There is severe unrest in Paris, France.



Questions for debate.

What is the underlying cause of the rioting?

Could this have been prevented?

Is the news coverage of the riots satisfactory?

What is the underlying cause of the rioting?

Muslims.

Could this have been prevented?

I doubt it. The Muslim communities seem to try hard to destroy the societies that accepted them, and welcomed them to our civilized part of the world.

Is the news coverage of the riots satisfactory?

I don´t really care about it. We can do nothing about them. Perhaps it could be better to try to ignore it as much as possible (less publicity), and they might see it as pointless. As i presume they are trying to get some sort of opinion poll.

Paydirt!

I won't have to spend so much time explaining as this illustrates so clearly the real source of much of the trouble.

Let's examine the question. First word, begins with a "W".

"What"

not

"Who"

The fact that the one word vignette "Muslims" could be though of as an answer to the question. When it clearly describes a single religion (one which exists all over the world and isn't exactly causing riots in some places) points to another one words answer that although not complete, plays a far greater role than the actual theology of the rioters.

Intolerance

From what I gather parts of Europe are having a big problem accepting and adapting to the reality of multicultural, mobile, democratic society.

France almost chief among them.

Let's take another look at the problem.

There are so many problems here I'm not sure I'll be able to hit them all, but I'll try.

First, the idea that France represents the "civilized" world to Muslims is more than a little condescending as civilization is far older in the Arab world than in France.

What they lack in the Arab world is not civilization, but freedom and opportunity.

They are finding these basic desires in France to some extent, but there is a problem.

Let's talk freedom first.

In 1950 France signed on the the European Convention on Human Rights
Taking the lessons of war and turning them into rules to govern a free democratic society.

Rather than remain committed to those goals France has succumbed to it's own irrational fears of Muslim immigrants and poke a finger squarely in the eye of Article 9.

The ban of religious symbols, clearly target at Muslims headscarves has revealed France's hypocrisy when it come to civil liberties.

This has, rightfully, irritated and worried the Muslim community. It shows France is willing to ignore international law in dealing with them, it shows that the freedom they sought in France may not be secure.

Let's tackle prosperity.


French Muslims face job discrimination
What the media has the temerity to call suburbs are for many French immigrants ghettos, places of poverty and despair.

The immediate trigger for the riots was possibly overzealous police pursuit of three teens which ended in the death of two by electrocution (they tried to take refuge in a sub-station).

Dead children, threatened rights and dead-ends jobs make for disaster.

If France wants to avoid another riot like this one, and it has gone on for seven days.

They'll have to get to the root of the problem.

Incorrect. The Muslims have problems adapting to our civilized society. Your ignorance about this issue is very clear.




Once again, incorrect.

The Muslim world was once civilized. It is not anymore (take a look at it. I suggest you visit it too).



I strongly suggest you take a deeper look into the reasoning and details about the ban of religious symbols in France. It was to AVOID problems, discrimination and oppression.

But i guess you ignore THAT. Right?

Is anyone aware, that there have been riots in Århus, Denmark as well? Here is an article in Danish, which I can't read very well, but the general idea is similar to Paris, but smaller. Young Muslim immigrants saying that they "own" an area, demanding the police stay away, and rioting every night for several nights.

Sorry for pointing out that they were Muslim. I'm sure we should look into the root causes for dissatisfaction among Muslims emigrating to European welfare states - emigration? welfare states?

turnea, I'm not going to take the blanket anti-Muslim approach that Eric has here, but you do sound a bit naive about this issue. Yes, the French tend to be xenophobic and a little racist (sorry French!), but "root causes" would cause poor French-born citizens to riot as well.

I also think that it's dangerous to throw around words like "intolerance" regarding a religion that is almost by definition intolerant throughout its 1400-year history.

What is the underlying cause of the rioting?

Radical Islam, which is a mill stone around the neck of the rest of Islam.

Radical Islam seems to struggle with the integration of other societies. They constantly clash with Hindus, Russians, Americans, Christians, themselves, and now the French.

Could this have been prevented?

Radical Islam will blame everyone else for their behavior. But real long term prevention of radical behavior will come from within. The peaceful wing of Islam needs to reign in on its radical wing. I've seen some polling to suggest that this is beginning to happen. Hopefully the trend will continue.

Is the news coverage of the riots satisfactory?

Probably not given the track record of the news media.

What is the underlying cause of the rioting?
* Lax immigration policies to keep up a tax paying base in record birth declines among French/European women, resulting in too many foreigners entering the country/ies too quickly.
* Cultural resistance to assimilation. Assimilating is not regarded as a necessary transition for a new life when you’re surrounded by people who live and speak like you.
* Not enough jobs available to keep up demand.

Could this have been prevented?
Possibly. Tighten immigration policy and woo different nationalities/races. Give felony criminals (or the European equivalent) a one-way plane ticket to their former, less "oppressive" countries of origin.



Is the news coverage of the riots satisfactory?
I’ve read about France’s riots. I just found out about Denmark’s. Both need to quell this quickly before it spreads across Europe.

I suspect you have a misunderstanding as to what "civilized" actually means.

Any society that has established methods to deal with population density that would be otherwise insupportable is "civilized."

That is the root meaning of the word "civil" and it's only objective definition.

Of course many people choose to define civilization subjectively, applying the dictionary definition.


The Muslim world has satifies all of these to some extent and has for centuries.

If we are to choose the subjective definition then I could see basis for an argument that France is more civilized.

..but painting the Muslim world as totally uncivilized is simply false ane betrays a lack of knowledge about the many varied cultures and systems that make up the Muslim World.


That was the stated purpose, it achieved none of these things. Only a violation of human rights law.


An interesting point but one I've already explained. You acknowledge in the very same sentence the role xenophobia plays in this.

That does not apply to ethnic-French citizens, the unemployment rate in these communities is double the national average of 9.5%. That's reaching the boiling point for a modern democracy.

It's a small wonder people are on edge.


It's a common misconception that Islam has been particularly intolerant, there are examples of Muslim ruled societies in history with significant minority religions living without harassment.

Spain under the Moors, various African empires, Jerusalem before the Crusades, the list is actually pretty substantial.

Intolerance among ethnic-French citizens plays a big part here and I'm not at all afraid to say it.

For those blaming this on radical Islam I'd love to see the reasoning here.

The events that sparked this riot were not directly related to religion.

It was the death of the two boys in the police pursuit. The only reason the words Muslims is thrown around is because they happened to be Muslim and it is the Muslims community that feels targeted by the police.

Actually, the unemployment rate for all French under-25's is about 25%. Most of the rioters are under 25. While this may excuse their being "on edge" it hardly calls for burning hundreds of cars.


I'm in a rush, but you should read up on dhimmitude some. 'Without harassment' doesn't quite cover it.

Certainly, I'm not excusing the violence one bit, but the question asked why...

and that's pretty much the reason.

That and group-think, why do people riot after baseball games?

Answer: They're people.


Okay....
Dhimmi
It's certainly not worthy of a modern democracy, but neither is it really extreme compared to other religion.

After the Moors were driven from Spain stragglers were forced to convert Christianity.

Such things were common in many popular religions.

Correct answer - they are Cub fans


Yes, but such things are common today in many Muslim countries. Travel to Saudi Arabia with a bible and let me know how it goes. Even muslims who arrive for the haj with a non-approved (non-wahabbi) Koran have it confiscated.

If I remember correctly elections in France in the recent past have been loaded with race related issues. I find the same in many European nations really when it comes to relations with the Muslim community in any host nation. I read once that France overall is a conservative nation, but I guess that could be said of any nation really, after all they don’t vote people from other nations into their political bodies now, nations that is, I think most even have laws against such, as one governor of California seems to hate.

Well, after 2000 years of the most common religions of the world, I must say the world at large is most surely a better place, so no need to get liberal with that at all. Just joking, it seems any form of variation with people typically can lead to the more deplorable aspects of humanity such as violence.

Well, I would suggest that the riot most likely was not just some abrupt action with no underlying causes, you know, like in the movie Zoolander and the freak gasoline fight, but I really have no clue as to why it would come about.

To me, to get a personal note in, as if my post pretty much is not a reflection of my thought, if I were a chemist, or trying to be and had to clue as to what I was doing, I guess no one should feel pity for me if I handled ignorantly radioactive substances and became a tumor and or had some explosion or a reaction abruptly tear my flesh off, so that is basically my stance on this issue, thank you for your time.

There are many different reasons for whats happening in Paris, but chief amongst them is the problem of unchecked mass immigration.

Far too many people have been allowed to simply move, uninvited, into Europe and congregate in ghetto's without any thought being given to the ramifications of what it means to have so many outsiders pouring into Europe with scant regard for the customs and cultures of the host nations.
The biggest reason why this is a problem though, is the fact that a good many of these people identify themselves under the single cause of Islam and they use their religion to fuel their anger and sense of animosity.

There is nothing new about this. We've been seeing hatred from Muslim youths for the last two decades now. Gangs of unemployed and unemployable youths have been a constant problem in Northern Europe, despite the many attempts to remedy the problem caused by so many immigrants with so little in common with their host nations.


Yes of course. Our politicians could have refused to let these people in. After all, we don't owe them anything.


Ha! Good question. Every one is keeping a low profile in the hopes that this will all blow over and we can go back to pretending we don't have 20 million potential terrorists living amongst us.


No, it explains your perception of whats going on.
Reading through your post, for example, is just as illustrative as reading through EricStanze's. It betrays your bias and your lack of understanding. As you once did in the Headscarf ban thread, you've taken up an immediate stance against the French because of your own perception of them as 'oppressors'.

This is evident in all you've written, but especially poignant in that you make the same biased assumptions as the BBC did when you describe the riots as starting because "children' were forced to hide from the police'.

Since when did the French police hunt children for sport?

The French police have denied they were chasing any one, but you happily skip over this detail since it doesn't fit into your preconceptions.

Secondly, lets say, for the sake of fairness, that the police were chasing these 16 year olds. I don't know about French law, but in Denmark, a 16 year old is not a child and any one who runs from the police is responsible for their own actions. It is the police's job to catch criminals, regardless of whether they are 16 years old or 26 years old.
The fact that these two young men trespassed into an electrical transformer station in an attempt to evade the police does not, under any circumstances, justify a riot.

Third of all, lets be honest. These people were going to riot regardless. Just as the previous riots in Paris, the riots here in Århus and those recently in Birmingham UK have demonstrated. The cause is the same in all the examples you care to mention. A mass of poor immigrants who have nothing to offer and who all subscribe to the same hostile religion, cluttered together and completely unwilling to either adapt to their new home land or take responsibility for the mess they have put themselves in.


It makes no difference what they lack back home. These people are in Europe now and they came here, uninvited, on their own initiative. No one dragged them here against their will and no one is forcing them to stay. Its no one else's fault if they can't adapt to their new home but insist on dragging their old one with them.

France IS civilization. It is FRENCH civilization, and EVERY ONE knows it. Every single immigrant in Paris knew before hand where they were going and what they could expect when they got there.


And just how have these people's human rights been taken from them?

This is not simply about what you so easily describe as French fear of Muslim immigrants. If you take note of whats going on on planet Earth you will find the same story being repeated in every single country which has a significant Muslim population. This is not just about the French. The same story is happening in Britain, Holland (and which nation has a better reputation than Holland?) Thailand, Malaysia, Denmark, Germany, Sweden, Russia... the list goes on. Even in Islamic nations like Turkey and Pakistan, Islam is a problem.

Every where this religion exists, human beings are suffering.


It is not a violation of human rights to impose a dress code in the interests of social harmony. I told you last year this was going to happen but you denied it then.

France has every right to pass laws to protect its citizens from violence. The Islamic community of Europe has to understand where it exists. It is no longer a middle eastern culture but a European culture and thus subject to European norms and values.
Islam and Europe do not have to be mutually exclusive, but in Rome you do as the Romans.


Yes. Whats interesting to note however is that they weren't 'places of poverty and despair' before the mass influx of Islamic immigrants. Whats equally interesting to note is the lack of any desire to integrate on behalf of the immigrants. From your linked article:The lesson these people seem to be asking us to learn is that we should just let large groups of outsiders take up residence in our cities, turn them into ghetto's where we are not allowed to tread without serious fear of being attacked, run riot and attack the emergency services and do nothing about it but take the blame for the mess they make.

How any one can entertain this ridiculous notion as anything but a clandestine invasion policy is beyond me.
I know full well your stance on who owns a nation turnea, but I entirely disagree with you. The FRENCH own Paris, not some obscure Islamic collective of immigrants who can't be bothered to be French but would rather set up a small colony in the middle of one of the richest city's on Earth and be left to their own devices.

Right now, in Århus we are in the midst of a debate concerning the construction of a mosque. In point of fact, we already have several, but these buildings do not conform to the basic architectural and religious requirements laid down by 'Islamic law'.
So, the people of Århus are being forced to accept the planned construction of a mosque, complete with minarets and, quite possibly a loud speaker to call the faithful to prayer, five times a day.

Where are my human rights in all this? Its bad enough I have to listen to the Christians banging away on their bell every sunday afternoon, but now I am forced to confront the possibility that some man is going to be blasting out his religion across the city in Arabic five times a day!

And I have nothing to say in this matter. Danish law stipulates that people are free to build a house of worship where ever they please, providing they buy the land and the building legally. Indeed Denmark is full of odd churches, chapels and synagogues. No one has stopped the Muslims from going ahead with their plans. All that has happened is that a tiny group of Danes have formed a powerless protest group and the state has refused to pay for the mosque.

And yet, we are faced with accusations of intolerance and hatred.

Right now, there are several young Muslims in detention in Copenhagen, charged with the attempt to blow up the US embassy in Bosnia. According to the media reports, this small group was ready to commit suicide for their religion. When asked, no Danish Muslim is willing to condemn the planned attackers. No voices have come from the Mullahs in Denmark, or their congregation, condemning the attack. On the contrary. The Muslim minority in Denmark has closed ranks and defended the would be terrorists, describing them as 'nice people' and 'good Muslims'.

Like wise, the Islamic community in Denmark refused to distance itself from the murderer of Theo Van Gogh. On the contrary, they have taken note of his 'couragous stance in defence of Islam'.

A few weeks ago a Danish paper, concerned to learn that a childrens book about Islam was unable to find any illustrator willing to illustrate it published 12 cartoon drawings of the prophet Mohammed in a provocation to kick start a debate about the freedom of speech in Denmark.

In this country, every one has the right to say what they want. This right is extended to every one. Even the nazis'. The paper in question is called Jyllandsposten. Its the same paper carlitoswhey linked to in his first post.

No sooner did the paper hit the street than thousands of angry Muslims turned out to protest against this 'blasphemic provocation'. The article carlitoswhey's links to includes this passage, which I shall translate for you:This is the reality of whats going on. We're told that Islam is a 'religion of peace', and yet not one Muslim in Denmark will publicly speak out against a cold blooded Muslim murderer when he butchers a Film maker in the open streets of Amsterdam but thousands will demonstrate and hundreds will run riot over 12, fully legal, cartoon drawings.

Not only this, but the ambassadors of 12 Islamic countries, including Turkey, made diplomatic overtures to the Danish Prime Minister, demanding he take action against Jyllandsposten and force them to withdraw the cartoons and issue a public apology. Anders Fogh Rasmussen declined to meet with the ambassadors as he has no authority over what a news paper prints. He advised them to take the matter up in the courts which is apparently what Jyllandsposten desired all along since we have reached the point now where we no longer know which has preeminence in the eyes of the law. Our freedom of speech, or their right to practice their religion...


You are simply wrong and here is why; These people will use any excuse to run riot because they are angry because they don't belong here.

And the reason they don't belong here has nothing to do with European hostility (after all, we tolerate the Vietnamese, the non Islamic Africans, the Chinese, the Indians, the Caribbeans and the Americans easily enough). The reason is because the Muslims have never tried to adapt. The vast majority of them have been here for two or three generations (more in Holland and France) and yet many have never bothered to even learn the language. They have raised their children as Turks and Palestinians and Somali's as if they were still back in their old country's.
They have put Islam before all else, including the laws of their new homes.

Most of all they have refused to accept responsibility for their own predicament just as they refused to stay in their own countries and work to improve their lives there.

We are now faced with gangs of young immigrants who will rape and molest and even murder us, and no one amongst their own people will hold them accountable. The average crime rate in Denmark is 7 reported offences per 1,000 citizens per month. In those area's where the Muslims congregate, the numbers have been shown by the police to be 800 reported crimes per 1,000 citizens per month. Can you spot the difference?

Even those moderate Muslims who call for peace and tolerance will only call on the host people to do something about all this. We get plenty of advice from 'Muslim intellectuals' and 'Imams' on how to cure the problem but these people won't say anything to the rest of the Muslims. As always, we are to blame for their problems. We have to deal with their inability to adapt to us.

Thanks to a stunning lack of political foresight, we are now facing an 'us and them' problem that won't go away.


To which nation or society do you refer? There is no such thing. Your making the same mistake our politicians made. You expect people to behave only as you would have them behave and ignore the simple reality's of human life. You ignore those laws you don't care for and promote those that suit your argument just as you point the finger at one side and ignore the other.


So are you trying to peddle the notion that no Muslims would have used a passenger jet as a missile in the 'good old days' of Islamic Spain?
To bad that whilst your romanticising about the 'tolerance' of ancient Islamic Spain as opposed to the barbaric Europeans who took it back in 1492, you forget the fact that the Muslims also invaded Spain by means of conflict, war and destruction.

moif,

It is surprising that I agree with what you said. Even though if such doings happened in Jerusalem instead of Paris we would not be hearing the same things.

I wonder why that is.

The problem is the fact that Islam demands not asks but demands that we accept them, though they refuse to accept or even tolerate us.

Also as I understand it the French ban is not just on headscarves, but all religious symbols. I wonder how this works with priests and nuns. Are their distinctive dress banned as well? Do you know? Just curious.

We have all sorts of groups that are economically challenged, or I should say poor yet they do not riot. Yet we strive to understand the reason why Muslims riot and try to explain it. A very strange course of events.

moif

You mentioned the recent British rioting in Birmingham.

In point of fact, the recent "rioting" in Lozells, in Birmingham was mostly at the hands of black British Afro-Caribbeans and at the expense of Asian Muslims (mostly Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and Kashmiris).

It was prompted by the rumour spread about by a black community radio DJ, which has not been substantiated, that a black teenage girl had been gang-raped by Pakistani men in a Muslim-owned grocery store. The black community smashed up the store, and did most of the rioting. If the rumours were true, the 14=year old girl would have needed extensive medical treatment, but there is no evidence so far that such a girl even existed, let alone got raped by a gang of shopkeepers.

So while it is true to say that Muslims were involved in the rioting, they were not responsible (though they were some reprisals, regrettably, but perhaps not surprisingly).

Just today (in fact the story has broekn just as I type!) Muslim graves have been desecrated and anti-Muslim leaflets spread across the cemetary.

On the evidence so far, the Birmingham riots were "caused" by Muslims to the same extent that Jews "caused" the pogroms - i.e. they are there and they are unapologetically different.

Yet there has not been any coverage or commentary (in the mainstream at least) that black Afro-Caribbeans are a dangerous cancer within European society, or represent some kind of underhand invasion. (30 years ago there would have been, no doubt, but then over the intervening period Afro-Caribbeans have integrated to some extent.) So why the paranoia about Islam (I know, I know, black afro-Caribbeans haven't been blowing up commuter trains. Except they have - one of the London bombers of July 7 was black; a British convert to Islam seduced by the extremist ideas ultimately coming from Saudi Wahabism, of which more later)

There is one direct parallel to the Parisian riots (though they have been much more severe and sustained) - the riots were sparked of by a rumour that the two kids who fell onto an electricity sub-station were being chased by the police. Like the Birmingham gang-rape, this rumour remains unsubstantiated - it has also been flat-out denied by the Parisian police - but is widely believed by the people doing the rioting.

Now, I'm not going to argue that the rioters are not largely Muslim. I'm not going to argue against the idea that some of the attitudes of modern Islam are unhelpful to community integration. Nor am I going to argue that French court rulings and new laws that limit freedom of religious expression mitigate disproportionately against Muslims, if only because France is a largely secular country (certainly when compared to the USA) which leaves Muslims as a group as proportionately more relgiously observant.

Whether or not their isolation is their own fault, these rioting Muslims feel excluded and rejected. Plus they have disproportionately high unemployment. (Speaking as someone who is currently unemployed myself, this is pretty dispiriting, depressing and annoying in and of itself).

This isolation of groups of relatively poor people is, I think, the key to why ANY group of people is predisposed to riot. It was the common factor to the British inner-city riots of the early 1980s (when, as now, most of the chatter focused on the ethnic and cultural background of the bulk of the rioters, who in those cases were black Afro-Caribbeans.). It was true of the bulk of the Poll Tax riotters of 1989/90 in Trafalgar Square. It was true of most of the people involved in violence peripheral to the Miners Strike in 1980s Britain.

And it was true of the (mostly white middle class) Parisian rioters of 1968 who made this weeks Muslim rioters look like a pensioners social club.

Muslims do not have a monopoly on urban violence, and I can't help but think that the almost exclusive focus on Islam as the single greatest threat, as we've seen from posters here, is at best unhelpful, and at worst will just make the sense of alienation worse and help to spark more riots and disorder. These people are not bad because they are Muslim, they are bad because they are rioting.

There are elements within Islam that need to be curtailed. Specifically, we should do whatever we can to prevent the Saudi Wahabist establishment from using its colossal oil wealth to fund Wahabist madrassas across the world and churn out tens of thousands of fundamentalist (Wahabi) scholars and mullahs. Islam had not been a great problem anywhere for many centuries until the fundamentalist semit-literate tribesmen of Arabia got suddenly wealthy and took the lead role in world Islam that had previously been occupied by the cultured and educated Muslims who ran the Ottoman Empire.

If there is an "enemy", it is Saudi Arabia - specifically the Saudi Royal Family and their hangers-on - not Islam as a whole. The problem is that the longer we deny this, the longer they have to spread their cancerous version of Islam around the world, and the more likely it will be that Islam as a whole will become the enemy.

But of course, we don't want to rock the boat, because any rocking of the Saudi boat will increase oil prices, and we can't be having THAT, now, can we? Who cares if the much-vaunted clash of civilisations happens for real in 20 or 30 years, as long as gas doesn't get to $6 per gallon?

For the last few years, the USA was told that its policy in the mideast would bring about turmoil and violence as it inflames the Moslem world. Yet france, which is a staunch opponent of USA actions, still faces Islamic upheaval.

So:

1. Involvement by the West in the mideast causes Islamic upheaval.
2. Involvement by the West in the West causes Islamic upheaval.

Perhaps the problem in France is not that the French are unable to adjust themselves to multicultural landscape. Perhaps the problem is that the Islamic millitants are unable adjust themselves to a multi-culural landscape.

Actually, I was thinking the problem in France is that the officials haven't figured out who to surrender to yet (Is humor allowed on Friday?)

That being said, I'm anxiously waiting to see who is going to be first to blame "The Joos" for the violence. After all, maybe France bought fuel for the ship during the Exodus. They certainly haven't been a big supporter of Israel since then. Mark my words though, when you see it reported that French "support" of Israel is the root of the problem, remember, you saw it here 1st!

I confess to having NOT read the Koran in it's entirety. However, I have read many quotes ( too long to have been taken out of context) that leads me to believe that Islam is not very tolerant of anyone/anything that is not Islamic. I guess unless, or until, any "tolerant" Islamic voice condemns and takes on the fanatics (without the usual disclaimers blaming "the Joos"), it will continue in France and everywhere else.

Why are they doing it? The same reason kids will misbehave if not corrected, because they can. In spite of the forceful rhetoric, they haven't physically stopped it. The French non-confrontational placation is not working. I'm anxious to see what their next step will be. As to the "proximate" cause, So what if the policia was chasing kids? I'm sure the police weren't doing it for aerobic exercise.
And if the kids were stupid enough to jump into high voltage lines...oh well....

What is the underlying cause of the rioting?

Radical Islam.

The Wall Street Journal had an article a few days back: Remember Theo van Gogh, and shudder for the future.



The Muslim population is numerous, poor, and unemployed. In addition, they consider themselves outsiders to the rest of the country. That is a recipe for disaster, a tinderbox ready to ignite.

I have predicted this problem for several months now. The Muslim population, worldwide, is exploding. It is also poor. Middle Eastern leaders have long demonized Jews as the source of the people's misery, which forces the population to ignore the excesses of the Muslim leadership. This is a classic tactic of redirecting negative energy upon a third enemy.

As Muslims expand outside the borders of Muslim theocracies, that same negative energy must be directed at someone. Local Muslim leaders have pointed the fingers at Western authorities and the lack of identification from the immigrants with the new countries makes this easier.

I fear there is a global world war brewing as the exploding Muslim population will grow more and more discontented with the status quo. Britain was able to direct its exploding population in the early 1800s into an empire. I wonder who will direct the growing Muslim empire?

Could this have been prevented?

From everything I have read, the French have gone to great lengths to integrate these Muslims. These efforts have failed. So the attempt was made to head this one off, but is happened anyway.

Is the news coverage of the riots satisfactory?

I heard about this on Monday, the fourth day of rioting (I believe). There has been more coverage since then. It is a European problem and the American media is well-known for downplaying or ignoring stories about Europe. In addition, the French authorities have downplayed this situation. All in all, the coverage is about what is to be expected.

because you and I disagree with regards to Jerusalem.

I think the difference between Jerusalem and Paris, in this particular context, is that in Jeruslame (Israel) the state was imposed upon the people where as in Paris the people are imposing themselves on the state.

In both cases, the blame needs to be divided in both directions, but I believe (and here is where we can agree) that in both cases the biggest problem to moving forward is grounded in Islam.

Whether or not this means anything for Islam as a religion, I cannot say, but as a culture, Islam is certainly a hinderence to peace, regardless of which nation or conflict we examine.


I agree.


I don't know. I would imagine so.


It is the same here.


So you don't think the riots were really based in years of local tensions then?

As you know I used to live in Rochester, and that city has a sizable Asian community. So much so the mayor was a Hindu. I only lived there for two years, but during that time I witnessed more public violence than I did in the two years I lived in Toxteth (a suburb of Liverpool famed for its violence). In every large scale fight I saw (I'm not including the drunken brawls outside the pubs) one side always Pakistani. They fought against every one, the English, the Hindu's, the blacks. Everyone. It was a standing 'joke' in Rochester that every one hated the 'Paki's' and I was advised on many occaisions to stay away from them because they were dangerous.

I personally never had any problems with the Pakistani's in Rochester, but I was only ever just passing through... I have no doubt that the riots in Manchester were not isolated incidents, but rather an escalation of an already existing and ever growing problem. The same problem faced by the Dutch, French, Danes and as Loreng59 points out, the Israeli's.


This would imply that the Jews were engaged in active provocation, terrorism and massive, unchecked immigration when they were 'purged'. That they some how contributed to becoming scapegoats for their persecutors. To the best of my knowledge however, the Jews did not engage in gang rape, riots, terrorism &c &c

I actually find it curious that you would use the Jews as an example. For my part I find that this kind of juxtaposition is exactly why this problem has been allowed to fester for so long. Too many people are terrified of the legacy of the Holocaust so rather than face accusations of racism we allow people to congregate, in their millions, under the shared cause of Islam. Even as they engage in lethal violence against us, we are still given to the illusion that the Muslims in Europe today are some how akin to the Jews of the 1930's.

But... the Muslims are not like the Jews of the 1930's. They are not being attacked liked the Jews were and no one is going to start rounding up Muslims and gassing them. Rather, they are attacking us, and anything that is happening now, and mosques being firebombed or graves being descrated is a reaction to their violence.

And so what if a few Muslim graves were vandalised? We have seen a long long spate of Muslims attacks against Jews in Denmark and France and all across Europe, with all the grave descratation fire bombing and even murder and it raises no specific attention or indignation from any one.

What is this weird double standard that allows one ethnic minority the right to resort to unjustified violence whilst even the police are aggressively attacked for simply doing their job if their actions run counter to the Muslim perception?


It may have escaped your attention Julian but the Islamic presence in Europe is over 30 years old. The first large wave of Turks who came to Denmark as 'guest workers' did so 40 years ago. In Paris and Holland, they even go further back. There is nothing new about the European Islamic subculture.

There is no easy excuse that they haven't had the time to integrate yet. Its the exact opposite. They've had enough time to be well into their third generation here. In fact that is how the rioters in Århus refer to themselves, as 'the Third Generation'.

Its because they've been here for so long without adapting that we're seeing such problems. Problems which no other group has. I personally know Vietnamese people who came to Denmark in the 1970's are now competely adapted to Denmark whilst still retaining their own foods and culture (and even selling it to us) They all speak Danish, they all accept the laws and they demand nothing in return for the same rights as all Danes, including the Muslims, get.

And Denmark is ot the only place where this unwillingness to adapt is a problem. One of my friends recently returned from Malaysia (a so called moderate Muslim nation) where she was visiting a company with the purpose of looking for some one to mass produce clothes. One day she was to look over the factory and see that the workers had all the right protection and safety gear. Every one at the factory was ethnic Chinese except two men who sat in a corner playing cards and drinking coffee.
"Who are those two?" she asked her guide.
He explained that in Malaysia, any company that has over a certain amount of workers must hire a quota of Muslims, regardless of qualifications. The Muslims workers know this, and they do nothing but sit about all day and get paid.

Now, I don't know how much of this factual, but what I do know is that even in moderate Muslim nations, there is still an 'us and them' culture. There is no integration, no cohesion and no interest in changing to accomidate others.


Its true that no one has a monopoly on violence, of any kind, but don't kid yourself by simplistic comparisons between these riots and those you quoted. The Miners, the poll tax demonstrators and even the Afro Caribbean's were all reactions to very specific occurances.

Islam is a global religion which has endured for many centuries. This is why it is a threat. No single riot or terrorist action can be measured against the long term threat posed by a situation which is not going to go away just because we try and be nice to the poor Muslims.

Long after the riots in Pris have passed, long after the poll tax is just a foot note in political history text books, the Muslims are still going to be here out breeding us, amongst us, unwilling to change and unwilling to carry on the laws and culture we leave behind us.

THAT is the danger posed by Islam.


Are you really trying to tell me that the reason why gangs of Muslim youths rape Danish girls is because of the House of Saud?
...or that the price of oil has anything to do with attitudes that demand women cover their bodies and heads in Burqa's despite a century and more of fighting for womens rights in Scandinavia?

The house of Saud is but one tiny aspect of the problem we are facing now. Of the 20+ million Muslims in Europe how many of them attended a madrass?

The man who butchered Theo Van Gogh in the street did not attend a madrass.

And did any of the Muslims, who when interviewed in Denmark, refused to condemt the killing?

What is the underlying cause of the rioting?

To say the problem is Islam is to call it a one-sided coin. The other side of this coin is Christianity. The problem isn't Islam -- it's religion, or the clash of two religions and the clash of cultures.

The rioting in France might have the same underlying cause as so many other riots. A group of people feel oppressed; they live in a decrepit neighborhood and their future looks bleak. They're unhappy -- the feeling is communal -- and then KA-BANG! The spark that ignites fervent discontent. Think of previous incidents involving Hindus in England, or Turks in Germany.

Think of the riots in Newark, Detroit, LA. If a large group of people are being filled with discontent, they're liable to go KA-BANG! But -- in the instant case -- there are religious and cultural differences.

Could this have been prevented?

Let's hope so, because if there are going to be more and more instances of a large group of immigrants finding themselves in a foreign place that resents them, they'll get filled with discontent. There'll be some spark that ignites the discontent, and then rocks will be thrown, along with canisters of tear gas and molotov cocktails; cars will be overturned and storefronts smashed. Same old story.

Here's an idea -- A Contract for Immigrants. You sign it before you get to France. You agree that you've got work lined up, and that you won't become a burden.

You've got 5 years to decide whether you want citizenship. There's a test you must pass, and it's given in French. You're asked about French and European history. You're quizzed on the form of government, on the rights and responsibilities of citizens. You're tested on your understanding of French culture: are you familiar with the great people and events? do you know how to taste wine?

France offers citizenship classes. You're an immigrant and you want to stay in France and you know there's this test coming up, so you go to citizenship class. It's up to France to give you what you need to become a citizen of France.

During those 5 years, you're on probation. You're not a citizen. If you mess up -- if you become a burden, if your kids keep getting in trouble with the law, if you're delinquent in paying your bills -- then France can just kiss you goodbye.

That would certainly change the equation.

Some interesting ideas here. Of course, wine is an affront to Islam, but other than that...

I wonder if, while being burned alive, this handicapped bus passenger was wondering of the "root causes" of the unrest.

Is the news coverage of the riots satisfactory?It would be interesting for some network (oh, I dunno - Fox?) to juxtapose American coverage of this riot to European coverage of various American tragedies. Do a split screen with balaclava-wearing French Muslims throwing rocks at police with Mitterand's pithy dismissal of the Rodney King riots - "zees could never appen in Fwance - we are too sophisticated, we have social justeece for all, etc."

A friend in Paris tells me that, now that coverage is leaking out of France into the rest of the world, the French press are downplaying it. The official line is that they don't want to "fan the flames" by showing them. 400 more car fires, 3 buses, 3 warehouses burned last night.

My parting shot on the media coverage - The Guardian predictably is trying to justify the violence. Even worse than the BBC. Poverty causes riots, calling them "scum" made it worse, yada yada yada.

It could have been a reasonable policy, but it doesn't apply anymore. Immigration is not the main problem anymore. Almost all European countries are making it harder to get into the country. The problems we are seeing now in France are caused by Muslims youths who were born in that country. This is what is making this situation so difficult. These are the children of first or second generation immigrants. By birth they obtained the French nationality, but not the French culture. These people were brought up in between two worlds: the traditional Islamic culture and the liberal and attractive western culture. They have the strong feeling that the government abandoned them. These are the underlying causes for the riots and they are present throughout Europe.

The problem that European countries face is how to deal with these desillusionate and angry Islamic-Dutch generations. If you act to gentle they will take advantage of your kindness and will try to impose their cultural/religious rules on society, if you act to harsh the whole situation can escalade (look at France, Holland). Solution for the problem, unfortunately, is more complex than a five year "probation" time for immigrants.

I was well aware of that detail, I skipped over it because it really isn't important to the debate.

One could just have easily argued that teens don't usually hang around power stations for fun.

I have no idea what really happened to those kids, the point here is what people think happened.

That is what has stoked the riots.


Certainly, as I've said before, nothing justifies this type of behavior they are only causing harm to themselves and innocent members of the community.

I'm not praising the rioters in any form of fashion, but they topic did ask "why the riots" so I explained just that.


One who knew the history of Islam would be more likely to argue the opposite. That wherever people are suffering, Islam thrives as it, like many other religions, offers hope.

There are stable Muslim countries as well, the reason for instability in Muslim lands has very little to do with theology. Post-colonial politics and Cold War alliances with Western states and the Soviet Union played a greater role.


According to the European Convention on Human Rights that's precisely what it is.


You claimed that non-Muslims would be driven to violence by the "invaders" in their midst. That prediction has not come to pass.


The Parisians of all races and religions own Paris and the sooner they all realize that the more peaceful things will be.


You have the right to remain silent...

Or complain, or whatever you want.

Unless I'm mistaken you do not have the right to decide who can build a building in the city.

When "Home Depot" decided to knock down the trees next to my old apartment complex and build a huge store with bright lights that stay on at all hours of the night all I had to right to do was file a complaint with the city.

That's because Home Depot had a right to build on whatever land they paid for and owned, that's basic free-market principle.

Here lies the problem that I rest my argument on.

Ethnic Europeans need to understand the extent of their rights. Muslim immigrants have no right to commit crime or violence and Europeans have no right to deny them places of worship or opportunity to advance their social station.

I won't call America a perfect beacon of tolerance, but the Muslim community here isn't rioting, isn't poor and isn't committing crime at an alarming rate.

Racism is still a problem, but at least the government and legal system have been just in their application of the law.

When a school tried to ban headscarves in Oklahoma, the Justice Department immediately filed a discrimination case and the rule was dropped.

Without the basic respect shown towards a minority community, it will never be at peace with the majority.

Lastly, those blaming this on religion have yet to produce on drop of evidence that the rioters are religiously motivated.

That's the very least we could expect.

The EU has a far more amount of Muslim immigrants (%) then United States. (And for the point, 450 million people in EU, and somewhat less then 300 million in U.S, if you are not aware of the amounts of people in the two regions).

Also, i find it strange that people from a country where you get discriminated for going to a certain school, have certain parents, certain amount of money.... is somewhat hypocritical, dont you think.



Edited to remove racially inflammatory comments

Moif´s rhetoric is far superior to mine, listen to hime instead.

What is the underlying cause of the rioting?

Well, I find myself seeing the merits of most everyone's arguments in this thread. Clearly, the lack of cultural assimilation is a problem. Religion is a particularly powerful mechanism that coalesces power amongst a group of people. Moreover, religion can become poisonous when externalities are excluded.

Still, rioting is not uncommon and the factors involved in rioting all have a few things in common: isolation and privation. While religion may play a part, I believe it is a catalyst rather than a cause. It is important to keep this in mind. Many of the posts have focused on religion as being the causative agent, I find this to be as of yet unproven. The rioters are also youths; why not point to age being the culprit? The reason is that it is a logical fallacy to do so, in particular, it is the correlation implies causation fallacy being employed.

Could this have been prevented?

Let me name a few prevention strategies: better integration, stricter immigration laws, education, job training, better law enforcement and recruiting members from the "problematic" communities into law enforcement, incubating businesses. In other words, engage the community to reduce the sense of isolation and improve the economic conditions of those communities so that the incentive to "rock the boat" is lessened.

I am sorry Turnea but your suggestions have already been tried here in Holland. We have tried the soft approach (respecting their customs, helping them with free language lessons, social security and health care, supporting them to reunite with their families and allowing them to pick brides and grooms from their homeland) It did not prevent the problems we currently facing. In fact a lot of people are claiming that the tolerant approach can be seen as one of the main causes why we have these problems in the first place. Thus, the introduction of the though approach. Now we are faced with the problem that a part of the Dutch-Muslims, who already feel they are being treated as social outcasts, will completly turn their backs toward society. These angry and confused young Muslims are extremely susceptable for the Radical Islam and pose a real threath to society. (just look at the murderer of Theo van Gogh)

No matter from which angle you look at the situation, it is clear that it is in fact the general Muslim community form the biggest obstacle in resolving these social tensions. Instead of dealing with the problems that are facing their communities themselves, they have only been critizising the authorities, laying the blame on everybody but themselves. It is It is their turn to act. If they choose to do nothing, polarization will continue and conflicts will escalade. It is only with their full cooperation that this social problem can be solved.

First off, Eric, I can't let this comment go without a response. You imply here that the U.S. has a rigid social class structure. Nothing could be further from the truth. You might want to take a look at this thread:

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...ndpost&p=168947

There was a lot of discussion there about how anyone can get ahead in the U.S. if they set their mind to it. From my experience, America is the one place where "social class" plays a fairly minimal role when it comes to getting ahead as compared to Europe.




I think there is truth to what both sides are saying on this issue. The muslim culture is insular and does not permit easy integration into western culture. This is a huge problem.

Then I ask why is it that we don't see these problems in the U.S. with the muslim culture. Beyond the difference in numbers, it might have to do with the types who choose to immigrate here and the government structure. The U.S. is known for not being a "nanny" style government. Those who immigrate here, do not expect to go on government assistance. In contrast, many european countries provide extensive benefits and may attract people who not only expect to be taken care of-- but are willing to blame the government when things go wrong.

In my opinion you understate the importance of "social class" when it comes to "getting ahead" in United States. While I agree that if somebody from a lower class "really set his/her mind to it" can succeed in the society, someone from the "upper class" doesn't have to do nearly as much effort to achieve same results. But, of course, this is the topic for a different discussion.



Do you think immigrants sit at their native country and enterntain multiple offers to immigrate? "USA is nice, but you have to work there... England is too rainy... let's go to France instead!" I think an average immigrant goes to whichever country will take him and his family first.

While I agree with Turnea that there's no evidence that these riots are religion-based, I totally disagree with his assessment that somehow France didn't enough to promote "social harmony". Aside from bending over backwards, everything has been done to assimilate these people into the French mainstream. We have debated ban on religious symbols before; agree or disagree with it, but you don't hear vocal protests from Jews who can no longer wear scull caps to school.
The way I view it, Nicolas Sarcozy was dead on when he called these highly organized, mobile groups of rioters "scum". The cars that are being burned - these are not cars of people who live in Marais and St. Germain des Pres, these cars belong to people who live right there in Clichy-sous-Bois, cars of their fellow immigrants. So I hope actions of French police will be swift and decisive, and the perpetrators will either get stiff jail sentences or deported back to their countries of origin.



As I understand it, the ban applies only to governmental buildings and institutions such as public schools, etc.

EnglishHorn wrote:



That money or status makes life easier is true anywhere in the world. It will never change. A rigid social class is something quite different. It actively works to keep people at the social class they were born into and is the kind of system that is most rife with "discrimination".

For any French speakers out there-- here is a link to a French political/debate board. They set up a special section with all threads relating to the riots in France. Here is the specific link to that section:


http://www.leforum-politique.org/phpBB2/fo...d91807bd7fed8d2

Their sentiments are very similar to ours on this board. Some argue that it is a problem intrinsic to muslim culture; bad immigration policy. Others argue that it is the lack of opportunity etc.

Very interesting.

moif

I've been pondering your last post for some time.

My motivations for my post, to which you responded, was mainly because you'd incorrectly lumped the Lozells rioting in Birmingham into the wider Muslim "problem" which you identify across Europe.

The rioters in Lozells were rioting AGIANST Asians based on RUMOURS of a gang rape for which there is NO evidence to support the existence. There have been no gang rapes, honour killings, female circumcisions and the like in Lozells.

Asian or African Muslims might be a problem and a cause of strife in other places, and there might be reasons why the Afro-Caribbeans in Lozells don't like the ones that live alongside them (probably the same isolationism and aloofness that annoys white Europeans). However, that is no more an exuse for them to riot than any other unsubstantiated RUMOUR (for example that two kids who electrocuted themselves after falling onto a substation did so because they were being chased by police).

Sure, there are cases across Europe of the things you disapprove of so much - "honour killings", gang rapes, and the like. The trouble with this theory as applied to Lozells is that NONE OF THEM HAVE HAPPENED THERE, so while Muslims living there might be awkward or rude, none of them deserved to be beaten up or have their property destroyed any more than the Parisians who have seen their cars and buildings burnt out or smashed.

My use of Jews as an analogy was only to say that IN LOZELLS, wrongs perpetrated by other members of the same racial and/or religious group elsewhere do not justify anyone taking out their frustrations on the ones living in their own neighbourhoods.

Surely your antipathy to Muslims in Europe does not extend towards tolerance for rioting or violence towards all of them, regardless of whether they behave in the ways you (and I) disapprove of?

How many of the rioters are in fact French born? I have read that many of the more Muslim fundamentalist youths in France are second generation immigrants and that their parents are more or less not terribly religious. So what has happened?
These are not the first riots in France..these are just the most un-ignorable ones.

As Americans we know this..none of us can say it is not familiar. I just think now in France it takes on a far more globalized twist.

I read an article that most of France's mosques are run and funded by foreign governments and that none of the Imans are French and are most often appointed by the foreign governments themselves. Anyone who believes that some forms of Islamic teachings are not geared towards culture, geographical and societal dominance haven't been paying much attention to the news over the past few years. Religion and politics is often one within the muslim word...they are not defined separately. To me this goes so far against anything I believe in regards to politics and governing of society that I can not even begin to recognize their logic or relevance in a progressive society.

The most underling event of importance or significance to me is the rioters demands for French authorities to keep out and that all they wish is to be left alone..is it no longer a part of France? And this isn't the first time such assertions have been made. Pair that with the fact that Egypt is taking government actions against Denmark for cartoons! published in a paper in a nation that has free speech and media.

I have to believe this is not something that will just end one evening once everyone has had a chance to calm down.

This is exactly why smooth Muslim intergration in the West was doomed from the beginning. We don't understand their logic, they do not understand ours. This is a cultural clash, intensified by the globalization process and the conflicts in the Middle East.

In order to fit into society Muslims have to adapt their cultural/religious traditions. They are new in a country a should at least try to respect the older cultural traditions and try to learn the language. Islamic culture will not dictate itself along those lines. Islam is not only the ultimate truth, but also a complete walkthrough of how to live your life. It hardly leaves room for comprises. This makes it for a Muslim immigrant, coming from, lets say, the Berber region, really hard to find his place in western societies. The solution for this problem is not in the hands of government. It can only facilitate the transitionprocess. The key is in the hands of the Muslim community themselves. They have to make the cultural transition, because the rest of society will certainly not change because of their arrival. As long as they keep on playing the victim role, blaming anyone and everything and condoning all the misdeeds committed by own of their members, things will not improve. I just hope Muslims leaders across Europe will realize this before it is too late.

I too have been waiting to see evidence of Islamic Extremists as the sole cause of these riots.

I echo logo's sentiments in that rioting is not that uncommon. I could see many of these arguements rephrased and used to describe African Americans (save the nativist anti-immigration arguements). These points could be looking at Los Angeles in 1992 photo essay or in 1965
America has had many more riots in our history. I think that rioters should be held to task for rioting and punished for committed crimes. But I also think that a community that has had rioting (or terrorist attacks for that matter) should take a real self-inventory and see if some precautions and remedies could be found by changing some behaviors or policies.

I think this is also an outgrowth of ethnic nationalism. There is a sense of ownership of France by the French. While this may seem self-explanatory to some, it is not to me. Civic nationalism is far superior IMHO. This is an attachment to country based on a shared set of values. In my opinion workable civic national values can be created that do not force all citizens to speak a certain tongue or adapt to the values of a specific religion.

I further believe that the source of much French muslim immigration and population is not being addressed here, that of the immigration related to France's long history of colonization. Islam in France This was not an immigration group that is wholly uninvited.

I am surprised by the strength of European nativism being displayed here. This is the this is our country not yours variety. I don't know how we can assume individuals to completely toss away their cultural heritage when they move to another place. I do not see the fairness in this.

Western Civilization is being exposed to its own failure to live up to the ideals of liberalism and the enlightenment by not really acknowledging natural human rights. We either have them as humans no matter who or where we are or we do not.

I am not hearing about suicide bombings in this case. I am not hearing about attempts to impose Muslim standards on the non-muslim populations. I am not hearing about attacks on companies or government agencies for espousing things contrary to Islamic traditions.

Perhaps Europe should reevaluate its immigration policies, but I think there needs to be a closer look at the theories of tolerance. Either we are creating a multicultural world with universal human rights or we are not. But if we do not stand for these things, we better be more honest.

As usual, I'm joining the debate when it's almost over. I will not comment individually on each of the answers posted, but I would just say that connecting the riots, the Muslims and Islamic terrorists into one big problem is a major mistake. Those who would think so are simply ignorant of what's really happening in the French suburbs. Don't think of these riots as a re-enactement of the war in Iraq, but regard them as you did with LA riots in the 90's.

This is NOT the Muslim War.[COLOR=red]

What is the underlying cause of the rioting?


Poverty and exclusion. They trigger everything.

Could this have been prevented?


No, it couldn't have. You see, we've had escalating problems on this matter since the late 70's. Various programs have been set, from the "all-social" to the "zero-tolerance". Hundreds of professionals have worked on the subject, from the ministries to the slums... to fail, one after the other. Because no one knows how to get rid of poverty and exclusion.


Is the news coverage of the riots satisfactory?

I'm lucky I can follow up the French news. Here, American news on the subject are few and biased.

Hold on Horyok. This is not United State, This is FRANCE. "poverty" as you know it does not exist in France. "poor" is not being able to take that trip to Thailand, or buy that new Plasma TV.

These Immigrants have it all payed for. Free medical care, free schooling, Free "learn French and try to integrate". Of course, they have chosen to ignore to assimilate, follow the civil law and so forth, but this is their choice.


The "poverty" line does not work in Europe sorry. The Exclusion thing is possible, but only if THEY chosen to be "excluded" (being around their own, not integrate with the fellow French, avoid being part of the civilized society, being at home doing nothing).

But once again, its up to them.

Hmmm... Let me try: Either we are creating a multireligious world with universal acceptance of Christ's divinity or we are not.

In both cases, the second part limits the first. Everything I've read on the subject tells me that women in these predominantly Muslim slums do not enjoy what we would call universal human rights.

This is a bit off-topic -- I agree with logophage that it's not clear that religion is much to blame in these riots. And I'm certainly not suggesting that women's rights have anything to do with them. I'm just trying to point out a blind spot for advocates of multiculturalism. Tolerance of other cultures is good, but some things are intolerable.

Certainly, though you must admit Van Gogh wasn't exactly the face of tolerance towards Islam.

This does not justify his murder, but it actually makes my point for me. It is not efforts for mutual respect that engender violence.

Rather, Van Gogh was outspoken in his mockery of Islam and lack of respect for its followers.

The point is that it is ridiculous to argue that "soft approach" caused the violence. The "soft approach" is the only truly just approach to the problem.

I find it reprehensible that some nations are considering abandoning their respect for human rights to deal with this problem which other nations have handled far more gracefully.

Eeyore hit on a big problem which show that contrary to belief, the "soft approach" has never really been tried, because it needs more than the government to succeed.

In France's case it needs the ethnic French to accept their new neighbors as equals.


Everything has been done to assimilate the Muslim community (the use of terminology such as "these people" is frowned upon in the US because of previous experience).

Note the use of the active verb, as if one could make a person assimilate.

Assimilation is quite possibly one of the most dangerous concepts left in modern society.

It means to much to some people, the neo-nativists if you will.

Understand that assimilation has nothing to do with "respect" for a host country, it is not a rite of passage.

When a person can succeed, legally, within a countries economic and social system he or she can be called assimilated.

Adding other requirements is just asking for trouble.

I'll stop here as I have to jet, but were not done here!

What makes you think that French do not accept "their new neighbors" as equals?
Go online and find any Parisian tourist bureau (something I needed to do recently) and look through the names of the staff - in every company you'll find at least a few arabic/eastern names. Those of the "new neighbors" who make an effort to succeed, usually do. For crying out loud, in Clichy a Catholic priest sends greeting cards to local muslims in celebration of their religious holidays (Do you think locals imams do the same?)