Victory in Britain!! Prime Minister says multiculturalism has failed

double post

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

I have muslim friends in glasgow where i live , and even they think that the way islam is right now in the world isnt fair on women!
Saying that none of them are actually practicing muslims by faith , as they drink and take drugs and dont pray at all. However their parents are muslims and they do practice their faith.

leave out the talk about brainwashing and goverment control ect ect. this thread is deffinately not about "Conspiracy theories" but real issues being faced by the english people including non natives and whites, blacks, browns, yellows, christians, muslims, sikhs and hundu's plus Any I have missed.

Multiculteralism has failed, I live a city and its a very mixed people but there is still asian areas where the main populance is Muslim, the sikhs and hindu's have intergrated in all areas of the city so why have the muslim communities not bothered. I have a lot of friends mainly sikh but some hindu and very few muslim even though I reckon the majority are muslim out of all the asian population (coincidence, no i dont think so) alot of non muslim asians voted BNP(or what ever they are called now cant remember) at the last votes (wonder why).

Why do they come here in vast numbers is it because they can live free do as they please with out religious bounderies but call on the bounderies when it suits them. Yes it is because england is so politically correct.

Political Correctness killed working multiculteralism the moment someone gets more rights and better treatment simply because they come from some where else or speak a different langauge or worship a different god problems are going to arise.

At the end of the day muslims seem to expect special treatment just for the fact they are muslim.

Dear Readers,
I am pretty sure someone else pointed this out already, but multiculturalism has nothing to do with religion, that being Islam according to the majority of the posters here.

Multiculturalism has not failed in the UK, it is one of the reasons the UK is the country it is today. Without the different ethnic groups coming to the UK during various periods of it's existance, the UK would not the same country it is today.

The prime minister is an arse and doesn't even know how to use the English language correctly. To define something correctly is the prime premise in this arguement. It has not been defined correctly, hence most of you are going off on complete tangents.

The issue he is trying to discuss is the problem with integration, at a religious and some would argue lawful level of a specific group of followers of the Islamic religion. Let’s get this straight and correct folks.

Yes there is a problem whereby some people refuse to integrate, refuse to accept that there is an accepted religion in the UK and an accepted language, that being English. They also refuse to abide by the law of the land and wish to live within the bubble of their religious and cultural beliefs.

The rest is just propaganda moronic drivel hogwash fear mongering hatred.

According to the Oxford dictionary: relating to or containing several cultural or ethnic groups within a society.

Edit - Regarding the OP, no S&F, this isn't a victory of any kind. It's just another example of how stupid the PM truly is.

Regards,
T

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

Who's idea was it to bring in overseas help when he was Health Secretary?

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)

How do you know what Cameron meant?
Are you a personal friend?
Has he confided in you on the meaning of his speech?
Thank you for forcing your enlightened opinion and claiming it fact, muchly appreciated.

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"

reply to post by Haydn_17


Dear Haydn_17,
I totally understand your point of view. As per my post a couple of posts above you didn't quite hit the nail right on the head with your use of terminology, that being said.. I would like to add just one thing:

If you think the UK has it bad you should go spend a little time in the South, South West, South East and Parisian areas. France has had it a lot worse for decades.

It's just an additional point, i'm not making this into a competition here. Just trying to add some measure so you can at the very least understand it is not solely a UK issue and the UK actually has it, currently, pretty good.

For the record the German PM or whatever she is made the exact same decleration a little while ago and again got the terminology completely wrong =)

Regards,
T

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 ,

Since when is being against the spread of Muslim Extremism and Sharia Law racist?

You need to take your head out of your ass and smell the coffee

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"

I have lived in Edgbaston, Selly park, Handsworth and Ladywood, I never recieved and racism towards me, but I witnessed plenty by white people towards ethnic communities.
I also never witnessed any racist graffiti towards whites, but there was plenty of "BNP",KKK, NF, and even the outdated "BM". That is how old some of this graffiti is, immigrants have recieved racism in the UK since day one, how were they supposed to intergrate?
Of course they stuck together, for safety against the ignorant, bigotted, racist natives.
If multi-culturalism has failed, we must shoulder some of the blame, if you don't want to accept, or even care if you are partly to blame, then you must have wanted it to fail.
If the latter is the case, look closely at yourself and ask what that makes you?

reply to post by NonKonphormist


I am disappointed that ignorance like this is applauded.

Cameron said that he will force liberal values on Muslims.

Awake and Aware said "nuh uh no he won't, he's not going to force right-wingers to be left-wingers"

Cameron did not say that, he said that he will force Muslims to observe Liberal values, i.e. freedom, rights, democracy.

I mean, did you even read the article in the OP? Cameron says outright that

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”

. Awake and Aware is plainly misinterpreting me when I say, correctly, that Cameron wants to force liberalism on Muslims.

reply to post by SmedleyBurlap

Cameron said that he will force liberal values on Muslims.

Thats the right thing to do. If liberal values are not enforced by law, liberty may quickly disappear.

Liberalism is a political current embracing several historical and present-day ideologies that claim defense of individual liberty as the purpose of government.

en.wikipedia.org...

But you apparently have no idea what liberty means in modern day politics as evidenced by your previous posts, so why am I even trying. Until you learn the profound difference between anarchy and liberty, we may as well agree to disagree. There is little freedom without laws.

"Absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power; political disorder."[3]

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by SmedleyBurlap

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?

No I dont see any contradiction. Just like violence can sometimes be defeated only with violence or resistance (defense), liberty must sometimes be protected by taking away the liberty of opressors to deny said liberty and rights. I dont know why you have such a problem with defending liberty and human rights even using violence if necessary. Would you also not defend yourself using force if personally assaulted by someone violent, just to not create a "contradiction"?

You cannot have both a state of liberty and a state of laws. If you have any laws, then liberty is lost.

Liberty level is not a "quantized", but continuous quality. Saying that there is either absolute liberty, even to harm others (or anarchy), or no liberty at all is a fallacious oversimplification of the issue. 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.

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.

If you are such a nihilist and moral relativist that you think suffering is not evil, I guess you really have to seek some help. Or do I have to just remind you of The Golden Rule again? Do you enjoy suffering? If not, why do you want others to suffer, or dont mind others suffering?

If you agree that suffering is evil, then ALL you need to arrive at objective western-world morality, human rights and standard liberal philosophy is The Golden Rule and Reason. That is all that is needed.

reply to post by Maslo


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. The only connection between law and liberty is when the government grants us privileges. The government cannot create or defend liberty, it can only issue permits, exemptions from law enforcement. You are permitted to speak freely, but only as long as you speak within the confines that you are permitted to speak in. You are permitted to associate freely, but not when you form associations that contradict the terms of your permit. If you want to live in a permission society, then so be it. 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.'

reply to post by Haydn_17


WOW! Congradualtions

It is nice to here a little good news once in a while.

reply to post by SmedleyBurlap

Where do you draw the line on how much liberty the citizens are allowed to exercise?

That is obvious - citizens should not have the liberty to harm others and infringe upon their rights. Your liberty ends where another persons liberty or rights begin.

How does one decide that there are enough laws?

When the above is met.

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?

When the regime starts to take away not only liberty to harm others, but also other liberties exercise of which does not damage anyone. Then the protection becomes oppression.

I am not opposed to law. I am opposed to law that falsely claims to be protecting liberties.

So what kind of law would truly protect liberties according to you? And what about other human rights?

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.'

I want to live in society that protects all freedoms except the freedom to harm others. What kind of society do you want to live?

reply to post by Maslo

So what kind of law would truly protect liberties according to you? And what about other human rights?

None. They can only protect permissions and privileges, which are issued by the law in the first place.

Your liberty ends where another persons liberty or rights begin.

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.

You want to live in a society in which liberty is always secondary to the vague principle of harm. 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? 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?

reply to post by SmedleyBurlap

This doesn't describe any legal society that has ever existed.

Yes, no society is perfect. But some societies are still closer and some farther from the ideal. So your point is?

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

These things harm others.

Denying holocaust and taking (at least soft) drugs should be legal.

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.

Yes, but law is also necessary for long-term liberty to exist. From my post above:

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?

That should be up to societal consensus, but I thing all except the most trivial forms of harm should be outlawed (if they are non-voluntary).

Is contact football allowed, or should everybody play touch football? Is wrestling allowed? What about playful fighting between siblings?

Of course we are talking about INVOLUNTARY harm. Voluntary harm, if the "victim" agrees with it is not harm and should be allowed.

Is smoking in a restaurant allowed?

I think it shouldnt be, or there should at least be two separated rooms for smokers and non-smokers. But I would also accept if it is left for the owner to decide, as long as nobody is forced to stay in bad environment.

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?

These are questions that require more debate and societal consensus, but they are border cases that do not represent too much problem for a society even when left undecided. Its still far better than the alternative you propose.

Exactly how free is a society that respects the harm principle above liberty itself?

It is free except for the cases of harm. For me its enough freedom.

Why do you take liberty as the absolute and sole quality for judging the rightness of societal systems? What makes it so more important than many other relevant qualities, like human rights, freedom from harm, safety, economic effectivity, level of science and education, quality of life, happiness of the people etc... Liberty is surely important, but why putting it sole on a pedestal and absolutely ignoring everything else? Not to mention that it is only liberty from the intrusion of the government you are talking about, while ignoring the fact that liberty can and is often limited even in total absence of government, by other people. That is not true liberty, too. True liberty is agnostic of whether it is restricted by other people or by the government.