Higgins sets out his vision of multicultural Ireland

Death and Taxes

Nice to the President taking the lead on this issue.

"President Michael D Higgins has said the Government should, during its EU presidency, encourage “a long overdue understanding” necessary to remove ignorance and misunderstanding that can lead to “incipient forms of racism”.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/1129/1224327258954.html

Wacker The Attacker

dey tuk ur job.

nice in theory. the practice may indicate otherwise.

This is fine but its should be a two way street. If irish people are to be expected to embrace foreign cultures then the immigrants should be expeced to embrace ours equally

biko

Why does multicultural always mean Islamic? What about the other cultures?

Wacker The Attacker

biko wrote: »

Why does multicultural always mean Islamic? What about the other cultures?

Why do you think?

biko

Why do you yourself think?

El Weirdo

Wacker The Attacker wrote: »

dey tuk ur job.

nice in theory. the practice may indicate otherwise.

This is fine but its should be a two way street. If irish people are to be expected to embrace foreign cultures then the immigrants should be expeced to embrace ours equally

And that's exactly what he said:

He said if we are to “practise equality”, we must understand that “‘belonging’ is not based on imitation or the subservience of one culture to another”.
Diverse cultures should instead “bring about a new sense of human solidarity” and an understanding that “integration is a two-way process”.

biko wrote: »

Why does multicultural always mean Islamic? What about the other cultures?

He was speaking at the Islamic Cultural Centre.

conorhal

WileyCoyote wrote: »

Nice to the President taking the lead on this issue.

"President Michael D Higgins has said the Government should, during its EU presidency, encourage “a long overdue understanding” necessary to remove ignorance and misunderstanding that can lead to “incipient forms of racism”.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/1129/1224327258954.html]

Typically Higgins makes the three classic mistakes that aflict liberal thinking on the matter.


1) "He said there were dangers in “allocating a separate and segregated space to individual cultures” and the “ghettoising of ethnic groups and the erection of cultural barriers, built on fear, prejudice or ignorance”

Here we have the assumption that cultural barriers, built on fear, prejudice or ignorance exist only on one side. It's the general assumption that groups with whom we have very little in common with culturally would integrate 'if only given the chance'.
It doesn't seem to occur to Higgins that actually, they might not want to. It doesn't seem to occur to Higgins that the fear, prejudice and ignorance building cultural barriers might just be a problem for the Muslim community rather then ours (which seems to spend most of it's time bending over backwards to be accomodating).

2) He said if we are to “practise equality”, we must understand that “‘belonging’ is not based on imitation or the subservience of one culture to another”.

Here we have the liberal assumption of moral equivelence as it pertains to cultures. Not all cultures, or cultural practices are diserving of equal treatment, otherwise we'd have no real problem with practices like female circumcision for example.

3) Multiculturalism as expressed by higgins is a failed experiment, it's what creates the ghettoising of ethnic groups and the erection of cultural barriers. It's integration that breaks them down.

conorhal

conorhal wrote: »

female circumcision

The new Godwin.

Shenshen

biko wrote: »

Why does multicultural always mean Islamic? What about the other cultures?

It doesn't... it just seems that that's the culture most anti-multiculturalists seem to have the biggest issues with.
Some understandable, some less so.

I do definitely agree on the "two-way-street" comment he made, forcing people to adapt completely to one ideal lead culture is not fair on the new arrivals to begin with, and not practical for anybody involved, seeing as cultures shift and change constantly to begin with.

Someone who arrived in Ireland 5 years ago, lived in Dublin the whole time, got the accent sorted, and is in all aspects indistinguishable for a born-and-bred Dubliner would still struggle if he had to move to Donegal.
The whole process would have to start from scratch. And that's just geographical differences, there's social differences, age-related differences, etc.

GalwayGuy2

Didn't he call a far-right republican a "typical American wanker?"

Does that not count as bigotry:S

conorhal

Deleted User wrote: »

The new Godwin.

The Nazi's are all (mostly) dead. Over a hundred and fifty girls have been mutilated by female circumcision in Ireland over the last five years. Nobody has ever been prosicuted in this country for a vicious assault on a minor that is happening even today.

Dyr

"human solidarity" and totalitarian structures like Islam are not compatible.

Do not want.

Shenshen

conorhal wrote: »

Typically Higgins makes the three classic mistakes that aflict liberal thinking on the matter.


1) "He said there were dangers in “allocating a separate and segregated space to individual cultures” and the “ghettoising of ethnic groups and the erection of cultural barriers, built on fear, prejudice or ignorance”

Here we have the assumption that cultural barriers, built on fear, prejudice or ignorance exist only on one side. It's the general assumption that groups with whom we have very little in common with culturally would integrate 'if only given the chance'.
It doesn't seem to occur to Higgins that actually, they might not want to. It doesn't seem to occur to Higgins that the fear, prejudice and ignorance building cultural barriers might just be a problem for the Muslim community rather then ours (which seems to spend most of it's time bending over backwards to be accomodating).

Hence the comment about it being a two-way-street. I thought that was fairly obvious, really.

2) He said if we are to “practise equality”, we must understand that “‘belonging’ is not based on imitation or the subservience of one culture to another”.

Here we have the liberal assumption of moral equivelence as it pertains to cultures. Not all cultures, or cultural practices are diserving of equal treatment, otherwise we'd have no real problem with practices like female circumcision for example.

No, of course not. After all, our own culture of subservience to clerical authority has provided the grounds on which decades of institutionalised child abuse could occur, with all of society willfully turning a blind eye.
There certainly are aspects in any culture that need to be addressed and cannot be accepted in a modern world, and I think Irish culture provides a good few examples there.

3) Multiculturalism as expressed by higgins is a failed experiment, it's what creates the ghettoising of ethnic groups and the erection of cultural barriers. It's integration that breaks them down.

I'm not sure you understood what he was talking about there...
How does a two-way integration, a breaking down of prejudices and fears and the recognition of cultural contributions lead to cultural barriers and ghettos?

K-9

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

Didn't he call a far-right republican a "typical American wanker?"

Does that not count as bigotry:S

Don't think that was the exact words, but he lost the head with that American right wing Libertarian type who is on Newstalk, in a University debate. Some found it endearing.

SEPT 23 1989

No problem Michael,open the doors of the Aras and we will turn it into another Mosney:D

Dum_Dum

Don't remember voting for multiculturalism. That elephant in the room seems to have slipped in.

K-9

Dum_Dum wrote: »

Don't remember voting for multiculturalism. That elephant in the room seems to have slipped in.

Did you vote against it?

flutered

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

No problem Michael,open the doors of the Aras and we will turn it into another Mosney:D

it would be a lot cheaper to run as well.

Death and Taxes

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

No problem Michael,open the doors of the Aras and we will turn it into another Mosney:D

I think you will find he was arguing against ghettos like Mosney

Dum_Dum

K-9 wrote: »

Did you vote against it?

Never given the opportunity. Obviously the effects of multiculturalism won't effect me because they would have had a referendum on it if it was that important.

Death and Taxes

Dum_Dum wrote: »

Never given the opportunity. Obviously the effects of multiculturalism won't effect me because they would have had a referendum on it if it was that important.

Dont be so silly!
Did they have a referndum on the Household Tax? eh no and that affects everybody!
Governments are elected to govern, I for one would not want to live under a system of perpetual plebiscites.

conorhal

Shenshen wrote: »

Hence the comment about it being a two-way-street. I thought that was fairly obvious, really.

You would think, but most liberal thought rarely applies to the other side of the equation.

Shenshen wrote: »

No, of course not. After all, our own culture of subservience to clerical authority has provided the grounds on which decades of institutionalised child abuse could occur, with all of society willfully turning a blind eye.
There certainly are aspects in any culture that need to be addressed and cannot be accepted in a modern world, and I think Irish culture provides a good few examples there.

This is the typical whataboutery that permeates liberal thought, combined nicely with the peculiar Irish love of self flagellation (perhaps we inherited this from the church too).
We are currently addressing these cultural shortfalls, that is no excuse not to call out the Islamic community on theirs.
Higgins could for example have suggested that in the spirit of cultural understanding that all women present should shrug off their veils.
Until our expectations of those that wish to live in our socety are outlined in no uncertian terms we will contines to ignore elephants in the room by wallpapering overm them with meaningless platitudes of the likes that Higgins spouts.

Shenshen wrote: »

I'm not sure you understood what he was talking about there...
How does a two-way integration, a breaking down of prejudices and fears and the recognition of cultural contributions lead to cultural barriers and ghettos?

I think you've misunderstood me. Multiculturalism does not imply any integration, it implies the recognition of seperate cultures existing side by side in one society, 'seperate but equal'. That ethos creates ghettos.

BensonSlide

I wish the bould Michael would explain what multiculturalism actually is, and how it would be applied/implemented in an Irish context. It's such a vague and wishy-washy term.

Death and Taxes

conorhal wrote: »

You would think, but most liberal thought rarely applies to the other side of the equation.



This is the typical whataboutery that permeates liberal thought, combined nicely with the peculiar Irish love of self flagellation (perhaps we inherited this from the church too).
We are currently addressing these cultural shortfalls, that is no excuse not to call out the Islamic community on theirs.
Higgins could for example have suggested that in the spirit of cultural understanding that all women present should shrug off their veils.
Until our expectations of those that wish to live in our socety are outlined in no uncertian terms we will contines to ignore elephants in the room by wallpapering overm them with meaningless platitudes of the likes that Higgins spouts.





I think you've misunderstood me. Multiculturalism does not imply any integration, it implies the recognition of seperate cultures existing side by side in one society, 'seperate but equal'. That ethos creates ghettos.

You want Muslim women who chose to wear a Burka to be forced to shake it off! Are you for real? presume that you are aware that most Muslim women actually do choose to wear it!

conorhal

WileyCoyote wrote: »

You want Muslim women who chose to wear a Burka to be forced to shake it off! Are you for real? presume that you are aware that most Muslim women actually do choose to wear it!

After a lifetime of brainwashing.

The Bhurka is offensive and culturally incompatible with our society, which takes a dim view of those that cover their faces.
We believe in open communication, when 90% of communication is conveyed through body language and facial expression the Bhurka removes 90% of a woman’s ability to communicate effectively (when she's allowed to speak of course).
The Quran only mentions that women should dress modestly, it seems a small consideration towards integration on the part of the Islamic community to exclude the veil from the concept of modest dress, as is the case throughout the majority of the Islamic world.

hooradiation

Dum_Dum wrote: »

Never given the opportunity. Obviously the effects of multiculturalism won't effect me because they would have had a referendum on it if it was that important.

You seem to think we live in a direct democracy.
We don't.

Shenshen

conorhal wrote: »

You would think, but most liberal thought rarely applies to the other side of the equation.



This is the typical whataboutery that permeates liberal thought, combined nicely with the peculiar Irish love of self flagellation (perhaps we inherited this from the church too).
We are currently addressing these cultural shortfalls, that is no excuse not to call out the Islamic community on theirs.
Higgins could for example have suggested that in the spirit of cultural understanding that all women present should shrug off their veils.
Until our expectations of those that wish to live in our socety are outlined in no uncertian terms we will contines to ignore elephants in the room by wallpapering overm them with meaningless platitudes of the likes that Higgins spouts.





I think you've misunderstood me. Multiculturalism does not imply any integration, it implies the recognition of seperate cultures existing side by side in one society, 'seperate but equal'. That ethos creates ghettos.

Definition :

adjective

relating to or containing several cultural or ethnic groups within a society

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/multicultural

You might be reading a little too much into the word there.

Of course Higgins could have asked the ladies present to remove their headscarves.
And next time he's talking to a nun, he could do the same.

There is no "whataboutery" about any of this. I pointed out that all cultures have undesireable traits, and to merely point the finger at one is highly disingenuous. They all need improving.
Being polite and recognising that there is no need to demand assimilation of others is a first step.
To demand that others give up everything that's not "native" to Ireland, not because it's hurting anybody, but just because some people aren't comfortable knowing not everyone is the same, is impractical and - frankly - ridiculous.

conorhal

Shenshen wrote: »

Definition :

adjective

relating to or containing several cultural or ethnic groups within a society

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/multicultural

You might be reading a little too much into the word there.

Of course Higgins could have asked the ladies present to remove their headscarves.
And next time he's talking to a nun, he could do the same.

There is no "whataboutery" about any of this. I pointed out that all cultures have undesireable traits, and to merely point the finger at one is highly disingenuous. They all need improving.
Being polite and recognising that there is no need to demand assimilation of others is a first step.
To demand that others give up everything that's not "native" to Ireland, not because it's hurting anybody, but just because some people aren't comfortable knowing not everyone is the same, is impractical and - frankly - ridiculous.

Where did I say headscarves?

It absolutely constitues whataboutery. I didn't suggest for a moment that other cultures don't have undesirable traits, what I said was, multiculturalism has, for too long, been an excuse not to address them in minority comunities.


"...recognising that there is no need to demand assimilation of others is a first step."

You've gone from 'two way street' there to 'no need to integrate' in one short step. I never said they had to give up everything, but I do want the obviously incompatible elements of Islamic culture to clearly addressed.

Chuck Stone

conorhal wrote: »

It doesn't seem to occur to Higgins that actually, they might not want to. It doesn't seem to occur to Higgins that the fear, prejudice and ignorance building cultural barriers might just be a problem for the Muslim community rather then ours

You seem to be focussing on Muslims here. Higgins was talking about Multiculturalism yet you focus on Muslims. Why?

(which seems to spend most of it's time bending over backwards to be accomodating).

Lol.

2) Not all cultures, or cultural practices are diserving of equal treatment, otherwise we'd have no real problem with practices like female circumcision for example.

Who's saying they are? Most people in Ireland are extremely uncomfortable with genital mutilation of both boys and girls.

3) Multiculturalism as expressed by higgins is a failed experiment, it's what creates the ghettoising of ethnic groups and the erection of cultural barriers

Source?

It's integration that breaks them down.

The vast majority of non-typical Irish are integrated.

juan.kerr

that Islam was now “our fastest-growing religion”.

:eek: Lock up your daughters.

At least there will be less traffic on the roads.

juan.kerr

K-9 wrote: »

Did you vote against it?

I don't remember being given the opportunity to vote against it.

Maybe Michael D should push for a referendum before he jumps to conclusions.

Death and Taxes

juan.kerr wrote: »

I don't remember being given the opportunity to vote against it.

Maybe Michael D should push for a referendum before he jumps to conclusions.

What conclusions was he jumping to?

We dont need a referendum, in this country we tend to have referendums to change the constitution, mulitculturalsim does not require such constitutional change.

Shenshen

conorhal wrote: »

Where did I say headscarves?

It absolutely constitues whataboutery. I didn't suggest for a moment that other cultures don't have undesirable traits, what I said was, multiculturalism has, for too long, been an excuse not to address them in minority comunities.


"...recognising that there is no need to demand assimilation of others is a first step."

You've gone from 'two way street' there to 'no need to integrate' in one short step. I never said they had to give up everything, but I do want the obviously incompatible elements of Islamic culture to clearly addressed.

You do realise that there is a vast difference between integrate - as in, live together, interact in a positive way - and assimilate, which would mean stop doing everything you've done so far, drop your style of clothes, your language, your religion, your heritage, the lot.

I do advocate integration, and I do see it as a two way street. I don't expect people to dress the way I prefer, and by the same token I expect them to respect my own choice of garment in exactly the same way. I do want people to communicate, to interact, to live together in the community, but integration means that just as the newcomers have to accept and respect the locals, so the locals should accept and respect newcomers.

I think there are several realities out there : There is the official side, where as you rightly pointed out people in charge might turn a blind eye to crimes and unacceptable behaviour as the individual in question belongs to a minority, be it Muslim or Traveller or what have you. Unacceptable.
Then there is public opinion, demanding that minorities and people from different backgrounds dress a certain way and live a certain way. Again, unacceptable.
And finally, you've got the minorities and ethnic groups themselves. Some of them are making an effort to integrate and may have a hard time coming to terms with the demands of public opinion.
Others may not try at all, and may be accommodated in that by the authorities.
Ideally, neither should happen.

And I think it's high time to stop using multi-culturalism as an excuse or a bad word. Fact is, the world is more mobile than it ever was, and immigration will not stop just because people don't like it.
Trying to force people to assimilate, as has been done in the past in several European countries, will turn them into a ticking time bomb.

It's up to us to handle it like responsible adults and not like spoiled children.

Shenshen

juan.kerr wrote: »

:eek: Lock up your daughters.

At least there will be less traffic on the roads.

If I remember that last census correctly, it may be the fastest growing religion, but Atheism had grown even more.
So your daughters ought to be quite safe, unless Richard Dawkins comes to visit.

conorhal

Chuck Stone wrote: »

You seem to be focussing on Muslims here. Higgins was talking about Multiculturalism yet you focus on Muslims. Why?

Because
A) Higgins made his speech at the Islamic Center in Dublin
and
Islamic migrants tend to be one the least integrated section of society in Europe.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Lol.

It's not funny, it's actually shocking how far we bend over backwards to be accomodating, here have a good 'LOL' at this.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/co...e-1326485.html

In this case a suspended sentence was handed down to a butcher that allowed a child bleed to death during a ritual circumcision, what was the response to this?

"The trial judge, Kevin Haugh, told the jury not to bring their "white, western values" to bear upon their deliberations. Describing the case as a clash between two cultures, he added: "This is a relatively recent matter that Ireland will have to deal with now that we have a significant migrant population. You are not asked whether this form of procedure is acceptable in Ireland. If you start thinking on those lines, you are doing Mr Igbinidion a great injustice."

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Who's saying they are? Most people in Ireland are extremely uncomfortable with genital mutilation of both boys and girls.

We don't seem that concerned actually:

http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?id=14486
"More than 2,500 women and girls living in Ireland are estimated to have undergone female genital mutilation (FGM), according to new research by AkiDwA, a national network of African women living in Ireland.

The number was described as a ‘conservative estimate’

Number of prosectuions for the brutalization and mutilation of young girls?.... nil.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Source?

Eh... Bradford? Or any of the multitudes of Bradfords across Europe.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

The vast majority of non-typical Irish are integrated.

Yes they are. Why though?

I'd argue that it's down to the common points of interest and interaction that successfully integrate these immigrants, some seamlessly like UK migrants.
Others like the Poles integrate fairly well also because they have many common points of interaction with the social institutions of our nation which helps to foster integration. You see them in the churches, the pubs, the workplace at the match, and all the places you rarely if ever see Islamic migrants who have very few points of interaction with the rest of broader society, especially if they are women.

SafeSurfer

250k salaried multi pension holder calls for multi culturalism.

As a cynic might read it.

bijapos

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

Didn't he call a far-right republican a "typical American wanker?"

Does that not count as bigotry:S

No, he just called him a "wanker". He actually had a lot of god things to say about the Americans, short version is here, long version is next to it on youtube. And Higgins was right, Graham is a wanker.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOxKnsT-XZg

Chuck Stone

conorhal wrote: »

Islamic migrants tend to be one the least integrated section of society in Europe.

You do know that there are 13 Million Muslims in the EU? Germany and France have large Muslim populations and yet they are relatively stable, free places.

It's not funny, it's actually shocking how far we bend over backwards to be accomodating, here have a good 'LOL' at this.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/co...e-1326485.html

Leaving aside that Kevin Myers is a professional troll you've plucked an awful tragedy and what seems like an injustice (that the cunt who killed the child got away with it) and are trying to present it as evidence of institutional 'bending over backwards'.

Fwiw I'd imagine the vast majority of people are against genital mutilation (GM). How to prevent GM or reduce the harm of it is the problem. Outlawing it would surely drive it underground resulting in more deaths of innocent children. GM is a tricky subject but the fact that it happens is in no way evidence of wholesale 'bending over backwards'.

Eh... Bradford? Or any of the multitudes of Bradfords across Europe.

London.

There. I just named a city too.

LivelineDipso

WileyCoyote wrote: »

Nice to the President taking the lead on this issue.

"President Michael D Higgins has said the Government should, during its EU presidency, encourage “a long overdue understanding” necessary to remove ignorance and misunderstanding that can lead to “incipient forms of racism”.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/1129/1224327258954.html

The secret to integration is to leave everyone alone and allow it to happen natually. You do not need to enforce it. Look at Australia, Canada and the USA. The people merge into the nation over time.

It is when they create a political agenda to FORCE it that we get problems which are never solved.

conorhal

Chuck Stone wrote: »

You do know that there are 13 Million Muslims in the EU? Germany and France have large Muslim populations and yet they are relatively stable, free places.

Yeah.... there's no real tensions at all between the Islamic community and the rest of the state in places like France or Germany.....:rolleyes:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/17/angela-merkel-german-multiculturalism-failed

Nor, I think you will find is their stability enhanced by or dependent on islamic ghettos.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Leaving aside that Kevin Myers is a professional troll you've plucked an awful tragedy and what seems like an injustice (that the cunt who killed the child got away with it) and are trying to present it as evidence of institutional 'bending over backwards'.

How much more institutional then a judge can you get?
Multiculturalism has been enshrined by every quango and institution in the state.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Fwiw I'd imagine the vast majority of people are against genital mutilation (GM). How to prevent GM or reduce the harm of it is the problem. Outlawing it would surely drive it underground resulting in more deaths of innocent children. GM is a tricky subject but the fact that it happens is in no way evidence of wholesale 'bending over backwards'.

FGM is a tricky subject?... eh, no it's not.
Drive it 'underground', where else is it?
Regards preventing it, prosicuting the parents and removing their children from their care would be a start. Something tells me that if it was blatently and explicitly stated that this is what would happen, then FGM wouldn't.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

London.

There. I just named a city too.

Well done, yes you did. Facetiously. Or are you trying to suggest that Bradford isn't problematic primarily due to a total failure of integration?

biko

Chuck Stone wrote: »

You do know that there are 13 Million Muslims in the EU? Germany and France have large Muslim populations and yet they are relatively stable, free places.

Both Merkel and Sarkozy declared multiculturalism a failure in Germany and France. Both countries have massive problems and many many no-go areas. Same in Sweden/Denmark but they are too stubborn to accept failure.

El Weirdo wrote: »

He was speaking at the Islamic Cultural Centre.

That is what prompted my question. You never really hear of similar speeches to Travellers, Polish or other groups.
It seems to me that the term "multiculturalism" means (or have come to mean) Western culture vs Muslim culture.

later12

conorhal wrote: »

I think you've misunderstood me. Multiculturalism does not imply any integration, it implies the recognition of seperate cultures existing side by side in one society, 'seperate but equal'. That ethos creates ghettos.

That might be your understanding, but nobody is actually calling for that; least of all Higgins. If you read the article, he specifically addressed ghettoisation.

He said there were dangers in “allocating a separate and segregated space to individual cultures” and the “ghettoising of ethnic groups and the erection of cultural barriers, built on fear, prejudice or ignorance” was to be “avoided at all costs”.

He also said this was a two way process.

I really can't see what you're getting so upset about; surely you should be delighted that Higgins is calling for integration instead of mere co-existence, which anti immigration commentators inevitably and invariably and erroneously and ignorantly dismiss as being the meaning of multiculturalism.

Chuck Stone

conorhal wrote: »

Yeah.... there's no real tensions at all between the Islamic community and the rest of the state in places like France or Germany.....:rolleyes:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/17/angela-merkel-german-multiculturalism-failed

"Yesterday's speech is widely seen as a lurch to the right designed to placate that element in her party."

Merkel placates 'that element'. Just because Merkel is placating the fringe of her Christian conservative party does not what she says fact.

Nor, I think you will find is their stability enhanced by or dependent on islamic ghettos.

If there are Islamic ghettos who's fault is it? From personal experience I found that Germans have a very different way of perceiving what being German entails. Second and third generation Turks, Italians, French etc are still considered not really German and in fairness this appears to be a two way street.

How much more institutional then a judge can you get?
Multiculturalism has been enshrined by every quango and institution in the state.

For the moment genital mutilation (at least of boys) is not illegal. If it were illegal and then was legalised your argument might have more weight.

FGM is a tricky subject?... eh, no it's not.

I said GM (genital mutilation) and avoided separating male and female. I personally don't think male GM is any less barbaric than female.

Drive it 'underground', where else is it?

For the moment it's not illegal (male GM at least) so it is not done covertly and people can seek help if something goes wrong. Making it illegal might worsen the chances of an injured child surviving if the people involved were more concerned with avoiding getting caught.

Regards preventing it, prosicuting the parents and removing their children from their care would be a start. Something tells me that if it was blatently and explicitly stated that this is what would happen, then FGM wouldn't.

A sure fire way of sending it underground. I'm against GM for both males and females but I'm not sure an outright ban and snatching children from parents would help reduce the harm. Nor can you say it would.

Well done, yes you did. Facetiously.

You got the answer you deserved. I could name any number of cities in the world where different cultures live cheek-by-jowl.

Or are you trying to suggest that Bradford isn't problematic primarily due to a total failure of integration?

Bradford's problems are attributable primarily to lack of integration?

Nodin

biko wrote: »

Both Merkel and Sarkozy declared multiculturalism a failure in Germany and France. ..............

Multiculturalism has never, ever been practised in France.

Nodin

conorhal wrote: »

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


Well done, yes you did. Facetiously. Or are you trying to suggest that Bradford isn't problematic primarily due to a total failure of integration?

Do please explain in detail what the problems in Bradford are, how they're down to a "total failure of integration" and where "multiculturalism" comes into it....

LivelineDipso

I can't get over the judge told the jury not to bring Western Values into the case. Regardless of how you feel - his job is to uphold the laws of the land he is employed to be a judge in.

Well we are a Banana Republic when it comes to justice for the polticians and rich. So maybe he was just being honest.

biko

Nodin wrote: »

Multiculturalism has never, ever been practised in France.

Goddamn newspapers gets it wrong again
http://www.france24.com/en/20110210-multiculturalism-failed-immigration-sarkozy-live-broadcast-tf1-france-public-questions
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/8317497/Nicolas-Sarkozy-declares-multiculturalism-had-failed.html
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2011/0212/1224289636274.html

but yeah they practise "assimilation".

GalwayGuy2

No, he just called him a "wanker". He actually had a lot of god things to say about the Americans, short version is here, long version is next to it on youtube. And Higgins was right, Graham is a wanker.

Thanks, had typical stuck in my head for some strange reason.

Nodin

biko wrote: »

Goddamn newspapers gets it wrong again
http://www.france24.com/en/20110210-multiculturalism-failed-immigration-sarkozy-live-broadcast-tf1-france-public-questions
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/8317497/Nicolas-Sarkozy-declares-multiculturalism-had-failed.html
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2011/0212/1224289636274.html

but yeah they practise "assimilation".

People just presumed he was talking about France, when he was actually just getting a dig in at the rest of them....which of course presumed his own knickers were whiter than white with regards "race relations".

biko

I suppose it's good that France does assimilation but the problem is that if the immigrants themselves prefer not to integrate then assimilation just won't happen.
So in essence multiculturalism exist in France anyway.

Luca Brasi

WileyCoyote wrote: »

Nice to the President taking the lead on this issue.

"President Michael D Higgins has said the Government should, during its EU presidency, encourage “a long overdue understanding” necessary to remove ignorance and misunderstanding that can lead to “incipient forms of racism”.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/1129/1224327258954.html

Instead of talking rubbish perhaps he could get Saint Mary Robinson to give back her big pension seeing she didnt even finish her stint as President or is she protected from criticism. Of course being a Labour Party supporter herself and Higgins are always correct in their opinions and feel free to lecture the rest of us.