Petition [EN] Pétition [FR] Petición [ES] Petiţie [RO] Ψήφισμα [EL] Petice[CZ] Petition [DE] Petizione [IT] Petycja [PL] Petitie [NL] Petíció [HU] Petição [PT] Namninsamling [SV] Underskriftindsamling [DA] Petícia [SK] Achainí [GA] Peticija [LT] Петиция [RU] Eskaera [EU] Petskribo [EO] Petició [CA] Athchuinge [GD]
eg where you know that there is a higher muslim population it makes sense to allocate resources to ensure that muslim women can have access to, women only swimming sessions once or twice a week, for example. Not women only swimming pools but a compromise that allows muslim/any women to swim and feel comfortable and safe.
You don't put women only hours because there are muslims in the area ; you put women only sessions(if at all ; if, say, the white people tell you they are uncomfortable with seeing black people in the swimming pool, do you arrange white-only sessions ?) when many individuals are demanding such possibilities.
You'd be surprised that many "muslim" women (as religion and ethnicity are often confused) would like to go to the swimming pool at all hours. Of course, when there are women only sessions, it means those women of the targeted religion that will go to the non-women only session will be seen as disrespecting their religion. And indeed, may more or less lose the ability to go to the swimming pool at all hours.
This is easier done if you know where and how many in terms of ethnicity, because there could be a higher demand for a certain type of service provision as a result.
Are the African American that get into Harvard on affirmative action those from the 'hood, or those of middle class origin that would have gotten there anyway ?
Targeting policies on ethnicity is often less efficient than targeting them on socioeconomic class, or on need. You put services based on actual need, not because there's a correlation between ethnicity and need (and correlation isn't causation).
The right to practise ones religion is a fundamental human right. It isn't in the same league as expressing one's preference for a football team. I'm not a religious person and I often think the world would be a much better place without religion but the bottom line is that there are a number of religions and it wouldn't be a fair point for me to say that people always have a choice about whether they practise a religion or not, any more than people have a 'choice' about what age or gender they are. These are all characteristics that affect how people live their lives and the way in which they can access society.
No, sorry, people don't have more or less a choice about which football team they support than which religion they practice. And many people care much more about that team than about any religion.
Putting the "religion" tag on a hobby doesn't make it untouchable. Or do I get to fund my theft-practising religion of cocain-sniffing nudists ?
But aside from all of that, European legislation protects people form being discriminated against on the grounds of religion and belief and ethnicity - this includes unintentional and indirect discrimination through not making adequate provision in service delivery.
What happened to the normal, democratic cycle of asking what people want, letting them vote for the people who will decide what to do, etc... ? Why the shortcut of "ethnicity" ?
Ethnicities, religious groupings, aren't even homogeneous.
And again, why the emphasis on ethnicity rather than, say, social class ? If an ethnicity is 'disenfranchised', it is most of the time because its members are poor.
Italian, Spanish, Auvergnats, all those immigrants to Paris were disenfranchised right after the time of their immigration. An ethnicity based approach would have concluded they had specific need... But those communities have now merged into the Parisian population. Their problems were economic, not ethnic. Pointing out their ethnic particularities slowed their integration.
So we aren't that far apart in believing that human rights are for individuals, but how can that most effectively be put into practise?
Human rights are universal. Don't depend on groups. If you decide to create a ticking box for saying "I am this or that" and decide to provide services based on the answers, you have given up universality.
And, worse, you reinforce the subgroups. It becomes important that everyone who might belong to the subgroup check the box - the services provided depend on it. Auferre, trucidare, rapere, falsis nominibus imperium; atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
But having evidence to show that there is a higher muslim population, therefore a higher chance that this provision may be needed or requested, allows the need to be anticipated and provided for. It does not equate to assuming that groups are homogenous and in previous diaries I have discussed how groups are totally far from homogenous.
It's easy enough to monitor and review how services are used. So it may be that only 4 women a week turn up to women only swimming sessions. Maybe 70 turn up, therefore review and decide whether to keep the service or not. But not providing the service at all, you do not know whether women are NOT turning up because of it. It could be the only form of exercise some women do, so it has health implications.
I am not saying that ALL people from a particular group will want to make use of a certain provision. Services need to be planned and probability derived from the demographics can help to anticipate demands on services.
Not all individuals feel empowered to complain or request something. They may not know what could be made available to them. I stopped going to the cinema because adequate provision was not made for me. I've given up requesting loop systems that work or asking why they don't put on more subtitled films. The same analogy can be made to public service provision. People can be ignored, people may not see the point in complaining or requesting provision. It is the responsibility of service providers to try to anticipate need. If there is no take up, then it can be removed.
We can take all politicians at their word then? they say they will do x,y,z means that they will? Even so, the politicians themselves do not design the services at local levels, really. Ethnicity, and gender and age and disability demographics help to anticipate what the needs and demands may be.
I do not dispute the importance of social class/wealth to all of this. That remains a crucial factor in access to opportunities and life chances. But other characteristics also play their part.
Institutionalised racism exists in public services, in employment, in education, in healthcare - and only by acknowledging this can it be tackled properly.
Migrant communities from the A8 countries (or areas such as Somalia) in the UK are given support to integrate by provision of language lessons, by employing people from these minority groups to ensure that information is going out to these communities, by trying to promote good relations between different groups. We can only do that when we know where these people are and how many of them there are. Leaving them to fend for themselves doesn't work, they become ghettoised far more that way. It's far easier for immigrants from countries like Italy, France, Spain etc to 'integrate' into the UK.
And when we've seen the riots around race issues in Paris, I don't really see how I can believe that France has been successful with integration. Ad astra per aspera
Read E.T. archives abut those riots, they never were about race or ethnicity but about economy and state care! "What can I do, What can I write, Against the fall of Night". A.E. Housman
One big problem I have with this attitude is that in essence, you consider the State should concern itself with the specific needs of some (potentially very closed) groups of people. I am not talking about providing services to disabled people : that I have no problem with, it is indeed very important.
The French objection is only about ethnicity. The swimming pool case, for example, is pretty much about providing a muslim-specific service. Once again, there may be people who are deterred from going to the swimming pool because there are black people there. A white only or black only session should still not be provided.
The French nation recognises, constitutionally, no ethnicity. Providing ethnic-only services, even though those are not explicitely segregated, raises a lot of alarm bells. Do you provide separate gym lessons for the muslim pupils, with a female teacher ?
That's a very technocratic approach. And it shows a problem in the local feedback loops of the UK ; the municipalities are way too small in France, but one of the definite advantages is that the mayor will be a close by person. It definitely won't be hard to approach him on a specific request, or to tray and get somebody else elected.
Firstly, I want to point out I'm not talking about Italian immigrants now going into the UK. I'm talking about, say, a Italian farmer emigrating to Paris in the 1920's. The culture shock was similar as that of people immigrating from Morocco in the 70's, if not stronger. They were violently harassed for quite some time. And indeed, at first they behaved as communities. But the French state didn't really treat them as such. It idn't try to provide Italian-language swimming lessons or special school sections, to employ community leaders. And yet, there is no Italian ghetto right now in Paris, but many people of Italian origins. They may go to Italy see the family and eat the food twice a year, but they are fully integrated into French society.
Considering immigrants as groups helps them remains grouped and potentially ghettoized.
And when we've seen the riots around race issues in Paris, I don't really see how I can believe that France has been successful with integration.
Yes. Especially in the suburbs of Lille where the great-grand children of Polish and Portuguese and Belgian immigrants rioted along the chtimi's.
There's no need of race statistics to know the French police is racist. There's a need of a government willing to stand up to the police.
There are other ways to demonstrate that instutitionalized racism - such as "testing". That's how it's done in France.
Note that the only "communautarian" statistics - it's possible to ask nationality at birth of parents, etc..., tend to show that place of origin plays a relatively small role in socio-economic status ; much less important than parental socio-economic status. Auferre, trucidare, rapere, falsis nominibus imperium; atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
