is multi-culturalism dead?

[yingers74]

Am not any good at doing links but won't try. Have read a lot of articles including the original (before the bombs) by Trevor Philips(I think, could be wrong) who thought the multi-cultural model had failed. What do people think?

Message withdrawn

don't know whether this post belongs here, but I have with difficulty got on the net, and the thread on Chat where so much was being discussed has become too long. I noticed that peacedove, sharia and following Islam were being discussed here as well, so here goes. Only I will have to leave again after this post, and do not know when I can be back:

Jews and Christians have not only lived and practiced their faiths, but also prospered under Islamic rule. Time and again, starting from the first Islamic stae at madinah, the different communites went by different laws, and when a dispute or court case involving the Jews, for example, was brought to the prophet (pbuh), he would ask: "Do you want to be judged by Islamic laws, or by the Torah?" and the dispiute would be settled according to the law preferred by them.

Islam does not seek a one-world Islamic state. We have been told it won't happen until the end of times are near, and we are to seek refuge from the trials of those times. But Islam also does not seek Muslims to live in subjugation for long.

It is the West which seeks a one-world civilisation, either the crusading Bush-Blair combine, or the femminist MNers. Why, there has been quite an utrage at jilbabas and Hijabs. WHy does it bother you, if Muslim women want to wear thse?

We do want an Islamic Caliphate. What is wrong there? Don't the 50 odd states of the US make up one big country? Wasn't there a move, not so long ago, of a European Union? A dream postoned, but not abandoned.

"women?s rights across the board were being constrained. Women being assaulted in the street because they were not covered, posters in universities about the way forward being the veil, women's representatives in parliament being ultra religious and talking of invoking 'God's law', whatever that is.."

The thing that violates women's rights here is "being assaulted for not being covered," although I cannot imagine them not being covered. perhaps more details are in order. And would you care to look up the figures on assault and rape in the civilised West?

Zainab Salbi is a woman.

I used the word "impure" because someone used it and asked me a question. Perhaps I should have been more critical of the usage. Maybe the correct word is "unclean"?

We do look at the world from two different angles. I read here something like "we learn from our pst, and we avoid the mistakes done in the past". Do we? I don't think so. I think mankind keeps going round and round in circles. And it is because of arrogance. That man thinks he has mastery over nature, so he commits more and more crimes.

What has been wrong with mankind is ARROGANCE, and it is visible.

Of course you are right about the way Islam is treated a viewed, and I am not going to argue with that BUT I would like to offer from my experience too. See, I am a Christian (Probably Quaker) but if I mention this to my family of friends I am treated with disgust also. I wonder if the problem is always the actual religion, or just that people are threatened by religion itself? What I (as opposed to anyone else, any Government, any nation or Religion) wish to see is a world where EVERYONE can make their own choices regarding dress, religion, etc and as long as those views are not used to harmed others, then those views can be respected. I do not wish to see a Christian state, nor would I even want one, just a respectful state where everyone is treated as a worthy and valuable Human being. Islam, I am told, means Peace; Christ taught Christians to not judge but to accept and love; Buddhists are a peaceful religion who seek love; surely all those religions CAN exist without any problems at all?

I guess it takes us back to the basics: religion isn't the root cause of any of this hatred and intolerance we are experiencing, Human ignorance and fear is.

Hi Peacedove

"It is the West which seeks a one-world civilisation, either the crusading Bush-Blair combine, or the feminist MNers."

I don't understand. By 'one-world civilisation' do you mean multiculturalism itself? And I don't get the connection between Bush-Blair and feminist Mumsnetters..

I was paraphrasing what had earlier been reported on Radio 4 (a Woman's Hour report ironically) but again I don't understand your point "The thing that violates women's rights here is "being assaulted for not being covered," although I cannot imagine them not being covered." Do you mean what we are outraged about here is the fact that they are being assaulted simply because they are not covered?

There was no more detail given as the live line from Iraq went down, I'm afraid.

"And would you care to look up the figures on assault and rape in the civilised West?" I've never made any distinction between any place being civilised or, crucially for the point I think your making, not civilised. Feminism, or more accurately feminisms, lobby for women?s rights across the board, east, west, north and south. Women are oppressed, beaten and raped in all cultures unfortunately.

Feminism is women?s fight for self-autonomy; it doesn?t mean to gain from anyone else?s loss. It is no threat to masculinity. In fact feminism is linked to civil rights movements across the board for all genders, classes and cultures. It is an emancipatory movement. What is your specific problem with it?

Ps - Would it be easier if we started a new thread that wasn?t so long. You don?t have broadband I?m guessing so only have a finite amount of time to log on, yeah?

ROFL at the idea that the world is full of dangerous feminists trying to enforce their vision of statehood on everyone else, Peacedove - if only! Sadly the world is actually full of women who are denied the same rights as men. The poorest people in the world are women and children. The people with the fewest rights are women. Count up the victims of oppression and 9/10 are women.

Edam you're right, sadly. Worked with enough victims of domestic violence (a good example of oppression?), and learned opne thing: Race or religion has nothing to do with it. All women are at risk.

MonkeyTrosers- it wasn't just me that though PeaceDove was misunderstanding what we were saying, then? I got the impression she misunderstood, but I know I waffle and am not often clear so here goes:

I VALUE EVERYBODY REGARDLESS OF THEIR BELIEFS OR ORIGIN, THE ONLY FACTOR I LOOK AT IS HOW THEY TREAT OTHERS, EVEN THEN I TRY TO TREAT PEOPLE WITH RESPECT AND A FUNDAMENTAL ACCEPTANCE OF HUMANKIND.

Peachy C, my problem with religion is that it requires an individual to discharge their critical and logical faculties over to a belief system that cannot stand up to any kind of scrutiny. People may as well believe in fairies as believe in god, the logical reasoning is exactly the same. I understand that people need to find reason in their lives, to grapple with their own mortality, and religion allows for this and provides incalculable solace to some. I would not begrudge anyone that. But religions would begrudge me, as a woman, many things.

"I guess it takes us back to the basics: religion isn't the root cause of any of this hatred and intolerance we are experiencing, Human ignorance and fear is." IMHO, religion is a human invention to attempt to deal with that ignorance and fear.

Peacedove is a guy BTW, Peachy.

Perhaps, but it fills a really big need in me, and I have to say that the Quakers from what I have read regard women as equal and always have. That not withstanding, if somebody wants to believ in fairies, OK then. If they want to believe the world is square and visited by aliens every second tuesday, Ok. Their life.

My beliefs require me not to judge or treat (or think of) anyone as second rate or inferior, and to not use violence or oppression. It doesn't matter where thos beliefs come from, I think they are fundamentally a good rulebook by which to lead my life.

Many people twist religion (Mr Bush!) for their owns aims, that is the fault of them, not the religion.

If you choose not to have a religion, that's OK. but I do think that religion dictates the lives of most of the pople on this planet, and as such we need to be educated about it and to accept it, if ever we are to understand the people themselves, and to improve their lives.

I was born agnostic, I don't know why I believe what I do. It's not the after death thing, that doesn't worry me so much: it has given me strength through sokme very hard times though, and stopped me feeling alone at very lonely times in my life. I could have turned into my parents, (self obsessed child abusers unfortunately, although I am proud to say they have improved a lot) but my beliefs helped me not to.

I don't have the confidence to have that belief in 'me' as the surce of my strength perhaps and I acknoewledge that, but believing in a world where love is the key factor- yes please.

Ok, sorry Mr Peacedove! At least I didnt make the mistake of assuming all Islamic voices are male hey? (she says, embarassed! )

Perhaps we all need to give ourselves over to a force greater than ourselves Peachy, however that manifests itself. Life is often times very hard, even here in the 'civilized' west - and the 'devil' appears in different guises. I understand the parables and their importance in teaching us how to be better people - I just don't view them through an exclusively religious prism.

They're not exclusive, Monkeytrousers, my Mother has no God, concept of life after death or anything, but she DOES regard Jesus as a wise philosopher with some at the time groundbreaking and sensible ideas. We can all learn from everyone's beliefs, if we take the time to be open minded enough (and I am sure you do, my liberal leftie friend!!)

Oh, alright!

Thinking about the original question, I'll be very glad if the sort of multiculturalism that rested on a 'cultural cringe' by the British is dead.

That sort of 'oh God, we are so sorry, we can't apologise enough for oppressing people with our empire, we couldn't possibly object to you turning round and hating us, it's absolutely fine if you want to use violence to shut down a play about the oppression of women, or preach about how much you hate us. And we wouldn't dream of allowing anyone to fly the Union flag, or send out official cards that mention the word Christmas, oh deary me no, that would be dreadful.'

It is possible, and desirable, to simulataneously hold that:

• colonialism and oppression are wrong
• we should respect other cultures
• members of other cultures who live here should respect their host country, its laws and values.

That sort of multiculturalism I could live with.

One interesting question Peacedove puts about why should we object to women wearing the veil. This is what a friend of mine says about it: she lives on a council estate where probably about 70% of the tenants are ethnic minority, and a good proportion are veiled women. So when she first started to deal with them in her capacity as tenant's association rep, she found it totally unnerving not to be able to see their faces when she's having a conversation about something important, much as it's quite unnerving to have a long conversation about something important with someone you don't know very well, who is wearing dark sunglasses. It feels like a bloody great big barrier unless you know the women very well personally. In the same way that when you speak to someone who you know well who is wearing dark sunglasses, it doesn't matter that you can't see their eyes, because you're so familiar with their intonation, their gestures, their facial movements, etc. But when you're talking to a stranger, it's considered slightly rude not to take sunglasses off if the conversation goes on for ages, unless you're on a beach, isn't it? Precisely because it's a distancing mechanism to shield your eyes. And for a person with an uncovered face, it feels very rude that the other person's face is covered, unless you know that other person very well indeed - like they're putting you at an emotional or psychological disadvantage, because you can't read their facial communication, while they can read yours.

Sorry if that offends anyone, but I just thought that was an interesting observation about how offputting the veiled face can be in terms of forming neighbourly bonds. With my friend, because she works on the TA, she had to pursue her communication with the veiled women, and so has learned to read their nuances, but of course, too many of the other neighbours would find it too offputting to pursue relationships - they can't tell if the other person is smiling at them (although my friend says she now can). Big barrier to overcome though.

We have a neighbour in the smae block of flats as us who wears a veil. She invited ds1 and I for a coffee/playdate and I was (ignorantly, I admit) surprised to see her unveiled for the first time. I saw her so differently. Same person but no veil,I found my reaction towards her changed.

That?s is a good point Caligula. Only a certain percentage of communication is verbal. Imagine a table of men, imagine governments sitting around trying to negotiate complex and risky deals with one another through veiled faces..it doesn't happen for a reason.

Edam - I get what you?re saying but there is a middle ground. At the start of this thread I fell back on to that kind of reasoning, it was lazy and Vingers quite rightly pulled me up on it. I wasn't sure how to think of the question at all back then but some focus has come out of it now. The liberal whine you describe is untenable but it?s a straw man, because no one in their right mind would be so daft. The papers are always telling us that political correctness has gone mad, and maybe some examples they use have; it?s difficult to tell as the contexts aren?t always explained with the same relish, but in real life I quite like the basic idea of thinking before opening you mouth. I could certainly do it a bit more. It?s just courtesy, isn?t it?

Bubble, I had exactly the same experience with someone I knew from a mother and baby group- she just looked so different without a veil (somehow less glamorous!)

Oh, I'm in favour of political correctness that means avoiding sexist, racist or otherwise discriminatory language/actions. But I'm not in favour of the ridiculous concept that anything British is somehow colonialist and therefore wrong - like public bodies sending out Christmas cards. Just because the Daily Mail relishes these stories, and often uses them out of context, doesn't mean these extremes don't happen. They do.
Apologies for any typos, cat is 'helping' me post.

Edam. Cat is doing a good job

I think there is a tendancy in this country to have a good and just idea/perception/notion but to act on it in the extreme thus going too far the other way.

Off topic somewhat, but this illustrates my point..Inclusion of children with special educational needs into mainstream education facilities. Twenty years ago children with minor disabilities were labelled 'Disabled' in a general category which took no account of their particular disability. Children who were partially-sighted, for example, were educated in 'Special Schools' along with children with severe emotional and behavioural problems. Baroness Warnock rightly challenged this practice and the policy of inclusion was born. We now have children with profound disabilities struggling to survive in mainstream education. Actually, I'm not sure that this is a good example as I suspect the closure of special schools was driven more by cost-cutting policies than by a desire to champion the rights of disabled children, wrongly placed. But I hope you catch my drift. I don't know if the 'PC World Gawn Mad' headlines reporting councils banning crucifixes or Christmas cards are true. But if so, the very people these policies are intended to protect from offence are often, IME,totally bemused by them.

blimey this thread has moved on a bit!

You've got a point there Bubble - another example of our tendency to stretch a relatively good idea until it becomes A Bad Thing is the Government's habit of gold-plating EU directives. When our neighbours adopt them into domestic legislation they adapt them to suit local circs. We don't. We insist the letter of the law is followed.

It is crazy, I agree.

Crikey, your cats clever Edam!

Hi peacedove "It is the West which seeks a one-world civilisation, either the crusading Bush-Blair combine, or the femminist MNers. Why, there has been quite an utrage at jilbabas and Hijabs. WHy does it bother you, if Muslim women want to wear thse? "

If muslim women freely choose do wear those clothes fine - but can they make a free choice or will their fathers/ brothers / husbands beat/ kill them if they want to do anything else? I'm afriad we need a lot of convincing that women freely choose such things.

As for the one world civilisation we'll have to agree to differ. It's terroists posing as muslims who seek to obtain power by slaughtering the innocent. Your God and your prophet would be horrified.

Hello, sorry just had to laugh about the feminist mnetters taking over the world! Are we that influential?

Anyway, am off again, too scared to post on these threads these days. [yingers hides behind the sofa again and hopes for safer times soon]