PC

markwalker

Does anyone else here think that Politicial correctness has killed britain?


The BBC yesterday on the today program had an interview with a muslim who was involved in the egging of Baroness Warsi who claimed several things

1 Muslims had a duty to fight against non muslim invaders wherever they were. That would mean in this country too?

2 Sharia Law was the only law that counts

3 It was quite right under Sharia Law to Egg Warsi .

Now if that kind of thing isnt going to inflame racial tension then i dont know what is.

This post presumably will bring liberal derision on me for "unaaceptable thinking" i.e. independant.

Claims that i should be pleased there is free speech etc, which of course I am but the BBC is not even, this guy had mre time to speak and with less interviewer led aggression that Nick Griffin on question time. Nick of course having equally strong views in a differnet dirtection.

And Blackburn is a total disgrace

markwalker

Also how do you adjust the size of the text box so you can see what youre typing to avoid typos?

Cressers

I wish I knew that as well!

deptfordmarmoset

markwalker wrote:

Also how do you adjust the size of the text box so you can see what youre typing to avoid typos?

Using Firefox and Chrome, press ctrl and + and it gets bigger. (ctrl and - to make it smaller again) IE - no idea.

disgruntledgoat

I think "killed Britain" is a bit strong.

However, I think this country has lost, if it ever had it, the support for freedom of expression speech and association and an appreciation that erosion of these is bad for all of us.

To a lot of people freedom of speech only seems to extend as far as things they want to hear and anything beyond this should be legislated against. Hence, I disagree with your point about the Islamic fruitcake, Mark, he should be able to spout whatever nonsense he likes without fear of persecution. They're only words, afterall, and let us see what his true agenda is. Likewise, I thought that turning Question Time into Question Time Featuring Nick Griffen was stupid. If you're going ot have him on, don't make the show about him. Let him participate in it on the same terms as everyone else, thus we can see how stupid he is and how bonkers his ideas for issues that face people every day (economics, infrastructure etc) are.

That's how you deal with extremeists. You shine the light of truth on them and let them hang themselves. Eventually, they will see that the only way to get any small bit of power for themselves is to moderate and compromise and be brought into the mainstream of a stable democracy.

When you start proscribing what people can say to whom and why, where do you stop?

markwalker

Thank you a new browser it is!

markwalker

You can hear the interview by going to

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qj9z

go to the 2/12/09 program and start at 2.47.30 by using the slider to move through the program

VinceEager

the problem as i see it is that extremists have a monopoly on the dialogue of intergration at the moment, with mainstream politics doing and saying very little to avoid causing uproar.

in my opinion, social diversity and multiculturalism is a good thing. to each his own, and for those who prefer to remain ambivilant, the opportuity to sample a bit of everything. what could be better? this is possible if the moderate majority stand up and regain control of the issues.

markwalker

DIGRUNTLED GOAT

All good points, perhaps I should have been clearer, I agree with you the muslim should be allowed to speak, but I think the BBC should be more careful to allow balance. i.e Griffin wasnt allowed to talk and this muslim was. I personally dont agree with either person but the muslim was given respect and legitamcy Griffin was not.

If the light of truth is going to shine it should shine equally,but at the moment the lack of equality provides support where there should be equal impartiality. That is of course if you believe the BBC should be or is neutral.

VinceEager

well the bbc's coverage of middle east issues is never impartial

markwalker

VinceEager wrote:

the problem as i see it is that extremists have a monopoly on the dialogue of intergration at the moment, with mainstream politics doing and saying very little to avoid causing uproar.

in my opinion, social diversity and multiculturalism is a good thing. to each his own, and for those who prefer to remain ambivilant, the opportuity to sample a bit of everything. what could be better? this is possible if the moderate majority stand up and regain control of the issues.

Quite agree but for that to work the islamic world would have to accept that Sharia Law can only ever be a code to live your life by and the laws of the land and your nationality are the principle personaly definng features.

i.e British under British law and also a muslim. This dude didnt agree with that.

markwalker

VinceEager wrote:

well the bbc's coverage of middle east issues is never impartial

The item and post was a domestic one though.

disgruntledgoat

VinceEager wrote:

well the bbc's coverage of middle east issues is never impartial

But everyone I know on every side of the argument says it's biased, which is as good as impartial for me!

@MarkWalker: Sorry, i got a little side-tracked there and lost what I was going to say! In principle, I agree with you. The last 10-15 years have for a number of reasons (call it PC or whatever) ensured that the very worst thing you can be is a bigot, it is unaccpetable to be prejudiced. Now, whilst I think we can can concur that irrational hatred of people for purely random characterstics is unpleasant, my view is that that's their look-out. If they wish to close themselves off like that, let them. It is not and should never be a matter for the law.

HOwever, it is extremely unhelpful to a sensible debate on something as controversial and important as immigration, integration and culture to simply scream "racist" at anybody who disagrees with you, as I think various local and national organisations have done as a default position to avoid engaging with people.

The upsht of this is that ideas, on all sides, that we may find uncomfortable to deal with are shouted down by others who think that, for example, all Muslims are poor oppressed folk who need protection and special treatment to live a normal life or that they are intnet on ghettoising themselves to create mini caliphites. That is not a sensible debate and leads to people feeling excluded and alientated, hence they more readily take up extreme positions to be heard.

disgruntledgoat

markwalker wrote:

VinceEager wrote:

the problem as i see it is that extremists have a monopoly on the dialogue of intergration at the moment, with mainstream politics doing and saying very little to avoid causing uproar.

in my opinion, social diversity and multiculturalism is a good thing. to each his own, and for those who prefer to remain ambivilant, the opportuity to sample a bit of everything. what could be better? this is possible if the moderate majority stand up and regain control of the issues.

Quite agree but for that to work the islamic world would have to accept that Sharia Law can only ever be a code to live your life by and the laws of the land and your nationality are the principle personaly definng features.

i.e British under British law and also a muslim. This dude didnt agree with that.

Likewise I agree with this (although not your division between British and Muslim). If you live in a state, any state, you must accept the laws of the land. If I went ot Saudi, for example, I wouldn't try to open a brewery and complain when told no.

markwalker

disgruntledgoat wrote:

[
Likewise I agree with this (although not your division between British and Muslim). If you live in a state, any state, you must accept the laws of the land. If I went ot Saudi, for example, I wouldn't try to open a brewery and complain when told no.

This is bizare and quite plesant, someone agrees!

Buckled_Rims

We had a religious war in Northern Ireland for over 30 years, killing over 3000 people in NI and England (not sure about Wales or Scotland) and injuring over 10k. The government only put lightweight laws to prevent this terrorism.

Yet, when Islamic terrorists (I wont get into conspiracy theories) kill 50 odd people in London 7/7 there are draconian laws restricting EVERYBODY in the UK. The vilification of Muslims is appalling. Most astonishing is that the Labour party is instrumental in all this!

I wont go on, but if you haven't already seen the documentary, Zeitgeist, I do urge you watch it (it's free on the internet). Even if only 50% of the facts are correct....it's hugely worrying for the future generation. However, I bet most are correct.

As to Nick Griffin on Question Time, all I could watch is Jack Straw's hands, coz it's got the blood of hundred's of thousands of innocent people from Iraq on them.

finchy

British Islamic extremists are f**king idiots who should be given as much airtime as possible to expose them for what they are.

News organisations should then go and get the views of ordinary, non-extremist Muslims and broadcast those, to avoid an "us vs. them" situation developing even further.

I've had a lot of Muslim friends in my life and they hate a) extremists dominating white people's perceptions of them and b) being treated like hyper-sensitive children because of the extremists.

disgruntledgoat

Buckled_Rims wrote:

We had a religious war in Northern Ireland for over 30 years, killing over 3000 people in NI and England (not sure about Wales or Scotland) and injuring over 10k. The government only put lightweight laws to prevent this terrorism.

Yet, when Islamic terrorists (I wont get into conspiracy theories) kill 50 odd people in London 7/7 there are draconian laws restricting EVERYBODY in the UK. The vilification of Muslims is appalling. Most astonishing is that the Labour party is instrumental in all this!

.

I tend to think about these things in terms of competence rather than conspiracy. The calibre of politician dealing with todays issues (Blair, Straw, Mandleson, Blunkett etc.) is much lower than the days of Carrington et al who knew what a REAL war looked like as well as what freedom actually meant. That's not to say I agree with your assertion that only "leightweight" laws were put in place as internment, curfews and army checkpoints are pretty serious matters.

Accompanying this is the past of those who legisalted in the wake of 7/7. None of them have served in the forces, none of them has had a real job, none of them lived thorugh a period of threat to the country most of them are former student activists in the SWP/CND/CPGB. Authoritariansim is their default reaction. So I don't buy conspiracy theories. I believe more that an inexperienced, out-of-their depth group were hearing constantly "something must be done!" and decided every time a knee-jerk authoritarian measure was put in front of them "this is something! It must be done!"

teagar

Sounds like the OP's problem doesn't have much to do with political correctness and a lot to do with problems with Islam and extremism - which arn't necessarily joined at the hip.

Comparing the said interviewee to Nick Griffin is not really useful, given that Griffin is an elected politician, whereas this guy isn't.


Similarly, he can say all he wants about Sharia law, saying that he only abides by that, but he'll still get prosecuted by the same national laws like everyone else.

Just understand that the guy fundamentally disagrees with you, and is running his own risks by ignoring the law of the state, and instead using his own rules instead. Otherwise, who cares?

If you don't have some political correctness it'll end up like Switzerland, which has gone far beyond a racist joke.

disgruntledgoat

teagar wrote:

If you don't have some political correctness it'll end up like Switzerland, which has gone far beyond a racist joke.

Explain do. As far as I can see, that's direct democracy in action. One side marketed it's ideas better than the other and got more votes. Sometimes other people don't think like you and I, doesn't make them wrong or us wrong, that's just life.

f youcould also explain how such an issue got from local planning board to national referendum, i'd be incredilby grateful.

teagar

disgruntledgoat wrote:

teagar wrote:

If you don't have some political correctness it'll end up like Switzerland, which has gone far beyond a racist joke.

Explain do. As far as I can see, that's direct democracy in action. One side marketed it's ideas better than the other and got more votes. Sometimes other people don't think like you and I, doesn't make them wrong or us wrong, that's just life.

f youcould also explain how such an issue got from local planning board to national referendum, i'd be incredilby grateful.

Just because a majority of people want it, doesn't necessarily mean it is a good thing.

That's one of the simple reasons why minorities suffer serious problems. Democracy shouldn't be considered something holier than holy. It has its own fundamental problems. The result of Switzerland highlights that.
People would be in utter outrage if the had made a similar ban on synagogues. It's a ruling directly and negatively aimed at the muslim community.

I need not mention the obvious examples of majorities voting for people or parties who are naturally evil or majorities taking part in abhorent acts.


Political correctness is a tool to protect minorities from the majority. It has its own flaws, but it is strictly necessary.

disgruntledgoat

But the ban wasn't on Mosques. It was on Minarets, which, as I understand it, is not an integeral part of a Mosque... more of a "nice to have". You've set up a false comparison there.

Whilst I agree that a blanket ban is a silly way to deal with such an issue (largely beacsue I hate top down government like that), I think it has been inflated into more than it is.

Again, I really don't see why (unless it was raised at a high level due to complaints) this has gone past the local planning authorities concerned. By way of an example, where I live, there will never be a Minaret built, because it is the devil's own job to get anything above 2 stories approved and any Muslims make up much less than the 5% of the population they do in Switzerland. Does that make us "beyond a racist joke?"

markwalker

TEAGAR

For clarity are you saying that democracy is only ok providing the views of the majority dont conflict with the views of a minority seeking to set standards and guidelines?

Surely education is the way to have the majority and moral highground?

Switzerlands recent referendum and your response is an excellent egsample of just why PC attitudes imposed by a few to control actions and thoughts of the populace has damaged this contry and its identity.


My personal view is that i would like to live in a christian country, Im tolerant of other religions but i dont care for them. I live in a town with NO black or asian faces, its a feature of that town that i like. The feel and culture of the town is defined by the people in it and i like what weve got here. I would like it very much if that doesnt change. does that make me a racist?

disgruntledgoat

teagar wrote:

Just because a majority of people want it, doesn't necessarily mean it is a good thing.

That's one of the simple reasons why minorities suffer serious problems. Democracy shouldn't be considered something holier than holy. It has its own fundamental problems. The result of Switzerland highlights that.
.

I disagree, government of the people, by the people, for the people isn't perfect, but it's the best we've yet come up with. As part of this, given the model you choose, some element of listening to the people is required and if they tell you things you don't want to hear from time ot time well a number of things happen.

1) They have to live with the consequences as responsible citizens.

2) You can try and persuade them otherwise with reasoned argument or legislation (witness our own, bizarre, equality act)

3) You can ignore them and call into question your own legitimacy.

deptfordmarmoset

disgruntledgoat wrote:

teagar wrote:

If you don't have some political correctness it'll end up like Switzerland, which has gone far beyond a racist joke.

Explain do. As far as I can see, that's direct democracy in action. One side marketed it's ideas better than the other and got more votes. Sometimes other people don't think like you and I, doesn't make them wrong or us wrong, that's just life.

f youcould also explain how such an issue got from local planning board to national referendum, i'd be incredilby grateful.

I'm half-Swiss.

''Women were granted the right to vote in the first Swiss cantons in 1959, at the federal level in 1971 and, after resistance, in the last canton Appenzell Innerrhoden in 1990.''

That's how direct democracy works: ask the male electorate whether women should have the right to vote and they vote against until 1971 at the national level and hold out until 1990 in Appenzell. 1990 :!:

Little surprise, then, that they banish minarets from their skyline - it's a very inward-looking system.

teagar

disgruntledgoat wrote:

But the ban wasn't on Mosques. It was on Minarets, which, as I understand it, is not an integeral part of a Mosque... more of a "nice to have". You've set up a false comparison there.

Whilst I agree that a blanket ban is a silly way to deal with such an issue (largely beacsue I hate top down government like that), I think it has been inflated into more than it is.

Again, I really don't see why (unless it was raised at a high level due to complaints) this has gone past the local planning authorities concerned. By way of an example, where I live, there will never be a Minaret built, because it is the devil's own job to get anything above 2 stories approved and any Muslims make up much less than the 5% of the population they do in Switzerland. Does that make us "beyond a racist joke?"

You don't quite understand. It is a law specifically preventing the building of an islamic building, whether it is important, or not. Any other equivalant, can be built. It is a law which explicity discriminates islam. Your own example of building anytihng over 2 stories clearly isn't exclusively precluding the building of an islamic building. it's stopping any building over two stories. Whatever the faith or not of the building.


If you don't see that then I guess you are beyond a racist joke.

markwalker

teagar wrote:

disgruntledgoat wrote:

But the ban wasn't on Mosques. It was on Minarets, which, as I understand it, is not an integeral part of a Mosque... more of a "nice to have". You've set up a false comparison there.

Whilst I agree that a blanket ban is a silly way to deal with such an issue (largely beacsue I hate top down government like that), I think it has been inflated into more than it is.

Again, I really don't see why (unless it was raised at a high level due to complaints) this has gone past the local planning authorities concerned. By way of an example, where I live, there will never be a Minaret built, because it is the devil's own job to get anything above 2 stories approved and any Muslims make up much less than the 5% of the population they do in Switzerland. Does that make us "beyond a racist joke?"

You don't quite understand. It is a law specifically preventing the building of an islamic building, whether it is important, or not. Any other equivalant, can be built. It is a law which explicity discriminates islam. Your own example of building anytihng over 2 stories clearly isn't exclusively precluding the building of an islamic building. it's stopping any building over two stories. Whatever the faith or not of the building.


If you don't see that then I guess you are beyond a racist joke.

Lets not call names if you cant persuade someone. Its the default position of choice and has surpressed valid viewpoints and the cause of the decay in this country.

disgruntledgoat

teagar wrote:

disgruntledgoat wrote:

But the ban wasn't on Mosques. It was on Minarets, which, as I understand it, is not an integeral part of a Mosque... more of a "nice to have". You've set up a false comparison there.

Whilst I agree that a blanket ban is a silly way to deal with such an issue (largely beacsue I hate top down government like that), I think it has been inflated into more than it is.

Again, I really don't see why (unless it was raised at a high level due to complaints) this has gone past the local planning authorities concerned. By way of an example, where I live, there will never be a Minaret built, because it is the devil's own job to get anything above 2 stories approved and any Muslims make up much less than the 5% of the population they do in Switzerland. Does that make us "beyond a racist joke?"

You don't quite understand. It is a law specifically preventing the building of an islamic building, whether it is important, or not. Any other equivalant, can be built. It is a law which explicity discriminates islam. Your own example of building anytihng over 2 stories clearly isn't exclusively precluding the building of an islamic building. it's stopping any building over two stories. Whatever the faith or not of the building.


If you don't see that then I guess you are beyond a racist joke.

Congratulations on driving a tank through the hole in my argument there. However, I've managed to post here for a while now without sneering, sniping or making nasty little insinuations about other posters. I would appreciate if you would extend to me the same courtesy.

markwalker

[quote="teagar
You don't quite understand. It is a law specifically preventing the building of an islamic building, whether it is important, or not. Any other equivalant, can be built. It is a law which explicity discriminates islam. Your own example of building anytihng over 2 stories clearly isn't exclusively precluding the building of an islamic building. it's stopping any building over two stories. Whatever the faith or not of the building.


If you don't see that then I guess you are beyond a racist joke.[/quote]

Whats wrong with choosing to limit the influence a religion seeks to have on the culutre and fabric of a country when the religion seeks to replace all other religions ways of life and legal entities?

And before you start , to many muslims thats exactly what they want to see happen.

teagar

disgruntledgoat wrote:

teagar wrote:

disgruntledgoat wrote:

But the ban wasn't on Mosques. It was on Minarets, which, as I understand it, is not an integeral part of a Mosque... more of a "nice to have". You've set up a false comparison there.

Whilst I agree that a blanket ban is a silly way to deal with such an issue (largely beacsue I hate top down government like that), I think it has been inflated into more than it is.

Again, I really don't see why (unless it was raised at a high level due to complaints) this has gone past the local planning authorities concerned. By way of an example, where I live, there will never be a Minaret built, because it is the devil's own job to get anything above 2 stories approved and any Muslims make up much less than the 5% of the population they do in Switzerland. Does that make us "beyond a racist joke?"

You don't quite understand. It is a law specifically preventing the building of an islamic building, whether it is important, or not. Any other equivalant, can be built. It is a law which explicity discriminates islam. Your own example of building anytihng over 2 stories clearly isn't exclusively precluding the building of an islamic building. it's stopping any building over two stories. Whatever the faith or not of the building.


If you don't see that then I guess you are beyond a racist joke.

Congratulations on driving a tank through the hole in my argument there. However, I've managed to post here for a while now without sneering, sniping or making nasty little insinuations about other posters. I would appreciate if you would extend to me the same courtesy.

I thought the "if" would preclude you from it. Unless you think that in which case it's a valid assertion. Surely political correctness isn't going to stop me from calling what i see as racist as racist?

bigmat

markwalker wrote:

TEAGAR

For clarity are you saying that democracy is only ok providing the views of the majority dont conflict with the views of a minority seeking to set standards and guidelines?

Surely education is the way to have the majority and moral highground?

Switzerlands recent referendum and your response is an excellent egsample of just why PC attitudes imposed by a few to control actions and thoughts of the populace has damaged this contry and its identity.


My personal view is that i would like to live in a christian country, Im tolerant of other religions but i dont care for them. I live in a town with NO black or asian faces, its a feature of that town that i like. The feel and culture of the town is defined by the people in it and i like what weve got here. I would like it very much if that doesnt change. does that make me a racist?

Unquestionably.