Sarkozy’s contentious bill has been passed:
Lawmakers on Tuesday approved a bill to strip foreign-born criminals of their French nationality and expel EU citizens for certain crimes, part of President Nicolas Sarkozy’s law and order crackdown.
Members of the lower house of parliament, the National Assembly, passed the measure after a first reading by 294 votes to 239 in a vote overshadowed by mass strikes and demonstrations against Sarkozy’s pensions reforms.
The law would strip French nationality from foreigners who had acquired citizenship and who were convicted of violent crimes against police and other officials.
So much for the fundamental human right to immigrate to another country and assault police officers.
skip – thanks, I realize that; it just made no sense to me so I was wondering if Ella meant something else by the acronym. I don’t understand what is meant by the ‘hypothetical situation of the PRC asking the West to change into a Chinese-like political system’? What is a ‘Chinese-like political system? Communism is, well, it’s communism; I’ve never heard of a ‘Chinese-like political system’.
So I was wondering if she meant some political organization in the West making the request.
Welcome back ET.
I have mentioned this before, but as Dinesh D’Sousa writes in his book “The Enemy At Home”, we on the right, atheist or Christian, are resisting the Islamic takeover of the west with one hand tied behind our backs in that the multi-cultural left is allied to radical Islam.
Before an effective defense against radical Islam can be mounted, the left’s stranglehold on the levers of power has to be broken. This will require more citizens to recognize the dangers facing western civilization.
that is awsome i really don’t have alot of respect for the french but in this case i definatley gained alot of respect …now seeing them enforce this will be critical …and we need a law like this here in canada except much harsher and also be able to enforce it with out being stymeed by liberals and all the other lefty losers!!
ET
since no criticism of Islam is allowed within the religion (because the texts are defined as ‘straight from the mouth of god), then, the criticism has to be external.
Uh, uh. Not really. Qu’ranic text is non-negotiable,but the interpretation of that text (particularly the commentaries on the text) can be criticized and changed. By muslims. And they do criticize it. However because the anti-americanism is so wide-spread among arabs and muslims overall, any attempt by americans (or westerners) to change theoretical basis of Islam (religion) will, in my view, have an opposite effect. We can criticize Islam but the insistence on reform and the change will have to come from the Muslims, themselves.
There is no such thing as ‘western-style democracy’. Democracy is..democracy, i.e., rule by the people.
Again, no. There is no clear definition what exactly is a democracy. That’s why others – f. ex. chinese (or Iranians, or Russians, or…….) can talk about western democracy.
Wikipedia says: “.There are several varieties of democracy, some of which provide better representation and more freedoms for their citizens than others……” And then wiki gives you different kinds of democracy: *
2.1 Representative
o 2.1.1 Parliamentary
o 2.1.2 Liberal
* 2.2 Constitutional
* 2.3 Direct
* 2.4 Participatory
* 2.5 Socialist
* 2.6 Anarchist
* 2.7 Iroquois
* 2.8 Sortition
* 2.9 Consensus
* 2.10 Supranational
* 2.11 Cosmopolitan
* 2.12 Non-governmental……
No, democracy is not a choice. It is the only political method that works in large multimillion size populations.
Tell that to Chinese who own US debt and who produce majority of household goods available in our shops.
So – your opinion that it’s all about ‘us having ‘chosen’ democracy…while ‘they’ have chosen ..what, tribalism’..is incorrect.
NO, the choice I was talking about was not about democracy vs. tribalism but internal reform of Islam vs western-imposed reform of Islam.
I don’t understand what is meant by the ‘hypothetical situation of the PRC asking the West to change into a Chinese-like political system’? What is a ‘Chinese-like political system? Communism is, well, it’s communism; I’ve never heard of a ‘Chinese-like political system’.
You wouldn’t. I will try to put it more clearly. “Would you like outsiders to impose modification on your deeply held religious or secular values?” Or to put it still differently “What would your reaction be if someone, from abroad (for ex. from saudi arabia), tells you (. citizen of western country) to modify your system of beliefs or else?”….Would you do it?
ou sont les Marats de Marseille
et les Robespierres de Rouen….
le Rousseau et le Rochefoucauld de Rennes…
ou sont le neige d’antan mes amis…
Ella – I continue to disagree with you.
There is no interpretation of the texts permitted in Islam – as there is in Christianity and Judaism, for these latter texts are not considered from ‘the mouth of god’ but are themselves interpretations. There IS interpretation of the historical usage of the Islamic texts, carried out by various Islamist scholars. This is enabling some Islamic scholars to suggest that they can reform the religion.
I disagree that westerners should refrain from critique of the Islamic texts. The ‘fact’ that some Islamists, who are biased against the West and America, might resent this, is their problem and merely shows that they are not being objective and rational about Islam but subjective. A genuine scholar welcomes critique.
No, although the acts of reform and change must come from the Muslims, the FACT that their current mode of political and societal life (stoning of women, honour killing, women can’t drive, veils, rejection of science, insistence on sharia, etc)..shouldn’t be out of the reach of western comments and critique. Instead, we have every right to comment, for our modern world, which is networked and global, can’t function if one part lives in the 7th century.
Are you seriously suggesting that when basic natural law is violated (and I suggest that there IS such a thing as natural law)..that other human beings should remain silent and merely say: “Oh, that’s their belief”.
There is indeed a clear definition of democracy and the, quite frankly, nonsensical list found in Wikipedia, is most certainly not a valid outline. I’d say the best outline is found in Aristotle’s Politics. The basic meaning of democracy is that the power to govern rests in the people. Period. Whether this power is effected by direct governance (the most simple and possible ONLY in very small populations) or by elected representation, is irrelevant. The power to govern the society rests with the majority, the people.
That’s right, democracy is not a choice. It’s the only political system that enables a free market and is the only possible system within an industrial economy. China has moved into a capitalist economic mode and its governance is following this and will become, inevitably, democratic. As it is now, the communist govt is almost universally ignored by the people. The Chinese govt is reduced to foreign affairs, while the local governance, corrupt as it is, is run by local people.
The fact that Islam, long isolated from reality, is having to face up to and meet up with the modern world – is forcing Islam to reform. It is fighting this reform – religious, societal and political – as the old tribal powers attempt to retain power. But with modern communication systems, the people know what is going on elsewhere…and the West has to not be silent about the primitive, dysfunctional nature of Islamist politics and religion – but criticize it and reject it.
So what if my ideas about religion or society are ‘deeply held’? Tenacity of belief is hardly a valid reason for having or supporting any belief. At one time, we deeply held a belief in witches. Was this tenacity a justification for such a belief?
There are peoples who deeply hold the belief that certain peoples are non-human and that slavery is ‘just’; should the world stand by and say nothing and watch such actions? Should the world stand by and watch one people stoning a woman to death because she was raped but didn’t have four men to testify to that?
If someone from SA tells me to modify my belief – and heck – they are doing just that, I’d want them to explain, using logic and empirical examples, just why my belief system is insufficient and why their proposal is a stronger system. I’d want a debate with them – and then, I could decide.
But, for the people in the Islamic states to declare that ‘you can’t criticize our mode of life, you can’t comment on it, all you can do is accept it’…is immoral and irrational. They refuse debate and analysis.
You have fallen into the trap of cultural relativism, where ‘each culture is a sacred system’ and beyond comment, critique and change. Furthermore, you are thinking within ‘identity politics’ where only the internal members of a group may critique, examine and analyze a belief system. I disagree with such an approach. I’m a rational being and I can objectively critique a belief system held by some other member of the human race.
Well, so we disagree. Fine. No problem.
the FACT that their current mode of political and societal life (stoning of women, honour killing, women can’t drive, veils, rejection of science, insistence on sharia, etc)..shouldn’t be out of the reach of western comments and critique.
True, but none of it is in suras of Qu’ran. Neither honor killing, nor the veils, nor the rejection of science and nor the stoning of women. It is not in the Qu’ran. And because it is not it can be debatable and is being debated. There are women in Saudi Arabia who were put into prison after protesting about laws prohibiting driving. There are people in Iran who are dead after police killed them during demonstration in favour of democratic election. There are people in Egypt who protest torture which happen in police detentions. But many of them do not like US or the West. As the stoning, and the veil, and the honor killing are not in the Quran they belong to the realm of culture and can be debated. By anyone.
That’s what I wrote.
It is not my fault that you misunderstood.
Again.
So before you accuse me of cultural relativism and “thinking within identity politics” you better think on what exactly your interlocutor meant. It prevents misunderstandings.
You write on clear definition of democracy and nonsensical list in wikipedia.
That’s your point of view.
Instead of debating with the list ” using logic and empirical examples,” you prefer to call it “nonsensical and not valid”.
Perhaps you are right, but your idea that “the basic meaning of democracy is that the power to govern rests in people” could well describe communism. And the statement that “democracy is the only possible system within an industrial economy” is equally false. As are your statements about PRC.
You call yourself “rational being” but if you were you would have known that imposing your views on others instead of convincing will most probably backlash. And that backlash can often wait a century or more. Like with Chinese and the USA. 🙂
ella – communism is not simply a political system but an economic system, where there is no private property – of material or intellectual goods. It operates within a two-tiered closed societal infrastructure: the Rulers and the Ruled. The point of communism is the disappearance of power; no-one has any power to make any decision or take any action. That’s why communism screeches to a halt and the psychological rule-of-power (bullying, threats) takes over.
Democracy, as a political system, supports the private (i.e., individual)ownership of material and intellectual goods, i.e., capitalism. It operates within a three-tiered societal infrastructure with the largest class made up of the middle class, a non-hereditary set whose inclusion in this class is by their individual work. This middle class holds the power; in communism, the elite Ruler class holds the power.
And don’t try the tactic of ‘well, in REAL communism, there are no leaders’. Such a modus (no leaders) is impossible in any group larger than 30 people…and certainly, over any period of time.
There is no similarity between the two – democracy and communism.
As for my refusal to go over that nonsensical Wikipedia list, I have no time for sophistry – and that list is just that. I wonder if you know the made-up distinctions between those ‘options’ (and they have to be created distinctions for they are not legitimate or historical versions of democracy).
With regard to your attempt to differentiate the Qur’an and the culture – you will find the admonition to enslave and kill infidels within its texts, as well as the definition of women and their behaviour abd value as less than that of men (this is indicative of Islam as emergent in a pastoral nomadic economy)…and admonishes to beat women who do not obey the men. I suggest you read the chapters on Women, Repentance and Cattle for an insight.
The Qur’an is less about religion, i.e., the metaphysical, and primarily about a cultural mode of life of a 7th c pastoral economy. The hadiths which follow this embed and entrench this behaviour. Of course both have to be critiqued because of this connection.
How on earth can one impose one’s view on others? That is operationally impossible. You can’t make a person believe a theory; you have to persuade them. My critique of others has to be with this agenda, but in Islam, such debate, criticism and analysis is forbidden – both within the society and by external observers.
The US didn’t attempt to impose its views on China. How? China has changed because it has no choice; its enormous population could not be sustained via peasant agriculture and had to move into industrialism – and industrialism is only operative within a capitalist economy.
Religion or culture?
Islam or more correctly arabs is a power structure.
I recall an associate who was assigned to train Eygptians to maintain and operate US built tanks.
One the things which frustrated the process was that the manuals were in English, an language the gypos couldn’t read.
After a long delay arab language manuals arrived from the US.
The instructors distributed these to the trainees and the officers followed along and gathered them up.
No reason was given…but it was obvious was that the officers (trained in the US) were intent on maintaining a monopoly on the knowledge.
Knowledge is POWER.
This attitude is permiated throughout the ME.
ET
If religion is to be criticized it is not because of its because its connection to “cultural mode of life of a 7th c pastoral economy.” It is to be criticized because tenets of that religion do not agree with Western laws and the spirit of that law. Muslims who are living in western countries have to behave according to Western laws. If some tenets of Islam do not agree with the law of the land, such tenets should not only be criticized but behaviour contrary to the law should be punished accordingly. And the behaviour which does not suit the spirit of the law should also be criticized.
On the other hand the situation in the countries which do not have Judeo-Christian tradition is different. We can criticize but we can not demand the changes or ” insist on the reform of Islam” (yours words). If we insist on reform or demand changes other countries also can demand changes from us. We can demand changes if and only if the people of these countries want changes.
Of course if these countries insist on changes in the West then that is completely different situation 😉