November 28, 2006
WHEN YOU'VE NOTHING TO ASSIMILATE THEM TO:
Hostility at home: A strong showing for a far-right party in the Dutch elections (Economist.com, Nov 23rd 2006)
ONCE a country renowned for tolerance of minorities of all stripes, the Netherlands now risks being known for an ugly debate over its growing Muslim population. As preliminary results emerged from general elections on Wednesday November 22nd, it became clear that a previously insignificant far-right party, the Party For Freedom, may claim as many as nine seats in a parliament of 150. The party had campaigned for a halt to all immigration, and in particular was hostile towards Muslims, calling for a ban on the building of religious schools and mosques and for a ban on veils worn by Muslim women. [...]Instead the Dutch might look across the Atlantic. A slew of recent books by smug, mostly conservative American authors might be unhelpful. (Some with titles like “While Europe Sleptâ€, “America Alone†and “The Death of the Westâ€, argue that Europe has allowed immigration and Islam to undermine Western values from within). But there is something to learn from America. American laws on freedom of expression and religion are more permissive than those in Europe. Only those who mask their faces explicitly to hide themselves and intimidate others—like the Ku Klux Klan—are forbidden to cover their faces in public forums like marches. A law banning the burqa would be flatly unconstitutional. So, probably, would be a ban on headscarves in schools. And America’s success with its Muslims probably also owes something to the flexible American labour market, which gives minorities of all kinds the hope (if not the reality) of climbing the social ladder.
The unsupportable assumption is that Europe is only anti-Muslim, rather than anti-religious. Secular statism can not afford to tolerate any religion. Posted by Orrin Judd at November 28, 2006 7:50 AM
"... gives minorities of all kinds the hope (if not the reality) of climbing the social ladder."
Sheesh -- what nonsense!
Has the author ever looked at our society? Every facet is chock-a-block with minorities who have lived the reality with more and more joining them everyday.
Ditto erp.
I do not concur that a law banning wearing identity-concealing costumes in public would be unconstitutional. One or two terrorist incidents involving burkas would have us looking at the belief-action distinction. Hiding one's identity and providing for easy concealment of weapons are secular concerns wehich the law may address.
Posted by: Lou Gots at November 28, 2006 10:18 AMSchools ban a lot of clothing.
We don't really have a muslim problem yet because they're a small population.
This piece sounds bitter, like their multi-culti our way is better dream is crashing against reality.
Posted by: Sandy P at November 28, 2006 11:10 AMSandy:
You're confused. The question isn't banning clothing but religion. Find a public school that bans the cross, the yarmulke, etc.
Posted by: oj at November 28, 2006 11:25 AMOf course the dream is crashing. 30 years ago, there weren't enough Muslims in Europe to matter. Now, with the collapse of the Soviet threat, there is a new one within. One that cannot be appeased, especially by geezers and empty post-modernist youth.
And it all seems so sudden to them, doesn't it?
Posted by: jim hamlen at November 28, 2006 11:27 AMOj: Please indulge my curmudgeonly petulance. I am now duly irked that your reply to Sandy ignores the belief/action distinction I had previously set forth. A crucifix or a yarmulke is completely and only symbolic; a costume which conceals identity has secular importance.
Posted by: Lou Gots at November 28, 2006 12:52 PMLou, oj can't be serious. Attire that completely obscures the person inside, can't be permitted in an open society and to say that it is a sign of modesty, is just nonsense. If Moslem women need that level of modesty, they should stay inside their harems.
Posted by: erp at November 28, 2006 1:17 PMThe End of the Constitution isn't the Open Society but a decent one. The idea that you'd imprison a woman because you disapprove of her religion is indecent.
Posted by: oj at November 28, 2006 2:14 PMLou is correct. I believe that some cities and states still have laws against the wearing of masks in public, laws that were originally passed to counter the KKK.
Posted by: PapayaSF at November 28, 2006 3:04 PMLou:
If it's secular it does, as with Pap's racist hoods.
Posted by: oj at November 28, 2006 3:17 PM