If you asked them, they would say that their value is multiculturalism, and they are defending it, but you’re right, the consequence of multiculturalism is always abusing/insulting your own nation’s ‘salt of the earth’ types in order to promote the values of whatever is exotic and foreign. In America, the anti-culture assassins use Immigration and Ellis Island to defend themselves, Germans use the holocaust, I dunno what the French use. I hope the world wakes the fuck up.
Because it’s the kind of interpretation the right side of the political spectrum would want to put forth… “Je suis Charlie”, “Unity” rally :-" .
We should demonstrate for freedom - every day, or for example every Monday. In Germany there are many of such demonstrations for freedom (just: every Monday in the cities, and their are many cities in Germany), but the media does not report, does not say anything about that. But the media does hysterically report the reverse, thus the media lies: “They are all Nazis”, although everyone knows that there are no Nazis at all. The government, the secret sevrice and - of course - the media produce “Nazis” in order to control the people. Some ILP members do the same.
The French use their evil colonisation.
Some points those springs to the mind -
I tend to slightly agree with the Jacob that there is some dignity left in the France, in comparison to other western countries. Having said that, i do not see the reaction of the people of the France as mature enough.
They showed solidarity and supported free speech. That is fine but i do not think that they realized the limits of free speech.
Free speech does not include mocking, abusing or insulting. One is allowed only to the extent of discussion of good and bad sides of anything. The limit ends here.
As far as people of France condemned killing of journalists, i agree with that. That is certainly overreaction on the part of extremists and is neither acceptable nor rational by any stretch of imagination. But, on the other hand, making a joke of a founder of a religion is not acceptable either. It is sad that people of France liked to condemn only one wrongdoing, not the both.
I think that the reaction of the pope is far mature when he commented on the incident - If a friend “says a swear word against my mother, then a punch awaits him.” This is the right and balanced approach.
A mother is mother for her children, even if she is cuckold. Any second person can criticize her for that. That is fine. But, a second person should not send her photos of having sex with others to her children. That is insult and unacceptable too. People should realize this difference and keep that in the back of their minds while criticizing anyone.
If one is not ready to accept physical violence, he should refrain himself from intellectual violence too, in the first place.
Secondly, let me ask a question to the people who came in that rally.
France ban burkas but how that does not restrict individual liberty? If any woman wants to wear burka, what on the earth it has to do with other people or a nation? And, why the same supporters of free speech and individual liberty did not stand for that too in the same way?
with love,
sanjay
It does and it doesn’t… it’s another one of those instances where you run into contradiction with western liberties. At face value it does restict a person to choose, right. But looking a little bit further, the Burka is seen as a symbol of female oppression. Because of social and religious pressures in muslim enviroments, muslim girls are forced to wear burkas and hide themselves. Banning Burka’s wants to counter that social pressure and give them back their freedom… by restricting their freedom.
Diekon wrote:
It is interesting you bring this up. It is not unreasonable to accept that the Vatican could turn America into a fascist state with the help of those who have loyalty to the Pope, not the people in their countries. The illegal immigration of millions of Mexicans and South Americans crossing the U.S. border provides a population easily manipulated by the teachings of the Vatican hierarchy. The Roman Catholic Church is enjoying a return to prominence and in coalition with other churches, could effortlessly perpetrate religious oppression. To be able to do this, the Vatican could use these millions of third world countries as a voting base to blindly follow the Pope and with the union of church and state, this would eventually result in widespread religious oppression.
I actually don’t mind the idea of multiculturalism but it has been kidnapped and poisoned by the radical liberals to mean allowing other cultures to step over you and refusing to criticize foreign ideas and culture due to fear of being called “racist”, “bigoted” and other terms leftists use to demonize others.
However, there’s also a double-standard present in most right-wing Christians where it is fine to criticize and parody other cultures and religions (freedom of speech hurr durr), but criticizing and parodying Christianity is a sin, should not be allowed, is offensive etc.
We can argue about the merits and the failures caused my multiculturalism, but once allowed, there is a sense, that, both the host country and the immigrant has an obligation to try to respect each other’s values. To force women’s rights upon immigrants who are known not to share these values, is a stage set for trouble. There is no cure against this type of incident, and it must be a political decision, to take the risk of asserting the host countries’ values, in spite of very foreseeable consequences. Everything else, is a charade, including the public displays of expression for civil rights.
I can say the above in all honesty, because, in the US for instance, immigration is controlled to an extent. The exclusion of immigrants on basis of quotas,is still,practiced,although not as strictly as in say,during the beginning of the twentieth century,when
European settlers consisted most of the new people coming in. The reason for this was the need for low waged unskilled labor. The increase of crime caused
by unsuitable immigrants, is trumped by the North American Trade agreement, which set a bar against
strict enforcement of border security. The point is,
that the Patriot Act, the establishment of the Homeland Security, are prophylactic, band aid solutions to problems of open immigration. The
philosophy here is, he’ll if they create riots, and
cause wide spread civil disturbance, it will just give police more to do , to keep them busy. This is the trend, not just here, but world wide, of realizing the
necessity for various reasons for immigration.
Germany is prosperous, due to mass import of workers from third world countries, going back some 50 years, since they had a very severe problem with
under employment to fuel their rapidly growing
economy. What is evident is, that the so called civil rights is being compromised for the unstoppable
stream of workers to fuel economies.
That this has become associated with diminishing global boundaries, may not be a demonstratable casual nexus with a pre planned political ideology. It may be just the other way around,the world
economy in the
advanced economies, may need large increases in labor, to account for the vast increases of production to service the demand of the global market. The
economic planners have usually little trouble to convince their political counterparts to ignore the inconveniences of dealing with civil rights, and
intercultural issues, be they manifest the hostile
nature of intercultural hostility.
Force women’s rights on immigrants? What, you mean that Muslims should be allowed to move to other countries and dictate the social rules there, and everybody who disagrees with it is an Islamophobe? Do you think that Muslims should be allowed to come in the West and do what they want with women in West because that’s what they do in their countries and those are their values?
No that’s not what I am saying. Muslims and others have been invited in or allowed in, except ones who have managed it illegally, and they have certain sets of values. I not think it can be said,myth at they are trying to dictate their own values , there is no effort on their part to put their host countries females into their own sense of control , this is going too far. the are just practicing what they know,mom their own culture, and it would be short sighted to think that the immigration departments of various advanced industrialized countries would not employ teams of sociologists to gather as much information as to the predictability of immigrants to be able to conform new values. The must know,nth at first generation immigrants carry the baggage of their forefather’s believes with them. it is totally naive to think that they would be able to give these up overnight. Immigration quotas,levels, standards, are based partly on economic and partly on political considerations.
I want to say something more about oppression and “imposing specific prohibitions on the minds of children”. This of course sound way worse than it is, because, you know… those poor children!!! But the thing that is being ignored here is that there is no real way arround imposing stuff on the minds of children. You need to teach them something, some values. You can argue about what is better, and what it is that they should be taught, sure. And i would agree that christiany or islam is not exactly the kind of valuesystem that i would like to have imposed on my children. But there needs to be something in the place of those religions.
The fundamental point of disagreement between Jacob and I, is, i think, that he apparently thinks there is allready some more or less fully formed secular western culture which was being defended in that ‘unity rally’ in France. I think we haven’t yet fully started with a truly secular culture post-christianity. So much of it now consist of either remenants of christanity, and more importantly, a lot of those typical liberties. But those don’t assert something positive, they are all things considerd rather vapid.
If that is all you are going to teach your 5 year old toddler, you are essentially saying to him ‘figure it out yourself’! Maybe they will figure it out themselves, but there is also a good chance that they are going to look for it again in the organised religions.
That does not answer my query.
May i ask why this notion of looking a bit further is not allowed in homosexuality, gay incest, having sex with animals, lowering the age of having sex and voting rights, easy divorce norms, allowing suicide and porn and so on?
In all these cases, everyone supports individual liberty. When anybody questions these practices, the first counter comes that one is free to do what he or she wants, unless it does not affect anyone else. But, why the same is not applied by the France in the case of banning burkas?
Who gave the right to France to decide that burkas oppress Muslim women?
And, how wearing merely one inch thin panties and bras do not oppress women, which is allowed in western culture?
Does that shameless display of womanhood benefit them in any way, if you look a bit further?
Either you have to apply this bit further in every case or in none. You cannot use it according to your convenience. That would be discrimination for sure.
Every culture takes its practices for granted. It does not want to look into itself but to criticize the other one only.
with love,
sanjay
Hey, i’m just reporting the news, what reasons people generally give in favor of such legislation. I’m not saying any of it is all that coherent, or applied consistently. What they choose to look a bit further at is often what catches the public eye and becomes political.
Okay. That is fine.
with love,
sanjay
But, it seems to me that all so called flag bearers of personal liberties, who took very high moral ground (in their opinion) in various threads for supporting all nonsense calling that harmless personal choice, do not have any answer why France banned burkas and why no liberal raised his voice against that!
Blind liberals do not realize that but the fact of the matter is that they never support personal liberty in reality. What they actually like to stand for is liberal lifestyle, which is not a personal liberty per se. Both things can be entirely different in some cases, which is evident from the example of France banning burkas.
with love,
sanjay
Sanjay, I think the answer could be the fact, that the Burka issue was used, advertently or not as a symbol.A semblence of resistance to the problem of values. it became to focal point to all the differing ideas floating out there. A symbol can be a
seemingly trite representation, to one poster referring as the opening of deeper concerns, of which not all are appreciative,nor understanding of.
No established government or media organization does anything for sake of individual anything. Every law and incentive is a strategic move in a political chess game with influences across the world.
Well you are beginning to see that I was right all along. Retrace your steps, reread my posts and you will find that I only attack the German government and its economic policies.
That is a joke to you?