Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Victory in Britain!! Prime Minister says multiculturalism has failed

page: 2
122
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 06:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Haydn_17
 


What about harassment of white people, do people in uk even consider stopping crimes against them, lol.

Double standard rubbish.




posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 06:15 AM
link   
I think it was proved to have failed decades ago. That the UK is now finally attempting to assert some kind of identity is no real surprise either.

I recon it might be way too late [& probably too little]... but it does make the assumption of there being something morally aspirational about being British, or English, a sense of Britishness, which I find odd as the UK is in fact somewhat divided now. It seems convenient to say 'British' when a moral need arises. It's also a little ironic.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 06:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by loagun
What????? People are getting mad that Muslims cannot practice hate groups in Britain? Is this what I read? Who in the right mind is siding with the allowance of Muslim extremest demonstrating hate within the boarders of other nations??


If anyone is calling this act racists, or bigotry then I have no idea what your idea of a perfect multicultural nation would be. Oh wait it's called Canada, and Muslim's aren't allowed to be terrorist here either.

Where are these people that are getting mad? Are they invisible?



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 06:25 AM
link   
This can only be a good thing.

I never really liked cameron but if he carries on this way he will make a great PM. I like the fact that if a group isn't promoting British values then it will lose funding.......goodbye faith schools!

05/02/2011 remember this day for it is a great one!

Peace.
ALS



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 06:26 AM
link   
a user wrote it in one of the first few post's from the first page....



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 06:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheOneElectric
Don't be completely inane, my good sir.

Multiculturalism is not the issue. Its the fact that a majority of the asian population segregates themselves from the normal society. Multiculturalism is about blending of culture and peoples. Living within close proximity to one another and segregating oneself from other groups is not multiculturalism.



To use the word Asian in your point is not quite right! Asian immigrants like Chinese, Vietnamese & Indian etc are some of the best immigrants we in Australia have had. I have met many who are Proud Aussies & have integrated into our society extremely well & I am proud to call them friends & countrymen!. This is about self imposed segregation by certain members of a certain religious group who see us as infidels! Saying Asian in general is not right!



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 06:30 AM
link   
Here


"Frankly, we need a lot less of the passive tolerance of recent years and much more active, muscular liberalism," the Prime Minister will say. While a "passively tolerant" society allows its citizens to do what they like, so long as they do not break the law, a genuinely liberal country "believes in certain values and actively promotes them," Mr Cameron will say. "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 these things. "Each of us in our own countries must be unambiguous and hard-nosed about this defence of our liberty.

is the exact quote.

It in not as some people think



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 06:31 AM
link   
reply to post by ALOSTSOUL
 


Yes let us shut them all down. Xtian, jew and moslem. Is that what you meant? or did you only want the moslems ones shut down?



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 06:33 AM
link   
Hate to burst the bubble but for the most part multiculturism does work in the UK. Having been born and currently living in the North of England we see a lot of people from varying ethnic backgrounds most of whom go about their daily lifes indistinguishable from the rest of the populace. And then we have London in the south which is a veritable hub of multiculturism.

Of course there are the minority that refuse to blend with our culture, however on the flip side there are a minority of Brits who resent the fact that ANY foreign nationals are here at all. These are the extremists of which you speak and I can tell you their arguements, for the most part, hold no weight over here outside of the right-wing scare media.


+1 more 
posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 06:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by cushycrux
Multiculturalism doesn't work and you applaud that? What did you win? Are you silly?!


Personally, i don't see any negative values attached to the realisation that 'multiculturalism' doesn't work.

I could have told them it wouldn't work when they introduced it back in the 70's/80's in the UK.

People are too colloquial, too bound by tradition and experience gained by living in their own particular cultural environment. They naturally wish to preserve their cultural identities, even if they are imported, somewhat watered down versions of the original.

To expect that the majority of immigrants would simply cast off a lifetime of culture and fashion a new one, to my mind, even as a child at the time, was never going to work, and was doomed to failure. Even Enoch Powell's Rivers of blood speech, although at the time was intended to be extremely graphic and inflammatory and eventually shown to be wide of the mark in terms of the levels of violence and friction caused by mass immigration and multiculturalism, the basic principle seems to have been correct - widely different cultures, feel embattled and rebel against moves to eradicate their own particular cultural traditions and views.

So, even then it was recognised by some, that this 'grand experiment' was doomed to failure.

To those that may be about to explode into reams of posts about 'racism and so on', don't. This has nothing to do with race, and everything to do with integration of races and their traditional cultural world views.

I for example do not have a problem with race at all. I look at it that we're all human beings, regardless of race, but that is a completely different thing in comparison to culture.

I was born in Great Britain during the 60's, and grew up here. I like my culture. I also have travelled around the world during my life, as have many members here, and have seen and experienced many cultures, which i view as being part of the rich tapestry of human life on this planet.

However, i have always been cognisant of the fact that human beings tend to stick with what is familiar, comfortable and what has worked for them down through their ancestoral generations. They do not readily accept dramatic changes that they see as a threat to this cultural heritage and actively reinvigorate their imported cultures and traditions.

As i say, i like my culture, and i enjoy experiencing other peoples cultures, but what i do not like, and what many people not just in Great Britain, but internationally don't appear to like either, is a hodge-potch, melding or bastardisation of every culture there is, into a single homogeneous lump - and expect people to embrace it as a kind of unifying culture which is neither the original, or new but has fragments and disjointed elements of all of them.

It just wasn't ever going to work.

People will always gravitate towards what they know, what they are comfortable with, and what they feel safe with.

This is why we have voluntary segregation of the various cultures and immigrant groups in Great Britain and elsewhere in the world.

A failure of cultural 'melding' is not the same thing as saying that different races have nothing in common, as that is plainly rubbish, we all have virtually everything in common...except culture and historical and ancestoral perspectives.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 06:56 AM
link   
great so now EVERYONE has less rights...
the multiculturism wasnt a problem, everyone should have the same rights,the rights of freemen, im 'british' but i wasnt born in britain, i was born on the earth, who drew these lines on land? i have the human right to go anywhere and do anything i want as long as i am peaceful.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 06:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by chocise
I think it was proved to have failed decades ago. That the UK is now finally attempting to assert some kind of identity is no real surprise either.

I recon it might be way too late [& probably too little]... but it does make the assumption of there being something morally aspirational about being British, or English, a sense of Britishness, which I find odd as the UK is in fact somewhat divided now. It seems convenient to say 'British' when a moral need arises. It's also a little ironic.


Not at all.

The four separate countries that go to make up Great Britain, may have their own parliaments and assemblies, but we all consider ourselves British, just as all the states in the US consider themselves American.

No irony at all.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 07:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Justinkase
great so now EVERYONE has less rights...
the multiculturism wasnt a problem, everyone should have the same rights,the rights of freemen, im 'british' but i wasnt born in britain, i was born on the earth, who drew these lines on land? i have the human right to go anywhere and do anything i want as long as i am peaceful.


You think?

This isn't about limiting peaceful rights, this is about making it clear to people, in no uncertain terms, that they do not have, nor ever had the 'right' to call for violent opposition to the people of Great Britain and it's government and representatives. It's about curtailing radical immigrant groups and their descendants from thinking it's an acceptable proposition to openly call for violent acts upon Britain and it's inhabitants.

It has nothing to do with getting rid of your rights to peaceful activities.

If you start calling for a Jihad or the assassination of people, then that is a criminal act and will be punished accordingly. Just as the same act would be punished if committed by a non-immigrant.

It's about crime and stirring up hate crime, not race.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 07:12 AM
link   
reply to post by spikey
 


I agree with a lot of what you say. It's only ironic [to me] in the sense one has a system/state asserting a set of moral values/judgments on its populace, when it's that same system/state which created the failure [within society] in the first place.
edit on 5-2-2011 by chocise because: typo



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 07:18 AM
link   
Alot of people have been saying this years but we fell in the racist catagory if we said it. Actions speak louder than words and at the end of the day, even those that dont and appose to 'respect British 'core values', theres nothing cameron can do without the EU overlords sayso.

Your move mr cameron.


Cameron: It's time to stop tolerating the Islamic extremists and get immigrants to respect British 'core values'


dailymail.co.uk



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 07:24 AM
link   
Wow, you guys just don't get what this is about do you?

This is not a 'victory' for anyone.

Cameron, though in what he is saying is pointing out what has been blatantly obvious to everyone for decades, is in fact stepping up the ante in the worldwide hatred of Islam.

The timing, to coincide with the protests across the Arab world is no coincidence.

Notice how he does not mention British Sikhs, Hindu's, Jews, Buddhists or any of the multitude of Christian sects? Why do you think this is?

This is a war on Islam, and Islam alone. He mentions nothing of any other cultures.

This speech is potentially the most dangerous ever spoken by a British Prime Minister. The backlash of such comments will cause otherwise reluctant potential extremeists in Britain to act - and when this happens it will cause a nationwide revolt against Britains Muslim population - moderate or not.

Cameron has just set the precident for a genocide in this country. He knows well and good that in order to gain popular support for a protectorate war on the Middle East, to save the interests of Israel, Britains must further distance themselves from the ideals of multiculturalism and embrace national (white) pride - he even flounced the term 'whites' several times flippantly during his speech.

You might be happy for now that Cameron is supporting the integration of Muslims, but let me assure you this will only serve to further disengage the Islamic population from British culture and we will see a rise in attacks of both 'white' on Muslims and vice versa.

Before you ask, I'm a natural British man and I don't see any good coming out of this at all. I think you should all look deeper into the language he is using before proclaiming Cameron has 'said what we were all thinking'. This will be the catalyst for many atrocities - and we now know where to place the blame. Not on Islam, but on the damning rhetoric of this bumblimg political 'leader'.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 07:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by chocise
reply to post by spikey
 


I agree with a lot of what you say. It's only ironic [to me] in the sense one has a system/state asserting a set of moral values/judgments on its populace, when it's that same system/state which created the failure [within society] in the first place.
edit on 5-2-2011 by chocise because: typo


I see what you're saying, but my opinion on it is that a government by itself, can only assert values and morals on it's populace as a guide, an ideal if you like.

It's up to the people themselves whether or not they accept and / or agree with those pronouncements really though isn't it?

The way i see it is this;

If i travel to any country on Earth, i would not only expect to be bound and obey the laws and customs of that country, even if i personally didn't agree with the moralistic sentiments behind those laws.

Effectively, the choice to visit or emigrate to the country would be mine to make, but on making the choice to visit, i am giving tacit consent to the country to abide by their particular laws regardless.

It would be illogical to go, and then complain that the laws they have for dropping litter are too harsh, or that i can be thrown in jail for XYZ, when XYZ is totally ignored in my home country. Not just illogical but arrogant in the extreme too.

The bottom line for me is that ultimately, it is the people of a country that make/change laws (for 'laws', read moral imperatives) and basically if i don't like the laws and customs of a particular country, and do not wish to be subjected or exposed to laws i have a real moral problem with, i don't go there. If those laws or morals happen to be in my own country, then there are many courses of action open to me, living in a democratic system, that i can utilise to attempt to repeal or change them, and violence isn't one of those legitimate courses of action.

I think we all forget too often that the people that make up governments and institutions are merely ordinary people too, and they more or less reflect the dynamic views and values of society to a large extent when making these moralistic pronouncements..not everyone of course, but generally the majority.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 07:39 AM
link   
This is just common sense breaking out. The specific words used 'multiculturalism has failed' is an attempt to boost Angela Merkal who got flak for saying the same thing last month.

Its re-aligning the govt rhetoric with the thoughts of the majority. Theres not going to be any persecution of people. What will happen is that those attempting to play both sides of the fence will be given short shrift from now on.

This is the safety valve lifting and its overdue. If mainstream politics doesn't address it other less savoury groups will.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 07:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by spikey

Not at all.

The four separate countries that go to make up Great Britain, may have their own parliaments and assemblies, but we all consider ourselves British, just as all the states in the US consider themselves American.


Surely you're not confusing a nation state with nation country? A Scot may claim as much right to be as 'British' as a Welshman, or an Englishman, but not in the same sense a citizen from say Georgia or one from Texas relate themselves to the Union, or Constitution: the relationship is entirely different.

It also just seems convenient to use the term 'British'. Not only has the UK fragmented into separate parliaments and assemblies, so asserting individual nationalistic traits, but it's been actively encouraged to do so. Excuse me, but it was that that I found particularly ironic.
edit on 5-2-2011 by chocise because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 07:52 AM
link   
I have lived in London my whole life and I am in the thick of it to say the least.

In my neighbourhood white people are the minority...

We have strong multiple cultures of African, Carribean, Jewish, Indian, Asian, Polish and British decent.

People from the outskirts of London would come here and have a massive culture shock.
Personally as a white man I love it here. I wouldnt have it any other way.

The mix of vibes is incredible. The diversity teaches me so much about other cultures and the psychology and sociology of cultures coming together and mixing it up.

Where i live is extreamly creative, we have an amazing level of talanted musicians, artists, poets and performers that meld together in a beautiful fusion of colors.

They say multiculturalism did not work but they have never spent a day in the thick of it... they observe it they do not experience it.





new topics

top topics



 
122
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join