Geert Wilders (PVV) announces Fitna sequel

Page 4 of 5 [ 71 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

05 Apr 2011, 4:11 pm

None. My point is that I worry that all Muslims could be blamed for the actions of the violent dickheads. The local shopkeeper in the village shutters his windows up now. He never used to do that. None of the other shops do this here.



MotherKnowsBest
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Nov 2009
Age: 51
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,196

05 Apr 2011, 5:26 pm

Tequila wrote:
MotherKnowsBest wrote:
I agree with you that people like that should be sent back.


Good; I'm glad. There is no place in this country for people like him. It's a pity we are not as efficient in sending back even foreign criminals that are intra-EU (http://jonjayray.wordpress.com/2009/06/28/scandal-of-the-migrant-criminals-in-britain-how-legal-lunancy-left-serial-sex-offender-free-to-kill-girl-12/).

Quote:
But I disagree that punishing all the innocent vulnerable people protected by the Act by taking away their rights is the way to go about it.


Like whom? Is it just foreign pieces of trash that are suitably protected by this law or are there others? And why can we not have a vote on this? What happens in non-ECHR foreign countries? I haven't noticed the roof caving in there. They can send their pieces of trash back, no worries.

I have noted the fact that this seems to be predominantly a UK phenomenon though. I don't see other countries (as such) wanting to abolish it - though they show their disagreement in other ways. I suspect it's, as you hint?, judicial activism.


I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be clever or anything, but do you really not know what it's about? Everyone is protected by this law. There are lots of rights that we talk about such as right to freedom of expression, right to liberty etc, but prior to the Human Rights Act, UK law didn't actually recognise these rights. The HRA gives you, and every other person in the UK the following rights:

•the right to life
•freedom from torture and degrading treatment
•freedom from slavery and forced labour
•the right to liberty
•the right to a fair trial
•the right not to be punished for something that wasn't a crime when you did it
•the right to respect for private and family life
•freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and freedom to express your beliefs
•freedom of expression
•freedom of assembly and association
•the right to marry and to start a family
•the right not to be discriminated against in respect of these rights and freedoms
•the right to peaceful enjoyment of your property
•the right to an education
•the right to participate in free elections
•the right not to be subjected to the death penalty

If someone breaches one of your rights, you no longer have to spend tens of thousands bringing your case before the ECHR. You can now do it for less than £100 in the small claims court. As people with Asperger's we are far better protected under this law than we were before. If someone discrimates against you because of your condition, you can now report it to the equality ombudsman, who can use this legislation to bring action against the other party. That's what I did when I got thrown out of a museum in London because of my disability. Before this legislation I couldn't have done anything without robbing a bank first.



Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

05 Apr 2011, 5:38 pm

MotherKnowsBest wrote:
•the right to life
•freedom from torture and degrading treatment
•freedom from slavery and forced labour
•the right to liberty
•the right to a fair trial
•the right not to be punished for something that wasn't a crime when you did it
•the right to respect for private and family life
•freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and freedom to express your beliefs
•freedom of expression
•freedom of assembly and association
•the right to marry and to start a family
•the right not to be discriminated against in respect of these rights and freedoms
•the right to peaceful enjoyment of your property
•the right to an education
•the right to participate in free elections
•the right not to be subjected to the death penalty


We don't have half of those rights you claim (freedom of expression; freedom from torture/degrading treatment; right to a fair trial; freedom to protest) on an absolute basis.

Or, if they are there, they are there in such a way as to make it difficult to express them. Would you fancy having the likes of FIT jabbing a camera in your face and being threatening for being at an EDL march, say?

The right to liberty. OK. When can we have a vote on the Lisbon Treaty? If the EU is so interested in upholding the traditions of the ECHR, why can we not have a vote on it? Is it because they'd lose? Surely, it can't be?

The right to a fair trial. Hm… Andrew Symeou; Garry Mann?

Freedom of thought, conscience and religion, or freedom to express your beliefs? - Ha, as long as you agree with the ruling elite.

Freedom of assembly and association. Well, we sort of have this and we sort of don't have it.

It's all very idealistic but it doesn't work.



MotherKnowsBest
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Nov 2009
Age: 51
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,196

05 Apr 2011, 6:08 pm

We have to make it work. The law is now there, but it's up to the people to fight for their rights. When I took my case to court, everyone said 'why bother'. I bothered because everytime someone fights for their rights in court, it makes it easier for the next person. It's a fledging baby law and we have to fight to protect it and nurture it so it grows into a big strong law that stomps on those who try to stomp on us. *note to self: get off your soap box*



loftyD
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jun 2010
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 64

05 Apr 2011, 6:31 pm

Tequila wrote:
I'm not so paranoid as to think that all Muslims are out to get us. Far from it.

I give you…

The Pork Shop, Alsancak, 'Northern Cyprus'

Image

A pork butcher in a predominantly Muslim 'country' (Northern Cyprus doesn't officially exist). I didn't visit but it was such a surprise.

Anyway, I preferred the North over the South, even though much of the North is closed off and it is much less developed.


I've been there hahaha. It was great :) I could actually have some bacon. I had lamb everyday. Never again....

Back on topic, I'm fine with muslims but not ones that preach backward views. But then again what is defined as backward. If we go to Saudi Arabia, I expect alot of our ideals and views would be considered backward and their views as forward.



aspie1968
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 4 Mar 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 48

05 Apr 2011, 8:17 pm

Tequila, you are awash with hatred. Your constant use of terms like 'scum', 'garbage', 'trash' shows it.

Tequila wrote:
No; UKIP talks about a time when it was self-governing and how it wishes for Britain to be self-governing once again. Nothing wrong with that


Except that those were times when autistic people, and people with disabilities in general, had no rights.

And since you've admitted there's a UKIP golden age, maybe you'd like to tell us when it was, if not the 1950s? Fix a date as to when Britain was self-governing and did not have a culture of entitlement.

Tequila wrote:
Because it means we can't send foreign criminals back to their countries of origin


It's not actually true that the HRA means foreign criminals can never be deported. It's been taken by the courts to mean that they can't be deported if there is some overwhelming reason for them to stay, such as close family ties or refugee status.

Personally I'm completely against deporting foreign criminals for the following reasons:

1) It's double jeopardy. Why should a foreign criminal be punished twice (jail and deportation) when a British criminal is only punished once (jail)?

2) The causes of crime are most often internal to the country where the crime is committed, so it's grossly unfair to the country of origin to have to receive criminals who have been turned into criminals by another country. For example, America has actually caused a gang problem in Honduras and Guatemala by deporting their citizens. These people are usually extremely poor in America, and are turned into gang members by the fact that this is how some people cope with poverty in America. Having been turned into gang members, they're sent to Honduras and carry on acting like gang members. Shouldn't America – rather than Honduras – be dealing with the consequences of the fact that it turns poor people into gang members?

3) The UK courts have made decisions like: the right to family life outweighs the prevention of crime. I think this is absolutely right. If only the courts would put human rights ahead of state control more often, maybe we'd have a glimmer of hope for autism equality here too.

Tequila wrote:
What about the case of Aso Mohammed Ibrahim for instance, who knocked down a young girl in Blackburn with his car and failed to stop?


People should drive carefully and stop if they're in an accident, but this is a (legally) minor and very common crime. According to ROSPA there are 680,000 to 920,000 road traffic casualties per year, including 3000 deaths (in a good year), and over 120 children (1 every 3 days). There are huge numbers of dangerous drivers in Britain, this one just happens to be unlucky enough to have killed someone, and also happens to be brown, so he gets in the media because the media is racist. He has quite legitimately been given refugee status which should mean he can't be deported whatever happens. To deport him would be to put him at risk of torture or death. Are you really advocating that people should be sentenced to torture or death for dangerous driving?

To me, it's pretty obvious: the right to be free from the risk of torture or deliberate murder is far more important than the 'right' to be safe from the risk of dangerous driving. The skin colour and country of origin of a person is irrelevant. Someone's having committed a crime does not take away their right to be free from the risk of torture or murder.

Tequila wrote:
If they were that bothered about their status here they wouldn't have left the poor girl to die in the first place


Quite the opposite. It's quite possible that his fear of being deported is what made him flee the crime scene. The harsher the punishment, the more likely someone is to go to any means to avoid detection.

Tequila wrote:
You'll find a lot less crime if things were run in a 'common sense' fashion... Unless you think chav scum who beat and terrorise people (especially those they consider 'weak') shouldn't be held accountable for their actions?


I don't believe in your simplistic binaries of good vs bad people. How do you feel about the fact that an autistic child has been put on an ASBO for 'staring over the garden wall'? How do you feel about autistic meltdown being treated as 'bad behaviour' in schools? How do you feel about the case of an autistic boy who could be evicted because the entire family is blamed for his father shouting at a (foreign) neighbour? How do you feel about case I posted before, of an autistic child excluded from school just before his exams, because they decided to punish him for an epileptic fit of all things?

To the bigots and their 'common sense', we ARE the 'chav scum', just as we are the 'nutjobs'. By supporting these kinds of hatred against difference, you are shooting yourself in the foot.

And, no, I don't support the current fad for treating social problems as matters of individual misbehaviour. I'm completely in favour, for instance, of replacing the idea of 'disruption' in schools with the older focus on 'special needs'. I'm in favour of replacing police-led approaches to poor communities with social-work-led approaches. I'm in favour of an inclusive benefits system instead of pushing people into crime through desperation. I'm all for a rights-led and welfare-led approach to social policy, and completely against a punitive approach to social policy which pretends that social problems are just effects of individuals being bad.

Also, you clearly haven't studied the sociology of crime, as your attitude is falsified by nearly all the available data. There is no consistent correlation between the use, prevalence or harshness of prison sentences and the incidence of crime. America has by many times the highest crime rates in the global North, and also jails more people, in worse conditions, than anywhere else in the global North. Crime rates in Britain rose consistently for 40 years, despite the fact that imprisonment was increasing some of this time, and declining some of this time. There is strong evidence that people caught and jailed for minor deviance are more likely to commit further deviance than those who are not caught. There is strong evidence that people who are jailed are more, not less, likely to reoffend as a result. There are also strong correlations connecting 'crime' to such phenomena as poverty, social inequality, unemployment, lack of opportunities, availability of consumer goods, and atomisation within communities.

Tequila wrote:
My point is that I worry that all Muslims could be blamed for the actions of the violent dickheads


Why don't all the white people get blamed for the acts of neo-Nazis?

Tequila wrote:
The local shopkeeper in the village shutters his windows up now. He never used to do that. None of the other shops do this here


That's not because of violent Muslims, it's because of white racists. White racists who attack random Muslim shopkeepers aren't doing it because they are justly concerned about Islamic fundamentalism and wrongly blame all Muslims for it. They're doing it because they're white racists. Unfortunately, white racism is on the increase. Media scaremongering, and the activities of parties like UKIP, contribute to the climate which has caused white racism to be on the increase. The racists are listening to mainstream culture and taking their cues from it. Whenever Jack Straw or David Cameron makes a speech targeting Muslims, the rate of racial attacks goes up right afterwards. Whenever the EDL are in town, Asian taxi drivers take the day off.

A suggestion for your consideration (I hasten to add that this is a reductio ad absurdum and NOT a policy I actually advocate). Racists do not believe in majority British values as constructed today. Therefore, by civic nationalist standards, racists don't belong here. They aren't good British citizens. Therefore, Britain could create an enclave, like the South African bantustans, maybe on one of the Hebrides, put a fence around it, and declare it to be the homeland of the racists. This homeland will then be given independence, and declared to be the nationality of all racists who would otherwise be British citizens. Whenever a white person is convicted of inciting racial hatred or of a racially aggravated crime, in addition to the regular sentence, they get stripped of British citizenship and made a citizen of the racist bantustan. They are deported there at the end of their sentence and not allowed back in Britain under any circumstances, even if they have family, work, relationships or a life in Britain. Do you support this policy? If not, why not? Why is it any different from deporting Muslims or stripping them of citizenship because they are salafis?



Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

05 Apr 2011, 8:31 pm

I'm clearly never going to convince you. I'll take my 'hatred' (which a lot of people here feel, many people much more so than myself - in fact, I'm on the liberal wing of UKIP would you believe!) and go elsewhere. You take your blind tolerance of people who are an anathema to the liberal and Christian traditions (though I am atheist, and remain so) of this country and stick it where you like.

You accuse me of hatred but I see far more of it in your bigoted, rambling, nakedly pro-Dhimmi posting style.

UKIP and others have concerns about mass immigration and Islamism (not Islam in general, though they are conflated by the more extreme elements in parties like the BNP, NF and other avowedly racist parties). If you just want to shout the majority down all the time, then that support will grow and grow and carry on growing and will be nurtured by the establishment when they want another enemy. In Denmark, Sweden, France, the Netherlands, Britain, anti-Islam parties have all been voted in. Often far more divisive and extreme than I'd like, but this is a reaction by the non-Muslim people of these countries. All these countries that have experienced mass Muslim immigration. Do you ever stop to think why that might be instead of immediately taking the side of our (frequently ungrateful) guests?

There are less than 5% of Muslims in the UK. There are 95% of the rest of us. I want to live in a truly tolerant society but we don't live in one at the moment (for many, many, many reasons). I could go on about them. The Muslim newsagent fella I know is clearly worried because of the people who might attack his shop - I don't want to see that sort of intolerance as it spreads and harms the body politic. He's a nice enough chap - the smell of his curries above the newsagent is better than any Indian restaurant I've ever been to.

And yes, people who run people over and flee the crime scene are scum. There's no two ways about it. Would you like me to run you over and just bugger off? I can tell the police that you think people who do that aren't 'scum' after all. Better convert to Islam first before I do it though.

I see no difference between myself as an autist and those people I share beliefs with. We get on much the same way. Try it sometime instead of coming across as bitter and ranting.

One Law for All. Any other special treatment for minority groups sows the seeds of division (even when the minorities themselves frequently don't want it).



Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

05 Apr 2011, 8:48 pm

Oh, and I'll leave you with one final thought: chucking around insinuations of neo-Nazism and racism to your opponents is about the most damaging and insulting way to nullify your argument. Most people in this country aren't racist (I mean real racism, not the bastardised, hysterical version you seem to subscribe to), just worried. That goes across Europe.

If I was a floating voter who was considering a BNP vote as a protest (I wouldn't ever vote BNP, by the way - they're so different from me and my political philosophy it's unreal) and I had just had this discussion with you, the BNP would have a member for life.

If you want to see more division in this country, carry on. ;)



aspie1968
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 4 Mar 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 48

06 Apr 2011, 6:17 pm

Tequila wrote:
I'll take my 'hatred' (which a lot of people here feel


Argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy, and anyway, I'm familiar enough with the fact that Britain is awash with bigots and racists, I'm just surprised to find it from an aspie. Your reasoning seems to run through the medial prefrontal cortex, the bit governing disgust at difference. This is the part autistic people are meant not to have / to have less of / to not be able to use, since it's also the part which generates intuitive knowledge of social expectations in NT people. You say you get on the same with people who share your beliefs but who aren't autistic, but by definition, they're holding these beliefs via a part of the brain which you don't have, or which doesn't work the same for you. If you're an aspie, you must be arriving at these views by something other than the standard means, probably by believing literally what others are saying metaphorically. I'm guessing you've got some kind of phobic reaction to certain kinds of Islam which is being fuelled by the media and your NT friends, and you're cross-reading this with your own failure to realise that your rigid personal moral code cannot be universalised and is not strictly adhered to by your NT friends either (e.g. they probably break traffic laws sometimes). You're probably not realising that they're deploying abstract ethics whereas you're deploying concrete ethics, and as a result, you're taking their claims to be concrete when they're not.

Tequila wrote:
instead of immediately taking the side of our (frequently ungrateful) guests?


They aren't guests (many of them aren't even migrants – they're British-born), and they've little reason to be grateful – a lot of them are suffering discrimination. You seem to be applying analogical reasoning from a completely different kind of situation, and deploying Kohlberg stage 3 reasoning.

I also don't think it's about “sides”. There's no zero-sum choice between wh***y and the minorities, especially for someone who belongs to a different kind of minority. For those of us who don't want to go back to 1950s-style intolerance, recognition of diversity is a win-win situation.

Tequila wrote:
One Law for All. Any other special treatment for minority groups sows the seeds of division


Firstly, this is a sudden U-turn from separate-but-equal. Special schools = special treatment. Isn't removing children with learning difficulties from mainstream schools 'sowing the seeds of division'?

Secondly, division is not the totally bad thing you take it to be. Division is often necessary to rectify inequality ('no justice, no peace').

Thirdly, 'one law' often means special treatment for the majority group. This breeds division and resentment as well. There are reasons why some Muslims are resentful. At present, these reasons are being ignored because of the narrative that Muslims are bad.

Finally, 'one law' implies that an immigrant who runs someone over should get the same sentence as a citizen who runs someone over. They should not get the additional sentence of deportation which a native would not get.

Tequila wrote:
If you just want to shout the majority down all the time, then that support will grow


The majority needs to learn that its own claims find their limits in the rights of other groups. That it is one group among many, that diversity is here to stay, and that it can't just dictate everything to get its own way all the time. If this means 'shouting down' and social conflict – so be it. History has proven that appeasing racists achieves nothing. The racist monologue needs to be interrupted. The majority getting what it wants all the time is not at all the same thing as democracy, it's a kind of dictatorship by the in-group over the out-group (hence why Sri Lanka is not usually considered a democracy).

Tequila wrote:
If you want to see more division in this country, carry on


Actually, I do want to see more division, because right now, the majority are united around several different shades of the disciplinary/exclusionary attitude towards difference, and liberation for difference is not going to occur without a big conflict to rectify this. We need a rerun of the 1960s social movements, but done properly this time, without letting the authoritarians back in power.

Tequila wrote:
chucking around insinuations of neo-Nazism and racism


When did I call you a neo-Nazi? I wonder if that's your guilty conscience speaking.

As for racism – the views you've expressed would be widely regarded as (structurally or institutionally) racist by pretty much all scholars in the sociology of race and ethnicity, i.e. the relevant scientific specialism, so I have sound reasons for considering these views to be racist, even if they don't meet your personal definition of racism, and even if there's no racist intent behind them.

Tequila wrote:
Would you like me to run you over and just bugger off?


Is that what I said? No. I said people shouldn't do this, they should drive carefully. Please learn to read what people have actually written.

I then added an explanation as to why deportation is not an appropriate response. Tolerance includes the ideas of proportionality and fairness.

You call me bitter and ranting, but you're the one who insists certain people are scum? That HAS to be projection, surely.



Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

06 Apr 2011, 6:42 pm

Would you welcome a rise in extremist Christianity in a response to extremist Islam? It's not likely to happen, but still...

It's not about how you feel - it's about how most people feel. Again, calling us bigots and racists does not help. The non-Muslim (by which I don't just mean white - I mean secular Muslims, blacks, Sikhs, Asians, eastern Europeans et al) don't like this either.

The same rules should apply for all. If a Muslim can do it, so can I. Don't like that? May I suggest Saudi Arabia?



Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

06 Apr 2011, 6:48 pm

One final thing before I go to bed: you need to convince the majority that Muslims (note: not extremist Islamists or terrorists; but all Muslims) aren't out to get them. I don't believe they are. Try a BNP pub in Burnley and see how long you last.

And being anti-Islam isn't racist - if anything, it's religious intolerance.



aspie1968
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 4 Mar 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 48

07 Apr 2011, 1:46 am

Tequila wrote:
It's not about how you feel - it's about how most people feel


I don't care how most people feel. Most people are wrong. If they want me to do what they want, they'll have to convince me otherwise. The majority have a bad habit of feeling whatever the media tell them to feel. It's not good for democracy, because it means Rupert Murdoch is de facto tyrant-in-chief. The ECHR was set up for a reason: to prevent a repeat of the 1930s. If it stops right-wing populists from going further in their actions against Muslims, then it's doing exactly the job it was put there for.

Tequila wrote:
If a Muslim can do it, so can I


There is absolutely nothing Muslims are permitted to do in Britain that other groups aren't also permitted to do in sufficiently similar circumstances. And if you really feel they have more rights, you could always convert. I daresay you wouldn't like the 'special treatment' you received at airports and the like, however.

Tequila wrote:
Don't like that? May I suggest Saudi Arabia?


I've got a better idea. Keep your grubby populist hands off Britain's democracy, and go to Iran. I think you'd find their attitude to crime and punishment to your liking.

TBH I wish there was somewhere in the world which hadn't been infected by the current lurch towards xenophobia, racism and bigotry of all kinds. I wish I could find just one true liberal democracy which had not lurched towards authoritarianism under the combined pressures of American geopolitics, media hysteria and neoliberal-induced anxiety. Sadly, your ilk are in the process of ruining most of the world, so there really isn't anywhere left for people like me to go.

Tequila wrote:
you need to convince the majority that Muslims... aren't out to get them


Since the majority are being convinced of this deluded idea by saturated racist coverage from sections of the press, this is obviously not something an individual can do. But there's easy enough ways to do it. Teach critical literacy and anti-racism in schools. Give all immigrants the vote, diluting the effect of the bigots as a section of the electorate. Encourage multiculturalism in all fields of social life. Make sure people actually meet Muslims and other minorities by creating publicly funded events to promote tolerance. Actually enforce the laws on racial and religious hatred against the tabloids and against politicians who race-bait (such as Jack Straw), and tighten them if needed. Showcase positive contributions of Muslims and other minority groups to British life. Stop the constant race-baiting. If the papers give coverage to a crime by a Muslim or refugee, and don't give corresponding coverage to the same crime by a white English person, fine them heavily for inciting racial hatred. Better yet, introduce media reform. Tax papers with high advertising revenue to finance smaller papers, make newspapers accountable to a self-enforced journalistic ethics code administered by the NUJ, and so on. The moment its ideological underpinnings were cut away, Islamophobia would melt into thin air. It's created and sustained by a climate of scaremongering which is deliberately maintained by powerful groups as a way to defend their own positions through scapegoating.

Tequila wrote:
And being anti-Islam isn't racist - if anything, it's religious intolerance


Oh, come off it. You don't think Islamophobia has anything to do with the fact that the overwhelming majority of British Muslims are of Pakistani origin? And that the press and politicians daren't pick on Pakistanis directly because that would be illegal – so they go for Islam as a placeholder? Everything that's said about Muslims today was said almost word for word about 'non-white immigration' by the likes of Enoch Powell, and back in the 1920s about Jewish immigration.

Also, I've seen you repeatedly mix up issues around Islam with issues around 'foreigners', 'foreign criminals' and so on – clearly suggesting that Muslims are foreign (i.e. Pakistani or Arab etc). Since you know very well that many of these 'foreign' 'guests' as you call them are British citizens, born and raised in Britain, I can only conclude that you view all British Pakistanis as guests – a patently racist position.



Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

07 Apr 2011, 3:06 am

I very rarely listen to the media. Most mainstream media in this country is fairly supportive of Muslim causes. The likes of the Daily Mail and Daily Express can be a bit xenophobic at times but I never read them. The Mail is usually full of nonsensical rubbish designed purely to rile its readership. Doesn't have to be about Muslims (and it usually isn't). It could be about any part of British modern life. Thanks for conforming to the leftist stereotype of insinuating that everyone that disagrees with your view of the world has the Daily Mail on subscription.

I dislike the spread of Islamism to the UK. I don't know a single person living here who really wants more of the same. I heartily disagree with Islam and its negative, dominating tendencies. I have no issue with most Muslims. If they want to wear a burqa, fine. If they want to be Muslims, fine. Keep it in private (as do most Christians here) and stop trying to dominate or preach (like, for instance, councils supporting the extension of Islamic buildings dominating towns over the wishes of residents, and then claiming that a mosque or madrassa is more worthy of the site than a pub) and you won't have any problem. They look ugly, anyway. I've seen photos of mosques in Muslim countries and they look fantastic. They don't look fantastic in the middle of Blackburn though I have no objection to them per se.

As for the burqa issue, I will think they are trying to themselves from society for doing so (who else in this country routinely wears a mask when they are out? If I did that, I would be spoken to by police in short order - I don't care if it's part of their 'religion' as most Muslims in the more tolerant, secular states don't wear these - or didn't used to, in any case). Anything the Muslims can do (in law or by practice), we must be able to do. Anything else encourages resentment and division on both sides. Muslims will think the whites are out to get them and vice versa. Nothing would be achieved by this apart from blood, sectarianism, division and an increase in state power.

Considering it's been proven that the Labour party deliberately orchestrated a mass-immigration of Muslims to Britain (without looking at the attendant social problems that would result), there's really not a lot of point in talking to you. People like you cannot be talked to or reasoned with. It's your way and everyone else who shows even the lightest dissent is a neo-Nazi, a racist, a fascist, un-Islamic or one or more of those.

For anyone else reading this thread: this person above is in an extreme minority. Most people I know (including almost all Muslims) don't want to behave like this. Let them stand for election if they believe their twisted philosophy will gain any support. Oh, of course they won't because no-one will vote for them. Which is why they infect our government institutions by the back door.

How many MEPs do far-left parties have in the UK? How many MPs are far left? How many MPs or MEPs are far-right? I can think of Caroline Lucas for the Greens and Nick Griffin and Andrew Brons and that's about all. If anything, the far-left tendencies are more likely to be found in Scotland and Northern Ireland than in England.

The vast, vast majority of people in this country aren't racists, Nazis, or fascists. It is only hateful ultra-leftists like the above poster that thinks so. Britain has been routinely called the most tolerant country they know of by our own immigrant population. You get very little of the overt racism that you see in European countries because it's just not tolerated.

We have one of the smallest extremist / ethnic nationalist presences in Europe. The BNP is minusucle compared to the likes of the Front National in France. The BNP is hyped up out of all proportion by the extreme left, who try to deny them a voice at every turn. What are they so scared of? Most people look at the BNP and think they are knuckle-dragging loons and therefore don't bother voting for them. The oxygen of publicity does them more harm than good, in my view.

I would actually really love the BNP to get a couple of Commons seats just to watch the reaction of the screeching harpies. It would make my year. :)



Last edited by Tequila on 07 Apr 2011, 4:59 am, edited 4 times in total.

Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

07 Apr 2011, 3:17 am

Oh, and I'd rather like to take issue with your assertion that the majority of Muslims in the UK are of Pakistani descent. Many of them might be but there are lots of black Muslims and even white ones too now, some women converting of their own accord or through marriage.



John_Browning
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,456
Location: The shooting range

08 Apr 2011, 1:16 am

aspie1968 wrote:
2) The causes of crime are most often internal to the country where the crime is committed, so it's grossly unfair to the country of origin to have to receive criminals who have been turned into criminals by another country. For example, America has actually caused a gang problem in Honduras and Guatemala by deporting their citizens. These people are usually extremely poor in America, and are turned into gang members by the fact that this is how some people cope with poverty in America. Having been turned into gang members, they're sent to Honduras and carry on acting like gang members. Shouldn't America – rather than Honduras – be dealing with the consequences of the fact that it turns poor people into gang members?

No. They are not entitled to be here and they almost never rehabilitate. The only way the gang lifestyle will end in America is if they are ether rounded up or die off. Additionally, most hispanic gang members are ether citizens or illegal aliens, so we just deport the illegal aliens after their sentence.


_________________
"Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars."
- Unknown

"A fear of weapons is a sign of ret*d sexual and emotional maturity."
-Sigmund Freud


aspie1968
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 4 Mar 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 48

08 Apr 2011, 6:57 am

John_Browning wrote:
They are not entitled to be here and they almost never rehabilitate


Irrelevant and irrelevant. My point was that it's unfair for countries like Honduras to have to deal with the aftereffects of the fact that America turns poor people into gangsters. How would you feel if millions of Americans moved permanently to Thailand, got turned into child-abusers in Thailand, then got deported to America and went around raping kids? Wouldn't you be annoyed with Thailand for moving the consequences of its own problems onto America?

Tequila wrote:
I dislike the spread of Islamism to the UK. I don't know a single person living here who really wants more of the same


It's none of your business what other people believe. I dislike the spread of UKIP's ideas in the UK, does that mean I can lock you up for holding these views? Of course not.

You can't go around banning things just because you don't like them.

I also dislike salafiya as an ideology, but I don't agree either that it should be suppressed, or that it is 'spreading', or that it is an immense threat to other groups in Britain. If we believe MI5, there's 1000 'extreme Muslims' in Britain. The BNP has 10,000 members. The latter are clearly a bigger threat, even though by your own admission they're minuscule and pathetic.

Tequila wrote:
As for the burqa issue, I will think they are trying to themselves from society for doing so (who else in this country routinely wears a mask when they are out?


People used to wear balaclavas in cold weather when I was a kid. Kids wear hoodies. Old women were shawls. Hassidic Jews wear long beards and skullcaps.

It's none of the state's business what people wear. They aren't doing you any harm, so leave them alone. How would you like it if the government decided you couldn't wear suits any more, because it was divisive on class grounds? Or you couldn't wear football kits because it's divisive between supporters of different clubs?

Personally, given the difficulty I as an aspie have in recognising other people, I think it would be a great idea if everyone wore masks when they were out. It would level the playing field between me and the NT people.

Incidentally, the reason some Muslim women wear burqas is so they don't get ogled and looked on as sex-objects by strange men. Do you deny that ogling and harassment of women in the street is a problem here?

Tequila wrote:
If I did that, I would be spoken to by police in short order


Spoken to, perhaps, because they don't know why you're wearing a mask (unlike someone in a burqa). Arrested and convicted, not likely, because there is no law against wearing masks in public. If they arrested you for walking down a street wearing a mask, you could sue them. The only law on masks is of recent origin (Major's draconian anti-protest law) and that lets police demand a group (not an individual) take off masks in 'public order incidents' (not when walking down the street).

Also, there are a great many circumstances where wearing a mask would raise no suspicion whatsoever: dust masks on bikes and building sites, people going to/from fancy dress parties, people dressed for cold weather, sports such as skiing and snorkelling, Comic Relief, people in Santa Claus costumes at Christmas, etc. If these are 'exceptions', then there's no reason Muslim women shouldn't be an exception too.

Tequila wrote:
like, for instance, councils supporting the extension of Islamic buildings dominating towns over the wishes of residents


First off, the residents are often expressing racist wishes which should be ignored. I have seen cases where residents argue that having a mosque will “encourage terrorism” or have appeared on BBC saying “we don't want them here, they should all go home”. It's ridiculous to claim this is anything but racism.

Secondly, Muslims have the same right to build mosques etc as Christians have to build churches. One law for all, like you said before.

The comparison with pubs is ridiculous. I'm sure Christian churches are also considered differently from pubs. And anyway, the current trend is towards pubs closing, not towards building more of them.

Tequila wrote:
Anything the Muslims can do (in law or by practice), we must be able to do. Anything else encourages resentment and division on both sides


I have already explained that division is not always a bad thing.

As to resentment, I don't think you know or care what causes resentment to Muslims or other minorities. Personally, I resent a whole range of policies which affect aspies in Britain, precisely because they DO treat us the same, when we aren't. I wonder if you think it's unfair, for instance, that you or I don't have a right to a free labrador from the NHS. Does this make you resent blind people?

Personally, I don't care if someone else is getting some minuscule advantage I'm not. I don't care if a few people are claiming benefits they shouldn't have, or dodging tax, or fooling the speed cameras. I don't care if Muslim co-workers are getting Friday off and I'm not, or if they get their own room for prayers and I don't. I only care about injustice when it's concrete and direct, or when my needs aren't being met. If someone has enough experience of not being respected for who they are, they stop caring about trivial things, about where they are in the pecking-order, about looking for little reasons to feel aggrieved or ill-treated. To be honest, I can see a clear correlation between how prepared they are to make allowances for Muslims, and how prepared they are to make allowances for autism, so I'm very sympathetic with the former.

Finally: in practice, Muslims can do a lot LESS than you can in Britain. When was the last time you heard about innocent atheists being rounded up in terror raids? Are white people singled out for stop-and-search where you live? Do Christians get special harassment when trying to enter or leave the country? How often have you been called a racist name in the street? If you think you're worse-off than Muslims in Britain, you aren't looking at the big picture.

Tequila wrote:
Considering it's been proven that the Labour party deliberately orchestrated a mass-immigration of Muslims to Britain


You want me to believe you aren't influenced by the Daily Mail, then you come out with this kind of tabloid nonsense.

The truth behind that story (which is straight out of the Daily Mail): the government commissioned an independent survey on immigration by social scientists, who made several arguments that immigration was good for the country, and argued for anti-immigration laws to be relaxed. The press picked up on this and span it as an official government document which had guided immigration policy. In fact the government never acted on the report.

http://www.mailwatch.co.uk/2010/02/25/d ... f-britain/

Labour immigration policy was as viciously repressive and intolerant as conservative policy had been before it.

http://www.revolutionarycommunist.org/i ... 2001-.html

http://www.revolutionarycommunist.org/i ... -2004.html

http://www.noborders.org.uk/

I wish the government WOULD abolish the cruel and arbitrary immigration laws which today lead to many genuine refugees being denied recognition and deported to death and torture. But NuLabour aren't likely to do it any more than the Tories.

Tequila wrote:
For anyone else reading this thread: this person above is in an extreme minority


Argumentum ad populum fallacy. I've already explained why a great many people in Britain adhere to absurd ideologies: the influence of certain disreputable media, and the activities of politicians who encourage them.

Also, UKIP are not exactly a majority party. At the last election, UKIP got 3.1% of the vote and won no seats. The only time UKIP gets votes is at European elections, and that's a single-issue thing (loads of the Tories switch to UKIP).

Tequila wrote:
Britain has been routinely called the most tolerant country they know of by our own immigrant population


Because they hang out with tolerant people like me, instead of people like you. Oh, and that's not what I've heard from any of the great number of refugees, Muslims and black people I know. They all say Britain is a deeply racist society.

It's true, however, that there is more explicit racism in certain (not all) European countries than in Britain. It's very hard to make these comparisons. Germany for instance treats UKIP-type parties (Republikaner) as scary almost-Nazis to be kept out of power at any cost, and hence is less racist; they also ban faith schools and have draconian laws against diasporic opposition groups, hence more racist. When in Paris, you may (for example) see black and Arab kids from the banlieues playing football on the grass in front of the Notre Dame, even in tourist season. In Britain, inner-city kids seen hanging round central London get persecuted constantly by police. So it depends what criterion you're using to assess which country is more tolerant/less racist.

However, by that kind of criterion, even if Britain is 'less racist', you can't complain about Britain's crime rate, because it's lower than most of the world.

Tequila wrote:
I'd rather like to take issue with your assertion that the majority of Muslims in the UK are of Pakistani descent


There are 1.8 million British Muslims, of whom around 10,000 are white or African-Caribbean, 1.2 million are of South Asian origin, and 350,000 Arab or African, 150,000 Turks and Kurds.
http://www.mcb.org.uk/library/statistics.php
When people talk about Muslims, they are, almost without exception, talking about non-white people.