The truths you can't tell in today's Britain

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9088381/you-cant-say-that/

Rod Liddle: The truths you can't tell in today's Britain

Politicians used to have to apologise when they lied. Now it's the opposite


http://cdn.spectator.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Spect_Britain_Redacted.jpg


My memory gets addled sometimes, so maybe I’m wrong about this. But didn’t it used to be the case that when politicians were caught out lying, they made some sort of shame-faced apology to the nation and begged for our forgiveness? I’m sure that was it, you know. So if I’m right, to judge by the case of our Attorney General, Dominic Grieve, things have turned precisely 180 degrees. Mr Grieve has just offered a full and unqualified apology for having told the truth. I thought that politicians were meant to do that — tell the truth?

And what an apology. In an interview with the Daily Telegraph, Mr Grieve said the following: ‘We have minority communities in this country which come from backgrounds where corruption is endemic. It is something as politicians we have to wake up to.’ Asked by the interviewer if he meant the Pakistani community in particular, Mr Grieve said that he did. Although he added that the whole blame should not be laid at the door of any single community. Cue, then, a fugue of idiocy which eventually led to the absurd apology.

First, Grieve’s party colleague, the MEP Sajjad H. Karim, said that the comments were ‘deeply offensive’ and — remarkably — ‘not based on fact’, then the rest weighed in. Mr Karim is either an idiot or deluded, as we shall see. And so, after only a few hours, Mr Grieve said a really big ‘sorry’. Here is his apology — you can cut it out and keep it if you wish, as it’s full of asinine genuflections to the hysteria of the mob and therefore a model of its kind: ‘Mr Grieve said he was wrong to give the impression that there was a problem in the Pakistani community. In a statement, he said: “It is not my view. I believe the Pakistani community has enriched this country a great deal as I know full well from my extensive contact with the community over a number of years. I’m sorry if I have caused any offence.”’

Lordy. Let’s deal with the facts first. Do Pakistanis come from backgrounds where corruption is endemic? Yes, they do. Pakistan is one of the most corrupt nations on earth, coming 139th on Transparency International’s list of the world’s most corrupt countries (the higher the number, the more corrupt, by the way). An Al Jazeera report into Pakistan this year began with the words: ‘Paying bribes is part of everyday life for many Pakistanis, with even passport applications affected.’

As for the Pakistani community over here, a report in May this year by the Electoral Commission on voter fraud (to which Grieve was specifically referring) said the following: ‘There are strongly held views, based in particular on reported first-hand experience by some campaigners and elected representatives in particular, that electoral fraud is more likely to be committed by or in support of candidates standing for election in areas which are largely or predominately populated by some South Asian communities, specifically those with roots in parts of Pakistan or Bangladesh.’

The Electoral Commission went on to say that not all corruption could be laid at the door of British people of Pakistani descent. But still, there have been criminal convictions of British Pakistanis recently in both Slough and Derby for voter fraud; I am not aware of any convictions against white British people for voter fraud. Clearly, incontestably, there is a problem within the Pakistani (and Bangladeshi) communities. This does not mean that all Pakistanis are corrupt, or that they are evil people; it means simply, as Dominic Grieve originally put it, that there is a problem within the community. You know this, the Attorney General knows this and Mr Karim should know this too.

So, why the apology? An apology for telling the truth — a truth which, incidentally, had already been stated by his own colleague, Baroness Warsi, a couple of years ago: she made the point that there was a problem within British Asian communities of voter fraud. Even this, mind, is a slight evasion, of course: there is no problem of voter fraud within the British Japanese, or British Chinese or British Indian communities. Just the Pakistanis and Bangladeshis, really.

There are truths that you can say in British society and then there are truths that you can’t say. And poor Dominic Grieve — who, as Attorney General, should have had a bit more spine — gave voice to one of the truths you can’t say. There are many, many, truths about our ethnic minority communities which you can’t say and if you do say them you have to apologise and then spew out something egregiously platitudinous about how greatly the Pakistani immigrants have enriched all of our lives, in a very real sense, just as the hapless Grieve was forced to do.

If you are a politician, or a senior public figure, you will be forced to apologise if you give voice to a worry about, say, the incidences of mental infirmity occasioned among infants as a consequence of British-Pakistanis procreating with their own cousins (two-thirds of Pakistani mothers in Bradford, for example, are related to the father of their child). Go on, raise that in Parliament and see what fury envelops you — and yet our health authorities know all about it, even if it’s not something they talk about too often, or indeed ever.


http://cdn.spectator.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Iran-380x252.jpg
‘I see you’re one of those modern wishy-washy moderates.’


And it was only very recently that anyone has been able to talk frankly about young white girls being abused at the hands of Asian gangs. Merely to give voice to this clear and present problem was to leave yourself open to that massed ovine bleat of raaaaaacccisst — that you were somehow ‘demonising’ one community, playing the race card and so on. This happened to Ann Cryer, who ten years ago tried to raise the alarm when she was Labour MP for Keighley: most of the predators grooming underage girls, she said, came from the Mirpur district of Kashmir. The ensuing outrage warned off anyone minded to make similar observations. We know that the police and social services in Burnley and Oldham and Blackpool and Blackburn and Oxford were reluctant to act for years and years as a consequence of this very fear. And the silence meant that the problem was ignored, while the list of victims lengthened.

So, there are things you can’t say and things that you can say and sometimes they are almost the very same thing. For example, if you look at our crime statistics you will see that certain ethnic minorities — particularly people from an African-Caribbean background — are hugely over-represented in our prisons. Now, you can say that, but only if you then go on to make the point that the British criminal justice system is therefore institutionally racist and that all of our races in this glorious and happy rainbow nation commit exactly the same amount of crime proportionally, it’s just that the police and the judges are racist. Even if every other indicator tells you that this is an absurd thing to suggest. The result? No one asks proper questions about what’s going wrong.

Or take the education statistics. It is perfectly OK to point out that young black boys do pretty badly in our education system, with low levels of exam achievement and high levels of exclusion, if you then go on to make the point that the education system is weighted against them for racial reasons, because the teachers and the government and society is raaacccisst. But not if you suggest that there is a wider problem which somehow makes young black boys unwilling to learn.

And yet institutional racism is the one reason it simply cannot be that black boys do badly in school; black girls do just fine. Chinese pupils get better GCSEs than anyone; next it’s Indian children. Bangladeshi pupils do better than white British pupils and black male pupils do worse than anyone — so it can’t be racism holding black kids back, but something else. But venture as to what that might be and you will be entering a world of pain. Do so as a politician and your career will be pretty much over — unless, like Diane Abbott, you are a black politician.

So no serious debate takes place about why black children do so badly in our schools. But there are hundreds more things which you can’t say, if you’re a politician, and which are palpably true — not all of them concerning ethnic minorities, even if race is the one issue which will bring down the walls of Hell on your head.

Are single mums a good thing? Do we want more of them? Are children happier with young, teenage, single mums, do they achieve, do they have wonderful lives? Y’know, I have my doubts about that — but say that, as a politician, and watch the fury descend. Especially if you mention race or culture. Just one in ten Asian children live in lone parent families. A quarter of white children do, and just over half of black children. Good luck to any politician who opens a national debate on the implications of this. Far safer to let the problem fester — or just tell the world how brilliant black mums are, without mentioning the absent dads at all.

Is there something within the religion or ideology of Islam which somehow encourages, or merely facilitates, extremist Muslim maniacs to maim or kill non-Muslims? I think there probably is. But you can’t say that; when a terrorist atrocity occurs you must say ‘this has nothing at all to do with Islam’, even though that may be untrue, and a convenient evasion.

Do you think sex-change operations should be available on the National Health? Watch yourself, bigot. You think not all rapes are as bad as each other, even if you accept that all rapes are vile? When Kenneth Clarke was Justice Secretary, he once dared to suggest that there is a difference between ‘serious rape’ and sex between consenting but underage teenagers. The outrage came almost as fast as his apologies.

I am very glad that Britain’s community of people of Pakistani descent have ‘enriched’ the life of our Dominic Grieve; I’m sure they wouldn’t sleep easy were this not the case. But when even the Attorney General cannot state a simple truth, in the hope that we might tackle a problem which needs tackling, are we not in a bizarre and dangerous place? Our politicians are collectively terrified of these issues; and so the issues are never properly addressed. They are skirted around, or ignored. And when they are mentioned at all, the grovelling apology is already being formed on the lips.

Brave article by Mr. Liddle and one of the best articles I have ever read.

[Kardan]

Is there something within the religion or ideology of Islam which somehow encourages, or merely facilitates, extremist Muslim maniacs to maim or kill non-Muslims? I think there probably is.

Everytime I read something like that, I just counter with 'And I guess there's something in the bible that encourages Christians to sexually abuse young children'.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Everytime I read something like that, I just counter with 'And I guess there's something in the bible that encourages Christians to sexually abuse young children'.

That's because your the kind of person he's talking about where your ideology is so warped and your world view so upside down that you cannot understand or even open your eyes to the clear difference between Islam and Christianity. To even compare the two just so you don't appear 'judgemental' or 'islamophobic' is an insult to the intelligence.

Even when the facts stare you in the face you still sit there and pretend X is the same as Y when it clearly isn't. Even the comic Michael Palin made the observation a few days ago that Islam cannot take criticism/humour like other religions can - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2530920/You-parody-Islam-says-Palin-Monty-Python-star-believes-religious-sensitivities-increased-impossible-make-Life-Brian-today.html Left-wing thinker Christopher Hitchens (who attacked all religion) also made the same observation when he was alive.

Somebody with a rational mind would look at the Salmon Rushie and Geert Wilders threats and say, yes - Islam does have serious problems concerning violence and intolerance so let's talk about those. But not you though, no, instead you bury your head and respond with absurd comments about how Christianity must take the same criticisms as Islam even though it's not Christianity that behaves in such a manner as Islam does when criticised.

In terms of child abuse, yes Christianity does have a big problem with child abuse - there's no doubt. But then so does Islam as the article points out. The problem with Islam is the violence and fundementalism that Christianity does not have to the nearly the same extent. So stop pretending.

[Kardan]

That's because your the kind of person he's talking about where your ideology is so warped and your world view so upside down that you cannot understand or even open your eyes to the clear difference between Islam and Christianity. To even compare the two just so you don't appear 'judgemental' or 'islamophobic' is an insult to the intelligence.

Even when the facts stare you in the face you still sit there and pretend X is the same as Y when it clearly isn't. Even the comic Michael Palin made the observation a few days ago that Islam cannot take criticism/humour like other religions can - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2530920/You-parody-Islam-says-Palin-Monty-Python-star-believes-religious-sensitivities-increased-impossible-make-Life-Brian-today.html Left-wing thinker Christopher Hitchens (who attacked all religion) also made the same observation when he was alive.

Somebody with a rational mind would look at the Salmon Rushie and Geert Wilders threats and say, yes - Islam does have serious problems so let's talk about those. But not you though, no, instead you bury your head and respond with absurd comments about how Christianity must take the same criticisms as Islam even though it's not Christianity that behaves in such a manner as Islam does when criticised.

In terms of child abuse, yes Christianity does have a big problem with child abuse - there's no doubt. But then so does Islam as the article points out. The problem with Islam is the violence and fundementalism that Christianity does not have to the nearly the same extent. So stop pretending.

"Hi Islam, we've noticed that you encourage people to kill everyone else. Please sort this out, yours faithfully, - all other religions"

"P.S, please ignore the tons of Christians we keep sending to invade your various countries including the many drone attacks"

At the end of the day, all religions are as bad as each other - the world would certainly be better without them all.

[GommeInc]

I would say it is an insult to intelligence to conclude that Islam is a hateful religion and Christianity is a religion filled with love. Neither are clean cut, and you can't help but side with the atheists who just sit on the fence laughing at the hypocrisy organised religion has to offer.

[-:Undertaker:-]

"Hi Islam, we've noticed that you encourage people to kill everyone else. Please sort this out, yours faithfully, - all other religions"

"P.S, please ignore the tons of Christians we keep sending to invade your various countries including the many drone attacks"

At the end of the day, all religions are as bad as each other - the world would certainly be better without them all.

Except that drone attacks aren't religiously motivated and our state isn't driven by religion anymore - the west stopped having state affairs directed by the Church hundreds of years ago, Islamic countries still haven't broken that link. Hence the Islamic Republic of Iran and Kingdom of Saudi Arabia whereby their foreign policy is still largely based on religious divides.

This again is the kind of stupid, grasping at straws response we get when parts of Islam are criticised.


I would say it is an insult to intelligence to conclude that Islam is a hateful religion and Christianity is a religion filled with love. Neither are clean cut, and you can't help but side with the atheists who just sit on the fence laughing at the hypocrisy organised religion has to offer.

I didn't say that nor did Rod Liddle.

I'm saying that it is clear and rational to say that Islam has very deep problems which are not on the same level as the problems that Christianity or any other religion faces. We've got to get past this mind numbing mantra whereby because parts of Islam are bad and need rectifying, we must drag all the other religions into the debate when they're simply not on that same level.

Just look at Islamic attitudes towards gays and women. Not on the same level as say Christianity or Hinduism.

[GommeInc]

I didn't say that nor did Rod Liddle.

I'm saying that it is clear and rational to say that Islam has very deep problems which are not on the same level as the problems that Christianity or any other religion faces. We've got to get past this mind numbing mantra whereby because parts of Islam are bad and need rectifying, we must drag all the other religions into the debate when they're simply not on that same level.

Just look at Islamic attitudes towards gays and women. Not on the same level as Islam.
Good, because it would be unwise.

I wouldn't say it is unusual to bring in all religions - comparisons are a part of how humans logically criticise human behaviour. Christianity is incredibly flawed as it is littered with double-standards, while Islam isn't really that well known to the West, other than for what happens in the media - suicides etc. All the Muslims I have ever met are kind, I am yet to meet one of these evil Muslims. Islam seems like what Christianity was centuries ago - afraid of anything different and willing to kill if changes are even thought about. The only main differences are numbers and technology which have made it easier for messages to get across.

[Kardan]

Just look at Islamic attitudes towards gays and women. Not on the same level as say Christianity or Hinduism.

Indeed, some Islamic views are stronger than other views from other religions - but what can you do?

Get a bunch of middle aged white men telling a whole religion that their religion is wrong and they just stop following beliefs that their ancestors have been following for years?

I don't understand what people from other religions hope to achieve with Islam. Let's say I accept your views on Islam, that it has "very deep problems" - Now what? What happens next to Islam?

[The Don]

Just look at Islamic attitudes towards gays and women. Not on the same level as Islam.

Lol, American evangelical Christians were behind the "kill the gays" bill in Uganda (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/04/world/africa/04uganda.html?_r=0), does that mean all Christians are bad? It's almost as if there are bad and good people all over the world, and following all sorts of religions. 1.6-2 Billion people should not be judged due to the actions of a small minority.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Good, because it would be unwise.

I wouldn't say it is unusual to bring in all religions - comparisons are a part of how humans logically criticise human behaviour. Christianity is incredibly flawed as it is littered with double-standards, while Islam isn't really that well known to the West, other than for what happens in the media - suicides etc. All the Muslims I have ever met are kind, I am yet to meet one of these evil Muslims. Islam seems like what Christianity was centuries ago - afraid of anything different and willing to kill if changes are even thought about. The only main differences are numbers and technology which have made it easier for messages to get across.

And the bolded part is my exact point. That's all i'm arguing.


Lol, American evangelical Christians were behind the "kill the gays" bill in Uganda, does that mean all Christians are bad?

That's a tiny minority. Unlike...


It's almost as if there are bad and good people all over the world, and following all sorts of religions. 1.6-2 Billion people should not be judged due to the actions of a small minority.

A small minority? So are you here today arguing here with me that the majority of muslims look kindly on homosexuality and are against the death penalty/imprisonment for homosexual acts? yes/no

[GommeInc]

And the bolded part is my exact point. That's all i'm arguing.
Then you must be clearer ;) Christianity is still getting used to women taking high positions in the church, and being open to the public. It's getting there but it has still got a few dated views.

[Kardan]

Lol, American evangelical Christians were behind the "kill the gays" bill in Uganda (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/04/world/africa/04uganda.html?_r=0), does that mean all Christians are bad? It's almost as if there are bad and good people all over the world, and following all sorts of religions. 1.6-2 Billion people should not be judged due to the actions of a small minority.

There's not much point making that point to Dan, since he said that a large proportion of Romanians are criminals :P

[The Don]

And the bolded part is my exact point. That's all i'm arguing.



That's a tiny minority. Unlike...



A small minority? So are you here today arguing here with me that the majority of muslims look kindly on homosexuality and are against the death penalty/imprisonment for homosexual acts? yes/no

You seem to misunderstand the point of my comparison. It was merely to show that you shouldn't judge an entire group of people due to the actions of a few.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Indeed, some Islamic views are stronger than other views from other religions - but what can you do?

Get a bunch of middle aged white men telling a whole religion that their religion is wrong and they just stop following beliefs that their ancestors have been following for years?

Well isn't that what Christians in the west who hold very liberal views on homosexuality but say might oppose gay marriage get told?


I don't understand what people from other religions hope to achieve with Islam. Let's say I accept your views on Islam, that it has "very deep problems" - Now what? What happens next to Islam?

That's all I wanted, the acceptance that they're not on the same level and that we stop pretending they are when it comes to extremism, violence, women's rights or gay rights. My major concern goes to Islamic immigration into western countries - the question being, do we want Islamic precepts here on homosexuality and women's rights? Because if we do, then we have to accept that it's going to turn into a very different country than the one it is now.

It's the same question the high-profile (and gay) Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn asked about the future of the Netherlands in terms of it's religious demography - ultimately he lost his life (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pim_Fortuyn) for asking those questions.


You seem to misunderstand the point of my comparison. It was merely to show that you shouldn't judge an entire group of people due to the actions of a few.

I understood it very well and refuted it because it's a void comparison.


There's not much point making that point to Dan, since he said that a large proportion of Romanians are criminals :P

Quote me on that with a link and if I have accidently said all Romanians are criminals then i'll apologise and gift you with a +rep. If not and if you are referring to me pointing out that most ATM crimes in London are done by Romanian nationals (a fact) then i'd kindly ask you to take that accusation back and not twist my words in future.

[Inseriousity.]

White working class boys are at the bottom of the league tables, just to point out. As a white working class boy myself though, it is of course dangerous to start tarring everyone with the same brush. Liddle's article argues that there is something in the culture that enables this but is too lazy to point out what that actually is. For example, voter fraud amongst Pakistani communities. Is it possible that this is down to a good sense of community and supporting one another in these communities while white communities continue to disassociate themselves from their neighbours and isn't it this sense of community that you yourself support? Just food for thought as to how a negative consequence may actually be caused by something that we would class as a positive.

[The Don]

I understood it very well and refuted it because it's a void comparison.

Please explain to me how it's void? Are you suggesting a majority of muslims are violent/intolerant?

[-:Undertaker:-]

White working class boys are at the bottom of the league tables, just to point out. As a white working class boy myself though, it is of course dangerous to start tarring everyone with the same brush. Liddle's article argues that there is something in the culture that enables this but is too lazy to point out what that actually is. For example, voter fraud amongst Pakistani communities. Is it possible that this is down to a good sense of community and supporting one another in these communities while white communities continue to disassociate themselves from their neighbours and isn't it this sense of community that you yourself support? Just food for thought as to how a negative consequence may actually be caused by something that we would class as a positive.

Do I support vote rigging in the name of community spirit (if you want to convince yourself thats what it is)? Errrrrrrrr no.


Please explain to me how it's void? Are you suggesting a majority of muslims are violent/intolerant?

I'd certainly suggest the large majority of muslims are intolerant towards homosexuality, yeah.

In terms of violence, not that all or most support violence no - but there's certainly a large school of thought in Islam which does support public acts of violence such as the issuing of Fatwas, public whippings, public displays of punishment and so on.

[Ardemax]

I would say it is an insult to intelligence to conclude that Islam is a hateful religion and Christianity is a religion filled with love. Neither are clean cut, and you can't help but side with the atheists who just sit on the fence laughing at the hypocrisy organised religion has to offer.

Please tell me of such atheists who 'sit on the fence', as I've never seen one :P


Then you must be clearer ;) Christianity is still getting used to women taking high positions in the church, and being open to the public. It's getting there but it has still got a few dated views.

If we're going to point out dated views then surely Islamic views must be quite high up there? No disrespect intended, but the West is the safest part of the world to live in for a reason :).

[Kardan]

Well isn't that what Christians in the west who hold very liberal views on homosexuality but say might oppose gay marriage get told?



That's all I wanted, the acceptance that they're not on the same level and that we stop pretending they are when it comes to extremism, violence, women's rights or gay rights. My major concern goes to Islamic immigration into western countries - the question being, do we want Islamic precepts here on homosexuality and women's rights? Because if we do, then we have to accept that it's going to turn into a very different country than the one it is now.

It's the same question the high-profile (and gay) Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn asked about the future of the Netherlands in terms of it's religious demography - ultimately he lost his life (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pim_Fortuyn) for asking those questions.



I understood it very well and refuted it because it's a void comparison.



Quote me on that with a link and if I have accidently said all Romanians are criminals then i'll apologise and gift you with a +rep. If not and if you are referring to me pointing out that most ATM crimes in London are done by Romanian nationals (a fact) then i'd kindly ask you to take that accusation back and not twist my words in future.

No twisting.

http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=790399&p=8042886#post8042886


Based on the crime figures from the Met Police, a large proportion of the Romanians who are here are criminal yes.

[GommeInc]

Please tell me of such atheists who 'sit on the fence', as I've never seen one :P

If we're going to point out dated views then surely Islamic views must be quite high up there? No disrespect intended, but the West is the safest part of the world to live in for a reason :).
Loads of atheists laugh at religion. I meant literally like a nosey neighbour, not sit on the fence in a deciding sense, which would make them agnostic :P

Didn't say they were but I'd also disagree. There are many denominations to Islam. Completely blanketing Islam would be pretty stupid, as some are more liberal than others.

[Inseriousity.]

Community cohesion is something you support. If that community cohesion leads to deviant acts amongst a small minority, the general concept is something that you are in favour of. Of course, I'm not really convincing myself of anything. Liddle failed to do it in his article so offering some explanation of your own as to how the culture of this community increases the risk of voter fraud.

[-:Undertaker:-]

No twisting.

http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=790399&p=8042886#post8042886

Fair enough, I wrongly branished via bad typing all of the Romanians here criminals when that's obviously wrong and I take that back. +rep


Community cohesion is something you support. If that community cohesion leads to deviant acts amongst a small minority, the general concept is something that you are in favour of. Of course, I'm not really convincing myself of anything. Liddle failed to do it in his article so offering some explanation of your own as to how the culture of this community increases the risk of voter fraud.

Not sure really where you got this idea from seeing as i'm against multiculturalism and for the rule of law. Indeed if anything, doesn't (provided you are correct in what you assumed) this show the need for an end to multiculturalism and the need for full-scale integration of migrants which would lead to genuine community cohesion amongst the population and adherance to the rule of law of this land? I think so.

[The Don]

I'd certainly suggest the large majority of muslims are intolerant towards homosexuality, yeah.

Being intolerant isn't an issue unless people act on it, in fact, I personally think some of your opinions are fairly intolerant. People having a different opinion doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed into the country.


In terms of violence, not that all or most support violence no - but there's certainly a large school of thought in Islam which does support public acts of violence such as the issuing of Fatwas, public whippings, public displays of punishment and so on.

So you're agreeing that most muslims don't support violence which would suggest that perhaps it's not a problem with the religion, more so the fact that the religion is popular in predominantly third world countries where there tends to be more violence anyway.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Being intolerant isn't an issue unless people act on it, in fact, I personally think some of your opinions are fairly intolerant. People having a different opinion doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed into the country.

That'd be fine if everybody was a libertarian like me who may hold controversial personal views but who wouldn't ever dream of enforcing his or her moral standards on everybody else. But not everybody is like that, and libertarianism/classical liberalism is an alien concept to the Islamic world as well as much of the rest of the world. It's very much an anglosphere/Dutch/North-western Europe concept that has come from English Liberty.

And I do not want those values threatened or overturned.


So you're agreeing that most muslims don't support violence which would suggest that perhaps it's not a problem with the religion, more so the fact that the religion is popular in predominantly third world countries where there tends to be more violence anyway.

I'd argue that religion (including Islam) limits violence in the third world rather than encourages it - which is why it always makes me laugh when people somehow think I loathe Islam. I like Islam as a moral force for good, just I do not like certain parts of it.

[Ardemax]

Loads of atheists laugh at religion. I meant literally like a nosey neighbour, not sit on the fence in a deciding sense, which would make them agnostic :P

Didn't say they were but I'd also disagree. There are many denominations to Islam. Completely blanketing Islam would be pretty stupid, as some are more liberal than others.

Yeah that's what I meant - I mean there's not many atheists who don't bash religion and in some instances it is more annoying than religious debate.

Of course there are more liberal thinkers in Islam than people may at first assume, but I think we're kidding ourselves if we believe they even represent 1% of Islam. I don't wish to sound all Daily-Mail on here but I certainly wouldn't describe Islam as a 'liberal' and 'forward-thinking' religion (perhaps that is harsh, I think I'm more referring to the countries which adopt Islam as the state religion and what-not).

[The Don]

That'd be fine if everybody was a libertarian like me who may hold controversial personal views but who wouldn't ever dream of enforcing his or her moral standards on everybody else. But not everybody is like that, and libertarianism/classical liberalism is an alien concept to the Islamic world as well as much of the rest of the world. It's very much an anglosphere/Dutch/North-western Europe concept that has come from English Liberty.

And I do not want those values threatened or overturned.



But what about the ones that are tolerant? Why not deal with things on an individual basis rather than treating nearly 2 billion people identically?


I'd argue that religion (including Islam) limits violence in the third world rather than encourages it - which is why it always makes me laugh when people somehow think I loathe Islam. I like Islam as a moral force for good, just I do not like certain parts of it.

I agree. This would suggest that a problem lies with the countries more so than Islam. This is also a reason why many Muslims are emigrating to Western countries.

[-:Undertaker:-]

But what about the ones that are tolerant? Why not deal with things on an individual basis rather than treating nearly 2 billion people identically?

Then there's nothing wrong with the ones that are tolerant. If a muslim - or anybody - wants to come here, accepts this is a Christian country with Christian values and untouchable values such as English Liberty then fine, I haven't a problem. It's when we allow groups in who want to start changing our culture and laws to suit themselves, that's when I have a problem and that's why I am wary of mass immigration - especially mass immigration from Islamic countries which are so different in their culture to our own.


I agree. This would suggest that a problem lies with the countries more so than Islam. This is also a reason why many Muslims are emigrating to Western countries.

I agree. But that's not to say that Islam doesn't have deep and serious issues that other religions do not have on the same scale. That's all i'm getting at. Most of the wars in the Middle East for example - and which I always repeat on here and elsewhere - are caused by badly drawn borders over different religious and tribal groups. The Middle East would be a thousand times better and more peaceful if those borders were redrawn properly and it would starve the radicals of much support in those countries and war zones - especially in the Iraqi, Syrian and Saudi zones.

[Inseriousity.]

So bizarre. In one post calling for a full-scale integration then in the next saying you wouldn't impose your own moral standards on anyone else. There's hypocrisy here. Everyone needs to conform to some white British ideal or it's not a 'genuine' community cohesion. What rubbish. No community is crime-free, not one.

[-:Undertaker:-]

So bizarre. In one post calling for a full-scale integration then in the next saying you wouldn't impose your own moral standards on anyone else. There's hypocrisy here. Everyone needs to conform to some white British ideal or it's not a 'genuine' community cohesion. What rubbish. No community is crime-free, not one.

I wouldn't impose my own moral standards such as my views on sexual morality on anybody else because that's in the western liberal and present British cultural tradition - there's no place in the law for views on say homosexuality if you ask me. If you invite somebody over from the Middle East without any effort of having them integrate, then they'll still hold Middle Eastern values and outlooks on sexual morality where they DO think that the state should have a say in sexuality morality/homosexuality. See the problem arising? Do we want that problem to arise? If not, then newcomers should be encouraged and have to integrate with the host country & culture.

Not everybody who comes to a country will share the same views, not everybody who lives in a country shares the same views. BUT there are certain cultural outlooks and cultural traits that we all share and which newcomers should share which make us a nation. Language, accents, clothing, our food, our drink culture, English liberty and so on and so forth. Without those, we cease to be a nation.

[Inseriousity.]

Language yes. Accents, err yeah that's just dumb. "Sorry mate, can't speak with that Indian accent, please speak Brummie or Cockney or Scouser or Geordie etc." Clothing, to a certain extent although I would say that this would be imposing moral authority especially if said item of clothing has any religious significance (a crucifix or a hijab), our food and drink is surely enhanced with the input of the different cultures (chinese, italian, indian etc), English liberty yes.

I suppose that's the problem with trying to impose one culture. What defines that culture would vary from person to person.

[FlyingJesus]

Language, accents, clothing, our food, our drink culture, English liberty and so on and so forth. Without those, we cease to be a nation.

Would you then suggest that a Brummie transvestite who dines mostly on tagines and drinks only sparkling water is not really English? On one hand you're saying that you don't want to impose on what a person's choices are and on the other are saying that only certain choices are "right" and others should be discouraged

[Vodafone]

At the end of the day, all religions are as bad as each other - the world would certainly be better without them all.

Yer, Shintoism is so bad man.

[karter]

Is there something within the religion or ideology of Islam which somehow encourages, or merely facilitates, extremist Muslim maniacs to maim or kill non-Muslims?

Yeah there is. The concept of 'Kafir' and the practice of 'Tafkir' which majority of Islamic institutions use to label non Islamic believers as infidels. The word is mentioned in the Quran but is misinterpreted. That's why in Shari'a law, a Muslim can testify against a non-Muslim but not vice versa not to mention the fact that Sunnis and Shias have internal problems where both groups insist that the other is kafir. Islam is extremly intolerant when it comes to religious conversions and apostasy means death in most of the Middle East countries.

The Quran says men are maintainers of women and women should be obedient towards their husbands, one of the verses also hints at men beating their wives if they disobey them.

In short, Islam is not the religion of peace but neither is any religion. Islam and its extremely violent nature comes into mind only when you look at the middle east countries. Majority of South and South East Asian countries have peaceful muslim communities.

Christianity/Hinduism/Buddhism ain't so innocent either and there are a lot of examples of how these aren't exactly religions of peace as well

[-:Undertaker:-]

Language yes. Accents, err yeah that's just dumb. "Sorry mate, can't speak with that Indian accent, please speak Brummie or Cockney or Scouser or Geordie etc." Clothing, to a certain extent although I would say that this would be imposing moral authority especially if said item of clothing has any religious significance (a crucifix or a hijab), our food and drink is surely enhanced with the input of the different cultures (chinese, italian, indian etc), English liberty yes.

I suppose that's the problem with trying to impose one culture. What defines that culture would vary from person to person.

But I haven't argued for domestic laws to impose a culture at all. Integration with the host nation happens naturally provided that immigration is limited to such numbers that immigrants have no choice but to integrate with the people around them otherwise they simply won't get by. If you allow the numbers coming in that we currently have, then it makes integration near impossible as there's then no desire to integrate with the local community and thus you end up with isolated ghettos springing up. Britons in areas of Spain are also guilty of this.

Is that a good thing? Is that what we want? Whether we do or not, we should first be consulted to give our consent.


Would you then suggest that a Brummie transvestite who dines mostly on tagines and drinks only sparkling water is not really English? On one hand you're saying that you don't want to impose on what a person's choices are and on the other are saying that only certain choices are "right" and others should be discouraged

There's on a personal level and on a nation level as you know very well. Most stereotypes about countries hold up because we with all stereotypes there's truth to them - that's the shared culture level, something/values/traits that nearly everybody in a country will have. On the other hand there's personal traits which on the whole don't matter.

Point is, we can see what is happening around this country with multiculturalism and areas becoming increasingly divided. In parts of Yorkshire for example, all I can hear around me are foreign languages on the bus and shopping. What kind of a community can be built and how can integration take place when we have such numbers of migrants in a town/city that you might aswell be in Warsaw, Sofia or Basra? It can't.

The only way to make integration happen naturally is to control the borders and drastically cut immigration. Then we won't have silly gimmicks from politicians (including UKIP in the past) such as the banning of the burka which is a gross overstep of the state. But again, as the areas where people live increasingly feel alien - policies like that are beginning to appeal to people because nothing else is being done.

Just came across this brill piece in Telegraph, worth a read if anyone is interested.


Non-Economic Costs of Immigration-Robert Henderson

1. The colonisation of parts of the UK, especially in England, for example, much of inner London, Leicester, Birmingham and Bradford by immigrants who create separate worlds in which to live with next to no attempt at integration. This makes living in such areas for native Britons very problematic, because not only will they feel they are a minority in their own land, a severe psychological burden, those native Britons who are parents will have a very real concern that the state schools (where the large majority of British pupils are educated) in their area will be Towers of Babel in which their children will be neglected, taught more of the cultures of immigrants than their own culture and quite probably bullied simply for being native Britons. The poorer native Britons in such areas will often not have the option of moving – as white liberals frequently do – to an area where there are few immigrants because of the cost of moving, especially the cost of housing. It is also much more difficult for someone in an unskilled or low-skilled occupation to find such work in areas without a large immigrant component.

2. The damaging effect on the morale of the native British population of seeing parts of their country colonised with the connivance of their elites.

3. The damaging effect on the morale of the native British population of employers and politicians claiming that immigrants are more able and possessed of a superior work ethic than the native Briton.

4. Immigrant Ghettoes. Their formation is a natural tendency amongst immigrants which was given a great deal of added energy by the British elite’s adoption of multiculturalism in the 1970s. This was both a consequence of the Left-Liberal internationalist terminally naïve happy-clappy “we are all one big human family” ideology and an attempt to ameliorate when it became clear that assimilation/integration had not taken place amongst the black and Asian immigrants of the fifties and sixties after several generations had been born in Britain. The effect has been to create long-lasting ghettoes which are not only separate from the British mainstream but hostile to Britain, its native population and its culture

5. Censorship. The need by the British elite to suppress dissent amongst the native population at the invasion of their country has resulted in a gross diminution of free speech. They have done this through legislation, for example, the Race Relations Act 1976, Public Order Act 1986 and the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000; by creating a willingness amongst the police to intimidate by pouncing with the greatest zeal on those who dare to be any other than rigidly politically correct in the matter of race and immigration (this done frequently with no intention of bringing charges because no law on the statute book will fit the pc “crime” but simply to frighten), and through the complicity of those in the media and employers (especially public sector and large private employers) to punish the politically incorrect heretics with media hate campaigns or the loss of jobs.

6. Double standards in law enforcement. As mentioned above, the police and the Crown Prosecution Service show great eagerness in investigating and prosecuting cases when a white person (especially a white Briton) is accused of being racist on the flimsiest of evidence and a remarkable sloth where someone from a racial or ethnic minority group has been blatantly racist. The case of Rhea Page is an especially fine example of the latter behaviour whereby a vicious indubitably racist attack by Somali girls on a white English girl and her boyfriend did not result in a custodial sentence (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new... The strong reluctance of the British state to act against crimes specific to ethnic and racial minorities can be particularly seen in the case of “honour killings”, Female Genital Mutilation and the clearly racist grooming of white girls by men from the Indian sub-continent.

7. The general privileging racial and ethnic minorities over the native British population. The incontinent pandering to immigrant cultures, especially Muslims, by politicians, public service organisations, large private businesses and much of the mainstream media. The pandering ranges from such material advantages as housing associations which cater only for specific ethnic and racial minorities (http://englandcalling.wordpres... and a toleration of customs and morals which would be unreservedly declared to be wrong if practised by the native population, for example, the ritual slaughter of animals.

8. The incessant pc propagandising in schools and universities, even in subjects which do not seem to readily lend themselves to pc manipulation such as economics and geography. The most pernicious effect of this ideological corruption of schooling is to effectively rob native British (and especially English) children of their history. This occurs because the general history of Britain (and especially that of England) is not taught (there is no meaningful chronology of British or any other history delivered to children because themes rather than periods are the order of the day) and the history which is covered is heavily slanted towards portraying the British as pantomime villains forever oppressing subject peoples and growing rich on the wealth extracted from them. The upshot is the creation of several generations of native British (and especially English) children who have (1) no meaningful understanding of their history and general culture and (2) have acquired a sense that any praise of or pride in their own land, culture and history is dangerous and that the only safe way to get through school is to repeat the politically correct mantras of their teachers.

9. The piggy –backing on “anti-discrimination” laws to do with race of the other politically correct mainstays of sexual and gender equality and lesser entrants to the equality game such as age and disability. Racism is undoubtedly the most potent of all pc voodoo words and without it the present gigantic edifice of the “diversity and equality” religion would in all probability not exist, or would at least exist in much less potent form.

10. The claustrophobia of diversity (http://englandcalling.wordpres.... A sense of paranoid claustrophobia (something common to totalitarian states) has been created amongst the native British population by the suppression of dissent about mass immigration and its consequences, by the imposition of the multiculturalist creed and by the ceaseless extolling of the “joy of diversity” by white liberals who take great care to live well insulated against the “joy”. The effect of this claustrophobia is to generally reduce the native British population to an ersatz acceptance of the pc message, but the discontent every now and then bubbles over into public outbursts such as those of Emma West (http://englandcalling.wordpres.... Such outbursts, which are a basic form of political protest, are increasingly visited with criminal charges and jail sentences.

11. The enemy within. The creation of large communities of those who are ethnically and racially different from the native British in Britain produces de facto fifth columns. We are already seeing how countries such as India and China respond to any attempt to restrict future immigration for these countries by making veiled threats about what will happen if Britain does this. At a less direct level of foreign threat, British foreign policy is increasingly shaped by the fact that there are large ethnic and racial minorities in Britain. There is also the growing numbers, especially amongst Muslims in Britain, of those who are actively hostile to the very idea of Britain and are willing to resort to extreme violence to express their hatred, actions such as the 7/7 bombings in London and the recent murder of the soldier Lee Rigby.

12. Violence based on ethnicity and behaviours peculiar to immigrant groups such as “honour” killings”, street gangs and riots. Every self-initiated British riot since 1945, that is a riot started by rioters not violence in response to police action against a crowd of demonstrators, has its roots in immigration. The Notting Hill riots of 1958 were the white response to large scale Caribbean immigration; every riot in Britain since then has been instigated and led by blacks or Asians from the Indian Sub-Continent. This includes the riots of 2011 in England which the politically correct British media have tried desperately to present as a riot which in its personnel was representative of modern England. In fact, it began with the shooting of a mixed race man in North London by police and even the official statistics on the race and ethnicity of those convicted of crimes in the riots show that blacks and Asians comprised more than fifty percent of those brought to book (http://englandcalling.wordpres....

13. Uncontrolled immigration. The larger the number of immigrants, the louder voice they have, the greater the electoral power. This in practice means ever more immigration as politicians pander to immigrant groups by allowing them to bring in their relatives or even simply more from their ethnic group. This trait has been amplified by the British political elite signing treaties since 1945 which obligate Britain to take large numbers of asylum seekers and give hundreds of millions of people in Europe the right to reside and work in Britain through Britain’s membership of the EU. Britain cannot even deport illegal immigrants with any ease because either the originating countries will not take them or British courts grant them rights to remain because of Britain’s membership of the European Convention of Human Rights. The overall effect is to create de facto open borders immigration to the UK.

14. The introduction of ethnic based voting. This is phenomenon which is in its infancy as a serious threat, but it can already be found in areas with a large population of Asians whose ancestral land is the India sub continent. This is a recipe for eventual racial and ethnic strife.

15. The corruption of the British electoral system. Voter fraud had been rare in Britain for more than a hundred years before the Blair Government was formed in 1997. This was partly because of the general culture of the country and partly because of the way elections were conducted (with the vast majority of votes having to be cast in person) made fraudulent voting difficult. The scope for postal voting was extended from special cases such as the disabled and the old to any elector by the Representation of the People Act 2000. The frauds which have been discovered since the extension of the postal vote have been disproportionately amongst Asians whose ancestral origin were in the Indian sub-continent

[FlyingJesus]

There's on a personal level and on a nation level as you know very well. Most stereotypes about countries hold up because we with all stereotypes there's truth to them - that's the shared culture level, something/values/traits that nearly everybody in a country will have. On the other hand there's personal traits which on the whole don't matter.

So at what number do people suddenly stop being a personal difference and become CULTURE DESTROYING TERRORISTS because quite frankly subculture has influenced mainstream culture ever since the beginning of metropolitan life and there really is no one shared culture at all - what you're describing is majority rule, argumentum ad populum, which is all sorts of problematic


Point is, we can see what is happening around this country with multiculturalism and areas becoming increasingly divided. In parts of Yorkshire for example, all I can hear around me are foreign languages on the bus and shopping. What kind of a community can be built and how can integration take place when we have such numbers of migrants in a town/city that you might aswell be in Warsaw, Sofia or Basra? It can't.

You only hear the foreign languages because you don't understand them - it's a simple case of the unknown being more apparent than the norm. There will be just as much English babble (most likely more since Yorkshire is definitely not a minority white county) but you tune that out by no conscious effort of your own because it's just background noise to people who've been around English speakers all their lives. Human beings are instinctively built to be inquisitive and over-perceptive when it comes to the unknown in case it represents a threat: we turn and look when there's a loud noise or a flash of light or even just someone with a really bad haircut, and anything outside of the norm takes precedence in our minds over everything else around that's 100% what we always expected it to be. Believing that Britain is being taken over because there are some people who don't look and sound like you is just a case of not actually paying attention to anything other than base impulses.

[GommeInc]

The Quran says men are maintainers of women and women should be obedient towards their husbands, one of the verses also hints at men beating their wives if they disobey them.
Is that where the belief that women should wear a veil to cover their bodies comes from, or at least supports? I remember hearing somewhere that there is no proof that the burka, nijab etc is in the Qu'ran, but it would make sense for them to exist as a modern creation to support an ancient belief or practice.

[FlyingJesus]

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
Ephesians 5:22-24


The Bible has the same teachings as the Qu'ran, they're pretty much the same book. Neither of these things means that all of any religious group are evil. Except Buddhists, those guys will kill you as soon as look at you

[GommeInc]

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
Ephesians 5:22-24


The Bible has the same teachings as the Qu'ran, they're pretty much the same book. Neither of these things means that all of any religious group are evil. Except Buddhists, those guys will kill you as soon as look at you
I hate that verse, it's so poorly written. It starts reasonably well, then changes topic to the church then back to women in a way which suggests men can be sinful and disobedient. It opens itself up to easy criticism. That said, it is the active part of the Bible which nuns abide by - presumably why nuns wear habits to show they are servants of God and (linking back to) the burka and other items of clothing in other religions and cultures. I've never understood where the burka comes from and presumably it was a creation of culture than a creation of religious text.

[FlyingJesus]

Not sure if or where it shows up in the Qu'ran because I'm not nearly as well versed in that as I am in the Bible, but:


But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
1 Corinthians 11:3-6

[The Don]

Is that where the belief that women should wear a veil to cover their bodies comes from, or at least supports? I remember hearing somewhere that there is no proof that the burka, nijab etc is in the Qu'ran, but it would make sense for them to exist as a modern creation to support an ancient belief or practice.

I believe that it's more due to the culture rather than the Qu'ran explicitly telling them to wear it, however, I have not read the Qu'ran so I can't verify it 100% but loads of different sources seem to agree that it's not in there.

[Inseriousity.]

I remember someone saying it was a practical thing to protect from bad weather but I can't remember where I heard this lol so could just be ********

[GommeInc]

Not sure if or where it shows up in the Qu'ran because I'm not nearly as well versed in that as I am in the Bible, but:


But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
1 Corinthians 11:3-6
I should call you Dorothy Branning :P So that backs up the existence of the habit for nuns. Are there many Christian denominations that require members to cover up their hair whilst in Church? It could be a now dead practice like many aspects of Christianity (in this country at least).


I believe that it's more due to the culture rather than the Qu'ran explicitly telling them to wear it, however, I have not read the Qu'ran so I can't verify it 100% but loads of different sources seem to agree that it's not in there.
I'm of that belief, too. However, I'm sure I read a report somewhere (or some terrible news media website) that in countries with a Muslim majority they do not actively wear the burka et al because they are with people of the same faith and are not at risk from those who do not follow Islam. But that may just be an assumption or a bold belief with little substance :P

[FlyingJesus]

It's usually explained away (in Christianity) as either a cultural norm being presented in the letters to Corinthians which John whacked in for no reason, a posthumous addition that someone else wrote into the texts as a means of exerting control again as a cultural norm, or as is most commonly accepted as a reference to women having long hair and men having short hair - another cultural norm, just one we haven't grown out of totally and therefore isn't seen as a problem despite it still having little to no practical value :P

[karter]

Definitely nothing about burqas and hijabs anywhere in the Quran.
Turkey has a ban on headscarves even though the country's population is almost all Muslims