|
28 Jan 08 - 06:16 AM (#2246820) Subject: BS: Multiculturalism From: John MacKenzie Quote from Martin Amos on Radio4 UK this morning. "The main result of multiculturalism in the UK seems to be, that the only culture a person can criticise now, is their own." Discuss. G |
|
28 Jan 08 - 06:32 AM (#2246834) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Mr Happy All this stuff is about labelling, categorising people into arbitrary groups, mainly for the purpose of control/exploitation by the rich & powerful + manipulation by politicians. |
|
28 Jan 08 - 06:34 AM (#2246836) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Emma B 'Martin Amis is considered Britain's number one, top drawer, literary heavyweight. His reputation rests on a fancy prose style and an intellectualism that is nonetheless within the reach of the majority of readers, who are flattered into feeling clever and so credit Amis with being profound'....... .....'But the really staggering feature of London Fields is not its narrative ingenuity or its millennial eclipse but the patronising representation of the working class who are, without exception, portrayed as vicious or ridiculous or both. The novel is not only anti-working class, it is riddled with racist stereotypes, jocularly passed off as comic caricatures. Equally staggering is the general stampede to praise Amis's ambition and formal elegance and comic genius, while his snobbery and racism have gone largely unremarked.' from 'Race and Class in Martin Amis's London Fields' from Literary London by Susie Thomas Further examples are given of Amis's unpalatable prejudices in this novel which refers to 'our coloured brethren' and the 'spade lifestyle' through the mouthpiece of the character Keith! - end of discussion! |
|
28 Jan 08 - 06:46 AM (#2246842) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: John MacKenzie That's what's called 'shooting the messenger'. Can we take it that you dislike the message, and that rather than deal with it, you prefer to use the words of others to do the shooting for you? G |
|
28 Jan 08 - 06:52 AM (#2246844) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Emma B I dislike racism true, in any form - even thinly disguised as humour! I choose to use the words of the literary critic and author Dr. Susie Thomas as I believe she, in fact, represents very eloquently the feelings of many people and because a much deeper analysis of Amis's racism can be found in that article than I could present in a short post. |
|
28 Jan 08 - 07:09 AM (#2246850) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: GUEST,PMB Of course, if you are going to criticise cultures, your own is a good place to start from. At least, if you've examined it closely, you won't fall into the traps of hypocrisy and double standards. Martin Amis is both an accomplished writer and one of Britain's most famous intellectuals- if what he says comes over as a taxi- driver's rant one might suspect negligence on his part as an alternative to the crude racism a simplistic reading of his most famous contribution might suggest: "...the Jewish community will have to suffer until it gets its house in order. What sort of suffering? Not let them travel. Deportation - further down the road. Curtailing of freedoms. Strip-searching people who look like they're from the Israel or from Golder's Green … Discriminatory stuff, until it hurts the whole community.." (I've changed one or two words slightly, but the sense is the same). |
|
28 Jan 08 - 07:16 AM (#2246852) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: John MacKenzie So different cultures denote different races do they? Better write to the dictionary compilers and let them know that. Or do all English people go to Glyndebourne and Covent Garden? Obviously they all attend the Church of England every Sunday too. There is more to arguing one's corner than rebuttal via a set of conditioned responses. Just stop a minute, and think of all the cultures that exist within the boundaries of these islands. Having done that, address the point that fashionable phrases place unnatural constraints on the interactions of both peoples, AND races. G. |
|
28 Jan 08 - 07:24 AM (#2246853) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Liz the Squeak Not so much 'end of discussion' more, that's my opinion and that's all that matters. I don't like Martin Amis' work, so I tend not to read much of it, but a quick skim over the synopses and essays on 'London Fields' available online show me that it was a work of fiction, written in 1989, about a period set 10 years into the future. It was a future entirely of Amis' invention, regardless of how near or far it is from reality, 20 years later. The protagonist 'Keith' is an extreme example and product of his environment, so speaks in the way that 'he' knows. He is not necessarily the mouthpiece of Amis. Amis has put words into Keith's mouth, but he is not Keith. The comment Giok quoted for discussion - "The main result of multiculturalism in the UK seems to be, that the only culture a person can criticise now, is their own." - is, for the most part, an apposite one. In my multicultural office, I can insult morris dancing all I want but if someone hears me criticising a troupe of Bangra dancers, I could be accused of making racist comments. If one of my Indian colleagues insulted morris dancing and I complained, I would be laughed out of the room. Luckily, the majority of people in my office are not so mono-culturist. LTS |
|
28 Jan 08 - 07:34 AM (#2246860) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: greg stephens GUEST PMB's "quotation" is of course a copmplete fabrication. Ignore. The original remark that PMB has rewritten described Amis' feelings of anger at Islamist bombings.There have not,as far as I know, been any campaigns of bombings conducted by Jewish people from Irsrael or Goldersa Green. I tired to read "London Fields" once, and didn't make it to the end of chapter 1. All of his dad's superciliouisness with none of the charm. But that doesnt mean you should try to prove he is a racist by ascribing remarks to him that he never made. |
|
28 Jan 08 - 08:18 AM (#2246892) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: GUEST,PMB "There have not,as far as I know, been any campaigns of bombings conducted by Jewish people from Irsrael ".... I imagined Lebanon? The quotation is NOT a fabrication. Amis later backtracked, describing it as a "thought experiment" : Amis rejects the claim that he has ever espoused these views, saying that the remarks were made in a newspaper interview and preceded with the following: "What can we do to raise the price of them doing this? There's a definite urge - don't you have it? - to say ... [etc, etc]." The remarks were not "advocating anything" he continued, they were a thought experiment, merely "conversationally describing an urge - an urge that soon wore off". The novelist went on to "declare that 'harassing the Muslim community in Britain' would be neither moral nor efficacious", but made no apology for making remarks describing an "urge" that the Muslim community should "suffer", nor any attempt to respond to wider concerns over his views concerning Islamism. (from The Guardian ). |
|
28 Jan 08 - 08:51 AM (#2246923) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: McGrath of Harlow the only culture a person can criticise now, is their own. Nothing wrong with that, nothing new in that. As the Bible puts it: And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye. After all, the only culture anyone has the kind of expertise to make their criticisms meaningful and useful is their own, whatever that may be. |
|
28 Jan 08 - 11:10 AM (#2247052) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Megan L I have noticed recently that it appears to be very acceptable to slam britain it is no longer a case of being able to criticise your own country you are expected to smile sweetly while every other blighter around the world is doing it as well. As ma granny used tae warn folks "Dinny staun on me corns laddie." Get the phrase book oot LtS |
|
28 Jan 08 - 11:46 AM (#2247082) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Liz the Squeak I think I get the jist of that one Megan, and I point you in the direction of a little ditty by Flanders and Swann... "The English, the English, the English are best, I wouldn't give tuppence for all of the rest!" :D LTS |
|
28 Jan 08 - 12:17 PM (#2247106) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Stringsinger Multiculturalism is a big word. I prefer World Community. Any criticism of a general nature about any cultural group should be suspect as a hidden agenda of prejudice and xenophobia. I see prejudice in the US and Great Britain wearing the mask of intellectual discussion. It's easy to use big words in an attempt to criticize a cultural group but those who do the criticism are themselves as finger-pointers that posess the qualities they abhor. I suspect any writer who insists on promulgating their ideas of glittering generalities of any cultural group whatever. Frank Hamilton |
|
28 Jan 08 - 12:26 PM (#2247113) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: John MacKenzie Well really Frank your first paragraph defines what is for me the epitome of this whole subject, and that is paranoia. It is the fact that any criticism objective or otherwise about anyone else's way of life, is immediately jumped upon by the promoters of this new buzzword,"Multiculturalism" It's not my word btw, but a word that seems to be never off the lips of many UK politicians. Why is it,as Liz the Squeak said, impossible to comment without accusations of 100% prejudice. I mean if I say I don't like your new shoes, it doesn't mean, I think you are a wanker and a waste of space, does it? It's the total lack of balance that is wrong. Giok |
|
28 Jan 08 - 12:39 PM (#2247120) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Richard Bridge Some habits are contrary to civilised values and should be anathema and intolerable regardless of the community that adopts them and regardless of whether the culture claims they are religiously mandated. The most obvious example, to my mind, is clitorectomy. It should not be regarded as unacceptable to criticise such values, but there are some who will try to defend such habits as traditional. There are some things that are for the good of society that can only be addressed by examining cultural values. For example, why is there a heirarchy of educational achievment, in both the UK and the USA (and, I think, different in each) that shows cultural background to be statistically significant? I reject the Eysinckian view that there are different racial norms of intelligence, and if I am right to do so then the skewness may be due to cultural differences - or it may be due to some variance that is not statistically addressed. Therefore cultures should not be exempt from criticism from without, but the criticism must be on the basis of onformation not prejudice. |
|
28 Jan 08 - 01:45 PM (#2247162) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: McGrath of Harlow But the most effective critics of those kind of things are people from within the community where they occur - they know what they are talking about, whereas it is all too easy for outsiders to get things wrong and make things worse. That also applies in other contexts - for example, think of the way some of us can react when others post here in a way that is seen as critical of their country. (I have a current thread in mind...) |
|
28 Jan 08 - 02:18 PM (#2247211) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Amos I woud submit that the grounds for criticising an individual anti-social practice defended on the basis of tradition is by directing your attention to the individual who espouses it and puts it into practice, an individual choice. A murderer is a murderer, regardless of what pictures, feelings, or madcap illogics he offers in rationalization. He is individually responsible for buying madcap traditions, if that is the case, and using them thoughtlessly. I am sure at least one of my ancestors was a salt-sea pirate. It's traditional. So if I pillage and sink the Queen Mary don't blame me. (Must remember -- pillage and then sink, pillage and then sink!) |
|
28 Jan 08 - 02:19 PM (#2247214) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Megan L And dont forget to throw the tea overboard lad |
|
28 Jan 08 - 02:22 PM (#2247218) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: katlaughing But the most effective critics of those kind of things are people from within the community where they occur - they know what they are talking about, whereas it is all too easy for outsiders to get things wrong and make things worse. But then what of education? Should no outsiders be welcomed if they bring "outside" ideas of efficiencies, etc. which may upset the apple cart, so to speak? I doubt the citizens of rural areas in Africa and elsewhere minded the the Outsider who must have had some critical viewpoints on their traditional ways of getting water when he invented the PLay Pump. I know that's not quite what you meant, McGrath, but that was a blanket statement, imo. Sometimes effective critics do come from Outside. |
|
28 Jan 08 - 02:53 PM (#2247255) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: McGrath of Harlow It makes all the difference to the contribution of the outsiders if there are people who actually welcome them in - and those people have to be inside the community if they are to provide that welcome. It's a delicate matter, and so often people have got it wrong for the best of reasons. |
|
28 Jan 08 - 03:51 PM (#2247305) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Emma B I confess willingly that I have little time for those authors, historians etc (like Amis or Irving ) who use their 'authority' and access to the media to make public and provocative statements. It may be necessary to present the concept of 'multiculturalism' in the UK context..... The Institute of Race Relations states that..... 'Multiculturalism, a term generally accepted across the political spectrum for some three decades, has suddenly become a term to be scoffed at, rather like 'Political Correctness' .... 'To describe society as multicultural is just a statement of fact of what it is.......our society is indeed infinitely diverse and multicultural. It reflects on a cultural level the many different ethnic groups that have settled in the UK. And it reflects this, not just in the sense that each ethnic group can have access to its own customs and traditions but that all members of society can of society can partake in the cultural diversity that has been jointly created. Multiculturalism as policy emanated from both central and local government as a conscious attempt to answer racial inequality ( and especially the resistance to it) Critics of multiculturalism of the say that it has gone too far - been pushed to such lengths - that it is in hindering 'integration' But, what the actually mean is that they are not happy with the weight being given to other cultures and customs . They essentially want British culture to be more traditional and/or Christianity to prevail over other faiths.' While I am unwilling to enter into any so-called discussion on a statement of 'fact' like Amis's which is no more (or less) than a repetition of the bogus scare stories of 'banned' carols and Xmas decorations that were widely disseminated and discussed here last year; as a descendent of Jewish refugees, fleeing from the Russian progroms who felt obliged to abandon both faith and family name to fit into their host country, I would be happy to discuss the problem of 'assimilation' v. 'integration' |
|
28 Jan 08 - 05:29 PM (#2247370) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Richard Bridge Nonetheless there are some "traditional" practices that the host state cannot accept. |
|
28 Jan 08 - 05:36 PM (#2247376) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Emma B Yes Richard I agree with you wholeheartedly, I have been am outspoken opponent of female 'circumcision' here. |
|
28 Jan 08 - 06:57 PM (#2247445) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Bill D It's pretty simple, really...if there are a few people about, speaking a different language, or yours with an accent, cooking different foods, worshiping different gods, wearing different clothes...etc., it's quaint, interesting and educational. If there are a few MORE, enough so that you find them regularly in jobs where they interface with 'the public' much, it becomes slightly awkward and 'enclaves' spring up and cultural clashes become an 'issue'. If sizable numbers develop, entire communities and nations have major problems trying to work out how to embrace the benefits and opportunities of "multiculturalism", while juggling the conflicts, misunderstandings and 'perceived' threats of having one's own culture diluted and/or changed...etc. Despite slogans and 'political correctness', mixing cultures too quickly and with little oversight is NOT automatically a healthy, simple process. The Japanese understand this, and consciously resist certain changes to their culture. They do NOT always do it genteelly or gracefully, but they do prevent some problems at the expense of being called 'isolationist' in some areas. The USA was founded by many different groups..(and overran a couple others in the process!)...but the situation in 2008 is not the same as in 1690...or 1778...or 1875...or even 1912! We are a melting pot....but ingredients to some recipes need to be added slowly & carefully when everyone has to eat from it. (no extra charge for ambiguous metaphors) It is time to look at the issue of what it MEANS to embrace multiculturalism....and how to have a serious discussion of any related issue without labels of 'racism' flying anytime a disagreement arises. My favorite aphorism of all time: "It all depends on whose ox is being gored." |
|
28 Jan 08 - 07:02 PM (#2247452) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Amos I think there are civil codes that any practice of mutilation violates. Once those are out of the way, the matter of multiculturalism is a simple matter of manners toward humans, which is something you would think any civilized society would be practicing, but often find yourself disappointed. A |
|
28 Jan 08 - 07:18 PM (#2247469) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Bill D sure, Amos...except that different cultures have very different notions of what IS manners. |
|
28 Jan 08 - 07:31 PM (#2247474) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Bill D Sometimes people can not even realize why they are not comfortable together....how loud does one speak? How close to another person does one stand to converse? Do you touch one another? Are children taught 'respect' for the same things? What is proper decorum when driving or being a pedestrian? (That one is a MAJOR issue in an area like Wash. DC....) Gradual assimilation can allow adjustment...to language, to laws, to school issues...etc. We NEED to communicate, and where I live & shop and drive, there is less & less real communication happening. |
|
28 Jan 08 - 09:07 PM (#2247525) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Grab Nice soundbite, but clearly wrong. Pick up any red-top paper (or the Mail/Express which are "black-top red-tops") any day of the week, and there'll be at least one article saying how Muslims/Poles/gypsies are inherently criminal and shouldn't be allowed into the country. In other words, plenty of folk *are* criticising groups other than their own. And what's more, they're mostly doing it without the benefit of an active braincell too. Racial prejudice is alive and well and living in Fleet Street... Graham. |
|
28 Jan 08 - 10:32 PM (#2247574) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Joe_F If "multiculturalism" means the same as "free association", it is superfluous. If it means any more or less, it is pernicious. |
|
29 Jan 08 - 03:23 AM (#2247630) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Richard Bridge Pardon? |
|
29 Jan 08 - 03:31 AM (#2247631) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: GUEST,PMB Joe F, are you standing in for Senator Bullfrog? |
|
29 Jan 08 - 03:35 AM (#2247634) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Keith A of Hertford Grab, you overstate the case. They are not allowed to say or imply that an ethnic group are "inherantly criminal" or to say that a particular ethnic group should not be allowed in, and they do not say that. I see the Mail because my school provides it. They do have an anti immigration and anti immigrant stance. |
|
29 Jan 08 - 04:19 AM (#2247646) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: GUEST "They do have an anti immigration and anti immigrant stance." Unfortunately I think the sort of insidious xenophobic bile peddled by papers such as the Daily Mail is an accurate reflection of the attitude of a large percentage of the population in modern Britain. It's endemic in the media and is so entrenched in everyday attitudes it makes me despair. The right wing in this country has long used the spectres of immigration/Europe/anything with Johnny Foreigner involved as an excuse to promote the idea of Britain under threat, invoking the spectres of Churchill and Thatcher as fine examples of people who stood up to those wretches from over the channel and beyond. The anti-multicultural stance taken by many of these people reflects more a hangover of our imperial past than any sort of first-hand experience from their daily lives. I have no doubt there are entrenched views in every ethnic community in the land - but you have to ask yourself why. |
|
29 Jan 08 - 05:00 AM (#2247658) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Liz the Squeak But surely we have such diverse and radically different traditions and cultures BECAUSE various countries, empires and religious groups have resisted change, enforced their laws and customs on visitors and kept true to their traditions despite being overrun with "Johnny Foreigner" who in most cases appear to be British. The British Empire spent a hundred years imposing 'Civilisiation' on a developing world, and now, those worlds have developed exactly like the Empire. Karma can sometimes be a bitch. Although I hate living in London, I love being able to pop up the road for an Indian meal or a Chinese meal, or have Polish bread, Jamaican pattys and a good goat curry. I like it that my friends at work bring in traditional food for the various religious holidays - I like it that although I'm the only white Anglican Christian there, I share my faith with a lady of Asian origin and several people of African origin. I learn more about Jainism from speaking with a follower of that religion, than I ever did in school. I like it that I can talk about black history, white history and all shades of brown and pink in between, I like it that we communicate with each other. I don't like the fact that, as I stated above, I can make fun of my own culture - that of warm beer, morris dancing, country yokel accents and classical music, but it's bordering on a disciplinary offence to make fun of anyone else's customs, traditions, food, drink or entertainments; and that's what the initial comment from Martin Amis was about. We are supposed to be multicultural and for the most part, we manage fairly well, but there are certain factions that would have us lose our own identities in the rush to appease others and fawn over them like an over excited puppy. To counter this, we have another faction who would resist all changes, who actively encourage people to mistreat or ignore other humans. People who deliberately stir the shit and spread lies, rumours and gossip, who only tell their side of the story and refuse point blank to listen to any other, who deny certain types of people the basic civilities, who refuse entry to their 'communities' ~ such people are destined to be the very lonely kings of their own dung heaps... because who wants to visit a dung heap? LTS |
|
29 Jan 08 - 05:01 AM (#2247659) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Big Phil Multiculturalism = How to ruin a great Country. Great Britain, full of the dross from Euroland. A once Great Country sacrificed in the name of multiculturalism. Well done the plastic sandal, tree hugging brigade. "Unfortunately I think the sort of insidious xenophobic bile peddled by papers such as the Daily Mail is an accurate reflection of the attitude of a large percentage of the population in modern Britain. It's endemic in the media and is so entrenched in everyday attitudes it makes me despair." But to millions the Daily Mail [and others] spell out the truth, thank goodness someone somewhere can see we are sleepwalking towards disaster. Phil* |
|
29 Jan 08 - 05:26 AM (#2247667) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Jack Blandiver There islands have been multi-cultural since the retreating of the last Ice Age 10,000 years ago, our subsequent history an endless & gloriously inevitable round of immigration, invasion, colonisation, and (eventual) assimilation. They were certainly multi-cultural some 46 years ago when I was born into a multi-ethnic Northumbria, growing up with first, second & third generation Chinese, Pakinstani, Indian, Afro-Carribean and Yeminite kids - and yet my only experience of Sectarianism as such was with white kids on our estate who were Roman Catholic! Multi-cultualism? The more the merrier if you ask me. I only hope I live long enough to hear the Muezzin calling for prayers from the top of Durham Cathedral. And remember, The Daily Mail (et al) nurtures the ignorance from which it derives its sustenance; there is no truth in any of it - which is why I only take Fortean Times, Private Eye and the occasional Viz & Beano. It is the millions who read the Daily Mail who are the problem; kick the bastards out & let the rest of us live in peace. |
|
29 Jan 08 - 05:29 AM (#2247669) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Mr Happy 'A once Great Country....' You'll be pratting on about 'Merrie England' next! |
|
29 Jan 08 - 05:44 AM (#2247679) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Jack Blandiver After all, even Morris Dancing comes from the Moops (sorry... Moors) |
|
29 Jan 08 - 06:05 AM (#2247687) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Mr Happy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merry_England |
|
29 Jan 08 - 07:07 AM (#2247702) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Keith A of Hertford It is a perfectly reasonable position to be concerned about the unknown consequences of mass, uncontrolled immigration into a small country with an acute housing shortage, inadequate infrastructure and social services, and existing social problems. |
|
29 Jan 08 - 07:13 AM (#2247704) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Mr Happy Look at the initial post & you'll see its not about 'uncontrolled immigration' |
|
29 Jan 08 - 07:27 AM (#2247709) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Keith A of Hertford The discussion has moved on. Keep up. |
|
29 Jan 08 - 07:30 AM (#2247712) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Emma B A report on Multiculturalism in American Public Opinion published in the British Journal of Political Science concluded that while "'hard' versions of multiculturalism are rejected in all ethnic groups" ....."racial hostility is a consistent source of antagonism to the new ethnic agenda of multiculturalism". |
|
29 Jan 08 - 07:34 AM (#2247715) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Mr Happy Some references have been made to immigration, but not so much as to go off topic |
|
29 Jan 08 - 08:07 AM (#2247725) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Emma B 'Challenge racism - defend multiculturalism' '...leading academics such as Professor Danny Dorling of Sheffield University have shown, Britain continues to become more integrated and not more segregated. Restricting people's right to express their cultural identity, demonising religious expression and denying the valuable contribution that diversity makes to modern Britain today will only further fuel ignorance and intolerance Against those undermining multiculturalism, we should challenge the notion that our many cultures are incompatible with one another. To address division and isolation we must tackle racism, respect diversity and reject the idea that one culture or religion is superior to another' 'In an increasingly racist climate across society, students have an important role to play in ensuring that racism is actively confronted.' From the National Union of Students |
|
29 Jan 08 - 08:42 AM (#2247742) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Stu GUEST: 29 Jan 08 - 04:19 AM was me - not sure what happen there . . . "Multiculturalism = How to ruin a great Country. Great Britain, full of the dross from Euroland. A once Great Country sacrificed in the name of multiculturalism." Great Britain is an island, not a country. It's a geographical location. Typical Daily Mail reader – ignorant of their own place in the world whilst spouting the sort of todge in the quote above. The defence of multiculturalism and the celebration of our diversity is one of the defining issues of our time. It is a barometer of our status as a civilised society and whilst we are a tolerant society as a whole (as LTS says), individually we must all be made to question how we interact with fellow citizens who don't share out religion, traditions or skin colour. "It is a perfectly reasonable position to be concerned about the unknown consequences of mass, uncontrolled immigration into a small country with an acute housing shortage, inadequate infrastructure and social services, and existing social problems." So here we have a typical right-wing comment that betrays deeper prejudices. Linking immigration with the housing shortage and inadequate infrastructure and social services (both consequences of the Laissez-faire economics of the modern capitalist UK governments of the last 25 years and sod all to do with "uncontrolled immigration") is laughable as is the notion that "existing social problems" somehow are exacerbated by the presence of said immigrants. Or it would be laughable, if this sort of unsubstantiated crap wasn't given far more credence than it rightly deserves in a civilised society. A lot of the "existing social problems" don't restrict themselves to the imaginary boundaries the right-wing impose on them - they are across the board, regardless of ethnic origin, religion or creed. The NUS is right to be worried, and so should we all be. |
|
29 Jan 08 - 08:56 AM (#2247753) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: John MacKenzie I think what we are really talking about is tolerance and not racism. I never mentioned race, nor do I equate Multiculturalism with racial prejudice as the more paranoid amongst us are prone to do. I am not prejudiced against anyone because of their race. I DO dislike intolerance, be it of other people's right to hold the opinion they hold, or to attend whatever folk festival they want, or whatever else they wish to do! What Liz is complaining about, and in this I totally agree with her,is the one way system that tolerance has become in this 'Right on' politically correct world we now inhabit. To some it is characterised as a right versus left thing, with the left assuming the monopoly on libertarian ideals. Well I don't care if you are to the right of Attila the Hun, or so left wing you make Karl Marx look like Norman Tebbit. One should not surrender the right to hold the opinions one does, in order to appease someone who is on the face of it, not even willing to meet you half way. That said, there is no need to antagonise them, or make it a personal thing even if other parties might wish to do so. Giok |
|
29 Jan 08 - 09:07 AM (#2247758) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Jack Blandiver It is a perfectly reasonable position to be concerned about the unknown consequences of mass, uncontrolled immigration into a small country with an acute housing shortage, inadequate infrastructure and social services, and existing social problems. Is this an editorial from the Daily Mail or somesuch shit-rag? Sounds like an agenda for reactionary sensationalism that might justify racism on any grounds it so chooses. I say racism, because any opposition immigration is racist by default, no matter what language you might care to wrap it up in. And talking of infrastructure, where would the Health Service be but for the nurses from the Phillipines? Can we talk of multiculturalism as being entirely separate from immigration? Seems to me one is the direct consequence of the other. It's only a matter of time before we're hearing words like Repatriation & Ethnic-Cleansing being put forward as viable 'Solutions' to the perceived 'Problems'. And of course it's right that we can only make fun out of our own cultural traditions; same way I can make fun of myself without causing any offence to anyone else, because once I make fun out of someone else, haven't they got a right to be pissed off? Best be positive and appreciative, and be aware of the persistent myth that our own culture is somehow 'under threat' by anything other than the policy makers of our own so-called government stripping away such basic human rights as fox-hunting and smoking in pubs - but two aspects of Traditional British Culture we have allowed to vanish away without so much as a whimper. |
|
29 Jan 08 - 09:22 AM (#2247769) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: GUEST,PMB OK Giok, if for the moment we accept that "multiculturalism" is undesirable, how do we decide on the monoculture that is to replace it? Is there any "national" culture that is available for imposition as the norm for all groups- Surrey stockbrokers, London cab drivers, Mansfield ex-miners, Lincolnshire farmers, Welsh speakers, non-Welsh speakers in Wales, Glasgow (Rangers and Celtic) folk, Scillonians, Hebrideans, football fans and village green cricketers, Anglicans and atheists, train- spotters and fashion victims. I'm hoping that anti- multiculturalism doesn't only apply to "alien" cultures , because then we start- are the French aliens? The Irish? Italians? Romanians? Who gets to draw the line? |
|
29 Jan 08 - 09:23 AM (#2247770) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Grab I'm not sure I do overstate the case, Keith. If they'd just come straight out and say "If you hate wogs, wops and niggers, we're the guys for you", it'd almost be a relief. Instead it's one damn cherry-picked story after another, complete with editorials about how wrong it is for there to be Islamic schools in Britain and how they're breeding grounds for terrorism. Or about how immigrants aren't integrating into British society - well hey, check out the paper you're reading and wonder why they're scared to. Or for that matter, go anywhere in Europe and see how good Brits are at integrating (hint: not very). Back on the original post, Amis has half a point. You can only justify criticising someone else when you understand them well enough to criticise them fairly. If you don't know enough to make a sensible point, then you should do a bit of learning before you jump in with both feet. The problem is that whilst younger people are growing up with this knowledge (from school and from friends), many older folk simply don't know the score. So either they go and over-react to avoid any possible offence (cue your favourite tale of PC gone mad), or they go the other way and don't give a damn how offensive they are. Precious few folk take the trouble to really suss things out. For my part, I'll freely own up to being one of those who don't know enough - which is precisely why I hate seeing scare stories in the papers or online when even my limited knowledge tells me it's bullshit. Graham. |
|
29 Jan 08 - 09:32 AM (#2247778) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Liz the Squeak Smoking in pubs is not a mainstay of Traditonal British culture - other countries have bars, other countries have restrictions and bans on tobacco and alcohol. It was traditional to put petty offenders in the pillory and have others throw rotting food, stones and faeces at them... other countries have a tradition of removing the hands of theives - should we insist that these 'traditions' are reinstated? Fox hunting is not a basic human right. Clean water, clean air, food and shelter are basic human rights. LTS |
|
29 Jan 08 - 09:36 AM (#2247785) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Big Phil "They found their wives unable to obtain hospital beds in childbirth, their children unable to obtain school places, their homes and neighbourhoods changed beyond recognition, their plans and prospects for the future defeated; at work they found that employers hesitated to apply to the immigrant worker the standards of discipline and competence required of the native-born worker; they began to hear, as time went by, more and more voices which told them that they were now the unwanted." Written in 1968. Its now come true. Phil* |
|
29 Jan 08 - 09:48 AM (#2247793) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Mr Happy Big Phil, Source? ************ BTW, do aliens have 'unalienable' rights? |
|
29 Jan 08 - 10:21 AM (#2247808) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Mr Happy Unsourced quotes aren't really credible - the media/press are very adept in this technique |
|
29 Jan 08 - 10:42 AM (#2247826) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Emma B 'For years of course there have been attacks on multiculturalism. You couldn't open the Mail or the Sun without seeing Melanie Philips, Peter Hitchens, Norman Tebbit, Rod Liddle, Richard Littlejohn and their ilk lambast multiculturalism. For them the idea of different cultures being offered parity of respect was too much to bear. People of all ethnicities who have been engaged in multiculturalism have always had to defend themselves. What sustained us was the knowledge that multiculturalism is so necessary and right that when the chips are down, all right thinking people must surely agree with its central proposition – that differing cultures are equally worthy of respect...... .... This twist is the added poison of Islamaphobia. There is nothing particularly sophisticated or intellectual about this argument; it is simply saying that the responsibility for Islamist terrorism and extremism lies with the entire Muslim community and the multiculturalism which has enabled that community to live peaceably in Britain..... It is time for all good people to come to the aid of the M Word. For years, multiculturalists have suffered the gibes of our opponents that we encourage disintegration, or hate British culture.... If you believe the papers, you could be forgiven for thinking that multiculturalism has won, that it is the orthodoxy, with all its critics being valiant rebels battling against a PC tyranny. This is far from the truth. Despite all their achievements, multiculturalists always need to battle for, and defend, their basic principles.' - excerpts from the 1990 Trust Human Rights for Race Equality 'In Defence of Multiculturalism' Despite risible accusations of 'paranoia' it would appear that many people recognize that attacks on multiculturalism is racism by the back door. |
|
29 Jan 08 - 11:12 AM (#2247859) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: John MacKenzie Now there you go again PMB, putting words in my mouth. At no time did I say I was against multiculturalism. I as a Scot lived in the south of England for 35 years, so I am q.e.d a beneficiary of it. I also hope those amongst whom I lived, people of many cultures, also derived a little benefit from meeting up with aspects of my culture. It is time that the difference between "Multiculturalism" and multiculturalism was noted by the majority of people. Remember "Political Correctness" and "Feminism", they also suffered from the same over emphasis, and zealotry among certain sections of the populace. They are just words, and not labels, nor even raisons d'etre. G |
|
29 Jan 08 - 11:27 AM (#2247873) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: GUEST,PMB Nuts and raisons d'etre? OK Giok, accepted, and your distinction noted. Everybody should be as culturally aware as they can manage, and that includes people promoting multiculturalism of course. But back to the original point, to criticise a culture requires at least some knowledge of it, a readiness to explain how other cultures avoid the problem identified, and an awarteness that ones own culture might be less than perfect. |
|
29 Jan 08 - 11:34 AM (#2247880) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Jack Blandiver LTS - You're right, of course, though I would have thought anything that people do with respect to crack & cameraderie at least approaches being a basic human right. This would include fox-hunting (which might also be justified on grounds of husbandry & ecology, but that's another issue...) and smoking in pubs / cafes etc, which in my smoking days (I gave up on August 22nd 2000 on serious medical advice) was such an essential aspect of the culture of community & communication, as it had been since my childhood (fox-hunting likewise). Otherwise - I'm proud of my culture, and my heritage, and proud of everything I am from the colour of my skin, through the shape of my Anglo-Irish-Jewish nose, to the circumcised dick that caused me as much traumatic ridicule at school as any racism per-se. But I'm not so proud of my culture that I can't see it as being as much a part of the wider condition of British cultural pluralism as it is an entirely subjective interpretation of something that is only mine as long as I'm alive to acknowledge & celebrate it. Culture is as people do; and once they stop doing it (for whatever reason) then it ain't. Any objective existence is, therefore, illusionary, a mirage brought about by those who can't see the trees for the fecking wood (smoking and fox-hunting included, of course). |
|
29 Jan 08 - 11:35 AM (#2247882) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: TheSnail Since Big Phil seems reluctant to give his source, here it is - http://www.natfront.com/powell.html |
|
29 Jan 08 - 11:41 AM (#2247887) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: John MacKenzie Appalling that the National Front should expropriate Enoch Powell in such a fashion. He would have nothing whatsoever to do with such a Another example of people taking the meaning that they like, or even the meaning that offends them most, from a speech/statement which doesn't mean what they make it into. Giok |
|
29 Jan 08 - 11:52 AM (#2247897) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Mr Happy Snail, Thanks for clarification |
|
29 Jan 08 - 12:04 PM (#2247909) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: GUEST,PMB Powell and the NF/BM/BNP are natural associates: She finds excreta pushed through her letter box. When she goes to the shops, she is followed by ... wide-grinning piccaninnies.... That's from the "Rivers of Blood" speech. It's not "politically incorrect", it's racist filth. |
|
29 Jan 08 - 12:06 PM (#2247910) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Richard Bridge Powell's "Rivers of Blood" speech was pretty far out. As for cultural respect, what about haggises and Burns night? Haggis (real haggis) is banned in the USA I think. |
|
29 Jan 08 - 12:14 PM (#2247918) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: John MacKenzie The speech was 40 years ago and in those days words were used that are not acceptable now, whereas they were common parlance then. Not that that makes it right, but it helps if you look at these things in context. I still stand by my belief that Enoch Powell would have nothing to do with the BNP, were he still alive. Which was what I said in my original post, and in saying that, I in no way condone what he said in that infamous speech. Giok |
|
29 Jan 08 - 03:10 PM (#2248068) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Big Phil TheSnail Sorry I cannot be on the computor all day, just for your benifit. Enoch Powell's famous 'Rivers of Blood' speech, as delivered in Birmingham on 20 April 1968. Yes this is the source of my material, makes interesting reading don't you think. Phil* |
|
29 Jan 08 - 03:20 PM (#2248080) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: John MacKenzie Quoting the words of others has so far contributed nothing positive to this discussion. Phil your attitude is outdated, you need to wake up and smell the coffee, as they say. You may quote Enoch Powell or any other bogey man you like, it won't change a thing. Neither Enoch Powell or any other British politician would make a speech like that today. G |
|
29 Jan 08 - 03:21 PM (#2248081) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Rapunzel On the subject of Haggis, I heard an article on BBC Radio 4's PM programme the other day which explained the banning of haggis in USA (and other countries beyond Europe). These countries do not permit the importing of offal because of the UK's BSE status - not on cultural grounds. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7198751.stm |
|
29 Jan 08 - 04:26 PM (#2248143) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: TheSnail Big Phil TheSnail Sorry I cannot be on the computor all day, just for your benifit. You could have quoted your source in the orginal post. |
|
29 Jan 08 - 05:07 PM (#2248171) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Bonzo3legs The media and trendy lefties love to whinge on about "communities", which are really no different from gangs in the school playground. Normal people don't have any hangups about other "communities", we just get on with our lives and mingle!! |
|
30 Jan 08 - 05:30 AM (#2248456) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Big Phil My first post on this subject. ""They found their wives unable to obtain hospital beds in childbirth, their children unable to obtain school places, their homes and neighbourhoods changed beyond recognition, their plans and prospects for the future defeated; at work they found that employers hesitated to apply to the immigrant worker the standards of discipline and competence required of the native-born worker; they began to hear, as time went by, more and more voices which told them that they were now the unwanted." Written in 1968. Its now come true." After taking stick from you multiculturism lovers out there, please read the following, then tell me which part of my previous post was wrong. The cost to the NHS of providing maternity services for foreign-born mothers has risen to more than £350 million a year. Record levels of immigration have pushed the cost up by £200 million in the past 10 years, according to analysis by the BBC Ten O'Clock News. And critics say the Department of Health has been "taken by surprise" by the rising birthrate, with some maternity wards forced to close their doors to expectant mothers. And while a decade ago one baby in eight (12.8%) was delivered to a foreign-born mother, figures from the Office of National Statistics show that in 2006 there were 154,000 births to foreign-born women, making up about one in five (21.9%) of total births in the UK. The number of births to European-born mothers other than from the UK and Ireland increased by 87% between 2001 and 2006 to 27,000 - almost 4% of all UK births. While the number of babies born to British mothers has fallen by 44,000 a year since the mid-90s, the figure for babies born to foreign mothers has risen by 64,000, the BBC reported. This 77% increase has pushed the overall birthrate to its highest level for 26 years. Professor Philip Steer, editor of the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, told the BBC: "The Department of Health has been taken by surprise. The demographic change, the sheer numbers, has in some areas increased very substantially without there being any forward planning really to allow for that." The BBC said Heatherwood Hospital in Ascot closed its maternity unit last summer because of an unprecedented increase in the local birth rate. Midwives were moved to Wexham Park Hospital, closer to Slough, where an extra 150 babies were reportedly delivered to foreign-born mothers in the past year. Now try to defend the undefendable. Phil* |
|
30 Jan 08 - 05:43 AM (#2248468) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Emma B In Europe 2.1 children per woman is considered to be the population replacement level. These are national averages - Ireland: 1.99 France: 1.90 Norway: 1.81 Sweden 1.75 UK: 1.74 Netherlands: 1.73 Germany: 1.37 Italy: 1.33 Spain: 1.32 Greece: 1.29 'Demographic decline causes anxiety because it is thought to go hand-in-hand with economic decline. With fewer, younger workers to pay the health and pension bills of an elderly population, states face an unprecedented fiscal burden. The dependency ratio of those aged 65 and over to those of working age looks set to double from one-to-four to one-to-two in 2050' News item and statistics 2006 Well Big Phil (apart from our maternity services being caught on the hop) that looks like, as are most births, a cause for celebration! |
|
30 Jan 08 - 06:18 AM (#2248476) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Keith A of Hertford The UK has a growing population. It grew by 349,000 people in the year to mid-2006 (0.6 per cent). The UK population has increased by 8 per cent since 1971, from 55,928,000. Growth has been faster in more recent years. Between mid-1991 and mid-2006 the population grew by an average annual rate of 0.4 per cent and the average growth per year since mid-2001 has been 0.5 per cent. |
|
30 Jan 08 - 06:29 AM (#2248479) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Keith A of Hertford Most of the increase is concentrated in London and the South East, already the most densely populatated. The roads are jammed. London has the slowest journey times of anywhere in Europe. The trains and underground are jammed with miserable people. Hospital waiting rooms, schools etc., etc. House prices are way beyond the reach of all but the most wealthy. Rents are higher in proportion to wages than they have ever been, if you can find a place to rent. When rainfall is average or below there is not even enough water. |
|
30 Jan 08 - 06:35 AM (#2248481) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Keith A of Hertford The NHS is spending £350m a year to provide maternity services for foreign-born mothers, £200m more than a decade ago, the BBC has found. Immigration has raised the birth rate so fast that some units have closed, so that midwives could be moved to areas of urgent need. A unit in Ascot, Berkshire, shut for two months in 2007 because staff had to be transferred to Slough. The NHS says it is working to "build in" the extra capacity needed. Other maternity units have turned expectant mothers away because they could not cope with unprecedented increases in the local birth rate. When Labour came to power, the NHS spent around £1bn a year on maternity services, with one baby in eight delivered to a foreign-born mother. Ten years on, spending has risen to £1.6bn, with almost one baby in four delivered to a mother born overseas. While the number of babies born to British mothers has fallen by 44,000 a year since the mid-1990s, the figure for babies born to foreign mothers has risen by 64,000 - a 77% increase which has pushed the overall birth-rate to its highest level for 26 years. In central London, where six out of every 10 babies born has a foreign-born mother, senior consultants and health managers blame the lack of resources to deal with the pressures of migration for unacceptably poor standards. Professor Philip Steer, editor of the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, said: "The Department of Health has been taken by surprise. The demographic change, the sheer numbers, has in some areas increased very substantially without there being any forward planning really to allow for that." According to figures from the Office for National Statistics, in 2006 there were 15,000 more Eastern European babies born here than a decade earlier. 'Unprecedented increase' The statistics go on to show that 11,000 more babies were born to a mother from the Indian sub-continent, while 8,000 extra babies had mothers born in Africa. Heatherwood Hospital in Ascot closed its maternity unit for two months in the summer of 2007 because of an "unprecedented increase" in the local birth rate. Midwives were moved to Wexham Park Hospital, closer to the pressure-point of Slough where in the last year staff have witnessed an extra 150 babies delivered to foreign-born mothers. Tharlie's parents were told their local birthing unit was full In a statement at the time, local health officials said they "reluctantly took the decision to temporarily close the delivery suite at Heatherwood Hospital for two months so we can ensure we offer mothers-to-be a safe, high quality service at Wexham Park Hospital." The knock-on effect was experienced in nearby Reading where the local maternity unit could not cope with the extra demand. Tharlie Cooper was supposed to have been born in Reading, but when mother Lavina went into labour two weeks overdue she was told that, despite her being booked in, her local birthing unit was full. Tharlie's father Dean was furious. "Basically we got turned away and the reply I got on the phone was wherever you ended up is where you end up", he said. He drove his wife to Basingstoke in neighbouring Hampshire where doctors conducted an emergency caesarean. LIVE BIRTHS BY COUNTRY OF BIRTH OF MOTHER Births by British-born mothers down 44,000 Births by all foreign-born mothers up 64,000 Births by mothers born in Eastern Europe up 15,000 Births by mothers born in Indian subcontinent up 11,000 Births by mothers born in Africa up 8,000 Source: ONS/BBC |
|
30 Jan 08 - 06:36 AM (#2248482) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: John MacKenzie As we are entitled to health care in other EU member states, so their citizens are entitled to the same here. Which seems only fair, if you are a member of a club you must abide by it's rules. Whether or not we should be a member of said club is a whole different discussion. I do feel that a charge should be made on those who use the NHS without entitlement, and the same applies to other institutions which are funded by the UK taxpayer. My Grandmother was told in about 1950 when she was left on her own, with no income, that as she had not paid enough NI contributions to qualify, she could not claim any benefits. I don't know if there are any rules about minimum or nil contributions now, but it would appear on the face of it, to be wrong for others to benefit and not contribute. I read this story this morning and knew it would appear on here before long. It is a gift to those of Big Phil's viewpoint I'm afraid. Giok |
|
30 Jan 08 - 06:46 AM (#2248489) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: John MacKenzie The over population of the South East of England is an historical problem, and if the government had any brains, or courage, it could do something about it. They could have awarded the Olympic Games to another UK city for instance! G |
|
30 Jan 08 - 06:57 AM (#2248495) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Mr Happy Are the migrant who're working in UK not paying tax & NI? |
|
30 Jan 08 - 07:01 AM (#2248499) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: John MacKenzie That is a good point, and is not stated, but as I said, "it would appear on the face of it, to be wrong for others to benefit and not contribute." G. |
|
30 Jan 08 - 07:21 AM (#2248507) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Mr Happy Well it seems a typical tactic of NF, BNP et al to promulgate negativities about their targets, while omitting other relevant info. |
|
30 Jan 08 - 07:28 AM (#2248509) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: John MacKenzie The actual article from the BBC news site is here . Hopefully this will avoid selective quoting. G |
|
30 Jan 08 - 07:40 AM (#2248521) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Keith A of Hertford Are you saying that I selectively quoted John? Which bits did I selectively leave out? We are not supposed to paste in overlarge chunks. And what have I said or not said to justify the BNP, NF slur? Not everyone with reservations about mass uncontrolled immigration is a racist, but of course, name calling is less taxing than discussion. |
|
30 Jan 08 - 07:43 AM (#2248522) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: John MacKenzie You really do need to re read my posts. |
|
30 Jan 08 - 08:00 AM (#2248534) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Keith A of Hertford I did not mean to link Mr. Happy's slurs with you John. Sorry. |
|
30 Jan 08 - 08:09 AM (#2248543) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Mr Happy Keith, First of all, no personal 'slurs' intended. My above posts were merely to point out that although the NHS & other orgs are providing services for lots of people of whatever origin, there's seldom mention of what they or their families are contributing to the common good, which seems to me, one sided. |
|
30 Jan 08 - 08:29 AM (#2248555) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Keith A of Hertford Mr. Happy. Some things just do not need saying. Everyone has to pay tax on their earnings. It is still impossible to instantly provide resources, services and infrastructure for 2 million new taxpayers. And we have not touched upon the tensions that are likely to arise, and to an extent are being seen already. |
|
30 Jan 08 - 08:41 AM (#2248562) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Mr Happy ..........& to continue, some things do need saying if we're to have a balanced discussion, such as statistics to show how national resources are provided for other home grown groups & individuals who haven't or don't contribute to the mutual purse. |
|
30 Jan 08 - 08:45 AM (#2248566) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Keith A of Hertford John, your link was not to the news item that I quoted from. Mine was put up yesterday. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7215624.stm |
|
30 Jan 08 - 08:49 AM (#2248572) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: John MacKenzie There is no doubt these things need discussion, and without doctrinaire responses from those to whom the merest mention of culture, elicits a diatribe of quotes, and the invocation of PC attitudes. G |
|
30 Jan 08 - 09:36 AM (#2248599) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Stu "Most of the increase is concentrated in London and the South East, already the most densely populatated. The roads are jammed. London has the slowest journey times of anywhere in Europe. The trains and underground are jammed with miserable people. Hospital waiting rooms, schools etc., etc. House prices are way beyond the reach of all but the most wealthy. Rents are higher in proportion to wages than they have ever been, if you can find a place to rent. When rainfall is average or below there is not even enough water." So this is all the fault of immigrants? You're even blaming them for the lack of rain? |
|
30 Jan 08 - 09:50 AM (#2248607) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Keith A of Hertford No fault, just the result of too many people in a small place. |
|
30 Jan 08 - 10:09 AM (#2248615) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Keith A of Hertford ....but in the case of London, the massive increase in population is entirely due to immigration, as the non immigrant population has a birth rate well below replacement, and they are moving away in ever growing numbers (white flight). You can not blame the immigrants for seeking a better life, but you can surely blame those who are supposed to plan these things. |
|
30 Jan 08 - 02:01 PM (#2248804) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Riginslinger In the states, the people who are doing the planning are multi-national corporations who want massive cheap labor. |
|
31 Jan 08 - 03:25 AM (#2249311) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Keith A of Hertford It is the same here Rignslinger. Immigration brings costs and benefits. The benefits of an influx of flexible low wage workers falls to business, the government itself which is a huge employer, and comfortably off people who enjoy eating out and domestic help on the cheap. The costs , including lower wages, unemployment, deteriorating housing and services, is borne by the community. |
|
31 Jan 08 - 03:58 AM (#2249325) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Stu "The costs , including lower wages, unemployment, deteriorating housing and services, is borne by the community." The idea that the problems in these areas are the result of an influx of immigrants is ridiculous. It's typical Daily Mail shite propaganda that states the problems of a society are blamed on the faceless outsiders in our midst, interlopers from across the sea deliberately shipped in to displace the working population. If it offends you so much, go and do something about it. So let's hear some suggestions. What's your solution? Kick 'em out? Here's a little snippet you may well agree with: "This country has so many deep rooted problems, that successive governments have cultivated and allowed to grow due to ignorance and cowardice. Todays youth are arrogant, lawless and disaffected. Gang culture has been imported through immigration. The cost of living is too high. Indigenous brits are aliens in their own country." Talking your language? Off you go then and join your like-minded anti-multiculturalist types here. No dissenting voices there - a quick look around the forums is most revealing. No danger of being distracted by Johnny Foreigner there. N.B. "Gang culture has been imported through immigration." Un-effing-believable statement. |
|
31 Jan 08 - 04:15 AM (#2249332) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Keith A of Hertford The idea that immigration does not effect these problems is ridiculous. Do you know any builders? Do you know anyone on the waiting list for social housing? Ask them. What to do about it? I think that Britain should apply the same sorts of regulation and control on immigration as every other country in the world. |
|
31 Jan 08 - 04:22 AM (#2249334) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Keith A of Hertford I have not linked gang culture with immigration, so why attack me on something I have not said and do not believe? |
|
31 Jan 08 - 04:35 AM (#2249338) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: GUEST,dianavan "The main result of multiculturalism in the UK seems to be, that the only culture a person can criticise now, is their own." Thats right. Otherwise you are judging others on the basis of your own cultural bias which is an ethnocentric point of view. Change rarely occurs as a result of outside pressure or opinion. If change is to occur, it must happen from within the culture. |
|
31 Jan 08 - 04:52 AM (#2249346) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: GUEST,PMB The costs , including lower wages, unemployment, deteriorating housing and services, is borne by the community. The problem of low wages is not caused by migrant workers, it's caused by the poor employment protection we "enjoy" since one M. Thatcher spent our North Sea oil money on smashing the unions. This has enabled supermarkets (for example) to put pressure on farmers to the point where it's simply not possible to employ people at a decent wage. Local people are forced out of jobs and houses; they can't afford to rent housing in rural areas at the wages available. Good news for the owners of the housing, who can sell it to city commuters at fancy prices. And the farmers employ contract gangs for the donkey work, bussed in from cities at take-it-or-leave-it wages, often below the legal minimum. Rightly those with a choice (because of unemployment benefit) won't work under those conditions. Housing- since one M. Thatcher, constructiuon of new housing has been left almost entirely to the market, which makes more money from building luxury estates and bachelor pads than from cheap housing for families. The remaining 'social' housing becomes a last resort, possibly a deliberate tactic to force people to take mortgages. Mortgages are profitable and act as a powerful social control- you've never heard of a mortgage strike. Services are not 'overwhelmed' as much as underfunded, and forced to spend such funds as they have on PFIs profitable to the government's current favourite lobbyists. It's not surprising hospitals turn people away when they've been reducing beds for years. Incidentally, you might observe that our hospitals would have collapsed years ago had they not been overwhelmed by scrounging foreign nurses and doctors. All of which has absoluyely nothing to do with multiculturalism, as that applies to people whose families have lived here for several generations. Most of the "alien" cultures belong to the grandchildren of the "Negroes" and "Pakis" so beloved of Our Enoch and his merry men. |
|
31 Jan 08 - 04:53 AM (#2249348) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: GUEST,PMB Where's Leadfingers when you need him? |
|
31 Jan 08 - 05:11 AM (#2249353) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Keith A of Hertford This is from dear old multicultural BBC. "Foreign-born workers appear to have filled about two-thirds of new UK jobs between 2002 and 2006, the report said. They also may have made it tricky for UK youngsters to get entry level jobs. And low inflation was achieved by keeping a lid on wage rises. The ITEM Club estimates 1.5 million immigrants have arrived since 1997. "Foreign workers come to the UK and obviously help us push up production levels," Professor Peter Spencer, chief economic adviser to the ITEM Club, told the BBC. "They also help keep the lid on inflation." However, the report also points out that the growth of immigration may have also increased unemployment among young UK workers. " Here is the link. I would not want to be accused of selective quoting. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7149258.stm |
|
31 Jan 08 - 05:36 AM (#2249359) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Keith A of Hertford This is from The Guardian, more noted for being PC and multicultural than for "shite propaganda". Migrants - the verdict: hardworking and skilled but with social problems in tow. Alan Travis, home affairs editor Wednesday October 17, 2007 The Guardian The first official government study of the economic impact of the biggest wave of migration to Britain in recent years reaches an overwhelmingly beneficial verdict. "In recent years migrants have made a more positive contribution to the public finances than native workers; have often been highly skilled and accordingly captured higher labour market rewards," concludes the joint Treasury, Home Office and Work and Pensions study. "They have very little discernible negative impact on labour market outcomes for native workers." Article continues -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- But the Home Office also published the initial findings last night of regional "soundings" of the impact of east European migrants in Britain. It revealed that in seven out of eight regions they have increased pressure on housing and more than half have seen a rise in crime, health and housing problems. All areas have reported an increase in migration and some were not expecting them. The findings will be used to decide whether restrictions on Romanian and Bulgarians coming in should be lifted and to shape the new Australian-style immigration "points system" to be introduced next April for non-EU migrants. Economic The report says the proportion of overseas-born migrants in the labour force has risen steadily from 7.4% in 1997 to 12.5% in 2006. It says employers regard them as more reliable, with Polish workers seen as highly motivated and skilled. Many migrants were also seen as more willing to work hard, long hours. Less than 6% of employers hired them because of lower wage costs. Wages The Treasury estimates that in 2006 new migration added about £6bn to economic growth - about one-sixth of total economic growth last year with migrant wage levels on average at £424 a week compared with £395 for UK-born workers. But it adds that while migrants from developed western economies tend to earn more than their British counterparts, those from eastern Europe earn noticeably less. The impact of the new migration on wage levels, however, has proved more difficult to pin down. Research published yesterday quotes the Low Pay Commission finding that up until 2005 migration led to a "modest dampening of wage growth for native workers" but says the national minimum wage has helped protect the lower-paid. Housing East Midlands and Scotland have reported an emerging homeless problem among migrant Poles, with many living in poor quality housing due to unscrupulous landlords. There were reports of pressure on affordable private housing and rent levels in half of the regions. Education Increased demand for English as second language courses has led to a shortage of evening classes. One region reported some migrant children not attending school. Translation costs are rising and there have been some problems with pupils arriving and leaving within a year. Health In three regions, there were reports of more pressure on A&Edepartments used by migrants instead of GPs. Sheffield and East Midlands reported increased cases for GPs. There has been higher incidence of HIV and TB among non-EU migrants. Crime and disorder Five out of eight regions reported increases in low-level crime such as antisocial behaviour. Concerns were also found about migrants as victims of unscrupulous gangmasters and landlords. |
|
31 Jan 08 - 05:44 AM (#2249361) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Liz the Squeak It may have 'increased unemployment among young UK workers' but a quick look in the local jobcentre window the other week showed me that the majority of jobs available were the low paid, long hour, actually get your hands dirty jobs that those self same young UK workers won't touch. With businesses moving away from the high-rent, high-cost of living south east, there are fewer jobs available anyway. All I hear from the kids I see in the school here is how they are going to make money fast and live like lords before they're 20. None of them foresee office cleaner, shop assistant or kitchen skivvy in their future. LTS |
|
31 Jan 08 - 06:03 AM (#2249372) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Richard Bridge It is twaddle to say that you can only criticise a culture from within it. On the other hand you should not pre-judge people by reference to their colour race creed religion matrimonial statuus or sexuality. There is however an unclear line between the practices that some cultures claim are religiously or culturally mandated (or permitted) but are properly to be objected to by the host culture, on the one hand, and those that are religiously or culturally mandated or preferred but although not preferred by the host culture are not properly to be prohibited. Those properly to be objected to might without limitation include clitorectomy forced marriage foot binding the use of illegal drugs (Qat, or by Rastafarians, ganja - which I happen to think ought not to be illegal but is within the host state's competence to ban) or what about alcohol in the places it is banned? Cruelty to animals Child abuse (exorcism rituals, excessive punishment) the carrying of practical cultural weapons (eg Kukri or Kris or Claymore) Some clothing codes (eg the naked holy man, the bikini in the Vatican, the topless bather in Iraq!) Non-notification of notifiable diseases Excess occupancy (a health issue) Noise nuisance Other legal nuisance (public or private) Planning permission and building regulations generally (but query the traveller communities) Trespass Two puzzlers are the Sikhs and crash helmets, and the Polish priests adn ther proposed zero tolerance breathaliser that will prevent priests travelling from communion). Another puzzler is the imposition of codes that might generally be seen as excessive - eg Islamic dress in Iran and Afghanistan. Should women be entitled to wear trousers in countries where that is not customary? What about polygamy/polygyny/polyandry? Those which the host state might not like but should consider tolerating (with or without suggestion as to variation) could (without limitation) include Cooking smells Clothing customs that do not offend local decency laws (eg turban, fez, 3 piece man's suit in Bahrain) Prayer habits Ineffective weapons (the Sikh dagger, or the dirk) Simple greetings (eg "Merry Christmas" which my stepdaughter was disciplined for saying to another Intel employee) "Personal space" habits |
|
31 Jan 08 - 06:16 AM (#2249380) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: John MacKenzie The habit of trying to erase the word failure from the school curriculum, and the fad for giving everybody a certificate even when they don't actually pass the exam, is to my mind the reason why kids won't accept perfectly decent jobs when they are offered. That along with stupid TV programmes that make celebrities out of eedjits like Jade Goody, and others which promise riches for a £1 lottery ticket. These things cause kids to have unrealistic expectations, a touch of reality is what is required, and they seem to be shielded from that at every turn. PMB, I wondered when somebody would raise the spectre of Maggie Thatcher, the left use any excuse to drag her in as a scapegoat. She did NOT use the money from North Sea Oil to suppress the unions, in fact that oil had been mortgaged by a Labour government, long before a barrel had been pumped. However it has nothing to do with the subject of this thread. Giok |
|
31 Jan 08 - 06:45 AM (#2249391) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: GUEST,PMB Good sense Richard. I think those of us in favour of a multicultural approach weren't saying you can't criticise other cultures, but that you need to do it in an informed manner, and with an awareness of possible shortcomings in one's own culture. This is, of course, a reciprocal duty on other cultures. But "Two puzzlers are the Sikhs and crash helmets, and the Polish priests adn ther proposed zero tolerance breathaliser that will prevent priests travelling from communion)." Crash helmets were always a source of contoversy, as it is a measure which imposes a duty on a person for his own protection, with the wider effect that it reduces costs in the health service. One might argue that personal safety is mainly an individual's concern, provided they cover the social costs, e.g. by taking extra insurance. Sikhs (and other bikers) could then make a choice. As for priests, why can't they get a parishioner to drive them about on Sundays? |
|
31 Jan 08 - 07:54 AM (#2249436) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Grab Keith, there is absoltuely no relevance in how much the NHS is spending on immigrant mothers. If they've paid their tax and NI, they are fully entitled to use the services of the country they're living in. Nor is there any relevance in lack of affordable or government-owned housing. Both these are symptoms of a deeper problem, which is a government banking the money and failing to distribute it where it's needed - hospitals and local housing have been underfunded since before the fall of the Iron Curtain, and the fact that this hasn't changed is not the fault of any recent immigrants. Rise in house prices linked to immigration? First I've heard of it. You reckon all these immigrants on minimum wage are buying houses at £200-300k? Sorry, that's rubbish. London jammed? News flash - London has been jammed for the last 400 years. It's an old city with a traffic system designed for people on donkeys, so go figure. And Londoners moving away in numbers - when did that happen? Being the capital, it's got all the banks, most of the lawyers, most of the large companies, most of the transport links, in fact most of everything. So more companies are based in London, and they hire more people, who live in (surprise!) London and surrounding towns. Shortage of evening classes to learn English? Well bugger me - there's all these people WANTING TO INTEGRATE FULLY INTO BRITISH SOCIETY!!! What was your objection again? As for Britain having regulation and control of immigrants like other countries - guess what, it does! Non-EU workers need visas and work permits, same as anywhere else in the world. Sure, there's no restriction on EU workers, because that's the point of the EU. If you wanted to go and work in Spain or Germany or wherever else in Europe, you'd have the same rights to go and work there if you wanted. I've seen more than a few British people working in bars and restaurants round Europe, same as we have Europeans working in bars and restaurants here. Big fat hairy deal. For keeping Brits out of "entry level jobs", remember that the jobs these folks are taking are not so much "entry level" as "never-going-anywhere". You don't have career prospects on a sugar beet farm. Graham. |
|
31 Jan 08 - 08:16 AM (#2249450) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: manitas_at_work "And Londoners moving away in numbers - when did that happen" Since London was founded, actually. Families move into London and then, a generation or two later, move out. In recent decades the government has encouraged people to move out to various garden cities and new towns. I was quite surprised to find that my family could trace it's occupancy of one London street back to 1890, ending in 2006. But we've been moving further and further out since the 1970's. |
|
31 Jan 08 - 08:32 AM (#2249462) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Stu "PMB, I wondered when somebody would raise the spectre of Maggie Thatcher, the left use any excuse to drag her in as a scapegoat." Well said Goik. Why anyone should drag that fine, respectable and deeply compassionate old woman into any argument about the decimation of social housing is beyond me. Although she did start the selling off the countries social housing stock. And not building any more to replace it with. Which has left us with the housing shortage we have today (which even Keith can't blame on trespassing Poles - though he has tried). So, er, she might bear some of the responsibility for the current housing problem. This endless bleating by disenchanted little-Englanders who attribute all the nation's woes to the ever-increasing hordes from across the channel and beyond betrays a deep-rooted unease within themselves. What causes this? If your national identity is under threat then ask yourself why? Clue - it's sod all to do with the rise of multiculturalism. |
|
31 Jan 08 - 09:44 AM (#2249524) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Keith A of Hertford Grab, yes they are entitled to medical reatment and support. The problem is just that staff and facilities can not be created as fast as the demand is increasing. I did not make up that stuff about overwhelmed child birth units. I did not make up those reports on housing which were reported in the Guardian and BBC. Take it up with the professionals. It is obvious to me however that an influx of people will add to the housing crisis. This will effect social and private renting first, but some knock on to house prices will follow through the buy to let business. London is jammed , is no older than other European cities, and has an expensive congestion charge to reduce traffic. I did not make it up, but is it not obvious that more people means more congestion? Not all EU countries allow unlimited EU immigration, and our system makes Britain the destination of choice for unreasonable numbers. |
|
31 Jan 08 - 09:58 AM (#2249531) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Keith A of Hertford London has the slowest-moving traffic in Europe, according to a study released yesterday which put six British cities in the Top Ten. Traffic in London moves at an average of 12mph. By contrast, cars get through Hamburg, the fastest-moving city surveyed, at more than 50mph. Other British cities in the Top Ten are Manchester, at 17mph; Edinburgh, at 18mph; Glasgow, at 19mph; and Bristol and Belfast, both at about 20mph. Newcastle-upon-Tyne was the fastest-moving city in the country, with an average of 26mph. http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/driving/article2674963.ece |
|
31 Jan 08 - 10:41 AM (#2249567) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Liz the Squeak Manitas - "my family can trace it's occupancy of one London street back to 1890, ending in 2006" So when your family moved into that street, mine had already been living in a particular village for 76 years, and still have descendants there now... Graham - did you not read my last post? Even the GOVERNMENT is moving its offices out of London because it cannot afford the rents. More and more office blocks, historical factories and other community buildings are being converted for housing - the old Briant and May match factory is one example. Many old Victorian pubs have been converted to flats or razed to the ground to make room for more housing... it's affordable housing for the infrastructure workers that's required. A teacher at the local school commutes over 30 miles home and back because he could not afford a house any closer. As for 'more companies based in London' - on what do you base that comment? A check on the Companies House Website will reveal that many thousands of companies do indeed have London addresses as their registered office but they do not all conduct their business here. A company can be registered in London but do all its business in another county or even another country. The address is probably that of their agent who will deal with many - I have counted 1200 at one address alone. LTS |
|
31 Jan 08 - 12:44 PM (#2249677) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Keith A of Hertford A record number of British citizens are leaving the country, according to official figures published yesterday. An unprecedented 196,000 left the country last year, with Australia, Spain, America, New Zealand and France the most popular destinations for those seeking a new life. The exodus is countered by high levels of immigration, with the Office for National Statistics saying that 574,000 people came to live in Britain between June 2005 and 2006. The ONS figures also showed the numbers arriving from Eastern Europe are still close to the boom levels seen after eight countries including Poland joined the European Union in the spring of 2004. The new figures also suggested that middle-class Britons are beginning to move out of towns in southern England that are home to large numbers of immigrants. This phenomenon - called 'churn' by Whitehall officials and 'middleclass flight' by other commentators - saw 240,000 people move out of London last year. "Even fairly rural areas and villages seem to be coming under the threat of having an increased population and lack of services." The ONS yesterday estimated that last year's emigration figures were the highest since 1991, when modern counting methods were adopted. A total of 385,000 people are thought to have left the country, although this figure includes many foreigners who were in Britain temporarily. Current levels are far above those in previous high emigration periods such as the 1970s and early 1980s. The 574,000 who came into Britain last year included many types of people, some of them successful applicants from highly-skilled migrant programmes. Another 91,000 were Britons who had lived abroad coming home. It also included 74,000 who came from Eastern Europe, the ONS said. This brings the official estimate of migration from the new EU countries since the middle of 2004 to 151,000. However, ministers admit that in reality more than 600,000 have come over here. Sir Andrew Green of Migrationwatch said that the ONS calculated that only 57,000 of the recent Eastern European arrivals had stayed in Britain. But 210,000 signed the Government's register to work in Britain over the period. He added: "This once again highlights that the Government has no real grip of immigration or any meaningful idea of the true number coming to and leaving the UK which makes planning for these large population increases extremely difficult." ONS officials, who continue to base immigration estimates on a largely-discredited survey taken at ports of entry, said compiling the figures was becoming "difficult" and "challenging". The figures include asylum seekers but do not count, and make no estimate of, the levels of illegal immigration. MIDDLE CLASS QUIT CITIES The middle class are increasingly moving out of towns and cities in southern England in a phenomenon known in Whitehall as 'churn'. The relocation to suburbs and rural areas is similar to the 'white flight' that emptied American cities in the 1960s. However, the exodus here includes successful ethnic minority families anxious to escape the growing tensions of life in big towns. GP records showed that 243,700 people left London in the 12 months to June last year. The capital's population continues to grow because of large numbers of migrants moving in. But for the first time other southern towns are experiencing 'middle class flight'. Since 2001 the populations of Reading and Bournemouth have dropped by one per cent despite the arrival of migrants. http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23409386-details/Record+numbers+leaving+Britain+for+new+life+abroad+-+as+immigration+ |
|
31 Jan 08 - 01:55 PM (#2249721) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Stu "MIDDLE CLASS QUIT CITIES The middle class are increasingly moving out of towns and cities in southern England in a phenomenon known in Whitehall as 'churn'." Look on the bright side - it's one way of getting rid of the bourgeois nimby's of middle England. Probably why so many city centres have thriving, vibrant arts and culture communities. |
|
31 Jan 08 - 02:15 PM (#2249739) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: John MacKenzie Ever been in the City of London at night? G |
|
01 Feb 08 - 03:19 AM (#2250191) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Liz the Squeak Or indeed at the weekend. Even the supermarkets there don't bother opening at the weekend and you'll be hard pressed to find a sandwich bar open. LTS |
|
01 Feb 08 - 04:42 AM (#2250218) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Stu "Ever been in the City of London at night?" Sod that - always has been overrated and is basically a big tourist rip-off (unless you actually mean the City of London and not the West End, in which case I suoppse everything would be shut). Unless you're visiting the galleries, museums or a show it's really not got a lot going for it. We often go into Manchester at night and that has a great atmosphere. The various different quarters are buzzing and there are thriving Asian and Chinese areas visited by both the locals and visitors. Great jazz clubs, great pubs, reasonably priced food and a healthy mix of people. Loads of decent Irish folk music, perhaps some of the best in the world outside Ireland and all played out in living, vibrant and diverse communities. Of course you get the dickheads but they are relatively few and few between and it's not difficult to avoid the get-pissed-quick establishments where that type congregates. |
|
01 Feb 08 - 07:36 AM (#2250289) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: GUEST,PMB It's dangerous to go to the "centre" of Matlock at night, let alone London, even though the out-of-city villages are where the "whites" are "flying" to. And of course the nocturnal disturbances in Matlock are all caused by multicultural blackandasian bogus asylum seeking picaninnies who crowd the locals out of houses and jobs and push excrement through their letterboxes. |
|
01 Feb 08 - 05:21 PM (#2250874) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Big Phil Well, what a load of bullshit you multiculturist lovers spout. I imagine that you would defend our open borders even when the country was sliding into the sea under the weight of migrants. You must all be of the teaching or social worker profession, indoctrinated into believing your own bullshit. At least when it all goes tits up, as it most certainly will, I will be able to say, I told you so. Keep up the NEW Labour doctrine, all welcome, come on in. Phil* |
|
01 Feb 08 - 06:44 PM (#2250952) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Richard Bridge LTS means, and I mean MEANS the City. Where the cits count money. Big Phil, what's the matter, can't understand the big words? Check out the places with the highest population densities in the world. Figure out how well they are doing, financially. Of course, that MIGHT not be the be-all and end-all of life, but "fortess" economies and societies have historically shown a tendency to disappear with extreme prejudice (not referring to your point of view, but the old CIA usage). |
|
02 Feb 08 - 05:03 AM (#2251279) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Liz the Squeak Technically speaking, the West End is not a real place (aha! I knew it!!), it's proper name is the City of Westminster. The City of London is that part known colloquialy as the 'square mile' and is protected by dragons at every main road or bridge. And yes, Richard is correct, we did mean the City of London. LTS London resident and pedant. |
|
02 Feb 08 - 05:23 AM (#2251287) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Stu "Technically speaking, the West End is not a real place (aha! I knew it!!), it's proper name is the City of Westminster." Yes and the City of London is a square mile or something and has more cathedrals per square inch than all of Rome put together and 95% of all old-style pound notes live within the sound of Bow Bells which is in the East End and only true Cockernees know where this is and they love oranges and lemons and Hawksface made luverly churches Mary Poppins and put seats out the front for Eliza Doolittle to sell jellied eels to the pigeons wot live in Trafalgar Square which is the centre of the known universe and has a big picture of a man with one face smoking a Pall Mall which when the Queen is at home flies at half mast and from there you can see the serpentine which all Brummies and northerners think is actually the River Thames which if you go south of at is the only place to get a black cab and who is in the back but Del Boy and Rodders eating pie and mash out the back of Smithgate market where trawlers from the lake in Buck' Pal's back garden drop off fresh oven-proof dish with names invented by scholars who live in dark glossy black houses in Lincoln's Inn Fields which is the centre of the law written down on Bloomsbury where the tower is and a big road goes towards Shepherds Bush or is it Ongar or perhaps the last place on the tube map you'd ever think of looking but cor blimey guvn'r me Waterloo is streaming and there's a soho that's sells petticoats and underwear from the back of a market stall where they shout "apples fifty pence a phaud missus" etc etc etc |
|
02 Feb 08 - 05:28 AM (#2251289) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Stu Great debating point Big Phil - glad to see you've use a cogent argument to convince us of your case. Are you BNP or NF? |
|
02 Feb 08 - 09:20 AM (#2251410) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Riginslinger I haven't been to London for a very long time, but in the states the concept of "Multiculturism," has been championed by the elite left wing at the expense of the working men and women who were struggling before the massive influx of immigrants, and are drowning now. |
|
02 Feb 08 - 10:05 AM (#2251444) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Stu "elite left wing at the expense of the working men and women who were struggling before the massive influx of immigrants, and are drowning now" A left wing in America? Who? Where? Socialists? In mainstream American politics? So I assume you are 100% native American then and not a descendent of some immigrant who went to those shores in years gone by? When did you all stop being immigrants then? |
|
02 Feb 08 - 10:47 AM (#2251486) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Riginslinger stigweard - It's a little more complicated than that. The "elite left wing" I refer to is comprised of the monied class of the Democratic party. They are trying to take advantage of the immigration issue for political purposes. Multinational corporations based in America take advantage of the immigration issue for economic issues. The losers all the way around are those individuals, immigrant and native alike, who do not have huge gobs of amalgumated capital at their disposal. As far as who came here first, I think Kennewick man is the oldest known example. At this point in time, it's unclear where he came from. |
|
04 Feb 08 - 04:15 AM (#2252978) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Keith A of Hertford Mass migration is a very recent phenomenon. There is no historic precedent. An influx of workers prepared to undercut the established workforce brings benefit to big business, government and the professional classes. The workers are ground down with lower wages, unemployment, competition for social housing, higher rents, reduced availability of health provision, social services, etc., etc. And anyone who complains is branded a racist by big business, government and the professional classes. And of course, you can not expect professional people to debate with racists. |
|
04 Feb 08 - 04:47 AM (#2252997) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Stu "Mass migration is a very recent phenomenon. There is no historic precedent." Complete and utter rubbish. Google 'human mass migration' and you'll see mass migration has been happening since man left Africa. "An influx of workers prepared to undercut the established workforce brings benefit to big business, government and the professional classes." Everyone benefits from the cheap labour the migrant workforce provides. British workers don't want to do the jobs these people step up to do - they work long hours and give value for money. "The workers are ground down with lower wages, unemployment, competition for social housing, higher rents, reduced availability of health provision, social services, etc., etc." Capital is reckless of the health or length of life of the laborer, unless under compulsion from society.Marx As I have posted repeatedly this has more to do with the capitalist system than being the fault of migrant workers themselves - supply and demand. All workers in this country have been ground down since the demise of the unions, the ongoing privatisation of the health industry and outsourcing and increased budget cuts in the social services. The social housing stock has been sold off by the Tories and they build no more so there's the reason for that. "And anyone who complains is branded a racist by big business, government and the professional classes." Brilliant - some blame the left, some blame the right. How do you class someone as an immigrant then? The Asian whose family was thrown out of Uganda? The Pole who arrived last week? The grandson of a Jamaican who arrived in the 1950's? The Saxon, The Celt? |
|
04 Feb 08 - 04:54 AM (#2253000) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: GUEST,PMB Keith, just read some history. London, in particular has always been fed by mass migrations, as have all the other industrial centres. Flemings came in several waves. Huguenots arrived in very large numbers (about 75000- in a British population of about 5 million) following Louis XIV's revocation of the Edict of Nantes. Irish immigration to the North and Midlands during the Industrial Revolution must have been in the many hundreds of thousands. About 150000 Jews arrived in Britain between the 1880s and 1900s. And there were the many smaller, but cumulatively large, immigrations of Europeans from all countries, Indians, Chinese, Africans and West Indians (many of whom were sailors). Britain has always been multicultural in the cities. These groups were often demonised in the same ways that modern recent arrivals are demonised- the Jewish anarchist bomb thrower was the terror figure of the 1900s, and we all know about the Irish navvies (no Irish, no blacks...). Job insecurity and lack of social housing are the direct result of the removal of job protection in the 80s (perpetuated by subsequent governments) and ideological dependency on "free market" solutions. Fulminating against dark people with strange ways won't change any of that. |
|
04 Feb 08 - 04:56 AM (#2253001) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: redsnapper Hear, hear Stigweard! RS |
|
04 Feb 08 - 07:24 AM (#2253053) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Riginslinger "Everyone benefits from the cheap labour the migrant workforce provides. British workers don't want to do the jobs these people step up to do - they work long hours and give value for money." I agree with Kieth A. - I can't speak for Britain, but in the states migrants from south of the border and work long hours for sub-standard wages without benefits, but if they don't, they can simply be replaced by the employer(s), and they know it so they keep their mouths shut. We have experienced large migrations in the past, but it was during a periods of economic expansion when the economy needed the people. We are now importing people who are simply displacing other people, and curtailing the advancement of better means of production. I think we are all pawns of large capitalist ventures in this whole process. Nothing is gained by blaming the immigrant himself, but why turn our backs on the unskilled worker who is already here and displaced by the same forces. |
|
04 Feb 08 - 07:44 AM (#2253066) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Keith A of Hertford We have always welcomed refugees and immigrants, but never on a scale even approaching the current levels. Flemings and Hugenots never formed a significant proportion of the workforce. There is no comparison to what is happening now. |
|
04 Feb 08 - 08:11 AM (#2253081) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Riginslinger Another thing that is often left out of the equation is: what was the birth rate in the country of destination when the mass migration started? In the states the birth rate had leveled off and we were very proud of the fact that we were holding our own, and doing our part to protect the environment. After years of mass immigration, the native birth rate has began to pick up--maybe in self defence, I don't know--and the whole thing is rocketing off the charts. It would be interesting to know what the birth rates were at the time(s) of the migrations cited above. |
|
04 Feb 08 - 08:13 AM (#2253084) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Keith A of Hertford UK population 'to double in one lifetime' By Philip Johnston, Home Affairs Editor Last Updated: 2:40am GMT 29/11/2007 The UK's population could almost double within a lifetime to more than 100 million, new figures have shown. High immigration is also fuelling a baby boom because new arrivals tend to be younger The extraordinary estimate issued by the Office for National Statistics yesterday came as a parliamentary committee heard evidence of the growing impact on schools and hospitals http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/27/npop127.xml |
|
04 Feb 08 - 08:28 AM (#2253092) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Keith A of Hertford In London, one third of the population are immigrants and half of all children are born to foreign mothers. In many city schools immigrant children can find little British culture to adhere to, even if they wished to do so. Trevor Philips was right to suggest that we are "sleepwalking towards segregation. http://news.migrationwatch.org.uk/2007/08/index.html There is nothing approaching a precedent for this in all our history. The total influx of Hugenots is exceeded every day, and has been for years. (Trevor Philips is the chairman of The Commission For Racial Equality) |
|
04 Feb 08 - 08:29 AM (#2253093) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Stu Although exploitation undoubtedly happens (and not just to migrant workers) I don't think you can compare the situation in the US with the movement of workers within Europe, which has come about because of agreements reached by all the EU countries. As I understand it, the illegal labour market in the US is a major problem but then again there are reasons for this: 1) It is natural for a capitalist economy to source the cheapest possible labour. If you don't like this fact, don't vote in rabid capitalists as your political representatives. 2) The lifestyle of promoted by everything American will attract people who are worse off and want to live the dream (unaware the American Dream is a sham anyway), and don't see why they should be denied it. This happens to a greater or lesser degree to all industrialised nations with reasonable standards of living, the problem for America is the cheap labour they've relied on for years has phoned home and now everyone wants a piece of the action. It's going to get worse too. As the world heats up water will become one of the major commodities over which wars will be fought and as people's own supply dries up, mass migrations will occur in the search for water. You ain't seen nuthin' yet. |
|
04 Feb 08 - 10:05 AM (#2253140) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Riginslinger Keith A. and stigweard - Yes, I agree with everything you say--both of you. And I would agree as well that immigration in North America is different than in Europe. One thing they have in common, though, is that it all seems to be a function of massive corporate power. Buy buying up the mainstream media they have, in effect, captured the radio station. |
|
04 Feb 08 - 03:43 PM (#2253438) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Keith A of Hertford They have exceeded Thatcher's wildest dreams. They are bussing in non unionised workers by the tens of thousands, and the liberal left cheer them on. You fools. |
|
04 Feb 08 - 04:04 PM (#2253452) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Riginslinger How does that make any sense? Why does the liberal left cheer the destruction of their own constituents? |
|
04 Feb 08 - 04:53 PM (#2253488) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: GUEST,dianavan Getting back to the topic of the thread: "It is twaddle to say that you can only criticise a culture from within it." Richard Bridge Oh please! I would expect that, regardless of culture, individuals would abide by the laws of their host country. Cutural norms and practices that are illegal in the host country should not be tolerated but to criticize a culture for the crime of an individual is also intolerable. |
|
05 Feb 08 - 02:26 PM (#2254282) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Big Phil I will keep my postings simple so Richard B will understand them. I assume that most of you multiculturist lovers all have nice cosy little well paid [probably well overpaid] jobs looking after these parasites that are invading us from foreign lands. We cherry pick the educated from these countries to man our failing hospitals and schools, then we import the dross to do our menial tasks, leaving our own educationaly failed youth to go feral on our streets, well done, what a wonderful idea. EX LABOUR voter Phil* |
|
05 Feb 08 - 02:41 PM (#2254298) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Riginslinger Big Phil - You seem to be on the side of the majority on this thread, at least the way I read it. And you have a point in another sense, the people migrating to developed countries are the ones most likely to help the countries they are leaving, if only they stayed there. |
|
05 Feb 08 - 03:38 PM (#2254348) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: GUEST,dianavan In Canada, there are many highly trained immigrants who can not work in their professions until they upgrade to Canadian standards. The process is very long and totally unnecessary. We have an abundance of Phillipine nurses who work as Nannys and Housekeepers but we have a shortage of nurses. Why is my friend, the German dentist, working as a dental assistant in Canada? Why is the Russian mathematician baking bread? He should be teaching in the university. We now have rules and regulations that encourage the flow of commerce and trade but we are dragging our feet when it comes to the flow of workers and jobs. I think the field should be wide open and let the best rise to the top. Of course we would have to make sure that nepotism was also abolished. |
|
05 Feb 08 - 05:49 PM (#2254469) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Richard Bridge Dianavan, you don't seem to get it. There are cultures that claim they should be exempt from laws simply because of their cultures or religions. Big Phil, last time I looked at the figures (official ones, I admit) immigrants were net contributors to the economy. They contributed more in tax than they cost in benefits and benefits in kind. The enemy you need to watch is not your co-worker of whatever colour creed religion nationality gender or sexuality. It is capitalism. That exploits all workers and seeks to turn them against each other. Cushy niche? I don't think so. I work 3 jobs. |
|
05 Feb 08 - 06:35 PM (#2254508) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Riginslinger Richard - You're right, and it's amazing to me how so many people miss the point. Huge multinational corporations are happy to play the native worker against the immigrant. The corporate powers win, and the workers on both sides lose. The other issue, though, I've looked through reports on whether immigrants add or detract from the economy, at least in America. Both sides claim this issue, and both sides offer documentation that would take an army of auditors to either prove or rebutt. |
|
05 Feb 08 - 08:34 PM (#2254626) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: GUEST,dianavan RB - Perhaps you can give me examples of immigrants, "that claim they should be exempt from laws simply because of their cultures or religions." I know of cases where dress codes and/or regulations have been changed to meet religious requirements but other than that, I'm not sure what laws you are talking about. Can you please be more specific. Maybe then I will get it. |
|
05 Feb 08 - 09:54 PM (#2254690) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Riginslinger There are Sikhs who claim they should be able to bring knives to school. There are Middle-Easterners who claim the should go forward with marriages between 40 year old men and 13 year old girls because it had been arranged by some previous agreement. And there are Mexicans who are illegally in the country who think they should be given drivers licenses. |
|
06 Feb 08 - 01:51 AM (#2254801) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: GUEST,dianavan "There are Sikhs who claim they should be able to bring knives to school." No child is allowed to bring a knife to school, ceremonial or otherwise. I've never heard this argument. Can you cite a reference? "There are Middle-Easterners who claim the should go forward with marriages between 40 year old men and 13 year old girls because it had been arranged by some previous agreement." Again, please cite the source of this. "And there are Mexicans who are illegally in the country who think they should be given drivers licenses." I haven't really followed this controversy. What does citizenship have to do with the ability to pass a driver's test? Is there a law that says only U.S. citizens can apply for a driver's license? Seems to me there are alot of non-citizens driving in the U.S. |
|
06 Feb 08 - 02:27 AM (#2254808) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Richard Bridge The driver's licence argument is not about a claim that a culture or religion should be exempt from national law: it is about the argument whether illegal immigrant drivers might be safer drivers if they passed a driving test - or whether it benefits the community more to "punish" them by refusing them driving licences. Now, although I often agree with you Dianavan, you need to address the facts on religious and cultural clams for "special consideration". You do not serve the cause of tolerance (with which I generally agree) by a knee-jerk demand for Harvard references for reports of instances. Hoewver, in the UK, there is quite a row currently going on between on the one hand womens rights groups and one government department, and on the other hand, race rights groups, and state schools (controlled by another government department). A range of goverment posters, produced with campaigners against forced marriages, are intended for display in schools. Schools refuse to display them as potentially culturally offensive. It is now being asserted by the leader of the relevant womens rights group (herself a woman from the ethnic and religious background in question) that even when girls DO manage to read the posters and seek help from local goverment social services, and/or local government social services are otherwise alerted to the possibility of the need for interventions, staff (usually women) of the ethnic and religious background in question do refuse to help - for religious and cultural reasons. Of course there are many reports of persons of religion refusing to assist with legal abortions, too. Another current one (in the London evening papers on Monday night) is that despite government and hospital "bare to the elbow, and wash to the elbow" edicts for medical staff, in attempts to control c.diff and other superbug infections in hospitals, Muslim women are refusing orders to do this (and Islamic spokespersons are supporting them) because they say that their religion forbids them to bare more than their hands in public. Jack Straw got a lot of religious flak for insisting that his constituents should (even in the presence of chaperones) bare their faces when talking to him in constituency surgeries. He is partly deaf and says he finds seeing people's faces enables him better to appreciate the things being told to him by his constituents. Some religious groups object to passport officers seeing the faces of women at passport control. We have recently discussed here teh objection of the Hare Krishna group objecting to animal welfare officers intervening to put down a cow suffering greatly at the Hare Krishna temple in Aldenham. There was the very well docuemnted Sikh objection to crash helmets: it lead to an incipient raceriot in Gravesend. Sikhs marched on the police station and the local superintendent has recently been publicly discussing the decision he had to take whether to deploy armed officers to restore order. I certainly worry about whether kosher and Halal slaughter practices are as humane as those (bad enough) normally otherwise required in the UK. The Polish Roman Catholic church has recenly been arguing for an exemption for proests from the proposed "zero tolerance" blood alcohol level for drivers in Poland - saying it will handicap priests in giving communion. |
|
06 Feb 08 - 03:31 AM (#2254826) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: GUEST,Meet my wives Write to Editor LONDON: The Gordon Brown government has reportedly cleared a proposal that will allow husbands with multiple wives to claim extra welfare benefits. According to the Sunday Telegraph , bigamy is regarded as a crime in Britain and is punishable by up to seven years in prison, but this decision allows for recognition of polygamous marriages so long as such weddings take place in countries where it is legal. Ministers estimate that up to a thousand polygamous partnerships exist in Britain, although they admit there is no exact record. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Britain_gives_recognition_to_polygamy/articleshow/2753681.cms |
|
06 Feb 08 - 08:37 AM (#2254885) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: GUEST,Feel my blade The court, in a judgment likely to resonate across the country, is set to rule Thursday on whether a Montreal school board was justified in barring a Sikh student from carrying a ceremonial dagger to class. The issue has been argued before, at local and provincial levels, but the top court has never offered an opinion on the matter. "Most of the time we've been able to negotiate out-of-court agreements," said Anne Lowthian, executive director of the Canadian branch of the World Sikh Organization. "In this particular case that didn't happen." The Montreal dispute centres on Gurbaj Singh Multani, who first wore the dagger, known as a kirpan, to class at age 12 in 2001. School officials initially tried to work out a compromise that would allow him to continue wearing the kirpan - a religious requirement for orthodox Sikh males - but impose some restrictions for the sake of safety. http://www.sikhsangat.com/index.php?s=d26f6dc2f775c5abd54315c86c498b71&showtopic=17315&st=0&p=154052&#entry154052 |
|
06 Feb 08 - 08:42 AM (#2254890) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: GUEST,Meet my child bride 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 |
|
06 Feb 08 - 08:54 AM (#2254900) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: GUEST,My British child bride 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 |
|
06 Feb 08 - 08:59 AM (#2254904) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Riginslinger 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. |
|
06 Feb 08 - 11:46 AM (#2255035) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Richard Bridge 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. |
|
06 Feb 08 - 12:10 PM (#2255055) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: pdq "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. |
|
06 Feb 08 - 12:17 PM (#2255060) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Riginslinger 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. |
|
06 Feb 08 - 02:33 PM (#2255184) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Bonzo3legs USA driver's license UK driving licence |
|
06 Feb 08 - 02:39 PM (#2255192) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Riginslinger Seems like they'd get it right, doesn't it? |
|
06 Feb 08 - 06:29 PM (#2255424) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Richard Bridge 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. |
|
06 Feb 08 - 06:42 PM (#2255439) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Riginslinger 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. |
|
06 Feb 08 - 07:10 PM (#2255460) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: pdq "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? |
|
06 Feb 08 - 09:22 PM (#2255552) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Riginslinger 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. |
|
07 Feb 08 - 03:45 AM (#2255700) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Richard Bridge 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? |
|
07 Feb 08 - 04:24 AM (#2255715) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: GUEST,dianavan "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. |
|
07 Feb 08 - 05:33 AM (#2255748) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Keith A of Hertford 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/ |
|
07 Feb 08 - 08:21 AM (#2255832) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Richard Bridge 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. |
|
07 Feb 08 - 12:00 PM (#2256021) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: pdq 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. |
|
07 Feb 08 - 04:00 PM (#2256224) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Riginslinger And there could be a sleeper cell near you... |
|
07 Feb 08 - 10:15 PM (#2256492) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: GUEST,dianavan 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. |
|
08 Feb 08 - 03:27 AM (#2256582) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Richard Bridge 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. |
|
08 Feb 08 - 03:36 AM (#2256587) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: GUEST,PMB 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. |
|
08 Feb 08 - 06:48 AM (#2256647) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: GUEST,Saltz 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. |
|
08 Feb 08 - 07:09 AM (#2256661) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Mr Happy Like this http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=dhxJt-KbV-Y ? |
|
08 Feb 08 - 08:34 AM (#2256711) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: GUEST,PMB 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. |
|
08 Feb 08 - 08:46 AM (#2256717) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Mr Happy .......& more here:http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=g_TiqoEw4sQ |
|
08 Feb 08 - 10:13 AM (#2256771) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Richard Bridge But the point is that in the religious courts people are deprived of rights the secular state has confirmed. That is unacceptable. |
|
08 Feb 08 - 11:56 AM (#2256877) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: GUEST,PMB 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. |
|
08 Feb 08 - 01:39 PM (#2256999) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Richard Bridge 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. |
|
09 Feb 08 - 03:32 AM (#2257505) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: GUEST,Richard Bridge elsewhere on the network 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. |
|
09 Feb 08 - 09:27 AM (#2257616) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Riginslinger Why would anybody listen to him? |
|
09 Feb 08 - 02:49 PM (#2257879) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Big Phil 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 |
|
09 Feb 08 - 03:00 PM (#2257892) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Richard Bridge Phil - apply brain before taking refuge in aphorisms. Oh, sorry, forget, you can't. |
|
01 Apr 08 - 03:06 AM (#2302943) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Keith A of Hertford 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 |
|
01 Apr 08 - 03:26 AM (#2302951) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: akenaton 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 |
|
01 Apr 08 - 04:25 AM (#2302989) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: GUEST,PMB Quick point: immigration is not the same as multiculturalism. Keep the distinction clear. |
|
01 Apr 08 - 05:32 PM (#2303753) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: McGrath of Harlow "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. |
|
02 Apr 08 - 02:34 AM (#2304215) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Keith A of Hertford Two ex chancellors and a clutch of ex ministers. Seniors of all 3 parties. |
|
02 Apr 08 - 04:44 AM (#2304259) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: John MacKenzie 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 |
|
02 Apr 08 - 06:36 PM (#2304935) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Stringsinger 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 |
|
02 Apr 08 - 08:21 PM (#2305022) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: McGrath of Harlow 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. |
|
02 Apr 08 - 09:29 PM (#2305065) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Riginslinger "Lots of talk about building walls." Well, at least they're going ahead with the Mexican wall! |
|
02 Apr 08 - 10:00 PM (#2305087) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Richard Bridge 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? |
|
03 Apr 08 - 04:20 AM (#2305243) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: John MacKenzie 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 |
|
03 Apr 08 - 03:43 PM (#2305754) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: McGrath of Harlow 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. |
|
04 Apr 08 - 03:47 PM (#2306683) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Keith A of Hertford "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. |
|
04 Apr 08 - 05:12 PM (#2306745) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: McGrath of Harlow 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. |
|
04 Apr 08 - 05:28 PM (#2306755) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: McGrath of Harlow 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. |
|
04 Apr 08 - 09:40 PM (#2307037) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Richard Bridge 200 |
|
05 Apr 08 - 03:44 PM (#2307703) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Big Phil 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* |
|
06 Apr 08 - 12:21 AM (#2307975) Subject: RE: BS: Multiculturalism From: Folk Form # 1 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. |