Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Tonight from PB’s Marf
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Tonight from PB’s Marf
Tonight’s cartoon from Politicalbetting's Marf pic.twitter.com/aT5151Lvc2
-1
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
I promised you a response so – somewhat delayed – here it is. (BTW I've not had time to look at the threads being rather taken up with work matters so if all these points have been done ad nauseam, Mods, please feel free to tell me to shut up.) I will take each of your points in turn.
"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."
This issue has been around since at least the time of Henry II and Thomas Beckett but, in the last analysis, I think that the law of the land should not generally take account of religious belief, other than to allow people the freedom to believe whatever the hell they want. I'm rather in favour of the US approach. But I make no apologies for saying clearly that I think minorities who choose to live here should adopt Western values and should certainly not seek to live in some sort of rejectionist way according to values which are directly hostile to and dangerously undermining of Western values.
There may be cases where it is sensible to take some account of religious sensibilities e.g. not forcing people who are against abortions to perform them / to allow Sikhs to wear turbans / permitting conscientious objection to fighting, for instance – but usually these are cases where no harm would be caused to others or to the social fabric of the nation.
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?"
Not problematic at all. We are not obliged to provide space to our ideological enemies. You cannot encourage British Islam if those preaching in mosques here are trained in Saudi Arabia and teaching a Saudi Arabian view of Islam and the world. They have free speech. We're not stopping them from preaching in Saudi Arabia or anywhere else. But we are not obliged to allow them into the country and we're deluded in thinking that their presence here and what they teach is not a problem for us.
This is actually a proposal which was made by a Franco-Tunisian film-maker interviewed a couple of days ago who said that the number of foreign imams (and their world view) in France was a real problem. Reformed jihadists such as Ed Husain have spoken about a similar issue and how it renders young Muslim men prey to radicals. And there was a recent article in the Spectator about what actually is taught in a significant number of British mosques, how much of it is influenced by very conservative versions of Islam like Deobandi Islam and the problems this creates for an understanding of and integration into the Western world.
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?"
This is the law of the land. Very important I think for people to understand, whether they approve of homosexuality or not, whether they think it a sin or not, that in Britain we have removed previous criminal and civil prohibitions on gay people and given them equal rights. It is recent but so what? People can disagree. What they can't do is teach what is contrary to the law i.e. that gays are not equal and that no regard should be given to what we have decided. Nor that gays should be harmed or attacked.
And I don't see how their civil liberties are infringed. If gays are treated equally, allowed to marry etc in what sense are the civil liberties of those who are not gay and don't like gays infringed. They're not.
Try writing ‘Israel’ in that sentence and see how well it parses."
What has Israel got to do with it? We are entitled as a nation to decide what is taught in our schools. I think it self-evident that we don't want teaching in our schools of values which are actively hostile to and contrary to our values. Look at what we discovered in the Trojan Horse affair: pupils deliberately being taught as if they were in Saudi Arabia and being taught to hate their own country. Look at the earlier case of a school with Saudi textbooks full of some appalling material. He who pays the piper calls the tune. I do not want people or entities from countries which lash journalists or which have rape as a judicially imposed punishment funding and controlling schools in which British children here are taught.
We don't have the same issue with, say, the Lycee Francais for French expatriates so let's avoid the usual (and usually childish – not you, RN, I hasten to add) whataboutery.
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."
You're confusing the right to free speech, which should be defended, with social pressure. Of course if someone wants to provide a hall for someone to give a lecture on how appalling the kuffars and Jews are etc, they can do so. But we are equally entitled to point out how grotesque this is, how hypocritical, how contrary, for instance, to those institutions' statements of values/codes of ethics etc. We're entitled – and I think we should – ask such institutions how they justify it, whether they're happy to do so, why they're permitting segregated seating or excluding Jews or whatever. We're entitled to express our disagreement, show our disgust, challenge what they are doing etc.
And I think we should because there have been too many cases where people and institutions have not been challenged or called to account for what they're doing and who they're associating with – and so a sort of moral blindness and laziness has developed, which has been exploited by extremists.
I also think that too many are focused on whether terrorism is the result but, frankly, "non-violent extremism" of the type we have seen from Islamists is an utterly loathsome and hateful ideology, regardless of whether it leads to terrorism (though it often does) and profoundly corrosive of social cohesion. We are entitled to call out those state and private institutions which give house room to such people. Nazi sympathisers like David Irving have the right to free speech. We should not lock him up. But we have no obligation to give him a platform and a microphone. Ditto with Islamists. Shame and social pressure are powerful tools and they (rather more than laws and punishments) are how societies glue themselves together in a way that works. We should use them.
Too many of our liberal elite could be described thus: " Like the pacifist whose only concern is keeping his own hands free of blood, the liberal only concerned with his own reputation for tolerance ends up complicit in the crimes he ignores. "
I think this needs to change. Don't you?
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?"
Again I don't see an issue. I would clarify that what I would like to stop is children in school being made to wear clothing which prevents them from getting a full education and participating fully e.g. the niqab or the burqa or similar. This is primarily an issue for girls.
Girls born here, living here are British and are entitled to a full education just like everyone else. Their right to an education, their ability to be educated, to run about, to do sport, to move freely should not be constrained or not, depending on their parents' religion. Nor do I think that they should be taught – subliminally – to fear or despise their bodies or to think that their bodies need to be covered up because otherwise men can't control themselves. Nor should they be marked out in such a way as to limit their expectations of life i.e. that they are being taught to be Islamic wives and mothers only.
The first thing Islamists do whenever they seize power is to oppress women and deny them education. I think it wholly wrong that British girls should be oppressed in a similar way or to have their education limited. There should be no distinction between the education available to my daughter and to the daughter of someone who came from Pakistan or Algeria or Somalia or wherever.
Wearing a crucifix or the kippah or a turban do not prevent or limit education or personal/educational aspirations in the same way. Yards of drapery over a young girl do. You really need to understand the motivation of why men of this type are so keen to limit the freedom of women. It is no coincidence that so many Muslim liberals are women. They understand all too well what the male elders/extremists are trying to do. It is why when Canada sought to introduce sharia law for Muslims it was Muslim women who campaigned vigorously against. They understood what was at stake.
And the people who want the burqa are those who want to impose it on women who don't want to wear it, who want to make it the norm for Muslim women, who want to limit their freedoms. I can construct a perfectly soundly based argument from JS Mill and others as to why we should stop others seeking to limit other people's freedoms.
But I can do no better than to quote this (from this blog - https://newhumanist.org.uk/articles/4506/religious-dress-codes-and-the-meaning-of-tolerance - which sums it up perfectly for me.
"For many Muslim women religious dress is mandatory, not voluntary. The French, including many French Muslims and ex-Muslims, acknowledge this kind of religious intolerance and give it importance. If we concede that religious dress codes are sometimes involuntarily adopted by British citizens, then the state is justified in interfering with the practice, since the purpose of the interference is to prevent harm to others and to widen individual liberty where it is threatened."
And
"While the state ban on public religious veiling denies those Muslims who do choose to adopt it one means of symbolic religious expression in public spaces, this particular form of religious freedom of expression in turn conflicts with the freedom of expression of other Muslims not to adopt religious dress. There is nothing controversial about limiting the freedom of expression of individuals to those behaviours that do not deny it to others."
This does not just affect us. Last night on the news there was a woman, a teacher at the school in Peshawar, where 130 children were murdered by the Taliban. She had lost her son and was clutching his jumper, all she had left.
Such evil is unfathomable; such pain unendurable.
I was watching with my two sons, one little older than hers. I am enraged by what has happened in Paris. But last night seeing her, I wept.
(a) as you say, it is inaccurate
(b) EastEnders is one of the all time most watched tv shows
So either way it is an awful line. Weird
@cathynewman: Deficit reduction "requires some tax rises" PLURAL. Then cited one - restoring 50p rate & promised to set out more plans before election
On the subject of debates....and for information I am not convinced the debates are a good idea but people do seem to like them
The debates are for the benefit of the electorate not politicians stop trying to form them into what is best for your party and instead acknowledge that it is what the public want and they are your damn masters not your servants
I don't share its politics but you can't help but admire the way they've gone back to form and straight back to attack the politics and values of some of those that now profess to be its supporters.
The attached is very good. I wish he were here now. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2006/02/cartoon_debate.html
Has society turned a corner with Jihadism?
From now on, will we just publish macabre cartoons after any terrorist incident, mocking the perpetrators?
https://twitter.com/NCPoliticsUK/status/554642247975976960
https://twitter.com/NCPoliticsUK/status/554929668521197568
https://twitter.com/NCPoliticsUK/status/555083783419207680
PB Tories, just rejoice!
Edit: I'd love to reply to your comments earlier on, I agree with some, I disagree with some.
However, I'm tired and cranky, and your well thought out responses deserves an equally considered response.
One issue I have is that the Quakers do have a record of hosting people with odious points of view on their premises (they often hosted the NF in the 70's). It's not because they sympathise with them, or are indifferent to them, but because they have a strong commitment to debate and free speech.
I think we're better to give extremists a platform, and vigorously uphold our right to criticise and revile them, rather than aim to suppress them, and provide the Mehdi Hassans of this world with an argument that we're being hypocritical and selective in our commitment to free speech.
It was Denis McShane (ex-MP) who wrote quite a good book on the new anti-Semitism and where it came from. But it was largely ignored here.
My response was "don't count on it...."
But while the Quakers may have a strong commitment to debate and free speech, there are others who have loads of mission statements about their ethics and then do the complete opposite e.g. say they're strongly against sexism and then insist on women being segregated at a talk by an Islamist speaker. That kind of odious nonsense has to stop. We need to hoist them by their own petard, as it were.
He said the UK has always favoured the underdog.
That makes for a toxic mix, regardless of what the media says here.
Surprising it is a big problem. Most people I know prefer Jews to the average man on the street
"Finally, apologies if everyone is bored with the topic."
Your solutions are at least as repressive as anything you are trying to prevent. It would be a toss up whether it would be better to live under Sharia Law or under Cyclefree's Law. The main difference being that yours is more prescriptive and certainly more mean spirited.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jan/13/conservatives-lost-voters-trust-nhs-poll
I class myself as both economically and socially liberal. Socially liberal to me however means that everyone should be allowed their views as long as they are not inciting violence but others are also free to express their disdain of those views as long as they are not inciting violence.
To many of our metropolitan hipsters it means shouting racist, homophobe etc at anyone who challenges a minority view
And French politicians have been - reportedly - irked by what Netananyu said because of its implied statement that he was PM for all Jews not just Israelis (which reinforces the allegations that Jews outside Israel are somehow collectively responsible for what Israel does) and the criticism (however correct) that the French state has not been good enough at protecting its Jewish population and clamping down on anti-Semitism.
Why does your friend worry about Israel's PR and its effect here, if you don't mind me asking?
Some forecasters also said it, years ago...
I think that's a choice that would make itself (not that I agree with everything Cyclefree proposes).
Could the Tories still own the economy, despite being in Coalition for five years?
@JohnRentoul: Why didn't the chicken cross the road? Genius by @Dannythefink Times £ http://t.co/tOJv15Ea1E http://t.co/EEEVhcRJni
Off to have a bit of dinner now.
Lab 285
Con 281
SNP 32
LD 27
UKIP 3
http://www.electionforecast.co.uk/
Solid lead required to stand still??
But PtP said Lab had lost the lead for good with these.
Surely some misshtake
I think most people watched less than half despite the ratings. It wasn't what I would call gripping UNLESS you are a political anorak.
Trust the ratings> you would be a fool to. A friend who worked in radio told me they tried something on someone's wrist that identified for RAJAR what radio was ACTUALLY being listened to, but it was so far out from the official stats that were being used, it never reached the light of day..
Believe what you want to. I think the official stats are bollox
"And French politicians have been - reportedly - irked by what Netananyu said because of its implied statement that he was PM for all Jews not just Israelis (which reinforces the allegations that Jews outside Israel are somehow collectively responsible for what Israel does) and the criticism (however correct) that the French state has not been good enough at protecting its Jewish population and clamping down on anti-Semitism."
Is your point that they're entitled to be irked or that it being irked shows French anti-Semitism?
Either way, someone will complain that it's the wrong approach...
Lab 1.99
Con 2.02
Met councils:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11urmBUZhN4WwzQXTyAWUGa2GdJztpm89jsR2k01sSl0
District:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0At91c3wX1Wu5dFRlQ250bWgzS2JQZDRxcjVfa0lOdmc
Unitary:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Efdl47kD0SmFyG8z6ybldqiWfhsMrmmxom9iY4B305Y
London:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1nH2n7JYsbb0lSy8-iyzsvs6ze8g1ygSNPRsFIluvXjQ/edit
Summary:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0At91c3wX1Wu5dEg1VGhjdzhRbzNfckVvbnAxSFdKSFE&usp=drive_web#gid=0
@TelePolitics: May's general election? It will be like 1992 all over again, says George Osborne http://t.co/FSho0BioFY
Mrs BJ says I can sleep in the same bed as her tonight now theBrummie Muslim threat hasn't materialised
Netanyahu: "Les Juifs, sont moi."
Do you by any chance have the council by-elections in a spreadsheet? I know they're on englishelections, welshelections, etc but thought I'd ask...
Cheers
LAB - 33% (-)
CON - 32% (-)
UKIP - 14% (-3)
GRN - 7% (+1)
LDEM - 7% (+1)
Netanyahu: "Les Juifs, sont L'État, et vice versa."
LABOUR are preparing to U-turn on their energy price freeze pledge as bills start to fall, The Sun has learned.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/6261028/labour-preparing-to-u-turn-on-energy-price-freeze-pledge.html?CMP=spklr-129724832-Editorial-TWITTER-Sun_Politics-20150113-Politics
Nigel Farage: Ghettos in French cities have become no-go zones for non-Muslims
Nigel Farage, the Ukip leader, says that European leaders have been guilty of 'moral cowardice' in failing to challenge extremists
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/nigel-farage/11343498/Nigel-Farage-Ghettos-in-French-cities-have-become-no-go-zones-for-non-Muslims.html
It all so predictable now. Farage says stuff he knows will ruffle feathers, offense on the behalf of others from sections of the media and other politicians, and on we go again...
When are we going to see Farage being challenged over policy and how workable they are?
Just as the Nats sought comfort in a Blogger from Bath, let him pretend Santa still exists for another few months...
Any night of the week I can wander down Old Compton Street and see dozens of men dressed as women and vice versa. There are Batmen Spiderwomen cowboys in bikinis and even women dressed in Burqas. It's like a zoo.
Everyone gets on fine. There will always be Imams and Cyclefrees who want to tell people how to dress and what should be proscribed but in my opinion they should be resisted at all costs.