Hacker News Reader

>They've suffered war, laws that declare gender-inequality ( soft words for what those laws actually are, but anyway ), homo-phobic state-politics, etc.

About war yes, but lots of those people have not "suffered" gender-inequality or homo-phobic state-politics -- In fact those things might be part of what the believe and support themselves.

Those things are part of their culture -- and grassroots -- not stuff that some bad regime imposed upon the masses. The same way they are not "imposed" upon the people in the Bible Belt.

And lest we feel much superior, those kind of laws and public sentiment was common place in the far more wealthy and educated West too. Just 50 years ago there was open, legal even, segregation. Just today there's widespread support for police brutality. And just 75 years ago several million jews/homosexuals/communists and gypsies were obliterated in the center of "civilized Europe".

And if you think those times are "ancient history" and can't understand why everyone hasn't moved forward since then, just remember stuff that's still acceptable (or going on anyway) in some places, from the death penalty and racially motivated police shootings, to mass surveillance. Or consider the fact that "sodomy" stopped being a crime only 10-15 years ago in tons of places. And that "moving forward" is easier when you're not in a state of war or even fearful of those preaching "moving forward".

>Those things are part of their culture -- and grassroots -- not stuff that some bad regime imposed upon the masses.

Precisely. Indoctrination literally from the moment you are born is unimaginably hard to undo. Impossible, even.

> Impossible, even.

On an aggregate level, perhaps, but on an individual level, not at all.

I actually teach a German course to a group of recognized refugees, including Syrians and Eritreans.

From what I've seen, the ability to handle the culture shock varies wildly from person to person and is strongly correlated with age.

The younger a person is, the better they adapt to the new situation. IMO the two main reasons for this are that younger people are more flexible intellectually, and that a significant number of them (but not all!) have had more exposure to other cultures due to the Internet.

I also get the impression that frustration and language skill are correlated. The ability to learn a new language is obviously also correlated with age and educational history.

Note that there are outliers in all directions, but these are the trends that I observed.

A comment that makes sense, downvoted

Oh shush. Just because the developed world has its sins doesn't mean the Middle East's cultural practices aren't immoral.

Who said that?

Cmon mate, only the most extreme or those in power actually want Sharia law. That is a real imposition, not to be confused with the cultral misogyny and such prevelant in most middle eastern cultures.

Where have you gotten that impression? Sharia support is large in most muslim countries, with a few exceptions. Some numbers on the %support of Sharia: Indonesia (72%), Pakistan (84%), Bangladesh (82%) [1]. Even in the UK the Sharia is used for certain areas of life.

[1] http://www.pewforum.org/files/2013/04/gsi2-overview-1.png

I guess I'm just wrong. My assumption mostly came from the apparent extreme resistance Isis is facing in actually creating Sharia governance from the local power vacuums. Im also having trouble finding useful information about civilian opinions of existing Sharia regemes.

People answering polls have pretty varying views of what "Sharia" means, since that name tends to be used by any system of law that claims to be based on Islam. If you ask more specific questions, like whether a rigid Saudi Arabian / Wahhabist style interpretation of Sharia should be introduced in their country, support is much lower, though it depends on the country. One example: 60% of Malaysian Muslims believe that their country's current legal system is sharia, so when they say they support sharia, they mean the system Malaysia currently has, rather than a Saudi-Arabia or Taliban or ISIS style system.

>My assumption mostly came from the apparent extreme resistance Isis is facing in actually creating Sharia governance from the local power vacuums.

ISIS is not creating Sharia in the commonly understood sense. It's creating a Nazi-version of Sharia.

[citation needed]

If you really need one, then there are literally THOUSANDS of books and papers about Sharia, both about its theory and historical implementation.

I suggest you get a few (I would also suggest from respectable universities, not polemicists) and compare what they describe to ISIS.

Sharia is not part of UK law and is not recognised by any UK court.

Sharia courts are recognized as a legally binding arbitration system when used in that way

So they're recognized in the same way as, say, a Jewish court would be, or in fact essentially any body would be?

No, they're not.

https://fullfact.org/law/uks-sharia-courts/

> While feuding couples have to at least consider mediation before going to court, it doesn't override family law. A court has to sign off on any agreement made after divorce for it to be legally binding, and won't do so if the judge thinks it's unfair.

> In 2013, the High Court was asked by an Orthodox Jewish couple to accept the ruling of a Jewish religious court on post-divorce family arrangements. The judge said that while the agreement would carry weight, it would be non-binding—neither party could get around English law by agreeing to abide by the decision of another tribunal.

Reportedly, there are places in UK which don't recognize UK laws.

edit: I mean practically, not formally. It's enough that violations of host country's laws stay unreported and violations of whatever other norms are punished unofficially.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-go_area#Contemporary_no-go_...

Getting people from oppressive cultures who end up living in isolation with others like them to suddenly start exercising their new rights is a hard problem which can't simply be wished out of existence.

[Citation Needed]

This (certainly as far as I'm aware) isn't true. The laws and courts of England and Wales apply in England and Wales, and the relevant local laws and courts (e.g. Scottish laws in Scotland etc) apply elsewhere in the UK.

In terms of Sharia, there is a voluntary arbitration system for civil issues as an alternative to the civil courts, the same as the Beth Din Jewish courts voluntarily used for Jewish civil issues in the UK.

I think he was talking more about places like Luton, where number of times it was reported as a hostile place for britons with a message of 'this is a muslim place now' and unlawful enforcement of sharia laws on common people.

These claims reports are all complete nonsense and have been widely reported as such.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/anders-breivik-trial-lu...

It's quite funny to say so, especially I've seen a (BBC, I think) news/document about exactly such things happening. Unless of course it was all fake, and they all were actors or it wasnt in Luton...

The daily mail article talks about two people who were arrested and charged for attempting to do this. Hardly evidence of a no go zone for police -- quite the opposite. You're repeating nonsense that's been widely debunked and not providing any sources.

Oh, and that too: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2519519/Muslim-Patro...

It might have been reported, but it never happened.

Really? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2519519/Muslim-Patro...

The Daily Mail is your source? You'll need to find something considerably more credible than the nonsense from that rag.

There are many reasons to consider Luton to be hostile to Britons (Ryanair and EasyJet customer service for example), but political Islam isn't one.

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-go_area#Contemporary_no-go_...

From your link:

     Local police forces denied the claims [of no-
     go areas]

     Katie Hopkins could not name areas of Britain
     that were no-go areas because it would not be
     "legally accurate"

     British Prime Minister David Cameron described
     Steven Emerson as "clearly a complete idiot".

What else would "local police" do? Admit defeat? What the official police statements say, and reality on the streets for those living then can differ completely.

> What else would "local police" do? Admit defeat?

What else would they do if the claims are not true?

Either way, that instance was related to drug dealing, not Sharia law.

'Reportedly' being the operative word. And the reporting in question coming from (to be very charitable) slightly less than reliable sources. I get what you mean, it just doesn't seem to be reflected in actuality, and you have to be really careful here: those that support what you're saying are in large part from the far right of the political spectrum, often the extreme far right (eg Tommy Robinson), and figures they pull out are utterly suspect.

That doesn't mean that people can't change: as recently as 1995, the majority of Americans did not approve of interracial marriages[1].

1. http://www.gallup.com/poll/163697/approve-marriage-blacks-wh...

This quote is good too:

  > “In the early days when we arrived, the people 
  > were impressed with us,” he said. “They were taking
  > pictures of us, inviting us into their homes. 
  > They liked our brown skin and our dark hair.”

It seems people were mostly nice to them in Finland.

Yes, but it's also part of a trend -- like it's the cause-of-the-day and everybody tried to show nice they were because of it (not totally unlike Hollywood celebrities suddenly championing some cause or another in the third world, when in fact they don't care that much).

Which is not bad in itself, but can be dangerous when there's no substance to that, and their hosts become bored with that "cause" and forget about them or turn hostile.

The hosts SHOULD forget about them... the whole point is you welcome them with open arms, give them a little help to get them started, and send them on their way. This isn't "handouts for life". This is "here let us give you an opportunity, it's your job to make something of it".

If they can't survive on their own, they SHOULD go back to where they came from and make a life there.

However, majority of these people sought / are seeking asylum is, not claiming that they want to migrate for better quality of life. The people who would be granted asylum theoretically should be persons who would be in a grave danger in the country they came from (ranging from wrongful imprisonment for e.g. political opinion we would find perfectly justifiable, to torture and death for gender identity or sexual orientation). Some people were just "regular people" in Syria (not especially persecuted bloggers or minorities), but still rather want to escape rather than be maimed or killed in a brutal war where "good sides" are hard to find.

Now, the main point in the whole migrant / refugee crisis seems to be that many people who would be economic migrants are using the asylum system to try to enter certain EU countries, but there also this thing that the-would-be-legitimate asylum seekers are also are prone to have much better economic future if they are granted in asylum in country like Finland: differentiating between those is very difficult. This is why it's difficult mess.

edit. is, not isn't.

The majority of them come trough Turkey, no one is in grave danger in Turkey. The moment you cross a second border - you are economic migrant, not refugee.

Mr. Jabiry is one of those reasons why people start thinking that real refugees are like this. Going to a foreign country without education or possibility to get a job is naive if you want to say it nicely. They take a place from someone who really needs help and ruin their reputation

I agree. Perhaps I'm not reading the right articles, but it seems rare for anyone involved (genuine refugees, or people in the refugee business) to condemn these sorts of people.

That's why these countries are delaying applications to filter real refugees from airheads like this guy. He couldn't manage to get education or job in his country, in his culture, in his language and with his race while dreaming to get everything in a different country!

> Mr. Abdulatif was an officer in Saddam Hussein’s army, but > after the invasion by the United States in 2003, and the > subsequent policy of de-Baathification, he was left without > a pension. Then he was caught up in tragedy, like most > Iraqis: Three brothers were killed during the sectarian > civil war. But he has an aunt and cousin who live in the > United States, and their stories motivated him to think of > life elsewhere.

The article talks about more than one migrant. This poor Iraqi's story sounds a lot like a refugee. How safe would you feel after that happening to you?

>real refugees need to visit psychologists

What are psychologists going to do? Tell them they have been brainwashed ?

No, help them deal with culture shock. Which if you've never experienced is probably not something you can imagine.

people dont go to psychologists in the first place in the middle east. They should have a religious/community leader who could help them with this.

western psychologists have very little clue as to how to deal with things like these.

Hmmm, no. I come from a small town in the Southeastern US. People are incredibly religious, you can't even sell alcohol there thanks to the laws they've passed. A part of the local culture is consulting preachers for counseling instead of psychologists/therapists. It causes enormous amounts of damage. We should never encourage people to visit witch doctors over trained medical professionals, culture be damned.

Can anyone who downvoted this explain why?

It seems like a reasonable suggestion to me that people visit trained professionals rather than quacks, or people who will give advice or 'help' skewed by their own personal, perhaps fundamentalist, beliefs.

If you've talked to enough of those trained professionals and if you've read the research their training is based on (and the research about that training), you'll realize that quite a lot - if not most - of the therapeutic effect comes from the patient having someone to talk with about their problems. Which is something a caring local community leader can do as well. 'mrrrgn knows some bad examples, I've personally seen some good - the heads of congregations in the religion I was raised in actually get something of a psychology training, though it's not called such - rather, it's just advice about talking and helping people in need. OTOH they'll happily refer you to seek outside, secular psychological and psychiatric help as well.

Curiously, psychology itself was quite mixed with religion in the past; in some places, it still is. I remember reading Polish psychology texts as a kid, quite a lot of them had serious Catholic undertones (and sometimes explicit references). Which is sort-of understandable when you can count on religion as being an important part of your average person's life.

Unfortunately 'local community leader' is usually synonymous with 'someone that has an agenda'.

But some religions have on going problems with abusive harmful "therapy" such as conversion therapy; and there have in the recent past been severe problems with religious organisations telling abuse victims not to go to police.

Their religious leaders are a part of the problem, you can't have it both ways like it or not for both the migrants and Europe to survive this process some one has to give, and considering that their "culture" has had quite a big influence on why we in this situation in the first place I think for the benefit of all parties that's the part that should give in.

We've had much more millions of immigrants in Europe in the last 2-4 decades (tens of millions) than are currently coming from those places.

There's not much of a culture shock. You probably think they lived captive or in some "iron curtain" regime. They know everything about Europe, the follow the same tv shows, they use the internet etc. Including poorer people.

They don't come because suddenly they were let free and can now experience the world for the first time. They come because they had a devastating war in their country, and they, sadly (for them), can no longer stay there safely.

People get culture shock when moving between western nations - it's not something that's prevented by watching TV. In fact TV can give false ideas that make the reality even more of a shock.

That is a very eurocentric view on the world. I doubt that everyone in the world lusts for western culture and law. Even the most PC people in Europe cant hide that they still see themselves superior to the rest of the world.

> that is an illegal migrant,

when not having documents == {theft, murder, fraud}

Driving without a drivers license is also illegal (in most countries) but not considered equal to theft, murder or fraud. That's a false equivalence because not all things considered illegal are considered as abhorrent as murder or theft.

Agree with you. But when you burn/destroy in purpose your papers just to hide your real you, I guess that will add a big question mark on you. Also, I read in faz that 40% of the refugee will be deported as they do not have any `issue` in the sens of EU. I found that very stupid and wrong. You pick some people based on your view of the life and rest can die.

Running a red light is illegal too. What's your point?

Romans, and Greeks especially under Alexander, changed their lifestyles significantly to accommodate influence from subjects of their conquests. It comes with the imperium package.

Good job on nitpicking on a language phrase instead of answering the content of the post :/

Which part was not an answer to the Content of the parent?

What imperium does Finland control exactly?

Salmiakki?

You don't have to control. Being part is sufficient.

Being part, as in also being controlled. It's really absurd to think that Finland is somehow responsible for actions of some empire, when the history is more about the country being target of imperialism (by neighbouring Russia and Sweden).

> Greeks especially under Alexander, changed their lifestyles significantly to accommodate influence from subjects of their conquests

You mean the Greek subjects of an emperor who spent his time adventuring past the known extent of the world, with all the communications technology the world could offer 2400 years ago? The Greeks who split off from the Asian part of Alexander's empire immediately after he died in a foreign country thousands of miles away?

Ptolemies split too in Egypt but were calling themselves Greeks while having Pharaoh and religious evolution. Greeks were not known for being under a single ruler for long, yet they were keeping a common cultural identity.

The point I'm making is that the Greek subjects of Alexander didn't make any accommodations for the benefit of the foreigners he conquered, since all those foreigners were far away and hard to talk to. His army (and his court, the generals) had to make accommodations, and they complained quite a bit, but his subjects just sat around at home. The army had to be on location.

The empire split after Alexander's death into the Macedonians proper, the Seleucids in Asia, and the Ptolemies in Egypt. The Ptolemies certainly kept a lot of cultural continuity with the Greek / Macedonian world -- so much so that the last Ptolemaic pharaoh, Cleopatra, is believed to have been the first one who was able to speak the Egyptian language (after ruling Egypt for 250 years!). They did set up syncretistic temples, which was standard practice basically everywhere in the classical period. That was an effort to get the Egyptians to accept Greek religion, not the other way around. The Ptolemies even set up a major new city for Greeks. Their accommodations to Egypt weren't particularly impressive.

To the extent that the Greeks and the Macedonians had a common cultural identity, it was because the Macedonians aspired to Greek culture (it seems safe to say that the Ptolemies eventually succeeded at this). The Greeks didn't think highly of the barbarians to their north.

Can you provide examples?

The Romans, IIRC, were uncommonly willing to allow subjects to participate in Roman society as long as they followed the rules. This did not mean that the Romans themselves changed their own lifestyles.

So what would you say about Christianity? Was it a change in Roman lifestyle?