It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by boroboy
The problem was/is they came to the UK but wanted to live as if they were in their own country ,their own laws and practices.A lot of the older people cannot or will not speak English and make no effort to integrate into society. I believe if the politicians had listened to Enoch Powell this might not have happened
Originally posted by SmedleyBurlap
reply to post by awake_and_aware
A serious question: Do you even know what David Cameron meant when he used the word liberal?
edit: I'll tell you - he meant 'of liberty' not 'left wing.'
Apparently British values include forcing people to be free. There's no contradiction here! Well, it's nothing new, really. The British have been forcing their enlightened values on the world for centuries.edit on 9-2-2011 by SmedleyBurlap because: (no reason given)edit on 9-2-2011 by SmedleyBurlap because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Doomzilla
reply to post by sonnny1
Sonny just so you know im white but i have no problem with all muslims , I know who my real enemy is .
These guys are closet racists , Im not racist , i dont judge on colour or religion etc , i judge people on the kindness of their heart .
Peace to you ,
Originally posted by Haydn_17
The problem is this, made simple enough.
When they move over here. They all move to one area, they set up shop and start building mosques, not 1 mosque but about 5 is right, they all live in one hub.
As a British citizen i found out when i was in Birmingham once minute i was in England, the next minute im in Pakistan.
Intergration is Immigrants living over a wide area, not just confined to one spot, these areas are dangerous for non muslims.
Try walk through Birmingham by yourself in one of these neighbourhoods.
I guarantee you will get a "What are you doing around here"
. Awake and Aware is plainly misinterpreting me when I say, correctly, that Cameron wants to force liberalism on Muslims.
To be British is to believe in freedom of speech and religion, democracy and equal rights regardless of race, sex or sexuality, he will say. Proclaiming a doctrine of “muscular liberalism”
Cameron said that he will force liberal values on Muslims.
Liberalism is a political current embracing several historical and present-day ideologies that claim defense of individual liberty as the purpose of government.
"Absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power; political disorder."
Therefore the dictatorship of the proletariat/tyranny of the majority must be established and freedom crushed, so that freedom can survive. Do you see the contradiction here?
You cannot have both a state of liberty and a state of laws. If you have any laws, then liberty is lost.
But oh, boo hoo, there is a victim. Shallow emotions get in the way of Liberty, a concept that comes to us only through Reason. Someone is suffering; therefore their liberty is more important than the person who is winning.
Where do you draw the line on how much liberty the citizens are allowed to exercise?
How does one decide that there are enough laws?
And, is the quality of freedom the same in (for example) the USA and USSR? Soviet citizens had liberties protected by the government against those who would take them away, as did the Americans. You say that liberty cannot be quantized, so, at what point does one cease to be free and instead find themselves living under a repressive regime, pretending to be a defender of liberty?
I am not opposed to law. I am opposed to law that falsely claims to be protecting liberties.
One ought to be specific and say that they want to live in a legalistic society of permits and paperwork, and not lie, saying that they live in a society that 'protects' 'freedom.'
None. They can only protect permissions and privileges, which are issued by the law in the first place.
So what kind of law would truly protect liberties according to you? And what about other human rights?
This doesn't describe any legal society that has ever existed. In supposedly Liberal (liberty-loving) countries like the UK and USA, it is still illegal to use drugs, to jaywalk, to shout in a quiet neighbourhood at night, to strut naked in the streets, to deny genocide, to burn leaves in your own backyard, to let your dog walk in the park without a leash, etc. There are hundreds, thousands of things that are not permitted, yet which cause no harm to anybody. I assume that you know this, and that your utopia is a world in which the law actually respects liberty. What I am telling you is that it is fundamentally incompatible with Liberty. Law in any form is one Authority imposing its decisions on everybody else. Law is oppressive by nature.
Your liberty ends where another persons liberty or rights begin.
This doesn't describe any legal society that has ever existed.
to jaywalk, to shout in a quiet neighbourhood at night, to strut naked in the streets, to burn leaves in your own backyard, to let your dog walk in the park without a leash
What I am telling you is that it is fundamentally incompatible with Liberty. Law in any form is one Authority imposing its decisions on everybody else. Law is oppressive by nature.
Sometimes you have to choose between long-term stable establishment which denies some liberties to a certain level (liberty to harm others), or establishment where there would be absolute liberty or anarchy as you write, but it would be volatile, short-term and unstable, potentially turning into a system that opresses liberties far more than variant number 1. Obviously from liberal standpoint, number one is more optimal choice.
How do you decide when something is too harmful to be permitted?
Is contact football allowed, or should everybody play touch football? Is wrestling allowed? What about playful fighting between siblings?
Is smoking in a restaurant allowed?
Is yelling at someone allowed? Is hurting someone's feelings allowed? When is it too much harm? Or, is it a matter of quality, not of quantity? What kind of harm is severe enough to be restricted? Physical harm? What about playful fighting between siblings? Emotional harm? What about people who call fat girls fat? Is bullying a severe enough crime, does it cause enough harm to be banned by law?
Exactly how free is a society that respects the harm principle above liberty itself?