Good bye Sweden...

[Dan02]

Be interested to get CPs collective thoughts on this though as it is somewhat related to the thread. This was awhile ago now and I don't remember all the particulars and it will probably sound extremely weird/manipulative but at the time it worked.

We found that for our prospective asian clients we got more of their business if we estimated a higher price. This obviously makes no sense. Why? because typically we offered everyone the exact same bottem price straight away and there was no wiggle room, most people accepted that and evaluated our offer vs our competition. Now for Asian people and obviously this doesn't include all Asian people but the majority for sure, the stereotype, and for this we found true, is that people from the Asian communities love to haggle on price. With our old pricing there was no wiggle room so it seemed like they weren't getting a good deal when we said we couldn't move on price and they were more aggressive on trying to find cheaper competitors.

We didn't seem to be getting much of their business. So when we were meeting with pespective Asian clients we added a nominal amount <5% to the initial offer. Then they would start haggling and we would drop our price back to the initial amount just for them so it seemed like they were getting a better deal when infact everyone was hitting the exact same price point. When we started doing that, our business within the Asian community went up significantly and we started getting more referals as well.

Raises interesting ethical discussions doesn't it.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Dan02

I know i highlighted part of it earlier but i thought I'd comment on the general post.

It comes down to this. Do you believe sexism on par with racism, obviously you don't. I personally do, so to me your arqument is as absurd as if you're suggesting it'd be alright for a restaurant to ban/separate white/indian/japanese people because their religion says it's alright.

I do believe sexism is on par with racism, but this is the arrangement the 'victims of sexism' here appear to want. It is apparently part of their deal. They are saying "this is how we want to eat, because of our religion".

From at least an outsiders standpoint, I have to take them on face value, so again, it's nothing like a "coloured section". It's only like a "coloured section" if a family that consists of "coloured" and "non-coloured" people all go to the same restaurant and eat at separate tables because they want to, because that's how they do it.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by something

My take of these circumstances: we should not grant moral indemnity on the basis that those who are subjugated blithely accept it. A latent harm is still harmful... The deprivation of a persons dignity is not excused by their acceptance of it; just because they have been brainwashed a coerced throughout their lives to believe it to be good...

No, we should not grant moral indemnity bla bla bla... but is that what we are doing?

The alternative seems to be to grant ourselves moral authority to say "oh sure, you say you want to live by a certain set of religious rules, but you can't, because you really don't mean it, and even though you say you accept it, you don't".

I think most people who live by strict rules set down by some supernatural being are brainwashed, coerced, deprived of dignity and the whole nine yards. I believe they have been duped. But who am I to say to some woman who accepts (and perhaps believes it is ordered by God) to eat at a different table in a restaurant that she can't do it?

I think we'd all be better off without any of the hocus-pocus but, since that ain't going to happen, it just seems unfair to pick on one hocus-pocus-based practice as a threat to our entire way of life while we ignore similar practices that are practiced by paler groups.

[HOZ]

Finally found an English article on the situation in Sweden

Enjoy...
"This new hatred comes from Muslim immigrants. The Jewish people are afraid now."
Malmo's Jews, however, do not just point the finger at bigoted Muslims and their fellow racists in the country's Neo-Nazi fringe. They also accuse Ilmar Reepalu, the Left-wing mayor who has been in power for 15 years, of failing to protect them.
Mr Reepalu, who is blamed for lax policing, is at the centre of a growing controversy for saying that what the Jews perceive as naked anti-Semitism is in fact just a sad, but understandable consequence of Israeli policy in the Middle East.
*****
"Muslim schoolchildren often ignore me now when I talk about my experiences in the camps," she said. "It is because of what their parents tell them about Jews. The hatreds of the Middle East have come to Malmo. Schools in Muslim areas of the city simply won't invite Holocaust survivors to speak any more."

[Knut]

Thelocal.se is a good website for Swedish news in English

http://www.thelocal.se/29086/20100917/

^ here is an article that outlines some of the views of the newly elected right-wing social democrats. They are an anti-immigration party that outlines the growing concern in Sweden over immigration and the Xenophobia there.

[Henry Fool]

In a sense it's a displacement activity: you philosophize about multiculturalism and worry about having brown neighbors while getting it 1-4 in the butt (to use a swedish expression) by the financial system.

People who have talked to a non-white two times in their lives are acting terrified that they are getting run over by some alien cultural force. Normal political issues are elevated into existential threats. Immigration is a pretty boring, regular, bureucratic issue, but it has been made into the major political problem of our times even in countries like Finland where there are very few immigrants by any comparative standard and when the serious studies show that the society will in fact need more immigration in the future. It tells us that it is not about the real number of immigrants but something more sinister.

Don't take any views or news coming from Europe about the muslim threat without a huge grain of salt. They will deny this until they are blue in the face, but so much of the immigration debate is mixed with and motivated by blatant racism, and everyone will try to use the fashionable political tools to get what they want.

[Henry Fool]

And please don't get caught up in some alarmist bs debates about a restaurant having a women's section. Such minor issues - negotiating the common societal rules is a normal daily part of managing complex societies like ours.

You should ask why so many people keep purposefully directing the discussion that way. Because on this issue, there are lots of genuinely nasty characters trying to prepare the public space for hate. People are constantly testing and stretching the limits of what sort of speech mainstream discourse can tolerate. And when it comes to the most vulnerable parts of society, the immigrants, changes in discourse always have concrete consequences on the street.

[something]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

No, we should not grant moral indemnity bla bla bla... but is that what we are doing?

The alternative seems to be to grant ourselves moral authority to say "oh sure, you say you want to live by a certain set of religious rules, but you can't, because you really don't mean it, and even though you say you accept it, you don't".

I think most people who live by strict rules set down by some supernatural being are brainwashed, coerced, deprived of dignity and the whole nine yards. I believe they have been duped. But who am I to say to some woman who accepts (and perhaps believes it is ordered by God) to eat at a different table in a restaurant that she can't do it?

I think we'd all be better off without any of the hocus-pocus but, since that ain't going to happen, it just seems unfair to pick on one hocus-pocus-based practice as a threat to our entire way of life while we ignore similar practices that are practiced by paler groups.

Good point.

Firstly, I would like to note that none of the Western faiths, from Judaism to Islam, demand such a specific as the demarcation of a section for women or children in restaurants. The process by which these specific demarcations between genders develop, originates from an inherently misogynistic theology. No women would believe it was ordered by God that she sit at a table separate from her husband, she would simply believe that her husband was conferred with the authority to create such a demarcation.

I believe the argument you have invoked is that of cultural relativism, the notion that we cannot judge aspects of a culture on the basis that we cannot, as an outsider, understand the purpose or necessity of such specific traditions or customs. We must recognize that these specifics are morally entrenched, and the process of developing these are vast and complicated. If one were to trace these specifics to their moral foundations, there would, in many cases, be a moral purpose that is largely invariable among cultures. It is the reconstitution of these processes that I propose be amended, for their products (the "specifics") are foundationally similar to our own, and does not require moral impingement for the sake of integrating into a common moral framework (since that framework is already akin to our own).

In this way, we are not imposing ourselves as an imperialistic entity, assimilating the world to our moral framework for the continuation and survival of our culture. Rather, we are attempting to create conditions under which humanity may flourish. And, as this logic presents itself, there is no reason not to accept foreign cultural standards right here in Alberta. Some poster previously identified Alberta as such a desirable location that the world is enviable of our society. That's not the whole truth, and for good reason. We also have conditions that inhibit the flourishing of individuals, and I am positive other cultures are in some/many ways enviable to us. There is a lot that we can learn from others as well.

In this way, our sense of nationalism must be made congruent to this idea that we must strive to analyze and comprehend other cultures (this is a typically Canadian ideal, thankfully). It is not imperialistic, it is necessary to mitigate cultural tension and promote conditions that allow the flourishing of individuals, and society.

This is not nearly as easy a solution as putting into practice our phobias, justifying impingement on emotional and cultural terms. Rather, we must justify such impingement on moral terms, and be excessive in our justifications, since it would be easy (and it happens quite often) to conflate morality and culture for the attainment of an esoteric cultural goal. When we do this, we often mislead others in our proclamation of pseudo-moral superiority, when really, we unjustifiably exalt our culture while degrading others.

[something]

Originally Posted by Henry Fool

...but it has been made into the major political problem of our times even in countries like Finland where there are very few immigrants by any comparative standard and when the serious studies show that the society will in fact need more immigration in the future. It tells us that it is not about the real number of immigrants but something more sinister.

Keep in mind the reason Finland "needs" immigration is probably to sustain a diminishing birth replacement rate to undergird their economy. This is the principal argument for immigration is almost all first-world countries.

The need for the replacement of a population is distinct from a society's desire for an identity, and must be kept so, since they are entirely separate issues. The need for a stable working population does not demand we rescind the progressive aspects of our culture.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by Dan02

Slippery slope there my friend, how far removed is that from having a coloured section?? Would you write that off as only the paranoid amoung us should be concerned because it's only one restuarant. I think the other poster has a legitimate beef in suggesting it's unCanadian.

Give me a BREAK.

Until very recently the Petroleum Club in Calgary didn't allow women in their main dining room. And the same goes for the Ranchman's Club. And I guess you're too young to remember Calgary bars requiring ladies to be escorted by a man to enter.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by something

Good point.

Firstly, I would like to note that none of the Western faiths, from Judaism to Islam, demand such a specific as the demarcation of a section for women or children in restaurants. The process by which these specific demarcations between genders develop, originates from an inherently misogynistic theology. No women would believe it was ordered by God that she sit at a table separate from her husband, she would simply believe that her husband was conferred with the authority to create such a demarcation.

Hey Mr. Broadbrush. It hasn't been established whether women and families are REQUIRED to sit in the family section or if it is offered as an option.

More importantly, you're busy generalizing what may or may not be happening at this one restaurant by saying it is a tenet of Islam that women eat separately from men. That simply is not true and I suspect you know it. IMO you're just another rascist, like HOZ, but unlike HOZ, you hide behind some pseudo-intellectual bullcrap to make it sound like an academic argument.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by Hesla

I lived in Stockholm for 5 months in 2006 for a work term. Centrally you are right in that it is very much monocultural... But if would went into it's metro area (danderyd and kista) it was much more multicultural. While I was in Stockholm there was a lot of talk about how the influx of Immigrants is going to lead to a ruined social system. Swedes have been taught to not take for granted the social safety net and be honorable about not abusing it. However, the influx has lead to increased abuse of the system. There was a lot of Xenophobia present.

We have a fair bit of family out in Sweden, and this is exactly the #1 topic amongst the gripes of Swedes.

The immigrant population is moving in and abusing the welfare state, women staying home in perpetual maternity leave and taxing the state beyond its capacity as so much of the money being spent is heading towards minorities.

Its very correct that in these evil socialist nations of the Nordic countries people that can work do, and very few people would willingly sit on the system because of strong social stigma's attached to it.

The rapes thing, there is a point here Hoz is making which is very true. Sorry but the fact remains the increase in violent rapes is coming from the immigrant minority. Maybe its something to do with the very open and liberal youth clashing with immigrants in repressed sexual societies which treat women as inferiors?

I mean there is racism sometimes at play, but there is also a very serious growing problem of culture clashes in Europe as the immigrant populations grow in influence and attempt to change the cultures of the host nations to adapt to them not the way it should be, they adapt to their new homes.

The sad thing is the result to all this is going to be and is already happening, xenophobia, racism, and most definitely violence.

Its not a matter of if but when, you can bet Sweden will be amongst those nations seeing a big push of right wing extremism and the visible muslim immigrant population will be target #1.

I'd be more sympathetic if the muslim immigrants were attempting to become good adapted Swedes willing to work hard and become part of the culture of this nation, but lets not kid ourselves; they are not attempting to become Swedes they are attempting to turn their small corners more into Islamic neighborhoods, hoping to eventually turn more into their way of thinking and of course adapt such things as sharia law.

I don't get why stating the obvious is called racism, if nothing its culturalism. If you emigrate to a nation and want to hold your traditions, awesome. But if you want to turn that new home of yours into a new version of your previous home, GTFO.

[Henry Fool]

Originally Posted by something

Keep in mind the reason Finland "needs" immigration is probably to sustain a diminishing birth replacement rate to undergird their economy. This is the principal argument for immigration is almost all first-world countries.

The need for the replacement of a population is distinct from a society's desire for an identity, and must be kept so, since they are entirely separate issues. The need for a stable working population does not demand we rescind the progressive aspects of our culture.

Of course the reason I referred to is economic. I doubt anyone needed that clarification.

The state's control of immigration isn't some enormous special problem. We're talking about normal daily issues of a normal functioning society that are being magnified into crucial dilemmas by cynics and racists and those who are taken in by their rhetoric.

Immigrants do not pose any threat to our way of life. That's a total fantasy and a very dangerous one. The anti-immigrant enthusiasts, however, are determined to roll back certain very important progressive aspects of our culture - and they actually have the power to do so. It's absolutely pitiful to pretend to be so fragile as to feel threatened by small restaurant owners - or at least some propaganda depictions of them.

[Henry Fool]

Originally Posted by Thor

[...]

The sad thing is the result to all this is going to be and is already happening, xenophobia, racism, and most definitely violence.

Its not a matter of if but when, you can bet Sweden will be amongst those nations seeing a big push of right wing extremism and the visible muslim immigrant population will be target #1.

I'd be more sympathetic if the muslim immigrants were attempting to become good adapted Swedes willing to work hard and become part of the culture of this nation, but lets not kid ourselves; they are not attempting to become Swedes they are attempting to turn their small corners more into Islamic neighborhoods, hoping to eventually turn more into their way of thinking and of course adapt such things as sharia law.

[...]

Crocodile tears about growing racism while embracing every nasty generalisation about muslim minorities in the book.

Let's see: muslims don't work, they abuse the welfare state, they have a special rape problem, the more they repress women the happier they are, they don't try to adapt to new societies but instead try to change those societies (into something bad), and of course the ever-present threat of some hideous archaic version of Sharia law suddenly overriding the nation's own laws, leaving the rest of the society completely helpless - in short, they are not making an effort to become "good Swedes" but instead stubbornly hold on to their own backward ways.

Really warms my heart to know that there are people like you who are so worried about anti-muslim racism.

What's really going on is that people don't like strange semitic languages pollutic public spaces, brown young men dating their daughters, alien smells from exotic cooking invading their appartments. They're always too loud, too visibly unswedish, unpredictable, inherently violent, they congregate together with suspicious ease, and maybe worst of all they actually believe in their religion instead of just sort of kind of believing like any modern civilized person. And maybe they just don't act grateful enough for getting to live in such a great country.

[Stimpy]

Originally Posted by HOZ

I show a picture of a restaurant in Canada flaunting everything that is against what, I believe, Canada should stands for.

Why is it that people that scream the loudest about protecting our freedoms are always the first to suggest ways of taking away the freedoms of others?

In Canada people have the right to operate their business in any shape or fashion they so desire, as long as it is within the constraints of the law. If a business decides to offer separate rooms to their patrons for their private use, is that not that an exercise of their freedom? As a citizen of the country you have the right to exercise your rights by walking by that establishment and going down the street to a competitor. Freedom is a wonderful thing, when we all have the rights to take it out for a walk and exercise it.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by Henry Fool

Crocodile tears about growing racism while embracing every nasty generalisation about muslim minorities in the book.

Yet its the truth, are all Muslims devoted to the more strict Islamic way? no, are they all unemployed? no, are they all living in slums? no.

Those are givens, yet the truth is in Sweden most new immigrants are not wealthy, they come from regions that follow strict Islamic law, they come from areas where women's rights are far from the standards of Sweden and like with most visible minorities they find comfort in moving into areas with more people like them.

This is surprising to you? Chinatown, Italian neighborhoods, etc...

Let's see: Muslims don't work, they abuse the welfare state, they have a special rape problem, the more they repress women the happier they are, they don't try to adapt to new societies but instead try to change those societies (into something bad), and of course the ever-present threat of some hideous archaic version of Sharia law suddenly overriding the nation's own laws, leaving the rest of the society completely helpless - in short, they are not making an effort to become "good Swedes" but instead stubbornly hold on to their own backward ways.

Your words, interestingly enough.

What's really going on is that people don't like strange semitic languages pollutic public spaces, brown young men dating their daughters, alien smells from exotic cooking invading their appartments. They're always too loud, too visibly unswedish, unpredictable, inherently violent, they congregate together with suspicious ease, and maybe worst of all they actually believe in their religion instead of just sort of kind of believing like any modern civilized person. And maybe they just don't act grateful enough for getting to live in such a great country.

Those are certainly factors, I did mention racism is a part of this problem as well.

You can just jump on the racism card anyone criticizes a real issue of immigration and adapting into different cultures, but I don't see a black/white issue here, its much more complicated than just an issue of intolerance towards a minority.

The fact is there are big problems in not only Sweden but in most of Europe with immigration, simply because its a culture clash. But I guess you see a happy problem free Europe with gum drop lollipops and rainbow kisses when it comes to immigration, and that all who criticize the immigrants of Europe are ignorant racists.

See I can generalize too.

Btw where do you live?

[onetwo_threefour]

I think cultural enclaves will be a fact of life in any progressive immigration based society. If you're really serious about repressing aspects of the cultures of incoming peoples for the greater good of your progressive society I think you have to impose some pretty strict integration policies backed by the coercive force of the state. Those types of policies themselves will be criticized in a progressive state because they inherently impinge upon individual freedoms. Interestingly, the tension seems most evident in the conservative religious element of the progressive society who are distrustful of cultural immigration but who also rail against the secular agenda to divorce religion from the governance of society. If the latter were to occur, issues of adopting irrational legal systems based on the ideas of a particular religious sect would be laughable.

[Thor]

Enclaves is fine, but this is impacting on incompatibilies of cultures adhering to a very specific set of religious beliefs.

Examples of the growth of anti-semitism in recent events in France and Sweden towards jews by middle eastern immigrants is a perfect example of these problems.

Malmo had a jewish support protest recently with about 100 jews and non jewish supporters which was overlooked by 100's of muslims waving palastine flags and hurling eggs, rocks and even a few small home made bombs. All the while the swedish police stood by not even moving in when a small bomb was thrown near the jews.

Eventually the jewish protesters who were peacefully demonstrating and listening to songs of peace and solidarity were told to disperse.

I'll try to find a video of it.

There is also the Jewish young man kidnapped and murdered by muslims in France which the abuctors called the man's parents while they recited passages from the Koran when in the background they could hear this son scream from the torture.

Isolated incidents, but its pretty clear what even moderate muslims are taught about the evil jew.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

I was wondering how long it would take HOZ to introduce the inevitable second half to all of his threads...

[something]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

Hey Mr. Broadbrush. It hasn't been established whether women and families are REQUIRED to sit in the family section or if it is offered as an option.

More importantly, you're busy generalizing what may or may not be happening at this one restaurant by saying it is a tenet of Islam that women eat separately from men. That simply is not true and I suspect you know it. IMO you're just another rascist, like HOZ, but unlike HOZ, you hide behind some pseudo-intellectual bullcrap to make it sound like an academic argument.

1. I did not suggest that women or children are required by Islam to sit in another section. I did suggest, however, that Islam has produced gender demarcations like all other Western religions that have been oppressive and misogynistic.

2. You suggest I am racist. Firstly, this has absolutely nothing to do with race. I did not connect race with oppressive or misogynistic practices. If you didn't notice, I identified all three Western religions as being accountable for oppressive practices and customs. Does that then make me misanthropic? Do I expound a universal hatred towards all men, all human beings? You should also be careful how you argue, since you do realize that you are citing racism in the protection of such misogynistic practices: does that then make you misogynistic? How could I possibly know?

3. This is a cultural issue, not of race. This statement in itself is troublesome however, as it presumes cultural hegemony. If you picked up on that, disregard it, as I am not making hegemonic assertions.

In light of these three considerations, I would appreciate you explained yourself more clearly rather than attacking my more or less anonymous character via ad hominem.