Immigration France in Flames

[Gaijin 06]

It remains a fact that they are the ones that cause the problems. So, are you saying that North Africans are genetically more disposed to behave badly or fail to adapt to different cultures. That's closer to racism. I see the facts, and try to find the cause to it. I doubt that it is genetical. Probably more cultural - and in their case culture is heavily influenced by religion.

EDIT : maybe we should bury the hatchet and stop the argument here.

I am happy to stop here but I can't let this mispresentation stand. Nowhere - nowhere did I imply that " North Africans are genetically more disposed to behave badly or fail to adapt to different cultures".

I can not even see how you can infer this, when what I actually said was

"I also don't doubt that if religion hadn't been the "driving force" behind these wars then something else would have been. It is part of human nature, whether we like it or not."

In the context of the quote, I was talking about all religious wars - from the Crusades onwards. I believe humans will always struggle to better their lot, and not all the ways they choose to do it are palatable to all.

There are many brutal episodes of British history that shame me, just like their are in most countries past. White, black, brown or yellow makes no difference - they've all fought and will all fight again. Muslim, Christain, Jew - they've all got horrific incidents in their past and present.

Religion might be the conduit which they choose to vent their angers, or it might simply be a way we perceive it rather than the way it actually is. It may well be some of both.

I don't know how I would feel if I was born in Africa, or a French ghetto, a Palestian enclave or a next to a Chinese rice paddy. However I can empathise with those mistreated by the Israelis, who don't have a fair chance in France or who will have nothing to look forward to in their lives.

I don't condone their actions but I can understand the driving force behind them, and I don't think it is always religion.

 

[Gaijin 06]

Is it ? When was the last revolution ? 1848 ? (and not a big one with that). We could say the same for most countries (American revolution, Cromwell's revolution in Britain, Chinese revolution of 1911 and 1948 + cultural revolution + capitalist revolution, many colonies' revolution of independence, etc.)

I said violence and revolution are both parts of French history and ingrained in their culture. Do you forget the student riots of 1968?

From a source you like quoting, Wiki

n May 1968 a general insurrection broke out across France. It quickly began to reach near-revolutionary proportions before being discouraged by the French Communist Party, and finally suppressed by the government who accused the Communists of plotting against the Republic. Some philosophers and historians have argued that the rebellion was the single most important revolutionary event of the 20th century because it wasn't participated in by a lone demographic, such as workers or racial minorities, but was rather a purely popular uprising, superseding ethnic, cultural, age and class boundaries.

It began as a series of student strikes that broke out at a number of universities and high schools in Paris, following confrontations with university administrators and the police. The de Gaulle administration's attempts to quash those strikes by further police action only inflamed the situation further, leading to street battles with the police in the Latin Quarter, followed by a general strike by students and strikes throughout France by ten million French workers, roughly two-thirds of the French workforce. The protests reached the point that De Gaulle created a military operations headquarters to deal with the unrest, dissolved the National Assembly and called for new parliamentary elections for 23 June 1968.

 

[bossel]

That's a rather weird outlook....

Only if you think that freethought & Libertarianism are weird.

So there is failed city planning in Belgium and France?

Definitely in France, don't know so much about Belgium (see response to Maciamo). Similar problems as in France are usually caused by a concentration of socially unprivileged people. You can see this all over Europe, but in France these suburbs with the related architecture are extraordinary large.

Yes... it should be because Europe has established the rule of a secular society starting with the French Revolution and we can not go back in our tracks... our way of life is based on a rational secular logic or would you rather have churches starting to sell indulgences again ?

I wouldn't care very much about churches selling indulgences. If people are silly enough (& allowed to) throw their money into the muzzle of TV shopping channels, why shouldn't they do the same regarding religion?

A very important part of a secular society is freedom of religion. What you propose doesn't sound very much like that.

Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

European society is still very much based on Christianity & Christian values. In Germany (& I know for sure, in the Netherlands as well) you still have political parties with Christian values as their outspoken aims.

Of course they are... what else are they going to say if they were pounded with that thought since early in their childhood.

That's the question, ey? Sorry, but it's not that easy. You actually have girls from very secular families who wear a veil (or headscarf) & others from rather conservative families, who don't. You have families where one daughter does, while the other refuses to wear a veil. Just one or 2 weeks ago I've watched a documentary where one daughter was going to school wearing a belly-free top, while the other wore a veil.
From my own experience I can say that here at the university the Muslimas with and those without veils get along very well.

They don't realise that the veil is something that restricts their freedom in many aspects of their daily life... just having to wear that veil in the hot summer days must cause quite some discomfort.

Just like wearing a business suit (that's one of the reasons why I don't go for jobs where I would have to wear one). Yep, now that you say it, there is good reason to prohibit wearing business suits. Let's make a law about it!

No.. defenetily not... but we should also stop being walked on...

Don't see how you are walked upon if you allow others to follow their crappy religion.

First of all it defies secularism, which dare I say has become sacrosant in most European societies...

Secular & sacrosanct? Quite an oxymoron.

laïcité: the separation of state and religion
not the separation of society & religion

and secondly it creates the impression that the person is not fully integrated in the host society in which they are living...

Sorry, I still can't see what fully integrated would mean & imply. I am not fully integrated in my society, now what (or better: so what)?

rather they are split faction that do not abide by our way of life

Society is made up of a large number of split factions, all with their particular way of life. Which way should immigrants abide to?

Why is is only France and Belgium that have these problems then? Could it be something to do with the host communities rather than the guests?

I think because they were too leniant and didn't impose stricter rules as France was forced to recently with the baning of religious symbols in public institutions, also maybe they misplaced their faith in the abilities of these communities to integrate:souka:

Don't really understand your argument here. Are you saying that eg. German laws were less lenient than they were in France?

He is giving you a logical reason on how this extremist way of Islam is promting such actions...

Not really. It's not the religious extremists who riot. & there is no reliable statistic (yet?) about how many rioters come from religious families.

Their hard work attitude and respect of local culture makes them a desirable pool of human resources

Hard work, yes (money on their mind, that is), but respect? Most Chinese do not respect Western culture, which they deem barbarian. Their children & grandchildren may assimilate very well, though.

Now although here in Europe we don't have such a great reputation due to a small minority that resorts to organized crime as way of life,

You mean, like a small minority of rioters that give the Northern-African community in French suburbs a bad name? Sounds familiar.

 

[bossel]

This may be true for the suburbs of Paris, but no for Belgian cities. In Brussels, immigrants live more in the centre than in the suburbs, and in buildings often over 100 years old.

Well, I don't know so much about Belgium, but it's still a failure in city-planning. You can see this in Berlin as well. Kreuzberg is not a suburb & doesn't have so many of those 70's buildings (if at all), yet you have a certain problem of ghettoisation (& the riots that happen there once in a while definitely don't have a religious touch). German cities which avoided ghettoisation don't have the problems Berlin has.

Personally I find it offensive that anybody should display their religiousness in public.

Although as an atheist myself I can relate to your feelings, I don't think banning the display of religious affiliation would do any good. Such bans & strict enforcement of prohibition actually enhance extremism.

Then again, why is it always the Mulsims that complain about the law banning religious symbols in public institutions, and not the Christians, Jews, Sikhs, Buddhists or whatever ?

Actually, AFAIK there were Christians & Jews who complained. Sikhs are just too few in number to be noticed (even the Stasi didn't take them into account, BTW, funny side note: Stasi is also the acronym for the former GDR secret service, very well known for its human rights achievements).

Then again, why is it always the Mulsims that complain about the law banning religious symbols in public institutions, and not the Christians, Jews, Sikhs, Buddhists or whatever ?

Perhaps because the law was originally & primarily aimed at them? Or at least the Muslims feel like that. Furthermore, they make up the bulk of those who are affected by the law.

I find it unacceptable that immigrants should complain about a lack of rights in their host countries when their home country has evevn less rights and they didn't have the guts to fight for their rights in their home country

Now that's quite condescending.
1) You can't expect people to risk their life for their religious conviction.
2) If you're in a democracy & it's unacceptable to complain, where is it acceptable?

Religion is humanity's n°1 apology to justify what it has been doing troughout the ages. [...]
It seems religion and war go hand in hand, one reason why I'm all against religion in the first place.

As you said, religion is often just an excuse. Not religion & war go hand in hand, but mankind & war do. Therefore you should say "Nay to human beings!"

 

[Maciamo]

Well, I don't know so much about Belgium, but it's still a failure in city-planning.

Could you explain what you mean by "failure in city-planning". What is good city-planning, and what is bad ?

You can see this in Berlin as well. Kreuzberg is not a suburb & doesn't have so many of those 70's buildings (if at all), yet you have a certain problem of ghettoisation (& the riots that happen there once in a while definitely don't have a religious touch). German cities which avoided ghettoisation don't have the problems Berlin has.

You really should come to Brussels once. The neighourhood I referred have absolutely nothing in common with Kreuzberg or other East Berlin dormitory towns made of identical concrete blocks of apartments. They are part of the historical city, have plenty of public transports, easy access to commercial centres... In fact, they took some of the most convenient districts. For example, Schaerbeek/St-Josse-ten-Node (pls check map) is located between the old, touristic historical centre (Grand Place, Royal Palace...), the EU district and the HQ of NATO. Not bad, huh ? The other main immigrant district (St Giles) is at the other end of the old, touristic historical centre, around the TGV station, and just a few hundred metres away from Brussels most expensive shopping street (Avenue Louise, i.e. Brussels' Champs Elysees or Kurfuestendamm). They of course enjoy the best public transports, being at the crossing of all lines. Now, the "rich" have had to flee to the suburbs, so as to avoid vandalism, carjacking, asssaults, etc. It's the opposite of Paris, where the immigrants went to far-away suburbs with nothing.

 

[bossel]

That's speculation, afteral we can't possibly know what would've happened if there was no religion.

Not speculation, extrapolation with regards to human psychology (well, OK, an educated guess).

Anyway, there are numerous examples in history where a war is ascribed to religion when in fact other motives played a bigger role. I think, Maciamo mentioned the crusades, which is actually a nice example that belief didn't play such a mighty role. For the Pope it was mostly power politics, for many knights it was duty & for second born sons of the nobility it was a chance to gain land. Nevertheless, religious fervor was involved, but the reasons for participating in (or initiating) crusades varied widely.

Could you explain what you mean by "failure in city-planning". What is good city-planning, and what is bad ?

Failure in city-planning insofar as they obviously didn't prevent the concentration of socially disadvantaged people. There are various ways to prevent this. Here you can find one of the more recent initiatives in that regard in Germany.

You really should come to Brussels once. The neighourhood I referred have absolutely nothing in common with Kreuzberg or other East Berlin dormitory towns made of identical concrete blocks of apartments.

As I already mentioned, Kreuzberg is not a bedroom community, it's actually in the city centre.

In fact, they took some of the most convenient districts. For example, Schaerbeek/St-Josse-ten-Node (pls check map) is located between the old, touristic historical centre (Grand Place, Royal Palace...), the EU district and the HQ of NATO. Not bad, huh ?

Funny that you mention Schaarbeek, AFAIK it's comparable to Kreuzberg.

Anyway, not bad? IMO, city centres are something better to be avoided. Too many people, too much traffic (& since I live in a city centre for 2 months now, from my experience: by far not enough parking space, damnit), too dirty, not enough green a.s.o.

 

[Maciamo]

There are various ways to prevent this. Here you can find one of the more recent initiatives in that regard in Germany.

Have you seen my thread about similar initiatives in Antwerp ?

As I already mentioned, Kreuzberg is not a bedroom community, it's actually in the city centre.

Sorry, got a bit confused. Well, it's not right in the centre (a bit south). It's 8 years since I was in Berlin... But it's undeniable that East Berlin is full of "bedroom communities" nicely separated by huge avenues.

 

[Ma Cherie]

I think this thread should be split.

 

[Maciamo]

I think this thread should be split.

I have split the posts about religions and war here.
Unfortunately I could move the posts that were both about this topic (immigrants in Europe) and wars of religion.

 

[Minty]

I think the term riot used commonly in this thread seems to be a misnomer. It is better to call it social Unrest. It is not quite the same situation as the riot of 1992 in L.A. for example where 54 casualties died, and 2,000 casualties wounded. Nobody died in the two week period of unrest in France and there were no guns on the streets and no adults involved but pre teens, teenagers aand young adults between the ages of 12 to 20.

Is that not what France did, put all of these Africans in a ghetto (A.K.A. Mini Colony), and then expect them all to act and be French? This logic is flawed in that sense, but I understand that if you move to a foreign country then you should act by their rules. However, I feel strongly that you shouldn't have to give up your roots of who you are, and where you came from. Yeah, I'm sure you disagree with that, but you only look at this point-of-view from a European perspective. Try stepping in the Immigrant shoes for a brief moment, then you might start to understand what I'm talking about.

The French did not put these North Africans (which are mainly Arabs not blacks as mentioned by some others) in ghettos. They are the ones who formed the ghettos by occupying a neighbourhood where they expel all nationals and impose their own laws and rules and turn what was a peaceful area into a ghetto where the police can't even enter. But like I said in the other thread about banning headscarves, projects and money will be invested to help get rid of these ghettos.

Instead of working hard the North Africans rather live off the government. If you go to the health claim centre you would find a lot of North Africans there, considering they are a minority there should be more European decent people there but that is not the case. The North Africans here like to hang around in the streets wondering around unlike the refugees from Vietnam whom came to France with nothing but they work hard. And now most of them own small businesses and a lot of their children and grand children and their children attend Universities.

I know some locals here who have very bad experiences with North African colleagues for many times. Every time a new one arrives they think this would be a good employee not like last time but again and again the North Africans disappoint them. So their differences grow and grow until two delinquent kids electrocute themselves from being chased by policemen and then caused the rest of the people from these ghettos to burn down the country complaining that the French government hasn't done anything for them.

The thing is France has no such thing as business immigration like the US, Canada, Australia...etc. The immigrants either came here as refugees or through family migrations or their parents came to fill in some jobs that lacked labourers after the second world wars. So they are poor to begin with.

Further more French is wedded to their government-supplied goodies -- failing to recognize that their economic and therefore social lives are unravelling because of that dependence. System that guarantees things like welfare, medicine to any new migrants is likey to cause problems. System that does not make sure that their new citizens will give more than they take is likely to be unsuccessful. However this seems to be especially problematic with North Africans rather than Vietnamese immigrants in France for some reasons.

I think France should tighten immigration laws. In Europe social security is free. You just need to be a citizen of the country you're in to get a heart surgery absolutely for free.

Conversely say in Australia even if you are married to an Australian citizens you are not entitled to social security unless your application is approved and then after two years you are entitled to it if you did not do anything wrong to jeopardise your ability of getting the permanent resident of Australia.

During these two years your spouse or a member from her family who have to agree to be an assuror will have to be responsible for all social related costs at full price. And they have to be economically eligible.

There is also business immigration that the immigrants must have a fairly good incomeand other business related abilities. So when the immigrants first arrive to Australia they can already afford housing, and many other things needed to start settling in and will not end up in ghettos.

 

[Maciamo]

France in Flames - Episode II

Riots in immigrant suburbs of Paris have started again since yesterday. So far 80 policemen have already been injured, some by bullets or petrol bombs. The authorities said that the riots had already been more intense than in 2005, when more than 10,000 cars were set ablaze and 300 buildings firebombed.

=> see BBC article : Dozens injured in Paris rampage

 

[Fein]

It still continues until today. I wonder why French people accept this? Is it so much fun or acceptable to get the car burned for nothing? Or is it just about tolerance? To show the world how tolerant they are? Look, my car gets burned, I can't go for a walk in the evening, my children are afraid to go to school, my wife gets mugged on her way to work, but HEY! LOOK! I AM STILL TOLERANT!