Unity rally in Paris

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?

You’ll have to face that many people actually consider religion a ‘harmless private matter’. It makes me laugh very hard, but it’s a cynical form of absurdity.

No. You are not right all along. You are always searching for scapegoats. That is wrong - and not only wrong, because that is dangerous too.

But the main problem of the EU is not the German government; the main problem of the EU is the EU itself. The EU is a dictatorship. Nobody is allowed to select the rulers of the EU. They and the global bankers give the instructions and orders to the members. Merkel did not say that (for example) the Greek must have the Euro. She tries to bind all countries of the Euro system and to extend the EU. Not only to you but also to me, this is the wrong politics, but who would do it in a different (perhaps: better) way than she does? She is not mainly responsible for the guidelines and principles. The EU and the bankers are mainly responsible for that. And if you now say that she is “lying in bed” with them, then I can tell you that the other national politicians of Europe are also “lying in bed” with them and do nothing else. The EU problem is not mainly a national problem, because the EU is not a nation but an empire.

Yes, I agree with all of that. She is a manager of the status quo in the EU and I say she has to stop being that. She also has to stop allowing German newspapers to print false allegations against Russia concerning the plane crash in Ukraine. I respect her as a manager but I do not like that the head of Germany, which is the heart of Europe, is a manager who actively oversees how the nation generates products and capital but is passive versus how the EU decides to ‘frame’ this capital, abroad her focus is on austerity, which is what the EU wants. I do not know if it is possible for Germany to free itself from the control of the central bank of the EU, but they must be on the side of the nations that resist, like Italy an Greece. Yes Greece make a mistake in joining, but they did not deserve this. It was not the people whose duty it was to inform themselves about the financial consequences, but the government, which was fooled by Goldman Sachs, who have no problem admitting this. Our prime minister, Mark Rutte, is an absolute puppet, neuro-linguistically programmed and all.

Basically I want Germany to finally rise to its role as leader, which means accounting for all economies, and making hard decision about financial ties. And for this leadership Germany has requirement of the experience of France, which has for very long been a very successful state and once harbored the majority of Europe’s population. Germany is brand new, exists only since 1871 and has been in several major wars since, has been split up again and is whole now, but it is still a child-state, still driven by that Prussian will and is admirable but has now become feminine and passive and needs to be replaced with a more culturally active attitude, so that the rest of Europe isn’t turned into a machine. Germany has ‘won’ by industrial superiority again and should relax a bit now. And I am glad if the French are going to be the ones doing the work for a while. The two great nations of the continent are good at different things should be arm in arm in the upkeep of a properly cultural European collaboration.

If a “friend” punches me, then a knife in the throat awaits him. Or maybe, just maybe, you should respond verbally to verbal attacks and physically to physical ones. Responding physically to verbal attacks demonstrates that you: 1) Are letting your emotions overcome your reason, 2) That you have no argument, so you resort to force. If my mother was, literally, a prostitute, how could I honestly ban anybody from calling her that, just because I find it emotionally uncomfortable? Has truth lost all value in today’s society?

Also, don’t misrepresent the French side, they banned all face covering headgear for all people, not just burqas for Muslims - among other reasons it was stated that it prevents identification and is a security risk.

Yes, they are consistent. In most countries you are getting stopped by the police if you are wearing a face covering headgear that is non religious. The French have the nerve to enforce that same law with religion. They do not respect ‘freedom of religious expression’ to the point where it begins to make other people uncomfortable. It is ridiculous to a) demand of someone else that she cover her face in public and b) to expect other people to be fine with that situation. It is also ridiculous to walk in the streets as if you are going to rob a bank and expect others to be fine with that.

I agrree.

Germany exists as long as France - since the treaties of Verdun (843), Mersen (870), and Ribemont (880). You mean the national unity, Jakob. Okay. The national unity of Germany and of Italy happened at the same time. But again: The EU problem is not a national problem but a problem of the EU itself, an empire problem! Do you know that?

I disagree.

Okay, if it is possible. There is no alternative - except the end of the Euro system and probably even the end of the EU.

They are not going to do it, because they are not able to do it. It would be the wrong way. Believe me.

They don’t allow face covering merely for sake of the surveillance cameras.
… pretty much the same for everything else they do (Godwannabes).