The current migration crisis has split the Europe between the Western countries in which politicians welcome emigrants hoping that all of them will be skilled workers, and Eastern countries that fear of an Islamic invasion.
But why we have now an anti-Islamic current? In a region that for two centuries we don't have problems with Islam and had positive relations with Islamic countries during cold war?
The roots of this discontent are in the West.
One colleague of mine told me that when he arrived in London, he thought that he was in Saudi Arabia in some areas.
The fact that Muslim have strange suits and a strange religion is not a problem. But the fact that the extermists try to impose their religious belief on others is a problem in a society that should cherish freedom of expression.
The fact that Islamist use violence to promote their agenda puts them in same categories as the fascist:
Except Utoya massacre all the terror attacks in Western Europe were done by Muslims. Most of them recently converted or from second generation of emigrants.
We in Eastern Europe felt the horrors of Nazism and Communism and our social organism still has antibodies against this, and we react more violently. And we fought hard for our free speech and freedom. In 1989 in 2000 people died for freedom in Romania.
Many emigrants from eastern Europe arrived in West and didn't like that they see:
Bearded guys who shout 'Allahu akbar' and "Down with Britain" while they reside in UK and their freedom is protected by British authorities.
They didn't like either the 2005 Paris riots.In which 200 millions damage was done, and showed impotence of French authorities. Impotence reaffirmed once again with Charlie Hebdo massacre.
A welfare state that encourages women to make many children and to stay home helping in this way conservative Muslim families who ban the women from having a job.
They saw this and they didn't wanted back home.
From their communist experience they knew that you can't erase century old beliefs so easily. Soviet Union tried to with a harsh rule to suppress all religions and didn't succeed. Why the West will succeed with a soft rule?
They didn't bought the stuff with tolerant Islam in Iberic peninsula. Almost 500 years old fight with the Ottomans learned them that Islam can be relentless and cruel.
The problem are not beliefs but the political power, communist, fascist and nazism all were a minority who took control of the country. The challenge is to defend the democracy against these extremist groups. But in order to defend something you must have clear in mind what is the line you hold with price of your life. The political parties have no values and don't have a line to defend.
The Western governments in their need for oil tolerated some extremist stances as for example condemnation of Salman Rushdie to death by Ayatolah Komeini.
It is interesting to read Joseph Anton Memoir by Salman Rushdie regarding this matter:
Margaret Thatcher in order to keep an oil deal with Iran, didn't defend publicly the author Salman Rushdie.
The only politician who supported him publicly was the Czech president Vaclav Havel.
Here you have already a crack between West and East.
The British authorities preferred to deal with extremist that demanded death of Rushdie, instead of supporting the Muslims that accepted the democratic values and supported Rushdie. And since then this radical minority dominated the political debate.
Maybe the Conservatives needed an enemy to show how brave they were in defending the country against foreigners. And the Left, their political rivals started to defend these extremists because they were attacked by the Right.
From this useless political struggle between Right and Left the extremists won because neither Left or Right have some value to defend: everybody wants power and everybody is annoyed by other freedom of speech.
The integrated Muslims were left out because they are boring, don't blow trains and buses. The Right cannot scare people with them, and they don't need to be saved by the Left, because they have jobs.
Maybe the Eastern Europe is the economic colony of Western Europe, but it doesn't want to be a full colony, with population displacement.
But why we have now an anti-Islamic current? In a region that for two centuries we don't have problems with Islam and had positive relations with Islamic countries during cold war?
The roots of this discontent are in the West.
One colleague of mine told me that when he arrived in London, he thought that he was in Saudi Arabia in some areas.
The fact that Muslim have strange suits and a strange religion is not a problem. But the fact that the extermists try to impose their religious belief on others is a problem in a society that should cherish freedom of expression.
The fact that Islamist use violence to promote their agenda puts them in same categories as the fascist:
Except Utoya massacre all the terror attacks in Western Europe were done by Muslims. Most of them recently converted or from second generation of emigrants.
We in Eastern Europe felt the horrors of Nazism and Communism and our social organism still has antibodies against this, and we react more violently. And we fought hard for our free speech and freedom. In 1989 in 2000 people died for freedom in Romania.
Many emigrants from eastern Europe arrived in West and didn't like that they see:
Bearded guys who shout 'Allahu akbar' and "Down with Britain" while they reside in UK and their freedom is protected by British authorities.
They didn't like either the 2005 Paris riots.In which 200 millions damage was done, and showed impotence of French authorities. Impotence reaffirmed once again with Charlie Hebdo massacre.
A welfare state that encourages women to make many children and to stay home helping in this way conservative Muslim families who ban the women from having a job.
They saw this and they didn't wanted back home.
From their communist experience they knew that you can't erase century old beliefs so easily. Soviet Union tried to with a harsh rule to suppress all religions and didn't succeed. Why the West will succeed with a soft rule?
They didn't bought the stuff with tolerant Islam in Iberic peninsula. Almost 500 years old fight with the Ottomans learned them that Islam can be relentless and cruel.
The problem are not beliefs but the political power, communist, fascist and nazism all were a minority who took control of the country. The challenge is to defend the democracy against these extremist groups. But in order to defend something you must have clear in mind what is the line you hold with price of your life. The political parties have no values and don't have a line to defend.
The Western governments in their need for oil tolerated some extremist stances as for example condemnation of Salman Rushdie to death by Ayatolah Komeini.
It is interesting to read Joseph Anton Memoir by Salman Rushdie regarding this matter:
Margaret Thatcher in order to keep an oil deal with Iran, didn't defend publicly the author Salman Rushdie.
The only politician who supported him publicly was the Czech president Vaclav Havel.
Here you have already a crack between West and East.
The British authorities preferred to deal with extremist that demanded death of Rushdie, instead of supporting the Muslims that accepted the democratic values and supported Rushdie. And since then this radical minority dominated the political debate.
Maybe the Conservatives needed an enemy to show how brave they were in defending the country against foreigners. And the Left, their political rivals started to defend these extremists because they were attacked by the Right.
From this useless political struggle between Right and Left the extremists won because neither Left or Right have some value to defend: everybody wants power and everybody is annoyed by other freedom of speech.
The integrated Muslims were left out because they are boring, don't blow trains and buses. The Right cannot scare people with them, and they don't need to be saved by the Left, because they have jobs.
Maybe the Eastern Europe is the economic colony of Western Europe, but it doesn't want to be a full colony, with population displacement.
Niciun comentariu:
Trimiteți un comentariu