The multicultural ideal is an illusion

Immigrant riots across Europe are not the fault of nations. Some prefer violence, writes Ben Dror Yemini

IMMIGRANT riots, nights of car and school-burning in Sweden, the ritual slaughter of a soldier in London, the stabbing of another in Paris — Europe is confronted again with the unresolved question: Where did we go wrong?

Borders were opened and opportunities opened up. However, the multicultural approach of Britain and Sweden, the republican integrationist approach of France — neither has worked. With the first generation, we got along. With the second, there were difficulties. With part of the third generation, it starts to look like a war of civilisations.

It took Europe centuries to evolve its model of liberal democracy, with its fundamental principles of equality, empowerment of women, freedom of expression, and much more. Some immigrants have adopted this model with remarkable speed. Others, and they are not a marginal minority, refuse to do so.

The multicultural ideal is an illusion because it is itself anchored entirely in the liberal-democratic model. The idea that one can go to church, the second to synagogue, and the third to mosque works well as long as each respects the rights of others to worship (or not) as they please. This means adopting Western liberal standards of tolerance. But where there are minorities that reject this out of hand, the ideal is doomed to failure.

The counter-argument, of course, is that this failure is not about culture or religion: It is caused by discrimination, not least in the labour market.

Two points can be made in reply. First, discrimination undoubtedly exists. Every ethnic community, including the majority group, prefers itself. In every European country, fewer opportunities are open to foreigners than to the native population. But this is only a partial answer. Many immigrant groups manage to fit well into their adopted countries while keeping a connection to their cultures of origin. Most Asian groups in the West have integrated well.

Hindus, for example, are an amazing success story, having surpassed in educational attainment not only their host communities but the previous highest achievers, the Jews. This despite their low starting point and although “colour” was supposed to be a barrier.

We can add to that a litmus test for integration: When women are freed, in the community of immigrants, the community is freed and integrated; if the women are oppressed, or held to a lower status, the community is doomed to fail.

The fact is that “rioting immigrants” is a euphemism, a code for “Muslim immigrants”. Chinese immigrants began at a similarly low starting point, but are not part of the “rioting immigrants”. To put the difference at its starkest, the Chinese and Hindus, like the Jews before them, prefer hard work to campaigns based on grievance and violence.

Young Muslims have excellent grounds for complaining of discrimination and rejection. All studies confirm it. Johann and James have better job prospects than Ahmed or Jamal. Discrimination is part of human nature.

Every group of immigrants, especially one with unique characteristics, is subjected initially to discrimination and alienation. But this cannot justify rioting, and certainly not incitement to hatred or terrorism.

Less than 100 years ago, there were quotas for Jews in many universities in the west. Hospitals refused to accept Jewish doctors. Back then, prostitution was a profitable pursuit for many immigrants. But Jews did not become riotous. Like the Hindus and Chinese of recent decades, they chose the path of hard work to escape discrimination and hardship.

The synagogues did not preach the subversion now preached in many mosques. Jews, Hindus, and Chinese have not preached an equivalent of “jihad” or attempted to force their cultures or ancestral laws on their host communities. Instead they have suffered, worked, and overcome.

With all due respect to the claims of discrimination, it must not be seen as set in stone. In France and Britain, discrimination against Hindus and non-Muslim blacks has greatly diminished. Why? When host countries open their doors, they expect their guests to make an effort to integrate, not to nurture grievances and certainly not to indulge in violence.

For those who make this effort, the rewards are there. It takes two to tango. Most immigrants, including most Muslim immigrants, prefer to integrate. But we cannot ignore the fact some of them prefer violence. It’s not the fault of the hosting countries. Sometimes, we must admit, it’s the fault of the rioters themselves.

*Ben Dror Yemini is the opinion editor of the Israeli daily newspaper, Maariv, and a lawyer