Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

David Cameron and multiculturalism

2456

Comments

  • #32
    Lumen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,532 ✭✭✭✭Lumen


    I fúcking hate whiney little-Englanders. They should all piss off to Norfolk where they can celebrate living in a cultural desert.

    What Cameron really means is that he doesn't want to let more poor people in unless they agree not to get all uppity.

    "Active liberalism" isn't working out so well for France.


  • #33
    Dudess
    Closed Accounts Posts: 37,214 ✭✭✭✭Dudess


    Stinicker wrote: »
    I don't consider Jihad or the stoning of women to be compatible with Irish life especially Female Genital Mutilation where African Muslims mutilate a woman for life so to prevent her from enjoying sex and maybe committing adultery. Yet the liberals defend this under the guise of Multiculturalism.
    "The liberals"? And no, they don't. Don't be silly.


  • #34
    Links234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,944 ✭✭✭✭Links234


    this thread is dumber than a bag of hammers, I'm outta here :pac:


  • #35
    biko
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 81,060 ✭✭✭✭biko


    Sorry Dudess but for now I think the thread in Politics will have to suffice
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056170295


  • #36
    biko
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 81,060 ✭✭✭✭biko


    Reconsidered, opening this up again.

    This is the speech by Cameron
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmjNBGYB6DA


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    ejmaztec
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,369 ✭✭✭✭ejmaztec


    Stinicker wrote: »
    I don't consider Jihad or the stoning of women to be compatible with Irish life especially Female Genital Mutilation where African Muslims mutilate a woman for life so to prevent her from enjoying sex and maybe committing adultery. Yet the liberals defend this under the guise of Multiculturalism.

    Oh yes, I'm pretty sure that the laws of the land will allow all of these quaint customs, no trouble.

    Who are these strange liberals?


  • #38
    It wasn't me!
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,034 ✭✭✭✭It wasn't me!


    I think if you take his comments as a reflection of a broad reality then it'll sound paranoid, but if you take them as a statement of solid principle, then it's a good argument. Cultural and social integration isn't about coming to a country and picking up their mannerisms and discarding your own identity. It's about coming to some sort of agreement whereby both cultures can exist side by side without impinging on one another. As a society we decide what's acceptable in terms of social interaction. To us, female genital mutilation is awful, and we do not tolerate it in our society, regardless of the practitioner, and in Ireland in the all too recent past, a man could rape his wife at will as the marriage was considered to have implied blanket consent. This isn't some stupid "liberal" "PC" (And let's face it, I don't think any of those terms have been used correctly so far in this thread) agenda. People should be free to live here and to assert their own unique cultural identity within the boundaries of our laws, what we believe to be acceptable, as decided by our own relatively narrow society.


  • #39
    Bottle_of_Smoke
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,769 ✭✭✭Bottle_of_Smoke


    Think he hit the nail on the head here. And I don't see how anyone could have a problem with this part unless they have an agenda:
    David Cameron wrote:
    Under the doctrine of state multiculturalism, we have encouraged different cultures to live separate lives, apart from each other and the mainstream. We have failed to provide a vision of society to which they feel they want to belong. We have even tolerated these segregated communities behaving in ways that run counter to our values.

    “So when a white person holds objectionable views – racism, for example – we rightly condemn them. But when equally unacceptable views or practices have come from someone who isn’t white, we’ve been too cautious, frankly even fearful, to stand up to them,” Mr Cameron told an international security conference in Munich.

    The line I've bolded is particularly important. I think ethnic ghettos are a disgusting state of affairs and Ireland should learn from the mistakes of Britain and enact legislation to prevent them from emerging here.


  • #40
    aDeener
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,487 ✭✭✭aDeener


    Dudess wrote: »
    Well no. It's something of interest to me, but bound to cause some extreme reactions here - so what I said was more of an acknowledgement of the way things can turn out on AH.
    Don't get how it's a copy and paste from Politics either - it's a current event, these are not confined to Politics.

    you never gave your own opinion though?


  • #41
    ejmaztec
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,369 ✭✭✭✭ejmaztec


    Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »
    Think he hit the nail on the head here. And I don't see how anyone could have a problem with this part unless they have an agenda:



    The line I've bolded is particularly important. I think ethnic ghettos are a disgusting state of affairs and Ireland should learn from the mistakes of Britain and enact legislation to prevent them from emerging here.

    I think that the ghettos in the UK resulted for two reasons. Immigrants from the various countries of the "old empire" arrived in various parts of the UK where jobs were available, and new waves of immigrants from the same countries followed. It was natural that they would want to stick together, because of language and cultural differences.

    The second reason is that there were no race-relation laws, so the immigrants couldn't really go beyond these areas, even if they wanted to, because no-one wanted to sell or rent houses to them, and the racists couldn't be brought to book over this.

    By the time race-relation laws appeared on the scene, in the late 60s I think, the ghettos had become permanent fixtures.

    Even after the laws came in, this didn't stop racists trying to control who could live where, or who could buy or rent their houses, and they became prosecuted martyrs for their racist agenda.

    While immigrants' descendants are more spread out across the UK, the old ghetto areas are still there.

    The same situation shouldn't happen in Ireland, because the laws already exist to prevent it.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    Bottle_of_Smoke
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,769 ✭✭✭Bottle_of_Smoke


    ejmaztec wrote: »
    I think that the ghettos in the UK resulted for two reasons. Immigrants from the various countries of the "old empire" arrived in various parts of the UK where jobs were available, and new waves of immigrants from the same countries followed. It was natural that they would want to stick together, because of language and cultural differences.

    The second reason is that there were no race-relation laws, so the immigrants couldn't really go beyond these areas, even if they wanted to, because no-one wanted to sell or rent houses to them, and the racists couldn't be brought to book over this.

    By the time race-relation laws appeared on the scene, in the late 60s I think, the ghettos had become permanent fixtures.

    Even after the laws came in, this didn't stop racists trying to control who could live where, or who could buy or rent their houses, and they became prosecuted martyrs for their racist agenda.

    While immigrants' descendants are more spread out across the UK, the old ghetto areas are still there.

    The same situation shouldn't happen in Ireland, because the laws already exist to prevent it.

    Some good points there. We don't have the racism problems they did which of course was a major contributing factor. I would still be wary, have heard some school in Balbriggan is all African now, as well as areas areound SCR mosque in Dublin disproportionate levels of south Asian people.

    I can understand why immigrants do this when in a new country, like the Irish did in Boston, just I also think it is bad for the country in the long term.


  • #43
    biko
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 81,060 ✭✭✭✭biko


    What I would like to see is some proposals from Muslim organisations in Ireland on what they think should be done here.
    Can the new Muslims, born here, integrate into Irish society fully? Is this even what Muslims want? Or do they prefer to live side by side using Sharia whereas we use regular Irish law?

    The number of Muslims in UK is about 2.8 million (about 4.6%) whereas in Ireland it is aprox 43,000 (less than 1%).

    73% believe they are fully integrated into Irish society, with 77% saying they feel accepted here.
    More than a third—36%—would prefer Ireland to be ruled under Sharia law, while 37% would like Ireland to be governed as an Islamic state
    (5 yo numbers)

    Certain aspects of Sharia are already in Ireland, it doesn't mean they're bad.
    Thu 02 Feb 2010 Bill to accommodate Sharia Law
    THE FINANCE Bill is expected to accommodate the principles of Sharia Law in a bid to attract business from the Islamic world.
    The Minister for Finance will publish the Bill later today, and it is expected to include a number of sections designed to boost the Republic’s attractiveness to foreign investment.


  • #44
    pragmatic1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,573 ✭✭✭pragmatic1


    Ikky Poo2 wrote: »
    You know as well as I do, the moment someone uses those terms, you know you're dealing with someone who has no idea what they are talking about.

    Cameron also mentioned embracing modern European liberal ideals. I would have though multicultualism would be one of those ideals (be the idea right or wrong).

    Do I think it's failed? I don't think enough people have done enough to have it succeed and too many have tried hard to make sure it doesn't work.
    One of the fundamentals of liberalism is freedom of speech, this has been compromised as a result of multiculturism.


  • #45
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    Good points here. There's also a cost involved. I'd imagine that's what cameron is thinking about TBH. No one can predict the way society or the cost of several different cultures living in the UK. Imagine a simple census, if half the bloody people don't want to integrate how do you cost for them?


  • #46
    Princess Consuela Bananahammock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,779 ✭✭✭✭Princess Consuela Bananahammock


    pragmatic1 wrote: »
    One of the fundamentals of liberalism is freedom of speech, this has been compromised as a result of multiculturism.

    Not entirely sure what it is you think you're restricted from saying, but there are two things about freedom of speech to factor in to observation while reading the above:

    1 - it's as much a conservative ideal as it is liberal

    2 - No one has complete freedom of speech - go around Dandalk waving a giant union jack and wearing a Rangers shirt while singing "God Save The Queen" through a megaphone and you'll see what I mean.

    Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.



  • #47
    RichieC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,331 ✭✭✭RichieC


    Ikky Poo2 wrote: »
    1 - it's as much a conservative ideal as it is liberal

    Boll*cks.

    Conservatism is and always has been about maintaining the established order. if removing the rights of certain unwanted types helped those ends they'd be all for it.


  • #48
    smokedeels
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,883 ✭✭✭smokedeels


    I’ve no time for Cameron, I’m keeping my “Enoch was a dope” t-shirt, it's got such fine stitching on dope.


  • #49
    jackiebaron
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭jackiebaron


    PrincessLola wrote: »
    (This thread won't end well lol)

    Seriously tho, I don't think he's being racist I mean he has a point, people who move to other countries should try to intergrate with that country's culture. Maybe I'm wrong but immigrants seem to intergrate much better in America. (I could be wrong about that..)

    Nah. You've got your latino ghettoes as well where everyone speaks Spanish. They have their own tv and radio stations in spanish, etc.
    I've known Irish who just live in the Irish pub and hang out with Irish.


  • #50
    conorhal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,097 ✭✭✭conorhal


    ejmaztec wrote: »
    Oh yes, I'm pretty sure that the laws of the land will allow all of these quaint customs, no trouble.

    Who are these strange liberals?


    Well... Judge Kevin Haugh for one:

    http://www.rte.ie/news/2005/1007/igbinediono.html

    A Nigerian man accused of reckless endangerment in relation to a home circumcision he carried out in Waterford two years ago has been found not guilty.
    Osagie Igbinedion was found not guilty this afternoon by a jury of 10 men and two women at Waterford Circuit Court.
    31-year-old Mr Igbinedion, who lives in Kilkenny, left the court this afternoon in the company of his wife Kathleen, who a few minutes earlier had burst into tears as the verdict was delivered.
    It had taken the jury one and a half hours to reach their verdict in this case, the first of its kind in Ireland.
    The court had been told 29-day-old Collis Osaighe had died from haemorrhage and shock due to bleeding. He had been circumcised a number of hours previously by Mr Igbinedion.
    In directing the jury, Judge Kevin Haugh said that they could not bring what he called their white western values to bear when they were deciding this case.
    Afterwards, Mr Igbinedion said he would like to continue carrying out circumcisions but will only do so if allowed to by the Government. He said most Nigerians would like to see the procedure being available and done in hospitals.


  • #51
    walshb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 61,101 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    Dudess wrote: »
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12371994

    Controversial sentiments and expected reactions - from the left: "He's being racist" (don't think he is, however it's a shame he made so much specific mention of muslims), from the right: "Yeah! Sock it to them immigints!"

    So, what do you think?

    /puts can opener back in drawer, watches worms slither out of can... :D

    Camerom, the etonian, the Englishman, the imperialist, is only saying what most ordinary Englishmen are feeling. They don't want Islamists, or any other foreigners taking over in their homeland.

    It's been proved all over Europe, integration of different cultures just does not work.


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    pragmatic1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,573 ✭✭✭pragmatic1


    Ikky Poo2 wrote: »
    Not entirely sure what it is you think you're restricted from saying, but there are two things about freedom of speech to factor in to observation while reading the above:

    1 - it's as much a conservative ideal as it is liberal

    2 - No one has complete freedom of speech - go around Dandalk waving a giant union jack and wearing a Rangers shirt while singing "God Save The Queen" through a megaphone and you'll see what I mean.
    If I'm not mistaken, we have anti-blasphemy laws in this country now. My right to freedom of speech has been comprimised.

    On your first point, if freedom of speech was as much a conservative ideal as a liberal one, then why is it always conservative groups that try and censor art.

    On your second point, right now we dont have complete freedom of speech due to said anti-blasphemy laws. The example you gave doesnt mean an individual doesnt have freedom of speech, it just means that it has consequences.


  • #53
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Marcus.Aurelius wrote: »
    .....................
    You want to live in another country? Live as they do and truly integrate, otherwise get lost. That should have been the backbone of any country's immigration rules, the British, French, Dutch, Germans, Norwegians, Swedes etc., have discovered this succinct fact all too late.

    /Damn you Dudess!

    The French are practioners of things "multicultural"?
    stiniker wrote:
    this is Ireland and we are a Christian nation !

    In theory we're a constitutional republic. You, however, may be from the multicultural French dimension, so no harm done.


  • #54
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    pragmatic1 wrote: »
    If I'm not mistaken, we have anti-blasphemy laws in this country now. My right to freedom of speech has been comprimised.
    .


    ...due to a constitutional imperative. Our constitution, written largely by Dev and co back in 1937. Are you saying Eamonn Devalera was a fan of multiculturalism?


  • #55
    Marcus.Aurelius
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,314 ✭✭✭Marcus.Aurelius


    Nodin wrote: »
    The French are practioners of things "multicultural"?

    The average French guy or gal would not be, that's pretty obvious! :D

    No, the French are victims of unrestricted immigration. Their government-enforced multiculturalism has damaged them to far lesser degree than other nations, since the majority of French people disagree with the policies in question.


  • #56
    pragmatic1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,573 ✭✭✭pragmatic1


    Nodin wrote: »
    ...due to a constitutional imperative. Our constitution, written largely by Dev and co back in 1937. Are you saying Eamonn Devalera was a fan of multiculturalism?
    The Supreme court said they couldnt enforce it in 1999, the constitutional review group called for its removal as a crime on a number of occasions and Ireland voted against a UN motion to make defamation of religion a crime (which was proposed by Islamic states).

    Why the u-turn by the Irish government?


  • #57
    ejmaztec
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,369 ✭✭✭✭ejmaztec


    conorhal wrote: »
    Well... Judge Kevin Haugh for one:

    http://www.rte.ie/news/2005/1007/igbinediono.html

    A Nigerian man accused of reckless endangerment in relation to a home circumcision he carried out in Waterford two years ago has been found not guilty.
    Osagie Igbinedion was found not guilty this afternoon by a jury of 10 men and two women at Waterford Circuit Court.
    31-year-old Mr Igbinedion, who lives in Kilkenny, left the court this afternoon in the company of his wife Kathleen, who a few minutes earlier had burst into tears as the verdict was delivered.
    It had taken the jury one and a half hours to reach their verdict in this case, the first of its kind in Ireland.
    The court had been told 29-day-old Collis Osaighe had died from haemorrhage and shock due to bleeding. He had been circumcised a number of hours previously by Mr Igbinedion.
    In directing the jury, Judge Kevin Haugh said that they could not bring what he called their white western values to bear when they were deciding this case.
    Afterwards, Mr Igbinedion said he would like to continue carrying out circumcisions but will only do so if allowed to by the Government. He said most Nigerians would like to see the procedure being available and done in hospitals.

    He was talking through his hole, as male circumcision has been happening in the West for centuries, and his direction was irrelevant.

    Had it been female circumcision, there would have been a majority guilty verdict.


  • #58
    Dudess
    Closed Accounts Posts: 37,214 ✭✭✭✭Dudess


    aDeener wrote: »
    you never gave your own opinion though?
    I actually did. Look, if I was rabble-rousing I'd be more subtle about it. This is an interesting topic and the way such topics are dealt with in AH is different to, and more "colourful" than, Politics.
    pragmatic1 wrote: »
    One of the fundamentals of liberalism is freedom of speech, this has been compromised as a result of multiculturism.
    How? You gave anti blasphemy as an example - is that a tenet of multiculturalism?
    walshb wrote: »
    Camerom, the etonian, the Englishman, the imperialist, is only saying what most ordinary Englishmen are feeling. They don't want Islamists, or any other foreigners taking over in their homeland.
    He's hardly an imperialist, you're plucking the "most ordinary Englishmen" from the air, and I doubt anyone wants their country taken over, but immigrants merely living there is not the same as taking it over.
    RichieC wrote: »
    Boll*cks.

    Conservatism is and always has been about maintaining the established order. if removing the rights of certain unwanted types helped those ends they'd be all for it.
    Freedom of speech is still popular with conservatives though.

    I'm fully in agreement with the "somewhere in the middle" approach. I believe cultural diversity is a positive thing - I think it's completely unreasonable to expect someone to discard every aspect of their culture.
    Anti Irishness aside, it was more straightforward for Irish people to integrate in the U.S. seeing as they were western, English-speaking and christian anyway, but I'd bet those who have an issue with cultural diversity wouldn't be too happy if the Irish who emigrated to the States were told they had to forego every single aspect of their native culture.
    People talk about multiculturalism in terms of it creating ghettos - due to the people not wanting to mix. I'd agree that's problematic. However, I think "multiculturalism" is a strange word for that, when it seems to imply a mix of cultures. A "You can embrace OUR values end of, or sod off" approach is surely going to create ghettos also though - look at France. But in the same way that I can't go 'round Riyadh wearing a short skirt, I don't think it's unreasonable for there to be boundaries here. I don't feel it should be as strict as a Saudi country though. Basically, if it doesn't cause physical harm/humiliation to the person/others, then I don't see a problem with it.
    The burka/hijab is something I'm in two minds about though - on the one hand, it appears to repress the woman, however on the other hand, she genuinely might be ok with it. Here in the West, there are many women who are ok with inflicting agonising torture on their feet for several hours on a weekend night... as well as putting themselves through being near naked outdoors for prolonged periods on freezing winter nights. :)


  • #59
    Marcus.Aurelius
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,314 ✭✭✭Marcus.Aurelius


    Dudess wrote: »
    He's hardly an imperialist, you're plucking the "most ordinary Englishmen" from the air, and I doubt anyone wants their country taken over, but immigrants merely living there is not the same as taking it over.

    Try saying that without any cognitive dissonance after watching some of Pat Condell's "Godless Comedy". Do you really believe that all immigrants are "merely living there"? Sure, it's true for 95%, it's the other 5% that society needs to be protected from.


  • #60
    gurramok
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭gurramok


    Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »
    The line I've bolded is particularly important. I think ethnic ghettos are a disgusting state of affairs and Ireland should learn from the mistakes of Britain and enact legislation to prevent them from emerging here.

    Dunno about calling them ghetto's but some areas here have a very high proportion of foreigners/immigrants in contrast to other areas where you would hardly encounter an immigrant. The last census verified this.

    Parts of Blanchardstown as well as parts of the North Inner City, Dublin have very high proportions of non-Irish. On the racial tension front, there was an alleged racial killing in Tyrellstown recently, court case pending to see if it was indeed racist.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    walshb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 61,101 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    Dudess wrote: »
    He's hardly an imperialist, you're plucking the "most ordinary Englishmen" from the air, and I doubt anyone wants their country taken over, but immigrants merely living there is not the same as taking it over.
    )

    He is a imperialist, thru years of breeding. That is what the English did. Ok, not now, but that is because the world has so so changed. The truth be known, Cameron and co hate the sight of foreigners on their land, calling shots. They simply have to put up with it.....

    And they are not JUST living there. They are trying to impose themselves. Mosques here and
    there and everywhere....That is what is irking the Englishman, and I don't blame him.


Advertisement
Advertisement