Racism in Europe

[bulge]

Europe is the model, the motherland, the utopia! How can this be?

I agree. Europe is creating the most fantastic Utopia ever for more than 50 years now. It is done as silent and as smallest as possible, but...

 

[Apollo]

The burqa issue is very simple. You cannot have people going around with their features and body completely covered up for basic security reasons. If you dressed in huge cloak with a hood while wearing a ski mask and walked around town you would be stopped by the police, whether it was part of your religion, culture, or personal convictions.
The basic problem is anyone could be under there carrying anything they wished under the heavy robes. There have already been a few cases that illustrated this: a few terrorism suspects wanted by the police in the UK borrowed their female relatives' burqas and passports and easily flew out from Heathrow airport!

As for the cartoons -- FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION! Remember that? It's only one of the pillars of Western democracy. People don't have legally to express themselves in a way that other people find pleasant. Once you start curbing this freedom in a few cases, then a few more, you are on a slippery slope, because someone always finds something offensive.
The only curb on freedom of expression is when you call for violence against people, because that is inciting people to do something illegal. Note that some Muslim imans throughout Europe have indulged in this.
And, some Muslims themselves in Europe express extremely insensitive opinions in relation to Western culture, women, and gay people. They want other people to be forbidden from criticizing them and their culture/religion, while having complete freedom to trash other cultures and minorities. It comes down to this: a belief that Islam is superior to everything and is entitled to special rights different from those of other things and people in a Western democracy.

I have a lot more problems with people calling for and planning to murder cartoonists and writers that have offended them than I do with cartoonists and writers offending people, and this works for a cartoonist who would do his best to outrage gay people too.

Belgium never once cited security reasons from my knowledge and instead just said, in so many words, this isn't belgium like, you can't wear it. What right doesnt government have in dress attire, that isn't even offensive?

You go from defending the banning of the burqa to claiming freedom of expression for a culturally insensitive cartoon? What is the difference? Freedom of expression extends to clothing. But when it comes to a cartoon, it is suddenly ok? They published the cartoon, and they met the consequences. Them publishing the cartoon is like an american cartoonist publishing a cartoon glorifying homophobia.

I would say freedom of speech is a cornerstone of western civilization, but it seems to mostly be America centric. But either way. The imam can say what he wants. He is in a democratic country right? Of course, once he says it, he will be under investigation and watch prob 24/7, but I am sure he knew the consequences when he said it. As should have the cartoonist.

I don't get where your coming from where they think their religion is superior? All religions think they are superior, and therefore try to have special priveleges for their religion. Christianity has been highly successful in the west with this. It is practically state sponsored in most countries in the west. But for muslims, I think they'd be happy to practice their religion properly. Not having governments banning everything.

 

[Apollo]

It's ironic that here in the U.S. we have exchanged freedom of speech for censorship where Muhammed is concerned but not Jesus or other religious figures.

No christian teachings say that Jesus can not be drawn or depicted. With Muhammed, there is plain speech on the matter.

I am sure if the bible said Jesus can not be drawn or depicted in any way, then we wouldn't know what the fuck the man looked like.

 

[Apollo]

Not quite off topic - but there are racist Indians in India too.
Usually they claim caucasian ancestry.
Now I've opened a can of worms haven't I .......

We aren't talking about India in this thread though, so what's your point?

Not to mention, India doesn't try to come off as racist free either. If anything, India gloats about it's cast system.

 

[ViennaExpat83]

Belgium never once cited security reasons from my knowledge and instead just said, in so many words, this isn't belgium like, you can't wear it. What right doesnt government have in dress attire, that isn't even offensive?

You go from defending the banning of the burqa to claiming freedom of expression for a culturally insensitive cartoon? What is the difference? Freedom of expression extends to clothing. But when it comes to a cartoon, it is suddenly ok? They published the cartoon, and they met the consequences. Them publishing the cartoon is like an american cartoonist publishing a cartoon glorifying homophobia.

I would say freedom of speech is a cornerstone of western civilization, but it seems to mostly be America centric. But either way. The imam can say what he wants. He is in a democratic country right? Of course, once he says it, he will be under investigation and watch prob 24/7, but I am sure he knew the consequences when he said it. As should have the cartoonist.

I don't get where your coming from where they think their religion is superior? All religions think they are superior, and therefore try to have special priveleges for their religion. Christianity has been highly successful in the west with this. It is practically state sponsored in most countries in the west. But for muslims, I think they'd be happy to practice their religion properly. Not having governments banning everything.

Writing an article or drawing a cartoon voices an opinion or viewpoint. That is protected under freedom of speech. Wearing a burqa is not only a statement that voices religious ideals, but it is also a concrete act that contravenes basic public safety in specific and real ways, since you have people going around without being able to be identified. It's called freedom of speech not freedom of action!
There are many customs attached to religious or cultural traditions that are prohibited because they clash with basic law of the land, and not just in Europe. For example, the US Federal government demanded the abolition of polygamy in Utah when it joined the Union, and it was an established cultural custom of the Mormons. You have the same situation in Europe -- polygamy is illegal and no exception has been made for European Muslims, although polygamy is still viewed in some Muslim countries as perfectly ok. Pagans can't sacrifice goats in the middle of a square or at home, because it goes against public health regulations! The examples are endless: that is why our states and laws are secular, not religiously determined!
You could say this is a governmental prohibition on the full practice of religious or cultural traditions. So what? If religious groups got to practice all things in their traditions it would be terrible. What if a christian fundamentalist cult that wanted to follow the Bible literally and wanted freedom to stone their members that committed adultery? What if hard-line imam and his followers wanted freedom to practice "honor killings" (a practice that still exists in some Muslim countries and which has now been exported to Europe -- there are a couple of dozen cases per year) of their family members who shamed them, like a gay son or a daughter that sleeps around? Should the "cultural traditions" of these religious groups be allowed free play?

And what do you mean, the cartoonists must face the consequences?! In a Western democracy you should be protected by the law from being attacked or intimidated when expressing an opinion. That is the whole point of having freedom of speech. Anyone that calls for violence or commits violence against someone whose opinion they don't like must be fully prosecuted, whether they are atheist, christian, muslim, pagan, rastafari, straight, gay, white, black, or what have you.
If a pastor or a bishop calls for christians to kill a cartoonist who drew Jesus taking it up the ass, then that pastor or bishop needs to prosecuted and thrown into jail and the cartoonist should be afforded protection. Same thing! The difference that I mentioned in relation to Islam is that there are still imams and Muslim believers that think that it is legitimate to call for and commit the murder of a writer or cartoonist or film maker (remember Theo Van Gogh) that offends their sensibilities. When was the last time a Christian clergyman or leader called for killing an atheist writer or cartoonist who mocks christianity? I am glad to say it has been a while. Imams need to learn the same lessons that bishops and pastors learned some time ago.

 

[Apollo]

Writing an article or drawing a cartoon voices an opinion or viewpoint. That is protected under freedom of speech. Wearing a burqa is not only a statement that voices religious ideals, but it is also a concrete act that contravenes basic public safety in specific and real ways, since you have people going around without being able to be identified. It's called freedom of speech not freedom of action!

Wearing a burqa is simply that, wearing a burqa. For religious reasons. I thought there was this whole freedom of religion thing? No one stops a monk from wearing his habit, or a priest his robes. But a muslim lady observing HER religion is something that is dangerous. Sorry, but when I see a lady in her burqa in Randalls with her kids buying groceries I am not going to think she is expressing her FREEDOM OF ACTION!

There are many customs attached to religious or cultural traditions that are prohibited because they clash with basic law of the land, and not just in Europe. For example, the US Federal government demanded the abolition of polygamy in Utah when it joined the Union, and it was an established cultural custom of the Mormons. You have the same situation in Europe -- polygamy is illegal and no exception has been made for European Muslims, although polygamy is still viewed in some Muslim countries as perfectly ok. Pagans can't sacrifice goats in the middle of a square or at home, because it goes against public health regulations! The examples are endless: that is why our states and laws are secular, not religiously determined!

Sorry, but polygamy and wearing a burqa is two different things. And I don't know if you know this, but polygamy still exists in America. You probably saw it on Oprah or something. As for sacrificing goats etc. The people of those religions volunteered to stop those practices before government stepped in. But again, wearing a burqa and slaying goats for fun are two different things. Although, the jewish people still practice ritual slaying of animals so that they are kosher.

You could say this is a governmental prohibition on the full practice of religious or cultural traditions. So what? If religious groups got to practice all things in their traditions it would be terrible. What if a christian fundamentalist cult that wanted to follow the Bible literally and wanted freedom to stone their members that committed adultery? What if hard-line imam and his followers wanted freedom to practice "honor killings" (a practice that still exists in some Muslim countries and which has now been exported to Europe -- there are a couple of dozen cases per year) of their family members who shamed them, like a gay son or a daughter that sleeps around? Should the "cultural traditions" of these religious groups be allowed free play?

I would mention freedom of religion, but this isn't America. But you know, it starts with one thing, and ends up on a slippery slope. And then you wonder why people are blowing up shit. If governments started banning christian practices, there would be no doubt, there would be a backlash so powerful, World War 3 would begin. But because they are muslims, it's ok, or so what?

As for stoning and honor killing. Again, what does this have to do with wearing a piece of clothing? Killing someone is...well murder. Wearing a burqa is...wearing something.

And what do you mean, the cartoonists must face the consequences?! In a Western democracy you should be protected by the law from being attacked or intimidated when expressing an opinion. That is the whole point of having freedom of speech. Anyone that calls for violence or commits violence against someone whose opinion they don't like must be fully prosecuted, whether they are atheist, christian, muslim, pagan, rastafari, straight, gay, white, black, or what have you.

No, they faced the consequences. The muslims protested, and an apology was issued etc. They knew it was against the islamic religion, and they did it anyway, they got what came to them.

If a pastor or a bishop calls for christians to kill a cartoonist who drew Jesus taking it up the ass, then that pastor or bishop needs to prosecuted and thrown into jail and the cartoonist should be afforded protection. Same thing! The difference that I mentioned in relation to Islam is that there are still imams and Muslim believers that think that it is legitimate to call for and commit the murder of a writer or cartoonist or film maker (remember Theo Van Gogh) that offends their sensibilities. When was the last time a Christian clergyman or leader called for killing an atheist writer or cartoonist who mocks christianity? I am glad to say it has been a while. Imams need to learn the same lessons that bishops and pastors learned some time ago.

Sure, if someone killed the cartoonist. Um, christians call for the deaths of people all the time. You know, gays, athiests, pro-abortion people, pro health care reform, pro seperation of church and state. And they do it all the time. I would say fundamentalist christians and fundamentalist islamist are one in the same.

 

[ViennaExpat83]

No, they faced the consequences. The muslims protested, and an apology was issued etc. They knew it was against the islamic religion, and they did it anyway, they got what came to them.

Sure, if someone killed the cartoonist. Um, christians call for the deaths of people all the time. You know, gays, athiests, pro-abortion people, pro health care reform, pro seperation of church and state. And they do it all the time. I would say fundamentalist christians and fundamentalist islamist are one in the same.

You apparently have a very selective memory in relation to the Danish cartoons affair.
The "protests" involved the burning of foreign embassies, the flinging of Molotov cocktails at Danish government property, the calling for the death of all newspaper staff of the newspapers that published the cartoon by religious leaders, and actual attempts to assassinate the cartoonist and editors (the cartoonist was attacked by a fundamentalist wielding an ax some months ago, thankfully he shut himself with his grandkids in a safe room he had installed in his house and called the police.)

That is not "protesting". Gandhi protested, MLK protested, gay rights advocates protest. What these people did cannot be called "protesting", it can only be called thuggery, intimidation, and attempted murder.

And neither the cartoonist nor the Danish newspaper ever apologized. Other European newspapers that had also printed the cartoon did apologize. Not because they were sensitive -- because they were afraid of violence and harm. It seems like you are fine and dandy with that, but I and many other people think that newspapers and writers having to censor what they print because of fear of being murdered is something catastrophic for democracy and must be prevented at all costs.

Again, you say "they did something against Muslim religion and got what came to them". You don't seem to understand that the dictates or taboos of any religion are not part of civil law. The press and any citizen in a secular state are free to criticize and ridicule any religious taboo they wish. It is fully allowed. What is not allowed is for religions to intimidate people into conforming with their taboos. Each person is free to conform with them if they want, but not force others to do so. Basic principle of separation of church and state, yet you don't seem to approve of it. You seem to sympathize with violent intimidation by theocratic thugs.

Of course, any religious group, leader, or person can write articles protesting any critical cartoon or book and explaining why they're wrong or disrespectful, they can gather signatures, or they can hold peaceful protests. That is fully within their rights, which are the same as those of any other citizen.

You say Christian fundamentalists and Muslim fundamentalists are equally violent against writers and cartoonists that offend their religion. Not in my experience.

Just off the top of my head I can remember the Danish cartoon affair, the Salmon Rushdie fatwa, the attempted murder of one of the few writers from a Muslim country to win the Nobel Prize for Literarure, the secularist Naghib Mafhouz, by a Muslim fundamentalist, the murder of Theo van Gogh, the Dutch filmmaker who made a film critical of the handling of women in Islam, and the attempted murder of his friend and collaborator, Ayan Hirsi Ali.
I can't really name any writers or cartoonists or journalists that were murdered or almost murdered by Christian fundamentalists for insulting Christianity. Maybe you can give some examples?...

 

[Apollo]

You apparently have a very selective memory in relation to the Danish cartoons affair.
The "protests" involved the burning of foreign embassies, the flinging of Molotov cocktails at Danish government property, the calling for the death of all newspaper staff of the newspapers that published the cartoon by religious leaders, and actual attempts to assassinate the cartoonist and editors (the cartoonist was attacked by a fundamentalist wielding an ax some months ago, thankfully he shut himself with his grandkids in a safe room he had installed in his house and called the police.)

That is not "protesting". Gandhi protested, MLK protested, gay rights advocates protest. What these people did cannot be called "protesting", it can only be called thuggery, intimidation, and attempted murder.

And neither the cartoonist nor the Danish newspaper ever apologized. Other European newspapers that had also printed the cartoon did apologize. Not because they were sensitive -- because they were afraid of violence and harm. It seems like you are fine and dandy with that, but I and many other people think that newspapers and writers having to censor what they print because of fear of being murdered is something catastrophic for democracy and must be prevented at all costs.

While I do not condone the violence that happened. They should have known better. Well...they did know better but thought they were badasses and did it anyway. Even South Park had the foresight to not be so stupid.

Again, you say "they did something against Muslim religion and got what came to them". You don't seem to understand that the dictates or taboos of any religion are not part of civil law. The press and any citizen in a secular state are free to criticize and ridicule any religious taboo they wish. It is fully allowed. What is not allowed is for religions to intimidate people into conforming with their taboos. Each person is free to conform with them if they want, but not force others to do so. Basic principle of separation of church and state, yet you don't seem to approve of it. You seem to sympathize with violent intimidation by theocratic thugs.

As governments should. When they start banning articles of clothing that do not reveal any sexual objects or truly offend anyone, is when the problem happens. Politicians criticize certain garbs all the time in the states, they don't outright ban them though.

You say Christian fundamentalists and Muslim fundamentalists are equally violent against writers and cartoonists that offend their religion. Not in my experience.

No they are equally the same in their wording to things they oppose. Many christian fundamentalist have killed abortion doctors, and gays, and athiests, etc. The rest, simply call for violence to their followers.

Just off the top of my head I can remember the Danish cartoon affair, the Salmon Rushdie fatwa, the attempted murder of one of the few writers from a Muslim country to win the Nobel Prize for Literarure, the secularist Naghib Mafhouz, by a Muslim fundamentalist, the murder of Theo van Gogh, the Dutch filmmaker who made a film critical of the handling of women in Islam, and the attempted murder of his friend and collaborator, Ayan Hirsi Ali.
I can't really name any writers or cartoonists or journalists that were murdered or almost murdered by Christian fundamentalists for insulting Christianity. Maybe you can give some examples?...

you seem focused on cartoons. But here is an example of Christian crazies killing because it doesn't gel with the reading material. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/02/AR2010040204134.html

 

[MindBlast]

Racism in Europe can't be as bad as racism in Africa. See: South Africa and Rwanda.

 

[Lord Booticus]

I live in a bit of a cultural and religious black hole. Here in the South West of England it seems that immigrants don't see it as a good place to live 'cause we don't really get much diversity down here. Except Chinese, we get quite a few chinese immigrants, who open Chinese take aways. Its convenient =D.

In the past it was extremely rare to see a black person wondering the streets of Plymouth. When I was in school I didn't have a single black person in my year. One person was half and another is 1/4 Brazilian. In the five years of secondary school there were only 3 black kids. And one of them left the school. I now work in the same school and its pretty much the same situation.


However it does seem to be changing, I've started football training on a Saturday and only half of the team is from Plymouth, the other half being black guys and eastern european immigrants. And one Scott. Other than being a bit ball greedy and occasionally hard to communicate with them none of us have had any problems with them.

You'll probably find much more rasicm up north where there's a lot more ethical diversity. And chavs.

 

[954dude]

My father is from Birmingham, England, UK and I've spent enough time in the middle class sections of the city.

There is definitely racial segregation and some racial tension, which has sometimes gotten violent. In the city you have different towns that are majority one ethnic/racial/religious group.

The different groups can be broken down to...
Europeans: English, Irish, Welsch, Scottish, French, Italian, Greek, Eastern Euopean migrants
South Asians: Indian Hindus/Sikhs/Muslims, Pakistani Muslims, Bangladeshi Muslims/Hindus
African: Kenyan, Somalian, South African
Middle Eastern: Moroccan, Turkish, Saudi Arabian, Israeli
Caribbean/Latin American: Black Jamaicans, Indian Trinidadians, Brazilians
East Asian/Pacific Islanders: Filipino, Chinese
Mixed race: black Jamaican/English, Indian/English

With all that diversity, there's a lot of misunderstanding, especially since a large portion of the groups don't speak English and practice their culture/faith in a more open fashion, compared to the United States.

Religious clashing = EXTREMELY common. But it's beautiful to see the different houses of worship in Birmingham. Islamic mosques line the streets, Christian churches are all over the place, and the Hindu mandirs and Sikh gudhwaras are hard to miss.

Interracial dating? SO common! Especially black Jamaicans and English couples. I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of the cities become mulatto.

And once more, migration into the UK is EASY. You're pretty much given housing and employment if you stay long enough.

 

[Paws]

I think we Europeans who stood in Europe are far less racist than the ones that went out in colonies and murdered the natives of other continents back then.

The main problem in Europe is not racism, but religion. We don't mind what skin colour you have, just don't shove your beliefs and whole backwards culture that comes with it in our faces.

Although it's true that you hardly will find a black or Asian TV news host, whereas a Turkish one would be possible...

I will never forget when I was in Turkey this bar staff/waiter person just went up to this black male customer and said "hello Ni**er" right up to his face.

Yeeees, but... East-Europe is not Europe

makes me glad we have the 1st Amendment in the US.

I'm glad we Europeans don't need a First Amendment to know right from wrong. We don't need a law to tell us morals and which can be abused.

I can't imagine how women in burqas are allowed in a bank.

You mean, if their husband allows them to go to the bank?

 

[Lord Booticus]

Before someone from the north of England comes in and gets offended I'd just like to include this disclaimer: My comment was from rumour NOT experience. I have only been to the north once and then only to Staffordhsire. If I am wrong do correct me.

And once more, migration into the UK is EASY. You're pretty much given housing and employment if you stay long enough.

And as such we have such parties as the BNP and UKIP. While yes it is too easy for immigration and illegal immigration into the U.K and this needs to be sorted out, saying that immigration is the greatest threat to the environment is a load of bollocks and you need to shut up.

The main problem in Europe is not racism, but religion. We don't mind what skin colour you have, just don't shove your beliefs and whole backwards culture that comes with it in our faces.

Were a culture that thinks speaking louder will mean people of a different language will eb able to understand us better. While were in THEIR country, so people coming into the U.K and expect us to adapt to their culture isn't going to happen. Not so much racism as being too lazy to bother learning about another culture. They should automatically simulate the British culture, if not go home. (last comment was sarcasm!)

 

[Purplebic]

Quebec banned the veil and had the support of the people, the provincial and federal governments. If some people aren't happy with that, the airport ain't too far. Coming to a country to seek a better life is understandable, but refusal to assimilate is not. You can't come here for the sake of owning a home and finding a job and hope to carry on with the same laws and customs that made the country of origin so unlivable to begin with. If we don't wanna live there, we certainly don't want those values brought here.

 

[Apollo]

Quebec banned the veil and had the support of the people, the provincial and federal governments. If some people aren't happy with that, the airport ain't too far. Coming to a country to seek a better life is understandable, but refusal to assimilate is not. You can't come here for the sake of owning a home and finding a job and hope to carry on with the same laws and customs that made the country of origin so unlivable to begin with. If we don't wanna live there, we certainly don't want those values brought here.

Wearing a veil is not a refusal to assimilate, it's maintaining some level of culture that you are born and bred from. I wonder what Quebec did about priests and their robes. God knows they could be hiding little boys under those things.

I would say bad on Canada, but no one considers Quebec apart of Canada.

 

[Purplebic]

The veil is the symbol of their refusal to assimilate. By banning it, the gov't essentially said "welcome to Canada".

And living in a predominantly immigrant neighborhood, putting up with more homophobia each year from muslim immigrants, i fully support the government in this matter. After all, the gay culture has been here much longer than any of them, and if they think their culture and their religion gives them the right to beat or murder gay people, then yeah, they should either be made to give it up or go home.