Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Multiculturalism - a failed ideal?

  • 27-05-2013 1:21pm
    #1
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 352 ✭✭


    If you've been in England and visited the cities of Manchester, Birmingham and London ..among many others, you can't help but notice that multiculturalism has gone into overdrive, with the traditional pre-1948 cultural character of England having been transformed. If you comment on the fact that there are a phenomenal number of Black people, Asians, Middle Easterners, Polish et al. about the place, you are immediately branded as a "racist" by the PC brigade, and subjected to the metaphorical sword.

    Despite recent financial problems, Ireland too is becoming an increasingly multicultural nation. In the past, Ireland was a nation of emigration, with many young Irish people emigrating to the UK and further afield in pursuit of education and careers. But many returned, and with increasingly high numbers of foreign immigrants entering both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, Ireland as an island, and despite a population of approximately 5 million, looks set to become just as multicultural in nature as Great Britain.

    The ideological drive of multiculturalists was to create a pluralist society with a rich and diverse mix of ethnicities, where people of different race, nationality, religion and culture could live as equals , and in peace and harmony. Regrettably, some groups consider themselves to be more equal than others, with Islam having gained an unenviable reputation for religious supremacism and intolerance.

    In light of the fact that London, Leicester, Luton and Slough are now minorty indigenous white cities, with Birmingham soon set to follow, and the recent Islamic killing of a British soldier in Woolwich, and with literally thousands of Islamic terror videos on the internet urging British Muslims to maim and kill, should the ROI not reconsider going down the same multicultural road as Britian?


«13

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 655 ✭✭✭hyperborean


    Religion is more at fault for divisions in society than multiculturalism,


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,041 ✭✭✭who the fug


    All the types of people don't cause me a problem in London, and as a Paddy would a bit kettle calling pot to complain about nutjobs killing. (Mind you the, French are annoying London is overrun with them or I have I been assimilated)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,648 ✭✭✭Cody Pomeray


    If you've been in England and visited the cities of Manchester, Birmingham and London ..among many others, you can't help but notice that multiculturalism has gone into overdrive, with the traditional pre-1948 cultural character of England having been transformed.
    What's that got to do with multiculturalism?

    This is most common pitfall when discussing multiculturalism. YES multiculturalism is a failed idea. Multiculturalism is about as intellectually attractive as moral relativism. However, the problem is not that the 'mother culture' is no longer adequately dominant, the problem is that no single cultural template is adequately dominant.

    I don't care if the British all get behind marmite, Britpop and Arthurian legends, or whether they all get behind saris, yoga, and Bollywood. That's not relevant, the point is that there must be some single unifying force, whatever its genesis.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 515 ✭✭✭SupaNova2


    I don't care if the British all get behind marmite, Britpop and Arthurian legends, or whether they all get behind saris, yoga, and Bollywood. That's not relevant, the point is that there must be some single unifying force, whatever its genesis.

    How about Sharia Law and Islam spread by the sword being the unifying force, would you care then?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,648 ✭✭✭Cody Pomeray


    SupaNova2 wrote: »
    How about Sharia Law and Islam spread by the sword being the unifying force, would you care then?
    I made an example of yoga, not Sharia Law.

    That Sharia Law would be an unattractive prospect is true from an international, or European, standpoint, but that has nothing to do with multiculturalism and domestic cultural integration. You're mixing up two different questions there.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 515 ✭✭✭SupaNova2


    I made an example of yoga, not Sharia Law.

    I know you did but britpop or bollywood wouldn't be the most pressing concern of those worried about multi-culturism, Islamic extremists however.
    That Sharia Law would be an unattractive prospect is true from an international, or European, standpoint, but that has nothing to do with multiculturalism and domestic cultural integration. You're mixing up two different questions there.

    I'm not mixing questions, I only asked one to see if your attitude was as nonchalant towards Islam in its extremes.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,648 ✭✭✭Cody Pomeray


    SupaNova2 wrote: »
    I'm not mixing questions, I only asked one to see if your attitude was as nonchalant towards Islam in its extremes.
    To be clear, I am saying that in the first degree it is important that society looks to one reasonably unambiguous source of moral authority.

    I am not being 'nonchalant' towards anything, I equated multiculturalism to moral relativism, so obviously I have my own preferences in terms of whence society seeks moral answers.

    But that question is one of preferences. Even mediocre moral strictures can safeguard social cohesion and prevent anarchy, such as we saw in Syria from time to time, before the uprising. The question you are putting about Sharia isn't relevant to the question "is multiculturalism a failed ideal?", which is an altogether more fundamental, basic question.

    That is to say, to ask "is multiculturalism a failed ideal" is not the same as asking "do non Anglo-Saxon moral strictures fail". These are two markedly different questions.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 515 ✭✭✭SupaNova2


    I am saying that in the first degree it is important that society looks to one reasonably unambiguous source of moral authority.
    [...]
    "is multiculturalism a failed ideal?", which is an altogether more fundamental, basic question.

    So even in your view, religion, being a source of moral authority would be of far more importance than britpop or bollywood?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 352 ✭✭Bertie Woot


    What's that got to do with multiculturalism?

    This is most common pitfall when discussing multiculturalism. YES multiculturalism is a failed idea. Multiculturalism is about as intellectually attractive as moral relativism. However, the problem is not that the 'mother culture' is no longer adequately dominant, the problem is that no single cultural template is adequately dominant.

    I don't care if the British all get behind marmite, Britpop and Arthurian legends, or whether they all get behind saris, yoga, and Bollywood. That's not relevant, the point is that there must be some single unifying force, whatever its genesis.

    Britain's traditional cultural erosion has got everything to do with multiculturalism; an ideology promoted by those in favour of mass immigration. If you believe in a "single unifying force", was there anything wrong with the unified traditional cultural character of Britain pre-1948? Or is it now politically incorrect and thus socially unacceptable to want to preserve and sustain a nation's traditional unifying culture?

    And how is multiculturalism "unattractive" and a "failed idea" in your eyes?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,648 ✭✭✭Cody Pomeray


    SupaNova2 wrote: »
    So even in your view, religion, being a source of moral authority would be of far more importance than britpop or bollywood?
    No I don't know where you're getting that idea from... if anything pop music and the more penetrative forms of culture, like cinema (Bollywood) are just as, if not more, important than religion.

    In relation to multiculturalism, it is important that society chooses one specific source of moral authority. Moral authority can come from more than a Church, it can come from a whole range of cultural institutions and media, which are usually mutually reinforcing.
    If you believe in a "single unifying force", was there anything wrong with the unified traditional cultural character of Britain pre-1948?
    Personally speaking? Absolutely. It seems like an absolutely horrible place to have lived. Seemingly relentless Victorian attitudes to morality, paranoia against social justice, conscription and limited access to healthcare... these are the moral components of life in the first half of the 20th century that were deemed morally acceptable. I can't imagine what it must have been like . Horrible I suppose.
    And how is multiculturalism "unattractive" and a "failed idea" in your eyes?
    I've already said I think it important for there to be a reasonably unambigous source of moral authority, which promotes social cohesion and therefore prevents 'competing' cultural paradigms from clashing with one another.


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 352 ✭✭Bertie Woot


    Personally speaking? Absolutely. It seems like an absolutely horrible place to have lived. Seemingly relentless Victorian attitudes to morality, paranoia against social justice, conscription and limited access to healthcare... these are the moral components of life in the first half of the 20th century that were deemed morally acceptable. I can't imagine what it must have been like . Horrible I suppose.

    Paranoia against social justice? Can you elaborate? Was conscription a bad thing in view of the fact that Britain was at war? Did the post war Labour government not deliver the NHS and thus free national healthcare? Was the Rep of Ireland any better up to this period?
    I've already said I think it important for there to be a reasonably unambigous source of moral authority, which promotes social cohesion and therefore prevents 'competing' cultural paradigms from clashing with one another.

    This "unambiguous source of moral authority"; does it have to be religious in nature? Or can it be secular in nature, as in coming from traditional and long held national values which "promoted social cohesion"? In other words, is it wrong to be a traditionalist and a Nationalist and to seek a return to a monocultural nation devoid of all the complexities and difficulties associated with multiculturalism?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 515 ✭✭✭SupaNova2


    In relation to multiculturalism, it is important that society chooses one specific source of moral authority. Moral authority can come from more than a Church, it can come from a whole range of cultural institutions and media, which are usually mutually reinforcing.

    Race, Religion and differences in values are the driving forces of cultural conflict, media can reflect those values and stoke the flames. Bollywood may be as important as Religion to some but we have yet to see people go to war because of difference is music and cinematic taste.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,648 ✭✭✭Cody Pomeray


    Paranoia against social justice? Can you elaborate?
    I'm talking about archaic notions of "the deserving poor" in early 20th century Britain, an irrational fear of Communism, and a pre-occupation with layabouts that persists to to this day.
    In other words, is it wrong to be a traditionalist and a Nationalist and to seek a return to a monocultural nation devoid of all the complexities and difficulties associated with multiculturalism?
    You're making the same mistake as the other poster and mixing up two different questions. Asking 'is it wrong to return to a monocultural nation' is not the same question as 'is it wrong to be a traditionalist and a Nationalist'? Although having one dominant culture is desirable, you're presuming that valid culture should be National traditionalism. I disagree.
    SupaNova2 wrote: »
    Race, Religion and differences in values are the driving forces of cultural conflict, media can reflect those values and stoke the flames. Bollywood may be as important as Religion to some but we have yet to see people go to war because of difference is music and cinematic taste.
    I'm talking about cinema as a disseminator of ideas, whose value as a cultural institution was most famously highlighted by Josef Goebbels. Cinema, like religion, is just another highly fanciful, elaborately played artform designed to publish and promote cultural ideas.


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



    The ideological drive of multiculturalists was to create a pluralist society with a rich and diverse mix of ethnicities, where people of different race, nationality, religion and culture could live as equals , and in peace and harmony. Regrettably, some groups consider themselves to be more equal than others, with Islam having gained an unenviable reputation for religious supremacism and intolerance.

    In light of the fact that London, Leicester, Luton and Slough are now minorty indigenous white cities, with Birmingham soon set to follow, and the recent Islamic killing of a British soldier in Woolwich, and with literally thousands of Islamic terror videos on the internet urging British Muslims to maim and kill, should the ROI not reconsider going down the same multicultural road as Britian?

    Multiculturalism as an ideology -
    http://books.google.ie/books?id=R-cRCD-QBVYC&pg=PA272&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

    You seem to be confusing it with having large immigrant populations.


  • Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,539 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    "If it wasn't for dem furrigners we'd all be happy wearing our Aran sweaters watching comely maidens dancing at the crossroads etc"

    Rubbish. American tv has probably changed Irish and English culture more than immigrants, maybe we should ban that? But even then, do you really think that there was some idealized culture that is somehow being eroded? You seem to think this was 1940s/1950s England, which is a pretty poor era to hold up as better than the present.

    If what you're saying is true, than far from being a failure, multiculturalism is in fact a roaring success. We have massive varieties of food, music, literature etc. we are no longer beholden to the Catholic Church, and an international perspective has, if not actually cleaned up politics, it has at least made us aware of what is wrong with our system.

    In


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,219 ✭✭✭woodoo


    I don't see its advantage at all. Yes some people from other cultures enrich a country. But not so many that the entire country or continent changes. When the native people become a minority in major cities then it has gone way too far. It shouldn't have been let get anywhere near that level in Europe. Just why are we doing it? Who is driving it? Whats it all for?

    I favour a small number of immigrants who Europe needs and that is it. We don't owe anyone a new home.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,725 ✭✭✭charlemont


    If you've been in England and visited the cities of Manchester, Birmingham and London ..among many others, you can't help but notice that multiculturalism has gone into overdrive, with the traditional pre-1948 cultural character of England having been transformed. If you comment on the fact that there are a phenomenal number of Black people, Asians, Middle Easterners, Polish et al. about the place, you are immediately branded as a "racist" by the PC brigade, and subjected to the metaphorical sword.

    Despite recent financial problems, Ireland too is becoming an increasingly multicultural nation. In the past, Ireland was a nation of emigration, with many young Irish people emigrating to the UK and further afield in pursuit of education and careers. But many returned, and with increasingly high numbers of foreign immigrants entering both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, Ireland as an island, and despite a population of approximately 5 million, looks set to become just as multicultural in nature as Great Britain.

    The ideological drive of multiculturalists was to create a pluralist society with a rich and diverse mix of ethnicities, where people of different race, nationality, religion and culture could live as equals , and in peace and harmony. Regrettably, some groups consider themselves to be more equal than others, with Islam having gained an unenviable reputation for religious supremacism and intolerance.

    In light of the fact that London, Leicester, Luton and Slough are now minorty indigenous white cities, with Birmingham soon set to follow, and the recent Islamic killing of a British soldier in Woolwich, and with literally thousands of Islamic terror videos on the internet urging British Muslims to maim and kill, should the ROI not reconsider going down the same multicultural road as Britian?

    Ireland has over 6 million people by the way.
    Ireland will be extremely multicultural quickly because of its small population, Ireland is virtually empty anyway especially by European standards. And most of the youth with skills emigrate anyway so I'v no problem with people coming here to settle, Use it or lose it as I say..


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 352 ✭✭Bertie Woot


    I'm talking about archaic notions of "the deserving poor" in early 20th century Britain, an irrational fear of Communism, and a pre-occupation with layabouts that persists to to this day.

    But is it wrong to take a view on the "poor"? In light of what Stalin did (murdered approximately 20 million of his own people) and the enormous influence Soviet Communism had on other nations, was a fear of Communism really irrational? And is it wrong to be concerned about the ever increasing numbers of Romanian gypsy beggars and pickpockets on the UK's and Ireland's streets lining their pockets with indigenous people's hard earned cash?
    You're making the same mistake as the other poster and mixing up two different questions. Asking 'is it wrong to return to a monocultural nation' is not the same question as 'is it wrong to be a traditionalist and a Nationalist'? Although having one dominant culture is desirable, you're presuming that valid culture should be National traditionalism. I disagree.

    What would you suggest? That we adopt Polish national culture or all convert to Islam?
    Nodin wrote: »
    Multiculturalism as an ideology -
    http://books.google.ie/books?id=R-cRCD-QBVYC&pg=PA272&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

    You seem to be confusing it with having large immigrant populations.

    Did Tony Blair and New Labour not create a multicultural society with an open door immigration policy which seen the importation of large immigrant populations?
    "If it wasn't for dem furrigners we'd all be happy wearing our Aran sweaters watching comely maidens dancing at the crossroads etc"

    Rubbish. American tv has probably changed Irish and English culture more than immigrants, maybe we should ban that? But even then, do you really think that there was some idealized culture that is somehow being eroded? You seem to think this was 1940s/1950s England, which is a pretty poor era to hold up as better than the present.

    I spent two years on a British forum and all they did was complain about immigration, multiculturalism and Islam. They yearned for a return to the pre-1948 era, before immigration into the UK became an issue. Most indigenous English people hate present day England because they have seen undemocratic and unrequested mass immigration erode the traditional culture and ethnic make-up of their country and transform it into "a foreign land" where they no longer feel at home. Not my words, theirs.
    If what you're saying is true, than far from being a failure, multiculturalism is in fact a roaring success. We have massive varieties of food, music, literature etc. we are no longer beholden to the Catholic Church, and an international perspective has, if not actually cleaned up politics, it has at least made us aware of what is wrong with our system.

    The British people were not asked by referendum if they would like to live in a multicultural society, this is something which was imposed upon them by lofty political idealists with an agenda within New Labour. It is not a success, because most of the British people are now turning to UKIP to end their membership of the EU and get out of coercive EU immigration policy which they feel is transforming their country in undesirable ways, and which they object to.

    Roman Catholic Church dominated insular Ireland has certainly benefited with a little multiculturalism, for sure. But should the Irish not be viewing further multicultural 'enrichment' with wariness when we see how the English have been reacting to mass immigration? And yes, it has been the mass immigration project which has caused increased multiculturalism, as that is what New Labour wanted to do - transform Britain.


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




    Did Tony Blair and New Labour not create a multicultural society with an open door immigration policy which seen the importation of large immigrant populations? .

    ...no....? The vast majority of immigrants were from the EU free movement area. The muslim population is there from long before "new labour".

    It would help this discussion run more smoothly if you were clear about whether you were talking about a policy of multiculturalism, or immigration policy. Thus far, it seems immigration is more what you're talking about than anything else.
    Most indigenous English people hate present day England because they have seen
    undemocratic and unrequested mass immigration erode the traditional culture and
    ethnic make-up of their country and transform it into "a foreign land" where
    they no longer feel at home.

    This is news to me.

    How do you define an "indigenous" English person btw?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 352 ✭✭Bertie Woot


    Nodin wrote: »
    ...no....? The vast majority of immigrants were from the EU free movement area. The muslim population is there from long before "new labour".

    EU immigrants are still immigrants, and the Muslim population greatly multiplied under New Labour, as did other religions and ethnicities.
    It would help this discussion run more smoothly if you were clear about whether you were talking about a policy of multiculturalism, or immigration policy. Thus far, it seems immigration is more what you're talking about than anything else.

    Immigration and multiculturalism are interrelated, with mass immigration having been responsible for multiculturalism. You cannot separate and isolate the two, as they are correlated.
    This is news to me.

    Perhaps because you haven't spent a number of years on a British forum, have never lived in England, and/or don't read British newspapers?
    How do you define an "indigenous" English person btw?

    There is no single official definition of indigenous, but in the same way as I would define an indigenous Irish person; someone with historical ethnic roots going back centuries and who is native to this island.

    Alternatively and succinctly: People who have originated from a certain area of land ie. country over many generations

    Other people might choose to define 'indigenous' differently.


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6 Yiddish


    OP, you share the belief that multiculturalism is a failed ideology with many prominent politicians worldwide such as France's Sarkozy, Britain's Cameron and Germany's Merkel. It seems to be only in Ireland where we have ex-commie gombeens like Gilmore using our flag as a welcome mat for hordes of non-white, third world immigrants. Thankfully his party will go the way of the dodo after the next election if current polls are to be believed. I guess Ireland will have to make it's own mistakes with race riots and Islamic terrorism before we learn.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,468 ✭✭✭BluntGuy


    Yiddish wrote: »
    It seems to be only in Ireland where we have ex-commie gombeens like Gilmore using our flag as a welcome mat for hordes...

    "Hordes", you say.
    of non-white, third world immigrants.

    Why's this relevant?
    I guess Ireland will have to make it's own mistakes with race riots and Islamic terrorism before we learn.

    Learn what?
    Perhaps because you haven't spent a number of years on a British forum, have never lived in England, and/or don't read British newspapers?

    I used to live in East London and am moving back to the UK this year. My version of England doesn't correlate with the one you describe below:
    Most indigenous English people hate present day England because they have seen undemocratic and unrequested mass immigration erode the traditional culture and ethnic make-up of their country and transform it into "a foreign land" where they no longer feel at home.

    Perhaps some evidence to substantiate this rather enormous claim that most English people hate England for that reason. Thanks.


  • Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,539 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    I spent two years on a British forum and all they did was complain about immigration, multiculturalism and Islam. They yearned for a return to the pre-1948 era, before immigration into the UK became an issue. Most indigenous English people hate present day England because they have seen undemocratic and unrequested mass immigration erode the traditional culture and ethnic make-up of their country and transform it into "a foreign land" where they no longer feel at home. Not my words, theirs.

    I think that speaks more to that particular forum than to multiculturalism. My point is that even without immigration England would still be very different today than it was in 1948.
    The British people were not asked by referendum if they would like to live in a multicultural society,

    Most big decisions are made by representative legislators. If people were really unhappy with a multicultural society they could have voted for one of the many parties that were opposed to same. The union movement for one. If people felt in any way strongly about monoculturalism you would think Mosley would have come to power, even as a junior coalition partner.
    this is something which was imposed upon them by lofty political idealists with an agenda within New Labour.

    Wait, what? Your version of history is that multiculturalism started with new labour in 1997, and people wish for the better times pre 1948. So in those intervening 50 years there was no multiculturalism?

    Ok, let's take this as true for the moment - didn't the people democratically vote for new labour knowing that this was one of their policies? Didn't they vote them back in? Twice?
    It is not a success, because most of the British people are now turning to UKIP to end their membership of the EU and get out of coercive EU immigration policy which they feel is transforming their country in undesirable ways, and which they object to.

    There are so many things wrong with this statement. Define success? If it is pure popularity, then every political theory is doomed to failure, just as monoculturalism failed when multiculturalism came into vogue.

    While you are right to point to ukip having large gains in the polls, up to 20%, that is not "most of the British people". That is roughly the same % as the support for SF in current Roi polls. You even point out yourself that ukip are gaining popularity because farange is focussing more on anti-eu rhetoric which is popular, vs anti-immigrant rhetoric which is, IMO, not.
    But should the Irish not be viewing further multicultural 'enrichment' with wariness when we see how the English have been reacting to mass immigration?

    No because we are different. Whether it is because we are more tolerant or because we have a stronger sense of cultural identity, or maybe because we don't ghettoise immigrants near the extent that has happened in England over the centuries, I don't see the Irish losing their identity any time soon.
    And yes, it has been the mass immigration project which has caused increased multiculturalism, as that is what New Labour wanted to do - transform Britain

    To be honest, this sounds a lot like conspiracy theory stuff. New Labour want to transform Great Britain into....? And why?


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


    EU immigrants are still immigrants, and the Muslim population greatly multiplied under New Labour, as did other religions and ethnicities..

    ...as they had under previous administrations. All this predates new labour.
    Immigration and multiculturalism are interrelated, with mass immigration having been responsible for multiculturalism. You cannot separate and isolate the two, as they are correlated...

    ...and this is what makes such discussions so difficult. Yes you can seperate the two. France has had immigration yet does not practice "multiculturalism". A society with many cultures in it may practice multiculuralism or it may not. Thus far, you're referring, inso much as I can gather, to immigration exclusively.
    Perhaps because you haven't spent a number of years on a British forum, have never lived in England, and/or don't read British newspapers?...

    Perhaps I have? And given that the only British party that proposes something akin to this pre-1948 halycon era (via repatriation) is the BNP, their electoral position gives my view rather more weight that yours.

    There is no single official definition of indigenous, but in the same way as I would define an indigenous Irish person; someone with historical ethnic roots going back centuries and who is native to this island.

    Alternatively and succinctly: People who have originated from a certain area of land ie. country over many generations?...

    So do you think Ian Wright is english?
    Other people might choose to define 'indigenous' differently.

    I'll worry about them if and when they show.
    Yiddish wrote:
    It seems to be only in Ireland where we have ex-commie gombeens like Gilmore
    using our flag as a welcome mat for hordes of non-white, third world immigrants.

    Why is skin colour an issue?

    This country does not receive any sort of numbers from outside the EU that could - even with exaggeration - be referred to as a "horde".


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,180 ✭✭✭hfallada


    I think multiculturalism is great and adds diversity. I think a lot of things that is said about islams is mirrored with extremely conservative Jews in Brooklyn. Attacking women for not dressing modestly.

    Being raised a catholic and therefore a Christian. I have an issue with immigrats raised with church of Jesus and best friend john type of christian church's. I think a lot of those Christians are brain washed and will be a bigger issue than any race issue in years to come.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,193 ✭✭✭[Jackass]


    Multiculturalism hasn't failed and is a natural cycle of life, the problem has always been governance, or lack there of, and social isolation of new cultures, forming ghettos.

    Visit Toronto, where more than 50% of the population was born outside of Canada and what a clean, diverse, socially inclusive city it is with virtually no social or crime problems.

    Multiculturalism works, in the vast majority of cases though, the is no forward planning or proper integration strategy in place.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,648 ✭✭✭Cody Pomeray


    And is it wrong to be concerned about the ever increasing numbers of Romanian gypsy beggars and pickpockets on the UK's and Ireland's streets lining their pockets with indigenous people's hard earned cash?
    Lol... thanks Bertie. I'm going to file that in my brain under 'perfect examples of begging the question'.
    [Jackass] wrote: »
    Multiculturalism works, in the vast majority of cases though, the is no forward planning or proper integration strategy in place.

    It depends what you mean by multiculturalism.

    One version of multiculturalism would reject the notion of any forward planning or proper integration strategy because it would see any attempt at cultural integration as ethnic hatred or cultural paternalism.

    I suspect the OP hasn't set a very calm or convincing foundation for it, but I do think it's time we started to ask what our responsibilities to new members of our community might be, and what their responsibilities to those of us who already live here might be.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 352 ✭✭Bertie Woot


    Yiddish wrote: »
    OP, you share the belief that multiculturalism is a failed ideology with many prominent politicians worldwide such as France's Sarkozy, Britain's Cameron and Germany's Merkel. It seems to be only in Ireland where we have ex-commie gombeens like Gilmore using our flag as a welcome mat for hordes of non-white, third world immigrants. Thankfully his party will go the way of the dodo after the next election if current polls are to be believed. I guess Ireland will have to make it's own mistakes with race riots and Islamic terrorism before we learn.

    Exactly.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 352 ✭✭Bertie Woot


    I think that speaks more to that particular forum than to multiculturalism. My point is that even without immigration England would still be very different today than it was in 1948.

    There were thousands of people on that forum, and most opposed the unrequested and undemocratic imposition of multiculturalism on their country. That speaks of dissatisfaction with multiculturalism.

    And how would Britain have been transformed without mass immigration?
    Most big decisions are made by representative legislators. If people were really unhappy with a multicultural society they could have voted for one of the many parties that were opposed to same. The union movement for one. If people felt in any way strongly about monoculturalism you would think Mosley would have come to power, even as a junior coalition partner.

    Mosley's Union of Fascists put him outside the sensibilities of most British people, just as the BNP and other far right groups have experienced similar for themselves. The British like moderate politics, not radical, and even if those radical parties are highlighting real domestic problems and some home truths.
    Wait, what? Your version of history is that multiculturalism started with new labour in 1997, and people wish for the better times pre 1948. So in those intervening 50 years there was no multiculturalism?

    No, that's what you're saying, and foolishly. There was immigration from 1948 onward, but it greatly increased with new Labour's immigration policy.
    Ok, let's take this as true for the moment - didn't the people democratically vote for new labour knowing that this was one of their policies? Didn't they vote them back in? Twice?

    Didn't Americans vote George Dubya back in twice, and even though he cheated his way into power the first time by rigging elections and preventing large sections of the American electorate from voting, then sent American troops into Iraq to murder approximately 100 000 civilians on false pretence? Are you going to tell me that electorates are rational?
    There are so many things wrong with this statement. Define success? If it is pure popularity, then every political theory is doomed to failure, just as monoculturalism failed when multiculturalism came into vogue.

    You should define success, as it was you who labeled multiculturalism as 'successful', not me. And how did monoculturalism fail exactly?
    While you are right to point to ukip having large gains in the polls, up to 20%, that is not "most of the British people". That is roughly the same % as the support for SF in current Roi polls. You even point out yourself that ukip are gaining popularity because farange is focussing more on anti-eu rhetoric which is popular, vs anti-immigrant rhetoric which is, IMO, not.

    UKIP's popularity is soaring because the coalition under Clegg and Cameron are not properly addressing the British people's grievances on continued EU membership, Tory-Libdem immigration policy, and the anticipated arrival of thousands of Bulgarians and Romanians into the UK beginning December of this year. They see multiculturalism via immigration going into overdrive, and think it has gone too far. Many immigrants themselves are of a similar opinion.
    No because we are different. Whether it is because we are more tolerant or because we have a stronger sense of cultural identity, or maybe because we don't ghettoise immigrants near the extent that has happened in England over the centuries, I don't see the Irish losing their identity any time soon.

    Maybe that's because Ireland has a much smaller population size than Britain, and although immigration into the ROI has increased, it hasn't yet reached the concerning levels of Britain, and thus hitherto there has been no discernible race issues or the experience of Islamists preaching religious hatred and intolerance in Irish Mosques, and urging Muslims to jihad and the extermination of the kuffar/infidel of their host nation.
    To be honest, this sounds a lot like conspiracy theory stuff. New Labour want to transform Great Britain into....? And why?

    Labour sustained an open door immigration policy to make the UK a more multicultural milieu. Even Ed Miliband himself has acknowledged that immigration under Blair went too far, that it was ideologically motivated, naive and foolish, and apologised for it.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/6418456/Labour-wanted-mass-immigration-to-make-UK-more-multicultural-says-former-adviser.html


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 352 ✭✭Bertie Woot


    Nodin wrote: »
    ...as they had under previous administrations. All this predates new labour.

    But what you are evading is the fact that immigration went ballistic under New Labour.
    ..and this is what makes such discussions so difficult. Yes you can seperate the two. France has had immigration yet does not practice "multiculturalism". A society with many cultures in it may practice multiculuralism or it may not. Thus far, you're referring, inso much as I can gather, to immigration exclusively.

    Are you suggesting that via immigration France has not become a more multicultural country? How on earth does a society with many cultures in it have a choice on whether or not to "practice multiculturalism"? How are immigration and increased multiculturalism not correlated?
    Perhaps I have? And given that the only British party that proposes something akin to this pre-1948 halycon era (via repatriation) is the BNP, their electoral position gives my view rather more weight that yours.

    And what is your view?
    So do you think Ian Wright is english?

    I don't follow football and know nothing of Ian Wright's background.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,252 ✭✭✭FTA69


    What about Lenny Henry? Or Frank Bruno? Or Lennox Lewis? Or So Solid Crew? What about Amir Khan or Seal? Can they be considered English?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,468 ✭✭✭BluntGuy


    There were thousands of people on that forum, and most opposed the unrequested and undemocratic imposition of multiculturalism on their country. That speaks of dissatisfaction with multiculturalism.

    I don't think you can use an internet forum as a reliable snapshot of the general population. In case you missed it btw, can I have some evidence to back up your claim here:
    Most indigenous English people hate present day England because they have seen undemocratic and unrequested mass immigration erode the traditional culture and ethnic make-up of their country and transform it into "a foreign land" where they no longer feel at home.

    ***
    I don't follow football and know nothing of Ian Wright's background.

    Ian Wright was born in London, to Jamaican immigrants. Is he English?


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


    Mosley's Union of Fascists put him outside the sensibilities of most British
    people, just as the BNP and other far right groups have experienced similar for themselves. The British like moderate politics, not radical, and even if those radical parties are highlighting real domestic problems and some home truths.

    Yet according to you, "the British" hold radical views on immigration. Rather bizarre they won't vote for the party that echoes those views exactly. In fact neither the BNP or the National Front have ever won as much as a single parliamentary seat. Ne'er a one. Whatevefr about saying an overall majority is impossible for a party viewed as radical, it can hardly be said the majority of an electorate hold radical views when they haven't voted in a single member of a party over 40 or years.
    Are you suggesting that via immigration France has not become a more multicultural country? How on earth does a society with many cultures in it have a choice on whether or not to "practice multiculturalism"? How are immigration and increased multiculturalism not correlated?.

    I'ved tried numerous times to explain this to you.
    As a normative term, it refers to ideologies or policies that promote this
    diversity or its institutionalisation; in this sense, multiculturalism is a
    society “at ease with the rich tapestry of human life and the desire amongst
    people to express their own identity in the manner they see fit.”[2] Such
    ideologies or policies vary widely, including country to country,[3] ranging
    from the advocacy of equal respect to the various cultures in a society, to a
    policy of promoting the maintenance of cultural diversity, to policies in which people of
    various ethnic and religious groups are addressed by the authorities as
    defined by the group they belong to
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiculturalism

    The French have many cultures in their country, but do not practice multiculturalism. Your definition of multi-culturalism seems to be "immigrants in the country". Its a bit misleading.
    And what is your view? .

    Britain seems to be working fairly well, in the main. London in particular.

    I don't follow football and know nothing of Ian Wright's background.

    Try google. In addition, others have provided examples you might consider.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 56,868 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    I think for the most part that extremism is the issue, whether that be from those immigrating to a country, or those who have been there all their lives. Like it or not, mixing people in areas can cause problems. Can be quite beneficial too. It's a risk that can lead to success or failure.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 56,868 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    FTA69 wrote: »
    What about Lenny Henry? Or Frank Bruno? Or Lennox Lewis? Or So Solid Crew? What about Amir Khan or Seal? Can they be considered English?

    To many English people I would say no, they can't or aren't considered English. Skin colour is a factor for many people. English by birth.


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 352 ✭✭Bertie Woot


    BluntGuy wrote: »
    I don't think you can use an internet forum as a reliable snapshot of the general population. In case you missed it btw, can I have some evidence to back up your claim here:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2059116/100-000-signatures-mass-immigration.html

    http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/41492

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2247258/Immigration-Labours-unforgivable-betrayal-British-people.html

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2301743/How-invasion-immigrants-corner-England-mockery-PMs-promise-close-door.html
    Ian Wright was born in London, to Jamaican immigrants. Is he English?

    I'm an Ulster Protestant, born in Belfast to descendants of British colonial settlers of the Ulster plantation, both English and Scottish. My culture is distinctly British.

    Am I Irish?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,252 ✭✭✭FTA69


    walshb wrote: »
    To many English people I would say no, they can't or aren't considered English. Skin colour is a factor for many people. English by birth.

    Many arseholes maybe. John Barnes got terrible abuse when he started playing for England but that sort of attitude is now thankfully considered nonsense in mainstream society. If you take the attitude that Amir Khan or Sol Campbell aren't English and nor can they ever be due to the colour of their skin you are simply setting up a permanent barrier based on race alone. They, their children and their grandchildren will forever be stigmatised as foreigners in the country of their birth, where does it end? Is it possible for the children of Irish, Greek and Polish immigrants to fairly have an English identity but impossible for the children and grand children of Pakistanis, Nigerians and Jamaicans?

    Thankfully Britain hasn't gone down that route in the eyes of most sensible people, and I'll be out the gap if it does.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,252 ✭✭✭FTA69





    I'm an Ulster Protestant, born in Belfast to descendants of British colonial settlers of the Ulster plantation, both English and Scottish. My culture is distinctly British.

    Am I Irish?

    Of course you are.


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



    And that proves what, exactly? There are not nor ever have been BNP or national front MP's. Not one. Petitions and opinion pieces in the mail change that not a jot.

    I'm an Ulster Protestant, born in Belfast to descendants of British colonial settlers of the Ulster plantation, both English and Scottish. My culture is distinctly British.

    Am I Irish?

    Is there some reason you're unable to answer the question?

    Do you think Ian Wright is english? Likewise Frank Bruno, Lennox Lewis, Jermain Defoe, Samit Patel?


  • Registered Users Posts: 317 ✭✭hedgehog2


    Belfast is on the island of Ireland hence your Irish Bertie.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,648 ✭✭✭Cody Pomeray


    My culture is distinctly British.
    What would be the main day-to-day components of "your culture"?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 352 ✭✭Bertie Woot


    Nodin wrote: »
    Yet according to you, "the British" hold radical views on immigration. Rather bizarre they won't vote for the party that echoes those views exactly. In fact neither the BNP or the National Front have ever won as much as a single parliamentary seat. Ne'er a one. Whatevefr about saying an overall majority is impossible for a party viewed as radical, it can hardly be said the majority of an electorate hold radical views when they haven't voted in a single member of a party over 40 or years.

    Show me exactly where I have said "the British hold radical views on immigration".

    The BNP and other far right parties have been successfully demonised by the politically correct British government, media and establishment. Many British people have been PC brainwashed and are afraid to voice any opposition to mass immigration and multiculturalism for fear of being branded "a racist".
    I'ved tried numerous times to explain this to you.

    No you haven't.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiculturalism

    The French have many cultures in their country, but do not practice multiculturalism. Your definition of multi-culturalism seems to be "immigrants in the country". Its a bit misleading.

    No it's not.

    "French Immigration Policy was made law on May 11th 1998, which stipulated that immigrants seeking asylum will have more rights to live in France. Its main aim was to give foreign nationals more rights in terms of residency, which takes the form of new entry visas categories. The French are extending residency permits and increasing foreign national's time in France through this Entry and Residence Act of Foreigners and the Right to Seek Asylum, which also stipulates that immigration cases will be treated fairy by French officials."

    http://homepages.uel.ac.uk/u0106050/FrenchImmigrationPolicyPage.htm

    Are you suggesting that via their immigration policy the French government are not making France a more multicultural country?
    Britain seems to be working fairly well, in the main. London in particular.

    Are you kidding? London is now a minority white city, as is Luton, Leicester and Slough, with Birmingham soon set to follow. Fanatical Islamists run around the streets of London attempting to impose Shariah Law by screaming at people to cover themselves up, to not drink alcohol and to stay away from Mosques.



    If Dublin became minority white and you had Islamists hollering at you and telling you how to dress and behave, how would you feel about that? If you witnessed a 22 year old being stabbed to death in broad daylight because he was in the Irish Army, would you not object?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 352 ✭✭Bertie Woot


    hedgehog2 wrote: »
    Belfast is on the island of Ireland hence your Irish Bertie.

    But am I not also British by land of ancestral origin, culture and ethnicity, the fact that Belfast is in the UK, I hold a full british passport and am thus a British citizen?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 352 ✭✭Bertie Woot


    Nodin wrote: »
    And that proves what, exactly? There are not nor ever have been BNP or national front MP's. Not one. Petitions and opinion pieces in the mail change that not a jot.

    English people have been brainwashed by the politically correct establishment to believe that if you voice any opposition to mass immigration and multiculturalism you are a racist, which is utter nonsense. And your attempt to play down the opposition that exists despite this is risible and makes you look distinctly foolish.
    Is there some reason you're unable to answer the question?

    Do you think Ian Wright is english? Likewise Frank Bruno, Lennox Lewis, Jermain Defoe, Samit Patel?

    What determines nationality? Is it country of birth? Land of origin? The nationality you choose? The nationality someone else assigns to you? All or none of these? Give me a universally accepted definition of 'nationality', and I'll answer your question.


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


    Show me exactly where I have said "the British hold radical views on immigration".
    I spent two years on a British forum and all they did was complain about
    immigration, multiculturalism and Islam. They yearned for a return to the
    pre-1948 era, before immigration into the UK became an issue. Most indigenous English people hate present day England because they have seen undemocratic and unrequested mass immigration erode the traditional culture and ethnic make-up of their country and transform it into "a foreign land" where they no longer feel
    at home
    .
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=84809610&postcount=19
    There ye go.

    The BNP and other far right parties have been successfully demonised by the politically correct British government, media and establishment. Many British people have been PC brainwashed and are afraid to voice any opposition to mass immigration and multiculturalism for fear of being branded "a racist".

    ....yet still, their views - according to you - reflect that of most of the population and they've never won a single Westminister seat? Very odd.

    No you haven't..

    Here
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=84807909&postcount=15
    and here
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=84821556&postcount=34
    the links and definitions are in those posts. You don't seem to have bothered reading either thus far.

    No it's not.

    "French Immigration Policy was made law on May 11th 1998, which stipulated that immigrants seeking asylum will have more rights to live in France. Its main aim was to give foreign nationals more rights in terms of residency, which takes the form of new entry visas categories. The French are extending residency permits and increasing foreign national's time in France through this Entry and Residence Act of Foreigners and the Right to Seek Asylum, which also stipulates that immigration cases will be treated fairy by French officials."

    http://homepages.uel.ac.uk/u0106050/FrenchImmigrationPolicyPage.htm

    Are you suggesting that via their immigration policy the French government are not making France a more multicultural country?..

    You seem to be unable to define your terms. Yes there will be more people from different cultures in the country, but the French state does not practice multiculturalism. There is no recognition of religion or race in official statistics and it is, afaik, illegal for a state agency to collate same. All are considered French and equal once granted citizenship.

    Are you kidding? London is now a minority white city, as is Luton, Leicester and Slough, with Birmingham soon set to follow. ..

    Again - why is skin colour such an issue?
    Fanatical Islamists run around the streets of London attempting to impose Shariah Law by screaming at people to cover themselves up, to not drink alcohol and to stay away from Mosques. ..

    A tiny fringe group in a city of some 8 million.
    If Dublin became minority white ...........

    Again - skin colour......

    You seem to have missed the question I've asked earlier

    Do you think Ian Wright is english? Likewise Frank Bruno, Lennox Lewis, Jermain Defoe, Samit Patel?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,252 ✭✭✭FTA69


    Are you kidding? London is now a minority white city

    London is 60% white. It's about 45% English but there are also large numbers of Irish as well as western and eastern Europeans living here.
    Fanatical Islamists run around the streets of London attempting to impose Shariah Law by screaming at people to cover themselves up, to not drink alcohol and to stay away from Mosques.

    That happened a couple of times in East London and the gobsh*tes in question were roundly condemned by locals and the police shut them down almost immediately. You'd swear East London was a no-go area for non-Muslims the way you're banging on. If the hipsters in question had thrown a few digs at the numpties in question instead of handing over a bag of cans there'd have been no more said about it.

    The nutters in that video are indeed a disgrace, but thankfully they are nowhere near representative.

    If Dublin became minority white

    No fear of that mate.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 352 ✭✭Bertie Woot


    Nodin wrote: »

    If you examine what you've bolded carefully, nowhere have I said that the English hold "radical views". Nowhere. That is just your interpretation of what I've said.
    ....yet still, their views - according to you - reflect that of most of the population and they've never won a single Westminister seat? Very odd.

    Which part of English people being gagged by the PC establishment are you failing to comprehend?
    Here
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=84807909&postcount=15
    and here
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=84821556&postcount=34
    the links and definitions are in those posts. You don't seem to have bothered reading either thus far.

    Arbitrary definitions of multiculturalism aren't much help. Are you realistically suggesting that via their immigration policies, France and the UK are not practicing and promoting multiculturalism, by creating a more multicultural society?
    You seem to be unable to define your terms. Yes there will be more people from different cultures in the country, but the French state does not practice multiculturalism. There is no recognition of religion or race in official statistics and it is, afaik, illegal for a state agency to collate same. All are considered French and equal once granted citizenship.

    There is no no recognition of religion or race in official statistics? Really?

    Scroll down to "religions" and "ethnic groups":

    http://www.indexmundi.com/france/demographics_profile.html
    Again - why is skin colour such an issue?

    Because before 1948 Britain was a predominantly white country. Mass immigration under Blair and sustained by Clegg and Cameron has had a huge transformational impact, and now one English city after another is becoming minority white. The entire ethnic ethos of Britain is being transmogrified, and without the consent of the British people.
    A tiny fringe group in a city of some 8 million.

    Play it down if you must, and to your detriment.
    Again - skin colour......

    You seem to have missed the question I've asked earlier

    You seemed to have missed the questions I asked, so for your benefit I'll repeat them:

    If Dublin became minority white and you had Islamists hollering at you and telling you how to dress and behave, how would you feel about that? If you witnessed a 22 year old being stabbed to death in broad daylight because he was in the Irish Army, would you not object?
    Do you think Ian Wright is english? Likewise Frank Bruno, Lennox Lewis, Jermain Defoe, Samit Patel?

    You seem to be stuck on nationality. Give me the universally accepted definition of nationality I have requested, and I'll answer your question


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 352 ✭✭Bertie Woot


    FTA69 wrote: »
    London is 60% white. It's about 45% English but there are also large numbers of Irish as well as western and eastern Europeans living here.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2246288/Census-2011-UK-immigrant-population-jumps-THREE-MILLION-10-years.html


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,252 ✭✭✭FTA69


    London is 60% white. The English aren't the only whites in the city like. There are also Poles, Russians, Irish, Greeks and every other European nationality. The traditional white working class in London is migrating to places like Kent while the more prosperous types go to Surrey and Beds etc. The article also states that nearly 9 in 10 of people in the UK as a whole are white British and a mere 1 in 20 are Muslim. Is that really cause for alarm?


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


    If you examine what you've bolded carefully, nowhere have I said that the English hold "radical views". Nowhere. That is just your interpretation of what I've said.

    You have ascribed radical views to the english population. Thats the same difference.
    Which part of English people being gagged by the PC establishment are you failing to comprehend?.

    Conspiracy theory nonsense. The BNP and National Front are not banned from the air, their views are well known, yet they've never won a seat.
    Arbitrary definitions of multiculturalism aren't much help. Are you realistically suggesting that via their immigration policies, France and the UK are not practicing and promoting multiculturalism, by creating a more multicultural society? .

    The British do promote multiculturalism, the French do not. Immigration and a multicultural ideology are not the same thing, as has been pointed out to you numerous times.

    There is no no recognition of religion or race in official statistics? Really?

    Scroll down to "religions" and "ethnic groups":

    http://www.indexmundi.com/france/demographics_profile.html
    .

    Estimates from non-government sources.
    A law dating from 1872 forbids the collection by the state of census data
    based on questions about religious beliefs, because the Third Republic
    considered that kind of information to be private. This principle was reaffirmed in a law passed on 6 January 1978 (Article 8) which states that “It is forbidden to collect or process data of a personal nature related to racial or ethnic origins as well as political, philosophic or religious opinions
    http://plus.lefigaro.fr/note/how-does-france-count-its-muslim-population-20110407-435643
    Because before 1948 Britain was a predominantly white
    country
    . Mass immigration under Blair and sustained by Clegg and
    Cameron has had a huge transformational impact, and now one English city after another is becoming minority white. The entire ethnic
    ethos
    of Britain is being transmogrified, and without the consent of
    the British people.

    Obsessed with skin colour again.

    What is an "ethnic ethos"?




    You seemed to have missed the questions I asked, so for your benefit I'll
    repeat them:
    If Dublin became minority white and you had Islamists hollering at you and
    telling you how to dress and behave, how would you feel about that? If you
    witnessed a 22 year old being stabbed to death in broad daylight because he was
    in the Irish Army, would you not object?

    Skin colour isn't really that big a deal.

    Having had religous types "holler" at me before, I'd imagine it would be amusing, though probably not for them.

    Yes, I would object if I saw somebody stabbed.
    You seem to be stuck on nationality. Give me the universally accepted definition of nationality I have requested, and I'll answer your question


    You'll note I bolded the "you" a few posts back. The above is why. I want to know what you think.

    Do you think Ian Wright is english? Likewise Frank Bruno, Lennox Lewis, Jermain Defoe, Samit Patel?

    Why are you fixated on skin colour?


  • Advertisement
Advertisement