There’s been an interesting discussion going on over at the Devil’s Kitchen on the matter of Islam – in particular, the nasty, violent manifestation that has been occurring in France of late. Both DK and the G-gnome have plenty to say, and as I broadly agree with their sentiments on the matter, I’m not going to expand here.
No, it was the idea that immigration was at the root of the problem that troubled me and it was during the course of this conversation that the G-gnome took me to task. So extended was the discussion, that it almost became a blog entry in its own right. So why not make it one?
Where I diverge from the G-gnome’s position is that I see migration as a part of the human experience. It is a part of what we are; the desire to explore, to try new things, new places, new experiences, to find out if the grass really is greener on the other side. Migration is simply a manifestation of this urge that has been driving us since our ancestors dropped from the trees, stood on their two feet and asked the question; “Where to now, then?”
It is always easy to find isolated bad apples to illustrate why migration is a bad thing (the media is full of them), while ignoring the fact that the vast majority quietly get on with their lives causing no one any harm and actively contributing to the vibrancy and economy of their host nation. Trying to legislate against migration is simply trying to legislate against the human condition. The G-gome saw this as a defeatist attitude. Yet it is not defeatist at all. At its simplest, the statement merely acknowledges what is. However, in the context that I made it, it is a celebration of what we are; of the human desire to better oneself through enterprise and, in this case, freedom of movement.
True, parliament could, driven by the xenophobia of the host nation, try to pass legislation stopping immigrants. Such a move may even be popular. However, we have 9,040 miles of coastline. How, exactly do you stop people putting ashore on a remote beach and just walking inland? Despite being a practicable impossibility, it is not a desirable one. Migration is a two way process. Last year, 90,000 people left Britain. Although this is less than the 250,000 who came here, this needs to be balanced against an ageing population that is not replacing itself. There are those, such as Sir Andrew Green who are appalled by this. They see an erosion of our culture and way of life. Well, this may be so – but it is no different to previous influxes that have brought about change to our culture and way of life – where else did we get our language, our rich historical and architectural heritage if not from the Romans, Saxons, Vikings, Normans and more recent influxes from Eastern Europe and Asia? Providing it is positive, there is no reason to object.
The issue with Islam, is that it seeks to undermine fundamental principles upon which we should not negotiate; equality between the genders, for example. Having said that, providing people wish to practice their religion in the privacy of their home or place of worship and break no laws, I believe they should be free to do so with impunity. It is when a religious belief system seeks to impose its regressive standards on others who do not believe that we should stand firm and resist.
This, however, is not a matter of immigration, it is one of ideology.
“Romans, Saxons, Vikings, Normans” they all “put ashore on a remote beach and just walked inland”, and so did Saint Augustine and look what he started ! 😉
“It is when a religious belief system seeks to impose its regressive standards on others who do not believe that we should stand firm and resist.”
There is more to it than that. There are many Muslim women who may well believe in the religion, but who are treated appallingly. We should stamp out this behaviour too.
DK
”’Longrider replies: The problem of course is that Muslim women enable their own oppression. While they continue to do that, dealing with it is incredibly difficult – even with legislation. So, for the moment, my concern is that people outside Islam are not forced to comply – such as the French girls in Marseilles who are threatened with gang rape if they do not cover their heads and the office workers who are told they cannot have mugs displaying Winnie the Pooh characters because piglet offends Muslim principles.”’
”’First things first. Freeing Islamic women from the tyranny of a medieval belief system will, I believe, come with education rather than regulation. However, “honour” killings must always be treated (and prosecuted vigorously) as murder, plain and simple; beatings must be treated (and prosecuted equally vigorously) as assault, plain and simple.”’
”’What we should be doing as a society is showing that we do not accept religiously motivated behaviour that offends our culture of equality and tolerance, and our laws.”’