Xenophobism: Not just the darling of the right any longer.

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,577
432
126
In Defence Of Herouxville

This is a new phenomenon in Canada, but it's been going on for years in Europe. The old face of nativism used to be Jean-Marie Le Pen, a right-wing Gaullist and old-school bigot who complains crankily about Jews and Blacks. Le Pen is still around. (His National Front party got 10% of the vote in this year's French presidential election.) But today's young voters are drawn more to those cast in the mold of Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn.

When Fortuyn was assassinated in 2002, he was described in the Western media as a "right-wing" politician because of his scathing remarks about Muslims. But the label never fit: Fortuyn was a lusty, openly gay populist who championed euthanasia, liberal drug policies and same-sex marriage. He opposed traditional Muslim culture precisely because it conflicted with the Netherlands' any-thing-goes ethos.

In other words, muscular monoculturalism is no longer the purview of the right. Having been liberated from the odour of racism, it's becoming a mainstream ideology, even a fashionable one, on the left.

Left-wing political trends aside, there are other reasons to have expected that Quebec would be the first part of Canada to decisively challenge multiculturalism, a doctrine that tends to thrive in wealthy nations beset by weak identities and postcolonial guilt. Compared to anglo-Canada, Quebec has a relatively strong sense of collective self. And for obvious historical reasons, Quebecers are more inclined to see themselves as history's victims rather than exploiters.

That's why multiculturalism has been a tough sell in Quebec from the get go. The doctrine became official Canadian government policy largely because Pierre Trudeau was looking to downplay the unique status of French culture by pretending it was just one of many filaments in a rich national tapestry. Even before the word burka entered the popular parlance, many Quebecers rightly saw it as a scam.

But what starts in Quebec won't end here. The debate will spread, and we should be glad of that. For all the rhetorical stock Canadians have put in multiculturalism over the years, the fact remains that it is fundamentally incoherent: How do you intellectually defend a doctrine that preaches "tolerance" toward imported cultures that, themselves, are fundamentally intolerant toward women, gays, heretics and infidels?

Anecdotally this is something I've been watching for some time. Even in this forum, the most liberal-minded person tends to regard the influx of Mexicans into the United States with ill-concealed distaste.

The city of Herouxville in the Canadian province of Quebec recently authored a 14-page submission to Quebec's commission on reasonable accommodation, in which the authors approvingly cite Turkey's militantly secularist founder, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk; celebrate Quebec's rejection of the Catholic "theocracy" of the Duplessis era; champion the rights of women and gays; and openly mock Christian fundamentalism ("Recently, the National Assembly allowed the opening of retail stores on Sundays. [God] accommodated us once again, sparing Hell to the faithful.")

Far from conservatives themselves, these people nonetheless drew a line against unfettered acceptance of incoming cultures. I guess the question is whether this is a good thing, bad thing or neutral thing. Being somewhat paranoid of organized religion myself, I can't say that non-acceptance of an intolerant culture is something that I am against - the whole bit about if you sense injustice, it's every citizen's duty to bring it to light. However, it looks like overreactions and an absence of dialogue is the way we're going.
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
12
76
It took the left a little bit longer to realize that Islam wants to dominate everything, and that they aren't safe.

I imagine England is only 15 years away from deporting Muslims, at this rate.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,958
55,344
136
I'm just sad that this thread gave Nebor a chance to spout his craziness. Some leftists are xenophobes too... this is not news. That's because the left/right scale is a false choice, and that the political spectrum goes in many more directions then that. Plenty of self described conservatives are very accomodating of other cultures as well, studies clearly show that the more contact with foreign cultures you have, the less afraid and hateful you are of them... and it has much more to do with that then what your other political views are.
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
Too bad the people that live in Europe do not have that same view. The Muslims do not have this view.
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
12
76
Originally posted by: eskimospy
I'm just sad that this thread gave Nebor a chance to spout his craziness. Some leftists are xenophobes too... this is not news. That's because the left/right scale is a false choice, and that the political spectrum goes in many more directions then that. Plenty of self described conservatives are very accomodating of other cultures as well, studies clearly show that the more contact with foreign cultures you have, the less afraid and hateful you are of them... and it has much more to do with that then what your other political views are.

And yet, Shiites have had plenty of contact with Sunnis, and they continue to massacre one another. Yet the whites and blacks in America get along fine. Islam is an affront to the civilized world, and must be stomped out.
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
12
76
Originally posted by: piasabird
Too bad the people that live in Europe do not have that same view. The Muslims do not have this view.

I have plenty of aquaintences in Europe who are feeling the pinch of the Muslim minority. They're taking over, one day at a time. Screaming for tolerance towards their faith, but then shunning others. Rioting in the streets over cartoons making fun of their god.
 

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,577
432
126
Originally posted by: senseamp
Are you saying the right is xenophobic?

Do you really not realize that both the article and I are being sarcastic when we use the term xenophobe? The entire point is that the full political spectrum is converging upon the idea that intolerance of intolerance is a good thing.
 

magomago

Lifer
Sep 28, 2002
10,973
14
76
Eeek. A worrisome article to myself. Firstly for the fact that xenophobia is being accepted by everyone. We have to remember, like your article pointed out that it even going to simply RACIAL issues. Hey, culture can change...but you can't change your racial composition. Lest of massive surgery, that is stuck as it is.

I'm secondly worried about the bolded part at the end: that the doctrine of Islam is fundamentally intolerant towards women, gays, heretics and infidels. Of course I'll probably give you gays - but from what I've seen and read over these past few months - being gay implies a direct connection with anal intercourse (where the real problem lies and is really hard to dispute). If we want to talk about intolerance to that~ sure, we can. But blanket statements are always a problem to work with...especially because it requires someone to take so much at face value.

The hard part about multiculturalism is this: believe what you want, but don't force it on others. A lot of people can't do that. One can have their views pertaining to topics, but can't necessarily force them on others. But what if one has children wanted to teach kids something different? To me this is only natural that we want to teach children our views. But to others with opposing viewpoints, they may say it is wrong to teach such ideas. That leads into the never ending issue of 'parents rights' vs 'what a school should teach' and what views are ultimately correct.

That said - I think its a better option to sit and argue about it all day then pull Nazi like tactics because "Teh JewsSs control teh worlds!!" or "Muzzlemen will kill meee" or "blacks aree theives - look at how most are in jail".
 

Mxylplyx

Diamond Member
Mar 21, 2007
4,197
101
106
I think most of us will live to see some serious shit go down in Europe once again. Publicly, liberal progressive in European societies love to preach their tolerance towards other cultures. On the street, Muslims are crowded into ghettos, shunned from the workplace, and pretty much spat on by the relatively well to do natives. This powder keg in Europe, which is the result of a failed experiment in multiculturalism, is going to blow up, and the results wont be pretty, especially since the US wont be coming to help in an internal conflict. The liberal idea of unfettered multiculturalism is noble, but like many liberal ideas, it's implementation among a society of flawed people is disastrous.
 

Kadarin

Lifer
Nov 23, 2001
44,296
16
81
Originally posted by: magomago
Of course I'll probably give you gays - but from what I've seen and read over these past few months - being gay implies a direct connection with anal intercourse (where the real problem lies and is really hard to dispute). If we want to talk about intolerance to that~ sure, we can.

You are implying here that anal sex in and of itself is a "worse" thing than sexual attraction to one's own gender. In other words, that homosexual oral sex is preferable to heterosexual anal sex. Care to clarify?
 

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,649
0
0
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: eskimospy
I'm just sad that this thread gave Nebor a chance to spout his craziness. Some leftists are xenophobes too... this is not news. That's because the left/right scale is a false choice, and that the political spectrum goes in many more directions then that. Plenty of self described conservatives are very accomodating of other cultures as well, studies clearly show that the more contact with foreign cultures you have, the less afraid and hateful you are of them... and it has much more to do with that then what your other political views are.

And yet, Shiites have had plenty of contact with Sunnis, and they continue to massacre one another. Yet the whites and blacks in America get along fine. Islam is an affront to the civilized world, and must be stomped out.

Gee, no one makes the connection that this has absolutely nothing to do with how different people go about their daily life in different cultures but with the retardedness of religious indoctrination of the population and its stranglehold on what is acceptable within a cultural subset.

Sunnis, Shiite, Wahabists (sp), Ba'athists, Christians, Jews and others in the region share the same culture but their religious indoctrination of how they should live is the fuse lighting this powder keg.

The only time that these groups were able to live in the same neighborhoods is when they had a secularist dictator ruling over them that didn't give a rat's ass about their religious beliefs unless it could make him more money or create more power for him. The same is going on in these other nations. They just don't have the balls to come out and say it because their pandering to other's fears and innate bigotry accomplishes the same goal without as much blowback.

Oh, and for the record Nebor....

You are a cowardly bigot who does not have the "courage" to stand up for what you believe. If you truly believe that about Islam, I'm sure that you have already been to the ME "serving" so that you can really "stamp out" the threat of Islam being spread any further. :roll:
 

cwjerome

Diamond Member
Sep 30, 2004
4,346
26
81
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

You are a cowardly bigot who does not have the "courage" to stand up for what you believe. If you truly believe that about Islam, I'm sure that you have already been to the ME "serving" so that you can really "stamp out" the threat of Islam being spread any further. :roll:

That's not the mission of the US military... the US Army does not want some nutcase who wants to "stamp out the threat of Islam being spread any further."

Thanks for the implicit derogatory view of the armed forces... it kinda goes nicely with your fallacious reasoning.
 

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,649
0
0
Originally posted by: cwjerome
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

You are a cowardly bigot who does not have the "courage" to stand up for what you believe. If you truly believe that about Islam, I'm sure that you have already been to the ME "serving" so that you can really "stamp out" the threat of Islam being spread any further. :roll:

That's not the mission of the US military... the US Army does not want some nutcase who wants to "stamp out the threat of Islam being spread any further."

Thanks for the implicit derogatory view of the armed forces... it kinda goes nicely with your fallacious reasoning.

If you had noticed the quotes around the word "serving", you would have been able to gather that I don't believe that anyone that has such a view of others would actually be serving (without quotes). They would not be able to perform any service other than to further increase the stupidity that is hate based on religion, culture or fear of either from someone else.

Could you also help me out by filling me in on where my reasoning is fallacious?

Under Saddam (the secularist), did these groups not co-exist? In the US, a nation based on secularism, do these groups co-exist? What about in European countries that are based on secularist beliefs?

These groups being in close proximity to one another isn't the problem as long as religious nutjobs are not in power and leading the countries. If you would like to argue for the opposing view, please do so. But just because you state your opinion without any data or even examples to make your case does not lend much credibility to your argument.
 

OutHouse

Lifer
Jun 5, 2000
36,410
616
126
You are a cowardly bigot who does not have the "courage" to stand up for what you believe. If you truly believe that about Islam, I'm sure that you have already been to the ME "serving" so that you can really "stamp out" the threat of Islam being spread any further.

so is name calling your only tactic for trying to win a argument?


i find it funny that we in the west are told to be tolerant, to bend our laws to accommodate the new comers but if I as a westerner happen to go to their country i will be stepping into the most intolerant portion of the world where my values, morals or beliefs will never be accepted and in most cases grounds to send me to jail.

its funny how its a one way street, why is that? and who are the racist?
 

ZzZGuy

Golden Member
Nov 15, 2006
1,855
0
0
I don't see a problem with someone bring their culture with them or forming communities that share their culture.

HOWEVER, if people are bringing over negative beliefs (such as using violence to convince others that you're way is right) that harm the country, spread these beliefs throughout their community, refuse to respect the laws of said country, and/or try to make plans to aggressively alter the country to their beliefs, then kick them the **** out.

Tolerance is good if it goes both ways or at least has a hope of going both ways. When the other side you are tolerating is not tolerating you and never will then they need to be dealt with.


Here in Canada i have not heard very much about communities of foreign cultures causing trouble like in Brittan and France, not to say it couldn't blow up in our face one day if we are not careful.
 

PingSpike

Lifer
Feb 25, 2004
21,758
603
126
Who wouldn't want those things gone? I mean, they lay eggs in your throat and then burst out of your chest, killing you!





And they took all of our jobs.
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
12
76
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Originally posted by: cwjerome
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

You are a cowardly bigot who does not have the "courage" to stand up for what you believe. If you truly believe that about Islam, I'm sure that you have already been to the ME "serving" so that you can really "stamp out" the threat of Islam being spread any further. :roll:

That's not the mission of the US military... the US Army does not want some nutcase who wants to "stamp out the threat of Islam being spread any further."

Thanks for the implicit derogatory view of the armed forces... it kinda goes nicely with your fallacious reasoning.

If you had noticed the quotes around the word "serving", you would have been able to gather that I don't believe that anyone that has such a view of others would actually be serving (without quotes). They would not be able to perform any service other than to further increase the stupidity that is hate based on religion, culture or fear of either from someone else.

Could you also help me out by filling me in on where my reasoning is fallacious?

Under Saddam (the secularist), did these groups not co-exist? In the US, a nation based on secularism, do these groups co-exist? What about in European countries that are based on secularist beliefs?

These groups being in close proximity to one another isn't the problem as long as religious nutjobs are not in power and leading the countries. If you would like to argue for the opposing view, please do so. But just because you state your opinion without any data or even examples to make your case does not lend much credibility to your argument.

The problem is, they believe that they NEED a religious nutjob in power to impose their rules. They aren't tolerant of us, they just want us to be tolerant of them until they have us by the throat.

Read Citrix's post, try going to Iran and having a couple drinks. See how that works out for you.
 

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,649
0
0
Originally posted by: Citrix
You are a cowardly bigot who does not have the "courage" to stand up for what you believe. If you truly believe that about Islam, I'm sure that you have already been to the ME "serving" so that you can really "stamp out" the threat of Islam being spread any further.

so is name calling your only tactic for trying to win a argument?


i find it funny that we in the west are told to be tolerant, to bend our laws to accommodate the new comers but if I as a westerner happen to go to their country i will be stepping into the most intolerant portion of the world where my values, morals or beliefs will never be accepted and in most cases grounds to send me to jail.

its funny how its a one way street, why is that? and who are the racist?

Name calling is a little different than factually stating that some else's stated beliefs are bigoted. I can see where my mistake was in labeling the person and not the stated beliefs of said person. Thanks for pointing that out.

I don't particularly find it funny in that most places on earth will eventually come around to the "one true God" called money. Sooner or later (considering the oppressed nature of the countries most likely later), the people of these countries will stand up and realize that they are being used as pawns for the gains of a small few. There will be leaders who come forth and force the oppressors out as has happened throughout history.

When that finally takes place, tolerance will become more the rule than the exception. I'm not sure that I will see it in my lifetime, but I am willing to do my part by teaching my children to be accepting of others until there is a valid reason to not be and to not stereotype entire groups based on the actions of a small few. Hopefully, this will be something that others teach their kids as well.

Edit to respond to Nebor: As long as I don't declare myself gay I don't think that much would happen to me in Iran. Most countries will not jail or kill you without provocation. As the old saying goes: "Ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking the law". If anything were to happen, it would be more likely to occur by some non-government sponsored group.

I found an interesting article about Americans living in Iran playing "Professional" basketball.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...9/AR2006020902212.html
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,958
55,344
136
Originally posted by: Nebor

And yet, Shiites have had plenty of contact with Sunnis, and they continue to massacre one another. Yet the whites and blacks in America get along fine. Islam is an affront to the civilized world, and must be stomped out.

And yet, Catholics had plenty of contact with Protestants, and they massacred one another for centuries. Christianity must have been an affront to the civilized world and should have been stomped out.

Sigh.
 

OutHouse

Lifer
Jun 5, 2000
36,410
616
126
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Nebor

And yet, Shiites have had plenty of contact with Sunnis, and they continue to massacre one another. Yet the whites and blacks in America get along fine. Islam is an affront to the civilized world, and must be stomped out.

And yet, Catholics had plenty of contact with Protestants, and they massacred one another for centuries. Christianity must have been an affront to the civilized world and should have been stomped out.

Sigh.

well when was the last time you heard of a 16 year old retarded girl get stoned because she was raped?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,958
55,344
136
Originally posted by: Citrix
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Nebor

And yet, Shiites have had plenty of contact with Sunnis, and they continue to massacre one another. Yet the whites and blacks in America get along fine. Islam is an affront to the civilized world, and must be stomped out.

And yet, Catholics had plenty of contact with Protestants, and they massacred one another for centuries. Christianity must have been an affront to the civilized world and should have been stomped out.

Sigh.

well when was the last time you heard of a 16 year old retarded girl get stoned because she was raped?

That wasn't my point. My point was that Christianity had a religious schism that led to massive bloodshead just like Islam.
 

Noobtastic

Banned
Jul 9, 2005
3,721
0
0
What a crock of s**t. Self-righteous douchewads who cherry pick what they deem "intolerant" or "xenophobic" will also disregard anything remotely valid or factual. I.E, secluded islamic communites has increased violence among several European cities. These are facts. Muslim immigrants (fleeing from Iraq mostly) have proven themselves incapable of assimilating. Europe's highly luxurious social system is an obvious appeal to those who need it, but now the continent is paying the price.

I remember reading about a baker who had to close his store down because the muslim community felt discriminated by his popular croissants.

"Bigot", "Intolerant", "Xenophobic", etc..are words that have been abused by the brainwashed populous to the point where they are no longer emotionally or politically effective.

"Hey, did you know we currently have 14 million illegal immigrants in the United States?"

"BIGOT!"


XD



 

babylon5

Golden Member
Dec 11, 2000
1,363
1
0
Originally posted by: Noobtastic
What a crock of s**t. Self-righteous douchewads who cherry pick what they deem "intolerant" or "xenophobic"


We got plenty of those around on this forum. They want you to believe Europeans/Americans hate everyone, but minorities live in love commune welcome others with open arms. Only those Europeans/Americans hate, not them!

Cheery Pickers, facts below, cover your eyes so you can continue
to be self-righteous:



Mexico Harsh to Undocumented Migrants


By MARK STEVENSON, Associated Press


Considered felons by the government, these migrants fear detention, rape and robbery. Police and soldiers hunt them down at railroads, bus stations and fleabag hotels. Sometimes they are deported; more often officers simply take their money.

While migrants in the United States have held huge demonstrations in recent weeks, the hundreds of thousands of undocumented Central Americans in Mexico suffer mostly in silence.

And though Mexico demands humane treatment for its citizens who migrate to the U.S., regardless of their legal status, Mexico provides few protections for migrants on its own soil. The issue simply isn't on the country's political agenda, perhaps because migrants make up only 0.5 percent of the population, or about 500,000 people ? compared with 12 percent in the United States.

The level of brutality Central American migrants face in Mexico was apparent Monday, when police conducting a raid for undocumented migrants near a rail yard outside Mexico City shot to death a local man, apparently because his dark skin and work clothes made officers think he was a migrant.

Virginia Sanchez, who lives near the railroad tracks that carry Central Americans north to the U.S. border, said such shootings in Tultitlan are common.

"At night, you hear the gunshots, and it's the judiciales (state police) chasing the migrants," she said. "It's not fair to kill these people. It's not fair in the United States and it's not fair here."

Undocumented Central American migrants complain much more about how they are treated by Mexican officials than about authorities on the U.S. side of the border, where migrants may resent being caught but often praise the professionalism of the agents scouring the desert for their trail.

"If you're carrying any money, they take it from you ? federal, state, local police, all of them," said Carlos Lopez, a 28-year-old farmhand from Guatemala crouching in a field near the tracks in Tultitlan, waiting to climb onto a northbound freight train.

Lopez said he had been shaken down repeatedly in 15 days of traveling through Mexico.

"The soldiers were there as soon as we crossed the river," he said. "They said, 'You can't cross ... unless you leave something for us.'"

Jose Ramos, 18, of El Salvador, said the extortion occurs at every stop in Mexico, until migrants are left penniless and begging for food.

"If you're on a bus, they pull you off and search your pockets and if you have any money, they keep it and say, 'Get out of here,'" Ramos said.

Maria Elena Gonzalez, who lives near the tracks, said female migrants often complain about abusive police.

"They force them to strip, supposedly to search them, but the purpose is to sexually abuse them," she said.

Others said they had seen migrants beaten to death by police, their bodies left near the railway tracks to make it look as if they had fallen from a train.

The Mexican government acknowledges that many federal, state and local officials are on the take from the people-smugglers who move hundreds of thousands of Central Americans north, and that migrants are particularly vulnerable to abuse by corrupt police.

The National Human Rights Commission, a government-funded agency, documented the abuses south of the U.S. border in a December report.

"One of the saddest national failings on immigration issues is the contradiction in demanding that the North respect migrants' rights, which we are not capable of guaranteeing in the South," commission president Jose Luis Soberanes said.

In the United States, mostly Mexican immigrants have staged rallies pressuring Congress to grant amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants rather than making them felons and deputizing police to deport them. The Mexican government has spoken out in support of the immigrants' cause.

While Interior Secretary Carlos Abascal said Monday that "Mexico is a country with a clear, defined and generous policy toward migrants," the nation of 105 million has legalized only 15,000 immigrants in the past five years, and many undocumented migrants who are detained are deported.

Although Mexico objects to U.S. authorities detaining Mexican immigrants, police and soldiers usually cause the most trouble for migrants in Mexico, even though they aren't technically authorized to enforce immigration laws.

And while Mexicans denounce the criminalization of their citizens living without papers in the United States, Mexican law classifies undocumented immigration as a felony punishable by up to two years in prison, although deportation is more common.

The number of undocumented migrants detained in Mexico almost doubled from 138,061 in 2002 to 240,269 last year. Forty-two percent were Guatemalan, 33 percent Honduran and most of the rest Salvadoran.

Like the United States, Mexico is becoming reliant on immigrant labor. Last year, then-director of Mexico's immigration agency, Magdalena Carral, said an increasing number of Central Americans were staying in Mexico, rather than just passing through on their way to the U.S.

She said sectors of the Mexican economy facing labor shortages often use undocumented workers because the legal process for work visas is inefficient.