News What are the potential solutions for the EU refugee crisis?

[mheslep]

I should also point out that your reply is implicitly making the assumption that the only 2 options that Western countries like the US and Canada have available are: (a) carry out bombing campaign, or (b) do nothing. ...

Not at all. There are many options. At the moment, Canada however chooses to do nothing.

 

[StatGuy2000]

Not at all. There are many options. At the moment, Canada however chooses to do nothing.

And given our overall military contribution to the ISIS mission is insignificant and irrelevant in material impact (let's face the fact here -- it is the US who is leading this mission, and it is the US military who is having the most impact), I personally feel that ending our contribution to the bombing mission, with a goal to refocusing where Canada can make the most meaningful contribution, is a wise decision. Canada is not a military superpower and I don't think any of us should pretend that it is (like previous PM Harper, at least IMHO).

I think the US president, the Pentagon, the State Department, and others all recognize this, hence the muted response so far to the announcement of Canada's end to direct military engagement in the fight against IS.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Vanadium 50, your post above is implying a default assumption that Syrian refugees will not integrate well into European society.

I don't think I am. I am saying there is a continuum between "fleeing ISIS" and "will integrate well" rather than a binary choice.

 

[HossamCFD]

Slightly surprised at the renewed interest in this topic.

I would say it's wishful thinking and perhaps even unreasonable to expect this wave of refugees to integrate well without challenges. There are many problems and actually only few of them have to do with the fact that most refugees are muslim. Langauge for a start is a massive barrier to integration in any non-English speaking country for anyone older than say 10 years old (good luck learning Hungarian). There's also the fact that when a lot of people migrate together from one place they tend to form exclusive communities which doesn't really help. There's the economical situation and there are also of course a lot of cultural differences some of them are related to Islam and some are not. I have to say that discussing the refugees issue only through the muslim lens, as if that's the one word that tells you everything you need to know about them, is quite oversimplified and strike me as a bit bizarre to be honest.

I don't think that suggestion than in Marseile is not so bad because it is just gang violence and not terrorism is so reassuring:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...most-dangerous-place-to-be-young-8166738.html
(Muslim are there roughly 1/3rd of population, pending on source)

I'd say that's an example of one of the serious problems that has very little, if anything at all, to do with them being muslim.

 

[S.G. Janssens]

There are many problems and actually only few of them have to do with the fact that most refugees are muslim.

I'm not sure. I would really prefer to be able to wholeheartedly agree with you, and I could do that based on most of my personal experiences with muslims, which would likely include you.

However, firstly I find myself still living in rather privileged conditions (i.e. not in one of the socially weak neighbourhoods of some larger European cities, where it has often become "undesirable" for two men to walk holding hands or for girls to wear a tiny skirt). Secondly, it is increasingly dangerous to openly criticize or ridicule Islam here, see the cartoon affair in Denmark, the brutal attacks in France, the murder of a director and the necessity for permanent security for anti-islam representatives in The Netherlands. I fear that a large influx of muslim immigrants (moderate or otherwise) will not improve this situation.

I was born and live in a country that has a history of tolerance towards different religions and deviating views, but also towards irony, ridicule and blasphemy. I would like it to stay that way.

EDIT: Mention of the murder of a Dutch film director added.

 

[mheslep]

...I have to say that discussing the refugees issue only through the muslim lens, as if that's the one word that tells you everything you need to know about them, is quite oversimplified and strike me as a bit bizarre to be honest.

I'd say that's an example of one of the serious problems that has very little, if anything at all, to do with them being Muslim.

Religious identification in the case of Muslims, especially those coming out of the Middle East, has high correlation with views that are utterly antithetical to those of western culture. See the Pew poll. Favor Sharia as the law of the land: over half; religious judges decide family / property disputes: over half; whippings/cutting off hands for theft: over half; stoning as punishment for adultery: over half; death penalty for leaving Islam: over half. Mix these widely held views with a European culture that seems to have a decreasing sense of itself and trouble is likely in my view.

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/...ligion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/

With a European history that includes the like of The Thirty Years War and the Nazi persecutions, a strong skepticism for group identification by religion is understandable, perhaps to be applauded. But to extend that skepticism to the point of outright rejection of any discussion of the common viewpoints of Middle Eastern Muslims; it is that which leaves skepticism and enters the bizarre.

 

[StatGuy2000]

Religious identification in the case of Muslims, especially those coming out of the Middle East, has high correlation with views that are utterly antithetical to those of western culture. See the Pew poll. Favor Sharia as the law of the land: over half; religious judges decide family / property disputes: over half; whippings/cutting off hands for theft: over half; stoning as punishment for adultery: over half; death penalty for leaving Islam: over half. Mix these widely held views with a European culture that seems to have a decreasing sense of itself and trouble is likely in my view.

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/...ligion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/

With a European history that includes the like of The Thirty Years War and the Nazi persecutions, a strong skepticism for group identification by religion is understandable, perhaps to be applauded. But to extend that skepticism to the point of outright rejection of any discussion of the common viewpoints of Middle Eastern Muslims; it is that which leaves skepticism and enters the bizarre.

It is worth noting that the Pew poll you quoted does not include Syria, but does include Muslim respondents from Lebanon, a country which shares very close cultural and historical ties to Syria. So if we look at the Lebanese Muslim respondents as a surrogate for how Syrian Muslims may respond, we find the following:

1. 38% respond that Sharia is developed by man (the highest proportion in all countries where Muslim respondents were polled), versus 49% say it is the revealed word of God (the lowest proportion in all countries where Muslim respondents were polled). That leaves 13% who did not express an opinion.

2. Only 29% of Lebanese Muslim respondents favor making Sharia the official law of the land -- that would mean 71% would be opposed.

3. Among the 29% minority who favor making Sharia, about half of Lebanese Muslims state that it should apply only to Muslims.

At least to my immediate eye, this would appear to indicate that Lebanese and Syrian Muslims, in comparison to Muslims from elsewhere in the Middle East, tend to hold highly secular views and thus are probably more likely to better integrate into Western countries (this may especially be the case for those who are especially well-educated or have a solid command of French or English -- I have read elsewhere that fluency in both languages are quite common in Syria).

 

[mheslep]

So if we look at the Lebanese Muslim respondents as a surrogate for how Syrian Muslims may respond, we find the following:

Perhaps, though I'm inclined to think the mixed nature of Lebanese demographics is important reason why Lebanese responses to that poll on Muslim opinion varies sharply from that of, say, Iraq. That is, I suspect the Lebanese melting pot of culture encourages less strident views. Lebanon is 41% Christian, and the Lebanese Islamists are split 50/50 Sunni and Shia. Syria by contrast is 92% Muslim and overwhelmingly Sunni.

 

[StatGuy2000]

Perhaps, though I'm inclined to think the mixed nature of Lebanese demographics is important reason why Lebanese responses to that poll on Muslim opinion varies sharply from that of, say, Iraq. That is, I suspect the Lebanese melting pot of culture encourages less strident views. Lebanon is 41% Christian, and the Lebanese Islamists are split 50/50 Sunni and Shia. Syria by contrast is 92% Muslim and overwhelmingly Sunni.

What you state above regarding Syria is not correct -- in fact, Syria is ethnically and religiously diverse. The population can be broken down to the following:

1. 74% Sunni Muslim, mostly Sunni Arabs (59-60%), but also including Kurds (9%) and Turkomen (3%)
2. 13% Shia Muslim -- this would include both Twelver Shia (the dominant form of Shia Islam practiced in Iran), the Alawaites, and Ismailis
3. 10% Christian -- this would include members of the Syrian Orthodox Church, along with Greek Catholics, Assyrian Church of the East, Armenian Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Protestant, and others.
4. 3% Druze -- a unique, syncretic religion that combines elements of Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Gnosticism, Hinduism, and Neoplatonist and Pythagorean philosophies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syria#Demographics

 

[mheslep]

What you state above regarding Syria is not correct -- in fact, Syria is ethnically and religiously diverse. ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syria#Demographics

Which is a difference of few percent, 87% Muslim in your wiki tally. I used this wiki page, which references another source. Either way, Lebanon is far more diverse demographically than Syria over a much smaller geographic space (15% of Syria).

 

[HossamCFD]

I'm not sure. I would really prefer to be able to wholeheartedly agree with you, and I could do that based on most of my personal experiences with muslims, which would likely include you.

Cheers for the compliment :). I'm an atheist, though I was raised as a muslim and all of my family still is.

But to extend that skepticism to the point of outright rejection of any discussion of the common viewpoints of Middle Eastern Muslims; it is that which leaves skepticism and enters the bizarre.

You know that's not my position. I have criticised Islam and the actions of some muslims A LOT on this forum. I do believe though that group identification can be quite counterproductive when it's too prevalent. Many people wouldn't identify first and foremost as muslims, but tend to do so when faced with a situation where everyone around them does.

See the Pew poll.

We've discussed that poll before and I've acknowledged that these views are deeply problematic but stated why I wouldn't take the numbers at face value. People are free to put as much weight they want on these results. However, when it comes to integration of refugees there are lots of other problems that can't directly be linked to that poll. For instance things like attitude towards women, forced marriage, etc. tend to be prevalent in Arabic societies even among non-muslims. Another huge problem, which we sadly may have to reckon with the next time there's a war in Gaza, is anti-semitism which again has deeper cultural roots in the middle east than just Islam.

I was born and live in a country that has a history of tolerance towards different religions and deviating views, but also towards irony, ridicule and blasphemy. I would like it to stay that way.

I too want Europe to stay that way (though I wasn't born here). If anything I would say we could do with more ridicule and blasphemy.

At least to my immediate eye, this would appear to indicate that Lebanese and Syrian Muslims, in comparison to Muslims from elsewhere in the Middle East, tend to hold highly secular views and thus are probably more likely to better integrate into Western countries

I agree. In Arabic spheres people normally make fun of Lebanese and Syrians because of how irreligious they are in comparison. That was before the war though and I'm not sure how much that changed now because of the war.

 

[StatGuy2000]

Which is a difference of few percent, 87% Muslim in your wiki tally. I used this wiki page, which references another source. Either way, Lebanon is far more diverse demographically than Syria over a much smaller geographic space (15% of Syria).

But again, what you fail to take into account is that there is a tremendous difference in religious practices even within Sunni or Shia Muslims (within Sunni Islam there are numerous schools of faith with different customs, traditions, etc.) It's also worth pointing out that the wiki link above lumps the Druze population with the Muslim population, which is misleading since the Druze do not consider themselves as Muslim, nor are they accepted as such by the Muslim population (either Sunni or Shia). But I digress on this point.

At any rate, Syria's history has been tightly linked to its neighbour Lebanon, and many Lebanese Muslims have close family ties with their fellow co-religionists in Syria, and thus I felt that Lebanese Muslim attitudes would correlate well with that of Syrian Muslims.

 

[mheslep]

You know that's not my position.

Yes, well, my response was to what I take to be your hypothetically (?) stated position above:

...that discussing the refugees issue only through the muslim lens, as if that's the one word that tells you everything you need to know about them, is quite oversimplified and strike me as a bit bizarre to be honest...

I think you know that in the posts here thus far nobody insists refugees *only* be considered as Muslims.

We've discussed that poll before

Sorry, had forgotten ...

 

[S.G. Janssens]

I have to say that I'm pleasantly surprised by this discussion. Although it is clear that views differ (sometimes strongly), it is one of the few online debates I have witnessed recently with enough room left for both expression as well as consideration.

 

[Tosh5457]

So you are advocating prohibiting these refugees from practicing their religion? If the refugees were, say, members of the Syrian Orthodox Church (as no doubt many of the refugees are), would you advocate a prohibition on the building of a new church?

I find it astounding to me the degree of hatred and suspicion that is leveled against Muslims. Keep in mind that these refugees are fleeing the brutality of both ISIS/ISIL and the Assad regime. The likelihood that these refugees represent some kind of "fifth column" of IS agents intent on destroying Europe reeks of both racism and paranoia. And I would like to note that Muslims are a diverse group of people, and the overwhelming majority of Muslims are not terrorists, nor do they have any desire whatsoever to commit acts of violence against others.

Now before I get accused of being an apologist for Islam, I am an agnostic with a bias towards atheism who rejects all organized religions and have criticized all religions, including Islam. At the same time, I have personally known many people who are either practicing Muslims or come from Muslim religious backgrounds -- people I consider to my good friends -- and they are no different than any of my other friends, among whom include Christians of various denominations, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Parsis, and also those who reject all traditional organized religions like myself.

Yes, because they form their communities and ghettos around the religion, so I'd straight out prohibit it. It's not my fault that there are too many muslim fundamentalists: since 9/11 there were over 2500 arrests in UK alone for terrorism, and recently there were a high number of muslims going to North Africa and Middle East to fight for ISIS. France predicts 10000 muslims will go from France to fight for the Islamic State (https://www.rt.com/news/238845-europe-islamist-number-grow/). Can't play nice when you face a terrorism threat like this and I'd understand if I went to another country and had to play by their rules, that's how it goes.

 

[HossamCFD]

so I'd straight out prohibit it

Europe isn't really big on banning religions, not anymore. That sounds more like something Saudi Arabia would do.

But forget about freedom of worship and equality and everything Europe stands for, do you honestly think banning mosques or prohibiting the practice of Islam would *decrease* the number of extremists?

 

[S.G. Janssens]

That sounds more like something Saudi Arabia would do.

I agree. It doesn't make much sense to me to repeat the errors of those we rightfully criticize. Better to be tolerant towards those who practise their beliefs within the law and relentless for muslim extremists here or abroad.

 

[StatGuy2000]

Yes, because they form their communities and ghettos around the religion, so I'd straight out prohibit it. It's not my fault that there are too many muslim fundamentalists: since 9/11 there were over 2500 arrests in UK alone for terrorism, and recently there were a high number of muslims going to North Africa and Middle East to fight for ISIS. France predicts 10000 muslims will go from France to fight for the Islamic State (https://www.rt.com/news/238845-europe-islamist-number-grow/). Can't play nice when you face a terrorism threat like this and I'd understand if I went to another country and had to play by their rules, that's how it goes.

Tosh5457, you know that there are an estimated 1.6 billion Muslims in the world today. Out of that population, you are talking about 2500 arrested in the UK and 10000 Muslims from France going to fight for IS. That is a tiny percentage of people who are engaged in terrorist activities. Are you going to condemn 1.6 billion people in the world for the actions of a few? That's like saying we should ban Christianity because a small fringe engage in bombing abortion clinics, or because German Christians were involved in the Holocaust.

If you think my above example is absurd, why should Muslims be treated any differently? Your post above reeks of intolerance and bigotry of the type that right-wing extremist types like what Fox News in the US, or the VHP (acronym for Vishva Hindu Parishad, or World Hindu Council, a Hindu nationalist group, who have been accused of inciting violence against Muslims and other religious minorities in India) spout off.

 

[mheslep]

Stat2000, the discussion would go better if you would state your opinion, and then let others state their opinions, as opposed to you attempting to state for them and then heaping associations on them.

 

[JorisL]

Tosh5457, you know that there are an estimated 1.6 billion Muslims in the world today. Out of that population, you are talking about 2500 arrested in the UK and 10000 Muslims from France going to fight for IS. That is a tiny percentage of people who are engaged in terrorist activities. Are you going to condemn 1.6 billion people in the world for the actions of a few? That's like saying we should ban Christianity because a small fringe engage in bombing abortion clinics, or because German Christians were involved in the Holocaust.

This is making up statistics. You have to take into account that people in the UK have a different mentality than people in France.
So it goes for every region on earth, then why would you lump them all together (not to mention the different "flavours" of Islam).

I'm not saying your idea is wrong, the way you present it minimizes the impact.
For example there were an estimated 2.7 million muslims in the UK in 2011. (wiki, no time for in depth research)
Granted it's still less than 1 in a thousand but that's way worse than 1.5 in a million compared to the world wide population.

 

[StatGuy2000]

Stat2000, the discussion would go better if you would state your opinion, and then let others state their opinions, as opposed to you attempting to state for them and then heaping associations on them.

mheslep, I frankly don't understand your criticism here. Others have stated their opinions and I have stated my opinions. I have also criticized and scrutinized the opinions stated by others here in this thread, particularly if those opinions are based on incorrect or misleading information, outright fallacies, or opinions that I feel are based on prejudice. I think that is a legitimate way to engage in debate (and I see this thread as at least partially a debate), and as far as I know, I have tried to behave in a respectful manner as per the values outlined in this forum (moderators, please feel free to step in and inform me if I have not).

 

[HossamCFD]

I didn't really know which thread fits this best. Moderators please feel free to move it where you think is more appropriate.

Trump 'not opposed to muslim database' in US
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34873057

I don't know anything about American politics. But I'm very upset, and to some extent even personally concerned, with the rise of this rhetoric. What's the next suggestion? Perhaps force them to sew a yellow crescent?

Also how does he suggest creating this database? Would he ask them to voluntarily declare they're muslim? Why would they comply? Or would he just include anyone with a vaguely Arabic sounding name?

Retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson, another leading contender in the Republican race for president, compared Syrian refugees to dogs while talking to reporters in Alabama on Tuesday.

"If there's a rabid dog running around in your neighbourhood, you're probably not going to assume something good about that dog," Mr Carson said. "And you're probably going to put your children out of the way. That doesn't mean that you hate all dogs."

 

[S.G. Janssens]

Sorry, I don't have a lot of time to reply, so I will keep it brief and straightforward.

Trump 'not opposed to muslim database' in US
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34873057

Retarded, but could we expect anything different from him?

And about Carson: I'm glad I'm not his dog, rabid or otherwise.

 

[BobG]

"If there's a rabid dog running around in your neighborhood, you're probably not going to assume something good about that dog, and you're probably going to put your children out of the way," he said during remarks in Mobile, Alabama. "[It] doesn't mean that you hate all dogs, by any stretch of the imagination, but you're putting your intellect into motion and you're thinking 'How do I protect my children? At the same time, I love dogs and I'm going to call the humane society and hopefully they can come take this dog away and create a safe environment once again.'"

A more complete version of the quote.

To be honest, I don't even know what he means by that statement. With Carson, I'm never quite sure if he's the world's worst communicator or just stupid. Given that he's a neurosurgeon, you think he surely can't be stupid, but...

 

[nikkkom]

Europe isn't really big on banning religions, not anymore.

Religions are ideologies.

Europe has no problem with banning *specific* ideologues. In almost every European country, trying to publish or air Nazi ideas would land you in prison. I don't see why it would be wrong if an especially evil religion would get the same treatment.

I am not saying that Islam is such a religion. It remains to be determined through the usual democratic lawmaking mechanisms whether there are sects in it which are evil enough to be banned. I'm saying that it is not out of realms of possibility.

 

[nikkkom]

Tosh5457, you know that there are an estimated 1.6 billion Muslims in the world today. Out of that population, you are talking about 2500 arrested in the UK and 10000 Muslims from France going to fight for IS. That is a tiny percentage...

This is intellectually unfair. In making this argument, you should take the total of *UK and France* muslims, not entire world.

 

[nikkkom]

I agree. It doesn't make much sense to me to repeat the errors of those we rightfully criticize. Better to be tolerant towards those who practise their beliefs within the law and relentless for muslim extremists here or abroad.

I almost pressed [like] after reading the above. But... what to do if there is a group of people whose beliefs *do* include killing of infidels and apostates? They want to practice their beliefs.

I guess the logical thing is to say that not *any* beliefs are okay to practice. We can have a very permissive rules which allow lots of beliefs to be held, even peculiar ones. But not "no rules at all".

 

[S.G. Janssens]

I almost pressed [like] after reading the above.

Thank you, even though it was just "almost"

But... what to do if there is a group of people whose beliefs *do* include killing of infidels and apostates? They want to practice their beliefs.

I guess the logical thing is to say that not *any* beliefs are okay to practice. We can have a very permissive rules which allow lots of beliefs to be held, even peculiar ones. But not "no rules at all".

That's why in my post to which you are referring I included the phrase

within the law

There is no reason to be tolerant towards people whose beliefs include doing the things you mentioned, quite on the contrary.

One can of course wonder what to do when those people are (or become) a majority or otherwise sufficiently influential to legalize such madness, but I was not referring to those unhappy places where this is indeed reality.

 

[nikkkom]

There is no reason to be tolerant towards people whose beliefs include doing the things you mentioned, quite on the contrary.

Well, but we *are* too tolerant.

One example of many. What happens when news get out that police tries to monitor what is being preached in mosques? The outrage. No, not at the mosques. At the police. How dare they to assume that muslims may have some evil intentions?? Racist white pigs!

Police men are just men, not robots. When they are treated like this repeatedly, they just stop trying too hard. Why, if you risk your career doing so?

Check this link out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rochdale_sex_trafficking_gang
"""
Reaction and public debate
The case raised a serious debate about whether the crimes were racially motivated. Suggestions emerged that police and social work departments failed to act when details of the gang emerged for fear of appearing racist, and vulnerable white teenagers being groomed by Pakistani men were ignored.
"""

 

[rootone]

'Suggestions emerged' isn't proof that police and social workers failed to act.
They must have acted in fact, because the gang actually were arrested and prosecuted.
Probably some people thought they were slow to act, but police generally do take time to ensure they have enough rock solid evidence of a crime before prosecuting.

What has this to do with refugees though?