BS: Multiculturalism

Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism
From: Folk Form # 1
Date: 06 Apr 08 - 12:21 AM

I agree that economics isn't the only thing that matters and I don't think that anyone here is being critical of immigrants or immigration. It is just the sheer scale of immigration that concerns some of us. If you have too many of them, then you simply wont have enough housing or jobs to go round. In other words, housing is difficult to get and rents go soaring up and wages come tumbling down. Everybody loses out. These are real problems that affect mostly the working classes, but not the middle or upper classes.

Just to make things clear, the indiginous English mostly affected do not necessarily have to be ethnically English, but can be from other ethnic backgrounds: Asian, Afro-Carribean, Irish, even Polish.

Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism
From: Big Phil
Date: 05 Apr 08 - 03:44 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism
From: Richard Bridge - PM
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 03:00 PM

Phil - apply brain before taking refuge in aphorisms.

Oh, sorry, forget, you can't.



Richard B

Aphorisms - a concise statement of a principle.

Yup, that's me, spot on, without a brain. Think what I would be like with a brain, on a parr with the government of the day I would imagine.

Phil*

Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 04 Apr 08 - 09:40 PM

200

Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Apr 08 - 05:28 PM

And that slide show has a pretty good soundtrack. I really advise people to have a look and listen. Puts some if the issues into better perspective.

Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Apr 08 - 05:12 PM

Here's a slide show from the part of London where that market I was talking about is situated - !000 Face of Walthamstow Not exactly segregated...

Economics aren't the only thing that matters. And people are the most important resource there is.

Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Apr 08 - 03:47 PM

"I don't think there is any shortage of ex-chancellors and ex-ministers who would disagree sharply with this bunch. "
This is not their opinion.
This is the result of an 8 month study.
No one has challenged the accuracy of their findings.

Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Apr 08 - 03:43 PM

And have you read the full report yourself, Giok? Here it is.

The title of this report is "The Economic Impact of Immigration" - and that's the rub. Economics is just one aspect of life, and shouldn't be treated as the supreme determinant of what is good or bad.

Immigration has changed England in many ways over the years and the centuries, and I value and recognise the changes it has brought in my own lifetime. I was walking through a London street market today, and it was a brilliant and rich environment, and that was because of the amazing mixture of people that were creating it.

If immigration does overall have a beneficial economic impact, that's a good thing. But even if it has an overall negative economic impact, I'd say it's well worth it. There are other ways of being rich and poor than just economically.

And I'm pretty sure I'd say the same even if I wasn't from an immigrant family myself.

Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 03 Apr 08 - 04:20 AM

Well as usual, the PC brigade have reacted to the headlines, and none of them have read the full report, but that never prevented the doctrinaire from opposing on the grounds of blind faith.

G

Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 10:00 PM

A little odd that a house of Lords Committee should take that tone: normally with the House of Lords the profit motive outweights xenophobia.

Is there a thread on teh mexican wall - the latest news I heard about it and the legislation permitting it further exposed, I thought, the fact that the Bush administration regards itself as above the rule of law?

Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism
From: Riginslinger
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 09:29 PM

"Lots of talk about building walls."


                   Well, at least they're going ahead with the Mexican wall!

Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 08:21 PM

Two ex chancellors and a clutch of ex ministers.

That's supposed to indicate they are necessarily competent and authoritative? I don't think there is any shortage of ex-chancellors and ex-ministers who would disagree sharply with this bunch.

Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism
From: Stringsinger
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 06:36 PM

I think that sensitivity toward cultures other than one's own is rare these days. If
the U.S. had known more about the culture of the Mid-East, we might have had a different
outcome to the terrible foreign policy we have now.

I think that criticism of other cultures may be warranted if balanced by the good attributes
of that culture. Unfortunately, criticism is overshadowed by xenophobia.

Lots of talk about building walls.

Stringsinger

Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 04:44 AM

Well I was surprised that the other thread was deleted, it was a valid thread, and it concerned an actual published report.
Or can we not discuss such matters?
I did laugh at the Gadarene rush to rubbish the conclusions, by the politically left wing 'right on' PC brigade :)

G

Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 02:34 AM

Two ex chancellors and a clutch of ex ministers.
Seniors of all 3 parties.

Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 05:32 PM

"High level" implies more than is in fact justified in this case. Most especially in regard to Lord Wakeham of Enron, who chaired this committee.

Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism
From: GUEST,PMB
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 04:25 AM

Quick point: immigration is not the same as multiculturalism. Keep the distinction clear.

Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 03:26 AM

This was always a Capitalist ploy to drive down wages and living standards.

The first of the PC myths exposed?......Next!

You probably won't agree Keith, but nice to see you again...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 03:06 AM

A report by a high level committee concludes that there is little or no economic benefit from immigration.
Immigration especially damages the prospects of the young and low paid.
The only groups who benefit are employers (biggest employer is government), and the immigrants themselves.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7322825.stm

Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 03:00 PM

Phil - apply brain before taking refuge in aphorisms.

Oh, sorry, forget, you can't.

Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism
From: Big Phil
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 02:49 PM

Richard B.

There are three degrees of comparisons, it is said in lying. There are lies, there are outrageous lies, and there are statistics. ...

So much for the Governments "statistics" on any subject regarding multiculturism, or on any subject, come to that.

Big Phil

Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism
From: Riginslinger
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 09:27 AM

Why would anybody listen to him?

Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism
From: GUEST,Richard Bridge elsewhere on the network
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 03:32 AM

The Archbish (the titular head of the Anglican communion worldwide, lest you forget) is said to be aghast at the reaction, including from Muslim leaders and commentators, to his suggestion.

Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 08 Feb 08 - 01:39 PM

No, it's not the same as an arbitration, since it is based on a system of rights that is wholly different from the law of the land.

An arbitrator decides in accordance with the law of the land. So does an expert determinator.

Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism
From: GUEST,PMB
Date: 08 Feb 08 - 11:56 AM

Not at all Richard. It's only the same as agreeing to binding arbitration by any other arbiter. It's already done by Jews- voluntarily. If someone doesn't like the outcome, their remedy is the same as any other arbitration- the civil courts. Criminal cases are not covered, and anyway no one is forced to take part if they don't want to.

The problem is people being forced to participate- that can't happen in the case of the Beth Din, and would be illegal. If people refuse the authority of the Beth Din, the community can retaliate by cutting off relationships with the offender, but nothing more. A quick google leads to the conclusion that in such cases, nothing much happens, and (in the case of divorce) cases can drag on, pointlessly, for years. Any comments Rabbbi Sol?

Sharia law conducted under such a regime would be unobjectionable- it would also help to curb some of the wilder excesses, in that the courts would have sufficient status to come under public scrutiny.

There's nothing to stop the Pastafarians setting up their own Canneloni Courts if they want to.

But as for sharia law being legally recognised in any wider sense, that's a non- starter. If the AB of C meant that, he's an idiot, and if he meant the voluntary courts, he can't express himself. Either way, it's disturbing that he has a free seat in the Lords.

Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 08 Feb 08 - 10:13 AM

But the point is that in the religious courts people are deprived of rights the secular state has confirmed. That is unacceptable.

Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism
From: Mr Happy
Date: 08 Feb 08 - 08:46 AM

.......& more here:http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=g_TiqoEw4sQ

Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism
From: GUEST,PMB
Date: 08 Feb 08 - 08:34 AM

It wasn't exactly rural in Salford in the fifties. Or the forties, or anytime back to about 1830. Some bits of the 50s were better- fewer cars, better public transport, more cohesive local communities, local shops, secure jobs, less urban sprawl, you could see the stars at night, the chip shops were better, people talked in local dialects. Others were worse. Cold houses even when they weren't damp, smoke and smog, crowded and insanitary slums, authoritarian and paternalistic attitudes, poor educational prospects for most people, rigid class attitudes, sometimes more limited outlooks and more widespread ignorance.


Back on the sharia law bit: it's been pointed out that Jews have settled disputes over property and divorces for many years via the Beth Din. Sharia courts could do that without any need for state intervention; in the UK they have the status of an agreed arbitrator. In other countries, I understand the USA is one, they also have a certain legal status. Generally they work very well, but a quick google shows this is not always so. The court was annexed by a maverick rabbi in Victoria, Aus, and was run as an arbitrary fiefdom for over 20 years.

This could prove a problem in Britain, as there is no universally recognised Muslim representative, and little prospect of one given the diverse traditions represented here.

Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism
From: Mr Happy
Date: 08 Feb 08 - 07:09 AM

Like this http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=dhxJt-KbV-Y ?

Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism
From: GUEST,Saltz
Date: 08 Feb 08 - 06:48 AM

Ever watch one of those old black and white movies made in Britain in the 1950´s. A peaceful rural land.

Open door policy as ruined this country.

Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism
From: GUEST,PMB
Date: 08 Feb 08 - 03:36 AM

Any group of people has the right to agree to a contractual arrangement whereby they submit to arbitration by a third party. This in no way contradicts British law, though an aggrieved party could go to a civil court to pursue the case, and perhaps to sue the arbitrator. If a party refuses to accept the arbitrator's decision, the remedy is again through the civil courts, who may uphold the decision or not.

Similarly, polygamy is no different from the informal secular arrangements made by many thousands of people in regard to non- legal marital partnerships, though for most peoiple that may mean serial monogamy. The individuals involved again are subject to civil law.

If, however, a group conceals a crime by mutual consent, there can be no such agreement, and all parties concerned can be charged with perverting the course of justice.

Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 08 Feb 08 - 03:27 AM

We seem to be getting closer to each other Dianavan.

And into this mess our Archbishop of Canterbury has thrown a bomb by proposing a larger role for Sharia law and Sharia courts in Britain. Trevor Phillips (former head of Council for Racial Equality, currently a proponent of even-handed rather than factional multiculturalism) seemed to me to demolish the idea on ysterday's Channel 4 (that's UK Channel 4) news. The idea could bear adversely on women's divorce entitlements, it seems to me.

The Beth Din already has a role in persuading those who believe in its religious authority to "agree" to its judgments. I believe the idea has a larger role in Canada.

Pretty worrying for secularists.

Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 10:15 PM

R.B. - I'm saying that individuals may argue that they are expempt from laws and on the basis of religious or cultural beliefs but that does not mean that all of the religion or the cultural seek a change in the law. Most realize they can keep what they like and leave the rest. Thats the benefit of living in a multicultural society.

I think different sets of laws for different people are wrong. We should begin by examining Jewish divorce courts and sects that encourage polygamy. It not right to turn a blind eye on some cultural or religious practices and to target others. Its either the law or its not.

Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism
From: Riginslinger
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 04:00 PM

And there could be a sleeper cell near you...

Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism
From: pdq
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 12:00 PM

Yes, the number mentioned is probable low.

No, they do not walk across the US border and immediately star throwing bombs.

They form sleeper cells and wait until theur actions can do the most damage.

Thanks, Keith A of Hertford. We are the #1 target of Islamic terrorists (that is, in the future) and there are more here than in the UK.

Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 08:21 AM

Dianavan - agreed with much of your last post, except for this bit: -

"Most of these claims for special consideration have to do with individuals, not entire cultures. Most people from other cultures understand this."

I thought you were arguing that people did not seek special relief from national laws on cultural or religious grounds. Plainly they do.

Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 05:33 AM

15000 terrorists?
What proportion might you expect to be caught, charged and put up for trial already?
Say 3%
From 9/11 to March last year, we had over 500 here.
That would be about right for 15000.
Would you expect USA to attract less?
What our ones were doing before being caught was planning, acquiring information and resources, gaining more converts, establishing networks, keeping a low profile...
Find full stats. here.
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/security/terrorism-and-the-law/

Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 04:24 AM

"Dianavan, you need to address the facts on religious and cultural clams for "special consideration".

The "claims for special consideration" that you have posted should be considered and rejected as illegal, for the most part. Eventually, it will be clear that most laws are there for a good reason (health, safety, etc.) Those from other cultures will realize that they can retain most of their cultural values but not all of them. They must also integrate into the norms and ideals of the existing society. It can be done.

Multiculturalism does not mean that you can keep all of your previous cultural norms. All people must abide by the laws of the country in which they reside. If they don't think the laws are fair, they can attempt to change them through legislation or the charter of rights and freedom or any other mechanism. By highlighting the plight of individuals, the media does nothing to promote harmony between people. Most of these claims for special consideration have to do with individuals, not entire cultures.

Most people from other cultures understand this. If not, immigration officials should make it very clear that they are expected to abide by the laws of their new country.

Believe me, there are plenty of men out there who have discovered that in North America you are not allowed to batter women and children. But, of course, North American men need to learn this as well.

btw - It isn't only immigrants who want their religious customs to be honoured. Religious zealots are making unreasonable demands all the time. Aren't there special divorce courts for Jews? Aren't there polygamous sects and child brides in N.A.? Catholics are constantly trying to impose their right to life ideology. This is not strictly an immigrant issue or a cultural issue. Its really a religious issue. Religious rights end where the law begins.

Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 03:45 AM

15,000 Islamic terrrorists? From the lack of news about things going bang, what are they all doing all day? Does this make you suspect that your data may be flawed?

Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism
From: Riginslinger
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 09:22 PM

At the end of the day, I just don't see any way they are going to get around the need to identify folks, and be able to determine who is, and who shouldn't be, in the country.

Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism
From: pdq
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 07:10 PM

"The US needs to find a better way to do this. "

There will be a new way in the near future. Homeland Security is designing a national ID card with more security features built in than anything else in the world.

Liberals will, of course, call Bush a Nazi and attack anyone who supports this concept, but is coming and it is needed.

Mr. Bridge:

There are at least 15,000 Islamic terrorist now living in the US who came across the border with Mexico. People of Arab descent don't look much different to border guards the the average Mexican. Ever look a a picture of Saddam Hussein?

Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism
From: Riginslinger
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 06:42 PM

Richard - I think one of the problems stem from the use of individual state driver's licenses for ID. The US needs to find a better way to do this.

Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 06:29 PM

Rig, I accept that that may be an issue in the USA, but I don't thnk that driving licences being used by terrorists as if they were ID cards is the point - the thrust of the current administration is that terrorists are Arabic Muslims. Most of your illegal immigrants are from Latin America (and I guess, Catholics), so refusing illegal immigrants driving licences makes no contribution of significance to "the war on terror".

It is more likely to save lives if immigrants take driving lessons and driving tests.

But I agree with you about capitalism.

Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism
From: Riginslinger
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 02:39 PM

Seems like they'd get it right, doesn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 02:33 PM

USA      driver's license

UK       driving licence

Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism
From: Riginslinger
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 12:17 PM

Richard - I was only presenting the history of why driver's licenses have become such a focus of attention. There is not any effort to paint Hispanics as terrorists.

                   There are two major issues here: (1) The US doesn't have any national ID card, so individual state driver's licenses are being used in lieu of that. (2) Major corporate powers are perfectly happy to have people at each other's throats as they compete for jobs in the American economy. The legal vs. illegal divide works very well for them.

Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism
From: pdq
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 12:10 PM

"Is there a law that says only U.S. citizens can apply for a driver's license?"

Yes, but this is usually considered a states rights issue.

It becomes a federal issue when the illegal alien uses a drivers license to register to vote in a federal election. Some states allow people receiving a new drivers license to register right then, in the DMV office.

There are also "civil rights" laws now that prevent anyone from asking what a person's immigration status is, even the police cannot even ask. Certainly the DMV people can't. Besides, all DMV agents who meet the public in the seven southwestern states are required to be fluent in Spanish and are quite happy to help their fellow Spanish-speakers any way they can.

Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 11:46 AM

Sorry Riginslinger, I don't believe you have cause and effect clear. Most of your illegal immigrants are hispanic, and not from the same groupings as most terrorists.

Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism
From: Riginslinger
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 08:59 AM

The driver's license debate has nothing to do with punishing anyone. It stems from the reality of the 9/11 hijackers using driver's licenses for ID to board airliners.
                There are other problems as well. If one passes a written test in Spanish, it doesn't help othe people on the road when all of the road signs are in English.
                The ID issue is the real problem though, it leads to bogus SS cards, and other inroads to American society normally requiring citizenship.

Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism
From: GUEST,My British child bride
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 08:54 AM

Revealed: the child brides who are forced to marry in Britain


Amelia Hill explores the scandal of ceremonies that lead to marital rape and slavery for girls as young as 12

Sunday February 22, 2004
The Observer


Ayse was 14 when she was smuggled into Britain and forced to marry her cousin. Family members turned out in large numbers to welcome her at the illegal ceremony in a north London public hall.
'They kept whispering in my ear to ask why I wasn't smiling,' recalls Ayse, now 20 and living in a refuge in east London. 'I told them I was terrified and desperate, that I was just a child and far too young to get married. I pleaded with them to help me escape, but no one saw anything wrong in what was happening. I begged my husband not to marry me, but he told me I had no choice.'


Article continues

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Despite being two years below the British age of consent, Ayse was moved into her cousin's family home, where she lived openly as his wife in the local Kurdish Turkish community.
'I was all alone in a foreign country, unable to speak the language,' she said. 'I was trapped. Until I escaped, I didn't even realise that marrying at 14 wasn't legal in Britain: everyone I knew in London regarded it as normal.'

In the two years before she reached 16, the sex Ayse was coerced into having with her cousin was statutory rape. 'It was disgusting, awful,' she said. 'I used to scream and cry all night. I was too young, too tender. It killed me inside. Life became meaningless.'

Ayse's new family refused her permission to continue school and kept her a virtual prisoner in their home. During her four-and-a-half year marriage, Ayse was treated as a servant by her new family and prevented from speaking to anyone outside their immediate circle.

As she matured, Ayse became increasingly desperate and, after twice attempting suicide, found the courage to climb through a window and flee.

'I knew the cost escaping would have on my life. I now live in fear of being tracked down and killed by my husband's family. I have been rejected by my family back home and by the Kurdish community here. As a young girl, I could not face the thought of how my life would be if I escaped. But once I became a woman, I developed the strength to take that step.'

Authorities have long battled to stop the traffic in underage British girls taken back to their country of origin to be married off by their parents. But an Observer investigation has discovered that a growing number are now being married without leaving Britain. The ceremonies are known as community marriages.

'They're happening and numbers are growing,' said Peter Cripps, head of the Community Safety Unit at Shoreditch police station in east London. The Metropolitan Police is one of the few forces to admit that such marriages take place on its territory.

'I'd say we were at the stage with community marriages now that we were at with honour killings six years ago. That is, the idea is so horrible and incredible most people don't accept they're happening. Six years ago, honour killings were barely even talked about, but now the police are getting convictions. Basically, we're waiting for community marriages to hit the news the same way, then we expect a flurry of cases.'

Community marriages are held in accordance with the religious laws of many south Asian, Turkish, Middle Eastern and north African cultures. After the ceremony, the girl is moved into the home of her 'husband'. She is raped in the name of marital sex, frequently abused by her new family and allowed to attend school only if it would attract the attention of the law if she left.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1153446,00.html#article_continue

Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism
From: GUEST,Meet my child bride
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 08:42 AM

England and the United States: The issue of child brides has also reached other countries such as England and the United States where secret illegal weddings are being performed.
http://marriage.about.com/od/arrangedmarriages/a/childbride.htm