Human rights and Immigration

Where does the line between what is 'right' and people's rights, overlap?
To put it another way, when what we - the western world - have defined as wrong: cruelty, oppression, sexism, racism etc, occurs, do we interfere?
And how does this change depending on where these 'wrongs' take place? Do we have more right to interfere when it takes place within our own countries? There is a strange and terrible line between what we think is right, and allowing everyone freedom as is their human right. What do we do when these two qualities collide?
It's a question we must all ask ourselves, as it is become a more and more prevalent issue in today's world.

The United Nations' universal declaration of human rights argues for a world where humans can
'enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear', which indicates that everyone should be able to believe in what they wish. However it also unequivocally states the importance for 'equal rights of men and women'. Already this is problematic, as well we know that not everywhere in the world are men and women treated equally, and indeed in many cultures women have very few rights at all - patriarchal societies are not uncommon, even today.
When something is occurring that we deem wrong, is it our duty to step in? Or are we dancing too dangerously with the old concept of ourselves as the civilized people 'saving' the noble savage?
This question of course extends to many cultures around the world. As anthropologists, we are taught that we have no right to step in, only the right to observe. This becomes difficult for cases of ritualistic violence, systematic oppression or -something I have always found personally upsetting - female genital mutilation. Are we wrong to put our own values above others?

These are all difficult questions, however they are not the main issue I am wanting to talk about today. Today my attention was brought to the problem of Muslim immigration in Europe, and especially within France. This is an issue that graces the dinner tables of many in France, a discussion rife with contention and anger.
Are they being racist in that they want these people - who have a religion and set of beliefs they find offensive - out of their country or to change those beliefs?

On one hand, they have a point. What right do these people from foreign countries have, to settle in this homeland and not accept the French way of life? To cover their women and preach their own beliefs? But surely if their beliefs are not harmful, then they have this freedom, as the universal declaration of human rights clearly states 'Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.'
However, when we go to Muslim countries, we cover up and adhere to their customs, out of respect. Therefore should this not be a two way road? Is it not insulting that they believe our dress to be indecent, that their way is the only right and good way? Is this oppression of women? Can it be if the women themselves believe in it? But what about those that don't, surely they should have the freedom within France to choose - a freedom they perhaps would not have had in their own country. 
One could argue they choose to move here, and thus must choose to accept our rules, and integrate into our society. 

But many of them are a displaced people, are immigrants with no home to go back to. Therefore do they really have any choice either?
Should we really be so offended simply because they have different beliefs from us?
This of course comes with its own problems today, the war on terror and the terror attacks that occur due to a tiny minority of the people accepted into Europe. Yet how dare we consider closing our doors to these people in need, how can we fight to not give them safety? How can condemn the many, for the crimes of a few? Should we turn our backs on those who need help?
Terrorism is a new and terrifying issue which is sweeping Europe. What is the answer to it?

There is fear here; this war is subtle, its soldiers invisible, and how can we fight what we cannot see? Best to not take the risk at all, many say. But will stopping immigrants from coming really stop the jihadists too? Or merely the innocents?
But surely if Muslims would integrate into our society, uncover themselves and embrace our culture, we would only have the extremists to deal with, and these would be far fewer. Would this be better for everyone? Or is it just what we want because it's easy for us - we aren't the ones being asked to give up our way of life.

Honestly, I don't know the answer. There is no easy way to solve this problem, I only know that not accepting these people is like turning the Jews away, back to Nazi Europe and the concentration camps - in many ways we would be sending them to their deaths. Perhaps a more intensive vetting system for who is allowed in? But it takes too long, it's too expensive, and it still doesn't solve the problem that the French people see before them - their country being moved in on by an entire people who refuse to accept the French culture, way of life, and everything they take pride in of their country. They fear they are losing their culture, the old ways and what makes their country french.

 I don't have the answers, but we shouldn't be afraid to talk about it, to express our opinions, and whatever they may be, they should be listened to. One side or the other should not be more or less politically correct as so often seems to be the case. For surely it is only by talking about it that we can understand others opinions and  hopefully, reach compromises. 

But Words are Things

It is only in books that one can lose themselves so completely that just for a little while, all else ceases to exist.

Isn't it funny how getting sucked into a book can change your mood and play with your emotions?

Do other people get so lost in books they take on the main character's feelings? If they are sick I feel I am suffering, if they are sad I feel distraught without knowing why. If they are angry, my mood is black.

Worse still is when that book is over, and there are no longer any pages left to turn. It's like an entire world died, even though it's still right there, in your hands. I call them book hangovers, because you can't bring yourself to start a new one, when the last is still fresh in your mind, and the world feels useless and grey without that book to read, like suddenly everything has become pointless. 

How can I be angry over a world that isn't even real?
But that's the magic of writing I suppose, to have such a way with words that the author can communicate these people from their heads, their triumphs and losses, their laughter and deaths. We grieve with them, their words alive, even though their creators may be long dead.
In many ways I believe that authors are the ones who have transcended death, because their souls are still right here, within those pages. We hold them in our hands, innumerable treasures, and it is for this that the greatest sadness a book can have is to never be read.

Literature is a funny thing. A powerful thing.

Lord Byron himself words it better than me:

“But words are things, and a small drop of ink,      

Falling like dew, upon a thought, produces

 That which makes thousands, perhaps millions, think;     

 ’T is strange, the shortest letter which man uses 

Instead of speech, may form a lasting link   

   Of ages; to what straits old Time reduces Frail man, 

when paper — even a rag like this, 

Survives himself, his tomb, and all that’s his.”