The Immigration Issue
A while ago I had a discussion with Tanner about the Muslim immigration to Europe and is it in fact a problem. Therefore I was waiting to see Tanner’s response to Dalrymple’s latest comments and his unequivocal opinion about the Islamist immigration to Europe:
I cannot agree that multiculturalism, embraced in fact as well as spirit (or theory) is part of the solution to our problems posed by Moslem immigrants. This sees to me preposterous. The idea that the French riots took place because the inhabitants of the banlieues did not speak sufficient French is absurd: they all spoke French. And I fail to see how embracing multiculturalism will do anything to inhibit Muslim extremists. As one Italian put it, multiculturalism is not couscous: it is the stoning of adulterers—and, as we have recently discovered, far worse than that. The United States has an advantage because it has a compelling foundation myth, which Europe does not have, and this helps to integrate new arrivals.
Tanner’s position was also unambiguous when he disagreed with Dalrymple’s statement:
I do not doubt Dalrymple’s credentials as an economist or a historian. And were he right that "Muslim culture" necessarily implies "stoning adulterers," I’d say he’s on to something.
But he’s not right. Europeans aren’t xenophobes when they deny Muslims’ rights to beat their women. They’re xenophobes if they deny Muslim girls’ rights to wear a head scarf in a French school, or pray at Salat.
As to multiculturalism not stopping extremists, even if he were right on this point (a notion I’d debate - chances are that there would be less extremism in a Europe with greater religious tolerance), stopping extremism isn’t exactly one of the stated goals of multiculturalism. Respecting another man’s right to live life and serve God as his own conscience dictates, on the other hand, is.
And here is a big difference between objectivist as myself to a libertarian as Tanner. Tanner assigns no value to culture which embrace “stoning adulteress” if the government doesn’t force him to participate and his main concern is that the government involvement will be eliminate. While I would argue that Dalrymple is painfully right.
The European culture, the cradle of Liberalism and Multiculturalism which Tanner defends, is under attack by culture that doesn’t embrace pluralism and tolerance. Are all Muslim immigrants in Europe subject to the control of extreme imams? Obviously not; however the large portion of the Muslim population that doesn’t accept the liberal rules of the game shaking the base for the entire European freedom.
Nobody should dictate to another what culture should the have at home but when part of society certain rules and values are expected. One would assume that when a person immigrates to different place he should accept the rules of the host. When the Muslims immigrate to Europe it was only fair to assume that they will honor the liberal society rules of the new home they choose. However, and again I agree with Dalrymple, the weakness of European society and its failure to accept the immigrant into the society create a vacuum that was not empty for long.
Not only Europe, but the entire west, has a great challenge in preserving its values without destroying them in the process. I’m not sure it isn’t too late.
No tag for this post.
Related posts
Rogel @ February 16, 2006
You make some excellent points, and in many places, I’m sure you wouldn’t be surprised to hear that we are agreed.
But to get to the point, if the question for me is “which culture is preferable?” I think there’s no doubt but that my answer would be, “it’s the one that embraces liberal values.”
But, in my mind, that isn’t really the question. I am not at all convinced that most modern Europeans embrace liberal values or that most European Muslims do not.
And even if there were such a disparity in values, I cannot say what a libertarian or an Objectivist - politically speaking - would propose to do about it. Neither of us offers a political system that proposes to change cultural values. We would probably both say “prosecute those who use violence,” and you might add “convert more people to Objectivism.†But I doubt that either of us would propose, “white people are better, close the borders!†as I get the distinct impression Dalrymple and his ilk would.
I don’t want to be accusable of ignoring the recent demonstrations against Danish newspapers, and so on. As regards those demonstrations, we can at least say that in Europe, by and large, they have been peaceful.
And to put them into perspective for a moment, pick a period in the US’s history when you imagine the country was most liberal. Is it immediately after the founding or perhaps right after the Civil War? Whenever it is, now that you’ve thought of it, imagine that a major newspaper in the Northeast publishes a picture featuring (please pardon the illustration) Jesus Christ in a bed with the covers up to his neck and a woman beside him, similarly positioned. Frankly, this is something that offends me deeply even to type, but I think the mental exercise is an important one.
Would it be even remotely surprising if – say – the South (or even the Northeast itself) then erupted in protests? The almost indisputable fact is that it would have – and as the result of an image that, in today’s America, would hardly cause a stir outside of Christian publications. Now, are you re-thinking your idea that the US was a mostly liberal nation during this time, or are you merely qualifying it with the thought that, “okay, but it’s possible to be a Christian country and a liberal country at the same time.�
* * *
Sorry for the long comment. In conclusion, if I were to have my way, Europeans would (unlike Dalrymple) frame their comments in terms of, “Muslims should open their minds to the notion of a free press,†than – as they currently seem to be saying – “Europe must beware of Mohammedans in our midst, their culture will rot ours from the inside out!â€
The first statement would find broad support even in Muslim Europe. The second statement strikes me as thoroughly bigoted, and ill-informed.
Tanner,
It is pure pleasure to read your remarks and you made some excellent points.
I’ll try to confine my comment to two connected points. As an objectivist I accept the state for one role and this role is to protect one’s human rights. The rule of the state is to make sure that I’m able to publish documentary movie without being murdered or to draw a cartoon without being threaten.
As I do not believe that Dalrymple has a problem with the Muslim people, only to the aspects of the culture which are in conflict with the western values, I believe that his criticism was for both Europeans and Immigrants for the lack in adopting these values of respecting human rights. Dalrymple clearly wrote in the first essay:
He clearly did not suggest closing the border but something deeper than that, which I hope to as well, and that is to renew our knowledge and pride of the western culture. It isn’t a criticism on the immigrants but on the host and the suggestion is to include the immigrants in the western society.
Hey - if his suggestion really is one of greater inclusion for immigrants, then I’m all for it. But I still take his comments to be a good deal less tolerant than suits my tastes.
Anyway, this conversation has been a pleasure for me too.
Apparently, Timothy B. Smith agrees with me that Dalrymple’s view of tolerance doesn’t exactly equal his - see his recent reply in the Cato Unbound conversation thread.
Cheers,
Tanner
I cannot argue with this statement of Smith:
But I think that the differences between the two are not as much as it seems. It is more like “violent agreement”