French teacher killed

rjsterry

Dorset_Boy said:

rjsterry said:

Dorset_Boy said:

Ben, it's the hiding of the face that people struggle with. Very difficult to engage when you can't get and visual response.

Are there any other religions that 'force' people to hide their faces in public?
I lived in Stamford Hill for 3 years and certainly the Jewish community pretty fully engaged and there was no hiding of faces. Sure they dressed differently, but you could still easily engage.

Sure, but if you then insist that people must show their faces in public, this is just likely to lead to lots of people withdrawing further from society. It'll have the opposite to the intended effect.

Maybe, maybe not. Neither situation is compatible with the expectations of western society. Strict islamic laws appear pretty incompatible with equal rights for women and other minorities. The 'when in Rome' scenario seemed to work reasonably well, but now seems to have been pushed to the background. Obviously if western Europeans tried to live life in Middle Eastern countries in the same way they do in Europe they'd end up in jail, for not respecting local customs and rules.

I thought one of our 'Western Values', which distinguish us from theocracies like Saudi Arabia or Iran, was that we didn't insist on conformity of belief and dress codes any more. Maybe I'm misreading, but you sound like you just prefer a different sort of orthodoxy.

Dorset_Boy

Other than covering your face in public, I really don't care what people wear.

There's also a grey area between wanting integration and keeping / respecting customs of immigrant communities.

rick_chasey

Dorset_Boy said:

Other than covering your face in public, I really don't care what people wear.

There's also a grey area between wanting integration and keeping / respecting customs of immigrant communities.

Lol you’re anti mask too?

Dorset_Boy

rick_chasey said:

Dorset_Boy said:

Other than covering your face in public, I really don't care what people wear.

There's also a grey area between wanting integration and keeping / respecting customs of immigrant communities.

Lol you’re anti mask too?

Grow up Rick.
Only an imbecile thinks that is what I have said.

rjsterry

Dorset_Boy said:

Other than covering your face in public, I really don't care what people wear.

There's also a grey area between wanting integration and keeping / respecting customs of immigrant communities.

Granted it takes a bit of getting used to but I don't think it's a big ask to accommodate the tiny minority that do cover their face in public. I think it's the wrong target if you're worried about social integration. If you're worried about the majority occasionally feeling a bit awkward then crack on but I don't think that's what laws are for.

DeVlaeminck

nickice said:

DeVlaeminck said:

I don't know if it's absurd to legislate against full Islamic covering. It conflicts with the "good" that is the right to wear what you want but the ideology behind women wearing full cover is oppressive and incompatible with liberal Western values. In a way it's similar to balancing free speech against the harm that holocaust denial does. The difference of course is that holocaust deniers are rarely (never?) Jewish whereas women are "choosing" the oppressive ideology in the case of fundamental religion.

There aren't really any rights to balance against in either case.

By banning religious dress, you're not protecting the rights of the général public. People might not like it but we have no right to demand people not do things we don't like.

Similarly, with holocaust denial, it's not really clear what legal rights we're protecting by banning it.

Well one example might be if Holocaust denial was part of a strategy of legitimising national socialist ideology. If that was a tiny minority of cranks we might think that we accept that to protect freedom of speech but if it began to gain traction we might think banning it to defend liberal democracy is worth it. Yes you may argue banning free speech is in itself non democratic but sometimes you need to give something up for a greater gain.

rick_chasey

Dorset_Boy said:

rick_chasey said:

Dorset_Boy said:

Other than covering your face in public, I really don't care what people wear.

There's also a grey area between wanting integration and keeping / respecting customs of immigrant communities.

Lol you’re anti mask too?

Grow up Rick.
Only an imbecile thinks that is what I have said.

Covering your face in public lol.

Cognitive dissonance strong with this one.

nickice

DeVlaeminck said:

nickice said:

DeVlaeminck said:

I don't know if it's absurd to legislate against full Islamic covering. It conflicts with the "good" that is the right to wear what you want but the ideology behind women wearing full cover is oppressive and incompatible with liberal Western values. In a way it's similar to balancing free speech against the harm that holocaust denial does. The difference of course is that holocaust deniers are rarely (never?) Jewish whereas women are "choosing" the oppressive ideology in the case of fundamental religion.

There aren't really any rights to balance against in either case.

By banning religious dress, you're not protecting the rights of the général public. People might not like it but we have no right to demand people not do things we don't like.

Similarly, with holocaust denial, it's not really clear what legal rights we're protecting by banning it.

Well one example might be if Holocaust denial was part of a strategy of legitimising national socialist ideology. If that was a tiny minority of cranks we might think that we accept that to protect freedom of speech but if it began to gain traction we might think banning it to defend liberal democracy is worth it. Yes you may argue banning free speech is in itself non democratic but sometimes you need to give something up for a greater gain.

I understand that argument that they're essentially going to use democracy against itself and abolish it if voted in (similar to Islamists actually). But if we start going down that road, there will be a lot of banned movements and opinions.

On a practical level, banning holocaust denial doesn't make people less antisemitic. It's education that does that. Similarly, Weimar Germany had fairly modern hate-speech laws and all it did was give senior Nazis publicity and made them look like martyrs to their followers. David Irving is a modern example of this.

I can't really see any good arguments for having holocaust denial as a crime and not cartoons of Mohammed. Both are highly offensive to a certain group and, although one is a denial of a fact, there are lots of other awful events in history that it's legal to deny. In fact, that's a very good reason not have holocaust denial laws. I'm not an idiot and I know it'd be political suicide to repeal them but there is an air of hypocrisy about the whole thing.

swjohnsey

Why should immigrants from Muslim countries be expected to conform to European societal norms? I wonder how a young lady wearin' some Daisy Dukes would be received on the streets of Mecca? Hell, you can't hardly walk down a street in Mecca without stumbling over a Christian church.

DeVlaeminck

nickice said:

DeVlaeminck said:

nickice said:

DeVlaeminck said:

I don't know if it's absurd to legislate against full Islamic covering. It conflicts with the "good" that is the right to wear what you want but the ideology behind women wearing full cover is oppressive and incompatible with liberal Western values. In a way it's similar to balancing free speech against the harm that holocaust denial does. The difference of course is that holocaust deniers are rarely (never?) Jewish whereas women are "choosing" the oppressive ideology in the case of fundamental religion.

There aren't really any rights to balance against in either case.

By banning religious dress, you're not protecting the rights of the général public. People might not like it but we have no right to demand people not do things we don't like.

Similarly, with holocaust denial, it's not really clear what legal rights we're protecting by banning it.

Well one example might be if Holocaust denial was part of a strategy of legitimising national socialist ideology. If that was a tiny minority of cranks we might think that we accept that to protect freedom of speech but if it began to gain traction we might think banning it to defend liberal democracy is worth it. Yes you may argue banning free speech is in itself non democratic but sometimes you need to give something up for a greater gain.

I understand that argument that they're essentially going to use democracy against itself and abolish it if voted in (similar to Islamists actually). But if we start going down that road, there will be a lot of banned movements and opinions.

On a practical level, banning holocaust denial doesn't make people less antisemitic. It's education that does that. Similarly, Weimar Germany had fairly modern hate-speech laws and all it did was give senior Nazis publicity and made them look like martyrs to their followers. David Irving is a modern example of this.

I can't really see any good arguments for having holocaust denial as a crime and not cartoons of Mohammed. Both are highly offensive to a certain group and, although one is a denial of a fact, there are lots of other awful events in history that it's legal to deny. In fact, that's a very good reason not have holocaust denial laws. I'm not an idiot and I know it'd be political suicide to repeal them but there is an air of hypocrisy about the whole thing.

Fair argument. I wouldn't myself argue for Holocaust denial laws (it's not something I've thought about much tbh) - just I can see some reasons for having them - whilst accepting there may be stronger reasons such as the ones you have given not to.

john80

DeVlaeminck said:

nickice said:

DeVlaeminck said:

nickice said:

DeVlaeminck said:

I don't know if it's absurd to legislate against full Islamic covering. It conflicts with the "good" that is the right to wear what you want but the ideology behind women wearing full cover is oppressive and incompatible with liberal Western values. In a way it's similar to balancing free speech against the harm that holocaust denial does. The difference of course is that holocaust deniers are rarely (never?) Jewish whereas women are "choosing" the oppressive ideology in the case of fundamental religion.

There aren't really any rights to balance against in either case.

By banning religious dress, you're not protecting the rights of the général public. People might not like it but we have no right to demand people not do things we don't like.

Similarly, with holocaust denial, it's not really clear what legal rights we're protecting by banning it.

Well one example might be if Holocaust denial was part of a strategy of legitimising national socialist ideology. If that was a tiny minority of cranks we might think that we accept that to protect freedom of speech but if it began to gain traction we might think banning it to defend liberal democracy is worth it. Yes you may argue banning free speech is in itself non democratic but sometimes you need to give something up for a greater gain.

I understand that argument that they're essentially going to use democracy against itself and abolish it if voted in (similar to Islamists actually). But if we start going down that road, there will be a lot of banned movements and opinions.

On a practical level, banning holocaust denial doesn't make people less antisemitic. It's education that does that. Similarly, Weimar Germany had fairly modern hate-speech laws and all it did was give senior Nazis publicity and made them look like martyrs to their followers. David Irving is a modern example of this.

I can't really see any good arguments for having holocaust denial as a crime and not cartoons of Mohammed. Both are highly offensive to a certain group and, although one is a denial of a fact, there are lots of other awful events in history that it's legal to deny. In fact, that's a very good reason not have holocaust denial laws. I'm not an idiot and I know it'd be political suicide to repeal them but there is an air of hypocrisy about the whole thing.

Fair argument. I wouldn't myself argue for Holocaust denial laws (it's not something I've thought about much tbh) - just I can see some reasons for having them - whilst accepting there may be stronger reasons such as the ones you have given not to.

Surely it is preferable to take the piss out of people who believe in easily disprovable claims such as holocaust deniers.

DeVlaeminck

john80 said:

DeVlaeminck said:

nickice said:

DeVlaeminck said:

nickice said:

DeVlaeminck said:

I don't know if it's absurd to legislate against full Islamic covering. It conflicts with the "good" that is the right to wear what you want but the ideology behind women wearing full cover is oppressive and incompatible with liberal Western values. In a way it's similar to balancing free speech against the harm that holocaust denial does. The difference of course is that holocaust deniers are rarely (never?) Jewish whereas women are "choosing" the oppressive ideology in the case of fundamental religion.

There aren't really any rights to balance against in either case.

By banning religious dress, you're not protecting the rights of the général public. People might not like it but we have no right to demand people not do things we don't like.

Similarly, with holocaust denial, it's not really clear what legal rights we're protecting by banning it.

Well one example might be if Holocaust denial was part of a strategy of legitimising national socialist ideology. If that was a tiny minority of cranks we might think that we accept that to protect freedom of speech but if it began to gain traction we might think banning it to defend liberal democracy is worth it. Yes you may argue banning free speech is in itself non democratic but sometimes you need to give something up for a greater gain.

I understand that argument that they're essentially going to use democracy against itself and abolish it if voted in (similar to Islamists actually). But if we start going down that road, there will be a lot of banned movements and opinions.

On a practical level, banning holocaust denial doesn't make people less antisemitic. It's education that does that. Similarly, Weimar Germany had fairly modern hate-speech laws and all it did was give senior Nazis publicity and made them look like martyrs to their followers. David Irving is a modern example of this.

I can't really see any good arguments for having holocaust denial as a crime and not cartoons of Mohammed. Both are highly offensive to a certain group and, although one is a denial of a fact, there are lots of other awful events in history that it's legal to deny. In fact, that's a very good reason not have holocaust denial laws. I'm not an idiot and I know it'd be political suicide to repeal them but there is an air of hypocrisy about the whole thing.

Fair argument. I wouldn't myself argue for Holocaust denial laws (it's not something I've thought about much tbh) - just I can see some reasons for having them - whilst accepting there may be stronger reasons such as the ones you have given not to.

Surely it is preferable to take the piss out of people who believe in easily disprovable claims such as holocaust deniers.

Absolutely - so long as these people are a small number of cranks - it should only even be a consideration if they start to gain traction and even then there are other valid reasons to weigh against it.

rick_chasey

DeVlaeminck said:

john80 said:

DeVlaeminck said:

nickice said:

DeVlaeminck said:

nickice said:

DeVlaeminck said:

I don't know if it's absurd to legislate against full Islamic covering. It conflicts with the "good" that is the right to wear what you want but the ideology behind women wearing full cover is oppressive and incompatible with liberal Western values. In a way it's similar to balancing free speech against the harm that holocaust denial does. The difference of course is that holocaust deniers are rarely (never?) Jewish whereas women are "choosing" the oppressive ideology in the case of fundamental religion.

There aren't really any rights to balance against in either case.

By banning religious dress, you're not protecting the rights of the général public. People might not like it but we have no right to demand people not do things we don't like.

Similarly, with holocaust denial, it's not really clear what legal rights we're protecting by banning it.

Well one example might be if Holocaust denial was part of a strategy of legitimising national socialist ideology. If that was a tiny minority of cranks we might think that we accept that to protect freedom of speech but if it began to gain traction we might think banning it to defend liberal democracy is worth it. Yes you may argue banning free speech is in itself non democratic but sometimes you need to give something up for a greater gain.

I understand that argument that they're essentially going to use democracy against itself and abolish it if voted in (similar to Islamists actually). But if we start going down that road, there will be a lot of banned movements and opinions.

On a practical level, banning holocaust denial doesn't make people less antisemitic. It's education that does that. Similarly, Weimar Germany had fairly modern hate-speech laws and all it did was give senior Nazis publicity and made them look like martyrs to their followers. David Irving is a modern example of this.

I can't really see any good arguments for having holocaust denial as a crime and not cartoons of Mohammed. Both are highly offensive to a certain group and, although one is a denial of a fact, there are lots of other awful events in history that it's legal to deny. In fact, that's a very good reason not have holocaust denial laws. I'm not an idiot and I know it'd be political suicide to repeal them but there is an air of hypocrisy about the whole thing.

Fair argument. I wouldn't myself argue for Holocaust denial laws (it's not something I've thought about much tbh) - just I can see some reasons for having them - whilst accepting there may be stronger reasons such as the ones you have given not to.

Surely it is preferable to take the piss out of people who believe in easily disprovable claims such as holocaust deniers.

Absolutely - so long as these people are a small number of cranks - it should only even be a consideration if they start to gain traction and even then there are other valid reasons to weigh against it.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-47015184


I would not remotely trust anyone who calls for holocaust denial bans to be lifted.

It’s not like the people who want to deny it have a history of honest motives

nickice

DeVlaeminck said:

john80 said:

DeVlaeminck said:

nickice said:

DeVlaeminck said:

nickice said:

DeVlaeminck said:

I don't know if it's absurd to legislate against full Islamic covering. It conflicts with the "good" that is the right to wear what you want but the ideology behind women wearing full cover is oppressive and incompatible with liberal Western values. In a way it's similar to balancing free speech against the harm that holocaust denial does. The difference of course is that holocaust deniers are rarely (never?) Jewish whereas women are "choosing" the oppressive ideology in the case of fundamental religion.

There aren't really any rights to balance against in either case.

By banning religious dress, you're not protecting the rights of the général public. People might not like it but we have no right to demand people not do things we don't like.

Similarly, with holocaust denial, it's not really clear what legal rights we're protecting by banning it.

Well one example might be if Holocaust denial was part of a strategy of legitimising national socialist ideology. If that was a tiny minority of cranks we might think that we accept that to protect freedom of speech but if it began to gain traction we might think banning it to defend liberal democracy is worth it. Yes you may argue banning free speech is in itself non democratic but sometimes you need to give something up for a greater gain.

I understand that argument that they're essentially going to use democracy against itself and abolish it if voted in (similar to Islamists actually). But if we start going down that road, there will be a lot of banned movements and opinions.

On a practical level, banning holocaust denial doesn't make people less antisemitic. It's education that does that. Similarly, Weimar Germany had fairly modern hate-speech laws and all it did was give senior Nazis publicity and made them look like martyrs to their followers. David Irving is a modern example of this.

I can't really see any good arguments for having holocaust denial as a crime and not cartoons of Mohammed. Both are highly offensive to a certain group and, although one is a denial of a fact, there are lots of other awful events in history that it's legal to deny. In fact, that's a very good reason not have holocaust denial laws. I'm not an idiot and I know it'd be political suicide to repeal them but there is an air of hypocrisy about the whole thing.

Fair argument. I wouldn't myself argue for Holocaust denial laws (it's not something I've thought about much tbh) - just I can see some reasons for having them - whilst accepting there may be stronger reasons such as the ones you have given not to.

Surely it is preferable to take the piss out of people who believe in easily disprovable claims such as holocaust deniers.

Absolutely - so long as these people are a small number of cranks - it should only even be a consideration if they start to gain traction and even then there are other valid reasons to weigh against it.

Liberal democracies do attempt to prevent those kinds of parties coming into power by having protection for minorities and separation of powers etc.

I suppose this is the argument that the French would use in order to justify closing certain mosques etc. It doesn't seem to be working.

veronese68

Dorset_Boy said:

rjsterry said:

Dorset_Boy said:

Ben, it's the hiding of the face that people struggle with. Very difficult to engage when you can't get and visual response.

Are there any other religions that 'force' people to hide their faces in public?
I lived in Stamford Hill for 3 years and certainly the Jewish community pretty fully engaged and there was no hiding of faces. Sure they dressed differently, but you could still easily engage.

Sure, but if you then insist that people must show their faces in public, this is just likely to lead to lots of people withdrawing further from society. It'll have the opposite to the intended effect.

Maybe, maybe not. Neither situation is compatible with the expectations of western society. Strict islamic laws appear pretty incompatible with equal rights for women and other minorities. The 'when in Rome' scenario seemed to work reasonably well, but now seems to have been pushed to the background. Obviously if western Europeans tried to live life in Middle Eastern countries in the same way they do in Europe they'd end up in jail, for not respecting local customs and rules.

National laws take precedence over religious beliefs and cultural traditions, so you can follow whatever aspects of a culture you want so long as you don't break the law of the land. So some aspects of Sharia law can be adhered to if they don't go against national laws. Similarly if in the middle East you can do what you like if you don't break the law of the land, people are not forced to follow all local traditions.

nickice

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/nov/01/macron-europe-new-clash-islamic-world

Not a wholly bad opinion piece but some rather unfortunate phrases-

For many Muslims, the projection of the Prophet Muhammad caricatures on to the walls of several French cities after Paty’s death was intolerable. Yet so, too, was the attack on a Nice church. On both sides, lack of respect is a big part of the problem.

You might argue that projecting the cartoons onto buildings is disrespectful (though, in the context I completely understand why it was done) but to call an decapitating an elderly women and murdering two more a' lack of respect' is something else. There is no equivalence here.

And, of course, it's the West's fault...

Yet two men’s clashing ideas and geopolitical rivalries do not explain the depth and breadth of Muslim-world fury. That stems from dismay felt by the overwhelmingly nonviolent Muslim majority about entrenched European Islamophobia, racial discrimination, cultural insensitivity, and heartless migrant policies.

david37

nickice said:

So a teacher in Molenbeek showed his class of 10 & 11 year olds a cartoon of Mohamed naked on all fours...He's been suspended (and rightly so). It's cause for suspension showing a cartoon of anyone like that to a young class.

Teaching about diversity, it's ll the rage. LGBT have been pushing for it for ages and it sits badly with some parents.

david37

nickice said:

Dorset_Boy said:

rjsterry said:

Dorset_Boy said:

Ben, it's the hiding of the face that people struggle with. Very difficult to engage when you can't get and visual response.

Are there any other religions that 'force' people to hide their faces in public?
I lived in Stamford Hill for 3 years and certainly the Jewish community pretty fully engaged and there was no hiding of faces. Sure they dressed differently, but you could still easily engage.

Sure, but if you then insist that people must show their faces in public, this is just likely to lead to lots of people withdrawing further from society. It'll have the opposite to the intended effect.

Maybe, maybe not. Neither situation is compatible with the expectations of western society. Strict islamic laws appear pretty incompatible with equal rights for women and other minorities. The 'when in Rome' scenario seemed to work reasonably well, but now seems to have been pushed to the background. Obviously if western Europeans tried to live life in Middle Eastern countries in the same way they do in Europe they'd end up in jail, for not respecting local customs and rules.

You can't legislate your way out of that particular problem.

You can, it's just a question of a governing political party having the will to do it. Labour wouldnt, they are pro islam and anti britain. The tories are too middle ground these days (hence why they are in Government and not Laboour under the management of momentum and Corbyn.)

david37

swjohnsey said:

Why should immigrants from Muslim countries be expected to conform to European societal norms? I wonder how a young lady wearin' some Daisy Dukes would be received on the streets of Mecca? Hell, you can't hardly walk down a street in Mecca without stumbling over a Christian church.

It depends on the boots. they have to be shit kickin cowboy boots. Brown ones, some leatherwork is acceptible, red heels or rapper style not so much

nickice

david37 said:

nickice said:

Dorset_Boy said:

rjsterry said:

Dorset_Boy said:

Ben, it's the hiding of the face that people struggle with. Very difficult to engage when you can't get and visual response.

Are there any other religions that 'force' people to hide their faces in public?
I lived in Stamford Hill for 3 years and certainly the Jewish community pretty fully engaged and there was no hiding of faces. Sure they dressed differently, but you could still easily engage.

Sure, but if you then insist that people must show their faces in public, this is just likely to lead to lots of people withdrawing further from society. It'll have the opposite to the intended effect.

Maybe, maybe not. Neither situation is compatible with the expectations of western society. Strict islamic laws appear pretty incompatible with equal rights for women and other minorities. The 'when in Rome' scenario seemed to work reasonably well, but now seems to have been pushed to the background. Obviously if western Europeans tried to live life in Middle Eastern countries in the same way they do in Europe they'd end up in jail, for not respecting local customs and rules.

You can't legislate your way out of that particular problem.

You can, it's just a question of a governing political party having the will to do it. Labour wouldnt, they are pro islam and anti britain. The tories are too middle ground these days (hence why they are in Government and not Laboour under the management of momentum and Corbyn.)

No, you can't. Not unless you become a totalitarian system. If that's what you want fine but I see no benefit in having one form of totalitarian government in order to avoid another.

nickice

david37 said:

nickice said:

So a teacher in Molenbeek showed his class of 10 & 11 year olds a cartoon of Mohamed naked on all fours...He's been suspended (and rightly so). It's cause for suspension showing a cartoon of anyone like that to a young class.

Teaching about diversity, it's ll the rage. LGBT have been pushing for it for ages and it sits badly with some parents.

Pretty sure that they haven't been showing cartoons of gay people on all fours.

david37

nickice said:

david37 said:

nickice said:

Dorset_Boy said:

rjsterry said:

Dorset_Boy said:

Ben, it's the hiding of the face that people struggle with. Very difficult to engage when you can't get and visual response.

Are there any other religions that 'force' people to hide their faces in public?
I lived in Stamford Hill for 3 years and certainly the Jewish community pretty fully engaged and there was no hiding of faces. Sure they dressed differently, but you could still easily engage.

Sure, but if you then insist that people must show their faces in public, this is just likely to lead to lots of people withdrawing further from society. It'll have the opposite to the intended effect.

Maybe, maybe not. Neither situation is compatible with the expectations of western society. Strict islamic laws appear pretty incompatible with equal rights for women and other minorities. The 'when in Rome' scenario seemed to work reasonably well, but now seems to have been pushed to the background. Obviously if western Europeans tried to live life in Middle Eastern countries in the same way they do in Europe they'd end up in jail, for not respecting local customs and rules.

You can't legislate your way out of that particular problem.

You can, it's just a question of a governing political party having the will to do it. Labour wouldnt, they are pro islam and anti britain. The tories are too middle ground these days (hence why they are in Government and not Laboour under the management of momentum and Corbyn.)

No, you can't. Not unless you become a totalitarian system. If that's what you want fine but I see no benefit in having one form of totalitarian government in order to avoid another.

Id disagree, the state in the western world works within the parameters set as societal norms, many of which are already legislated for, eg the discrimination laws, It isnt beyond the reach or the responsibility of any government to enshrine in law behaviour which doesnt undermine the values of our liberal western society. A significant minority dont agree with these beliefs but the beliefs are the current bedrock of British Society.


There is nothing wrong with identifying a set of values that govern our behaviour and socirty and legislating to protect them, and there are loads of examples where these laws appear at odds with the freedoms that western society brings.

EG the laws restricting numbers of people at funerals. The Muslim community in particular ignored those rules in favour of its own cultural norms and consequently the death toll rose in those areas. I would argue that a significant part of the Muslim community has not integrated, and seeks change through fair means or foul to change the society we live in. Protecting our freedoms is a legitimate thing to do.

In case anyone believes this is a racist rant etc look at the panorama program from a few years ago looking at the trevor philips report.

swjohnsey

david37 said:

swjohnsey said:

Why should immigrants from Muslim countries be expected to conform to European societal norms? I wonder how a young lady wearin' some Daisy Dukes would be received on the streets of Mecca? Hell, you can't hardly walk down a street in Mecca without stumbling over a Christian church.

It depends on the boots. they have to be censored kickin cowboy boots. Brown ones, some leatherwork is acceptible, red heels or rapper style not so much

I'm a gun totin' Texan and I wear Birkenstocks most of the time.

nickice

david37 said:

nickice said:

david37 said:

nickice said:

Dorset_Boy said:

rjsterry said:

Dorset_Boy said:

Ben, it's the hiding of the face that people struggle with. Very difficult to engage when you can't get and visual response.

Are there any other religions that 'force' people to hide their faces in public?
I lived in Stamford Hill for 3 years and certainly the Jewish community pretty fully engaged and there was no hiding of faces. Sure they dressed differently, but you could still easily engage.

Sure, but if you then insist that people must show their faces in public, this is just likely to lead to lots of people withdrawing further from society. It'll have the opposite to the intended effect.

Maybe, maybe not. Neither situation is compatible with the expectations of western society. Strict islamic laws appear pretty incompatible with equal rights for women and other minorities. The 'when in Rome' scenario seemed to work reasonably well, but now seems to have been pushed to the background. Obviously if western Europeans tried to live life in Middle Eastern countries in the same way they do in Europe they'd end up in jail, for not respecting local customs and rules.

You can't legislate your way out of that particular problem.

You can, it's just a question of a governing political party having the will to do it. Labour wouldnt, they are pro islam and anti britain. The tories are too middle ground these days (hence why they are in Government and not Laboour under the management of momentum and Corbyn.)

No, you can't. Not unless you become a totalitarian system. If that's what you want fine but I see no benefit in having one form of totalitarian government in order to avoid another.

Id disagree, the state in the western world works within the parameters set as societal norms, many of which are already legislated for, eg the discrimination laws, It isnt beyond the reach or the responsibility of any government to enshrine in law behaviour which doesnt undermine the values of our liberal western society. A significant minority dont agree with these beliefs but the beliefs are the current bedrock of British Society.


There is nothing wrong with identifying a set of values that govern our behaviour and socirty and legislating to protect them, and there are loads of examples where these laws appear at odds with the freedoms that western society brings.

EG the laws restricting numbers of people at funerals. The Muslim community in particular ignored those rules in favour of its own cultural norms and consequently the death toll rose in those areas. I would argue that a significant part of the Muslim community has not integrated, and seeks change through fair means or foul to change the society we live in. Protecting our freedoms is a legitimate thing to do.

In case anyone believes this is a racist rant etc look at the panorama program from a few years ago looking at the trevor philips report.

The example of maximum number of people at funerals is not an example of legislating to protect our values. It was an example of legislating to try to limit the spread of Covid. What you're saying, is that some Muslims broke those rules.

Legislating to protect our values would be telling people what they can wear, for example. And I don't support anything like that.

I would argue that a significant part of the Muslim community has not integrated, and seeks change through fair means or foul to change the society we live in.

I have to say, as someone who has regularly been called bigoted, racist, Islamophobic (mainly by one particular poster) that I find the above statement a bit beyond the pale. Unless you can actually back it up which, having seen most of the polls, I don't think is possible.

rjsterry

@nickice, this might interest you https://unherd.com/2020/11/the-age-old-clash-between-islam-and-france/

rjsterry

david37 said:

nickice said:

david37 said:

nickice said:

Dorset_Boy said:

rjsterry said:

Dorset_Boy said:

Ben, it's the hiding of the face that people struggle with. Very difficult to engage when you can't get and visual response.

Are there any other religions that 'force' people to hide their faces in public?
I lived in Stamford Hill for 3 years and certainly the Jewish community pretty fully engaged and there was no hiding of faces. Sure they dressed differently, but you could still easily engage.

Sure, but if you then insist that people must show their faces in public, this is just likely to lead to lots of people withdrawing further from society. It'll have the opposite to the intended effect.

Maybe, maybe not. Neither situation is compatible with the expectations of western society. Strict islamic laws appear pretty incompatible with equal rights for women and other minorities. The 'when in Rome' scenario seemed to work reasonably well, but now seems to have been pushed to the background. Obviously if western Europeans tried to live life in Middle Eastern countries in the same way they do in Europe they'd end up in jail, for not respecting local customs and rules.

You can't legislate your way out of that particular problem.

You can, it's just a question of a governing political party having the will to do it. Labour wouldnt, they are pro islam and anti britain. The tories are too middle ground these days (hence why they are in Government and not Laboour under the management of momentum and Corbyn.)

No, you can't. Not unless you become a totalitarian system. If that's what you want fine but I see no benefit in having one form of totalitarian government in order to avoid another.

Id disagree, the state in the western world works within the parameters set as societal norms, many of which are already legislated for, eg the discrimination laws, It isnt beyond the reach or the responsibility of any government to enshrine in law behaviour which doesnt undermine the values of our liberal western society. A significant minority dont agree with these beliefs but the beliefs are the current bedrock of British Society.


There is nothing wrong with identifying a set of values that govern our behaviour and socirty and legislating to protect them, and there are loads of examples where these laws appear at odds with the freedoms that western society brings.

EG the laws restricting numbers of people at funerals. The Muslim community in particular ignored those rules in favour of its own cultural norms and consequently the death toll rose in those areas. I would argue that a significant part of the Muslim community has not integrated, and seeks change through fair means or foul to change the society we live in. Protecting our freedoms is a legitimate thing to do.

In case anyone believes this is a racist rant etc look at the panorama program from a few years ago looking at the trevor philips report.

Pretty sure the funerals factoid has been debunked as just the usual suspects trying to whip a bit of hate on social media. Do you have a reliable source for this assertion? Best I can find is a report of a request for the limit to be increased and this being refused by Birmingham City Council.

david37

no this isnt typical https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-52154327

And this didnt actually happen either https://metro.co.uk/2020/07/20/mosque-forced-close-imam-tests-positive-250-person-funeral-13014223/


and as for muslims not integrating look at the panorama / trevor philips program.

Or close your eyes

rjsterry

I best let my colleagues know, then. They've obviously been doing this Muslim thing all wrong.

rjsterry

david37 said:

no this isnt typical https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-52154327

And this didnt actually happen either https://metro.co.uk/2020/07/20/mosque-forced-close-imam-tests-positive-250-person-funeral-13014223/


and as for muslims not integrating look at the panorama / trevor philips program.

Or close your eyes

Best to read things before you post them. From the BBC article.

"On arrival, officers found approximately 15 people socially-distanced into family groups, therefore no action was taken," the force said

nickice

david37 said:

no this isnt typical https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-52154327

And this didnt actually happen either https://metro.co.uk/2020/07/20/mosque-forced-close-imam-tests-positive-250-person-funeral-13014223/


and as for muslims not integrating look at the panorama / trevor philips program.

Or close your eyes

All that shows is that maybe some people broke the rules. I started regularly breaking the French rules by the end of the lockdown. It has nothing to do with legislating to protect our values (which are what by the way?)

If you want to say that there's a problem with radical Islam and that there are more subscribers to it than a few terrorists then I'm 100% in agreement with you. I also agree that the ISIS/Al Qaeda interpretation of Islam is not implausible. However, that's not what you're saying.