That's the question the German Embassy in Kabul is asking Afghans considering fleeing their home country for a new life in the West. The answer, provided by way of a major media campaign, is that would-be migrants should think twice before they go.
Large billboards have been erected in Dari and Pashto, the two official languages in Afghanistan, in Kabul and other major cities. They direct Afghans to a Facebook page run by the Germany Embassy that seeks to debunk myths about guaranteed jobs and generous payments upon arrival in Germany.
Photo: Geman Embassy/Government Organization
The message, also being delivered by way of the Twitter hashtag #RumoursAboutGermany, is that the tales Afghans are hearing about the good life awaiting them in Germany are too good to be true.
"Do not believe the rumors and false information deliberately spread by human traffickers about the allegedly easy trip and the easy life in Germany," reads one post on Facebook. "Do not risk your lives by trying to flee to Europe. Human traffickers are criminals who are only interested in money. They don’t tell the truth and don’t care about human lives."
هرگز به شایعات و معلومات نادرست که در مورد سفر و زنده گی آسان در آلمان از طرف قاچاقچیان انسان ارایه میگردد باور ننماید. هیچگاه با به خطر انداختن جان خویش به ارپا فرار نکنید.قاچاقچیان انسانها مجرمین اند که فقد به پول فکر میکنند. آ نها هرگز واقعیت را نمیگویند و زنده گی انسان نزد آنها ارزش ندارد.
آلمان ته ده سفراو هلته ده ژوند په باره کښی ده قاچاق برانو په غلطو معلوماتو او قصدی آوازو باور مه کوی. اروپا ته ده تیښتی په لټه کی خپل ژوند له گواښ سره مه مخامخ کوی. قاچاق بران جنایتکاران دی چه موخۀ یی یوازی پیسی دی. هغوی رښتیا نه وایی او ده انسان ده ژوند پروا هم نلری.
آلمان ته ده سفراو هلته ده ژوند په باره کښی ده قاچاق برانو په غلطو معلوماتو او قصدی آوازو باور مه کوی. اروپا ته ده تیښتی په لټه کی خپل ژوند له گواښ سره مه مخامخ کوی. قاچاق بران جنایتکاران دی چه موخۀ یی یوازی پیسی دی. هغوی رښتیا نه وایی او ده انسان ده ژوند پروا هم نلری.
For some Afghan brides, failing the first test of marriage can mean a life of abuse, prison, or even death. (file photo)
Long-standing tradition holds that being a virgin is required for brides in Afghanistan, and they are expected to prove it.
One Afghan woman, speaking with RFE/RL's Radio Free Afghanistan on condition of anonymity, says it is still customary in some areas of the country for in-laws to check for blood stains the morning after a wedding as proof of the bride's virginity.
Even being accused of having sex outside marriage can have dire consequences. Disgraced families have been known to demand that their "damaged" daughter-in-law be exchanged for her sister. Nonvirgins can be imprisoned in Afghanistan for adultery. And there are horrific tales of abuse, or worse.
"In some cases, a bride's ears and nose are cut off," says the Afghan woman. "They are forced into dirty clothes and taken back to her parent’s home. Their heads are shaved. The bride's family is told that she is not a virgin. Other times, a bride is simply killed and her body is returned to her parents."
It's a discussion that is usually taboo in Afghanistan, but a recent spate of chilling public punishments of Afghan women accused of having premarital sex has brought the issue into the open.
In late November, a 26-year-old Afghan woman died of her injuries after being publicly lashed in the central province of Ghor. She had been accused of running away from home.
In October, 19-year-old Rokhsana was stoned to death by Taliban militants in the same province after having been accused of having premarital sex.
And in August, also in Ghor Province, a young man and woman found guilty of having sex outside marriage were lashed publicly.
Family Affair
The woman's own family is often behind the punishment, in some cases shunning the woman or handing her over to authorities for prosecution. But in the worst cases, her own kin can carry out honor killings.
"The existing culture among some families is that a ruined girl is given back to her family," Mariam Zurmati, a commissioner at the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission, told RFE/RL’s Radio Free Afghanistan recently.
"In order to escape dishonor, that family will offer another of their daughters for marriage," she adds. "In some regions, women are simply killed. In some cases, even after years of marriage, a husband will abuse his wife.”
Marzia, who only goes by one name, says her sister has endured years of abuse at the hands of her husband due to lingering suspicions that she was not a virgin when they married.
"I have a sister who didn’t bleed when she got married. Her husband beats her and she has bruises everywhere."
"I have a sister who didn’t bleed when she got married,” says Marzia, who is from Parwan Province. "Her husband beats her and she has bruises everywhere. Even after years of living together, he still abuses her and tells her she has been tarnished."
Even before the wedding, Afghan brides-to-be can be forcefully subjected to "virginity tests," in which doctors at government clinics test whether a woman's hymen is intact.
Terena Yadgaari, a doctor in Kabul, agrees that virginity tests have no "medical validity," but notes that dozens of the examinations are carried out in government clinics in the capital every year.
So-called moral offenses, including adultery or even running away from home, are not considered crimes according to the Afghan Criminal Code. But hundreds of women and girls have nevertheless been imprisoned after being convicted of "immorality" by courts dominated by religious conservatives.
The Afghan Constitution prescribes that "no law can be contrary to the beliefs and provisions of the sacred religion of Islam," but such rulings are at odds with more secular-minded passages in the constitution.
But in some rural areas, where Taliban militants exert considerable influence, residents often view government bodies as corrupt or unreliable and turn to Taliban courts to settle disputes.
The Taliban courts employ strict interpretations of Shari'a law, which prescribes death, or in other cases publicly flogging, for men or women found guilty of having a relationship outside marriage.
Europa ist eine Zone niedrigen Bevölkerungsdrucks, angrenzend an eine Zone enorm hohen Bevölkerungsdrucks im Süden und Südosten. Der Druckausgleich erfolgt durch Wanderung, legale und illegale. Je stärker das Gefälle zwischen beiden Zonen, desto intensiver der Zustrom in das Unterdruckgebiet.
Das Jahr 2015 brachte einen Wanderungsschub, doch keine Verminderung der Druckunterschiede. Trotz des Zustroms von einer Million in Deutschland allein ist Europas Bevölkerung nur minimal gewachsen. Die Gesamtbevölkerung der Europäischen Union von 511 Millionen (2014) zeigt kein natürliches Wachstum. Geburtenrate und Sterberate liegen bei 1,02 Prozent/Jahr. Falls 2015 insgesamt 1,5 Millionen in die EU eingewandert sind (die genaue Ziffer ist noch nicht bekannt), so entspräche das einer Bevölkerungszunahme von rund 0,3 Prozent. Im gleichen Jahr wuchs die Bevölkerung der Staaten, aus denen die Migranten kamen, um über 2 bis knapp 3 Prozent. Der Druckunterschied zwischen den beiden Zonen ist also 2015 weiterhin gestiegen, trotz Wanderung.
Wie Gunnar Heinsohn dargelegt hat, sind die Konflikte im Süden vorwiegend Ergebnis eines Überschusses an jungen Männern, denen die Wirtschaft keine Chance auf Selbstverwirklichung und Einkommen bietet. Daran hat die Wanderung hunderttausender junger Männer nach Europa in 2015 nichts geändert – weitere Millionen frisch Heranwachsender entdecken ihre Chancenlosigkeit und die Verlockung Europas.
Es ist ebenfalls klar, dass Europas Anstrengungen, den Zustrom aus Süden einzudämmen, nur teilweise erfolgreich sein können. Interessant ist, dass Geschäftsleute – in diesem Fall ein grosser europäischer Vermieter von Wohncontainern – erwarten, dass die gegenwärtig enorme Nachfrage nach ihren Behelfswohnräumen nur zwei bis drei Jahre anhalten wird. Offenbar erwartet man, dass es der EU mittelfristig gelingen wird, die Zuwanderung soweit unter Kontrolle zu bringen, dass sich der Bedarf für Notunterkünfte normalisiert.
Das Chaos von 2015 darf sich nicht wiederholen, das ist allen Akteuren bewusst. Der politische Preis ist viel zu hoch. Die Abschottung osteuropäischer Staaten, Grossbritanniens, Dänemarks und Schwedens ist schlimm; der Aufstieg rechtsextremer Parteien in zahlreichen Ländern Europas sehr bedenklich.
Die Einwanderung muss kanalisiert werden, damit alle Immigranten durchleuchtet werden können, soweit das überhaupt möglich ist. Die in Beirut für 2000 Dollar käuflichen syrischen Pässe sind bekanntlich echt: sie werden auf offiziellem Papier mit offiziellen Stempeln angefertigt, wobei nicht klar ist, ob das Material von Widerstandsgruppen erbeutet wurde oder ob die Assad-Regierung die Pässe gegen Bezahlung liefert.
So traurig es ist, aber ausgerechnet die Flüchtlinge aus Syrien, die Frau Merkel favorisiert, sind besonders gefährlich. Nach einer Pew Research-Umfrage hält Syrien weltweit den prozentualen Rekord an Unterstützern des Daesh (IS, ISIS, Islamischer Staat). 21 Prozent der Syrer (ausserhalb des IS lebend) haben eine positive Meinung über den Daesh, also über 4 Millionen. An zweiter Stelle folgt Nigeria mit 14 Prozent Unterstützern der lokalen Variante des Daesh, Boko Haram. Auch in Tunesien, Senegal und Pakistan – weiteren wichtigen Ländern, aus denen Europa Einwanderer bezieht – ist der Daesh bei Teilen der Bevölkerung gut angesehen. Nicht so in Libanon: hier liegt der Anteil bei 0 Prozent!
Dass Daesh, al-Nusra und andere Terrorgruppen die Fluchtrouten der illegalen Einwanderer benutzen, um ihre Leute einzuschleusen, glauben (ausser deutschen Geheimdiensten) alle Fachleute. Vor allem gilt besondere Wachsamkeit den Syrern, Tunesiern, Irakern, Ägyptern und anderen Trägern arabischer oder pakistanischer Namen.
In den kurzen Monaten, bevor im Frühjahr 2016 der Migranten-Ansturm vermutlich wieder startet, müssen die Behörden die in Deutschland 2015 aufgenommene Million Migranten überprüfen, die mit dem Erstaufnahme-System "Easy" ins Land kamen und lediglich registriert, untergebracht und medizinisch behandelt wurden. Wer sie eigentlich sind, was man über sie ausfindig machen kann, ob sie überhaupt noch da sind oder wohin sie verschwunden sind – eine Herkulesarbeit, die noch vor der formalen Antragstellung auf Asyl ansteht und die Behörden zum Verzicht auf den Weihnachtsurlaub bewegen sollte. Dass ausserdem heimkehrende Europäer (wie im Falle der Pariser Attentate) aus Syrien oder dem Irak bei der Einreise besondere Aufmerksamkeit verdienen, versteht sich von selbst.
Europa braucht Einwanderer. Dass der offizielle Weg – Visum - Green Card (oder äquivalent) - Einbürgerung – nicht annähernd ausreicht, die Menschenmassen zu bewältigen, die hereindrängen und zum Teil auch benötigt werden, ist offenkundig und wurde de facto auch von mehreren Staaten Europas akzeptiert. Die illegale Einwanderung zu legalisieren – vor allem durch das Asylrecht – ist eine zu lösende Aufgabe. Die nicht legalisierten Einwanderer zurückzuschicken oder sie, falls sie sich weigern, zu deportieren, ist die andere Aufgabe. Um beides bewältigen zu können, muss der Strom von Migranten so weit gedrosselt werden, dass Stress und Chaos, wie sie 2015 herrschten, vermieden werden.
Diese Drosselung des Zustroms würde nicht nur helfen, Feindseligkeiten zwischen EU-Staaten künftig zu vermeiden; sie würde auch dank besserer Betreuung der Wanderstrecken den Migranten helfen, Lebensgefahr, Misshandlungen und Leiden auf ihrem Treck nach und durch Europa zu mindern. Bereits jetzt ist Drosselung in Aktion. Alle Nachbarstaaten Syriens haben inzwischen ihre Grenzen für mittellose Migranten geschlossen und repatriieren Flüchtlinge in steigendem Umfang. Doch können sich jederzeit Situationen wiederholen, in denen Grenzen von der Masse der Migranten durchbrochen und niedergerannt werden.
Heinrich von Loesch
Update
1,28 Milionen Menschen sind in den vergangenen elf Monaten laut einem Medienbericht illegal in die EU eingereist - so viele wie nie zuvor. Die EU-Kommission spricht von einem "Allzeithoch" und kritisiert die Sicherung der EU-Außengrenzen als "völlig unzureichend".
A majority of Americans are opposed to Donald Trump’s proposed Muslim ban, a new poll finds—but a majority of Republicans are with Trump. Overall, the CBS News poll finds 58 percent of people disagree with Trump that the U.S. should “temporarily ban Muslims from other countries from entering.” But:
There are sharp differences by political party. Just over half of Republicans responding -- 54 percent -- support such a ban, while most Democrats and independents do not.
Also:
Sixty-seven percent of Americans say the ban would go against the founding principles of this country - majorities across party lines agree on that. However, 53 percent of those who back banning Muslims from entering say such a ban would be in keeping with those principles.
Obviously a chunk of people who want to do something aren’t going to be able to admit to things that make it problematic. But personally, I want to know about the people who agree that banning a religious group from entering the country would go against our nation’s founding principles but still want to do it. That seems like a group ripe for further study.
The majority of Americans feel one way, while a majority of Republicans feel another. That just about describes American politics in one sentence. The other sentence is: and the Republicans get their way.
American politics consists of two parallel universes occupying the same space but never interacting with each other. One Democratic, where issues such as inequality, police abuse, gun violence, climate change, education and healthcare dominate the conversations while the other is Republican where Islamic terrorism, religion and anti-government conspiracy theories dominate the conversations. There is no middle ground for compromise on anything because there is no commonality.
Indeed...let us not forget that during WW2 Americans in general were fine with the Roosevelt administration’s policy of interning Americans of Japanese ancestry.
The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 banned most immigration from China but in theory allowed immigration of businessmen, students and teachers, and diplomatic personnel, if they obtained a certification from the Chinese government, which due to the domestic political situation was hard to get (diplomats aside). And diplomats aside, the certifications weren’t always accepted by U.S. immigration authorities. Chinese already here who left the United States were not permitted to reenter. Chinese were permanently barred from U.S. citizenship.
The Immigration Act of 1924 was an improvement over the 1882 legislation for it did not single out any ethnic or national group by name. Instead, countries were given quotas based on the 1890 census, when the makeup of the United States was far more western European than in 1924. The law was intended to reduce immigration from southern and eastern Europe to a trickle and, as the quotas for those countries were a tiny fraction of the immigration right after World War I, the law was quite successful in keeping these “undesirables” from coming to America. After Hitler came to power, the Immigration Act trapped Jews within Europe while America closed its doors, which I’m sure didn’t bother the Ku Klux Klan sponsors of the 1924 Immigration Act one iota.
Those were limited by country though, not religion. That’s the difference.
And actually, I don’t have much problem with country limits, assuming exceptions for refugee status and some family members. Those have a long, though not particularly stellar, history.
Limits by religion are an entirely different thing, and very problematic.
The goal of the 1924 immigration changes was to keep out Catholics, that is why the 1890 census was used. We have had ideological restrictions before (including ones about “good moral character” which were partly intended to keep out “the gays”).
I wrote a diary about about how Trump’s proposal is likely constitutional. The executive and legislature have a lot of latitude when it comes to the entry of alien visitors or immigrants into the US. They are not afforded the same equal rights protections that citizens and those already in the country are. I am also convinced the courts would be very reluctant to rule against a “war-time” ban which is justified as a temporary expedient that unfortunately inconveniences a broader population. Like most immigration issues, this cannot be settled solely in the courts, it’s a political problem and requires a political solution, namely making sure no republican gets near the oval office.
True but new is the stateless nature of the threat. And one thing we know about the conflict abroad - they're definitely killing people based on religion or religious sect. Banning a religion is wrong but denying the complexity of the religious problem isn't helpful either. Just think how hard it is to vett refugees without delving into the nuances of sectarian affiliations. One reason you get polls like this is the disbelief in Obama's "I've got this" attitude. At best, it's horrifically complicated and inexplicable to folks who aren't experts on the regions and religious sects.
Yeah Shia, Ismailis, Sufis, and many non-Salafi Sunnis are often targets of terrorism. At the same time, sectarian allegiances can tell you very little about what a person may choose to believe tomorrow or next month about what means are wrong to achieve whatever political end they have adopted.
The misunderstandings are no different from eyeing all Catholics with suspicion because the IRA was a terrorist organization that killed hundreds of innocents. Those who revel in prejudice will jump at the opportunity to exercise it.
What is lost in all this are the broader political forces (repression over decades by authoritarian leaders supported by the US) that are fueling extremists/terrorists who use religion as a tool to gather followers.
Donald Trump IS what is wrong with American politics, especially Republican Party politics. Trump is a Class-A buffoon with lots of money. If he was not a billionaire he would most likely be a just another real estate developer in Queens like his father was. But since we live in a plutocracy, the more money you have the more political power you get.
Think isn’t as much about Trump as it is about the voters that flock to him and why. He could do all kinds of publicity stunts to get attention, but he has chosen a racist, xenophobic track. He’s many things, but not a fool. After all, he spent a million doing campaign research before he started running. And the first thing out of his mouth was a fear mongering rant about murdering, raping, Mexican immigrants streaming across the border.
For decades the GOP has been using dog whistles and othering to hold political power. Now all those seeds have born poisonous fruit, especially since the election of a black man to the White House. Look at the rise of the Tea Party and the extreme right that is inhabiting Congress. Look at how many states are controlled by Republicans, in spite of the GOP’s abysmal economic record. Fear is ruling logic and that is never a good thing. Trump has the support he does because he is saying what his supporters believe. A sole focus on Trump is like ignoring the tip of the iceberg right before it tears a gaping hole through your ship.
“...personally, I want to know about the people who agree that banning a religious group from entering the country would go against our nation’s founding principles but still want to do it. That seems like a group ripe for further study.”
I assume there’s substantial overlap with people who insist ‘America is a Christian nation’ despite what the Constitution says about that. (Me making a comment on DKos does not, of course, constitute further study.)
it could also simply mean “yes thats against the founding principles and yes, I am fine with it because I dont like the founding principles in the first place.”
Or it reflects the more seductive attitude that “Yes I care about the founding principles, but unfortunately right now we have to bend the rules a little, because ISIS is so evil. Hey, I have a family to protect.”
Kareem penned one of the most accurate definitions of Trump that I have read so far. Trump is indeed a Political Terrorist. While some conservatives lump all Muslims’ into the radical category they make no such pronouncements against some Christian radicals who are themselves terrorist.
The majority of one of our two main parties thinks it’s a good idea to ban Muslims from entering the United States. By 16 points.
I think you’re burying the lede.
It is terrifying how far the Republicans have fallen. These people control Congress! These 54% of Republicans more or less decide what elected GOP members do and don’t do.
Would it be surprising to find Republican voter support for Muslim internment camps in the double-digits? At this point, I’d expect it.
And seemingly 99% of that Republican majority for an anti-Muslim religious entry test have glommed on to Carter’s restriction on Iranians.
I wonder if they actually don’t see the difference between restricting citizens of a nation-state that issues passports, and restricting members of a major world religion?
Or is it just some sort of split-brain thing where they rationally know there’s a difference, but it’s so much fun to just go with the non-rational thing that they’ll live in their alternate universe for a little longer?
Many Americans are dubious about all religious groups most of whom have an ugly history. If a group of terrorists is associated with a certain religion and there is no way to tell the good from the bad, then excluding them all is rational. Being naive about religious fanatics is foolish.
The history of America is anti-religious especially as to minority religions such as Catholics and Mormons. Many Americans opposed organized religions, i.e., Jefferson and Twain.
There comes a point when it's clear racism is just another wavelength on the spectrum of stupid. Really, ban all Muslims? American citizens? Students? All of them? And how would that even work, administratively? Already I hear that ignorant horse-voice braying “It would work beautifully, I'd create a beautiful, exquisite system in one of my tall, tall buildings."
Obama-era right wing rhetoric either laid the groundwork for such anti-democratic sentiments or revealed its existence. Such rhetoric also includes a strong strain of rejecting the legitimacy of Obama's election and one can speculate that a large percentage of conservatives might even support a coup at some future point, if it was well demagogued.
yesterday michael savage was asked by a caller why he wasn’t all out for trump and savage said he fully supports trump but wasn’t working for him and he wasn’t going to use all three hours of his show to push trump- like another radio guy he wouldn’t name….
trump is another in a long line of parasites on limbaugh and the talk radio reality. or maybe he’s paying limbaugh now. i can see them playing golf and limbaugh ends up with a scorecard with a swiss bank account number on it.
if liberals want to be done with this crap they need to force media to make the limbaugh trump connection.
trump has taken over for fox as the visual icing on the invisible lie turd pie of talk radio. until liberals throw flour and sparkles on that invisible pie, media and pols are going to keep using it to enable their work for the oligarchs, legitimizing fox and trump with a highly exaggerated artificially amplified ‘populism’ based on lies and distortions.
more people are dying and are being attacked for their looks and beliefs and the hate that drives a lot of it comes from radio stations that keep getting a free speech free ride.
Sixty-seven percent of Americans say the ban would go against the founding principles of this country, suggesting that sixty-seven percent of Americans at least have a clue about those founding principles.
58% oppose it, but 67% think it goes against our founding principles, meaning 9% think it goes against our founding principles, but we should do it anyway.
Think the majority of Americans find head lice less disgusting than Trump. But that doesn’t change the fact that those who support him and his rhetoric are doing damage. Muslim American children are being beaten up, physically and verbally, by their peers at school.
This Is What It's Like to Be a Muslim Schoolkid in America Right Now
People who may or may not be Muslim are being spat upon and cursed at for how they look.
“Today. On a crowded bus. On Michigan Avenue. On my way home from a great job in a city in a diverse country that I was born in.
A man screamed at me. Called me a sand ni**er. Told me I was the problem. That I need to get the fuck out of his country.
I may have been wearing my scarf higher on my head than usual because it was cold out. I may have somehow looked suspicious listening to Spotify. I am half Iranian, so maybe it was my skin or my eyes.
But 5 minutes of this at least went on with no one doing anything. Me telling him calmly to back off. Me telling him I would call the cops and me trying to get my gloves off to dial.
Then this man spits at me. A man in a suit and tie. Like anyone else I'd see. He spits at me and looks at me with these regular eyes now filled with anger and tells me to get the fuck off the bus, do what I'm told, because this isn't my country. This isn't my place.
That's when I screamed at the top of my lungs for him to back off. That's when people decided to maybe help and tell him to stop. That got the attention of the bus driver to kick him out.
I'm home now in my nice apartment in a nice part of Chicago with my fiancé and my cat. Sitting in a room looking out at the lights of other apartments. Wondering how many others out there got screamed at and told today this isn't their country, that they're worthless somehow, that they don't matter. How many?
My father was in the World Trade Center on 9/11 and survived. Days and weeks and years after that horrible day, I have been told somehow me or my mother's family are the cause, that we are evil and going to Hell. That Iranians, that Middle Eastern people, that Muslims are less than human.
I am a mixture like so many in this country today.
I was born in Boston, Massachusetts. It's one of the most patriotic cities in America. My ancestor Hugh Drury is buried in the oldest graveyard in Boston, and he helped contribute to the building blocks of what would become the United States of America.
And yes I'm also Iranian. My mother's family came here to seek incredible opportunities and they found them. They've become doctors and entrepreneurs and athletes and writers and singers.
I have family who are Muslim. have family who are Catholic. I have family who enjoy laughing and talking and dancing and drinking till they're silly.
And I am American. and this is my country. I do belong here. My roots are planted here.
Wait… 67% feel the ban is against the founding principle of the nation, but only 58% disagree with the idea of a ban? Apparently, the other 9% are folks who will give up anything for a feeling of security.
Le statistiche lo dimostrano una volta di più: gli italiani leggono pochissimi libri. E niente sembra scuoterli dalle abitudini consolidate, neanche l’avvento degli e-book. Il picco di lettura si registra nella fascia di età che coincide con la scuola media. Donne e pensionati lettori i meno pigri.
Si legge solo a scuola
Sei quello che leggi, vale la pena ripeterlo. In questo articolo aggiorniamo le statistiche, non troppo felici, sulla lettura in Italia. Lo possiamo fare grazie a un dataset pubblicato dall’Istat a inizio 2015, che raccoglie informazioni, appunto, sulla lettura, fino al 2014. Il grafico presenta una breve disamina storica per fasce d’età.
Per fasce d’età, sono indicati il numero di lettori ogni 100 persone. La media nazionale, nel corso del tempo, è statica e bassa, oscillante intorno alle 40 persone, ma emerge un altro trend preoccupante: è come se il numero di lettori andasse riducendosi a mano a mano che si esce dal percorso scolastico.
Il picco dei lettori concerne la fascia d’età tra gli 11 e i 14 anni. Tuttavia, negli ultimi due anni, anche questo gruppo ha visto una riduzione di ben cinque unità: da 62 a 57 lettori ogni 100 persone. Le altre fasce d’età seguono a ruota, mestamente.
L’Italia non sembra insomma un popolo di lettori motivati, nonostante ci sia un leggero miglioramento nel tempo tra i 60 e i 74 anni, in corrispondenza con la pensione. Pure per i più anziani, tuttavia, gli anni più recenti hanno mostrato un sostanziale stallo. Che la situazione sia molto seria e statica lo mostrano i dati che entrano nel dettaglio del numero di libri letti nel 2014, e lo mostra bene il diagramma a torta.
La grande maggioranza dei lettori (oltre il 70 per cento, legge al massimo sei libri in un anno, con il 45 per cento che ne legge al massimo tre.
Ma leggono di più gli uomini o le donne?
Per tutte le categorie, abbiamo più lettrici che lettori, anche se si tratta comunque di valori molto bassi.
Neanche il web aiuta
Forse Internet ci salverà e la rivoluzione digitale contribuirà al miglioramento culturale del nostro paese, pigro di fronte alla lettura? I dati non sembrano mostrare una corsa al libro elettronico. E a dire il vero non mostrano nemmeno una passeggiata.
Solo una persona ogni quattro, tra quelle che accedono al web, ha ordinato o comprato online un libro nel corso del 2014. E il problema, guardando poi alla lettura degli ebook, è che per strada si perdono altre persone.
Solo quindici utenti di Internet ogni 100, infatti, hanno scaricato o letto un libro in versione digitale.
Che fare? Forse il bonus dei 500 euro ai diciottenni, per quanto destinato proprio a finanziare i consumi culturali, non è la risposta migliore. Le risorse, per quanto poche, devono e possono essere indirizzate a incoraggiare la lettura tout court. Concentrarle su una fascia limitata della popolazione ha senz’altro un grande effetto scenico, ma poca sostanza. Umberto Eco scriveva che leggere dà a tutti la possibilità di sperimentare l’immortalità all’indietro: per il momento l’encefalogramma è così piatto che bisogna almeno cominciare a far nascere i lettori.
.jpg)
