2009年9月17日木曜日
やっぱり嘘つきが多いのか？
この有道ブログに投稿している、Keviｎっておれじゃないんですけど・・・・
こういことばっかやっているのかね、あそこのブログに投稿する人は？
Narita cops allegedly stopping newly-arrived “foreigners” for passport checks before boarding Narita Express trains
Posted by debito on September 16th, 2009
debito.org/?p=4411
2009年7月21日火曜日
重宝な不法移民
Illegal immigration, a problem no one wants to solve
July 20, 12:53 PM
July 21, 2009
By Michael Fitzgerald
Record Columnist
April 09, 2008 6:00 AM
Day Labor in the United Statesｐｄｆ
July 20, 12:53 PM
Illegal immigration is one of those issues that we file under vexing. It vexes us. And part of our frustration lies in our conflicting attitudes over it. We're told immigrants crossing our border illegally are coming here to work and make a better life for themselves. That's a story as old as America itself so we empathize with what has been a great tradition in our country.
But we're told they're taking jobs from legal American citizens, a notion we find wholly unfair. Yet, the same people who complain about that also complain about welfare fraud and the number of those same American citizens who cheat the system on the taxpayer's dime all because they choose not to work, a notion we find wholly unethical.
We hear of Americans who do want to work but can't get the work because employers would rather hire illegals for less money, which we find utterly greedy and downright unpatriotic. American employers --members of the free market system we love to champion as a paragon of American success-- saving money by paying lower wages to those who don't deserve to be here without passing on those savings to consumers who should benefit from cheaper wages through lower prices thereby. Meanwhile, the American citizen denied a job, applies for government assistance, paid for not only by the taxpayer who doesn't save money through cheaper products via lower wages, but paid for by the employer as well, who thought he could save money by not hiring American citizens.
Unions don't rush to protect their members who are denied jobs at construction sites in the hope that the illegals who come here will remain here, become regularized here and join the union given that membership in labor unions has fallen to unprecedented levels.
Democrats, who complain about laws violating the privacy of Americans, say nothing when those same Americans are denied the right to earn a day's pay. They prattle on about principals of equity and fairness yet play favorites with illegals at the expense of the legal so they as not to offend a growing Latino population they plan to register as party voters.
Republicans defy their traditional conservative principles of patriotism, nationalism and champions of the free enterprise model all to placate the businesses that benefit from cheap labor at the expense of the fanatical patriots who support their party.
Others who have jobs moonlight as forgers to supply fake IDs for illegals, yet critics will blame the illegal and not the forger, even though both broke the law. Yet those same critics, the American public, hire more illegals for day labor than does any other sector of the American economy. Let me say that another way: The largest employer of illegals is the average American homeowner. Your neighbor getting the lawn mowed, the house painted, the drywall installed or the roof repaired: 49 percent of all day laborers are hired by homeowners and home renters.
We want our yards mowed, houses cleaned, homes built, food served, produce picked and processed, and menial jobs tended to, and we want our borders secure (from those who are willing to do these jobs because, good gravy, what part of illegal don't you understand?
We often hear people say "Buy American!" but instead we prefer to buy for less.
Our own federal government acknowledges the illegal immigration problem yet, enables it. Illegals by the thousands flooded into post-Katrina New Orleans to clean out, tear down and rebuild a devastated city, and while the Davis-Bacon Act requires that a wage equal to the prevailing union wage in the community be paid to all workers, the federal government waived the law, making it legal to pay the majority of illegals nearly 40 percent less than the wage paid to legal workers.
Yet the government is happy to collect Social Security taxes from illegals with phony Social Security numbers knowing those illegals will never collect a dime from Social Security --a free tax for Uncle Sam.
Why weren't those jobs being held by New Orleans natives who lost homes and jobs? Was it because they were displaced? Why would that stop them? Was it just easier to get a free place to live, even if it was a trailer? Was it because those jobs were tough, dirty and dangerous, or was it because unscrupulous employers would rather hire illegal immigrants who could be paid sub-par wages in cash without following the labor laws of the United States.
Even when the promise of a solution is presented thanks to technological advances, we have resistance. Come September, E-Verify will become the official policy of the United States government. Employers who receive federal contracts will have to use the electronic system to check the legal status of their employees.
Yet, such paragons of free enterprise like the United States Chamber of Commerce and the editors of the Wall Street Journal, 100 percent accurate and no system on Earth is good enough to handle this problem. The Journal's editor's think Barack Obama and former President George Bush are wrong to blame employers for illegal immigration into the United States; yet their answer at a time of severe economic contraction is to increase legal immigration quotas to compete against illegal immigrants rather than insuring that American businesses hire American workers.oppose E-Verify, warning that the program isn't
How do we can reconcile all these diametrically opposed pieces of the puzzle together? When you hear all these facts working at cross purposes from all sides, it's hard to say we aren't just a little bit two-faced. Who or where shall we place blame?
Here's the problem: No significant group in our society has enough of a self-interest in illegal immigrants do something about it. Not the unions, not the politicians (save a few who occasionally make noise), not city governments with their sanctuary city policies, not businesses that hire illegals, not even the average taxpayer. Everybody's got an excuse why they can't. We seem to be completely incapable of effectively dealing with the problem of illegal immigration, apparently because we don't want to.
No. 1 employers of day laborers? Homeowners
Use of illegal immigrant workers becoming mainstream in U.S.
updated 3:04 p.m. ET April 29, 2006
BURBANK, Calif. - Chris James needed help moving a piano and three dozen boxes of records from his music studio, but instead of corralling some buddies he rented a truck and hired day laborers outside the local Home Depot.
The two Guatemalan men finished the job in an hour and a half, hauling a piano and wedging a sofa into his condo, then stacking the boxes in a back room, for less than $40.
It was first time James hired day laborers but it won’t be his last.
July 21, 2009
By Michael Fitzgerald
Record Columnist
April 09, 2008 6:00 AM
Crossing illegally into California for work, then coming to Stockton during this recession seems like ducking ocean liner fare by stowing away on the Titanic.
Yet they come. They always will, to every sizable city, in good times or bad. Here they gather by the Gateway McDonald's, hoping for work. That's a problem.
The city spent millions on the Gateway project because the downtown Stockton offramp, the city's gateway, gives many visitors their first impression of the city.
The idea was to spruce it up. Instead, "When people first come into Stockton, what do they see?" asked the mayor's assistant, Dennis Smallie. " 'Oh my God, it's unsafe.' "
Now the owner of the Mickey D's says the laborers scare off business. One man told me he drove his utility truck into the lot, craving a burger; six guys surrounded him.
Moreover, the current spot, improvised and unwelcoming, is as inhumane as it is poorly located. But what sort of place to provide, if any, is controversial.
Luis Magaña, an activist trying to help the laborers, says they deserve a building outfitted with bathrooms, water, seating, computers, even an on-site manager.
Others say tax dollars should not go to illegals. Some of these objectors - I'm sorry - hide nativism behind legal arguments.
Others have a legitimate point. Like Rick Fernandes. Fernandes is in construction. He has five employees, a shop, overhead.
"I've got a city license, a state contractor's license, liability insurance, workers' comp, auto insurance," Fernandes said. "My construction business - because the housing market's down - is hurt. Then I'm losing jobs to people who don't have licenses."
Fernandes says he lost four jobs last month to these undocumented, unlicensed crews. So you can guess how he feels about pouring tax dollars into a day labor center.
Crafting a fair solution is not easy. Still, a city that can site innumerable halfway houses for the mentally ill, parolees, even the criminally insane can find room for guys who want to work.
It need not be a Taj Mahal. Smallie points to Public Architecture, a San Francisco firm. It sells a $50,000 Day Labor Station, sort of like a field construction office with benches and awnings outside.
This project seems a perfect opportunity to recruit partners. Religious leaders should be asked if their flocks could offer anything from doughnuts and coffee once per month to more substantial commitments. That reduces taxpayer cost.
Heck, I'd even ask Mexico if it has any programs or pesos to contribute. Dollars Mexicans send home are vital to the Mexican economy, after all.
Magaña said he's pursuing that angle with a Mexican consular officer in Sacramento. The city might want to as well.
Relocating the day laborers need not require major subsidies to an underground economy. Just the minimum necessary to protect the Gateway investment and keep everybody safe.
Day Labor in the United Statesｐｄｆ
Our findings reveal that the day-labor market is rife with violations of workers’ rights.
Day laborers are regularly denied payment for their work, many are subjected to demonstrably
hazardous job sites, and most endure insults and abuses by employers. The growth of day-labor
hiring sites combined with rising levels of workers’ rights violations is a national trend that
warrants attention from policy makers at all levels of government.
2009年6月28日日曜日
Relativism
Relativism
知識、存在、倫理、美などの相対主義に関する入門書である。これらの分野の相対主義を論破し、著者はどちらかというと形而上学的な実在論に近い立場をとる。
なお、倫理についての相対主義について 、以前、Moral relativityという本の書評を書いた。またMoral Relativism（SEP）（英語）, 知識論における相対主義について"Refutation of Relativism by Searl(Word document)
なども参照。
いわゆるポストモダニズムや多文化主義の論者なんてのは相対主義的な傾向が強い、と思う。本書は２００８年出版だから、やはり揺り戻しがあるのだろう。（postmodernismなど参照）
例えば、ある行為の正邪を論じるとき、日本ではこうなの！ アメリカではこうなの！と論じる人達がいる。言いたいのは、アメリカでは知らないが、日本ではこれで良いの！、ということであったり、アメリカで悪いんだから、他の国でも悪いの、といったことかもしれない。
前者は善悪は文化などに相対的で、それ以上のものではない、という素朴な相対主義の萌芽があり、後者はある地域で、妥当な善悪の判断は、事情を細かく考慮することなく、他の地域にも当然妥当するだろうという独断主義の萌芽がない、と言えなくない。（この点、常識的十戒律なども参照）
しかし、ある地域ーー日本やアメリカーーーでの判断が間違っていることもあるし、規範は同じでも、事情が異なる場合もあるのだから、日本でいいと判断されているから、善い、とも限らず、アメリカでは悪いと判断されているから、日本でも悪いとは限らない。
いずれにせよ、事情・環境の違いや、善悪の判断規範などの理由は尽くさなければならない。
相対主義や反ー相対主義＝絶対主義はある種の懸念をもっており、それも一理ある。
著者はGreetzを引用して、（page 9)
、
（訳ではないが）相対主義者は、自分の社会に慣れ親しみ過ぎて、鈍り偏狭になった感性で他者や他社会を安易に判断することに警戒し、反相対主義は、他文化などを尊重のあまり、どれも大切で、従って、どれも意義がない、といった精神の倦怠を警戒している。
で、結論的には著者は、
相対主義は、我々が独断的に真実だと信じていることは間違いであることもあるし、また、実在のすべてだと思っていることが単に断片であることも、また、倫理的な規範とて一概に正しいと言い切れない場合もある、ということを喚起してくれる点では、評価できるものの、相対主義は自滅的、自己矛盾的な理論である、と論じ、相対主義が、どれも同じ価値があるとして、優劣がつけられないから、結局のところ、進歩や自己批判まで否定することを懸念するのである。
本書からちょっと離れて言うと、一般に相対主義と反相対主義の対立というのは、実際的な応用としては、それほどかけはなれたものではない、ような気がする。
例えば、死刑制度や中絶について賛否の論争がある。両者にもある程度の合理性があるように思える。膠着状態に陥る。このとき、賛否についてただ一つの結論がある、あるいは、絶対的実在、あるいは、賛否を決する絶対的な基準がある、というのが絶対主義で、いや、ない、というのが相対主義で、実際的にはあってもなくても妥協するか、妥協しないで現状を維持して時が経過する、と言った感じではなかろうか？
また、ある社会で行われていることが、少なくともこちらの判断からは間違っている、あるいは、普遍的に間違っている、と判断されても、その行為・慣習（ーーある国の死刑制度の運用など想起されたいーーー）に関して、即座に介入して停止させるべきか、あるいは停止のさせ方などは、別問題になる。（上記 SEPの論述参照）
まあ、それはいいとしておおざっぱに、議論を追いかけると、まず、相対主義の定義として、、存在や属性や真偽が、それ自体ではなく、他との関係で成立する、という定義では、事実との対応関係で真偽が決まるとする反ー相対主義的な真理の対応説までも相対主義となってしまい、広義に逸するとして、避け、また、普遍的な真理がない、というのは知識論に限定されるから、狭義に逸するとして、（おおざっぱに、私流に言い換えると）存在者の有無、その性質、価値などは、我々人間がそれらについて、思い、言い表し、文化的に組み込むといった自明な意味で関係しているが、そうした意味以外でも、そうした存在者の有無、性質、価値などは、我々の思い、言語、文化的実践などの人間の活動に由来して成立する、と定義する。
知識に関する相対主義は、知識に関して対立する主張がある場合、その対立に決着をつける中立的な規範は「ない」、とするが、言うところの、それが「ない」という判断は中立的か、中立的でないか、いずれかだが、中立的であるとすれば、理論が自己破綻し、中立的でない、とすれば、中立的でないが故に説得的とはいえない、という。
また、人は自分の（枠組み、文化の）視点を超越することが出来ない、という議論に対しては、たしかに、自分の枠組みや文化的偏見がすっぽり全部抜け出ることは出来ないかもしれんが、しかし、子供は自分の視点を乗り越えて他人の視点を共有し、あるいは、、裸眼でみえなくても存在する世界はあるのだ、と認識していくように部分的に自分の視点・枠組みを乗り越えていくことはあるのだから、相対主義は説得的でない、と。
相対主義は、命題の真偽をそのように（真あるいは偽と）判断される、という判断にかからせているが、とすれば、相対主義は間違いであるとする判断されれば、相対主義は間違いであり、相対主義は間違いである、という判断もあるから、間違いである。（ちょっとややこしいが）
さらにパトナムの議論を援用して、相対主義は独我論に陥り、独我論が誤りであるのと類比的に誤りである、とする。
太郎と花子はそれぞれ自分の経験から世界を構築する（独我論）とすれば、 世界の一部である花子の経験も太郎の経験から構築されるが、しかし、それでは、花子の経験は結局、花子の経験ではない、ということになって矛盾するが、これは、前提である独我論が誤っていたからである。同様に、ある命題の真偽が文化・枠組みに相対的であるなら、他方の文化・枠組みで真実とされることも結局、一方の文化・枠組みに相対的に真実に過ぎないことなるが、それでは、他方の文化・枠組みで真実とされるのはその（当該他方の）文化・枠組みに相対的に真実であるのではない、ことになり理論が自己破綻する。
これに対して真実は絶対的であるが、真実を正当化するものは文化・枠組みに相対的であるとして、相対主義を擁護するものもいるが（Solomon)、しかし、正当化するとは、真実である理由を論じることであり、正当化のなかに真実への契機が含まれているのだから一方は絶対的で、一方は相対的であるいうように別個に論じることはできない、という。
存在論に関しては、パトナムはかえって、相対主義をとるという。事実は念力でつくりだされるものではないが、しかし、つねに個人や人間の関心を前提とする何らかの概念・言語を前提としており、世界に関して、非人間的な既成の実在によって強制されるようなの唯一の記述はない、とするが、しかし、パトナムの主張自体も、そもそも、実在が（特定の関心を前提としないで）他でもなく、こうある、という記述・論述なのだから、自滅的な議論である。
要するに、例えば、目の前にある豆の特性について、余すところなく列挙できないかもしれないし、様々に列挙できたとしても、列挙できるのはまだ、その一部に過ぎないかも知れないが、しかし、だからといって、その豆の特性の全体が（客観的に我々から独立に、独自に）存在しないわけではない。存在者やその性質は、人間の記述や言語に依存しないでーーそれについて語るとき言語で語る、という自明な意味以外でーーー独自に存在するじゃないか、というわけであろう。
倫理に関しても相対主義は行き詰まる、という。
文化によって異なる倫理がある、ということがいわれることがある。例えば、ある部族では、その部族の成員が事故などで死んだとき他の部族の成員を殺してもよい、という例が文化人類学者有がどによって紹介されることがあるが、しかし、東京で家族が交通事故で死んだら大阪で誰かを殺してよい、というのは日本では許しがたい規範であろう。このような倫理が文化によって異なる、という記述自体の真偽についても細かく吟味していかなくてはいかないが、しかし、問題は、そうした違いがあることを前提として、異なる枠組間で、その優劣はつけられない、優劣を決める中立的な規範はない、という相対主義の主張である。
仮にこの手の相対主義が正しいとすれば、倫理的な当為は当該団体のみに適用される、ということになるが、しかし、それでは、「文化によって倫理に違いがある」という命題・前提を信じる”べき”か、否かも属する団体・文化によって異なることことになるが、が、しかし、相対主義は、団体や文化の枠組みを超えて、当該前提は妥当する、と主張していた筈であり、不整合な主張である。
また、物差しという中立的な測りがあるから、背の高さの高低を決することはできるが、しかし、異なる文化の倫理的伝統の優劣を決する物差しに相当する測りでないじゃないか、と言われることがあるが、しかし、他人を傷つけるな、弱者の手助けせよ、などなど、特定文化を超えて、共通に評価されている規範は存在する。
、
美に関しても、それが主観的な情緒や、その投影にすぎない、とする説に対して、それでは、美に関する判断の不一致があった場合、そのどれもが同等に正しいわけではない、と主張するにも係わらず、結局、趣味の違いというだけで、その優劣を論証することができないし、また、例えば、山頂からの風景を「なんて崇高で、偉大なんだ」と形容するときには、自分の矮小さを思い知らされているのであり、また、お前は醜悪だと、というとき、自分が醜悪な感情を持っているわけでもないのだから、対象に帰属された属性は、主観的な情緒や、その投影ではない、という。
世界観に関する相対主義の章は、クーンやローティー、マッケンタイヤなどを引きながら、これまでの議論の総括的な章である。二点だけ。
クーンなどのパラダイムシフト論は、
従前の天動説は日常的経験をうまく説明できるか、などの評価基準によれば、合理性があり、また、地動説は、調査の指針として、あるいは知識体系の枠組みとしてえ、有用か否かなどの評価基準をとると、選択されるべき理論であるとして、結局、中立的な評価基準がないから、クーンは相対主義者である、といわれることがあるが、しかし、クーンは
など、優れた理論の徴表をあげており、クーンに関する上記評価は当たらない、とする。
マッケンタイヤは知識や合理性が、伝統によって異なり、その伝統に組み込まれ、各々の伝統の知識や合理性の優劣を決する中立的で、伝統を超越した評価する方法はない、と主張しながら、一方の伝統が他方の伝統を合理的に凌駕することは有り得、アリストテレス、トマス的伝統が他の伝統より優れている、と主張することは矛盾している、と指摘する。それはそれとして、マッケンタイヤが問題解決能（problem solving ability）の有無程度によって、一方が他方を凌駕する、としているところは面白い。
日本は現在、日本に突きつけられている問題を解決する能力があるのだろうか？
それはともかくとして、相対主義と反ー相対主義＝絶対主義の論争はこれからも続くであろう、という印象である。
、
知識、存在、倫理、美などの相対主義に関する入門書である。これらの分野の相対主義を論破し、著者はどちらかというと形而上学的な実在論に近い立場をとる。
なお、倫理についての相対主義について 、以前、Moral relativityという本の書評を書いた。またMoral Relativism（SEP）（英語）, 知識論における相対主義について"Refutation of Relativism by Searl(Word document)
なども参照。
いわゆるポストモダニズムや多文化主義の論者なんてのは相対主義的な傾向が強い、と思う。本書は２００８年出版だから、やはり揺り戻しがあるのだろう。（postmodernismなど参照）
例えば、ある行為の正邪を論じるとき、日本ではこうなの！ アメリカではこうなの！と論じる人達がいる。言いたいのは、アメリカでは知らないが、日本ではこれで良いの！、ということであったり、アメリカで悪いんだから、他の国でも悪いの、といったことかもしれない。
前者は善悪は文化などに相対的で、それ以上のものではない、という素朴な相対主義の萌芽があり、後者はある地域で、妥当な善悪の判断は、事情を細かく考慮することなく、他の地域にも当然妥当するだろうという独断主義の萌芽がない、と言えなくない。（この点、常識的十戒律なども参照）
しかし、ある地域ーー日本やアメリカーーーでの判断が間違っていることもあるし、規範は同じでも、事情が異なる場合もあるのだから、日本でいいと判断されているから、善い、とも限らず、アメリカでは悪いと判断されているから、日本でも悪いとは限らない。
いずれにせよ、事情・環境の違いや、善悪の判断規範などの理由は尽くさなければならない。
相対主義や反ー相対主義＝絶対主義はある種の懸念をもっており、それも一理ある。
著者はGreetzを引用して、（page 9)
、
What relativists, so called, worry about is provincialism--the danger that our perception will dulled, our intellects constricted, and our sympathies narrowed by the over learned and overvalued acceptances our own society. What the anti relativists self declared want us to worry about・・・・is a kind of of spiritual entropy, a heat death of the mind in which everything is as significant,thus as insignificant, as everything else, anything goes to each his own.
（訳ではないが）相対主義者は、自分の社会に慣れ親しみ過ぎて、鈍り偏狭になった感性で他者や他社会を安易に判断することに警戒し、反相対主義は、他文化などを尊重のあまり、どれも大切で、従って、どれも意義がない、といった精神の倦怠を警戒している。
で、結論的には著者は、
Epistemological relativism teaches us that what we often may be dogmatic in believing may turn out to be false:ontological relativism may teach us that what we believe to be the totality of reality may be only a portion; ethical relativismmay help to remind us that the norms of our own culture may not be entirely morally good.（Page 97)
相対主義は、我々が独断的に真実だと信じていることは間違いであることもあるし、また、実在のすべてだと思っていることが単に断片であることも、また、倫理的な規範とて一概に正しいと言い切れない場合もある、ということを喚起してくれる点では、評価できるものの、相対主義は自滅的、自己矛盾的な理論である、と論じ、相対主義が、どれも同じ価値があるとして、優劣がつけられないから、結局のところ、進歩や自己批判まで否定することを懸念するのである。
本書からちょっと離れて言うと、一般に相対主義と反相対主義の対立というのは、実際的な応用としては、それほどかけはなれたものではない、ような気がする。
例えば、死刑制度や中絶について賛否の論争がある。両者にもある程度の合理性があるように思える。膠着状態に陥る。このとき、賛否についてただ一つの結論がある、あるいは、絶対的実在、あるいは、賛否を決する絶対的な基準がある、というのが絶対主義で、いや、ない、というのが相対主義で、実際的にはあってもなくても妥協するか、妥協しないで現状を維持して時が経過する、と言った感じではなかろうか？
また、ある社会で行われていることが、少なくともこちらの判断からは間違っている、あるいは、普遍的に間違っている、と判断されても、その行為・慣習（ーーある国の死刑制度の運用など想起されたいーーー）に関して、即座に介入して停止させるべきか、あるいは停止のさせ方などは、別問題になる。（上記 SEPの論述参照）
まあ、それはいいとしておおざっぱに、議論を追いかけると、まず、相対主義の定義として、、存在や属性や真偽が、それ自体ではなく、他との関係で成立する、という定義では、事実との対応関係で真偽が決まるとする反ー相対主義的な真理の対応説までも相対主義となってしまい、広義に逸するとして、避け、また、普遍的な真理がない、というのは知識論に限定されるから、狭義に逸するとして、（おおざっぱに、私流に言い換えると）存在者の有無、その性質、価値などは、我々人間がそれらについて、思い、言い表し、文化的に組み込むといった自明な意味で関係しているが、そうした意味以外でも、そうした存在者の有無、性質、価値などは、我々の思い、言語、文化的実践などの人間の活動に由来して成立する、と定義する。
知識に関する相対主義は、知識に関して対立する主張がある場合、その対立に決着をつける中立的な規範は「ない」、とするが、言うところの、それが「ない」という判断は中立的か、中立的でないか、いずれかだが、中立的であるとすれば、理論が自己破綻し、中立的でない、とすれば、中立的でないが故に説得的とはいえない、という。
また、人は自分の（枠組み、文化の）視点を超越することが出来ない、という議論に対しては、たしかに、自分の枠組みや文化的偏見がすっぽり全部抜け出ることは出来ないかもしれんが、しかし、子供は自分の視点を乗り越えて他人の視点を共有し、あるいは、、裸眼でみえなくても存在する世界はあるのだ、と認識していくように部分的に自分の視点・枠組みを乗り越えていくことはあるのだから、相対主義は説得的でない、と。
相対主義は、命題の真偽をそのように（真あるいは偽と）判断される、という判断にかからせているが、とすれば、相対主義は間違いであるとする判断されれば、相対主義は間違いであり、相対主義は間違いである、という判断もあるから、間違いである。（ちょっとややこしいが）
さらにパトナムの議論を援用して、相対主義は独我論に陥り、独我論が誤りであるのと類比的に誤りである、とする。
太郎と花子はそれぞれ自分の経験から世界を構築する（独我論）とすれば、 世界の一部である花子の経験も太郎の経験から構築されるが、しかし、それでは、花子の経験は結局、花子の経験ではない、ということになって矛盾するが、これは、前提である独我論が誤っていたからである。同様に、ある命題の真偽が文化・枠組みに相対的であるなら、他方の文化・枠組みで真実とされることも結局、一方の文化・枠組みに相対的に真実に過ぎないことなるが、それでは、他方の文化・枠組みで真実とされるのはその（当該他方の）文化・枠組みに相対的に真実であるのではない、ことになり理論が自己破綻する。
これに対して真実は絶対的であるが、真実を正当化するものは文化・枠組みに相対的であるとして、相対主義を擁護するものもいるが（Solomon)、しかし、正当化するとは、真実である理由を論じることであり、正当化のなかに真実への契機が含まれているのだから一方は絶対的で、一方は相対的であるいうように別個に論じることはできない、という。
存在論に関しては、パトナムはかえって、相対主義をとるという。事実は念力でつくりだされるものではないが、しかし、つねに個人や人間の関心を前提とする何らかの概念・言語を前提としており、世界に関して、非人間的な既成の実在によって強制されるようなの唯一の記述はない、とするが、しかし、パトナムの主張自体も、そもそも、実在が（特定の関心を前提としないで）他でもなく、こうある、という記述・論述なのだから、自滅的な議論である。
要するに、例えば、目の前にある豆の特性について、余すところなく列挙できないかもしれないし、様々に列挙できたとしても、列挙できるのはまだ、その一部に過ぎないかも知れないが、しかし、だからといって、その豆の特性の全体が（客観的に我々から独立に、独自に）存在しないわけではない。存在者やその性質は、人間の記述や言語に依存しないでーーそれについて語るとき言語で語る、という自明な意味以外でーーー独自に存在するじゃないか、というわけであろう。
倫理に関しても相対主義は行き詰まる、という。
文化によって異なる倫理がある、ということがいわれることがある。例えば、ある部族では、その部族の成員が事故などで死んだとき他の部族の成員を殺してもよい、という例が文化人類学者有がどによって紹介されることがあるが、しかし、東京で家族が交通事故で死んだら大阪で誰かを殺してよい、というのは日本では許しがたい規範であろう。このような倫理が文化によって異なる、という記述自体の真偽についても細かく吟味していかなくてはいかないが、しかし、問題は、そうした違いがあることを前提として、異なる枠組間で、その優劣はつけられない、優劣を決める中立的な規範はない、という相対主義の主張である。
仮にこの手の相対主義が正しいとすれば、倫理的な当為は当該団体のみに適用される、ということになるが、しかし、それでは、「文化によって倫理に違いがある」という命題・前提を信じる”べき”か、否かも属する団体・文化によって異なることことになるが、が、しかし、相対主義は、団体や文化の枠組みを超えて、当該前提は妥当する、と主張していた筈であり、不整合な主張である。
また、物差しという中立的な測りがあるから、背の高さの高低を決することはできるが、しかし、異なる文化の倫理的伝統の優劣を決する物差しに相当する測りでないじゃないか、と言われることがあるが、しかし、他人を傷つけるな、弱者の手助けせよ、などなど、特定文化を超えて、共通に評価されている規範は存在する。
、
美に関しても、それが主観的な情緒や、その投影にすぎない、とする説に対して、それでは、美に関する判断の不一致があった場合、そのどれもが同等に正しいわけではない、と主張するにも係わらず、結局、趣味の違いというだけで、その優劣を論証することができないし、また、例えば、山頂からの風景を「なんて崇高で、偉大なんだ」と形容するときには、自分の矮小さを思い知らされているのであり、また、お前は醜悪だと、というとき、自分が醜悪な感情を持っているわけでもないのだから、対象に帰属された属性は、主観的な情緒や、その投影ではない、という。
世界観に関する相対主義の章は、クーンやローティー、マッケンタイヤなどを引きながら、これまでの議論の総括的な章である。二点だけ。
クーンなどのパラダイムシフト論は、
The earth is the center of planetary motion.
by means of the following standards of evaluation
Conceptual economy ,the ability to explain common-sense、experience, and understandability
The sun is the center of planetary motion
by means of a standard of evaluation
Fruitfulness, i.e., "the effectiveness of theories as guides for research and as frameworks for the organization of knowledge
従前の天動説は日常的経験をうまく説明できるか、などの評価基準によれば、合理性があり、また、地動説は、調査の指針として、あるいは知識体系の枠組みとしてえ、有用か否かなどの評価基準をとると、選択されるべき理論であるとして、結局、中立的な評価基準がないから、クーンは相対主義者である、といわれることがあるが、しかし、クーンは
accuracy, consistency,scope, simplicity, fruitfulness
など、優れた理論の徴表をあげており、クーンに関する上記評価は当たらない、とする。
マッケンタイヤは知識や合理性が、伝統によって異なり、その伝統に組み込まれ、各々の伝統の知識や合理性の優劣を決する中立的で、伝統を超越した評価する方法はない、と主張しながら、一方の伝統が他方の伝統を合理的に凌駕することは有り得、アリストテレス、トマス的伝統が他の伝統より優れている、と主張することは矛盾している、と指摘する。それはそれとして、マッケンタイヤが問題解決能（problem solving ability）の有無程度によって、一方が他方を凌駕する、としているところは面白い。
日本は現在、日本に突きつけられている問題を解決する能力があるのだろうか？
それはともかくとして、相対主義と反ー相対主義＝絶対主義の論争はこれからも続くであろう、という印象である。
、
2009年5月2日土曜日
外国人参政権
Immigration a hot topic
Mark Mardell | 16:29 UK time, Wednesday, 22 April 2009
44. At 09:16am on 23 Apr 2009, pauljap wrote:
#6 guiwhiz wrote:
"Only citizens get 'the franchise' and a right to vote. That is one of the defining aspects of citizenship."
-------------------------------------
Who has the Right to Vote in Britain?
1. British electoral law provides for the citizens of Commonwealth countries, British Dependent Territories, and the Republic of Ireland to vote in both local and general elections in the UK. The Representation of the People Act, 1918, provided that only British subjects could register as electors. However, the term ?British subject? included any person who, at that time, owed allegiance to the Crown, regardless of the crown territory in which they were born.
This included Commonwealth citizens and has never been revised.
Rwanda, Sudan, Algeria, Madagascar and Yemen have applied to join the Commonwealth and Mozambique is already a member.
France considered membership of the Commonwealth in the 1950s but were rejected by the UK. A year later France signed up to the Treaty of Rome starting what is now the EU.
2. Entitlement to vote in general elections is reciprocated for UK citizens only in the Republic of Ireland and a small number of (mainly West Indian) countries: Antigua & Barbuda; Dominica; Grenada; Guyana; Jamaica; Mauritius; St. Lucia and St. Vincent & The Grenadines.
3. Citizens of other EU countries may vote in European Parliamentary and local elections but not in general elections. There are reciprocal arrangements for British citizens resident in other EU countries to vote in local elections.
Malta & Cyprus are both in the EU and the Commonwealth so their citizens can vote in local and general elections in the UK but UK citizens cannot vote in their elections.
86. At 1:58pm on 25 Apr 2009, JorgeG1 wrote:
There are two types of freedom of movement in the EU, or rather one type for the general EU and another one for opt-outs:
- The general principle of freedom of movement applies to PERSONS, irrespective of the flag on their passport. So anybody can cross the borders between France and Germany, for example, as there are no border controls but non-EEA nationals resident in France, for example, do not have automatic right to live or work in another EU-Schengen country, whether they cross the (non-policed) border or not. This principle is stated in Art. 26.2 of the Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union:
" The Union shall offer its citizens an area of freedom, security and justice without internal frontiers, in which the free movement of persons is ensured "
- The principle of freedom of movement that applies in the UK (and Ireland, as a direct consequence of the UK opt-out) differentiates between PERSONS and NON-PERSONS and only EU or EEA nationals enjoy the category of PERSONS. This means several things:
1. Picket fences with border police separating the UK and the rest of the EU so that the British police state can filter out human beings that do not have the category of PERSONS (remember, the EU freedom of movement applies to PERSONS) according to UK law, and therefore are denied freedom of movement from the EU to the UK
2. This in turn means that non EEA nationals legally resident in EU countries need to apply for a visa to come to the UK
3. It also means that the hundreds of thousands (possibly over a million) of legal residents and taxpayers in Britain that do not hold a EEA passport do not have the right of freedom of movement inside the EU, i.e. they need a visa if they want to go for a booze trip to Calais (not that many of them are booze trippers anyway, but something that the general populace takes for granted)
4. Finally, it means that non EU or EEA tourists or business travellers, e.g. from China, need one visa to visit any or all of the 25 Schengen countries, but need a second visa if their trip involves the UK as well. (There are countries exempt from visa, either for the UK or for the Schengen area, e.g. the US).
102. At 11:14am on 27 Apr 2009, hjuneja wrote:
I'm an American born to immigrant parents now living in Europe, so have a very unique insight into this debate.
Immigration in an American context is very different from immigration in a European context. To put it plainly, immigration in America works well naturally -- and therefore should continue to be encouraged strongly. Meanwhile immigration in Europe is a disaster no matter how much time policymakers sink -- and therefore the misgivings about immigration in the European context seem to be entirely justified.
In America, non-white immigrants come to America willing to become Americans, and existing Americans are ready to embrace them as such. Not sure which came first - the "chicken" or the "egg" - but regardless this means a positive social dynamic with a favorable feedback loop. Immigrants in America also tend to be higher skilled with stronger educational backgrounds and seem far more likely to slot themselves directly in to the middle class. This in turn reduces feelings of discrimination among minorities as well as among the mainstream. This also means immigrants are more likely to live in mainstream middle class America, and consequently that their children are likely to be born and raised in that America. The next generation intermarries at a very high rate, further diluting ties with the ancestral land and forging its entry into the American melting pot with a solely American identity. On the whole, this leads to a situation where immigrants and their children make enormous (one could argue even outsized) contributions to American society, dynamism and prosperity.
The picture for immigration in Europe is starkly different. Europe lacks a the long track record and cultural parameters for assimilation of immigrants into mainstream European society. Whereas most Americans have an inherent understanding that blood and nationality need not be the same, in Europe blood, nationality and soil have been joined together (at least psychologically) for generations. So Europeans have a harder time accepting immigrants as anything other than indefinite expats. However, at the same time, immigrants who come to Europe also find it difficult to let go of their cultural traditions and embrace their new societies. So while they often complain bitterly about the European mainstream not accepting them, the reality is that they also isolate themselves and frankly don't really want to join the European mainstream anyway in order to zealously guard "their culture." This is hammered into the next generation, who are deeply discouraged from assimilation for fear of "selling out." In contrast to America, this leads to a negative feedback loop in Europe. This leads to ghettos and isolated immigrant communities across Europe. The next generation is not fully comfortable culturally in the new homeland, which hampers their professional and social integration society. They do not intermarry and even, to my astonishment, bring partners from the old country to marry them here in Europe. Therefore, most never assimilate even by the second or third generations.
In addition to this, because of Europe's generous social benefits, immigrants to Europe are often more motivated by free housing, welfare, healthcare, etc rather than sheer ambition. The ambitious ones go to America - since they are more motivated by the financial upside than by collecting benefits (of which there aren't much in the US). This means immigrants to Europe tend to be less skilled, from less educated backgrounds and often from more rural/less Westernized segments of society from their original countries. This is a further complicating factor as it means that for many of the Europe-bound immigrants, it's already a much bigger jump into Western society than for America-bound ones.
Just thought I'd share my two cents. Many immigrant families (including mine, which is transatlanic) love to compare whether Europe or America is less welcoming. Unfortunately for Europeans, the vast majority seem to think the answer is Europe. However, I do not agree with that analysis. I do that immigration just doesn't work in Europe as well as it does in America - for many reasons: cultural, historical, economic, etc. And the immigrants in Europe are just as much responsible as anyone else since they stubbornly cling on to their old countries, which makes their claims that their new countries don't fully welcome them ring hollow to my ears. However, the real challenge for Europe as others have mentioned is demographic -- and the long run economic implications of its demography should provide significant incentives to Europeans to get immigration right.
complain about this comment
103. At 3:56pm on 27 Apr 2009, SKV_USA wrote:
#102. Hi hjuneja,
Don't abuse generalization :).
1. "In America, non-white immigrants come to America willing to become Americans".
First of all you need define what does "become Americans" mean :)).
It used to be the case. Now in California/Florida/New Jersey we have neighborhoods/towns with >%50 populations are illegal immigrants. They don't assimilate a all. They come here for pure economical reasons, end up suck in poverty and hate 'gringos' who deny them booty.
Legal immigration comes on much smaller scale and somewhat captured in assimilation network. Even to cope with legal immigration USA school are transformed from knowledge providers to assimilation machines. Educational standards set to lowest common denominator blend culture differences and do not aliened kids those background don't value education.
Check my post #63 on how today immigration benefits US.
2. "in Europe blood, nationality and soil have been joined together". This is true for East Europe. Where interbreed was relatively low. Most West Europe count nationality by culture. Medieval realities made impossible to preserve pure blood lines. Rape was widespread during frequent medieval wars. Cross national marriages were common among noblemen.
3. I see that immigrants from Europe/Asia/India are more willing to integrate into US society. I don't see the same for immigrants from Pakistan/Africa/Latin America. It is not racial gap but rather educational. Educated people much more easy to adjust. That back to my point that why US and Europe alike put huge time bombs by inviting and nursing huge underclass that cannot adjust/assimilate. Why we need these burden?
Bill would let non-citizens of U.S. vote in local elections
By MATT WICKENHEISER, Staff Writer
March 27, 2009
Illegal immigrant voting a reality in some statesBy John Hilliard
GateHouse News Service
Posted Apr 09, 2009 @ 01:01 PM
Under fire - Rep. criticized for supporting voting rights for illegals
By: Lurdes C. da Silva 04/17/2009
Saturday, Apr. 11, 2009
Immigrant voting is perilous step
GLENN GARVIN
The Debate Over Non-Citizen Voting: A Primer
By Stanley Renshon
April 2008
外国人参政権をめぐる論点
Right of foreigners to vote
Electoral rights for foreign nationals: a comparative overview
The case for introducing electoral rights for foreign nationals can be built on some basic principles of liberalismand democracy. 4 The starting point in this context is that no person should be subject to political decisions for longer periods of time without being able to take influence on them; and the most important way to influence political decisions in a democracy is the participation in elections (as a voter or also as a candidate). The onlylegitimate (but not necessarily imperative) criteria for the exclusion from electoral rights are: a) non-residence in the territory in which a political decision is made, 5 b) incapability to form a political opinion or to make political judgements (because of a mental handicapor because the person is too young),c) (certain) crimes committed in the past, which can be interpreted as proof of the fact that the respective person does not take into account the effects of his/her actions and decisions on other persons, whichmakes him/her unfit to participate in political decisions, andd) a stay in the territory which is too short yet (so that persons had no chance to make themselves acquainted with the political institutions, actors and topics in the respective territory) and/or which will most likely be only temporary in nature (which means that persons will not be subject to the consequences of their decisions). None of these criteria justifies the exclusion of immigrants or foreign nationals from elections: They are not all, of course, mentally handicapped, minors or criminals, and the fact that they are immigrants and/or do not hold the country‘s citizenship does not make them incapable of forming a political opinion or of acting in a considerate manner. The condition that they should be able to become acquainted with politics in the respective
territory can be met by introducing minimum residence requirements (even though it can also be argued thatsound political judgements do not depend on the duration of residence). And as long as they do not hold a residence permit or visa with limited renewability which only permits a temporary stay, their stay should beconsidered as indefinite, even though some of them will leave the country again. 6 In sum: not citizenship shouldbe the relevant criterion for deciding who is granted electoral rights but residence in the respective territory; andthe basic rule in this respect is —the longer one stays, the stronger one‘s moral claims“ (Carens 2002, 108). But why should foreign residents be granted the right to vote when they have the option to get access to electoral rights by acquiring the respective country‘s citizenship? The case for electoral rights for foreign nationals isindeed considerably weakened if a country makes the acquisition of citizenship very easy (entitlement toacquisition, short periods of residence required, no fees, few and easy-to-meet or no further conditions, norequirement to renounce previous nationality). However, especially first-generation immigrants may still havelegitimate reasons not to naturalize in another country, e.g. because they would lose citizenship in their countryof origin, because the would forfeit hereditary titles or the right to own land there, or because it would mean a serious break in the person‘s identity. Permanently excluding people with such reasons from political decisions is problematic: in a world of international migration, assuming or even demanding that persons have interests inor identify with only one country and that they should be able to easily give up interests in and emotional attachments to other countries (and holding nationality of a country may be a matter of strong emotional attachment), is simply unrealistic. A number of other reasons against electoral rights for foreign nationals are often brought forward. Let me justdiscuss four lines of argumentation: • Argument 1: By giving foreigners electoral rights, the boundary between citizens and non-citizens becomes blurred and citizenship is devalued because it is not tied to any substantial additional rights anymore that go beyond the set of rights already granted to foreign residents. Instead, naturalization should be encouraged so that immigrants can participate on a completely equal footing. Electoral rights should therefore be reserved for citizens and with respect to the rights attached to them there should be a cleardividing line between the statuses of citizen and foreigner.The argument can easily be turned around: Citizenship will be devalued on a much larger scale if foreigners have to acquire it for instrumental reasons because they simply want to enjoy the rights which have beenwithheld from them as foreign nationals. If, in contrast, naturalization is facilitated and encouraged by other methods than upholding discriminatory rules for foreign nationals, the acquisition of citizenship will muchmore likely take place if the person concerned strongly identifies with the new state and wants to expressthis by becoming its citizen. The acquisition of citizenship should, of course, be encouraged because onlythen foreign nationals can enjoy complete equality. But foreign first-generation immigrants should not beforced to acquire citizenship because automatic naturalization would seriously limit a person‘s right to make autonomous decisions; and they should not be induced to naturalize simply for the reasons ofacquiring rights not otherwise available to them. Finally it has to be added that arguing in favour of theequalization of rights by propagating the upholding of discriminatory rules for a certain group of persons isa rather perverse logic. • Argument 2: Electoral rights for foreign nationals may lead to conflicts of loyalty that can be dangerous for the political system. In addition, conflicts from the home country may be introduced in the political institutions of the host country and/or foreign nationals may be induced or forced by their home countriesto use their electoral rights in a specific way that goes against the interests of the host country.First of all, this argument does not apply to local elections because conflicts of loyalty can hardly be imagined with respect to decisions at the municipal level œ even if foreign nationals hold an office at that level. Furthermore, this argument could also be used against dual nationals œ and dual nationals even exist in countries which are anxious to allow applicants for naturalization to keep their previous nationality: dual nationality is produced on a large scale when children are born in countries with ius soli to parents who are citizens of some other country with a nationality code based on ius sanguinis. Finally, it can be argued that foreign countries have few to no means to influence their citizens to use their voting rights in a veryspecific way; and even if they had, the specific citizenship of the person to be influenced does not reallymake a difference because foreign states could also use these means to influence their former citizens. Insum it is obvious that objections of this kind are based on a rather antiquated concept of loyalty. A single and unequivocal loyalty, expressed by the fact that the person is (only) a citizen of the respective country, does seem to be justifiable, however, when it comes to the right of holding one of the central offices at the national level (member of parliament, president, minister, etc.) because persons in these offices should be expected to represent the interests of the respective country only œ and in cases of conflict also against other countries
Argument 3: Granting foreign nationals electoral rights would give them unjustified privileges that the host country’s citizens do not enjoy because the latter cannot vote in more than one election. The right to participate in elections to comparable representative bodies in more than one country is the result of a special situation international migrants find themselves in because they have, as alreadymentioned above, interests in and ties to more than one country. The right to vote in more than one countrysimply does not make sense for most citizens of a country who do not and have never held anothercitizenship. Being allowed to vote twice would only be problematic if persons were allowed to vote in one and the same election twice, which, however, is not the case in this constellation. • Argument 4: Electoral rights for foreigners at the local level are acceptable, but they should be reserved for citizens at the national level. As should have become clear from the presentation so far, I see little reasons for restricting the right to vote for foreign citizens to the local level because they are affected by political decisions at the national level inthe same way œ or even more strongly œ than by ones at the local level. As already mentioned above, however, there may be good reasons for requiring candidates for the highest offices in the state to hold itscitizenship (and maybe even only its citizenship). One final argument in favour of electoral rights for foreigners shall be mentioned here: By including the last big disenfranchised group of persons, namely foreign residents, into the electorate, the chance of winning a majorityin elections on the basis of a campaign in which persons without electoral rights are used as scapegoats isreduced: they may form a sizeable pool of voters that can tip the balance with respect to which political group gets a majority.
禁錮以上の刑に処せられた者の選挙権
04.05.2009
German citizenship applications continue to fall魚拓
Mark Mardell | 16:29 UK time, Wednesday, 22 April 2009
44. At 09:16am on 23 Apr 2009, pauljap wrote:
#6 guiwhiz wrote:
"Only citizens get 'the franchise' and a right to vote. That is one of the defining aspects of citizenship."
-------------------------------------
Who has the Right to Vote in Britain?
1. British electoral law provides for the citizens of Commonwealth countries, British Dependent Territories, and the Republic of Ireland to vote in both local and general elections in the UK. The Representation of the People Act, 1918, provided that only British subjects could register as electors. However, the term ?British subject? included any person who, at that time, owed allegiance to the Crown, regardless of the crown territory in which they were born.
This included Commonwealth citizens and has never been revised.
Rwanda, Sudan, Algeria, Madagascar and Yemen have applied to join the Commonwealth and Mozambique is already a member.
France considered membership of the Commonwealth in the 1950s but were rejected by the UK. A year later France signed up to the Treaty of Rome starting what is now the EU.
2. Entitlement to vote in general elections is reciprocated for UK citizens only in the Republic of Ireland and a small number of (mainly West Indian) countries: Antigua & Barbuda; Dominica; Grenada; Guyana; Jamaica; Mauritius; St. Lucia and St. Vincent & The Grenadines.
3. Citizens of other EU countries may vote in European Parliamentary and local elections but not in general elections. There are reciprocal arrangements for British citizens resident in other EU countries to vote in local elections.
Malta & Cyprus are both in the EU and the Commonwealth so their citizens can vote in local and general elections in the UK but UK citizens cannot vote in their elections.
86. At 1:58pm on 25 Apr 2009, JorgeG1 wrote:
There are two types of freedom of movement in the EU, or rather one type for the general EU and another one for opt-outs:
- The general principle of freedom of movement applies to PERSONS, irrespective of the flag on their passport. So anybody can cross the borders between France and Germany, for example, as there are no border controls but non-EEA nationals resident in France, for example, do not have automatic right to live or work in another EU-Schengen country, whether they cross the (non-policed) border or not. This principle is stated in Art. 26.2 of the Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union:
" The Union shall offer its citizens an area of freedom, security and justice without internal frontiers, in which the free movement of persons is ensured "
- The principle of freedom of movement that applies in the UK (and Ireland, as a direct consequence of the UK opt-out) differentiates between PERSONS and NON-PERSONS and only EU or EEA nationals enjoy the category of PERSONS. This means several things:
1. Picket fences with border police separating the UK and the rest of the EU so that the British police state can filter out human beings that do not have the category of PERSONS (remember, the EU freedom of movement applies to PERSONS) according to UK law, and therefore are denied freedom of movement from the EU to the UK
2. This in turn means that non EEA nationals legally resident in EU countries need to apply for a visa to come to the UK
3. It also means that the hundreds of thousands (possibly over a million) of legal residents and taxpayers in Britain that do not hold a EEA passport do not have the right of freedom of movement inside the EU, i.e. they need a visa if they want to go for a booze trip to Calais (not that many of them are booze trippers anyway, but something that the general populace takes for granted)
4. Finally, it means that non EU or EEA tourists or business travellers, e.g. from China, need one visa to visit any or all of the 25 Schengen countries, but need a second visa if their trip involves the UK as well. (There are countries exempt from visa, either for the UK or for the Schengen area, e.g. the US).
102. At 11:14am on 27 Apr 2009, hjuneja wrote:
I'm an American born to immigrant parents now living in Europe, so have a very unique insight into this debate.
Immigration in an American context is very different from immigration in a European context. To put it plainly, immigration in America works well naturally -- and therefore should continue to be encouraged strongly. Meanwhile immigration in Europe is a disaster no matter how much time policymakers sink -- and therefore the misgivings about immigration in the European context seem to be entirely justified.
In America, non-white immigrants come to America willing to become Americans, and existing Americans are ready to embrace them as such. Not sure which came first - the "chicken" or the "egg" - but regardless this means a positive social dynamic with a favorable feedback loop. Immigrants in America also tend to be higher skilled with stronger educational backgrounds and seem far more likely to slot themselves directly in to the middle class. This in turn reduces feelings of discrimination among minorities as well as among the mainstream. This also means immigrants are more likely to live in mainstream middle class America, and consequently that their children are likely to be born and raised in that America. The next generation intermarries at a very high rate, further diluting ties with the ancestral land and forging its entry into the American melting pot with a solely American identity. On the whole, this leads to a situation where immigrants and their children make enormous (one could argue even outsized) contributions to American society, dynamism and prosperity.
The picture for immigration in Europe is starkly different. Europe lacks a the long track record and cultural parameters for assimilation of immigrants into mainstream European society. Whereas most Americans have an inherent understanding that blood and nationality need not be the same, in Europe blood, nationality and soil have been joined together (at least psychologically) for generations. So Europeans have a harder time accepting immigrants as anything other than indefinite expats. However, at the same time, immigrants who come to Europe also find it difficult to let go of their cultural traditions and embrace their new societies. So while they often complain bitterly about the European mainstream not accepting them, the reality is that they also isolate themselves and frankly don't really want to join the European mainstream anyway in order to zealously guard "their culture." This is hammered into the next generation, who are deeply discouraged from assimilation for fear of "selling out." In contrast to America, this leads to a negative feedback loop in Europe. This leads to ghettos and isolated immigrant communities across Europe. The next generation is not fully comfortable culturally in the new homeland, which hampers their professional and social integration society. They do not intermarry and even, to my astonishment, bring partners from the old country to marry them here in Europe. Therefore, most never assimilate even by the second or third generations.
In addition to this, because of Europe's generous social benefits, immigrants to Europe are often more motivated by free housing, welfare, healthcare, etc rather than sheer ambition. The ambitious ones go to America - since they are more motivated by the financial upside than by collecting benefits (of which there aren't much in the US). This means immigrants to Europe tend to be less skilled, from less educated backgrounds and often from more rural/less Westernized segments of society from their original countries. This is a further complicating factor as it means that for many of the Europe-bound immigrants, it's already a much bigger jump into Western society than for America-bound ones.
Just thought I'd share my two cents. Many immigrant families (including mine, which is transatlanic) love to compare whether Europe or America is less welcoming. Unfortunately for Europeans, the vast majority seem to think the answer is Europe. However, I do not agree with that analysis. I do that immigration just doesn't work in Europe as well as it does in America - for many reasons: cultural, historical, economic, etc. And the immigrants in Europe are just as much responsible as anyone else since they stubbornly cling on to their old countries, which makes their claims that their new countries don't fully welcome them ring hollow to my ears. However, the real challenge for Europe as others have mentioned is demographic -- and the long run economic implications of its demography should provide significant incentives to Europeans to get immigration right.
complain about this comment
103. At 3:56pm on 27 Apr 2009, SKV_USA wrote:
#102. Hi hjuneja,
Don't abuse generalization :).
1. "In America, non-white immigrants come to America willing to become Americans".
First of all you need define what does "become Americans" mean :)).
It used to be the case. Now in California/Florida/New Jersey we have neighborhoods/towns with >%50 populations are illegal immigrants. They don't assimilate a all. They come here for pure economical reasons, end up suck in poverty and hate 'gringos' who deny them booty.
Legal immigration comes on much smaller scale and somewhat captured in assimilation network. Even to cope with legal immigration USA school are transformed from knowledge providers to assimilation machines. Educational standards set to lowest common denominator blend culture differences and do not aliened kids those background don't value education.
Check my post #63 on how today immigration benefits US.
2. "in Europe blood, nationality and soil have been joined together". This is true for East Europe. Where interbreed was relatively low. Most West Europe count nationality by culture. Medieval realities made impossible to preserve pure blood lines. Rape was widespread during frequent medieval wars. Cross national marriages were common among noblemen.
3. I see that immigrants from Europe/Asia/India are more willing to integrate into US society. I don't see the same for immigrants from Pakistan/Africa/Latin America. It is not racial gap but rather educational. Educated people much more easy to adjust. That back to my point that why US and Europe alike put huge time bombs by inviting and nursing huge underclass that cannot adjust/assimilate. Why we need these burden?
Bill would let non-citizens of U.S. vote in local elections
By MATT WICKENHEISER, Staff Writer
March 27, 2009
AUGUSTA — Lawmakers are preparing to consider a bill that would let communities choose to allow non-U.S. citizens to vote in municipal elections.
Proponents argue that letting non-citizen immigrants vote on local issues would include them in the community and provide incentive for them to pursue citizenship.
Critics say voting is a right that should be reserved for U.S. citizens, and some suggest that newcomers to the country don't necessarily have the language skills or the knowledge of issues needed to make an informed vote.
Specifics on the bill would need to be developed in the committee, but Alfond said he envisions it applying to immigrants who are here legally. And it would be community governing bodies – town or city councils – that could decide whether to allow the non-citizens to vote in local elections.
Ron Hayduk, professor of political science at the Borough of Manhattan Community College and author of the book "Democracy for All," said immigrants who are not citizens are allowed to vote in a number of communities.
Chicago, for instance, allows them to vote in school elections, and six towns in Maryland allow them to vote in all local elections. They can vote in the Massachusetts towns of Cambridge, Amherst and Newton, Hayduk said, and proposals have been made to do the same in Chelsea and Somerville. And the issue probably will resurface in Boston after a 2007 defeat.
The basic argument for allowing non-citizens to vote is that groups excluded from voting are more likely to be discriminated against, Hayduk said.
"It thwarts the power, the potential and promise of democracy," he said. "We're all served by having a government that's more representative, more accountable and more responsive to all its members."
Maine Secretary of State Matthew Dunlap said the mechanics of allowing non-citizens to vote would be pretty simple. Non-citizens couldn't be included in the electronic, federally funded voter rolls, so a separate paper list of voters would have to be kept, he said.
Dunlap said he doesn't think Alfond's proposal does any harm.
"Whenever you get more people to participate, you add legitimacy to that process," Dunlap said. "The voice of the public, I think, is extraordinarily important."
Hans Von Spakovsky, a legal scholar at the conservative Heritage Foundation, said he sees several problems with the non-citizen proposal.
If local, state and federal elections are generally printed on the same ballot, they would have to be separated to allow non-citizens to vote. And getting a voter registration card could be a way to thwart federal labor laws,
"At the core of it, I think it's a bad idea, because people who are here as residents are not people who have assimilated and become part of the American culture and the American society," said Von Spakovsky, whose parents were immigrants. "They have made a decision not to become U.S. citizens. That means they have not entered the U.S. social compact."
Illegal immigrant voting a reality in some statesBy John Hilliard
GateHouse News Service
Posted Apr 09, 2009 @ 01:01 PM
While voting rights for non-citizens sparks controversy here, other states allow residents without U.S. citizenship a chance to vote in some elections.
In Takoma Park, Md., non-citizens have been able to vote in local elections since March 1992, said the city clerk, Jessie Carpenter.
"The intention (was) to provide all the residents of the city the opportunity to vote in city elections," said Carpenter.
City officials ask for a residents' citizenship status when they register to vote, and those without U.S. citizenship are registered in a separate voting roll from the other voters, she said.
A few other Maryland communities allow non-citizen voting, but Takoma Park, a city of 18,000 with a large immigrant population from Central America and Africa, is the largest of them, she said. Non-citizens vote can vote for mayor, city council and on ballot questions, she said.
Maryland law gives cities and towns leeway to determine rules for local municipal elections, she said, allowing them to decide for themselves whether to allow non-citizen voting. Because Maryland school committees are county-based, they fall under state election laws which require U.S. citizenship to vote in state and federal elections, she said.
Despite allowing non-citizens the right to vote for years, turnout among non-citizens hasn't factored much in local elections.
At least two Massachusetts communities - Amherst and Cambridge - approved measures that would allow non-citizen voting, but neither was implemented because the Legislature failed to act on them. (Massachusetts law requires voters to be U.S. citizens, and those communities' voting measures would need an exemption approved by state lawmakers.)
Amherst's town manager, Laurence Shaffer, said his town's 2003 Town Meeting decision was a "statement of values" that recognized that non-citizen residents who live in the town are affected by local decisions, and should have a role in that process.
The measure didn't make a distinction between non-citizens living legally in the U.S. and illegal immigrants, he said.
Voting rights have always "been expanded rather than retracted. It's (an) extension of democracy and immigration," said Shaffer.
In Cambridge, the City Council voted a similar measure in 2003, according to the city's Web site.
Eva A. Millona, executive director of the Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition, said the group appreciated Richardson's initial support of voting rights for non-citizens. The group, which represents about 1 million immigrants, including at least 250,000 green card holders, testified in support of a 2007 bill that would have allowed some voting rights in local elections.
But Millona said the voting issue is not a priority for the group, as it has a full agenda - such as backing in-state public college tuition rates for non-citizens and domestic violence prevention programs. The group doesn't support offering voting rights to illegal immigrants, she said.
"When it comes to voting rights with undocumented immigrants, that's where we draw the line," said Millona.
Under fire - Rep. criticized for supporting voting rights for illegals
By: Lurdes C. da Silva 04/17/2009
Even more expansive is the reasoning of Eric Nkusi, the executive director of a Portland immigrant-advocacy group called the Intore Club. "We pay the same taxes," he says, an argument that would even apply to Canadian tourists who stop at gas stations on their way to their annual winter sunburn in Florida.
There's nothing to stop Maine legislators from passing LD 1195 but the apparently slender thread of their own common sense. Federal law and the U.S. Constitution have little to say on the subject of local elections, and a handful of small towns already allow it - notably Takoma Park, Md., a people's-republic suburb of Washington that has also declared itself a nuclear-free zone and severed diplomatic relations with Burma.
Saturday, Apr. 11, 2009
Immigrant voting is perilous step
GLENN GARVIN
immigrants, legal and otherwise, play an important role in the U.S. economy. But if they're interested in voting, they need to learn the language, the history and the political culture - that is, they need to become citizens.
The odd thing is that actual immigrants, as opposed to the politicians seeking to manipulate them, show little interest in this. Remember Takoma Park?
In most elections, their turnout is barely 10 percent; in 2007, the city council contest was a flat zero: Not a single one of the several hundred registered non-U.S.-citizens bothered to show up
Advocates of this position use many arguments — about fairness, representation, teaching democracy, increasing participation, expanding democracy, being welcoming to immigrants, the large number of Hispanics who are not yet citizens, and so on. They buttress their claims with the fact that several foreign counties now allow immigrants to vote in local elections, that some American states and territories once allowed it, and that some localities allow it now.
This last fact, that there are several municipalities in the United States that currently allow non-citizens to vote in local elections, may come as somewhat of a surprise. The best known of these is Takoma Park, Md., which introduced the practice in 1992, although its legality has never been tested in the courts. In addition, legislation has been formally introduced in a number of cities, including New York City1 and Washington, D.C.,2 and in at least two states — New York and Minnesota3 — to allow non-citizens to vote in local elections. In Massachusetts, the cities of Amherst, Cambridge, and Newton have approved measures to allow non-citizens to vote in local elections, but the ordinances require approval by the state legislature, which has not yet acted favorably on these proposals. A number of other cities are in the initial stages of considering such schemes.
Chicago allows non-citizens to vote in school board elections, and New York did until elected school boards were abolished in 2003. Boulder, Colo., recently introduced a measure to allow non-citizens to serve on city boards and commissions.4 And in City Heights, Calif., all residents, regardless of citizenship, are able to vote for members of the Planning Committee.5
The Debate Over Non-Citizen Voting: A Primer
By Stanley Renshon
April 2008
Voting has always been a critical element of full citizenship; courts have called it the essential element. It is true that over 80 years ago, some states allowed resident non-citizens to vote. However, this was always an exception to a more general rule that preserved voting for citizens. By the 1920s, non-citizen voting had been ended by legislation, duly debated and passed by the people’s representatives and signed into law by their governors, and with good reason.
Voting is one of the few, and doubtlessly the major, difference between citizens and non-citizens. Citizenship itself, and open access to it, is one of the major unifying mechanisms of E Pluribus Unum. When citizenship loses its value — and it would if voting were not an earned privilege — a critical tie that helps bind this diverse country together will be lost. Given the challenges that face us, this should not be done lightly.
What of fairness? Don’t non-citizens pay taxes, and therefore isn’t it unfair to not allow them to vote? That argument assumes that non-citizens get nothing for their taxes, and need the vote to compensate for that. However, the truth is that immigrants from most countries enjoy an immediate rise in their standard of living because of this country’s advanced infrastructure — for example, hospitals, electricity, communications. They also get many services for their taxes — like public transportation, police, trash collection, and so on. Most importantly and immediately they get what they came for: freedom and opportunity.
What of serving in the armed forces? If they can serve, why can’t they vote? The difference here is between can and must. Non-citizens can serve if they volunteer, but they are not required to serve as part of the citizenship process. When they do volunteer, they earn this country’s gratitude and, by presidential order, a shortening of the time period before they can become citizens.
Doesn’t voting help immigrants learn about their new country? Yes, but the fallacy of that argument is the assumption that there are not other, less damaging ways, to do so. No law bars non-citizens from learning democracy in civic organizations or political parties. No law keeps them from joining unions or speaking out in public forums. Indeed, no law bars them from holding responsible positions within all these groups. In all of these many ways, legal residents can learn about their new country and its civic traditions. Voting is not the only means to do so, and may not even be the best since it can be done from start to finish with the pull of a lever.
What of representation? Isn’t it bad for democracy and against democratic principles to have so many people unrepresented? The first problem with this argument is that the condition is temporary and easily remedied by time and patience. Second, the very fact that advocates push non-citizenship voting undercuts the argument that this group’s interests are not represented. This country is a republic, not a democracy. We depend on our representatives to consider diverse views. The views of legal non-citizen residents are no exception. The more such persons take advantage of the many opportunities to participate in our civic and political life, the more likely it is that their voices will be heard.
Well, what about participation? Won’t giving non-citizens the vote increase participation, and isn’t that good for democracy? The answers to those two questions are no and maybe. The record of non-citizen voters should lead all of us to pause and reflect. When New York City allowed non-citizens to vote in local school-board elections, presumably something in which they had a direct, personal, and immediate stake, less that 5 percent of that group did so. Takoma Park, Md., often cited as a model by advocates, refuses to ascertain whether non-citizen voters are in the country legally. Even so, their participation went from a high point of 25 percent in 1997, to 12 percent in the next election, and 9 percent in the election thereafter. In November 2007, only 10 non-citizens voted.47 In a special election held that year, "officials took extra steps to get the word out. They mailed a notice, in Spanish and English, to every home. They sent a second notice to every registered voter," yet not a single non-citizen voted.48 In the end, the touted benefits of non-citizen voting participation turn out to be very small and in some cases non-existent — very small gain upon which to sacrifice such a core element of American citizenship.
There are many things this country could and should do to make new immigrants feel welcomed. We could, and should, provide free English classes to all those who want them — and that want is great. We could set up classes to help immigrants learn about the nuts and bolts of our country’s life — how do you get insurance, why do you raise your hand in class. We take these things for granted, but new immigrants cannot. If elected officials really want to help new immigrants, these initiatives would be of direct and immediate
benefit and won’t have the downside of destroying citizenship.
Every effort should be made to integrate legal immigrants into our national community. Yet, isn’t it fair to ask that they know something about that community before they fully take up the responsibilities, and not just the advantages, of what has been the core of citizenship? Some non-citizen voting proposals would require three years as a legal resident — saving a mere two years before naturalization and the vote. Others suggest a period of only one year or less, allowing people practically just off the plane to help make complex public decisions.
Advocates of non-citizen voting do not discus whether these new voters would need to demonstrate language proficiency or knowledge of this country, as they must now do for naturalization. Would that requirement be waived? Nor have they said what they would do if many decided there was no longer a need to become a citizen — since they already can vote.
In the end, we do immigrants, and this country, no favor — indeed, we likely to do damage — by giving in to demands for erasing the distinction between immigrants and citizens.
外国人参政権をめぐる論点
続いての大きな流れとして、1992年2月にEC（欧州共同体）で調印されたマーストリヒト条約が挙げられる。同条約は「欧州市民権」の創設を掲げ、自国以外の加盟国に居住する欧州市民が居住国における地方自治体議員の選挙及び欧州議会選挙において投票し、かつ立候補する権利を保障している（110）。近年のEU拡大に合わせて、欧州市民権を持つ者の範囲も拡大している。このような動きは、我が国の外国人参政権付与の主張の大きな背景となっている。しかし、EUの創設は、人権と民主主義に関する共通理解、経済水準の共通性、安全保障政策における共通目的などの存在があって実現したが、今日の東アジアには、こうした共通基盤が形成されておらず（111）、我が国の参考にはならないと否定説は主張する（11
Right of foreigners to vote
Electoral rights for foreign nationals: a comparative overview
The case for introducing electoral rights for foreign nationals can be built on some basic principles of liberalismand democracy. 4 The starting point in this context is that no person should be subject to political decisions for longer periods of time without being able to take influence on them; and the most important way to influence political decisions in a democracy is the participation in elections (as a voter or also as a candidate). The onlylegitimate (but not necessarily imperative) criteria for the exclusion from electoral rights are: a) non-residence in the territory in which a political decision is made, 5 b) incapability to form a political opinion or to make political judgements (because of a mental handicapor because the person is too young),c) (certain) crimes committed in the past, which can be interpreted as proof of the fact that the respective person does not take into account the effects of his/her actions and decisions on other persons, whichmakes him/her unfit to participate in political decisions, andd) a stay in the territory which is too short yet (so that persons had no chance to make themselves acquainted with the political institutions, actors and topics in the respective territory) and/or which will most likely be only temporary in nature (which means that persons will not be subject to the consequences of their decisions). None of these criteria justifies the exclusion of immigrants or foreign nationals from elections: They are not all, of course, mentally handicapped, minors or criminals, and the fact that they are immigrants and/or do not hold the country‘s citizenship does not make them incapable of forming a political opinion or of acting in a considerate manner. The condition that they should be able to become acquainted with politics in the respective
territory can be met by introducing minimum residence requirements (even though it can also be argued thatsound political judgements do not depend on the duration of residence). And as long as they do not hold a residence permit or visa with limited renewability which only permits a temporary stay, their stay should beconsidered as indefinite, even though some of them will leave the country again. 6 In sum: not citizenship shouldbe the relevant criterion for deciding who is granted electoral rights but residence in the respective territory; andthe basic rule in this respect is —the longer one stays, the stronger one‘s moral claims“ (Carens 2002, 108). But why should foreign residents be granted the right to vote when they have the option to get access to electoral rights by acquiring the respective country‘s citizenship? The case for electoral rights for foreign nationals isindeed considerably weakened if a country makes the acquisition of citizenship very easy (entitlement toacquisition, short periods of residence required, no fees, few and easy-to-meet or no further conditions, norequirement to renounce previous nationality). However, especially first-generation immigrants may still havelegitimate reasons not to naturalize in another country, e.g. because they would lose citizenship in their countryof origin, because the would forfeit hereditary titles or the right to own land there, or because it would mean a serious break in the person‘s identity. Permanently excluding people with such reasons from political decisions is problematic: in a world of international migration, assuming or even demanding that persons have interests inor identify with only one country and that they should be able to easily give up interests in and emotional attachments to other countries (and holding nationality of a country may be a matter of strong emotional attachment), is simply unrealistic. A number of other reasons against electoral rights for foreign nationals are often brought forward. Let me justdiscuss four lines of argumentation: • Argument 1: By giving foreigners electoral rights, the boundary between citizens and non-citizens becomes blurred and citizenship is devalued because it is not tied to any substantial additional rights anymore that go beyond the set of rights already granted to foreign residents. Instead, naturalization should be encouraged so that immigrants can participate on a completely equal footing. Electoral rights should therefore be reserved for citizens and with respect to the rights attached to them there should be a cleardividing line between the statuses of citizen and foreigner.The argument can easily be turned around: Citizenship will be devalued on a much larger scale if foreigners have to acquire it for instrumental reasons because they simply want to enjoy the rights which have beenwithheld from them as foreign nationals. If, in contrast, naturalization is facilitated and encouraged by other methods than upholding discriminatory rules for foreign nationals, the acquisition of citizenship will muchmore likely take place if the person concerned strongly identifies with the new state and wants to expressthis by becoming its citizen. The acquisition of citizenship should, of course, be encouraged because onlythen foreign nationals can enjoy complete equality. But foreign first-generation immigrants should not beforced to acquire citizenship because automatic naturalization would seriously limit a person‘s right to make autonomous decisions; and they should not be induced to naturalize simply for the reasons ofacquiring rights not otherwise available to them. Finally it has to be added that arguing in favour of theequalization of rights by propagating the upholding of discriminatory rules for a certain group of persons isa rather perverse logic. • Argument 2: Electoral rights for foreign nationals may lead to conflicts of loyalty that can be dangerous for the political system. In addition, conflicts from the home country may be introduced in the political institutions of the host country and/or foreign nationals may be induced or forced by their home countriesto use their electoral rights in a specific way that goes against the interests of the host country.First of all, this argument does not apply to local elections because conflicts of loyalty can hardly be imagined with respect to decisions at the municipal level œ even if foreign nationals hold an office at that level. Furthermore, this argument could also be used against dual nationals œ and dual nationals even exist in countries which are anxious to allow applicants for naturalization to keep their previous nationality: dual nationality is produced on a large scale when children are born in countries with ius soli to parents who are citizens of some other country with a nationality code based on ius sanguinis. Finally, it can be argued that foreign countries have few to no means to influence their citizens to use their voting rights in a veryspecific way; and even if they had, the specific citizenship of the person to be influenced does not reallymake a difference because foreign states could also use these means to influence their former citizens. Insum it is obvious that objections of this kind are based on a rather antiquated concept of loyalty. A single and unequivocal loyalty, expressed by the fact that the person is (only) a citizen of the respective country, does seem to be justifiable, however, when it comes to the right of holding one of the central offices at the national level (member of parliament, president, minister, etc.) because persons in these offices should be expected to represent the interests of the respective country only œ and in cases of conflict also against other countries
Argument 3: Granting foreign nationals electoral rights would give them unjustified privileges that the host country’s citizens do not enjoy because the latter cannot vote in more than one election. The right to participate in elections to comparable representative bodies in more than one country is the result of a special situation international migrants find themselves in because they have, as alreadymentioned above, interests in and ties to more than one country. The right to vote in more than one countrysimply does not make sense for most citizens of a country who do not and have never held anothercitizenship. Being allowed to vote twice would only be problematic if persons were allowed to vote in one and the same election twice, which, however, is not the case in this constellation. • Argument 4: Electoral rights for foreigners at the local level are acceptable, but they should be reserved for citizens at the national level. As should have become clear from the presentation so far, I see little reasons for restricting the right to vote for foreign citizens to the local level because they are affected by political decisions at the national level inthe same way œ or even more strongly œ than by ones at the local level. As already mentioned above, however, there may be good reasons for requiring candidates for the highest offices in the state to hold itscitizenship (and maybe even only its citizenship). One final argument in favour of electoral rights for foreigners shall be mentioned here: By including the last big disenfranchised group of persons, namely foreign residents, into the electorate, the chance of winning a majorityin elections on the basis of a campaign in which persons without electoral rights are used as scapegoats isreduced: they may form a sizeable pool of voters that can tip the balance with respect to which political group gets a majority.
禁錮以上の刑に処せられた者の選挙権
04.05.2009
German citizenship applications continue to fall魚拓
A persistent fall in the number of immigrants becoming naturalized German citizens has seen politicians in Berlin reignite the debate about cultural integration and citizenship tests.
To be granted German citizenship, an immigrant must have lived in Germany legally for at least eight years. They have to prove they have an independent income, don't require social welfare or unemployment benefits, and have a good grasp of the German language.
Additional rules introduced in 2007 require applicants who have not graduated from a German school to pass a controversial "citizenship test".
The examination costs 25 euros and consists of 33 multiple choice items selected from a catalog of 310 questions about German history, culture and the political system. Would-be Germans must provide at least 17 correct answers to pass, otherwise they can try again and re-sit the examination at a later date.
The federal government says extremely low failure rates (around one percent) prove the test is a success. But critics say the authorities have got it wrong.
The left-wing Berlin state senate's commissioner for integration, Guenter Piening, says many immigrants from educationally disadvantaged backgrounds are so worried by the test that they haven't dared to apply for German citizenship.
Language barriers
The government's new language test is particularly unpopular among immigrants. Applicants can't get by on basic phrases communicating where they live and who they know. They have to be able to describe their dreams and justify their opinions.
Boehmer, a Christian Democrat, says the plunge in the number of foreigners taking up German citizenship needs to be carefully examined because a number of factors are at play.
One is a rule that came into force in 2000. It states that a child born to an immigrant parent who's been living in Germany for more than eight years is automatically granted German citizenship - so there's no need for an application.
However, critics point out that such children only remain German if they choose to give up their foreign nationality when they reach 18 years of age. They say this forced decision puts youths with immigrant backgrounds under a lot of pressure.
So far calls for Germany to lift its general ban on dual citizenship have found little support among Germany's major political parties - and there's little to suggest their position will change any time soon.
Autor: Bernd Gräßler/Sam Edmonds
Editor: Chuck Penfold
2009年4月29日水曜日
「ゲシュタポは健在」 他
Rebranding Hate in the Age of Obama
With an African-American president and the economy in bad shape, extremist groups are trying to enter the mainstream—and they're having some success.
By Eve Conant | NEWSWEEK
Published Apr 25, 2009
From the magazine issue dated May 4, 2009
His Web site includes careful statements about nonviolence, green energy and women's rights. But among his ideological kin, Robb equates minorities to fleas and favors a program for "voluntary resettlement" to home countries. Illegal immigrants, as well as blacks serving time in prison, should be deported, he says. "Why is it that when a black man wants to preserve his culture and heritage it's a good thing, and when a white person wants the same thing, we're called haters?" he says.魚拓２
His Web site includes careful statements about nonviolence, green energy and women's rights. But among his ideological kin, Robb equates minorities to fleas and favors a program for "voluntary resettlement" to home countries. Illegal immigrants, as well as blacks serving time in prison, should be deported, he says. "Why is it that when a black man wants to preserve his culture and heritage it's a good thing, and when a white person wants the same thing, we're called haters?" he says.
This spring, the Southern Poverty Law Center released its annual "Year in Hate" report, which outlines that in 2008 the number of hate groups rose to 926, up 4 percent from 2007, and 54 percent since 2000. (The SPLC doesn't measure the number of members in the groups.) An April Homeland Security intelligence report states that "the economic downturn and the election of the first African-American president present unique drivers for right-wing radicalization and recruitment." Home foreclosures, unemployment and an inability to obtain credit "could create a fertile recruiting environment," the briefing adds, and extremist groups are aiming to "broaden their scope and appeal through propaganda.
当ブログでは白人至上主義者の記事なども紹介しているが、これはニューズウイークがその最近の台頭をうまくまとめたもの。とくに目新しいものはないが、オバマ大統領の時代に、こうした極端な団体が主流に食い込もうとしており、ある程度の成功を収めている、という。例えば、あるKKKの一派は、非暴力グリーンエネルギー女性の権利をうたうようになった。主流にくいこむ方策だね。もっとも、不法移民と服役黒人は自発的に祖国へ帰還すべし、などというチラシを配っている、という。ーーーまあ、日本でも左翼の過激派に国民はひいたように、右翼で過激な発言する人にも国民はついていけない、わけだ。
もっとも、トーンダウンした団体もあれば、それを補うべく過激な発言や表現をする団体がでてくる、という。
Community cohesion is alive and well – no thanks to the government
これは政府の出した報告を批判している。イギリス。報告によれば、イギリスのコミニティーはバラバラになってしまった、というが、そんなことはないぞ、という趣旨らしい。
In truth, the "us and them" attitude was directed not so much at minority neighbours, but at the authorities themselves
また、マイノリティーに対してというより、政府に対して怒っているんだ、という。
が、しかし、これ、みると、報告書の方が面白い。で、批判は強調点の違いにすぎないようにも思える。
Sources of resentment, and perceptions of ethnic
minorities among poor white people in England
Report compiled for the
NATIONAL COMMUNITY FORUM PDF
で、これがその報告書
イギリスにおける白人貧困層が憤慨する原因と、そのマイノリティーに対する見方。
白人至上主義者のような過激な団体、反不法移民、反移民団体など、組織だったものではないが、普通のイギリスの白人労働者のマイノリティー、新参移民に対するとまどいや、憤りをすなおにまとめて、分析し、それに基づいて対策などを提案している。日本の中央・地方政府の役人などもぜひ読んでおいてほしい文献である。
パラパラと前のほうから目についたところを拾うと、（翻訳ではない）
Runcorn/Widnes has virtually no history of immigration, Castle Vale is a relatively white area of a city in which 30 per cent of the population are black and minority ethnic, and Thetford
has a recent experience of European migrants (notably Portuguese and Polish workers).
6 | Sources of resentment, and perceptions of ethnic minorities among poor white people in England
In terms of development, the sites also differed: we found that in those where social and
environmental conditions were better, there was, as a general rule, less apparent hostility
to minorities.
調査の対象になったのは、比較的単一白人文化圏で、二つはほとんど移民の受け入れの歴史がない町、一つは３割方が移民で構成される町、もう一つは最近ヨーロッパ系の移民が流入してきた町である。The pattern seemed to be that morale was lowest and therefore identityrelated
anxieties at their highest, where the material conditions (housing and economics)
were worst.
住宅状況や経済状況が最悪の地域で、士気は最低、移民などに対する不安が最高。By far the most frequent context for referring to ethnic minorities is that of perceived
competition for resources -typically housing, but also employment, benefits, territory
and culture.
マイノリティーへの言及が多いのは、住宅や、雇用、恩典、縄張り、文化などの財（resources)に対して競合がある場合である。A woman in Runcorn says: ‘… you’ve now got towns which were predominantly white
and now they’re not. And you’re expected to get on and not cause any waves, not look at
people differently and be accepting. But at the same time how can you be accepting when
they’re taking your house off you?’
例えば、「かつては白人の町で、波風たてないようにして、新しい人も同じようにみなさい、そして受け入れてあげてください、っていわれて、しかも、家まで奪われるのよ」
イギリスの住宅供給で、順番待ちというのはよく聞く。制度の詳細はわかならいが、その人の必要に応じて順番がきまるから、マイノリティーが優先される、ということだろう。しかし、必要に応じて、というところがよく説明されていない、ということだと思う。‘they seem to be getting
what we’ve worked all our lives for and can’t get’. This was interpreted as especially unfair
when contrasted with the ‘elderly who haven’t got anything, can’t afford to pay heating,
worked all their lives and get nothing’, and with ‘single mums who have to live in hostels’,
while ‘foreigners are in nice cars and have big houses’. Indeed, many stories pursue the
theme of resources being ‘given away’ to minorities
白人の老人が寒い部屋で過ごし、一生懸命働いて何もしてもらえない、シングルマザーはホステルで夜を過ごしているというのに 外国人は言い車にのって、大きな家にすんじゃってさっ！！てな感じの不満This meant that in three of the four sites, immigration and integration were
scarcely perceived as local issues at all
こうした、移民との統合の問題は地域の問題としてとらえられていない。What people do talk about however is a struggle for resources in which one arena is the
importance of whiteness as a resource: for granting entitlement, for providing solidarity
against a multicultural environment in which many feel uncomfortable or have lost their
cultural bearings. These stories are told about what is seen as; unfair competition for
housing and employment; the privileging of ‘foreign’ cultures over British ones; and the
transformation of places from what our interviewees understand as recognisably British
ones into what they deem strange ones. This is still about ‘race’ because it is speaking
about bodies through culture, in a model where cultures are unchanging and wholly
separate from each other.
自分たちが抱くイギリスや、白人の伝統が奇妙な外国文化、多文化主義により失われそれに対して連帯しようとする。Where immigration and integration are discussed in depth as problematic, there is a
focus on real or perceived competition for resources; housing, benefits, jobs, territory and
national culture. The implications of this for the political capital that can be accrued by
the Far-right are very grave. Our white interviewees’ responses to minorities are far from
universally negative. In fact everything from indifference, through empathy, a desire for more and better engagement, to anxiety was registered in these interviews.
といっても移民に対する態度は一様ではなく、無関心から、同情、もっと係わりたい、不安など様々である。‘I think with immigration ... I’m not a racist or anything like that. Don’t get me
wrong, but I think that erm ... they’re allowing too many immigrants in. I mean the
government have admitted themselves that they can’t ... that they don’t know how
many people are coming in, and the reason why I say that is that we just haven’t got
the infrastructure to deal with these huge influxes of people.
政府に対する憤りもある。「別に人種差別主義者じゃないんだよ、しかし、大量移民に対処するインフラがないのに、移民ばっかうけいれるのはどうかね。」などいう意見‘Foreigners get handed everything on a bloody plate’, says one man in Milton Keynes:
‘We can’t afford to keep ourselves, so how can we afford to keep every bloody
foreigner that is coming in.
自分たちでそこそそこしかやっていけないのに、外人に手間暇かけるなんておかしい。
A typical view was that those responsible for housingallocation should ‘look after their own first’ (Man, 20s; Woman, 30s). A 21 year-old Milton
Keynes man, who had to move away from the Coffee Hall estate as he was informed that
there is not enough housing available there comments acidly: “The housing list is too long.
I would have to be black, foreign or have a baby to get up there’.
住宅供給の順番待ちはひどいもんだよ。早い順番とりたければ黒人か、外国人か、赤ん坊でも生まなくちゃいかんね。Polish migrant workers have settled here, which has created some unease.
However the comparatively low level of immigration to this area did not stop many of the
respondents having a view of immigration on a national level and expressing their fear of
the ‘potential threat’ it poses to a ‘nice area’:‘I mean if you’re in Shopping City and you see a lady in a gown, you do actually look
twice. It’s still so unusual for us […] It’s still quite a decent place to live, Runcorn. And I
think we should have pride in it’ (Woman, 60s, Runcorn and Widnes).
比較的少数の移民しかやってきてないのに、国家レベル移民問題として、そして地域の潜在的脅威として感じられる。
「ガウンをまとった女性を商店街で見かけたらそりゃ２度みちゃうわよ。まだ、めずらしいのよ。」
According to Thetford respondents, employment is difficult to obtain because the
Portuguese and Polish work longer hours for less money, which in turn keeps local wages
down and makes ‘locals’ less attractive prospects for employers. Employers will ‘take them
on rather than the English’ because its ‘cheap money’ (Woman, 50s). As one respondent
commented, the Polish and Portuguese will ‘do any job and no wage is too small’
(Woman, 30s).
「移民はどんな安い賃金でも長時間働くから、地域の賃金が低くなって、地元のひとの失業者が増えるらしいわ」The main two arguments used are the ‘when in Rome’ one (people who come
here must adapt to ‘our way of life’); and the necessity for contributing in order to earn
membership. This earning process can be undergone by something as simple as joining in
community activities, or by making wider efforts to integrate, or paying into the welfare
system.
In Thetford-Abbey, the ‘when in Rome’ argument was used when discussing integration
of the Polish and Portuguese, who should ‘live by our standards’ if living here. This is seen
as a fair requirement because ‘we have to if we go to their countries’ (Woman, 30s).
あっちに行けばあっちの規則にしたがうんだから、こっちに来たらこっちのやりかたに従ってもらいたいね。For most, simple gestures such as smiling, nodding
or exchanging brief greetings were indications that the Portuguese and Polish were
integrating.
移民が微笑んだり、頷いたり、移民と短い挨拶を交えるだけでも、自分たちの社会になじんできてくれている、と思われる。In Milton Keynes, there were a number of vocal critiques of perceived failure to mix on
the part of minorities: ‘I have found that there are a lot of Africans on the Estate’, says one
woman (50s), ‘and they don’t seem to mix ... I work in the shop and they are very ignorant,
never say “please” or “thank you, and I don’t like that. You know, it doesn’t cost anything
to have manners’.
Indeed, the onus for integration in these perspectives, as found elsewhere in previous
research, lies entirely with immigrants:‘This is our country and we were kind enough to let them in. In their country we
couldn’t dress like this, we would have to respect their ways, but they don’t respect
us and our ways. The younger people do, but now they want to have Sharia laws ...
they should adopt our ways’ (Woman, 60s).
ある種の外国人は、「ありがとう」「どうぞ」なんてこともいわない。それはなじもうとしていないことだとみなされる。
統合の過程は、移民が地元民のやり方をまなぶべきだ、という一方通行だと思われている。
向こうにいけば、いま来ているような西洋の服を着ることもできない、こっちにきたらこっちのやり方を尊重すべきなのに、尊重しないで、イスラム法をイギリスに導入したいなどといっている。One person in Castle Vale experiences the possibility of getting something wrong as a
reason for avoiding particular areas:‘Perhaps I need to work harder in understanding the different cultures and things
like that, but there’s things that I see when I’m driving around Birmingham that I
think ... that shouldn’t be happening ... There’s these areas that have completely
been took over ... and you do feel very uneasy. Not just me, and I only drive into
Section 4 Immigration and minorities | 25these areas, never actually walk into these areas, I just wouldn’t. Just in case I did do
something that I ... because of their culture or their religion it was a threat or it was
... an insult or something, because we don’t understand ... the British people don’t
really understand. And all of a sudden we’ve got to try and understand all these
different things that have been thrown at us. And I think it’s very, very difficult for a
lot of people. (Man, 40s)
He talks of a few incidents that have occurred over previous years including a road sign in
an area with a high Asian population, on which was sprayed the phrase ‘No Whites after
8.30’. These ‘no-go areas’ according to him are mirrored by Castle Vale, a place where he
feels safe but others would not dare go:
‘so these are out little havens, places like Castle Vale, and it’s about 90% white in this
community, and it’s just such a relief you know. Even though there’s people out there
that would be terrified to come to Castle Vale, we can’t wait to get back to it’.
８時半以降白人禁止などと落書きされて白人がはいれそうもないアジア人の地域があったり、あるいは逆にアジア人がはいれそうもない地域があったり。Some respondents had experienced rudeness from the
few migrants in their area:‘Its annoying when you get lots of them (immigrants) just walking together, having
a conversation in their own language. But they just stick in their routine and they
walk where their going. They don’t believe in moving over for you, put it that way’
(Woman, Runcorn and Widnes, 70s).In Runcorn and Widnes, there were a few people who expressed the unfairness that was
being imposed on the people by government as their own fault for being weak and putting
up with it:‘No, first things first, look after the indigenous people. Because basically in France, in
Spain, […] the Governments, they do look after their own people there. There’d be
people on the street with banners and it wouldn’t just be half a dozen. It would be
mass’ (Woman, Runcorn and Widnes, 60s).
他の国でも同じように、先住民の面倒まずみてくれなくてはだめだよ。政府はけしからん。
Another facet of this type of experience is the perceived advantage for minorities given
them by the existence of legislation against racism and the organisational structure that
surrounds them:‘They’ve, they’ve got the Race Relations Officer at the Milton Keynes Council. They
can phone him, or her, or whoever it is and say ‘well, look the white man down the
road is calling my son names’. You get a letter then, to say that you’re a ... racist. But
we’re not!! We’re not! We’re trying to stick up for ourselves. We are white, we are ...
this is our country, and as they are coming in they should be taught, there should be
said ‘alright, what can you offer, how do you feel ... living among white people? Will
it be, you know, a hindrance? Will you be able to get on with your neighbours if they
are white?’ And if not, they shouldn’t be allowed to come’ (Woman, 60s).
白人が有色人の悪口言ったら反人種差別法で人種差別主義者のレッテルを貼られる。白人とうまくやっていけないなら、そもそもこの国にはいってくるべきではないわ、とか、‘I took this taxi and he was a Somalian and he said he was given £7,000 to buy a taxi... And
then the council say ‘it doesn’t happen’... Nobody minds these people coming and living
here, but it’s when they get treated better, that’s where the resentment starts’
(Woman, 40s, Milton Keynes).
移民が補助金もらって、タクシーを購入したって話を聞いたよ、誰がきてもいいがね、奴らの方がよくしてもらえると、反感も起きるというものだよ、とか、A man in Castle Vale (40s) related a lost relationship to Britishness. His grandfather had
died recently, and he had spent time talking to him in his final weeks and going through his
‘suitcase full of memories’. The grandfather fought at D-Day. In 1945, he argues, there was
a ‘necessary national identity’. The pictures showed only ‘white British soldiers’, who were
given prayers and psalms (as there were only two religions) before the invasion. Over the
last century, Britain has experienced an influx of people from other countries. His family has
thus moved from a strong identification with the country, to the idea that ‘British’ is only a
passport in three generations.
移民のせいで、イギリスの独自性（necessary national identity, Britishness)が失われ、それをなつかしむ声やら、あるが、しかし、
The idea that underneath the cosmetic differences is a common humanity was often put
forward:‘We are all humans, we are all equal, the same, really. I mean, we all have the same
colour blood, so really I don’t think that one is better than the other. I mean, when a
certain group comes over, they are alienated, and you have only got to know them
and give them a chance...’ (Woman, 40s, Milton Keynes).
‘I think you should ignore the fact that they are Polish, coloured, Chinese or what.
At the end of the day, they’re flesh and blood like anybody else, and you’d just treat
‘em like you would… irrespective of what religion or what colour they are, you just
treat them as you would treat your next door neighbour’ (Woman, 50s, Runcorn/
Widnes).
肌の色などの表面の違いの底には中国人だろうがポーランド人だろうが、みんないっしょ、という人もおり、On the question of how people behave in foreign countries, the following respondent
was not the only one to hint that the British are not the best at integrating when they go
abroad:‘We as white people are just as guilty as the Poles, right? You look around at how many
ex-pat communities there are around the world. We do exactly the same. We go in to
places like Dubai and we go to Spain and we set up these little communities and it’s like
all Brits live here. So we’re just as guilty of it’ (Man, 40s, Runcorn and Widnes).
イギリス人だって、海外にでれば、イギリス人同士のコミニティーに作って固まっているから、同じだ、という人もいたり、Indeed, the policy problems are not universally and unquestioningly taken for granted:‘It’s almost like been blown out of proportion by the media’ argues one Birmingham man
(20s), and they’re basically saying ‘These are bad people. This is such and such’. And they’re
demonising people’. Moreover there is a level of understanding that some of the people
who’ve come to Britain in recent years as asylum-seekers have ‘had horrific lives, but they
are trying to get on with it here’ (Woman, Castle Vale, 40s).
マスコミなどで、奴らは悪い奴らだ、云々と言われているのを真に受けず、難民は祖国でひどい目にあったんだ、といった同情を示すひともいたり、While for some, integration is something unachievable (“not in my lifetime” Woman, 50s,
Milton Keynes); ‘It will never be possible. But that’s me. I think other people could do that...’
(Man, 20s, Milton Keynes), others have come up with a few practical suggestions, such as
enhancing communication between communities:‘Communication is the key to everything. If people in general would become more
communicated, they would see that they are ‘us’, or actually we are ‘them’. A lot
of the time... no one does really understand anyone, unless you’re that close. It’s all
about understanding... even down to their beliefs’ (Woman, 20s, Milton Keynes).
Children are also viewed as a means of engaging and being engaged with other cultures:“If the parents would allow their children to mix as one, I think we wouldn’t have
any problems. That would be the next generation, and they would be growing up
knowing’ (Woman, 60s, Milton Keynes).
自分の世代ではむりだろうが、若い世代などは、交流が深まれば、彼等も我々の一人であり、我々も彼等の一人だってことがわかるようになる、と言う人もいたりする。Contact and local solutions
The majority of the suggestions are based on the idea that integration is best served by
activities to which a variety of people are attracted.
‘Food, sports, music ... that’s what brings people together. Why would they want to
come to a meeting and talk about it?’ (Man, 50s, Castle Vale).
Indeed, often these three areas were noted as ones that interest everyone, and a ‘good
basis’ for integration
そこで、食事会やスポーツや音楽会など、人々が喜んで参加するようなイベントで交流を深めたりすることが有効だろう。The polls looked at in the
NCF literature review (Garner, 2008) for example, suggest that more contact between
white UK and black and minority ethnic people at leisure and in the home are indicators of
more open attitudes, yet we are not sure which way round this relationship functions. Are
people with more open attitudes already more likely to seek such contact in the first place?
Opinion polls cannot tell us this, although the better empirical research might. Certainly,
most of the people living in the four sites we have examined here did not have much
contact outside the workplace with ethnic minorities, but this helps us understand neither
the histories of the places in which they live nor their own biographies. Our conclusion is to
acknowledge the importance of the local in shaping opinions, and to see the question of
contact as one that requires more fleshing out before it forms the basis of policy
接触する機会が多ければ、態度も柔軟になってくる、という学説もあるが、しかし、態度が柔軟なひとが接触する機会を多く持つということもあり、ここらへんは、どちらともいえないが、しかし、とにかく地域の人々からいろいろな意見を聞き出すことが重要である。
Integration統合の意味も、移民が地元民のやり方に従うべき、と考える地元民が大半だが、しかし、それでは、一方通行の同化assimilationになってしまう。これも統合というのが何を意味すべきか、地域の人々が議論していくべきである。
わりに移民の導入がはやかったイギリスでもいまだにいろいろ葛藤を抱えている。組織だって反移民、反不法移民に走らない普通の人々でも、やはり、いまだに不安と好奇心の両義的な態度をもち、とまどいをもっている。
移民と職業や福祉、あるいは、文化財を競合しあう関係にあうのは、貧困層の地元民の場合が多いから、彼等が、移民に対して反感をもつのは理解できよう。
Amnesty Intl May 24 Tokyo protest against Diet bills under deliberation to further police NJ residents
Posted by debito on April 29th, 2009
debito.org/?p=3100
センセの投稿。
こっちは逆に移民が先住民の制度にいかに反応しているか、実地によくわかる。
新しい外人カードが導入される。在留管理を厳しくするためだという。だから抗議デモしよう！という記事
なお、アメリカのGCの携帯義務については、GCの携帯義務とその運用を参照
コメント欄をのぞくと、（翻訳ではない）
で、
ICチップと管轄が変わっただけで、あまり変わらないじゃないか、コメント。これは納得
Snowman Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 9:35 am
The Gestapo is alive and well and operating in Japan! I’ll be glad when I finally get my Japanese passport and I can just forget about all this stuff.
日本ではゲシュタポは健在で、活躍中？？？？？
今まで故意がなく、たんに忘れただけだけなら、罰金はなかったが、それも変わる？？？？？
これ以前他の投稿でdebito.org/?p=3034#comments、以前から
携帯しない者とは、その取締る事柄の本質に鑑み故意に右証明書を携帯しないものばかりでなく、過失によりこれを携帯しないものをも包含する法意と解するのを相当
という判例が紹介されていたはずだが？
在日外人のためのハンドブックの著者たるセンセからの訂正はなしか？
こんなときには、在留資格を取り消される場合があります
＊「日本人の配偶者等」「永住者の配偶者等」の在留資格の場合 配偶者の別居、死亡の際には１４日以内に報告しなければならない（但し、この件につき英文と日本文で内容が異なる。ーーー空）
外国人 妻が死亡しました
移民官 ご愁傷様です。日本から出て行って下さい。
？？？？？？
ICチップは遠隔読み取り可能だから、遠隔読み取りできなかった、という理由で警官が外国人を停止するようになる。
犯罪者に遠隔読み取りで身分証明を遠隔で読み取られて、自分の身分を偽造される。
貴重品は持ち歩かないほうがいいだろう。印鑑だってもちあるかないだろう、こんな大事な身分証持ち歩けってか？
？？？？？
携帯義務について反対するのはいいが、妄想を逞しくしても説得力はない。
先のイギリスの白人の移民に対する悪感情が正確な情報に基づいていないことに一因があると分析されていたように、、妄想ばかりしていても日本に対する悪感情を助長させるだけだろう。在日外人ハンドブックの著者のブログで、判例など承知で訂正できるにもかかわらず訂正もせず、妄想を助長させているのは、不可思議としかいいようがない。
まあ、抗議デモ頑張って下さい。ゲシュタポにあったらよろしく。
2009年4月27日月曜日
勉強ができないだけ 他
Lawyer Alleges Retaliatory Firing by Texas Office of the Attorney General
The former appellate section chief in the OAG's Child Support Division alleges she was fired after complaining about religious and gender bias
Mary Alice Robbins
Texas Lawyer
April 23, 2009
職場での解雇をめぐる紛争。職場といっても、テキサス州の司法長官の事務所である。国民の休日以外に、事務所はキリスト教の休日を休みにしている。原告はユダヤ教徒である。ユダヤの休日に休んだ場合は、その穴埋めとして国民の祝日に出勤しなかればならないが、不公平であるなどと主張したら、報復として解雇された、という。他方被告は他の理由で解雇した、という。仮に報復的理由が現存したとしても、それがなくても、解雇する正当な理由がある場合、弁護士費用までは払ってもらえるが、損害賠償請求はできない、という。
スザンヌ
いいなあ、この発想。
スザンヌさんってテレビでみたことがあるが、社交的で昔流行って言葉いえば、EQ能力が高いってことかな。
ついでに、他の産経の芸能ネタをみてみる。
阿部力さんが中国の女優、史可さんと結婚
2009.4.27 11:10
加護亜依、
2009.4.26 17:00
インリン、
2009.4.27 09:45
タレント、インリン・オブ・ジョイトイ（３３）が２６日、東京・福家書店新宿サブナード店で、２５日発売のフォトブック「リアル」（ワニブックス、２９４０円）の発売記念イベントを行った。
元モーニング娘。の加護亜依（２１）が２５日、東京・渋谷シアター・イメージフォーラムで行われた香港映画「カンフーシェフ」の初日舞台あいさつに出席した。
とまあ、最近の芸能ニュースをみても日本中国・台湾・香港とアジアの交流はわりに進んでいる。
（加護ちゃんが奇妙にチャイナドレスの着方をしても文句がでてなさそうなのはうれしい）
韓流はすこし下火になったが、おばちゃんたちがきゃあきゃあいう。昔からアジア人芸能人は活躍していて、欧陽菲菲 や
アグネス・チャンなども昔から人気があった。もっと、昔で言えば、植民地時代の崔承喜などもいる。
マイケルジャクソンなど最近は白人の女性にも人気があるが、しかし、黒人のタレントが白人に人気がでるようになったってのはいつ頃からなのであろうか？あるいは、植民地時代にインド人のタレントがイギリスで人気を博したということがあったのだろうか？
そこらへんの事情がわかるひとがいれば教えてもらいたいが、多分、かなり違いがあるんじゃないかな、と思う。
日本にも差別はあったし、いまでもあるわけだが、日本における差別という問題を欧米の差別問題から投影すると間違うことが多い。印象だが、アジア人の方が人や物のの区切りがあいまいで、混沌としている分、融合もしやすい。
School helps mentally disabled in China
で、これは中国。身障者のための学校ができた、とCNNが報道している。特派員は中国系の人だろう。
なんか、ちょっと、うらやましいね。CNNの日本特派員は、？？？印だし、NYTのオオニシは日系かどうかわからんが、歪曲してしかもひどくしか報道することのほうが多いからな。
Tue, April 21, 2009
Violent white supremacist to be released from jail
By KEVIN MARTIN, SUN MEDIA
魚拓
で、前に紹介した記事と同じかと思って見なかったが、今日見たら違った。
凶暴な白人至上主義者が釈放される、という。カナダ。
Okazaki testified she was kicked in the back of the head from behind, the result of a jump kick, shortly after she left the bar around midnight.
Alleged Aryan Guard guilty of assaulting Japanese visitor
BY DARYL SLADE, CALGARY HERALDMARCH 13, 2009
で、この若者、去年の７月にバーから出てきた、日本人女性をアジア人の蔑称を使いながら、罵り、後ろから後頭部を突然蹴飛ばし、何度も暴行を働いて、女性は傷害を受けた、という。
少年は、白人至上主義者であり、後悔の念もなく、人種差別の思想は深く刻まれている、という。
この女性の名前やら、地域やらで、ググってみたが、でてこない。
つまり、日本の報道機関は報道していないってことだと思う。（あったら教えて欲しい）。
これは手落ちだろう。
イギリス人被害者が日本ででると、奇妙な日本論まで記事にして、執拗に大騒ぎするイギリスジャーナリズムのようになる必要はないし、欧米を不当に描出すべきでもないし、普通の欧米人はそういうことはないが、しかし、海外では、日本人面しているだけで、後ろ蹴りされることもあり得るということは、一般の日本人に伝えておいたほうがいい。
27 April 2009 10:2
Detention of children 'must stop'
Children in detention at Yarl's Wood
Mark Easton | 11:53 UK time, Monday, 27 April 2009 魚拓
以前、殴打して不法移民を国外退去させる英国という記事を投稿したことがあるが、これも自発的に退去しなかった場合の移民に対する待遇に関する記事で、特に子供に対する扱いがひどい、という記事。
まだ、寝ているうちに、移民管理官がきて、母親を馬鹿呼ばわりし、５才の子供の身体まで捜索し、ときに力づくで、おりがついて、、小便や嘔吐物のにおいのする車で、長時間かけて、牢獄のような拘置所につれていかれる、という。そうした事態は緊急に改善せよ、という記事。
３ヶ月の不動産賃貸をしたが、賃料減額請求できるか、というものである。
ほとんど日本語での調査能力に欠けるようである。
賃料払っているのだから、使用貸借ではない。
「マンスリーマンション」でググる。
定期借家契約でググる。
特約なし。従って、賃料減額請求可。
もっとも、相場ということだから、近隣の家賃は参考にはなるが、近隣で自分より高いところがあるかもしれない、また、当該不動産に特別な設置、リフォームの度合いの差などがあるかもしれない。（本格的には不動産鑑定がはいるが、それやるとわりに高い、なお、仮に相場と極端に違っても、増減の額は１割程度になるだろうが、本件ではそれは問題になっていない。）
ネットだから確実とは限らないが大体の目安はつくだろう
相当とする額を供託して調停に入ってもいいが、調停費用や手間などを考慮にいれ、またビルで安い部屋があるというなら、３ヶ月契約なのだから、おれなら、そっちに引っ越す。
やはり、日本語ができないで日本に住むというのはかなり無理がある。単純な調査能力もないのである。
それにしても、本当に、在日外国人のためにガイドブック書いた著者のブログだろうか？
なお、日本の法律制度に関して不当な一般化があるが、それは削除しないようだ。こうした誤解や誤った情報を与えるコメントにより、日本語ができず、調査能力のない在日外国人に誤解や偏見をまき散らしてもいいのだろうか？
The former appellate section chief in the OAG's Child Support Division alleges she was fired after complaining about religious and gender bias
Mary Alice Robbins
Texas Lawyer
April 23, 2009
Pressley says in an interview that she would have been happy to work on Good Friday in exchange for being able to take off from work on a Jewish holiday. But Pressley says the OAG treats Good Friday afternoon as if it were a national holiday, closing the office and requiring all employees to leave.
But in a response to an April 9 open records request made by Texas Lawyer ,the OAG provided a copy of a "request for termination" memo that Heinold wrote on Feb. 21, 2007. In the memo, Heinold wrote that Pressley had violated standards of conduct contained in the OAG's Policies and Procedures Manual, specifically the requirement that employees "shall always treat members of the public and fellow employees with dignity and respect."
But Heinold wrote in the request for termination memo that Pressley's actions were "repeatedly disruptive" to the office. As noted in Heinold's memo, a week or two prior to Jan. 26, 2007, Pressley entered the office of Jessica Perry, who was at the time an assistant attorney general, and "started 'venting' about something in an extremely loud voice and angry tone and banged her fists forcefully on Ms. Perry's desk."
According to a workplace violence incident report filed by Perry on March 5, 2007, the desk-pounding occurred on or about Jan. 21, 2007.
Referring to Pressley, Perry wrote in the report, "She began to bang her fist on my desk. During this conversation, she said something to the effect that she would or wanted to bring an ozzie [an Uzi] to the second floor and shoot up into the floor."
In the "request for termination" memo, Heinold also contended that many OAG field attorneys are reluctant to seek Pressley's advice, because she is "frequently sarcastic, demeaning and highly critical of them and their work."
Maher says that if the employer cites a nonretaliatory reason for terminating the plaintiff, it is then up to the plaintiff to prove that reason is pretextual or to show that the employer had a mixed motive for the termination. For example, a mixed motive could be that the plaintiff violated an agency policy but that the employer also was concerned that the plaintiff had complained about alleged discrimination.
If the employer can show that the plaintiff would have been fired for the policy violation even though the employer had concerns about the allegations of discrimination, the plaintiff can get a finding of retaliation and attorney fees, but the plaintiff cannot get damages, Maher says.
職場での解雇をめぐる紛争。職場といっても、テキサス州の司法長官の事務所である。国民の休日以外に、事務所はキリスト教の休日を休みにしている。原告はユダヤ教徒である。ユダヤの休日に休んだ場合は、その穴埋めとして国民の祝日に出勤しなかればならないが、不公平であるなどと主張したら、報復として解雇された、という。他方被告は他の理由で解雇した、という。仮に報復的理由が現存したとしても、それがなくても、解雇する正当な理由がある場合、弁護士費用までは払ってもらえるが、損害賠償請求はできない、という。
スザンヌ
娘が「おバカ」キャラで売り出されたことについては
年配の方に「本当に恥ずかしくないですか」と聞かれますが、まったく違和感はないんです。ただ勉強ができないだけなので。敬語やあいさつができない方がよほど恥ずかしいことだと思うんです。その点、娘は笑顔で元気なあいさつができるように育てました。
――スザンヌさんは小さいころどんな女の子でしたか
友人を作ることがとても得意な子でした。勉強は苦手で、通知表で１だった科目もあります。通知表の１って、なかなかじかに見る機会はないですよ。中学生のとき、本田技研を都道府県の一つだと思っていたこともありました。でも美術は得意で、成績も良かった。だから将来はファッション系の方向に行くと思っていました
いいなあ、この発想。
スザンヌさんってテレビでみたことがあるが、社交的で昔流行って言葉いえば、EQ能力が高いってことかな。
ついでに、他の産経の芸能ネタをみてみる。
"Yet, the company is denying this claim because her husband had Hepatitis C, something totally unrelated to the way he was killed," he said.
阿部力さんが中国の女優、史可さんと結婚2009.4.27 11:10
阿部さんは、１９８２年２月１３日、中国・黒龍江省生まれ。母方の祖母が日本人の日中クオーター
加護亜依、
2009.4.26 17:00
インリン、
2009.4.27 09:45
タレント、インリン・オブ・ジョイトイ（３３）が２６日、東京・福家書店新宿サブナード店で、２５日発売のフォトブック「リアル」（ワニブックス、２９４０円）の発売記念イベントを行った。
インリン・オブ・ジョイトイ台湾台北市出身[2]で・・・・・藤原勇人[4]と入籍
元モーニング娘。の加護亜依（２１）が２５日、東京・渋谷シアター・イメージフォーラムで行われた香港映画「カンフーシェフ」の初日舞台あいさつに出席した。
とまあ、最近の芸能ニュースをみても日本中国・台湾・香港とアジアの交流はわりに進んでいる。
（加護ちゃんが奇妙にチャイナドレスの着方をしても文句がでてなさそうなのはうれしい）
韓流はすこし下火になったが、おばちゃんたちがきゃあきゃあいう。昔からアジア人芸能人は活躍していて、欧陽菲菲 や
アグネス・チャンなども昔から人気があった。もっと、昔で言えば、植民地時代の崔承喜などもいる。
マイケルジャクソンなど最近は白人の女性にも人気があるが、しかし、黒人のタレントが白人に人気がでるようになったってのはいつ頃からなのであろうか？あるいは、植民地時代にインド人のタレントがイギリスで人気を博したということがあったのだろうか？
そこらへんの事情がわかるひとがいれば教えてもらいたいが、多分、かなり違いがあるんじゃないかな、と思う。
日本にも差別はあったし、いまでもあるわけだが、日本における差別という問題を欧米の差別問題から投影すると間違うことが多い。印象だが、アジア人の方が人や物のの区切りがあいまいで、混沌としている分、融合もしやすい。
School helps mentally disabled in China
で、これは中国。身障者のための学校ができた、とCNNが報道している。特派員は中国系の人だろう。
なんか、ちょっと、うらやましいね。CNNの日本特派員は、？？？印だし、NYTのオオニシは日系かどうかわからんが、歪曲してしかもひどくしか報道することのほうが多いからな。
Tue, April 21, 2009
Violent white supremacist to be released from jail
By KEVIN MARTIN, SUN MEDIA
魚拓
で、前に紹介した記事と同じかと思って見なかったが、今日見たら違った。
凶暴な白人至上主義者が釈放される、という。カナダ。
CALGARY -- An unrepentant racist who attacked a Japanese woman in downtown Calgary for no apparent reason won't have to serve any more jail.
The offender, now 18, attacked his victim last July 26, outside a downtown bar while she spoke on her cellphone.
He drop-kicked Asako Okazaki, knocking her to the ground, before kicking her some more.
Burrell noted the teen, an admitted member of the Aryan Guard, continues to hold his racist beliefs.
"His ... beliefs are deeply ingrained," the judge said.
"It is unlikely that he's going to change his belief system in the near future."
Okazaki testified she was kicked in the back of the head from behind, the result of a jump kick, shortly after she left the bar around midnight.
Alleged Aryan Guard guilty of assaulting Japanese visitor
BY DARYL SLADE, CALGARY HERALDMARCH 13, 2009
She said he swore at her a number of times during the three separate attacks, leaving her with serious bruises, cuts and long-lasting pain.
A friend of the attacker testified the accused had made a derogatory comment about Asian people before they left the same bar, and the accused followed the victim to where the attack occurred.
で、この若者、去年の７月にバーから出てきた、日本人女性をアジア人の蔑称を使いながら、罵り、後ろから後頭部を突然蹴飛ばし、何度も暴行を働いて、女性は傷害を受けた、という。
少年は、白人至上主義者であり、後悔の念もなく、人種差別の思想は深く刻まれている、という。
この女性の名前やら、地域やらで、ググってみたが、でてこない。
つまり、日本の報道機関は報道していないってことだと思う。（あったら教えて欲しい）。
これは手落ちだろう。
イギリス人被害者が日本ででると、奇妙な日本論まで記事にして、執拗に大騒ぎするイギリスジャーナリズムのようになる必要はないし、欧米を不当に描出すべきでもないし、普通の欧米人はそういうことはないが、しかし、海外では、日本人面しているだけで、後ろ蹴りされることもあり得るということは、一般の日本人に伝えておいたほうがいい。
27 April 2009 10:2
Detention of children 'must stop'
Sir Al Aynsley-Green warned in a report that children found Yarl's Wood Immigration Removal Centre, in Bedfordshire, "like being in prison".
"They describe being transported in caged, urine-soaked vans, separated from parents and not being allowed to go to the toilet. There is no proper provision to deal with their psychological distress, directly caused by the government's detention policies."
Children in detention at Yarl's Wood
Mark Easton | 11:53 UK time, Monday, 27 April 2009 魚拓
What sort of country sends a dozen police officers to haul innocent sleeping children out of their beds; gives them just a few minutes to pack what belongings they can grab; pushes them into stinking caged vans; drives them for hours while refusing them the chance to go to the lavatory so that they wet themselves and locks them up sometimes for weeks or months without the prospect of release and without adequate health services?
My country, apparently.
以前、殴打して不法移民を国外退去させる英国という記事を投稿したことがあるが、これも自発的に退去しなかった場合の移民に対する待遇に関する記事で、特に子供に対する扱いがひどい、という記事。
まだ、寝ているうちに、移民管理官がきて、母親を馬鹿呼ばわりし、５才の子供の身体まで捜索し、ときに力づくで、おりがついて、、小便や嘔吐物のにおいのする車で、長時間かけて、牢獄のような拘置所につれていかれる、という。そうした事態は緊急に改善せよ、という記事。
“Tokyo Reader” on odd rental contracts for apartments: “lease” vs. “loan for use”? Plus Kyoutaku escrow for disputes
Posted by debito on April 27th, 2009
debito.org/?p=3073
３ヶ月の不動産賃貸をしたが、賃料減額請求できるか、というものである。
ほとんど日本語での調査能力に欠けるようである。
賃料払っているのだから、使用貸借ではない。
「マンスリーマンション」でググる。
マンスリーマンションとは通常の賃貸マンションなどとはシステムが違い。
月単位で契約を結ぶマンションの事です。
その契約方法ですが「定期借家契約」を結ぶ事になります
定期借家契約でググる。
定期借家契約は、公正証書などの書面により締結する必要がありますが、必ず公正証書によらなければいけないわけではありません。したがって、市販の契約書で契約しても、独自に作成した契約書で契約しても有効となります。
賃借の増減は特約があればその定めに従う
特約なし。従って、賃料減額請求可。
もっとも、相場ということだから、近隣の家賃は参考にはなるが、近隣で自分より高いところがあるかもしれない、また、当該不動産に特別な設置、リフォームの度合いの差などがあるかもしれない。（本格的には不動産鑑定がはいるが、それやるとわりに高い、なお、仮に相場と極端に違っても、増減の額は１割程度になるだろうが、本件ではそれは問題になっていない。）
ネットだから確実とは限らないが大体の目安はつくだろう
相当とする額を供託して調停に入ってもいいが、調停費用や手間などを考慮にいれ、またビルで安い部屋があるというなら、３ヶ月契約なのだから、おれなら、そっちに引っ越す。
やはり、日本語ができないで日本に住むというのはかなり無理がある。単純な調査能力もないのである。
それにしても、本当に、在日外国人のためにガイドブック書いた著者のブログだろうか？
なお、日本の法律制度に関して不当な一般化があるが、それは削除しないようだ。こうした誤解や誤った情報を与えるコメントにより、日本語ができず、調査能力のない在日外国人に誤解や偏見をまき散らしてもいいのだろうか？
2009年4月26日日曜日
これでくびになりました、他
まずは軽い話題から
daichi the beatboxer
Daichi for Beatbox Battle Wildcard（youtube)なんていうんだか、わからないけど、口で楽器をやっている。ユーチューブでわりに人気がでている。
ソウル最大のお祭り ５月２日から開催
あの産経でも韓国の宣伝している。（遠隔）韓国民族主義者や在日欧米人が思うほど、悪い関係でもない。韓流はいまだ健在である。ただ、日本・日本人に対する不当な誹謗や中傷、日本に関して、他国と異なる不公正・不公平な取り扱い・圧力があると、その反動は、対中でも対韓でも、対欧米でもある。
Distant horizons
Apr 23rd 2009 | QINGDAO
China's naval paradeChina's naval parade
中国のPLA海軍の６０回記念で中国海軍がその威力を見せつけ始めた、という。もちろん、口では、安全のため、平和のため、と言っている。が、エコノミストもオートラリアの記事も警戒感を示している。
日本の記事はどうか？
中国の宣伝。
ひがみかよ。
含意には触れず。
のんびりしてますな。
ABC News Exclusive: Torture Tape Implicates UAE Royal Sheikh
Police in Uniform Join In as Victim Is Whipped, Beaten, Electrocuted, Run Over by SUV
By VIC WALTER, REHAB EL-BURI, ANGELA HILL and BRIAN ROSS
April 22, 2009
Nabulsi’s Story
これはアラブ首長国連邦で、皇族が拷問にふけっている、という。
Turkey criticises Obama comments
オバマがトルコがアルメニアでの虐殺は素直に認めるべきだと、といったら、トルコ側でも犠牲者は出ているんだ、とトルコ側から、反論。
こうやってアメリカは道徳の説教をしたがる。一種の価値外交である。説教をするからには、クリーンハンドであるべきだが、そうなっていないから、米国以外では、米国の言動不一致が常識化してしまう。
まして、これは歴史問題である。歴史は歴史家に任せるとして軽く受け流してもよかったのではないか？
ところで、BBCがQ＆Aを儲けてアルメニアのジェノサイドについての記事を掲載している。
Q&A:genocide dispute
ジェノサイドとは、国家的、民族的、人種的、宗教的団体の全部もしくは一部を滅亡させる意志の遂行、という。ちょっと曖昧だな。一般市民を狙った空爆もジェノサイドか？
殺戮は組織的だったか？つまり、指揮された系統だったものか？そういう論者が多いが論争がある、としている。
UK Gurkha decision sparks anger
イギリス
グルカ兵の移民の権利が制限されたので怒っている。
Confederate flag draws tears, cheers in TampaBy Jessica Vander Velde, Times Staff Writer
In Print: Sunday, April 26, 2009 魚拓Video
アメリカ南部連邦 の旗を掲げることについての論争。一方は人種差別を象徴するといい、他方は侵略への抵抗、自由を象徴するという。また、戦死者の記憶が我々にあるかぎり、彼等の死は無駄にはならない、という。どこでも似たような議論があるのに注目。
A Family Divided by 2 Words, Legal and Illegal
By DAVID GONZALEZ
Published: April 25, 2009
魚拓
これはのりこちゃんと同様なケースだね。NYT.
国籍付与の条件は国によって異なるが、要するに、居住の観点から家族に合法の人と不法な人がいれば、悲しい家族の別れはどこにでもありえる話だ。アメリカでは、２３０万の未登録移民がいるが、不法移民の４分の３がにアメリカ国籍の子供をもっており、40万人が合法の子供と不法在留の子供をもっている、という。
No chance to say goodbye before deportation
Well-wishers gathered at airport heartbroken, as deported mom and daughter fly to S. Korea
Apr 26, 2009 04:30 AM魚拓
これはカナダのケースである。オーバーステイして不法在留の韓国の女性で、クリーニング屋さんで働いていた。。子供はカナダ生まれで、８才。難民申請も拒否されて親戚のいるソウルに退去。
カナダってのは、生地主義じゃないのかね。それとも、生地主義であっても子供の養育の観点から親と道連れにしたということか？
まあ、いずれにせよ、ソウルから来て、難民申請は拒否されるわなああ。
コメント欄をみると、ちゃんと手続きをふまなかったから、同情できない、と言う声が多い。
。
Bully boss has poisoned the work environment for employees
Posted By TED MOURADIAN
25 Apr 2009
とある英語ブログを読んでいてい、日本の職場ってそんなに特殊なのかな、と思って、最近職場の問題に関心をもって追いかけている。
これは、従業員がボスからいじめられているがどうしたらいいか、という相談。
Five fired black workers sue PharMerica
The African immigrants charge they were mistreated and harassed by bosses and co-workers.
By TREVOR MAXWELL, Staff Writer
April 24, 2000
これは以前紹介した記事の続報。係争中なわけだが、上司に４時半以降は休憩なしといわれた（イスラムの祈りの妨害）黒人などを罵る言葉の濫用（They were called (the n-word), lazy, black sheep, barbarians, filthy, irresponsible, dumb, dirty, little boys and stupid）、女性従業員がレイプされるのではと、こわがるので、一緒に働きたくない、など、監督にも相談したが耳をかさなかった、という。
California H.S. Cheer Coach Fired Apparently for Posing for Playboy
Carlie Beck Posed for Playboy Before She Was Hired, But Now Fired
By LEE FERRAN, JIM VOJTECH and JAY SHAYLOR
April 23, 2009
これはチアリーダーのコーチに就業する前にプレイボーイなどでモデルをしていたことにより、コーチを解任された、という。
Sacked female teacher raped two boys
April 21, 2009 12:00am
これは１０才と１５才の男の子を犯した女性教師が解雇、現在強姦罪で係争中。有罪を認めている、という。
Bosses do read blogs
Howard Levitt, Financial Post
Published: Wednesday, April 22, 2009魚拓
これはむしろ上司が従業員に悪口を言われて解雇するケース。ネット時代になって実名をあげて、職場の上司を罵ることがある。その場合、ネットは公然性と恒久性があるから、名誉毀損、そして解雇につながる場合が多い、という。
日本でも同様なことはある。弁護士の数なども増加しているのだから、双方、積極的に裁判所を利用したら、どうだろうか？
Hate crime rises in Wales as economic hardship bites
Apr 26 2009 by David James, Wales On Sunday 魚拓
Ethnic minorities, gay people, faith groups and even the disabled have been reporting far more incidents of violence, verbal abuse and criminal damage over the past year.
先日、イギリスのとある地域でヘイトクライムが増加している、という記事を紹介したが、ウエールズでも増加している、という。もっとも、ウエールズは他のUKよりましで、イングランドやスコットランドはもっとひどい、と言っている人もいる。
All-white jury chosen in Pa. hate crime trial
By MICHAEL RUBINKAM – 3 days ago
で、これは人種差別を動機とする、メキシコ人が犠牲者である、傷害事件（ヘイトライム）の裁判。アメリカ。この裁判では陪審がすべて白人である、という。陪審制の問題を暗示している。
23 April, 2009
South Belfast urged: 'Unite against hate crime' 魚拓
北アイルランド。
以前、外国人の一家が襲撃されたという記事を紹介した。やはり単発ではなかったらしい。東欧人やアジア人中国人など、外国人の家が標的にされ、地域から追放を余儀なくされている場合もある、という。
これ以前にも北アイルランドはヨーロッパの人種的憎悪の首都という２００４年の記事を紹介したことがあったが、いまだに相変わらずのようだ。
こうして、東欧人やアジア人を憎悪する西欧人が日本にやってくる。日本人は“barbarian but obedient野蛮だが従順だから、救済してやろう、とおもっているのに、当の日本人にため口をいわれれば、そりゃヒステリー起こすかもしれわな。そうした欧米人がするコメントに興味があるかたは、これなんぞ、どうぞ。
もっとも、多くの在日欧米人は普通の善良な方々がですので念のため
daichi the beatboxer
Daichi for Beatbox Battle Wildcard（youtube)なんていうんだか、わからないけど、口で楽器をやっている。ユーチューブでわりに人気がでている。
ソウル最大のお祭り ５月２日から開催
あの産経でも韓国の宣伝している。（遠隔）韓国民族主義者や在日欧米人が思うほど、悪い関係でもない。韓流はいまだ健在である。ただ、日本・日本人に対する不当な誹謗や中傷、日本に関して、他国と異なる不公正・不公平な取り扱い・圧力があると、その反動は、対中でも対韓でも、対欧米でもある。
Distant horizons
Apr 23rd 2009 | QINGDAO
China's naval paradeChina's naval parade
中国のPLA海軍の６０回記念で中国海軍がその威力を見せつけ始めた、という。もちろん、口では、安全のため、平和のため、と言っている。が、エコノミストもオートラリアの記事も警戒感を示している。
日本の記事はどうか？
国際艦隊観閲は、海軍という国際的な軍隊に特有の海上儀礼式典だ。今回参加した外国艦艇の半数近くは過去に中国訪問経験がある。彼らは、調和ある海洋の建設に向けた中国海軍のたゆまぬ努力の証人だ。（朝日）
中国の宣伝。
青島沖で中国海軍が観艦式…日本艦艇は招かれず 読売
ひがみかよ。
中国海軍は初の国際観艦式 世界トップクラスの能力誇示産経
含意には触れず。
のんびりしてますな。
ABC News Exclusive: Torture Tape Implicates UAE Royal Sheikh
Police in Uniform Join In as Victim Is Whipped, Beaten, Electrocuted, Run Over by SUV
By VIC WALTER, REHAB EL-BURI, ANGELA HILL and BRIAN ROSS
April 22, 2009
Nabulsi’s Story
これはアラブ首長国連邦で、皇族が拷問にふけっている、という。
Turkey criticises Obama comments
オバマがトルコがアルメニアでの虐殺は素直に認めるべきだと、といったら、トルコ側でも犠牲者は出ているんだ、とトルコ側から、反論。
こうやってアメリカは道徳の説教をしたがる。一種の価値外交である。説教をするからには、クリーンハンドであるべきだが、そうなっていないから、米国以外では、米国の言動不一致が常識化してしまう。
まして、これは歴史問題である。歴史は歴史家に任せるとして軽く受け流してもよかったのではないか？
ところで、BBCがQ＆Aを儲けてアルメニアのジェノサイドについての記事を掲載している。
Q&A:genocide dispute
What is genocide?
Article Two of the UN Convention on Genocide of December 1948 describes genocide as carrying out acts intended "to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group".
ジェノサイドとは、国家的、民族的、人種的、宗教的団体の全部もしくは一部を滅亡させる意志の遂行、という。ちょっと曖昧だな。一般市民を狙った空爆もジェノサイドか？
Were the killings systematic?
The dispute about whether it was genocide centres on the question of premeditation - the degree to which the killings were orchestrated
殺戮は組織的だったか？つまり、指揮された系統だったものか？そういう論者が多いが論争がある、としている。
UK Gurkha decision sparks anger
The British government has said it will allow 4,300 more Gurkha veterans to settle in the country, changing immigration restrictions on the Nepalese soldiers.
But advocates for the soldiers say the criteria for eligibility introduced by the government means only 100 Gurkhas would actually qualify.
The announcement has sparked outrage from campaigners, who have demanded all 36,000 Gurkhas who served with the British army before 1997 be allowed to live permanently in the UK.
イギリス
グルカ兵の移民の権利が制限されたので怒っている。
Confederate flag draws tears, cheers in TampaBy Jessica Vander Velde, Times Staff Writer
In Print: Sunday, April 26, 2009 魚拓Video
The flag, first raised in June, has divided some members of the community. Many say it stands for slavery and racism, and several Hillsborough County commissioners suggested a compromise. Maybe the Sons of Confederate Veterans could fly an American flag and on special occasions raise the Confederate flag, they said.
The flag isn't about racism, said Robert Wilson, 46, of St. Johns. He said he's sad to see what certain groups, including the Ku Klux Klan, have made it. "We're not here to hate on people," he said. "We're all Americans, and we're equal."
"They did not die for nothing, because we'll never forget them," she said.
アメリカ南部連邦 の旗を掲げることについての論争。一方は人種差別を象徴するといい、他方は侵略への抵抗、自由を象徴するという。また、戦死者の記憶が我々にあるかぎり、彼等の死は無駄にはならない、という。どこでも似たような議論があるのに注目。
A Family Divided by 2 Words, Legal and Illegal
By DAVID GONZALEZ
Published: April 25, 2009
魚拓
These four — who let a reporter and a photographer trail them only if they were not identified, for fear of being deported — are part of a growing group of what are often called mixed-status families. Nearly 2.3 million undocumented families, about three-quarters of those who are here illegally, have at least one child who is a United States citizen, according to the Pew Hispanic Center. Nearly 400,000 of them have both citizen and noncitizen children.
It is nearly impossible for an illegal immigrant child to become a legal resident without going back to the native country, then waiting a requisite 10 years to apply.
これはのりこちゃんと同様なケースだね。NYT.
国籍付与の条件は国によって異なるが、要するに、居住の観点から家族に合法の人と不法な人がいれば、悲しい家族の別れはどこにでもありえる話だ。アメリカでは、２３０万の未登録移民がいるが、不法移民の４分の３がにアメリカ国籍の子供をもっており、40万人が合法の子供と不法在留の子供をもっている、という。
No chance to say goodbye before deportation
Well-wishers gathered at airport heartbroken, as deported mom and daughter fly to S. Korea
Apr 26, 2009 04:30 AM魚拓
Kim was deported to Seoul, South Korea, late last night after losing her refugee appeal before the Immigration and Refugee Board. She elected to take her Toronto-born daughter with her..
Kim had come to Canada on a visitor's visa in 2000. She had been working in a dry cleaner's shop in the Davenport neighbourhood where Eugene was a Grade 2 student at Dovercourt Jr. Public School
The president of the Canadian branch of Defence for Children International confirmed to the Star yesterday there was nothing more that could be done to keep the Kims in Canada.
"We had to establish if there was a risk of serious harm to the child and we haven't been able to do that, so there are not sufficient reasons to overturn a deportation order," said Agnes Samler. "The only thing we might have been able to do is an appeal on humanitarian and compassionate grounds, but we have not had a lot of success under the current system."
Yesterday, though, Foley said she tried to stress to Eugene that she and her mother would be on to new adventures back in South Korea, where the little girl has never lived. Kim's parents and a brother live about 1 1/2 hours south of Seoul.
"They need to be together," said Foley. "If that means they have to be together in Korea, then that's the way it needs to be."
これはカナダのケースである。オーバーステイして不法在留の韓国の女性で、クリーニング屋さんで働いていた。。子供はカナダ生まれで、８才。難民申請も拒否されて親戚のいるソウルに退去。
カナダってのは、生地主義じゃないのかね。それとも、生地主義であっても子供の養育の観点から親と道連れにしたということか？
まあ、いずれにせよ、ソウルから来て、難民申請は拒否されるわなああ。
コメント欄をみると、ちゃんと手続きをふまなかったから、同情できない、と言う声が多い。
。
Bully boss has poisoned the work environment for employees
Posted By TED MOURADIAN
25 Apr 2009
とある英語ブログを読んでいてい、日本の職場ってそんなに特殊なのかな、と思って、最近職場の問題に関心をもって追いかけている。
Dear Ted:I am dealing with a boss at work who has been bullying me for more than two years. I have filed grievances at work which are going to arbitration. Presently, I am off on a stress leave for two weeks and am wondering what other actions I can follow other than union grievances. We have a workplace harassment policy, but it is on certain grounds (i. e. colour, race etc.) that don't fall under bullying and harassment. This boss has poisoned my work environment and I am not alone. She has a past history but people end up quitting and I am not prepared to do that. What can I do? Please help me! Thank you.
Answer:What you are saying is a dilemma that a lot of employees are in. There are harassment policies that deal with human rights, such as race, religion, gender and sexual orientation, but these policies don't seem to cover bullying and psychological harassment. Some employers are not up to speed yet with how the laws are changing and the fact that it is the employer's responsibility to make sure that your workplace is harassment free.
これは、従業員がボスからいじめられているがどうしたらいいか、という相談。
Five fired black workers sue PharMerica
The African immigrants charge they were mistreated and harassed by bosses and co-workers.
By TREVOR MAXWELL, Staff Writer
April 24, 2000
the supervisor allegedly told the plaintiffs they were not allowed breaks after 4:30 p.m., which the plaintiffs later learned was a violation of labor laws. The men said the supervisor told them, "This isn't a mosque," and would not allow them to pray during breaks.
The supervisor and other employees allegedly insulted the plaintiffs and repeatedly used slurs.
"They were called (the n-word), lazy, black sheep, barbarians, filthy, irresponsible, dumb, dirty, little boys and stupid," Webbert wrote in the complaint.
Two white female co-workers, Webbert wrote, told the supervisor they did not want to work closing shift because "they were afraid the plaintiffs would 'jump' them and 'rape' them in the parking lot."
Two other white female co-workers felt the men were being harassed,...so they reported their concerns on a PharMerica telephone hotline. The supervisor allegedly responded by telling the women they would be fired if they spoke again with the men.
On July 30, 2007, Haji said he was ordered by his supervisor to work directly across from the two women who had expressed fear of attack by the men. Haji told the supervisor and regional manager that he didn't feel comfortable at the work station. He claims he was immediately fired and escorted out of the building.
The regional manager then allegedly came back inside and told the four other plaintiffs – plus another black man who worked as a technician but who is not a party in the lawsuit – that they were all fired.
"It's very unusual that it would be so blatant, for the manager to say, 'Everyone the same color as you is out of here,' " Webbert said. "It cries out for the legal system to send a signal."
これは以前紹介した記事の続報。係争中なわけだが、上司に４時半以降は休憩なしといわれた（イスラムの祈りの妨害）黒人などを罵る言葉の濫用（They were called (the n-word), lazy, black sheep, barbarians, filthy, irresponsible, dumb, dirty, little boys and stupid）、女性従業員がレイプされるのではと、こわがるので、一緒に働きたくない、など、監督にも相談したが耳をかさなかった、という。
California H.S. Cheer Coach Fired Apparently for Posing for Playboy
Carlie Beck Posed for Playboy Before She Was Hired, But Now Fired
By LEE FERRAN, JIM VOJTECH and JAY SHAYLOR
April 23, 2009
これはチアリーダーのコーチに就業する前にプレイボーイなどでモデルをしていたことにより、コーチを解任された、という。
Sacked female teacher raped two boys
April 21, 2009 12:00am
A FORMER teacher has been convicted of abducting one of her students, age 10, and raping him and his 15-year-old brother.
これは１０才と１５才の男の子を犯した女性教師が解雇、現在強姦罪で係争中。有罪を認めている、という。
Bosses do read blogs
Howard Levitt, Financial Post
Published: Wednesday, April 22, 2009魚拓
After blogging about her sex life, Jessica Cutler was fired from her job as a U. S. Senator's aide and then ended up with a book deal
Most people blog the way they speak, moaning about perceived petty injustices. "I should have been promoted instead of Nancy." "Christina is lazy and I end up doing her work" "My boss shouldn't have his job." But blogging is not analagous to grumbling to your partner at home. A blog, like everything online, is both permanent and public.
Jessica Clarke didn't think about that, when she blogged about her job as a personal caregiver at a home for the aged. She complained about her "lazy, slow" co-workers, described her employer's new residential facility as "a hole" and even ridiculed a resident with Parkinson's disease. She also referred to her managers as "stupid f---ing a--holes" who kept making mistakes. After reading the blog, Ms. Clarke's managers decided to fire her. Her union fought her dimissal and lost.
Many white collar employees make the same mistake. One woman in an Alberta government office wrote that "imbeciles and idiot savants (no offense to them) were running the ship". She described her co-workers as "stupid, cheap or stuck-up." When a taxpayer complained about her to the provincial Ombudsperson, she blogged that the woman had "ratted her out." She called one of her bosses the "Lunatic in Charge" and another a "power-hungry wench." When her employer perused her blog, she was fired. She and her union also lost her suit.
When an employee is rude and insubordinate to a manager, continued employment can be untenable, which is why blogging about your workplace is often cause for discharge
However, if a blog does not relate to work, an employee has considerable leeway. One B. C. warehouse worker glorified Nazism and Hitler on his blog and described fantasies of violent attacks. Horrified, his employer fired him. But his hatred wasn't directed toward his employer or co-workers. As a result, there was no legal cause to fire him and he was reinstated at arbitration.
The courts deem Internet libel to be more serious than other forms of libel because of its permanent and international circulation, so it follows that disparaging comments about an employer also will be treated more seriously than comments with limited coverage. Employers can protect themselves by including rules about blogs in their Internet policies.
When an employer discovers such blogs it should: - Print the blog to preserve the evidence; - Consider whether anything the employer, the workplace or the employees are adversely affected; - Consult with counsel to determine whether the employee can be justifiably disciplined or fired.
これはむしろ上司が従業員に悪口を言われて解雇するケース。ネット時代になって実名をあげて、職場の上司を罵ることがある。その場合、ネットは公然性と恒久性があるから、名誉毀損、そして解雇につながる場合が多い、という。
日本でも同様なことはある。弁護士の数なども増加しているのだから、双方、積極的に裁判所を利用したら、どうだろうか？
Hate crime rises in Wales as economic hardship bites
Apr 26 2009 by David James, Wales On Sunday 魚拓
Ethnic minorities, gay people, faith groups and even the disabled have been reporting far more incidents of violence, verbal abuse and criminal damage over the past year.
Hate crime is described by the Home Office as any attack motivated by an offenders’ hatred of the victim’s race, colour, religion, gender, sexual orientation or disability.
Resentment in economically struggling white, working class neighbourhoods can fuel hate crime, according to criminologist Georgios Antonopoulos.
The academic said research shows that the shame they feel can be transformed into rage. And the present “constant discussion on the financial crisis” could be fuelling these feelings
Yet Mr Kidwai said he believed community relations in Wales were better than in other parts of the UK.
He added: “I personally feel from what I gather from my counterparts in England and Scotland is that things are much worse. We are lucky in Wales, inter community relations are better.”
先日、イギリスのとある地域でヘイトクライムが増加している、という記事を紹介したが、ウエールズでも増加している、という。もっとも、ウエールズは他のUKよりましで、イングランドやスコットランドはもっとひどい、と言っている人もいる。
All-white jury chosen in Pa. hate crime trial
By MICHAEL RUBINKAM – 3 days ago
POTTSVILLE, Pa. (AP) — An all-white jury was seated Wednesday in the trial of two northeastern Pennsylvania teenagers charged in the fatal beating of an illegal immigrant from Mexico.
Schuylkill County prosecutors allege the attack on Luis Ramirez, 25, was racially motivated. Witnesses have said the victim was sucker-punched and kicked in the head during a late-night, epithet-filled melee.
Prosecutors have charged Brandon Piekarsky, 17, of Shenandoah, with third-degree murder. He and Derrick Donchak, 19, also of Shenandoah, were charged with aggravated assault, reckless endangerment and ethnic intimidation.
で、これは人種差別を動機とする、メキシコ人が犠牲者である、傷害事件（ヘイトライム）の裁判。アメリカ。この裁判では陪審がすべて白人である、という。陪審制の問題を暗示している。
23 April, 2009
South Belfast urged: 'Unite against hate crime' 魚拓
POLITICIANS and community leaders in south Belfast have been urged by Sinn Féin MLA Alex Maskey to unite in support of foreign nationals who live in the area in the wake of an upsurge of hate crimes. “Political and community representatives have a duty to make it clear that racism has no place in this community,” said Maskey.
The South Belfast MLA was speaking after an attack by a racist mob from the loyalist Village area of south Belfast last Thursday. Five people, including four from Hungary, were in a house on Donegall Road when a gang attacked the property.
The women in the house barricaded themselves in behind a kitchen table after a mob broke windows and tried to smash their way through the front door. The mob shouted abuse and threatened to kill the residents if they didn’t leave the area.
“We were crying and screaming and they were yelling they were going to kill us” said one woman. “It was terrible. None of us can go back to Donegall Road.”
Last month, the homes of Eastern European workers and their families were targeted by a racist mob in south Belfast. The attacks took place after loyalists targeted homes following an unrelated confrontation between rival soccer fans from Poland and those supporting the local team during a European qualifying match at Belfast’s Windsor Park.
Over 40 foreign nationals were forced to flee from their homes. Slovenian, Hungarian, Lithuanian and Polish families were attacked as a racist gang rampaged through the area.
Windows were smashed, front doors kicked in and homes were pelted with stones and bricks. The assailants yelled abuse, including death threats.
Eastern European families have also been targeted by racists in Ballymena.
A house where a group of Polish people were staying was attacked on Easter Monday. The attack took place just before 2pm when stones were thrown, smashing six windows in the house.
“There have been attempts to link these attacks to the trouble before and after the Poland v Northern Ireland soccer match,” Alex Maskey said. “This is a smokescreen being used by the narrow-minded thugs who engage in racist attacks.
“The whole Polish community and the wider community of foreign nationals cannot be held responsible for the actions of a small minority of football hooligans.
“Let us be clear: these types of racist incidents were taking place for years before this soccer game. They were wrong then and they are wrong now,” said the Sinn Féin Assembly member.
This is not the first time loyalists in south Belfast have engaged in racist attacks.
In 2004, a series of racist incidents led to the formation of a Roundtable on Racism.
A Romanian family and two Chinese families were forced to flee. People from the 26 Counties were also targeted
The move followed repeated attacks on the Village and Donegall Road area picking out Asian and Chinese families. In one incident, a Pakistani family were forced to leave only hours after moving into the neighbourhood.
Other homes were subjected to arson attacks, resulting in a Romanian family and two Chinese families being forced to flee. People from the 26 Counties were also targeted.
Racist slogans were painted on walls and loyalists held a mass rally in an attempt to intimidate people into leaving the area. But Sinn Féin’s Alex Maskey has pointed out that such actions are not supported by the majority of local people.
“There have been increasing reports of racist attacks and intimidation directed at foreign nationals. Within south Belfast, much of the media reports have focused on the Village area,” said Maskey.
“I have spoken to a number of people from the Village area and it is clear that such racist attacks and attitudes do not have the support of the majority of people in this area. Those responsible for racist intimidation are a very small minority, a minority whose actions are abhorred by the local community,” said Maskey.
北アイルランド。
以前、外国人の一家が襲撃されたという記事を紹介した。やはり単発ではなかったらしい。東欧人やアジア人中国人など、外国人の家が標的にされ、地域から追放を余儀なくされている場合もある、という。
これ以前にも北アイルランドはヨーロッパの人種的憎悪の首都という２００４年の記事を紹介したことがあったが、いまだに相変わらずのようだ。
こうして、東欧人やアジア人を憎悪する西欧人が日本にやってくる。日本人は“barbarian but obedient野蛮だが従順だから、救済してやろう、とおもっているのに、当の日本人にため口をいわれれば、そりゃヒステリー起こすかもしれわな。そうした欧米人がするコメントに興味があるかたは、これなんぞ、どうぞ。
もっとも、多くの在日欧米人は普通の善良な方々がですので念のため
登録:
投稿 (Atom)