Multiculturalism in Europe

[Ali]

On the religious headwear issue, I think it's very important to remember that the thought that you don't really need to express your religion outwardly is very much an idea grown out of a western semi-Christian attitude.

The French ruling on outward signs of faith in school is opressive, not liberating. It doesn't create a secular, level-playing-field because it only allows some pupils to express their religion in the manner they choose.

On the topic of muslim women's headwear, I think it could be a terrible mistake to assume that women are commonly forced to wear items of clothing that seem restrictive from a western standpoint.

If we see a women in a skimpy skirt would we assume that her chauvanist boyfriend
forced her into it?

[YOke]

When it comes to immigrants gathering in "ghettos":
Last year some friends and I traveled Europe. The father of one of my friends had an appartment in Spain that we borrowed for a few weeks. The area the appartment was in is called "La Manga", it is close to Alicante so Farlander can propably confirm this. What we're talking about here is a whole peninsula populated with foreigners. At the beginning of the peninsula lived the english, then the germans, and, at the very end, the scandinavians. This is europeans living in another European country, and they keep to themselves. Another example in Spain, Torremolinos. Packed with english people.
After experiencing this I realized that what we ask when we tell immigrants to integrate is to be better people than most of us are.

[Nacho]

Yeah SSH... MY typos are veny funny when seen by a mother born English speaker! ^_^ Happy to see that you try to hide them telling it's a mistake more related with false friends than my own lack of culture (Which may be the real reason, of course! XD)

As a show of my sense of humour, allow me to keep the typos for fun of the next generations.

And YOke, that's a lovely example. And works for illustrating that "reluctances" are not just aimed to middle east inmigrants (which actually are forced to live in Ghettos), but also for richer inmigrants. Those Brits, German and Skandinavian who freely choose to go on living in England, Germany or Norgue (but in it's Spanish sunnier alter ego), are worst seen by us that those who try to learn, those who put effort to say "gracias", "hola" and "adiós", those who celebrate our parties or join us in our ceremonies... The primal fact is that the host must see a little feeling of the inmigrant meaning "I like your country as much as mine, thanks for hosting me, I want to be your friend", whereas when people joins ghettos or makes public shows when it's out of context of their origins the message we feel they're saying is "I'd like to be in my fatherland, but I am forced to live here in this your crappy country, I don't like your lenguaje and I don't like you, thanks for nothing".

[jetxl]

Theo van Gogh was stabbed and shot dead at daylight by a muslim fundamentallist.

Why?
Because he made a short film about a veiled, but naked, muslim woman that had, among bruises, female unfriendly texts from the koran written on her body.
Van Gogh said a lot of bad things about the islam, he said a lot of bad thing about jews, christains and pritty much everbody, as well. But it was a muslim who thought that he should die.

When they asked the muslim community for a reaction, one said "Theo van Gogh played with fire. He got burned". A muslin religious leader said "A real muslim wouldn't kill someone, therefore this has nothing to do with muslims". In other words how Shaggy would say -It wasn't me-. Nice way to evade the question.

I don't give a fuck about their religion or culture, but I tollerate it. The least they could do is tollerate my country too.
(why is it always heavy religious people who are intollerant basterds)

[YOke]

And who killed Pim Fortuyn?
All political and religious wings have their extremists that are willing to kill for their cause. Christian extremists bomb abortion clinics and shoot the doctors. Yet we don't go around asking all christians to answer for the acts of theese few people.
That is becuase we know how things work in our society. We know that not all christians can be blamed for what one disturbed individual does.
Yet each time a muslim kills a non-muslim (we don't give a damn when they kill eachother) we attack the muslim community. And each time we blame a group for the actions of a single individual we push that group further away, increasing the risk of it happening again. On top of that we spread unresonable fear among our own, decreasing their quality of life. This is a downward spiral.

[jetxl]

And who killed Pim Fortuyn?

He was killed by a narcist hippy half-witt.
Pim Fortuyn had death treats from all sides, including muslims. (interresting detail: Theo van Gogh was making a movie about Pim Fortuyn and his death)

All political and religious wings have their extremists that are willing to kill for their cause.

Both murders had no connections to politicions.
And I don't think that the Party for the Elderly have geriatric extreamists that have c4 in their canes and blow up kindergarden schools.

Christian extremists bomb abortion clinics and shoot the doctors. Yet we don't go around asking all christians to answer for the acts of theese few people.
That is becuase we know how things work in our society. We know that not all christians can be blamed for what one disturbed individual does.

Yes, I do. And in what kind of banana state do you live if doctors get shot.

Yet each time a muslim kills a non-muslim (we don't give a damn when they kill eachother) we attack the muslim community. And each time we blame a group for the actions of a single individual we push that group further away, increasing the risk of it happening again. On top of that we spread unresonable fear among our own, decreasing their quality of life. This is a downward spiral.

Holland has no extream right wing. The problem is that we've been too tolerant to imigrants. Double passports, bring over your pre-arranged wife over to Holland and allow illegal imigrants in the country if they lived here more that 5 or so years. -edit: Letting illegal imigrants stay even if the justice system has proven that they should leave the country.

[Anarcho]

I think we're running into a fundamental difference in opinion here.  I would argue, and even fight, over the right to dress and believe in whatever I want.  How does it effect you at all?  Who cares if 6% of the population dresses differently from you?  Why would you want everyone to look the same? 

On a very primal level, I think people fear that their land has been invaded.  They fear that they have lost control of their own country.  While I support a person's right to keep their own customs, in this increasingly globalized world, where societies, peoples and cultures have also become exports, I do not support the forcing of those customs on others.  Even within the borders of the country they were born in. 

Of course, it's easy to go back to the argument that the veil represents oppression.  That's the safe argument.  But what does that even mean?  It implies the belief that by forbidding women (or men, we were talking about turbans as well) from wearing these items of clothing, you will liberate these people.  From their own culture.  It's presumptuous to think that one customary form of dress is more liberating than another. 

A word about skirts and dresses: they were originally designed and evolved out of a necessity for men to have quicker, easier access to women's genitalia.  Does that mean women would be liberated if they all stopped wearing skirts or if women moved to a place that forbid them from wearing them? Not necessarily, because they have come to represent something else.  Just as how now, in your country, women are not forced to keep their heads covered, it is a choice.  The head covering no longer represents repression to most women, it represents something else. Maybe personal identity.  Maybe cultural identity. And that is probably why so many European folks are expressing a desire to ban people from holding on to these pieces of clothing: they are part of a cultural identity that is foreign, strange, and therefore unwanted by the cultural majority.

One other word of advice: in order to actually liberate a culture, or an entire gender, you may want to ask or work WITH those you are trying to save.  Especially if you've decided to save them from themselves.

[Nacho]

I think we're running into a fundamental difference in opinion here.Ã,  I would argue, and even fight, over the right to dress and believe in whatever I want.Ã,  How does it effect you at all?Ã,  Who cares if 6% of the population dresses differently from you?Ã,  Why would you want everyone to look the same?Ã, 

We're not saying 6% can't dress different. We are saying 6% would MONOPOLIZE all religious shows in schools.

At least, I am talking of the controversy in french about wearing crosses, kippas or chaddors. Christians and Jews did not complain, but muslims do.

If the conversation runs into something completely different,  which is wearing typical dresses of your original country in the country where you're living nowadays, it doesn't  matter for me... I am not going to cut their throads and record it in video or something...

[Anarcho]

We are saying 6% would MONOPOLIZE all religious shows in schools.

What exactly are you saying?  That they would be the most visible religion in school?  How?  I would think that secular, i.e. non-religious dress would be the most visible attire in school.  And again, if muslim dress is visible...WHO CARES?  Why would you care?  They're not teaching religion in school, it's just a matter of clothing.  Do nuns and priests have to take off their religious clothing when they visit schools?

[Nacho]

If there is only a show of religion in school, they monopolize it. I am not saying that they would be the MOST visible religion in school. I am saying they would be THE ONLY visible religion in school.

And what about my right of caring of it? You don't care? ok, congratulations, you're pure. I am not. I care. If the laws say "NO FOR RELIGION EXHIBITIONS IN SCHOOLS" I am not going to think "Ok, let allow some muslims to avoid the law, who cares?"

What happens when there are two different opinions about something? In my country we follow the laws, and if a vast majority does not like a law about something, they complain, they vote another party or make something to make the govermnent know they're wrong. In France, when Chirac made the law for "No religious shows" the society said "perfect!". In Spain, when the same thing happened and a father of a muslim girl told he was not going to take his daughter to school because she was not allowed to wear chaddor, the general feeling (yeah, the general feeling, not that "polically correct" feeling we express in some forums) was, "So, if you don't like our laws, move to another country, please, we won't complain!"

What annoys me is that you as a paladin of freedom are trying to impose to a majority who does not want religious shows a residual wave of opinion which goes against laws.

And, of course, whereas I've deffended that everybody must be the same in front of the law, that schools must be a atheist space of equality, I'll finish this discussion seen as the fascist. I'm quite sick of this...Ã, 

[Babar]

Just because you are in another country does not mean that you have to give up everything that symbolises your own country/religion. Saying that wearing certain kinds of clothes is unfair because it serves to "show off" your religion is a strange arguement. Would you be annoyed if a person "showed off" their vegetarianism by asking what foods were without meat in a restaurant? That person is not making a show...he/she just doesn't want to compromise their beliefs...they just don't want to eat meat. They are not trying to make a statement. Same with religion. If it is a persons belief that it is sinful to be without covering their hair, what is wrong in letting them cover it? They are not trying to convert anyone. They are not forcing their beliefs on anyone.
Sure, when it comes to a person saying that "Your beliefs are wrong! You shall go to hell!" or "Your clothing is inappropriate!", then you have every right to be pissed off. They are pushing their beliefs on you. However, I don't see that happening when someone wears particular items of clothing

[Nacho]

Bad example. In that restaurant there is a buffet. It's been agreed that there is a table with vegetables, for vegetarians, and another one with meat. Then, the restaurant is full of meat eaters, but the vegetables are still there. Then comes a vegetarian, and starts to yell, "remove of this restaurant that table with that infected meat! From now, just vegetables will be served!"

There is a big difference between showing your origins and being the ONLY doing it in a place where has been stablished an equality for all. That's specially serious if you're a minority.

[Anarcho]

But Farlander, you just made my point.  The French are acting like the vegetarians, demanding that all meat be taken away from the table.

How does displaying your origins effect equality?

But regarding your previous post...I'm not talking about whether or not a group of people should be allowed to break a law, I'm talking about whether or not the law should exist.  Personally I think it's a gross misinterpretation of the idea of separation of church and state.  If the state allows religious clothing in schools, it's not establishing or supporting any one religion, it's allowing citizens to freely expression of their religion.  The separation of church and state means that the state, in this case through public schools, will not support the establishment of any religion.  It doesn't mean that schools are an atheist space, because if they were, that would mean the state supports an atheistic ideology or "religion" .  But that's not what this whole discussion is about.  It's about foreign elements being visible in public places.

[Babar]

Aside from the minor quibbling on whether a restaraunt is serving ala carte or buffet Ã, ... That is what the second part of my post was about. The person is only asking for vegetarian food for himself. He is not forcing it on others. He is not shouting "Remove all the meat!". Should he force himself to eat meat just because he is in a restaraunt in a place where there are predominantly meat eating people? No, he will ask if there are any dishes without meat. You can't be mad at him for that!
heheh...what a lot of allusions to meat and religion

[Nacho]

The french are acting like the manager of the restaurant, who knows 90 % likes meat, and even with that, he has the deference to put a table with vegetables. The normal should have been putting a table with meat, and tell the vegetarians, "go to another place to eat vegetables".

The defference is the atheism. Using chaddor is the offense.

And, if you don't want that europeans laws to exist, move to Europe, get your nationality and vote for parties which want to remove it (I don't think they exist, though, because majority wants atheism and no religious shows). I haven't dared to crit americans laws and I'll never do.

I don't really understand the problem with accepting the will of the majority...

And about "foreign elements being visible in public places" re-read my posts and see that I am not against. I am just happy to see that whereas I can addapt my way of behave and my customs to those to the place where I move (without renegate of my own symbolisms and my culture in private, and in the events who request so) some other can't. That make me feel I am, in that sense, more educated than them.

And Babar... You're wrong. In a place where there is a NATIONAL AGREEMENT of not using religious showing, saying "I will!" is equal to break the stablished law. The example of the meat and vegetables is that there is an agreement, where everybody has the same oportunities, where the majority accepts to remove a little space for the meat they'd like to see there for a table with vegetables. The only way to break that common agreement in my example would be if a vegetable eater says "remove the meat", and that's why I mentioned it. But in the real situation the way of breaking the stablished agreement is to wear chaddor.

By the way, the example can be better. Imagine there is a room with 10 people who'd like to see a film. 9 of them love sunflower seeds, but they've accepted not to eat them because the noise annoys a lone guy.Ã,  That guy loves to smoke, and the others would like to see the film without breathing the smoke of some other man. They reach to a common agreement of not smoking and not eating seeds.

In the middle of the film, the guy starts to smoke.

Man... that's what I call an example! What do you have to do with that lovely example, eh??? What???!?!?

* Farlander laughs an evil laugh

   

[YOke]

It's not like that at all. The story is good, but reality is that we are chewing away on sunflower seeds with a "either you are with us or you're against us" attitude while shouting at the lonely guy "Don't smoke cigarettes here! I saw you smoking them back at hour house so I know you people smoke!"
The poor guy is about to loose his mind with all the sunflower seed chewing, so he decides to go outside and have a cigarette to calm his frayed nerves. There's a wind outside, so he decides to light the cigarette before going out the door. Just after he lit the cigarette, but before he can go out the door, a guy from a newspaper takes a picture of him. Next day the frontpage of the newspaper reads "Muslims smoke inside even when we tell them not to!" Further down on the same page is says "Should muslims be allowed to smoke during movies? Send YES or NO to 4242" In smaller print underneath it reads "100 bucks per message"

This is a pretty accurate description of how the western society works.

[Anarcho]

I haven't dared to crit americans laws and I'll never do.

Why not criticize American laws?  I do all the time!  There's nothing wrong with a little healthy debate.  As for moving to Europe to get my nationality--funny thing about that.  You see, part of my family fled France specifically because the French had this strange habit of burning Protestants at the stake:

http://www.geocities.com/hugenoteblad/hist-hug.htm

I know the French are a whole lot more enlightened these days, but I'll stick with the dumb ol' USA just the same.

I am just happy to see that whereas I can addapt my way of behave and my customs to those to the place where I move (without renegate of my own symbolisms and my culture in private, and in the events who request so) some other can't. That make me feel I am, in that sense, more educated than them.

So if you refuse to hide your culture and assimilate, you're uneducated?  Are you serious?  I guess my ancestors were just fucking dumb!  They should have kept their religion private, and I'm SURE everything would have been all right.  As for the whole murder/ burning at the stake / mass extermination thing, well, I guess if the majority think it's a good idea, then it's O.K.!

Furthermore, from what I've read, the Spanish state provides the Catholic church with preferential treatment, including financing through the tax system.  What ever happened to the whole separation of church and state thing?  Or is that JUST for schools?  Then again, a school isn't much of an "atheist space" if you get off Catholic holidays such as:  Epiphany (January 6), Holy Thursday and Good Friday, Assumption (August 15), All Saints Day (November 1), Immaculate Conception (December 8 ), and Christmas (December 25).  Somehow I doubt that Spain let's the kids have Rosh Hashanah off.

[Nacho]

Spanish new goverment is going to add new blanks spaces to put a cross into our declarations of rent for donate to muslim and jewish church.

Also, moving some parties to make them coincide with some other religious parties is being debated...

If you ask me, telling the spaniards kids "I'm sorry, you won't have Santa Claus this year, this year you must spent half of the days of november without eating in solidarity with our muslims friends!" would be a new step in the creation of the Spanish Hiter youth. (That last part of the paragraph has been a joke...  )

And yeah... If I should have to go to a muslim country, a country whose people has a religion which has an open conflict between counties who have my religion, I would hide anything that could annoy them. And I would consider it educate, smart and sensible.

If you think the opposite I invite you to come here with one of those shirts with an american flag, that cool ones Bob Dyllan wore. We can catch a ferry and being in a Zoco of Túnez in a few hours. If you feel that you're beeing gentle with those people... well, then maybe your sense of freedom is making everything you want without taking care of hurting the other people's feelings. Mine isn't.

And feel free to criticize americans laws. It's your country. But do not discuss mines. I am not discussing yours.

I still doesn't have the answer to the question I am making... If we allow the muslims (not because they're muslims, but because they seem to be the only ones who CAN'T live without showing how religious they are) to use chaddor because we MUST protect a minory... Who protects the other 95% people who doesn't want to see it? Is your answer "let's fuck that 95% because of the 5%!"?

And before mentioning me how "enlightened" the europeans are in front of americans, you should re-read some of my posts deffending the american culture against the auto-proclaimed paladins of the ultra-legitimate Europe. I am probably the most pro-american european here...

[Pumaman]

So Anarcho, I'd be interested to hear your views on the moves being made these days to get rid of Christmas because it's "offensive to non-Christians". In some local councils and some companies, Christmas has now become a banned word, with people expected to call it "Winterval" or "The festive season" and other such rubbish.

It's not just immigrants who are having their religion "oppressed"; in fact, it seems to be quite the opposite nowadays.

[Anarcho]

And yeah... If I should have to go to a muslim country, a country whose people has a religion which has an open conflict between counties who have my religion, I would hide anything that could annoy them. And I would consider it educate, smart and sensible.

Ok, I would agree.  I think there was some translation issues here, as educated can have a lot of different meanings.  I too would think it sensible to fit in with the local population if they local population didn't like me.  But that doesn't make it right.  The idea is to have a free and open society where people can celebrate their own culture.  Obviously, that's a high idea, and doesn't always work that way.

But regarding the 95% and 5% argument:

Are you against freedom of expression?  Or do you support freedom of expression, just as long as people don't try to actually express themselves?  Since I'm only allowed to talk about my own country's laws, in the US, we're pretty much allowed to express ourselves freely so long as it doesn't endanger the public at large.  For example, I can wear a crazy shirt that says "KILL PUPPIES" and shave my head and tattoo my face.  That's fine.  But I can't shout "fire" in a public theater, because that could cause a stampede, and people could get hurt.  So regarding your downtrodden 95% of the population that has to look at muslim clothing: SUCK IT UP! 

Unless their clothing hides death rays from Planet X or is laden with SARS, it doesn't effect you physically.  Maybe it doesn't fit in with your idea of how people should dress or look, but so long as you live in a "free" society, you have to deal with it.  Unless you'd rather live in, say, some distopian dictatorship where everyone looks and acts and dresses the same.

Farlander, I've got to say, this conversation is pretty exhausting.  Interesting, but exhausting.  But I am trying to see where you're coming from, really I am.