Multiculturalism, Europe and Islam - what are the options now?

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
#1
There's a cogent argument to be made that, in addition to demographic drivers and local political advantage, multi-culturalism and immigration have been endorsed at the highest levels in Europe as a way of breaking down the strength of identity of nation states in order to encourage the continent's populace to embrace a wider primary identification as European.

As a perverse effect, we now have imported a significant minority which identifies itself in religious terms, which cannot be broken down in the same way and which is proving highly resistant to integrating with indigenous communities.

There was an excellent article posted by Graculus on page 68 of the Paris shooting thread:

What ISIS Really Wants

which I thoroughly recommend as one of the best articles I've read on anything recently. It points out that, however repugnant the actions it inspires, ISIS ideology is orthodox and that, unless we understand that, we cannot understand its appeal and, by extension, how to oppose it. The Koran provides a doctrinal straight jacket akin to concept of the Infallibility of the Pope but even harder to renounce because of the associated doctrine of the perfection of the book. Essentially, the doctrinal reforms which eventually took the murderous steam out of Christianity are not available to Islam.

If this article is right, two things seem to flow from it. Firstly, actively embracing western culture and conforming to Islamic values may actually be mutually exclusive, in which case we are condemned at best to an uneasy truce and the creation of parallel societies. Secondly, that events like the Paris massacres can be justified in the context of Islamic orthodoxy may create a situation whereby an individual can be personally appalled by an act whilst accepting that it has legitimacy in the context of their faith - intellectually and emotionally a very difficult place to be, though it possibly explains why some of the condemnations after these events are not necessarily as unequivocal or supported by decisive action as perhaps we might wish.

There are no moral or civilised mechanisms for reversing immigration, therefore how do we make real progress with integrating Islamic minorities for whom such integration may actually be anathema, what are the implications for Europe's governing elites if they have to concede the failure or even limits of multicuturalism and will they be prepared even to consider developing policy on that assumption if doing so threatens their objective of an ever closer Europe?
 
#2
Well, I'm all for the 'Little Englander' approach. Leave the EU and close our borders. Deport /Imprison the rabid fanatics and see where we go from there.
 
#3
You back Assad, you revive the Baath party in Iraq, ditto Libya. You put the dictators on the payroll, turn a blind eye to what goes on. You engage with Iran. You make it perfectly clear behind the scenes that you will remove them if they don't keep the lid on the worm can. You tell them you need the strong and the ruthless in charge, but they are not to exceed their borders. In return, we will keep our noses out.
They enjoy power, we enjoy peace, Jihadists enjoy martyrdom. Win win.
Oh, we establish an immigrant quota and ensure that EU and CANZ applicants ( ie those with most cultural similarities get in ).
 
#4
There's a cogent argument to be made that, in addition to demographic drivers and local political advantage, multi-culturalism and immigration have been endorsed at the highest levels in Europe as a way of breaking down the strength of identity of nation states in order to encourage the continent's populace to embrace a wider primary identification as European.

As a perverse effect, we now have imported a significant minority which identifies itself in religious terms, which cannot be broken down in the same way and which is proving highly resistant to integrating with indigenous communities.

There was an excellent article posted by Graculus on page 68 of the Paris shooting thread:

What ISIS Really Wants

which I thoroughly recommend as one of the best articles I've read on anything recently. It points out that, however repugnant the actions it inspires, ISIS ideology is orthodox and that, unless we understand that, we cannot understand its appeal and, by extension, how to oppose it. The Koran provides a doctrinal straight jacket akin to concept of the Infallibility of the Pope but even harder to renounce because of the associated doctrine of the perfection of the book. Essentially, the doctrinal reforms which eventually took the murderous steam out of Christianity are not available to Islam.

If this article is right, two things seem to flow from it. Firstly, actively embracing western culture and conforming to Islamic values may actually be mutually exclusive, in which case we are condemned at best to an uneasy truce and the creation of parallel societies. Secondly, that events like the Paris massacres can be justified in the context of Islamic orthodoxy may create a situation whereby an individual can be personally appalled by an act whilst accepting that it has legitimacy in the context of their faith - intellectually and emotionally a very difficult place to be, though it possibly explains why some of the condemnations after these events are not necessarily as unequivocal or supported by decisive action as perhaps we might wish.

There are no moral or civilised mechanisms for reversing immigration, therefore how do we make real progress with integrating Islamic minorities for whom such integration may actually be anathema, what are the implications for Europe's governing elites if they have to concede the failure or even limits of multicuturalism and will they be prepared even to consider developing policy on that assumption if doing so threatens their objective of an ever closer Europe?
Maybe a type of apartheid where there are Christian countries, and other countries where there are Muslims.
 
#6
It is high time that this multiculturalism thing is put to bed. It was never a good idea and the traitor and fool Blair should have known better (he probably did, but was just interested in votes).

We should reverse multiculturalism some how am not sure, but a good start would be to deport the undesirable types who have come to the UK and start clamping down on illegals in a big way.

We need to get out of the EU and and EU law and Human Rights agreements as these have cause more trouble then they are worth.

We need to limit refugees that come into the country to staying on a temporary basis and not a permanent basis. When the troubles are over in their country, they go back.

We need to cut down and limit immigration (altogether if I had my way), so that only those that can speak english and meet certain other strict criteria can come to stay in the UK. They should also understand that should they or a relative commit a crime than they and their family will be deported back to their home country. Not allow people to stay or give citizenship to people like the kid who shot and killed the headmaster but was housed and given money on his release and then he was arrested again for violence.

Possibly hard line, but we as a nation need to protect, feed, employ and house the indigenous British people, not those of other nations.
 
#7
Road traffic deaths are the price you pay for mass transportation; 'ghettoisation', radicalisation and subsequent terrorism seems to be the price you pay for unfettered Islamic immigration and multiculturalism.
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
#8
Well, I'm all for the 'Little Englander' approach. Leave the EU and close our borders. Deport /Imprison the rabid fanatics and see where we go from there.
But the 'rabid fanatics' are only a small part of the wider picture - albeit a noisy and murderous element. The real challenge is the number of people who want to be in the UK rather than of it. I don't believe that people who come here should have the option to be so detached therefore the question is what can be done about it.
 
#9
Unfortunately, the only way I can see to change anything is to start to become as hardline as the fanatics. You cannot negotiate with IS, you cannot reason with IS.
I have said before that what needs to happen is for moderate Muslims (ie the vast majority) to turn against radicalism. However as has been said, that is difficult for them because the Koran does not leave much room for manoeuvre. It took centuries for Christianity to settle down and even now we have violent clashes around the world. By the time Islam settles into some form of multi faith religion, the world could be beyond repair!
In the mean time we have to stop worrying who is getting offended all the time. If a few moderates get their noses put out of joint for the benefit of the rest of us, so be it.
 
#10
Before anyone runs away with the idea that a "whites only" policy should exist, there's plenty of western orientated Asians from places like Singapore etc who could fit right in.
 
#12
Islam is not compatible with living in Britain
Outlaw Halal (and Kosher for that matter) and ban hardline religious eduction

Legislate to allow the withdrawal of passports, go to Syria to fight for Isis, don't come back. Ever.
 
#13
I've got no answers but the presence of white convert extremists is a good indicator that focusing on multiculturalism and Muslim communities is to ask the wrong questions. I believe the solution will be found in rejecting extremism in all forms and confronting more aggressively the conditions and behaviours which help it survive and thrive.
 
Last edited:

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
#14
Unfortunately, the only way I can see to change anything is to start to become as hardline as the fanatics. You cannot negotiate with IS, you cannot reason with IS.
I have said before that what needs to happen is for moderate Muslims (ie the vast majority) to turn against radicalism. However as has been said, that is difficult for them because the Koran does not leave much room for manoeuvre. It took centuries for Christianity to settle down and even now we have violent clashes around the world. By the time Islam settles into some form of multi faith religion, the world could be beyond repair!
In the mean time we have to stop worrying who is getting offended all the time. If a few moderates get their noses put out of joint for the benefit of the rest of us, so be it.
Indeed, but let's explore two scenarios I've encountered in the last six months.

1. My daughter's school takes the kids to a range of different religious institutions during their time at the school. These visits are optional but those who opt out are exclusively Moslem. My inclination is to remove the right to opt out but what are the implications and would that be acceptable?

2. At 'Year' events, there is one mum who, without fail, takes the time, trouble and expense to produce the most superb curries and then leaves - she cannot be persuaded to stay and participate, she only returns to collect the bowls. It's entirely cultural and I suspect that she's pushing it even to provide the support she does, though she is unfailing and uncomplaining. How do we break down that barrier?

In my view, to make progress, we need to find the answers to both.
 
#15
Whatever answer you get has to address the fact that society isnt keen on integration, regardless of your background. Just look at how london is esssentially devolving into a series of very homogenous ethnic groups and areas.

Add to this a problem of low opportunity for maby of those radicalised and no way out of their plight - because low social mobility, coupled with high house prices and a desire to keep close to that which you know means many communities are condemned to never escaping a spiral of poverty, low skills work and a group of people who often spout dangerously attracive poison as to who to blame for your plight.

I really worry for the future of this country as one day we're going to ovverreact and it will be horribke to watch.
 
#16
Whatever answer you get has to address the fact that society isnt keen on integration, regardless of your background. Just look at how london is esssentially devolving into a series of very homogenous ethnic groups and areas.

Add to this a problem of low opportunity for maby of those radicalised and no way out of their plight - because low social mobility, coupled with high house prices and a desire to keep close to that which you know means many communities are condemned to never escaping a spiral of poverty, low skills work and a group of people who often spout dangerously attracive poison as to who to blame for your plight.

I really worry for the future of this country as one day we're going to ovverreact and it will be horribke to watch.
Wee may over react, but it will be too late by then.
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
#17
Whatever answer you get has to address the fact that society isnt keen on integration, regardless of your background. Just look at how london is esssentially devolving into a series of very homogenous ethnic groups and areas.

Add to this a problem of low opportunity for maby of those radicalised and no way out of their plight - because low social mobility, coupled with high house prices and a desire to keep close to that which you know means many communities are condemned to never escaping a spiral of poverty, low skills work and a group of people who often spout dangerously attracive poison as to who to blame for your plight.

I really worry for the future of this country as one day we're going to ovverreact and it will be horribke to watch.
Which then lends itself to the question of how do you create a society where the very fact of existence makes integration unavoidable - which further suggests that whatever people are integrating with needs to be clearly defined and culturally confident - something Western elites have generally drawn back from for some considerable time.
 
#18
You back Assad, you revive the Baath party in Iraq, ditto Libya. You put the dictators on the payroll, turn a blind eye to what goes on. You engage with Iran. You make it perfectly clear behind the scenes that you will remove them if they don't keep the lid on the worm can. You tell them you need the strong and the ruthless in charge, but they are not to exceed their borders. In return, we will keep our noses out.
.
Good post and along the lines of my own thinking - the Middle East needs nasty buggers in charge and we should have accepted that, without trying to impose our alien concept of Western democracy and women's rights on essentially tribal communities who will never get their heads around that concept. As long as they install their own way of life on their population, within their own borders, quite frankly it's got fcuk all to do with us.
The bit highlighted is where your suggestion will fail - our vain, egotistical politicians will see to that.
 
#19
I think integration in the UK is several levels highig than it is in France. It's not perfect but the quantity of mixed race marriages are far higher than anywhere else in the EU. Either way, integration doesn't mean anything to convert extremists.
 
#20
Whatever answer you get has to address the fact that society isnt keen on integration, regardless of your background. Just look at how london is esssentially devolving into a series of very homogenous ethnic groups and areas.
You say that but as a well travelled chap I've seen other cities and countries where multi-culturalism seems to work and people predominantly co-exist.

The idea isn't bad, it's the application. The formation of ghetto's is undesirable and should in no way be encouraged even though some groups seem to manage it without too many issues (for example 'China town').

Personally I think faith schools should have their government funding pulled unless they agree to drop that status.

The more we mingle the better it will be in the long term.
 

Latest Threads

Top