I have to disagree with this one. Calling someone a racist, bigot, xenophobic or comparable to Bin Laden only help to obstruct debate, when such a name has been put on the table all sane discussion is over. It stops debate and is seldom helpful in furthering own agenda. No one has ever been swayed from anything by being called names. In short you invalidated a what could else have been an excellent post by shrill accusations.
Alright then, I will.
If “your” culture- the set of ideas that make up the mainstream of British thought- is worthwhile, you won’t have to worry about it.
If Britain is really as tolerant, flexible, and welcoming as you make it out to be (I was born there and spent 14 years knocking around the West Country and Brum), there won’t be a problem assimilating any number of immigrants, of any background. They’ll see this wondrous culture, be instantly charmed, and integrate with the utmost haste.
On the other hand, if a part of mainstream Britain is reactionary, xenophobic, and violent, and forces Muslims or any immigrant group to keep to themselves… or British “culture” turns out to not to exist, they’ll never adopt “British” customs or fully enter British society, and you can kiss your pretty island goodbye as it sinks under the weight of all those people who weren’t raised on Yorkshire pudding.
See my point? If British culture can’t survive a few immigrants, it doesn’t deserve to, and you’ll be better off with whatever political, social, and economic thought comes to replace it.
umm… no it’s not. It’s an issue disputed by historians.
Ryan - when was the last time you had a curry? A curry, which I might add is probably now as much a part of the British culture as warm beer. 
Oh, and hi Eva! Thanks for finding the link to Tamerlane’s reading list for me.
Some concerns about this civil court.
Not to put words in his mouth, I think this is one of the things that Ryan is worried about. As a Canadian, this worries me, too. This and things like Native sentencing circles and the Jewish courts listed in the article above. What I feel things like this do is to make it easier for immigrants to remain isolated from the cultures they have emmigrated into (yes, I know Natives didn’t immigrate). I think it also feeds the idea in general society that these people are somehow different and can’t follow the laws that the rest of the people are required to follow further isolating them.
I don’t thinks Ryan’s fears are entirely groundles, but traditional cultures butting up against the individualist natures of western societies tend to remain traditional for only the few, not the majority. As someone pointed out earlier, how many women do you see wearing burkas in Paris? Probably not many. And as time passes fewer will still.
Fair enough
But if you had chosen a Palistinian terrorist for comparison whose people feared the immigration of Jews in the first half of the 20th century, you would have slam dunked the ball in the other end of the court ! Of course the circumstances between todays Europe and 20th century Palestine are quite different and can lend to rational arguments suggesting why the OP has nothing to fear, but we need to hear them. The OP has done us all a service to bring this prevalent concern up for discussion.
Thanx TWOTfan for the links. The comparison of modern muslims to earlier roman catholicism is quite thought provoking.
Interesting indeed, I didn’t realize that there is no solid figure for the number of Muslims in France.
From the first link:-
Allowing the author of the second link to pull numbers from the air:-
:dubious:
What culture hasn’t? Not saying its right, but to make a blind assumption that its only England which does this is naive. Don’t get me started on US intergration.
Gorilla Man: You are being more that a little harsh to Ryan_Liam and some of your attacks are bordering on insults. Just a few asides.
Firstly, there is no true Moslem democracy in the western sense. Turkey’s secularism is upheld by the army who have staged coups on numerous occassions to prevent the Islamist’s from taking over the government. Malyaisa is a single party state with no real opposition.
Secondly, the population of England is not decreasing in any real sense:
http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/default.asp?menu=faqs&page=faqs.asp
With links to the most recent census along with predictions.
Lastly, it isn’t unreasonable to ask “how many are too many”. Nor is it unreasonable to want to preserve your own culture. I think you are being entirely too glib when you say that people should be comfortable with being a minority. That sort of displacement usually leads to war and strife which I presume nobody wants. The economic benefits of immigration are questionable at best and I wonder how there can be assimilation without capping the number of immigrants currently entering a country. If immigrant groups are constantly refreshed by waves of immigrants then the need to assimilate is lessened due to the proximity and size of one’s own culture and language. Over time, immigrants can assimilate but not when entire communities and cities are becoming just like the country that they left.
Again, it is legitmate, and indeed required, that a government protect its citizens first and foremost. Allowing millions of immigrants to enter a country certainly isn’t a way to protect or even benefit a country. A Moslem France would profoundly change French culture. Perhaps people like it the way it is, we’ll call them the French. Don’t they have the right to protect their own culture and religion? Isn’t it justifiable for them to keep the country the way they want it? To change at their own pace and not at a pace dictated by millions of immigrants?
The way to curb immigration is twofold: (1) Discourage immigrants from coming to your country and (2) invest like hell in immigrant nations.
Heh. Some people have short memories, like when I spoke to you on ICQ. Remember??
(Don’t worry this does bring up a valid point in the bigot accusation department)
I’m not talking about a few immigrants, which I don’t have any argument with. When it becomes a concern about which group of people becomes or is the majority then its an issue where the possibility of conflict of laws, traditions in education and work etc become larger issues.
Ryan, not to worry. Even if the Muslims become the majority in your country (not likely in your lifetime – France is a different matter, though), in the long run I’ll bet on the Leftists over the Islamics.
As you’ve seen in this thread, even asking questions which suggest you might be thinking about opposing the Leftist agenda results in your being vilified. They are vicious and they are inexorable. No mullah stands a chance against them! The grandchildren of today’s immigrant Muslims will despise everything their grandparents hold dear.
This immigration problem does have solutions other than this never-ending whining and self-righteous belly-aching. Create conditions that encourage integration and that discourage insular behaviour in the immigrant populations in the host nation. Give them a chance to raise their standard of living and make a life for themselves, which, incidentally, are rights enshrined in the Charter of Human Rights. Let them contribute to society and culture and perhaps even improve it (e.g., cuisine, sports).
It is normally the discontent, disenfranchised, oppressed, ignorant, etc., who are troublesome, who turn to religious extremism for answers, and so forth. Content populations have fewer reasons to engage in such disruptive behaviour as tribalism, violence, vandalism, terrorism, etc. How would YOU react in the long term if you were viewed with hostility and xenophobia merely because of your name or your appearance? Sure, a good deal of people will suffer these indignities quietly, but others will take up arms against nationalist and racist oppression, proving that the hostile, rejectionist path is simply counter-productive in the long term.
Anyone afraid of immigrants in the age of the global village probably ought to do the ostrich thing: set up your own ethnically and culturally pure commune somewhere, and stick your fearful, fretting head in it, preferably permanently. And take with you the (Leftist) relativist fools who claim that cultural practices take precedence over the laws of the host country (c.f. the honour killings scandals in Denmark a few years back).
Some European states have definitely acted without much foresight. Chief among them is Italy, which, being cursed with an extremely long border and vicinity to Africa and Asia Minor, didn’t have much of a choice in the matter, at least not without resorting to the racist bullshit advocated by some in this discussion. Europe has been accepting a steady flow of net immigrantion since the early 1970s. In the case of Italy, it is estimated that 1.5 million immigrants were given legal residency papers from 1990-2002. The unofficial (counting “temporary” stays, illegal residents, unregistered persons, etc.) number is easily three times that, probably four or even more. That is to my knowledge the highest rate in Europe, an excessive number, and IMO well beyond reasonable hope of integration considering Italy’s anaemic and declining birth rate. And that is why Italy, traditionally a highly tolerant and multi-ethnic society, composed of countless diverse groupings since the days of the Roman Empire, has for the past decades been giving traction to the likes of Lega Nord and European anti-Muslim agitator extraordinaire, Oriana Fallaci.
But then again Italy is a rapidly aging state that needs the fresh, young immigrant blood in order to survive the next century, so it’s a trade-off.
I am following with interest the model being hammered out in France, which is similar to the Italian one in terms of welcoming immigrants but requires arrivals to conform strictly not with French culture but with French law and constitution as interpreted on an ad hoc basis. Banning headscarves, large crucifixes, skullcaps and other religious signs in school could be a good idea – an attempt to dissociate populations’ essential identities from radical forms of religion. Ostensibly, this is an application of Fraternité et Egalité with a hit to Liberté. In practice I think the results in a few years or decades may be worth the trouble because they stand a chance of reducing the influence of religion – any religion – in everyday life.
I wouldn’t bet your pension on it. Unless, of course I don’t count. I’m the grandchild of a Muslim immigrant, who imigrated here in the early 70s. I still hold dear everything my grandparents do.
I resent this. I don’t disagree with valid discussion of problems caused by immigration or immigrants, like those mentioned by Abe. I don’t disagree with Ryan_Liam insofar as he points out such problems. I don’t think anybody else in this thread has done otherwise.
What gets you vilified is when your criticism of immigration or immigrants starts to smell of irrational fear and hatred.
The headscarf discussion is interesting. People on many sides of the politcal spectrum seem to be agreeing with the ban.
I do not. To me, the headscarf ban is an example of liberal bigotry. It is unfathomable to me why tolerant liberals would raise such a stink about just a minor garment that somebody wants to wear. And it is quite clear that they (Muslim headscarf wearers) want to do this of their own free will, and that it is a very big deal for them. “Tolerance” for me means, let them! If you want to ban offensive clothing, start by banning low-riding jeans and belly-button piercings.
This is the best analysis of the situation that I have seen (warning, very left-leaning).
Well, I have now read the thread and I can tell you that some of the informations you take as correct, are not correct or at the very least incomplete.
But since you give preference
- to insult someone who makes the effort to take your concerns serious despite your clear foolishness and hatred
- all while writing this attempt to insult someone who took the time to address your concerns, you make it clear that you prefer to take none of the further information/advise I could give you for what it is : Free education…
I can do no more then wishing you luck by further ruining with irrational and unnecessary fear, prejudice and hatred a period that normally should be among the best years of your life. For some obscure reason you seem to enjoy your own fears that much that you like drown yourself in it rather then be saved from it by gaining more perspective, maturity and wisdom.
Salaam. A
Comparisons to Hitler (Stalin, Pol Pot, Osama bin Laden, Genghis Khan, Khan Noonian Singh, etc.):
So, on the one hand, saying “you’re no better than [insert name of rightly reviled mass murderer here]” seems rather insulting. On the other hand, historical analogies do frequently come up in political and other debates. “The policy you advocate would be just like that of the 19th Century European imperialists.” Just how far along the spectrum of evilness must one go before a historical analogy turns into an insult: Ulysses Grant? Marion Barry? Nixon? Mussolini? Hitler? And sometimes people arguably really do advocate or defend positions which are legitimately comparable to those of various historical not very nice people.
I reserve the right to warn people if the analogy or comparison seems entirely personal and completely out of line. (“Well, I think dark matter is more likely to be ordinary matter which we haven’t detected yet rather than some kind of exotic new particle.” “There’s no way dark matter could just be ordinary matter we haven’t detected yet! You and your kind are no better than Hitler! You murder the truth!”)
Note that none of this is getting into the question of whether a particular historical analogy is a good argument. We do not (when acting as moderators) police debates for clarity, reasonableness, germaneness, validity of analogies, internal consistency, or accuracy of facts which are alleged therein; we just try to keep debates from turning into barroom brawls. Be advised that some historical analogies may instantly destroy your credibility with the vast majority of the people reading the thread (“Killing other animals for meat is just like the Holocaust!”); this is one of the points of Godwin’s Law to begin with.
Your assumption is that non-integration is due to the faults of the native citizens of the host country. It may just well be that it is due to a perceived superiority of their own culture and religion on the part of the immigrants.
It may not be “perceived superiority” so much as familiarity. There seem to be various areas in Britain where Hindus and Muslims live in the same area, go to the same shops, watch the same Bollywood films. I’m guessing this is because of a common familiarity with various things, rather a feeling of shared superiority.
I saw a program on asylum seekers in which the person dealing with them was shown finding out the location of the largest community from the same group (I can’t remember which group it was) and getting them housed there “because people feel more comfortable when surrounded by similar people” not wrong in itself, but I couldn’t help thinking how much outcry there would be if a “native British” person didn’t want to live in an area that didn’t contain enough of his/her fellows