Добавил:
Upload Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз: Предмет: Файл:

1Reviews and everything / Immigration

.doc
Скачиваний:
44
Добавлен:
08.06.2015
Размер:
52.74 Кб
Скачать

Alex Kvartalny @ flamedragon27.blogspot.com

Group 501

Immigration

Today, as globalisation intensifies economically and culturally borders that once used to be firmly shut are opened up making the flow of goods and commodities easier. Supposedly, it eases the way people move around the world as well. While some come and go, others come and stay, or immigrate. Summarising various reasons for that, one could mention that newcomers want the benefits that are not available in their country of origin, for instance, they lack the necessities required to sustain life like clean water, food, housing, good soil, access to health care, education, birth control, and immunizations from diseases long controlled in other countries. They lack infrastructure to develop resources basic to modern progress. Requirements like roads, water, dams, bridges, tools for cultivation and so on, are not available to them. Governments understand that although migrants can benefit an economy, they also, to a degree, may represent a problem because such aspects of national and international life as economy, social life, culture, security, health, and environment are influenced by migration.

To illustrate the impact of the phenomenon on the situation in the world, some statistics could be given:

• Worldwide, there is an estimated 191 million immigrants;

• The last 50 years has seen an almost doubling of immigration;

• 115 million immigrants live in developed countries;

• 20% (approximately 38 million) live in the US alone, making up 13% of its population;

• 33% of all immigrants live in Europe;

• 75% live in just 28 countries;

• Women constitute approximately half of all migrants at around 95 million;

• Between 1990 and 2005 there were 36 million migrations (an average of approximately 2.4 million per year);

  • 33 million wound up in industrialized countries;

  • 75% of the increases occurred in just 17 countries;

  • Immigration decreased in 72 countries in the same period;

In many (most) cases immigrants have different ethnicity or culture. Quite often this leads to social tensions, xenophobia, and conflicts about national identity, in many developed countries. A brilliant example of suchlike attitude is a Dutch Member of Parliament, Geert Wilders, who was interviewed by Stephen Sackur in the HARD TALK about his strong views on Islam in Europe.

Geert Wilders is introduced as a Member of the Dutch Parliament who has been threatened with death for his outspoken attacks on Islam and immigration. He says Europe is facing a clash of civilisations and the time has come to be intolerant in defence of freedom. But unfortunately the sense of urgency that Europe needs to win in that undeclared war is not there yet.

He says that the people who adhere to the pure concept of radical Islam are motivated by hate. And these people, though being a minority, are threatening “all we stand for”, he means, the rule of the Dutch society and their democracy. He says, 5 to 15 % of the world’s Muslim population has sympathy with the concept of radical Islam. He thinks European states are losing their societies and their countries because of the lack of the sense of urgency.

Mr. Wilders suggests introducing a new article into the Constitution that would state that the culture of the Netherlands is based on Christianity, Judaism and humanism. Geert Wilders said in 2004, “I believe we’ve been far too tolerant for far too long.” When trying to explain his idea he gets mixed up while pronouncing something like “we’ve been too tolerant to the intolerant while we should be more intolerant of the intolerant” which proves that Mr. Wilders in not too good a debater and gets easily confused when confronted with a serious and straightforward question. Within the boundaries of their law, he says, he does respect the basic freedom rights and the rights for religion. But then he expresses a vague idea that there are people in the Dutch society who do not deserve the rule of the law. Those are people who are, according to his words, are trying to violate the basic values of the Dutch democratic society, and they should be arrested and expelled, without going to a charge on the basis of mere suspicion of planning a terror act.

Mr. Wilders mentions that they have a lot of problems with the people with double nationality, especially with those coming from Iraq, then the only effective way to fight violence would be to strip such people of the Dutch nationality and send them away. He also wants a 5-year ban on immigration from non-western countries, a ban for women to wear the Muslim clothes, and immediate deportation of failed asylum seekers, even in the case of an 18-year-old Kosovo student even if they have basically spent their young life entirely in the Netherlands. Mr. Wilders comments, though, that sending someone away after a court decision – is a sign of democracy, and his wish for women to stop wearing Muslim clothes is motivated by his care for national security and for women’s rights.

Geert Wilders is also being accused of polarizing the Dutch society, because the Muslims do live there and they will continue to live there. He replies that he is rather trying to strengthen the society. He expresses the idea that he wants to live in the country that does welcome immigrants, but the ones with a similar culture, not those with the Islamic culture, and it is seems alarming to him that Amsterdam and Rotterdam can soon become the majority non-white cities.

When asked about Turkey as an example of a country that is European on the one hand and Islamic on the other hand, Geert says if Turkey becomes a EU member then the Netherlands should step out of it. Wilders made two highly contestable statements in his debate with Sackur. Here are the two quotes: ”Europe is weak and full of cowards” and “If we become tolerant today, this would be suicide”. So, Geert Wilders wants to see a return to the rights of Europe's dominant cultures. I would say that there are some reasonable points in his position but they are not correctly formulated yet. He seems not confident enough of what he is claiming to explain it and to prove his point of view. So let us hope he will become more tolerant of the tolerant and will come up with more realistic and humanistic ideas.

Another debate focuses on Muslims in Europe. It is Intelligence Squared debate “Europe is failing it’s Muslims” held at Cadogan Hall, London on Tuesday 23rd February 2010. But while Islam in Europe is debated, this topic is relevant, as its host Zeinab Bawadi believes, “right throughout the world”. On panel for the motion are Tariq Ramadan and Petra Stienen, and arguing against the motion, Douglas Murray and Flemming Rose. We can also hear comments from the audience.

Tariq Ramadan, professor of Contemporary Islamic studies at Oxford University who has been taught by some of the best Muslims scholars in the world but also been very active at the grass roots level since he is president of the European Muslim Network, starts the debate by saying that “seventy-five per cent, for example, of French people are associating Islam with violence, the perception is that Islam is a problem and that Muslims are creating problems, they are not really perceived at home in Europe”. He holds the view that Europe is failing its Muslims’ at five different levels. First two are dealing with the opinion on the level of definition. Europe has changed, and the societies have changed. There are many Europeans that are already Muslims, for example the Bosnians. And the fact that they are Muslims – Eastern Europe should also be counted as Europe, the speaker reminds us – does not make them less Europeans. Next, urges Mr. Ramadan, more should be said about this great contribution of the Muslim scholars, scientists, philosophers who gave something to the European identity. Another point is when we speak about economic, contribution, Muslims came to help the countries to be built after the second World War or in between the two World Wars. At the cultural level, Muslims want to make themselves visible by building mosques because they feel at home, it's proving that they want to integrate. He also urges everyone to “stop Islamising all the problems that they have”.

Douglas Murray, director of the Centre for Social Cohesion in Britain, which tries to promote integration between ethnic minorities and the wider population – he also specialises in radicalisation – holds the view that Islam is associated with violence since it was not Buddhists who flew planes into the twin towers. And even though there is a small minority of people who carry out acts of violence, but sadly a much larger number of people who believe that such acts of violence can be condoned or can be ever justified. He provides statistics to show that the speed of Muslim migration is very fast. He adds that there is a problem between a society – Western Europe – that believes that laws are based on reason, and Islam that believes that they are based on revelation. Mr. Murray also argues that “their intolerance of freedom of conscience, their intolerance of apostates, their intolerance of freedom of expression and freedom of speech, their intolerance of minorities, other religious minorities, sexual minorities, their intolerance of gays, their dislike and distrust of half of the population; women; and many, many other things” has led to the fact that it is not Europe that has failed its Muslims, it is Islam that has failed Europe. His another strong argument is that the Koran is not a document for women’s rights in Europe in 2010. He also stresses that only Islamic societies and mosques in this country are places which teach and preach hatred of other minorities.

Another speaker is Petra Stienen. She’s a former Dutch diplomat, who has worked in the Arab world, and indeed she has written about her experiences there. She’s a very active human rights campaigner, with a particular interest, amongst other things, in women’s rights. She is of the opinion that in her country, Islamisation has already succeeded. She is happy there Muslims are around her because they are doing some of the jobs that could otherwise not be done, for example teaching or nursing people in hospitals. She disapproves strongly of the view some hold that while we’re sleeping Europe will turn into a certain Eurabia, Islam is about to take over. She believes that this one-sided, one-dimensional story is really failing Muslims in Europe miserably. Ms. Stienen alludes to Martin Luther King when she states “we would definitely fail Muslims in Europe, but even, not only Muslims, every single citizen in Europe if we continue to judge people on the basis of the colour of their skin, the colour of religion and not by the stature of their character”. She holds the view that, today, the magic word really is compassion. Compassion for the other, compassion for another story, compassion for difficulties dealing with those stories.

The fourth speaker is Flemming Rose, the opinion and culture editor of Jyllands-Posten which is Denmark’s biggest newspaper. And, it is he, of course, who commissioned those very controversial cartoons of the prophet Mohammed back in 2005 that sparked protests among Muslims right across the world. His main point has to do with the fact that in a liberal democracy, you enjoy the right to freedom of expression, you enjoy the right to freedom of religion – which includes the right to leave your religion – you treat women and men equally but, at the same time, Muslims within their own communities, are not able to exercise that right. There is a fear of being accused of apostasy – apostasy, according to Islamic law, being a capital crime. In addition, women of Muslim background are saying that they are enjoying fewer rights and less freedom within the Muslim community in Sweden than they used to enjoy living in the Middle East. The speaker thinks that is a frightening example. They are forced to cover themselves when they go out, boys and girls are not allowed to play together, and a self-appointed Islamic thought police, watch every step these women take. As for the notion of Islamophobia, It’s a constructed model, designed to protect Islam from criticism and it has nothing to do with protecting individual Muslims from discrimination. He thinks that Islamophobia, or the concept of Islamophobia, threatens freedom of expression and it trivialises the concept of racism because it conflates legitimate criticism of an ideology with racism.

The audience are proving themselves attentive listeners and make relevant arguments. Some are refuted by the debaters, others not but the comments contribute significantly to the overall opinion of the audience. One woman says that although Muslims flew planes into the New York twin towers it was Hitler who organised the Holocaust. Another woman says that there are European terrorist organisations such as ETA, BNP and the IRA and suggests that the speaker sees Muslims as external and therefore, a threat. Some commenters are critical of the speakers and one of them, for instance, a man says “and so Douglas, you don’t need to take your trousers off because you have no legs to stand on” because his arguments are “flawed”. The comparison of Islam to race is discussed. Gay people are not happy about Muslims imposing their laws in Europe, for the latter propose to re-criminalise homosexuality. One man tells his story that after he had converted to Islam he was ostracised by a lot of my friends. As a practising Muslim, it was 2003, a few years later he came out as gay and was ostracised by a lot of my Muslim peers. He believes that the question today really is, it isn’t ‘is Europe failing its Muslims’, but ‘are we all failing one another?'. A woman states her point of view that “it’s fair that we could judge an entire religion by a few fringe people, because if you count the Muslim community it’s humongous”.

The audience were polled on this motion as they were coming in, before they heard our speakers, and the result is: for the motion ‘Europe is failing its Muslims’. Two hundred and thirty seven. Against the motion, two hundred and twenty, and the don’t knows were two hundred and eighteen, two one eight. After the debate the polls showed a different picture. For the motion ‘Europe is failing its Muslims’ the figures only slightly gone up, 249. Against the motion, And. The don’t, the don’t knows have gone from 218 to 84. So ‘Europe is failing its Muslims’ against have won.

Right of asylum (or political asylum) is an ancient judicial notion, under which a person persecuted for political opinions or religious beliefs in his or her country may be protected by another sovereign authority, a foreign country, or Church sanctuaries (as in medieval times). Political asylum should not be mistaken with modern refugee law, which rather deals with massive influx of population, while the right of asylum concerns individuals and is usually delivered in a case-to-case basis.

This issue is discussed in a BBC Hard Talk with Helen Bamber from the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture.

It is said that torture is an attempt to kill a man or woman without them dying. How does an individual cope with that? For many people, the mental barriers they put up in self-defence are very difficult to take down when they no longer need them.

The Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture was set up by Helen Bamber to help these people. It deals with 5,500 new cases every year in Britain. These are people who genuinely need sanctuary. But they've come to Britain for help, at a time when there's little public sympathy for asylum seekers.

Helen thinks that it has become more difficult for the genuine asylum seekers to prove their case. And sometimes people who really do need help find it extremely difficult to speak about that. Mrs. Bamber thinks that the high numbers of asylum-seekers are affecting all the European countries, and this is not only her opinion. It is based on the information of The UN High Commission for refugees. And in their opinion, the system for the asylum-seeking should be unified. This is thinking of hat they can do with people for them to stay in the country rather than sending them away.

According to the Home Office, the number of asylum-seekers has risen by 20 % in Britain during the last year, while in other European countries it has dropped by 1%. But Mrs. Bamber is not concerned with the numbers. She is more concerned with the genuine asylum-seekers – whether they have been tortured, or raped, or mutilated, or seen their relatives destroyed. She thinks that the numbers have been influenced by the Media, which are very often unsympathetic and would report what the public wants to hear rather than telling the truth. The guest also thinks that 40 % of the asylum refusals are a result of wrong decision of the court, and they should be made, as in Canada, by an independent Refugee Board. And if they had highly-educated personnel in an independent board, they would have a quicker asylum procedure.

Today it often concerns the Iraqi or Turkish Kurdish asylum-seekers, who are being tortured today, but this is not being discussed in the government.

In her opinion, everyone is to blame for the poor situation: the media who say what the public wants to hear, the public that wants to have a positive image of the society and the politicians who also have to do with the society’s demands.

The host mentions that most of the refugees come to GB for economic reasons, but Mrs. Bamber draws an example of the Argentineans and Chile people she was working with at the beginning of her career in Amnesty International. Most of them have come back to actually impoverished countries, but the political regime there has changed.

She provides terrible examples of what torture is and says while talking about the reasons for torturing people that it is a continuation of brutality that has been known in their country for some considerable time. In other countries it is institutionalized as a form of political control. And in the Medical Foundation they have seen people from 91 different countries. In the Medical Foundation they are trying to reverse the physical and psychological damage that is being done. Helen manifests that the world has to turn its sympathy to those being tortured and to understand that it is much closer to us than we can imagine.

Britain does not have a good record for accepting the refugees. Mrs. Bamber tries to justify that by the fact that it is really hard for a country, with the problems such as unemployment and criminality, to accept a refugee. She thinks there should be investments in the skills they can offer, and in the human rights as well as investments in the countries where the refugees come from.

As for my evaluation of the problem of immigration and the Islamisation of Europe in particular, the arguments are shrill and confusing. On the one hand, I realise that there is a possibility that if the number of Muslims prevails the European culture is very likely to fail and be lost. The proverb “when in Rome, do as Romans do” will no longer work since it will be Muslims who will be at home. On the other hand, the fact that society is becoming multicultural makes the causes for hatred and discrimination vivid and at the same time it preaches tolerance. And as long as people do not prevent others from living in a peaceful way, everyone should be just fine.

11