Submitted by Yardbroom
Angela Merkel the German Chancellor recently said: ” Multiculturalism has “failed utterly” in Germany, she further elaborated. . . ” we kidded ourselves for a while that they – immigrants – wouldn’t stay, but that’s not the reality”. If Angela Merkel’s views are in tune with her electorate’s, it demonstrates that it was never Germany’s intention for immigrants to take up permanent residence in their country.
A case is often made of the economic benefits immigrants bring to their host country; but economic integration of immigrants does not nullify the separate requirement, inherent in some immigrant’s religion, which appears if only on the surface, to them not fully participating in activities or practices, which have made the host country economically successful.
In Europe attitudes have hardened in recent years towards immigrants, this has been caused by the perception, that some of the Muslim faith, have not as vociferously as thought prudent distanced themselves from terrorist sympathies. It is so obvious that “all Muslims” are not sympathetic to terrorists that it is not worth saying. However, in the early years of terrorist activity in Europe “some” Muslims sought to justify such activity by the West’s involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan and their failure to solve the Palestinian problem, by putting economic pressure on Israel.
It is difficult for the inhabitants of countries like the UK, to understand how groups of young Muslims, born in the UK, could openly state that their sons/daughters serving in places like Iraq and Afghanistan deserve to be killed. This is challenging for UK residents to accept, particularly when the young Muslims live in the same town and may even be their neighbours.
The young Muslims justification – sincerely held no doubt – that those UK soldiers should not be in Muslim lands. This political dimension brought to the debate by young Muslims emphasizes the differences between cultures, and the part religion plays in particular societies.
At the root of Europe’s hostility, is the link between religion and society much evident in Muslim countries, as it bears no relation to some would say, the casual approach taken in Europe. Can this dichotomy ever be bridged? Measures that were thought unimaginable in Europe only ten years ago are now being promoted with vigour.
“French President Nicolas Sarkozy has spoken out strongly against the wearing of the burka by Muslim women in France. In a major policy speech, he said the burka – a garment covering women from head to toe – reduced them to servitude and undermined their dignity. He added. . . “we cannot accept to have in our country women who are prisoners behind netting, cut off from social life deprived of identity”.
In 2004, France banned Islamic headscarves in its State schools.
The Times of India quoted a Muslim woman living in France: “They say I’m too attached to my religion, Silmi told at an empty restaurant near her home southwest of Paris, her large eyes peering from a slit in her veil. Lots of Christians live in Morocco and we don’t make them wear scarves.” However, France’s main Muslim leaders have declared that Islam does not require women to cover their faces with niqabs or burkas.”Europe’s growing Muslim population has bred tension across the continent. Wariness is pervasive since deadly attacks in Madrid 2004 and in London 2005 by Islamic radicals living in Europe. And some non-Muslims sense a threat by a foreign culture to their way of life. It took only four minarets on Switzerland’s 200 mosques to push the Swiss to vote “no” to minarets in a November referendum”
As if to emphasize the tide sweeping Europe “far right Dutch MP Geert Wilders has extracted a pledge from the largest party in the Netherland’s probable next government to outlaw the burka and halve immigration.” If the burka ban is agreed, the Netherlands will become the second country after France to ban the all-enveloping Muslim veil. Belgium MP’s have also voted to outlaw full face veils, although the measure is yet to be passed by the country’s upper house”.
The questions must be posed, how much, if any at all, must an immigrant jettison of his/her culture to intergrade fully into the culture of his host country? Is it absolutely necessary to do so? If he/she does not, does their presence in sizeable numbers dilute the shared values that has made his host country the cohesive prosperous society to which he/she was attracted. Does his/her economic contribution override any perceived or actual detriment to his host country.
Countries even moderately successful ones have had mass immigration; it should be the will of the host country to accommodate with understanding and reason what the immigrant has to offer, but the immigrant must also understand he/she cannot transport their countries mores values and culture wholesale into another country.
If they are so attached to them and cannot live without them, would it not be best for them to stay and reside in their native country where they can?
With acknowledgements to:
The blogmaster invites you to join the discussion.