Spineless French government ignores insolent Muslim provocation

[ag]

A big chunk of Bulgarian polity is based on the attack on the Turkish minority. I do not claim to dislike all of your compatriots and the entire Bulgarian polity. My wholehearted repudiation is limited to that very part I described. 

[ag]

In NY, in general, these days they avoid adopting the laws that would cause a clash. For instance, this is the list of days they effectively suspend/limit street cleaning to prevent interfereing w/ religious and/or civil celebrations:

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/motorist/scrintro.shtml

[ag]

BTW, the sort of a picture you hate from NYC ))

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/m/Muslim-Day-NYC.htm

[Gustaf]

I feel most of the replies to what I said sort of missed my point. You seem to have interpreted my argument as:

1. Groups that in any way try to impose their beliefs on others and don't work deserve persecution

2. Muslims in today's Europe is the only group that does this

3. Hence they deserve persecution

That's obviously easy to refute and all, but it's a pretty simplistic version of what I was getting at. For instance, Hasidic Jews, fine, fair enough. Was the majority of all Jews in Europe a century ago dependent on the rest of society for their welfare? This is actually the case for Muslims in Sweden and it's a pretty obvious source of resentment. I'm all for a welfare state and I'm not saying it's because they're lazy bums. But the resentment of groups with high unemployment in an extremely generous welfare state is different than resentment of a different group with different traits.

Also, one must of course recognize the difference in European society. We are less tolerant of intolerance today, precisely because we've already fought all of these battles. We've recognized that the state has an obligation to the individual to step in and deal with cultural norms that are immensely harmful - such as not allowing women an equal place in society. I hear the rhetoric used by Swedish left-wingers against, say, the Catholic church in Poland and I am a bit worried when they're so unwilling to use the same kind of rhetoric against Islam. Especially since there are more Muslims than Catholics in Sweden...

Finally, to Belgiansocialist, yeah, I've argued against veil laws on this forum and elsewhere. Rather passionately at that. That's why I end up in disagreement with everyone - I'm a moderate hero. I would note though that we have none of that here in Sweden. Yet a Muslim blew himself up a couple of blocks from where I live trying to keep people. Several other Swedish Muslims were arrested a week ago trying to massacre the editorial staff of that Danish newspaper. And there are areas in Sweden where fire-trucks and police offices get attacked because they represent "Swedish" society. It didn't really seem to help...

[ag]

So, let me make the following claim. GMantis not only is intolerant, but he is trying to impress his intolerance on the wider society (hard to argue against this description). So, what are we supposed to do w/ GMantis.

[Gustaf]

So, let me make the following claim. GMantis not only is intolerant, but he is trying to impress his intolerance on the wider society (hard to argue against this description). So, what are we supposed to do w/ GMantis.

Send him to the death camps where I want to put all the Muslims, of course.

[Gustaf]

I'm not sure how you define intolerance and I'm not sure exactly what GMantis wants to do either.

My point is rather that if someone doesn't want to work in the same room as those of the opposite sex, that's one thing. If they want legal protection that ensures them the same right to a job, in spite of this, by, say, forcing workplaces to be segregated, then it becomes a different issue.

This isn't a huge problem in today's society, of course - that's where I differ from the alarmists in this thread and in much of the rest of Europe. Most Muslims aren't that fundamentalist and most don't push these kinds of demands.

But this perception of Islam's attitudes is something that rightly provokes anger and the perception itself isn't completely baseless.

[Gustaf]

Also, I have a Muslim friend. Just wanted to get that in before someone calls me racist and it will look desperate.

[Insula Dei]

Also, I have a Muslim friend. Just wanted to get that in before someone calls me racist and it will look desperate.

That always looks desperate

[Franzl]

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

One could argue that it violates the rights of the women that wear them...and there probably is some merit to that, but it's not really the role of the state to look out for that. Everyone should wear whatever they want, even if they're doing it because of religious propaganda. The same way that a neonazi should feel free to spread his views, however hateful. Live and let live.

[Gustaf]

Also, I have a Muslim friend. Just wanted to get that in before someone calls me racist and it will look desperate.

That always looks desperate

That was the joke.

[ag]

I feel most of the replies to what I said sort of missed my point. You seem to have interpreted my argument as:

1. Groups that in any way try to impose their beliefs on others and don't work deserve persecution

2. Muslims in today's Europe is the only group that does this

3. Hence they deserve persecution

No, this is not my point - and, BTW, let me be clear: I do distinguish between you and GMantis )))

My point is, that

1. Muslims in Europe aren't a priviliged minority in any sense, but rather are heavily discriminated against.

2. The arguments normally proposed to justify that "smthg has to be done about the Muslims" apply very closely to the arguments proposed 100 years ago against the Jews and other minorities.

BTW, I don't even believe the bull about not working part. The first restrictive immigration laws in the US were adopted against the Chinese, but the main accusation was that they work ) I am pretty sure, once they deal w/ Arabs, they'd start w/ the Chinese in Sweden as well.

Anyway, though 100 years ago the welfare state was limited, today a huge proportion of, say, Hassidic population does rely on the public dole in many places (I'd venture, there are no Hassidim in Sweden ) ). So, I guess, the real Jews are, actually, also in the line for some spanking: whether they work (they exploit the poor gentiles), or don't (they rely on the public welfare).

Of course, it is a problem if members of a certain group winds up largely unemployed, try to figure out why and how to reform the policies.  Nobody migrates to spend their time in line for welfare checks - normally, the migrants are extremely active people. Muslims don't even have the tradition of the huge chunk of the population spending all their time just studying the Holy Law, as the Jews do, or praying in a monastery, as is true among certain Buddhist groups. There is nothing inherent in Islam that prevents Muslims from being productive members of the society. Perhaps, the issue is that Sweden is somehow stumbling into creating an economic underclass (nothing unique to Muslims here, or to Sweden). Try to figure out how to deal w/ the unemployed, not w/ Muslims.

3. If somebody kills/hurts his daughter because she "dishonored" him, he should go to prison. Ditto for whoever takes such an offense at some cartoon to threaten and/or murder the artist or the publisher. But these things ARE happening anyway - as they should.

But when the majority adopts the laws for the explicit pleasure of hurting the minority, or refuses a minor accomodation just to stick it to the "aliens", I find this disgusting. And this, unfortunately, is also what's happening.

[ag]

So, let me make the following claim. GMantis not only is intolerant, but he is trying to impress his intolerance on the wider society (hard to argue against this description). So, what are we supposed to do w/ GMantis.

Send him to the death camps where I want to put all the Muslims, of course.

I think, expelling Bulgaria from the EU and ordering all the Bulgarians currently in Europe to show within 24 hours for the pre-deportation internment should be enough )

[ag]

I'm not sure how you define intolerance and I'm not sure exactly what GMantis wants to do either.

My point is rather that if someone doesn't want to work in the same room as those of the opposite sex, that's one thing. If they want legal protection that ensures them the same right to a job, in spite of this, by, say, forcing workplaces to be segregated, then it becomes a different issue.

I'd agree w/ you if you could point out to a large number of segregated workplaces, specially created in Sweden to accomodate the Muslims. My point is, nobody is accomodating not only the unreasonable, but also the reasonable requests and needs of minority representatives. In fact, the mere existence of those minorities is viewed as unreasonable.

[Gustaf]

I'm not sure how you define intolerance and I'm not sure exactly what GMantis wants to do either.

My point is rather that if someone doesn't want to work in the same room as those of the opposite sex, that's one thing. If they want legal protection that ensures them the same right to a job, in spite of this, by, say, forcing workplaces to be segregated, then it becomes a different issue.

I'd agree w/ you if you could point out to a large number of segregated workplaces, specially created in Sweden to accomodate the Muslims. My point is, nobody is accomodating not only the unreasonable, but also the reasonable requests and needs of minority representatives. In fact, the mere existence of those minorities is viewed as unreasonable.

Lots of things to answer to here.

1. I don't think Muslims are privileged as a minority. I do think there is a tendency not to criticize and not to take seriously certain problems with Muslims - partly because of fear of violence but also because the left hasn't really adapted to modern society and is in confusion over what to think of reactionaries with dark skin or unfamiliar religions.

2. Sure, there is a historic resentment towards those who do well. That was probably in large part why the Jews were so hated. My point is that this isn't really prevalent in today's society - at least not in Sweden. I don't think we'll move on to the Chinese either, as you put it. Anyway, maybe you missed it, but I mentioned the rigidities of the labour market myself when I brought up the issue of unemployment. I even explicitly stated that my point wasn't that Muslims don't work. Simply that it is a source of resentment which is different from one that is just generally xenophobic. Unemployment among immigrants in Sweden is many times higher than among native Swedes and it is also persistent. And it's especially high among Muslim immigrants.

3. Well, if you kill a Muslim because he's Muslim you'll get a harsher sentence in Sweden, since it's a hate crime. So, we've already accepted as a society that a politically unappealing motive is a valid reason to increase the sentence. But that's sort of a digression, I suppose. Again, I never said I was in favour of special minority laws of any sort. But there might be a need to work with attitudes among certain groups. There was a Muslim guy in my high school class who seemed genuinely shocked at the idea that a woman would work outside the home and he loudly proclaimed that he certainly wouldn't let his wife do that. I'm a moral absolutist and I believe that we should, in general, be a little more resolute in standing up for the core values of our society. For instance, you might want to present prospective immigrants with what kind of norms are upheld in Sweden.

4. I don't get why you cut off the part of my post where I explicitly said that I didn't think there were many segregated workplaces. There was a public swimming hall in Sweden that started with gender segregation because of Muslim demands though. And it was established that Muslims have a right not to shake hands with female managers. We haven't had large-scale Muslim migration for that long, but it isn't necessarily racist, imo, to be worried by these developments.

But perhaps you can give me a case of a reasonable request from Muslims which has not been granted in Sweden?

[ag]

1. Now, let me be clear - I've never been to Sweden, I don't know much about Sweden, so I was not talking about Sweden per se (except, where I was explicitly basing myself on what you've said). Sweden is known as a tolerant society - I have no reason to believe it is not. It is, arguably, true of many, if not most, European countries - it is definitely true of places lik e France or Switzerland or even the Netherlands - that migrants, in particular Muslims are not given a reasonable accomodation. I have not made that point expolicitly about Sweden - and I have no way of making it. My only comment about Sweden was: if you see an underclass emerging, deal w/ that, and not w/ Muslims. Otherwise, I guess, I should make it clear that there is the same sort of distinction between Sweden and Switzerland as I make between you and GMantis ))

2. There is a difference between personal and public. I haven't shyed, even in this thread, from being very vocal about what I think, say, of traditional Judaism. However, I do believe it is no business of any government to think anything whatsoever about Judaism, traditional or otherwise. If So-and-So wants a traditional Muslim wife, and his wife wants to be traditional, this will color my attitude to Mr. and Mrs. So, but, as far as the public policy is concerned, it is up to them how they choose to lead their lives.  So, if Mr. Gustaf in his private capacity chooses to tell his Muslim classmate he is an idiot and SOB, my sympathies are wholely w/ Mr. Gustaf. If, on the other hand, Gustaf is a judge, making a legal determination based on the same private feeling to the same idiot SOB classmate, I'd suggest Judge Gustaf go f.k  himself.
 
3. When you are talking about "large number" of such jobs, that have had to be segregated, what proportion of Swedish employment are you talking about, Is it, at least. 0.5%, 0.1, less?

I'd really be extremely happy if there'd be a ruling that would allow me not to shake hands w/ any person I don't want to shake hands with if I so like ) Really, there are many people I wouldn't want to be shaking hands with, and I fail to see how shaking hands is relevant to performance in any job.

As for the rest, the issue here becomes of what is reasonable accomodation. If there exists a sizeable female population that would not, say, utilize services of male doctors, one would have to balance the gender-blindness w/ concern for public health, including the health of unborn children. At least for me, the compromise by the secular majority would appear to be eminently reasonable here (as long, of course, as no individual is forced to use the segregated service). When it comes to public swimming pools, I'd get a lot more agnostic - I don't consider access to those to be so obviously essencial. On the other hand, if the local population would like such a service, I don't see any reason not to allow it.

[ag]

Let me just add. I don't give a sh.tload of f.k about most social norms, as far as only the private life of individuals is concerned. This is true of whatever majority and whatever minority. The threshold of public interference in such issues should be extraordinarily high - far above the threshold for private disapproval or rejection.

I am quite a moral absolutist myself, and I fully believe that my own views about morals are far superior to those of everyone else )  In fact, what am I doing here if not expressing my own judgements on the morals of those present? However, I don't think, say, GMantis would be happy if I tried to impose my morals on him - and, I think, he should be free from every having to face that ))

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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.

But not very recent immigrants, in many cases. Most Muslim families in Britain moved here in the 1960s and 1970s (Kashmiris earlier and Bangladeshis later, as a general rule) and the dates for Germany and France aren't all that different. Though, obviously, the immigrant factor is important because discrimination in all cases began almost immediately and was linked to their status as immigrants and darkies long before additional layers of otherness were added from the 90s onwards. So is still very important even if describing such communities as being essentially 'immigrant' is increasing questionable; most second generation (and basically all subsequent generations) Kashmiris in Birmingham speak with thick Brummie accents, after all.

Also, from a British point of view that distinction is irrelevant in any case. This piece of legislation from over a century ago has all kinds of contemporary relevance and was aimed at Jews. Pity that the wiki article is dreadful though.
Saying that, I always find the Irish-in-Britain comparison to be as useful, maybe more so.

[Gustaf]

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.

But not very recent immigrants, in many cases. Most Muslim families in Britain moved here in the 1960s and 1970s (Kashmiris earlier and Bangladeshis later, as a general rule) and the dates for Germany and France aren't all that different. Though, obviously, the immigrant factor is important because discrimination in all cases began almost immediately and was linked to their status as immigrants and darkies long before additional layers of otherness were added from the 90s onwards. So is still very important even if describing such communities as being essentially 'immigrant' is increasing questionable; most second generation (and basically all subsequent generations) Kashmiris in Birmingham speak with thick Brummie accents, after all.

Also, from a British point of view that distinction is irrelevant in any case. This piece of legislation from over a century ago has all kinds of contemporary relevance and was aimed at Jews. Pity that the wiki article is dreadful though.
Saying that, I always find the Irish-in-Britain comparison to be as useful, maybe more so.

It depends on your definition of recent, of course. I think most Muslims in Sweden were either born or came here during the last 20 years. And they tend to talk "Rinkeby-Swedish" even if they're born here.

Ag, I never talked about any large number of jobs as far as I can see. Rather, the fear, which I agree is overblown is that with an increasing share of the population being Muslim such things will become more and more prevalent.

I don't have time right now to comment on the rest, but I'm also not sure I have much more substantive to add. You to seem to take a very liberal view on culture and while I respect that view I personally consider it to be a tad naive and I don't agree with it myself.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

It depends on your definition of recent, of course.

Anyone who defines fifty years ago as 'recent' for the purposes of this type of thing is not the sort of person who's views on this sort of subject I have any interest in hearing.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, but you weren't a colonial power and didn't feel the need to import people to do menial jobs during the 1960s/1970s. The Swedish experience of non-'white' immigration has been quite different to that of most larger countries. Of course, nowhere has been exactly typical, has it? And that's one of the most interesting things about this supposed paneuropean issue; how much in common does a third generation Kashmiri from Saltley have with a third generation Algerian from L'Île-Saint-Denis?

[ag]

You to seem to take a very liberal view on culture and while I respect that view I personally consider it to be a tad naive and I don't agree with it myself.

I see why you wouldn't agree )) But not why would you consider my point naive ))

The core of the difference is that you and me want a very different society. I am very comfortable w/ cultural diversity around me, as long as my own cultural autnomy is not threatened. I've lived in 4 or 5 countries myself, and I try to live the same sort of life everywhere - I'd hate having to adjust. So, for me there is a very strong practical reason to be extremely liberal: it is me who is going to be the target of the majority, if it decides it has the right to determine how others live.

Of course, being of Jewish origin, I also realise what sort of aliens my ancestors were wherever they lived, for generations and centuries - they were far more alien to the outside world and for far longer than today's Muslim migrants in Europe are.  While I have no love lost for their lifestyle, I respect their right to live the way they lived.

To a great extent, my approach is "American", rather than "European". The two European countries I lived in are the old USSR and Spain. In both, you have to very much adjust to the life of those around you: it's their way or the highway. Wasn't as much a problem for me in the USSR, as I grew up there and, anyway, left as a kid (though I do feel very awkward when I visit).  Spain was outright tough to adjust, even though I came there already speaking the language and very well used to moving around. In contrast, US and Mexico - the two countries where I spent the other half of my life (and, to on a superficial impression, Australia, though I only lived there for a few months) are much easier, as an outsider feels a lot less pressure to conform there. Of course, "my America" is, mostly, New York City - a strange place, where few people have claim to being locals. But this is exactly the sort of environment I feel comfortable in.

[Gustaf]

You to seem to take a very liberal view on culture and while I respect that view I personally consider it to be a tad naive and I don't agree with it myself.

I see why you wouldn't agree )) But not why would you consider my point naive ))

The core of the difference is that you and me want a very different society. I am very comfortable w/ cultural diversity around me, as long as my own cultural autnomy is not threatened. I've lived in 4 or 5 countries myself, and I try to live the same sort of life everywhere - I'd hate having to adjust. So, for me there is a very strong practical reason to be extremely liberal: it is me who is going to be the target of the majority, if it decides it has the right to determine how others live.

Of course, being of Jewish origin, I also realise what sort of aliens my ancestors were wherever they lived, for generations and centuries - they were far more alien to the outside world and for far longer than today's Muslim migrants in Europe are.  While I have no love lost for their lifestyle, I respect their right to live the way they lived.

To a great extent, my approach is "American", rather than "European". The two European countries I lived in are the old USSR and Spain. In both, you have to very much adjust to the life of those around you: it's their way or the highway. Wasn't as much a problem for me in the USSR, as I grew up there and, anyway, left as a kid (though I do feel very awkward when I visit).  Spain was outright tough to adjust, even though I came there already speaking the language and very well used to moving around. In contrast, US and Mexico - the two countries where I spent the other half of my life (and, to on a superficial impression, Australia, though I only lived there for a few months) are much easier, as an outsider feels a lot less pressure to conform there. Of course, "my America" is, mostly, New York City - a strange place, where few people have claim to being locals. But this is exactly the sort of environment I feel comfortable in.

I'm not at all uncomfortable with cultural diversity. I'm typing this at the place of my Chinese girlfriend and her Mexican flatmate. I share my flat with a German girl and next week I will celebrate the birthday of my Jewish grandmother from Austria. With that I'm off to bed but I might reply more later.

[ag]

You to seem to take a very liberal view on culture and while I respect that view I personally consider it to be a tad naive and I don't agree with it myself.

I see why you wouldn't agree )) But not why would you consider my point naive ))

The core of the difference is that you and me want a very different society. I am very comfortable w/ cultural diversity around me, as long as my own cultural autnomy is not threatened. I've lived in 4 or 5 countries myself, and I try to live the same sort of life everywhere - I'd hate having to adjust. So, for me there is a very strong practical reason to be extremely liberal: it is me who is going to be the target of the majority, if it decides it has the right to determine how others live.

Of course, being of Jewish origin, I also realise what sort of aliens my ancestors were wherever they lived, for generations and centuries - they were far more alien to the outside world and for far longer than today's Muslim migrants in Europe are.  While I have no love lost for their lifestyle, I respect their right to live the way they lived.

To a great extent, my approach is "American", rather than "European". The two European countries I lived in are the old USSR and Spain. In both, you have to very much adjust to the life of those around you: it's their way or the highway. Wasn't as much a problem for me in the USSR, as I grew up there and, anyway, left as a kid (though I do feel very awkward when I visit).  Spain was outright tough to adjust, even though I came there already speaking the language and very well used to moving around. In contrast, US and Mexico - the two countries where I spent the other half of my life (and, to on a superficial impression, Australia, though I only lived there for a few months) are much easier, as an outsider feels a lot less pressure to conform there. Of course, "my America" is, mostly, New York City - a strange place, where few people have claim to being locals. But this is exactly the sort of environment I feel comfortable in.

I'm not at all uncomfortable with cultural diversity. I'm typing this at the place of my Chinese girlfriend and her Mexican flatmate. I share my flat with a German girl and next week I will celebrate the birthday of my Jewish grandmother from Austria. With that I'm off to bed but I might reply more later.

Well, you might be comfortable w/ it to a degree, but it is not essencial to you. For me it's a matter of crucial personal - and very practical - importance.

(though, come to think of it, aside from a pair of, I am sure, charming girls - the sort of demographic usually subject to different standards, anyway -  the examples of cultural diversity you've been citing are limited to a fairly homogenous Germanic millieu  - yes, the Vienna Jews included ) Offense - to a Swede - intended ))) )

[Gustaf]

You to seem to take a very liberal view on culture and while I respect that view I personally consider it to be a tad naive and I don't agree with it myself.

I see why you wouldn't agree )) But not why would you consider my point naive ))

The core of the difference is that you and me want a very different society. I am very comfortable w/ cultural diversity around me, as long as my own cultural autnomy is not threatened. I've lived in 4 or 5 countries myself, and I try to live the same sort of life everywhere - I'd hate having to adjust. So, for me there is a very strong practical reason to be extremely liberal: it is me who is going to be the target of the majority, if it decides it has the right to determine how others live.

Of course, being of Jewish origin, I also realise what sort of aliens my ancestors were wherever they lived, for generations and centuries - they were far more alien to the outside world and for far longer than today's Muslim migrants in Europe are.  While I have no love lost for their lifestyle, I respect their right to live the way they lived.

To a great extent, my approach is "American", rather than "European". The two European countries I lived in are the old USSR and Spain. In both, you have to very much adjust to the life of those around you: it's their way or the highway. Wasn't as much a problem for me in the USSR, as I grew up there and, anyway, left as a kid (though I do feel very awkward when I visit).  Spain was outright tough to adjust, even though I came there already speaking the language and very well used to moving around. In contrast, US and Mexico - the two countries where I spent the other half of my life (and, to on a superficial impression, Australia, though I only lived there for a few months) are much easier, as an outsider feels a lot less pressure to conform there. Of course, "my America" is, mostly, New York City - a strange place, where few people have claim to being locals. But this is exactly the sort of environment I feel comfortable in.

I'm not at all uncomfortable with cultural diversity. I'm typing this at the place of my Chinese girlfriend and her Mexican flatmate. I share my flat with a German girl and next week I will celebrate the birthday of my Jewish grandmother from Austria. With that I'm off to bed but I might reply more later.

Well, you might be comfortable w/ it to a degree, but it is not essencial to you. For me it's a matter of crucial personal - and very practical - importance.

(though, come to think of it, aside from a pair of, I am sure, charming girls - the sort of demographic usually subject to different standards, anyway -  the examples of cultural diversity you've been citing are limited to a fairly homogenous Germanic millieu  - yes, the Vienna Jews included ) Offense - to a Swede - intended ))) )

I never said the government should legislate peoples' behaviour. I don't think it should.

I think you're libertarian approach to this is naive, because it seems to amount to saying that all choices are equally free and valid. I don't think the choices made within certain cultures are particularly free. I think certain cultures constrain people to an undue degree and I believe society has a role to play in aiding people to break free from those cultures.

I recognize that this is true of all cultures to different degrees, but I believe Western society has moved further than middleeastern on these types of issues.

Basically, I don't think the choice of a woman not to work, never be seen and marry a man her parents picked up is as important to respect as the choice not to eat pork or wear funny hats. That might make a racist authoritarian in your eyes, but certainly not in mine.

[ag]

I think you're libertarian approach to this is naive, because it seems to amount to saying that all choices are equally free and valid. I don't think the choices made within certain cultures are particularly free. I think certain cultures constrain people to an undue degree and I believe society has a role to play in aiding people to break free from those cultures.

<...>
Basically, I don't think the choice of a woman not to work, never be seen and marry a man her parents picked up is as important to respect as the choice not to eat pork or wear funny hats. That might make a racist authoritarian in your eyes, but certainly not in mine.

You don't quite get where I am coming from. I am, first and foremost, selfish: I care a lot more about the society not caring about my own choices, than I care about choices of others ))

On a less selfish note, of course it is true that in many cases within closed communities there is a substantial pressure to conform. However, the fact is, that the outside pressure for integration is, usually, as strong or stronger, even in the absence of anything deliberate on the part of the society as a whole. It is when the society at large tries to force things that the wagons get circled and communities close further.

A woman, growing up in Sweden has every opportunity to join the maintsream. In fact, she is likely to be continuously exposed to that mainstream - through the school system, through the mass culture (from which it is hard to isolate), etc., etc. And, no doubt, the secular Swedish world is quite attractive - I, for one, am comfortable enough about the superiority of the, broadly, "western ways" to believe that, in most cases, they'd be winning in the contest of ideas and modes of being.  You've never been a part of a minority - you simply don't realize how strong the pressure to assimilate is.

However, try forcing assimilation/ modernization, and things change. It doesn't have to happen in the context of migration, of course: perhaps, Turkey might provide the cleanest example here. Several generations of Turkish women have been denied secular university education, due to the "religious" prohibition on wearing hidjab in public schools. In fact, come think of it, this has been, probably, the most effective imaginable policy leading to segregation between the "white Turk" secular elite and the "brown Turk" traditionalist plebs. When policies of this nature get introduced in the west, they only serve to push the migrants into ghettos, where the interaction is minimized and the need to choose between tradition and the outside world is reduced.