Multiculturalism: French versus British attitudes. Which do you favour?

Abrasax wrote: »

You mean the physical attempt to remove the veil?
What will happen if a woman continually refuses to remove her veil?

Presumably the police will have to deal with it. It's not up to Joe Public to go round removing veils.

IvyTheTerrible wrote: »

Presumably the police will have to deal with it. It's not up to Joe Public to go round removing veils.

If the police do it, well then that's ok, isn't it?
Presumably les flics will wear their own balaclavas, while dealing with the resultant riots.
How's that for irony?

why can't we adopt a policy of "do whatever the hell you want" in terms of culture? trying to control culture is silly.

Lol. How about the stoning of a homosexual then? At least for muslim homosexuals in the West?

It's not as if there is anybody in Irish society who is seriously advocating an open borders free-for-all for the poor of the world to share in the wealth of western societies. Or is there

Sure, that belief - no borders at all - is very common. The entire Far Left. Some of the centre left. The libertarian right.

Herb Powell wrote: »

that's not what I meant, and I think you know it. I mean people of certain cultures should be allowed to express it, meet up, whatever

we have to read what you said. Culture is not just people "meeting up".

There are actual multi-cultural societies around with different rules for different cultures, mostly bound up with religion. Culture is bound up with religion, or lack of it. In Malaysia, for instance, the religious police can harrass Malay ( who are assumed to be Muslim by the Constitution). but not Chinese and other citizens who are subjected to secular law only.

A similar Western version of that would have a parallel legal structure for Muslims. There is, already, a template in the world. So if that is what multi-culturalism means let the multi-culturalists agree to it. In some ways I lean towards it too.

Either integration, or that. Not this half way house where left wingers feel morally superior because they eat in ethnic restaurants and despise "cultural racism". At the very best it is a calling of bluff. And a template for a society where Islam may be a majority religion sometime it also makes sense.

If, on the other hand, people are subjected to the laws of the State, or we accept those laws should be secular - that is not multi-culturalism.

Dionysus wrote: »

They are not rightwing nutjobs by any stretch but they have very much moderated their free-for-all/ we're all human beliefs.

Oh, sure. The biggest example in the new liberal fetish for secular schools. Clearly that is the opposite of multi-culturalism, and around 1996 if you said that Muslims should not have their own schools you would have been directed to the BNP website.

( Of course the secularists oppose Catholic schools and Christian schools too, but that is not - for secularists - multicultural either. And I put it to the jury that the standard liberal became extremely anti-relgious just after 9/11).

On the subject of schools and multi-culturalism Malaysia has different schools, exams, for different internal cultures. Some are muslim, some - the international schools - teach the A Levels, or French Exams and thus are secular. Chinese schools teach in Chinese. Not sure of the religious orientation.

That's multi-culturalism - that and the religious police.

In fact the new progressive promotion of secular schools only in Ireland is less multi-cultural than the previous school types where we allowed Jewish, Catholic, and Protestant schools and funded them.

I have never heard anybody, on Boards.ie, advocate an open invitation to the rest of the world.

The search function is probably not up to the task but it definitely has been said: why do we have borders at all?

EDIT: and the guy above me, who talks only of economics.

Pittens: Economics and sustainability are the two main concerns that arise from immigration. There is some numerical point up to which Ireland can sustain more people from a food and living point of view.

Culturally, however, I don't know who would decide what being Irish is, or that wearing the burqa (however horrendous it may be to you or I) precludes you from being Irish or residing here. I'm sure that I differ from most of you in terms of what I believe, or what I think, is it true that I have to conform and integrate? Or can I continue to live as I do without hindrance?

theboxer wrote: »

Eh, with the state spending 25 billion euro more than it takes in and over 400,000 people on the scratcher, I think we may have reached the opening immigration as far as we can support economically mark.

Wouldnt you agree?

I don't agree at all. There is still more potential in Ireland, and the economy is beginning to pick up again from the figures between this time, and this time last year. Perhaps we will have to wait a while before we increase how many non-EU nationals can live here, but I think it is only right that we do when our economy fully stabilises.

I think the idea of banning expression of beliefs is dangerous. If the State is realistically to step in and serve as the moderator of Islamic practices, who is to stop it from doing the same to numerous other faiths such as Christianity, Judaism, and so on.

A poster mentioned the army stepping in if the Attaturk separation of church and state is violated in Turkey.

There is another possibility. The police stepping in to moderate what you believe or say. This is a video from such a case that took place recently in Britain, which was eventually thrown out of court:


Personally, I'd rather that the State stayed out of matters of what I believed, said, or practiced, as long as it does not prevent another from exercising their rights under law.