shaheen, mon frere-

welcome to the club.

--raf*

Sounds like an interesting character, and rather more credible as an activist than the Manjis and Hirsi Alis, even though you note her alienation from her base community. At least she doesn't exist as an activist only in the media, and she actually has grown up in a conservative community - even if her strategies for trying to change it are rather too confrontational. I skimmed her Stasi commission statement and it sounds like she has not rejected Islam (says she's still pratiquante) and she does talk about the problems of the cites rather than insisting it's all about the basically evil religion as the other Reformist Women have done.

If she really does play on the French stereotypes of Arab men to get her point across, that's a shame - but I don't think she should pull her punches about French-Maghrebin sexism simply out of a sense of loyalty to the community. There's often too much pressure on the girls and women in migrant families from more conservative backgrounds in Europe to somehow compensate for the anxiety that the men/elders feel.

What do these committees she has organized do, and what are the cites or areas where you think she could have set up work but didn't? What other kinds of activism is she involved in?

This is a dangerous (and unappreciated, for a good reason) path Amara's undertaking, rather similar, I think, to American black conservatives talking about social problems among African-Americans. They are routinely lambasted and ignored by members of their own community for being Uncle Toms and their arguments are usually co-opted (all too often with their willing consent) by others to the tune that all the problems in their community come from failings of its members (and the American society at large is mostly blameless). The problem, of course, is that they are not necessarily wrong--serious problems do exist that are internally generated, so to speak. I suspect this is common among most underprivileged minorities, regardless of country--but, of course, with the Muslims in Europe, there is the additional problem of socio-cultural alienation in general and the fear of Islam specifically.

Raf Bey,

thanks for the welcome.

SP,

At least she doesn't exist as an activist only in the media

Well, that's her job. I mean, that's how she's putting bread on her table.

she actually has grown up in a conservative community

Conservative is not exactly the word I'd use. Retrograde and marginal is more like it. Arab trash. I know quite a few conservative families, and they aren't anything like that.

even if her strategies for trying to change it are rather too confrontational

SP, they're not confrontational, they simply don't address French Arabs. She speaks to the French mainstream, not to the French Maghrebi minority.

she has not rejected Islam (says she's still pratiquante)

She formally didn't reject Islam and still claims to be Muslim indeed. But then, so does Manji. Is it real or just for conveniency, I don't know. But it sure lends credibility to her advocacy in the eyes of non Muslims. As for being pratiquante, if she is, then she is a bit peculiar, because drinking alcohool and rejecting the Quran - not that I think it's Evil at all - are not something usual practicing Muslims do.

she does talk about the problems of the cites rather than insisting it's all about the basically evil religion as the other Reformist Women have done

Actually, she often blames the Islamists or the prospect of an Islamist take over. Her speeches would be better framed in the 90's Algeria, not France. Besides, she doesn't just only talk about those problems, she singles out a community and absolves the mainstream by promoting the unconditional adoption of its model as the solution for those problems. As if the mainstream didn't have women rights issues too.

I don't think she should pull her punches about French-Maghrebin sexism simply out of a sense of loyalty to the community.

Definitely not, but as I said, she isn't addressing French Maghrebis. There are associations, like "Neither Pimps nor machos" or "Chiennes de garde" or many others you've never heard of on TV which do it much better. She singles out a community and speaks of the crimes of the cités as if they were common behavior among them, to audiences that are supposedly not even concerned by those issues. Those audiences are the same which heavily stereotype and discriminate against Muslims. How do you think that community is going to react?

What do these committees she has organized do, and what are the cites or areas where you think she could have set up work but didn't? What other kinds of activism is she involved in?

Concretely the activities of her association on the ground have been to receive women victims of violence and assist them. I don't know how efficient the association has been in that, there are many well known associations with the same purpose but I guess that with all the publicity this one had, they probably have been useful for many. On the media and politically speaking, what remains in minds is her activism for women rights targeting the French cités and their Muslim populations - or, when it comes to French Arabs, their sterotyping and her playing as a card in the hands of the xenophobes. Almost all the cités are in a dire need of change. But I don't think a single association is going to bring that change. Certainly not by playing tunes xenophobes like to hear anyway.

Thanks for the details, Shaheen. I got the impression from your remarks about her participation in civil rights marches as well as a cursory look at the NPNS website that Amara has stood up somewhat for beur rights - is that correct? If she's involved in these committees for women who are victims of domestic violence, I would assume she must have some standing in her community or be seen as addressing her community. But you indicate that she has become more of an uncle Tom/media darling. Does she seriously reduce all the problems of the cites to Islamists?

KH makes a good point about African-Americans. This problem of an overlap between reformist critiques and majority community bigotry is a sadly common one - Muslim men are regularly stereotyped in conservative Hindu-dominated Indian political elite circles as obscurantist, repressive, backward, incapable of treating "their" women well (funny how these otherwise conservative and sexist men will suddenly develop liberal principles when it serves to put another group down), and this makes it difficult for activists and reformists among Muslim women to do their thing without triggering defensive community reactions.

A mirror-image example that you might find amusing - some years ago I was at a conference on Africa and AIDS in the US, and many of the prominent sponsors were African-Americans. There was a session that I was helping to translate with a group of AIDS orphans from east Africa, and while the young people were talking about the dangers of silence and ignorance about sexual matters and calling for better sex education, a couple of middle-aged African-Americans insisted that this was a lousy idea and that "the problems of our youth are caused by too much freedom and not enough respect" and they essentially told these kids - whose families had been decimated by AIDS - that all would be well if only they'd live more disciplined lives and be pure and obey their elders.

A flaw with this series is the assumption that these MDs (media darlings) are out to reform Islam. They're not, they just attack it. I don't know if they could be called feminist either, since that to me implies thinking in social classes.

So, it's a given fact that the levels of repression of women and crime are far higher among immigrants from MENA than native Europeans. But criticism of this easily coalesces into the larger discourse of hating Islam and Muslims, where, for example, France's own faults are ignored for the sake of argument - using whatever argument on hand to attack.

But the purpose of this series is only to attack MDs, not address the huge problems among immigrants. I frankly think those problems are a bigger issue. The tightening of immigration rules across the entire continent is no coincidence.

There are huge fucking problems. I don't think Europeans are capable of accepting any more immigrants, nor do I think any more immigrants are capable of living harmoniously in Europe. I don't think it's doable. It's not about debate culture, it's a deep set of structures that have to do with generation gaps among immigrants from rural districts.

I wish this point of view could be made without resorting to racism, but it is a matter of culture. Far East immigrants actually have lower crime rates than natives, unlike 2nd gen. MENAs where crime is 3-400% higher.

Europe is walking on the edge of blatant racism. But ignoring the problems with immigration is only going to make it worse. Holland is a fine case, where the pressure builds up until the public breaks like a dam.

So criticise media darlings all you want. I think it's a smaller issue in the big picture.

SP,

I got the impression from your remarks about her participation in civil rights marches as well as a cursory look at the NPNS website that Amara has stood up somewhat for beur rights - is that correct?

Maybe she did before she was famous, frankly I don't know. But that part of her history lends credibility to her advocacy today. Think, you can't be anti-muslim if you stood up for their rights, can you?

Does she seriously reduce all the problems of the cites to Islamists?

All the problems? No. She focuses on women rights and feminism. She doesn't really speak about the rest.

this makes it difficult for activists and reformists among Muslim women to do their thing without triggering defensive community reactions

Besides exacerbating racism, this is the biggest problem I can see with those media figures.

Klaus,

But the purpose of this series is only to attack MDs, not address the huge problems among immigrants

Not at all. First, this serie's purpose isn't to attack anyone, it is to highlight certain problems. Second, you're confusing two different issues: immigrant problems, and problems related to those media figures. This serie addresses the latter. There could (and certainly will) be articles about the former topic.

I don't think Europeans are capable of accepting any more immigrants

And you base your conclusion on which data? Because so far, the problems Europe faces, like paying its pensioners, seem to indicate the opposite.

nor do I think any more immigrants are capable of living harmoniously in Europe

The only thing that might make your statement true is that Europe's historical tendency to scapegoat its minorities seems to be showing its ugly head again. FYI, you might be confusing European Muslims who have been there for three generations, and today's immigrants. Their problems are different. I won't go into the details because this would deserve an article on its own, but older European Muslims have the same set of problems as poorly educated, working class, discriminated against minorities elsewhere (see for example Los Angeles 1965 riots and compare that to what happened in France last november). Among those, many are becoming highly skilled and successful people through education and hard work, but it's taking time due to many factors, Europe's discrimination not being the least. Today's immigrants come in two categories: illegals, who reach the continent thanks to geographical proximity and who will be likely to end up like older Muslims, even though they are responding to a European economic need, and the highly skilled educated ones, who are the only one who can enter Europe legally if they're willing to submit to all the hassles, and without whom Europe would be like Congo (okay, that was an exageration but you get the picture).

it is a matter of culture

It isn't, but for the sake of the argument, show me what elements of the culture of those European Muslims creates this gap. If you want to get a less euro-peasant explanation, compare the situation of Afro-Americans and European Muslims, and you'll see more similarities than you might have realized.

In Canada, where Arabs have received twice as much university education as the rest of the population in average, the situation seems to be pretty much the opposite. So much for your culture argument.

For a bit of fun, I'll end up this post with this quote from "Be Cool", by Sin Lasalle (Cedric the Entertainer):

Have you lost your mind? I mean, how is it that you can disrespect a mans ethnicity when you know we've influenced nearly every facet of white America... from our music to our style of dress. Not to mention your basic imitation of our sense of cool; walk, talk, dress, mannerisms... we enrich your very existence, all the while contributing to the gross national product through our achievements in corporate America. It's these conceits that comfort me when I am faced with the ignorant, cowardly, bitter and bigoted, who *have* no talent, no guts? People like you who desecrate things they don't understand when the truth is - you should say "thank-you, man", and go on about your way. But apparently you are incapable of doing that!

What reality is Cedric living in?

Sharrd,

Cedric is an Afro-American, in case it wasn't clear.

Shaheen, sorry for wording my post in a way that made it appear to attack immigrants. Let me reply and rephrase:

When I say that Europe is incapable of accepting immigrants, and immigrants are incapable of living harmoniously in Europe, I did not mean that it's a scenario with a benign and patient Europe and poorly behaving immigrants.

It's a situation which is noone's fault, and everybody's fault. It's mechanics. Many immigrants come from poor rural areas. Very backward redneck places, same as everywhere across the world. They emigrate to 'seek a better life'. Inevitably, they end up in a city, because that's where cheap apartments are to be had. So, there are two transitions: One from the country to the city, and the other from a less developed country to a highly developed one.

The result is the immigrant couple becomes scared of the strange new world, and isolate themselves with the familiar: neighbours from their old country, sat channels with sentimental soap operas of how things used to be, ghettoing the mind.

The children grow up with these parents to experience a 200-year generation gap. They are unable to respect their unemployed father who doesn't really know the new language. The children are better educated, better spoken, better dressed. They run circles around their parents. Go out of control. The crime rates for 1st gen. MENA immigrants are only about 30% above normal levels. With 2nd gen. it soars to 2-300%. They are adrift. Add to that a nation and society that may need them, but doesn't want them. The children are not respected, not even if they get a higher education. They lead a kafkaesque life, born into punishment without ever being given a reason. Of course they're angry. Anyone would be.

Canadian Muslims do much better, probably because Canada and USA have long had policies of accepting only rich and/or well-educated immigrants. Leftwingers in Europe have taken pride that 'we take the poor' unlike North America. Turks in Germany do better than elsewhere, because they have usually been city turks, used to modern life.

There is no doubt racism is prevalent in Europe (particularly in France, I've been told), and that is wrong, but saying it's wrong doesn't change a damn thing. One has to count on racism and discrimination, and make it part of the equation. And the equation makes turmoil and conflict. I think it's been sorely predictable.

- When I say it's a matter of culture, I am particularly referring to Far East immigrants, whose culture is about avoiding confrontation and assimilating into wherever you are. They are different. MENAs are not different from Europeans in that respect; where the roles reversed, the result would be much the same.

The particular case with Muslims is the current wave of religious extremism that is quite adept at picking up the disgruntled 2nd gen. youth, which doesn't do wonders for relations with the white majority. That is the only place Islam makes a big difference in this puzzle.

Ummm, Klaus, how do you figure that "Canadian Muslims do much better, probably because Canada and USA have long had policies of accepting only rich and/or well-educated immigrants"? The U.S. for one does no such thing - immigration policy certainly has its problems, but I certainly wouldn't define a requirement to prove that someone will sponsor you at a household income level of 125% of the poverty line, with exemptions from the requirement for refugees and certain others, to be acceptance only of rich and/or well-educated immigrants.

Klaus,

np, but there are many flaws and many wrong assumptions in your reasoning.

care to point them out?

Eva, that pdf is about family reunion policy, which is a principle in effect in Europe as well. A little wiki for us all:

On 1965 act: '...Because of the family preferences put into immigration law, immigration is now mostly "chain immigration" where recent immigrants who are already here sponsor their relatives.'

'The 1990 Immigration Act (IMMACT) -- Modified and expanded the 1965 act; it significantly increased the total immigration limit to 700,000 and increased visas by 40 percent. Family reunification was retained as the main immigration criteria with significant increases in employment-related immigration.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_the_United_States

So the two principles are family or work permit, not the poor and the wretched. No philanthropy.

Klaus, but that wasn't what you said (and you are leaving out refugees, which admittedly are a very small proportion of U.S. immigration). I do this stuff for a living lo these 15+ years and am well aware of the policy, thanks. But you stated that the U.S. accepts only rich and/or well-educated immigrants, which simply isn't the case. With the exception of refufees, the U.S. does require proof that new immigrants will not end up relying on public assistance immediately, but that's not exactly like saying that the U.S. only accepts rich people. The form I linked is simply the mechanism for documenting the requirement that U.S. citizens or permanent residents commit to providing financial support, if necessary, for the relatives they are sponsoring.

And FYI, here are some recent stats on refugee and asylee admissions to the U.S., as well as criteria for who qualifies as a refugee/asylee. Certainly not a huge volume proportionally, but not nothing, either.

Klaus, here:

Many immigrants come from poor rural areas

Many do, and many don't. Urban population rate is similar between Morocco and Portugal, Tunisia and Italy, or Algeria and Greece.

Inevitably, they end up in a city, because that's where cheap apartments are to be had

Ever compared the price of an appartment between big cities and small towns?

the immigrant couple becomes scared of the strange new world, and isolate themselves with the familiar: neighbours from their old country

1) You underestimate exposure to Europe prior to migration. 2) They don't become scared, they're looking for that new world to begin with. 3) Immigrants everywhere tend to regroup by origin for reasons as simple as finding people with the same cultural frame (e.g. sense of humor, codes of conduct, etc.), and their natural networks of solidarity.

They are unable to respect their unemployed father

Lack of respect of parents is not a phenomenon you usually meet among European Maghrebis.

Canadian Muslims do much better, probably because Canada and USA have long had policies of accepting only rich and/or well-educated immigrants. Leftwingers in Europe have taken pride that 'we take the poor' unlike North America.

Your assertion is incorrect, as Eva pointed out. But it's true that in average, Arabs emigrating to North America are more skilled in average than their counterparts in Europe. One of the reasons is not the policy of taking the poor: most countries in Europe do NOT receive them legally despite lip service to the contrary. OTOH, Europe doesn't take skilled North African immigrants either - at least not as openly as North America and is not remotely as accomodating.

When I say it's a matter of culture, I am particularly referring to Far East immigrants, whose culture is about avoiding confrontation and assimilating into wherever you are

I'd be interested in seeing data about this if you have any, because if we are to talk by experience, then mine is that Maghrebis assimilate more than Asians in France for example.

So wonderful that we are discussing this, instead of saying how stupid Irshad Manji is.

@Eva

It was a mistake on my behalf, then. I should have said family relations or work permits. I was wrong. However, to make the rebound, there is massive unemployment among immigrants in Denmark (better recently because of heating economy), Sweden and Germany. If a principle had been in place to demand employment at entry, this would be a far smaller problem. These rules have only been put in place recently in Denmark.

There is also Canada's law where you can gain entry by investing some 100k C$ in Canadian industry. That rules out poor people, of course.

The refugee population in Europe is also far higher than in USA and Canada. Sweden at the moment is the preferred refuge for Somalis, because it's still easy to get in there. And refugees, having lived hard lives, are hard people. Refugees are just far more difficult cases than immigrants.

@Shaheen

Let me start by saying that France is a special case, because it has had a large Maghrebi population for a long time. Its history of relations between natives and Algerian immigrants hasn't been rosy either...something about a war and gunning down several hundred protesters. Most of the other MENAs in Europe are recent additions.

- Many immigrants come from poor rural areas

Many do, and many don't. Urban population rate is similar between Morocco and Portugal, Tunisia and Italy, or Algeria and Greece.

- Inevitably, they end up in a city, because that's where cheap apartments are to be had

Ever compared the price of an appartment between big cities and small towns?

Rural immigrants are from villages, not small towns. Not too many immigrants settle down in villages in the new country. The prevalence of arranged marriages is testimony to their ancient mindset. It is quite common to arrange marriages with someone from the old country, under the assumption a husband or wife from the new country would be tainted by its decadence. The cultural upheaval is massive, and the children suffer under the generation gap.

If immigrants to USA and Canada are more skilled, why is that, if not policy?

You seem to argue along the lines of a racist Europe pushing children of immigrants into crime because of intolerance. If Europe is intolerant and dickish toward its brown-skinned immigrants, then it's a bad idea to have immigration in the first place. Like you said, Europe has always scapegoated minorities. Though I don't believe that Muslims Are The New Jews Of Europe, if it's true, then Europe can't handle immigrants, and vice versa. USA and Canada have always been immigration-based countries. European countries have not.

You seem to argue along the lines of a racist Europe pushing children of immigrants into crime because of intolerance.

I don't, Klaus.

then how do you explain the problems?

If immigrants to USA and Canada are more skilled, why is that, if not policy?

I think it's matter of distance--much harder for poor unskilled Africans (Arabs, Muslims, or otherwise) to wind up in North America. The same role here is filled by Mexicans and Central Americans. I think these are the more appropriate groups for comparison to Muslim immigrants to Europe, not Muslim immigrants to North America.

At the present moment, there's a lot of ugliness brewing about them as well in American political atmosphere (It does seem that it's a lot less ugly than that with Muslims in W. Europe, though--but, in a sense, they are much less "alien"--there is no Islamophobia baggage hanging over them, for example--the way Muslim immigrants to Europe are).

I don't know that much about the state of various immigrant communities in North America (or Europe, for that matter) beyond casual observations, so I suspect I might be completely wrong in my assertions, but nonetheless, I have to suspect that Klaus is more right than wrong in certain dimensions: for all the problems in these communities, we don't seem to wind up with seemingly permanent underclass of immigrants whose members do not "expect to" become assimilated the way Muslims in Europe seem to. (On the other hand, as I mentioned above, where we DO seem to see such groups, with some frequency, is among African-Americans, who are not immigrants, although they tend to be rather fringe still. The common theme is the expectation that they are shut out from certain rewards of the society solely by the reason of their group identity.)

Interesting note. Fadela Amara is symptomatic of the integration path chosen by some Frenchmen of Maghrebi descent: to cry with the wolves. Another prime example is Malek Boutih, my pet hate in French politics. He is even more extreme than Fadela Amara. Loubna Meliane, who was part of the same organisation, Ni putes ni soumises, and, by the way, is an active member of the Parti socialiste (PS) precisely as Boutih and Amara (Fadela Amara is even a local councillor for the PS in Clermont-Ferrand I think, though under the name of Fatiha Amara). If their personal integration strategy goes through self-distanciation with their ethnic kin, it should be stressed that are all three under the wings of Julien Dray, socialist leader, former trotskyist, of Jewish ascent and born in Algeria. He founded SOS Racisme in 1984, as a way to counter the rise of a Maghrebi political movement in the wake of the "Marche des beurs". Interestingly, the Union des étudiants juifs de France (UEJF) featured proeminently in SOS Racisme, which however soon lost any implantation it might have had in the Arab anf African communities. See http://www.minorites.org/article.php?IDA=4519 , especially the links, for more on the political background and instrumentalisation of SOS Racisme, of which Fadela Amara's Ni putes ni soumises is a sequel.

This choice of individual integration through a more catholic than the Pope-approach (i.e., more jacobine than the French) to ethnically tagged matters (Palestine, islam, etc) is of course more productive from an individual perspective: a look at the mainstream media shows that those who preach that kind of mantra are disproportionately more present than those who don't, and, more importantly, are much more well received (witness the fate of Tariq Ramadan).