German Chancellor says "German multicultural society has utterly failed"

She is right insofar as "Multikulti" was used as a term in a sense of "people can immigrate and do whatever the hell they want and live in their separate sub-societies without learning German and without integrating themselves into society". That sort of approach that was strongly pushed by left-wingers for decades (and everyone who would even suggest that immigrants should at least learn German would almost be branded a Nazi for doing so) has indeed failed.

 

National identity is a funny concept.

 

Just as funny as inter-ethnic conflicts, lack of a common language, culture or shared values.

 

Common language, culture, and shared values are things tied to ethnicity, not nationality. Human need for group identity is inevitable, but at least clans and ethnicities are based on kinship and actual community, whereas nationality are based on non-actual and conjured similarities.

 

uhhhh...I lived in Hannover, Niedersachsen as a child. I learned english before I learned german. I learned german from my grandparents. not teh schools.

sorry Angela Merkel.

 

When everyone uses the same money, is living under the same laws, buying the same goods, using the same utilities, driving on the same roads, going to the same colleges - "standardization" might been like its imposing one's own "mine is better than yours" standards onto another, but then how can you apply the same health care in the same hospitals everyone goes to, from the same taxes that all the people pay into it?

You have to form SOME similarities at some point. SOMEONE has to make an adjustment.

 

Language is tied to ethnicity?

 

Ug - freaking GERMANS -- this is just another ploy for world domination.

Prepare for WWIII.

 

OH, you are German
that explains a lot

 

I'm wondering if members of certain minority german groups develop a pathological distaste for other minority groups in order to protect their own low, but not lowest, standing on the german ethno-social ladder.

 

Remember the last time a german offical declared multiculturalism didn't work?

 

Unfortunately, that infamous German official was not alone. Winston Churchill, George Bernard Shaw, Margaret Sanger and Theodore Roosevelt were among a long list of "progressives" who championed a scientific theory called eugenics -- eliminating the feeble-minded and "inferior" races like Jews and Blacks.

I never thought about this subject, but I'm halfway through State of Fear by Michael Crichton. In it, he discusses how Hitler's idea for extinction via ovens and gas chambers was spawned in England and the United States. It was the leading science of the day, and, if you didn't adhere to the tenets of eugenics, much like global warming now, you were ostrasized for coming up with different conclusions. Crichton has some very intriguing ideas on the subject. As he surmised, maybe we never learn.

 

It is a well-known fact that racism is as prevalent on the left as on the right. You and your statement above are living proof of that.

 

Reality: every country is getting more multicultural, almost no country is getting less multicultural.

Some, like Germany, have more people from other cultures and therefore will face challenges that others haven't faced yet.

I can see that learning the language should be base requirement for living in a country. I don't see how it means that multiculturalism has failed in Germany. It will just take a bit longer than they expected.

Ofcourse, if these people expected than different groups would live in pockets with their own language, lifestyle and culture - that's a very racist position to take IMO. Why not integrate? Why would you even want to have such a thing in ONE country, when in reality it forms the basis of multiple countries?

As the immigrants increase in number, it will redefine German culture, and will cause it to branch into old German and new German. The one thing they will always need though is a central language because the entire country and government is not going to learn another language to accommodate people, that would be silly. Even though the language will most likely also acquire some words and accents, there will need to be an official language and whoever does not believe in that is just being a problem.

Beware of the people who ride the language train into "we just can't live together, they are lazy unintelligent criminals". It's completely unrelated and, obviously, blending into society is not a perfect science. It will take longer and the current symptoms aren't absolute, they are more likely temporary.

It seems the blue-bloods will do anything to fight change in their culture. It wreaks of insecurity.

Kick the terrorists out, flunk the under-performing students, and don't give jobs to people who don't speak German. Everything will be fine.

 

I will explain her comments later when I will be back at a computer. There is obviously a lot lost in translation here.

 

I'm all for voluntary eugenics, even tax favored, but the people I want to be the elite progeny will include a lot of Blacks and Jews. Even the best white people are dull. Could you imagine: master race techno? Fellini movies? Soccer?

 

That is a pretty ignorant post.

I think you do not understand the concept of multiculturalism. Simplified, it basically demands that different groups live in the same country under their own rules, next to each other, there is no integration or assimilation at all, no requirement to even learn the language of the host country, etc. Europe has to a large extent followed this approach and demanded almost nothing from immigrants in terms of having to learn the language, having to learn the laws of the country they immigrated into, etc. etc.

Experience over the last few decades in Europe has clearly shown that this approach does not lead to good results for the societies that have been following it (crime statistics, unemployment statistics, percentage of welfare recipients, illiteracy rates, development of urban ghettos (more so in France than in Germany) etc. etc.). (And even if you may think so, the "melting pot" USA does not follow that approach at all.) That is all that Ms. Merkel stated.

You cannot equate having objections to multiculturalism to the terrible racist doctrines of probably the worst dictator in the history of mankind.

If you want to read in depth and in scientific form about the concept of multiculturalism, and its critique, this link is interesting:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/multiculturalism/

From my point of view, the most relevant and convincing critiques are these two points:

TL;DR version:

If you grant certain groups of people special rights within your country and basically allow them to apply their culture and their internal laws to "their" group of people, you allow existing discrimination that is prevalent in such groups to be reinforced and to be extended into your country, and you fail to protect the minority members of these groups - but if they are in your country, these minority members should be granted the same protection by the state as everyone else.

Example:

A hardcore multiculturalist would say that one would have to respect female genital mutilation being carried out in Germany (or in the USA) by those immigrants who immigrated from a culture where this is common "because we have to respect their culture". I, on the contrary, would say that in my country, I want ANY little girl to be protected from female genital mutilation (as is the law) - and if someone immigrates into my country, they have to respect these laws.

I don't care what your cultural background is, in my country, while I am happy to learn from your cultural background and absorb its positive influences and to accomodate you when I can, I can expect you to respect the laws of my country.

That does not make me a Nazi...I think.

 

Doesn't make sense. Cultural practice has never been an excuse to break the law.

Has there ever been an unlawful cultural practice which has been accepted because of 'multiculturalism'?

In multiculturalism, I don't think the different groups fall under a different law. What you are describing here is the prevalence of cultural practices will vary across different groups - which is something for law enforcement officers to consider - i.e. there are more traffic cops where there's more traffic.

In your example, no matter how prevalent genital mutilation in a certain pocket of population, it has always been and will always be a crime against the law for every INDIVIDUAL who commits it. If there is a geographic area where this is more prevalent, well then the people who are responsible for making sure this doesn't happen need to focus more on that geographic area. If it's not limited to one area, then those people need to increase their efforts in seeking out the criminals.

It's very simple. Everyone is the same under the law, multikulti or not.

 

Clearly, we agree that is the way it should be - but in practice, that is not the way it is. Especially in very closed circles where people don't even speak the language of law enforcement in the country they are in and where they have their own, internal enforcement rules, a lot of these practices never make it to law enforcement and the courts.

See the examples in the article below. More if you want.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2010/jul/05/sharia-law-religious-courts

What isn't wrong with Sharia law?
To safeguard our rights there must be one law for all and no religious courts


The recent global day against the imminent stoning of Sakine Mohammadi-Ashtiani in Iran for adultery is an example of the outrage sparked by the brutality associated with sharia law's penal code.

What of its civil code though – which the Muslim Council of Britain's Shaykh Ibrahim Mogra describes as "small aspects" that concern "marriage, divorce, inheritance, custody of children"? According to human rights campaigner Gita Sahgal, "there is active support for sharia laws precisely because it is limited to denying women rights in the family. No hands are being cut off, so there can't be a problem …"

Now a report, Sharia Law in Britain: A Threat to One Law for All and Equal Rights, reveals the adverse effect of sharia courts on family law. Under sharia's civil code, a woman's testimony is worth half of a man's. A man can divorce his wife by repudiation, whereas a woman must give justifications, some of which are difficult to prove. Child custody reverts to the father at a preset age; women who remarry lose custody of their children even before then; and sons inherit twice the share of daughters.

There has been much controversy about Muslim arbitration tribunals, which have attracted attention because they operate as tribunals under the Arbitration Act, making their rulings binding in UK law.

But sharia councils, which are charities, are equally harmful since their mediation differs little from arbitration. Sharia councils will frequently ask people to sign an agreement to abide by their decisions. Councils call themselves courts and the presiding imams are judges. There is neither control over the appointment of these judges nor an independent monitoring mechanism. People often do not have access to legal advice and representation. Proceedings are not recorded, nor are there any searchable legal judgements. Nor is there any real right to appeal.

There is also danger to those at risk of domestic violence. In one study, four out of 10 women attending sharia courts were party to civil injunctions against their husbands.

"In this way, these privatised legal processes were ignoring not only state law intervention and due process but providing little protection and safety for the women. Furthermore … husbands used this opportunity to negotiate reconciliation, financial settlements for divorce, and access to children. Settlements which in effect were being discussed under the shadow of law."

An example of the kind of decision that is contrary to UK law and public policy is the custody of children. Under British law, the child's best interest is the court's paramount consideration. In a sharia court the custody of children reverts to the father at a preset age regardless of the circumstances. In divorce proceedings, too, civil law takes into account the merits of the case and divides assets based on the needs and intentions of both parties. Under sharia law, only men have the right to unilateral divorce. If a woman manages to obtain a divorce without her husband's consent, she will lose the sum of money (or dowry) that was agreed to at the time of marriage.

There is an assumption that those who attend sharia courts do so voluntarily and that unfair decisions can be challenged. Since much of sharia law is contrary to British law and public policy, in theory they would be unlikely to be upheld in a British court. In reality, women are often pressured by their families into going to these courts and adhering to unfair decisions and may lack knowledge of their rights under British law. Moreover, refusal to settle a dispute in a sharia court could lead to to threats, intimidation or isolation.

With the rise in the sharia courts' acceptability, discrimination is further institutionalised with some law firms offering clients "conventional" representation alongside sharia law advice.

As long as sharia courts are allowed to make rulings on family law, women will be pressured into accepting decisions which are prejudicial.

The report recommends abolishing the courts by initiating a human rights challenge and amending the Arbitration Act as Canada's Arbitration Act was amended in 2005 to exclude religious arbitration.

The demand for the abolition of sharia courts in Britain, as elsewhere, is not an attack on people's right to religion; it is a defence of human rights, especially since the imposition of sharia courts is a demand of Islamism to restrict citizens' rights.

Rights, justice, inclusion, equality and respect are for people, not for beliefs and parallel legal systems. To safeguard the rights and freedoms of all those living in Britain, there must be one secular law for all and no religious courts.

Maryam Namazie is a rights activist, commentator and broadcaster and spokesperson of Iran Solidarity and One Law for All