Spineless French government ignores insolent Muslim provocation

[Insula Dei]

Now really, what would make anyone think that muslims are privileged? Seriously many countries actively legislate to limit their freedom to express their religion or to live according to the way they interpret it. They are the constant target of people such as yourself who seem determined to voice their innermost convictions at every chance they get and of a lot of racism directed towards them by groups that'd have been anti-semite 70 years ago.

[GMantis]

Now really, what would make anyone think that muslims are privileged? Seriously many countries actively legislate to limit their freedom to express their religion or to live according to the way they interpret it. They are the constant target of people such as yourself who seem determined to voice their innermost convictions at every chance they get and of a lot of racism directed towards them by groups that'd have been anti-semite 70 years ago.

They are many such countries and most of them are Muslim, but I don't see you editorializing about them. And you seem to miss one of the main principle of personal rights: they end when they start infringing on other people's rights.

[Gustaf]

I basically disagree with everything posted so far. That doesn't usually happen with such a long thread.

You managed to disagree both with the argument that Muslims are a persecuted minority and with the argument that they are allowed to get away with too much? That would probably makes you anti-Muslim by Swedish standards, doesn't it ?

Short answer would be yes and yes.

(though I'd formulate the second part of the first question more along the lines of the scare-mongering about how Muslims are taking over, etc is something I disagree with)

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Clearly there is no discrimination against Muslims by, for example, the police.

[dead0man]

And it's not really fair to compare the very real Muslim issues of today with the very made up Jewish problem of the past.  Unless Jews were killing thousands of Euros and the dirty Jew controlled media has managed to bury those facts from the prying eyes of history.

Don't you know that the jews caused WWI? The only reason they got away with that was because the German elite was afraid to die in the trenches.

I don't know if it's sad or funny, but I have no idea if you are kidding or not.  I hope you are, but I fear you are not.

I hope that that's just you being slightly hyperbolic and that you were in fact able to see the sarcasm.

I had assumed you wouldn't so obviously dodge the statement, my apologies.  I understand its easy to compare your current minority issues with your past minority issues, it just isn't very logical in this case.

And to be fair, antisemitism is fairly common in your land.  More common than your Islamophobia.  french language cite  On the other hand, most of the antisemitic acts in France are done by....shocker....Muslims.

[Phony Moderate]

Please dead0man, change your social score. It should be positive. And change your avatar to blue.

[ag]

And to be fair, antisemitism is fairly common in your land.

I guess, you know by virtue of personal practice of the said vice ))

[dead0man]

HA!  I've never been to France!

[Gustaf]

HA!  I've never been to France!

I assume AG is making a joke on the fact that Arabs are really semites as well (the whole notion of calling anti-judaism anti-semitism is a weird product of history).

[ag]

HA!  I've never been to France!

I assume AG is making a joke on the fact that Arabs are really semites as well (the whole notion of calling anti-judaism anti-semitism is a weird product of history).

Nah. My "joke" is a bit deeper )) Replace Arabs w/ Zulus, I'd still make it.

You know the old one, they used to tell before the Jews started to take on the "white" airs. An old Armenian guy is dying. On his deathbed, he calls up his family and says: "take care of the Jews". Everyone's surprised: "why the Jews?", so the old man has to explain: "When they are done w/ the Jews, they'll start w/ us".

So, anyway, when I see an anti-semite, I don't care who are his Jews.

[GMantis]

HA!  I've never been to France!

I assume AG is making a joke on the fact that Arabs are really semites as well (the whole notion of calling anti-judaism anti-semitism is a weird product of history).

Nah. My "joke" is a bit deeper )) Replace Arabs w/ Zulus, I'd still make it.

You know the old one, they used to tell before the Jews started to take on the "white" airs. An old Armenian guy is dying. On his deathbed, he calls up his family and says: "take care of the Jews". Everyone's surprised: "why the Jews?", so the old man has to explain: "When they are done w/ the Jews, they'll start w/ us".

So, anyway, when I see an anti-semite, I don't care who are his Jews.

So, wanting a minority not to have special privileges is basically xenophobia according to you?

[ag]

HA!  I've never been to France!

I assume AG is making a joke on the fact that Arabs are really semites as well (the whole notion of calling anti-judaism anti-semitism is a weird product of history).

Nah. My "joke" is a bit deeper )) Replace Arabs w/ Zulus, I'd still make it.

You know the old one, they used to tell before the Jews started to take on the "white" airs. An old Armenian guy is dying. On his deathbed, he calls up his family and says: "take care of the Jews". Everyone's surprised: "why the Jews?", so the old man has to explain: "When they are done w/ the Jews, they'll start w/ us".

So, anyway, when I see an anti-semite, I don't care who are his Jews.

So, wanting a minority not to have special privileges is basically xenophobia according to you?

Imagining special privileges where there exists only severe discrimination, surely, is.

[ag]

Let me add a bit of a context. The posters here are too used to the "white Jews" of today. I, unfortunately, know history.

Jews were Europe's "unassimilateable" minority for longer than anyone else. They spoke their languages, wore their clothing, produced their food, practiced their traditions more distinct from those of the surrounding peoples than anything you can imagine today in European or American cities. The world of Chassidim of today is an adapted version of the world of the Orthodox Jewish communities as they existed traditionally. As late as the 1860s and 1870s the world of the overwhelming majority of the Jewish communities in the Russian Empire, Poland, Romania, etc. was a lot more bizarre, completely dominated by the medieval religious practice.  

It is true, that starting at the end of the 18th/early 19th century the enlightenment movement started taking part of the Jewish world towards modernity An even stronger "Mendelssohnian" assimilationist enlightenment tendency was by then, perhaps, dominant in Germany (but was somewhat offset by the continuous migration of "savage" Jews from the East). However, this modernist eruption of the Jewish communities into the outside world produced a rather strong clash.

If you ever studied the history of the early 20th century socialist terrorism in Russia, you'd notice  that it reads like an anti-semitic pamphlet. The number of Jews among the members of terrorist cells is extraordinary. The founder of the main terrorist group, the Military Organization of the Socialist Revolutionary Party , Grigory Gershuni, his successor at its head, Yevno Azef (the latter, an agent provocateur on police pay), the group's foreign representative and its chief ideologue Mikhail Gots where all Jewish (being cognizant of the effect, they often chose Slavs as the triggermen, but the "back office" of terrorism was Jewish to a staggering degree). And, of course, Jews were extremely well represented among their chief revolutionary enemies, the Social Democrats: of their three main factions in Russia one (the Bund) was outright Jewish, the other (mensheviks) was headed by a Jew (Martov) and the largest group (bolsheviks) had a large complement of Jewish leaders (Zinoviev, Kamenev, the semi-independent Trotsky, the first Soviet "president" Sverdlov, etc.). This is even if we forget that the based themselves on the thoughts of that offspring of a respected rabbinical family, the author of Das Kapital )) This is just Russia - which I know best, but wherever you look in the radical world of the age you get a huge Jewish presence (think of Rosa Luxemburg and Klara Zetkin in Germany, Bela Kun in Hungary, etc., etc.). These people could be blamed - and were blamed (not without justice, unfortunately) - for not thousands, but millions of European deaths.

On the other hand, you did see a prominent Jewish presence in business and banking and high commerce, and even though these were frequently rather assimilated Jews, their linkages to the wider, culturally alien community were often undeniable.

So, if you were a simple Russian, Polish, German guy on the street, you saw an alien savage core of the ultra-orthodox (overwhelmingly dominant numerically until the early 20th century, and sizeable up until the horrid end in WWII), you saw a huge secular eruption from it into the midst of the wider society, which, in many cases, still maintained its otherness (separate languages, media, political organizations, etc.), you saw its radical, frequently terrorist, fringe, you saw its broad presence in the world of high finance. In short, you saw an alien society in the middle of Europe, many members of which were, seemingly, hellbent on transforming the wider society along their own lines. In Poland alone there were 3 mln. Jews - a humongous alien minority in a midsized country. This community survived with its separateness for centuries, refusing to conform to the mores and modes of the wider society. Nothing remotely like this exists with respect to Muslims in today's Europe.

Why have I written this? No, its not because I am an antisemite - I happen to be Jewish (by origin, not by religion - I am an atheist). But I wrote this to show that the attitudes that gave rise to the Holocaust were based on the same sort of feelings, produced by the same sort of phenomena (just more pronounced) that give rise to today's anti-Muslim feeling. Antisemitism is explainable, of course - just not forgivable. As a Jew, I remain particularly revolted by those, who deny others the right to live their lives in a distinct way. As a proudly bilingual anglo- and russophone Mexican, I find such sentiments distinctly threatening to me today. I don't care who the Jews are - when antisemitism rears its head, I identify with them.

[Gustaf]

I get where you're coming from, ag. Especially since I have Jewish roots myself.

I'd say there are a couple of striking differences in this case though. One is that in most European countries (not Bulgaria of course) the Muslims are immigrants. And then I'd argue that the existence of a welfare state makes a large difference.

I have had a lot of contact with the Chinese community, which is also distinct and quite unassimilated. The reason no one minds them (apart from them being fewer, of course) is largely that they a) work and b) do not demand weird stuff from other people not of their culture.

Apart from the old-fashioned racists who have mourned not being allowed to be Nazis for 60 years (which is more common in countries like Belgium, Switzerland and Austria) people I encounter who think Muslim immigration constitutes a problem have 2 major beefs.

The first is that it costs money. Unemployment among Muslim immigrants in Sweden is over 50%. That wasn't really a problem for society with Jews or any other persecuted group of the past. It's not all their fault of course - it probably depends mostly on the rigid labour market structure of most Western European countries.

The second is that their different culture isn't just different - it's intolerant. Their was a recent case in Sweden where a Muslim man came to a job interview. He refused to shake the hand of the boss because she was female. He wasn't hired. Then he sued the company, arguing that this was discriminating against his religious beliefs. And he won. This angers people. Most Swedes don't really mind if people don't celebrate Christmas or want to walk around in funny clothing. But when at least a sizeable minority start demanding separate Sharia laws for their community, that boys and girls be kept apart in schools and swimming halls and so on animosity is fostered*.

There are obviously a lot of complexities surrounding this issue, but I think you're being a bit too quick in assuming that people worried about Muslim migration are necessarily "anti-semitic".

*I'll be preemptive and say, yeah, not all Muslims and these are still mostly isolated incidents, etc, etc. But the Social Democrats actually campaigned in the last general election in Sweden on discriminating against women in university educations on the grounds that it was an important right for citizens to be able to avoid encountering a woman. I don't personally think it's the biggest problem in the world, but it's a problem and not entirely made up of racist paranoia (unlike the site linked to in this thread...)

[ag]

I don't have much time right now, but the traditional Jewish culture is as intolerant. A truly orthodox Jew would never touch an unrelated woman. In fact, a Jew is not supposed to even pass between a woman and an ass, as neither women, nor asses study Torah. Jews are not supposed to give their animals to gentiles, because gentiles are presumed to have sex with animals, and that's an abomination. This is not an obscure medieval claim - this is a very integral part of the orthodoxy today, repeatedly reaffirmed. When an orthodox Jewish group sent rescue workers to Haiti after the recent earthquake, they had to defend themselves before other similar groups, as saving gentiles is not Jewish. Their argument was (the only acceptable argument, from the religious standpoint), that this was justified, because it made gentiles think better of the Jews. Judaism is a tribal religion, deeply racist in its fundamental doctrine, like any tribal religion. Of course, many modern offshoots have abandoned the despicable parts of it, but the orthodox stand by them.

And, of course, workwise, the truly orthodox jews don't work (at least the men - women might), unless you count prayer and study of the Law as work. Even in the US they've been able to use whatever welfare state there is better than anybody else (they have 12 kids each, and the yeshivas, where the study Torah, pay them just enough so that they'd be eligible for food stamps, welfare payments, Medicaid, etc.) I presume, the same is true in Europe (I know less about these communities there, but there is no reason they'd be different).

Do I have much sympathy w/ this sort of the view of the world and this lifestyle? Not in the least, I despise it. If a young guy from an orthodox family comes to me today and asks for help in abandoning his old life, I'd do my best to help. But it would have to be his decision, not my.

[ag]

Ah, and, of course, orthodox Jews live by their own law, not by the civil law. The rabbi is the judge and the law is His Law.

Of course, Swedes don't care about Christmas - they are secular. What they care about is religion. And any traditional religion is highly intolerant, alien to the modern European world (less so to the US world). I am with you on that: I am an atheist. But replacing intolerance of other faiths with intolerance of any faith isn't much of a progress from the part of the mainstream world.

[GMantis]

So ag, according to you, any attempt to make a minority obey a law which may not fit entirely with their religion or not let them impose their view on others is intolerance, severe discrimination and "antisemitism"?

[ag]

So ag, according to you, any attempt to make a minority obey a law which may not fit entirely with their religion or not let them impose their view on others is intolerance, severe discrimination and "antisemitism"?

No. According to me, any claim that, at present, Muslims in Europe enjoy any preferencial treatment is at plain variance with reality and can emerge only in the sick imagination of a zoological anti-semite.

In your particular case, I also have to consider the old Bulgarian history of severe anti-Muslim discrimination, and the general support that such policies enjoy in that country. Yes, I do believe that a substantial component of the Bulgarian polity is dangerously racist. I guess, you are clearly a part of that unpleasant tradition. Therefore, my attitude to you is not dissimilar to my attitude to Muslim, Jewish or other fundamentalists - a mixture of pity and revulsion. Which, of course, does not prevent me from fully supporting your right to hold and proclaim your obscene, and, in fact, profoundly anti-European views.

[GMantis]

So ag, according to you, any attempt to make a minority obey a law which may not fit entirely with their religion or not let them impose their view on others is intolerance, severe discrimination and "antisemitism"?

No. According to me, any claim that, at present, Muslims in Europe enjoy any preferencial treatment is at plain variance with reality and can emerge only in the sick imagination of a zoological anti-semite.

In your particular case, I also have to consider the old Bulgarian history of severe anti-Muslim discrimination, and the general support that such policies enjoy in that country. Yes, I do believe that a substantial component of the Bulgarian polity is dangerously racist. I guess, you are clearly a part of that unpleasant tradition. Therefore, my attitude to you is not dissimilar to my attitude to Muslim, Jewish or other fundamentalists - a mixture of pity and revulsion. Which, of course, does not prevent me from fully supporting your right to hold and proclaim your obscene, and, in fact, profoundly anti-European views.

So when as in the video, Muslims violate European laws unpunished or as in Gustaf's example (and in many others, if you cared to find them) impose their culture on others, this is not a privilege? Unless you believe that minorities deserve such a right, which would of course prove my previous assertion. (Though if so, why do you think that Muslims suffer severe discrimination?)
As for the second part of your answer, it's quite pathetic, honestly. Generally, when someone needs to sink to personal attacks, he's already lost the debate. Even if we ignore the fact that, my country's unfortunate occasions of blatant anti-Muslim policies are brief in comparison of relative tolerance, to accuse someone who you don't know personally, just because of them of racism is completely uncalled for, especially since I've already indicated my disapproval of those policies. Also, it seems that for you believing that a negative characteristic is prevalent in a minority is "antisemitism" of the worst kind, but when it's a majority, it's all right. And yes, I fully support your right to your hypocritical and naive views, even if they are utterly unsuitable for an actual multicultural society.

[ag]

1. I haven't seen that Muslims or any other minorities get away w/ violating the laws any more frequently then the members of the dominant majority. If anything, I observe that they get persecuted even if they violate no laws.

Clearly, in Gustaf's example there hasn't been any discussion of violating any laws at all - only about violating some norms of propriety, at worst. Likewise, your main point was that France, somehow, isn't tough enough on Muslims - not on whatever (some) Muslims do that might be objectionable.

And, of course, I do object to adopting the laws for the explicit purpose of discriminating against or humiliating a minority group. For instance, I'd object to a law prohibiting the use of human blood in bakery products used in religious celebration, even though I do not know of any group that would be directly hurt by this practice. Still more I would object to a law that would prohibit male circumcision, or wearing a turban, or whatever that would have such an impact without an overriding social interest in mind (and, no, I do not consider the sense of propriety of certain members of the majority to be such an interest).

2. I haven't been involved in any personal attacks in this case, to the best of my knowledge. I am not attacking you - I am attacking your views, which I do find despicable. You change your views - I change my opinion of you. If you stop being a racist, I will never accuse you of that. Now, we might disagree on what is racism - that's ok. It's enough for me if it is clear that whatever you like to describe your views as (call them Humanitarianism, or Grzhk, if you like), they are sick and revolting from my standpoint. Not because of the name - but because of the content.

3. Ah, and of course, talking about "negative characteristics" of a group (and not of individual members of that group), whether majority, or minority, or whatever, is, indeed, racism. Talking about hatefullness of certain doctrines is ok - I have been quite explicit, for instance, about what I think of fundamentalist Judaism (or, to somewhat lesser extent, of fundamentalist Islam in Christianity as well)  in this very thread. But hatefulness of the doctrine does not imply that it is ok for the Government to discriminate against its adherents.

[ag]

naive views, even if they are utterly unsuitable for an actual multicultural society.

I've lived in NYC for a big chunk of my life. This is where my views were formed. To the best of my observation, things work pretty well there (w/ some exceptions of course - there is no limit to perfection). I would hate US to be transformed along the European lines in this respect, as I do see happening now.

In any case, as I said: I find your views to be a direct threat to the way I live, and have always lived  - with no apologies to whatever society, in which I happen to find myself.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

It's not hard to find examples of other minority groups not 'properly' fitting into the majority culture. The example of Hasidic Jews in the past has been raised, but it's still an issue now in some places; there have been serious planning disputes between the Hasidic community in Stamford Hill and the local council/other Hackney residents for over two decades now, and these disputes are, basically, caused by a conflict between Hasidic custom and practice and the fact that other people live in what is a densely populated borough with serious social problems. Or we can look at the history of Irish communities in Great Britain. I wonder how many who think that there's a 'Muslim problem' in contemporary Europe would have been happy with claims of an 'Irish problem' in Britain in the 70s and 80s?

[GMantis]

1. I haven't seen that Muslims or any other minorities get away w/ violating the laws any more frequently then the members of the dominant majority. If anything, I observe that they get persecuted even if they violate no laws.

Clearly, in Gustaf's example there hasn't been any discussion of violating any laws at all - only about violating some norms of propriety, at worst. Likewise, your main point was that France, somehow, isn't tough enough on Muslims - not on whatever (some) Muslims do that might be objectionable.

And, of course, I do object to adopting the laws for the explicit purpose of discriminating against or humiliating a minority group. For instance, I'd object to a law prohibiting the use of human blood in bakery products used in religious celebration, even though I do not know of any group that would be directly hurt by this practice. Still more I would object to a law that would prohibit male circumcision, or wearing a turban, or whatever that would have such an impact without an overriding social interest in mind (and, no, I do not consider the sense of propriety of certain members of the majority to be such an interest).

The French government is not tough enough indeed -  a state that refuses to follow it's laws against a certain group of can't be tough at all. That's been my argument all along, whatever straw men you want to construct.
No, the problem in Gustaf's example is that not only members of a minority are intolerant but that they also want to impose their intolerance on the wider society. The fact that this is often tolerated in Western Europe is a very strong argument that Muslims are not persecuted there. And what is this persecution you keep talking about? The behavior of certain extremist groups cannot overcome the overall behavior of most states.
You will also find that most posters here also oppose such laws. As I think I've stated before, I'm only against (and would ban) acts that harm others or infringe on their rights. And yes, when a minority insists of controlling a society against the will of the majority, that is a violation of the rights of a society. And again you are quite hypocritical: the propriety of the minority shouldn't be touched with a finger, but the propriety of the majority is fair game.

2. I haven't been involved in any personal attacks in this case, to the best of my knowledge. I am not attacking you - I am attacking your views, which I do find despicable. You change your views - I change my opinion of you. If you stop being a racist, I will never accuse you of that. Now, we might disagree on what is racism - that's ok. It's enough for me if it is clear that whatever you like to describe your views as (call them Humanitarianism, or Grzhk, if you like), they are sick and revolting from my standpoint. Not because of the name - but because of the content.

Racism generally means the belief that a races (or more generally ethnic groups) are different and some (usually including one's own) are superior. I don't understand at all what is racist about my views, so I suggest you either stop ridiculous accusations or explain how exactly I'm racist.

3. Ah, and of course, talking about "negative characteristics" of a group (and not of individual members of that group), whether majority, or minority, or whatever, is, indeed, racism. Talking about hatefullness of certain doctrines is ok - I have been quite explicit, for instance, about what I think of fundamentalist Judaism (or, to somewhat lesser extent, of fundamentalist Islam in Christianity as well)  in this very thread. But hatefulness of the doctrine does not imply that it is ok for the Government to discriminate against its adherents.

This has not stopped you from claiming that "a substantial component of the Bulgarian polity is dangerously racist". Perhaps you are racist yourself , which would not be surprising considering your rather expansive definition of racism.
It's good that you agree that certain doctrines are hateful. But what is the point of such agreement if you oppose any measures against the followers of those doctrines who wish to impose them on others?

naive views, even if they are utterly unsuitable for an actual multicultural society.

I've lived in NYC for a big chunk of my life. This is where my views were formed. To the best of my observation, things work pretty well there (w/ some exceptions of course - there is no limit to perfection). I would hate US to be transformed along the European lines in this respect, as I do see happening now.

In any case, as I said: I find your views to be a direct threat to the way I live, and have always lived  - with no apologies to whatever society, in which I happen to find myself.

Of course, I don't have your knowledge of NYC, though the question is whether the society works because or despite views like yours. And what with zero tolerance policing, I don't see something like the events described in the video, happen in New York.
And ag, unless you believe that you have the right to violate laws that don't agree with your beliefs, or that you have the right to impose your views on the wider society, or that you deserve special privileges because of them, I have absolutely nothing against your way of life.

[Insula Dei]

1.If laws are made with the express goal of humiliating and attacking some religious or ethnic minority, then we have a moral obligation to be vocal about our disagreement.

2. How does a woman wearing a veil, for example, attack anyone in their rights?

[ag]

You don't like the term racist? Fine. I suggested, you call your views "Humanitarian". This doesn't change the fact that I find your Humanitarian worldview vile and despeakable. Is that formulation better?

In contrast, I am quite comfortable w/ my own views, even if you decide to call them Nazi )