I hate to say it, and don't agree with it, but knowing what buttons push the British public the NHS funeral flowers one for Labour is very powerful.
The rest are mostly awful. The Conservatives one is probably the best of the worst, but the positioning and size of the text is wrong, as the background colour - it looks too Labour-y and might not even be clocked by UKIP-waverers. The Greens one is suicidally boring. The UKIP one is confused (how many would recognise those flags?) and clearly done by an ad agency that hates UKIP, and I don't know whether that Lib Dem one is more tin-man from the Wizard of Oz, or some gauche Stalinist chic.
Above all, say to Muslims: we think of you as British citizens and we expect you to think of yourselves as British citizens with your homes and futures here. You are equal citizens and are entitled to the full protection of British law. But that also means that you have responsibilities and duties as British citizens. And one of those means that you must stop thinking of yourselves as Pakistani or Algerian or whatever and have to fully embrace being British rather than having your head / heart somewhere else and only your body here. You can be whatever religion you want but as far as we - and your fellow Britons are concerned - this is your private affair. If it means more to you to be living in an Islamic state then that is your choice. But what you cannot do is seek to create an Islamic state of Britain or in Britain and nor can you expect others to accept or abide by the tenets of the faith you have chosen. If you want tolerance you have to give it - and to things/people you may not like. But do not expect us to tolerate the intolerable.
How about those for starters?
That's what we need suggestions for.
Stop funding of those organisations which are reinforcing the bad behaviour we don't want. Prosecute imams who incite hatred of gay people or Jews for instance. Expel foreign imams, for instance.
I have made some suggestions. I cannot promise that they will work.
We should be doing these steps at the very least. We have to change the climate, the ideological climate. We have to challenge and criticise and stop having the debate on the extremists terms. Stop, for instance, accepting implicitly the idea that Muslims here have some sort of special right to be consulted - or opine - on foreign policy issues affecting Muslims in other countries. All that does is reinforce the idea in their - and others minds - that their identity as Muslims is more important than their identity as Britons. We don't assume that the Archbishop of Westminster has a right to be consulted on EU policy just because the EU has a preponderance of Catholic citizens.
Look I'm just an ordinary Joe. Maybe others have ideas.
With 2 million muslims in the country, there must surely be enough Muslim women, and theological students that importing imams or needing arranged marriages is obsolete,
Neither should be permitted.
As ever, I agree with Cyclefree.
Though, while I agree that many on the left (and a fair few on the right) have tiptoed around condemning the misogynistic, homophobic and intolerant streaks in Islam, there have been notable exceptions, including yours truly!
I have made some suggestions. I cannot promise that they will work.
We should be doing these steps at the very least. We have to change the climate, the ideological climate. We have to challenge and criticise and stop having the debate on the extremists terms. Stop, for instance, accepting implicitly the idea that Muslims here have some sort of special right to be consulted - or opine - on foreign policy issues affecting Muslims in other countries. All that does is reinforce the idea in their - and others minds - that their identity as Muslims is more important than their identity as Britons. We don't assume that the Archbishop of Westminster has a right to be consulted on EU policy just because the EU has a preponderance of Catholic citizens.
Look I'm just an ordinary Joe. Maybe others have ideas.
I'm not saying they would be ineffective. But I think for the problem to be well and truly solved, far bigger issues must be confronted. Issues that go to the core of Britain and its place in the world.
For example, how can we possibly criticise radical Islam when:
a) its originators and sponsors are our closest Middle East allies,
b) Islamists from all corners of the globe are our own foreign policy boot boys in the Middle East. We are currently committed to training even more militants to pour into Syria. Are these people inspired by democracy? They are radicalised young Muslims. What happens when they behead enough Syrians and want to come home?
c) we are in the process of overthrowing secular regimes in the Middle East in favour of Sunni basket case theocracies. In Syria, you would (still can in the Assad areas) find Imams in Churches and Priests in Mosques. You find Easter and Eid celebrated as national holidays. The people are deeply religious but all see themselves as proud Syrians. One of the earliest chants of the 'revolutionaries' was 'Christians go to Bayroute, Alawites go to your death'. We supported and continued to support this.
Hello Isam - a big story for the Mirror. With a headline in quotes claiming murder. But full of words in the article that fall short of that like 'never saw' her again. 'may' have been killed. Unfortunately the 'prominent politicians and a famous comedian' are left anonymous. The accuser lives in 'fear' - from bad jokes?
Now I have to say that 20 orgies resulting in 4 deaths and multiple examples of 'torture' attended by at least 30 VIPs would require levels of clean up skills beyond even Winston Wolf. Don't you? This is 1993 - not some 1950's based BBC conspiracy drama. The Mirrors story conveniently dredges up Peter Righton - who died in 2007, although they neatly imply he was alive at least last year. Righton's sordid history is well known; he is disgusting and dead - so an easy mark for the Mirror. The only thing we can be sure of Righton is was connected with was the Paedophile Information Exchange - and we can understand why The Mirror chooses not to mention that.
Hello Isam - a big story for the Mirror. With a headline in quotes claiming murder. But full of words in the article that fall short of that like 'never saw' her again. 'may' have been killed. Unfortunately the 'prominent politicians and a famous comedian' are left anonymous. The accuser lives in 'fear' - from bad jokes?
Now I have to say that 20 orgies resulting in 4 deaths and multiple examples of 'torture' attended by at least 30 VIPs would require levels of clean up skills beyond even Winston Wolf. Don't you? This is 1993 - not some 1950's based BBC conspiracy drama. The Mirrors story conveniently dredges up Peter Righton - who died in 2007, although they neatly imply he was alive at least last year. Righton's sordid history is well known; he is disgusting and dead - so an easy mark for the Mirror. The only thing we can be sure of Righton is was connected with was the Paedophile Information Exchange - and we can understand why The Mirror chooses not to mention that.
Hmm, I'm a great fan of Cyclefree's posts, always interesting and well thought-out. And indeed, kudos to her for a list of specific suggestions about what could be done.
But - and it's a big 'but' - several of them are hardly consistent with the principles of civil liberties, are they? What she suggests is much, much more intrusive than what the government proposes.
Maybe that's what people want. But I can't help noticing that concern about civil liberties seems to depend an awful lot on whether it is 'us' or 'them' whose liberties are going to be compromised.
Which ones specifically are not consistent?
Could we achieve the end we want without curbing our civil liberties?
The trouble here may be that we may be putting ourselves in a position where we have a choice between curtailing all of our civil liberties in order not to discriminate - even though a form of selective discrimination may be what's needed (it's discrimination for unnecessary reasons which is bad not discrimination for necessary and well-founded reasons) - and focusing on those groups and sub-sets within groups where we have good reason to believe the problems arise.
Nick Cohen makes much the same point in the article I've just referenced. On the whole I tend to the view that if - and it's a big "if" - we have to make a choice we should choose that which benefits the majority of our citizens.
And, yes, I do think that British governments should put the interests of British citizens first.
Would you mind mentioning at the beginning of a comment that you're going to quote the Mirror? Saves me the trouble of reading the rest of it. Ta in advance.
Good posts Cyclefree. Taken together these measure appear radical but that's only because we've allowed the culture to go too far and now have to take remedial action. Time and demographics are against us. There's an excellent essay by Douglas Murray here on the state we're in: http://standpointmag.co.uk/node/5250/full
To your list, I would add that we need measures to enable Muslims to renounce Islam without fear. The notion that people in Britain should be punished for no longer believing an ideology tantamount to bullying. We have national schemes for getting people off alcohol and drugs. We need similar schemes to support and encouragement apostates too. Any Imam that doesn't support it gets an ASBO.
TBH, I'd be happy to go a lot further (no new mosques, publish all sermons online, revise the Koran, ban religion in schools and the public sector) but can see it wouldn't plain sailing.
I would prosecute anyone saying that the penalty for apostasy is death. I know that there will be much protestation that this is what it says in the Koran. I have no idea. But regardless of whether it is or not we have to say that freedom of thought means the freedom not to believe without being threatened for exercising that freedom. And if that means that that bit of the Koran cannot be taught in mosques and schools well, too bad. That is why one of my points was to say - unequivocally - as we have not done until now that where there is a conflict between Islamic law and British law, the latter wins. No ifs. No buts.
Prosecute incitement to violence, certainly. But if we try to prosecute them simply for saying offensive things, we revert to the current situation where they will demand the prosecution of people who offend them.
Hello Isam - a big story for the Mirror. With a headline in quotes claiming murder. But full of words in the article that fall short of that like 'never saw' her again. 'may' have been killed. Unfortunately the 'prominent politicians and a famous comedian' are left anonymous. The accuser lives in 'fear' - from bad jokes?
Now I have to say that 20 orgies resulting in 4 deaths and multiple examples of 'torture' attended by at least 30 VIPs would require levels of clean up skills beyond even Winston Wolf. Don't you? This is 1993 - not some 1950's based BBC conspiracy drama. The Mirrors story conveniently dredges up Peter Righton - who died in 2007, although they neatly imply he was alive at least last year. Righton's sordid history is well known; he is disgusting and dead - so an easy mark for the Mirror. The only thing we can be sure of Righton is was connected with was the Paedophile Information Exchange - and we can understand why The Mirror chooses not to mention that.
Above all, say to Muslims: we think of you as British citizens and we expect you to think of yourselves as British citizens with your homes and futures here. You are equal citizens and are entitled to the full protection of British law. But that also means that you have responsibilities and duties as British citizens. And one of those means that you must stop thinking of yourselves as Pakistani or Algerian or whatever and have to fully embrace being British rather than having your head / heart somewhere else and only your body here. You can be whatever religion you want but as far as we - and your fellow Britons are concerned - this is your private affair. If it means more to you to be living in an Islamic state then that is your choice. But what you cannot do is seek to create an Islamic state of Britain or in Britain and nor can you expect others to accept or abide by the tenets of the faith you have chosen. If you want tolerance you have to give it - and to things/people you may not like. But do not expect us to tolerate the intolerable.
How about those for starters?
Extraordinarily cogent and credible (in addition to those adumbrated by Socrates on the previous thread. But Luckyguy1983 too raises the surely unarguable point about what concrete measures are required to incentivize compliance with the strictures you both have so forecefully articulated and what penalties will be applied to those who resist.
It's difficult to detach immigrants from their loyalties. Remember that the "well integrated" Irish community in the Boston, Mass area were not averse to funding the IRA. All the more reason why we should have the ability to discriminate in our immigration policies as evidence arises.
The Irish in Boston were about as Irish as I'm Swedish. Singing rebel IRA songs while knowing the square root of b*gger all about the situation in Ireland and not living with the consequences doesn't make you Irish.
Their position changed once they'd had a few terrorist atrocities inflicted on them, I'm sorry to say.
I remember working for a US institution at the time of the T McVeigh terrorist atrocity. My US colleagues were appalled and shocked, all the normal reactions. And I remember telling them that we had been rather used to bombs in Britain which horribly killed and mutilated men, women and children and (cough) some of those bombs and the guns and bullets used to kill British soldiers had been funded by US money.
At which point the conversation moved on.
Look - none of these things will be easy. But we need at least to bloody try. For all our sakes.
The other day I mentioned that I left Uni after a row with a tutor when she failed my essay on the challenge presented by Globalisation ... my marks for my previous seven essays were a first and six 2:1's, and the teacher involved had been overheard telling another that she could never win a debate with me, and that there was no party in the UK left wing enough for her to vote for. She said that no one except the Daily Mail and the EDL thought Sharia Law might be used in the UK, among other comments
Any way I found it, here it is. Quite relevant to the current headlines
It reads more like a polemic than an essay to me to be honest. Not saying you don't have a point, or that she was right to fail it. But you seem to be missing a few of the scholarly niceties -you quote a lot where you ought to be paraphrasing, you refer to 'I', rather than 'it could be argued', or 'the author would contend' etc.
Oh!
Well it was no different in style to the others that got good marks to be honest, and was remarked and passed..
But thought I'd share as the point I was making seems to be relevant to the discussions on here in the last few days
It still read very well, and was very coherent and smartly argued (as always with your writing), so if that was the style she was happy with, then definitely no, it shouldn't have been failed. I hope that leaving was the right decision for you! It would be wrong of me to say it wasn't -that's not for me to know.
I'm not generally a fan of Mr. Hitchens and his "Mr. Angry" rants. But that article is both personally honest, and very close to the mark. It also points out some unpleasant truths, that need to be said.
On topic (discussion topic, not thread topic) the most likely political/legislative reaction to these attacks is not all the good and sensible stuff Socrates/cyclefree describe, but a further expansive of the State's surveillance powers with corollary impact on our civil liberties.
Yes - and Nick Cohen is right on the button in this article on the reasons why.
"The Left will fight the white far-Right. In Britain, groups like Hope not Hate organise protests against UKIP. Think what you will about UKIP — and I think nothing but ill about them — but it is not actually recommending the rape of enslaved women. On Twitter and in the universities there are constant demands to ban and punish those who show the smallest disrespect to women — scientists who wear racy shirts, men who argue against abortion, pop singers who promote a rape culture, and pick-up artists who instruct men on seduction techniques. But with honourable exceptions, leftists will not argue against armed misogyny. On the contrary, they will ban those who try to take it on."
"But then I must face the fact that there is a vast woozy mass of liberal-leftists who will never change, and would not fight back even if a bomb exploded in their own back yard."
Economics is still up for debate, but the "liberal"-left have won (hands-down) the socio-cultural battle in the UK, and we're all suffering for it.
That quote sort of implies that society should be as intolerant towards radical Muslims as it is towards men who argue against abortion etc., whereas the better approach is to uphold free speech in all cases. Radical Muslims can spout their crap, but the rest of us should be able to abuse them for it without fear of being prosecuted/ no-platformed etc.
I have made some suggestions. I cannot promise that they will work.
We should be doing these steps at the very least. We have to change the climate, the ideological climate. We have to challenge and criticise and stop having the debate on the extremists terms. Stop, for instance, accepting implicitly the idea that Muslims here have some sort of special right to be consulted - or opine - on foreign policy issues affecting Muslims in other countries. All that does is reinforce the idea in their - and others minds - that their identity as Muslims is more important than their identity as Britons. We don't assume that the Archbishop of Westminster has a right to be consulted on EU policy just because the EU has a preponderance of Catholic citizens.
Look I'm just an ordinary Joe. Maybe others have ideas.
I'm not saying they would be ineffective. But I think for the problem to be well and truly solved, far bigger issues must be confronted. Issues that go to the core of Britain and its place in the world.
For example, how can we possibly criticise radical Islam when:
a) its originators and sponsors are our closest Middle East allies,
I've said before that we should stop thinking of places like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and Qatar as our allies, when so much of the funding and source of the terrorism comes from there.
The other day I mentioned that I left Uni after a row with a tutor when she failed my essay on the challenge presented by Globalisation ... my marks for my previous seven essays were a first and six 2:1's, and the teacher involved had been overheard telling another that she could never win a debate with me, and that there was no party in the UK left wing enough for her to vote for. She said that no one except the Daily Mail and the EDL thought Sharia Law might be used in the UK, among other comments
Any way I found it, here it is. Quite relevant to the current headlines
It reads more like a polemic than an essay to me to be honest. Not saying you don't have a point, or that she was right to fail it. But you seem to be missing a few of the scholarly niceties -you quote a lot where you ought to be paraphrasing, you refer to 'I', rather than 'it could be argued', or 'the author would contend' etc.
Oh!
Well it was no different in style to the others that got good marks to be honest, and was remarked and passed..
But thought I'd share as the point I was making seems to be relevant to the discussions on here in the last few days
It still read very well, and was very coherent and smartly argued (as always with your writing), so if that was the style she was happy with, then definitely no, it shouldn't have been failed. I hope that leaving was the right decision for you! It would be wrong of me to say it wasn't -that's not for me to know.
Thank you! well it probably was a mistake to leave but I was a bit old for it anyway.. Plus I froze in exams!
I have made some suggestions. I cannot promise that they will work.
We should be doing these steps at the very least. We have to change the climate, the ideological climate. We have to challenge and criticise and stop having the debate on the extremists terms. Stop, for instance, accepting implicitly the idea that Muslims here have some sort of special right to be consulted - or opine - on foreign policy issues affecting Muslims in other countries. All that does is reinforce the idea in their - and others minds - that their identity as Muslims is more important than their identity as Britons. We don't assume that the Archbishop of Westminster has a right to be consulted on EU policy just because the EU has a preponderance of Catholic citizens.
Look I'm just an ordinary Joe. Maybe others have ideas.
I'm not saying they would be ineffective. But I think for the problem to be well and truly solved, far bigger issues must be confronted. Issues that go to the core of Britain and its place in the world.
For example, how can we possibly criticise radical Islam when:
a) its originators and sponsors are our closest Middle East allies,
I've said before that we should stop thinking of places like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and Qatar as our allies, when so much of the funding and source of the terrorism comes from there.
They are America's allies, and therefore they are ours. Same with our enemies. So you see it's a little harder than simply getting tough on Burkas.
Good posts Cyclefree. Taken together these measure appear radical but that's only because we've allowed the culture to go too far and now have to take remedial action. Time and demographics are against us. There's an excellent essay by Douglas Murray here on the state we're in: http://standpointmag.co.uk/node/5250/full
To your list, I would add that we need measures to enable Muslims to renounce Islam without fear. The notion that people in Britain should be punished for no longer believing an ideology tantamount to bullying. We have national schemes for getting people off alcohol and drugs. We need similar schemes to support and encouragement apostates too. Any Imam that doesn't support it gets an ASBO.
TBH, I'd be happy to go a lot further (no new mosques, publish all sermons online, revise the Koran, ban religion in schools and the public sector) but can see it wouldn't plain sailing.
I would prosecute anyone saying that the penalty for apostasy is death. I know that there will be much protestation that this is what it says in the Koran. I have no idea. But regardless of whether it is or not we have to say that freedom of thought means the freedom not to believe without being threatened for exercising that freedom. And if that means that that bit of the Koran cannot be taught in mosques and schools well, too bad. That is why one of my points was to say - unequivocally - as we have not done until now that where there is a conflict between Islamic law and British law, the latter wins. No ifs. No buts.
Prosecute incitement to violence, certainly. But if we try to prosecute them simply for saying offensive things, we revert to the current situation where they will demand the prosecution of people who offend them.
Agreed. Where someone says that the penalty for not being a Muslim is death then I think that probably - depending obviously on the facts - falls within the offence of incitement to violence. If it's merely Tom Holland pointing this out in a book then there isn't an issue.
But separately we are not obliged to fund schools and madrassahs where this is taught as if it were a duty on those being taught. And I see no reason not to make it clear that in schools such things must not be taught. We could also certainly teach that Muslims don't generally depict their prophet but, equally, make it clear that that stricture only applies to those who are Muslims and not to anyone else.
I have made some suggestions. I cannot promise that they will work.
We should be doing these steps at the very least. We have to change the climate, the ideological climate. We have to challenge and criticise and stop having the debate on the extremists terms. Stop, for instance, accepting implicitly the idea that Muslims here have some sort of special right to be consulted - or opine - on foreign policy issues affecting Muslims in other countries. All that does is reinforce the idea in their - and others minds - that their identity as Muslims is more important than their identity as Britons. We don't assume that the Archbishop of Westminster has a right to be consulted on EU policy just because the EU has a preponderance of Catholic citizens.
Look I'm just an ordinary Joe. Maybe others have ideas.
I'm not saying they would be ineffective. But I think for the problem to be well and truly solved, far bigger issues must be confronted. Issues that go to the core of Britain and its place in the world.
For example, how can we possibly criticise radical Islam when:
a) its originators and sponsors are our closest Middle East allies,
I've said before that we should stop thinking of places like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and Qatar as our allies, when so much of the funding and source of the terrorism comes from there.
As Saudi Arabia and Qatar are about to become a lot poorer and a lot less strategically important that should become a whole lot easier.
I have made some suggestions. I cannot promise that they will work.
We should be doing these steps at the very least. We have to change the climate, the ideological climate. We have to challenge and criticise and stop having the debate on the extremists terms. Stop, for instance, accepting implicitly the idea that Muslims here have some sort of special right to be consulted - or opine - on foreign policy issues affecting Muslims in other countries. All that does is reinforce the idea in their - and others minds - that their identity as Muslims is more important than their identity as Britons. We don't assume that the Archbishop of Westminster has a right to be consulted on EU policy just because the EU has a preponderance of Catholic citizens.
Look I'm just an ordinary Joe. Maybe others have ideas.
I'm not saying they would be ineffective. But I think for the problem to be well and truly solved, far bigger issues must be confronted. Issues that go to the core of Britain and its place in the world.
For example, how can we possibly criticise radical Islam when:
a) its originators and sponsors are our closest Middle East allies,
I've said before that we should stop thinking of places like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and Qatar as our allies, when so much of the funding and source of the terrorism comes from there.
They are America's allies, and therefore they are ours. Same with our enemies. So you see it's a little harder than simply getting tough on Burkas.
I'm well aware of that. I tend to think the Americans should be rethinking their view of these countries. Also, do we have to do everything America tells us to?
Has sending oodles of cash to Pakistan really made us any safer? Wasn't it Gordon Brown who said that 70% of all the terrorist plots against the UK originated in Pakistan? At some point someone in government needs to join the dots, surely?
Well, I'm slightly playing devil's advocate here, but here are some possible responses to your suggestions:
And we need to make it clear that where there is a clash between religious belief and the law of the land the latter prevails.
Well, obviously, but the question is the degree to which the law of the land should take account of religious beliefs. I actually think we have already got this wrong in curtailing the liberty of Catholic organisations not to get involved in abortion or in gay marriage. You seem to be proposing a similar type of measure, imposing the belief of the majority (“our values”) on a minority.
Limitations on foreign imams in mosques here. We have little hope of encouraging the development of an Islam in Britain in tune with British values if those preaching and teaching in them are steeped in Saudi-inspired Wahabbism.
Substitute ‘foreign Rabbis ’ or ‘Jesuits’ and for ‘foreign imams’ and consider how the suggestion sounds. It sounds to me like saying "we [that word again] don’t accept their view of the world" – which is fair enough of course – but you’re going beyond that to "and therefore we don’t want that ‘other’ view of the world to be preached, in this country which prides itself on free speech". A little problematic, no?
No opting out of learning about gay rights, the Holocaust, for instance.
Ditto. Why should ‘gay rights’ – a very modern, Western value, inimical not only to most of the Western world even a few years ago, but to large parts of it even today – be a touchstone? Are the civil liberties of those who disagree with the majority on this of no importance?
I would seek to prevent any funding of teaching institutions of any kind by money directly or indirectly from Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other problematic countries.
Try writing ‘Israel’ in that sentence and see how well it parses.
Put pressure on / shame those institutions which provide a home / space / support for hate preachers e.g. UCL, the Quakers and others.
We’re meant to be a country of free speech, right? That means defending the right to free speech of those with whom you most strongly disagree. Any totalitarian regime has no problem with the free speech of people who agree with it, the acid test is the freedom to express views we despise.
Ban the burqa. Ban religious wear for girls under the age of majority.
That, surely, is completely beyond acceptable. It is not for us to tell other people how to dress, or how to dress their children. How would you feel if crucifixes or priests’ robes were banned?
That quote sort of implies that society should be as intolerant towards radical Muslims as it is towards men who argue against abortion etc., whereas the better approach is to uphold free speech in all cases. Radical Muslims can spout their crap, but the rest of us should be able to abuse them for it without fear of being prosecuted/ no-platformed etc.
Bondegezou After a huge twitter backlash, Mr Emerson has now made a full apology to Birmingham
'You may quote me on this as I will be posting this and taking out an ad in a Birmingham paper. I have clearly made a terrible error for which I am deeply sorry. My comments about Birmingham were totally in error. And I am issuing an apology and correction on my website immediately for having made this comment about the beautiful city of Birmingham. I do not intend to justify or mitigate my mistake by stating that I had relied on other sources because I should have been much more careful. There was no excuse for making this mistake and I owe an apology to every resident of Birmingham. I am not going to make any excuses. I made an inexcusable error. And I am obligated to openly acknowledge that mistake. Steve' PS. I intend to make a donation to a Birmingham charity. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11338985/Fox-News-terror-expert-says-everyone-in-Birmingham-is-a-Muslim.html
Hello Isam - a big story for the Mirror. With a headline in quotes claiming murder. But full of words in the article that fall short of that like 'never saw' her again. 'may' have been killed. Unfortunately the 'prominent politicians and a famous comedian' are left anonymous. The accuser lives in 'fear' - from bad jokes?
Now I have to say that 20 orgies resulting in 4 deaths and multiple examples of 'torture' attended by at least 30 VIPs would require levels of clean up skills beyond even Winston Wolf. Don't you? This is 1993 - not some 1950's based BBC conspiracy drama. The Mirrors story conveniently dredges up Peter Righton - who died in 2007, although they neatly imply he was alive at least last year. Righton's sordid history is well known; he is disgusting and dead - so an easy mark for the Mirror. The only thing we can be sure of Righton is was connected with was the Paedophile Information Exchange - and we can understand why The Mirror chooses not to mention that.
Maybe they're just making it all up
The Mirror will emphasise what they have paid money for - which is nothing so unhelpful as including evidence. They will not be worried if it is made up or not because that might spoil their story and make their investment worthless. You seem to like quoting ends to films. How does 'The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance' end?
At a time when everyone is standing up for press freedom I find it a bit tiresome to say the least to be reminded of press ignorance bigotry and bias.
The bookies also have Labour favourites in 296 seats including 34 in Scotland and 272 for the Tories. According to AASSS, Labour is winning only 13 seats in Scotland against 42 for the SNP [ 43 ].
Bondegezou After a huge twitter backlash, Mr Emerson has now made a full apology to Birmingham
'You may quote me on this as I will be posting this and taking out an ad in a Birmingham paper. I have clearly made a terrible error for which I am deeply sorry. My comments about Birmingham were totally in error. And I am issuing an apology and correction on my website immediately for having made this comment about the beautiful city of Birmingham. I do not intend to justify or mitigate my mistake by stating that I had relied on other sources because I should have been much more careful. There was no excuse for making this mistake and I owe an apology to every resident of Birmingham. I am not going to make any excuses. I made an inexcusable error. And I am obligated to openly acknowledge that mistake. Steve' PS. I intend to make a donation to a Birmingham charity. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11338985/Fox-News-terror-expert-says-everyone-in-Birmingham-is-a-Muslim.html
Beautiful city of Birmingham? More evidence, were it needed, that he knows nothing about the place! ;-)
Well, I'm slightly playing devil's advocate here, but here are some possible responses to your suggestions:
And we need to make it clear that where there is a clash between religious belief and the law of the land the latter prevails.
Well, obviously, but the question is the degree to which the law of the land should take account of religious beliefs. I actually think we have already got this wrong in curtailing the liberty of Catholic organisations not to get involved in abortion or in gay marriage. You seem to be proposing a similar type of measure, imposing the belief of the majority (“our values”) on a minority.
Limitations on foreign imams in mosques here. We have little hope of encouraging the development of an Islam in Britain in tune with British values if those preaching and teaching in them are steeped in Saudi-inspired Wahabbism.
Substitute ‘foreign Rabbis ’ or ‘Jesuits’ and for ‘foreign imams’ and consider how the suggestion sounds. It sounds to me like saying "we [that word again] don’t accept their view of the world" – which is fair enough of course – but you’re going beyond that to "and therefore we don’t want that ‘other’ view of the world to be preached, in this country which prides itself on free speech". A little problematic, no?
No opting out of learning about gay rights, the Holocaust, for instance.
Ditto. Why should ‘gay rights’ – a very modern, Western value, inimical not only to most of the Western world even a few years ago, but to large parts of it even today – be a touchstone? Are the civil liberties of those who disagree with the majority on this of no importance?
I would seek to prevent any funding of teaching institutions of any kind by money directly or indirectly from Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other problematic countries.
Try writing ‘Israel’ in that sentence and see how well it parses.
Put pressure on / shame those institutions which provide a home / space / support for hate preachers e.g. UCL, the Quakers and others.
We’re meant to be a country of free speech, right? That means defending the right to free speech of those with whom you most strongly disagree. Any totalitarian regime has no problem with the free speech of people who agree with it, the acid test is the freedom to express views we despise.
Ban the burqa. Ban religious wear for girls under the age of majority.
That, surely, is completely beyond acceptable. It is not for us to tell other people how to dress, or how to dress their children. How would you feel if crucifixes or priests’ robes were banned?
Mr Nabavi: You put it far better than I could. I would just lose my top !
Non-Muslims dare not enter Birmingham, says Fox News.
Oh dear and I am off to curry mile tomorrow night to meet a fellow non-muslim wonder if i should cancel
As a Brit now in the US, I remain shocked by Fox News and the hatred and fear that it propagates, above and beyond any other TV Channel, and I am proud of the level of broadcasting in Britain.
Bondegezou After a huge twitter backlash, Mr Emerson has now made a full apology to Birmingham
'You may quote me on this as I will be posting this and taking out an ad in a Birmingham paper. I have clearly made a terrible error for which I am deeply sorry. My comments about Birmingham were totally in error. And I am issuing an apology and correction on my website immediately for having made this comment about the beautiful city of Birmingham. I do not intend to justify or mitigate my mistake by stating that I had relied on other sources because I should have been much more careful. There was no excuse for making this mistake and I owe an apology to every resident of Birmingham. I am not going to make any excuses. I made an inexcusable error. And I am obligated to openly acknowledge that mistake. Steve' PS. I intend to make a donation to a Birmingham charity. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11338985/Fox-News-terror-expert-says-everyone-in-Birmingham-is-a-Muslim.html
Impressive grovel! The #foxnewsfacts tweets are hilarious.
Seriously though Birmingham has improved with the Norman Foster Selfridges, the Symphony Hall and the NIA and Library and, of course, it has more canals than Venice!
I have made some suggestions. I cannot promise that they will work.
We should be doing these steps at the very least. We have to change the climate, the ideological climate. We have to challenge and criticise and stop having the debate on the extremists terms. Stop, for instance, accepting implicitly the idea that Muslims here have some sort of special right to be consulted - or opine - on foreign policy issues affecting Muslims in other countries. All that does is reinforce the idea in their - and others minds - that their identity as Muslims is more important than their identity as Britons. We don't assume that the Archbishop of Westminster has a right to be consulted on EU policy just because the EU has a preponderance of Catholic citizens.
Look I'm just an ordinary Joe. Maybe others have ideas.
I'm not saying they would be ineffective. But I think for the problem to be well and truly solved, far bigger issues must be confronted. Issues that go to the core of Britain and its place in the world.
For example, how can we possibly criticise radical Islam when:
a) its originators and sponsors are our closest Middle East allies,
I've said before that we should stop thinking of places like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and Qatar as our allies, when so much of the funding and source of the terrorism comes from there.
They are America's allies, and therefore they are ours. Same with our enemies. So you see it's a little harder than simply getting tough on Burkas.
The muslims are first and foremost enemies to each other.
Well, I'm slightly playing devil's advocate here, but here are some possible responses to your suggestions:
And we need to make it clear that where there is a clash between religious belief and the law of the land the latter prevails.
Well, obviously, but the question is the degree to which the law of the land should take account of religious beliefs. I actually think we have already got this wrong in curtailing the liberty of Catholic organisations not to get involved in abortion or in gay marriage. You seem to be proposing a similar type of measure, imposing the belief of the majority (“our values”) on a minority.
Limitations on foreign imams in mosques here. We have little hope of encouraging the development of an Islam in Britain in tune with British values if those preaching and teaching in them are steeped in Saudi-inspired Wahabbism.
Substitute ‘foreign Rabbis ’ or ‘Jesuits’ and for ‘foreign imams’ and consider how the suggestion sounds. It sounds to me like saying "we [that word again] don’t accept their view of the world" – which is fair enough of course – but you’re going beyond that to "and therefore we don’t want that ‘other’ view of the world to be preached, in this country which prides itself on free speech". A little problematic, no?
No opting out of learning about gay rights, the Holocaust, for instance.
Ditto. Why should ‘gay rights’ – a very modern, Western value, inimical not only to most of the Western world even a few years ago, but to large parts of it even today – be a touchstone? Are the civil liberties of those who disagree with the majority on this of no importance?
I would seek to prevent any funding of teaching institutions of any kind by money directly or indirectly from Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other problematic countries.
Try writing ‘Israel’ in that sentence and see how well it parses.
Put pressure on / shame those institutions which provide a home / space / support for hate preachers e.g. UCL, the Quakers and others.
We’re meant to be a country of free speech, right? That means defending the right to free speech of those with whom you most strongly disagree. Any totalitarian regime has no problem with the free speech of people who agree with it, the acid test is the freedom to express views we despise.
Ban the burqa. Ban religious wear for girls under the age of majority.
That, surely, is completely beyond acceptable. It is not for us to tell other people how to dress, or how to dress their children. How would you feel if crucifixes or priests’ robes were banned?
Richard Nabavi: your post deserves a considered response, which I will give you tomorrow.
NP I think Fox News is a classic case of engaging mouth before brain if ever there was one! However, it is often very entertaining viewing for precisely that reason
Interesting that the coalition parties are still attracting an average of 40% support in this year's opinion polls. Not bad after five years. If they can push that up to 45% by the time of the election it'll have been a decent performance, all things considered.
Seriously though Birmingham has improved with the Norman Foster Selfridges, the Symphony Hall and the NIA and Library and, of course, it has more canals than Venice!
Agree! Having visited all three of the Birmingham Central Libraries extant during our lifetimes, the most recent is by far the best - and now New Street Station is (finally!) getting a make over, things are definitely looking up!
Carlotta Indeed, have seen Tony Bennett, Andrea Boccelli and Enrique Iglesias in concert at the Symphony Hall, LG Arena and NIA in Birmingham in the last 6 months and as you say the new Library is very impressive
@newtgingrich Sad that 50 world leaders could show solidarity in Paris but President Obama refused to participate. The cowardice continues.
Top Trolling......Putin & Xi Jinping weren't there either......I suspect the Secret Service would have gone into collective coronary arrest at the prospect.....
Carlotta Only the messenger. But Newt does have a point. Even the Russians sent Foreign Minister Lavrov, the US did not even send Kerry and US attorney general Holder was in Paris at the time but skipped the march for US morning talkshow
Not just Newt either @simonschama 'Actually, on US (non)representation in Paris: insulting abysmal complacent indifference to meaning of the day. Should be huge row.
Is it that American politics - now a PAC-funded, Tv-advertised plutocratic property cant understand a spontaneous outpouring of the people?
Doesnt in fact see it as politically meaningful at all? Not enough for the White House apparently'
Carlotta Only the messenger. But Newt does have a point. Even the Russians sent Foreign Minister Lavrov, the US did not even send Kerry and US attorney general Holder was in Paris at the time but skipped the march for US morning talkshow
The remark was aimed at Gingrich - but the French seem more relaxed about it than Obama's political opponents:
The fact Obama was not at the march appeared to gain little immediate traction in France on a day dedicated to unity. One French TV commentator said the president's visit would have been unthinkable given the level of security that accompanies him at home and abroad.
It's that time of the week again, the Sunil on Sunday ELBOW (Electoral Leader-Board Of the Week) - and for the first time in 2015. A bit paltry the total number of polls, only 8 this week, the lowest weekly number since early September. But for the first time we're including the Greens, and they have a reasonable debut ELBOW score too!
ELBOW for this week ending 11th Jan, now including YouGov/Sunday Times (brackets are changes from the week or so running up to Xmas)
Lab 33.3 (-0.9) Con 32.5 (+0.9) UKIP 14.5 (-0.9) LD 7.7 (+0.2) Grn 6.4 (+0.4 - NEW in ELBOW for 2015!)
Carlotta The US president manages to walk for a while through DC on his own on the inaugration parade, today he would have had secret service plus protection teams for every other world leader there, still does not explain why at least Kerry or Biden could not be there
Ban the burqa. Ban religious wear for girls under the age of majority.
That, surely, is completely beyond acceptable. It is not for us to tell other people how to dress, or how to dress their children. How would you feel if crucifixes or priests’ robes were banned?
A ban on covering the face in public places, as enacted by the French and found to be legal in a judgement by the ECJ would be a good start. If for no other reason that it being a huge security risk, and yes I would include people wearing motorcycle helmets with the visor down other than on the back of a bike in the same category.
Ban the burqa. Ban religious wear for girls under the age of majority.
That, surely, is completely beyond acceptable. It is not for us to tell other people how to dress, or how to dress their children. How would you feel if crucifixes or priests’ robes were banned?
A ban on covering the face in public places, as enacted by the French and found to be legal in a judgement by the ECJ would be a good start. If for no other reason that it being a huge security risk, and yes I would include people wearing motorcycle helmets with the visor down other than on the back of a bike in the same category.
Are you sure about this? Bear in mind that we'll soon be living in a world where everything you do in a public place is recorded and posted publicly online, and people can search for your face and exhaustively track your every movement. The counter-measure will be to wear a mask or equivalent when you don't want to be tracked. Even if you're happy with complete perpetual government surveillance, are you sure you want complete perpetual surveillance by everybody?
Eddie Redmayne won Best Actor at the Golden Globes, as tipped by Roger a few threads back. He was available at around 6/4 for this and the Oscar but that will doubtless be cut.
Mr Miliband yesterday failed seven times to deny using the term during an interview with the Andrew Marr programme on BBC One. He said: "We are in a fight for the NHS, and I make absolutely no apologies for the fact I am really concerned about what is happening in our national health service."
Mr Robinson yesterday confirmed that Mr Miliband had made the comments. He said on Twitter: "If anyone doubted Ed Miliband spoke of "weaponising" NHS I think he cleared that up on Marr just now – repeatedly didn't deny or disown it."
Ban the burqa. Ban religious wear for girls under the age of majority.
That, surely, is completely beyond acceptable. It is not for us to tell other people how to dress, or how to dress their children. How would you feel if crucifixes or priests’ robes were banned?
A ban on covering the face in public places, as enacted by the French and found to be legal in a judgement by the ECJ would be a good start. If for no other reason that it being a huge security risk, and yes I would include people wearing motorcycle helmets with the visor down other than on the back of a bike in the same category.
Are you sure about this? Bear in mind that we'll soon be living in a world where everything you do in a public place is recorded and posted publicly online, and people can search for your face and exhaustively track your every movement. The counter-measure will be to wear a mask or equivalent when you don't want to be tracked. Even if you're happy with complete perpetual government surveillance, are you sure you want complete perpetual surveillance by everybody?
Mr Miliband yesterday failed seven times to deny using the term during an interview with the Andrew Marr programme on BBC One. He said: "We are in a fight for the NHS, and I make absolutely no apologies for the fact I am really concerned about what is happening in our national health service."
Mr Robinson yesterday confirmed that Mr Miliband had made the comments. He said on Twitter: "If anyone doubted Ed Miliband spoke of "weaponising" NHS I think he cleared that up on Marr just now – repeatedly didn't deny or disown it."
Well, it's those Muslims looking after their own, isn't it?
Not only are all of them a-rab muslims, they seem to have access to an oilfield as well. That tall tower must be the rig when it is not being used as a minaret !
Ban the burqa. Ban religious wear for girls under the age of majority.
That, surely, is completely beyond acceptable. It is not for us to tell other people how to dress, or how to dress their children. How would you feel if crucifixes or priests’ robes were banned?
A ban on covering the face in public places, as enacted by the French and found to be legal in a judgement by the ECJ would be a good start. If for no other reason that it being a huge security risk, and yes I would include people wearing motorcycle helmets with the visor down other than on the back of a bike in the same category.
Are you sure about this? Bear in mind that we'll soon be living in a world where everything you do in a public place is recorded and posted publicly online, and people can search for your face and exhaustively track your every movement. The counter-measure will be to wear a mask or equivalent when you don't want to be tracked. Even if you're happy with complete perpetual government surveillance, are you sure you want complete perpetual surveillance by everybody?
No. Only Indigo and co. want Muslims to be under perpetual surveillance and by everybody.
Ban the burqa. Ban religious wear for girls under the age of majority.
That, surely, is completely beyond acceptable. It is not for us to tell other people how to dress, or how to dress their children. How would you feel if crucifixes or priests’ robes were banned?
A ban on covering the face in public places, as enacted by the French and found to be legal in a judgement by the ECJ would be a good start. If for no other reason that it being a huge security risk, and yes I would include people wearing motorcycle helmets with the visor down other than on the back of a bike in the same category.
Are you sure about this? Bear in mind that we'll soon be living in a world where everything you do in a public place is recorded and posted publicly online, and people can search for your face and exhaustively track your every movement. The counter-measure will be to wear a mask or equivalent when you don't want to be tracked. Even if you're happy with complete perpetual government surveillance, are you sure you want complete perpetual surveillance by everybody?
No. Only Indigo and co. want Muslims to be under perpetual surveillance and by everybody.
Only people with a serious chip on their shoulder of their head up their @ss would read it that way. I also said people who wear motorbike helmets, and yes people who wear masks at demonstrations. I don't see that we should encourage people that break the law to conceal their identity. Which isn't to say I condone fishing expeditions, I clearly don't from my previous posts, but I dont see why we should let people pass security checkpoints without a photo id check because they wear a veil, as we currently do. Clearly you think that law that France passed is outrageous, even though the ECJ disagrees.
Ban the burqa. Ban religious wear for girls under the age of majority.
That, surely, is completely beyond acceptable. It is not for us to tell other people how to dress, or how to dress their children. How would you feel if crucifixes or priests’ robes were banned?
A ban on covering the face in public places, as enacted by the French and found to be legal in a judgement by the ECJ would be a good start. If for no other reason that it being a huge security risk, and yes I would include people wearing motorcycle helmets with the visor down other than on the back of a bike in the same category.
Are you sure about this? Bear in mind that we'll soon be living in a world where everything you do in a public place is recorded and posted publicly online, and people can search for your face and exhaustively track your every movement. The counter-measure will be to wear a mask or equivalent when you don't want to be tracked. Even if you're happy with complete perpetual government surveillance, are you sure you want complete perpetual surveillance by everybody?
In any case I think it will be driven by the security situation long before it becomes a social issue.
What security situation? We've had crime since forever, Islamicist terrorism as a proportion of that is essentially nil, so what is it you think you're protecting against? We get along fine requiring uncovered faces in banks etc, no need to use the same security measures in situations that don't need to be particularly secure.
Ban the burqa. Ban religious wear for girls under the age of majority.
That, surely, is completely beyond acceptable. It is not for us to tell other people how to dress, or how to dress their children. How would you feel if crucifixes or priests’ robes were banned?
A ban on covering the face in public places, as enacted by the French and found to be legal in a judgement by the ECJ would be a good start. If for no other reason that it being a huge security risk, and yes I would include people wearing motorcycle helmets with the visor down other than on the back of a bike in the same category.
Are you sure about this? Bear in mind that we'll soon be living in a world where everything you do in a public place is recorded and posted publicly online, and people can search for your face and exhaustively track your every movement. The counter-measure will be to wear a mask or equivalent when you don't want to be tracked. Even if you're happy with complete perpetual government surveillance, are you sure you want complete perpetual surveillance by everybody?
No. Only Indigo and co. want Muslims to be under perpetual surveillance and by everybody.
Only people with a serious chip on their shoulder of their head up their @ss would read it that way. I also said people who wear motorbike helmets, and yes people who wear masks at demonstrations. I don't see that we should encourage people that break the law to conceal their identity. Which isn't to say I condone fishing expeditions, I clearly don't from my previous posts, but I dont see why we should let people pass security checkpoints without a photo id check because they wear a veil, as we currently do. Clearly you think that law that France passed is outrageous, even though the ECJ disagrees.
The ECJ didn't rule on whether the French law was outrageous. Outrageous laws aren't banned by the ECHR. They ruled that it didn't violate the right to freedom of religion and expression.
Ban the burqa. Ban religious wear for girls under the age of majority.
That, surely, is completely beyond acceptable. It is not for us to tell other people how to dress, or how to dress their children. How would you feel if crucifixes or priests’ robes were banned?
A ban on covering the face in public places, as enacted by the French and found to be legal in a judgement by the ECJ would be a good start. If for no other reason that it being a huge security risk, and yes I would include people wearing motorcycle helmets with the visor down other than on the back of a bike in the same category.
Are you sure about this? Bear in mind that we'll soon be living in a world where everything you do in a public place is recorded and posted publicly online, and people can search for your face and exhaustively track your every movement. The counter-measure will be to wear a mask or equivalent when you don't want to be tracked. Even if you're happy with complete perpetual government surveillance, are you sure you want complete perpetual surveillance by everybody?
In any case I think it will be driven by the security situation long before it becomes a social issue.
What security situation? We've had crime since forever, Islamicist terrorism as a proportion of that is essentially nil, so what is it you think you're protecting against? We get along fine requiring uncovered faces in banks etc, no need to use the same security measures in situations that don't need to be particularly secure.
Ban the burqa. Ban religious wear for girls under the age of majority.
That, surely, is completely beyond acceptable. It is not for us to tell other people how to dress, or how to dress their children. How would you feel if crucifixes or priests’ robes were banned?
A ban on covering the face in public places, as enacted by the French and found to be legal in a judgement by the ECJ would be a good start. If for no other reason that it being a huge security risk, and yes I would include people wearing motorcycle helmets with the visor down other than on the back of a bike in the same category.
Are you sure about this? Bear in mind that we'll soon be living in a world where everything you do in a public place is recorded and posted publicly online, and people can search for your face and exhaustively track your every movement. The counter-measure will be to wear a mask or equivalent when you don't want to be tracked. Even if you're happy with complete perpetual government surveillance, are you sure you want complete perpetual surveillance by everybody?
No. Only Indigo and co. want Muslims to be under perpetual surveillance and by everybody.
Only people with a serious chip on their shoulder of their head up their @ss would read it that way. I also said people who wear motorbike helmets, and yes people who wear masks at demonstrations. I don't see that we should encourage people that break the law to conceal their identity. Which isn't to say I condone fishing expeditions, I clearly don't from my previous posts, but I dont see why we should let people pass security checkpoints without a photo id check because they wear a veil, as we currently do. Clearly you think that law that France passed is outrageous, even though the ECJ disagrees.
The ECJ didn't rule on whether the French law was outrageous. Outrageous laws aren't banned by the ECHR. They ruled that it didn't violate the right to freedom of religion and expression.
Substitute ‘foreign Rabbis ’ or ‘Jesuits’ and for ‘foreign imams’ and consider how the suggestion sounds. It sounds to me like saying "we [that word again] don’t accept their view of the world" – which is fair enough of course – but you’re going beyond that to "and therefore we don’t want that ‘other’ view of the world to be preached, in this country which prides itself on free speech". A little problematic, no?
That depends what they're preaching. Free speech doesn't cover inciting major crimes, such as murdering apostates.
We did have laws against Jesuits at one point, and for adequate reason. They were preaching that Elizabeth I, and her protestant successors, were not legitimate monarchs, so their laws and governments were invalid. Advocating the overthrow of the state is another area where free speech is often seem to have limits.
However, both these things can be outlawed without specifically targeting religions. Advocating the death of everyone from some hated faith or ethnic group should be a crime whoever does it.
Saying the British state isn't legitimate, and should be overthrown, can be tolerated, but going beyond that, and actively attempting to organise the overthrow of the state can reasonably be made illegal, whatever the motive for the overthrow. Also, if you say that British laws shouldn't be respected, you shouldn't be surprised if the British police take you at your word, and check whether your followers are respecting British laws.
Ban the burqa. Ban religious wear for girls under the age of majority.
That, surely, is completely beyond acceptable. It is not for us to tell other people how to dress, or how to dress their children. How would you feel if crucifixes or priests’ robes were banned?
A ban on covering the face in public places, as enacted by the French and found to be legal in a judgement by the ECJ would be a good start. If for no other reason that it being a huge security risk, and yes I would include people wearing motorcycle helmets with the visor down other than on the back of a bike in the same category.
Are you sure about this? Bear in mind that we'll soon be living in a world where everything you do in a public place is recorded and posted publicly online, and people can search for your face and exhaustively track your every movement. The counter-measure will be to wear a mask or equivalent when you don't want to be tracked. Even if you're happy with complete perpetual government surveillance, are you sure you want complete perpetual surveillance by everybody?
No. Only Indigo and co. want Muslims to be under perpetual surveillance and by everybody.
Only people with a serious chip on their shoulder of their head up their @ss would read it that way. I also said people who wear motorbike helmets, and yes people who wear masks at demonstrations. I don't see that we should encourage people that break the law to conceal their identity. Which isn't to say I condone fishing expeditions, I clearly don't from my previous posts, but I dont see why we should let people pass security checkpoints without a photo id check because they wear a veil, as we currently do. Clearly you think that law that France passed is outrageous, even though the ECJ disagrees.
The ECJ didn't rule on whether the French law was outrageous. Outrageous laws aren't banned by the ECHR. They ruled that it didn't violate the right to freedom of religion and expression.
Ban the burqa. Ban religious wear for girls under the age of majority.
That, surely, is completely beyond acceptable. It is not for us to tell other people how to dress, or how to dress their children. How would you feel if crucifixes or priests’ robes were banned?
A ban on covering the face in public places, as enacted by the French and found to be legal in a judgement by the ECJ would be a good start. If for no other reason that it being a huge security risk, and yes I would include people wearing motorcycle helmets with the visor down other than on the back of a bike in the same category.
Are you sure about this? Bear in mind that we'll soon be living in a world where everything you do in a public place is recorded and posted publicly online, and people can search for your face and exhaustively track your every movement. The counter-measure will be to wear a mask or equivalent when you don't want to be tracked. Even if you're happy with complete perpetual government surveillance, are you sure you want complete perpetual surveillance by everybody?
No. Only Indigo and co. want Muslims to be under perpetual surveillance and by everybody.
Only people with a serious chip on their shoulder of their head up their @ss would read it that way. I also said people who wear motorbike helmets, and yes people who wear masks at demonstrations. I don't see that we should encourage people that break the law to conceal their identity. Which isn't to say I condone fishing expeditions, I clearly don't from my previous posts, but I dont see why we should let people pass security checkpoints without a photo id check because they wear a veil, as we currently do. Clearly you think that law that France passed is outrageous, even though the ECJ disagrees.
The ECJ didn't rule on whether the French law was outrageous. Outrageous laws aren't banned by the ECHR. They ruled that it didn't violate the right to freedom of religion and expression.
Is that nitpick the best you have to offer ?
Should Nuns wear their habit ?
You see that just the sort of idiotic comment I expected, does their habit cover their face, no, did I propose anything else than that everyone should show their face in public, no, I fail to see what your point is except trying to have the last word.
Comments
*Innocent face*
The rest are mostly awful. The Conservatives one is probably the best of the worst, but the positioning and size of the text is wrong, as the background colour - it looks too Labour-y and might not even be clocked by UKIP-waverers. The Greens one is suicidally boring. The UKIP one is confused (how many would recognise those flags?) and clearly done by an ad agency that hates UKIP, and I don't know whether that Lib Dem one is more tin-man from the Wizard of Oz, or some gauche Stalinist chic.
Goodnight.
Neither should be permitted.
As ever, I agree with Cyclefree.
Though, while I agree that many on the left (and a fair few on the right) have tiptoed around condemning the misogynistic, homophobic and intolerant streaks in Islam, there have been notable exceptions, including yours truly!
For example, how can we possibly criticise radical Islam when:
a) its originators and sponsors are our closest Middle East allies,
b) Islamists from all corners of the globe are our own foreign policy boot boys in the Middle East. We are currently committed to training even more militants to pour into Syria. Are these people inspired by democracy? They are radicalised young Muslims. What happens when they behead enough Syrians and want to come home?
c) we are in the process of overthrowing secular regimes in the Middle East in favour of Sunni basket case theocracies. In Syria, you would (still can in the Assad areas) find Imams in Churches and Priests in Mosques. You find Easter and Eid celebrated as national holidays. The people are deeply religious but all see themselves as proud Syrians. One of the earliest chants of the 'revolutionaries' was 'Christians go to Bayroute, Alawites go to your death'. We supported and continued to support this.
Now I have to say that 20 orgies resulting in 4 deaths and multiple examples of 'torture' attended by at least 30 VIPs would require levels of clean up skills beyond even Winston Wolf. Don't you? This is 1993 - not some 1950's based BBC conspiracy drama.
The Mirrors story conveniently dredges up Peter Righton - who died in 2007, although they neatly imply he was alive at least last year. Righton's sordid history is well known; he is disgusting and dead - so an easy mark for the Mirror. The only thing we can be sure of Righton is was connected with was the Paedophile Information Exchange - and we can understand why The Mirror chooses not to mention that.
Could we achieve the end we want without curbing our civil liberties?
The trouble here may be that we may be putting ourselves in a position where we have a choice between curtailing all of our civil liberties in order not to discriminate - even though a form of selective discrimination may be what's needed (it's discrimination for unnecessary reasons which is bad not discrimination for necessary and well-founded reasons) - and focusing on those groups and sub-sets within groups where we have good reason to believe the problems arise.
Nick Cohen makes much the same point in the article I've just referenced. On the whole I tend to the view that if - and it's a big "if" - we have to make a choice we should choose that which benefits the majority of our citizens.
And, yes, I do think that British governments should put the interests of British citizens first.
A guest on the US news channel says Birmingham is “totally Muslim” and “non-Muslims simply don’t go in”. The internet responded mercilessly.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/jimwaterson/fox-news-said-non-muslims-dont-visit-birmingham-and-created
Their position changed once they'd had a few terrorist atrocities inflicted on them, I'm sorry to say.
I remember working for a US institution at the time of the T McVeigh terrorist atrocity. My US colleagues were appalled and shocked, all the normal reactions. And I remember telling them that we had been rather used to bombs in Britain which horribly killed and mutilated men, women and children and (cough) some of those bombs and the guns and bullets used to kill British soldiers had been funded by US money.
At which point the conversation moved on.
Look - none of these things will be easy. But we need at least to bloody try. For all our sakes.
But separately we are not obliged to fund schools and madrassahs where this is taught as if it were a duty on those being taught. And I see no reason not to make it clear that in schools such things must not be taught. We could also certainly teach that Muslims don't generally depict their prophet but, equally, make it clear that that stricture only applies to those who are Muslims and not to anyone else.
Has sending oodles of cash to Pakistan really made us any safer? Wasn't it Gordon Brown who said that 70% of all the terrorist plots against the UK originated in Pakistan? At some point someone in government needs to join the dots, surely?
And we need to make it clear that where there is a clash between religious belief and the law of the land the latter prevails.
Well, obviously, but the question is the degree to which the law of the land should take account of religious beliefs. I actually think we have already got this wrong in curtailing the liberty of Catholic organisations not to get involved in abortion or in gay marriage. You seem to be proposing a similar type of measure, imposing the belief of the majority (“our values”) on a minority.
Limitations on foreign imams in mosques here. We have little hope of encouraging the development of an Islam in Britain in tune with British values if those preaching and teaching in them are steeped in Saudi-inspired Wahabbism.
Substitute ‘foreign Rabbis ’ or ‘Jesuits’ and for ‘foreign imams’ and consider how the suggestion sounds. It sounds to me like saying "we [that word again] don’t accept their view of the world" – which is fair enough of course – but you’re going beyond that to "and therefore we don’t want that ‘other’ view of the world to be preached, in this country which prides itself on free speech". A little problematic, no?
No opting out of learning about gay rights, the Holocaust, for instance.
Ditto. Why should ‘gay rights’ – a very modern, Western value, inimical not only to most of the Western world even a few years ago, but to large parts of it even today – be a touchstone? Are the civil liberties of those who disagree with the majority on this of no importance?
I would seek to prevent any funding of teaching institutions of any kind by money directly or indirectly from Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other problematic countries.
Try writing ‘Israel’ in that sentence and see how well it parses.
Put pressure on / shame those institutions which provide a home / space / support for hate preachers e.g. UCL, the Quakers and others.
We’re meant to be a country of free speech, right? That means defending the right to free speech of those with whom you most strongly disagree. Any totalitarian regime has no problem with the free speech of people who agree with it, the acid test is the freedom to express views we despise.
Ban the burqa. Ban religious wear for girls under the age of majority.
That, surely, is completely beyond acceptable. It is not for us to tell other people how to dress, or how to dress their children. How would you feel if crucifixes or priests’ robes were banned?
'You may quote me on this as I will be posting this and taking out an ad in a Birmingham paper. I have clearly made a terrible error for which I am deeply sorry. My comments about Birmingham were totally in error. And I am issuing an apology and correction on my website immediately for having made this comment about the beautiful city of Birmingham. I do not intend to justify or mitigate my mistake by stating that I had relied on other sources because I should have been much more careful. There was no excuse for making this mistake and I owe an apology to every resident of Birmingham. I am not going to make any excuses. I made an inexcusable error. And I am obligated to openly acknowledge that mistake.
Steve'
PS. I intend to make a donation to a Birmingham charity.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11338985/Fox-News-terror-expert-says-everyone-in-Birmingham-is-a-Muslim.html
At a time when everyone is standing up for press freedom I find it a bit tiresome to say the least to be reminded of press ignorance bigotry and bias.
Lab 33.5%
Con 32.5%
UKIP 14.5%
LD 7.6%
Green 6.4%
Oths 5.6%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2015_United_Kingdom_general_election#2015
Con 259 [ 260 ]
Lab 296 [ 307 ]
LD 26 [ 17 ]
UKIP 4 [ 0 ]
Grn 1 [ 1 ]
SNP 42 [ 43 ]
PC 3 [ 3 ]
NI 18 [ 18 ]
Spk 1 [ 1 ]
Note: The comparative figures were NOT ADJUSTED.
The adjustments added 4 to UKIP and 7 to LD.
The bookies also have Labour favourites in 296 seats including 34 in Scotland and 272 for the Tories. According to AASSS, Labour is winning only 13 seats in Scotland against 42 for the SNP [ 43 ].
Richard Nabavi: your post deserves a considered response, which I will give you tomorrow.
Good night.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EGWCG8fq9A
Material not offensive.
Is it that American politics - now a PAC-funded, Tv-advertised plutocratic property cant understand a spontaneous outpouring of the people?
Doesnt in fact see it as politically meaningful at all? Not enough for the White House apparently'
The fact Obama was not at the march appeared to gain little immediate traction in France on a day dedicated to unity. One French TV commentator said the president's visit would have been unthinkable given the level of security that accompanies him at home and abroad.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/01/11/uk-france-shooting-obama-idUKKBN0KK0V720150111
It's that time of the week again, the Sunil on Sunday ELBOW (Electoral Leader-Board Of the Week) - and for the first time in 2015. A bit paltry the total number of polls, only 8 this week, the lowest weekly number since early September. But for the first time we're including the Greens, and they have a reasonable debut ELBOW score too!
ELBOW for this week ending 11th Jan, now including YouGov/Sunday Times (brackets are changes from the week or so running up to Xmas)
Lab 33.3 (-0.9)
Con 32.5 (+0.9)
UKIP 14.5 (-0.9)
LD 7.7 (+0.2)
Grn 6.4 (+0.4 - NEW in ELBOW for 2015!)
Lab lead 0.8% (-1.8% on Xmas week)
Hmmm... you're right about that one!
http://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/jan/11/petrol-prices-below-pound-a-litre
Are you sure about this? Bear in mind that we'll soon be living in a world where everything you do in a public place is recorded and posted publicly online, and people can search for your face and exhaustively track your every movement. The counter-measure will be to wear a mask or equivalent when you don't want to be tracked. Even if you're happy with complete perpetual government surveillance, are you sure you want complete perpetual surveillance by everybody?
Mr Robinson yesterday confirmed that Mr Miliband had made the comments. He said on Twitter: "If anyone doubted Ed Miliband spoke of "weaponising" NHS I think he cleared that up on Marr just now – repeatedly didn't deny or disown it."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/11338695/Ed-Miliband-said-he-wanted-to-weaponise-NHS-in-secret-meeting-with-BBC-executives.html
Not sure its going to help much very soon
http://www.cspc.ecs.soton.ac.uk/gait
In any case I think it will be driven by the security situation long before it becomes a social issue.
No. Only Indigo and co. want Muslims to be under perpetual surveillance and by everybody.
http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/229054-nsa-head-wants-cyber-bill-to-fight-hackers
Its already failed to pass congress twice, and Obama has threatened to vote it because of serious privacy concerns, but it doesn't stop them trying.
Only people with a serious chip on their shoulder of their head up their @ss would read it that way. I also said people who wear motorbike helmets, and yes people who wear masks at demonstrations. I don't see that we should encourage people that break the law to conceal their identity. Which isn't to say I condone fishing expeditions, I clearly don't from my previous posts, but I dont see why we should let people pass security checkpoints without a photo id check because they wear a veil, as we currently do. Clearly you think that law that France passed is outrageous, even though the ECJ disagrees.
http://www.cspc.ecs.soton.ac.uk/gait
In any case I think it will be driven by the security situation long before it becomes a social issue.
What security situation? We've had crime since forever, Islamicist terrorism as a proportion of that is essentially nil, so what is it you think you're protecting against? We get along fine requiring uncovered faces in banks etc, no need to use the same security measures in situations that don't need to be particularly secure.
The ECJ didn't rule on whether the French law was outrageous. Outrageous laws aren't banned by the ECHR. They ruled that it didn't violate the right to freedom of religion and expression.
Nothing to see here, move along
http://www.asianimage.co.uk/news/11045595.Woman_did_not_show_face_at_Heathrow_Airport/
Is that nitpick the best you have to offer ?
We did have laws against Jesuits at one point, and for adequate reason. They were preaching that Elizabeth I, and her protestant successors, were not legitimate monarchs, so their laws and governments were invalid. Advocating the overthrow of the state is another area where free speech is often seem to have limits.
However, both these things can be outlawed without specifically targeting religions. Advocating the death of everyone from some hated faith or ethnic group should be a crime whoever does it.
Saying the British state isn't legitimate, and should be overthrown, can be tolerated, but going beyond that, and actively attempting to organise the overthrow of the state can reasonably be made illegal, whatever the motive for the overthrow. Also, if you say that British laws shouldn't be respected, you shouldn't be surprised if the British police take you at your word, and check whether your followers are respecting British laws.
Should Nuns wear their habit ?
You see that just the sort of idiotic comment I expected, does their habit cover their face, no, did I propose anything else than that everyone should show their face in public, no, I fail to see what your point is except trying to have the last word.
Tories want to fund it.