 |
| My Selfie in Koln back in 2014, right where the attacks took place by the railway station. |
What actually happened?
Over a few hours on on new year's eve and new year's day 2016, women in a few German city centers who were out ushering in the new year were accosted by groups of Muslim men who robbed them, molested them and in some cases, raped them. These men were neither German nor white, they were Muslims of North African or Middle Eastern origin. The scale of the attacks were on such a scale that the German police were totally unprepared and overwhelmed - the response was slow, disorganized, feeble and hundreds of women fell victim to the attacks by these Muslim men. This kind of attack, on this scale, with such brutality had not been seen since WW2. Thus many have compared this to a coordinated terrorist attack by Muslim extremists, designed specifically to make German women feel unsafe in their own cities - despite the numerous reports by the victims, only a very small number of Muslim men were arrested and that means the vast majority of these Muslim men got away with the horrible crimes they had committed against the German women. Thus you can see the comparison with the recent terrorist attacks in Paris, as well as the attack on the Charlie Hebdo offices in Paris - thus some have compared it to a new kind of terrorism perpetuated by Muslim extremists on Europeans. The women were a vulnerable target - they didn't try to attack the American embassy in Berlin (which is closely guarded), no instead they preyed on the softest, easiest targets: women.
The massive cover up in the following days.
The mainstream media in Germany was very slow in reporting the event and the initial details that emerged were rather vague at best. They were extremely reluctant in using the words 'migrants', 'Muslim', 'Middle Eastern' or 'North African' to describe the men - details in the mainstream press conflicted with accounts of witnesses who were flooding social media with the truth of what actually happened. Anger with the authorities grew quickly in Germany, this led to protests on the streets of Germany - the anger was directed at the mainstream media (for the cover up), the police (for the feeble reaction) and the government (for having let in all these migrants). Journalists started realizing that a huge cover up had been initiated by the authorities and the police and that became the focus of the developing story after the initial attacks. Why were the police so ineffective? Why did they try to cover up their mistakes? What were they trying to hide? Who tried to distort the truth in the media? So many questions were asked - the mainstream media then succumbed to public pressure and finally reported the truth: that the attackers were indeed Muslim migrants who were from North Africa and the Middle East and more to the point, there was a massive cover up after the incidents.
 |
| The German police covered up their terrible mistakes. |
Why did the cover up happen?
You have to understand the way European politics work - there is generally a split between the left wing and the right wing. The left wing are generally rather liberal when it comes to the issue of asylum seekers and migrants - they believe that European countries should be compassionate towards the plight of these refugees and that efforts should be made to make these refugees feel welcomed when they arrive in Europe. Then, you have the right wing, who are wary of these refugees and do not believe that they should be given asylum in such numbers in Europe because they will cause far more problems. And of course, there are those who represent those in the middle of the two extreme. Now in Germany, Angel Merkel is the current chancellor of Germany - she is from the CDU party (Christian Democratic Union). The CDU defines its position as 'centre-right' - so that means that they are trying to claim the middle ground and appeal to both the left and right wing, but clearly identifying themselves as a little to the right but not right wing. They are in a coalition with the SPD (Socialist Democratic Party) who are 'centre-left' - but their current stance when it comes to refugees from places like Syria are as left-wing as it can get: this is a bold move by the German government to take such a left wing stance on the issue despite claiming the middle ground of politics.
Is it the fault of the left wing?
In short, yes. We don't know yet whom instrumented the cover up but one can make a calculated guess as to why it happened: it is so easy for the right wing to say, "See? I told you so. What did you think was going to happen when you let in all these refugees? They are going to commit crimes, rape our women and destroy German society as you know it. Women and children will feel afraid to leave their houses and Germany's reputation will be destroyed. Merkel made a big mistake, get rid of her government before she destroys Germany - vote for us instead." In short, the current government was dealt a severe blow to their credibility the cover up seemed like a desperate attempt to avert (or at least delay) the inevitable criticisms of the government's open-door stance on asylum seekers. Was it wrong of Merkel's government to assume that the asylum seekers would not bite the hand that feeds? Likewise, there was also the fear of reprisals and revenge attacks on Muslims in Germany should the attackers be identified as Muslims - so in the climate of extreme political correctness, many in the media were hesitant to make any link between the religion (or country of origin) of the attackers and the vile acts carried out, lest they be accused of being Islamophobic or racist. This all contributed to the way the details of the attacks were vaguely reported in the media in the hours and days following the attack and yes, you can blame the left wing for creating that atmosphere and situation in the first place.
Well yes, they are at fault too. Even though Merkel's government has taken a very left wing stance on the issue of Muslim migrants and asylum seekers, the right wing has been far from reasonable in their approach on the issue. Many fear the Neo-Nazi extreme right wing in Germany, who are known for being vehemently anti-Muslim. They have had a history of hate crimes against those of ethnic minorities and of the Muslim faith and thus anyone who wishes to even take a political stance even an inch beyond the centre-right are usually extremely cautious in terms of distancing themselves from these notorious far-right extremists in Germany. The words and actions of these far-right extremists have contributed to their lack of credibility whenever anyone try to voice any right wing opinion about Muslims, asylum seekers or migrants. Bear in mind the fact that Germany is keen to make a clean break from their brutal past in WW2 under Hitler's Nazi regime, thus the right wing in Germany has not been able to take a stronger stance on the issue of accepting asylum seekers (though what has happened in Cologne and other cities may change that yet).
Is it this simply a clash of cultures?
No, it goes way beyond that. Last night on my way home (in London), I ran into some drunk women on the train - they were clearly intoxicated: shouting, screaming, swearing and whilst I found their behaviour disgraceful, I didn't think it was any excuse for anyone to rape them just because of the way they were behaving. I merely changed carriages to get away from them and my reaction is pretty typical. In North Africa and the Middle East however, their culture is different and their attitude towards women are quite different from Europeans. Now I speak as someone who has worked in the Middle East and has traveled widely across North Africa and the Middle East - I am very familiar with the culture in that part of the world and it is pretty appalling just how women are treated in that part of the world. Many left wing people simply default to the "we can't judge their culture by Western standards, that's a very neo-Colonial view of the world" and ignore the low status of women in these societies - but having seen first hand, the way women are treated in these countries, good grief, what I have witnessed is very appalling. Where do I even begin? In Saudi Arabia, women have just been granted the right to vote but they still can't drive or go anywhere without a chaperone.
The concept of 'Taharrush' - gang rape in Arab culture
Perhaps this is when we need to be very careful and separate the concept of 'Taharrush' from Islam per se - Taharrush (yes that's an Arabic word) is a kind of gang rape which originated in the Middle East and North Africa. The pattern is sickeningly familiar - gangs of men will surround a woman who is vulnerable, the woman will then be gang raped by those in the inner circle whilst those surrounding the rape victim are spectators whilst preventing others from helping the rape victim. It is a vile and medieval form of behaviour that has no place in modern society and certainly, ask any Imam from any mosque and you will be told that this kind of rape is completely wrong in Islam. So if Taharrush didn't come from Islam per se, then we can only conclude that it came from Arab culture and the fact that women are treated so appallingly badly within Arab culture allows Arab men to get away with Taharrush. When a woman gets gang raped in North Africa or Middle East, often she is the one who is blamed for making herself vulnerable - "oh she shouldn't have been wearing such provocative Western clothing", "she shouldn't be wondering around on her own like that." The kind of victim blaming mentality is sickening at best and what makes it even more sickening is the way Arabs tend to use Islam to justify their very sexist and misogynistic attitude. So yes, in fact you can blame Arab culture for what happened, rather than Islam per se. You do realize that not all Muslims are Arabs and not all Arabs are Muslims.
 |
| Are Germans in denial about having imported Taharrush? |
How should Europe respond to Taharrush?
There needs to be a response on two levels. Firstly, men guilty of Taharrush need to be punished as severely as possible - heck, I would favour introducing Shariah law in the case of Taharrush, as these many of these Arab men came from countries with Sharia law and thus if they were to carry out a crime from their culture, it would only be appropriate to punish them with Shariah law and that means whipping or execution. It is a shame that neither are allowed in European countries, so we have to settle for a really long jail sentence. On another level, one must insist on these migrants assimilating into the European societies - we have already seen the problems caused by migrants who do not assimilate. This must begin at a level of housing: if you allow these migrants to live in ghettos where they can mingle with their own people and get by without speaking a word of German (or whatever the local European language is), then they will never assimilate. Scattering them as widely as possible across the country, into small towns and rural areas may sound unkind, but in the long run, that would be the only way to force them to assimilate more quickly if there isn't another family for 20 to 50 km that speaks a word of Arabic. The left wing would oppose this, of course.
So we go back to the left vs right wing divide? Do you blame the left wing more than the right?
Again, I lay the blame at the door of the left-wing: you want to accept all these migrants and asylum seekers from this part of the world, yet you make so little effort to educate them, assimilate them and make them obey German law. Whilst it is true that those on the left wanted to be compassionate in principle but somewhere along the way, they messed up the process and made too many assumptions that were just plain wrong. It is hideous and crazy that these people are more concerned about upholding their left-wing political ideals than the actual safety of their women - but that is how utterly ludicrous some left wing people have become in Europe. Why? Because the left wing and the right wing have been locked in political battles for so long that the those on the left don't want to 'lose face' to the right wing by conceding that the situation in Germany has been poorly handled and that led to the mass sexual assaults in Cologne and other German cities. The left wing may claim to be the compassionate and caring side of politics in welcoming these poor refugees fleeing war-torn countries, but they can be just as manipulative and unreasonable as the right wing when it comes to fighting their political battles. In short, don't assume that those from the left wing are somehow these kind, compassionate refugee-hugging angels - European politics is a lot more complicated than that.
 |
| Was it right for Germany to accept so many refugees? |
What? You mean these compassionate refugee-hugging left wingers are not totally innocent?
Oh no. Far from it - like I said, politics is very complex! At the end of the day, politicians are playing a game whereby they need to ultimately get into office. When an MP runs for office, there's no office to be held by the loser who came in second place in the elections. Either you victoriously defeat your opponents, win the election and get into office, or you lose and get chucked to the sidelines of politics. You can protest as much as you want from the sidelines, but it is really the MP in office who has the real power in government to do anything and influence any major decision that the government takes on major issues. Thus the left wing politicians have as much to lose if it is seen that this decision to welcome the refugees with open arms was a big mistake (or at least, that the situation was very poorly managed by the German authorities, leading to the incidents on new year's eve/new year's day). So it is not a matter of right or wrong for these politicians, every decision they take will impact on their popularity and that in turn translates to the amount of votes they will get at the next election - so even left wing politicians will tell hideous lies and cover up their mistakes in order to safeguard their seat in parliament. Such is politics - it is an ugly game. Very, very ugly indeed.
Could this have been prevented?
Well yes in principle (but in reality, it is easier said than done). This was something I had always argued. I do believe that European countries ought to grant refugees asylum but the system has got to be run more efficiently, with the right checks and balances. Certainly, the highly skilled migrants should be given priority and the put on the fast track to citizenship in a country of their choice; unskilled migrants should be given only limited, temporary sanctuary in poorer countries with the view to repatriate them back to their country of origin the moment the war they are fleeing is over and those with criminal records or tendencies should never have been let into Europe in the first place. In the short run, that will inevitably mean creating bottlenecks in countries like Greece where these detailed background checks have to be implemented (and Greece should be given financial help to bear that burden of housing the refugees whilst they are stuck in Greece). Nonetheless, it is better to create these bottlenecks for security checks rather than have this current situation whereby asylum is granted to those who do make it to Germany (usually those who have the financial means to pay the people smugglers) rather than those who deserve it the most. Only one group of people are doing well out of the current situation: the people smugglers and that is one fact the left-wing folks will be very reluctant to admit. If you genuinely want to help the refugees and the local communities receiving these refugees, then the whole asylum system has to be a lot better managed - the open door policy has clearly created many problems for Germany.
 |
| Germany wants to know whom to blame for what happened. |
What needs to be done now?
Where do I even begin? Firstly, the police need to arrest the suspects who carried out these vile attacks on new year's eve/new year's day in Germany. They need to be treated as terrorists and severely punished for their crimes. This needs to be done urgently to send a message out to these criminals that they will not get away with crimes like that in a country like Germany. Failure to do so will lead to further similar attacks. Second, the police needs to be held accountable for their very feeble and weak response during the attacks and in the hours after the attack - it is unthinkable that the national police force of a major Western European country can be this inefficient in the face of what does tantamount to be a terrorist attack, but such is the pathetic situation we have before us. Thirdly, an investigation needs to be launched into the cover up by the media, the authorities and the police about the reporting of this event in the news and lessons need to be learnt about this cover up - those in power should never be allowed to try to cover up their mistakes like that and this should never be allowed to happen again in the future. Fourthly, German society needs to take a long hard look at itself and what needs to be done to force the asylum seekers to assimilate - if you want to stay in Germany, than you need to speak German, abide by German laws and accept German society norms - deport those who do not assimilate, break the law and cause all trouble.
Lastly, German society needs to take a long hard look at itself in light of the way the fight between the left and right wing factions of society has been allowed to obfuscate the more pressing issues at hand about how Germany is going to handle this massive influx of over a million refugees. Instead of trying to score points in the political battle between the left and the right, they need to sit down and work out pragmatic solutions to deal with these one million recent arrivals. It is ridiculous that they have turned the issue into a political football instead of working together to find a solution. A lot of Germans are still in complete denial about the change that has already taken place in German society further to the arrival of these refugees in 2015, they are still pretending that they can carry on as before and that's only adding to the problem (and that explains why the German police were so woefully inefficient and unprepared for the events of new year's eve/new year's day). I'm afraid it is a very sorry situation indeed. This reminds me of the way Japan took advantage of the Chinese civil war during WW2 to conquer much of China - when you tear yourself apart from within, you are only making yourself a more vulnerable target for your enemies. Indeed, the UK and other counties can learn a lot from Germany in this episode about the steep price to pay for national political infighting.
 |
| Can German people put aside their political differences in light of this crisis? |
Will Germany learn its lesson?
It saddens me to admit that I am very skeptical. It is ludicrous that the German police used water cannons to disperse anti-immigrant protesters in Cologne last Saturday - even if you didn't like their anti-immigrant rhetoric, they had the right to peaceful protest. And more to the point, when innocent German women were getting raped, where were the German police to protect these women? I am wondering what the German policemen operating the water cannons would do had their wives, daughters or sisters had been gang raped by a group of Arabs on new year's eve in Cologne? So no, I am not convinced that Germany has learnt anything, German society (or at least the German authorities) are still in total denial about what they are facing and the scale of what they are having to deal with. I foresee the political infighting between the left and right wing to continue in Germany and a repeat of such attacks in the future. The ultimate victims would be the German people, ordinary folks who will become victims of such future attacks. This latest episode saddens me as the chance of any kind of constructive solution is bleak at the moment.
Is this likely to happen to other European countries, like the UK?
The simple answer is no. There is a direct correlation between Germany's open door policy when it comes to asylum seekers and the incidents of new year's eve/new year's day in Germany. The only other country in Europe which has been as welcoming to refugees as Germany is Sweden and so yes, similar incidents could occur (and have occurred) in Sweden too. But you need to realize that Germany and Sweden are the exceptions in Europe - you cannot assume that all European governments have taken the same stance. The UK's Conservative government has taken an anti-immigration stance and they are only going to use the events in Germany to justify why the UK should continue to turn away refugees. Many other countries like Denmark have taken an equally hard stance against refugees, effectively shutting the door and hanging a big sign that says, "fuck off, refugees are not welcomed, you should go to Germany or Sweden instead - we don't want you here." And take Poland for example, it is such a right-wing country that it simply turns away Muslim refugees (they prefer white, Slavic economic migrants from places like Belarus and Ukraine). Indeed, after what happened in Germany and also the recent terrorist attacks in Paris, it is almost inevitable that fewer refugees will be allowed into Europe this year as these attacks have spread a climate of fear amongst ordinary European folks and the governments who ignore the fears and worries of the voters will only go on to lose elections - and remember, no politician will willingly lose an election just to take a stance, no matter how left-wing they may be.
 |
| How well integrated as these refugees in Germany - do they speak German? |
I have two Muslim friends whom I am very close to - let's call them Ali and Ahmed. Both are British-born Muslims whose parents have come from the Middle East. They are both in medical school at the moment, studying to be doctors and they are the nicest people you would ever meet. Their parents came to the UK many years ago as skilled migrants and made sure their sons studied hard to become doctors one day. Both Ali and Ahmed are highly educated, very well assimilated and have bright futures in the UK - this is of no surprise because their very respectable parents had met the very stringent criteria to come to this country as skilled migrants and have very good jobs. So whilst both the UK and Germany are around 5.5% Muslim at the moment, the UK has not experienced the kind of problems that Germany is experiencing because the UK has been a lot more selective in the kind of Muslims who are granted residency rights in the UK: so we have young men like Ali and Ahmed in the UK who are in medical school, whilst Germany is currently paying a very high price for its open-door policy. Of course, that is simplifying the situation somewhat, but if you were to welcome anyone who walks up to your front door, what do you think is going to happen?
What about ISIS / Islamic State / Daesh?
Whilst the media are hesitant to call what happened a terrorist attack, it does bear all the hallmarks of one. Gone are the days when terrorists tried to bomb the American embassy - these days, American embassies are usually so well guarded they are probably the safest place in town should there be a terrorist attack. In Paris last year, the terrorist picked soft targets: a magazine office, supermarkets where ordinary folks were just buying their groceries, cafes and bars were people were just meeting friends for some food and drink, young people attending a rock concert and a football game - these are venues which are very soft targets, the victims were just innocent civilians; the complete opposite of the American embassy. So let's look at what the attacks on new year's eve/new year's day achieved:
 |
| How should we respond to terrorism? |
- they managed to rob, molest and rape a large number of women in major German cities
- they terrorized the wider German society who were made to feel very unsafe and vulnerable
- they caused major embarrassment to the German authorities in the way they handled the episode
- the men responsible for these attacks were extremely well organized and in huge groups, this shows a lot of planning had gone into the attacks
- the attacks would cause the extreme right wing in Germany to attack more Muslims in Germany, further radicalizing them and driving them into the arms of ISIS in Syria and Iraq.
Just these five points alone should be enough evidence for the authorities to treat it as a terrorist attack, yet the German authorities are so hesitant to use the word 'terrorism' (probably because they are still in complete denial). Whether or not it is ISIS or another group like Al-Qaeda behind this attack, we don't know yet - that is for the authorities to investigate and find out but given the woefully ineffective nature of the German police, I am not getting my hopes up. In the meantime, I feel extremely sorry for the ordinary German folks in Colgone who have paid a very high price for their government's mistakes in the way they have handled this whole refugee crisis. I also feel sorry for the innocent German-Muslims who have been victims of reprisal, revenge attacks by the Neo-Nazi extreme right wing Germans. The whole situation is quite frankly, ein großes Durcheinander (a huge mess). It leaves me with sadness, despair and little hope, if I may be blunt. I do hope that my pessimism will be proven wrong by the German people.
 |
| This picture needs no caption - it speaks volumes. |
So that's it from me on this issue. I have probably offended plenty of Germans, Arabs, Muslims, left wing folks, right wing folks in this piece. In fact, is there anyone I have yet to offend? Please raise your hand or leave a comment below. Let me know what your thoughts are please. Many thanks for reading, merci, vielen dank, shoukran jazillan.
The reason why Merkel and a large part of Germany freely allowed refugees is partly because they were ashamed of their past history of nazism. As you know, Germans always follow the rules, in this case this is a moral obligation, especially after a truckload of refugees died from lack of air. Just look at the disparity on how they dealt with Greece and with Syrian refugees. I'm not justifying but just explaining why Merkel did what she did....at least based on a conversation with a German.
ReplyDeleteI also got to know this refugee who came to Europe. According to him, he paid 8000usd to illegal smugglers to get from afghan to Europe, so imagine a lucrative market out there. I probably would also leave the shit hole they are in, but imagine all the capable young people leaving these war torn countries, what is going to happen in the end? It will simply continue to be as shitty as before.
Hello John and thanks for your comment. I knew this was going to be a very difficult and tricky topic to approach and I appreciate your effort to engage me in this.
DeleteMy point is simple: even if you have all the best intentions to help the refugees (and don't get me wrong - that is a very noble intention indeed), the process has GOT to be better managed to benefit all involved - the refugees + the locals. It is clear that despite the best of their intentions, the process has been poorly managed and this has led to the problems we have witnessed. Therein lies the crux of the issue - no amount of goodwill or noble intentions can change the fact that the asylum process in Germany needs to be a lot better managed.
As for skilled people leaving war-torn countries and leaving a brain drain problem, well the same problem happens in all poor countries. Take the Philippines for example, skilled professionals always leave the country because they know they can earn more abroad. It is a no-brainer and the Philippines has a massive brain drain problem. This is a problem that is not restricted to war torn countries - there has not been a war in the Philippines since WW2.
After the recent Calais migrant scandal the authorities are finally taking action it seems.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/calais-jungle-camp-2000-refugees-living-in-makeshift-shelters-given-three-days-to-leave-as-a6807386.html
I'm sorry but I have absolutely no sympathy for the refugees in Calais for one simple reason: they are ALREADY in a safe, democratic, friendly Western European country, yet they are bloody stupid enough to believe that somehow, the streets of Britain are paved with gold and it is worth risking everything just to make it to the UK. Boy they are going to be very disappointed when they get here. If there was a war going on in France, then yeah I will feel sorry for them trying to flee to the UK (which was what happened in WW2, as many fled to England as the German Nazis swept through Europe) - but like seriously, WTF? What is wrong with settling in France? How is it any worse than the UK? These people are just plain crazy ... or stupid, or both.
DeleteIt is a pretty detailed analysis.
ReplyDeleteGreat piece of writing.
Well, Europe (or Germany) will probably never be the same again, exactly how the heck are they going to 'get the migrants to assimilate'?
That is not going to happen. Plus, if the migrants are older men, bringing over their families, that probably would be a better situation but if these are single young men, having too many of them in the same place doing nothing (unemployed) is just a recipe for disaster. I mean, can't speak German, have no skills, what exactly are they going to do?
And yes, this sort of reminds me of the ethnic quota policy done in Singapore for public housing - I can understand why they instituted it, this probably could be used as an teaching example for Singaporean national education, probably.
Please be careful when you talk about Europe as there is a HUGE difference between the different countries of Europe. You are falling into the Singaporean fallacy of using the word 'Angmoh' to assume that all white people are the same - when in fact there are huge differences between different European countries. Germany may have opened their doors to all refugees, but many others have slammed their doors shut and refused to take in any refugees (Poland in particular, is very right wing and downright racist at times and reject Muslim asylum seekers and in some instances, will only accept Christian ones). This is why I am so frustrated when people from Singapore talk about Europe as if it was a cohesive entity when it is so diverse and different: the UK is different from Sweden, Germany is different from Poland. France is different from Finland. How can I stress this to you? They are not just 'Angmohs'.
DeleteI think political correctness would be the downfall of Germany- oh just wait til the citizen take matters into their own hands. I suspect it is an ageing population and nazi guilt, but neither bodes well for the current citizens,Also, why aren't some the Islamic countries taking in massive amount of refugees since Islam is so great! I feel that the burden of housing these refugees as directed to the West,=.
ReplyDeleteI have updated my article to include 2 more articles dealing directly with the issue of rape - I felt I shouldn't tiptoe around the issue of rape.
DeleteBut you're right, it is this post-Nazi guilt (mostly by older, rather than younger) Germans that has created this situation in the first place and there will be a lot more internal political infighting to come in Germany whilst they ignore the problem. You know, it is crazy - I visited the German Bunderstag, the new parliament building in Berlin after German reunification and it has a glass dome roof to represent transparency in German politics: I now look at that glass dome roof and say, yeah right, transparency.
And please read my two new articles: let's please separate Islam from Arab culture - I would lay the blame at the latter.
thank you for clarifying, but unfortunately, to the West it is probably just all brown people to them.
DeleteYour statement about "just all brown people" is ignorant, wrong and racist. How dare you make such a dumb assumption that "oh all Angmohs are like that". They are not. Angmohs come in all shapes and forms, have different mindsets, some are racist, some embrace refugees, some understand Islam extremely well, some know little about Islam.
DeleteI live in the West and I have seen the HUGE diversity amongst white people - how dare you make such awful, ignorant assumptions. You should be ashamed of yourself - I had thought that you were more educated and less ignorant than that, to hear such a statement from you is just appalling. I am so disappointed in you.
Hi Limpeh,
ReplyDeleteI share your despair. this is like watch somebody marching towards his death and there is nothing you can do about it. Western Europe will never be the same again (and not for the better). I suspect the total number of refugees would likely be more than 1 million as I understand individuals granted asylum could potentially bring their family members into the country subsequently. Assuming each refugee eventually brings in 3 family members, the potential number for 2015 alone could well be 4 million or more.
Despite the Conservative party's best efforts, I fear Britain would not be spared the fall out of Germany's disastrous policy. If I understand the concept of free movement of people within EU correctly, the refugees could, after being granted EU residence status, move to any member country legally (including the UK). We just need to look at the ease in which some of the perpetrators of the Paris atrocities move across borders. I reckon a significant number of refugees granted asylum would move to the UK simply because of the misconception that the UK is "paved with gold" and that many of them could communicate in English better than any other European Languages.
To make matters worse, the Labour Party and Lib Dems are advocating the same naive policies currently in place in Germany and Sweden. The Conservatives may water down their immigration policy so as to avoid being the "nasty party".
How do you think this fiasco would affect the UK? Do you share my pessimism?
Dear Mark, thanks for your comment.
Delete1. You've made the same mistake as so many others here: Germany and Sweden will never be the same again but how can you say that about the rest of Europe? Not all EU countries have adopted the same approach to refugees and like I said in the article, only Germany and Sweden have been exceptionally generous. Others like the UK, have not.
2. In Cameron's current negotiations with the EU regarding the terms & conditions of the UK's membership of the EU, he is clamping down on the kind of benefits that EU migrants are entitled to in the UK. Thus in short, we want to welcome those who have come from places like Germany, Austria, Italy, France etc to work (as part of freedom of labour within the EU) but if you wanna just come here to claim benefits, then you are not entitled to do so. There is quite a possibility that the UK may vote to leave the EU altogether if Cameron fails to convince the UK public that it is in our interest to stay in the EU, so no one quite knows what will happen on this issue.
I have no qualms about welcoming Syrian refugees who have naturalized as German citizens (a process that can take quite a few years) and then choose to come to work in the UK. I am not anti-Syrian/Arab, I am not anti-refugee and I am most certainly not anti-Muslim. You sound like you just don't want any Muslims or Syrians anywhere near you - and that's wrong Mark. Like I said, I never said that Germany should shut her doors altogether to refugees - but the process needs to be managed a lot more carefully.
Even if these refugees do eventually move to do move to the UK because they think that the streets are paved with gold (and they have a better command of English), well starvation is usually a pretty good anecdote to this misconception of what the streets of London are paved with, especially since they are not entitled to benefits here as German citizens (but are in Germany). So if a starving Syrian-German approaches the UK authorities for help, we'll simply direct him/her to the German embassy and say, "you're German - as them for help, you're not our responsibility".
You do sound like you genuinely fear these refugees/Muslims. I don't.
As for the Conservatives - nasty or not, they well and truly trounced the Lib Dems (who were reduced to a miserable 8 MPs) and crushed Labour (under Milliband) to win a comfortable majority in our last election. With Lib Dems in political Narnia and Labour under Jeremy Corbyn (whom many consider way too left wing to appeal to mainstream voters), the next election will be an even bigger landslide for the Conservatives - in fact, the only real challenger to the Conservatives are UKIP, which are the anti-immigration right-wing party who are becoming very popular, so if anything, the Conservatives are going to be even more anti-immigration in the run up to the next election. I'm sorry to say this, but your statement just shows your lack of understanding of what is happening in UK politics. Thus what is happening in Germany is a German problem - not a Europe wide problem.
Having said that, of course I feel sad for Germany. But as a British citizen, it is not my problem.
OK Mark, allow me to break down for you what happened at the last elections here in the UK to give you an idea of where the British voters stand when it comes to the 'nasty Tories'.
DeleteThe Tories won outright - they don't even need to bother with a coalition like the last time, they managed to win a big majority. The Lib Dems were almost wiped out - they went down from 57 MPs (and a partner in the coalition government) to just 8 MPs. The SNP almost took all of Scotland, that made all the difference because the Tories traditionally struggle in Scotland anyway, but Labour used to do quite well in Scotland. Support for Labour in Scotland effectively collapsed with many deserting Labour for the SNP after becoming disillusioned with Labour.
Likewise in England and Wales, Labour support didn't exactly collapse - but it went down significantly, enough for Labour to lose enough ground to the Conservatives. Now did the ex-Labour voters vote for the Tories instead? No, they didn't - most actually voted for UKIP if they were going to desert/betray Labour. UKIP was seen as the protest vote for the former Labour supporters: they don't like the Tories, they don't like the Lib Dems for having been in bed with the Tories and UKIP was the obvious choice for the protest vote. But I'm not saying that UKIP picked up so many votes purely by being in the right place at the right time to pick up the protest votes: they tapped into a genuine feeling of anti-immigrant/anti-EU/anti-foreigner sentiment that is genuinely quite strong in certain factions of British society. Now as an immigrant myself, I don't support UKIP - but even I cannot deny that they have made huge progress in terms of winning more and more votes with each election. Did you know that UKIP regularly performs well in local elections and in fact won the 2014 European elections?
Yes you will have left wing parties like the Lib Dems, Labour, Green Party, SNP and Plaid Cymru who are regularly advocating left wing policies about refugees and asylum seekers - just look at where their rhetoric has led them in terms of winning votes? Well, only the SNP made gains in Scotland (mostly thanks to Scottish Labour being absolutely abysmal), the rest have lost supporters in the most recent elections.
Look instead at UKIP, the party making the most gains at the expense of all these left wing parties (with the exception of SNP) - their racist, anti-immigration stance has won them a lot of support, almost in a Donald Trump style rampage: the more anti-immigrant they are, the more popular they become.
The Conservatives are far more worried about the threat from UKIP rather than Labour or Lib Dems these days, because Labour has taken a big step to the left under Jeremy Corbyn and that would isolate a lot of swing voters who occupy the centre ground (they will find Corbyn too left wing to take seriously) and thus Corbyn's victory is securing the Labour leadership has practically ensured that the Tories can safely take a step to the right to ensure that they do not lose any of their supporters to UKIP by portraying a tough stance on immigration. The Tories have seen the damage UKIP has done to Labour and they don't want the same to happen to them - so they will present themselves as a safer, more mainstream right wing option to vote for. And that means being tough on immigration.
So people on the left in the UK can go on and on all they want about refugees and asylum seekers (you should see my Facebook newsfeed - I have so many left wing friends posting stuff like that), but they can say what they like (and they have the right to do so), you should really look more closely at what happened at the last election to get an accurate reflection of the national mood (rather than just listen to the lefties who shout the loudest).
OK rant over. Thanks for reading.
Actually I have more to say about the voting patterns of left wing voters, right wing voters and how UKIP seems to have cut through that divide by picking up protest votes. Given how much I have to say about the issue, i may well create a proper post on it.
DeleteHello, limpeh thank you for the very article. i still feel that the left wing was in the wrong to cover things up though, the TRUTH should ALWAYS be told in order to protect the citizen instead of saving face, especially the mayor proclaiming that women should stay at arm's length from men from being raped- ISN'T THAT RIDICULOUS VICTIM BLAMING? What do they expect the women to do, wear a niqab?? Personally, I feel that the obligation of the german government should be with its own citizens ( and I am very liberal indeed, but not at the expense of the safety of my citizens).
ReplyDeleteAs for Muslim integration, having come from Singapore myself and having muslims friends, it is possible for them to integrate, but these barbaric actions make it difficult for the West to see that. Also, the San Bernadino bombings in America which make my american friends hate Obama for pledging to take in refugees, but that is another matter altogether. Are they right or wrong for refusing to take in refugees, especially since there is a possibility that their wages will be depressed?I am not sure.
I hope I didn't say anything stupid this time, lol, feel free to correct any misinformation. looking forward to your next article!!!
Hi Emily. Oh this whole thing has turned into a political football and yes, the left is wrong to try to cover up the scale of what happened. Politics is a nasty game and remember what happened at SGH and the whole hep C cover up scandal? Same thing going on - politicians who have made mistakes always try to cover up because it reflects very poorly on them and they will lose votes when the public find out about these bad mistakes. Any kind of victim blaming is totally unacceptable in the case of rape and I consider myself quite liberal when it comes to my political views; but I am anti-corruption and any kind of cover up (even by the left wing) is indeed corruption.
DeleteAs for America & refugees: it is a bullshit excuse to talk about depressing wages. I always turn to maths for the answer. There are currently 12 million illegal immigrants (mostly from places like Mexico, Honduras, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Belize etc) in America and an addition 0.7 million arrive each year. Why do these illegal immigrants keep going to America? Because there is work for them, even as illegal immigrants - it is low-paid work of course in the black market but it is still earning them more money than what they can possibly earn back where they have come from.
America has a problem securing her long border with Mexico. That is a problem: if you have 0.7 million illegal immigrants pouring over the border each year, then those border checks are quite meaningless. Trust me, I have queued to cross the Mexico-USA border before at Tijuana-San Diego and was subjected to so much examination. Say if the US does take in 100,000 refugees: statistically speaking, that's still a drop in the ocean when you look at the number of illegal migrants (12 million) + the steady stream of them coming in each year (0.7 million) each year to do jobs in the black market in the US.
The fact is these illegal migrants have no recourse to any kind of public funds, so they have to work day and night, very very hard, just to put food on the table. If they don't work, they will starve to death and the moment they are caught by the authorities, they are deported. If there is enough work for 12 million illegals in the US, then the argument about depressing wages is not valid. Not from a mathematical point of view: the strength of the US economy is such that it generates enough jobs for these illegal immigrants.
So Emily, not that I want to berate you Limpeh-style, but please ALWAYS look at the mathematics & the statistics before you make any kind of political judgement. That's why so many people make the mistake of rushing to judgement based on gut instinct rather than statistics and that irks me so!
Hi Limpeh,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your replies. Let's get something out of the way - No I'm not anti Syrians/Arabs/Muslims or any race/religion/nationalities. I regret that my previous comment created that impression. I'm perfectly fine with living with them so long as they assimilate (or make serious attempts to) and respect the laws/culture/religion/norms of the country they are in. I fear that the sheer numbers and the lack of political will by the politicians in power to face up to reality and take necessary actions -like those you have mentioned- doesn't augur well for Europe as a whole.
I am aware that not all European countries share Germany/Sweden's policies on refugees. My point is after being given a passport in say Germany, is there a way for any country in the Schengen Zone -regardless of it's policy on refugees - to prevent undesirable individuals from entering and living in their country?
I know Mr Cameron is trying to negotiate the T&Cs of Britain's membership in the EU, with the restriction of benefits for EU migrants as a key demand. Assuming Mr Cameron is successful (a big "if" in my opinion) would a 3 or 4 years restriction in benefits reduce significantly the number of people going into the UK? Would UK's social services/infrastructure be able to cope (I don't think the Hospitals and homeless shelter are going to turn them away) while these individuals learn that the streets are not paved with gold?
Leaving benefits aside, what about those individuals who what to go into the UK for more odious reasons such as carrying out atrocities like those in Paris/Cologne or spread religious intolerance? Assuming the worse case scenario where Cameron's negotiation fails e.g. He gets a "deal" which is full of loop holes and UK votes nonetheless to remain in EU (a strong possibility in my opinion), would the UK be able to avoid the fall out from Germany's policies?
Let's be more discerning about labelling those who have these concerns as anti Islam/Arab/refugees.
I'm broadly aware of the political situation in the UK, as I read UK based newspapers when I have the time - the Telegraph, the Guardian and the Economist. I must admit that somebody like yourself living in the UK would be a lot more aware of the context and nuances, hence I appreciate this discussion with you.
ReplyDeleteWith regard to Labour, the conventional view is that Corbyn would make Labour unelectable and labour members would not be crazy enough to elect him as party leader. However he won the Labour leadership with a comfortable margin and in the Oldham West by election, labour under Corbyn actually won by a bigger margin than in the general election. Are we under estimating the support for a Corbyn led labour?
Granted that Labour was annihilated by SNP in Scotland during the general election. However, Corbyn led labour appears to be on the same page as SNP on key issues such as trident, welfare, taxes and immigration. Would it be possible for SNP and Labour to form a coalition government in the future?
As for UKIP, I understand that they are on the rise, but that hasn't translate into seats in the parliament due to the first past the post system. As mentioned earlier, they were also soundly beaten by labour in the Oldham West by election. To make matters worse (for UKIP), there appears to be infighting within the party. Would the Conservatives still view UKIP as a credible threat and shift to the right on immigration to protect their right flank?
The thing I don't quite understand is that it seems to be an article of faith that UKIP's leader Nigel Farage is a bigoted racist. Yet I actually find many of his ideas sensible and not the least bit racist.
He suggested a point based immigration system where potential immigrants would be "discriminated" based on skills rather than on race - I remembered he mentioned he would choose an Indian doctor over a Eastern European (presumably white) unskilled worker, he advocated more stringent screening over refugees in view of ISIS's threat to flood Europe with ISIS operatives embedded within the refugees -in fact ISIS recently advised operatives to shave their beards and wear western clothes to blend in and he insisted that law enforcers should enforce the law regardless of race and religion -see Rotherham Sex Scandal.
Perhaps Mr Farage made comments that could be construed as racist that I'm not aware of. But is it easy to be seen as a racist in UK these days? Is there a PC overdrive in UK? I'm not suggesting that these are true, I would just like to hear your views as somebody living in the UK.
Thanks for your comment Mark. I have to rush to work now (spent so long replying to Emily, looking up statistics about the USA) but will write more later. You have made some wrongful assumptions (about refugees, EU, the British political system and David Cameron) and asked some questions which I will deal with later. For now, please bear with me before I have the chance to correct your wrongful assumptions. Have a good Saturday.
DeleteOK Mark, so many points to cover, so let's begin.
Delete1. Having spent some time in the Middle East and North Africa - this much I can tell you: there is a wide range of social classes in Arab communities. On one extreme, you have highly educated, rich families and on the other hand, you have families who are very poor and barely literate. Those that indulge in the kind of criminal behaviour as witnessed in Cologne usually come from the latter - such is one of the positive side effects of a good education: it gives you a moral compass, it teaches you right from wrong, it creates a civilized society. I think in Singapore, everyone is bludgeoned through such a rigorous education system that many of you forget the true value of education (whilst being so focused on getting good results). Now my point is simple: before the current influx of refugees, those who wished to work in Germany had to meet certain criteria of being highly skilled migrants before they can get work permits - so those migrants were highly educated, civilized, valued members of society who contributed a lot to German society. It was a system that worked. Now that system broke down the moment Merkel had an open-door policy whereby anyone was permitted regardless of whether or not they were skilled, educated or civilized: Merkel's government made a wrongful assumption that those granted asylum would never bite the hand that feeds. They were wrong - it was a mistake. Some of the migrants did bite the hand that fed.
There are unsavoury elements in every society - Chinese, Russian, Syrian, German, British, Singaporean etc. The thing is that those who are uneducated, unskilled, uncivilized and will cause nothing but trouble will rarely ever get a work permit in any country in the workd; unless they chance upon a country like Germany who has an open-door policy, then of course they will go and take advantage of the situation.
As for the refugees in Germany, they are most certainly NOT given German passports just like that. Oh no, it's not so easy to get your hands on a German passport. The refugees are given an ID card which grants them temporary refugee status for Germany (and no other country). In due course, the refugee may earn German citizenship - but this is not an automatic process: they have to demonstrate for example, that they can speak German, they have a job and they have made some effort to assimilate. Many will fall through the cracks and retain their refugee status without ever naturalizing as German citizens because they will never meet the criteria to become a proper German citizen.
A refugee with only the papers which state that they have refugee status in Germany will not even be allowed to cross the border into the UK. They will be turned back to Germany. But if a refugee has already proven himself worthy of German citizenship, then I will gladly welcome that German person into the UK because I do not assume that all former refugees from the Middle East will cause trouble. And if they cause trouble, then that's a matter of law enforcement to deal with the person properly and swiftly.
As for Cameron & the EU, you are talking about a hypothetical situation that is not even possible. Either Cameron gets his demands met and we stay in the EU, or he gets snubbed at the EU and the UK leaves the EU altogether. There is just no way the UK will vote to stay in the EU if Cameron is snubbed. The fact that you can even suggest that means that you have no idea what the mood is like on the ground here in the UK - and please, just trust me on this one, I live in the UK, I am British, I know what is going on here, I understand the situation (whilst you don't).
DeleteAnd I'm feeling like I can't even reason with you because you are making utterly and totally LUDICROUS assumptions about how our hospitals or homeless charities will operate based on ...? Some piece you've read on the internet written by a left wing person? Good fucking grief. What the fucking hell Mark. Like what kinda bullshit are you spouting? Look if someone is flagged up as an illegal immigrant, then it is a matter for the police to deal with it.
The fact is: we have been here already, we have dealt with a similar situation. When Romania and Bulgaria first joined the EU, yeah we had a huge influx of migrant workers who thought the streets of London were paved with gold. Those who starved were referred to their respective embassies who had to step in to provide food for them and a one-way bus ticket back to their country. We know where the German embassy is: we can fucking handle the situation. So why are you assuming that somehow, the sky will fucking collapse and we can't handle such a situation for fuck's sake? You are not fucking rational. You're assuming the very worst of the British system and that's not based on any kind of knowledge you have of the UK - it's just based on your irrational fear or pessimism.
As for the threat of terrorism, yeah the UK has made many enemies in the Middle East ever since the day Tony Blair agreed to back his buddy George W Bush in invading Iraq. Oh the troubles had already started waaaay back then - there are people who would gladly bomb London today if they had their way; but the UK has been facing and dealing with the threat of terrorism for so, so many years and once in a while, we have had acts of terrorism on British soil (such as the 2005 July 7th bombings which I lived through) but the fact that we have not had any more acts of terror on British soil means that our intelligence service is actually quite good at preventing acts of terror on our soil.
The way to fight terrorism is with intelligence and damn the British are intelligent: you seem to think that the only way to fight terrorism is to kick our all Muslims and shut the door to anyone from the Middle East or North Africa - you're sounding extremely anti-Muslim and that's fucking scary.
Now onto Corbyn and Labour. With the collapse of Labour support in Scotland, Labour has zero chance of Corbyn becoming PM if they are just dependent on their ability to win seats in England and Wales. England is pretty much Conservative (with pockets of Labour support in the big cities) and once in a while, some MPs may suffer a shock defeat but take where I live for example in Westminster - we've only had a Tory MP, never ever a Labour MP. It is what we call a 'safe seat' - ie. there's no way in hell we will ever vote for a Labour MP here. My MP had an affair, a messy divorce, remarried with his mistress and still he held on to his seat with a big margin - like even if he beat up a pregnant Muslim immigrant whilst high on drugs, he would still win - that's how safe his seat is.
DeleteIt is just a question of mathematics & statistics: given the high number of Tory safe seats, Labour would need to retake Scotland in a big way just to ever have a chance to gaining enough MPs to form a majority in the house of Commons. With the SNP being super popular in Scotland (at the expense of Labour) and the growing popularity of UKIP (again at the expense of Labour), statistically, Corbyn is faced with mission impossible: the numbers don't add up. I'm not even talking about his policies or popularity or blah blah blah about him (I actually like the guy) but the moment you look at the statistics, you can see that there is just no way in hell that he can ever win unless Nicola Sturgeon (leader of the SNP) gets caught giving David Cameron a blowjob in the house of commons or something equally drastic. Oldham West is just ONE seat - that's still a long way from forming a majority in the house of commons. Do the maths. He can't win.
As for UKIP, their appeal is fascinating because they appeal to both left and right wing voters and have gained voters from both sides of the divide. The right wing voters feel that they are the only safe pair of hands to get us out of the EU for good and traditionally, many working class voters feel that Labour is the only party who will take care of the needs of the poorer, working class folks - but given their disillusionment with Labour of late, UKIP has a very simple (and appealing message): "look at all these migrants taking your jobs, depressing your wages: vote for UKIP and we will take care of you by kicking out the migrants". It is uncanny how simple and effective their message is and that explains their surge in popularity.
hi limpeh, its been a while since i was on here.
ReplyDeleteThis is actually a really well written article. When I read that you were going to do a piece on this topic, i expected you to defend the lefts policies for some reason lol. But this is an excellent breakdown of the issues and the possible reasons behind what happened.
I'm afraid that i share Marks sentiments as well. Western Europe, in their irrational need to display compassion, is rushing towards demographic suicide. Muslim migrants have already failed to assimilate in Europe. Those are the ones who were already there. So many of them do not speak the language of their native countries, dont even go to school in their native countries, havent got a clue about the fundamentals of a democracy, let alone free speech and expression. And worse some of them even want to eradicate democracy and impose sharia. And Frau Merkel thought it would be a good idea to let in a million people against the will of many of the German people, not all of whom are from Syria by the way, into a country where almost zero assimilation has happened? She really must hate western civilisation a lot. And dont get me started on Sweden. There is absolutely no future for that country. Not only women, but homosexuals, it seems, are attacked too. Merkel wrote Germanys suicide note when she openly invited refugees/migrants to Germany. I dont know what her problem is, whether she actually hates her own country, which is a real possibility or she is expiating for the crimes of the nazis, crimes which the current German people had absolutely nothing to do with. Merkel needs to be booted out of the reichstag, democratically of course, and the sooner the better. Germany is ruined.
Dont get me wrong, refugees from Syria should be granted asylum. That country is in a mess, and their people should be helped. But there has to be a system to screen these refugees. Refugees who's intentions cannot be determined should not be admitted. Male refugees who come without families should immediately raise eyebrows. And why on earth are migrants from north africa, pakistan and afghanistan admitted? Also migrants without papers should not be admitted, unless they come with their families/children. They should immediately be sent back on the boats they came in, given food and other supplies though, like what singapore does (to all refugees unfortunately). This would discourage them from throwing their passports into the Mediterranean, so that authorities cannot determine their country of origin. No papers, no possibility of asylum. It would be cruel and unreasonable to Syrian refugees to demand passports as there is a high chance that they do not have one, and thus any kind of photo identification should suffice for them. Not for other economic migrants though from other countries that are not mired in a civil war. Shouldnt these things be common sense? What on earth is wrong with European authorities?
Also i think it is a bit harsh to call UKIP racist. Perhaps the EDL or Britain first could be but i think UKIP are definitely a lot less racist than Trump. Nigel Farage seems to me like a far more reasonable and intelligent man than trump. I dont think anti immigration, no matter how passionately espoused, equates to racism. and also correct me if i am wrong, but they seem to be more focused on leaving the EU?
Lastly, about the religious aspect of all this, that particular religion does not have a very good track record on the rights of women, or anyone else for that matter. Religion may play a part in all this, though maybe a minor one.
Either way it does make me sad to see Germany and Sweden, and soon probably France, flush themselves down the toilet. Like it or not, if their open door policy persists, the Europe you and I have come to love will not exist in a decade or so. Except for the UK and eastern Europe of course.
Ivanovich - thanks for your comment. I don't agree with some of the things you've said but I have to rush to work now, so please bear with me, I will try to write you a longer comment in response later today when I get home. Cheers for now.
DeleteIvanovich: I think it is racist of you to assume that Muslim migrants don't assimilate, don't speak English etc - as explained above, I think it is down to a question of social class. Let me share my experience of working in Turkey: I was dealing with the client (a car company) in Turkey and all the executives I dealt with spoke English fluently and had impressive degrees. Then there were the cleaners in the building who were barely literate in Turkish (never mind English). Indeed if some of those executives were to come and live/work in London, they would have no problem whatsoever assimilating as s/he is already so well educated. But if you pulled one of those cleaners out of Istanbul and made him/her work in London as a cleaner, then clearly that cleaner isn't going to learn English quickly or assimilate successfully. So you see, it is about quality control and letting in the right kind of migrants (Muslim or otherwise). If you have a German-style open door policy, then you sacrifice any concept of quality control and you have chaos which will lead to many problems. So the problem is not with Muslims or Islam per se - but rather Germany's lack of quality control and a total mismanagement of the process.
Deletehi sorry i was busy for the past couple of days.
Deletethat may be true, in turkey perhaps. i have been to turkey too and it seems most people there can speak some english at least. People with higher education in any country would probably be able to speak English to a high degree of competence.
But the question the UK should ask itself, and you mentioned this above, what kind of migrants should a country accept, in terms of quality/education? Now I mentioned the language problem a few days ago. Just today David Cameron announced plans to teach almost 200 000 muslims English. I find it incredible that this many muslims are incapable of speaking the language of their country of residence. Absurd actually. How could they possible assimilate then? And the problem in Europe is probably much worse. Also the thing about muslims is that a significant proportion of them are hostile to western values and refuse to integrate. I could find the surveys and post here later. some from the uk and another from france if i remember right. I dont think other types of migrants behave this way. I havent heard of the Indian/chinese communities in Britain facing such issues. In fact as someone who follows UK and western politics quite closely, i havent heard of any issues regarding the above mentioned communities, and they are comparable in terms of size as well, to the muslim community. The thing is the issue goes beyond that of race and language, i think it involves an entire ideology that is at odds with western civilization.
Also most of the 190 000 are women. That alone speaks volumes about their culture, how women were denied education in a country that prides itself on gender equality. Now i dont know about you but i think western Europe has some serious soul searching to do. The road to ruin is paved with good intentions. European countries couldnt manage a reasonable numbers of muslim migrants, now Sweden and Germany are taking in millions a year. I really hope the UK doesnt follow suit, they probably wont, due to the political realities you explained above.
Hi Ivanovich,
DeleteA few quick points:
1. The issue with Muslims who don't speak English arises from the tradition of arranged marriages. Some Muslim families consider British-born Muslims (ie. 2nd or 3rd generation Muslims here) too Westernized, too liberal and won't make good wives. So there has been the practice of getting British-Muslim men wives from some village in the ancestral home in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh etc where they deliberately pick a village girl who doesn't speak a word of English. The 'village girl' would then be considered a good wife because she is unable to work, she is unable to meet white men and communicate (and have an affair) - it is a pretty nasty, horrible, misogynistic way to define what a good wife is, but such is the practice. Also, the reverse can happen - where Muslim families get their daughters a husband who barely speaks English (for the same reason) and under our immigration rules, a spouse gets the right to reside here. So yes, it is the practice of arranged marriages and the sexist perception of what a good wife is that is responsible for the situation as mentioned - Cameron is taking a good step in the right direction and has my support.
As for Muslims being hostile to Western values, please let's not tar all Muslims with the same brush. Some are, some are not. Again, as discussed (ref: my work experience in Turkey) - it boils down to EDUCATION. EDUCATION enlightens the mind and rids the mind of prejudice, so the better educated Muslim migrants are the ones who are most successful and assimilate well. That is why I go on and on about quality control for migrants.
My latest article will go some way about explaining the political situation in the UK - so please wait for it. All shall be explained, akan datang.
If I may make one more point please Ivanovich - I think you're seeing things in black and white and missing out the shades of grey in between. Even if a Muslim person in Europe is poorly assimilated and in your words, generally opposed to western values, that's still a far cry from actually turning into a terrorist who screams "death to America, death to the West" as he blows himself up in a suicide attack in a crowded train station. I have a Muslim neighbour who does veil her head, she strikes me as being poorly assimilated - her English isn't great, she is a housewife who does not work, she is mainly busy with taking care of her young children: but so ...? She is not criminal, she doesn't go out plotting terrorist attacks even though she is (on the surface at least) a poorly assimilated migrant. She is just a housewife who keeps to herself and keeps a low profile whilst leading a quiet life. Had she been non-Muslim or white, we wouldn't even be judging her at all this way.
DeleteThere are loads of Muslims who are just like this neighbour of mine - YES they are poorly assimilated but NO they don't cause any trouble nor do they commit any crimes. It is only a small minority who do have criminal intentions who give the rest of Muslims a bad name.
My neighbour may be a poorly assimilated migrant - but she will never cause any trouble for British people in a kind of "death to the West" terrorist attack. You're assuming that people like her will cause trouble - I'm pointing out to you that she won't.
So take a topic like gay marriage for example - I suspect that given my neighbour's religious views, she may be opposed to gay marriage. But would she go out of her way to terrorize gay people, stop them from having gay marriage, firebomb gay businesses, attack her gay neighbours like me? No, she is such a gentle woman, she would never hurt another person. She just has those views which she may inflict on her children and immediate family, but no one else. So you need to draw a clear distinction between having a point of view about western values/society and having specific criminal intention to hurt others through acts of terrorism. Hence my neighbour's probable views on gay people ought to make you think hard about your perceived threat that has arisen from poorly assimilated Muslim immigrants - you have grossly over-exaggerated the threat. Yes I am all for assimilation, 100% - but you do not get anywhere by assuming the very worst of Muslims. That is you being Islamophobic Ivanovich - that makes you part of the problem, not the solution.
Deletehttp://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-urged-to-rethink-new-35000-earnings-threshold-for-non-eu-migrants-as-teachers-face-a6814841.html More evidence of the UK government slamming the door shut on the wrong kind of migrants.
ReplyDeleteOMG I didn't know that situation was that bad, I thought they were only shutting the door on refugees, not migrants that fill the gaps in the economy. Thank you for the enlightenment, I guess I'll give up hope of moving to western country ( I was keen on working for a few years in the US/UK etc. because I can relate a lot more to western culture than asian culture) for now.
DeleteYeah. That's the problem. £35k is more than what average teachers are paid - senior teachers are paid more of course, but they only achieve that after like ten years in the service. The plan is simply to allow teachers to come in, fill a gap when there is one, but prevent you from settling long term in the UK. Maybe you wanna consider Australia instead? I have a teacher friend (from SG) who did settle there as a teacher as teachers are in demand there too. Also, this new law is not implemented yet, so there may be final tweaks before it is implemented. I can see why the government is picky about 'the right kind of migrants' but teachers? Surely teachers are good for the UK, IMHO.
DeleteHere is the blog of my S'porean friends (a couple, the wife is the teacher) who have successfully moved to Oz as skilled migrants, cashing in on the fact that Oz needs teachers: http://neurotic-ramblings-sg.blogspot.co.uk/
DeleteThank you Limpeh :) It is always very enlightening reading your blog! I do hope to emulate your success in finding a job that allows me to be mobile around the world. Yeah, I find myself disagreeing with a lot of what the UK govt is doing lately.... I mean surely teachers are great to nurture the next generation of students, I cannot emphasize the regret I had for not seeking or having a good mentor during my youth especially since my parents were uneducated.
DeleteUK can be a nice place to live in ( my sister got in the easy way and just married a nice English man with a good salary and they live in the Plymouth countryside) but my friends there say some parts of society are still broken.
Also, I can't believe they're actually debating on whether to ban Trump, OMG, so trivial it seems like a waste of taxpayer money.
Hi Emily, thanks for your kind comment. Let's be realistic lah - there is no perfect country in this imperfect world of ours. Every country has its flaws and problems and of course, we have problems in the UK and there are some parts of British society which are so 'broken' (as in full of problems). But you know what? Money plays a big part in this - if you are rich, you are able to buy a beautiful house (you won't have to live next to horrible people, high walls are great), drive a nice car (no risk of running into nasty people on public transport) and if you go to an expensive restaurant, then the staff will grovel at your feet to treat you like a VIP at those prices. So I think it may be fair to say it's not the country you live in per se, but how much wealth you have. Rich people have good lives - there's no denying that and poor people in the UK (or any other country) suffer in poverty.
DeleteWell Sandra, until your husband gets a job, you won't be able to come and live in the UK under the current rules - but surely he ought to be completing his masters soon, right? There IS light at the end of the tunnel for you, ie. he completes his masters, he gets a job, boom all the boxes are ticked. Easy. There are plenty of others in the same position but are stuck in dead end jobs and they can't bring their spouses over - I have blogged about this before in fact: http://limpehft.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/why-choose-path-of-least-resistance.html
ReplyDeleteWell my biggest complaint about my friend with the Peruvian wife is that he refuses to move to Spain - she is from Peru, Spanish is her first language, I know she will love it in Madrid or Barcelona. His Spanish sucks (he's tried learning, but being a monolingual Brit, he never got beyond the basics) and so he's thinking of himself rather than her by refusing to take that route. As a Spanish speaking person, I gave him no sympathy - I lectured him in my fluent Spanish about just getting on with learning Spanish and putting his wife first. Erm, you could see why he deleted me on Facebook, which is kinda sad, but I realized that we had gone from having so many mutual friends on FB to having just one these days; I think he is in the habit of deleting people from FB the moment they disagree with him. Like what do you expect me to do, just stand back and say nothing when I think he's wrong? Duh.
ReplyDeleteGiven that your husband is in law, I'm sure you will have no problem finding a solution in the long run. You're in a much better position than my ex-friend who has the Peruvian wife.