General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsRise of far-right in France after Paris Attacks
https://aggelosgavris.wordpress.com/2015/12/07/rise-of-far-right-in-france-after-paris-attacks/
PARIS, Dec 6 (Reuters) – France’s far-right National Front pulled off an historic win on Sunday, topping the vote nationally in the first round of regional elections, exit polls showed, and potentially redrawing the political map before national elections in 2017.
Boosted by fears over the Islamic State attacks that killed 130 people in Paris on Nov. 13, as well as by record unemployment and immigration, Marine Le Pen’s party secured 30.2 percent of the vote nationally, the interior inistry said, with two thirds of the votes counted.
The FN came first in six regions out of 13, the ministry said.
“This is a historic, extraordinary result,” FN lawmaker Marion Marechal-Le Pen told TF1 television. “The old system died tonight.” Marechal-Le Pen, the granddaughter of party founder Jean-Marie Le Pen, led the first round in southeast France with 40.9 percent.
Run-offs will be held on Dec.13, with the FN well-placed to win one or more regions. Even one outright victory would be a major boost for Le Pen, who wants a base of locally elected officials to help her target power at national level.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
flamingdem
(40,841 posts)Yorktown
(2,884 posts)The only things that stays constant is that changes occur..
flamingdem
(40,841 posts)Yorktown
(2,884 posts)Mutti has a Teflon coating.
840high
(17,196 posts)
DFW
(59,994 posts)But since way before she became Bundeskanzlerin, people have been underestimating her. She could surprise us all yet, and the other parties have no serious candidates. Ironically, the only serious successor so far would be Ursula von der Leyen, another CDU woman who scares the male dominated German political scene to the point that they engineered her to Defense in the last Cabinet shuffle. Defense Minister in Germany is usually a dead-end posting, but von der Leyen has done the job very well, and speaks quickly, off the cuff, and is sharper than any of the men prospects for the top post. It wouldn't surprise me to see Merkel succeeded by another woman from her own party. None of the other parties in German has a top-tier politician of her caliber.
flamingdem
(40,841 posts)powerful figures on the political stage. I guess that Merkel has got to survive the refugee crisis, I hope it goes well.
DFW
(59,994 posts)There has rarely, if ever, been a time when one woman directly succeeded another, but there's certainly no reason why one couldn't. Women have led in Ireland, the UK, Norway, Finland, Turkey and now Germany. They have led even in Pakistan and India, and done no worse than their male counterparts. The most recent in Argentina and Brazil have not done so well, but gender is no guarantee for success. I think it is major progress that much of the world realizes it no hindrance, either.
I'd certainly feel better with Ursula von der Leyen as the next chancellor of Germany than a faceless bureaucrat like SPD leader Sigmar Gabriel, despite her party allegiance. There has been some grumbling inside the CDU that von der Leyen belongs in the SPD anyway. She was bumped from her post as "Family Minister (formally, Minister for family, seniors, women and youth)" because some in her party thought she fought just a little too hard for the people she was supposed to be looking out for. Since the end of the Soviet Union, the post of Defense Minister in Germany was supposed to be an end-of-the-road political posting, but von der Leyen has been looking out for the Germans in uniform with the same energy she showed as Family Minister. The conservatives who thought her political career would die there miscalculated badly.
JustAnotherGen
(37,893 posts)It's there. Not in the South - not yet. But Rome and North - the potential is there. It could have major implications for my husband and his family. Italy is not safe from a return to the trains running on time.
If you look at old pictures of Mussolini in the late 30's until his death - you can find my husbands uncle in many of them.
He's 96 and of clear mind. He's also a Senator for life. So it's not just my husband's generation of elected officials in hs family. . . It's his uncle.
He knows. He sees. He's seen it before.
It can happen in Italy.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)There is not at this moment a mass racist/fascist movement in Italy.
And the Northern League is mostly about not paying for the South.
Va bene?
JustAnotherGen
(37,893 posts)What is happening in the Chamber of Deputies out of sight of the public destroys that argument.
The Senate is not much better.
And it disregards the very real feelings of the Calabrese who want nothing to do with Rome - the media doesn't tell you that. The Calabrese will - to include two deputies and one Senator from that region I'm very familiar with. Like the Senator - I've watched my late mother in law smack upside the head with her slipper. 
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)
newfie11
(8,159 posts)And with Fox News spewing hate 24/7 it's growing quickly!
Jim Beard
(2,535 posts)In Algeria, France felt to take in thousands of Muslim refugees who had help France during t5he colonial time. After independence, those peoples lives were in danger.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)
newfie11
(8,159 posts)God help us all!
patsimp
(915 posts)Yorktown
(2,884 posts)The program of the Front National isn't traditional 'right' wing in any sense:
their economic platform calls for price controls for utilities and transport, taxing away big profits (like those of oil giant Total), leaving the EU free trade zone, ..
Not that their program means much anyway since it keeps changing at 180º every now and then.
Loons. Scared loons.
mylye2222
(2,992 posts)Far right topped in a landslide. Followed by center right and at third, center left.
Frightening. It is the last internediate vote before 2017 Presidency.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)
mylye2222
(2,992 posts)Close to Lyon.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)Given what you said, I imagined PACA or NPdC.
Didn't imagine the soft mannered people of St Etienne like that..
mylye2222
(2,992 posts)Very upset at my fellows.
Do you know my town?
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)For business. People struck me as rather gentle, far less excitable than further south.
Lyon having a reputation as being the snobs of the greater region, but I just hopped there too.
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)Is it really mostly due to immigration?
mylye2222
(2,992 posts)hifiguy
(33,688 posts)Was there in '03 and visited the big speaker manufacturer Focal. Stayed in Lyon for a few days. Never in life have I eaten so well.
Beautiful part of the world.
St Étienne was a "workers town" centered on manufacturings ( weapons, bikes) coal and steel industries.
Now everything is gone . Uneployement rises, downtown shops are closing, and yes, this city is 50% of people of immigrant backgrounds.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)It's the largest manufacturer of speakers (everything from computer speakers to $300,000/pair high-end home audio behemoths and every conceivable thing in between) in the EU.
politicman
(710 posts)It always make me laugh how people want to blame the terror act in France as the reason that the far right is gaining in Europe.
The truth is their for all to see but uncomfortable enough that they don't want to believe it.
Huge amounts of people in countries in Europe and other western countries are just racist, its as simple as that.
France is the most visible at the moment, and we have seen it for a long time there.
Having laws like banning the Burka which the country knows discriminates against Muslims and trying to explain it away by saying that the country just wants to be secular is proof of this.
How allowing women to wear Burkas if they choose to threatens a country like France being secular makes no sense, and the French know this but want to cover up their racist attitudes by insisting this theory makes sense.
And then one comes on here and reads so many bigoted and racist comments that demonise Muslims and their religion.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)The least racist/clannish countries in the world are all in Europe (with Canada/Aust/NZ)
See the Inglehart–Welzel cultural map of the world
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inglehart–Welzel_cultural_map_of_the_world
PS: Islam is not a race.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)However in Europe and the Americas, Muslims are almost always ethnic minorities. Further Muslim communities tend to identify as "Muslim," regardless of actual ethnic or racial makeup, and are often visibly distinct in fairly consistent ways across those ethnicity - bearded men and women in hijab whether they're Pakistanis, Somalis, or Egyptians. Anti-Muslim bigotry often uses both these aspects to attack Muslims, focusing on their racial and cultural "otherness" from the local majorities. So while Muslim is not a 'race,' anti-Muslim bigotry is strongly racialized.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)But I would add that the racial sentiment you evoke is fairly marginal in France.
I know racism can be under-declared to pollsters and the like, but I personally interacted with lots of French people of all kinds, my personal experience tells me there are very few French people with racist attitudes against people of immigrant background.
Probably far less than people with an anti-black bias in the US.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Also bear in mind that the vast majority of DU'ers are Americans. if it "works different" in France, oh well, so do a lot of things, Americans are still going to think about the subject like Americans.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)Many Muslim believers wish Sharia was applied (I posted this in religion)
Real ideological/political worries should not be brushed aside in the name of inclusiveness.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)1) As noted, Muslims are small minorities in Europe and the Americas.
2) Those "many" (weasel words are fun, aren't thy?) Muslims who want sharia law are themselves a minority within the minority.
3) "Sharia law" is itself a very loose and ambivalent term. Essentially any law that can claim any precedent in the Koran could be considered Islamic law. You can run a liberal welfare state democracy on sharia, and you can run a brutal totalitarian military state on Sharia, too.
So. A minority within a minority wants something that they probably don't actually all agree to the definition of. This isn't really something that ought to keep anyone up at night.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)(1) Muslims are not small minority in France (which was the OP topic). 15% among the 18-50 yo (* graph below), probably 15 to 20% of the 0-18, and growing (immigration =˜40% from Muslim countries)
(2) I was not using weasely approximations, I mentioned my post with lots of links to studies in the 'Religion' forum. Depending on how you read questions, support for Sharia appears to be roughly one in three among Muslims in Europe. Here is the link:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218217987
(3) yes, Sharia is not strictly defined. There are however four main schools of Sharia jurisprudence accepted by the vast majority of the 'Muslim world' (I hate how so many people are categorized by their religion). And the four schools of islamic jurisprudence are not very nice with thieves, blasphemers, adulterers, apostates or gays.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)And yes. Muslims are a small minority in France. larger than the US. But still under 10% of the population. A further minority of them want Sharia law. And then that minority is further split between schools of thought and individual interpretations.
if you really worry about this, then you need to take up a hobby.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)I note the wars of religion in France killed far, far more than WWI as a percentage of the population. I simply do not wish that to repeat itself in a few decades down the line.
And one third to half of a growing minority is not a trifling matter. Let's assume 30% of the French youth Muslim in 2050 x half pro-Sharia, that's one in 6 youths being hard line Muslims.
But it's not a personal concern, just a thought for those there at that time.
muriel_volestrangler
(105,960 posts)Notice that there isn't a 'no religion' category in that picture. Overall figures (p.122) http://teo.site.ined.fr/fichier/s_rubrique/20232/dt_teo_168_english.fr.pdf
No religion 45%
Catholic 43%
Muslim 8%
Protestant 2%
Orthodox Christian 0.5%
Jewish 0.5%
Buddhist 0.5%
Other 0.5%
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)Catholic 43%
Muslim 8%
Protestant 2%
Orthodox Christian 0.5%
Jewish 0.5%
Buddhist 0.5%
Other 0.5%
Protestant 2% is certainly wrong (below 1%)
ditto for 0.5 orthodox Christians (below 0.1%)
no religion probably covers lots of baptized people
(but I agree that Christianity is dying in France)
TLDNR will have to bookmark and check later
muriel_volestrangler
(105,960 posts)(b) "Protestant 2% is certainly wrong (below 1%)" - your picture shows Protestants as 500,000 out of 14.375 million. That's 3.5%, but somehow you didn't flag that as 'wrong'.
(c) Since it's from a survey, they may have quoted the smaller figures to a round figure that the statistics justify.
(d) what's your source for "orthodox Christians (below 0.1%)"?
(e) Yes, 'se disant' means "calling themselves", so that can cover people who were baptized in a Christian religion. But the point is your '15%' figure is wrong.
(f) It's not just Christianity that's 'dying' in France; if you looks at p.123, for those descended from majority-Muslim populations like Turkey and Algeria, between 16% and 31% answered 'no religion'. Not as much as the French ethnicity, but still considerable.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)(b) when presenting the graph, I was only focusing on Muslims as a % of the total population
NB the numbers increased recently as some of the Catholic drop-outs moved to Protestantism.
(c) possible
(d) I was thinking about French nationals. Didn't know so many immigrants were Orthodoxs.
(e) Not so sure 15% is wrong. Most sources say 6M Muslims/60M inhabitants=10% avg.
Given that the proportion is much lower in the 60+ age group, it has to be mechanically higher in the 18-50yo age group to end up with a 10% average.
(f) Your statement "It's not just Christianity that's 'dying' in France" is questionable.
The 43% Catholics are now mostly nominal, with only 4/43 attending church weekly
http://www.lefigaro.fr/actualite-france/2009/12/29/01016-20091229ARTFIG00292-les-francais-boudent-la-messe-.php
By contrast, the Muslim population is increasingly practicing.
http://www.la-croix.com/Religion/Actualite/Les-musulmans-pratiquent-plus-qu-il-y-a-vingt-ans-_NG_-2011-07-31-694668
muriel_volestrangler
(105,960 posts)That's what your graph says - it lists the people who call themselves Christian, Muslim etc., but no 'no religion' group. Add up the numbers, and you get to far below the French population of 18 to 50 (14.375 million, out of a total population of 64.4 million in 2008; 32 years should be about 40% of a total population). And, as I said, the figures I showed you come from the Insee/INED "trajectoire et origine" report.
If we want to use that report to guess a total number, then: your picture has 2.1 million Muslims between 18 and 50 - 33 year groups. Since they are a younger population, say the under 18s are another 2 million (generous, I'd say). and another 1.4 million above 50. That would be 5.5 million, which is 8.5% of the population.
And indeed, we find one of the authors said:
Patrick Simon explained that "declared Muslims" are people who declare themselves Muslims, whatever their religion or practices. It is not an estimate based on country of origin or their parents. People who come from majority-Islam countries or born to parents from such countries are usually automatically considered Muslims, and this might partially explain the discrepancy. On the other hand, says Simon, unlike ethnic-based assumption, their 2.1 million figures include French converts to Islam.
According to the INED and INSEE study, Catholicism if the main religion in France with 11.5 million believers aged 18-50 (43% of the population), Islam is the leading minority religion with 2.1 million believers, followed by Protestantism (500,000), Buddhism (150,000) and Jews (125,000) (ed: the Jewish community says they have 500,000).
http://en.islamtoday.net/artshow-229-3977.htm
Since we're a few years on, perhaps 5 million is now possible. But it looks unlikely it's above 8%.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)I tried to recapitulate our discussion with an Excel chart, trying to make it match as many elements of data as possible. I downloaded the INSEE table of the population by five-year strata. I used your 5.5M Muslims figure and made the hypothesis that the % of Mulisms would increase by 1% for each 5 year group. The end result is the following table, where both rules 5.5M, +1% by 5yr group produce a result coherent internally and externally with other Press figures:
Our figures match for those below 20 (2.1M, 13% Muslim), which corroborates 16% of births with Maghreb ascendance*. Both numbers are around the figure I initially mentioned of 15%.
*: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_en_France#cite_note-Breuil-Genier.7CBorrel.7CLhommeau.7C2011-14
For the 20-50, my linear increase of Muslim % gives me an average of 9.4% for the 20-50, and matches your figure of 8.5% for the total of the 20-60.
The total is your 5.5M, 8.3% which is predicted to rise to 7M, 10.3% according to Pew, validated by Michele Tribalat**
**: http://www.atlantico.fr/decryptage/islam-et-immigration-face-au-declin-demographique-europeen-derriere-fantasmes-verite-chiffres-michele-tribalat-514982.html/page/0/1
To these numbers, one must add the foreign immigrants not having acquired the French nationality yet. With immigration from 'Muslim' countries at around 40% of about 200,000/year, the figures should be revised upwards as a % of the total population residing in France.
politicman
(710 posts)If my comment was so far disconnected from reality, then why on earth are people in Europe jumping on the far right racist bandwagon?
Look people can say that its fear that is the reason, but lets be honest, if you jump on the far right racist bandwagon out of fear from terror acts committed by handful of Muslims, then you always had racist attitude inside you but needed this fear to bring it out.
Islam might not be a race, but it doesn't mean the hate and fear of Muslims in general doesn't represent the very same dynamic as hating someone based on how they look.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)1- What you call 'far right' in Europe is a motley crew. Different motivations. Farage has risen on an anti EU platform. The Padania movement in Italia on an anti-Southern Italy platform. Ascribing the rise of these parties (especially in the context of a still ongoing 2007-8 economic crisis) to your pet focus just doesn't fit the facts.
2- specifically in the case of France, the #1 reason for support to the Front National is unemployment. Both cenetr right and center left have governed for decades promising an end to economic doldrums and unemployment and failed. Mrs Le Pen has promised autarky and full employment and it resonates in a country where unemployment has shot up.
3- you appear to have decided the French are racists. It flies in the face of the study I provided. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inglehart–Welzel_cultural_map_of_the_world
It's your impressions vs studies. Provide me other studies indicating the French are particularly racist and I'll listen.
4- but, and that's the cherry on top, you claim the French are racists based on the recent elcetoral results of the Front National of Mrs Le Pen. That is all the more funny that this party has been created and run by her father for 40 years. And Mr Le Pen wanted ALL Algerians to become French:
From the speech of the Deputy Jean-Marie Le Pen in the gallery of the National Assembly, 29 January 1958: (google translation)
All in all, I'd say you do not know the French or French politics very well.
politicman
(710 posts)You can try and make all the arguments you like to mask the racist attitude of France, but the racist attitudes are there in plain sight for you to see.
1) Most people in French jails are Muslim.
2) Laws such as banning the head scarves. (The French and people like yourself try to explain this away by claiming that France is secular and wants to maintain this by banning public displays of religion, but seriously, anyone that has a brain knows that this law was brought in primarily to stop French Muslim women from wearing these scarves.
And this law only came in because it was supported by the French public.
3) Although the far right party in France has economic platforms that it promotes, everyone knows that after the Paris attacks there was going to be increased support of this party due simply to the Paris attacks being carried out by a small group of Muslims.
4) Look at the rate of unemployment amongst the French Muslims, this here shows directly that it is harder for Muslims to get a job in France because so many employers have racists attitudes and don't want to hire French Muslims.
The truth is that the French have racist hidden attitudes that they wont admit to so as not to feel guilty. but when something like the Paris attacks happen then that fear is an excuse to unleash those hidden racist attitudes without the stigma of being made to feel guilty for having them.
And a study means jack shit when racist attitudes are hidden deep inside and displayed so as not to feel guilty.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)YOU started taking the rise of the Front National as evidence the French were racist.
Obviously, you did not bother to read what I posted: the founder of the very same Front National wanted ALL Algerians to become French. How is that racist? And it is a wish he repeated very recently he regrets did not come true (it's on youtube).
• you make a confusion between socio-economic and origin/religion issues in points 1 and 4:
Immigrants from Africa (of arab or black origin) came with a low educational level, and the massive lasting unemployment in France hits hardest people with lower education/qualifications (4). Which in turn explains why the crime rate is higher among immigrants and their descendants when they are hardest hit by unemployment (1).
• your point 2 is flat wrong: head scarves are not banned in France.
What is banned are full face niqabs, which are the uniform of radical, political Islam.
• your point 3 is weird. In what do the Paris attacks help point that the French are racists?
Anyway, YOU have decided the French are racist. This despite the study I provided. And despite your initial claim about the Front National falls flat.
What can I say then?
politicman
(710 posts)1) The founder of the Front National can say all he likes about what he regrets, but the fact remains that his party is racist in both its language and its policy proposals. Just because someone says they are not racist, does not mean that they are not racist, their actions are what counts. Even if I give the founder the benefit of the doubt that he did not want a racist party, the fact of the matter is that the party went down a racist route and it is evident for all to see these days.
2) Oh come on, using the socio-economic argument to argument to explain away why French Muslims are the most disadvantaged group in France is a cop out. There has been report after report that shows that employers in France are reluctant to hire French Muslims, and that is the reason why the crime rate among the descendants of immigrants is at such a high level. These same descendant were born in France and attended the same schools that French people attended so many do have the educational level that is required for a job, but because they are discriminated against at employment level, the only option for them is crime as a way to make a living. Then the authorities crack down on these descendants and the jails become full of them.
3) The Burka is banned in public, but the head scarf is also banned in public schools and like I said earlier, everyone knows that this ban was primarily brought in to stop Muslim women wearing them, anyone that tries to argue this away is simply being disingenuous.
Here's just one link to prove the ban
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leland-ware/burqa-ban-france_b_5555732.html?ir=Australia
4) The Paris attack help to prove that the French are racist because as soon as they happened, everyone and his dog knew that the beneficiaries of those attacks would be the far right parties in France.
If the French people can so easily jump on the bandwagon of far right racist parties because of a terrorist act, then that shows that they always had hidden racist attitudes, and the fear from the attacks was enough to unleash those attitudes into support for racist parties.
The rise of the far right in France after the attacks proves this.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)(1) you misunderstood: it's not about regrets: Le Pen officially, as a MP, offered to give the French citizenship to ALL Algerians. How is that for racism?
(2) The socio-economic argument is valid, and I suppose you know it. As for recruitment discrimination, you also very probably know it has to do with the 'banlieue' accent people of immigrant background have cherished and nurtured. With equal qualifications, you know that accent is a killer.
(3) Veil. First, you mentioned -wrongly- that veils were banned everywhere. Now you pipe down to schools. Which is also what Kemal Ataturk did. Was Kemal Ataturk a racist? Or did he -quite correctly, imho- diagnose that political Islam is a cancer?
(4) and now, in your opinion, the Paris attacks prove the French are racists? I'm not quite sure I ever met such a bad case of 'blame the victim'. The Front National plays savior because it's never been in power. It's called p-o-l-i-t-i-c-s. Or demagoguery, but thta's my opinion.
Now, as for the French being racists, please share your background and I'm pretty sure I can prove to you the country of origin of either you or your forefathers is quite as, if not more, racist than France.
politicman
(710 posts)1) You can try to justify Front National anyway you like by arguing that it's founder offered this or that, but the party as it stands now is racist. It's common knowledge that the Front Nationals have racist language and racist policy proposals, you cant argue that away.
2) Your problem is that you seek to justify racist attitudes through trying to explain them away with the argument that immigrants have an accent that disadvantages them when going for jobs against 'true' French (I say true in quotes for a lack of a better word considering descendants of immigrants and even immigrants themselves who have achieved citizenship are all true French people).
Employers discriminating against people that have an 'accent' is racist, don't try to explain it away.
Heck, we have laws against that here.
3) France has banned the Burka in public, and then went a step further and banned head scarves in public schools. Everyone and his dog knows that these laws were brought in primarily to deal with Muslims and their religious garb. If a country passes a law intended to make the most impact on one segment of society, a minority segment, then that country has decided to go down the path of being racist.
Ataturk was no saint, he did the bidding of the west after the Ottoman Empire fell because the west backed him as leader. Ataturk wanted to turn Turkey into a secular country because that's what the British and French wanted, and in doing so he tried to remove the religious element of Turkish culture.
And in any case, someone else's racist policies don't lend credence to a new racist policy being enacted.
3) How many times need I explain this to you. The fact that the Front Nationals have had increased support from the French public after the Paris attacks shows that the French public have decided to embrace a party that demonises Muslims. That is racist.
If an African American committed a vile crime and suddenly the Republicans started to get increased support from the American public because they had policies that advocated against African Americans and demonised, would you also defend these new supporters as not being racist?
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)1- Beyond offering ALL Algerians the French nationality, the Front National (up to 2011) stood by all the antisemitism they could ally with without being caught. AND supported the rght for Iran to have nukes. Do you want youtube links?
2- the accent issue is compounded by an active wish NOT to integrate. If you know anything about France, you will know that in banlieues of predominant immigrant background, bright -immigrant- students are discouraged from excellence by being called 'Uncle Toms' by their classmates. It is evidence of a two sided failure, by them and by he French State unbale to help bright immigrant kids to forge ahead.
3- Ataturk was no saint? No, Granted. He was a very bright individual who helped his country surge ahead, by dissing Islam. Would you like me to provide you quotes of Ataturk's contempt for Islam?
4- OK, I get it. People who look for a simple solution to their angst are retarded racists.
And the terrorists were not racists, just freedom fighters, I suppose. The Front National disgusts me, and I got a physical scar to prove it. I am rather put off by your simplistic views too (the French are racists, en masse), which to me are just the mirror image of those of the Front National.
politicman
(710 posts)1) when are you going to understand that when a person or party makes just one racist statement or advocates just one racist policy, then that person or party is a racist.
Your defence of Front nationals is Sort of like the way that a white person makes a racist argument or advocates a racist policy against african Americans but then tries to argue it away by saying they are not racist because they did some nice things for people of colour at some point.
2) again this shows another of your problems. Why should anyone integrate into what someone else wants them to?
Immigrants who achieve citizenship and their descendants are just as French as any other French citizen.
They have as much right to speak and dress they way they want to as any French citizen has, no one should demand that they integrate into a certain speaking style or certain dressing style just to be able to land a job.
Bright immigrant students may very well be discouraged by their peers calling them 'uncle toms, but surely you understand that if a country disenfranchises a minority segment then that segment will look at anyone that tries to join the ranks of the elite as traitors.
3) I agree with you, Ataturk despised Islam but considering that he was only leader because he had the backing of France and Britain after the Ottomans were defeated, then it's no surprise why he despised Islam and wanted to remove Islam from Turkish culture.
He was doing the bidding of the colonial powers at the time, and all that proves is that he was a puppet to them.
4) the terrorists are despicable people, they are not freedom fighters, they are evil people that need to be extinguished.
But the Paris attacks were carried out by small group of people, and instead of the French people recognising this, the French people have instead decided that they will align with a party that descrinates against anyone with the same faith as this small group of people.
jumping on the bandwagon of a racist party that wants to discriminate against a group of people simply because a tiny percentage of those people committed a vile act is showing that you have a racist attitude.
Some Muslims committed a terror act so let's go support a party that advocates against Muslims is a racist attitude any way you slice it.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)(1) I made abundantly clear my strong distaste of anything Front National. However you seem not to have read what I wrote: that party had a long history of cosying up to any and all Arab state that was anti-Israel. If the Front national has a pet racism, it is antisemitism, while displaying philoarabism.
(2) OK, so you acknowledged that there is a significant proportion of young people of immigrant background who actively refuse to assimilate. Then you ask, why should they? Maybe because it would help them get an education and get jobs? Why is it the many kids of Chinese or Vietnamese origin integrate? Even in Primary School, they take extra tuition organized by the families; Confucean work ethic. While I did acknowledge the French government should have done more -maybe some degree of quotas-, there is a negativity among people of north African origin which borders on hostility = vicious circle. That has to do with the politics in Algeria where France is the bogeyman beaten upon by politicians of all stripes whenever there is rain or storm.
(3) Ataturk? A puppet? Read a bio of the guy, very much his own man, thank you. Strong leaders who built the independence of their countries held political Islam at bay. Sukarno interned Islamists. Nasser reformed Al Azhar in a reformist way, keeping the dogmatic Muslim Brotherhood at bay. literal, political Islam is an obscurantist force in the way of modernisation and prosperity.
(4) The terrorists are not isolated individuals. They apply some verses of the Quran literaly, as preached by the literalist clerics of political Islam and with the support base of the 30 to 50% of Muslims who ascribe to literal, political Islam (polls on demand)
1) I argued that Front Nationals are a racist group, whether they are racist towards Jews or racist towards Muslims isn't the issue, the issue is that they are racist.
These days they seem to be directing a lot of their racism towards Muslims, but I'm happy to acknowledge that they have been and still hold racist views against Jews and other minorities, that doesn't discount my claim they are racist, it adds to it.
2) You first started off by saying that immigrant descendants refuse to let go of their accent which hinders them when going for a job against someone equally as qualified, and now you are using Chinese/ Vietnamese as people who integrate into society whilst forgetting that many many Chinese/ Vietnamese people also have accents.
Who gets to decide the make up of French culture that every one has to assimilate into? Because each French citizen is one piece of that culture, a orthodox Jew who dresses the way his religion asks him to makes up a piece of that culture, just as a Muslim who has an accent or wears a Hijab makes up a piece of French culture.
Do you want society to be like the 'borg' where everyone has to look, talk and act the same just to be able to secure a job or be considered part of society proper?
3) Yes Ataturk was a puppet of the colonial powers. After French and British defeated the Ottomans, they weren't going to let a leader of Turkey try to re-establish the Ottoman Empire again, thus Ataturk was someone the that they would let be in power because they knew he would do their bidding and try and remove Islam from the Turkish culture.
What better way for the colonial powers to make sure that the Islamic Ottoman Empire would not be a problem again than to have someone like Ataturk take the Islam out of the Turkish culture.
And your point about how strong leaders built the independence of their countries by holding political Islam at bay misses the point entirely.
1) Nasser and other leaders of Egypt held political Islam at bay because it threatened their iron fist hold on power. Dictators and monarchies tend to hold at bay anyone that threatens their unelected grip on power, whether that be religious political parties or just ordinary freedom parties.
4) The terrorists are just a small group of people. There are 1.8 billion Muslims in the world, and millions of Muslims in France alone. So when you compare how many people plotted and carried out the Paris attacks to how many peaceful Muslims go about their daily lives then the terrorists are a miniscule group when converted to percentages.
As for your argument that 30-50% of Muslims who ascribe to political Islam support the terrorists, you need to widen your understanding of why there is some verbal support for the terrorists.
And it's not because political Islam demands it, it's more to do with some Muslims being made to feel as though Islam itself is under attack by the West and its puppets.
Laws and policies that are enacted primarily to affect Muslims tends to add credence to their suspicion that Islam itself is under attack by the West.
Profiling and security operations directly solely against Muslims also lends credence to their suspicions.
Decades of bombing Muslim countries is another thing that lends credence to the idea that the West is attack the religion of Islam itself and not just the bad guys.
And lastly, increased support for a racist party like Front Nationals after a terror attack also lends support that the idea that France has a problem with all Muslims and not just the bad terrorists.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)(1) While we could agree that there is racism in the Front National "philosophy', what I have repeatedly told you is that it is not what drove its success. It has become the #1 party for blue collars on economic grounds (unemployment)
(2) immigrants of Asian descent in France do not cultivate a way of speech that sets them apart. The 'hood' accent of people of North African origin is not a plus during a recruitment interview.
(3) Political Islam is a hindrance to development. While the rules of the Quran might have been social progress in 7th century Arabia, they are now socially conservative nonsense.
Which is why strong leaders who wanted to build modern societies (Ataturk, Sukarno, Nasser, Michel Aflak -an islamophile-) all kept political Islam at bay.
(4) Out of the 1.6 billion Muslims, a great number are illiterate and know precious little about their religion. However about half worldwide support death for apostasy. The little they have been taught is bad. And that's by this power base literalist extremists feel vindicated.
politicman
(710 posts)1) I'm glad we agree that there is racism in the Front National, I don't care about it's 'philosophy', I only care that it advocates discriminating against certain peoples. As doe the driver of its success, I have no doubt that some of it has to do with economics, but lets be honest, the majority of its latest support which helped it soar in the polls came after the Paris attacks and there can only be one reason for that.
2) I think you should amend your statement to read the following way "The colour of people of North African origin is not a plus during a recruitment interview when that North African is competing against a 'true' French person, as in someone who is either white or not muslim"
There fixed it for you, that sounds so much more like reality than your sentence did.
3) Political Islam is the same amount of hindrance to development as is the Republican party here in the U.S and many other major political parties in many countries in the world.
And again, I already explained why Atuturk tried to get rid of the Islamic element of Turkish culture, obviously its what benefitted the colonial powers who defeated the Ottomans.
As for Nasser and others, as I said, the reason the kept political Islam at bay was to protect their iron grip hold on power. When take power without an election then you tend to want to hold back anyone or any party that can threaten your hold on power.
4) These terrorists feels vindicated when they plot and carry out terror acts because they have the ability to show death and destruction caused at the hands of the west as easily as I can show you the words in a book.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)(2) Again, that is YOUR opinion based on no fact. Let's rephrase this, there are studies which show even the most progressive persons have an unconscious racial bias, but it is low. What the large scale study I already gave you also show is that European countries are among the least racist on the planet, France included. You keep reiterating your accusation toward the French without evidence. And you refuse to acknowledge the 'hood' subculture willfully perpetuated in the banlieues is self defeating. In other words, you put all the blame on the host population (the French whites) and none on the part of the immigrants you cherish (those of 'Muslim' origin)
(3) Most Democrats -I hope- would disagree with your statement that "Political Islam is the same amount of hindrance to development as is the Republican party here in the U.S". Let's take one very simple example: Lincoln (Republican) fought to abolish slavery, while slavery is expressly condoned in the Quran, that 'perfect' word of god. Face it: the Quran is a very imperfect book with some horrible teachings (just like the Old Testament it took its inspiration from). btw, take the believer's challenge: under which Pharaoh did Moses live? Reagan or Khomeiny, which is worst? Hint: Reagan did not hang gays.
(4) Muslim journalists and analysts have pointed out that ISIS (including the Paris terrorists) can find scriptural justification in the Quran and hadiths. ISIS is not very different from Saudi Arabia. Actually, Saudi Arabia has less doctrinal justification than ISIS: why does the KSA allow unbelievers in the 'sacred' 'Muslim' land? Were the Muslims invading Spain provoked by the West as you like to ascribe as motivation of Muslims attacking it now?
politicman
(710 posts)2) Again, too many people will never admit to having racist attitudes, some know they have them but keep them hidden and some don't know they have them but they come out in small ways though 'unconscious racial bias' as you so eloquently explain it.
Someone who knows they have a racist attitude but is keeping it hidden will wait for a time such as after the Paris attacks to publicly display this attitude without being shamed by others, and an easy way to do this is un towards a party like Front Nationals, thus explaining its increased support after the attacks.
Someone who has an 'unconscious racial bias' will not realise they are favouring a white Frenchman over a coloured Frenchman in a recruitment interview, but the end result is the same, segments of the population end up with no jobs and stuck in banlieues which then breed this 'hood' culture you speak of.
And I don't except your premise of calling the French whites the host population, as if the French whites are more French than coloured French citizens and their descendants born in France, as if these French whites are the true owners of France and they are just hosting the coloured 'muslims'.
3) You repeat the same discredited crap that anti-muslim people repeat, or are you just one of them?
If you knew anything about the history of Islam and how it started, then you would know that when Islam was just getting started, it was common practice for people in Arabia to have slaves, mostly those of darker colour. It was only due to Muhammed and Islam at the time that having slaves was abolished because Islam says that no man is better than any other man except through his deeds and actions.
Btw, at that time in Arabia they used to bury infant girls alive but Muhammed and Islam also stopped that practice.
4) The Koran is written in such a way that anyone can find any justification for anything as long as they interpret it the way they want to.
I'll give you an example. The Koran says that dying while fighting in defence of your religion guarantees you heave. The Koran also says that killing one innocent person is like killing the whole of man kind.
Now the terrorists would interpret the above 2 things in a way to justifies their terror acts. For instance they might claim to some followers that there are no innocent people in the west because the west has democracies and the people choose their leaders and their leaders start bombing Muslims, thus attacking any western target is fighting in defence of the religion.
They would use some mental acrobatics like this to convince some Muslims that what they are doing is justified by religion. but 90% of Muslims don't see it that way.
Instead they disregard how sinful this is and instead verbally support these terrorists because they see it as payback for the wests constant bombing of Muslim countries and killing of Muslims throughout the world.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)(2) what you refuse to see is the difference in integration to the host societies between Muslim and other immigrants. And yes, there is such a thing as a host society: In Roma, do as Romans do. There was a massive study done by the German Ministry of Interior on immigration. The result was that Muslim immigrants integrate less and try to integrate less to society on religious grounds. Quote: "a surprising number of non-German Muslims are skeptical about integrating into society." http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/muslims-in-germany-study-hints-that-mutual-suspicion-is-slowing-integration-a-818666.html
Same in France as evidenced by the successful integration of people of Asian origin vs that of people of North African origin cultivating a 'hood' accent..
(3) your point is downright funny: whatever the social situation in 7th century Arabia, the Quran is supposed to be the eternal, perfect word of god. And that eternal, perfect word of god condones slavery. Enshrines that men are superior to women. Etc. god is not great.
(4) this too is funny, even more so. First you point to the many contradictions in the Quran. Granted. Looks like god was stuttering when he gave his eternal, perfect word to Jibril. But I am sure you know the theory of abrogation: when there is a contradiction, the latter verses take precedence. Tough luck, all the latter verses are the most violent, crowned by the infamous surah 9.
Besides, the quote you make of ayat 5: 32 is a common misquotation: it's 'god' reminding the Jews what they wrote earlier in the Mishnah Sanhedrin. And that peaceful injunction is immediatly cancelled for Muslims in the very next ayat 5: 33
NB: to 'wage war' against Islam, in quranic parlance, means to oppose its extension, even to oppose it verbally. Right here, i am 'waging war against Islam' and deserve to be "killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides". Because if I'm to be exiled from the land and keep on criticizing Islam, it wouldn't solve the problem, right?
politicman
(710 posts)2) I always laugh when people use the assimilate or integrate argument. Who decides what culture everyone should assimilate or integrate into? Is the process the same as an election where a vote is held to see what the majority of people decide the French culture is? Or do some elite people get to decide this and everyone has to follow suit to be considered part of the host society? Is it like the Borg where everyone has to be the exact same?
Once a person becomes a citizen of a country then they have the exact same amount of ownership of that country as any other citizen. Especially if a child of an immigrant was born in France then they are the exact same as any white child born in France, because you know they were both born on French soil.
The point being that a society and its culture is made up by every citizen living in that society (the same way that a chain is made up of every ink in it), thus no one should have to integrate or assimilate to fit into a society/culture that they already make up.
3) Again, you must be getting all your info from people who are really anti-Islam or you are one yourself?
The Quran is the word of God, and it is perfect. And it preaches that no man person is better than any other person except through their deeds and actions.
This applies to both men and women, and each has rules that they must follow in the religion. Its not that men are superior to women in the eyes of the religion, its just that each gender has rules that apply to it.
I'll freely admit that Islam is not that concerned about having equal rights for both genders the way we are obsessed with doing in todays society even though each gender has certain things that they are more suited to do.
4) If you read what I wrote I gave you 2 sayings in the Quran that don't contradict each other if interpreted correctly.
The example I gave of a terrorist interpreting those 2 sayings to the way he wants, was just to show how a terrorist can use mental gymnastics to get at any justification that fits his goal even if its not the correct interpretation.
Like I said, a terrorist will use mental gymnastics to justify his killing of innocents as the West having no innocents because the west is a democracy who elect their leader, and that leader bombs Muslims, ergo after extreme mental gymnastic by the terrorist he has justified his actions in the eyes of the religion by believing that he is not killing innocents and isn't committing the sin of killing an innocent which is tantamount to killing all of man kind.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)(2) OK, then, by your standards, I should wear my shoes in a mosque. Using your reasoning, it's not because Muslims built their mosque and decided rules of behavior that I should follow them, right? Whoever comes anywhere brings their own customs and is not required to adapt to the prevalent usage, right? Or is it only Muslims who have a god given right to do as they please?
(3) you carefully avoided the unpleasant truths I mentioned about Islam. Why don't you admit that the perfect, eternal word of god, the Quran, condones slavery. As for gender equality, the Muslim argument is a joke: yes, men and women are equally asked to follow what the Quran says. Tough luck for women, those rules are unequal. Better still, allah made man better than woman so that man could provide. Tell that joke to Ginny Rometti, the boss of IBM. A female gets half the inheritance of her brother, how do you like them apples?
btw, you ask me if I am anti Islam. I would have supposed my baseline pic gave a clear clue of what I think of religions, Islam included. god is not great.
(4) again, you carefully avoid another unpleasant truth I mentioned earlier: the violent medinan verses supersede the previous, more peaceful meccan verses. The latest versses being that of surah 9, the only surah which does say in the name of allah the most merciful. Surah 9 is the last verse, and one of the most violent.
2) You are conflating a mosque which is private property to a society/culture which is equally owned by every citizen of the country. As I said, every single citizen of a country makes up a piece of the country's society/culture.
Its because Muslims built their mosque and OWN their mosque as private property that they get to decide the rules of behaviour that anyone that enters that mosque must follow. The same way that a bar gets to decide what patrons are allowed to wear in it and the same way that you get to decide whether I can enter your house with my shoes on.
Surely you are not arguing that some French citizens have more ownership of France than other French citizens and thus get to dictate what the culture should be? As I said, a society/culture is not determined or decided by a select amount of people, a society/culture is made up of the sum of all its people, thus this assimilation argument makes no sense. How can someone assimilate into a culture which is already made up with the sum of all its people.
3) I'm guessing you have realised by now that I am a Muslim. And that I believe that the Koran is the word of God and is perfect. And that instead of trying to kill you for dissing Islam, I am on here debating it with you in fun fashion.
Equality for both genders is a noble idea but the truth is that it can't be implemented in a perfect way. The Koran just does a different version of what we do in society when we don't have women coming up against male NFL players because we recognise even though equality is a noble idea, each gender has their own strengths and not every strength is equal.
4) Please keep in mind that these surahs came down 1400 years ago in a time when Islam was in its infancy and as such was in constant battles against those that wished to wipe the religion out.
Most Muslims like myself recognise that not every surah in the Koran is to be applied literally in today's age, over 1400 years after they came down.
Most Muslims like myself are more than content to live our lives following the parts of the Koran that we believe are appropriate to today, and pass over the surahs which we recognise are more appropriate for the age when Muhammed was constantly battling to defend our religion and his people.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)(2) is downright silly. Of course society creates rules which must be followed by all. If I am in Saudi Arabia, I am not going to go on the same beach than the opposite sex, even if it's a public beach. If I am in Japan and I am a pygmy form Cameroon's rainforest, I won't be alowed to walk naked on the street as I might do back home. Malays or Indonesians who go to the swimming pool in Singapore have to make do with non separation of the sexes. It is not to say immigrants have no say, it means that social norms are decided by custom of the social group which was there first and is in the majority.
(3) is not applicable: in dar al Harb, Muslims know they have to put up with the rules of the kuffars. Were I in a dar al Islam country typing what I did, I'd better be sure I have a good IP scrambler or expect very unpleasant things to happen to me. Worse still, if you were in dar al Islam too, you would be required to report me or be tried as an accomplice of blasphemy.
(4) is the downfall of Islam (and of any religion). The Quran claims to be the perfect, eternal word of god. There is no time limitation in the Quran about slavery.
Saying slavery is not OK is to doubt the Quran = bid'ah = very unpleasant things happen.
politicman
(710 posts)2) Having rules and laws in society that are decided by a majority or by representatives of a majority that everyone has to follow is a different argument than what a society/culture is made up of.
Like I said earlier, a society/culture is made up of all the sum of the its people. Your examples of other countries rules and laws do not defeat that statement, all they do is highlight how different societies implement different laws and rules through the process I outlined in the first sentence.
And even when those laws and rules are enacted, every citizen in a democratic country, whether they were their first or came later has the same amount of input into those laws through their vote etc.
Considering that in France laws have not been enacted to mandate that everyone should speak the same or dress the same or present themselves the same, then your rules argument has no merit when it comes to the culture or identity of a country.
Think of it this way, an identity/culture of a country is made up of all its citizens, so how can anyone need to assimilate into an identity that is already made up of them?
3) If I was in any of those countries that have strict Islamic governments, then I myself would have unpleasant things happen to me. But those Islamic governments are using their power and force to decide that I am not practicing my religion properly, it doesn't mean they are more correct than me, it just means they have more power than me and can force me or hurt me, etc.
4) I am not doubting the Koran, I just don't believe that the Koran says slavery is ok. My version of Islamic history and my interpretation of Islam shows me that the prophet made it a point to abolish slavery when the religion came down and to stop the burial of infant baby girls which was something that was prevalent throughout Arabia before Islam.
Please look up the story of Bilal who was a slave before freed by Islam and who ended up being the one that the prophet trusted to enact the call to prayer.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)(2) In Roma, do as Romans do: custom of the preexisting majority applies to the newcomers who will later make the customs evolve. Reasoning ab absurdum: do you expect a tiny majority to impose its customs on the majority? Besides, we were discussing integration. You are not taking up the evidence I presented you with: the German study showing Muslim immigrants choose to integrate less on religious grounds. You do see it does not help their integration in the economic fabric of society?
(3) the Islamic governments are forced to apply a strict interpretation of the Quran by the clerics. Which is why I mentioned that progressive leaders like Nasser or Sukarno tried to send the clerics packing as much as they could.
(4) like many believers, you try hard not to see what your holy books tell you. muhamad is supposed to be "an excellent example of conduct" as mentioned in the Quran. Well, muhamad traded slaves:
A man decided that a slave of his would be manumitted after his death and later on he was in need of money, so the Prophet took the slave and said, "Who will buy this slave from me?" Nu'aim bin 'Abdullah bought him for such and such price and the Prophet gave him the slave.
And war slaves are very OK in the Quran itself (the eternal word of god), notably for sex
2) The reason I am not taking up the evidence you presented is because it's meaningless when I believe that no one should have to assimilate, because like I said, a identity/culture of a country is made up of all the sum of its people which includes the minorities.
You argue that newcomers should take up the custom of the pre-existing majority, which can be a point only up until the newcomers assume citizenship in which case they are part of the country and make up the identity/culture of the country.
No I don't expect a tiny majority to impose its customs on the majority, but then again, I don't expect anyone to impose anything on anyone because each person in a country is a small piece of what makes the identity of a country.
For example, a white citizen does not have any more ownership of France than a coloured citizen does, because the minute that someone becomes a citizen then they assume a piece of the identity of that country.
I'll say it again, the identity of a country is made up of the sum of all its people, whether they be majority or minority.
3) The Islamic governments are not forced to do anything by the clerics, those clerics would be imprisoned if they tried to force any leader to do anything they didn't want to do. Islamic governments are that way because they try to control their populations with Islamic rule seeing as how they are unelected and don't want any challenge to their leadership.
4) I don't know how many times I need to repeat this, the Koran came down in a time that was very different from now. It was a time when what we see as atrocities were just common behaviour amongst the peoples, a time when winning wars resulted in taking all the booty and a time when different customs that we would view as immoral now was normal practice.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)(2) your vision is -I suppose, voluntarily- angelic. Fact in real life is that the newcomer has to initially fit in the mold, then change the mold later. Back to my examples: Muslim immigrants try to blend in less than other immigrants in Germany. And, as a result, they lose out in financial terms. I've lived in lots of countries. Did I try to adapt to the dominant culture? Ya betcha.
(3) Clerics and religious parties have a disproportionate influence in the Muslim world. Challenge me on that point, and I can come up with insane declarations by clerics which go unchallenged in the Muslim world. And you know they are there.
(4) Again you refuse to face the obvious contradiction: IF the Quran is the perfect eternal word of god, and if muhamad writes in the quran he himself is the perfect, eternal example for mankind, THEN the fact muhamad traded slaves is OK. Besides, may I quote another bit of Quran which validates slavery?
PS: you do not have to answer me, but it would help to figure which type of Sunni Islam you believe in: what is your country of 'islamic' origin?
2) See your mindset about adapting to the dominant culture is a big reason why racism occurs. People feeling like the newcomers are not assimilating properly ends in those people resenting the newcomers who are usually minorities.
I'll say it again, once someone is granted citizenship then that person has as much ownership of their home country as any other citizen of that country. And with an equal amount of ownership as every other citizen, any minority that chooses to speak, dress or act in a different way should be an addition to the makeup of the culture of a country.
If you use pre-existing citizens as the only make up of a country's culture then which pre-existing citizens get the ultimate say of what the culture should be? Do those that have been or had family in France since its founding get more of a say in what the culture should be than those that have only been or had family in France for the last 100 years. Should a white French teenager get more of a say in the culture of France than a immigrant descendant who was born in France at the same time as the white one?
3) Clerics only have as much power as the dictator or monarchy allow them to have before they feel they are a threat and then imprison them. Dictators may tolerate certain clerics so as not to rock the boat of their leadership, but ultimately if the dictator feels threatened enough then he will have the cleric imprisoned in a heartbeat to save his own leadership.
I suspect one of the examples you are talking about is Iraq and Sistani, but the Iraqi government only takes Sistani very seriously is because he has power over a large segment of the Shiite population and the government risks losing the next election if Sistani speaks out against them.
4) My parents are from Lebanon, and I personally don't identify as any certain type of Sunni, although I know of all the types and what the differences are between each and how dangerous some of those types are.
I'll also add that my father is Sunni whilst my mum is Alawi, so I get a good perspective of the different beliefs between the sects.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)(2) You are volutarily angelic. You probably know full well newcomers have to somewhat blend in or face some form of rejection. I won't argue that with you because it's too obvious.
(3) I was thinking more of al Qaradawi who, imho, is a menace to world peace. And you neglect the rising influence radical clerics gained over the masses thanks to Saud/Qatari money. Pakistani madrasas in the NW territories have become cesspools of hate (partly thanks to the CIA, I know)
(4) Lebanon. I heard it was a great country before religion ruined it.
And with a mixed Alawite/Sunni heritage, I see why you are amenable to reasonable discussion over religion. Something many Muslims won't engage in for long.
muriel_volestrangler
(105,960 posts)A typical article about them is not about unemployment:
A strong advocate of business nationalism, she wants to put more emphasise on France’s regional boundaries for trade and the economy and has long opposed wind turbines.
But her stance on identity and immigration are her political landmarks.
She has said she fears “the Riviera becoming a favela” and that believes in the “replacement theory”, by which French-born citizens are being replaced by newly arrived immigrants.
In an interview with a French newspaper, she said Muslim people “could not be given the same rank as the Catholic religion”.
...
"She uses the words and dress code of her generation, the tone of young people, is very casual in the way she addresses others and looks very modern, but what she promotes is a very conservative, traditional agenda – in terms of morals, against women’s rights, restricting rights to abortion, very conservative about gay marriage.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/marion-mar-chal-le-pen-the-successful-face-of-france-far-right-front-national-party-a6762436.html
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)Look at ANY poll about what matters for French voters: unemployment tops the charts.
ANY party doing well has to address that issue.
(even if Ms. Le Pen addresses it with pipe dreams)
muriel_volestrangler
(105,960 posts)Just because unemployment is the top concern for French voters, that does not mean it's the top concern for FN voters. They are under half of voters, after all.
Contrast that with what Le Pen thinks was the reason for their win:
"it is probably the attacks in Paris which explain the historic result recorded by the National Front in the local elections"
( http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06s2rtr - 34:50, a translation of course, but it's hard to hear the original underneath)
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)Yes, there is a strong anti-immigration motivation to the Front National vote.
However, one should not forget that party has become #1 among blue collars (far ahead of the historically blue collar Socialist or Communist Parties) with strong inroads among teachers on salary issues.
And while immigration stays the #1 concern of FN voters at 64%, the aggregate of financial reasons adds up to 80% ahead of immigration (total = 200%, with two answers):
- purchasing power 35%
- unemployment 24%
- financial crisis 21%
muriel_volestrangler
(105,960 posts)on immigration. You can compare the FN figures - 64, and 35+21+24=80, with the overall ones - 31 and 30+27+27=84. Clearly, the FN voters are far more concerned about immigration (notably, they don't give a fig about maintaining peace in Europe). And the PS figure for unemployment, which you had singled out, 42%, is well above the FN's 24%, and its 'economic total' - 98 - well above the FN's.
That the FN wins blue collar votes does not mean they win them on unemployment. Blue collar workers are quite capable of having regressive nationalist views on immigration.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)And it's back to the same old dichotomy:
- ethnic issues (friction between immigrants and blue collar workers in the banlieues)
- economic issues (blue collar workers being hard hit by job flight to eastern Europe)
muriel_volestrangler
(105,960 posts)then the economic total is almost bound to be higher than the single 'immigration' number. If someone's really concerned about immigration, they can only give it 1 vote, and they might pick one of the economic ones too (and we don't get to see which was more important to them). But if someone's really concerned about the economy, they can pick 2 economic issues. So, with concern actually evenly split, you can end up with 1 immigration vote, and 3 economy votes. With more options, the economy category is going to pick up more 'second votes'.
So when the FN figures get 'immigration' that close to the total economy votes, it shows that immigration really is at the top of their list.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)Yes, I see your point. But it works both ways.
Rejection of immigration might hide economic reasons, and you wouldn't see it because the topic wasn't broken down.
Specifically, some far right conspiracy theory loons claim immigration was forced upon the unwitting proletariat to weigh down on wages.
Assuming there might be traces of truth in their 'theories', then the anti-immigration item might have an economic component.
As often when it really matters, nobody apparently bothered to study the real motivations of the Front National votes seriously.
ucrdem
(15,720 posts)
The niece of Marine Le Pen won her first election at the age of 22 and trounced a former prime minister, Alain Juppe, in a televised debate
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/12035135/Marion-Marechal-Le-Pen-the-new-wonder-girl-of-Frances-far-right.html
flamingdem
(40,841 posts) mylye2222
(2,992 posts)A political dynasty. All are blue-eyed and blond-haired. Aryans...
Democat
(11,617 posts)When voters are scared, they will look for a strong leader to protect them.
politicman
(710 posts)Its not fear that is the reason the public flocks to racists like the far right party in France, its hidden racists attitudes that do it, the fear is just a way to let those hidden racist attitudes surface without feeling guilt.
As an example, look at the U.S.
There have been many many mass shooting over the years committed by young white males, but I have never once seen a comment anywhere advocating for laws and discrimination against young white males, and certainly never seen any support for the public for such, heck a party doesn't even exists advocating such the way that the far right party exists in France and other European countries.
Heck, the only response I see to the fear of these mass shootings is to blame guns for the problem.
On one hand a mass shooting or extremely terrible crime committed by a white person doesn't result in people flocking to parties that are racist towards white people, and on the other hand a terror act or horrible crime committed by a Muslims results in people flocking to a party that is racist against Muslims.
See where I'm going with this?
Democat
(11,617 posts)Equating organized international terrorists who want to kill every American and their children with angry lone wolf shooters is not going to help the Democratic Party win over mainstream America. Both of those issues need to be addressed, but they are not the same issue.
politicman
(710 posts)That's such a cop out if I've ever seen one.
That excuse of organised international terrorism being worse than a lone shooter committing a mass shooting is so stupid.
The real reason why people use that excuse is because they want to find a way to demonise Muslims by making it sound as an atrocity committed by Muslims is so much worse than an atrocity committed by a white guy.
That shooter that shot up the kids at the children's school did a deliberate act that even surpasses international terrorism's evilness, yet the discussion after that mass shooting wasn't directed at what policies should be enacted on white men and no one was advocating that white men no longer be allowed into the U.S, instead the discussion was about guns and how to avoid guns getting into the hands of the white men who would commit these atrocities.
More people in the U.S are scared of getting shot up in a school or a theatre or in shopping mall than are scared about getting caught in a terrorist act, yet all the discussion is focused on Muslim and how evil their religion is and how we shouldn't allow anymore of them into the country even though huge majority of Muslims in the U.S are peaceful people.
That's racist if I've ever seen it.
pampango
(24,692 posts)epitomize this attitude.
The right in France, the US and seemingly everywhere else thrives on creating and stoking fear in voters. Liberals need to respond to legitimate fear (Hollande has enacted emergency measure that have been criticized by many on the left) but not to the politicized version of fear so often peddled by the right.
Democat
(11,617 posts)But the left must also realize when mainstream Americans feel that their fear is reasonable and not being addressed. After the Paris attacks, Obama could have announced that he had ordered a full and thorough review of the visa screening process for all refugees and visitors and that he doesn't care if it delays some refugees by a few days or weeks if it will help to keep Americans safe.
Many on the left are so concerned with either disagreeing with anything Republicans are for, or with not looking like they are questioning certain groups or religions, that they won't even consider reasonable steps like reviewing the way that America screens refugees and visitors.
If the left buries its head in the sand it gives the far right an opening to make things worse.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)Pursuing unpopular policies across the board is fueling the right. Having no answer after the first Paris attacks killed the socialists.
flamingdem
(40,841 posts)A response was called for on many levels.
DFW
(59,994 posts)And I say this as someone who has lived in Europe for many years, travels every week for work, and speaks French, German, Italian, Spanish, Russian, Swedish and Dutch. Even the most fervent of my European friends on the left agree with this.
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)there instead of speculating. What do you think is driving this, specifically?
Tip O'Neill's observation that "all politics is local" doesn't apply only to the USA.
In Europe there is, in almost every country here, a highly entrenched cumbersome bureaucracy that tends to ignore the needs of the individual, and acts as if its only interest is in self-perpetuation. Most "civil servants," who are often uncivil and not very interested in serving anyone, are there for life. They can't be fired unless they behead their mother-in-law on live TV, and then only if on prime time.
These institutions exist for all governments, of course, both right and left, but the right tends more toward laissez-faire (and all its implied inefficiency) where the left tends toward control, more control, and then even more control. The normal tendency of the average European is to vote left, as no one wants to dismantle all the social protections they have brought. However, with so-called "tolerant" immigration policies, plus unwise economic planning (e.g. not working on how to pay for all the generous social programs when there is an economic downturn and income taxes are already at 50% or more starting at $120,000 gross income, plus VAT of 20% or more biting low-income people the hardest), there will come a reaction, or at least a willingness to vote for another party.
When communities are asked for money to build mosques when they already don't have enough kindergarten spaces for their kids or money to repair their streets, there is a reaction. When governments (such as Belgium) forbid their newspapers to report that violent crimes were committed by Moroccans, there will be a reaction. In Belgium, for example, some in Brussels just say "it was those Swedish people again" because they re not allowed to say it was the Arabs. Last year, I had lunch with the leftist leader of the Belgian Senate. She knew her party's policy was putting in in danger of losing the majority, and it turned out she was correct.
France and Belgium, in their desperate search for additional revenue, go to extremes. Both countries send out terror brigades of financial police to harass small businesses, audit them to death until they find a reason for a hefty fine, and then move on. If there is no violation, they make one up, because they don't get promoted for auditing a shop that does everything correctly. The big companies all have their "friends" in the government (sound familiar?), so they are left alone as a rule. But there are only so many CEOs, and there are a LOT of small business owners. If people are supposed to enjoy social services, but can't take advantage of them because the bureaucracy is so cumbersome, at SOME point, they will vote for something else. In Germany, bureaucrats (also there for life, with generous pay and pensions) have no incentive to shorten a coffee break to help the next in line. They are not penalized for saying, "come back tomorrow" to some poor guy who already took off a day from work to get something done. My legal residence in Germany nearly lapsed because the government worker who took my routine renewal application let it sit on her desk for 5 weeks instead of sending it to Berlin as she was supposed to, because it would have involved walking across the room to the "out" pile. True story. When enough voters get fed up with their own party, even if their policies were well-intended initially, they vote the other way. It doesn't matter if what the right is promising is better or not. Like a plant, the earth and water need to be replenished for it to continue to stay healthy. Leave the earth to get stale and forget to water it, and the plant will wither. This is what the old European left has forgotten. They figured all they have to do is be in control and everything will be fine. Initially, they were correct, but long-term? If that didn't work for the right, WTF made them think it would work any better for them? The old PCF boss, Georges Marchais, was once asked if he would ever cede power if his party were to win a national election. His answer? "Why would anyone EVER vote us out of power?" Well Marchais, a Stalinist of the old school who lived like a king in his big villa, never got the chance to find out.
In the USA, the percentage of people who work for the government is under 20%. In Germany it is over 30%. In France it is nearly 40%. Who pays for all this? So the tax burden to support this top-heavy bureaucracy falls on a smaller percentage of the population in countries like France. The "charges sociales," or amounts an employer has to contribute to the government on top of an employee's gross salary, are around 55% in France. My outfit pays these amounts for our two French employees, I'm not making this up. A French employee often takes home less than a third of what he costs his employer. You wonder why there is high unemployment in France? It's expensive to employ people there. Not a difficult cause and effect. In Germany, they get around that by a cruel loophole in the labor laws. In Germany you can have a temporary position that ends after six months. There are a LOT of Germans working with no employment agreement, but perpetual six month extensions. An employer can just decide not to renew, and the employee has no recourse. But the high cost of employing someone, while not as crazy as in France, is a deterrent. The unemployment statistics in Germany look better than those of France, but there are a lot of 6-monthers keeping the figure down. Liberalizing the labor laws would make sense (Denmark, for example, did, and unemployment went way down), but France would never let it happen.
As for immigration, almost NO country made a national, large-scale, coordinated effort to assimilate newcomers from Muslim countries. They got handouts and/or jobs (Germany, e.g.), and were left on their own. So they came with their languages and traditions, and didn't really get pounded into their heads that it was NOT alright to beat your sister/daughter senseless (or to death) if she didn't wear a scarf or dated a local boy. It took generations, for example, for the Turks in Germany to assimilate, and many newer arrivals still haven't. My travel agent in my town is a Turk who says he is "sort of Muslim," but eats pork, drinks alcohol, smokes, and considers himself a German first (he was born there). He speaks German with no trace of a foreign accent. The fruit vendor a few meters up the street came over from Turkey when he was maybe 20, still speaks German with a strong Turkish accent (he speaks to me in Turkish because he knows I speak a few words, but switches to German when he loses me, which is pretty quickly!). He still calls me "effendim" and is very old school. But his wife and daughter, who help him in the shop, don't wear headscarves, and don't appear to get any grief for it.
The refugees are starting to make an impact on daily life in Germany, too. Even in my small town, two modest sports facilities and the music school have been appropriated (with no substitute) to house refugees, and in a neighboring town a large hall used for plays and concerts has been taken to house refugees with no substitute facility available. So far there has only been angry grumbling, but this is music to the ears of far right extremists who have been ignored as pariahs in Germany for half a century.
In short--and you can thank my 3 hour layover here in Heathrow for this long answer--I hope I have laid out SOME of the factors driving the rightist surge here in Europe. There will be others as well, depending on which country you look at (Gypsies in Hungary, Albanians in Serbia, Bosnians and Albanians in Sweden, etc. etc. etc.). I have to catch my 11 hour flight to DFW in a little bit, so if you want something else, it'll have to be later on.
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)Very enlightening! I am fascinated to hear about what life is like in other countries. I have traveled throughout Europe quite a bit and lived in Vienna for a semester in College, but still one doesn't get a feeling for the political climate unless one lives there and is immersed in the culture and day to day life.
When you get more time, it would be interesting to hear what Germany's long term plan is for the refugees. They can't stay in the sports and music facilities forever, so they have to go somewhere/find a way to support themselves eventually.
Thanks again!
DFW
(59,994 posts)The short answer is that they have none. To open the welcome gates was a knee-jerk reaction to a situation they weren't prepared for. Their Federal government (Bundesregierung) had this huge humanitarian rescue in mind, but as usual, their bureaucratic mind set directed the details, i.e. decide something and then pass along the problem to someone omeone else. The someone else in this case was all the cities and towns, big and small, who had no facilities to house and feed this number of people. Already, fights and turf wars have sprung up in large shelters. What did they expect? Put a thousand 24 year old white Harvard grads in a tent or an overcrowded building in the winter in a country where they don't speak the language, have no useful work skills, and where most local women fear and shun them, and they'll go crazy too after a while. A neighbor of ours is an engineer/technician for the Japanese company TDK in Germany. He said the Syrian engineers sent to them for possible employment not only speak no German or Japanese, but often have skills equivalent to where Germany and Japan were 25 years ago.
The brewing social conflicts will boil over precisely because of what you cited: they WILL be in these facilities for close to forever, and they have NOWHERE to go, and no way to support themselves. A few clever ones will get rich from participating in organized crime, and the rest of them will suffer for it.
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)a rise of right wing politicians. I guess this wasn't very well thought out, which is the tragic thing.
DFW
(59,994 posts)If ever there was a place where the far right SHOULDN'T have ever had a chance again, it was western Europe. The left and center-right inadvertently--and with the best of intentions--tragically opened a door for them that never would have opened all on its own.
steve2470
(37,481 posts)DFW
(59,994 posts)Now I'm in Dallas, with no more 3 hour breaks until I get home on Sunday.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)Thanks for the reply. Is it true that some lawmakers in European Union parliament are actually not elected? An Austrian guy was complaining to me about unelected lawmakers.
I get the sense that there is a great distance between European politicians and their people.
DFW
(59,994 posts)There is a HUGE disconnect between European politicians and the people, your are correct. On a national level, anyway. Don't forget, European politicians are often from this "civil servant" sector, and this means, "don't you EVER question me! I'm the decider." They may rag on each other, but the public rarely gets a say on anything. They do get to vote, but once that's done with, the public's opinion on anything is rarely heard or desired.
I don't distinguish between English-speaking Europeans and non-English-speaking Europeans, fo course. Sometimes I don't even know if people I talk to know English or not. Once they hear I speak their language, they're perfectly content to keep it that way. One friend from France I had known for 20 years once came to the States, and blew me away with her Oxford English. "Where did you learn THAT?" I exclaimed. She said,"I've always been able to speak English, but with your French, I never thought I had to use it with you." It was a nice compliment, but a reminder never underestimate someone's linguistic ability, even if you've known them for decades!
malaise
(294,927 posts)Way too neat
PatrickforO
(15,398 posts)Neoliberal 'free trade' policies have caused the high unemployment and austerity. Neoconservative policies indirectly caused the terror attacks.
Now, instead of addressing these structural problems, they are gonna have a nice little war!
And people are VOTING for that shit.
I never thought the French were as stupid as us until now.
flamingdem
(40,841 posts)
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)I think I'll pour myself a drink.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)flamingdem
(40,841 posts)and I think.. or I thought he is unelectable.
pampango
(24,692 posts)Democrats need to be smart - and liberal - about this.
Dawson Leery
(19,550 posts)to prevent the far right from taking the Presidency in 2017.
flamingdem
(40,841 posts)his strategy is not working.
flamingdem
(40,841 posts)Right now Tuesday on msnbc