User login
Author Information
Poll
Why have you visited this website?
To check for updates
11%
Read posts
39%
Contribute to discussions
6%
Share content
3%
Social media brought me here
6%
Tis fate
35%
Total votes: 633
Active forum topics
Recent blog posts
Upcoming Events
- 30 Nov 2024 - 11:30 to 16:30
- 30 Nov 2024 - 11:30 to 16:30
- 7 Dec 2024 - 11:30 to 17:00
- 8 Dec 2024 - 11:30 to 16:30
- 15 Dec 2024 - 11:00 to 16:00
Quick Links
Who's online
There are currently 0 users online.
The article was by Amir Taheri who's already been mentioned in this thread. He also claimed that covering the hair for women was something invented by Khomeini and that black was the colour of al-qaeda (therefore muslim women who wear black are indirectly supporting them).
I wouldn't believe anything he says. Why exactly would these rioters be negotiating anyway?
The riots were sparked off by the deaths of two people running from the police. Are the rioters demanding that the authorities ressurect the two boys?
In today's Guardian:
[b]FEAR WILL ONLY FUEL THE RIOTS [/b]
By: Tariq Ramadan
The Guardian - Saturday 12 November 2005
[b]Britain and France must confront their own racism instead of trying to score political points [/b]
The rioting in France has led to attempts in Britain to explain how "the French system of integration has failed". This is the mirror image of what happened in the summer when, after the bombing attacks in London, French commentators pointed to the incipient collapse of British multiculturalism. On both sides of the Channel, apprehensions are being put to rest by scrutiny of the other side's shortcomings.
Comparing the two national methods of integration does not make sense, because the British model is neither better nor worse than the French one. Both countries, drawing on their histories and collective psychologies, have over time developed specific integration mechanisms. The British model allows diverse communities to develop, while the French model relies on individual integration. In France, a sense of full citizenship is encouraged, while in Britain citizens are able to retain their previous identities. Each model has its merits.
Even though the riots have nothing to do with religion, analysts and politicians seem determined to centre the debate around Islam, integration and identity. We are facing a case of political brinkmanship, a dangerous strategy that attempts to turn fears of Islam into short-term electoral advantage, using arguments that were once restricted to parties of the extreme right. There is a chronic inability to hear those Muslim voices that for years have been saying Islam is not the problem and that millions of Muslims have embraced their identities as Europeans, Muslims and democrats. The left and the right suffer from a lack of the political resolve needed to address pressing social issues. Perpetuating fear to win votes is easier than presenting courageous policies.
The street-level realities in France and Britain reveal startling similarities. Whether along ethnic or economic lines, the two models have created veritable ghettos. In both, communities remain isolated. The French suburbs, as well as the rich residential areas, are socially and economically isolated. In France, political discourse recoils in horror from "religious communitarianism". But people are unable to grasp that another form of communitarianism is undermining society. Black, Arab and Muslim people are the least well-off and suffer for it.
The extent to which both models draw upon and promote xenophobia cannot be overstated. We must confront our own racism. Discriminatory housing and employment policies are nothing more than institutionalised racism. Social, not religious, concerns lie at the heart of the debate. To counteract the trend toward ghettoisation and racism, we must develop a political creativity, one that dares to take risks. Change is needed as a high priority in key areas.
The first is education: school curriculums have little or nothing to say about the history and traditions of many in society. If a curriculum does not recognise certain parents' contribution to society, how can we pretend that it respects their children? To make matters worse, France recently passed a law calling for the "positive effects" of colonialism to be promoted in schools, while in Britain prominent figures such as Gordon Brown have argued for similar policies. Meanwhile, state schools are compounding inequality. Instead of creating anxiety over religious schools - which affect a tiny minority - would it not be more sensible to call for the reform of a whole system of education that generates inequality?
The second priority is the fight against unemployment and discrimination in the labour market. Unemployment rates among citizens of "immigrant origin" are far higher than among "native-born" citizens. It is of the highest importance to provide equal access to the labour market. Governments should act to establish equitable employment standards and penalise racial discrimination.
The third area of concern is housing and urban policy. Local authorities rarely dare to challenge attitudes to minority ethnic communities, but the objective of greater social intermingling can only be attained through a firm political commitment to confront discrimination head on. Such policies will be unpopular. Political parties are reluctant to promote them. We must launch national movements that crystallise grassroots initiatives promoting civic education and participatory democracy, focused on local projects that bring together citizens from various backgrounds. Confidence must be restored, in ourselves and in our neighbours.
No such policies are taking shape around us, either on the right or on the left. Those who consider themselves French or British are now being told that they are, first and foremost, Arabs, Asians or Muslims. How can individuals who have been swept to the margins of society avoid being attracted by the voices of literalism and radicalism? Trapped in a debate as impassioned as it is sterile about who is French and who is British, we can no longer hear the legitimate demands of certain citizens who really are French or British. The recent violence is an unfortunate reaction against the deafness of authority.
By avoiding the real debate - about equal opportunity and power-sharing - France and Britain are stigmatising people and destroying their sense of belonging, by encouraging fear and perpetuating a hold on power. Share they must, however; this is the lesson history will teach them.
www.tariqramadan.com
Links:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1640802,00.html
In pictures : French riots
Comment and analysis
07.11.2005: What the French papers say
07.11.2005: Naima Bouteldja: Explosion in the suburbs
06.11.2005: Hugues Lagrange: An outcast generation
06.11.2005: Trevor Phillips: The violence in Paris is a warning to the whole of Europe
06.11.2005: Observer leader: Integration has to be voluntary
03.11.2005: Guardian leader: City of fights
Related articles
07.11.2005: French riots claim first fatality
07.11.2005: Chirac calls emergency meeting of top ministers
07.11.2005: Worlds apart - Paris suburb on the divide between hope and despair
06.11.2005: 'We're not germs or louts. Sarkozy should've said sorry'
04.11.2005: French unrest spreads outside Paris
05.11.2005: Disabled woman set on fire as Paris riots spread
06.11.2005: Violence sweeps France in 10th night of riots
06.11.2005: The week Paris burned
04.11.2005: Police station ransacked in latest round of rioting
Special report
France
The Guardian - Saturday 12 November 2005
[b]How the 'rabble' gave Sarkozy a lesson on the power of language [/b]
[b]Sheila Pulham is the assistant editor of Guardian Unlimited[/b]
The violent unrest in France has been a big story on Guardian Unlimited. We've had daily news updates, an interactive guide, a photo gallery of burning cars and buildings and audio dispatches from our Paris correspondent, Jon Henley.
On our News blog we tracked a barrage of blogs set up to rail against the authorities and mourn the two teenagers whose deaths set off the riots. Some of the sites - "Douna et Zyed", "sarkodead" and "hardcore" - were swiftly closed down after inflammatory comments were posted, and police questioned two teenagers. I wrote on News blog about the interior minister Nicolas Sarkozy's use of the word racaille to describe the rioters, an epithet believed to have fuelled the disturbances. The word has been widely translated as "scum", although the literal equivalent is "rabble", which the Guardian has now adopted.
I drew attention to an article in Le Monde in which Laurent Greilsamer explained that the word, formerly highly derogatory, had been in common parlance until two weeks ago and had even been appropriated by disaffected young people. At a stroke, Mr Sarkozy had restored the word's pejorative meaning and rendered it "literally incendiary".
The blog post elicited a raft of informed responses from Guardian Unlimited readers. Some felt the word scum accurately reflected Mr Sarkozy's meaning; one thought mob was closer to the mark. James felt the closest approximation was "chav, kev, ned, or any other of those words used to describe the growing underclass that our society is creating in the UK".
"Racaille has also been claimed back as a word in the same way as rap has claimed back nigga, but it somehow makes it even worse for Sarkozy to deliberately use this word against his own people," wrote Rich. "The word is being used to resonate in the ears of National Front electors with a view to the next presidential elections. But even Le Pen wouldn't have dared use a term like that."
Some pointed out that Mr Sarkozy was merely repeating the words of a resident of one of the affected estates, but that didn't detract from its shock value. "In the ghetto estates the name Sarkozy or Sarko has become a byword for bullyboy tactics and demagogic declarations," said Jzen. "His language was bound to inflame and as a politician he should know the force that words carry."
Flora, one of several readers in France, described her experiences as a teenager in Toulouse: "The term racaille is usually used to describe the groups of teenage boys (dressed in tracksuits and baseball caps, often with one trouser leg rolled up) who, since I was about 12, have followed me and my friends on the streets of Toulouse, shouting insults." She added: "I used the term long before I learnt its English translation. Racaille is pejorative and insulting. Bad enough, really, for me to use it, let alone a government minister."
One person suggested France should enrol more ethnic minority youngsters in its security services; a minority felt Sarkozy's comments had been restrained in the circumstances; and several observed that those looking to understand the roots of the unrest need look no further than La Haine, Mathieu Kassovitz's film indictment of life on a Paris housing estate.
The debate underlined that language is a powerful tool - a fact that Mr Sarkozy will have learned to his cost if he has typed his name into the French Google site recently. His web-savvy opponents have Google-bombed him, manipulating the search engine's rankings so that anyone searching for the words Nicolas Sarkozy will find a prominent link to a film called Iznogoud.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1640780,00.html
Comment and analysis
07.11.2005: What the French papers say
07.11.2005: Naima Bouteldja: Explosion in the suburbs
06.11.2005: Hugues Lagrange: An outcast generation
06.11.2005: Trevor Phillips: The violence in Paris is a warning to the whole of Europe
06.11.2005: Observer leader: Integration has to be voluntary
03.11.2005: Guardian leader: City of fights
Related articles
07.11.2005: French riots claim first fatality
07.11.2005: Chirac calls emergency meeting of top ministers
07.11.2005: Worlds apart - Paris suburb on the divide between hope and despair
06.11.2005: 'We're not germs or louts. Sarkozy should've said sorry'
04.11.2005: French unrest spreads outside Paris
05.11.2005: Disabled woman set on fire as Paris riots spread
06.11.2005: Violence sweeps France in 10th night of riots
06.11.2005: The week Paris burned
04.11.2005: Police station ransacked in latest round of rioting
Hmmm... intercepted planning... and for the first time the rioting has left the outskirts...
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Yea definitely
[url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4434576.stm]BBC[/url]
Things are gonna get ugly.
Even though the rioting is dieing down, the gov wants to extend laws against it.
Given the upcoming winter, the rioters would have been put off by the cold weather. So why extend the laws?
As the article says, Sarkozy is doing well out of all this. He'll try and milk for all he can.
An NF rally can't be good news.
I don't doubt that this 'rally' will have the tacit support of Sarkozy.
I talked to a french friend of mine in Paris about the riots - and if what he was saying he really meant this is just gonna get worse. He thinks that muslims are trying to destroy france and that the country is headed toward civil war in a decade or so to set up a muslim state.
Oddly enough this guy is a perfectly normal, educated individual and i've never heard him talk like this before. I'm guessing that if more ethnically french people are becomming pursuaded of this opinion because of the destruction caused by the riots this is only going to get more violent.
And by extending the emergency laws for another three months, the French gov is keeping the issue alive (in the news).
This 'Muslims are out to take over the world' rubbish is shared by people all over Europe and by some in the UK (ie Boris Johnson).
Allowing the NF to hold a rally will obviously lead to more trouble. They're gonna try their best to keep this running. The Frenchies should stop this rally from taking place because it is likely to fan the flames, but they won't.
Yea... I get that impression talking to Europeans - especially Germans and the French. Turks and Africans apparently aren't the most desirable immigrants.
Surprisingly I don't hear that "muslims are trying to take over the world" stuff here... it's usually just that they are strange and foreign to us and naturally that means suspicion. Most of the time when we actually talk to them its no longer an issue since I get the feeling American muslims are a little less "back home" oriented than what I am feeling here.
Not even the student muslim assoc knows what their backgrounds are, the Veeps dad is a korean war vet.
the riots have spread to neighbouring Belgium as well now i hear...
The Lover is ever drunk with love;
He is free, he is mad,
He dances with ecstasy and delight.
Caught by our own thoughts,
We worry about every little thing,
But once we get drunk on that love,
Whatever will be, will be.
ɐɥɐɥ
irfghan
Just the ones that are, and the ones that aren't facing up to it. It doesn't help that when people go on about challenging kufar and instituting a khalifah you say the neo-nazis have all become ventriloquists, coupled with some comeback about Straussians.
Unh? Waah?
etc.
[img]http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/1228/confused28wp.gif[/img]
Straussians, Jewish-Communists, Bringers of the Plague.
This stuff is all just half truth used to justify conspiracy theories about Jews - i'm surprised anyone on this forum would embrace it.
Why is it always Jews anyway? There are lots of small nations in diaspora.
Where is the tutsi-communist conspiracy?
I am starting a conspiracy. None of you lot are invited.
I need the sleep too. [img]http://img315.imageshack.us/img315/7198/rubeyes2qa.gif[/img]
Just break it down for me guys.
lol have you ever seen Blues Brothers 2000?
Stupid movie - but there is a great scene about this
Course we have. I haven't.
haha it's this scene with a bunch of southern racist militia men:
Robertson: Now y'all might thing we're just a group of sad, sorry, sumbitches out here in a field jerkin each other off. Or you might just think...that we know somethin! I'm gonna tell you somethin else. The federal government has a computer. Now this computer is wired to a computer in Jer-U-Sal-em (rolls eyes) and Mosssscoow!
Other guy: There's something in the river, Mr. Robertson.
Robertson: Where? Other guy: I saw something...under the water, sir. Robertson: Son...it's okay to be nervous, okay? Uh...there's enough explosives in that boat to blow up every post office in this country, you know, but no one knows we're here. No one knows our plans. (The Bluesmobile emerges from the water and takes their boat with it, on top of the car. Elwood rolls down his window.)
Mack: Hey, yous guys havin a picnic? (They all point their guns at Bluesmobile.)
Robertson: Don't shoot, you might hit the boat! Elwood: What boat? Robertson: That's the International Jewish Communist Conspiracy in action people! One of their spy satellites must have picked up our location... Kill them!
lol
No one has suggested that Jews as a whole are conspiring. The point is that some do. Would you say its racist to claim that some wahhabis conspire? I think some do. I don't think CAIR and ISNA are part of a conspiracy like Daniel Pipes does. Why is it okay to talk about wahhabi conspiracies?
I don't understand your point.
I'd guess in Rwanda.
I don't see your point. There were Jewish communists - in fact many jews embraced communism (especially in Russia); Karl Marx was Jewish.
Does that signify anything of note?
No.
What precisely is the point of making a deal of these "Straussians" being started by a jew, or having jews in their ranks if you already admitted that you aren't suggesting Jews are conspiring suspicious people?
It's a non sequitur to make all these arguments about Jewry in the neo con ranks and say the conclusion you are trying to make isn't about drawing conclusions about jews.
You line of reasoning is analogous to the gentleman from Blues Brothers 2000 except at the end instead of declaring a jewish communist conspiracy you say that you don't think Jews are conspiratorial and then you make strange connections to policy on terrorism.
It really just sounds like you are just venting at perceived unfair assumptions about muslims.
salaf,
Nothing they wouldn't say to your face. There's the difference. Not believing me might not be racist of you, you might just be an angry sucker.
Nobody's explained this to me yet.
Killing Jesus, Banking, the Crusades, the Plague, International Banking, World War II, Communism, the Neo Cons.
Jews are always implicated as these shadowy underhanded people that stick together to manipulate everyone.
Not true, you just quoted it.
Does this have anything to do with the riots in France?
So you're just gonna leave it at that?
Pages