BS: Muslim prejudice

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 09 Feb 11 - 11:35 AM

""I will just repeat a little of Lox's post above, in case you missed it.""


No, I didn't miss it DeG, but I'd like you to tell me which specific points in that post are in your opinion untrue, or substantially inaccurate?

If Lox has posted inaccurately to try to make a point, then your following comments are of course justified.

If however he has reported facts which are a matter of public record (as I am fairly certain he has), how does this in your or anyone else's estimation constitute "Western Culture bashing"?

You see, Keith, Ake, and MtheGM accusing us of being anti West is a very unsubstantial smokescreen designed to hide the fact that while we ask for a balanced response based on solid evidence, they have nothing more than a desire to bash Muslims based on equally unsubstantial opinion which must be true because they choose to believe it.

Tell me DeG, do you believe that in the last thirteen years in a coast to coast area ranging from the Midlands to the North of England there have been only 17 cases of street grooming, and all committed by just 50 Muslim Asians, 3 non Muslim Asians and 3 white men who may or may not be Muslims, as Keith repeatedly states in the hope that it will be accepted as fact.

Or do you perhaps accept my contention that it is much more credible that these are the only cases which have been extracted from the total figure of grooming in general, by those with an anti Muslim mindset who, like Keith and Co have seized with glee the opportunity to exercise their prejudice?

Why else would they steadfastly refuse even to consider the possibility that I could indeed be right? After all they believe Jack Straw without question, but then he has the same bias.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 09 Feb 11 - 11:19 AM

... and I don't fling words like 'garbage' at you, either; but endeavour to respond with moderation and courtesy to the points you make. Mind you don't become abusive like poor old GoldiLox, now.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 09 Feb 11 - 11:03 AM

"Neurotic", moreover, is your word, not mine. I have nowhere accused you, directly or by implication, of any neurosis.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 09 Feb 11 - 10:54 AM

I didn't accuse you of any derogatory remarks, but only of one derogatory word, Steve. In what way have you 'delved deeper'? I note that you offer no reply to the question which is the true gravamen of my post.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Feb 11 - 10:46 AM

...can rob intelligent men like Steve & Don {not to mention the vain, fatuous, priggish, self-regarding GolidLox, whom it robs also of all his manners and his sense of proportion} of the wee-bit sense they had, rendering them absolutely impervious to the reception, or even the contemplation, of what are demonstrably incontrovertible facts, in the defence of their deeply-held beliefs. Of such insistent obstinacy is dangerous fanaticism made.

You type this garbage then you accuse me of making derogatory remarks as if you alone have the monopoly rights. Oh well.

Here's the root of your problem:
I simply prefer to let the statistics lead me to the conclusions

Simply is right. Unfortunately, statistics can be abused and quoted partially, tendentiously and out of context. "Simply letting them" is lazy and not good enough, is it? But you talk as if delving a bit deeper than the statistics we're presented with is neurotic. I would rather call it the appropriate use of the brain myself.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 09 Feb 11 - 09:58 AM

I am not calling anyone a nitwit, Steve. I shouldn't dream of such a thing [with one obvious exception on this thread!]. I am not confusing facts with opinions; but I am happy to replace the word 'facts' with 'statistics' if you prefer. And I have no pre-judged 'opinions' on this question, so nobody could 'happen' to 'share' or not to share what do not exist; but I suspect, as I say in the post you quote back at me, that you do ~~ i.e. that if conclusion to which the statistics lead could conceivably carry any possible connotation that anyone could possibly, even if mistakenly, interpret as in any way 'racist', it must be set at a vast distance without any further question being asked or consideration given. Do you deny holding such a view? I simply prefer to let the statistics lead me to the conclusions, rather than to deny their validity because of any entrenched presuppositions. For which reason I find your use of the derogatary adjective 'disingenuous' somewhat - uh - disingenuous.

Regards

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Feb 11 - 09:41 AM

What this interminable thread has demonstrated so clearly is how dangerous firmly-held principles can be to the intellect. Of course racism is an evil ~~ I am sure we all agree about that. But just note how the whiff of it, and the terror of being possibly associated with its remotest manifestation, can rob intelligent men like Steve & Don {not to mention the vain, fatuous, priggish, self-regarding GolidLox, whom it robs also of all his manners and his sense of proportion} of the wee-bit sense they had, rendering them absolutely impervious to the reception, or even the contemplation, of what are demonstrably incontrovertible facts, in the defence of their deeply-held beliefs. Of such insistent obstinacy is dangerous fanaticism made.

Sincerely

~Michael~

Oh, give over, Michael. No-one is disputing incontrovertible facts. We're disputing the use to which certain disingenuous people with suspect motivations are putting them. There is a difference, you know. You are confusing facts with opinions, like the Daily Mail always does, and calling people nitwits who don't happen to share yours.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 09 Feb 11 - 09:33 AM

No, Dick. Wonder why not, now... So dream on. & I wish you joy of it when it does come.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: The Sandman
Date: 09 Feb 11 - 09:14 AM

MGM, that was state capitalism[even though it went under the misnomer of communism]or even Soviet Imperialism.Like wise the Chinese model, has true communism yet been practised?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 09 Feb 11 - 08:57 AM

... while the non-capitalist system leads to nothing but sweetness & light, such as the Moscow Trials, & the Berlin Wall, and the Cultural Revolution, & er er er er...

Um...

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: The Sandman
Date: 09 Feb 11 - 07:35 AM

muslim prejudice means the pre judging of muslims regardless of individual actions.
there are within those people who worship allah, differences just as there are differences in the christian religion, here is some information about the Ahmadiyya Muslims
The motto of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community is “Love for All, Hatred for Noneâ€쳌.
So it is incorrect to lump the Ahmadiyya muslims with those muslims who have been found guilty of abusing western women. judge each person on their own individual actions but be aware that certain factions within both christian and muslim religions encourage and or condone the abuse of women children and animals.
incidentally I agree with the person who stated that the capitalist system encourages people to exploit others.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Feb 11 - 04:05 AM

Sorry.
Link here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5TJ962yi7w&NR=1

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Feb 11 - 04:03 AM

Here is prejudice BY muslims.
It is so severe, it is described here as "slow motion genocide."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5TJ962yi7w&NR=1

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 08 Feb 11 - 11:31 PM

What this interminable thread has demonstrated so clearly is how dangerous firmly-held principles can be to the intellect. Of course racism is an evil ~~ I am sure we all agree about that. But just note how the whiff of it, and the terror of being possibly associated with its remotest manifestation, can rob intelligent men like Steve & Don {not to mention the vain, fatuous, priggish, self-regarding GolidLox, whom it robs also of all his manners and his sense of proportion} of the wee-bit sense they had, rendering them absolutely impervious to the reception, or even the contemplation, of what are demonstrably incontrovertible facts, in the defence of their deeply-held beliefs. Of such insistent obstinacy is dangerous fanaticism made.

Sincerely

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Feb 11 - 08:21 PM

Er, excuse me. You completely misinterpreted what I said there. Being racist to black people shows you to be a nakedly-racist person. Being racist to Muslims ("Pakis," yeah?) is easier to disguise because you can pretend that it's their religion that you hate when what you really mean is that it's them that you hate. All you have to do is dig up the Sharia/presumed misogyny/arranged marriages stuff and attack them for that. The effect is the same: you cast people you disapprove of as "the other." Another way of doing this is to refer darkly to "the threat of Islamic fundamentalism" every time anything happens in a country in which Arabic people happen to live. Look at all the mutterings about Islamic extremists "taking over" in Egypt this past couple of weeks, Egypt, a country with strong secularism and absolutely no footholds for Islamic extremists (I've heard both the Taliban and al-Qaeda invoked this week in the context of Egypt, which is the daftest thing I've heard for months). I do not "promote" homosexuality. What a ludicrous idea. I'm very happy for anyone on this planet to express whatever sexuality they want to and I'm not up for promoting one kind over another. Of course I support the right of anyone to follow whatever religion they want to (I hope they won't mind my butting in with my atheistic notions occasionally), though I'm not happy about organised religion of whatever colour dominating people's lives, which is an entirely different matter. As for religion and women, gosh, the different faiths are much of a muchness really. Here we are in the 21st century with backwoodsmen in Christian faiths opposing women bishops and so on. They're as bad as each other as far as I'm concerned. Finally, everyone except my mother calls me Steve, but if you really insist on using my unabridged moniker it's Stephen, not Steven.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: akenaton
Date: 08 Feb 11 - 06:58 PM

"Or the new black (irony intended). But the advantage of Muslims to white racists is that it's far easier to be racist when you can apply a veneer of exotic religion over it first."

So....now it's racist to criticise the excesses of religion or culture

You cant have it every way Steven...no matter how "liberal" you are
You promote homosexuality, yet support the rights of people to practice a religion which dictates that homosexuals should be put to death. You promote womens rights, yet support the rights of people to practice a religion which deprives them of their rights

Thats before we start on killing the infidels.....get a grip!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: akenaton
Date: 08 Feb 11 - 06:49 PM

The whole issue of the exploitation of women and children in this society is a "red herring" in this discussion. This attitude and behaviour is a bye product of raw capitalism.
I see none of the "liberals" here calling for the destruction of the capitalist system.
I see the removal of capitalism as a necessity before we can even think of constructing a decent society.

What we are talking about is the attitude of a number of Muslims living in western countries, towards young non muslim girls.
These people are brought up to believe that Western values are corrupt, Western women are immoral,Western children sexualised and "easy meat"

This may or may not be true, but it does not mean that these children should be targetted by predatory Muslims, to be trafficked as sex objects.
In my opinion these crimes are on the increase because the protetion agencies involved are afraid of falling foul of "human rights legislation" which ensures bias in favour of the criminals.

This has nothing to do with race or skin colour and everything to do with religion and culture
The stoning of women for adultery, the hanging of homosexuals for practicing sodomy and the forced marriage and trafficking of children should not be associated with any religion which we "tolerate".

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: The Sandman
Date: 08 Feb 11 - 06:06 PM

Prejudice is pre judging,I am judging people as a result of their actions, that is not prejudice.
Abusing people whether it be by the Roman Catholic church or the Muslim church, or by Fascists/Nazis or Soviet imperialists, or Americans[ overthrowing democratically elected governments "Allende"] is WRONG.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Feb 11 - 06:00 PM

The Muslim has become the new Communist.

Or the new black (irony intended). But the advantage of Muslims to white racists is that it's far easier to be racist when you can apply a veneer of exotic religion over it first.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Stringsinger
Date: 08 Feb 11 - 05:29 PM

The Muslim has become the new Communist.

I'm personally more concerned about the Christian Caliphate in the U.S.
They think they own the Second Amendment.

All religions seek in their own way to influence others, some through violence.

You can take the Koran or the Bible and read into it what you want to foster
an ideology.

You can also do that with the U.S. Constitution.

Prejudice is prejudice regardless of to whom it is applied.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Feb 11 - 05:09 PM

Child sexualisation.

Pakistani human rights activists are outraged at reports that a long-running blood feud in a remote corner of western Baluchistan province has been resolved by the handing over of 15 girls, aged between three and 10, for marriage.

"There has to be action," said Asma Jahangir, a leading rights campaigner. "These people who force others to sell their daughters must be sent to prison."

The new government in Islamabad, led by the party of the late Benazir Bhutto, has promised to act. "We will not allow young girls to be traded like this," said the information minister, Sherry Rehman. "The culprits who tried to do this will be arrested. The orders have been given."

But Jahangir said those orders had not been acted upon. "There is a dysfunction in the whole system. They are not listening to the government," she said. "We need to see them being more effective than just rhetoric."

Vanni, an ancient tribal practice in which feuding clans settle their differences by exchanging women for marriage, is illegal in Pakistan. In 2004 the Sindh high court outlawed all such "parallel justice" systems. But the writ of government is weak in rural areas, and local police often turn a blind eye.

The current controversy started with a row over a dog, said Muhammad Paryal Marri, a researcher in northern Sindh for the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/05/pakistan.humanrights

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: The Sandman
Date: 08 Feb 11 - 04:57 PM

Dave , the heirarchy of the Roman Catholic church[ not to be confused with other Catholic churches]I am referring to the Roman Catholic church.
the VATICAN and a number of BISHOPS has consistently turned a blind eye to sexual abuse in the Roman Catholic church, they have permitted abusers to carry on as priests, and have subsequently apologised for not taking decisive and correct moral action against abusers, in practice that means they have permitted the abuse and buggering of young minors.
imo the problems with both religions is exacerbated by their ridiculous dogmas[in the RC church the non allowance of marriage], and in the Muslim Church, Their religious attitude to women.
I have not noticed many Elders in the Quakers with these attitude problems , so whatever religion or culture comment is just not true,
The majority of problems have been with these 2 particular religions, it is an attitude that treats people as sexual objects OR AND SECOND CLASS CITIZENS rather than humans who deserve respect.AND it is partly a RESULT OF RELIGIOUS DOGMA /DOCTRINE.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Feb 11 - 04:30 PM

Oh - and btw - The Catholic church doesn't permit the sexulisation of young girls or priests buggering altar boys but that doesn't stop it happening. Just because Islam 'does not permit it' doesn't mean to say it doesn't go on. Whenever and wherever you get anyone with that much power in the community, some of them will abuse it. Whatever religion or culture.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Feb 11 - 04:22 PM

Perhaps you and Keith might try to come up with an example of me "bashing" any Western culture.

I am sure you are right, Don. You would not bash western culture. But a hell of a lot of people do just that. I will just repeat a little of Lox's post above, in case you missed it.

Islam doesn't permit the sexualization of young women in the same way as British culture does.

In the kids section of Woolworths in Peckham 3 years ago you could buy a range of playboy accessories for your 3 year old daughter.

Islamic culture dresses its girls up in a way that emphasizes who they are and not what they look like.

It dresses little girls modestly and not like porn stars.

It is western culture that produces child pornography, and promotes and legitimizes the commoditization and abuse of young white girls in the process in the eyes of the rest of the world.

If that isn't bashing western culture I don't know what is:-)

That aside though - We seem to have an inherant ability to laugh at ourselves. How many times have you seen Morris dance or Folk music lampooned by the media? How many people poke fun at western sosafely walk down the high street in Islamabad?

I agree with the fact that Islam is given a very rough deal nowadays. But lets not pretend that that religion promtes a perfect society while the western world sinks in the mire of it's own depravity. Both views are extreme. And very dangerous generalisations.

DeG
(Extreme moderate party)

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Feb 11 - 03:51 PM

One in 10 young British Asians believes so-called honour killings can be justified, according to a poll for the BBC's Asian Network.

In one recent case, two men were jailed for life for murdering their relative after she fell in love with an asylum seeker.

Greengrocer Azhar Nazir, 30, and his cousin Imran Mohammed, 17, stabbed Nazir's sister Samaira 18 times at the family home in Southall in April 2005.

The 25-year-old recruitment consultant was killed after she asked to marry an Afghan man - instead of marrying someone in the Pakistani family circle.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Feb 11 - 03:47 PM

Sometimes it DOES apply to BPs.
From BBC site.

Honour-based violence in the UK
Murders have sometimes taken place after a family reacted violently to their son or daughter adopting the trappings of western culture.

It's thought that up to 12 honour killings happen every year. They usually occur within South Asian and Middle Eastern families.

One of the most well-known cases is that of Banaz Mahmod, from Surrey, whose murder in 2006 was organised by her father and uncle.

She had left an unhappy arranged marriage after which she started a relationship with another man. The 20-year-old was strangled and hidden in a suitcase which was then buried underneath a Birmingham property.

The police were criticised for mis-handling Ms Mahmod's situation when she contacted them on a number of occasions before her death.

Shahien Taj, from the Henna Foundation, said: "Honour is supposed to be a positive word. Clearly, calling a killing an 'honour crime' is a contradiction of terms.

"A lot of talk and dialogue takes place after a crime has happened, but this is too little too late. If you really want to deal with an issue, you have to unpack it in its true context."

Forced marriages and honour violence
Organisations that deal with honour-based violence also help forced marriage victims, as some of those killed in the name of "honour" were trying to escape coercion into matrimony.

Laws to prevent forced marriages and provide a way out for those already in unconsented unions were introduced in England, Wales and Northern Ireland in November 2008.

Anybody convicted of trying to force someone into a marriage could be jailed for up to two years.

Within the first year, 86 Forced Marriage Protection Orders were implemented.

But as one worker who specialises in the issue said, "The sticking point is that potential victims don't want orders served on their parents - or whoever is responsible - they just want a way out of the situation."

Rise in 'honour' crimes
In December 2009, the Metropolitan Police reported that there had been a huge rise in recorded incidents motivated by "honour."

They said 211 incidents had been reported in London - 129 of which were criminal offences - between April and October.

The increase may partly be due to police being instructed in September 2009 to assume honour crimes have been committed in more situations.

Nazir Afzal, from the Crown Prosecution Service, said: "It will be about making sure we look for the signs so that we don't miss cases."

Detective Chief Inspector Gerry Campbell of the Metropolitan Police told The Guardian, "Young woman are predominately the victims of honour-based violence but we are seeing an increase in young men and boys – it's now about 15% of the total numbers."

He also added that 25% of their cases involved people under the age of 18.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Feb 11 - 03:18 PM

LOX spot on, of course the answer is no,likewise not every Roman catholic is a sodomite or sexual abuser neither is every priest, in fact the majority of priests are not.
however the majority of muslims do regard women as second class citizens, that does not mean all of them do.

Well, you'd have to do a survey to back that up. In the meantime, I could do a similar survey to find out whether my hunch that the majority of white Caucasian males regard women as second-class citizens is true.

Anyway, I thought the Sodomites was a mountain range in the Alps.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 08 Feb 11 - 03:13 PM

"And WTF said it did?"

well ... er ... this is a thread about Britain ... duh!


"a fanatic is someone who can't change his mind ..."


I see you haven't been paying attention, or you would have noticed that Keith and I have reached a genuine impasse, and not one based on giving up, but one based on seeing the argument through to a conclusion acceptable to us both.


... and won't change the subject."


.... er ... 999 ... (wink ;-) ) (nice disguise) ... this is a thread about Moslems in Britian ... and it had reached a natural conclusion till you jumped in ...


... So if you are bored, go elsewhere ...

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,999
Date: 08 Feb 11 - 02:55 PM

'"and one would have a very short life-expectancy were one to disagree with those who interpret god`s law."

Depends where you live.

It doesn't apply to British Pakistanis.'



And WTF said it did?


As a btw, a fanatic is someone who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. (Churchill)

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 08 Feb 11 - 02:20 PM

"and one would have a very short life-expectancy were one to disagree with those who interpret god`s law."

Depends where you live.

It doesn't apply to British Pakistanis.



It could easily be argued that it is the British aspect of British Moslem culture that is responsible for young women beig treated as sex objects to be bought and sold.

This is because in Britain, young white girls have been viewed as sex commodities in the sex industry and in the mainstream media since the early 20th century, when you could effectively watch black and white porn on the promenade.

Before that, and up until 1992, married women were seen by the law as being the property of their husband.

White girls are sold to us every day in the media as sex objects, and they command the highest fees in escort agencies.

Everybody wants a pretty young white girl as a symbol of success.


Islam doesn't permit the sexualization of young women in the same way as British culture does.

In the kids section of Woolworths in Peckham 3 years ago you could buy a range of playboy accessories for your 3 year old daughter.

Islamic culture dresses its girls up in a way that emphasizes who they are and not what they look like.

It dresses little girls modestly and not like porn stars.

It is western culture that produces child pornography, and promotes and legitimizes the commoditization and abuse of young white girls in the process in the eyes of the rest of the world.

So if you were a young British Pakistani, what would be more likely to influence you to abuse children?

Islamic culture or British/Western culture?


Before we cast the first stone we should take a good long look at ourselves!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,999
Date: 08 Feb 11 - 01:37 PM

``however the majority of muslims do regard women as second class citizens, that does not mean all of them do.
but if a majority do believe this because of their religion, I am inclined to condemn that aspect of their religion, THIS IS NOT RACIST.``

It isn`t racist, imo, BUT, I think you may be misled in saying ``the majority of Muslims``. The majority of their religious leaders may think that, and one would have a very short life-expectancy were one to disagree with those who interpret god`s law.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: The Sandman
Date: 08 Feb 11 - 12:54 PM

"But as the subject is whether an entire racial demographic is or isn't culturally inclined to abduction and abuse of teenage girls, it is extremely important that I am 100% sure of the claim before accepting it."
LOX spot on, of course the answer is no,likewise not every Roman catholic is a sodomite or sexual abuser neither is every priest, in fact the majority of priests are not.
however the majority of muslims do regard women as second class citizens, that does not mean all of them do.
but if a majority do believe this because of their religion, I am inclined to condemn that aspect of their religion, THIS IS NOT RACIST.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 08 Feb 11 - 04:35 AM

Bloody HTML! Why can't we have an edit facility for taking out underlining that wasn't intended!

Should have been:-

As stated before, a little cold milk or, preferably, a slice of lemon, is all that's required.

Cream is for coffee and gateaux.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 08 Feb 11 - 04:32 AM

Josepp, never put cream in tea - to do so is a heresy, and no-one with British blood in his/her veins would ever do that!

As stated before, a little cold milk or, preferably, a slice of lemon, is all that's required.

Cream is for coffee and gateaux.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Feb 11 - 02:06 AM

Lox, no challenge.
Josepp, use it in strong coffee with a little Irish Whiskey.
Don, Will you accept that you tend to take the side of the underdog, eg Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, minority issues, etc.?

Re the survey Don, the author was saying that its results had been overstated, not that they should be discarded.
I am not going to try any more to persuade you that the over representation is a reality.
The rest of us have moved on from that.
You are entitled to your opinion.

That poster ended by saying, "I do believe other reports I have read of Muslim community leaders and spokes-people admitting there are issues with some Muslim men's attitude to non–Muslim women and I consider this to be a cultural issue."
That can hardly be seen as a "rebuttal" of my views.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 07 Feb 11 - 07:42 PM

""Yes, I too have noticed that the ethnic minorities are fiercely defended whilst the Western cultures come in for a bashing.""

Perhaps you and Keith might try to come up with an example of me "bashing" any Western culture.

I assure you that you cannot do so.

Throughout this and other examples of your anti minority threads, I have consistently accused you of bias (which is supported by any scrutiny of your posts) and asked that you take a more balanced view.

Keith responds by reading the following,

""As a newspaper's primary aim is to sell papers, I try to filter out their sales pitch by reading 'between the lines' using known facts, figures and experiences to make an informed judgement.   As we all do.   The recent posts regarding Muslim men committing 'On-Street Grooming' crimes certainly got me thinking.

The Times researchers have selected their data (to sell newspapers?). 'On-Street Grooming' has only been an offence since 2006 and the figure of 17 cases since 1997 includes 14 occurring in the last 3 years.   3 cases in 9yrs then 14 in 3yrs cannot be right.   On-Street Grooming is also a very narrow subset of crime and does not include Internet Grooming for example, add this to the cases being taken from only 13 cities all with high Muslim populations and value of the statistics becomes dubious."",

and taking it to be an endorsement of his views on the subject, rather than the rebuttal it undoubtedly is.

It is impossible to penetrate a mind that intent upon bias and prejudice.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: josepp
Date: 07 Feb 11 - 07:06 PM

This was half&half which is part milk and it didn't help.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 07 Feb 11 - 07:02 PM

"My opinion, which I do not put above yours, is that that does not preclude critical consideration of the possibility."

I certainly agree that we should not "preclude critical consideration of the possibility."

In fact, as you may have noticed, I gave it extremely critical consideration.

"He is right, but it is also dangerous to be seen to suppress debate."

Again, noones right to debate has been suppresssed.

Rather, I have debated vigorously on this issue and kept it alive where other debates might have sunk without a trace - and twice I have urged you not to withdraw.

As for old fogies debating, I am very cautious to underestimate the power of ideas.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Feb 11 - 06:23 PM

Josepp, no Englishman would ever put cream in tea.
A little cold milk.
We argue about whether it should go in before or after the tea.
The cream is added to jam, which is a distant relative of your jelly, spread upon scones, baps, or similar bakery products.

Good post Lox.
Thank you.
Who could doubt your motivation after reading it?

The trouble is that there will never be "evidence, that proved beyond doubt that Pakistani culture was at the root of these crimes."

My opinion, which I do not put above yours, is that that does not preclude critical consideration of the possibility.

It can never be proved why priests abuse children.
(Similarly, a tiny but significant minority.)
No one ever suggested that it was wrong to speculate about that.

Vaz says that it is dangerous to speculate.
Oxygen for the EDL.
He is right, but it is also dangerous to be seen to suppress debate.
To make them a special case.
That suggestion, of a conspiracy of silence, is meat and drink to EDL.

So, we can agree that there is no proof.
I disagree that it is wrong to make reasoned, sensible conjecture.
Luckily, what we say here on Mudcat makes no difference to anything.
Just old folkies putting the world to rights.
Or not!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: josepp
Date: 07 Feb 11 - 06:12 PM

Anybody want to by a carton of cream--slightly used?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: josepp
Date: 07 Feb 11 - 06:03 PM

I just tried some cream in tea for the first time. Tasted like shit. Goddamn fucking brits. That's why you don't have an empire anymore. No taste.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 07 Feb 11 - 05:14 PM

Keith.

No worries.

Please do me a favour and read this whole post carefully with a view to understanding my actual point.

You don't have to agree with it, just make sure you have digested it before you comment.

I begin with the short answer:

I believe your question is answered in my previous post.

If you make a claim, then you should be prepared to properly support it or concede that it is not properly supported.

You have provided support, but I have found reasons why that support is not sufficient.


Now to clarify that point in the context that you have specified:

If the subject was: "Is Kenny Dalgliesh a good manager", I wouldn't particularly care how ell you backed up your arguments.

But as the subject is whether an entire racial demographic is or isn't culturally inclined to abduction and abuse of teenage girls, it is extremely important that I am 100% sure of the claim before accepting it.

This is not just because it is important not to make cultural generalizations, but also because there are people, like the EDL, who would seize upon such hypotheses as "evidence" to justify their political stance.

If there were strong evidence, that proved beyond doubt that Pakistani culture was at the root of these crimes, then I would concede that the hypothesis had merit and face up to the tough challenge of finding solution.

And if there were evidence which ruled out all other possible explanations and contributory factors, then I would again concede that it was the only remaining alternative.

But the truth is that we are no nearer proving any link between Pakistani culture and these horrendous crimes than we are to proving that the moon landings were faked.

And no investigation has even been attempted to discover if there are other possible reasons why these criminals did what they did.

People may 'feel' or 'think' what they like, but people have a funny knack of getting swept up by feelings and hunches and not saying - "right, if this is true then its important and therefore I need to investigate it absolutely thoroughly because the potential ramifications are really serious" - and instead they go round in mobs and picket Paediatricians houses, or beat up peaceful people on the street, or shove excrement through families letterboxes, or threaten small children with dangerous dogs.

All the people who do that stuff are sure that they are right and they don't need much so called 'evidence' to motivate themselves into further acts of stupidity.


So when i see people presenting hypotheses that justify the most common excuses for violence, be they racism, misogyny, or ... religionism (sic) ..., yes I jump right in to put a stop to it.

It doesn't matter that you aren't racist, if your hypothesis supports a racist viewpoint.

When someone like Keith Vaz describes Jack Straws comments as "dangerous", he doesn't just mean that they are politically borderline, he means that ordinary people could end up becoming involved in violence, either from those wanting to punish their scapegoat, or from the scapegoats themselves.

The EDL and similar groups don't need any more political oxygen than they have.

So prove your point beyond reasonable doubt, as in a court of law, or concede that it does not stand the test of scrutiny.

Would the mothers of the girls who were kidnapped and assaulted win in court if they took an action out against the "community leaders"?

No way - it wouldn't even get beyond the preliminaries, as there is no evidence or argument that could possibly support Anne Cryers suggestions that community leaders could have somehow prevented these crimes.

Maybe OJ simpson was guilty of killing his wife, maybe he was innocent - we may speculate about that to our hearts content and it will not result in hatred, resentment, defensiveness and aggression brewing on our streets.

This issue of whether British Pakistani ethics and morals are somehow to blame for the actions of organized criminals is a whole different ball game.

If you want to assert it, you muust be prepared to prove it or concede it.

It is not a subject upon which we have the luxury to idly speculate.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Feb 11 - 04:14 PM

It was good of you not to take offence at my accusation Lox.
May I put this to you.
I would be the first to acknowledge that there is a long history of prejudice and discrimination against ethnic minorities.
People like yourself have stood out against it and defended them.
Is it possible that to jump in and defend can become a reflex, even when not merited?

In this case, there is not much doubt that an over representation exists.
You have been fair enough to acknowledge it.
To me, and others, it seems very likely to be a cultural issue, and when the likes of Straw, Ahmed and Alibhai Brown come out and say it, it seems confirmed.
Is it possible that your denial is based more on what has gone before than on current events?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 07 Feb 11 - 01:40 PM

See what I mean?

An unmiitigated stinking swine, I should have said. A disgrace to the Cat. A bore and a boor. If there is one person in the entire Universe I do not wish to pay attention to me, it must be him.

He really is pathetic, isn't he?

And he knows my name as I make no secret of it. And has the impudence to address me by it. I wonder who or what can be hidden behind that silly name he chooses to be known by, of the meaning of which he is so loth to be reminded?

I now renew my above-mentioned intention to read no post with his name at the top, which I confess I must have forgotten: on this or any other thread he pollutes with his primping pig's-breath of a presence. So any brilliant sallies he can find in response to this will be wasted on me.

Someone else can have a go: his fatuity and boringness make him a sitting target on which I cannot be bothered to waste any more thought or energy.

And so farewell to this thread, which has gone on much too long anyhow.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 07 Feb 11 - 01:11 PM

Haha.

At least when I contribute to a thread it is because I have something to say on subject.

You on the other hand Michael do so because you want people to pay attention to you.

You think you are being funny, or controversial or something ... fuck knows really ... but the fact that you manage to restrict your comments to me on this thread to the subject of salmon, as opposed to the belligerent and irrelevant shite I am used to, doesn't change the fact that the only comment you had to make in response to me was designed to piss me off.

Well it seems that it was you who ended up feeling all hurt and hard done by, hence your self righteous whingeing.

I personally couldn't give a monkeys.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 07 Feb 11 - 12:42 PM

"I believe that my style of argument is honest and demands honesty from my opponent." asserts the egregious Lox.

Just a small reminder: Lox's style of argument against me, not all that many posts ago [it just feels like a lot!], was to accuse me of wearing an inefficiently fitted colostomy bag, suffering from BO, being confined to a wheelchair, & using foul language. Oh, all very honest. In fact, just for the sake of clarity, he knows absolutely nothing about me ~~ we have never even met, I am delighted to say.

To use the foulest language of which I am capable when writing on this forum ~~ Lox is an unconscionable liar; a boring boor; a point-missing fool; and a stinking swine.

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 07 Feb 11 - 12:26 PM

"Ah well, pin withdrawn from another social hand-grenade."

mm hmmm?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 07 Feb 11 - 12:19 PM

"I claimed that Lox regards all ethnic minorities as being above criticism, and only allows Western culture to be questioned.

I had better withdraw, but at least it is not as nasty an accusation."
Actually Keith, i don't see this as a reaon to withdraw.

You can accuse me of anything you like and i won't be offended.

But if you commit to that claim you ave to be prepared to justify it one way or another.

That applies to any claim.

And if you make a claim that doesn't stand scrutiny and I care about the subject, then you can expect a robust response.

And if you make false claims to discredit me when you have no other argument left, then you can expect to be soundly rebutted.

My ego is not that sensitive.

I believe that my style of argument is honest and demands honesty from my opponent.

I have spent this thread attacking your arguments, your sources and your tactics.

I sometimes get very passionate about these things, and if I perceive that a debating opponent is being dishonest in his approach I will not give up until either I am ahown to be wrong, or until my opponent atarts being honest.

But You have done or said nothing that affends me personally.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Brian May
Date: 07 Feb 11 - 07:43 AM

Yes, I too have noticed that the ethnic minorities are fiercely defended whilst the Western cultures come in for a bashing.

Interesting we're not allowed to point this out otherwise we're automatically a closet (or open) racist.

Against the backdrop of the Prime Ministers's speech, it might be that the issue is finally getting addressed and perhaps a period of re-alignment is forecast.

I don't think we'll see it here though. These groups are staunchly defended and I puzzle as to why. What has to happen before they 'wake up'?

I suppose it's a bit like those who recently did the 'sack cloth and ashes' bit because several hundred years ago, Britain (like almost all imperial powers back to the much-loved Romans and well beyond) endorsed/encouraged slavery.

Must make them feel SO virtuous. Utterly unreal, but virtuous nevertheless.

Ah well, pin withdrawn from another social hand-grenade.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Feb 11 - 04:53 AM

I am not going to make a habit of multi posting.
I just realised that I am guilty of what I accuse Don.

I claimed that Lox regards all ethnic minorities as being above criticism, and only allows Western culture to be questioned.

I had better withdraw, but at least it is not as nasty an accusation.