An interesting take on the 'intergration' issue. Do Stamford Hill's Jews need integration? An extraordinary portrait of a closed community explodes the lazy rhetoric of social cohesion The Haredi Jews of Stamford Hill in north London are a sober bunch. They only binge-drink once a year, at Purim, when there is a religious obligation to celebrate exuberantly the salvation of Babylonian Jews from a sixth-century genocide. Children wear fancy dress, men get drunk and dance boisterously. But the police don't get called out to break up fights in the synagogue. When it comes to law and order, the Haredim are model citizens. But if the ultra-orthodox Jewish community doesn't go in for antisocial behaviour, in relations with people of other faiths they are not what you could call sociable. A Haredi man will not shake hands with a woman who is not his wife. It would be an impropriety verging on lasciviousness and, besides, he can't be sure she isn't menstruating, which under the strictest interpretation of Jewish law makes her unclean. Haredi women avoid eye contact with strangers. The community as a whole eschews contact with modern secular society. Television is frowned upon. The dress code for men - long, black coats, tall, black hats, white stockings on the Sabbath - is imported from eastern European ghettos of the 18th century. The media don't pay much attention to the Haredim and they like it that way. But this week, BBC4 will screen a documentary by Vanessa Engle, an award-winning film-maker who gained unprecedented access to this hermetically sealed community. It is the first in a series of three films titled Jews, portraits of very different members of Britain's oldest religious minority. Engle's films are made of simple inquiry and observation. They are, like their subjects, not political. But in 21st-century Britain, a minority that refuses to commune with the rest of society cannot hide from politics. Gordon Brown wants to promote public expressions of 'Britishness'. New arrivals will be expected to avow their loyalty, while established Britons will wave flags and hug each other on a new public holiday. As a rule, policy only exists as a solution to a problem. In this case, the problem is a lack of what wonks and Whitehall call 'integration and social cohesion'. That deficit was brought to the government's attention by opinion polls that consistently show voters unhappy about high levels of immigration, and by the 7 July bombings, which showed how members of one community were so alienated from Britain as to be capable of treason. Since then, promoting 'integration' has become the shared aspiration of all mainstream parties. It is one of those lazy virtues that are easy to promote because no one in their right mind stands for the opposite. Who has a manifesto calling for disintegration? The Haredim pose an interesting challenge to this tidy consensus. If separateness in Muslims and immigrant communities is bad because it leads to crime and disorder, would it be fine as long as the ghetto was trouble-free? If people obey the law, why should they integrate and, if they must, with whom? Rich and poor Britons don't mix socially. They don't even drink in the same pubs. An effective policy is one that changes behaviour. If the problem is people driving too fast, make them slow down. But what, on a day-to-day basis, are devout Muslims or Haredi Jews expected to do to integrate in modern Britain. Take their children to the local playground? Shop at Ikea? They already do that. The same is true of 'social cohesion'. You can't put a bunch of people in a room with instructions to 'cohese'. It isn't even a word. Last year, the government's Commission on Integration and Cohesion defined 'integration' vaguely as 'the process that ensures new residents and existing residents adapt to one another'. The commission also found that in most of the country that was already happening. Seventy-nine per cent of those polled thought that people from different backgrounds got on well in their area. That was equally true for areas with a high ethnic mix and more homogenous quarters. There was, however, a clear correlation between a lack of 'cohesion' and deprivation. Poor areas suffered higher crime, which made people suspicious of one another and less enthusiastic about racial diversity. Anyone who tries to measure 'integration' ends up relying on definitions that are either banal (how many members of a minority speak English) or economically functional (how many have jobs). If politicians want something more profound - a convergence of behaviour towards shared habits and a limit on egregious displays of difference - the correct word is assimilation. But to minority ears, that sounds like a threat of cultural annihilation. In another of Engle's films, we meet Jonathan Faith, a wealthy businessman who is devoting his retirement to halting the decline in Britain's mainstream Jewish population. In 1950, there were 450,000 Jews in the country; now, there are fewer than 270,000 and the rate of decline is accelerating. The problem is simple. Jews marry non-Jews and end up having non-Jewish children. 'Integrated' secular Judaism is dying. The Haredim are bucking the trend. They number between 20,000 and 45,000 today, but are prolific. Families of eight or more children are not unusual. Is there a numerical point at which their cultural distinctness offends the secular liberal principle of 'integration'? Is it 100,000? A million? Is there a threshold beyond which the state will turn around and say, as it does of Muslims, 'the Jews must be integrated'? If government wants to change the status of minorities, it can choose between two policy menus, one cultural and one economic. The cultural one is assimilation: setting a goal of a unified national identity and pushing people towards it, by shutting faith schools and banning public officials from wearing headscarves, for example. The economic one is redistribution: addressing the problems of social mobility and poverty that actually cause tension between communities. Or it can go à la carte and try a bit of both. What it can't do is talk loosely about a policy of integration because, noble though it sounds, it doesn't actually mean anything. · Nick Cohen is away About this articleClose This article appeared in the Observer on Sunday June 15 2008 on p28 of the Comment section. It was last updated at 00:11 on June 15 2008. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jun/15/religion.communities

Cheks to make it through tonight.

Originally posted by rudy-Diiriye: rip! dunno the homie..not a tv watcher. You guys actually watch political shows? On Sundays??

http://www.unops.org/UNOPS/Templates/ContractAwards.aspx?NRMODE=Published&NRNODEGUID=%7bE89A3C1E-CF3 6-4DDA-B543-A96607E49DDA%7d&NRORIGINALURL=%2fUNOPS%2fProcurement%2fContractAwards%2f&NRCACHEHINT=Gue st

Sounds good ya Xiin. Will listen when I get home IA

Alaab iyo maalayacni!

^LoL I will now hijack this thread with my pics of London.

A&T, a week later and you get a prediction right! Congrats. I can't remember the last I read a newspaper. Predictions will be scrutinised next week when we get to the qtrs and semis. Greece (2004 Champs) have just been knocked out.

Well if the silly ref gave a penalty things may have different but the french coach is not made up for this high profile stuff. He made some silly changes and brought on a rasta who can't run or stay on his feet. Maxaa la caayay ninka LoL Good stuff from the Dutch.

I want the Lakers to take game 5 so the Celtics go home and wrap things up in front of their own supporters.

I'm 'baffed' as reer London youth would say :confused: Is it me or has everyone completely lost the plot? Let me quote the original post for eveyone and hope that they get back on track (don't let Ngonge's 4 year old theory confuse you). I was just going through posts and I saw another member's signature which had a small girl wearing the hijab. that brought me back to the time I visited Somalia and I saw all these little girls (children no older than 9) wearing hijab as part of their school uniform. a 7-year-old wearing the hijab...to me, that's a bit off. I (and others) have tried (in vein it seems) to explain why wearing the hijab is a fundemental part of growing up and comes from parents encouraging their kids to become aware of it, be proud of it etc etc. If you disagree please put forth your argument!!!! LG, I don't know what your talking about but you have gotten the wrong end of the stick. Re-read the original post and then re-read my replies and tell me where I have gone wrong or off topic. Johnny, I have explained myself. Please address my explaination. No repeating of your original argument will not make it any more palatable. Cara says, It's as challenging for a 9 year old to pray as it is for a 4 year to wear the hijab, and in both cases you must explain yourself to the child, with no guarantee that they understand. Good point. As my earlier statement, a 12 year old will not, in most cases, fully understand why they are wearing the hijab (alot of adults don't), so what is the difference? Cara says: By the way, there was no question of force in the original question, nothing about MAKING 4 year olds cover themselves up. You're adding an unnecessary intensifier there. THANK YOU!!! Address the ORIGINAL question boys and girls and leave the convenient 4 year olds alone.

^^You're making a pointless point. Instead of talking about the empty chamber you refer to the man's character. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOz_24HiJY0&feature=related

Old music? :confused:

7 year olds are forced to do just about everything saxib. They hardly have a say in most matters. Considering that she will be required to wear the hijab soon is not a good idea to encourage them to wear it now? With discussions it's importance etc? Why disagree with that?

^^Define 'forced' in the context of parent teaching kid Islamic basics. When should kids be encouraged to wear hijab? 8? 9?

Holland. My first tournamnet. Van Basten was the man! 20 years ago

lix page ka bacdi and I still don't know which side of the argument he is on Waar bal meel uun istaag!

What is your argument?

Ngonge, who is twisting and turning now? Question is 'how young' yes AND she talked of 7 and 9 year olds losing their childhood! I have explained myself. Do you agree? If not why?

The question still remains, why put a hijab on a four-year-old that still probably wets his/her bed? There must be a very strong reason (since it’s not a religious obligation); you are the one supporting this measure, and it is for you to explain yourself. That was not the question saxib She was talking about 9 year olds wearing hijab as if it was a new phenomenon. If you re-read my earlier replies I stated it doesn't when a child wears the hijab so long as they are educated about it at the same time. As for the indoctrination question, I think it depends on the way you look at it. I don't think encouraging a 9 year old to wear hijab (with what I explained in my previous post) can be defined as indoctrination. Unless you can explain why it may be the case.

A child is incapable of understanding the concept and importance of the hijab (many adults are aswell). However, some parents will try to ensure their daughter(s) is 'aware' of it's significence in Islam and that it is a symbol of Islam. Encouraging one's child to wear it from a young age is usually coupled with explainations, quran lessons (I'm mean, who didn't go to malcaamad?) etc. It comes as part of a whole package that actively informs the child that: 1 - Islam is the truth 2 - They are Muslim(s) 3 - Tenets of faith Therefore, informing one's child of his/her religion and the his/her duties under that religion is expected irrespective of age. Although a full understanding will not be obtained by a 9 year, you are expected to do the informing and if that involves encouraging them to wear the hijaab, take them to learn the Quran (even though they may not understand what they are reading) then so be it. Correct there needs to be a balance in a childs life but I don't see how wearing the Hijab restricts that balance. As Ibti already mentioned, a parent is responsible for how his/her child's mind is developed over the years. A muslim will usually do his/her best to ensure his/her child adheres to his/her faith. Is this indoctrinating or teaching duqa Ngonge? I'm sure a 5 years old 'knows' apples are good for his teeth before he is able to do an experiment

I'm yet to fully understand Ngonge's argument. He seems to be hiding behind Johnny whilst stating he disagrees with him! Ngonge, give us an earful pal.

Originally posted by Ibtisam: The same argument could be used against taking them to school, work etc. Parents are there to shape their children views, values and beliefs.Sheeko kaal keen meesha. and that is where the coockie crumbles folks :cool:

Originally posted by Northerner: Semis will include: Portugal Germany Holland Spain France are not as good as people think. I don't think they are well oiled with too many individuals. Ze Germans let me down last night. 3 out 4 is still on the cards.

Originally posted by NGONGE: ^^ Heh. How sneaky of you, North. YOU were supposed to answer this question. ps North and Ibti, This is not about arguing with Johnny. He has valid points. It's a public forum. If you don't want to talk to him personally then don't talk to him but you will still have to deal with his well-put argument. Depends how you define a well-put argument