BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Switchboard >

Democracy, Immigration, Tolerance (in memoriam, Pym Fortuyn)

  
  

Page: (1)2

 
 
Dao Jones
13:57 / 07.05.02
"The biggest problem is integrating people from Islamic agrarian cultures. They don't share with us the core values of modernity and think quite differently about relationships between men and women and individual responsibility."

"Freedom of Speech is very important and their treatment of sexual minorities like gay men and women is a big problem."

London Sunday Times, 5th May 2002.

I don't like his answer, but I think he identified a genuine issue. Can liberal democracy survive in a given state if a significant immigrant minority does not share the notional core values of the state? And if not, what are the legitimate responses for that state?
 
 
Ethan Hawke
14:23 / 07.05.02
According to "social contract" theory, merely by residing in a country you've given tacit consent for it to exert the power of law over you. If someone emigrates to the U.S., they should be aware that the U.S. Constitution embodies values and processes which are (in principle if not always in practice) binding on all who live in the territories of the United States. This is why there are citizenship exams, etc.

This is not to say that anyone who is not a citizen or abjures his or her citizenship is lacking in civil rights. Rather,a baseline human rights-level of decency should apply to that person.

This issue has come up in the U.S. during the trial of Zacharias Mouusaui (sp). Moussaui, a French Citizen of Algrian Descent, wants to be tried according the Sharia (sp, again) and is demanding a Muslim defense attorney. He doesn't belive in the adversariel tradition of justice that the U.S. courts are based on, calling his court-appointed defense attorney a "general" assigned to carry out his (Moussaui's) death sentence. What is to be done in a case like this, if we need to respect immigrant populations core beliefs but also maintain civil society?
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
14:37 / 07.05.02
Well - there are a few problems with that case. Seymour Hersh on the case (a few paragraphs in - according to Hersh, Moussaoui may have a point).
 
 
SMS
14:50 / 07.05.02
The social contract theory is bunk for many, many reasons, one of which is that most people in the world cannot afford to move out of their own country, and some cannot afford to stay. But exams for citizenship are nearer to a social contract.

The answer to the question, I think, is that, if enough people in the country do not share the core values of that country, the core values will change. It does not have to be a result of immigration. It can be a new idea growing up through a new generation of people.

If you want to stop it, a healthy dose of brainwashing (propoganda, "education") for the youth in our country couldn't hurt. That's what they did with us. It's why we care that we might lose these freedoms.
 
 
Ethan Hawke
14:57 / 07.05.02
The social contract theory is bunk for many, many reasons, one of which is that most people in the world cannot afford to move out of their own country, and some cannot afford to stay.

Well, yes, but we're talking about people whodemonstarted the ability (financial or otherwise) to emigrate to one country and so presumably had other options.

(BTW KCC, thanks for the link. I don't want to derail this thread discussing the nuances of that case, however fascinating they might be.)
 
 
Big Furry Bear
15:10 / 07.05.02
I don't want to be funny but why is this an issue?

Is it not likely that any minority (political, cultural, ethnic, religious, style) is likely to have values that are different to the notional core values of the state?

It's very easy to paint Islam like this but do you think that we should be viewing anti-capitalists as a problem because clearly they have a real fundamental opposition to these values.

Ethnic minorities are visibly noticeable and consequently provide an obvious target for those who have some insecurity around their own identity and status in society, but it seems clear to me that this diversity (not just of ethnicity) is central to living in a democracy.
 
 
Ethan Hawke
15:15 / 07.05.02
It's not diversity that's the issue but antagonism. The perceived threat comes from groups that use the freedoms and resources of capitalist democracies in order to undermine the very structure that affords those freedoms and resources, to put it in alarmist terms. So yes, this would include anti-globalization demonstrators, and you'd better believe Right Wing pundits in the US have lumped them into the new "fifth column."
 
 
Dao Jones
18:57 / 07.05.02
Not Me Again in the other thread: Fortuyn seems, especially with hindsight, to have picked up a kind of 'lovable racist' image.

Does he? I haven't yet seen him reported as saying anything which is directly racist by a definition I would accept as relevant: yes, British law has it that any regulation which directly affects a given ethnicity more than another may be racist - and that works well enough as a tool for dealing with institutional racism - but I'm not ready to accept Fortuyn as a racist purely because of his stance on immigration.

His was a curious brand of intolerance - intended, purportedly, to protect tolerance. If he was mistaken in his response, he may have correctly identified a problem which European and other countries will have to face as time goes by. I ask again: if it were accurate to say that arriving immigrants are by and large less tolerant of disparate groups, sexualities, ethnicities and religions in a liberal and notionally free society than those already present, what would be the appropriate response? Even more interesting - what if a nation is in the process of raising its own game to a level of tolerance to which we would wish it to adhere, but to which it does not as yet conform?

Bear:

Is it not likely that any minority (political, cultural, ethnic, religious, style) is likely to have values that are different to the notional core values of the state?

Maybe - in which case, given that the balance favouring tolerance may be already very light, does this not increase rather than decrease the urgency of the issue?

Ethnic minorities are visibly noticeable and consequently provide an obvious target for those who have some insecurity around their own identity and status in society, but it seems clear to me that this diversity (not just of ethnicity) is central to living in a democracy.

As I understand it, Fortuyn would not have disagreed with you. He presented himself as having no plans to deport anyone already in his country; rather, he wanted to assimilate everyone into Holland's melting pot, whilst retaining an ethos of tolerance and diversity.

Would it make it easier if I shifted this to the abstract? Something like What is a legitimate course of action for a tolerant and democratic state in the event of a would-be influx of individuals whose views are at odds with tolerance?
 
 
Not Here Still
19:50 / 07.05.02
Well, I've got a pub to get to Dao (thought you'd get trotted out for this one), so I'm going to be very quick and a touch flippant in my response tonight with a promise of more come, probably between 6-7pm tomorrow:

Islam, at its worst, can be an extremely intolerant religion. It can also be a very tolerant one.
The same can be said of Catholicism and Christianity.
It seems odd how Islam always gets singled out. How many white Muslims do you know?

And: What is a legitimate course of action for a tolerant and democratic state in the event of a would-be influx of individuals whose views are at odds with tolerance?

It should fight them on the beaches and ban it doesn't agree with, of course. Due to the tricky nature of time being of the essence, as you acknolwedge, versus the possibility of individual choice in living one's life, we'll have to do it en-masse I'm afraid, perhaps by religious belief, gender, or the enjoyment of snickering articles about bookshops, but our country will be so much better once we've got rid of "them."

I especially suggest anyone fleeing regimes with poor human rights records, because such countries are obviously intolerant of their populations and their citizens cannot be trusted.

Intolerance must not be tolerated.

For Fuck's Sake.
 
 
grant
20:38 / 07.05.02
Actually, I think one of the great strengths of the US in times past was tolerating all sorts of bizarre, intolerant communities - as long as they were safely out in the territories. Like those Mormons, you know, in the Indian territories. I suppose that was the big advantage of the frontier.
 
 
Rev. Orr
22:02 / 07.05.02
Does seem a bit odd that it's always Islam that gets singled out as being at odds with Western society when as far as I know it's the only major religion to demand obedience to the law of the land it's adherants settle in, unless 'directly' in opposition to it's other teachings. Something that the so-called Christians fire-bombing abortion clinics in the states might want to look into...
 
 
Dao Jones
10:23 / 08.05.02
Not Me Again:

It seems odd how Islam always gets singled out.

It's not odd at all. It's an issue in Western Europe because a large proportion of immigrants at this time are Muslim. If they were Armenian Orthodox Christians or Hindus or Red Hat Buddhists, the same questions would eventually be raised.

And yes, within the various countries of Europe, there are any number of organisations which seek to undermine the ethos of tolerance. That does not automatically mean that having completely open doors to external groups which may also be intolerant will have no detrimental effect - quite the reverse, in fact.

How many white Muslims do you know?

Several. Is it relevant?

I won't bother to quote the rest of your rant. If you're actually interested in this discussion, I will restate the issues for you.

1. I have yet to see anything which convinces me that Pym Fortuyn was intolerant. He was unquestionably opposed to immigration in Holland for the near future. He claimed he saw this as necessary to preserve Holland's internal ethos of tolerance.

2. Accepting that Fortuyn's solution is wrong, what other alternatives are there? Does the tolerant Democratic state have an obligation to accept all those who seek entry, and if so, what happens if such immigrants shift the political balance away from a stance of tolerance?

Of course, if you'd rather sit there on your enormously high horse and refuse to engage in such a messy, practical discussion, I do understand. It's so much easier to hold moral positions if you don't try to make them work in the world.

Orr:

Does seem a bit odd that it's always Islam that gets singled out as being at odds with Western society when as far as I know it's the only major religion to demand obedience to the law of the land its adherants settle in

Islam is a performative faith. You say your prayers when you're supposed to and do your duties according to the law, and you're there. The laws of the land aren't allowed to interfere with the Law as written by the Prophet, which is, after all, directly received from God and thus infallible.

That's rather a large exception, in the case of Islam. It's not just a religion; part of the duty of every Muslim is to see to the welfare of the Ummah, the community of Muslims. It's an intensely social/political faith, which emphasises the duty to get involved.

Tolerance in Islam is governed by reference to the faith. There was a time when personal interpretation of the word of the Prophet (peace be upon him) was an accepted part of the culture, but the 'Gates of Itjihad' are now closed. Interpretation is now the preserve of the religious leaders and lawmakers. In agrarian communities, many of these will never have studied anything except the Koran, and will have become Imams purely by a gradual acclamation. This is not a setup which is ammenable to rapid change in the face of modernity.

Freedom in this context is bounded entirely by reference to the law of the prophet, and the controlling interpretation of how he lived his life - which was closely documented. It's not really negotiable.
 
 
Ethan Hawke
11:53 / 08.05.02
2. Accepting that Fortuyn's solution is wrong, what other alternatives are there? Does the tolerant Democratic state have an obligation to accept all those who seek entry, and if so, what happens if such immigrants shift the political balance away from a stance of tolerance?

"All those who seek entry" is a straw man, as no nation (as far as I know; feel free to correct me) has a completely free and porous immigration policy. Obviously there will always be some undesirables for a democratic nation: criminals, those connected with criminal organizations, etc.

But that's not what you're asking. Yes, aside from the above practical proscriptions, a Democratic state should accept any and all immigrants. However, those who emigrate to a state must realize that they are not automatically entitled to the rights and privileges accorded to citizens of the state they move to. Specifically, the right to vote must be reserved for citizens.

Now, the obvious argument can be made that (in at least the U.S.) citizenship is most often an accident of birth: either you're born in a country or you're not. The children of immigrants born in the U.S. are automatically citizens. If they choose to follow their parents perhaps prejudiced proclivities, well, they have a right to vote by those principles in order to effect political change. I suspect, however, that these prejudices would be diminished in most cases by exposure to the liberal, secular society of the U.S. Not in all cases, but most. This liberalization is, for better or for worse, the cornersstone of and the main affect of modern, industrial, democratic capitalist countries: everyone turns out more or less the same. A happy medium rare.

So, my answer to you is that by the very nature of democratic societies, mechanisms are already in place to deal with such a situation. Opportunists and alarmists may think there is not, but a long history of immigration in the U.S. and subsequent assimilation has proved them wrong.
 
 
Dao Jones
12:29 / 08.05.02
Yes, aside from the above practical proscriptions, a Democratic state should accept any and all immigrants. However, those who emigrate to a state must realize that they are not automatically entitled to the rights and privileges accorded to citizens of the state they move to. Specifically, the right to vote must be reserved for citizens.

An interesting solution, but a rather odd one. It doesn't address the issue of a group altering the tolerance/intolerance composition of a society, only the possible effect that could have on voting. Further, it creates a disenfranchised mass, a subclass, right on the lowest tier of the social setup, where money and resources will be tight anyway, and thus increases tensions and diminishes the likelihood of assimilation and tolerance.

As to the US' successful history of assimilation...well, I'm afraid I regard that as an example which could cut either way.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
12:47 / 08.05.02
This sounds not unlike Germany's system, which recognises immigrants as "guest workers" rather than citizens...
 
 
Ethan Hawke
12:57 / 08.05.02
I'm addressing the state taking action to prevent de jure intolerance/discrimination through the reservation of the right to vote. So, you'd have the state, I don't know, somehow psychically regulate the people in order to prevent de facto intolerance as well? Please unpack.
 
 
Ethan Hawke
12:59 / 08.05.02
RE disenfranchised immigrants - an immigrant residing in the U.S. for (IIRC) seven years can apply for citizenship and thus full enfranchisment. 7 years may be a little long to wait for the right to vote, but I believe the period should be measured in years rather than months or weeks. I don't think automatic enfranchisment is desirable for the integrity of any state.
 
 
Dao Jones
13:25 / 08.05.02
Uh huh. And it's not a huge success over there.

Journal of International Affairs piece on Turkish MFA website

Guardian Article on German hi-tech Gastarbeiter

More on Fortyun:

1: "My policies are multiethnic and certainly not racist," he said. "I want to stop the influx of new immigrants. This way, we can give those who are already here the opportunity to completely integrate into our society."

2: "Fortuyn's popularity has exposed a deep vein of suspicion of immigrants in Europe's most densely populated country, about 2 million of whose 16 million people are not native Dutch. About 800,000 are Muslims, predominantly Moroccans and Turks."

3: "In Holland, homosexuality is treated the same way as heterosexuality," he recently told Britain's Observer newspaper. "In what Islamic country does that happen?"

Understand, I'm not a Fortuyn fan. But just as I won't be told it's unthinkable to discuss why September 11th happened, so I won't be told these questions are unaskable.
 
 
Not Here Still
18:39 / 08.05.02
[climbing off horse, apparently with ladder]

Apologies if you found my last post a rant, Dao; it was one, of course, which is why I said I was being a touch flippant. I guess I was just shocked to see a thread "in memoriam" to a far right leader on Barbelith.

But just because you receive answers which are, perhaps, a little robust, don't start announcing 'just as I won't be told it's unthinkable to discuss why September 11th happened, so I won't be told these questions are unaskable....

No-one told you not to ask these questions; no-one is avoiding discussing them, as far as I can see. I'll give you your dummy back now, if you don't mind....

Pim Fortuyn features a lot on this blog. You may want to look at it. It's pro-Pim, and takes the stance that he wasn't racist and is being smeared.

However, he also pops up on anti-Fascist Action pages too...

The racism allegations: I guess my real problem with Fortuyn, and those like him, is exactly what you're accusing me of - not wanting to engage with a real, and very messy issue.

Populist policies such as his seek to address the concerns people have over immigration, integration, assimilation and national identity in the easiest possible way.

They point to easy solutions, such as banning Muslims, which also just hapen to tap into an underlying racism in the country. These solutions are South Park politics - the "I can't believe he said that!" factor winning over as many people as the belief in what is actually being said.

If Pim Fortuyn was not racist, as you suggest, then he was certainly playing with fire over the immigration issue.

As the Anti-Fascist Action site notes:

Although Fortuyn is clearly different from fascists like Haider in Austria and Dewinter in Belgium, he uses the same populist tactics and campaign themes as the Freedom Party and the Vlaams Blok. At the same time, he is not carrying any nazi baggage and rejects the recruitment of fascists into his party.

Nevertheless, his rabid anti-foreigner rhetoric and his hysterical Islamophobia make him an undoubted magnet for right-wing extremists and racist voters. People, it seems, like Fortuyn because he does not care about the post-war taboos of Dutch politics and challenges those in power.

Yes, there are debatable issues about intolerance and immigration, but they are raised in a rather explosive manner by people like Pim; and it's not so much that questions about immigration are being asked, but the way in which they are being asked which worries me.

Anyway,

Accepting that Fortuyn's solution is wrong, what other alternatives are there? Does the tolerant Democratic state have an obligation to accept all those who seek entry, and if so, what happens if such immigrants shift the political balance away from a stance of tolerance?

As Dilletantism has pointed out, 'all those that seek entry' is slightly skewed; certain people will be excluded from such a definition

Those who seek entry will also, unless I don't follow the legal system too well, be subject to the democratic country's laws as regards intolerance - and it doesn't matter whether you agree with laws or not in most legal systems, I find, just whether you break them or not.

But really, you aren't suggesting this; you seem to be suggesting there is a danger of us nice, normal democratic countries being swamped by intolerant immigrants. It's quite a big if, that one, Dao, and I'm not sure that the world you see where this is happening is the world I see.

The greatest number of problems which I've seen as regards intolerance are not with the immigrant community but rather with the host community.

And you can call me a naive hippy if you want, but the greatest hope we can have for integration to work is to not treat people as fearsome others, intolerant invaders, barbarians and so on. It's to treat them with respect and to welcome them - for who would want to become part of a society when they are spat at in the street?

[Oh, and unless I'm wrong I think you may have misunderstood my point about Catholicism and Christianity. You were talking about the fact such religions were already part of Western European countries, so we shouldn't add another intolerant layer; I was pointing out that Catholic and Christian immigrants weren't being banned. And the Muslim question was rhetorical, although I was expecting an answer similar to the one I received...]
 
 
Dao Jones
11:39 / 09.05.02
I guess I was just shocked to see a thread "in memoriam" to a far right leader on Barbelith.

Yet a similar thread dedicated to a far left leader would have no such impact. Why? Stalin was at least as terrible a monster as Hitler. Stripped of racism and reactionary notions of nuclear family etc. - which is how Fortuyn saught to portray himself - the right is simply another politico-economic framework. Fortuyn may have represented a chance for the right to shed its baggage and enter politics as a force we might not agree with in practical terms, but wouldn't think of as evil. That could benefit everyone - a multi-party system is supposed to be about options, but a brief glance at this thread and the related one shows just how much option people feel they have. Without a real opposition, the centre left turns into a farce.

They point to easy solutions, such as banning Muslims

That's inaccurate. Fortuyn wanted to stop immigration all together, but he repeatedly stressed he had no desire to 'send them back'. He claimed to want to assimilate those already in the country. It's easy to find fault, okay? I'm not touting this guy as the new messiah. But don't string him up for what he didn't say. Yes, Fortuyn distrusted Islam particularly, but no, he's not mistaken about Islam's dislike of homosexuality, and so a little antagonism is to be expected. Is Islam a 'backward culture'? No. Is it 'backward looking'? Arguably - it looks back to the Prophet (blessings be upon him) in all things, and new interpretations of Sharia and Koran are not generally the province of the individual, but rather of the Imams. On the other hand, Islam gave the world its first known written consitution, and originally was associated with considerable freedom for women; it codified scientific method and scholarship rather earlier than Europe, and was then decimated by the Crusades. But "is the culture of many modern Islamic nations intolerant of sexual equality and alternate sexualities?" Unquestionably.

Now, in the meantime, I've tracked down a couple of comments from Fortuyn which makes me think that, if not actively racist, he was at least comfortable with statements which brush right up against it. He suggested that Moroccans rarely rob other Moroccans, prefering to prey on 'native Dutch'. I don't have crime figures, but it seems unlikely, or at least, it seems more likely that the reason for this, if true, is that native Dutch are liable to be richer than recent arrivals. I suppose it is possible that Moroccan kids (to whom he refered), feeling excluded by mainstream Dutch life, would honour each other's property more than that of non-Moroccans. But if that were the case, it would be dangerous and damaging to address the issue as Fortuyn did. On the other hand, it strengthens the case for needing to assimilate disparate populations.

Those who seek entry will also, unless I don't follow the legal system too well, be subject to the democratic country's laws as regards intolerance - and it doesn't matter whether you agree with laws or not in most legal systems, I find, just whether you break them or not.

Issues of intolerance are notoriously hard to prosecute at a grass roots level - hence our difficulties with the BNP here. We're not talking, I think, about prosecutable offenses, so much as an ethos of intolerance - "God says" and "It's wrong" etc. These are things beyond the reach of the law, yet which have a strong effect on an overall society.

you seem to be suggesting there is a danger of us nice, normal democratic countries being swamped by intolerant immigrants.

That is close to being extremely offensive.

Are you suggesting, then, that Morocco and Algeria are models of gender and sexual enlightenment? Will you tell me there is no issue here? You polarise this in such a way as to suggest that I'm touting the Northwestern European countries as models of social perfection, and dismissing Morthern Africa and the Islamic states as barbaric.

The greatest number of problems which I've seen as regards intolerance are not with the immigrant community but rather with the host community.

I don't think it's all that surprising that the 'host community' should be a bit perplexed, do you? Our countries admit immigrants who often speak little or none of the language of the country they enter, come from cultures where appropriate religious, political, social, sexual, and gender behaviours are totally different, and who have no money. We shunt them directly to areas of our own country which are already depressed, where jobs are scarce and schools overcrowded, sometimes violent, and we just expect everyone to get along. When David Blunkett suggested that some schools were in danger of being 'swamped', we leaped on him as a racist. But why? If a school is being asked to cope with even a small number of students who don't speak English, or who haven't received the education kids of equivalent age have, it puts them under massive organisational stress. Add to that possible cultural clashes regarding dress and conduct, and it's a nightmare. But we're not allowed to say so, apparently, because our good middle class conscience asserts that everyone is just like us only foreign, and given a few months and some tea it'll all be fine.

What utter nonense.

the greatest hope we can have for integration to work is to not treat people as fearsome others, intolerant invaders, barbarians and so on. It's to treat them with respect and to welcome them - for who would want to become part of a society when they are spat at in the street?

Who said anything about treating people as invaders? Not me. Not even poor, dead Pym Fortuyn. You keep trying to make this easy by sliding what is admittedly an awkward and contentious debate into recognisable racist and intolerant shapes. Does it do anyone any good to brush difference under the carpet? Does it help to ignore cultural mismatches? No.

I was pointing out that Catholic and Christian immigrants weren't being banned. And the Muslim question was rhetorical, although I was expecting an answer similar to the one I received...

As far as I know, Fortuyn wanted to stop all immigration. If he was specifying Muslims, that alters the face of the debate. And when you say you were expecting an answer like that, do you mean that it confirms your worst fears about my obvious racism, or that you take the point?
 
 
Cat Chant
16:10 / 09.05.02
a significant immigrant minority

I want to reply to this at some length later, but very hurriedly, this phrase is probably where I start having problems, since it only makes sense if you take "muslims" and "immigrants" as synonymous (and also very quickly slips into taking "muslim", "uncivilized", and "brown-skinned" as synonymous, hence its value to racists who don't want to come out & say they're racist. See Paul Gilroy's last couple of books on the way that cultural incompatibility is the new racist discourse of choice, now that it's become beyond-the-pale to use biological/scientific racism.)

At what point do British Muslims stop being immigrants? Why do you say "a nation's core values" when you mean "the core values of some part of that nation's population" - and, I would suggest, most likely the core values of that nation's elite class.

What if I decide to have fifteen children & bring them up to be homophobic and sexist? Should the state intervene in that case of the creation of new citizens? Why not? Does a biological connection to an incomer to a country automatically give that person full citizen rights? Why?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
16:36 / 09.05.02
As far as I know, Fortuyn wanted to stop all immigration. If he was specifying Muslims, that alters the face of the debate. And when you say you were expecting an answer like that, do you mean that it confirms your worst fears about my obvious racism, or that you take the point?

Not wishing to sully a perfectly good Daosing, but I believe Fortuyn wanted to reduce immigration yearly to about 25% of its current level, and impose a complete ban on Muslim immigration. So, that's the face of the debate altered, then.
 
 
Disco is My Class War
01:58 / 10.05.02
Thanks to Deva for articulating precisely the problems I have with this thread. It seems bizarre to me that immigration is singled out as the 'problem' preventing people in a nation-state from sharing values and getting along, when so obviously the state's 'values' are never shared by its 'native' population in any state I can think of. The 'stop immigration' line also seems incoherent given that, for instance, the USA's 'shared values' would presumably have to come from its original owners/inhabitants. I don't see anyone claiming that immigrants to the USA should take on Native American cultural values, do you?

I think I'd like to quote a huge chunk of Ghassan Hage here, but instead I'll try to pick a few key points to focus on. One is that this issue is not just about 'racism' per se, but rather nationalism. What is at stake is who seems to have the power to manage the nation -- that's the nation's 'core values', obviously, but also who gets to come in and who gets to stay out. When people like Pim Fortuyn talk about the threat of ghettoisation, they are playing directly into a situation where the people they address -- white elites or more accurately those who aspire to be elites, as they are told to -- feel threatened in their power to manage the nation. This is obviously a fantasy, as most of us have little power to manage the nation. Corporate-funded governments do that for us, and in the absence of any proper political autonomy, the social fabric is collapsing. As long as that fantasy of immigration control continues, people who are already disenfranchised will not hold the government or the nation-state to account. Instead they can blame migrants taking 'our' jobs, Muslims who are 'intolerant' and 'barbaric'.

The second concept I'd like to see crash and burn in this thread is 'tolerance'. What's tolerance? Who has the power to be tolerant? The whole concept of 'tolerance' rests on the assumption that some people have the power to 'nation-manage' and some don't: some people can be tolerant of 'others'. Who gets to be tolerant in Britain? Your white middle-class elites, or those aspiring to be elites. Tolerance can only be 'given' in situations where the people being 'tolerated' do what the tolerators want them to do -- ie, where an unequal power relationship exists. If the people one might like to extend tolerance towards do not 'share Western values', wear the right clothing, give up their 'out-dated' customs and say thankyou for our lovely Western hospitality in good English, one does not feel tolerant, does one? The power distribution is not just social, either -- let's be honest, immigrants to most English-speaking or European countries simply do not have the same 'human rights' as people born there. They are often paid less for the work they do, without the protection of unions or award wages; they are shunted off to housing estates where the quality of life is so bad that of course everyone is unhappy and angry. What do you expect? But the state can get away with that as long as the 'populace' -- those who have the most social power, the majority, whatever -- feel threatened by immigrants, and feel that border controls or immigration controls are an adequate solution for the breakdown of the social fabric.

And yeah, hello, I haven't even addressed all the fucked-up stereotypes about Muslim 'values' contained in this thread yet. I don't think I can be bothered just now. And hey, this is a rant, and I categorically do not apologise for making it. You should all thank Dao and Dilettantism for writing such screwy, white liberal arguments that I was catalysed out of fluey Barbelurk mode to post this.
 
 
Cat Chant
08:22 / 10.05.02
A few more points, Dao, and I promise that at some point I will write an essay-length response to this, but the next week or so is pretty messy for me. However, I suspect this thread is going to run and run, so there'll be time.

In the meantime:

he wanted to assimilate everyone into Holland's melting pot, whilst retaining an ethos of tolerance and diversity.

No (well, only if you italicize the "assmiliation", which is a scary-ass word): as you say later,

, we can give those who are already here the opportunity to completely integrate into our society."

Again, what is "our" society? Not the culture of the "immigrants who are already here" (or, as I would call them in my crazy leftist way, Dutch Muslims). This debate assumes that difference can only be tolerated if the Other is the same as 'us', or willing to become the same as 'us' (where the term 'us' covers over a highly contentious linkage of geographical territory, biological inheritance, race, 'core values of modernity', and class).

2. the 'Gates of Itjihad' are now closed.
That's a pretty huge and monolithic statement to make about the world's population of Muslims, you know. I mean, I'm glad you're sharing your knowledge about Islam with us, but I find it makes me very much inclined to distrust you when you start saying "This and only this is what Islam dictates for all Muslims, who therefore all think and act in the same way".

3. if you'd rather sit there on your enormously high horse and refuse to engage in such a messy, practical discussion, I do understand. It's so much easier to hold moral positions if you don't try to make them work in the world.

And it's so much easier to spout racist claptrap if one uses terms like "us" and "core values of modernity" rather than "white people" and "the standards of the elite class in the West", as Pim Fortuyn, for one, worked out.

You say 'sit there on your enormously high horse', I say "attempt to point out some of the logical-political incoherencies in your argument and shift the terms on which this whole debate is being had." Potato, potato.

If the argument is about who is allowed to be a citizen of a nation, why should we take it for granted that we know what a "nation" is, or that the way to approach the debate is in terms of immigration rather than breeding, education, the reallocation of resources within a nation, etc?

And call me a crazy dreamer, but I like to think one can actually act morally in the world. "Holding moral positions" and holding positions that "work in the world" don't necessarily have to be mutually exclusive.
 
 
Dao Jones
12:53 / 10.05.02
Deva: I don't agree that you have to take 'muslim' and 'immigrant' to be synonymous for the phrase to make sense, but I accept immediately that the term 'immigrant' is inexact and contains a whole bundle of fuzzy - and likely negative - assumptions. More in a mo'.

Everyone, before we get into this, can I remind you that I'm not a big fan of Fortuyn - actually, the more I learn about him, the less I like him - and I don't want to get into a situation where I'm defending anti-immigration policies, because that's not where I stand. There have been plenty of occasions where I was willing to be a bete noir (no pun intended) to make a case, but this isn't one of them.

Haus: yeah, so I gather. At which point, as far as I'm concerned, the balance tips and he slides gracelessly into the racist arena. The question then becomes, I suppose, is there anything to be gleaned from the debate - especially now that he's dead? And will the Fortuyn List be better or worse for his demise - it's a multi-ethnic party, at least on the surface (though I imagine it's low on Muslims).

Disco:

The 'stop immigration' line also seems incoherent given that, for instance, the USA's 'shared values' would presumably have to come from its original owners/ inhabitants. I don't see anyone claiming that immigrants to the USA should take on Native American cultural values, do you?

I wish people would stop pointing at the US as the great example of cultural assimilation and multi-ethnic integration. It's farcical. The race issue in the States is coming to the boil, not settling down. And there's no suggestion that these 'national values' are original to the inhabitants, just that they are the ones currently governing national social policy, and, more importantly from my angle, they're the ones I want to see - ethnic, gender, sexual tolerance etc.

What is at stake is who seems to have the power to manage the nation -- that's the nation's 'core values', obviously, but also who gets to come in and who gets to stay out.

I think that's very accurate, yes. It's chimerical, of course, because defining the identity of a nation is never easy without rather ludicrous generalisations. And yet...can it really not be done?

Corporate-funded governments do that for us, and in the absence of any proper political autonomy, the social fabric is collapsing. As long as that fantasy of immigration control continues, people who are already disenfranchised will not hold the government or the nation-state to account. Instead they can blame migrants taking 'our' jobs, Muslims who are 'intolerant' and 'barbaric'.

Interesting link between corporate influence and social collapse...can we a new thread, please? Anyone interested?

I think the last section here is weak, however. Yes, immigration is an issue used to distract from internal issues of disenfranchisement, and I've raised that somewhat here myself, I think. But is tolerance an major issue amongst the disenfranchised? Doubtful.

Oh...you've just said a bunch of stuff I was about to. Well, at least this post will be shorter...

As to my 'screwy' stereotypes of Islam, if you know more, perhaps you'd be prepared to address them. I'm working from a couple of books and a few Muslim friends; it's hardly a masterclass. Freely admitted.

Back to Deva:

Gates of Itjihad: This is the only reference I could find in a hurry. Half way down the page:

"The multiple interpretations of the Koran and the Hadith finally formalized into four orthodox schools by 10th century A.D. when the gates of itjihad (individual interpretation of the Koran and the Hadith) closed shut. No further extensions of the Law are now permitted."

If the argument is about who is allowed to be a citizen of a nation, why should we take it for granted that we know what a "nation" is, or that the way to approach the debate is in terms of immigration rather than breeding, education, the reallocation of resources within a nation, etc?

I don't think we should. I'm deeply suspicious of discussions regarding the nation-state, and I'd love to get some discussion of corporate influence in here, because I think it may be very relevant. And quite simply, issues of immigration depend on refusing to address transnational (often but not always corporate/economic) responsibility for the creation of a global poor etc.

But at the same time, I'm arrogant enough to believe that my tenets of tolerance, middle class and contingent though they unquestionably are, are right. And the forest of conflicting moral imperatives is sufficiently overgrown that I felt this discussion was worth having - knowing, going in, that once again I was going to get handed my head.

And call me a crazy dreamer, but I like to think one can actually act morally in the world. "Holding moral positions" and holding positions that "work in the world" don't necessarily have to be mutually exclusive.

Deva...why do you think I'm here? I don't think that's crazy. I'd be horrified if you said anything else.
 
 
Cat Chant
13:55 / 10.05.02
Okay, Dao, I shall go and hone my essay-type thing, and attempt to avoid the pissy tone of my previous posts.
 
 
cusm
14:39 / 10.05.02
To rewind away from Fortuyn a bit:

What is a legitimate course of action for a tolerant and democratic state in the event of a would-be influx of individuals whose views are at odds with tolerance?

The laws of a nation are to protect and serve the public. There is a line between what is public and what is private. Though that line is continually fought over, the ideal is that what one does within their own home is their owen business, and not a concern of public law. Example, Buggery laws in some states that are slowly getting dug up and repealed.

If one practices a religion that is intolerant, that is fine. They can be intolerant in their own home and among their people all they want. They just can't be intolerant where it affects the public. If they are, the laws of the land have right to police them. If one's religion prohibits women from working but one works in Human Resources for a public corporation, one is expected to hire fairly despite persional predjudices because one is in a public sector.

The solution for finding a home for intolerance is to move it to the private sector. If an immigrating people have different views than the native populous, they can create their own communities and services tailored to their needs. What goes on within one's church is protected by rights to religious expression. As a benign example, laws against public nudity. There are many planned communities which are allowed to ignore these laws within the confines of their community. Why? Because its not public property anymore, its private. The same can be applied elsewhere. If your religion lets you beat your wife, and your wife is of that religion, then you can beat your wife within your home. Though if she ever gets tired of it and even says boo to the police, the law of the land can be enforced. That does make for a nice balance to maintaining intolerant traditions, doesn't it?

As another example of an immigrant community that doesn't join the melting pot, Jews. There are some sects of Judiasm which remain quite traditional, such as the Hassedic. There are laws about what to wear, what to eat, who to talk to, etc. They have a quite restrictive and isolationist culture that lives within the culture of the nation in which they live. But the difference, I can walk into Squirrell Hill (the Jewish district of Pittsburgh) and eat a nice juicy BLT on a bench in front of a Synagog, and noone will say boo about it. They don't try to force their views on the native populous. By contrast, they don't even want people to take to their ways! The problem is in trying to enforce your intolerances onto the native peoples. You can practice all you want in your own home and community, and the law will allow you all the room you need for this, even to the point of a walled private community with its own economy. There are ways to do it all. The pressure however, is on the immigrants to accomidate the public, not on the public to accomidate the immigrants.

So how does a tolerant state deal wiht intolerant immigrants? It lets them do their thing, so long as they don't take it public. It gives them all the room they need to create their communities within their country, and freedom to treat eachother as they agree to. Though should they go beyond their bounds to try to enforce their ideas on people not a part of their culture, the law of the land will come down on them as hard as it has to to keep the peace and protect its public, until such time as this minority is no longer a minority and has the sway to make change to these laws and become a part of the public.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
14:58 / 10.05.02

If one practices a religion that is intolerant, that is fine. They can be intolerant in their own home and among their people all they want. They just can't be intolerant where it affects the public.

Um....but what if they *are* the public?
 
 
cusm
15:29 / 10.05.02
If they are the public, they are protected by the laws of their nation to do these things. Are you suggesting a case where the majority is intolerant, and a minority is seeking revolution?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
15:47 / 10.05.02
I'm suggesting that "the public" might reasonably be said to include all the citizens of a nation, or inhabitants of a nation, and as such that the idea of an intolerant minority "not affecting the public" is predicated on the understanding that people with different cultures to the hypothetical default are not members of a society. It's ghettoisation.

For example, British citizens are being genitally mutilated against their will. They go to the police. According to your model, would the police be compelled to do other than apologetically explain that as long as the mutilations are done in private they have no interest in preventing them?
 
 
cusm
15:53 / 10.05.02
No, because as soon as they go to the police, they leave their private confines and bring the matter public. Once public, its dealt with as the majority wishes. Were it kept private, were genetic mutilations being preformed on willing and consentual adults, it wouldn't matter. But when one objects to his local culture and seeks the protection of the majority culture, that minority had better respect that and let him go or face punishment in the courts of the majority. If you cross that line by enforcing local customs on one who does not wish to be a part of it, its a public matter and dealt with accordingly.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
21:19 / 10.05.02
"Genital" mutilation. Not "genetic". You know, because the Federation outlawed independent genetic experimentation.

So, if a particular group living in your country sacrificed its firstborn, or encouraged parent-child sex, or performed other acts that would be met with a stiff custodial sentence if practised by other citizens,you would feel that there was no intrinsic contradiction between the law of the land being upheld and these practises being allowed to continue as long as they kept themselves to themselves.

Incidentally, in this society would these minority cultures be obliged to live away form the public? In encampments, or reservations, or would they be allowed to mingle with the "majority" (that big, homogenous majority we antipose so readily to, say "immigrants")?
 
 
cusm
22:17 / 10.05.02
Sorry, playing too much Alpha Centauri

Good points you bring up, Haus. However, the one unifying theme is that the targets still are not willingly consentual to the actions. As children, you can deal with that one of two ways: Property of the parents to do with as they please until adulthood, or as a citizen protected with all due rights. I think most reasonable people will favor the later, which means such practices fall under the protection of national laws as children can not wilfully make the decision to be mutilated as an adult can. Tricky. That's one place an exception is necessary, and might cause a raid on their compound. It seems there are some base standards of decency that will be upheld regardless of how democratic you are.

As for mingling, they would be free to live wherever they pleased. The only reason they might need private encampments is if their needs were such to prevent them from walking in public, such as for example a religious oath of constant nudity. If their culture is so restrictive as to prevent them from mingling in public at all due to contact with the "infidel" or what have you, it would be up to them to build their own compound, not the government. If you are free to live any way you choose, it must also be your responsibility to provide for that lifestyle should it run contrary to the norm. The government only provides the norm. Anything else, you have to set up yourself. That's the tradeoff.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
10:34 / 11.05.02
Ah, so you respect their culture unless their culture is forcing their children to live in a way not like the way the majority's children live. Is anyone else seeing a potential point of dispute here?
 
 
Sharkgrin
10:54 / 12.05.02

Up from the depths.
First off, if the US Government can't prove Zacarias Moussaoui did a specific criminal act and not just imitate proven suicidal terrorisyts, pls. let the guy go.
Buit, I must have missed something.
Zacarias Moussaoui and any expatriot of whatever faith-based nation could have long ago appealled to change US legal statutes and and criminal codes to resemble the Sharia, the Koran, or even 'the Archie and His Friends' BY PLANNED LOBBYING AND POLOTICAL APPEAL, LIKE ALL THE RIGHT WING NUT FARMS IN THE US.
But I guess it's easier to live the the US for a while with full knowlwege of it's laws, then follow the foot steps of successful mass murderers, and then cry "Look, I'm being persecuted! Religous intolernce!
 
  

Page: (1)2

 
  
Add Your Reply