MULTICULTURAL SOCIETY
What is integration ? Linguistically, it is originally a Latin word, integrare, which means to make something whole, make it into "one". When we use the word about immigration we mean that the immigrants should be made part of the new country they have come to, by accepting its norms and rules but not being assimilated into it. Most countries have an official policy of integrating immigrants, but very often what they actually do is trying to assimilate them. They want them to adopt the culture of the country.
In the 1960's many people came to Britain with British passports from former overseas territories and colonies. The colonies became independent, and sometimes independence resulted in clashes between ethnic groups, for instance in East Africa between groups of an Indian/Pakistani background and the original black population. The Indians could use their British passports which they had got as commonwealth citizens to emigrate to Britain, thus getting away from racial persecution. In the 1990's many people fled from trouble spots around the world. A lot of them tried to get into Western Europe, either as asylum seekers and/or in some cases as illegal immigrants. In the beginning of the 21st century there are fairly big muslim populations in many Western European countries. This has led to "culture clashes" and "clashes of civilizations" when the groups of new-comers and the original population do not understand each others' cultures and life styles.
The standard of living is much higher in Western Europe (European Union) and the surrounding Arab, Iranian and African areas. Gross domestic product (BNP) per capita (hoved/indbygger) in central and northern parts of the EU is about 30.000 $ per capita, whereas in for instance Morocco it is only about 1000 $ per capita. Unemployment and other social problems are massive in these neighbouring areas. It is no wonder then, that on top of the asylum seekers there is also a number of "economic" migrants who want to enter the "promised land", the European Union.
In North America there is a parallel situation. The wage level south of the Rio Grande is a fraction (about 1/8 to 1/10) of that north of the border. Consequently many Mexicans - and other groups, for instance Central Americans - want to leave poverty and unemployment behind and move north to try and get a bit of the American dream. It is estimated that there are millions of Latin American migrants living illegally in the USA.
In "Clash of Civilizations" from the beginning of the 1990's the American writer Samuel P. Huntington wrote that the new conflicts in the world would be between religions and cultures. The events in Denmark and outside of Denmark in 2005/6 triggered by the drawings of the prophet Mohammed seemed to prove him right. The Danish flag was burned at demonstrations in a number of Middle Eastern countries. Those who defended freedom of expression were up against those who thought that this principle should be coupled with at certain responsibility, and those who thought that it was sacrilege against their religion. The drawings did not make it easier to integrate muslims in Denmark or other European countries. The Danish government would not give a formal apology to muslims. It said that it had no authority to control what a private newspaper printed.
The drawings
and protests - and the reactions of the Danish government - were
discussed all over the world, for instance on weblogs:
Some have argued that the right to freedom of
speech is inalienable. When we speak of "inalienable" rights, what do we
mean? That these rights are God given, or in some way
intrinsic to humankind? The very word
"fundamental" might imply that when we speak of fundamental rights. Or,
do we recognise that the rights we have are because of a certain
political and social arrangement, because of our membership of a
political community? That they are a reflection of the way we have
chosen to be governed, and the way our societal and political
relationship with each other is governed?
Rights are a product of the law. However, the law itself is shaped by
the fact that we are human, the fact that we prioritise some values over
others. Rights are value laden. And it is often which value we wish to
give priority to that informs how we debate the exercising of a right.
It is also the
context in which that right is being exercised that informs our
thinking on the right in question.
In the United Kingdom, which country gives effect to the European
Convention of Human Rights, through the Human Rights Act 1998, only the
right to life, the right to freedom from torture and the right not to be
treated as a slave or perform forced labour are "absolute" rights. Even
the so-called "absolute" right to life is cirumscribed by, for
example,the fact that a policeman can kill you in an act of self-defence.
All the other rights, including the right to free speech, are
conditional. This is because rights often create conflict-do you treat
the right to liberty as absolute when collective security in
endangered-such as when terrorist suspects are imprisoned without
charge? Individual rights are conditional because of potential conflicts
with the public good, or national security. If this is the case, how can
a right be described as inalienable or absolute?
Even if rights are conditional, in liberal democracies, they are
jealously guarded, and rightly so. Thus you have the House of Lords in
the Belmarsh case ruling that imprisoning suspects
without charge was contrary to the Human Rights Act.
The right to freedom of speech is a very highly protected right and
restricted only in very specific circumstances. Thus when the front page
of France Soir screams Oui, on a le droit de caricaturer Dieu ("Yes, we
have the right to caricature God"), with quite a fuuny cartoon under the
headline, emphasising that all Gods, have been
caricatured, they are right, they do have the right to poke fun at God
(god?). But the problem is at what cost? Cartoons, by their very nature,
do not please everybody, and often actively offend, especially when they
are political or religious in nature. In this case, the cartoons, not
only depict Mohammed (anybody who understands the role of iconography in
Islam will understand why this may be a problem), but they depict him in
a rather racist manner. This is not
to say that Islamic beliefs should not be criticised, it
simply the manner in which it is being done (Mumbaigirl).
And a comment on the above: The right to freedom of
speech, the right to liberty, the right to an opinion.... These are all
rights not from the divine, but, from a tradition and culture that was
painstakingly built, mostly in the western world.
Why should the western world bow down to the wishes of 'mad mullahs' and
fanatics who proclaim to be the self-appointed leaders of the muslim
faith? Agreed there should have been more responsibility shown by the
western media here, but, in the end these were just cartoons! C'mon,
lighten up, the flag-burning, infidel-hating populace of the world.
For all the muslims in the western world that are going on protests and
the like against this, ask one of them to leave Europe and go live in
the middle-east for one year. Forget freedom of expression, in
Saudi-Arabia, women have no right to drive!
Perspective is a very powerful thing. I do believe that the majority of
muslims in the world are moderate, but, they have to take control of
their religion lest they be compared and herded right next to the
extremist terrorists that they abhor so much by the world (Anonymous).
African American population - economic development and political conflict
Mexican immigration into US - some background information
International migration - inflow/outflow Britain
Red hot Curry - lifestyle portal for Indians in Britain
Chowk - Indian Pakistani webportal
The religious policeman weblog
60's cultural clash and freedom of Speech: Dylan in Motorpsycho Nightmare