quote:

---

But the books of the three Muslim dissidents now tell us what Germans like me didn't care to know. What they report seems almost unbelievable. They describe an everyday life of oppression, isolation, imprisonment and brutal corporal punishment for Muslim women and girls in Germany, a situation for which there is only one word: slavery.

Seyran Ates estimates that perhaps half of young Turkish women living in Germany are forced into marriage every year. In the wake of these forced marriages often come violence and rape; the bride has no choice but to fulfill the duties of the marriage arranged by her parents and her in-laws. One side-effect of forced marriage is the psychological violation of the men involved. Although they are the presumed beneficiaries of this custom, men are likewise forbidden to marry whom they want. A groom who chooses his own wife faces threats, too. In such cases, according to Seyran Ates and Serap Cileli, the groom as well as the bride must go underground to escape the families' revenge.

Heavily veiled women wearing long coats even in summer are becoming an increasingly familiar sight in German Muslim neighborhoods. According to Necla Kelek's research, they are mostly under-age girls who have been bought - often for a handsome payment - in the Turkish heartland villages of Anatolia by mothers whose sons in Germany are ready to marry. The girls are then flown to Germany, and "with every new imported bride," Kelek says, "the parallel society grows." Meanwhile, Ates summarizes, "Turkish men who wish to marry and live by Shariah can do so with far less impediment in Berlin than in Istanbul."

---

quote:

---

Many sociologists attribute the growth of a Muslim parallel society to the discouraging social circumstances of the third Muslim generation of immigrants - high unemployment, high dropout or failure rates in public schools. But this explanation is incomplete, to say the least. It turns out that the Muslim middle class has long been following the same trend. Rental agencies that procure and prepare rooms for traditional Turkish weddings and circumcisions are among the most booming businesses in Kreuzberg and Neukölln.

---

quote:

---

This conservative, fearful trend is likely to guide the next generation. For more than 20 years the Islamic Federation of Berlin, an umbrella organization of Islamic associations and mosque congregations, has struggled in the Berlin courts to secure Islamic religious instruction in local schools. In 2001 the federation finally succeeded. Since then, several thousand Muslim elementary-school students have been taught by teachers hired by the Islamic Federation and paid by the city of Berlin. City officials aren't in a position to control Islamic religious instruction. Often the teaching does not correspond to the lesson plan that was submitted in German. Citing the linguistic deficiencies of the students, instructors frequently hold lessons in Turkish or Arabic, often behind closed doors.

Since the introduction of Islamic religious instruction, the number of girls that come to school in head scarves has grown by leaps and bounds, and school offices are inundated with petitions to excuse girls from swimming and sports as well as class outings.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laura:
...

No multicultural tolerance can excuse it.

...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharkshooter:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laura:
No multicultural tolerance can excuse it.

---

It is multicultural tolerance that allows it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharkshooter:
It is multicultural tolerance that allows it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Littlelady:
I find these situations deeply disturbing. But other than when the law is broken, in a free, multicultural society, what can be done?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laura:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Littlelady:
I find these situations deeply disturbing. But other than when the law is broken, in a free, multicultural society, what can be done?

---

Well, for starters, not to pay state money to Islamic teachers to teach little girls that thi is the way they must live? To sharply inquire into the reasons for immigration for teenage girls from the affected countries?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Littlelady:
Firstly, I can hear the cries echoing back of intolerance, interference, racism, picking on Muslims, etc (which I am not saying is what is being suggested, just that many would interpret such moves in this way).

---

I just think we need to get over that.
 

---

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :
 
[Political incorrectness alert]

Speaking from an American perspective: Our country is, or at least used to be, a country where citizenship was based on acceptance of a shared vision of rights/freedoms/responsibilities. Persons emigrating to the United States used to have to make an effort to indicate that they were willing to "get with the program" insofar as embracing the values of our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Why would Islamists want to live in a western society whose values they despise? If people don't like the concepts of secular government, gender equity, etc., etc. -- then for pete's sake don't live here. I hear Iran is lovely in the spring. If they're so freaking religious, taking a cut in income in order to live among others of the One True Faith would be, I think, a small price to pay for their integrity.

I think Germany's situation is complicated by residual shame about the Nazi times, and the tendency of some groups to exploit that by crying "Racism!" if the German authorities try to enforce the law evenly.
 

---

Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
In many cases, people are able to be more repressive in Western countries than in their home countries, such as Saudi Arabia. A number of majority Islamic countries have no problem repressing what they perceive as dangerous sects. It is we who have that problem. Someone in the article was asked why they stay in germany, to be surrounded by people they hate; she said, they don't need the Germans, they have everything they need AND they get work and the advantage of the health care system etcetera AND can practice their oppression freely! What a deal!
 

---

Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Littlelady:
Teachers are allowed to teach faith issues to members of their flock, much as a Christian teacher may teach no sex before marriage to a teenage Christian girl. There might not be universal agreement with either teaching, but does that mean it should be banned? As for questions about immigration ... people can just lie about their intentions. How can their lie be revealed?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laura:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Littlelady:
Teachers are allowed to teach faith issues to members of their flock, much as a Christian teacher may teach no sex before marriage to a teenage Christian girl. There might not be universal agreement with either teaching, but does that mean it should be banned? As for questions about immigration ... people can just lie about their intentions. How can their lie be revealed?

---

Teachers are not allowed to teach religious ethics in state schools in the US. You can do that in your church, of course. I suggest that state money should not be spent to pay Islamicist teachers to teach girls that they are second class citizens. This is inimical to the values we hold dear.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LutheranChik:
[Political incorrectness alert]

Speaking from an American perspective: Our country is, or at least used to be, a country where citizenship was based on acceptance of a shared vision of rights/freedoms/responsibilities. Persons emigrating to the United States used to have to make an effort to indicate that they were willing to "get with the program" insofar as embracing the values of our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Why would Islamists want to live in a western society whose values they despise? If people don't like the concepts of secular government, gender equity, etc., etc. -- then for pete's sake don't live here. I hear Iran is lovely in the spring. If they're so freaking religious, taking a cut in income in order to live among others of the One True Faith would be, I think, a small price to pay for their integrity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Littlelady:
... Here in the UK, of course, Muslim schools do attract state funding, as do Christian and Jewish schools. To withdraw state funding only from Muslim schools who taught those aspects of Islamic doctrine such as forced marriage would be unlikely to wash politically here.

British culture tends towards pragmatism as I'm sure you already know. So within that environment, and given that we don't have a church/state divide while also attempting to adopt a multicultural (as opposed to integrationist or assimilationist) approach to society, we are in a bit of a hole insofar as the OP is concerned. ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mrs Tea:
It's my understanding, though, that all state-funded Muslim schools (there aren't very many) are inspected by members of Her Majesty's Inspectorate who are able to speak the relevant languages, and HMI does sometimes say things that aren't entirely PC about how well religious schools of various flavours teach 'citizenship' (eg here) and related issues. And of course immediately gets accused of Islamophobia. I hope this means we're not doing as badly as in Germany, but I can't promise it.

---

quote:

---

Headscarves seem to be a significantly contentious issue (eg here) but it often seems to be the wrong issue to make a fuss about. Wearing or not wearing a headscarf isn't going to kill anyone. Marrying against a parent's wishes just might.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Littlelady:
This is interesting. It seems that the headscarf has become symobolic of fundamentalism. I see women in headscarves and full burkha (sp?) on a daily basis, living in Sheffield. I have no objection to headscarves, but I confess to finding the burkha offensive - it smacks of oppression to me. But them I am looking through Western, non-Muslim eyes, so probably that's no surprise. I wouldn't want any woman to stop wearing it if she wanted to wear it. But I would hate it to be a true reflection of the oppression it represents to me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Demas:

Part of the problem here is that these people are not, and will never really be allowed to be, 'German'.

There may be official tolerance of 'foreign cultures', but there is not 'multiculturalism' in Germany in the same sense as would be understood in, say, Australia.

---

I would have thought that, for example, state funding of Islamic education, and/or instruction in Arabic or Turkish was rather strong evidence to the contrary.
 

---

Posted by Demas (# 24) on :
 
Not really - multiculturalism cannot be mere toleration of a minority by the elite of the normative majority; it must be embraced by a substantial part of the population.

It is a question of what defines a 'German'. To a large extent Germany is the state of the Germans; rather than a German being defined as a citizen of Germany. An ethnic German is simply more 'German' than a Turkish German.

Any official tolerance by the German state of the Turkish immigrants is at the recent end of a long postwar history of exclusion and rejection by mainstream German society and authority.
 

---

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
The inspectorate in Scotland have had to deal with private Muslim schools which were totally sub-standard, with the poor senior girls at one Dundee boarding school being taught nothing but sewing, cookery and arabic, as it turned out. Our idiot education minister, Peter Peacock, reprieved the school because it got a super-duper new headmistress and he says that's improved it enough. He should have shut the damn thing as a message that we are not going to tolerate women being given a sub-standard education designed to stunt them for religious reasons.

The problem is that in Scotland, though we haven't had the same level of Tony Blair's faith school wheeze, we have, for historical reasons a separate Catholic education system, and therefore some Muslim community leaders are claiming discrimination because they're not getting their own school system as well. The difference is though, that the Catholic Schools have moved on from the pre-Vatican two horror stories older friends of mine used to recount, and apart from the occasional ineffectual attempts on the part of the Bishops to ban gay teachers, they don't have negative human rights implications. The Bishops are kept far enough away from day-to-day school running that the hardliners can't do too much damage.


My fear is that the sections of the Muslim community who really want these schools are likely to be too conservative to implement them in a way which would not be damaging to women. In fact I suspect that one of the main reasons many of the activists want them is so that they can teach women to learn quietly and in full submission, just as a certain Apostle suggested. We've fought the fight to overcome that kind of thinking, the last thing we should do is sit back and watch Muslim women being forced into that, let alone pay our taxes for it to happen in the public sector.

L.
 

---

Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ananke:
They adapt sure (i.e. very few women wear the burka in Australia, lots wear headscarves and long sleeves in very light airy material) but what on Earth is so bloody threatening about keeping their culture and faith?

---

quote:

---

Because it makes the bodies of those girls our property instead of whoever they think it is now. It still takes any sense of self-determinism away from the girls and says, yet again, you have no choice. I work in a fairly multi-cultural area and the school has approved uniforms for Muslim and Sikh kids (headscarves, longsleeved alternatives, turbans etc.).

---

quote:

---

None of that affects their education, none of it affects OUR faith. Yet people get so utterly offended when one group of women decide to not adopt the dress of their new nation. They adapt sure (i.e. very few women wear the burka in Australia, lots wear headscarves and long sleeves in very light airy material) but what on Earth is so bloody threatening about keeping their culture and faith?

---

quote:

---

But I wouldn't like to see the wearing of it banned - within education or elsewhere - if the women/girls are happy and/or proud to wear it themselves.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laura:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Littlelady:
I find these situations deeply disturbing. But other than when the law is broken, in a free, multicultural society, what can be done?

---

Well, for starters, not to pay state money to Islamic teachers to teach little girls that thi is the way they must live?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LutheranChik:
In conservative communities we really don't know if the women/girls are happy/proud to wear Islamic dress, because they're not allowed to have a public opinion; and I suspect that if they did manage to express themselves in a way contrary to the community hive mind, they'd be disciplined severely -- perhaps beaten, or put under what amounts to house arrest, or maybe even killed by male relatives for offending the honor of the family.

---

Right, and fifty years ago western society had no problem with people that broke community dress codes.

Or that this very day some white middle class christian family is probably disowning one of their children for refusing to submit to "common standards of decency"? And "house arrest"? Do you mean by any chance mean "grounded"? Which happens to most teenagers when they do something their parents don't approve of.

[code]

[ 05. December 2005, 15:25: Message edited by: John Holding ]
 

---

Posted by whitelaughter (# 10611) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the_raptor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laura:
Well, for starters, not to pay state money to Islamic teachers to teach little girls that thi is the way they must live?

---

How is that massively different from giving state money to "Christian" teachers to teach little girls that they must submit to their husbands, or to teach boys that "fags are evil" and "evolution is a lie"?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Louise:
If you object to taking the choices away from the kids then why have any sort of school uniform at all? That's circumscribing people's choice. If you're going to have a uniform then you need to think about what boundaries are acceptable and what values you are trying to communicate.


...

Because it's not just about a natty fashion choice, it's an external sign of a behaviour code which once you get onto things that go beyond the hijab, like the niqab and burqah is a behaviour code for women which should not be accepted for women in schools and which will very probably affect their education. You wouldn't accept wee Kylie turning up dressed as a lap-dancer in nothing but three-inch stilletoes and a thong, because of what that says about the exploitation of women, so why should you accept wee Aisha wearing a niqab or burqah which marks her out as the property of the men of her family, (her father and then later her husband) and as someone who shouldn't even be talking to men who are not her male relatives and as someone whose body is so dangerous, it must be covered up?

---

School uniforms: I wore one, always did. Would have loved an option which didn't include either cleavage baring formal top or arse-baring sport skirt. Or admin which didn't put me in detention for wearing what was most comfortable for an overly endowed teenage girl. I object to a lack of choice - If I went to the school I work at I would probably adopt the Muslim versions of the uniform - long sleeves and higher necklines.

As for the Kylie and Aisha comparison, there's a slight difference. Unless Kylie is worshipping Isis in a direct way, that doesn't even in the slightest compare to Aisha in a headscarf.

This discussion (for me) is deeply coloured by the fact I know quite well several girls who wear headscarves and varying degrees of modest clothing. I've considered taking on the headscarf myself. The girls, here in Australia, that I know have made a choice, a very deliberate and thoughtful choice to wear the headscarf. They have thought about it in the context of their faith, their culture and the surrounding society.

To say "I'm sorry, your religious faith doesn't mirror mine, you must expose yourself for my 'comfort'" is utterly horrifyiing for me. Not as horrifying as the situations where girls and women are forced into it, but damn close. But then again, my focus is on the men who perpetrate this bullshit rather than the women who are forced to submit to it.

If a woman wear the headscarf, fine. If a woman wears a burquah, fine. If a man says she must, or another woman says she must, not fine. If a government says she can't, not fine.

There are many different reasons for wearing headscarves etc. Not all of them are propietary and gendered.
 

---

Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Why is it that when the OP focusses on child abuse, segregation, and womens' rights the thread degenerates into the hijab issue? How are we going to deal with this unless we face it?
 

---

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
I've got no trouble with the headscarf but I draw the line at schoolgirls having their schooling blighted by niqabs and burqahs. These are mandated by minority opinions in Islam which follow a stricter interpretation of sharia which tends to carry with it a lot of disadvantages for women. I think the danger is that people don't realise the religious baggage which can come with women accepting these kinds of veiling.

[edited to add - it's that kind of baggage which brings in the kind of thing which is noticed in the OP]

It makes no difference to me whether degrading dress is mandated by religion or forced upon someone by social circumstances or peer or parental pressure. Religion is not an excuse for teaching girls to accept lives of submission, that this is done in the name of religion, in my opinion, makes it worse because these people are saying God demands these sinister sacrifices of a woman's identity and independence.

The only reason we're not in the same position of being damned if we show an ankle and pushed back into the home is because generations of men and women have fought the ideal of female submission put forward in the bible. Now some of us accept young women in our society being inducted into that sort of oppression in the name of tolerating religious beliefs, which if we had tolerated them for ourselves would have condemned us to an utterly unjust society. What happens when British men and women brought up to think female submission is OK and just part of their culture start voting to reverse the freedoms that you and I have? Schools funded by public money should not be re-inforcing this by tolerating institutionalised religious oppression of women and its outward insignia. I don't think it should even be tolerated in private schools - no more than we tolerate female circumcision.

L.

[ 05. December 2005, 10:46: Message edited by: Louise ]
 

---

Posted by the_raptor (# 10533) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Louise:
The only reason we're not in the same position of being damned if we show an ankle and pushed back into the home is because generations of men and women have fought the ideal of female submission put forward in the bible. Now some of us accept young women in our society being inducted into that sort of oppression in the name of tolerating religious beliefs, which if we had tolerated them for ourselves would have condemned us to an utterly unjust society.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Louise:
Religion is not an excuse for teaching girls to accept lives of submission, that this is done in the name of religion, in my opinion, makes it worse because these people are saying God demands these sinister sacrifices of a woman's identity and independence.

---

quote:

---

What happens when British men and women brought up to think female submission is OK and just part of their culture start voting to reverse the freedoms that you and I have?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Louise:
If you object to taking the choices away from the kids then why have any sort of school uniform at all? That's circumscribing people's choice. If you're going to have a uniform then you need to think about what boundaries are acceptable and what values you are trying to communicate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Why is it that when the OP focusses on child abuse, segregation, and womens' rights the thread degenerates into the hijab issue?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
Than get rid of school uniforms. Their only purpose was to reinforce the old heirarchical system in the Prussian military school system that incvented them They should never have been imported into our schools and ought to be chucked out at once.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
Than get rid of school uniforms. Their only purpose was to reinforce the old heirarchical system in the Prussian military school system that incvented them They should never have been imported into our schools and ought to be chucked out at once.

---

quote:

---

Do you mean by any chance mean "grounded"? Which happens to most teenagers when they do something their parents don't approve of.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the_raptor:
If they got rid of school uniforms then clueless geeks like me would have no way to semi-mask our ineptitude during those tender school years.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LutheranChik:
You seem not to take the subject of women's oppression too seriously, Raptor. Any particular reason for that? Are you just playing devil's advocate, or do you seriously believe that women in fundamentalist Islamic homes enjoy anything resembling the Western concept of "choice" in anything they do? You think it's all just like "Father Knows Best"* but in Islamic costume?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Louise:
I think the danger is that people don't realise the religious baggage which can come with women accepting these kinds of veiling.

[edited to add - it's that kind of baggage which brings in the kind of thing which is noticed in the OP]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LutheranChik:
I'd also like to add that our own cultures' human rights lapses of the past are not a reason not to advocate on behalf of others' human rights now: "Oh, we don't have any right to talk about human rights after what we did to [insert various examples of past colonial oppression, past gender inequity, etc.]..." What bullshit.

---

quote:

---

The article, which I've just finished reading, makes the very good point that the Germans pretended that they did not have immigrants and, for over 30 years, and had no real immigrant integration or citizenship programming. Moreover, like most European countries, they placed real barriers to citizenship (language exams at a high academic level, rather than a functional one) and extensive waiting periods (I think that it's 10 years or more). Canada and Oz, and to a lesser degree (cf. Will Kymlicka's book on this), pushed citizenship classes on immigrants. In both countries, funding went to integration programming designed jointly by community groups and the Government.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LutheranChik:
Humility is fine as long as it's expressed in terms of "Look -- we've been there, done that; our society is richer for having abandoned our old attitudes and practices. Trust us; we know,"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laura:
I think the relativism here which would equate wearing school uniforms with forcing girls into marriage at 13 is pretty scary.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LutheranChik:
I remember being on a discussion forum, talking about multiculturalism, where one person kept insisting that one value system is just as good as the other.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
What I would like to see, though, is the idea that one could stop honour killings and the like without an attack on wearing the hijab and other religious and cultural norms.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LutheranChik:
To me the whole notion of hijab assumes some sort of inherent defect in women; if that were not so, then men would also be required to "cover" as well. (And don't tell me about their own set of modesty rules -- they aren't nearly as restrictive of movement and freedom.) Here is what hijab suggests:

Women are "temptresses" from whose appearance pious men must be protected;

Women are chattel, or at least incompetent persons needing (male) guardianship, and "covering" is primarily about protecting the proprietary interests of fathers/brothers/husbands.

Men are brainless beasts who aren't even capable of looking at a woman's hair without going out of control, like dogs in an alley...and, for some reason, this is seen as the women's burden.

So it's not just about wearing a scarf. You have to think of the why .

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LutheranChik:
...

Here is what hijab suggests:

Women are "temptresses" from whose appearance pious men must be protected;

Women are chattel, or at least incompetent persons needing (male) guardianship, and "covering" is primarily about protecting the proprietary interests of fathers/brothers/husbands.

Men are brainless beasts who aren't even capable of looking at a woman's hair without going out of control, like dogs in an alley...and, for some reason, this is seen as the women's burden.

So it's not just about wearing a scarf. You have to think of the why .

---

Thanks for that, LutheranChik. That pretty much summarizes my own "unpacking" of the custom. However, (and this is NOT directed specifically at LutheranChik - you just worded it best!), is Christianity historically and doctrinally in a good position to argue these points with Islam? One can find support for and expression of these ideas both in Scripture and in the history of the Christian faith. For example, it's now the 21st century and there are still 17 pages of discussion in Dead Horses about "Priestly Genitalia". Isn't it fair to say that the recognition of women as full persons in the Christian faith happened partly because of the influx of secular, Enlightenment ideas?

Perhaps the collision between the Enlightenment and Islam is happening right now - it's just hard to see because it is mixed up with a lot of other political and economic factors and it is unfolding in real time. OliviaG
 

---

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :
 
Olivia: I was thinking the same thing at times...maybe it's because I belong to a socially progressive denomination and congregation that both affirm gender-equity, but some of the gender-role discussions here on the Ship just curl my (extremely short and uncovered) hair.
 

---

Posted by the_raptor (# 10533) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laura:
I think the relativism here which would equate wearing school uniforms with forcing girls into marriage at 13 is pretty scary. I'm also not interested in "but your society tells women they need to wear high heels and makeup" sort of thing, because it's bullshit. The social cost of not wearing high heels or makeup (which I do not do and it has not affected my personal success in life) is nothing at all to the very real cost of the Muslim girl's refusal to toe the line in the situations described which can result in death.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the_raptor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laura:
I think the relativism here which would equate wearing school uniforms with forcing girls into marriage at 13 is pretty scary. I'm also not interested in "but your society tells women they need to wear high heels and makeup" sort of thing, because it's bullshit. The social cost of not wearing high heels or makeup (which I do not do and it has not affected my personal success in life) is nothing at all to the very real cost of the Muslim girl's refusal to toe the line in the situations described which can result in death.

---

Right and you are completely ignoring the fact that in most western countries women can be arrested for simply exposing their nipples while it is fine for men to do the same (The Janet Jackson wardrobe malfunction comes to mind). Or you can end up as a registered sex offender for simply urinating against a tree on public land in the middle of the night.

These are real life destroying punishments for very minor "crimes", that western culture is quite happy to impose.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laura:
You seem to be arguing from what must be a very small sample of injustices in the West that we should not prevent injustices among us. That the very occasional arrest for breastfeeding is equivalent to an honor killing for refusing to submit to parental demands that you marry at 13 and wear a hijab or burqua.

---

Oh yes because honor killings and underage marriage happen all the time in western society.

I mean the law just doesn't apply to those damn muslims, it is sick how they get away with it and it doesn't even make the news. Oh wait a minute you are reflecting the crimes commited by muslims in third world countries onto muslims who have lived their whole lives in western society.

And we are so superior to them because Christians in third world countries never have cultural practices that are utterly repugnant. There are no countries where Christians practice underage marriage. Oh wait, there are those fundie mormon cults in Utah that do just that, and also practice bigamy. And we musn't forget that some African christians think that female genital mutilation is a jolly good idea.

Of course "honour" killings are abhorent, and so is underage marriage. But don't go trying to make it appear as a problem that is indemic in western muslims, or that many Christians sects don't promote equally abhorent practices (All those fundie Catholics that want women pregnant and in the kitchen). The west does *not* have the moral high ground, anyone who thinks otherwise is ignorant. The problem is cultures, not religions.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laura:
The issue of sexual offender registers deserves its own thread, but I don't see its relevance here. I very much doubt that there are very many people on the offender registers for public urination. I do take issue with such registration for 18 year old having sex with a 16 year old girlfriend, but surely this is a matter to pursue in the legislature -- which you can do, because you are not a 14 year old Muslim girl.

---

quote:

---

3.1.c (c) the full and equitable participation of individuals and communities of all origins in the continuing evolution and shaping of all aspects of Canadian society and assist them in the elimination of any barrier to that participation.

---

quote:

---

Australian multiculturalism is a term which recognises and celebrates Australia’s cultural diversity. It accepts and respects the right of all Australians to express and share their individual cultural heritage within an overriding commitment to Australia and the basic structures and values of Australian democracy. It also refers to the strategies, policies and programs that are designed to:
make our administrative, social and economic infrastructure more responsive to the rights, obligations and needs of our culturally diverse population;
promote social harmony among the different cultural groups in our society;
optimise the benefits of our cultural diversity for all Australians.

While Australian multiculturalism values and celebrates diversity, it is not an ‘anything goes’ concept since it is built on core societal values of mutual respect, tolerance and harmony, the rule of law and our democratic principles and institutions. It is also based on an overriding commitment to Australia.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the_raptor:
People harp on about all the freedom we enjoy in western society, but in reality it is very restraining unless you want to be an outcast.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by whitelaughter:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the_raptor:
People harp on about all the freedom we enjoy in western society, but in reality it is very restraining unless you want to be an outcast.

---

Whoopie skip. Yes, if you break the social norms, you'll loose the 'respect' of the self-declared 'respectable people'. Yes, there are all sorts of stunts people can play to try and get you to do what they want. And telling them to get stuffed will hurt. But in the West *it won't get you killed, or locked up for years, or pack raped*. If you've got a minimum of guts, you can go your own way here. That's not an option for these girls.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LutheranChik:
Exactly. I find the moral equation of hormone-addled teenagers' pecking-order rituals with the very real dangers girls and women in fundamentalist-Islamist communities face in defying male authority bizarre, to say the least.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Why is it that when the OP focusses on child abuse, segregation, and womens' rights the thread degenerates into the hijab issue? How are we going to deal with this unless we face it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the_raptor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laura:
You seem to be arguing from what must be a very small sample of injustices in the West that we should not prevent injustices among us. That the very occasional arrest for breastfeeding is equivalent to an honor killing for refusing to submit to parental demands that you marry at 13 and wear a hijab or burqua.

---

Oh yes because honor killings and underage marriage happen all the time in western society.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the_raptor:
I mean the law just doesn't apply to those damn muslims, it is sick how they get away with it and it doesn't even make the news. Oh wait a minute you are reflecting the crimes commited by muslims in third world countries onto muslims who have lived their whole lives in western society.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
(*) Not if by "hijab" you mean the whole system of covering up and sequestration of women practiced in some places (not, for what its worth, in most or Turkey or that much among the Turks who live in London - maybe they are a different sort than the ones in Germany) That's a very different thing from just wearing a headscarf.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Louise:
At least a thousand forced marriages in the UK alone every year.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Definitionophiliacs might take comfort in the only official definitions of multiculturalism which I could find......Of course, one of my policy colleagues noted that most Canadians called the bits of multiculturalism they didn't like: "official multiculturalism," and the bits which they quite liked: "just being Canadian."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by gbuchanan:
Though I acknowledge many groups feel disadvantaged, I think the disadvantage is at least partially self-fulfilled (though France is actually a problem it seems).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
The link says 1000 marriages to partners "chosen by parents" which may not be the same thing. I have some quite educated, independantly thinking colleagues who, after playing the dating game for a while, have opted for an arranged marriage. The process is by discussion with parents, a brief meeting is arranged, the prospective partners give their parents their views.... and then go ahead or don't go ahead.

Which may not be our way of doing things, but isn't a human rights issue.

---

quote:

---

I think it's because Islam doesn't have much concept of interior mortification of sin. The awareness of an inner condition of sinfulness (which is universal to humanity) has led, in some expressions of Islam, to the practice of extreme projection. So - in the case of hijab - instead of dealing with subject of lust (i.e men) Sharia law has focused upon changing the object of lust (i.e. women). The problem with this is that is doesn't work.

Jesus' solution to the problem of lust is much stronger and much more radical. His advice for men struggling with lust is to undergo a radical assessement of our own contribution to the problem. He advises merciless self discipline and inner mortification of sin. So much so that he says we have to be so serious about it that it can be compared to self-mutilation.

Lust is an inner condition according to Jesus. He does not blame the woman; he blames the man.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rat:
Forced marriage, 'honour' killing, imprisonment, etc are of course crimes. And I've never heard of a defintion of multiculturalism that allows anyone to be above the law. If these crimes are not being detected or prosecuted then this strikes me as a failure of policing rather than of multiculturalism.

---

quote:

---

1/3 children are abused, each molestor rapes an average of 9 kids, that's 1/27th of the population are child molestors.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Louise:
It might help to educate yourself about some of these problems in Europe and to stop setting up an army of straw-man positions held by no-one on this thread.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Louise:
Sadly these problems are indeed endemic in some communities, the question is what can be done to help and what well-intentioned efforts might be making things worse?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Louise:
Maybe you'd like to address that instead of ranting about positions Laura has never held and which anyone who's hung about a bit on this board knows she isn't likely to hold in a million years.

L.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Or happening to see a grown man having a slash; that would appear to count by that definition.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Or happening to see a grown man having a slash; that would appear to count by that definition.

---

In that case I abused my son this morning - someone call social services
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the_raptor:
I also enjoy how you never want to deal with the fact that women can be arrested in western society for showing less skin then an ankle (a nipple to be precise).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
Which "western society" is this? Not England. Or France. Or Italy. The last time I saw someone breast-feed in public was the day before yesterday. And there are pictures of women with no tops on in our daily newspapers, and on advertising posters.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Or happening to see a grown man having a slash; that would appear to count by that definition.

---

In that case I abused my son this morning - someone call social services

---

I'll put you down for the next mass execution
 

---

Posted by the_raptor (# 10533) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Or happening to see a grown man having a slash; that would appear to count by that definition.

---

In that case I abused my son this morning - someone call social services

---

I'll put you down for the next mass execution

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rat:
It wound up - despite her being a relatively high earner - that the only place she could find was in basically an Asian ghetto, one-and-a-half steps above a slum. She came home shortly afterwards.

I know I shouldn't tarnish an entire country with one person's bad experience, but equally I think you'd have difficulty describing her experience as 'partially self-fulfilled'. There seems to be sufficient evidence to suppose that integration difficulties in Germany are not one-sided.

---

quote:

---

However, suggesting that there is systematic racism in Germany doesn't tally with the facts. If the housing was being let through an agent, in fact the comments being made against your friend were illegal in Germany.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:
Oddly enough, honour killing is illegal in Germany as well.

---

quote:

---

The fact that there are laws against racism in Germany rather suggests that it is a problem which the German government is trying to deal with rather than a problem which Germany has solved.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LutheranChik:
Ananke: Then are you also suggesting that men, who are equally called to obedience to God, covertheir heads? If not, why not?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
I think it's important to understand the context in which individuals see the world. Rat's, is by no means unique.... I'd go as far as to say it's normative.

---

quote:

---

And that context, as Rat says, is highly relevant to descriptions of communities who "won't integrate"..... and relevant when one reads that multiculturalism is to blame for various atrocities in society or inset-societies.

---

quote:

---

The attitude of many in the target community for reform is likely to be "Sort your own house out, then start telling us what to do."

Not that I defend that attitude.... just to indicate that it's there, and where it comes from.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
You completely misread me. I do not justify murder or a "hands off" approach.

---

quote:

---

I'm not sure what sort of projection you are accusing me of either.

---

quote:

---

I find your discussion of individual variation within a culture a bit opaque..... people vary. Does this discount societal and systematic factors?

---

quote:

---

I would think it's likely that the blame for alienation between two communities is not either's exclusively. I find it depressing that both sides always blame the other for the alienation.... neither seems to be able to think outside their small sphere of experience to imagine what the other side experiences......

---

quote:

---

Could you imagine that what you write in your post above is exactly the kind of thing a member of a minority might find confirmatory of the complete lack of sympathy in the host community?

---

quote:

---

In the same way as you might be antipathic should or others suggest the primary fault is with the host community?

---

quote:

---

I don't think there's any scope for progress with each side think about the things they do and say that drive the alienation further..... and trying to understand how the other side sees them, and why the see them like that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by gbuchanan:
If multiculturalism is used to excuse "hands off" approaches (which it sounds to me that you're suggesting), I don't buy it at all.

---

Maybe we are both reading things into each others posts that aren't there.

I'm most worried by the part that you thought was a personal attack. I'm not necessarily saying that you are an unsympathetic person..... but I am suggesting that it would be very difficult to express the sentiments you do, in the way you do, without someone from a minority group - with the previous experiences I describe - finding the approach antipathic. Without it tending to produce a "Sort your own house out first" kind of response.

And that, to me, is the question here. If societies really do want to do something about the honour killings, for instance, and the cultural factors which support them, then they need to be able to intervene within those cultures, to voice dissapproval, to take action without further polarizing the culture against them. Without increasing the sense of "us and them" as it's done.

And it seems to me, that statements like "then clearly the factors are more to do with the endemic origins of the community than the nationality/race or, indeed, the religion or host community" are unlikely to head in that direction.

I'm saying this thinking of my misguided past as a black-supremecist, thinking how entrenched I was in my views, and what sort of encounters with white people further alienated me.... and what sort of encounters were my salvation.
 

---

Posted by Rat (# 3373) on :
 
I can only assume we're all misreading each other - I've lost track at least!

I've never intended to suggest that race relations are one dimensional, or that the attitude of the host community is the only factor. There are obviously lots of variables both in how a particular group is treated, in how they behave and in how they react to a particular context.

For instance, I'd think it's so obvious as not to need stating that, for example, a middle-class well-educated Indian coming to Scotland to study medicine, or with enough financial support to start a business, will be very different and have a very different experience to a non-English-speaking, uneducated Indian coming from poverty to provide cheap labour in an ailing textile industry that promptly died. There will also be huge differences in how the host community reacts to them in each case. I don't think I've said anything that would suggest immigrant communities are homogeneous.

Nor do I think I've suggested a 'hands-off' approach to crime in any community.

However, I do think that (from a purely pragmatic point of view if nothing else) it behooves the host community to look at their own behaviour and communication to see whether they are making things worse than they need to be, especially in terms of hampering effective policing or discouraging victims from coming forward. Which I think is also part of what mdijon is saying, though going on today's performance I may be entirely wrong about that
 

---

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
No, you're entirely correct.

And BTW, the rest is what I thought you were saying.
 

---

Posted by gbuchanan (# 415) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rat:
I can only assume we're all misreading each other - I've lost track at least!

---

quote:

---

Nor do I think I've suggested a 'hands-off' approach to crime in any community.

---

quote:

---

However, I do think that (from a purely pragmatic point of view if nothing else) it behooves the host community to look at their own behaviour and communication to see whether they are making things worse than they need to be, especially in terms of hampering effective policing or discouraging victims from coming forward. Which I think is also part of what mdijon is saying, though going on today's performance I may be entirely wrong about that

---

quote:

---

Bibi recounted how she was woken by a shriek as Ahmed put his hand to the mouth of his stepdaughter Muqadas and cut her throat with a machete. Bibi looked helplessly on from the corner of the room as he then killed the three girls — Bano, 8, Sumaira, 7, and Humaira, 4 — pausing between the slayings to brandish the bloodstained knife at his wife, warning her not to intervene or raise alarm.

"I was shivering with fear. I did not know how to save my daughters," Bibi, sobbing, told AP by phone from the village. "I begged my husband to spare my daughters but he said, 'If you make a noise, I will kill you.'"

"The whole night the bodies of my daughters lay in front of me," she said.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laura:
But you can't just write this guy off as a sicko when this sort of thing happens all the time in Pakistan.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laura:
Crazy people will use whatever justification or none to do their craziness. But are these cases you cited those in which persons in authority are giving the perpetrators a pass? I looked at them, and I don't see one in which that is happening.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rat:
With reference to your asylum example (well done, by the way, I think you'd have been lucky to win that case here) I think it's worth mentioning that within my memory wife abuse was a staple of comedy television here, as was racism. ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rat:
is that I see no reason why people from other cultures with different opinions who come here won't respond to the same pressures and the same legal structures, without any need for special measures.

---

quote:

---

This story in the New York Times, The New Berlin Wall (not sure how long it's available for free) describes how the work of three women Muslim dissidents have exposed the parallel society that has grown up in Germany among Muslim communities in Berlin, in which girls are very frequently forced into marriage pre-minority, girls are imported from Turkey and elsewhere to be pressed into forced marriages, and the official permission to have Islamic-approved instruction (in state schools) has fueled a rise in honor killings for dissident women, and full veiling and early school dropout and marriage for girls. In "tolerating" all of these things, Germany, and any western country that permits this parallel society to be protected in these activities (I'm especially struck by the state schools being used as vehicles of shari'a) we are failing the girls and women growing up among us. These girls and woman are being denied those freedoms to which we are all entitled.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
How is this "paralel society" of (one kind of) Muslim education any different from the paralel society of (one kind of) Christian education that some Americans bring up their children in through home-schooling and the like? Does the state have the right to remove these children from their parent's schools and force them to go to government schools?

---

quote:

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by LutheranChik:
I remember being on a discussion forum, talking about multiculturalism, where one person kept insisting that one value system is just as good as the other.

---

As far as I remember I've never met anyone who actually really argued for that.

If that sort of immoral stupidity is what the right-wing media mean by "multicultural" than they are right to oppose it. But its not what most of us mean by it nor what happens in the places most of us live.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Primrose Path:
I suspect the most effective long-term solution is to give all children the education they need to realise they are being opressed and, hopefully, fight it from within. This means obligatory, heavily state-supervised education in all schools - faith based, state, and private - about:
(1) the legal rights, freedoms, and obligations of the country these children find themselves in, including divorce; and
(2) the language those rights are written in.

Parents who unreasonably prevent their children from receiving this education should be prosecuted and the children, if necessary, taken into care.

---

quote:

---

Posted by mrs Tea:
But a country where that was thoroughly carried out would be one where home schooling was illegal, and private schools pretty much as heavily legislated-for as state ones. The state would be able to teach all children pretty much anything it liked, which might start off as anti-racism and good citizenship but could later become something more like Nazi-ism or Newspeak. And nobody would be allowed to opt out. That degree of societal control by the government is not a country where I'd want to live.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Primrose Path:
Are you so sure you don't?

I meant to include homeschoolers. In the USA they are required to follow a basic curriculum (people are supposed to check up on this); and I believe they are eventually subject to the same public exams as the other schools in order to claim high school graduation.

... think all kids should be taught this stuff as standard. ... How can this be controversial, unless the system itself sucks? (In which case, shouldn't it be discussed out in the open by educators?) ... teenage school leavers need to understand the modern system, as simply as possible, and enlivened with plenty of topical class discussion. And if it's impossible for educators to agree on the basics, well - how the */!* does anyone manage to govern fairly, or control the governers adequately?

... As someone else pointed out, many immigrants have backgrounds of poverty and poor education, and I'd say many of the issues in the OP arise from that rather than religion. Leading on from that, I'd like to point out that very similar problems are rife among the catholic and protestant Caucasian poor in sink estates

... If a society can't set out some simple common goals, independent of ethnic or cultural background, which are uncontroversial enough to be enforced on everybody (including immigrants)without apology, how is it going to cope with the tide of new citizens with very different goals and customs? ... Is pragmatism the UK way? If so, how can that be expressed to its newest citizens in a way that sounds fair?

---

quote:

---

Mrs. Tea wrote:
...but one answer most Britons aren't prepared to accept is turning a fairly free society into a totalitarian state.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Primrose Path:

An example: here
A student was suspended from school for speaking Spanish in the hallway. This particular link doesn't mention that the student's immigrant laboror father had just passed his US citizenship exam and therefore knew immediately that the suspension was an unconstitutional one. It was the father that raised the legal complaint and had his son reinstated.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laura:
Can I just note that I love stories like this? Some of our very best citizens in the sense of actually knowing what citizenship entails and valuing it, are our most recent immigrants, and not just because they have to learn it for the exam, but because a lot of them think it really matters. As it does, of course.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
I think they do get reached; perhaps not as much as we'd like, and not enough to stop all the abuse .... either way, I'm pretty sure the way you to reach them is not by attacking the name or concept of multiculturalism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laura:
Can I just note that I love stories like this? Some of our very best citizens in the sense of actually knowing what citizenship entails and valuing it, are our most recent immigrants, and not just because they have to learn it for the exam, but because a lot of them think it really matters. As it does, of course.

---

But it looks weirtd to us, not because we have a constitutional right to speak any language we like, but because we can't imagine a school punishing someone for speaking their own language. It seems absurd to us. Even though it happened in parts of Scotland and Wales less than a century ago.

---

I can't imagine it, either. I thought we didn't do this sort of thing, anymore either. That and the fact that it's plainly unconstitutional are what make it stick out.

But I forgot. There aren't prejudiced people
who do dumb-ass things in British schools anymore, ever.
 

---

Posted by Zorro (# 9156) on :
 
Multiculturalism's something which Glasgow's having a pretty big problem with at the moment, largely because we have, as far as I'm aware, the 2nd largest immigrant population outside of London.

I'm all for multiculturalism, I mean that sincerely, but often it's tested by the groups who move here (the majority of my experience is Pakistani Muslim guys, as they're the largest immigrant group at our school).

For example, it's well known that Pakistani boys are brought up to think that a) Women are inferior, and that b) they are superior to anyone else they meet, with the exception of other muslim Pakistani guys.

It's not 3 weeks since a boy, 14, at a secondary school near me was macheted for no other reason than he was an Indian Sikh, and the gang who did it (they came into the school) were muslim Pakistanis.

2 months ago, I was walking across the playground carrying the rugby ball, talking to my mate. We're both decent, intelligent guys, and are known to be vehemently anti racist. One of the muslim Pakistani guys turns up, backed by his mates (about 20, most of whom I get on with very well) and hooks me in the face, before stealing the ball. I turned to hit him before reconsidering as I knew too well that if I touched him his mates would forget our friendship and take me out, and they're probably armed, (I've been on trains with the same pakistani guys and seen the knives they carry.)

Also it's well known that even if it's one of those guys who's done something wrong they'll happily blame it on a white guy. And if said white guy argues with this, they'll go to the management staff in the school and say "Oh yeah, well he called me a paki so and so." At this point that staff person will forget all previous knowledge that "Zorro's a nice kid, does well at school, and has been known to stand out against racism," and go down the "That racist scum, we can't have this," road, and Zorro ends up suspended.

I'm not fabricating this, I've seen it happen and it's not funny. I've seen some majorly decent people be totally dumped by the authorities in the school and end up in massive strife. The problem I think we face is that, and I won't pretend it's not present in the white community, there are those on both sides who feel "this is my place, get out." You cannot have multiculturalism in a community where one side totally reuses to accept the validity of the others status as human beings.
 

---

Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zorro:
I'm all for multiculturalism, I mean that sincerely, but often it's tested by the groups who move here (the majority of my experience is Pakistani Muslim guys, as they're the largest immigrant group at our school).

For example, it's well known that Pakistani boys are brought up to think that a) Women are inferior, and that b) they are superior to anyone else they meet, with the exception of other muslim Pakistani guys.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laura:
I think I suggested ages back on this thread that we were not apparently talking the same language when we used the word "multiculturalism". Can we not let the word go and try to focus on the issue? I've been trying to do that, but every single time you come back and post, "yes, but you can't blame this on multiculturalism (your definition of it)".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laura:
Well, it's part of the OP, now, but I've actually been trying to drop it, and not use it very much on the thread. I'm just not sure what to replace it with. "Excessive sensitivity to possible accusations of insensitivity?" ("ESPAS"?)

Also, why do we let the right control the terms of the debate?

---

I rather like ESPAS

I think the problem is that when you use the term, your point is always going to fall into the chasm between those who hear multiculturalism as 'a free pass for foriegners to kill my cat' and those of us who hear criticism of multiculturalism as code for 'Pakis Go Home'.

Then whatever it is you're trying to debate gets lost in a revival of the same argument.
 

---

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laura:
Mdijon -- I think I suggested ages back on this thread that we were not apparently talking the same language when we used the word "multiculturalism". Can we not let the word go and try to focus on the issue? I've been trying to do that, but every single time you come back and post, "yes, but you can't blame this on multiculturalism (your definition of it)". If you redefine multiculturalism in such a way that it cannot be responsible for or even inform something that doesn't work in a positive way every time, the debate is pointless. In this country, multiculturalism (understood as a general warm and fuzzy feeling toward a society in which many cultures are embraced and tolerated, which is, generally, imho a Good Thing) has also sometimes supported a balkanization that is not helpful to democratic values. ......I'm genuinely at a loss at how to proceed here.

---

quote:

---

Also the attempted redefinition of the word "multiculturalism" is itself part of a right-wing strategy to control the language of politics. A successful one so far in the USA, and partly so after here, with their complete destruction of the once useful word "liberal", the demonisation of the word "socialism" (which we simply can;t use when taling to Americans any more) and the absurd currency of their pathetic whinges around the phrase "politically correct" (Actually we lefties never said "politically correct" in the first place - when we made those jokes we would have said "ideologically sound" - but they landed their punches well)
. Some of us don't want to lose yet another once useful word to them.

---

Whilst I share your distaste for the British press, Ken, and mourn the passing of the once-useful word "liberal" - now seemingly little more than a tribal identifier - frankly I can't go along with the rest of it. For a start, it looks suspiciously like a conspiracy theory, and they have an unerring track record of being usually wrong. But more importantly, the facts just don't support it. Yes, of course there are right-wing opponents, but in fact the matter of definition is being purued primarily by academia in sociology studies, not the press. And the most recent criticisms of multiculturalism have come from the centre-left, such as in Goodhart's critique. But in saying that, it's perhaps important to look at what is being criticised and what isn't.

What isn't being criticised is the desire of any nation to develop a working strategy whereby a resident majority population can interact productively with any number of incoming ones, or resident minority ones.

Those who categorise these things tend to use 3 analytical categories:

1) A dominant culture paradigm, whereby minorities are expected to conform themselves to the dominant paradigm. France would be an example here.

2) A "melting pot" paradigm, whereby minorities are expected to interact with the majority in order to develop a new culture that would then become predominant, albeit constantly evolving. The USA is usually held up as an example of this one. Finally,

3) A multicultural paradigm. This rejects the concept of a predominant culture altogether. You can probably subdivide this into weak multiculturalism, which would agree that statistically one culture may predominate, and strong multiculturalism, which would take steps to ensure that no single culture could predominate. Because it is a negative definition, very different national approaches could be classified as being multicultural. Canada and the UK are usually put in here.

These are just social-science type categorizations, so it would be a mistake to get hung up on precision and possible ideas of underlying drivers. But to understand why why one would come up with an idea like multiculturalism, I think you need to look at the history of Canada, where it was first articulated.

So much for what people are talking about, in the UK discussion at least (and these definitions or something like them seem to be used equally in North America). The centre-left critique, (which has subsequently been taken up by figures such as Trevor Phillips and John Sentamu), seems to have been kicked off by an article in Prospect Magazine by David Goodhart back in Feb 2004. Unfortunately only the first few lines seem to be available without a paying subscription.

In brief, though, he points out that there is an inherent tension in multiculturalism that any broadly left-wing sympathiser needs to come to grips with - that is that solidarity and diversity are here in opposition. Traditionally the left has been interested in both, but here you run the risk of pursuing one at the expense of the other. Pursue diversity to an extreme and you risk losing cohesion altogether. The article is long and covers numerous bases besides this, but you do need to read it if you want to understand the sort of arguments currently being deployed.

In fact, Goodhart recommends a change from multiculturalism towards the "melting-pot" ideal, where at least there is a positive ideal to aim at, but in doing so he does mention some critiques of the US melting-pot approach, so it may be well worth non-UK members pursuing this too.

I also think - going beyond Goodhart now - that it is relevant that the Iraqi war also falls into this timeframe, and questions of a multicultural nature present themselves rather obviously here too. Will a supervening sense of common purpose win out, perhaps making it look more like category 2)? - if not it will look more like category 3) and continuing hostilities.

And it is also sobering to consider that the original history of apartheid has some disturbing parallels, and some lessons need to be learned from that before unqualified support is given to multiculturalism. That at least demonstrated that in the absence of moderate socio-economic equity, things are liable to go from bad to worse.

Untrammelled multiculturalism is potentially very dangerous to minorities, and I think Laura's OP, highlighting a tangible example, is timely.

Ian
 

---

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
I've really dragged this one out, and for that I'm sorry. I've been back to re-read the OP again a few times during the thread, and after IanB's post I've been back yet again.

And I think I'm going to have to admit there really is a point here that I've not properly digested until now.

But firstly, I've been talking as if I somehow represent the minority people's take on multiculturalism. That clearly isn't so. IanB quotes both Trevor Phillips (who I don't have so much time for) and Sentamu (who I have great respect for) who disagree with me.

If one finds oneself swimming against one's learned betters it is very rarely correct to persist. In this case, however, I think I still disagree... although I feel myself crumbling a bit.

Secondly, I do now see that if Islamic schools are operating in Berlin, with teaching in Turkish, without proper inspection and supervision, then students are getting a sub-standard education. If the state is failing to intervene, it is likely that concerns about "tolerance" and "multi-culturalism" are likely to be partly to blame.

However, I think the link between that and honour killings is very weak. The article refers to these schools as "fuelling honour killings" and I think that's unlikely, although I accept that a girl in such a school is not going to report sexual abuse, for instance, to her teacher.

So I accept there are sins to lay at the door of multi-culturalism.

What I don't accept is that the worst excesses (killings, child abuse, FGM) in islamic society can be counted among these.

There are other factors; if one funds RC and C of E schools, it's hard to refuse islamic schools.

I would also blame years of dreadful race relations - abuses, riots, discrimination; and eye for eye between the communities - that now results in authority finding it very difficult to constructively engage communities.

Multiculturalism is part of the expression of these difficult relationship - and as such can get blamed for many ills that go much deeper.
 

---

Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
Hrmph. He listens to ++Sentamu but not me. I guess that's what the mitre and a life of struggle gets one.

mdijon: I think you've got ahold of what I think is the central problem, and I'm certainly not going to disagree with you. I will go so far as to allow that the link with honor killings may not be as strong as the link with tolerating other more pervasive but less extreme forms of oppression of women. Though, upon reflection, I'm not sure that the lesser but more pervasive erosion of women's rights in that context is not the more sinister in terms of impact, when purveyed by gov't funded foreign-language schools.

And I'll say again that I think the shift against FGM even in some countries where it has been widely practiced, is one of the world's growing success stories of cooperation between medical folks, activists and religious leaders, in terms of women's rights. I'd like to see honor killings go the same way.
 

---

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
Well, thank you for your patience Laura.

It's perhaps worth thinking about why FGM has been dealt with in such a different atmosphere. There are few cries of "foul" or "intolerance" from representatives of any community regarding the intervention of the UN and other Western based agencies. It's not as if gains here have been made as a result of a radically different approach, or particular cultural sensitivity. Why the difference?

On the other hand, maybe it's not a good time to kick start the thread or start another multiculturalism/immigrants/prime directive type thread just yet. Perhaps I'll cogitate a bit first.

BTW, it's not just his hat, though. And I might not listen to him that much more than I listen to you.
 

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0