|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: When does "tolerant" become "too tolerant"?
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
Some comments following a Washington Post article about societal problems in a small German town because of the 1700 migrants living there in tent cities, led me to a video on Youtube called "One country, two worlds: Islam - Effects on Germany - ZDF" (If I post the link, do hosts have to watch the whole half hour?)
I find the questions raised fascinating, and I don't always know what side of a specific issue I am on. Shouldn't people be able to live their own culture, but shouldn't women be free to choose who to marry, and what happens when those two values conflict?
The video is inspired by concerns about whether the new migrants will become German or instead create a parallel universe. It explores the parallel universe created by the "guest workers" who moved there in the 70s, an in-Germany world where girls must obey family males and may not choose who to marry.
To what extent should migrants - now or any time - be accepted on a "you adopt our culture or leave" basis, vs a "bring your culture and impose it on your people (but leave us alone)" basis?
What if anything should happen when some migrants openly reject the values of the country they moved to instead of adapting and integrating to their new homeland's ways?
The Washington Post article
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Funnily enough, I was thinking about this question earlier today, having happened to see a random newspaper headline "Why should we tolerate the burkha?"
I think it was in the Telegraph, but my answer is that if you don't tolerate the burkha, you may think you're standing up for women's rights and trying to overturn the patriarchy but if you ask the women who are being forced to abandon it, most of them will say they're exchanging one group of people telling them what to wear for another.
And I don't think we've got to the stage of being 'too tolerant' yet. If we had, things like the murder of Sophie Lancaster wouldn't happen.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
What about the suggestion- in principle- that if we were less tolerant we might be taking a tougher line on things like forced marriage, FGM, and dodgy exorcisms of child 'witches'? As for the burka, there's surely a difference between telling people that they must wear something and telling them that they mustn't wear one specific thing. But we need to take account of our culture too, and part of that culture is the liberal position that we tend not to like telling people what they must or mustn't wear- so while some of us may dislike it and wish that it wasn't worn, we're not prepared to ban it. Quite different in France, where they have a culture of republican equality which leads them in the other direction.
It has to be, surely, a pragmatic matter of give andd take all round; a distinction between things we dislike and things we can't tolerate, between things that are essential to who we are and things that aren't.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
It has to be, surely, a pragmatic matter of give and take all round; a distinction between things we dislike and things we can't tolerate, between things that are essential to who we are and things that aren't.
Exactly.
Really, it's only an extension of the same rights and responsibilities we expect of our native citizens. We will accept a pretty wide swath of abnormality-- all sorts of weird quirks and habits and fetishes-- if they have little or no impact on others. Even things that are uncomfortable, perhaps, or distasteful to others, if they are not causing any material or physical harm.
But there is a line we will draw-- we won't allow infanticide, for example, even in the name of, say, religious freedom. An extreme example, but I think it goes to the point: would we allow this degree/sort of variation among our native citizens? If yes, then we ought to tolerate it among refugees and immigrants, even if their sort of variation is different than ours (i.e. we allow teens to dress in ways that might seem sloppy, immodest, or just plain ugly to others, so surely we should allow burkas or other forms of religious dress that might strike us as merely odd or unusual).
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
We all draw the line somewhere. The current societal position in Britain, on the whole, is that we can put up with hurt feelings, but we don't tolerate physical harm. It hasn't always been so. If physical abuse is tolerated or even encouraged within the culture of people who come to live here, that should not be seen as acceptable, and the perpetrators should be prosecuted in the same way as everyone else.
Similarly, if our law prohibits bigamy, but those coming to live here think it acceptable to have more than one wife, they should be prosecuted in the same way as everyone else.
If there is a law against abduction, and a young girl is abducted so that she will be forced to marry, then those who abducted her should be prosecuted.
Bullying is a difficult middle ground. At what point does parental control become bullying?
As for clothing, if it is legal to wear a balaclava, it should be legal to wear anything else that covers the face. The fact that it either makes others feel afraid or encourages others to ignore them might be a deterrent, but it does no real harm to anyone else.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
... The video is inspired by concerns about whether the new migrants will become German or instead create a parallel universe. It explores the parallel universe created by the "guest workers" who moved there in the 70s, an in-Germany world where girls must obey family males and may not choose who to marry. ...
The first generation of guest workers (many of whom were Turkish) in Germany were not citizens. Their children and grandchildren, born and raised in Germany, are excluded from German society by racism. Why would they trust in the "values" of a society that thinks they and their families will always be second-class non-Germans? And anybody who is worried about arranged marriages in immigrant communities in Europe needs to tell me why extremist Mormons are still getting away with trafficking children in North America.
To paraphrase Gandhi, many people might like "western" values if we actually practiced them.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
What about the suggestion- in principle- that if we were less tolerant we might be taking a tougher line on things like forced marriage, FGM, and dodgy exorcisms of child 'witches'?
We might well, but that's because we're a bunch of reactionary idiots who don't think things through.
We should be intolerant of forced marriage and other forms of child abuse, whether we're talking about FLDS extremists or Muslims from some rural village somewhere.
But we don't really have any principles, except that we fetishize democracy and hope it all kind of works out, which means we don't have a framework for thinking about this.
Ben Franklin never actually described democracy as two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for dinner, but there's a point in there, which is that nobody has any business voting on what's for dinner. We are, in general, very bad at saying "it's none of our business whether you do X."
So we could, certainly, oppose FGM and forced marriage because we're jackbooted cultural imperialists and are going to force you to behave like us, or we could oppose FGM and forced marriage because we are going to defend your children's rights because they are the same as our own children's rights.
A lot of the pussyfooting is because people would like to think they're in the second group, but aren't really very committed to it, but are scared of looking like they're in the first group.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
I'd say it depends on how much the new residents want to be treated like Germans.
There is always some amount of tension between the cohesiveness of an expatriate/exile community and assimilation. There are benefits to both things, but I don't think it's ever happened that an immigrant could remain completely faithful to the culture he came from and at the same time be accepted as part of the culture in the place he emigrated to. It's a trade-off; the more you cling to your ways, the more likely you are to be seen as "other," and the more you assimilate, the more you have to give up.
Where I live, it's especially visible with immigrants from Asia and Latin America. It generally takes 3 or so generations until full assimilation occurs, though people of some cultures resist for much longer (or give up much sooner).
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
We're in the middle of an election in Canada, and in the midst of this issue. The sitting Conservative prime minister has made the wearing of a niqab (a cultural Moslem face covering for women) at citizenship ceremonies an election issue. (He's had help from the wicked Australian man Crosby who got Cameron in the UK recently, but that's a hell call I think.)
Albertus expresses the balance: "there's surely a difference between telling people that they must wear something and telling them that they mustn't wear one specific thing".
Now how to ensure that it's voluntary versus coerced is another matter. It's also, I think necessary to require that immigrants learn the languages required in the receiving country, and to become proficient in the culture. In my youth it was eastern Europeans, who wore black clothes, spoke Ukrainian dialects and other languages of the region of origin, and the women all wore what we called babushkas, which look a lot like hijabs. A couple of generations later, and it seems to have disappeared. Though we still talk about "going down behind the perogy curtain", which means the Ukrainian plate will be available at truck stops and cafes.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
To what extent should migrants - now or any time - be accepted on a "you adopt our culture or leave" basis, vs a "bring your culture and impose it on your people (but leave us alone)" basis?
What if anything should happen when some migrants openly reject the values of the country they moved to instead of adapting and integrating to their new homeland's ways?
From your linked article:
quote:
That is especially true after the riot. In this quaint municipality of 3,000 inhabitants, the chaos started at lunchtime Sunday when a 19-year-old Albanian cut in the food line at the town’s new tent city, prompting a reprimand from a 43-year-old Pakistani. Pushes degenerated into punches. Soon, 300 migrants wielding pepper spray and metal pipes were attacking each other in rival mobs.
A caravan of ambulances and SWAT team vans careened down streets lined with gawking residents. More than 50 police officers struggled for hours to restore order, with three hospitalized with injuries, according to witnesses and local officials.
From about a month and a half ago:
quote:
A riot erupted in the German town of Heidenau on Saturday when an angry mob of anti-immigrant protesters greeted buses loaded with 250 asylum seekers.
Thirty one police officers were injured in the melee, one of them seriously, authorities told Tagesspiegel. The demonstration reportedly turned violent when members of the far-right National Democratic Party arrived on the scene.
Protesters hurled bottles and rocks at the buses and chanted "Wir sind das Volk," ("We are the people") — a rallying cry used by East Germans calling for reunification before the fall of the Berlin Wall. The saying was repurposed earlier this year by the Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamisation of the Occident (PEGIDA) movement.
Sounds like the new arrivals are "adapting and integrating to their new homeland's ways" just fine!
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Albertus: quote:
What about the suggestion- in principle- that if we were less tolerant we might be taking a tougher line on things like forced marriage, FGM, and dodgy exorcisms of child 'witches'?
All of these things are already illegal in the UK. If they are not as rare as we'd like them to be, perhaps we should find the funding for more police and social workers so that the existing laws can be effectively enforced.
quote:
As for the burka, there's surely a difference between telling people that they must wear something and telling them that they mustn't wear one specific thing.
Well, I would defend your right to walk down Oxford Street in a pink tutu if you wanted to, but a lot of people wouldn't. You only think you are free to wear what you like because you don't want to wear anything unusual; also, being male, you are free to walk down the street without fearing that complete strangers will feel compelled to comment (loudly) on your appearance.
And yes, I do think we would lose an important part of our cultural identity if we banned burkhas. Or hijabs. Or whatever the current Islamophobes are focused on. There is quite enough intolerance of people who dress differently already, without encouraging every street-corner yobbo to harass women in Muslim dress. Do you seriously think that will de-radicalise people? How would you like it if your granny got beaten up for walking to the corner shop with a headscarf on?
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by
quote:
Similarly, if our law prohibits bigamy, but those coming to live here think it acceptable to have more than one wife, they should be prosecuted in the same way as everyone else.
No need to go too deeply into it, but I think it would be fair (and is already the case in our law, I think) to make a distinction between a person who arrives here already in a bigamous marriage, where much distress might be caused by arbitrarily breaking it up, and a person who, having arrived here in a monogamous relationship, wants to contract a bigamous marriage (or a third or fourth marriage on top of an already bigamous relationship) in the UK.
A similar consideration applies to some other situations.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
Personally I think that not recognising polygamous marriages does more harm than good. Even if we don't treat them as marriages in law there needs to be some legal protection for secondary spouses otherwise people are left very vulnerable. More widely there needs to be a conversation about how the civil law deals with non-traditional family structures. Polyamory is the living situation of a small but growing number of people and when there are likely to be children involved it seems like a good idea to smooth out some of the bumps in how that works without requiring every family to employ a team of lawyers before they start their relationship.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Jane R
You seem to have misread my posting in an astonishing way. May I make it clear- as it would be to anybody who read what I said with the very least smidgin of fairness and an open mind- that disapproving of something does not for a moment mean the same thing as harrassing or attacking those who do or wear that thing. I can only imagine that you have some agenda of your own here, though what it might be I have no idea.
As for funding police and social workers to investigate and prosecute the things that I mentioned at the beginning of my post: anyone who has their eyes open knows that enforcing laws depends on both resources and will to enforce. There have always been offences that have not in general been dealt with- domestic violence and child abuse were long in that category in much of the UK. There has not, AFAIK, been a single prosecution for FGM in the UK except, I think, of a couple of doctors who effectively restored a woman to her mutilated condition after another unrelated intervention. I suggest that that reflects at the very least an uneasiness at the prospect of appearing racist by prosecuting women (not those mutilated, those who arrange it- AIUI it usually is women who arrange FGM) from ethnic minorities for what might be seen as a culturally significant practice.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Personally I think that not recognising polygamous marriages does more harm than good. Even if we don't treat them as marriages in law there needs to be some legal protection for secondary spouses otherwise people are left very vulnerable. More widely there needs to be a conversation about how the civil law deals with non-traditional family structures. Polyamory is the living situation of a small but growing number of people and when there are likely to be children involved it seems like a good idea to smooth out some of the bumps in how that works without requiring every family to employ a team of lawyers before they start their relationship.
Are these women any more vulnerable than the increasing numbers of single mothers and their children who are not religious? At least the children of non-legally binding religious marriages are recognised by, and have a relationship with their fathers. This is not always the case in other kinds of families.
More broadly, I do feel that refugees and other migrants applying for leave to remain in another country should be given assistance in understanding the cultural values and expectations of the country in question. I'm not sure if this routinely happens in Europe, but it would surely aid integration and prevent misunderstandings. I can understand why the German school in this situation decided to send out this message about how schoolgirls should dress, but really, it would be far better for everyone if the refugees understood Western attitudes towards individual freedom and women's rights, etc.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
Some years ago a Muslim woman sued the Department of Motor Vehicles (in Florida, I think it was). They would not issue her a driver's license because she refused to have her face photographed without covering.
I don't recall how the case turned out. I think the DMV was right. If you refuse to show your face uncovered, how can you be identified?
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Jane R
You seem to have misread my posting in an astonishing way. May I make it clear- as it would be to anybody who read what I said with the very least smidgin of fairness and an open mind- that disapproving of something does not for a moment mean the same thing as harrassing or attacking those who do or wear that thing. I can only imagine that you have some agenda of your own here, though what it might be I have no idea.
None is needed, beyond the recognition that where there is societal disapproval, there will always be those who take it further and harass and attack.
Can you think of a single example of something which is widely disapproved of but for which people are never harassed or attacked? I get harassed for having long hair, and that's not even generally disapproved of any more. I get harassed for commuting on a bike, even though it's only a minority who disapprove of cycling. How much worse would it be for me if these things were widely disapproved of? I'd get more than "cut your fucking hair you hippy div!" and "get off the road you fucking wanker!" wouldn't I?
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
The bottom line on how tolerant we should be is how many people are getting hurt.
With bullying it is easy. The bully is not tolerated, so fewer people get hurt. Zero tolerance for bullying is the right way.
With government policies it is harder. I would say that policies that harm more people than they help should be argued against, up to peaceful disobedience. But it is not so easy. There is the level of hurt to look at.
It is easy to say that there are a few asylum seekers and a lot of native people, so make it difficult for the few. But is the hurt of the native people so bad?
People are leaving their native countries to seek asylum in Greece. How desperate do you have to be to go to a county with a collapsing economy.
Here's the problem. Measuring the level of hurt on something as big as the current European migrant crisis is a lot harder than something that can be conveyed in a news bulletin. Politicians and journalists will look at the complex issues and come to different conclusions. My view is that more help per capita for those living in tents and a little extra discomfort in the short term for the natives of the host country is a good thing. Coming into contact with people of a different culture is a positive for both sides if we can drop our xenophobic tendencies.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Karl, it's a matter of degree and of comparative disapproval. I dsapprove of women wearing burkas: I disapprove more- even I would hope to the extent of doing something about it if I saw it and had the guts- of people attacking and harrassing women for wearing the burka.
[ 13. October 2015, 12:25: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Albertus: quote:
You seem to have misread my posting in an astonishing way. May I make it clear- as it would be to anybody who read what I said with the very least smidgin of fairness and an open mind- that disapproving of something does not for a moment mean the same thing as harrassing or attacking those who do or wear that thing. I can only imagine that you have some agenda of your own here, though what it might be I have no idea.
I apologise for the tone of my previous post. Might I in return suggest that you are less likely to be misinterpreted if you refrain from using loaded words like 'agenda' to describe the comments of people who disagree with you?
The reason why your previous post got right up my nose was that you appeared to be equating tolerance of wearing the burkha with approval of forced marriage, FGM and child abuse.
Just for the record, I don't approve of the burkha either, but I think telling women they can't wear it is wrong. Fix their other problems and maybe they'll abandon it of their own accord.
Oh, and I was delighted to hear that the Prime Minister disapproves of anti-Muslim hate crime, but it came as rather a surprise after the Home Secretary's speech at the Conservative conference.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Karl, it's a matter of degree and of comparative disapproval. I dsapprove of women wearing burkas: I disapprove more- even I would hope to the extent of doing something about it if I saw it and had the guts- of people attacking and harrassing women for wearing the burka.
Yeah, but the thing is when you say "I disapprove of women wearing burkas" you legitimise those who would go rather further and harass, at least in their own minds.
Let me give you another example.
For reasons I have no intention of going into here, I was sent to a minor public school, despite left-wing political connections. There was a low level of grief I got about that from other students. One day a guest speaker at an assembly commented on how now the Tories were in (it was 1979) a "more favourable environment" would exist for the independent sector. That subtle, low level of disapproval of the Labour party was enough to increase, significantly, the amount of harrassment and abuse I got for some days afterwards. Including the level of violence.
You need to be extremely careful before legitimising disapproval in society. It's a very, very powerful force.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
The bottom line on how tolerant we should be
is how many people are getting hurt.
I don't think this thread is about whether or not we should welcome refugees who are getting hurt, but about their integration when they arrive in the West.
One problem is that there's not much for them to integrate into, I suppose. The British in particular don't really require much more than that you don't attract too much attention to yourself. Knowing how to mind your own business. But that's easier said than done, because too much 'minding your own business' can look like segregation and cultishness, and those things draw unwelcome attention in themselves....
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
It depends on who builds the ghetto.
People building their own communities is one thing, being told, "You have to live here," is another story.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Also, women who wear the burkha or hijab or niqab or any of the other variations on this theme are conforming to the standards of dress for Respectable Women in their community. I can understand why they do that, because I have been harassed for the 'crime' of being female in a public space myself. If you ever did walk down Oxford Street in a pink tutu you might get some idea of what being female in a public space is like.
It is unfortunate that these women are caught between two groups with different standards of what constitutes 'respectable' dress, but it's a wider problem; it's the other side of slut-shaming.
Oh, and what Karl said.
[ 13. October 2015, 12:49: Message edited by: Jane R ]
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
And one of the reasons that although I disapprove of women wearing the Burka I do no more than disapprove, passively, of it is that I recognise exactly that point about women dressing according to the standards that are respectable in their society, or rather dressing within the range of standards that are respectable, since I often see women with the veil and muslim women without the veil out together with no suggestion that the veiled women look down on the unveiled ones.
Meanwhile I must learn from Karl's admirable tolerance and remember not to disapprove of child abuse because that only serves to legitimate vigilantes who set fire to the homes of convicted and released paedophiles. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
[ 13. October 2015, 13:52: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
And one of the reasons that although I disapprove of women wearing the Burka I do no more than disapprove, passively,
I only disapprove if they are forced to wear the burka by someone else, including by peer pressure.
Should she decide to dress like that of her own free will it is fine.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
It depends on who builds the ghetto.
People building their own communities is one thing, being told, "You have to live here," is another story.
Well, if we're talking about the Syrian refugees in Europe, they're expecting to be housed by the state for the time being. This means they're not free to go just anywhere - although some of them seem to be rather choosy (i.e. choosy about which country to go to, and which regions).
If we're talking about more established ethnic minority communities with work/study visas or British citizenship, for example, these days they can live wherever in the country they like, depending on availability, affordability, jobs, etc. Discrimination over housing was much worse in the past. Now, everyone's top priority is just to make money out of their property as possible.
I think we should acknowledge too that so-called 'ghettos' aren't simply about the people moving in, but the people moving out. In many places 'integration' is relatively meaningless because the indigenous population has largely chosen to leave, or send its children to different schools. This movement pre-dates mass immigration, but it's left a long term cultural impact.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
It depends on who builds the ghetto.
People building their own communities is one thing, being told, "You have to live here," is another story.
Folk need to remember that many of these communities cohere (in ghettoes, if you like the word) for a very basic reason-- they don't have a lot of money and accommodation is relatively low-cost in some areas. The part of Ottawa where I live received waves of Irish (S Patrick, Queen of the Most Holy Rosary, S Luke), eastern Europeans (S Saviour's, S Leopold Mandic, S Hyacinth), Italians (S Anthony) and Vietnamese (now they are being succeeded by a wash of condo-buyers, but that's another story-- their places of Sunday worship are brunch joints on Preston Street).
When that happens, shops etc will grow up around them to serve that population. Again, no surprise. And as soon as they can afford the suburbs, off they go! Nobody ever told them to live anywhere in particular. But rents and fixer-uppers are where immigrant and refugee populations (not identical population sets) will head.
Receiving countries can expect some challenges on integrating these populations, particularly in the school system which is for Canadians the main instrument of bringing them into local society (in Ontario, they have a choice of the RC system, the public system, or forking out $10k-$35k per child for private education) but they have been an incredible benefit for us.
England and Ireland can look at their own past, to see how the Huguenot refugees of the 1700s invigorated their economies, bringing new industries and skillsets along with a population very much committed to their new home. Often some very political refugees produce children with different social and political views (Michael Portillo, anyone?). Others, having fled to Britain as refugees, are not even thought of in the context (twice-fled Prince Philip is not a bad example).
The burka or niqab is extremely rare here (when there was shameful election talk of banning them in the public service, nobody could come up with a single example) and normally among the wives of visa students, but the hijab or headscarf is seen often enough on lively and articulate students-- my Muslim friends tell me about a quarter or fifth. I learned a long time ago that it is foolish and inappropriate to tell women what to wear and would advise Conservative and separatist politicians to follow my wise example.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
And one of the reasons that although I disapprove of women wearing the Burka I do no more than disapprove, passively, of it is that I recognise exactly that point about women dressing according to the standards that are respectable in their society, or rather dressing within the range of standards that are respectable, since I often see women with the veil and muslim women without the veil out together with no suggestion that the veiled women look down on the unveiled ones.
Meanwhile I must learn from Karl's admirable tolerance and remember not to disapprove of child abuse because that only serves to legitimate vigilantes who set fire to the homes of convicted and released paedophiles.
Argument by ridiculous comparison. I said you must be very careful, not you should never disapprove of anything.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Yeah, but the thing is when you say "I disapprove of women wearing burkas" you legitimise those who would go rather further and harass, at least in their own minds.
Yeah, but the thing is when you say "I disapprove of child abuse" you legitimise those who would go rather further and burn out paedophiles, at least in their own minds.
[ 13. October 2015, 15:26: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
I once had an interesting discussion with a prominent Muslim politician. She said there is a difference between a woman being forced to adhere to a religious dress code and a woman choosing to dress like that. Society should help a woman trapped in a religious dress code she doesn't want to be part of whilst at the same time upholding other women's rights to dress according to their religion as they see it.
It seems to me that white men generally can't see the difference and often do not allow that any woman anywhere would choose to dress like that.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Yeah, but the thing is when you say "I disapprove of women wearing burkas" you legitimise those who would go rather further and harass, at least in their own minds.
Yeah, but the thing is when you say "I disapprove of child abuse" you legitimise those who would go rather further and burn out paedophiles, at least in their own minds.
Which is why you go on to consider whether the negative effects of widespread societal disapproval of the Burka outweigh the positive effects. Similarly with child abuse. And you might just come up with different answers.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Whatever. ![[Snore]](graemlins/snore.gif)
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I once had an interesting discussion with a prominent Muslim politician. She said there is a difference between a woman being forced to adhere to a religious dress code and a woman choosing to dress like that. Society should help a woman trapped in a religious dress code she doesn't want to be part of whilst at the same time upholding other women's rights to dress according to their religion as they see it.
It seems to me that white men generally can't see the difference and often do not allow that any woman anywhere would choose to dress like that.
Depends where you are: my straw polling on this over the years is that the difference is generally not seen by a wide range of people. If anything, I would have said that it was francophones or women of colour who did not allow that any woman would choose to dress that way. I suppose it depends on whom you are polling (actually, my sampling suggests unanimous support among transgendered white persons for wearing the niqab but the two with whom I have spoken are perhaps not a significant enough sample).
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Yeah, but the thing is when you say "I disapprove of child abuse" you legitimise those who would go rather further and burn out paedophiles, at least in their own minds.
No you don't. You mean exactly what you have said. If other people gloss that to reach their own conclusions, that is their mistake, for which they are wholly morally responsible. Not you.
The only exception to this is if you do not, or can't be bothered to, express yourself clearly enough. If somebody gets the wrong end of the stick because you don't express yourself clearly, that is your fault. If they get the wrong end of the stick because they don't listen to what you said, that is their fault. All that, though, is a different issue.
Nor is anyone entitled to tell you you must not express what you think because other people might misunderstand what you said, or hang something else onto it that you didn't put there. Whether you express your own opinion or not is entirely a matter for you to decide.
You are free to express it. You are free not to. It is up to you.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I think we should acknowledge too that so-called 'ghettos' aren't simply about the people moving in, but the people moving out. In many places 'integration' is relatively meaningless because the indigenous population has largely chosen to leave, or send its children to different schools. This movement pre-dates mass immigration, but it's left a long term cultural impact.
And the few pale skinned people, often elderly, who cannot afford to move out can, if they welcome their new neighbours, become valued members of an otherwise darker skinned Muslim community. As has happened in this town.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Which is why you go on to consider whether the negative effects of widespread societal disapproval of the Burka outweigh the positive effects.
No, you don't.
People have (and should have) the right to choose to wear a burqa. People have (and should have) the right to disapprove of that choice.
End of.
I understand your point about widespread disapproval encouraging people who are so inclined to yell abuse at long-haired cyclists, for example, and you're right. Bullies pick on people with unpopular characteristics; it all falls apart when a bully yells "fucking footballers" and all his mates look at him like he's crazy.
But the problem isn't that some people don't like long hair on men, or cyclists, or smart nerdy people, or any other set of characteristics - it's the bullying treatment that is the problem. And it's rather incumbent on those who do disapprove of the burqa to be the ones to stand up when some bully starts yelling about bin bags.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
balaam
Indeed. It happens in my town too. And interfaith work often seems to be an activity for older white Christians.
Unfortunately, though, these elderly people won't be around for ever, and I do wonder who's going to do their work when they're no longer here.
[ 13. October 2015, 17:26: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Which is why you go on to consider whether the negative effects of widespread societal disapproval of the Burka outweigh the positive effects.
No, you don't.
People have (and should have) the right to choose to wear a burqa. People have (and should have) the right to disapprove of that choice.
End of.
I understand your point about widespread disapproval encouraging people who are so inclined to yell abuse at long-haired cyclists, for example, and you're right. Bullies pick on people with unpopular characteristics; it all falls apart when a bully yells "fucking footballers" and all his mates look at him like he's crazy.
But the problem isn't that some people don't like long hair on men, or cyclists, or smart nerdy people, or any other set of characteristics - it's the bullying treatment that is the problem. And it's rather incumbent on those who do disapprove of the burqa to be the ones to stand up when some bully starts yelling about bin bags.
Bullshit. What you say has consequences. It's not unreasonable to ask people to consider what those consequences might be.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglicano
Shipmate
# 18476
|
Posted
quote:
What if anything should happen when some migrants openly reject the values of the country they moved to instead of adapting and integrating to their new homeland's ways?
Always remember that the worst integrators are.....the British. They failed to integrate in India and Africa and there are hundreds of thousands of British immigrants in Spain and Portugal who can't/won't speak the language.
Posts: 61 | From: Cheshire, England | Registered: Sep 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Yeah, but the thing is when you say "I disapprove of child abuse" you legitimise those who would go rather further and burn out paedophiles, at least in their own minds.
No you don't. You mean exactly what you have said. If other people gloss that to reach their own conclusions, that is their mistake, for which they are wholly morally responsible. Not you.
The only exception to this is if you do not, or can't be bothered to, express yourself clearly enough. If somebody gets the wrong end of the stick because you don't express yourself clearly, that is your fault. If they get the wrong end of the stick because they don't listen to what you said, that is their fault. All that, though, is a different issue.
Nor is anyone entitled to tell you you must not express what you think because other people might misunderstand what you said, or hang something else onto it that you didn't put there. Whether you express your own opinion or not is entirely a matter for you to decide.
You are free to express it. You are free not to. It is up to you.
I reserve the right to say I don't think you should say particular things. I accept I can't say you MUST not. And I do not believe one can excuse oneself from the predictable consequences of what one says. I do hold the Jeremy Clarksons of this world, for example, partly responsible for the treatment cyclists get, which sometimes results in their deaths.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Bullshit. What you say has consequences. It's not unreasonable to ask people to consider what those consequences might be.
I am in two minds on this. On the one hand, clearly it would be better if people more-or-less logically thought about the effects of their words on others.
On the other hand, that probably isn't possibly when we're talking about strongly-held beliefs, people are not generally able to understand completely different worldviews or to empathise with the stereotypical "other". Another difficulty is that although one might want to try to think of others, this quickly becomes a difficult task when there are a range of different people responding differently to the same phenomena.
Practically speaking, therefore, one can only really understand the point of view of people that one understands and/or knows well (obviously) and one can only really be judged against ones own moral standards - held in common with the community of people one understands and moves within - and/or the societal standards exacted as laws (which in themselves might be struggling to see how to include the needs of a diverse population, but clearly are not just there to support the historical norms of a historical WASP population).
It is a delicate balance, but overall I think it isn't really physically possible to ask people to consider the effects of their words on people who are different.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I do hold the Jeremy Clarksons of this world, for example, partly responsible for the treatment cyclists get, which sometimes results in their deaths.
That is something of a special case as it is bullying. Specifically, a rich, privately educated white male with an over-developed sense of entitlement (and tendency to extreme anger and violence) really shouldn't be given any sort of credence, even if he is, as bullies often say "'Avin a larf".
Definitely not to be tolerated.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I reserve the right to say I don't think you should say particular things. I accept I can't say you MUST not.
Yes, of course. Just like you could say that people shouldn't wear burqas, but can't say that they mustn't.
quote:
And I do not believe one can excuse oneself from the predictable consequences of what one says. I do hold the Jeremy Clarksons of this world, for example, partly responsible for the treatment cyclists get, which sometimes results in their deaths.
I think it's perfectly possible to argue that cyclists should be banned from roads because they impede the flow of car traffic, say, without having any responsibility for the treatment of cyclists. That's not what the likes of Clarkson do, though - what you get from them is sneering contempt of cyclists, and encouraging that same contempt in others.
A fine line? Perhaps.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglicano:
quote:
What if anything should happen when some migrants openly reject the values of the country they moved to instead of adapting and integrating to their new homeland's ways?
Always remember that the worst integrators are.....the British. They failed to integrate in India and Africa and there are hundreds of thousands of British immigrants in Spain and Portugal who can't/won't speak the language.
I heartily agree. British people who go to Spain/Portugal/India/Africa and refuse to integrate are just as wrong as Spanish/Portugese/Indian/African people who move to Britain and refuse to integrate.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I reserve the right to say I don't think you should say particular things. I accept I can't say you MUST not.
Yes, of course. Just like you could say that people shouldn't wear burqas, but can't say that they mustn't.
quote:
And I do not believe one can excuse oneself from the predictable consequences of what one says. I do hold the Jeremy Clarksons of this world, for example, partly responsible for the treatment cyclists get, which sometimes results in their deaths.
I think it's perfectly possible to argue that cyclists should be banned from roads because they impede the flow of car traffic, say, without having any responsibility for the treatment of cyclists. That's not what the likes of Clarkson do, though - what you get from them is sneering contempt of cyclists, and encouraging that same contempt in others.
A fine line? Perhaps.
It's also a fine line between "You shouldn't be on the road anyway" and "so I'm going to give you a fag paper's space as I overtake" - one which makes life unpleasant on a daily basis. But we're getting away from my central point, which is that you cannot completely separate societal disapproval of something from harrassment of people who indulging in the activity disapproved of, whether it be wearing a Burqa, cycling, having long hair, or dressing as a Goth.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglicano
Shipmate
# 18476
|
Posted
I lived in Ireland for some years. I remained an Anglican and was a member of the Church of Ireland. It did not occur to me to become a Roman Catholic but I respected that Church. I'm not sure whether (traditionally) Irish RCs in England respected the CofE, but hopefully things are better now.
I've no problem with non-Anglican religions here as long as they respect our church and do not seek to convert us. I have a feeling that that could not be said of these trendy "New Atheists".
I'm quite happy with multi-culturalism. I do not share the culture of the Tory right, UKIP or for that matter socialist class warriors, but they're part of our society, as are various ethnic and religious groups.
But in conclusion there are certain practices which we should not tolerate, eg FGM and polygamy. It's all a question of degree.
Posts: 61 | From: Cheshire, England | Registered: Sep 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglicano:
I lived in Ireland for some years. I remained an Anglican and was a member of the Church of Ireland. It did not occur to me to become a Roman Catholic but I respected that Church. I'm not sure whether (traditionally) Irish RCs in England respected the CofE, but hopefully things are better now.
Bit of a struggle to see where this is related to the thread, to be honest with you.
quote:
I've no problem with non-Anglican religions here as long as they respect our church and do not seek to convert us. I have a feeling that that could not be said of these trendy "New Atheists".
That seems to be a very odd thing to say from someone who is a member of a missionary faith. Presumably you'd be in favour of attempting to convert atheists, no?
quote:
I'm quite happy with multi-culturalism. I do not share the culture of the Tory right, UKIP or for that matter socialist class warriors, but they're part of our society, as are various ethnic and religious groups.
But in conclusion there are certain practices which we should not tolerate, eg FGM and polygamy. It's all a question of degree.
Why those things in particular? You seem to be strong on asserting things, but pretty weak on giving any real reasons for them.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglicano
Shipmate
# 18476
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglicano:
I lived in Ireland for some years. I remained an Anglican and was a member of the Church of Ireland. It did not occur to me to become a Roman Catholic but I respected that Church. I'm not sure whether (traditionally) Irish RCs in England respected the CofE, but hopefully things are better now.
Bit of a struggle to see where this is related to the thread, to be honest with you.
Sorry you're struggling. It's just that I did not alter/adjust my culture and religion to concur with that of the host community and I was tolerated.
quote:
I've no problem with non-Anglican religions here as long as they respect our church and do not seek to convert us. I have a feeling that that could not be said of these trendy "New Atheists".
That seems to be a very odd thing to say from someone who is a member of a missionary faith. Presumably you'd be in favour of attempting to convert atheists, no?
I don't go round trying to convert. Should I?
quote:
I'm quite happy with multi-culturalism. I do not share the culture of the Tory right, UKIP or for that matter socialist class warriors, but they're part of our society, as are various ethnic and religious groups.
But in conclusion there are certain practices which we should not tolerate, eg FGM and polygamy. It's all a question of degree.
Why those things in particular? You seem to be strong on asserting things, but pretty weak on giving any real reasons for them.
Polygamy and FGM are against the law in this country.
Posts: 61 | From: Cheshire, England | Registered: Sep 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Is polygamy actually against the law in the UK? Surely what is against the law is going through what would otherwsie be a binding form of marriage while you are still legally married to someone else. There would AIUI be nothing illegal in going through multiple forms of, say, religious marriage which did not in themselves have legal effect, especially if there were no deception involved.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
