posted on Jul, 10 2011 @ 06:27 PM
I find it confusing that some suggest that (a) if it is allegedly 'just a bunch of hooligans' it isn't real and doesn't matter, or (b) that people
should be willing to get beat up, potentially wounded or killed over something trivial which is legal but the alleged hoods have an issue with.
Legally, there have been decades of organized and seemingly intentional events designed to create 'precedent' in the courts if possible, for the
sake of the future, at least in the states, by special interest groups particularly this one. Given this history I think it would be unusually (if not
intentionally) naive to suggest that 'seemingly independent' behavior might not be intentionally designed, at a privately larger level, to effect
change in more formal ways later down the road.
In terms of neighborhoods, no matter how 'unofficial' such regions might begin, the very fact that anybody thinks they exist could serve as
'leverage for their existence allegedly being precedent in the community' in the future, should the attempt to establish this officially come up.
Practically, it is hardly relevant whether a group(s) of people behaving in an organized manner like that are 'official'. The fact that they might
not be 'officially' endorsed or have a tax ID# is not going to keep them from harassing if not assaulting individuals, and it's not going to keep
that area from becoming more extreme in this regard all the time.
For those who are sure "informal hooligans acting in organized fashion" is trivial, or merely some armchair hate topic, there are plenty of areas in
urban cities including Los Angeles where I used to live where if you walk into an area wearing a red bandanna headband for example you're lucky not
to have a bullet in your head by the time you reach the other side of that neighborhood. This stuff isn't just stories or play, it's not
intellectual topics for the internet, gang behavior whether it is muslim or just ghetto is gang behavior. The UK has fewer guns but that merely makes
a little more effort required to harm someone, which in many cases such people desire anyway.
Those who suggest calling the police must live in a different world than I do. I have a very positive respect for most law enforcement officers but
their job is not to prevent every possible crime, it is to enforce a state of peace and investigate existing or previous crimes against that peace,
which means they are not going to babysit anybody through their walks through any neighborhood, since a) there aren't enough of them to do so and b)
no crime has occurred yet at that time, no matter how many might have, no matter how likely it is that it could happen again.
(Aside: This topic reminds me that in the states there was an issue some years back where the taxi drivers serving the airport, if they saw someone
with alcohol in their cab (even unopened such as a bottle of wine, I heard, I do not recall all the specific facts here), as a group began acting
against them for violating sharia law: they would literally just stop and throw the person out, leaving them in the middle of who knows where
(potentially very dangerous in New York) with their luggage on the side of the road.)
It helps to recognize history, since few human experiences outside the internet and stem cell research are truly unique to our era. There were
"informal unofficial allegedly just some random groups of hoods" operating in an organized fashion in this country in the late 1800s, some not all
of whom were part of what became an organization that still exists, the Ku Klux Klan. A little history for you, Ida B. Wells-Barnett (a white woman)
was a newspaper reporter who campaigned extensively against the behavior--and the bogus logics provided as rationalization which often allowed
it--until she had to move from the South for her safety, but thanks mostly to her efforts, eventually laws were passed prohibiting a variety of
'social elements' which by then were well known to intentionally provide the environment for the assault/murder of people who were black.
One has to look not just at the end result but at the "cumulative" effect such behaviors have on communities, on youth, etc. Unfortunately, in any
group of humans with decent nutrition and not too much media brainwashing, it would also eventually cause a backlash, which becomes organized, and
then you have gang wars and turf territories and it just gets worse. The larger issue is not about Islam it is about the willingness of any country to
allow immigrants to change from positive contributions who integrate into society, vs. 'cells' which grow, will not integrate, and then attempt to
subvert the rest of society instead. If this were biology instead of sociology, I think you could see the analogy pretty clearly.
It's unfortunate enough to think that a person could be assaulted for carrying a beverage, but this also implies that women could be assaulted for
not wearing a veil, or two people assaulted because a man was walking with a woman. People (including on this thread) can make it sound as if there is
some kind of higher moral culture involved with prohibiting the issues listed such as drinking/smoking/gambling, but first off, the part about men and
women is a bit outside the drinking/smoking/gambling category for the rest of the world.
And secondly -- most importantly -- you have to look at the whole reasoning here. If this is all because of Sharia law, then don't think, if such
neighborhood 'unofficial areas' become more established, that the list of crimes a person can be assaulted for is going to be limited to that list.
If it were truly Sharia law, there are quite a few other elements that would be involved and several more that could be.