Cameron admits multiculturalism is failing

Palmach

Following on from Merkel's admission as to the failure of the sttae multicultural project David "Call me Dave" Cameron has chimed in with his tuppence worth.

He said of the most obvious target

Mr Cameron suggested there would be greater scrutiny of some Muslim groups that get public money but do little to tackle extremism.
Ministers should refuse to share platforms or engage with such groups, which should be denied access to public funds and barred from spreading their message in universities and prisons, he argued.

Islamist groups have doing this for years and it is high time something was done about it. Lets hope the response is robust.

"Frankly, we need a lot less of the passive tolerance of recent years and much more active, muscular liberalism," the prime minister said.
"Let's properly judge these organisations: Do they believe in universal human rights - including for women and people of other faiths? Do they believe in equality of all before the law? Do they believe in democracy and the right of people to elect their own government? Do they encourage integration or separatism?

This statement is very welcome. We need less "tolerance" and more insistence and affirmation of the western values that have made the West the success story it is. Those countries who not have these values are usually basket cases who end up sending their refugees Westward.

Memnoch

Palmach wrote: »

This statement is very welcome. We need less "tolerance" and more insistence and affirmation of the western values that have made the West the success story it is. Those countries who not have these values are usually basket cases who end up sending their refugees Westward.

I've seen this philosophy repeated time and time again and it really befuddles me every time as I find it totally paradoxical. How can one be FOR western values and AGAINST tolerance?

TOLERANCE is one of the greatest Western ideals and completely interconnected other ideals such as freedom, equality and justice.

For me, it is quite simple. There are certain rules and laws of our countries and the people living here (wherever they come from) should abide by them. Especially so where equality and freedom (eg of women) are concerned. This has nothing to do with multiculturalism. I think you will struggle to find people who believe in multiculturalism who say that women should have no rights or lesser rights because we should "tolerate" another culture that believes this to be acceptable.

I think the use of these kinds of extremists to undermine the idea of multiculturalism is just racism in disguise. I.E. We don't like muslims (name any other ethnicity or group people have a prejudice against) so we'll take some extremists who are BREAKING the law and use that to define the decent and law abiding majority who aren't doing anything wrong.

evercloserunion

This statement is very welcome. We need less "tolerance" and more insistence and affirmation of the western values that have made the West the success story it is.

Like what? Which of these values have we been neglecting?

Do you mean, for example, that we should stand up against terrorism and domestic violence? Don't know if you've noticed, but those things are illegal and always have been.

I don't understand what changes in particular Cameron is suggesting. Whatever these changes are, they're almost certainly not positive though. This quote is telling:

"A passively tolerant society says to its citizens: as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone. It stands neutral between different values.

"A genuinely liberal country does much more. It believes in certain values and actively promotes them.... It says to its citizens: this is what defines us as a society."

What are we supposed to take from that, except that Cameron's new reign of "muscular liberalism" is going to target not only those people who break the law, but law-abiding foreigners as well?

What more can the state ask of an individual than that the individual obeys the law of the land? That is one of the most fundamental Western values. And yet Cameron wants to go further, he want the state to demand more.

Palmach

Memnoch wrote: »

I think you will struggle to find people who believe in multiculturalism who say that women should have no rights or lesser rights because we should "tolerate" another culture that believes this to be acceptable.

Really? Then why have Sharia courts? Why have the beth din? Why have certain days for women to use public swimming pools? Why stop having trees at Christmas because people might be offended. The Church of England designed Christams Cards to send to Muslims that made no mention of or had a picture of the Jesus or his family. They were prepared to hide the central tenant of their religion to avoid offending Muslims. Do you think that would be reciprocated? Would it hell?

I think the use of these kinds of extremists to undermine the idea of multiculturalism is just racism in disguise. I.E. We don't like muslims (name any other ethnicity or group people have a prejudice against) so we'll take some extremists who are BREAKING the law and use that to define the decent and law abiding majority who aren't doing anything wrong.

Wow! Only the first reply and the R word is mentioned. I think if you read what Dave Cameron said was that certain groups took tax payer funding and did nothing to fight extremism. They should get no more funding nor should elected reps or civil servants associate with them. Hardly demonising all Muslims.

Nodin

Palmach wrote: »

This statement is very welcome. We need less "tolerance" and more insistence and affirmation of the western values that have made the West the success story it is. Those countries who not have these values are usually basket cases who end up sending their refugees Westward.

I wonder if this means less propping up the kind of regimes that directly or indirectly produce extremism in the first place? For instance, its a fact that the spread of Wahabi doctrine worldwide is largely due to Saudi funding of Mosques etc. Is he going to put his money where his mouth is and cut links with the Saudi regime? Is he going to stop BAE doing business over there? Somehow, I think not. On the surface it appears he's just trotting out a few soundbites to keep the Tory right happy.

RichieC

Stormfront will have a field day with this.

Memnoch

Palmach wrote: »

Really? Then why have Sharia courts? Why have the beth din?

As long as they don't supercede the law of the land, I don't see how it is a problem. Think of it this way, two brothers have a disagreement, they go to their father, whose judgement they trust and ask him to resolve the dispute. As long as both parties are going voluntarily and as long as the court isn't breaking any laws, why should it bother us if communities resolve problems amicably among themselves rather than resorting to the courts which will cost tax payer money unnecessarily. Of course, if they are unhappy with the outcome or don't want to abide by it, they should, IMO, be able to go to the civil courts and seek redress there. (And I don't think there is anything stopping them from doing this.)

Why have certain days for women to use public swimming pools?

The same reason we have women only gyms? Some women (regardless of culture) are just not comfortable being in swim suits around men, and if that's how they feel we should respect that.

Why stop having trees at Christmas because people might be offended.

And which British family was forced to remove their Christmas tree to stop offending people? This just seems like pointless hysteria to me, can you be more specific?

The Church of England designed Christams Cards to send to Muslims that made no mention of or had a picture of the Jesus or his family. They were prepared to hide the central tenant of their religion to avoid offending Muslims. Do you think that would be reciprocated? Would it hell?

This doesn't make any sense? Why would you want to send a CHRISTMAS card to someone who doesn't believe in or practise the holiday? It would be just as pointless if Mosques started sending 'Eid,' cards to Christians.

Wow! Only the first reply and the R word is mentioned.

I'm not going to give in to the PC Tolerance police and stop using the word 'Racism,' when I think that is what is going on. I'm going to call a spade a spade. (see what I did there?)

I think if you read what Dave Cameron said was that certain groups took tax payer funding and did nothing to fight extremism. They should get no more funding nor should elected reps or civil servants associate with them. Hardly demonising all Muslims.

This has nothing to do with multiculturalism. ANY body that doesn't do its job should either be improved with more oversight or lose its funding. I have no problem with that. That doesn't change my opinion that using extremists as examples to launch attacks on "multiculturalism," is little more than thinnly veiled racism. And my points are more to do with those who decry the idea of multiculturalism (which I think is also a great western ideal) in general rather than Cameron in particular, though I think it's severely irresponsible of him as British PM to pander to such people. But Xenophobia is on the rise in Britain so perhaps it might prove a profitable political ploy. ("Boss the UK economy isn't doing as good as we hoped even after we cut funding from the poor and the need and people are getting annoyed." "Ok, ****, what do we do?" "I know, blame the Immigrants, that always works."

Palmach

Memnoch wrote: »

Of course, if they are unhappy with the outcome or don't want to abide by it, they should, IMO, be able to go to the civil courts and seek redress there. (And I don't think there is anything stopping them from doing this.)

I'll tell you what is stopping them, the fact that many women in that situation are forced to go to Sharia courts and forced to accept the outcome. Well educated middle class women may eb able to go to the civil courts but uneducated immigrants won't know their rights and will be too terrified to vindicate them.

The same reason we have women only gyms? Some women (regardless of culture) are just not comfortable being in swim suits around men, and if that's how they feel we should respect that.

They are private. Public swimming pools and gyms should be open to everyone.

And which British family was forced to remove their Christmas tree to stop offending people? This just seems like pointless hysteria to me, can you be more specific?

Try doing it in a civil service office or a company in some parts of the UK. A friend of mine was told to take hers off the desk as other employees had complained.

This doesn't make any sense? Why would you want to send a CHRISTMAS card to someone who doesn't believe in or practise the holiday? It would be just as pointless if Mosques started sending 'Eid,' cards to Christians.

I am an atheist and people send me Christmas cards.

I'm not going to give in to the PC Tolerance police and stop using the word 'Racism,' when I think that is what is going on. I'm going to call a spade a spade. (see what I did there?)

Yes I see what you did. You admitted that it is easier smear people by calling them racist than debate the point.

. And my points are more to do with those who decry the idea of multiculturalism (which I think is also a great western ideal)

You go to live in Britain you should make an effort to integrate. You cannot have parallel societies in a country nor can you have people actively working to undermine the country.

Palmach

Nodin wrote: »

For instance, its a fact that the spread of Wahabi doctrine worldwide is largely due to Saudi funding of Mosques etc. .

True and foreign funding of extremists shouldn't be allowed. Also I agree a tougher line should taken with KSA however he is responsible first and foremost with the UK

Memnoch

Palmach wrote: »

I'll tell you what is stopping them, the fact that many women in that situation are forced to go to Sharia courts and forced to accept the outcome. Well educated middle class women may eb able to go to the civil courts but uneducated immigrants won't know their rights and will be too terrified to vindicate them.

As I said, that is not tolerance or multiculturalism. The government should take steps to educate these women and make them aware of their rights. If they grew up here then it was mandatory for them to go to school here, so they will have that knowledge. You are mixing the two issues. I have no problem with voluntary sharia courts, but if there is a situation where people are being forced than that is illegal and should be stopped. But this doesn't mean that ALL sharia courts should be banned/illegal. Because you can't really stop a group of people getting together to resolve their issues amicably, it would be idiotic to even try.

They are private. Public swimming pools and gyms should be open to everyone.

They are open to everyone they are just trying to accomodate women who don't feel comfortable showing that much skin in front of men and I think there is nothing wrong with that, nor do I think this has anything to do with multiculturalism.

Try doing it in a civil service office or a company in some parts of the UK. A friend of mine was told to take hers off the desk as other employees had complained.

This is about equality and SECULARISM, not multiculturalism. The state is supposed to be irrelegious and secular. Therefore I can understand why displaying religious symbols (of ANY faith) is an issue at government offices/buildings. Either allow ALL religious people to put up their symbols or none.

I am an atheist and people send me Christmas cards.

So what? Do Muslims send you 'eid,' cards? Or Hindus send you Diwali cards?

Yes I see what you did. You admitted that it is easier smear people by calling them racist than debate the point.

Then you missed the point entirely.

You go to live in Britain you should make an effort to integrate. You cannot have parallel societies in a country nor can you have people actively working to undermine the country.

Integrate with what? I believe people should integrate with the law of the land and respect it. But I do not believe people should be forced to integrate with anyone else's religious values. Because freedom of religion is a pretty big western ideal also.

People working to undermine the country is vague and silly. I'm sure some right wingers consider people like Shami Chakarbarthy of Liberty to be undermining the country. A right wing tabloid journalist even called her 'the most dangerous woman in Britain.' That's not a slippery slope you want to go down.

evercloserunion

I'll tell you what is stopping them, the fact that many women in that situation are forced to go to Sharia courts and forced to accept the outcome. Well educated middle class women may eb able to go to the civil courts but uneducated immigrants won't know their rights and will be too terrified to vindicate them.

Women have the right to go to civil courts and not partake in the Sharia process. The problem is in enforcing that right because, as you say, women are often intimidated out of exercising their legal rights. That's an extremely difficult thing for the law to remedy.

The point, though, is that the problem is one of enforcement, not one of values.

They are private. Public swimming pools and gyms should be open to everyone.

As should university campuses right? But wait, Cameron is proposing banning certain organisations from these places.

Yes I see what you did. You admitted that it is easier smear people by calling them racist than debate the point.

You'll find that the point is being debated. Try not paying attention to the "r" word if it makes you that uncomfortable and address the issues instead.

You go to live in Britain you should make an effort to integrate. You cannot have parallel societies in a country nor can you have people actively working to undermine the country.

There are degrees of integration and key to a liberal society is letting people determine their own level of integration, within reasonable limits. Obeying the law of the land is the most important thing and people who integrate to that level should not be victimised or isolated by the State. People like suicide bombers represent one extreme of the spectrum, and no one here agrees with that. Cameron is coming to represent the other extreme.

Palmach

evercloserunion wrote: »

There are degrees of integration and key to a liberal society is letting people determine their own level of integration, within reasonable limits. Obeying the law of the land is the most important thing and people who integrate to that level should not be victimised or isolated by the State. People like suicide bombers represent one extreme of the spectrum, and no one here agrees with that. Cameron is coming to represent the other extreme.

So you have no problem with groups calling for the destruction of western civilization and the imposition of Sharia Law. This doesn't bother you?

Memnoch

Palmach wrote: »

So you have no problem with groups calling for the destruction of western civilization and the imposition of Sharia Law. This doesn't bother you?

There are groups that stand for a white supremacist state in the UK too (eg. the BNP), and they have FAR more legitimacy and support than the people you are talking about.

But what you don't seem to understand is that NO ONE is saying we should tolerate EXTREMISTS, no matter what form that extremism takes.

But extremism is not the same as Multiculturalism.

whoopdedoo

took our jobs :pac:

in all fairness he's right though, i am not a racist but would expect certain races to respect ours when here like we would have to in their own home countries

it cuts both ways imo

KeithAFC

Why doesn't he just say we are going to do even more to clamp down on those mong heads who shout abuse at our troops when returning home from duty in far off lands and we will take these people to the courts and anyone who is preaching such hate and advocating violence and give them proper prison sentences.

evercloserunion

whoopdedoo wrote: »

took our jobs :pac:

in all fairness he's right though, i am not a racist but would expect certain races to respect ours when here like we would have to in their own home countries

it cuts both ways imo

You're missing the point. When did Gordon Brown or any of Cameron's predecessors say that foreigners who come to the UK have the absolute right to do whatever they want? All immigrants have to obey the law. That has always been the case. If what Cameron is saying is that immigrants must obey the law, then he is saying nothing new. If what he is saying is something more than that, then it's dangerous territory.

loldog

It's a useful distraction from the cuts they're making and the tax increases they're sneaking in.

.

Based on what he's saying I would have to agree with Cameron. I think there's a line that needs to be drawn if we're so overly liberal that we allow men to be so controlling over a woman's life. Where are her rights to liberty? I know it sounds like an oxymoron but I think it's a good idea to work towards a more liberal society by working against enemies of liberalism.

biko

Interesting, first Germany and now UK admits multiculturalism (in its present form) doesn't work.
Why tolerate the intolerant?

I think governments must have known this or seen it coming for years but been afraid to say anything as it would trigger a racism card response.
Once Germany went "official" then other can follow.

Nodin

Palmach wrote: »

True and foreign funding of extremists shouldn't be allowed. Also I agree a tougher line should taken with KSA however he is responsible first and foremost with the UK

I'm talking about UK links with the KSA, not leading an international campaign against it. Likewise any regime that doesn't apply to 'liberal Western values'. This isn't a closure of diplomatic channels, just business and supply. I'd advise against holding the breath.

Again, this is just appealing to the Tory right.

Nodin

Palmach wrote: »

...............

Islamist groups have doing this for years and it is high time something was done about it. Lets hope the response is robust.

.............................
.

What groups, might I ask? If its a major problem, the various sources I've looked at seem somewhat shy about naming names and numbers....

Einhard

First off, it's entirely wrong to label anyone who has concerns with multi-culturalism as racist, or even right wing.

Secondly, and more to the point, there are a number of different strains of multi-culturalism IMO, and some are more problematic than others. For example, no reasonable person could have any problems with the melting pot idea of a multi-cultural society, where new ideas and customs and enrich the static society.

However, many people have problems with the idea sometimes put about that all facets of all cultures are equal, and that to criticise a certain cultural norm of practice is akin to racism, or at least an attack on a particular ethnic group. Now, of course, few people subscribe to such views, but there seems to be an undercurrent of such opinion in the UK, and its quite vociferous at that.

There's also a problem, in my opinion, where the idea of national identity is, in some quarters, belittled and diminished, and those who advocate that such a sense is a good thing, dismissed as racists or bigots. In the UK, for example, a growing number of Muslims disdain the idea of "Britishness" and define themselves exclusively in terms of their religions. Whatever one's outlook on things, to completely cut oneself off from, and disdain the wider society in which one lives, is counterproductive to societal cohesion.

The main problem with multi-culturalism though, doesn't lie with immigrants themselves, or even the majority of the "indigenous" population, but with overly zealous, rather small minded and unimaginative bureaucrats, who take it upon themselves to take vicarious offence on behalf of minorities. So, for example, a crib scene may be taken from a hospital at Christmas, on the grounds that it offends minorities, whilst said minorities look in in bewilderment as to how anyone could take offence.

Palmach

Einhard wrote: »

The main problem with multi-culturalism though, doesn't lie with immigrants themselves, or even the majority of the "indigenous" population, but with overly zealous, rather small minded and unimaginative bureaucrats, who take it upon themselves to take vicarious offence on behalf of minorities. So, for example, a crib scene may be taken from a hospital at Christmas, on the grounds that it offends minorities, whilst said minorities look in in bewilderment as to how any could take offence.

Good man. Spot on. Here are some crackers...........
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1558057/Binmans-St-George-bandana-is-racist.html

http://forum.stirpes.net/islam/15734-away-crucifixes-crosses-christmas.html

Chief Inspector of Prisons Anne Owers forbade British prison officers from wearing a St. George's Cross tie-pin, although it is the national flag of England, due to its connection to the Crusades

There is more from the above link. They sum the mindset of multiculturalism which is to bend over and over and gradually chip away the symbols of Western Nations to accommodate Islam.

Nodin

Palmach wrote: »

There is more from the above link. They sum the mindset of multiculturalism which is to bend over and over and gradually chip away the symbols of Western Nations to accommodate Islam.

Hysterical nonsense.

Islam Minarets arrogantly defying Europe's cities. Millions waiting at the gates. A tide waiting.
The Jihad. The Quram, the Sunnah, The Sharia.

http://forum.stirpes.net/islam/15734-away-crucifixes-crosses-christmas.html

Dear o dear......I better start stashing the drink, pork and porn.....


Religious symbols are entirely barred from American and French classrooms and it wasn't done for the benefit of muslims. I believe an atheist woman took a similar case in Italy

Any luck with names and numbers with regards to these "Islamist groups" receiving British Government funds?

twinQuins

So is this a thread against multiculturalism or yet another thinly veiled screed against Muslims?
Also, I think it's pretty obvious that the second site you linked to has a serious bias.
From the forum's sub text:

Minarets arrogantly defying Europe's cities. Millions waiting at the gates. A tide waiting. The Jihad. The Quram, the Sunnah, The Sharia.

Hardly the wording for an impartial forum, is it?

wes

Wait, the Tories blaming things on foreigners. Well, I didn't see that coming .

Basically, he is just doing what Blair did, and ignore the fact that his countries foreign wars, and support of despots, have resulted in what the American's call "blow back".

Also, a lot of what people complain about when it comes to multiculturalism seems to be in there heads. A lot of long debunked nonsense has already been trotted out in this thread and attributed to multiculturalism , and rather quickly shown to as per usual completely wrong.

At the end of the day, every needs to respect the law of the land. There is really no way to enforce culture upon anyone, and to even try would be very stupid, and when it has been tried, it has failed miserably. All that can be done, is have the law be enforced, which is what is already being done.

wes

Morkarleth wrote: »

Hardly the wording for an impartial forum, is it?

There also Anti-Semitic to boot:

Judaism
Jews, Judaism and Zionism. The infiltration of Judaism in Western societies and institutions. Neo-Judaism.
The Talmud, the Torah, the Kabbalah.

Pretty clearly a racist site, and it is laughable that some people expect people not use the word racism. Perhaps, if people would refrain from linking to blatantly racist websites, then the word, would not need to used.

Also, the reason racism always comes up in these threads, is because there is always someone either saying something racist, or linking to racists. It seem pretty damn clear, where some posters are coming from imho.

evercloserunion

wes wrote: »

There also Anti-Semitic to boot:



Pretty clearly a racist site, and it is laughable that some people expect people not use the word racism. Perhaps, if people would refrain from linking to blatantly racist websites, then the word, would not need to used.

Also, the reason racism always comes up in these threads, is because there is always someone either saying something racist, or linking to racists. It seem pretty damn clear, where some posters are coming from imho.

The reason people complain about being called racist is to distract from the real issue and avoid having to justify their absurd and hateful ideas.

wes

evercloserunion wrote: »

The reason people complain about being called racist is to distract from the real issue and avoid having to justify their absurd and hateful ideas.

I don't like the idea of over using the term racism, as it will devalue its usage, but when people are linking to web sites, and are blatantly racist, then it has to be said, especially, when the same people who link to those web sites, are complaining about racism being invoked. If they don't want people to bring it up, maybe linking to blatant racists to back up what your saying is not the best idea.

Byron85

Considering the OP takes their username from the an elite unit of Haganah who committed murder and ethnic cleansing during the formation of Israel, what else could you expect but hysterical Islamophobic nonsense.

The poster has been pulled up on it before, by me at least, but of course it was denied.

Multiculturalism isn't the problem. Racism, bigotry and intolerance are the problems.

CelticRambler

Cameron didn't just say multiculturalism is failing but coupled with a lack of a strong national identity and "passive tolerance" implied that there was a vacuum into which any group with a strong culture would be able to set itself up. I fully agree. There has long been an attitude quite distinctly English of not celebrating their Englishness. A huge number of English people don't even know when St. George's Day falls, let alone make anything of it. Can you imagine Ireland without St. Patrick's Day? France ignoring Bastille Day? The US treating the 4th July as just another 9-to-5er?

You can't have a strong national identity and multicultural tolerance. Its has nothing to do with the law or different interpretations thereof - laws are just another way of trying to force people to adopt behaviours "for the common good". In fact what they're really doing is saying to different groups of people "you will ignore your own culture and learn to live with this lowest common denominator". It doesn't work long term - just look at the way numerous criminal trials collapse because of "technicalities", and that's nothing to do with "Race".

If the (apparent) muslim extremism of recent years has served any purpose, it has been to finally prompt ever-so-nice, politically correct, passively tolerant, multicultural societies to wake up to the fact that their own societies would be far stronger if they stood up and said: "yeah, you can come here, but you'll play our sports, you'll admire our nearly-naked women, you'll drink our booze and you'll speak our language. If you're not prepared to do live by those rule, tough. Go find somewhere else."

That attitude works perfectly well for most Arab nations.

And the French.

Memnoch

CelticRambler wrote: »

Cameron didn't just say multiculturalism is failing but coupled with a lack of a strong national identity and "passive tolerance" implied that there was a vacuum into which any group with a strong culture would be able to set itself up. I fully agree. There has long been an attitude quite distinctly English of not celebrating their Englishness. A huge number of English people don't even know when St. George's Day falls, let alone make anything of it. Can you imagine Ireland without St. Patrick's Day? France ignoring Bastille Day? The US treating the 4th July as just another 9-to-5er?

You can't have a strong national identity and multicultural tolerance. Its has nothing to do with the law or different interpretations thereof - laws are just another way of trying to force people to adopt behaviours "for the common good". In fact what they're really doing is saying to different groups of people "you will ignore your own culture and learn to live with this lowest common denominator". It doesn't work long term - just look at the way numerous criminal trials collapse because of "technicalities", and that's nothing to do with "Race".

If the (apparent) muslim extremism of recent years has served any purpose, it has been to finally prompt ever-so-nice, politically correct, passively tolerant, multicultural societies to wake up to the fact that their own societies would be far stronger if they stood up and said: "yeah, you can come here, but you'll play our sports, you'll admire our nearly-naked women, you'll drink our booze and you'll speak our language. If you're not prepared to do live by those rule, tough. Go find somewhere else."

That attitude works perfectly well for most Arab nations.

And the French.

And yet again another post about the dangers of multiculturalism is built on the foundation that multiculturalism is equal to or leads to extremism, which is total and utter nonsense.

Nodin

CelticRambler wrote: »

Cameron didn't just say multiculturalism is failing but coupled with a lack of a strong national identity and "passive tolerance" implied that there was a vacuum into which any group with a strong culture would be able to set itself up. I fully agree. There has long been an attitude quite distinctly English of not celebrating their Englishness. A huge number of English people don't even know when St. George's Day falls, let alone make anything of it. Can you imagine Ireland without St. Patrick's Day? France ignoring Bastille Day? The US treating the 4th July as just another 9-to-5er?

The English haven't celebrated St Georges day in a significant way since the 1700's ......Somehow I doubt this is linked to "not celebrating their Englishness".

Nodin

CelticRambler wrote: »

If the (apparent) muslim extremism of recent years has served any purpose, it has been to finally prompt ever-so-nice, politically correct, passively tolerant, multicultural societies to wake up to the fact that their own societies would be far stronger if they stood up and said: "yeah, you can come here, but you'll play our sports, you'll admire our nearly-naked women, you'll drink our booze and you'll speak our language. If you're not prepared to do live by those rule, tough. Go find somewhere else."

That attitude works perfectly well for most Arab nations.

Truly, you're familar with a side of the Arab world I'd no idea existed.

CelticRambler

Memnoch wrote: »

And yet again another post about the dangers of multiculturalism is built on the foundation that multiculturalism is equal to or leads to extremism, which is total and utter nonsense.

I'm not saying multiculturalism is dangerous, rather that it is inherently unstable and - as Cameron has pointed out - fails when let run unchecked. People are different, they always have been, and certain groups of people have cultural values that do not work well together. They can live peacefully side-by-side but not in the same space. That applies to everything from "groups" of just two individuals right up to cities of ten million - why else do ghettos form? Cameron's point is in no way radical - he's only stating a simple fact of life that many other politicians shy away from for fear of being branded a new Hitler.

CelticRambler

Nodin wrote: »

Truly, you're familar with a side of the Arab world I'd no idea existed.

I think you're missing the point. In many parts of the Arab world, you're not allowed drink, flaunt your women run up debt or openly practise your non-islamic religion. Those are their rules and anyone living there has to abide by them. Their only concession to "multiculturalism" is to allow "liberal westerners" to build and live in protected enclaves - little more than high-spec ghettos, really.

Palmach

Byron85 wrote: »

Considering the OP takes their username from the an elite unit of Haganah who committed murder and ethnic cleansing during the formation of Israel, what else could you expect but hysterical Islamophobic nonsense.

The poster has been pulled up on it before, by me at least, but of course it was denied.

Multiculturalism isn't the problem. Racism, bigotry and intolerance are the problems.

Yes keep up the dog whistles there son. Meanwhile in the real world http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=535jCqDT6n0&oref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fresults%3Fsearch_query%3Dundercover%2Bmosque%26aq%3D0&has_verified=1
Remind me what the police did after the first episode of Undercover Mosque. Did they chase down the extremists who called on their followers to kill gays and beat women who didn't cover up? No. they tried to shoot the messenger. They attacked Channel 4. But of course people who attack multiculturalism are racists and bigots and islamophobes so their worries are irrelevant.

All this from a Mosque considered moderate by New Labour. Any thoughts on St. George's Cross being racist as I posted earlier?

Palmach

CelticRambler wrote: »

I think you're missing the point. In many parts of the Arab world, you're not allowed drink, flaunt your women run up debt or openly practise your non-islamic religion. Those are their rules and anyone living there has to abide by them. Their only concession to "multiculturalism" is to allow "liberal westerners" to build and live in protected enclaves - little more than high-spec ghettos, really.

What poor old Nodin doesn't grasp is that if the Muslims were a majority inth UK or Ireland our rights would be taken away. They use civil rights a s a Trojan horse to implant their twisted belief system.

biko

Lee Kuan Yew ranks as one of the most successful statesmen of the 20th century, having led Singapore to independence, and built a thriving prosperous mini-state with a world class economy, out of an ethnically diverse population. He retired as the world's longest serving prime minister, and at 87 years of age, has little to lose in speaking his mind.

Now, Lee has published a book on Singapore's future, and he is speaking his mind: In the book, Mr Lee, when asked to assess the progress of multiracialism in Singapore, said: "I have to speak candidly to be of value, but I do not wish to offend the Muslim community.

"I think we were progressing very nicely until the surge of Islam came, and if you asked me for my observations, the other communities have easier integration - friends, intermarriages and so on, Indians with Chinese, Chinese with Indians - than Muslims. That's the result of the surge from the Arab states."

He added: "I would say today, we can integrate all religions and races except Islam. [...] I think the Muslims socially do not cause any trouble, but they are distinct and separate."

"But now, you go to schools with Malay and Chinese, there's a halal and non-halal segment and so too, the universities. And they tend to sit separately so as not to be contaminated. All that becomes a social divide."

Muslims are aren't only victims in Western societies they are also instigators of many problems.
Muslims separate themselves from the society they live in and form their own enclaves. They also cause problems for the host society with an increase in violence and dissonance.
Jews and Chinese also tend to live in enclaves but are less of a burden on the host society, or even an addition rather - in my opinion.

LeixlipRed

I'm not even willing to debate with anyone who views multi-culturalism as a remotely negative thing. Ok, I'm a lefty, I don't believe in any restrictions on immigration but what sort of warped society can still play politics with race in our day and age? I don't believe for a second that David Cameron is a bigot, I feel sorry for someone who's sold out so much they have to peddle bigotry in the international press though.

Byron85

Palmach wrote: »

What poor old Nodin doesn't grasp is that if the Muslims were a majority inth UK or Ireland our rights would be taken away. They use civil rights a s a Trojan horse to implant their twisted belief system.

Yeah, not racist at all. :rolleyes:

evercloserunion

LeixlipRed wrote: »

I don't believe for a second that David Cameron is a bigot, I feel sorry for someone who's sold out so much they have to peddle bigotry in the international press though.

Really? If Gordon Brown had come out with this, I would think he had sold out. But I think Cameron may very well be a bigot. Not that he means harm, but he is a product of his environment. Can't imagine there were very many Muslims in Eton, and it's not as though the first thing the Tories do with their members is lecture them on the importance of cultural diversity.

LeixlipRed

Palmach wrote: »

What poor old Nodin doesn't grasp is that if the Muslims were a majority inth UK or Ireland our rights would be taken away. They use civil rights a s a Trojan horse to implant their twisted belief system.

Is it a large horse because if I bump into that thing after a night on the town I'll blame you for giving them the idea. Seriously though, are you falling asleep to Fox News? Evidence of their nefarious plans please.

biko

LeixlipRed wrote: »

I'm not even willing to debate with anyone who views multi-culturalism as a remotely negative thing. Ok, I'm a lefty, I don't believe in any restrictions on immigration but what sort of warped society can still play politics with race in our day and age?

We're not talking about race here. We're talking about the clash of cultures and how it has affected the western world.
We're talking about a religion/culture/political view that to this day enforces the death penalty in several countries and where women are worth less than men.

Nodin

Palmach wrote: »

What poor old Nodin doesn't grasp is that if the Muslims were a majority inth UK or Ireland our rights would be taken away. They use civil rights a s a Trojan horse to implant their twisted belief system.

Wonderful.

Is there some reason you can't answer the question with regards to the "Islamist groups"? It was you who mentioned them in your OP after all.

Eliot Rosewater

Palmach wrote: »

What poor old Nodin doesn't grasp is that if the Muslims were a majority inth UK or Ireland our rights would be taken away. They use civil rights a s a Trojan horse to implant their twisted belief system.

Palmach, racism is forbidden on Boards.ie, and with comments such as the above you're walking on a very thin rope. Cut the unnecessary generalisations out, or you'll risk losing posting privileges.

/mod

Nodin

CelticRambler wrote: »

I think you're missing the point. In many parts of the Arab world, you're not allowed drink, flaunt your women run up debt or openly practise your non-islamic religion. Those are their rules and anyone living there has to abide by them. Their only concession to "multiculturalism" is to allow "liberal westerners" to build and live in protected enclaves - little more than high-spec ghettos, really.

So - and let's say that your picture of the "Arab world" is 100% correct - you're saying we in the West should act in the same way as (to pick an example) Saudi Arabia does?

Biko wrote:

Muslims separate themselves from the society they live in and form their own enclaves. They also cause problems for the host society with an increase in violence and dissonance.

Thank christ. For a moment I thought you were going to come out with a sweeping bigoted generalisation of stupendous proportions there.

Biko wrote:

We're not talking about race here. We're talking about the clash of cultures and how it has affected the western world..

Funny that there wasn't this focus before 2001 though. Ever since then the main effect I've seen on the western world is it checking under its bed for things that aren't there.

Biko wrote:

"Lee Kuan Yew ranks as one of the most successful statesmen of the 20th century, having led Singapore to independence, and built a thriving prosperous mini-state with a world class economy, out of an ethnically diverse population. He retired as the world's longest serving prime minister, and at 87 years of age, has little to lose in speaking his mind"...

Is there some reason you haven't provided a link to the source of this and the full article?

LeixlipRed

biko wrote: »

We're not talking about race here. We're talking about the clash of cultures and how it has affected the western world.
We're talking about a religion/culture/political view that to this day enforces the death penalty in several countries and where women are worth less than men.

And a religion that covers up the raping of boys/girls/trainee priests is any less worse? I can't see your point, in Ireland and the UK, for all the failing of those states women are equal with men and no one gets put to death. Unless you end up on a rendition flight to Egypt. But that only happens to unfortunate turban wearing Sikhs Muslims.

RichMc70

IMO multicultarlism doesnt work but in regards to Cameron's reported comments, is it not coincidental that he made this statement whilst in a conference in Germany where only as recently as Oct 2010, Angela Merkel said more or less the same thing.

Cosy-ing up with the German Premier maybe ???

LeixlipRed

RichMc70 wrote: »

IMO multicultarlism doesnt work but in regards to Cameron's reported comments, is it not coincidental that he made this statement whilst in a conference in Germany where only as recently as Oct 2010, Angela Merkel said more or less the same thing.

Cosy-ing up with the German Premier maybe ???

I sense Godwin's Law is close to being brought up....

RichMc70

LeixlipRed wrote: »

I sense Godwin's Law is close to being brought up....

Like I said, I don't think its working.

In regards to Cameron, I just see it as the usual political bs point scoring and back slapping.