• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

International Actions of Nationalism

George Wallace

Army.ca Dinosaur
Reaction score
184
Points
710
I found the following article in another forum, and am wondering if we are going to see a trend in many nations to pass legislation, much like Canada has, to protect their cultures.  Although Canada has passed legislation to protect the rights of minorities, other nations seem to be doing the opposite in order to retain their cultures and societies.  They are feeling threatened by the invasion of immigrants who seem bent on keeping their old ways and not adapting to the new ways of the country they have adopted.  Will this solve or exacerbate the problem?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-1823334,00.html
The Times, October 13, 2005

Dutch unveil the toughest face in Europe with a ban on the burka
From Anthony Browne in Brussels

THE Netherlands is likely to become the first country in Europe to ban the burka, under government proposals that would bring in some of the toughest curbs on Muslim clothing in the world. The country's hardline Integration Minister, Rita Verdonk, known as the Iron Lady for her series of tough anti-immigration measures, told Parliament that she was going to investigate where and when the burka should be banned. The burka, traditional clothing in some Islamic societies, covers a woman's face and body, leaving only a strip of gauze for the eyes.  Mrs Verdonk gave warning that the "time of cosy tea-drinking" with Muslim groups had passed and that natives and immigrants should have the courage to be critical of each other. She recently cancelled a meeting with Muslim leaders who refused to shake her hand because she was a woman.

The proposals are likely to win the support of Parliament because of the expected backing by right-wing parties. But they have caused outrage among Muslim and human rights groups, who say that the Government is pandering to the far Right.  Mrs Verdonk admitted that a complete ban on the garment would be legally tricky because of freedom of religion legislation. However, she said that she would prohibit the garments "in specific situations" on grounds of public safety. The ban is likely to be enforced in shops, public buildings, cinemas, train and bus stations and airports, as well as on trains and buses.

The Netherlands has become preoccupied by Islamic terrorism after the investigation into the murder of the film-maker Theo van Gogh uncovered a network of Muslim extremists dedicated to destroying the country. Attention has turned to the burka because police authorities have become concerned that a terrorist could use one for concealment.

A government spokesman said: "We want to investigate when, how, in which places the burka should be banned. It is a safety measure - you don't see who is in it." The Government cites as a precedent existing football legislation, which bans people from entering football grounds covering their faces in scarves.  Yassim Hertog, a vice-president of the Muslim School Boards Union, said: "Can you prohibit someone from wearing a certain type of dress? They are trying to test what a government can forbid, and how far you can go trampling on people's rights. They want to show all these Dutch citizens who are sick and tired of all these 'mutant' citizens, this is where we draw the line - get normal."

Muslim groups insist that only a few dozen women in the Netherlands wear the burka, and that the ban is a distraction. The Muslims and Government Contact Body said: "Only a handful of Muslims actually wear burkas. Let us focus our energy on what we have in common. This is not a big problem."  Last year two Muslim women lost a court case against their college that had banned them from wearing burkas during their social work and childcare course. The judge backed the college in its claim that children had to be able to see who was caring for them, prompting the women to drop the course.

Famile Arslan, the women's lawyer, told The Times:
"Women have a very strong opinion about the burka. If you ban it they won't leave the house. It is not a good way to integrate and emancipate Muslim women. Everything Muslims do is criticised by Verdonk. She is doing it to get votes. She doesn't care about Muslims and their problems."

Mrs Verdonk made the proposals after Geert Wilders, the right-wing MP, requested the ban. Mr Wilders claimed that the garment was unfriendly towards women and a threat to security. Baroness Sarah Ludford MEP, on the European Parliament's Civil Liberties Committee, who has been active in opposing bans on the hijab, or scarf, said that there were no arguments for banning the burka. "If there is a genuine belief that someone under a burka is a terrorist, then you invoke stop-and-search laws on the grounds of reasonable suspicion."

The Netherlands would become the first European country to ban the wearing of the burka in public situations, although there are already some local bans. Last year several Belgian towns, including Antwerp and Ghent, banned the wearing of the burka in public, and recently started issuing £100 spot fines for breaking the municipal ordinance. Several towns in Italy, including Como, have invoked legislation introduced by Mussolini that bans hiding one's face in public to impose fines on burka-wearers. France and several regions of Germany have followed Turkey and Tunisia in banning the wearing of the hijab, which leaves the face visible, in public buildings, most controversially in schools.  The French ban applies only inside government-owned buildings and was imposed to preserve the secular nature of the state.


SHIFT TO THE RIGHT
How the Netherlands has become less liberal:

Immigrants must pass an exam on Dutch language and culture before being allowed to move to the Netherlands. That does not apply to immigrants from US, Canada, Australia, Japan and other EU states.

Legal immigrants already there must take a Dutch language course at their own expense.

Immigrants guilty of any minor crime, such as shoplifting, during their first three years in the country can be deported.

People can bring in a husband or wife only once they are 24 years old, and do not depend on welfare benefits. The measures are aimed at curbing international arranged marriages.

26,000 illegal immigrants are being deported, some of whom have been in the country for ten years and have established families.

Clampdown on foreign imams working in mosques. They must show their appreciation of Dutch values.

Increase in sentences for a range of crimes, and introduction of "zero tolerance" policing to cities such as Rotterdam


Tightening of rules on cannabis-selling coffee-shops and zero-tolerance approach to infringements. About half the coffee shops in Amsterdam have closed.

The Netherlands is still liberal in some ways, however. In 2001, the country became the first in the world to legalise gay marriages. The Netherlands still has liberal rules on euthanasia, recently extending it to severely handicapped babies and children.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,16914242%255E2703,00.html

On a related matter, the Dutch have also started to cut benefits for unemployed Muslim women whose refusal to take off their burkas stops them getting jobs.  http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-1824918,00.html 
 
Very interesting article.  I can see were they are coming from but it does seem to be a fear based response. I thik it will do more to alienate the muslim world and give more fodder to the terrorist organizations that recruit and manipulate young minds.  I can't help but think the security benifits would adequately off set that sort of message.  It'll be interesting to see where they go with this.

I think the exam on dutch language and culture is a great idea.  I am all for retaining one's culture but you should have to learn about your new culture as well.  Doesn't the US require immigrants to pass a test on US history, government, etc.?  Does Canada?  We should.
 
x-zipperhead said:
Very interesting article.   I can see were they are coming from but it does seem to be a fear based response. I thik it will do more to alienate the muslim world and give more fodder to the terrorist organizations that recruit and manipulate young minds.   I can't help but think the security benifits would not adequately off set that sort of message.   It'll be interesting to see where they go with this.

I think the exam on dutch language and culture is a great idea.   I am all for retaining one's culture but you should have to learn about your new culture as well.   Doesn't the US require immigrants to pass a test on US history, government, etc.?   Does Canada?   We should.

There that's what I meant ;D
 
Will this solve or aspirate the problem?

Dude, I think you need "exacerbate" here.

Aspirate:  draw fluid by suction from a vessel or cavity (plus other strictly linguistic explanations of pronunciation)

Exacerbate:  to make worse

I think that if we want to hold on to our languages and culture, we make fluency in BOTH official languages are requirement of entry...I don't care if you're chinese and going to be living in Vancouver, your french better be up to snuff...you will be cross-examined by 3 farmers from Lac St. Jean, and if you can't have a conversation on the relative merits of the parliamentary system of government (championing the British Monarchy in particular), in french, you're not in.  ;D

'Course, if you're born here, then I don't care.
 
Gunnar said:
Dude, I think you need "exacerbate" here.

Aspirate:   draw fluid by suction from a vessel or cavity (plus other strictly linguistic explanations of pronunciation)

Exacerbate:   to make worse

Exacully...correction maid       :o
 
x-zipperhead said:
Doesn't the US require immigrants to pass a test on US history, government, etc.?  Does Canada?  We should.

We do. A study sample of the citizenship test is here:

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/citizen/look/look-21e.html

I remember a couple of years ago a paper (can't remember which one, or when) did an aticle reporting that most high school students they surveyed couldn't pass the citizenship test. Sad.
 
S_Baker said:
One question haunts me though, if someone is so bent on emmigrating why would they not be open to adopting their native lands customs, values, and language?  It seems only reasonable to me..........
I know that you were talking about adopting the values and customs etc. of their new host country, as opposed to their native country that they just left, and agree with you.  It only seems logical.  Why would they want to recreate all the ways of life that they are fleeing, in their new country?  If that is the culture they truly wish, why leave?  Some of these refugees/immigrants are coming from cultures that are still stuck in the "Dark Ages" and they are coming to cultures who have advanced since to higher levels.  Why must the PC of the world try to give in to these people and make us undo advances we have made?  In a way, some of these Civil Liberaltarians are our worse enemies.  They are dragging us down, instead of moving us ahead.

If you want to immigrate to a country that has a better way of living than yours, and you want to benefit from that way of life, why bring your old ways and problems with you?  That seems counterproductive.  Stay where you are and work to improve them if you see them as wrong.  Don't spread your problems outside of your old country by taking them with you.  In saying that, do we want to allow the spread of cultural, ethnic, religious, etc. problems or put a stop to them by legislation?  Would our PC folk cry "Racism" if we did?  Is it "legal" for a country to make exclusionary laws, much like some private club, to keep out other nations' 'problem children'?
 
I found the following article in another forum, and am wondering if we are going to see a trend in many nations to pass legislation, much like Canada has, to protect their cultures.  Although Canada has passed legislation to protect the rights of minorities, other nations seem to be doing the opposite in order to retain their cultures and societies.
The Dutch have a bit of a unique situation (for now anyway), in that they made some pretty big mistakes shortly after WWII. With their economy booming, and jobs abundant they decided to open up their doors for people from other countries to come work as labourers for a short period of time. They opened floodgate of Turkish people who came to the country to work. Since it was to be a temporary situation, the Dutch set up large buildings on the outskirts of the cities (Rotterdam and Amsterdam in particular) to accommodate this working population. Many of their workers brought their children, and instead of trying to integrate a large portion of students who did not speak Dutch with their own, the Dutch set up schools specifically for Turkish students.

All of this made a great deal of sense at the time, but the situation backfired when this new working population decided to stay.

What they had done was essentially set up large segregated ghettos for the Turkish population. If you ever go into these sections of the cities, you will not see a Dutch person for blocks on end. Many of the people in these sections of the cities don't speak Dutch at all. They did not have to learn it because essentially their entire infrastructure set up for them by the Dutch allows them to function perfectly without having to adapt.

The shift in attitude from the Dutch is the result of two situations. First, the Turkish/Muslim population is getting to be huge, in Rotterdam there are in excess of 40% Turkish descendants, most have not adapted to the Dutch culture even after the third generation of being there. Second, the Turkish population is starting to take over, and often refusing to cooperate with Dutch ideals (intolerance of the large gay population as an example). This is creating a large amount of tension.

I was there during the national elections and a very prominant upcoming politician was Pim Fortuyn. A gay, ultra right winged dutch man, who was hell bent on closing the doors of Holland to immigration. He proposed implementing policies to force the immigration population to adapt. He had a massive following with university students and the atmosphere was pretty electric, many of the Dutch were very excited about his ideas and wanted to see them happen.  Sadly, this man was gunned down (shot in the face while leaving a radio studio after an interview) shortly before the election by a insane man.

I was watching an interview on TV with Fortuyn, and the journalist asked if he was a racist. Fortyde's response said it all:
"When the dog tries to become the master of the house, the master must beat the dog so he knows who is boss."

It does not sound so vulgar in Dutch, but essentially he was saying that he wanted the people to adapt to the dutch culture, which is the 'Master of the House'.

So, this is a good example of how being too accommodating to other cultures can backfire in a very bad way. I am all for the 'multi-cultural' vision of Canada our government has, but if we start to become too accommodating to new additions to our population, we will face some very difficult situations in the not so distant future. Is Canada really in that kind of situation? Not so sure it is nearly that bad at this point. So long as we continue to mix our population, operate under the same set of laws and school system, things should mix just right. Mind you, Calgary is not a immigration center like Vancouver and Toronto, and I don't have a good feel for how things are working there.
 
S_Baker said:
x-zipperhead, yes the US does require immigrants to pass a history and government exam as well as an oral question and answer format by an immigration officer.    All great ideas and I think the Netherlands is doing a great service for themselves and future immigrants.  


That's what I thought, but wasn't sure.  Thanks for the clarity

S_Baker said:
One question haunts me though, if someone is so bent on emmigrating why would they not be open to adopting their native lands customs, values, and language?   It seems only reasonable to me..........

I agree entirely.  It is quite reasonable.  I don't think they should be expected to abandon all of their culture, traditions, etc ( not that I think that is what you're suggesting ) but they should learn and adopt those of their new country as well and hopefully come to a harmonious fusion of the two.  Ofcourse with the caveat that their new countries traditions and culture shall take precedence and shall be respected at all times.

x-grunt said:
We do. A study sample of the citizenship test is here:

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/citizen/look/look-21e.html


I remember a couple of years ago a paper (can't remember which one, or when) did an aticle reporting that most high school students they surveyed couldn't pass the citizenship test. Sad.
I am glad to see we do.  It is sad that most high school students surveyed couldn't pass it, but not terribly surprising.  It would be interesting ask random citizens their opinions about requiring such a test and then have them do the test themselves.  Not to sound like I'm on a soap box because there were a few questions I couldn't answer :-[
 
Even in the South Pacific, nations are beginning to take action against certain organized groups out to terrorise the native population.  Jakarta now ponders a ban on militant Islamic groups such as Jemaah Islamiyah, which has been declared a terrorist organization by the United States, Australia and the United Nations.  http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/10/14/news/bali.php
 
Evening fellas', some will argue that it is a creed that has come to burden the expansion of globalism; hobbles the growth of the EC(as seen in the votes against the Euro in Denmark); stands in the way of resolving violent conflicts(fate of Jerusalem); complicates the resolution of differences within existing nation-states; and turns refugees and immigrants into a threat to the receiving countries.

These are, of course, distinct phenomena, involving very distinguishable issues. Other factors-- economic for instance--also play a significant role in their dynamics. My only thesis is that nationalism importantly hinders progress toward solutions in all of of these international and domestic situations as it does in many other ones.
Nationalism is a creed that extols the nation, and regards it as an ultimate value. As a Canadian, it deeply affects citizens' sense of self, psychological well-being, and identity; it makes us treat our nation-state as our primary community.  :cdn:

 
Canadan nationalism includes diversty... that is our 'norm'. 
Largely because we are a nation of immigrants and partly because we have been a refuge to refugees  ;) escaping dogma and fundamentalism worldwide. 
There is a line that must not be crossed however and I think bringing any customs here at are discriminatory should not be tolerated.  Who gets to decide this I do not know.
 
George Wallace said:
I know that you were talking about adopting the values and customs etc. of their new host country, as opposed to their native country that they just left, and agree with you.   It only seems logical.   Why would they want to recreate all the ways of life that they are fleeing, in their new country?   If that is the culture they truly wish, why leave?   Some of these refugees/immigrants are coming from cultures that are still stuck in the "Dark Ages" and they are coming to cultures who have advanced since to higher levels.   Why must the PC of the world try to give in to these people and make us undo advances we have made?   In a way, some of these Civil Liberaltarians are our worse enemies.   They are dragging us down, instead of moving us ahead.

People keep many of their customs because they grew up with them and a desire to make a better life does not necessarily include the desire to abandon everything that makes the person who they are culturally. Maybe the German folk in and around Kitchener should have abandoned all their Oktoberfesting and the like. The Mennonites should have left their technology aversion in Europe. The Chinese should have left their foods back in China, maybe. Italians should have dropped that silly dark age "Italian" stuff and wholly assimilated into our "higher level" Canadian culture. As for assertions of cultural inferiority/superiority, I'll leave that one alone since it's too ridiculous and subjective to ever argue without sounding silly.
 
George Wallace said:
I know that you were talking about adopting the values and customs etc. of their new host country, as opposed to their native country that they just left, and agree with you.   It only seems logical.   Why would they want to recreate all the ways of life that they are fleeing, in their new country?   If that is the culture they truly wish, why leave?

I think my neck hurts from watching you make such giant leaps of logic.  Why do you think that "they" (whoever "they" are) want to recreate "all" (your word) the ways of life they are fleeing?  That makes even less sense.  Maybe "they" want to bring the good stuff over with them and leave the bad stuff behind. Ie flee religious persecution to go someplace where they can follow their religious beliefs.

Sort of like the Jews in 1939 that we told we didn't want in our country.  There's a bright shining moment in the preservation of "Canadian culture" (whatever that is supposed to be).  You can fit a yarmulke under a hockey helmet and hey - back then they didn't even wear helmets.
 
George Wallace said:
I know that you were talking about adopting the values and customs etc. of their new host country, as opposed to their native country that they just left, and agree with you.   It only seems logical.   Why would they want to recreate all the ways of life that they are fleeing, in their new country?   If that is the culture they truly wish, why leave?   Some of these refugees/immigrants are coming from cultures that are still stuck in the "Dark Ages" and they are coming to cultures who have advanced since to higher levels.   Why must the PC of the world try to give in to these people and make us undo advances we have made?   In a way, some of these Civil Liberaltarians are our worse enemies.   They are dragging us down, instead of moving us ahead.

If you want to immigrate to a country that has a better way of living than yours, and you want to benefit from that way of life, why bring your old ways and problems with you?   That seems counterproductive.   Stay where you are and work to improve them if you see them as wrong.   Don't spread your problems outside of your old country by taking them with you.   In saying that, do we want to allow the spread of cultural, ethnic, religious, etc. problems or put a stop to them by legislation?   Would our PC folk cry "Racism" if we did?   Is it "legal" for a country to make exclusionary laws, much like some private club, to keep out other nations' 'problem children'?

MAny people move to the west to take advantage of our material culture, and really do not care for or about the rest. (The underlying factors which allow a free market and capitalist culture to flourish in particular.) This has two great drawbacks; the immigrent population is limited in its ability to rise since they do not (and will not) have the cultural tools to take full advantage of the modern capitalist society (hence large populations of "guest workers"); and since they cannot rise, they feel resentful and the activists who want to exercise their "will to power" find a ready made pool of recruits primes to recieve the message and from them, a smaller pool that can be manipulated into taking "action".
 
Michael

We have come a long way since 1939.  Glorified Ape brings up some strong points; ones that I am sure we all agree with, but in this case we are not arguing about.  Andrew brought up some good points also.  We have ignored those good points in our concentration on the points that we don't want brought into our societies.  Our Western societies are welcoming of other cultures better points, we just don't want them bringing in their criminal and other traditions that conflict with our Western morals and sense of Human Rights. 

It has been the mix of cultures that have made this and most Western Nations.  That mix was of the best of other cultures, not the worse.  That is the arguement we have here.  We are accepting of the best values of other cultures, not of their worse.
 
George Wallace said:
Michael

We have come a long way since 1939.   Glorified Ape brings up some strong points; ones that I am sure we all agree with, but in this case we are not arguing about.   Andrew brought up some good points also.   We have ignored those good points in our concentration on the points that we don't want brought into our societies.   Our Western societies are welcoming of other cultures better points, we just don't want them bringing in their criminal and other traditions that conflict with our Western morals and sense of Human Rights.  

It has been the mix of cultures that have made this and most Western Nations.   That mix was of the best of other cultures, not the worse.   That is the arguement we have here.   We are accepting of the best values of other cultures, not of their worse.

Well instead of arguing about "them" and "us" maybe you can provide some examples.   I can guess which ones you might raise - Asian gangs, for one.   Are these really indicative of the mindset of the majority of Asian immigrants?   I was in   junior high school in 1981 a couple years after the "boat people" started coming in large numbers; we had entire classes of ESL (English as a Second Language) students in our school, and in high school in 1983 we also had entire homerooms devoted to kids with Vietnamese names, who hung out by themselves at lunchtime and played oriental puzzle games in the basement of the vocational wing.   Those that spoke English were better off; I remember Herbert Tu telling me his mom had been an anti-aircraft gunner in either Hanoi or Haiphong, and he showed me the Christmas tree in their house.   I think he exemplified my image of an Asian immigrant much more than the scum who are driving around Calgary shooting each other these days.  They were just glad to live in their own house in a first world nation. Herbert went to University at the same time as I did; I don't doubt he graduated and I can't think of anyone less likely to have a criminal thought much less commit a criminal act.

All I'm saying it - don't tar everyone with the same brush, or let the bad apples ruin the whole bushel.   Seems to me we've had that argument about the Airborne Regiment once or twice. ;D

But seriously, anyone with hard "facts" or statistics to present would be welcome - as useless as they probably are in reality.
 
I currently live in The Netherlands.

People keep many of their customs because they grew up with them and a desire to make a better life does not necessarily include the desire to abandon everything that makes the person who they are culturally. Maybe the German folk in and around Kitchener should have abandoned all their Oktoberfesting and the like. The Mennonites should have left their technology aversion in Europe. The Chinese should have left their foods back in China, maybe. Italians should have dropped that silly dark age "Italian" stuff and wholly assimilated into our "higher level" Canadian culture. As for assertions of cultural inferiority/superiority, I'll leave that one alone since it's too ridiculous and subjective to ever argue without sounding silly.

It is not about food and fun.  It is about the alientation and in a lot of cases total rejection of Dutch society.  Hence we now have people murdered on the streets for saying something that some Muslims disagree with.  We have politicians under 24 hrs police protection because she dared to reject her Muslim faith. We have so called honour killings. These are serious threats. A few days ago several young Muslims were arrested while preparing to attack and murder members of the Dutch Parliament.

There is a large group of Muslims in The Netherlands who totally and utterly reject Dutch society.  They reject the idea of tolerance, hence they openly proclaim that all gays should be killed, they believe that all people should convert to Islam or die and that Sharia law should be introduced for everyone.  The sad thing is that these beliefs are not just held by a small bunch of extremists, but they have a fairly wide following among some parts of the Muslim community.

Some of these people do believe that their religion does give them the right to kill all who fail to comply with their view of Islam, and they mean it.  A lot of these people deliberately have almost no contact with Dutch society.  A symptom of this is insisting on extreme forms of Muslim dress for women, who then make themselves unemployable - yet they expect the state which they reject to support them.

Now for many years Dutch society has been proud of its reputation of tolerance and acceptance of all people. However, many people are now very angry that their tolerance has been rewarded by extreme Muslim fanaticism and murder.  One recent Muslim terrorist upon sentencing told the mother of his victim:  "I do not feel you pain - because you are an infidel, and you too deserve to die" (or words to that effect).

So as you can see comparison with Oktoberfest and Chinese food is not really revevent.
 
So, would we be tolerant of tolerence by being intolerent of intolerence, and persecuting it?  :P
 
TheNomad said:
I currently live in The Netherlands.

People keep many of their customs because they grew up with them and a desire to make a better life does not necessarily include the desire to abandon everything that makes the person who they are culturally. Maybe the German folk in and around Kitchener should have abandoned all their Oktoberfesting and the like. The Mennonites should have left their technology aversion in Europe. The Chinese should have left their foods back in China, maybe. Italians should have dropped that silly dark age "Italian" stuff and wholly assimilated into our "higher level" Canadian culture. As for assertions of cultural inferiority/superiority, I'll leave that one alone since it's too ridiculous and subjective to ever argue without sounding silly.

It is not about food and fun.   It is about the alientation and in a lot of cases total rejection of Dutch society.   Hence we now have people murdered on the streets for saying something that some Muslims disagree with.   We have politicians under 24 hrs police protection because she dared to reject her Muslim faith. We have so called honour killings. These are serious threats. A few days ago several young Muslims were arrested while preparing to attack and murder members of the Dutch Parliament.

There is a large group of Muslims in The Netherlands who totally and utterly reject Dutch society.   They reject the idea of tolerance, hence they openly proclaim that all gays should be killed, they believe that all people should convert to Islam or die and that Sharia law should be introduced for everyone.   The sad thing is that these beliefs are not just held by a small bunch of extremists, but they have a fairly wide following among some parts of the Muslim community.

Some of these people do believe that their religion does give them the right to kill all who fail to comply with their view of Islam, and they mean it.   A lot of these people deliberately have almost no contact with Dutch society.   A symptom of this is insisting on extreme forms of Muslim dress for women, who then make themselves unemployable - yet they expect the state which they reject to support them.

Now for many years Dutch society has been proud of its reputation of tolerance and acceptance of all people. However, many people are now very angry that their tolerance has been rewarded by extreme Muslim fanaticism and murder.   One recent Muslim terrorist upon sentencing told the mother of his victim:   "I do not feel you pain - because you are an infidel, and you too deserve to die" (or words to that effect).

So as you can see comparison with Oktoberfest and Chinese food is not really revevent.

I was addressing the blanket "abandon culture" statements made. There will be elements of cultures that conflict with that of their new home. Where the conflict is not criminal, there's no problem - they can do what they want to do, so long as it stops at the other guy's nose. If it's criminal, then they should be arrested and imprisoned or deported, whichever the law calls for.
 
Back
Top