Re: Britain is vulnerable to a "tempest of extremism" warns the Archbishop of Canterb
The last in france, changed in the late 80's or early 90's meant that you had to choose from a list of pre-approved "French" names. And recently there has been a problem with North Africans who were named under that law who want to change their names, but the judges mostly don't allow it.
From what I know only "offensive" names are banned and there are no "pre-approved" lists of allowed names you have to choose from. But what point are you trying to make exactly? That Muslim parents can't give Muslim names to their children? I mean, that clearly isn't the case as Muslim names like Muhammed, Fatima, Abdullah and whatnot are very very common in France. There might be issues with names like "Jihad", but I think those are exceptions. You most certainly don't have to choose an "ethnic French" name for your child!
There is some more info on this on:
http://www.affection.org/prenoms/loi.html (in french)
It explicitly states that there is no official list you have to choose from.
1. Are you making an argument that muslim immigration is somehow different to say Chinese?
Absolutely, not all cultures and thus immigrants are the same. I think Muslims have a much more unyielding and dominant culture, because it is anchored in their religion. A religion that is supposed to be immutable and at the same time very much controls many aspects of a persons life (in other words, the religion to a large extend IS the culture). Furthermore within Islam distancing oneself from the religion is generally frowned upon.
I think this severely hampers the chances of Muslim immigrants and their children from assimilating into the bigger culture. It isn't impossible, and there might be a degree of integration, but I think Muslims will always remain a clearly visible and distinct social group, one that will not fade away over time. I think some immigrant groups are more likely to integrate because they are, for example, same culture, same religion and unfortunately also same 'race'. (Example: Italians in the Netherlands). Others are less likely, because they have a way of life that is resilient enough to withstand the dominant culture in a country. I think this is the case with Muslim.
2. yes, i know the French are a bunch of extremists(in terms of secularism) but the point about the nature of European identity still stands.
Perhaps, but we should be careful not to paint with too broad a brush here. As Muezzin also noted, the UK does not really stand in that same 'ethnic nationalist' tradition as, say, the Germans. And the French, with their radical secularism and statism, are again very much distinct from, say, the Dutch tradition of 'pillarisation', whereby each social group (including Muslims) has its own schools, TV channels, newspapers, sport clubs and whatnot.
.
.
. That an immigrant is an immigrant and any one group of immigrants will have as easy a time as another to integrate? You don't believe a German moving the the Netherlands will have an easier time and is more likely to assimilate than someone from the Inner Mongolia? That, say, a Christian immigrant will have an easier time integrating into a society that based on Christian values?