed in the nuances between European and United States multi-multiculturalism models but it seems like the European model puts more emphasis on keeping the national character if you will while the United States encourages assimilation more but is also a more flexible view of culture (melting pot and all that jazz).

[Corcaigh]

European model multiculturalism

Unless you define it, it's little more than a straw man to be attacked.

Some European countries place restrictions on immigrants that would be viewed with outrage here.

Are France's laws regarding head scarves the European multiculturalism you have in mind?

[DRSmith]

I would be interested if the same people who think Muslims should assimilate more and who would deny them accomadtion for their religion would do the same to Jews.

[mardi gras skin]

I am honestly not extremely well versed in the nuances between European and United States multi-multiculturalism models but it seems like the European model puts more emphasis on keeping the national character if you will while the United States encourages assimilation more but is also a more flexible view of culture (melting pot and all that jazz).

I was young when I lived in Germany but I do remeber they had a very, "this is how it's done" kind of mindset. In America, we tend to have a "here's how we do it HERE" but we don't expect Americans in Boston to interact like Americans in Richmond much less various communities in each city.

Still, there is something about Americans everywhere that don't put up well with Anti-American rhetoric. We do expect a basic level of loyalty and value assimilation across the board. Maybe its in response to the more rigid understanding of assimilation in European countries, but whatever the reason, loyalty to country seems to be a problem.

Unless you define it, it's little more than a straw man to be attacked.

Some European countries place restrictions on immigrants that would be viewed with outrage here.

Are France's laws regarding head scarves the European multiculturalism you have in mind?

You would be much more capable of defining it than I would. I don't understand it well enough to do more than butcher it. All I am doing is noticing the fester. When Merkel said something, that was a curiosity. The French head scarf thing was strange. The Netherlands, Denmark and now Cameron and the whole whirlwind. SOMETHING is going on. I just don't understand what it is.

And I don't buy that its about Muslim hatred.

[Corcaigh]

Still, there is something about Americans everywhere that don't put up well with Anti-American rhetoric

So Liberals don't hate America?

[mardi gras skin]

So Liberals don't hate America?

Nope. That's as stupid as "Conservatives hate the poor". Talking points. But I understand why each party has their stupid talking points. Its how they rally the sheep. I can't figure out why so many smart European politicians would stick their necks out and say something that sounds racist unless there's more than I understand about multiculturalism as it is practiced in their countries.

That no-name politician in Florida that made a stink about Shari law? That's the level of ignorant local politician that makes those dumb statements. When Cameron, Merkel and the like feel the need to speak out about it, somethings going on.

[twa]

What's going on is a subversion of individual rights

Strange that so many see it in the US against gays,yet ignore it in other areas

[jpyaks3]

What's going on is a subversion of individual rights

Strange that so many see it in the US against gays,yet ignore it in other areas

What individuals rights are being subverted? Do you have some examples of this?

[Popeman38]

So Liberals don't hate America?

I normally like the tenor of your posts, but what the hell does this have to do with the topic at hand? We are talking European and American multiculturalism, not American political-ism.

[Corcaigh]

Nope. That's as stupid as "Conservatives hate the poor". Talking points. But I understand why each party has their stupid talking points. Its how they rally the sheep. I can't figure out why so many smart European politicians would stick their necks out and say something that sounds racist unless there's more than I understand about multiculturalism as it is practiced in their countries.

Europe has openly had ethnic ghettos and racism for centuries. In every parliament there is always a far right presence. Anti-discrimination legislation is taken nothing like as seriously as here. I've been in highly professional situations where European managers would joke about a foreign candidates 'funny name' and indicate that it was unlikely that they'd get hired on that basis alone.

I see this much more as politicians on the right exploiting the flock versus a genuine change in European political philosophy. What explicit European polices embraced 'multi-culturalism' and how are they different to policies here regarding foreign immigrants.

I'd also be interested in actual data on the social mobility of poor immigrants from an English, French or German ghetto in a major city compared to recently arrived poor Latinos in certain sections of LA, for example.

---------- Post added February-9th-2011 at 09:51 AM ----------

what the hell does this have to do with the topic at hand? We are talking European and American multiculturalism, not American political-ism.

We are talking about how European politicians are claiming that very significant segments of their population lack national pride, unlike America.

And yet certain frontrunning politicians and pundits here talk about 'real America' and 'pro American parts of the country'. They talk about how the left favors 'European socialism'. They make a fuss over Michelle Obama's comment about newfound pride in her country. They decry Mexican flags on Cinco de Mayo. But all this is unlike the European politicians claiming that some of their populace lack national pride?

[Predicto]

Kind of silly to use England as an example of failed multiculturalism. A couple of decades ago, England had pretty much nothing to offer the world. It lacks natural resources and is not a natural center for industry, its agriculture had never been adequate, its role in finance had been usurped by the USA, especially New York, its docks were empty and collapsing into the Thames. Britain was entering the long slow fall to irrelevance that Spain had suffered a couple of centuries earlier.

So what did they do? They welcomed immigrants and globalism, made London the most multicultural and cosmopolitan city in the world, and thrived as immigrants came to them with ideas and money and culture, and used London bankers to finance their international ventures. It has been a huge success story.

http://www.economist.com/node/18073240

[twa]

What individuals rights are being subverted? Do you have some examples of this?

Womens rights primarily,but certainly others

http://womenagainstshariah.blogspot.com/2010/03/uk-and-future-of-islamist-subversion.html

http://sheikyermami.com/2011/02/05/freedom-means-one-thing-to-the-west-and-another-thing-to-islam/

http://www.ruthfullyyours.com/2010/10/19/here-is-oskar-freysingers-remarkable-speech-on-islam/

The Turkish Constitutional Court has come to a decision, upheld by the European Court of Human Rights, that Sharia is the antithesis of democracy and intends to usurp the state’s role as guarantor of individual rights and freedoms. In this context, the following statement by Dalil Boubaker, former president of the French Council of the Muslim community, is remarkable: “Islam is simultaneously religious, community, law and civilization.” The Organization of the Islamic Conference of States — which as mentioned, includes 57 states — has made a similar observation: “Islam is religion, state, and complete organization of life.” Under this principle, the Organization of the Islamic Conference of States accepts the General Declaration of Human Rights only to the extent that it does not conflict with Sharia.

It is precisely this tendency of Islam to control both private life and the public organization of society, and thus its overall influence on the design of people’s lives, which distinguishes Islam from other religions.

Buddhism, Judaism, Hinduism, etc. practice religion primarily as an individual conception of life without a significant legal and political component. They respect politics and the law, but also the sciences and the arts as autonomous “systems”, while writers and artists who criticize Islam should expect violent reactions from the guards of the Islamic religion. Remember the death sentence against Salman Rushdie by the Iranian head of state, Ayatollah Khomeini, in 1989, or the destruction of Danish property in Muslim states after the publication of the Muhammad cartoons in 2006.

[jpyaks3]

Womens rights primarily,but certainly others

http://womenagainstshariah.blogspot.com/2010/03/uk-and-future-of-islamist-subversion.html

http://sheikyermami.com/2011/02/05/freedom-means-one-thing-to-the-west-and-another-thing-to-islam/

http://www.ruthfullyyours.com/2010/10/19/here-is-oskar-freysingers-remarkable-speech-on-islam/

The Turkish Constitutional Court has come to a decision, upheld by the European Court of Human Rights, that Sharia is the antithesis of democracy and intends to usurp the state’s role as guarantor of individual rights and freedoms. In this context, the following statement by Dalil Boubaker, former president of the French Council of the Muslim community, is remarkable: “Islam is simultaneously religious, community, law and civilization.” The Organization of the Islamic Conference of States — which as mentioned, includes 57 states — has made a similar observation: “Islam is religion, state, and complete organization of life.” Under this principle, the Organization of the Islamic Conference of States accepts the General Declaration of Human Rights only to the extent that it does not conflict with Sharia.

It is precisely this tendency of Islam to control both private life and the public organization of society, and thus its overall influence on the design of people’s lives, which distinguishes Islam from other religions.

Buddhism, Judaism, Hinduism, etc. practice religion primarily as an individual conception of life without a significant legal and political component. They respect politics and the law, but also the sciences and the arts as autonomous “systems”, while writers and artists who criticize Islam should expect violent reactions from the guards of the Islamic religion. Remember the death sentence against Salman Rushdie by the Iranian head of state, Ayatollah Khomeini, in 1989, or the destruction of Danish property in Muslim states after the publication of the Muhammad cartoons in 2006.

I was asking for a concrete case that happened in the UK or Europe where Sharia law subverted individuals rights.

EDIT: Also Sharia can come in many different forms and mean many different things there are 4 different schools of (Sunni) Law in Islam and hundreds of differences between the schools and also between individuals arguing over how to interpret things so poorly cited broad brushes like those articles put forth aren't really helpful. Are we talking Wahabbist or much more moderate? Sharia law is not a single concept like people like Pipes and Spencer and Gellar want to make it seem.

[Stadium-Armory]

Pat Condell on multiculturalism.

[DRSmith]

It is precisely this tendency of Islam to control both private life and the public organization of society, and thus its overall influence on the design of people’s lives, which distinguishes Islam from other religions.

Judaism

Are you going to seriously tell me that things like opposition to abortion and gay marriage is not influenced by religion that there is not political rhetoric many times inside churches and that churches do not urge their congregates on certain matters and claim the Christian faith?

Have you ever read the OT Judaism had all sorts of laws that governed day to day life.

[twa]

I was asking for a concrete case that happened in the UK or Europe where Sharia law subverted individuals rights.

EDIT: Also Sharia can come in many different forms and mean many different things there are 4 different schools of (Sunni) Law in Islam and hundreds of differences between the schools and also between individuals arguing over how to interpret things so poorly cited broad brushes like those articles put forth aren't really helpful. Are we talking Wahabbist or much more moderate? Sharia law is not a single concept like people like Pipes and Spencer and Gellar want to make it seem.

How can you have a concrete case when Shariah is not law?

It is indeed a many flavored thing and none to my liking

but you might find this interesting

http://www.hudson-ny.org/368/sharias-inroads-in-europe-italian-court-beaten-up-for-her-own-good

One area especially touched by this phenomenon is the judicial system in Europe. Two recent cases in Italy and France are particularly troublesome. First, in Italy, three members of a Brescia-based Maghrebi family (father, mother and eldest son) were accused of beating up and sequestering their daughter/sister Fatima because she wanted to live a "Western" life.

In the first trial, the three were sentenced for sequestration and bad treatment. The court acknowledged that the teenager was "brutally beaten up" for having "dated" a non-Muslim and in general for "living a life not conforming with the culture" of her family. But on appeal, the family was acquitted because the court deemed that the young woman was beaten up for "her own good." The Bologna public prosecutor's office then disputed the acquittal of the three accused parties, but the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation dismissed it and ruled in favor of the charged parties.

Interestingly two Italian political leaders on the opposite side of the political spectrum, Isabella Bertolini, vice president of the MPs of the right-wing party Forza Italia, and Barbara Pollastrini, a post-communist former minister agreed to condemn the Supreme Court decision: "This verdict writes one of the darkest pages of history of the law in our country."

Isabella Bertolini was upset that the court "allied itself with radical Islam" and Barbara Pollastrini is pushing for parliament to pass as soon as possible a law condemning violence against women: "Now more than ever, it is urgent to defend the rights of a large number of immigrant women victims of an intolerable patriarchal culture."

Muslim women were quick to denounce the supreme court's decision. Among them, Souad Sbai, president of the Organization of Moroccan Women in Italy.

She said, "It is a shame, this verdict is worthy of an Arab country where the Sharia would be in vigor. In the name of multiculturalism and respect of traditions, the judges apply two kinds of rules: one for the Italians and one for the immigrants. A Catholic father that would have acted this way would have been severely sentenced."

According to her organization, recently at least nine Muslim women have been killed in Italy by one of their close relatives. The number of young girls forced to wear the hijab "as early as eight or 12" is on the rise as is the number of female teenagers fleeing home and "lots of them are looking to flee to France."

[DRSmith]

While a parent should not abuse their children does not a parent have authority over their child?

[twa]

well a mother has authority to end life...for a while,then we take it away

[DRSmith]

The reason for thar is because at after birth a child can be given to another to care for if unwanted.

But if they keep the child the have authority over it while it is under their roof and they are instructed to teach it and bring it up.

Can you tell me twa how you are not trying to impose your wishes upon others?

How are you different from the Muslims you are worried about it seems to me all that is going on is on group is accusing another group of wanting to do what they are doing.