@ Odinius – why should it get to the courts? It's all very vague at the present but if this is a private place, then the owner has ultimate right of access. So, if I feel like wandering into the Cafe Royale and demanding service in jeans and flip-flps, can I call Cherie Blair? I think not.

Look, if you go into a swimming pool in Saudi dressed as a Catholic priest, it's fair to say that you may not get a fair reception, I'd bet the same in Malaysia.

Why can't she just go with the flow, or does she just want to be hated?

Post edited 12:44 am – August 17, 2009 by Odinius

It's a rights issue, and since France is a society based on the rule of law, it will be challenged in the courts.  Might be dismissed, but the French Constitution is fairly explicit about rights beyond what is specifically legislated.  Thus a "public order" argument is by no means a slam dunk.

Saudi, of course, is not a liberal democracy, nor based on the rule of law.  Neither is Malaysia.  France should be held to the standard it claims to represent–that of liberal democracies–not of theocratic monarchies and theocratic ethno-oligarchies.  

As for British girls, can we just ban them outright? :)

Zatapa – a refreshingly untainted report from Europe.

I had a particularly lively exchange with a muslim shopkeeper a little while back – as I informed him after nearly pinning him against the wall for his ignorance and arrogance – he was perfectly free to express himself and worship who he wished, but he had no right to insist that the UK change the way we do things, I also suggested that he should remove alcohol and bacon that he had on sale as he was clearly a hypocrite of the highest order.

Let these guys have their cake, but let us insist that they all have Syariah mortgages and banking, that they are forbidden to engage in any business that is considered to be haram – yes, let us accomodate our new guests and ensure that they don't stray from the path of all that is right and good.

Sorry Odinius I have to disagree a little – I reckon that there has been a tradition of over tolerance and this is why the worm is turning a bit. For the engineers amongst you it is like a non-saturating temperature control loop tuned with too much gain, any upset will cause increasing oscillation and the only cure is to retune the loop with less gain or dependentant on the situation you could increase the integral time.

Anyone who considers that the UK hasn't been tolerant should look at what happened to the Islamic community after the attacks in London and Glasgow – pretty much absolutely nothing – now THAT is tolerance.

As for the US being tolerant, a look down in the deep south and remember what happened after the New Orleans disaster might tend to disprove that.

Post edited 7:03 am – August 21, 2009 by Odinius

I lived in the UK, on three occassions, twice in the 1990s and once again a few years back.  I have generally found people not to be terribly tolerant at all.  Quite the opposite, in fact.  And not just towards immigrants from outside Europe, but to other Europeans as well.  Put that together with an excessively multiculturalist and essentially anti-integrationist set of immigration policies from European governments, which basically settles immigrants in ghettos and allow them to live there off the too-generous welfare state So you've got a recipe for disaster.  The worst from the right plus the worst from the left. 

@Patung: If that review is an accurate representation of the book's contents, god what a load of garbage it must be.  Can you believe previous generations of American Burke-lites made the same exact arguments about Chinese, Jews, Irish and…Sicilians?  Those who pay no attention to historiography are doomed to plagiarize it.  

Post edited 3:42 pm – August 21, 2009 by Odinius

I do like the states my home at the moment, but I've lived in several European countries, and in fact am European by nationality (though not British).  But with all due respect, why would it matter if I were American?  The US has a horrible history of racism, and a spotty history of integration.  But the system works much better now than it did.  Sure there are still issues with Central American immigration–largely because it's underregulated–but in general, immigrants who come to the US find it both easier to integrate and more imperative that they do (you'll starve otherwise).  

The end result is that Muslim Americans are unproblematically Muslim and unproblematically American.  There are no inhibitions on the free practice of Islam, but then again, there are also really no attempts to force the issue either.  There's much more respect from non-Muslims to Muslims than I've seen in any European country, and conversely, there's not a lot of Muslim Americans who want to wear burqas or demand sharia law for marriages (you can do that through a pre-nuptial contract, if you like, but then its just considered like any other pre-nuptial contract).   

As for the UK, I have never encountered so much blatant racism in my life.  During my first stint there, as a student, there were racially motivated fights outside the union every weekend, and this was at one of Britain's top universities.  I ran with a bunch of (well integrated) Asian kids, and the treatment they got opened my eyes.  Tolerant, my ass.  

Lol, well were I American, that would be quite the snide little comment there!  But it would be a last refuge kind of argument, a way of avoiding an issue by making reference to a convenient stereotype, no?  

The reason the US does a better job with immigration has two parts:

1) public more tolerant of immigration/immigrants

2) no welfare state

You've pooh-poohed the tolerance idea, but try to think of it as something other than the buzzword "tolerance," which is often used as code for political correctness.  By I mean it in the literal sense.  Publics in Europe never really liked the idea of immigration much at all.  At best, they were ambivalent about it, but didn't really care.  Governments, on the other hand, were excessively "tolerant" (using the coded meaning now) by doing what you say…setting up all the institutions for immigrants to have nothing to do with the host society, making it easy for them to be separate.  The welfare state meant this was economically viable too.  Do you really need a job if it's easier on the dole?  Then this just reinforced those boundaries, and caused resentment.  But not towards the government, towards the immigrants, who were always thought of more as "guests" than "countrymen."  

Contrast this with America.  Okay, there were major problems in earlier days, especially with Jewish, Italian and Chinese immigrants in the 1920s, but also with Irish in the 1880s.  But it doesn't really happen now to the same extent.  A little with Mexican illegals, but not legal immigrants.  Why not?  In part because the vast majority of Americans now are three or fewer generations removed from an immigrant.  There's far less of a sense of entitlement to the country.  That is, if your grandparents came by boat, you are going to have a better understanding of those who are coming now, and not view them as "guests" to the same extent.  

Add to that the fact that there's no welfare protections.  That means, if you come over here as an immigrant, you have two options: work or starve.  If you work, and want to get ahead, you have to build survival skills quickly.  In most cases, you can't just sit in your ethnic enclave.  You have no time, and you need your kids to be working to help the family quickly and efficiently.  So you push them to integrate.  

(On the "asian" bit, you know the UK context.  South Asians, not 'people from Asia' and not a "group of them."   As for the last bit, sure.  She's entitled to her opinion.  But my South Asian friends feel otherwise :) )

Actually I tried to demand the Queen in a jilbab but they weren't having it. They're all too English in most ways, unfortunately.  Even like to queue!

There are limits to my tolerance :)

How's it going, L?  Haven't seen you much around these parts lately…