Xenophobia: Casting Out the Un-French

[Arcana XV]

There must not be total equality when the situations are different.

For example, people under 18 do not have the right to vote. That's a discrimination. But they're not "second-class", they can't vote because we consider that they're not mature enough.

Another example, foreign people (usually) can't vote neither. That's also a discrimination. But that's because we consider that people who have arrived only recently should not have the right to have some influence on the outcomes of the elections.

Third example, to be president of the USA, you must be born in the USA. That's also a discrimination, but the Americans consider that it is justified.

So, there are plenty of discriminations, based on age, gender or origins. They're usually not justified, but sometimes they are.

In the case of the French law about removing the nationality of foreign-born criminals, I think it is a very good idea. Indeed, when you are welcomed in a society, I think you should contribute positively to it. If you do not (for example if you don't work and live at the expense of the others), I do not think you should be allowed to be integrated (= get the citizenship), and if you contribute negatively (for example if you start commiting crimes) I think you should be deported.

We already have many jobless people and many prisonners. I find that the costs imposed upon the rest of the society (those who work) is already very high, and thus I do not think we should let the other's unemployed and criminals live at our expense, I do not think we should stand by them.

I'm sorry, bub, but I can't stand behind a law that, all things being equal, creates a second-class citizenry. Your examples don't really apply. There is no discrimination in preventing people who haven't reached the legal age from voting. Children and teenagers never have the same civic rights adults do. They're simply not mature enough. It would, however, be discriminating if you prevented foreign born French citizens from voting once they turn 18.
Your second example applies to foreigners and not citizens. Big difference. Different laws.
As for the American President, I think it's a really stupid rule that should be amended, personally.

What about ethnic French people born and raised abroad who then come home and commit crimes? Why do they get to keep their citizenship?
What about those who have lost their original nationality once they became French? What country are you going to deport them back to exactly?
What about the guy who was born in Nigeria and moved to France when he was 3 months old? Is there really that much difference between him and a regular French person?

I guess it's too bad we're done discovering new continents, eh? Sounds like you would gladly send all the "undesirables" away to populate it. :lol:

 

[Gardener]

It isn't the case - as Paris has pointed out, Sarkozy is simply responding (as Chirac did before him) to a resurgent extreme right in France. When Le Pen actually found himself in a Presidential run-off, the whole country united to keep him out - but not discounting that Chirac took some political steps to the hard right in his pre-election campaign. I see this and the recent anti-burka laws as positioning for the elections to come.

It's probably comforting for some to reduce the issue to such a simplistic "It's that far right!!" sort of accusation, but there wouldn't be any rise in the far right if it weren't for the far left's actions and policies.

The issue isn't one of skin color, but of culture, and it is between those who wish to preserve liberal, western values vs those who want nothing to do with them. Sure, this proposed law is heavy handed and overreaching, but the fact remains that it is trying to target those who live in France, but want nothing to do with really being French.

Why should a person be considered a citizen to begin with if they wish to destroy the very nature of the country they are living in? Certainly, not all Muslims harbor these attitudes, but a signifigant number, do, and until a policy can be devised that will actually address this fact, you will continue to see the flailing away at windmills.

 

[bub]

I'm sorry, bub, but I can't stand behind a law that, all things being equal, creates a second-class citizenry. Your examples don't really apply. There is no discrimination in preventing people who haven't reached the legal age from voting. Children and teenagers never have the same civic rights adults do. They're simply not mature enough. It would, however, be discriminating if you prevented foreign born French citizens from voting once they turn 18.
Your second example applies to foreigners and not citizens. Big difference. Different laws.
As for the American President, I think it's a really stupid rule that should be amended, personally.

What about ethnic French people born and raised abroad who then come home and commit crimes? Why do they get to keep their citizenship?
What about those who have lost their original nationality once they became French? What country are you going to deport them back to exactly?
What about the guy who was born in Nigeria and moved to France when he was 3 months old? Is there really that much difference between him and a regular French person?

Thanks for giving examples where the boundary between "French" and "foreigner" is blurry. You are right, I don't really know what we should do for these people. However, in many cases (let's say...an Hispano-Swiss-Canadian who arrived in France 3 years ago ) it's quite clear, I don't see why we could not re-take the French citizenship.

Isn't there a saying about "what men can give, men can re-take" or something like that?

Or there could be an explicit condition when you are given the French citizenship: you swear you won't commit crimes, so that the day you commit a crime, the citizenship could be removed.

I guess it's too bad we're done discovering new continents, eh? Sounds like you would gladly send all the "undesirables" away to populate it. :lol:

There is still room in Australia

 

[spud_meister]

There is still room in Australia

not for the French there isn't.

(actually, if our population grows much more, the country may go arse up)

 

[Arcana XV]

Thanks for giving examples where the boundary between "French" and "foreigner" is blurry. You are right, I don't really know what we should do for these people. However, in many cases (let's say...an Hispano-Swiss-Canadian who arrived in France 3 years ago ) it's quite clear, I don't see why we could not re-take the French citizenship.

Here's a better solution. Do what the Swiss do and make it damn hard to obtain citizenship. The harder, demanding, expensive and longer you make the process, the more you weed out undesirable elements.

Isn't there a saying about "what men can give, men can re-take" or something like that?

I'm all for that when it comes to residency or work permits. Once you become a citizen, you're entitled to be treated like all other citizens.

Or there could be an explicit condition when you are given the French citizenship: you swear you won't commit crimes, so that the day you commit a crime, the citizenship could be removed.

I would prefer a 5 or 10 year period where the citizenship can be revoked. I don't think the condition should be for life.

There is still room in Australia

:lol:

 

[bub]

It's probably comforting for some to reduce the issue to such a simplistic "It's that far right!!" sort of accusation, but there wouldn't be any rise in the far right if it weren't for the far left's actions and policies.

The issue isn't one of skin color, but of culture, and it is between those who wish to preserve liberal, western values vs those who want nothing to do with them. Sure, this proposed law is heavy handed and overreaching, but the fact remains that it is trying to target those who live in France, but want nothing to do with really being French.

Why should a person be considered a citizen to begin with if they wish to destroy the very nature of the country they are living in? Certainly, not all Muslims harbor these attitudes, but a signifigant number, do, and until a policy can be devised that will actually address this fact, you will continue to see the flailing away at windmills.

There is a great article about that:

Lalibre.be - Insécurité : les antisarkozystes dérapent

Google Traduction

(sorry I don't have the courage to translate it. If you don't understand, the article says that you can disagree with Sarkozy's policies, but you go too far if you start calling him a fascist. If a left-winger was president, he would take the same measures to fight criminality, but he would cover it up with appearances of human rights. Furthermore what the left-wings propose today is not enough anymore: sometimes there are serious events like riots or armed robberies, and everyone suffers from it, especially the lower social class that the socialists pretend to defend)

 

[alexa]

There is a great article about that:

Lalibre.be - Insécurité : les antisarkozystes dérapent

Google Traduction

(sorry I don't have the courage to translate it. If you don't understand, the article says that you can disagree with Sarkozy's policies, but you go too far if you start calling him a fascist. If a left-winger was president, he would take the same measures to fight criminality, but he would cover it up with appearances of human rights. Furthermore what the left-wings propose today is not enough anymore: sometimes there are serious events like riots or armed robberies, and everyone suffers from it, especially the lower social class that the socialists pretend to defend)

Doesn't look like Belguim is doing too well

Council of Europe highlights xenophobia in Belgium

Europe's top watchdog flags up persistence of far-right violence, police abuse and language-based discrimination.

The activities of neo-Nazi groups in Belgium are contributing to a climate of xenophobia, leading to a “persistence of incidents of racist violence”, the Council of Europe, Europe's top human-rights body, concludes in a report published today
-snip-

The Council of Europe also draws attention to racial discrimination, which it says “persists” in employment, education and access to housing and public services. Children from immigrant backgrounds do less well at school than Belgium children for a variety of reasons which include “de facto segregation at school and the racism which they allegedly sometimes encounter”, the report adds.

The Belgian police are singled out for criticism, with racially motivated abusive behaviour by police officers not “receiving sufficient attention and those responsible...not being punished”.

Council of Europe highlights xenophobia in Belgium | European Voice

Looks like you have quite a few problems to sort out.

Bub, do you have a black population? I say this because we went through something similar with Blacks in the 70's and early 80's culminating in riots like the Brixton Riots of 81.

There are plenty of ways to change this situation, the best being making sure everyone is treated equally and has the same opportunities which the Human Rights report above suggest Belgium is not doing.

 

[bub]

Doesn't look like Belguim is doing too well



Council of Europe highlights xenophobia in Belgium | European Voice

Looks like you have quite a few problems to sort out.

Bub, do you have a black population? I say this because we went through something similar with Blacks in the 70's and early 80's culminating in riots like the Brixton Riots of 81.

There are plenty of ways to change this situation, the best being making sure everyone is treated equally and has the same opportunities which the Human Rights report above suggest Belgium is not doing.

Don't pay too much attention to what they say, I think these are the same guys who compare Sarkozy to Philippe Pétain.

What the article says is not wrong, it is true that, as everywhere else, there is discrimination against foreigners in Belgium. For example, there is a shortage of student rooms, and you can be sure that the owners will tend to rent their room to rich white guys with a Flemish name like me, rather than to a Turk who is poorer and who could have problems to pay every month. It's the same for employment: we have a lot of unemployment, so a guy who wants to hire can make a selection. That's bad, but that happens everywhere, and I don't think we are particularly racists. For example, I've never heard an outcry against Islam similar to the outcry against the mosque near the WTC in NY.

What happens often, is that immigrants tend to stay together and don't properly speak French or Dutch, so they have problems to find jobs (check job offers, in Brussels you have to be bi- or trilingual to find a job that is better paid than bus driver). Furthermore, since they have problems with the language and since they're usually poorer, they usually fail at university (there is a link between the social class and the grades you get at university http://www.jstor.org/pss/1085062 ), so they have more problems to get good jobs and more money.

Concerning the school discriminations, I'm a bit surprised they mention it because there have been numerous measures taken in order to "enforce" social mixity in schools. I'm also a bit surprised about the focus on public service: even if there are sometimes incidents with the police, the administration in Brussels is more than tolerant with foreigners: they can vote (even if they do not have the citizenship), many of them are in the parliament and in the government (we have Turkish ministers, and the former minister-president of Wallonia and future prime minister is the son of Italian immigrants), food at schools and prisons is halal, there have been arrangements for the ramadan, some swimming pools are women-only on sundays, civil servants can wear a veil...

As for the nazi groups, I don't see what they are talking about.

 

[alexa]

Don't pay too much attention to what they say, I think these are the same guys who compare Sarkozy to Philippe Pétain.

What the article says is not wrong, it is true that, as everywhere else, there is discrimination against foreigners in Belgium. For example, there is a shortage of student rooms, and you can be sure that the owners will tend to rent their room to rich white guys with a Flemish name like me, rather than to a Turk who is poorer and who could have problems to pay every month. It's the same for employment: we have a lot of unemployment, so a guy who wants to hire can make a selection. That's bad, but that happens everywhere, and I don't think we are particularly racists. For example, I've never heard an outcry against Islam similar to the outcry against the mosque near the WTC in NY.

What happens often, is that immigrants tend to stay together and don't properly speak French or Dutch, so they have problems to find jobs (check job offers, in Brussels you have to be bi- or trilingual to find a job that is better paid than bus driver). Furthermore, since they have problems with the language and since they're usually poorer, they usually fail at university (there is a link between the social class and the grades you get at university JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie ), so they have more problems to get good jobs and more money.

Concerning the school discriminations, I'm a bit surprised they mention it because there have been numerous measures taken in order to "enforce" social mixity in schools. I'm also a bit surprised about the focus on public service: even if there are sometimes incidents with the police, the administration in Brussels is more than tolerant with foreigners: they can vote (even if they do not have the citizenship), many of them are in the parliament and in the government (we have Turkish ministers, and the former minister-president of Wallonia and future prime minister is the son of Italian immigrants), food at schools and prisons is halal, there have been arrangements for the ramadan, some swimming pools are women-only on sundays, civil servants can wear a veil...

As for the nazi groups, I don't see what they are talking about.

Thank you. Do you have equal opportunity procedures whereby people can kick up a fuss and get compensation if they are not treated equally?

This sort of thing.

Equal Opportunities

Apparently the findings in that article feature in a European Commission against Racism and Intolerance report.

We in the UK found for instance that we had and still do have, to take measures to makes sure people were not being discriminated against. So for example if a company is not employing a wide cross section of the community, that would be a red flag. If someone applied for a job and they had all the credentials necessary and got the impression at the interview it was because of their sex, race or sexual orientation, they would be able to put in a complaint. Do you have that sort of thing in Belgium?

It may be as you say, 'natural' to choose people of your own ethnicity but if we live in societies with more than one we need to take measures to include them all, until the point comes that we do that without thinking.

So again, I am wondering whether this is because Belgium has not gone through this before. I can remember when our Afro Caribbean immigrants were seemingly finding themselves on the wrong side of the law in particular too much, that there were all kinds of voices raised (not really, I think they were all Conservative ) about sending them back to where they came from, offering them free flights to go, even offering them a bit of extra cash to go.

Thankfully we dealt with it instead by looking at how we discriminated against them and working to make our society inclusive of them. Now the only people you hear suggesting such things here are the BNP, so I am wondering maybe it is because Belgium is new to this sort of problem that she is making the kind of choices she is.

 

[bub]

Thank you. Do you have equal opportunity procedures whereby people can kick up a fuss and get compensation if they are not treated equally?

This sort of thing.

ht

Apparently the findings in that article feature in a European Commission against Racism and Intolerance report.

We in the UK found for instance that we had and still do have, to take measures to makes sure people were not being discriminated against. So for example if a company is not employing a wide cross section of the community, that would be a red flag. If someone applied for a job and they had all the credentials necessary and got the impression at the interview it was because of their sex, race or sexual orientation, they would be able to put in a complaint. Do you have that sort of thing in Belgium?

It may be as you say, 'natural' to choose people of your own ethnicity but if we live in societies with more than one we need to take measures to include them all, until the point comes that we do that without thinking.

So again, I am wondering whether this is because Belgium has not gone through this before. I can remember when our Afro Caribbean immigrants were seemingly finding themselves on the wrong side of the law in particular too much, that there were all kinds of voices raised (not really, I think they were all Conservative ) about sending them back to where they came from, offering them free flights to go, even offering them a bit of extra cash to go.

Thankfully we dealt with it instead by looking at how we discriminated against them and working to make our society inclusive of them. Now the only people you hear suggesting such things here are the BNP, so I am wondering maybe it is because Belgium is new to this sort of problem that she is making the kind of choices she is.

Of course we do have things like that: for example, there is the "center for equal opportunities"
http://www.diversiteit.be/?action=onderdeel&onderdeel=61&titel=Diversity+&+discrimination

There is also the "movement against racism, antisemitism and xenophobia"
Mrax.be

Both rely entirely on public funds.

The "center for equal opportunities" is a website where you can see all the rights you have (the laws against discriminations...), they explain all the possible forms of discrimination and you can email them if you're victim of it.

 

[alexa]

Of course we do have things like that: for example, there is the "center for equal opportunities"
Diversiteit en discriminatie - Centrum voor gelijkheid van kansen en voor racismebestrijding

There is also the "movement against racism, antisemitism and xenophobia"
Mrax.be

Both rely entirely on public funds.

The "center for equal opportunities" is a website where you can see all the rights you have (the laws against discriminations...), they explain all the possible forms of discrimination and you can email them if you're victim of it.

I have had a little look. This seems to be some kind of advocacy site. I accept you say they rely on public funds. In reality it is the government who makes sure we do not discriminate and keeps an eye on it. For this reason applications for just about everything asks various questions about your background so that if inequality is going on, it can be found and dealt with.

You said earlier that people would prefer to for instance offer accommodation to people with names sounding like yourselves. I also see

Many people make discrimination into the housing market. Some owners have preferred not rent or sell to persons of foreign origin or disability.

your link

Now I am pretty sure it would be against the law to refuse to rent to someone here because of their race or disability. You can obviously sell to whoever you wanted but if you started putting up notices like 'No Christians' or 'No Heterosexuals', you would I think be in trouble.

You obviously do still have serious problems with discrimination in education

For anyone who wants to join the fight against discrimination in education based on a so-called race, nationality, language, culture, national or ethnic origin, color, religion or philosophical beliefs ...

your link.

These are just the two things I looked at.

Here's the thing Bub. If Belgium has a particular group who are high up on the crime figures, there is a reason for this. Everyone living within a society is a part of that society. The unemployed who is unemployed because the indigenous Belgium will choose not to employ him is not to blame for his unemployment and if this person chooses crime, possibly only partly to blame.

I fear for a Europe which is now thinking of changing it's rules of citizenship, which at it's base is right of abode.

It certainly is not as you said earlier the only way with which to deal with the situation. The other way takes work, takes people being open to change and takes the State not reneging on the responsibility it took on when it gave these people citizenship.

 

[bub]

You obviously do still have serious problems with discrimination in education

Like everywhere, but it is more complex than just discrimination. Most foreigners who arrive in Belgium are poor, and they tend to go live together in the same parts of Brussels, in districts who became both very poor and populated by 60 or 70% of foreigners, with unemployment rates up to 30%. It's not simply because of "racism" (there is no selection, everyone can go to any school since education is nearly free), it's a vicious circle with several factors that reinforce each others, like no good command of any national language, lack of diploma, poverty...just as the white poors, they have limited opportunities to get a good diploma (because they are from the lowest social class: they don't find it important, they have to work to get some money, they live in families with many kids...).

But don't fool yourself, it is the same everywhere, and it is not simply with foreigners. It is with poor people generally speaking. Just look at the composition of the US senate or the UK parliament, I bet 3/4 of these guys had parents who were millionaires.

Here's the thing Bub. If Belgium has a particular group who are high up on the crime figures, there is a reason for this. Everyone living within a society is a part of that society. The unemployed who is unemployed because the indigenous Belgium will choose not to employ him is not to blame for his unemployment and if this person chooses crime, possibly only partly to blame.

That's only one part of the reality. The other part is that foreigners usually have less diplomas, because they are often in the lowest social class. That explains why 30% of the young people in Brussels (= mostly foreigners) are jobless while Brussels is the economical heart of the country (hundreds of thousands of people living in Flanders and Wallonia go work in Brussels every day): they don't have the required degrees and they do not have a sufficient command of Dutch.

And don't tell me that it's because of discrimination at schools: university is free if you're poor. Many foreigners try it: when I was in the first year, one third of the students were foreigners. But now, 3 years later, only a few of them still remain. That's because they had to work to pay for their food, or because they had been to bad schools, or because their parents don't find it very important (when they fail, they go work, while if a student whose parents are educated fails, his parents will insist that he tries one more time because they know it's important to get a degree)...

 

[alexa]

Like everywhere, but it is more complex than just discrimination. Most foreigners who arrive in Belgium are poor, and they tend to go live together in the same parts of Brussels, in districts who became both very poor and populated by 60 or 70% of foreigners, with unemployment rates up to 30%. It's not simply because of "racism" (there is no selection, everyone can go to any school since education is nearly free), it's a vicious circle with several factors that reinforce each others, like no good command of any national language, lack of diploma, poverty...just as the white poors, they have limited opportunities to get a good diploma (because they are from the lowest social class: they don't find it important, they have to work to get some money, they live in families with many kids...).

Then clearly these are the issues which need to be worked on and changed.

But don't fool yourself, it is the same everywhere, and it is not simply with foreigners. It is with poor people generally speaking. Just look at the composition of the US senate or the UK parliament, I bet 3/4 of these guys had parents who were millionaires.

First thing, citizens are not foreigners. You've called them that a lot.

I don't know whether 3/4 of the British Parliament are born of millionaires and I 'm not going to do research on it at the moment. That is a different issue. The issue here is taking away people's citizenship because they are unemployed or have committed crimes. No, we don't do that in the UK and I do not believe they do that in the US either.

That's only one part of the reality. The other part is that foreigners usually have less diplomas, because they are often in the lowest social class. That explains why 30% of the young people in Brussels (= mostly foreigners) are jobless while Brussels is the economical heart of the country (hundreds of thousands of people living in Flanders and Wallonia go work in Brussels every day): they don't have the required degrees and they do not have a sufficient command of Dutch.

and this is a serious problem and needs addressing. If these people are citizens then you will have problems if you do not start working to provide them with equal opportunities. This has happened before certainly in both the US and the UK with black people usually ending in riots.

And don't tell me that it's because of discrimination at schools:

If there is not discrimination, why is there need to act against discrimination.

university is free if you're poor. Many foreigners try it: when I was in the first year, one third of the students were foreigners. But now, 3 years later, only a few of them still remain. That's because they had to work to pay for their food, or because they had been to bad schools, or because their parents don't find it very important (when they fail, they go work, while if a student whose parents are educated fails, his parents will insist that he tries one more time because they know it's important to get a degree)...

There certainly is a relationship between education success of parents and that of children. In order to facilitate social mobility this has to be addressed. It is not always easy. Last year we saw the first increase in social mobility in years, though it took years in the making.

A series of Labour initiatives targeted at the less well-off from the earliest years of life are beginning to have an impact, indicating that for the first time in three decades, children from disadvantaged backgrounds may be able to overtake their parents on the social ladder.

The report by the Cabinet Office's strategy unit has found that "positive changes" started to occur around the year 2000 after decades in which children failed to overtake their parents or fell behind them

One key finding shows that family background is less important to the academic success of 15-year-olds now than it was for the same age group born in 1970

Social mobility on the rise at last, says report | Society | The Guardian

 

[bub]

Then clearly these are the issues which need to be worked on and changed.



First thing, citizens are not foreigners. You've called them that a lot.

I don't know whether 3/4 of the British Parliament are born of millionaires and I 'm not going to do research on it at the moment. That is a different issue. The issue here is taking away people's citizenship because they are unemployed or have committed crimes. No, we don't do that in the UK and I do not believe they do that in the US either.



and this is a serious problem and needs addressing. If these people are citizens then you will have problems if you do not start working to provide them with equal opportunities. This has happened before certainly in both the US and the UK with black people usually ending in riots.



If there is not discrimination, why is there need to act against discrimination.




There certainly is a relationship between education success of parents and that of children. In order to facilitate social mobility this has to be addressed. It is not always easy. Last year we saw the first increase in social mobility in years.



Social mobility on the rise at last, says report | Society | The Guardian

Well I've got a problem with your answer

1) you must be aware that there are similar problems in every country. Measures are taken to limit this problem, but it will never be entirely solved, there will always be people who have prejudice at other peoples. Just look at the number of interracial marriages: it may be increasing, it is still less common than marriage between people of the same "race": there are 50 millions of "white-white" US couples, but there are only 117,000 couples with a white husband and a black wife. Interracial marriage in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So of course there is discrimination in Belgium, and it will always exist. But we take measures to limit them, and I do not think we are a "racist country" or a country that is full of discriminations: in order not to discriminate against poors, education is free for them. In order not to discriminate against gays, gay marriage and gay adoption are legal. In order not to discriminate against Muslims, we've removed crosses from justice courts and schools, they can work in the administration with a veil, and there are halal menus in most schools and jails. In order not to discriminate against women, half of the politicians must be women. In order not to discriminate against foreigners, they can vote at our communal elections without being citizen...

2) The issue with foreigners is larger than "racism": they also have problems because they are poorer on average, and that implies that they are less likely to get a good diploma (even if they can go to university for free) and thus they are also more likely to be jobless...just like the white poors. If you want to check that, look at who gets the best jobs (senators, judges, managers...). Of course there is some social mobility, but you're still more likely to be rich if your parents were white, rich and educated, than if your name is Ahmed and if your parents came from Morroco 10 years ago, or if your name is Kevin and your parents are unemployed.

 

[alexa]

Well I've got a problem with your answer

1) you must be aware that there are similar problems in every country. Measures are taken to limit this problem, but it will never be entirely solved, there will always be people who have prejudice at other peoples.

Which is why steps must be taken to make sure that prejudice doe not interfere with people's ability to integrate into society. Where and when there are problems they need to be addressed. It is possibly an on going process.

Just look at the number of interracial marriages: it may be increasing, it is still less common than marriage between people of the same "race": there are 50 millions of "white-white" US couples, but there are only 117,000 couples with a white husband and a black wife. Interracial marriage in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The UK has much higher racial intermarriage than the US.

According to the UK 2001 census, black British males were around 50% more likely than black females to marry outside their race. British Chinese women (30%) were twice as likely as their male counterparts (15%) to marry someone from a different ethnic group. As of 2005, it is estimated that nearly half of British-born African-Caribbean males, a third of British-born African-Caribbean females, and a fifth of Indian and African males, have white partners.

Interracial marriage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So of course there is discrimination in Belgium, and it will always exist. But we take measures to limit them, and I do not think we are a "racist country" or a country that is full of discriminations: in order not to discriminate against poors, education is free for them. In order not to discriminate against gays, gay marriage and gay adoption are legal. In order not to discriminate against Muslims, we've removed crosses from justice courts and schools, they can work in the administration with a veil, and there are halal menus in most schools and jails. In order not to discriminate against women, half of the politicians must be women. In order not to discriminate against foreigners, they can vote at our communal elections without being citizen...

Well we do not do positive discrimination in this country (half of politicians female). Although I had to do a search to see if it was thought that Belgium was xenophobic given the desire to take away citizenship, I have been trying here to deal more with the reality that there are more ways to deal with the problems of crime and unemployment than removing the citizenship of people. I have tried in the main to keep racism out of it because as I have said before I do not believe you are racist and I know that fighting the concept of racism raises the emotional climate.

2) The issue with foreigners is larger than "racism": they also have problems because they are poorer on average, and that implies that they are less likely to get a good diploma (even if they can go to university for free) and thus they are also more likely to be jobless...just like the white poors. If you want to check that, look at who gets the best jobs (senators, judges, managers...). Of course there is some social mobility, but you're still more likely to be rich if your parents were white, rich and educated, than if your name is Ahmed and if your parents came from Morroco 10 years ago, or if your name is Kevin and your parents are unemployed.

and I have shown how work on social mobility in the UK has started to work and how that also takes time. Where the discrimination comes in, in respect of this topic, is that as I understand it the people who are to have their citizenship removed are not white Belgians.

I came into this argument after you said in post 31

If a left-winger was president, he would take the same measures to fight criminality, but he would cover it up with appearances of human rights. Furthermore what the left-wings propose today is not enough anymore: sometimes there are serious events like riots or armed robberies, and everyone suffers from it, especially the lower social class that the socialists pretend to defend)

http://www.debatepolitics.com/europe/78559-xenophobia-casting-out-un-french-4.html#post1058917072

I don't agree with all the left wing stuff. I would think removing citizenship, depriving people of their acknowledged right of abode which we haven't seen since the 1930's is a far right thing, nothing to do with not left wing. Infinite Chaos frequently gets called 'leftish' by far right people like ROP and now implied by Gardiner, but my bet would be in Britain he is probably centre right or possibly would just describe himself as centre, certainly not far left!!

The main challenge I took up from you was that other governments would do the same - that is deport Citizens for crime and unemployment. I have tried to show that that is not true certainly as can be shown by the past of the UK and further that ways and means can be found to deal with these issues without removing citizenship and deporting people if there is the will. For instance in the early 1980's in the UK when there were calls to send black people home because they were filling up the unemployment queues and committing too much crime, there were loud voices from the British public of 'racism'. These calls were clearly loud enough for the government to get it's act together and get people on the ground looking at the situation, talking to people, finding out what was wrong and setting in motion things to change it.

We are certainly not perfect but we keep working on it.

(now I must get on with my day but will look back later )

 

[Infinite Chaos]

It's probably comforting for some to reduce the issue to such a simplistic "It's that far right!!" sort of accusation, but there wouldn't be any rise in the far right if it weren't for the far left's actions and policies.

The extreme right have done pretty well for themselves without the far left's help.

The issue isn't one of skin color, but of culture

I remember seeing a BBC documentary a few years ago where the Front National's head in Marseilles was talking about the same thing - he was black. What it took (then) to be accepted or given a pass into such an organisation was to abandon your parent culture and become "French" - culturally.

Fine if that stands for all ethnic groups in France. If you allow Jews or Muslims for example to continue to practice their own religion and then pick on other groups and ask them to stop wearing their religious / cultural attire and allow Jews / Muslims / whoever - then it becomes discrimination.

and it is between those who wish to preserve liberal, western values vs those who want nothing to do with them. Sure, this proposed law is heavy handed and overreaching, but the fact remains that it is trying to target those who live in France, but want nothing to do with really being French.

Why should a person be considered a citizen to begin with if they wish to destroy the very nature of the country they are living in? Certainly, not all Muslims harbor these attitudes, but a signifigant number, do, and until a policy can be devised that will actually address this fact, you will continue to see the flailing away at windmills.

There are better ways to uphold idealised / cultural French values without abandoning them. In the UK during Labour's power, we saw a huge rise in CCTV use, lots of new laws that took away some freedoms while pretending to uphold them.

You don't protect a culture by taking actions that are against the core of that culture.

 

[bub]

Which is why steps must be taken to make sure that prejudice doe not interfere with people's ability to integrate into society. Where and when there are problems they need to be addressed. It is possibly an on going process.

Of course measures should be taken, and many are already in place. But you'll never force a white man to marry a black woman, and even if the law says that it is illegal to refuse to rent a room based on the race of someone, you can't control it and you can never force someone to rent something to someone he doesn't like.

A good thing is the way they hire people in the administration: there is a written examen, and to make sure there is no discrimination, you don't write your name, you just write the number you received. That's an excellent measure, but you can't do it for everything.

The UK has much higher racial intermarriage than the US.

Good thing!

Well we do not do positive discrimination in this country (half of politicians female). Although I had to do a search to see if it was thought that Belgium was xenophobic given the desire to take away citizenship, I have been trying here to deal more with the reality that there are more ways to deal with the problems of crime and unemployment than removing the citizenship of people. I have tried in the main to keep racism out of it because as I have said before I do not believe you are racist and I know that fighting the concept of racism raises the emotional climate.

I know, we're a bit off topic

and I have shown how work on social mobility in the UK has started to work and how that also takes time.

It may be better than before but I don't think you score very well

Not only does Britain have one of the worst records of social mobility in the eight countries examined, but social mobility in Britain has actually declined. There was less mobility for those born in 1970 compared to those born in 1958. Wealth was more clearly linked to educational attainment in the UK than in any of the other countries, with children from poor backgrounds trapped in the worst schools and less likely to continue their studies

Social mobility lower in US and Britain than in other advanced countries

Are You Better Off Than Your Parents Were? - Economix Blog - NYTimes.com

Where the discrimination comes in, in respect of this topic, is that as I understand it the people who are to have their citizenship removed are not white Belgians.

I came into this argument after you said in post 31



http://www.debatepolitics.com/europe/78559-xenophobia-casting-out-un-french-4.html#post1058917072

I don't agree with all the left wing stuff. I would think removing citizenship, depriving people of their acknowledged right of abode which we haven't seen since the 1930's is a far right thing, nothing to do with not left wing. Infinite Chaos frequently gets called 'leftish' by far right people like ROP and now implied by Gardiner, but my bet would be in Britain he is probably centre right or possibly would just describe himself as centre, certainly not far left!!

The main challenge I took up from you was that other governments would do the same - that is deport Citizens for crime and unemployment. I have tried to show that that is not true certainly as can be shown by the past of the UK and further that ways and means can be found to deal with these issues without removing citizenship and deporting people if there is the will. For instance in the early 1980's in the UK when there were calls to send black people home because they were filling up the unemployment queues and committing too much crime, there were loud voices from the British public of 'racism'. These calls were clearly loud enough for the government to get it's act together and get people on the ground looking at the situation, talking to people, finding out what was wrong and setting in motion things to change it.

We are certainly not perfect but we keep working on it.

(now I must get on with my day but will look back later )

The problem is that we've been very laxist during one or two decades (it's very easy to get the citizenship, so there are many foreign-born people in Brussels, in many parts of the city they're a majority and the most frequent name there are "mohamed" "ayoub" "hamine" "nour"...) and we have problems integrating them (I've explained that above). So as a result over half of our prisoners are foreigners and around 70% have a foreign origin (in the jails in Brussels, 80% of the meals are halal).

I know perfectly well about the integration problems, but on the other side I find it increasingly unacceptable to pay millions of € (our jails are so full that we have to rent a Dutch prison, every single prisonner costs 4 or 5,000€/month, it's as if they were on a cruise in the Carribean) for these people. It's the same for unemployed people: if you're unskilled, you just can't get a job here, we already have 20% unemployment, so I don't see the point of migrating here if you don't have a diploma.

The socialists have been in every government in Wallonia and Brussels for 30 years, and they've been in the federal government most of the time. If they had taken the right measures to limit criminality among foreigners, and if they had tried to limit the number of unskilled immigrants (unskilled = not a single chance to get a job = no integration) in Brussels, maybe there would not be so much support for drastic measures.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

I think this is unbelievably awesome.

This will be like the US, back in the good old 50s; TV was black and white, women served their husbands poisoned coffee instead of nagging them, and some of us has more rights than others.

After all, everybody knows that where you're born and who your parents were are legitimate criteria for granting special privileges, and that mere citizenship is not enough. Just ask any monarch!

Muslims: The new niggers!

 

[alexa]

Of course measures should be taken, and many are already in place. But you'll never force a white man to marry a black woman, and even if the law says that it is illegal to refuse to rent a room based on the race of someone, you can't control it and you can never force someone to rent something to someone he doesn't like.

It is your government and the people of Belgians choice as to whether they choose to uphold laws. Nobody said anything about forcing anyone to marry anyone else. Are you suggesting in Belgian it is unthinkable to intermarry? That is a genuine question. The way you put it makes it sound so. No one is 'forced' to intermarry here but it is socially acceptable.

A good thing is the way they hire people in the administration: there is a written examen, and to make sure there is no discrimination, you don't write your name, you just write the number you received. That's an excellent measure, but you can't do it for everything.

And you need of course to raise the standard of everyone so that they have an equal chance of not being discriminated against.

It may be better than before but I don't think you score very well


Social mobility lower in US and Britain than in other advanced countries

Are You Better Off Than Your Parents Were? - Economix Blog - NYTimes.com

You are indeed correct. Madam Thatcher stopped social mobility in this country so that by 2000 it was worse than in the '70's though this was for all sections of society. Unfortunately for Labour the results of it's efforts to get social mobility going only came in after the election.

However, my point was twofold. First you can get social mobility going. People's chances of education achievement and overall achievement in life do not need to be consequential on that of their parents but it takes work. and 2, it takes time. It took ten years to begin to see Labour was having results.

The problem is that we've been very laxist during one or two decades (it's very easy to get the citizenship, so there are many foreign-born people in Brussels, in many parts of the city they're a majority and the most frequent name there are "mohamed" "ayoub" "hamine" "nour"...) and we have problems integrating them (I've explained that above). So as a result over half of our prisoners are foreigners and around 70% have a foreign origin (in the jails in Brussels, 80% of the meals are halal).

I know perfectly well about the integration problems, but on the other side I find it increasingly unacceptable to pay millions of € (our jails are so full that we have to rent a Dutch prison, every single prisonner costs 4 or 5,000€/month, it's as if they were on a cruise in the Carribean) for these people. It's the same for unemployed people: if you're unskilled, you just can't get a job here, we already have 20% unemployment, so I don't see the point of migrating here if you don't have a diploma.

The socialists have been in every government in Wallonia and Brussels for 30 years, and they've been in the federal government most of the time. If they had taken the right measures to limit criminality among foreigners, and if they had tried to limit the number of unskilled immigrants (unskilled = not a single chance to get a job = no integration) in Brussels, maybe there would not be so much support for drastic measures.

Well there must have been some reason you gave these people citizenship in the first place. Perhaps they were a source of cheap labour or did the jobs most Belgium's did not like. The problem is as I think you have said Belgians. She gave these people citizenship. There is an enormous responsibility in giving citizenship. These people became in theory as Belgium as yourself. Belgium has a responsibility to create a situation where these people have the opportunity to build for themselves a good life, where they can have aspirations, where there is something to work for and where there is something to be lost by landing in jail. Perhaps you also need to look at whether these people find it easier to get a prison sentence than the general population.

I am not denying you have a problem. You clearly do but as you have said it is a problem of your own making.

(I suspect we have said all we can. On this we seem to have a diametrically opposed viewpoint)

 

[bub]

It is your government and the people of Belgians choice as to whether they choose to uphold laws. Nobody said anything about forcing anyone to marry anyone else. Are you suggesting in Belgian it is unthinkable to intermarry? That is a genuine question. The way you put it makes it sound so. No one is 'forced' to intermarry here but it is socially acceptable.

I was saying that there can be 1000 laws against discrimination, there will always be some form of discrimination. And not only racial based discrimination: people tend to marry with similar people, rich people tend to marry with rich people for example. Contrary to 100 years ago, it is now perfectly accepted for a rich to marry with a poor or for a white to marry with a black, even gay people can get married, but there is still the "human nature" behind that, and that means that rich white people will always tend to get married with white rich people.

And you need of course to raise the standard of everyone so that they have an equal chance of not being discriminated against.



You are indeed correct. Madam Thatcher stopped social mobility in this country so that by 2000 it was worse than in the '70's though this was for all sections of society. Unfortunately for Labour the results of it's efforts to get social mobility going only came in after the election.

However, my point was twofold. First you can get social mobility going. People's chances of education achievement and overall achievement in life do not need to be consequential on that of their parents but it takes work. and 2, it takes time. It took ten years to begin to see Labour was having results.

I'm 100% behind you, of course I'm in favor of any measure that would reinforce social mobility.

Well there must have been some reason you gave these people citizenship in the first place. Perhaps they were a source of cheap labour or did the jobs most Belgium's did not like.

There are two ways to think about it.

The first, cynical way to see it, is that socialists have the power in Brussels. People who vote for them are mainly poor and uneducated (I'm not judging, it's just a fact). Most immigrants are poor and uneducated. Allowing thousands of immigrants to be Belgian means that more and more people will vote for socialists.

Another way to think about it is that our left-wing politicians care a lot about the third world and solidarity. They think that it's OK to give citizenship to everyone because they believe they'll integrate, find jobs and be better off.

The problem is as I think you have said Belgians. She gave these people citizenship. There is an enormous responsibility in giving citizenship. These people became in theory as Belgium as yourself. Belgium has a responsibility to create a situation where these people have the opportunity to build for themselves a good life, where they can have aspirations, where there is something to work for and where there is something to be lost by landing in jail. Perhaps you also need to look at whether these people find it easier to get a prison sentence than the general population.

Everyone is biased, including judges and policemen, so it is perfectly possible that they are jailed more easily than the others. On the other side, no one can deny that they are also more frequently criminals (not because of their race, but because they're more frequently unemployed): most of the times we hear about an armed robbery in the newspapers, it involves Turks, Albanese people or Morrocans.

I am not denying you have a problem. You clearly do but as you have said it is a problem of your own making.

Not wrong

(I suspect we have said all we can. On this we seem to have a diametrically opposed viewpoint)

yes but I'm right (jk)

 

[alexa]

You believe you are right, in considering acting in a way which we have not seen since the 1930's, rather than taking responsibility for the mess you have made and sorting it. I do not think so.

Surely you are making a mockery of your own laws. Make people citizens then say, 'sorry changed our minds, get out of here'. Does citizenship mean nothing at all in Belgium?

 

[Republic_Of_Public]

I suppose the French realise they could have been a bit rash in just dishing out the citizenship like countless plates of cheap baked beans. Now some of the more unpleasant chickens have come home to roost and it's time for regrets.


We could do with doing something similar. If we did, then the murderer of Philip Lawrence would be out of our hair instead of being our honoured guest as the expense of Joe Public. Or the captured Asian rape gangs from the North would be put back in the care of their families rather than not spending long in jail then being let loose on our streets again.

 

[MSgt]

You wonder not, it seems you don't understand the concept of citizenry. Do you think The US Bill of Rights ought to apply to the people in Iraq or Afghanistan?

They should have their own "Bill of Rights." I've been talking about his escallating immigrant problem and clash of civilizations throughout Europe for years now. All the social clashes going on is all the more reason to correct the Middle East. Don't like Muslim immigrants? Give them a reason to stay home.

You people have been looking at Iraq and Afghanistan wrong this whole time. You see, they don't immigrate from northern Africa and southwest Asia into Europe because they are seeking theocracies, dictators, and oppression. They are seeking opportunity and the absence of dictators and theocracies. And when they arrive to find that they are merely adding to the already burdened social welfare systems and high unemployment, they get frustrated.

Instead of dealing with the problems as they arrive in Europe, perhaps dealing with the problems abroad before they become a door step problem is finally starting to make sense to some. Of course, historically speaking, ethnic cleansing may be a future European option.

 

[Manc Skipper]

The European union project is predicated on the prevention of such rightwing "solutions" as ethnic cleansing.

 

[paris]

They should have their own "Bill of Rights." I've been talking about his escallating immigrant problem and clash of civilizations throughout Europe for years now. All the social clashes going on is all the more reason to correct the Middle East. Don't like Muslim immigrants? Give them a reason to stay home.

You people have been looking at Iraq and Afghanistan wrong this whole time. You see, they don't immigrate from northern Africa and southwest Asia into Europe because they are seeking theocracies, dictators, and oppression. They are seeking opportunity and the absence of dictators and theocracies. And when they arrive to find that they are merely adding to the already burdened social welfare systems and high unemployment, they get frustrated.

Instead of dealing with the problems as they arrive in Europe, perhaps dealing with the problems abroad before they become a door step problem is finally starting to make sense to some. Of course, historically speaking, ethnic cleansing may be a future European option.

Yea, bomb their countries to kingdom come to make them want to stay home... Great idea!