Austria’s far-right party wants to ‘ban’ Islam

[General General]

Initially, you were talking about ' state sponsored oppression of minorities'. So, I asked you which minorities in which countries you were referring to, specifically, because what is/is not a minority varies greatly by country.

Now, you are talking about ' politicians demonizing and generalising certain ethnic and religious groups'. So, ' minorities' are ' certain ethnic and religious groups', without further specification of group size. Specifically, you mention only France and Muslim women. And you give as example the Burkini.

France has 7.5% Muslims, and they are ' not so much' a minority as they can be considered in e.g. many of France's neighbours (Spain 2.1%, Luxembourg 2.3%, Italy 3.7%, UK 4.4%, Belgium 5.4%, Switzerland 5.5%, and Germany 5.8%). Which has much to do with France's colonial past.
In 2008, the TeO ("Trajectories and origins") poll conducted jointly by INED and the French National Institute of Statistics estimated that, out of a total of about 67 million, some 5 million people (7.4%) were of Italian ancestry (the largest single immigrant community from a particular country), followed by 3 million to 6 million people of North African ancestry (4.4-8.9%), 2.5 million people of Sub-Saharan African origin (3.7%), and 200,000 people of Turkish ancestry (0.3%). There are over 500,000 ethnic Armenians in France (0.8%). There are also sizeable minorities of other European ethnic groups, namely Spanish, Portuguese, Polish, and Greek. So, in France, muslims are as much a minority as people from Italian ancestry are.
France remains a major destination for immigrants, accepting about 200,000 legal immigrants annually. In 2008, the INSEE estimated that the total number of foreign-born immigrants was around 5 million (8% of the population), while their French-born descendants numbered 6.5 million, or 11% of the population. Thus, nearly a fifth of the country's population (19%) were either first or second-generation immigrants, of which more than 5 million where of European origin and 4 million of Maghrebi (North-Western African) ancestry. This too reflects that immigrants and their descendents, whether of European or Maghrebi origin, are not at all small groups (although technically still minorities).
In 2004, the Institut Montaigne estimated that within Metropolitan France, 51 million people were White (85% of the population), 6 million were North African (10%), 2 million were Black (3.3%), and 1 million were Asian (1.7%). From the POV of racial lines, Blacks and Asians are more of a minority than Muslims or people from Italian descent.
In conclusion, France may not be the best example of 'minority oppression'
The burkini is worn, typically, by more progressive Muslim women, as the conservative ones either don't go to the beach or don't bath in the sea. So, that's not a good example either imho s it does not affect what I would think to be the majority of the minority in question (it doesn't affect the men, and it affects only the least conservative of women, which may well be a minority of Muslem women in France).

In my opinion, I don't think how if one minority group is a 'not so much' of a minority, it doesn't mean they're not a minority. Even if the total population of Muslims in France was 20%, they would still constitute a minority. Their demographics are irrelevant to other minority groups in this context as their population is being considered a minority to the majority group of the population, which as you mentioned, is 85%.
I chose France as an example as it is a major responsible global power, and a deeper, more considerate mature approach would have been expected as opposed to a smaller country like Austria. The appeasement ruling of the Burkini was a disappointing one, and the state should have tackled the issue with a level head, rather than placing the ban. This knee- jerk reaction would cause the public to assume that there is indeed something wrong with the Muslim population and would isolate the 7.5% of the French population even further. As a result, hate crime would become even more common to the average joe, forcing them to jostle together in "minority dominated areas", creating ghettos of the sort. Then they wouldn't be randomly attacked whenever they venture out of their homes.
I could have also used the U.K. as an example where there are political parties who openly and legally spew venom against their own countrymen and women. This hate speech has been widely known to result in violence. Nearly four million adult voters (12.5% of total voters) voted for the road- show called UKIP in 2015.
Watch Ukip candidates spouting vile anti-Islamic hate messages at a far-right rally
UK entering 'unchartered territory' of Islamophobia after Brexit vote
Abuse of Muslims is now mainstream. I never thought my children would see this

@Vergennes I don't agree with the decision that to appease some, the freedom of others had to be taken away. That shows weak governance of a weak system. A good system would stand up by the national values like ex New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg did when he faced not only the public wrath, but the media had a prolonged go at him as well, when he showed his support to the construction of the Islamic Community Center in New York. The approval of the center was unanimous in the New York City board. And Bloomberg's words should be remembered here in the "progressive" countries; "Muslims are as much a part of our city and country as any faith, and as welcome to worship in Lower Manhattan as any other group. We would betray our values -- and play into our enemies' hands -- if we were to treat Muslims different than anyone else."

 

[HannibalBarca]

In my opinion, I don't think how if one minority group is a 'not so much' of a minority, it doesn't mean they're not a minority. Even if the total population of Muslims in France was 20%, they would still constitute a minority. Their demographics are irrelevant to other minority groups in this context as their population is being considered a minority to the majority group of the population, which as you mentioned, is 85%.
I chose France as an example as it is a major responsible global power, and a deeper, more considerate mature approach would have been expected as opposed to a smaller country like Austria. The appeasement ruling of the Burkini was a disappointing one, and the state should have tackled the issue with a level head, rather than placing the ban. This knee- jerk reaction would cause the public to assume that there is indeed something wrong with the Muslim population and would isolate the 7.5% of the French population even further. As a result, hate crime would become even more common to the average joe, forcing them to jostle together in "minority dominated areas", creating ghettos of the sort. Then they wouldn't be randomly attacked whenever they venture out of their homes.
I could have also used the U.K. as an example where there are political parties who openly and legally spew venom against their own countrymen and women. This hate speech has been widely known to result in violence. Nearly four million adult voters (12.5% of total voters) voted for the road- show called UKIP in 2015.
Watch Ukip candidates spouting vile anti-Islamic hate messages at a far-right rally
UK entering 'unchartered territory' of Islamophobia after Brexit vote
Abuse of Muslims is now mainstream. I never thought my children would see this

@Vergennes I don't agree with the decision that to appease some, the freedom of others had to be taken away. That shows weak governance of a weak system. A good system would stand up by the national values like ex New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg did when he faced not only the public wrath, but the media had a prolonged go at him as well, when he showed his support to the construction of the Islamic Community Center in New York. The approval of the center was unanimous in the New York City board. And Bloomberg's words should be remembered here in the "progressive" countries; "Muslims are as much a part of our city and country as any faith, and as welcome to worship in Lower Manhattan as any other group. We would betray our values -- and play into our enemies' hands -- if we were to treat Muslims different than anyone else."

To be honest what happen to muslim in Europe is a good thing, ofc if it was less "agressive" it will be better. The far right and other extremist group on each side who jump on islam and point it as a problem while making "being muslims " a problem is a good thing for muslims. The past gov in france or other countries, always though that islam will stay in the shadow, and those post colonials workers will at some point go back "home" . Those old "muslims" unskilled workers, didn't complaint much and accepted their faith. But a shift occured when they choosed to stay and theirs sons and daughters rise in society via education and high skilled jobs. Those "new guys" are not like their parents, they don't shut up when asked , they behave like any other guys of that society. Persecution In Europe for this groups gave them an opportunity to build among themselfes a power, like we see in France with associations like CCIF , elite club and many muslim think tanks. Per exemple the burkini ( and other past 5 months similar action) was toppled by this types of association. The far right by thinking of shutting them, by those actions, just gave them an opportunity to rise and fight back. Just Like a beehave, if you shake it then... you don't have to complain.... Don't start a fight if you are not sure to win...

ps: in "today" society, you see rising an elite of this minority, who were hiding in their "confort". Ppl you didn't know existed among them, those guys begun to take the leadership of those groups

 

[Penguin]

Ethnic,race and religious statistics are banned under French law,making it difficult to estimate or numbers the percentage of muslim population or the immigrant one. We would never know the real numbers until official and national statistics are established,which probably will never happen. Until then we can only speculate and not sure polls or surveys based on thousands of persons are near the reality. A recent study estimated the percentage of muslims in France at 5,6% of the population,but of course we could never know the real figures.

"A law originating from the 1789 revolution and reaffirmed in the 1958 French Constitution makes it illegal for the French state to collect data on ethnicity and ancestry. "
That doesn't mean PRIVATE organisations. foreign universities or non-French EU instritutions can't collect such data. A questionnaire based approach with good samples will be very informative and can yield very good estimates. So, to say "we will never know the real numbers untill official and national statistics are established" is BS. Statistics and statistical sapmpling are serious science, not a play thingy of the media. Even national statistics bureauc rely on sampling rather than full counts (census data is prohibitively expensive hence conducted very infrequently for any number of populations)

In my opinion, I don't think how if one minority group is a 'not so much' of a minority, it doesn't mean they're not a minority.

Anything under 49% is minority, if you have just two groups. And that's a group that will act very differently from a group that is 4.9%. I think that is obvious.

Even if the total population of Muslims in France was 20%, they would still constitute a minority.

The new poll of polls, a amalgam of five different opinion polls, gives the Dutch PVV between 27 and 31 seats in the 150-seat Dutch parliament or 18% to 21% of the vote, broadcaster NOS reported.So that right wing electorate too still constitutes a minority.
http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2016/11/geert-wilders-pvv-back-on-top-in-latest-poll-of-polls/

Their demographics are irrelevant to other minority groups in this context as their population is being considered a minority to the majority group of the population, which as you mentioned, is 85%.

85% may be 'christian' but as we all know, there are a variety of flavors (Catholic, protestant and some more) which don't necessarily all take the same view of positions. So, you can't just assume 'christians' are a homogeneous group (any more than you can assum that for 'muslims' or 'immigrants')

I chose France as an example as it is a major responsible global power, and a deeper, more considerate mature approach would have been expected as opposed to a smaller country like Austria.

ROLF. You need to look into the history of Austria and then talk about global powers and responsible again. Austria (9 million) is what remains, with Hungary (10 million), of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, a multinational state and one of the world's great powers at the time. Austria-Hungary was geographically the second-largest country in Europe after the Russian Empire, and the third-most populous (after Russia and the German Empire). They do have some experience with ethnic diversity... and have learned a dire lesson or two in the past 100 years.

I could have also used the U.K. as an example where there are political parties who openly and legally spew venom against their own countrymen and women. This hate speech has been widely known to result in violence. Nearly four million adult voters (12.5% of total voters) voted for the road- show called UKIP in 2015.
Watch Ukip candidates spouting vile anti-Islamic hate messages at a far-right rally
UK entering 'unchartered territory' of Islamophobia after Brexit vote
Abuse of Muslims is now mainstream. I never thought my children would see this

See my 2nd comment above. 12.5% of voters is still a minority. When does a minority cease to be not dangerous and become a threat? Apply this for the above (rightwing) voters and for muslims (some of whom may be as left or right wing 'extreme' as their non-muslim counterparts).

Just as some throw all muslims on a big heap, so do other with respect to christians in general and rightwingers in particular (who may or may not be Christian). Reality tells you that the silent majority of people of various groups are peacefull.

 

[utraash]

No it's not. but if they want to do so, then France and other country has to strip down their "free/equal"fraternity" thing and rip off their 1789 declaration

In whatever way they want to pronounce it is again their prerogative.... 1789 was also purely theirs not from desert cult...

You used the word quarantine. Diseased people are quarantined. Is your English that bad? Anyway, this is about Austria, in Europe and Islam, You have nothing to do with this. However, you have 200 million Muslims in India. Quarantine them.

Anything which they consider making their place unsafe shall be put in quarantined mode. No it's not disease at all, it's their choice their way not mine.

 

[HannibalBarca]

In whatever way they want to pronounce it is again their prerogative.... 1789 was also purely theirs not from desert cult...


Anything which they consider making their place unsafe shall be put in quarantined mode. No it's not disease at all, it's their choice their way not mine.

Seems you lack history facts... french 1789 declaration came from the USA declaration... that himself came from a " new way to see christianity" so in the end, christian notions was widely used to write down those declaration... and where did christianity come from? spoiler !! palestine and yes they have desert too... Have fun

 

[Hold up]

haha u completely owned him

 

[CBU-105]

eh, so they're still at it after just losing the elections ?

 

[HannibalBarca]

eh, so they're still at it after just losing the elections ?

Well... a dog who doesn't bark ... is not a dog anymore...

 

[Penguin]

Seems you lack history facts... french 1789 declaration came from the USA declaration... that himself came from a " new way to see christianity" so in the end, christian notions was widely used to write down those declaration... and where did christianity come from? spoiler !! palestine and yes they have desert too... Have fun

By Jefferson's own admission, the Declaration contained no original ideas, but was instead a statement of sentiments widely shared by supporters of the American Revolution. Jefferson's most immediate sources were two documents written in June 1776: his own draft of the preamble of the Constitution of Virginia, and George Mason's draft of the Virginia Declaration of Rights. They were, in turn, directly influenced by the 1689 English Declaration of Rights, which formally ended the reign of King James II. Jefferson wrote that a number of authors exerted a general influence on the words of the Declaration. English political theorist John Locke is usually cited as one of the primary influences. Mason based his initial draft on the rights of citizens described in earlier works such as the English Bill of Rights (1689), and the writings of John Locke