What is the ultimate goal of the multicultural movement?

Post Reply New Topic

The thing I would also add though - we probably have more Muslims and middle-easterners in general who are somewhat liberal and pro-American to begin with. That probably accounts for some of the difference as well.

Most so called "moderate muslims" tend to keep their heads down and their mouths shut when it comes to protesting Islamic extremism. It every rarely happens. The so-called moderate Muslim community is a safe place for the extremists to hide.

ruveyn

we DON'T seek to integrate them and yet.... most groups are less extreme over here (compared to the US and a lot of Europe). i think that forcing ethnic and religious groups into a melting pot creates tensions that don't exist when you accept them peacefully.

We live separate lives over here in quite a lot of places and rarely mix apart from in the supermarket and so on. Integration really is the key.

AFAIK Europe and the UK are opposite to us and closer to what you're claiming Canada does so - there's clearly more at work here.

Canada is fully multicultural, with government implemenatation of multicultural policies. the UK and US seem to be similar in that they have some movement towards multiculturalism but it isn't fully an official policy. in Canada, we just don't have the degree of racial and ethnic tension that the US and UK have.

I would be interested in figuring that one out. I'll have to look into it and see what I can find.

Would you be against it?

That's not what tolerance means. Tolerance does not mean they have to change their way of life, it means they have to respect yours . . . but it does not mean yours has to supersede theirs. Meanwhile, under multiculturalism, they are adhering to your criminal code on every point where it doesn't encroach on their rights . . . so even if they don't change their way of life, and there are patches of England with alot of Muslim people who do Muslim stuff, they pose no greater threat to you than anyone else in England.

People don't pose a threat to you because they're Muslim, they pose a threat to you if they are criminals. And likewise, laws and policies should target criminals, and not discriminate against Muslims, assuming they are criminals. Any policies along those lines would be very Islamaphobic, which is just a word that means something between xenophobic and racist as it applies to Muslims. Those laws or policies would really be no different than the Jim Crow laws that oppressed black people in the Southern US for ages if they were introduced. I'm in particular referring to any possible discrimination in immigration law or zoning law or by-laws . . .

But I'd be surprised if you could come up with a way to deal with 'the Islam problem' that isn't incredibly problematic. By problematic I mean ethically horrible.

The whole situation has massive parallels to people deciding how to deal with Jewish people in the WW2 era. They referred to this as 'the Jewish Question', the Holocaust as 'the Final Solution', and though the reasons why Jewish people needed to be eliminated were not fully reasoned, the reasons they cited were generally aesthetic, like that they found Jewish areas and people annoying to walk through. They cited economic reasons, both oppressing Jewish people and blaming them for being poor . . . eugenics, by suggesting that they had certain racial characteristics that made them less desirable elements of society . . .

Anyways, your arguments against Muslims in your country are basically that you dislike having their culture around, that they are violent or harbour violence, and economic reasons that you're not really qualified to establish, because I think you're just assuming there are economic issues. (And economic issues are really not the point when it comes to people with rights.) But these are basically centered around you not wanting to tolerate Muslims because you are afraid of them and their influence. (this is the definition of Islamaphobia, BTW, the Jewish version of this word is Judeophobia, the gay one is homophobia) They're irrational because you're relying on emotions, impressions, and fear to guess what the effect of having Muslim people in England will be. Anyways, I don't think these can be used as justification for treating them differently.

Particularly ugly is the idea that Muslims have certain culturally held characteristics that justify treating them differently. This is the one that most closely parallels justifications for the treatment of slaves, and Jewish people during the holocaust. Muslims aren't a race, so it isn't eugenics or racism, that's why I used the word Islamaphobia. It's not a trite word I made up, it's SRS BSNS.

YES! I've been saying that a lot. People say the same things about Muslims that were said about Jews 80 years ago. 'Muslims want to establish a state within a state', 'Muslims are an existential threat to us', 'Europe is being taken over by Muslims', 'all Muslims are terrorists', etc. People more or less made the exact same statements about Jews.

It's true that a minority of Jews might have been the spark of anti-Semitic fears. No reason to kill them off though. I really do think a lot of people want Muslims to die and see them as pure evil - case in point, it's commonly said the world would be better off if we just nuked the whole Middle East.

Most (on overwhelming majority) of German Jews were assimilated Germans. The Reform Jewish movement started in Germany to promote assimilation. The core of orthodox Judaism in Europe before the Shoah was in Poland. The first targets of Hitler's antisemitic policies were assimilated German Jews.

ruveyn

You should keep in mind that at the time most Jewish populations were well integrated and viewed themselves as citizens of their country before Jewish. I take no issue with people from the middle east, I know quite a few of them and they are people like any other. However, I do take issues with what is ultimately a fascistic doctrine and as with all fascist doctrines it should be rapidly disposed of on the dungheap of history, Christianity can join it as well.

I'm an equal opportunity hater of dangerous doctrines.

most islamic people who have immigrated into western countries are also integrated. perhaps you don't notice them... because they are integrated.

sometimes newer immigrants can take tometo become fully integrated into a community. generally, it takes a generation for it to really happen, so if your eyes are on recent immigrants they will appear to stand out. the children of muslim immigrants tend to be less distinct from the greater culture.

(donnie_darko and ReindeerRoger, i agree. and i fear for islamic people.)

Those who are integrated are most welcome, however given the reactionary wave sweeping both recent and non-recent immigrants in my country, I tend to disagree. The first wave was integrated as productive citizens perfectly, now we have both second and third generation immigrants that are in fact less integrated than their parents and grandparents.

There is a resurgence in conservativism amongst 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants which combined with the explosive influence of reactionary Imams this is a big problem. Go and read up on over representation in people getting benefits, in children not able to handle school because of not knowing the language, of entire areas of cities becoming ghettos, of native Norwegian children being bullied for eating pork and having blond hair at school and women threatened in the streets merely for being blond.

Rosenholm in Malmo is so dangerous now due to the ghetto situation that even the cops refuse to go in there without full riot gear.

Last edited by TM on 21 Mar 2012, 11:47 am, edited 1 time in total.

Generally, this is correct, yes. Sometimes they never actually learn English - see the case of Sabir Hussain from Keighley, for instance, who was convicted of brutal assaults on Muslim children during religious lessons in a mosque (he got ten weeks for that). He moved to the UK in the late 1960s yet still - ostensibly - required an interpreter in court.

The justice system is generally not fit for purpose here though, but that's a whole 'nother thread.

Last edited by Tequila on 21 Mar 2012, 11:51 am, edited 2 times in total.

Indeed - many are caught in a kind of no-man's-land.