And back to turnea...

So?


On the contrary. Van Gogh's much disputed film was in fact made with a prominent Muslim woman (and member of the Dutch parliment) who was speaking out against the tyranny of Islamic culture against women.

...perhaps you don't consider a woman worthy enough to be considered as much a Muslim as the man who stabbed, shot and mutilated Van Gogh's body?


So you advocate we simply sit by and doing nothing? How about with regards to Islamic terrorism? do we take the soft approach there as well?


To which countries and which human rights do you refer?

To my knowledge no country in Europe has yet turned its back on any human rights. I suppose you are still refering to the headscarf ban?


Its impossible to make any difference to a situation where one party refuses to acknowledge the other. When every initiative has been tried and rejected, when you are constantly being called a racist despite your best intentions and when its clear from the culture of your new neighbors that they hate you and want nothing to do with you then no amount of acceptance will succeed.


Well, if we're going to examine paranoid word wrangling, how about adapting is that a dangerous concept?

How about respect for womens rights?

or,

not burning down synagogues?

or

refusing to allow rape, murder and terrorism to be allowed to flourish in the community.

Are these 'dangerous concepts`' as well. You seem so preoccupied with the notion that we're suppressing 'these people' that you are completely ignoring the culture and actions of 'these people'.


Exactly.

So, if you don't repsect some one, then just why do you go to live with them?


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


The problem here is very simple and has been touched upon by others in this and other threads.

Islam is not just a religion. Its is an authoritarian culture that uses religion to dictate to its followers how to live. It sets itself above all other cultures and will not adapt to any.

Islam has an agenda that seeks to subvert and overthrow all other religions and cultures and this is apparent when ever Islam meets another culture or religion. If your Islamic community is not doing this, then its only because they don't feel strong enough yet.

Islam is every bit as dangerous as communism or national socialism and this stupid notion that because it is a religion its excesses are some how justified is a dangerous self delusion on a par with Neville Chamberlain and his piece of paper.

Actually turnea, I believe you are wrong on this one.

The UK funds religious schools for Muslims. euro - islam link

In London, police incur costs for maintaining surveillance outside the Finsbury Park mosque, which has served essentially as a front for Hamas (Hamza was the imam there). Cost = £900,000 for about 2 years.

Specifically to Renger's point, the Dutch taxpayers do indeed fund mosques and Islamic schools, many of which conduct services and classes in arabic.

Immigrants most certainly have a moral obligation to themselves and their family to assimilate. Assimilation doesn’t strip the individual of any preference where it counts. My parents chose to live the remainder of their lives in a predominantly Hispanic population instead of going through the adjustment pains when they were younger. As a result they have severely limited their opportunities.

Now, pardon me, putting injustices and prejudice that are bound to occur when different cultures coexist aside for the moment, if gaining the “tools for success” is not an obligation for the immigrant, how else will she go about being successful without assimilating?

What am I missing here. Assimilating has nothing to do with respect, but van Gogh’s murder does. That looks like a one-way street to me.



Preaching the need for assimilation and never backing off on human rights are not mutually exclusive.



Well and good, turnea, but focusing on one cause doesn’t help us arrive at any reasonable conclusion. It’s just serves an opportunity to thump our chest for x, y, z ideology.



Nice dodge. White supremacists couldn’t systemically sully Christianity either but they had no respect for any religious or political similarities between non-supremacists and blacks to stop them. How about instead of reciprocating respect for an individual's words and actions Muslims respect the law above all considerations first and foremost, and seek redress through it like everyone else instead of following fatwas from fat, toothless clerics?



Where does maintaining our principles of justice require the need to downplay the demonstrable benefits of assimilation?

What is the underlying cause of the rioting?
Telegraph


AP link


Der Spiegel


bankok post


guardian

I highlighted a few points because I believe that we have a genuinely honest disagreement on the main points that won't really be resolved.

I was surprised with the recent success of the EU movement which I believe has opened member nations to having to confront this issue more quickly than many of the people of Europe want.

The phrases in bold pose this as a defense of Danish identity against non-European non-Christians who will not accept the main values of mainstream Danes.

Don't people have the right to immigrate somewhere and not assimilate. It may not be polite, but isn't this their right. Are there lawbreakers here that are simply not being punished out of fear of political correctness? Or are these immigrants holding onto a lifestyle that is protected by international human rights agreement?

Because their is due process available to punish lawbreakers in your country I suspect. Do migrants have to submit to different customs and beliefs short of following the laws?

The third of the comments I put in bold makes me wonder about the not so distant period of imperialism when this was the case and western imperialisms went to these places to colonize and civilize them. Especially in France's case (I am unaware of any Danish colonization after the Viking era save your possession of Greenland, please excuse my lack of knowledge of the history of Denmark) the initial interaction between France and many Muslim peoples was initiated by France against the will of those peoples. Did European immigrants in this period adapt to the values of the middle East, Africa, and Asia? Should they have tried to impose their values on their colonial subjects?

Here is where I think our honest disagreement lies. (lay? I never get that one right)

Eeyore

I think it depends on two things.

First of all, how they choose to not assimilate. If they prefer to keep to themselves, speak their own language, eat their own food and watch their own satellite channels (and this is what a good portion of the Muslim immigrants in Denmark are reported to be doing...) then thats fine by me, so long as they then don't turn around and complain that no one will hire them, or gang rape Danish girls coming home from a night on the town on the grounds that 'she is Danish, thus she is a whore'.
They can be as insular as they wish as long as they don't foster terrorism, start rioting or demanding the rest of the country dances to their tune.

Second. The amount of immigrants who choose to do this.
I have no problem with a person who has no desire join in with the society around him, but I do have a problem when twenty million people do this.


No.



Denmark had several 'colonies', if you can call them that. They are the islands of St. Thomas, St. John and St. Croix in the Caribbean which were sold to the USA in 1917.
There was also a number of trade stations scattered around the globe and then there was Iceland, the Færoe Islands and Greenland.

None of these had a Muslim population.

I would also point out that what happened during the colonial period does not justify any of what we are seeing today. There seems to be a perception in the world that events in history some how justify events in the present. I don't know why this is peddled about but its something that I see on a regular basis and from both sides of the divide. I note for example that al qaeda often refers to the 'crusaders' in order to incite religious indignation. Too bad no one evers asks them why the Muslims felt the need to invade Europe on several occasions in the past, though of course we all know that since Europe exists outside the Ummah then it is apparently beyond Islamic law and morality and Muslims are obliged to spread Islam here.

According to my understanding of Islam this means either an invasion by traditional means or by a form of low intensity invasion where by a region is gradually introduced into the Ummah over the course of generations as was done in Asia as Islam gradually crept eastwards. The method by which this is being undertaken today is by undermining western culture in the same way that the 11 Sept attackers used western technology to carry out their attack. Julian would have us believe that Saudi Arabia is the root of this but I believe the problem is far deeper than just that one nation. I believe the problem stems from the religion itself. Islam is an authoritarian ideology of superiority that seeks to eventually spread right across the world and its been doing just that since it was founded.

That many Muslims in Europe came here due colonialism only underlies the difference between the two sides. On the one hand, Europe accepted that colonialism was wrong (just as Europe did with slavery and womens rights) Gradually Europeans came to understand that they did not have the right to impose themselves on other countries and withdrew. When this happened though, it was quickly perceived as a golden opportunity to turn the tide and millions of people flooded into Europe and gradually began to establish small colonies here.

Where this relates to your question is that the colonial period does not oblige Europe to Islam, or any one else. Millions of Arabians, Asians and Africans have settled in Europe as a consequence of the colonial period and they all enjoy the same rights as Europeans do.

Not all groups have settled in easily, but only one group has consistently resisted all attempts to integrate them into European culture. What we're seeing in France is nothing new. It was documented ten years or more ago in the film 'La Haine' and can be perceived in the music of various French rappers though neither of these focus's on Islam. The social problems in France go a long back in history and have spawned many riots.

Whats different about today is the cultural umbrella of Islam that overshadows everything


I think its the latter.

I see carlitoswhey has made an attempt to add something that has been missing in this debate, actual evidence that the riots are connect to Islam.

That is, of course, necessary is the debate is to be constructive.


So then you believe there is a "vast Islamic conspiracy" to "invade" Europe as Islamicize it by force of sheer numbers?

It's not the greater economic opportunity or political freedom that attracts Muslim immigrants, but the secret plot nestled deep in the Koran that beckons them to flock to France, Denmark, etc?

I...

..would need to see some actual evidence of that belief.


On the contrary. I condem every crime an advocate the deserved punishment for members of any community and that includes Muslims.

What I not doing is pretending crime stems from Islam, most Muslims immigrants are not criminals.

As Horyok said, poverty and despair encourage crime and that is exactly what wrong with French society.


As a strong supporter of separation of church and state this is not something I'm going to even try and defend.

Blurring the line always leads to trouble.

I though Renger was referring to a similar situation that moif alluded do, which didn't have to do with state funded schools.


Agreed. My point was that this has nothing to do with this nebulous concept of "respect for a host country" as is merely a purely practical consideration.

People are taking all of this far too personally.


Hellooo, blanket statement!

I don't think I need to explain that this is no more true than saying that all Christians take marching order from their right-wing pastors to hate all those darn gays.

turnea

The 'tin hat' response...?

Well, I'm sorry to disappoint you but I'm not in this game to convince you of anything turnea. If you don't want to see something then I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince you to open your eyes. Its your right to see what you want to see.

What I've written is what I see and how I perceive it. I think there is an agenda at work within Islam and that agenda is split into a spectrum of perception. At one of the scale there are the mass of immigrants who seek only the economic benefits of moving out of the Ummah but these bring with them an Islamic culture that allows other, more aggressive elements to exist. Some of these aggressive elements are termed clerics, Imams, or intellectuals and others are termed terrorists. What ever the differences are between them, the whole is funded by various means, including European state sponsorship in some countries and powerful Islamic powers back in Arabia in others.

Islamic immigration would not be a problem at all if the mass of 'ordinary Muslims' did not tolerate and protect the aggressive elements in their midst... but they do and by doing so they choose to create the 'us and them' situation I spoke of earlier..


And as I said, the appalling social conditions in France do not exist in Denmark (or Sweden either for that matter) but we see many of the same problems here as the French do.

According to you, the ethnic tension in France is due to 'poverty and despair', but in Denmark, (as I already pointed out) the police have recorded a crime rate of 800 reported crimes per 1,000 citizens per month in those area's which house large amounts of Muslim immigrants as opposed to the national average of 7 reported crimes per citizen per month.

How is this possible by your arguments turnea? Are you going to suggest Denmark's Muslim population is wracked by poverty as well?

I started this thread by pointing out the obvious. The problem here lies with a generation of children who have been raised in a culture that is not compatable with the culture of their nationalities. It has nothing to do with poverty, despair, racism or European intolerance and everything to do with the unyielding ideology of Islam and the division it demands between the true beleivers and the infidel.


Perhaps this is because I don't wish to be murdered for having an opinion or having drawn a picture which some religious freak takes offence at... ?

I'm an illustrator by trade, a vocal opponent of all religion, especially Islam and there are thousands of Muslims rioting in my hometown... I'm just dying to see whats going to happen next.

Okay turnea, here one toothless cleric. It's not a good pic. Abu Hamza al-Masri needs a skull shot to do him justice. I can find another cleric but I should bow out of this debate. I don't want my lack of PCness to distract you from the tiny possibility that some people may be taking assimilation business too personally, because, if you haven't noticed, the riots continue.



Oh yeah. They’re all rooting for gay marriage, gay adoption, gay pride parades, all that stuff at my church, and these Muslim kids aren’t acting on the directives of extremists like al-Masri or the complicit approval of adults unwilling to set them straight.

Sorry Turnea but you are not correct.

In Holland it is not allowed to just build anything on the land you bought. There are strict rules in Holland that precisely state where to built and what is permitted to be built. For example you cannot buy a piece of land here in Amsterdam and just built a castle or a post-modernistic skyscraper . Even for small adjustments to your own house you have to get a special permit from the local government and they follow strict procedures.
The fact that mosques are present in Holland, means that the authorities have ALLOWED the Muslim community to built them. In that way it is correct to say: that "we gave them mosques".

Of course freedom of religion is a right. But what do you do when certain religious groups try to dictate society?



Of course it is illegal in Holland, problem is that everytime a imam is being caught spreading hate or dissent, it always sparks the emotions and anger of the Muslim community.

Same thing with abusive husbands and their wives. A high percentage of the population of special shelter-programs is being made up by Islamic women. Biggest obstacle in solving this issue is the attitude of the Muslim community. Family honor is important and honor killings are still acceptable.

Do you see the dillemas we are faced with?



Problem is that some Islamic thoughts and ideas are extremely intolerant and in most cases unacceptable and are trying to intrude into Dutch society.

Besides that, up to what point can you hide behind the right of religious freedom, when your actions are causing major problems for yourself and the rest of society?



We are already doing that. You know what happened? The second and third generation are growing up in poverty. Because of this they have less opportunities to succeed in life. They feel abandoned, trapped between two worlds. They get angry at society and authorities in particular.
It is the start of the downward spiral. Here we are touching one of the rootcauses of this social problem, which can lead to social conflicts as seen in Paris.

Editted to add:

Moif


Just for the fact, Ayaan Hirsi Ali was brought up in the Islamic traditions, but rejected both her culture and religion when she arrived in Holland. She is not a Muslim anymore. That's part of the reason she has become a prime target for radical Muslims in Holland.

Very well I stand corrected. However, I still think it is the wrong attitude to view this as a concession.

When a church is being built it is a concession by Holland to "allow" them to worship in a building of their choosing?

This has nothing to do with a "soft vs. hard" approach, it's a basic component of freedom of religion a value that Europe has claimed to uphold since 1950.


I do not advocate any compromise in the law on such issues, but neither will putting more pressure on legitimate religious expression solve the problem.

The "hard" approach is really no approach at all. Lashing out legally as these youths are lashing out physically is a perfectly horrible idea.

I've had my share of Muslim friends over the years, they were largely well-educated and saw a lot of promise in their lives.

I don't believe it's a coincidence that I never got the impression they were either violent or intolerant (quite the contrary, they were likely less disposed to violence than some of the rest of my friends )

I can't speak for Holland, but form what I'm hearing about France, they are failing to present equal opportunity for success.

France's city policy in tatters

Violence exposes France's weaknesses

If Muslims started rioting in Dearborn, Michigan I would be infinitely surprised.

Muslims have been living in the US and UK in relative peace for decades. No one is advocating pandering to the terrorists, but the fact is that except for such hard cases rioting youth is a pretty explainable, correctable phenomenon.


..and yet it seems incomprehensible that Muslims should "choose" not to work anymore than any immigrant population.


I think people are assuming this is all the fault of the Muslim community and I can't see the logic in that assumption

Renger.

Thanks for the info. I didn't know Ayaan Hirsi Ali had given up her faith. Good for her! Seems I was wrong to ask turnea about then. Sorry about that turnea.


Apparently not and yet it appears to be the case that Muslims would rather be unemployed and retain their own cultural isolation within their new homelands rather than adapt to the society they have adopted and integrate.

There seems to be this idea floating about the world that immigrants and their offspring have some kind of a right to jobs even when they refuse to integrate into the rest of the work force. Well sure they have a right to have a job, thats not the same as saying some one else is duty bound to provide to them.

In many attempts to kick start the process the various governments of Europe have bent over backwards to find these people employment, but time again they meet with reluctance from the rest of the work force. Why?

Other ethnic groups have similar problems, but not always. Some ethnic groups do very poorly and others do very well. Inuit consistently fare poorly in Denmark for example. No one has any idea as to why, but they tend to gravitate into alcoholic abuse a lot faster than other ethnic groups. In the politically acceptable double speak of our times its not permitted to notice this in public, but in private its a standing joke, and not just amongst Danes. My Turkish friend asked me one day if I'd ever seen a Greenlander driving a car. I had to admit I never had. Since that date, he has asked me several times and each time I've had to reply no. The joke is, Greenlanders are so lazy they can't afford cars.

The weird thing is not that a Turk is making a joke about an Inuit, but that I could make a similar joke about Turks and it would be alright, as long as I don't mention Islam...

The unspoken truth in Denmark is that there are many Muslims here who refuse, point blank, to work and the government won't force them because it is afraid of the creation of poverty stricken ghetto's (as opposed to the fairly wealthy ghetto's that have sprung up in the last two decades) The Muslims know this so they are well happy to collect free money, and the more children they have, the more money they get.

At the same time few Danish employers are willing to hire Muslims because they simply don't fit in with the rest of the work force. They require numerous prayer breaks during the work day (in a country of workaholics) and a place to pray (in a nation where only 7% of the population goes to church)), they don't drink (Danes have the second highest average alcohol intake on the planet) or socialise like Danes do (Pork is the number one meat in Denmark). When Denmark plays football (the national pastime) they don't cheer. Many of them can hardly speak Danish at all (even some who have been here three decades) and most are poorly educated (in a nation where education is everything) and are being pushed into the jobs because a state employed worker helped them find it. When they arrive at their new jobs, many are isolated and don't have a clue what to do. They put to doing the most menial boring jobs because they can't do much else. Some do okay, perhaps one in five...

I've seen a lot of them, both where I work and at my fathers place. They never mix with any one else. If you try to talk to them, they don't want to know. They'll avoid any conversation beyond the superfluous.

At the crossroads where I live there is a clothes shop owned by some Somali's. All day long a wide variety of ethnic minorities come to this shop to trade. The clothing in the shop is the same as most every where else, but I've noticed none of the Somali and Arab shoppers venture into any of the 'Danish' shops. They keep to their own shop.

But this isn't a one way flow. Not at all. The biggest concentration of immigrants in Århus is in the suburb of Gjellerup (the 'ghetto' of Århus). Here there is a large market called Bazaar West. Danes flock to this market to try all the interesting stuff as well as the generally cheaper prices on fruit & veg. On the whole Danes love new stuff and are an adventurous people who, like the Irish, often leave Denmark in large numbers to travel to other countries.

Integration with ethnic minorities was considered by most to be something interesting and fun back in the days before the sheer bulk of Muslim immigrants over came the possibilities to integrate them. Now, every day the TV has debates about what to do about the 'Muslim problem', What it means when Muslims blow up the London Underground. Who are these Muslims and why do we still have such problems with them? Religious debates, political debates, cultural debates. There is no end to the trying to help them. The government has poured billions into countless programs to help them integrate, it has passed laws to assist them, built bridges that no one is prepared to cross.

The bottom line is, no one wants them here any more because they don't want to be Danes. No one understands why they are here. They're not here to escape oppression, they are not here because they want to be Danish. They didn't come looking to work. Most appear to have come because life is very comfortable in the Danish social system and they had the opportunity.

I asked my Turkish friend why he came to Denmark. He replied his father brought him here when he was a young boy. I asked why his father came and he told me his father had been employed as a guest worker in the 1960's. He then told me he was applying for a Danish passport. I was astonished that he'd been here for 27 years and was still a Turkish citizen and asked him how that was. He replied, he was a Turk. So, I asked him, why are you applying to be Danish now then? Because, he explained, if I go back to Turkey as a Turk, then I'll have to do six months in the military.
"Don't you want to be Danish and live here?" I asked. He shook his head with a laugh. "No, the weather here is terrible".
Essentially, what he was saying is that his whole family only came to Denmark to make money. They feel nothing for Denmark at all and have no intention of being Danish. I can respect his honesty in this and wish him the best of luck in his endeavours, but knowing what I know, I wouldn't grant him a Danish passport. To him, it was just a convenient document.
To me it is much more important than that. It is a question of identity. I am very proud to be Danish, to belong to this nation.

What is the underlying cause of the rioting?

You know, I really believe that this is a question with a few answers. I think that it's clear that this is and issue of economics. No doubt, few people if any ever burn down the cities they live in when they have food on thier table, clothes over their body and a roof over their head... so long as they know that they'll also have it tomorrow and for the next generation. But then come the class identity. I'm going to post an article here because I really feel that Pat Buchanan has summed up very well exactly what's going on in France, or at least in my opinion.

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=10116

And I will say that it seems as though he might be painting a prettier picture for America in the 1960's than was realistic, he is not. He's only decrbing the idea that Black unrest in America could be cured from a stand point of social equality based on the idea that Blacks already considered themselves American, and so they were just waiting for white America to give them that opprotunity.

So essentially what Pat is saying, and I agree, is that social equality won't cure the problem in France until the Moslem's in France want to be treated as French people and adapt Western ideals.


Could this have been prevented?

Sure, but by whom?

If the theory Buchanan puts forth is of the same logic behind yours, you might well assume as do I that the failure is on the heads of the cultural leadership, as well as the French leadership for a lack of either forced or willing assimilation. Note: France obviously had something to offer the people who immagrated there, but it seems as though these people didn't feel that they needed to commit themselves to the Western lifestyle. A mistake Paris pays for in lives and dollars as economic infrastructure as well as innocent people are being burned.

"One fleeing and terrified woman was doused with gasoline and set ablaze."

Is the news coverage of the riots satisfactory?

Not really. When LA burned thats all I heard about for months, from the first day and on. But then the media has been known to slight away from the failures of reknown liberal-socialist institutions. When it does start to blow up in the news is when it goes on for a week and a half.

This must be a strange day indeed, because I agree with Johnlocke and Pat Buchanan!

I have just read a very interesting article by liberal journalist Doug Ireland that brings some historical perspective to this:
article



This one bit was quite insightful:


I do disagree with johnlocke on several points.


It seems that the Arab/black populations in France haven't been treated equally. Also, Ireland points out the Marche des Beurs (roughly, march of the Arabs) 22 years ago, where 100,000 Arabs marched, demanding to be treated like everyone else, recognized as French. They were looking for integration, but it has not been forthcoming.



Here I also disagree. What we are seeing is the bias in the American media towards American stories. International news tends to be low on the radar screen in any case. If the French riots should saturate daily news in the US (I'm not saying they shouldn't), then so should the many actual wars going on around the world. How often was Darfur on the front page? How often was the Ethiopian-Eritrian war on the front page?

You have no grounds for the claim that "the media has been known to slight away from the failures of reknown liberal-socialist institutions." What I see here is business as usual in the US media. The article I have quoted from and linked to here, was on the Z magazine website, which is extremely leftist.

This is a topic where I lack the necessary information to attempt to answer either of the major questions posed. The media question is a "no brainer." The American popular media never gives foreign coverage the importance it deserves and this situation is no exception.

My initial reaction was somewhat like Julian's or turnea's with the admonition to myself to stay out of the topic and leave it to the Europeans to discuss and resolve while keeping my focus on our own problems and the mess we've managed to exacerbate in the Middle East. Reading Moif's posts, however, has caused me to feel that I may have been missing a more fundamental issue in all of this. Moif is someone whose opinions I have come to respect, so to see him taking such an anti-Islamic position is disconcerting. It makes me realize that one of two things is true. Either Moif is largely correct in his observations or the social divisions between the European and Muslim communities are so profound that they distort the perception of even someone who is normally progressive and clear thinking and, therefore, likely the thinking of many others. Either conclusion is disturbing!

With my limited knowledge of the situation I won't immediately participate in this discussion; however, I would like to know more about it. The book discussion group I am part of is going to focus next on Western perceptions of the Middle East and its culture with the reading of works by Bernard Lewis and his critics like Edward Said and Bulliet. Can any or you suggest a book in English to include that deals with the relationship between European populations and Muslim immigrants?

In the meantime I will be following your discussion. A tangential issues I would like to see your explore: What will be the impact of these events on European elections - will it favor rightist candidates?

Quark,
That's my point exactly. I never said that Moslems had been given equal treatment, merely that no level of equality will change things unless there is a clear conformity to culture. Much in the same way Moif said that he had witnessed large numbers of Moslems behaving in his country.

Fixed quotes. -Amlord

There is that word again : "appears"

What evidence do you have that the high rate of poverty and crime among the European Muslim community is due to deliberate refusal to reasonably adapt to European norms.

..after all you must understand that some of the demands I've seen expressed towards Muslims are simply unreasonable.

For instance trying to justify the heardscarf ban by saying it is necessary for public safety is an argument that is so palpably ridiculous its hard to see how a whole society might have fooled itself into believing it.

So, within reason, what evidence do you have that Muslims are refusing to do what it take to succeed?


How many and based on what evidence?


Okay, here's that reasonable and unreasonable again.

Holding not eating pork or drinking against Muslims is unreasonable.

Expecting workers not to take too many break is perfectly reasonable...
but then if smokers get a break (and in many companies in the US they do) then I see no reason why Muslims can't use the same breaks to pray).

Muslims in the US don't seem overburdened by these issue. I've know several Muslim teachers and professionals. The head on one of the biggest companies in France is a Muslim.

Why don't his prayers breaks stop him from succeeding.

I think you are greatly exaggerating the frequency and duration of such interruption as they hardly even cause a ripple in US (a nation of serious workaholics).


That's nice, but again it unreasonable to expect immigrants or even other ethnic Danes to be as patriotic as you are.

They all have a right to feel however they want about their home, right?

The West, especially the US, has been having this same type of discussion for decades.

Ever since the flood of European immigrants in the earlier 19th century.

Back then it was the drunken Irish, the violent Italians, the taciturn Germans, now it's the illiterate Mexicans and the lazy blacks.

When are we going to stop blaming everyone else for inequality in our own nations?

Not sure that I agree with Doug Ireland's assessment of the situation. Sarkozy's famous phrase was uttered after several nights of unrests. Two boys got electrocuted because of their own stupidity (first, by trying to escape the police' identity check, second, doing that by jumping into the electrical substation); despite French police' weak assurances that they didn't chase boys around (Heaven forbid they'll get accused in doing their job!), the riots started, in which mostly the property of locals were burned, causing hundreds of jobs for locals to disappear.. He called rioters what they really are, PC-ness aside.
Meanwhile, Sarkozy, himself the son of an immigrant, may be the only one of prominent French politicians who is willing to do something to address the problems that the immigrants are facing. From the Guardian:

TedN5.

It already has. Since the mid 80's there have been several national parties coming to the fore in European politics.
In France this would be under the leadership of JL Le Pen, who I know little about. In Denmark however, the rise in public awareness of the 'immigrant issue' has led to success for the Danish People's Party (DF) under the leadership of Pia Kjærsgaard. The DF has become the perceived power behind the throne of the Liberal Conservative government (under PM Anders Fogh Rasmussen) since this is a minority two party government that must use the DF's vote to pass any laws it cannot convince the opposition (The socialists) to vote for.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


turnea.

er... what evidence do you have of 'high rates of poverty' amongst Europe's Islamic community? You see it in the media I suppose, like the rest of us. The difference us is, I see and hear things from another perspective. Where I live, there is no 'poverty' amongst the Muslim Community, they have the same income as every one else. They live in comfort, own flash cars, dress trendy and are far from any notion of what you'd consider 'poverty'.

How come I'm supposed to educate you on these matters? I've already told you this is my perspective. I'm not here to lecture you or any one else on whats going on. You draw your own conclusions.


This would be more impressive if it weren't for two things.
First of which is the idea that a large group of Muslims have been targetted by a 'headscarf ban'. There is no such thing as a headscarf ban. The French state has a law that forbids ALL religious garments in state institutions. The reason why they have this is legal. Its been tested and found so by experts in European law. The headscarf only comes into this because some Muslims complained that they were being discriminated against, something which no other religion found it needed to make into an issue. What you seem to fail to grasp is that every single time there is a problem in Europe between the state (which ever state it happens to be) the Muslims start complaining about how their religious rights are being trodden on.

Second. Do you actually have anything other to add beyond this 'headscarf ban'? You seem to be basing an awful lot of judgemental opinion regarding all of Europe on the basis of your perception of single FRENCH law.


No one knows because the Danish state does not keep social records on the basis of religious ethnicity. This is why most of what I've written pertains to my perception.


Is it?



They have no problem holding it against us. In point of fact they have raised merry hell about it and no Danish child is fed pork in school any more, despite the fact that pork is one of Denmarks largest national products, because why?

Because the Muslims refuse to let their children eat pork, or anything that has anything to do with pork gelatin, or any other meat that has not been slaughtered by a halal butcher and since its impossible to keep a track on which classes have Muslim children, then we now have the absurdity that all public Danish school children are fed a diet in accordance to Islamic law.

And turnea, do you know what argument they used to force this measure through?
Thats right, they claimed their 'religious rights' were being discriminated against because they were being made to eat food they couldn't eat on 'religious grounds'.

This has of course led to the inevitable consequence of Danish parents sending their children to private schools so they can receive a Danish upbringing, free of the corruption of this alien religion and Denmark is now witness to the largest number of private schools in its entire history.

No one is holding anything against the Muslims, here, on the contrary, the state has bent its self backwards to accomidate them and their religion. I'm just saying that no one wants to hire them because they don't fit in with the rest of the company. Whats the point of hiring some one who is not going to get on well with the other five people in your company? Who is likely to always be an outsider?

Not all Muslims are strict about drinking or eating though, which is why I guess that about 1/5 of them manage to adapt well enough to get work and integrate.


The law is clear that Muslims must be allowed their prayer breaks but that doesn't mean any one is going to hire a Muslim over a Dane. The law does not oblige any one to hire some one they don't feel is going to be useful.


So?


Because he is just a man praying.


...and I think you are greatly exaggerating a single point I made in order to make it seem as if you are dealing with something you are not.


The point turnea, is that my friend is NOT an ethnic Dane. He is a Turk and he has no wish to be a Dane. He just wants the passport so he can travel back to Turkey without getting drafted.

I understand from him and from various debates and interviews in the Danish media, that this is not an uncommon attitiude amongst the immigrants. Its not a question of being unreasonable here. Its a question of value. What value does Danish nationality hold?

For a good portion of the Danish population, its a very valuable thing to be a Dane, for others less so. One thing however all Danes will agree on is that Denmark's laws and rights are based firmly in our culture and no outside culture will be tolerated if it tries to undermine our laws and rights. An example of what I mean is that there is not one single Danish politician willing to take the Islamic side in the case against Jyllandsposten and the 12 cartoon drawings of Mohammed for whilst the Muslims run riot and stage street protests and demand legal action from the PM to punish the journalists who dared to mock Islam, every Dane understands and embraces the fundamental principle of free speech.


Yes, and its a right they have. Their home is where ever they choose it to be, for my friend Mehmet (and most of his friends) his home is Turkey.

Its odd that they'll readily enough admit this ...why can't you?


Oooh, wow, decades!

Its apparently escaped your notice turnea, but this is a cultural problem that goes much further back than the entire history of your nation.

Its also apparently escaped your attention that we are not dealing with 'drunken Irish, violent Italians or taciturn Germans'. We are not even dealing with Turks, Somali's or Arabs.

What we are dealing with here is an ideology not different nationalities. This is an ideology that trancends mere nationality, and is as evil and aggressive as ever nazism was and the ONLY reason why its been allowed to continue its centuries long campaign of aggression against those nations that do not belong in the Ummah is because it is a religion and in the west today we have this absurd notion that religion is permitted any excess for no other reason than that it is a religion.

If this were just a problem of different nationalities then it would never have been a problem. It would have been a simple matter to resolve as is borne witness by the fact that our non Islamic ethnic minorities (even those who don't do too well like the Inuit) don't run riot, don't stab Italian tourists because they think they are Americans, don't gang rape Danish girls on the premise they are 'just whores', don't force their children to marry cousins from back home, don't conspire to carry out terrorism or to protect those that do, don't cheer when US buildings are bombed, don't rant and rave about any law or cultural convention they don't approve of, don't force their women to cover their entire bodies, don't seek to misuse nationality to smuggle entire villages into Denmark, don't control the drugs trade, don't trash Jewish cemetaries or vadalise synagogues or murder Jews in the street, don't shoot people in hopsitals or in bars, don't carry out honour killings, don't ignore traffic lights, don't stone their pregnent neighbours to death, don't call for artists to be put to death, don't... well you get the idea.




One last point. TedN5, don't misunderstand me in all this. I've never voted for the DF and probably never will. I don't want to see the Muslims leave, stop practicing their religion or be other wised punished, and neither do the vast majority of Danes (I won't speak on behalf of the rest of Europe, but I suspect they feel the same way). All I want is for them to settle down in peace with all the other people who live here and behave themselves.

As this is a debate sight, it is required by the rules that assertions be backed with evidence, preferably non-anecdotal.


Therefore, in a sense you are here precisely to lecture though not necessarily to me.

The point is that all this "I feel" and "I think" is worthless as others feel and think precisely the opposite.

The difference must be made in sound reasoning and corroborating evidence. Otherwise we have no constructive debate.


Very well.. I willing to accept that the "religious symbol ban" is more accurate terminology, this does not change the nature of my point one iota.


It has also been decried by human rights advocates and organizations as a clear violation of established international law.

That's simply false. French Sikhs protested widely at the measure and Jewish groups expressed their displeasure as well.

This may have something to do with the fact that the law allows small crucifixes, there are no small turbans.

Even if the measure applies across the board, the Article 9 violation lies not in the uneven application of the law but its fundamental betrayal of the freedom of public religious expression spelled out in the convention.


France.. and some states in Germany..

I've added far more than that in the course of this debate. I've posted numerous links on job discrimination and the lack of political representation as well.


That is simply mismanagement' on the part of Danish authorities as alternate vegetarian menus are offered at most American public schools without problem.

I should know, I ate at them.


This seems like a petty problem to me, none of the muslims I knew had problem getting around because they didn't eat pork.

Heck, I've never eaten pork or consumed alcohol (I'm a Seventh-Day Adventist by denomination), didn't stop me from forming friends.

Why on Earth would this matter, especially to adults who buy their own food?


..and do we see rampant unemployment among smokers?

Muslims are plenty useful in the States prayer break or no.


That's great, I hope they will all show the same restraint if people starting burning the Danish flag on national television as they do here from time to type.

Heck, protesters burn the President in effigy about yearly.


I certainly don't advocate compromise in civil rights, but understand they have just as much a right to express their resentment and call for legal change.


:Sigh:

Come now moif I'm not ignorant.

I limited my perspective to modern Democracies (post-slavery) for a reason. Conditions that existed previously were too distorting to compare reasonably to the current situation.

I'm not interested in talking about immigration in the Roman Empire.


That's a "perspective" on Islam I cannot share, I now too about the Muslims I've met to agree with a word of it.

Guess this is as good a thread as any to make my first post in.

I also happen to reside in Denmark, and I can largely agree with the perception that moif haves of muslims in Denmark. Society has bent over backwards to accommodate them, but still unemployment is high among muslims.

What you have to understand about Denmark is, that education is free and that the government pays a grant to all students they can live off. That means every single person in Denmark can go to the finest university in Denmark, no matter how poor their family is, just as long as they work towards that goal. I myself come from a very poor family and I have just received my masters degree in informatics without any financial aid from my family - and I'm not even that smart. Every muslim has the same opportunity, yet the college and university I attended didn't have very many arab muslim students - though there were many other ethnic minorities there, like chinese, indians and africans (non-muslim). It just doesn't make sense, because by law the colleges and universities cannot discriminate - they have to accept all qualified applicants, and I am sure muslims on average is just as smart as us Danes - the question is, why don't these muslims want a high level of education?

A high level of education is needed, if any ethnic group of people want to integrate in Danish society, because the most simplest of jobs are being moved to China at an alarming rate. If you don't want to educate yourself, and society can't force you, you are not very likely to find a job in Denmark anymore, and the fact is that muslims are lacking in that department, and it has nothing at all to with discrimination.

The Danish Police have for some time been running a campaign with the explicit purpose of recruiting muslims, affirmative action if you will. The problem is, that extremely few muslims has any desire to become a policeofficer, so their success in recruiting muslims have been practically non-existent.

Recent studies has also shown, that muslims generally have the perception that they are discriminated against on the job-market, and that keeps them from applying for any jobs at all (even though they are required by law to apply for all jobs they are able to do, if they want to get money from the state). Furthermore, the study also showed, that the perception they have is incorrect, because when muslims actually apply for jobs they are qualified for, they have the same chance as Danes to actually get it.

So, my "perception" is, that the predicament many muslims are in, is largely selfimposed, grounded in their wrongful belief that society is out to "get" them. But I would like to hear from you turnea, what you thing cause is, and more importantly, what we can do about it? Like moif, I will never vote for any right-wing party nationalist party, but I do see this becoming a major problem for Denmark down the line, and I certainly don't think its the fault of Danish society, because there is simply no evidence to suggest that it is, quite the contrary in fact.

turnea

Well, for the most part I have, but this is a bit difficult since I'm probably the only person here who can actually read the source material.


Well, we seem to be trading an awful lot of words so we must be debating something constructive.

Seriously though, how am I supposed to 'prove' anything? Linking to other sites doesn't prove anything since everything in a debate is subjective. Just look at how you perceive the French law on religious artifacts and clothing. I quote the exact text of EHR article 9 and you don't accept it. I point out that the case has been tried, both in the French parliment and the courts and you reject this as well.


Exactly... and what will? Your need for 'proof' is a moot point if your not willing to accept any proof that doesn't support your position... so how can I prove anything to you that you don't want to accept?


Indeed they did, but they also accepted the ultimate findings of the court or so I believe.


Again, this is your perception. I don't see any fundamental betrayal here. I certainly don't accept that one fundamental right out weighs another.

In this case of the religious symbols and artifacts ban though, the offended party's are not without any legal power to contest the ruling. Article 13 states that:


Any one who believes they are being oppressed by the French law has the right to take the matter before the European Commission of Human Rights, or the European Court of Human Rights, both of which have the power and authority to over rule the French law if they find it contradicts article 9.

To the best of my knowledge, this has not happened.


I'm sorry turnea, but the price of food in America has little bearing on the price of food in Denmark. As it happens the government here is actually phasing out all state school meals anyway since it has decided to cut back on spending, so soon the problem will be solved by other means anyway.


You seem to have this unusual idea turnea, that anything that works well in the USA (in your perception) ought to work equally well in other countries.

The truth of the matter however, is that other countries are not like the USA. You live in a nation that, in comparison to mine, has no actual culture of its own. In fact, it doesn't even have its own language!

Denmark is not the USA. What works there doesn't necessarily work here. Here, there is only one culture and whilst it can be very flexible and accomidating, it cannot simply be replaced by yours.

As I said before. Danes do not expect Muslims to eat pork or drink beer. I merely pointed out that Islamic culture forbids these and thus creates an artificial barrier between Danes and Muslims. Those Muslims who cross this barrier are those that integrate more successfully.


Is smoking an ideology?


So?


Bah! they were doing that years ago



Yeah... so?

Iwould venture that a Muslim Denmark probably has a far greater freedom than a Muslim in the USA, for all your claims to the opposite. Denmark is one of the most liberal nations on the planet.

...its because we are so liberal that we've been lured into this problem of Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism in our midst.


Your not ignorant turnea, you just refuse to look at anything that doesn't fit your personal bias....


...your perception is based in your own personal take on civil rights and the racial issues facing the USA. Instead of looking at whats actually happening in Europe, your basing your opinions on the nice Muslims you know in the USA.

This is a big mistake. Individuals do not represent ideologies, especially not ideologies that span centuries in the making and are protected under the guise of religion.


edited to add:

Oh! I see I am no longer the only person who can read the source material!

Hej Carlsen, velkommen til!

It seems moif that you have argued yourself into a corner. Since this debate is about France (and Paris in particular), what happens in Denmark is clearly irrelevant. Or, am I reading your position that countries have different raison d'etre incorrectly?