"Speaking the language of the country and gaining job skills are the keys to becoming a productive citizen". And if you were American, you'd believe those were the only skills a productive citizen needs.

Sad. Comparing Catholic parochial schools with Madrassa-style institutions that preach Sharia, Jihad and intolerance?

Give me a break.

Islam is not a religion. It is a political system wrapped in the trappings of a religion.

If Sharia laws can be decoupled from the religion, it probably would be quite benign.

Unfortunately, that doesn't appear to be the case. The more "religious" the adherents, the less tolerant they seem to be of other religions, other lifestyles, and Western civilization in general.

How many people have extremist Catholics murdered in the name of their religion?

@ #2 What makes you think the Islamic schools in Europe are Jihadist? Extremists crop up now and then, but there's no reason to believe that, on balance, Islamic education in Europe is any less tolerant than Catholic education. Besides, Bowen is advocating integrating these schools into approved curricula. If Catholics can have schools with state-sanctioned curricula, why can't Muslims?

As for how many people extremist Catholics have murdered in the name of their religion, is that supposed to be a joke? The history of Catholicism, from the crusades through the inquisition, support for the enslavement of Africans (on doctrinal grounds), and sectarian violence in Ireland is one of unrelenting hostility on behalf of Catholics and Catholic religious principles.

[How many people have extremist Catholics murdered in the name of their religion?]

I'm Catholic, and even I know that that number is far from zero. You might want to start by looking at Pope John Paul II's apologies for the sins committed by various of the Church's members in the past.

"it is because they do not remain in their “separate cultures” but instead become isolated individuals without a social or cultural base"

In the case of the Leeds-based terrorist, this is simply false. Leeds has a very large and very visible Muslim community.

I gave up reading the article at this point, since this key argument concerning the British case falls completely flat.

I agree that some of the attacks on multiculturalism have been misguided, but there is no doubting that the policy has given rise to some of the current problems these politicians are responding to.

Moreover, comparison between 'Western Europe' and the US is hopelessly inappropriate. There are too many differences to make such comparisons helpful.

Jonas D, Islam is not a political system and to believe as much is a fundamental misunderstanding. It is also not a monolithic faith but encompasses many strains and variations of practice. Islamism, a fairly recent (20th century) innovation, advocates and seeks a role for Islam in the political space, but in this sense Islamists should be distinguished from traditionalists (there are also various and competing types of Islamists for that matter). Decoupling Sharia from Islam is impossible since Sharia refers to Islam's religious law/code of conduct. To decouple this from the practice of Islam itself makes no sense. Unfortunately, what is in reality a varied intellectual tradition informed by diverse scholarly interpretations and debates has been reduced to a frightening vision of women in burqas and people being stoned to death in western popular conceptions due to the lack of nuanced understanding of both Islam and the varied societies and cultural contexts in which Islam exists. (Tribal law, for instance, is not the same thing as Sharia law.)

I am rambling, but suffice it to say that I hope this essay is widely read.

Canada was lost to State Multiculturalism in the early 1970s. No longer could there be a Canadian culture; indeed no longer would there be a "Canadian" identity.

One silver lining: the potential for arms sales to the different groups within Canada. There will be violence when that country goes Balkan.

The great failure of this partial and mendacious article is that it refuses to admit the truth that Muslim communities segregate themselves and are highly influenced by deeply reactionary literalist religious movements like the Deobandi school of Islam, and that Islamic Identity Politics, and ideological movements like Jamaat-e-Islami have great influence in creating separatism in British Muslim communities, as well as there being social mechanisms of 'shame' and 'honor' that contribute to a lack of integration - and that these barriers to integration are internal barriers like the oppression of women which means Muslim households have by a large factor fewer women in work than any other community. It also fails to acknowledge that the Muslim experience of integration has been markedly different from other immigrant groups like the Hindus, Sikhs and Chinese. Why are these minorities able to flourish, integrate and succeed in Britain, whilst Muslims find this problematic? Unless you ask these questions, you are contributing to the problem, rather than illuminating it.

Jessica says:

"Islam is not a political system and to believe as much is a fundamental misunderstanding"

The primary problem is that too many Muslims believe that is exactly what it is.

The bravest of those who oppose the creep of sharia codes into British society are liberal and ex Muslims. They understand precisely how divisive, reactionary and dangerous this is. You can see their efforts here:

http://www.onelawforall.org.uk/

Once again, the primary source of the idea of Islam as a political system for organising individual and collective life is from Muslims and Islamic Identity Politics ideologues in society. To berate others when the instigators of this belief carry on asserting it is perverse.

Dr Rumy Hasan is a British academic of Muslim origin, who wrote an excellent book called 'Multiculturalism: Some Inconvenient Truths'. I quote from a review that summarises why 'multiculturalism' in the UK is facing criticism, deservedly so:

"It is a violation and distortion of the democratic ideal of universal rights because it accords privileges to ethnic-religious communities; it increases segregation and ghettoisation; it fans sectarian hatred within communities; it leads to social harm as it restricts or prevents intimate contact with members of the larger society, who feel alienated as a result; it triggers right-wing extremism among "whites" and "chauvinistic faith-based organisations"; it fosters resistance to "mainstream" culture as well as "psychological detachment", a condition of being in, but not of, British society."

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=413460§ioncode=26

Interesting that commenters are, like Western European leaders, so interested in attacking multiculturalism even though the policies in place are not even multiculturalist, as the article convincingly demonstrates.

This is an extremely fraught question, but Europeans shouldn't worry so much. Just look at the US. The US is full of immigrants and minority groups, but white people of European stock still control all of the money and power. So relax. All you Islamaphobes just need to make sure you rig the system for your own benefit.

An excellent article -well above the usual standard on this topic.

Chris

chrishorner.net

When French shopkeepers are harassed and even assaulted for not vacating Muslim areas of Paris, when returning British soldiers are heckled by "British" Muslims, when artists offend the wrong prophet and consequently are murdered in the streets, those societies have made the wrong choices.

11 " but white people of European stock still control all of the money and power. ". In the US. AS they should! It's THEIR country! I suppose you would also argue that it's wrong for non-whites to control power in places like Pakistan...despite the fact that it is tHEIRr country! Or perhaps its also wrong that Asians control power in places like...China. What stupid I'll logic!

the author's point of view is totally and stereotypically american.

in the usa, multiculturalism means pretending like everyone is the same i.e. american. this works to the extent that people do not talk with funny accents or have non-hysterical political outlooks. also, there is zero social system to take advantage of. that means if people cannot speak the language and have no skills, they are, as you say, "shit out of luck."

in europe, mulitculturalism means trying to make a fair(er) national playing field for people from different cultural backgrounds who largely do not want anything to do with one another.

this is not a story of evil western europe vs. poor muslims who only want to be accepted.

Weaseling qualifications cannot conceal the author's error that "Throughout most of the twentieth century, most Dutch people held religious views about homosexuality and women’s rights that were not too different from those now ascribed to Muslims by their opponents." The Dutch monarch was a woman for the whole of the 20th century, impossible in a Muslim state: and the penalty for homosexuality in orthodox Islam is death, hardly the Dutch preference.

Total revisionism and leftist hogwash. The Europe-wide revolt against the insanity of multiculturalism correctly identifies both problems: Islam is an evil ideology masquerading as a religion (the mirror image of Communism, in a sense), and the 5th column of leftist elites who allowed this invasion to occur without ever allowing it to be put to a vote of the people whose continent would be forever destroyed by this barbarian invasion. The next step must be to identify and punish those fifth columnists.

"Just look at the US. The US is full of immigrants and minority groups, but white people of European stock still control all of the money and power."

That's a laughably ignorant statement when one need only to look at the highest echelons of power and see many people of non-European ancestry. Look at the Galleon scandal, look at top MBA program graduates, medical school graduates, law school graduates, look at the CEO of Pepsi, the President, the Silicone valley superstars, etc. etc. Even in one of the most conservative, "redneck" states in the country, Louisiana we have a man of Indian stock.

Don't compare to Europe to America. I've lived in both places and America is more tolerant than any place I've been in Europe. Don't be too hard on yourself, my European friends, America has had much more experience with these issues. It takes time.

Correction

*Even in one of the most conservative, "redneck" states in the country, Louisiana we have a man of Indian stock.


Should read -

Even in one of the most conservative, "redneck" states in the country, Louisiana, we have a man of Indian stock, Bobby Jindal, running the state.

"The Dutch monarch was a woman for the whole of the 20th century, impossible in a Muslim state: and the penalty for homosexuality in orthodox Islam is death, hardly the Dutch preference."

As a gay American living in the Netherlands, I can assure you that the author's analysis is quite correct. Despite their reputation for tolerance, the Dutch were and remain an extremely conservative society, if no longer a very religious one. But 50 years ago it was indeed *extremely* religious, and largely segregated along religious lines (with separate bakeries for Catholics and Protestants, etc.) The fact that they managed to be extremely religious without, you know, killing gay people actually works in favor of the author's argument; it implies that devout religious minorities can coexist harmoniously in a plural society.

Am I the only one shocked by the tenor of islamaphobic bigotry infecting this comments thread? Maybe I grew up in a different America; I remember it being one that valued –indeed, prided itself upon– religious tolerance.

To all those making comments against Muslims, try this little exercise: replace the word "muslim" with "jew" in your hateful vitriol, and then imagine that we're back in the 1930s instead of 2011. Does the result make you feel uncomfortable? Because it should.

22 islamophobic? Do you know what Islam says about gays? They would gladly stone you and your gay pals. Your statements make NO sense, enemies that are not recognized as such soon become our rulers. Make no mistake, Islam is not your friend, nor is it a friend of any other culture other than it's own. The euros are just now beginning to realize the tremendous mistake in treating Muslims as any other immigrants, history shows that their culture is one of Dominance via violence...period.

Replacing the word "muslim" with the word "jew", as Bennett instructs, does not work for me, not so far anyway. But I'll keep trying, till enlightenment strikes me.

I haven't read the piece yet, so maybe that explains my insensitivity in this respect.

The position of this article is stark when the author writes of a man that he was
"killed in 2002 by an activist concerned about scapegoating Muslims"
Killed, not murdered.
By an 'activist'.
Whose motivation was 'concern'.
In response to a generalised problem of 'scapegoating'.
It's like the cartoon placard "If you say Islam is a violent religion, we will kill you".
It would be funny, except that it's not.

Bowen says 'the now is on the acceptability in the Enlightenment West of the pre-Enlightenment Muslim.' Well, yes.
He shows no analysis or understanding of Islam, only suggests that we ought to construct the cultural and religious institutions those of a pre-Enlightenment creed need to be at ease. The problem is that the creation of exactly those cultural and religious institutions will mean that those of the Enlightenment West are not at ease.
Islam is a pre-Enlightenment creed. Particularly in the forms alloyed with misogynist tribal mores, it is inimical to the values on which the world's most attractive societies have been built. It is no accident that migration flows are towards those societies, not away from them.
@Bennett's suggestion to replace Muslim with Jew as a way of testing attitudes makes a fundamental mistake. Anti-Semitism by Arabs, or by Europeans, like apartheid or colour prejudice condemns people for their race and their physical selves. Opposition to Mohammedanism is, to the contrary, like opposition to fascism, a repugnance for a set of intolerant and supremacist beliefs, a morality that supports violence and cruelty, and an intolerant political program that denies debate, reason or freedom.

Opposition to Mohammedanism is not a nasty right wing attack against a poor minority. It is a stand for the angels in human nature against its devils.

"...maintaining cultural heritage is of psychological importance in the development of a liberal citizen" (Will Kymlicka, as quoted).
That sounds almost right. The problem seems to me to lie in the (more or less) popular perception, assumption or experience that Muslims make poor 'liberal citizens'.

It was always a delusion, the delusion that cultures are all the same except for holidays, headgear, and cuisine, founded upon the underlying delusion that Western Civilization is the scourge of the world, and should henceforth adopt a permanent cultural cringe towards peoples of the developing world. A delusion cannot succeed or fail, it can only persist or be dispelled.

There's a difference between international people and multicultural people. International people appreciate other cultures--they can discuss wine with the waiter in French, participate in a Japanese tea ceremony without help, know their way around off the beaten tourist path, etc.--but are still proud citizens of their own lands. Multiculturalists are alienated from their country and/or their fellow citizens, and seek to disappear into a romanticized mish-mash of exotica. By acting as though the world's multitudes are an anonymous mass of little brown people for them to make pets of, mere symbols of Western sin, multiculturalists demean those people's full humanity as much as colonialists in earlier ages did, by regarding them as mere savages.

We're talking about a group of people who make up a good chunk of humanity (20%). We're talking about their assimilation into secular nations and the bigotry they face because of how easy it is to take shortcuts. Values mean nothing if they are never applied, as being brave means nothing until you face a situation in which you are able to act bravely.

'The attractive' nations hold on to values like equality liberty and humanism, but these values are worthless if they cannot be applied to trying situations. The reality is a good chunk of the human populace is muslim. If your belief system is besieged by this reality, and your only response is to rid of this reality (not by killing per say, but by supressing, exiling, 'demeaning their humanity') then you're taking the easy way out. You're being dogmatic. Instead of finding solutions, looking for innovation, compromise, or fault in the application of your values, you've decided they are incompatible with a good chunk of humanity. Religion, much the same way, is dogmatic; that is how dogma is : when faced with conflicting data, it is the data that is made silent.

The only reason christianity is tolerable now is because it has had to adapt to a changing reality. Otherwise, it would be as barbaric in it's application as it was a few hundred years ago (or a few days ago...). Christianity had the good fortune of evolving alongside our western/european cultural boundaries. Islam has not. That's a fact, yeah, and it makes things difficult. Not difficult enough to warrant the exclusion of a fifth of the world's population from our select club of morally superior creatures.

Some of the greatest and morally progressive thinkers of the past held certain bigoted beliefs, because they were swayed by the times in which they lived. Their ideals, like all ideals, would not have survived - could not have survived - were it not for some adaptive capacity in their application, lest they be barbaric remnants of our shameful past. Democracy, way back when, excluded a good chunk of humanity. It is lucky for us, then, that it's application has been perfected, as it has been tailored to our reality, and remains one of the most noble ideas of our history.

So then, your values of liberty and dignity for all, are they only applicable to the people who already think as you do? All men are equal, some more than others, is that it? Because if you get to draw the line at muslim, I draw it at nationalist, religious, or stupid. Lucky for you I don't own a gun, I suppose...

Faced with the baffling complexity of multiculturalism, simplicity might be seen as a virtue.

In this vein then is it unclear to me why a cultural newcomer to a particular country should determine state policies--and, by extension, established cultural norms.

If one's own culture c.q. religion clashes with existing traditions, feel perfectly free to return to the good old tribal haunts.

There is something very odd about this problem. It seems as if Europe is constantly checkmating itself via the gambit of its supposedly liberal culture, by a less liberal culture.

I find this disturbingly peculiar--because it seems to me dangerous. Enriching one's culture by introducing poverty of ideas is a bit idiotic. Or so it seems to me.

Ted Schrey of Montreal comments: (1) "is it unclear to me why a cultural newcomer to a particular country should determine state policies . . ."
(2) "It seems as if Europe is constantly checkmating itself via the gambit of its supposedly liberal culture, by a less liberal culture. "

Canada demonstrates case 1, because its first multiculturalism policy (1971) addressed the demands not of immigrants but the children and grandchildren of immigrants, i.e. Canadian-born who identified themselves as not English and not French (mostly as Ukrainian or Russian, Polish or French.) Only in the succeeding decade did multiculturalism evolve (or was appropriated) to suit the demands of newly arrived immigrants.

Case 2 has occurred before, most obviously in South Africa which was politically equipped in 1909 with the constitutional infrastructure of Britain, self-governing and free from race laws: but this freedom permitted the South Africans to impose over the next 50 years a set of illiberal race laws that the legislators judged appropriate to their interests.

Ted Schrey speaks revealingly to the fallacies buttressing the anti-multicultural, anti-Islam position when he writes: "It is unclear to me why a cultural newcomer to a particular country should determine state policies."

How simple the calculation would be if this were accurate. In fact, the newcomers are not determining state policies geared toward integration and/or multiculturalism. What is determining those policies are the commitments of the liberal polity, commitments that predate the arrival of the newcomers by centuries. Attempting to achieve peaceful integration that recognizes the brute facts of cultural difference isn't necessarily a priority of the newcomer. It doesn't matter whether it is or it isn't. But it is a priority of the liberal state, the goal of which is to enable the peaceful coexistence of a diversity of individuals and communities. We may argue about whether specific policies are successful in furthering that goal, but it's critical that we recognize that there is a real burden of accommodation on the state and that this burden is imposed not by new arrivals but by philosophies about statehood and state-citizen relations that lie at the foundation of the state's claims to legitimacy.

The idea that Islam is an exception, that it can't be accommodated by the liberal state, is seated in nothing more than prejudice. Yes Muslims in Europe have committed crimes in the name of Islam, but plenty of other crimes happen for whatever reason, and we don't suspend our basic ideals as a result (well, we hope we don't, but the the torturous war on terrorism and the daily torture of convicts in American prisons leaves me less confident).

The bottom line is that there is no existential threat to any European state from criminals acting in the name of Islam, but there is in the negation of the foundational principles of liberalism. That will come not from an "invasion" of brown people, but from the xenophobic politics that Bowen so astutely isolates in the seemingly innocuous statements of Europe's leaders.

Archibald,
You've boiled the matter down to its essence. Your cogency is appreciated.

A general assumption seems to underlie much of the thinking about multiculturalism: culture is of life-sustaining significance to its adherents, and a matter of indifference, tolerance or even of mild interest to nonmembers. I call that the 'tourist version of multiculturalism'.

Nations are (still) assumed to stand for some sort of identity, no matter how vague or pernicious the expressed allegiance and enthusiasm; if you're Greek, you're not Norwegian, sort of thing.

The enormity of introducing a world religion on a vast scale into established identities is rarely, if ever, discussed--perhaps on the unspoken assumption that what you don't mention cannot be an issue and therefore not a problem.

Nevertheless, populist notions and sentiments about one's heritage, history and territory do not suffer deeply from this delusion--and are blamed for cultural ignorance, by way of tactical/political diversion.

Archibald writes well.

I happen to disagree with his idea that "...newcomers are not determining state policies geared toward integration and/or multiculturalism".

Exactly because of the obligations (self-) imposed on democracies by several centuries of liberal thinking are those very democracies imperiled by the influx of non-democratic cultural identities.

Crime has nothing to do with it (although e.g. honor killings could be seen as crimes, of course, although of a high social/cultural value in certain cultures).

A paragraph that keeps bugging me in particular is the one beginning with "Politicians err when they claim...".

It then goes on to say, or imply, "normative ideas of m.c. [do not] shape the social facts of cultural and religious diversity...".

Here I lose the thread. What are 'normative ideas' supposed to do if not shape, guide, or even determine facts?

The writer asserts that "methods designed to accommodate sub-national religious blocs are now being adapted and applied to Muslim immigrants".

Well, not all too successfully, it seems to me.

To keep the discussion away from normative tussles, the attention is drawn to "methods". This gives the thing a more methodical sheen, I imagine, even though it might very well be pure nonsense.

Why, e.g., do Muslim immigrants not stay away from normative thinking and simply adapt to the new environment--in methodical ways?

Excellent points, Don Phillipson.

I don't fully grasp what you are saying but it sounds right, intuitively. I am not sure how the examples of Canada and South Africa apply to Europe--except through universal principles of liberal thinking.

My focus is narrowly concerned with the possible effects of non-liberal cultures when introduced en masse into liberal ones.

I am aware--and even entirely prejudiced in favor--of the good intentions on the part of liberal democracies.

It is the seemingly apologetic and revisionist-sounding attitude taken by some liberal thinkers for, and to, their own culture that bothers me.

I think the comments can be categorized into Left and Right, with little change of opinion no matter how strong the arguments. Unfortunately, this is the failure of our education system which are more doctrinaire than we think.

We just play the same old tunes over and over again; no one changes opinions. Ditto the Muslims. They have one program running like the rest of us, and it's all about "Us versus Them", whoever the other might be. No meeting of the minds is possible as the immigration issue has long ago been determined along Euro-political lines.

Liberal polity isn\'t liberal because of an accident of its geology or some cosmic throw of dice. It is liberal since its population is liberal to a considerable extent, and has been for some time. Most states are not liberal polities - in fact they are often not even proper polities, but rather complex and exceedingly quarrelsome conglomerates of clans, tribes and sects.

To focus simply on Islam, as much as it correlates with the issue and has some specific problems of its own, is misleading. The real question is: What happens to liberal polity when its demographics gradually shift to include more and more illiberal people with no real idea of citizenship beyond their own little subgroups? Shall they promptly recognize what parts of their longheld values and traditions are contradictory with being citizens of liberal polity and divest themselves of those? If they also come from areas with lesser standard of education (and their better educated and ambitious individuals prefer US with its lower taxes and reputation for greater opportunities), shall they promptly close the gap with the help of a few government programs? In fact, will this happen even with difficulty for the most in these minorities?

If so, we do get what the author proudly trumpets as \"the kind of social diversity that is a matter of pride for US\". Lots of different cuisines, dresses and festivals, interesting subcultures within a commonly held, overarching culture and national identity. If not, we get what is a matter of pride for some in Europe - parallel societies without any common identity or shared ideas of what is right and wrong - and these societies overlapping with socioeconomical classes, the poorer of which are younger and slowly growing in relative numbers. While they, in addition to their relative poverty, stay largely alienated and illiberal (a far more significant determinant of criminality than Islam), the richer natives become more nervous and frustrated. Both processes turn the liberal polity a bit by bit less liberal and less of a polity. Dislike one or another more as you prefer, but both push in the same direction.

Do the liberal traditions truly force us upon a course that threaten their own dismantling? Is the right of everyone, liberal or not, to live in liberal polity truly such a fundamental liberal principle?

The more wealthy, better educated en liberal muslims seek refuge in America, a part of the world that developped integration as a culture and fight it's enemies all over the world.

To understand European problems one has to look at the number of non-european moslims that live as they never left theur own country. They are known for criminality and fraud on a large scale.

To onderstand the problem one has to take in account that the conformistic islam is combined with a vital tribalism and active lobbying of the home-countries of moslims.

@Ted Schrey Montreal cites with approval the author's remark that "...maintaining cultural heritage is of psychological importance in the development of a liberal citizen".
Is there any evidence for this?
Isn't it more likely that the great civilizing force of human history is escape from tribalism. The development of a liberal citizen is more likely to occur when someone leaves behind their cultural heritage, when it is a source of amused curiosity, or of a harmless nostalgia useful for family gatherings and feast days, when it is no longer a constraint on their capacity to reason, and to submit all their beliefs to scrutiny.

In Britain the word multiculturalism was used as a form of veto to stop people actually discussing what sort of society they wanted. Andrew Neather, a Government advisor, blew the whistle on Labour. His allegation was that the Labour Government opened up UK borders partly to humiliate Right-wing opponents of immigration. A Home Office Minister Barbara Roche, who pioneered the open-door policy, wanted to restore her Labour reputation after being attacked by Left-wingers for condemning begging by immigrants as 'vile'. Labour chiefs decided to brand Tory leaders William Hague and Michael Howard as racists to deter them from criticising the covert initiative.
Whenever, in the era of multiculturalism in Britain, the subject of immigration was raised then the person was immediately sighted as being an antagonist with far right credentials. The whole institution of the state was put the sword for being institutionally white, a thing which seemed to counter intuitive when great numbers of Poles entered Britain without a murmur when granted the right to roam by the EU.
Under the British system there is less encouragement to break out as an individual and the British Labour Government made sure that the immigrants were actively encouraged to be separate entities, encouraging the Muslims, at one stage, to propose a Muslim Government to operate in tandem with the general legislature and regular demands for the employment of Sharia law. Sikhs rioted in Birmingham when a play depicting their less seemly side was attempted and the play pulled off. People did not become British but had adaptive titles attached to their being much like African-American and other such testaments to the rejection of any possibility of racial integration.
It was thought prudent once large numbers of settlers had crossed British boarders to embark on a program of making them feel comfortable with there new surroundings and to assimilate them through selective programmes of inducements. The Muslims in Britain faired very well from this discrimination until earlier this year when the British Government named radical Islamic organisations that were pocketing this support cash, this aid was stopped.
It may be of some pride to America that it has always been open to immigrants. But America was once wealthy beyond the dreams of avarice and it will be interesting to see how fiscal sterility and lack of opportunity plays on such sentiments. In the years of Labour rule, considering that Britain is about the size of Oregon, it consistently encouraged more people to settle here than settled in the entire United States in the same period.

Unless societies generally lose the power and misrepresentation of collectivism we will never be able to have balanced and functioning societies. Collectivism may be fine for the interlocutor dealing in conflation but for the person in the collection it is often a restraining influence that breeds wariness and disinherits those trying to break out of stereo-types and the norms that the least effective in any Diaspora impose. ‘Conformance, it is said, is the comfort of mediocrity. Inevitably ethnic and social groupings will give too much space to the agitator as opposed the adventurer which works against the individual. Any strength gained from being in a band is bought at the cost of you being misrepresented and categorised. The signs are that Britain is returning to the idea that the individual is the mover and shaker and the word ‘race’ is a convenient confection hiding unpalatable truths for all.

Rubbish. Get this: Muslims have killed more people than the Inquisition, more than the Northern Ireland Troubles, more than all KKK killings, combined. Combined. Whereas the IRA and UDA were denounced by their communities, in the millions they came out to protest, Muslim "radicals" are dismissed casually by "moderates" who do only that, they never protest the daily carnage. Their "religion" is not a normal religion. Muhammed exhorted all Muslims to murder their enemies. It is the Bolshevism of religions: convert or die.Like Bolshevism, it has its "fellow travelers" in the West who will rail against the "soft racism" of the West but remain quiet in the face of monthly Beslans.

Rubbish. Get this: Muslims have killed more people than the Inquisition, more than the Northern Ireland Troubles, more than all KKK killings, combined. Combined. Whereas the IRA and UDA were denounced by their communities, in the millions they came out to protest, Muslim "radicals" are dismissed casually by "moderates" who do only that, they never protest the daily carnage. Their "religion" is not a normal religion. Muhammed exhorted all Muslims to murder their enemies. It is the Bolshevism of religions: convert or die.Like Bolshevism, it has its "fellow travelers" in the West who will rail against the "soft racism" of the West but remain quiet in the face of monthly Beslans.

I am a European - we forged this continent out of the ruins of the Roman Empire and it has formed the basis of a common culture for 1,000 years. I welcome and embrace Europe, and the outposts in North America and the Pacific, and all Europeans share my heritage.

The treachery of the money-grubbing elites has resulted in the wholesale importation of non-European cultures. These people are unwelcome, and in time will be, I hope, expelled. If this can be done without violence, good. But it will be done and the people who foisted these unwelcome immigrants will, again I hope, be held to account.

Europe is not multicultural - it is European.

The point that is completely missed in these PC types of analyses is that modern western immigration policy is really nothing but a form of "outsourcing" (maybe an appropriate name would be inverse outsourcing). When corporations outsource, they close shop at home, and place their factories elsewhere to exploit cheap labour. Not only is labour cheaper, but corporations do not have to pay for social services, etc. The working/middle class at home suffers, they lose their jobs (see Flint Michigan, or Detroit, and other modern industrial wastelands), at the same time the upper class (manager-banker oligarchy) profits.

Many services can not be taken out of the country, so to "outsource" them, one can import cheap labour. This will increase the number of candidates for a given position, so again, the working class suffers (loses bargaining power), and the elites gain. The working class also picks up the tab in some other ways: the cultural integration issues do not effect the upper class, since they usually do not live in the multi-cultural parts of town (their main multi-cultural experience tends to be maxing out their credit cards at chic ethnic restaurants). Some of these parts of town are by now also, like Flint Michigan, modern industrial wastelands.

This class issue has been at the heart of the modern immigration debate, intensified by the recent crisis, which is drastically increasing unemployment. That our supposed left, supposedly defending the interests of those with middle or low income, has not come forward with this simple truth speaks a thousand words of what they represent. They provide the ideological framework for the status quo by setting the terminology of the discussion. In this framework, critiques of multi-culturalism are immediately branded as racists, and the terminology is full of silly mantras like "these immigrants come to do work that most would no longer do", and others (some of which appear in the article).

The main issue then is not so much the cultural differences, and is not whether Islam is compatible with western culture. This is usually the basis of right-wing attacks on multiculturalism, and I believe it also misses the point. Usually these arguments (often coming from neo-cons in the U.S. and their equivalents in Europe, of which Sarkozy is one) end up channeling the frustrations of the middle/working class into the senseless wars in the Middle East.

Norway calling?

When radical egalitarians talk about something called "multiculturalism" they actually mean "multiracialism." When I object to their "multicultural" doctrine, they don't call me a "culturalist, they call me a "racist."

Then they point to me as someone representative of some sort of "race problem" that, by some strange coincidence, only ever occurs around White people.

And they like to say that the solution to this "race problem" is for the third world to pour into White countries and only into White countries. Once they're across the border, all those of fashionable opinion agree that Whites then have a moral duty to assimilate with them.

The Netherlands and Belgium are just as crowded as Japan or South Korea, but nobody says Japan or South Korea will solve this race problem by bringing in millions of non-Asian third worlders and "assimilating" with them.

Liberals and respectable conservatives say the final solution to this race problem is for every White country and only White countries to have their populations "assimilate," i.e., intermarry, with all those non-Whites.

What if I said there was a race problem and that it’d be solved only if millions of non-Blacks were brought into every Black country and only into Black countries?

What if the newcomers were then given affirmative action, voting rights, and full access to social services? What if Blacks were encouraged by their tv, schools, and government to intermarry with non-Blacks, and, by their courts, forbidden to exclude them from their neighborhoods?

How long would it take anyone to realize I'm not talking about a race problem, but about the final solution to the Black problem—i.e. genocide?

How long would it take any sane Black man to notice this and what kind of psychotic Black man wouldn't object to this?

But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the White race, Liberals and respectable Conservatives agree that I am anaziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.

They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-White.

Anti-racist is a code word for anti-White.

You equate a child's attending Catholic schools with those who are educated in muslim schools. Twelve years of Catholic education produced a good American- me. My parents were immigrants but that was no impediment to my Americanism. Were muslim schools as benign and nationalistic as the Catholic schools I attended, I would support them. But we all know that too many islamic schools preach islamic fundamentalism and even violent resistance to American and European values. You should check the numbers of violent attacks and attempted attacks committed by young muslims and compare them with comparable attacks- zero- carried out by Catholics.

Strange how "Multiculturalism" is being forced on EVERY white country.

No one says Korea needs to become more "multicultural".

No one says Japan, Kenya, Mexico, Israel, or Egypt should be flooded with massive foreign populations to demonstrate how "moral" they are, or to "enrich" their sorely lacking cultures.

It's a program to eliminate white people from existence. it's genocide.

Stories we'll never see in Boston Review: How Europe Is Committing Cultural Suicide thanks to multi-culturalism, socialism, and an unchecked steady stream of immigrants from muslim countries who refuse to assimilate into the western culture of their new adopted country.

Post #47 hits the nail on the head. Caucasians make up a small minority in this world of 7 billion and yet it's the white nations that are forced to accept foreign nationals into their countries whereas brown and black nations are greatly encouraged to keep and celebrate their culture while keeping "evil whitey" out. Typical backwards, racist, liberal logic.

You could say I grew up in the 'ground zero' of the multicultural experience (nightmare). Multiculturalism is a product from Canada. Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau, its main architect, put forth Multicultural policy in 1970. Trudeau gave bilingualism to Quebec and had to 'give' something to the rest of Canada to remain fair. And that is what Canada got: Multiculturalism.

According to Trudeau, this (ill-fated) policy rose from the ashes of WWII. The policy is social engineering at its finest. As he saw WWII as a result of rabid nationalism. Take away the country's nationalism (ie. identity) and voila! no more fighting. Trudeau was asked in his dying days if his model of multiculturalism was envisioned and achieved, and he said no.

Canadians were once primarily of European stock. But with the constant disintegration of Christianity, British symbols, heritage and self-loathing created a void or vacuum which has been filled with this perverse logic of cultural suicide. I believe it is already too late as I and many of my friends are unmarried, no kids and with poor job prospects, our symbols destroyed, culturally bankrupt trying desperately to understand how we, as White Europeans, fit into this strange model or end game.

But before the tipping point of our minority status as Whites, multiculturalism was a beautiful Utopian model. An experiment in good faith, which failed miserably.

Genocide involves the attempt to achieve the disappearance of a group by whatever means. It does not have to be violent, it could be a combination of policies that would lead to a certain group dying out.

You can call it multiculturalism,diversity or tolerance. But It is, in fact, deliberate, demographic, genocide.

Non-whites have their own countries,but you anti-whites are always demanding us whites have to give away our countries to non-whites and blend ourselves out of existence.

Anti-racism is a code word for ANTI-WHITE.

Bowen, you morally wretched excuse for a human being - multiculturalism, also called internationalism, is social Marxism. No rational European person - and they have enough information to make a rational decision - would consciously undermine their own culture! This is called altruism and is a win/lose deal for the natives. Why in God's name would the natives, after the wreckage of World War II had been dealt with, want Asiatics invited as part of a guest worker program to stay? It makes NO SENSE. The Italians and Spanish left Germany after the cleanup in the 1940s and 50s but the Turks (over) stayed. It's because it is in the Turks interest to seek a better life, but it is in THEIR INTEREST ONLY. And how well is it working for the Turks and other Muslims now? The natives don't want them around and the 'other' doesn't assimilate as a result. Hatred develops and the countries which is a blessing for them in some aspects is simultaneously a non-refuge. They will ALWAYS be second-class citizens. You cannot mix cultures, it doesn't work Bowen.

You, the rest of the media, and the government are spineless, brainwashed, or driven by careerism to tow the line. The line is warped. The countries are diseased - diseased because they are being poisoned from within.

I hate your insinuation that Merkel and Cameron's suggestions are worth reproach because the enemy is 'within'. Well, it is within as a matter of fact sir. What do you propose should be done about it?

People like me are saying what you careerist scumbags won't say, and that is that they are a burden to Germany. Deport them! It is within the means of the armies to do this. No one has to die. It needs to be done for the sake of the national body and its health. If you have a cancer, you remove it.