09 Jan 08
Originally posted by der schwarze Ritternone of the above, but the post sure was😉
RSMA1234, I have a question for you: Which of the following is racist?
You leave your country of birth and immigrate to a Western country and:
A) Move to an ethnic enclave (i.e. racial "ghetto"😉.
B) Refuse to learn the language and customs of the host country.
C) Get satellite TV just so you can watch Al Jazeera.
D) Refuse to work and go ...[text shortened]... rthy of death.
K) Blow something or somebody up because your religion compels you to.
09 Jan 08
Originally posted by RSMA1234The proportion is about 10%, and I stated that freedom of movement would not be limited for citizens. I even said that immigration policy need not be changed to reverse certain mistakes in policy. Also, let's be careful of talking about human rights when we're discussing the spread of extremist islam.
Its goes without saying that you have to be a citizen off the EU for the freedom off movement acts to apply, and as the EU does have a high proportion of Muslims (that are citizens) by not allow EU Muslims immigration from other EU countries, this would break the law as well as their human rights.
I agree in that you can’t just target one group and it ha ...[text shortened]... to the pub, is that really fair to say they are not integrating ?
What does integration mean?
Across the board rule required, fine (incidentally, that would require the Queen either being no longer the head of state, or no longer the head fo teh church of England, though I think canterbury won't have too much extra work on their hands as a result)
I don't mean to criticise your use of France as an example. If you hadn't, I would have. France has an islamic population which is between three and four times higher than in Britain, yet faces none fo the same problems. The immigration policies are the same by and large, arguably harsher in the UK due to their "anti-terror" legislation, so the conclusion that it is as a result of a state which does not and will not allow a religious voice from having any special status compared to any other. That in the public schools, no religious symbology is allowed, even on students etc. Policies like this maintain your freedoms to worship whoever you want, but do it on your own time, not on the tax euro. Hence it is not an attractive option to the muslim who wants to stir thigns up.
I think you misuderstood my BNP point, what I was saying is that what the BNP would have the British live under is considerably milder than sharia law is when both are brought to their natural conclusions. At least the BNP would only ostracise homosexuals, not kill them. Also, if a conflict is needed, sweeping issue under the rug and tip-toing around wearing kidskin gloves is not going to help, conflict avoidance is what has done this, that's what PC is. If someone is wrong to call for the death of a cartoonist... tell them flat out. If they want to punish a teacher for the (innocent) actions of the schoolkids, tell them they're wrong. Yes, criticism must be given logically and knowledgably, but criticism must also be taken that way, which a vocal minority obviously do not do in Britain.
Tolerance of difference is of course to be commended. The British are a very tolerant and accepting people. But if they should offer such tolerance and meet intolerance, show understanding and meet anger, offer laws guaranteeing rights to others and those otehrs wanting to take those rights away from their new hosts, then the British people should be understandably peeved. I do not suggest that this is dealt with in some DSR ethnic cleansing type way, but through a simple change in attitude towards religious diplomatic immunity.
The Sharia law point is based on 40% of British muslims feeling that Sharia law should be introduced to parts of Britain. This is not integration, and does not conform to common snese principles of seperating state and religion.
That you have integrated well is great. It is also to be expected, especially after 10 years. I do not suggest that tolerance is a bad thing. What I am saying is that giving religious statements a free pass and not being capable of criticising them for fear of backlash (stands for all religions btw) or due to a misplaced sense of respect in the beliefs of others that goes beyond the realm of sensibility.
I understand that muslims have contributed to British culture, not just in the modern era either, I see mainstream islam as much less damaging than mainstream christianity for instance. But I do not suggest the segregation or exclusion of muslims. I simply propose seeing religious groups as any other interest group with no special treatment. This I feel obviously will make Britain no less attractive to mainstream muslims, but much less attractive to extremist muslims as their agendas will not have an outlet.
Did I say islamic immigration? If so I must have meant the immigration of muslims. It would depend on the context of the sentence though, I'll look through my post for the statement.
The test gives you historical and cultural facts and a grasp of the language, these are tools which most definitely can be used for the purposes of integration and understanding a culture, but if you don't use those tools, the end result is the same as not having them in teh first place.
This makes a good point, if the social customs do not mesh with personal customs. But yes, if they do not adopt at least a healthy mix of the customs of their adopting country, they are not integrating, that's what integrating means. countless opportunities for integration exist however, outside fo pubs in British culture too. This is indeed seen in schools and colleges and workplaces, but why not uncovering the face when speaking to your political representative? Sharia law even allows the face, and the hands up until the wrist to be beared, was it the hadith that caused this? nto even the words of your prophet and thus not the words of god, are used in the construction of Sharia law? How can we be sure it is holy law then? The best option is to make the practice of religious things a private matter. In a publicly funded context, as in France, overt religious symbology should not be allowed, this in itself would aid integration, integration becomes a lot easier when you can see the face of the person you talk to.
Integration means the adoption of the customs of an adoptive country, not all of them, naturally, but enough of them to be considered as important a part of the community as a native.
09 Jan 08
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterD,
RSMA1234, I have a question for you: Which of the following is racist?
You leave your country of birth and immigrate to a Western country and:
A) Move to an ethnic enclave (i.e. racial "ghetto"😉.
B) Refuse to learn the language and customs of the host country.
C) Get satellite TV just so you can watch Al Jazeera.
D) Refuse to work and go ...[text shortened]... rthy of death.
K) Blow something or somebody up because your religion compels you to.
The definition off racism as I understand it is “Prejudice or discrimination based on an individual's race / faith; can be expressed individually or through institutional policies or practices. ...”
As you original posted this debate, you suggest that all non-Christian people should be exclude from the UK (even though you don’t even live here)
Answers for you
(1) So what, when ever a immigrate moves to another country they tend to move with to people from their own background, it helps with the transition. Do they not have neighbourhood that are all Italian or Mexican in the US?
(2) Refuse to learn, so all Mexican can speak “American” in the US then? In order to learn the language, facilities must be provided as they is a duty off care by the state by allowing an immigrate to live in that country. My cousin lives in Denmark and the law is that you must learn Danish, (which is fair I think) he was given the opp to learn it, did it and moved into a successful integrations. As for the customs bit, it depends on the custom, if it’s the custom for the people of the country to say get “pissed up” every Friday, but your faith / culture is against drinking, then no….you don’t have to follow it.
(3) I have Al Jazeera (the English version they launch recently) already on Sky….so what’s your point?
(4) That’s just rubbish, immigrates in general are the ones that do most off the jobs that the native population refuse to do, in your own back yard, how many Mexican are under paid and exploited ? My father was an immigrate to the UK and he has worked all his life, never claimed, so whist a small percentage may not work, the majority work very hard and if you look at studies they tend to do well as they come from a poverty background and want to improve themselves, so what your point ?
(5) So what, she can learn. Anyone can marry anyone they wish, you can’t dictate who a person gets married too, if they don’t know the language or customs, they should learn. If they choose not to learn then that’s another issue. If you move somewhere, you do have to learn the language, just from a basic survive point off view. Going back to cous, his wife is not Danish, but she has learned Danish
(6) LOL…that’s very funny, so know you’re saying that by having lots off kids you’re causing a burden to the taxpayer, you may as well start on people that are too fat, drink too much, smoke, etc etc. If you pay taxes (which most working immigrates do, or at least in London they do) then quite frankly its none off your business how many kids they have.
(7) Hate – preaching is wrong, but this is not limited to just Islam is it.
(8) Law is always adapting, if you ask the law to be changed to reflect their faith, then I see no issues as long as this is applied too all. Silk people have an exception under UK law to be allowed to carry a knife or drive a motorbike without a helmet. It’s a positive sign of society that can adapt.
(9) LOL….this is very funny. If it’s against your faith to eat say Pork (as for Muslims & Jews) then I see no issues in asking for Pork not to be severed, either that or you start a faith based school of which they are many in the UK. Jewish, Catholic, Muslim schools are prevalent here.
(10) Really……so your saying that all immigrates go around saying that? Because the majority don’t. On the flip side, a native person could say that all immigrates are dirty, unwashed and do not work…..which of course is rubbish.
(11) They have been a few bombings and the killing off innocents in wrong as I have said many times. But you can’t hold a whole immigrate population actable for the actions off the few. Your own government starts illegal wars based on lies, but that does not mean the American People are evil war mongers or liars.
09 Jan 08
Originally posted by RSMA1234Wow, sorry about the previous post... that's LONG!
Can you give me an example to understand you question a bit better
As for my question it is...
Would you agree that religious views should be granted the same respect as the political/social/economic views of other interest groups?
09 Jan 08
Originally posted by agrysonDude inetersting reply and long.. ; )
The proportion is about 10%, and I stated that freedom of movement would not be limited for citizens. I even said that immigration policy need not be changed to reverse certain mistakes in policy. Also, let's be careful of talking about human rights when we're discussing the spread of extremist islam.
Across the board rule required, fine (incidentally, th ...[text shortened]... ut enough of them to be considered as important a part of the community as a native.
Give me some time to read and I will get back to you, have too shoot off now
If I forget, remind me please
09 Jan 08
Originally posted by RSMA1234Sorry, I can see how I may have misrepresented teh situation, the hoddie point should have included that loitering in certain areas and otehr such antisocial behaviour is required to actually get an ASBO, but the wearing of a hoodie, with hood up (concealing the face) is one of the deciding factors in getting an ASBO, though not a conclusive one it is true.
I’m not sure on that really, I wear hoodies all the time as do my younger bro’s, so their must be more to it than just wearing the hoodies.
I’ve heard of some shopping centres banning hoodies, but never a person for getting a ASBO for wearing one.
With regards to the MP issue, I presume your talking about Jack Straw incident, but I think that in this ...[text shortened]... n’t have issues with this and in our Muslim Community (which is 10 k +) its never been an issue.
Also, I'd like to clarify that I do not suggest that muslims in general are what I'm speaking out agianst but rather the amplified voice and impact that the more extreme minority has due to the fear of offending religious sensibilities. As you say, any reasonable religious person would not be offended by a reasonable demand and thus provided the demands are reasonable, there is no issue.
I believe religious views being given the same treatment as any other view is a reasonable demand.
09 Jan 08
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterIn fairness, those statements represent the vocal minority. All of those things are to varying degrees either bang on the mark, or gross misrepresentations, but in any case, the core issue is that there is a minority that act in the way you describe and they punch WAY above their weight due to the disproportionate respect afforded to religious views.
RSMA1234, I have a question for you: Which of the following is racist?
You leave your country of birth and immigrate to a Western country and:
A) Move to an ethnic enclave (i.e. racial "ghetto"😉.
B) Refuse to learn the language and customs of the host country.
C) Get satellite TV just so you can watch Al Jazeera.
D) Refuse to work and go ...[text shortened]... rthy of death.
K) Blow something or somebody up because your religion compels you to.
10 Jan 08
1 edit
Originally posted by RSMA1234Sam the shed' is a waste of space..he comes out with this rubbish everyday............someone needs to 'landfill' him
It might be something to do with the fact that Muslims families have more children (in general) than non-muslim families and the declining birth rate overall.
Being called M (PBUH) is no big deal, no I'm not sure what your actually saying ?
Are you linkng radical Islam to the name ?
Or are you suggesting that with the increasing off the name, the UK would also have an increase in radicals ?
10 Jan 08
1 edit
Originally posted by der schwarze Ritterthats all the things your Ancestors did when they moved to America..so you should be able to answer that question yourself.
RSMA1234, I have a question for you: Which of the following is racist?
You leave your country of birth and immigrate to a Western country and:
A) Move to an ethnic enclave (i.e. racial "ghetto"😉.
B) Refuse to learn the language and customs of the host country.
C) Get satellite TV just so you can watch Al Jazeera.
D) Refuse to work and go rthy of death.
K) Blow something or somebody up because your religion compels you to.
ask your Dad? (if you know who he is😉)
10 Jan 08
Originally posted by Sam The Sham......... but now the least popular name for a teddy bear.
It's too late, friend. Muhammed is now the 2nd most popular name for boys in Great Britain.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23428641-details/Mohammed%20now%20second%20most%20popular%20boys’%20name%20in%20Britain/article.do?expand=true#StartComments
But don't fret, sacrificing England to be politically correct and celebrate diversity will be appreciated by the new majority.