Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

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

13567

Comments

  • #62
    Sheeps
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,763 ✭✭✭Sheeps


    Yeah actually, banning the veils is dumb as hell.


  • #63
    Dionysus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,420 ✭✭✭Dionysus


    Sheeps wrote: »
    Yeah actually, banning the veils is dumb as hell.

    Why?


  • #64
    Dionysus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,420 ✭✭✭Dionysus


    Jakkass wrote: »
    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.

    We're fúcked. How you can imply things are relatively grand now has no support in the unemployment statistics.

    The only potential we have at this moment in 2010 is for economic survival, not for taking in non-Irish people. Charity begins at home.


  • #65
    sron
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 264 ✭✭sron


    Dionysus wrote: »
    Why?

    It replaces a form of religious oppression with a form of state oppression; that's hardly a great stride for society.


  • #66
    Dionysus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,420 ✭✭✭Dionysus


    sron wrote: »
    It replaces a form of religious oppression with a form of state oppression; that's hardly a great stride for society.

    Sounds right-on. But, what's "oppressive" about banning it?


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    I would say that you are strawmanning my post if you derived "relatively grand" from it. My point was, that we are in a position to recover, and indeed the economy is beginning to stabilise, and when the economy does stabilise, we should be making every effort to give others opportunities to work here if there is indeed work to be had.

    What's oppressive about banning the burqa? - It is the principle, that the State somehow is a better determinant of what you do than you yourself. It isn't the States role to moderate Islamic belief, that is up to the Islamic community, and up to whatever criticism comes from others. It is encroaching on other peoples freedom of conscience, and expression of religion.

    It is not the States role to dictate what people should believe, and how they should exercise it as long as it does not affect the rights of other individuals.


  • #68
    Dionysus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,420 ✭✭✭Dionysus


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I would say that you are strawmanning my post if you derived "relatively grand" from it. My point was, that we are in a position to recover, and indeed the economy is beginning to stabilise, and when the economy does stabilise, we should be making every effort to give others opportunities to work here if there is indeed work to be had.

    The economy is not beginning to stabilise; that may be your impression, however. House prices have a huge amount to decline by still. Moreover, we cannot give hundreds of thousands of Irish people here the opportunity to work here at the moment so why are you focusing on something which may or may not happen in the future?

    Your idea of employing non-Irish people in the future sounds good, even noble, but that's about it. The reality today is very different.


  • #69
    plein de force
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,148 ✭✭✭plein de force


    absolutely prefer the french way
    they really take their secularism seriously, you're entitled to your beliefs but they don't go any further than you, sure they don't even recognise religious marriages of any kind.
    they take their language seriously too, if you're going to live here then learn the lingo or leave
    and if you don't like the culture or the people you're more than welcome to go home or somewhere else, that attitude is what the rest of the world needs.

    i'll move to france at some time and i know i need to change to fit in with their culture, i'd never in a million years expect them to change for me, a mere irish blow-in, why can others think this way too?


  • #70
    Dionysus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,420 ✭✭✭Dionysus


    Jakkass wrote: »
    What's oppressive about banning the burqa? - It is the principle, that the State somehow is a better determinant of what you do than you yourself. It isn't the States role to moderate Islamic belief, that is up to the Islamic community, and up to whatever criticism comes from others. It is encroaching on other peoples freedom of conscience, and expression of religion.

    It is not the States role to dictate what people should believe, and how they should exercise it as long as it does not affect the rights of other individuals.

    It is precisely the state's role to moderate it (and most other things) in the society in which the state holds legitimacy.


  • #71
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Dionysus wrote: »
    It is precisely the state's role to moderate it (and most other things) in the society in which the state holds legitimacy.

    It's the States role to decide what I believe, what you believe, and what others believe? Really?

    If that is the case it is a sad day for freedom of any kind.


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    Dionysus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,420 ✭✭✭Dionysus


    Jakkass wrote: »
    It's the States role to decide what I believe, what you believe, and what others believe? Really?

    If that is the case it is a sad day for freedom of any kind.

    You can believe, in private, what you believe. It's the state's role to ensure that your beliefs do not threaten the community's values and traditions, the overall good of our community.

    If you want to live in an Islamic society, you can move to a state which facilitates that, like Saudi Arabia. If you want to live in a Roman Catholic society you can move to a state which facilitates that, such as the Vatican.

    Ireland is neither, and hopefully will remain so.


  • #73
    Sheeps
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,763 ✭✭✭Sheeps


    Dionysus wrote: »
    Why?
    People should have the freedom to dress how ever they like.


  • #74
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Dionysus wrote: »
    You can believe, in private, what you believe. It's the state's role to ensure that your beliefs do not threaten the community's values and traditions, the overall good of our community.

    Freedom of expression + freedom of religion = Free expression of religion.
    What are the communities values? Indeed, and why should I be forced to share them, or forced to conform to values that aren't my own?

    Personally, I think advocating that ones beliefs should be "private" isn't for the good of anyone. It's a draconian measure, and it is an insult to liberty.
    Dionysus wrote: »
    If you want to live in an Islamic society, you can move to a state which facilitates that, like Saudi Arabia. If you want to live in a Roman Catholic society you can move to a state which facilitates that, such as the Vatican.

    I'm quite happy to live here, practice my own values as I deem fit and as openly as I deem fit, and discuss them with whoever I wish as the current set of rights allow me to.

    I don't see any reason why people should be forced to conform to secularism in either their public or private lives. Secularism at most is a principle of State practice, not a principle that invades into peoples lives.
    Dionysus wrote: »
    Ireland is neither, and hopefully will remain so.

    It certainly isn't anything like France in terms of how it regards religious belief, and I'm somewhat glad that it isn't to be honest with you.


  • #75
    Duck's hoop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,530 ✭✭✭Duck's hoop


    plein de force wrote: »
    absolutely prefer the french way
    they really take their secularism seriously, you're entitled to your beliefs but they don't go any further than you, sure they don't even recognise religious marriages of any kind.
    they take their language seriously too, if you're going to live here then learn the lingo or leave
    and if you don't like the culture or the people you're more than welcome to go home or somewhere else, that attitude is what the rest of the world needs.

    i'll move to france at some time and i know i need to change to fit in with their culture, i'd never in a million years expect them to change for me, a mere irish blow-in, why can others think this way too?

    The French are full of it. It's incredibly stratified, staunchly traditionalist and conservative. France is an uber-beaurocracy up to it's neck in legislation it pays lip-service to, but scratch the veneer and it's a very segragationist spot indeed.

    Laws for this, laws for that; a bit of cop on might serve people better.


  • #76
    Indubitable
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,300 ✭✭✭Indubitable


    fontanalis wrote: »
    What's Irish culture?
    Anyone been to Woodlawn or Bondi Junction?
    Immigration policy should be on the terms of the host country, I think France is going overboard not doing enough with banning the burka. As much as I think it's a backward great symbol of sexual repression and treating women as baby machines and property like they should, if someone is mentally ill enough not to want to wear one then it's their choice really.

    FYP


  • #77
    fontanalis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,619 ✭✭✭fontanalis


    kingofthe3rdyrs wrote: »
    FYP

    Gee, thanks Mr.


  • #78
    fontanalis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,619 ✭✭✭fontanalis


    Sheeps wrote: »
    People should have the freedom to dress how ever they like.

    Apart from checked shirts, wrangler jeans, caterpillar boots and budweiser belt buckles. That's what Copper Face Jacks is for.


  • #79
    Sheeps
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,763 ✭✭✭Sheeps


    fontanalis wrote: »
    Apart from checked shirts, wrangler jeans, caterpillar boots and budweiser belt buckles. That's what Copper Face Jacks is for.
    That post makes no sense at all.


  • #80
    Duck's hoop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,530 ✭✭✭Duck's hoop


    I reckon if you're going to ban veils, burquas etc, you should ban football shirts.


  • #81
    theboxer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 220 ✭✭theboxer


    Jakkass wrote: »
    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.


    Our national debt and unemplyment figures have increased since this time last year. Potential wont balance the books.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    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.

    Why? This type of open borders nonsense would be hilarious, were it not for the minor little fact that the Irish economy just drove off a one hundreth foot cliff.


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    theboxer wrote: »
    Why? This type of open borders nonsense would be hilarious, were it not for the minor little fact that the Irish economy just drove off a one hundreth foot cliff.

    It's more hilarious that you managed to derive that from my post.
    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.

    Read that again to yourself.

    I assume it is equally hilarious to wish for others to have the same opportunities as I have had?


  • #83
    theboxer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 220 ✭✭theboxer


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I assume it is equally hilarious to wish for others to have the same opportunities as I have had?

    Donate to charity so.


  • #84
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    theboxer wrote: »
    Donate to charity so.

    I have yet to see what is so wrong, provided we have the ability to do so, and we will do again in the future, with taking people on asylum in, and with taking people from other non-EU countries in to work in Ireland if they have the correct skills to do so.

    After all, many nations have given Irish people this privilege in the past.


  • #85
    theboxer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 220 ✭✭theboxer


    Jakkass wrote: »
    with taking people from other non-EU countries in to work in Ireland if they have the correct skills to do so.

    I have no problem with non EU citizens coming here to work provided that they are highly skilled and that the employer failed to fill the position from inside the EU.

    As for unskilled workers and asylum seekers, we have enough thank you very much.


  • #86
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    EU citizens already have the right, but why shouldn't we have more people from outside the EU work if they are able to? What's the difference?


  • #87
    darkman2
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 8,632 ✭✭✭darkman2


    IMO Britain screwed up immigration to the country badly. We should not follow British example - the fact no one else is following the British tells us all we need to know. Whilst segregation and lack of integration in the UK still has benign enough consequences after 40 years - things are changing there and tensions are starting to build now esspecially in the densely populated South East.


  • #88
    Pittens
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,404 ✭✭✭Pittens


    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?

    It depends how far outside the cultural norms of society you want to be. Being a libertarian GroupThinker is not really that much of a challenge to an open pluralistic society.

    In any case I asked people - the thread if you will - if they wanted the Malaysian system or not. That system ( to recap) gives people their separate culture based on religion and ethnicity - i.e. religious police for muslims/ Malay.

    What I got was you wondering whether I was going to let you live here or not because you conform to a cultural relativist view ( which is, as it happens, in no way a radical view). That answer is is pretty much a strawman question presenting itself as an answer..

    so do we have the killings of homosexuals in one part of town, and gay marriages in the other? If not, why not? Why is one worse than t'other. Note that your moral argument would be the opposite of the ( equally to them) moral argument of certain Muslims.

    If we have both, we have a truly multi-cultural society. If not, we have a pluralistic society with limits. Pluralism, however, cant last unless it is the accepted norm. Which isn't guaranteed with Open Borders. Culture matters.


  • #89
    whadabouchasir
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 942 ✭✭✭whadabouchasir


    darkman2 wrote: »
    IMO Britain screwed up immigration to the country badly. We should not follow British example - the fact no one else is following the British tells us all we need to know. Whilst segregation and lack of integration in the UK still has benign enough consequences after 40 years - things are changing there and tensions are starting to build now esspecially in the densely populated South East.
    You could argue the exact same for France,except their policies have lead to more than just tensions,they've had full scale riots in Paris.


  • #90
    IT-Guy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 514 ✭✭✭IT-Guy


    theboxer wrote: »
    I have no problem with non EU citizens coming here to work provided that they are highly skilled and that the employer failed to fill the position from inside the EU.

    As for unskilled workers and asylum seekers, we have enough thank you very much.

    Canada has a similar rule in place, a job can only be offered to a non-national (might be non Canadian citizen?) as long as the company can show they haven't managed to find a Canadian with similar experience/skillset. TBH, not sure how it's implemented as my bro got a job in Canada without the above legalities being observed

    As for banning the Burqa, I don't see the point socially. From a security point of view it has certain merits but they don't carry enough weight to ban it outright. I remember seeing a group of 3 ladies wearing the full burqa on the way out of Tesco in Wilton, Cork. After my brain had done with the "he's not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy" comments and gotten over the novelty value of seeing the burqa for the first time, I went home. End of.


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Pittens wrote: »
    It depends how far outside the cultural norms of society you want to be. Being a libertarian GroupThinker is not really that much of a challenge to an open pluralistic society.

    That's absolutely absurd. People should be allowed to think as differently to other people as they want, and they should be allowed to act as differently to other people as they want provided it does not violate the rights of others, or the law.
    Pittens wrote: »
    In any case I asked people - the thread if you will - if they wanted the Malaysian system or not. That system ( to recap) gives people their separate culture based on religion and ethnicity - i.e. religious police for muslims/ Malay.

    One law. One country, but people shouldn't be forced to conform to practices that are other to their own without their due consent. By all means, speak out against the burqa. I personally think it is hideous, and I can't see why any woman would want to wear one. However, forcing people to do things differently to how they wish to do it is just going to incite unwarranted tensions. That's pretty much what the French solution has offered their society over the last decade.
    Pittens wrote: »
    What I got was you wondering whether I was going to let you live here or not because you conform to a cultural relativist view ( which is, as it happens, in no way a radical view). That answer is is pretty much strawman.

    I'm not a relativist. I don't believe that all options are worthy of my equal respect. I don't believe that atheism is a reasonable position for example, given my belief in God. However, I respect the rights of atheists to hold their position. Indeed the same is true of numerous positions contrary to my own. I don't regard them as being equally valuable, but if I am to respect freedom then I have to respect freedom for all.
    Pittens wrote: »
    so do we have the killings of homosexuals in one part of town, and gay marriages in the other? If not, why not? Why is one worse than t'other. Note that your moral argument would be the opposite of the ( equally to them) moral argument of certain Muslims.

    That isn't my reasoning at all. My moral argument, as a Christian is that I am to follow by God's law and God's will for my life, and indeed that this is true for all individuals. I don't believe that the State need enforce this however.

    Interestingly given your example, I believe both to be morally wrong, but that isn't relevant to this discussion.
    Pittens wrote: »
    If we have both, we have a truly multi-cultural society. If not, we have a pluralistic society with limits. Pluralism, however, cant last unless it is the accepted norm. Which isn't guaranteed with Open Borders. Culture matters.

    This is a bit fallacious. It assumes that all Muslims or even a majority of Muslims support an imposition of their own laws on the State.

    I don't agree with you that culture matters as much as we account for. In a Government even a Government made up of Christians, Muslims, secularists and so on will still have to legislate in a chamber which is a pluralist one.


Advertisement
Advertisement