or so say the British PM.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41444364...ld_news-europe
I thought it was a bit odd for the country to start recognizing the Islamic courts, as some sort of official judicial body, but beyond that.......
Was it not bDunnel that we said we europeans have this thing about not being "paranoid morons"??? :rolleyes:
"we europeans" apparently doesn't include your wannabe poodles ;) :p :laugh:
do you have a link to the UK recognizing islamic courts? :dozey:
what? The UK PM wants to be a poodle??
I thought he just wanted be a white knight or something and wear a white robe.
Learn something new everyday.
as to the other, do your own searching, but here is a few....
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...nife-youths.do
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...y-binding.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...sed-doors.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...cle4749183.ece
Thought the court thing a little odd, but I grew up in multiculturalism (and i mean several cultures), and yet to meet a real islamic extremist....but hey, just cause you are paranoid, does not mean that they are not actually out to get you....
What an idiotic statement (the PM's). It sounds like something a Nazi would say. As far as I can tell that policy is the same one that idealistically America claims to always use. Being a law abiding citizen is not mutually exclusive with people holding on to some ethnic traditions. Every large city in the US has a Chinatown, little Italy, and many others that are not prominent enough to have gained a logo. In East San Diego (city limits) there is a very prominent Somalian community. I may not agree with the policies that brought them here, but I have no reason to think these people pose a threat to anybody else. As far as I can tell they are behaving in a manner that is consistent with all ethnic immigrants, or refugees.
B@st@rd Redneck Americans that have no interaction with these people yet supported the foreign policies that caused these people to be displaced telling me they constitute a problem. How ignorant, racist, and selfish is that?
I can't comment on the this is London article and both Daily Mail articles should quite frankly be ignored. The Times article was interesting but it appears that Sharia law as such is only being applied to civil cases. Its almost akin to a religious version of Judge Judy. :p
Can you provide some more recent articles? Three related back to 2008 and the earliest to June 2009.
Yet more evidence of Cameron's epic dingleberriness.
Daniel, I don't think he is condemning respecting other cultures, but when people arrive on your shores to start a new life, it would be nice if they didn't bring all the hatreds and bitterness to help tear yours down...and I think that is where Cameron was going. That mindset is pretty much the sentiment of most Canadians right now too. We embrace other cultures, but when you start knocking Canada, you are on VERY thin ice now...
The problem is people are people and they will always think their way of life is the way to go even if they move/immigrate to another country which embraces them with open arms. I'm like that, you're like that, it's just that for us Westerners religion isn't as important as it is for people from cultures/countries which are not so well-off and that creates problems.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
Grid girl, the articles, and there are many, you can google yourself, but it seems clear that Islamic law is now govverning a big part of the activities in your country.
Meanwhile, try to spin and excuse as you wish, but the words speak for themselves, and it seems the German PM and the British PM are both saying the same thing:
http://news.ph.msn.com/top-stories/a...mentid=4623380
but as dunnel said, we europeans have this thing about not being paranoid morons...well my oh my...if Bush had said such a thing, it is easy to imagine all the bloody outrage around here, name calling and such.....Quote:
"What I mean to say is that for years, for decades, the approach was that integration was not something that needed to be addressed, that people would live side-by-side and that it would sort itself out," Merkel said in November.
"This turned out to be false."
The response, he argued, should be "a lot less of the passive tolerance of recent years and much more active, muscular liberalism".
"A passively tolerant society says to its citizens: as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone. It stands neutral between different values," he said.
Mohammed Shafiq, chief executive of British Muslim welfare group the Ramadhan Foundation, added: "Singling out Muslims as he has done feeds the hysteria and paranoia about Islam and Muslims."
as to this Islamaic court deal or people wanting to maintain their cultural differences....it is clear that the PM is saying, time to put some "muscular liberalism" to work, no more of this "passive tolerance" :s mokin:
and now from tje former PM, John Howard of the "down under" on october 2010, has joined ranks, says
Quote:
"This is a time not to apologize for our particular identity but rather to firmly and respectfully and robustly reassert it," he told the Heritage Foundation, a think-tank in Washington.
We've had this come up before, and the "Islamic" courts you refer to are actually panels of community elders who make non-binding (but generally respected) rulings on civil matters and on domestic cases. Now, one might argue that should a domestic case involve violence it should be dealt with by the police. But consider that most cases collapse long before they ever reach court, it's actually better that the community deals with them than the legal system sweeping them under the carpet.Quote:
Originally Posted by markabilly
The only failure of multiculturalism was this crazy notion that we're all the same. When I were a lad (and we used to have to cycle 20 mile up t'hill for t'Hovis) this stupidity was forced on us with the result that we didn't make the effort to learn about the subtle and not-so-subtle differences between our races. When it turned out that there were cultural and religious differences, as is only natural, we were ill-placed to understand the nuances which led to a culture of resentment.
If we accept, nay embrace, the differences and make efforts to understand each other then "multiculturalism" is fine and dandy for all concerned.
I think that Islam doesn't lend itself well to "multiculturalism" simply because it is embraced and used as a form of government and not simply a religion.
'Nuff said :pQuote:
Originally Posted by markabilly
:up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave B
But, then again, you could say the very same thing about other forms of religious-based governments around the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hondo
"Monoculturalism" is just as problematic, as the insular nature of those within have a very constant ability to feign 'temporary amnesia' when it comes to missteps and bad choices taken, all in the name of keeping the nation 'pure'.
Also, if the two parties involved in these courts don't like the verdict they can always do what other people do with similar systems, appeal to a higher court.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave B
Its also strange that people really don't seem to have a problem with Jews using a similar court system to sort their disputes out but if Muslims do it, OMG its the end of the world as we know it. Jews have been using their own courts in the UK for 100 years. The Muslims have finally caught up. I think we'll survive....
It was an appallingly written speech that tried to address multiculturalism and extremism focusing solely on Muslims. Not a single mention of the EDL or BNP which have become increasingly more powerful over the past few years. Nor was their any attempt to examine the complexities of the Muslim community which is drawn from several continents and very different cultures and practices. It really won't go down as one of his best speeches, or perhaps it was one of those odd times where he says silly things to keep the Daily Mail crowd paying their Tory party membership fees.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
For crying out loud, markabilly. What a nonsensical statement. I disagree vehemently with what Cameron had to say about multiculturalism. What makes you think I wouldn't?Quote:
Originally Posted by markabilly
While, at the same time, describing his new position as 'liberalism', presumably in an effort to suggest that the Tories' delightful coalition partners are fully behind his views. It was a speech that managed the unusual distinction of being almost devoid of genuine content, consisting instead of a series of meaningless right-wing generalisations and platitudes, while being extremely offensive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dylan H
BDunnell, might I suggest you resist the bait ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5012/...7e29dc16b1.jpg
John Howard should remember the history of his own damn country, and keep his fool mouth shut.Quote:
Originally Posted by markabilly
Australia's "monoculturalism" with the White Australia policy, caused the Japanese delegates to walk out of League of Nations talks with regards the preamble to the Covenant for the League of Nations.
The Japanese wanted to insert a racial equality clause into the preamble of the Covenant for the League of Nations and whilst the other nations officially said nothing, they were quite happy for Australia and the then PM to play the role of the ignorant patsy. Billy Hughes refused to have the racial equality clause inserted into the preamble and as such, the Japanese delegates took that as a very strong racially based snub.
The snub probably in part helped to fuel Japan's hostility towards "Western" powers; and ultimately one of the causes of WW2.
"This is a time not to apologize for our particular identity but rather to firmly and respectfully and robustly reassert it,"
Australia's blatant and open racism in the past was quite frankly a disgusting blob on the history of the nation. Thankfully, Mr Howard will become more of an irrelevance as time passes.
Did not say you agreed or not, but those were your words announcing the "we europoeans" are not paranoid morons, and all I can say is that right now, I can count two of the them, the PM for Germany and the PM for GB....and of course there is John Howard.......Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Actually, I was trying to figure out what was this "passive tolerance" that "muscular liberalism" desperately needed to squash in the opinion of the Prime Minister, and that was the only thing I could find or think of.......did not know the Jews had been getting way with this for a hundred years....gee, I guess that they are in trouble as well--- :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dylan H
Otherwise, someone will have to spell out to me about what is all this "passive tolerance" of someone's culture. Note that Muslims seem to believe it is aimed at them, but I am not so sure Mr. Cameron was that specific or should "muscular liberalism" be appled to one cuture but not equally equally to all diverse cultures...
John Howard is a paranoid moron.Quote:
Originally Posted by markabilly
As treasurer he managed to do something which is usually difficult; namely create double digit inflation and double digit unemployment at the same time. As PM he created a government surplus by privatising arguably the then most profitable company in Australia and introducing the GST. And there is the small matter of his complicity in going to war on the basis of outright lies.
Paranoid - tick
Moron - tick
I don't necessarily think that Merkel and Cameron are paranoid morons themselves. What both have done, though, is spoken out in such a way as to make the paranoid morons amongst their core political supporters think that they continue to represent their views, while at the same time attempting to make political capital out of the paranoid fears that certain sections of their populations have regarding extremism and terrorism.Quote:
Originally Posted by markabilly
I'm not too sure how many people on this thread haven't read the Prime Ministers speech but somehow I think they outnumber the people who have.
If not, it's strange that people seem to be lumping Islam (the religion) and Islamic Extremism (a Political ideology) together.
DC said several times that people too often seem to mix up the 2 as has been demonstrated on these boards.
Does anyone disagree with this?Quote:
Islam is a religion observed peacefully and devoutly by over a billion people. Islamist extremism is a political ideology supported by a minority.
Or-
Or we have the others that cannot read before commenting about Cameron not mentioning the far right.Quote:
They think whether someone is an extremist is dependent on how much they observe their religion. So, they talk about moderate Muslims as if all devout Muslims must be extremist. This is profoundly wrong. Someone can be a devout Muslim and not be an extremist. We need to be clear: Islamist extremism and Islam are not the same thing.
I wonder if the PM reads these boards after reading this next bit :DQuote:
There is so much muddled thinking about this whole issue. On the one hand, those on the hard right ignore this distinction between Islam and Islamist extremism, and just say that Islam and the West are irreconcilable – that there is a clash of civilizations. So, it follows: we should cut ourselves off from this religion, whether that is through forced repatriation, favoured by some fascists, or the banning of new mosques, as is suggested in some parts of Europe . These people fuel Islamophobia, and I completely reject their argument.
And, a lot has been said about this "active, muscular Liberalism" bit. Can anyone read the paragraph below and disagree with any of it? It seems logical to me. An asperation we should embrace. Not a clumsy statement as has been claimed.Quote:
The point is this: the ideology of extremism is the problem; Islam emphatically is not. Picking a fight with the latter will do nothing to help us to confront the former. On the other hand, there are those on the soft left who also ignore this distinction. They lump all Muslims together, compiling a list of grievances, and argue that if only governments addressed these grievances, the terrorism would stop
I'm not really a Cameron fan but I do like this speech. It's about time a Leader of the UK stood up and dared risk the ire of the limp left by actually talking about some of the basic issues we have rather than leave it to the messages of hate from the Far Right as Blair and Brown did. We are not going to put up with hate on either side and need to take on the preachers of hate whether they're in a Mosque or a EDL rally.Quote:
Now, second, we must build stronger societies and stronger identities at home. Frankly, we need a lot less of the passive tolerance of recent years and a much more active, muscular liberalism. A passively tolerant society says to its citizens, as long as you obey the law we will just leave you alone. It stands neutral between different values. But I believe a genuinely liberal country does much more; it believes in certain values and actively promotes them. Freedom of speech, freedom of worship, democracy, the rule of law, equal rights regardless of race, sex or sexuality. It says to its citizens, this is what defines us as a society: to belong here is to believe in these things.
Read the speech. Read the message it offers and take it as a whole rather than pick a line out of context and turn it for selfish reasons to suit a preconceived viewpoint.
http://www.number10.gov.uk/news/spee...nference-60293
skc, Cameron's speech only mentions what the far right thinks of Muslims. It does not mention the role the far right such as the EDL or BNP play in society and how they need to be confronted too, another byproduct of multiculturalism.
The speech wasn't about multiculturalism and extremism, it was about Muslims and the extremists within them. Any speech that claims to be about multiculturalism and extremism cannot only focus on one of the parties and ignore the other.
And if the speech was supposedly about terrorism, why ignore the one organised group of terrorists who have managed to kill members of the British armed forces on British soil in the past decade? Why not even mention the continuity IRA except in a historic context?
So if it fails to be balanced in its commentary on multiculturalism and on terrorism how could it be a good speech?
Throughout history, including the duration of WW2, the Japanese had been one of the most racist nations on earth, believing themselves to be the only decendence from God. I would be willing to bet the Japanese walked out because they thought they could gain more later by doing so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
Yes they were pushing specifically for an end to discrimination against ethnic Japanese in the US and particularly in California. It was naive of course, they should have realised that had the Western powers agreed to end racial discrimination the whole linchpin holding entire empires together would have collapsed. They would never have agreed in a million years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hondo
They are mentioned in passing and utterly rejected. I see this as the correct approach and not to bring focus and visibility to these people. They pray on peoples insecurities and this speech seeks to address those insecurities rather than skirting the issue as has been the traditional approach.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dylan H
We are all allowed to interperet the speech as we see fit but I saw the speech as an attempt to seperate the Muslim faith from extreemists that hijack it. At the moment, there is this view that there are good and bad muslims with not much in between. This is bollox. There are Muslims who follow a faith the same as Christians and Hindi's etc do. There are also preachers of hate and violence called the BNP, Al Queda, EDL etc on both sides. This speech is a bold attampt to clarify this and seek to marginalise the extremists in my opinionQuote:
The speech wasn't about multiculturalism and extremism, it was about Muslims and the extremists within them. Any speech that claims to be about multiculturalism and extremism cannot only focus on one of the parties and ignore the other.
CIRA :laugh: They have killed more of their own activists than anyone else. They are an outdated, outmoded criminal factions that has no clear direction, mandate or purpose. Yes, I agree that they are capable of attrocity but if they ever tried, they are so infiltrated with informers that it would be near impossible.Quote:
And if the speech was supposedly about terrorism, why ignore the one organised group of terrorists who have managed to kill members of the British armed forces on British soil in the past decade? Why not even mention the continuity IRA except in a historic context?
It cannot do everything or it would go on for hours. What it has done is send out a clear message about a serious current issue. It's not a panacea for all issues but a beginning to address what is a true threat to our society; ignorance.Quote:
So if it fails to be balanced in its commentary on multiculturalism and on terrorism how could it be a good speech?
The real problem is any time a politician says anything the media take soundbites out of it and make it into whatever fits their own agenda. I'm not saying Cameron was right, but you can only judge these things if you look at the source material yourself.
No matter what the detailed content of the speech was — and, yes, I have read it, and I still feel that it is badly-written and appallingly contradictory — it was trailed as the PM saying that multiculturalism has failed because that is how he and his advisors wanted it to be trailed. And this message is meaningless. In what sense has multiculturalism 'failed'?
It's failed man! It's bloody well failed!Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
To do what I'm not sure..... But it's FAILED!!!!!!!!!! :eek:
Lets see...Germany, U.K. and now.....France.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110210...20110210231042
omg---another "paranoid moron"? :eek: :eek:
three in Europe??
probably goes in the closet, uses make up to turn his neck red as in "redneck with firearm", and plays with his firearm...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110210...20110210231042
Quote:
"My answer is clearly yes, it is a failure," he said in a television interview when asked about the policy which advocates that host societies welcome and foster distinct cultural and religious immigrant groups.
"Of course we must all respect differences, but we do not want... a society where communities coexist side by side.
"If you come to France, you accept to melt into a single community, which is the national community, and if you do not want to accept that, you cannot be welcome in France,"
People even down yonder in Texas ain't even that backasss backward...............or maybe they better wise up?????
Yep, Europe is in for a rude awakening.