ISIS must think we're as soft as clarts. And we are far too soft.
What can we do? what would you do?
Much of the Muslim community works on a system of patronage. A small number of "community leaders" have been the interface with local and national Govt. In return, they have become hugely influential (and in some cases, very rich) on the back of that interface.
The entire notion of "community leaders" is backwards thinking.
Most normal Muslims I know have as little to do with these so-called "community leaders" as most workers I know have as little to do with Len McCluskey.
We should do away with notions of community leaders altogether and start treating everyone as individuals.
Absolutely. Dealing with so called community leaders is at best patronising, as if Muslims are fundamentally like children unable to think for themselves, or at worse reinforces the medieval patriarchy that is the problem in the first place.
Miss Plato, not au fait with the civil war and its modern connotations. The only thing I'd say is excessive, that I've heard of, is Steam removing all games (reportedly) which include the confederate flag. Given it's a historical emblem as well as a matter for current events, that's as daft as removing all games with the Nazi flag.
Apple have done that, Steam haven't. Though Germany bans the swastika in law so many WWII games like Paradox Games' Hearts of Iron series for one don't include the Nazi flag as a result. Even though they could just release an altered game for the German market.
Actually Apple have done exactly that. They have withdrawn all computer games dealing with the Civil War from their app store because of the presence of the Confederate flag. They have bowed over the last 24 hours to pressure and reinstated a few that people shouted about most loudly but they are still banning many games.
It is a facile, stupid and ignorant move - just as the banning of any historic Confederate flag is akin to banning the English flag because a few morons from the far right make use of it.
I know, that's why I said Apple have done that. And I agree 100% that it is stupid, as is having the Nazi flag.
Though if the Germans were flying the swastika from their Bundestag or monuments then we'd be looking askance at that. The Confederate flags are equivalent, as relevant to Civil War games as the swastika is to WWII games - but belonging to museums in real life not relevant to the modern era.
ISIS must think we're as soft as clarts. And we are far too soft.
What can we do? what would you do?
Much of the Muslim community works on a system of patronage. A small number of "community leaders" have been the interface with local and national Govt. In return, they have become hugely influential (and in some cases, very rich) on the back of that interface.
The entire notion of "community leaders" is backwards thinking.
Most normal Muslims I know have as little to do with these so-called "community leaders" as most workers I know have as little to do with Len McCluskey.
We should do away with notions of community leaders altogether and start treating everyone as individuals.
Abso-bloody-lutely.
Try it. See how far you get. (Prediction - nowhere.)
For all its problems, for all its ills, I am just so glad this country is the place I call home. When BJO touches down today with his family, he will feel a surge of emotion, a love even, for our rainy, argumentative, crotchety little island, and the safety and stability it delivers, that few of us have ever felt. From horror to glorious normality in four short hours. What sweet relief. Today - looking at this broken, dangerous world - I feel very lucky to live in the UK and to be British. We are a cup of tea, a digestive biscuit and an evening home in front of the telly. Right now that is so very comforting. Of course, we can make this country a lot better than it is. But we build from stronger foundations, on better land than almost everyone else. We all know that. Sometimes we forget. Today we should remember.
What would it take for the UK to shut down every mosque madrassa and religious school in the country? Is this possible. under any scenario that we can conceive of?
There are surely only so many times our politicians can say that this is a peaceful religion without endangering their own safety. My guess is that someone like France may go down this road first but if they did would we be far behind?
My liberal sensibilities are being tested to the limits by these lunatics.
Mine too. Save that it is not liberal to tolerate a religious totalitarianism which is at war with us. The only properly muscular liberal response is to fight back hard.
I think there are some things we can and should be doing and have mentioned some of them before - at the time of the Charlie Hebdo massacres in France. Worrying about what people might think of us, particularly what our enemies might think of us, is pathetic and distracts us from what needs to be done.
Ideas coming in a separate post.
I hope that BJO and family are safely home now and enjoying all the biscuits their hearts desire.
The Confederate flag covers a lot more than segregation, which hasn't been part of the system in decades. It's about a core belief in not being part of the current USA set up. A bit like other places that are trying for independence themselves.
I think it's a massive liberal overreaction and a deliberate bit of culture war posturing on both sides.
Mr. Thompson, very unfair comparison, given the confederate flag is being taken down left, right and centre in response.
Would you be appalled at an anti-Swastika hysteria?
Fact is that the Confederate flag is a deeply potent symbol which is at root one of racial supremacy. It was about the right to keep a race enslaved, first literally then - after defeat in 1865 - practically. With the Jim Crow era fading into history, that might become less potent in due course but as long as people believe it to be so, that flag will remains a symbol of rebellion against the state, of rejecting the legitimacy of laws that one doesn't like and of the right of one people to keep another in chains.
It has no place of pride in any civilised country.
Mr. Thompson, very unfair comparison, given the confederate flag is being taken down left, right and centre in response.
I don't think it's appropriate to fly it from public buildings, given its partisan nature, but I agree that the drive to eradicate all symbols of the Confederacy is both hysterical and hypocritical. Many of the Founding Fathers, who appear on banknotes, coins, stamps etc., have statues and monuments to them, were slave masters. Andrew Jackson and other 19th century Presidents slaughtered Indians and waged wars of aggression. The Stars and Stripes is hated by millions of people the world over. Remove everything contentious from public view, and you're left with very little.
Mr. Thompson, very unfair comparison, given the confederate flag is being taken down left, right and centre in response.
I don't think it's appropriate to fly it from public buildings, given its partisan nature, but I agree that the drive to eradicate all symbols of the Confederacy is both hysterical and hypocritical. Many of the Founding Fathers, who appear on banknotes, coins, stamps etc., have statues and monuments to them, were slave masters. Andrew Jackson and other 19th century Presidents slaughtered Indians and waged wars of aggression. The Stars and Stripes is hated by millions of people the world over. Remove everything contentious from public view, and you're left with very little.
ISIS must think we're as soft as clarts. And we are far too soft.
What can we do? what would you do?
Much of the Muslim community works on a system of patronage. A small number of "community leaders" have been the interface with local and national Govt. In return, they have become hugely influential (and in some cases, very rich) on the back of that interface.
The entire notion of "community leaders" is backwards thinking.
Most normal Muslims I know have as little to do with these so-called "community leaders" as most workers I know have as little to do with Len McCluskey.
We should do away with notions of community leaders altogether and start treating everyone as individuals.
Abso-bloody-lutely.
I think this thread is starting to show how much of a chasm there is between the right and the left. Time for a new thread !!
Miss Plato, not au fait with the civil war and its modern connotations. The only thing I'd say is excessive, that I've heard of, is Steam removing all games (reportedly) which include the confederate flag. Given it's a historical emblem as well as a matter for current events, that's as daft as removing all games with the Nazi flag.
Apple have done that, Steam haven't. Though Germany bans the swastika in law so many WWII games like Paradox Games' Hearts of Iron series for one don't include the Nazi flag as a result. Even though they could just release an altered game for the German market.
Actually Apple have done exactly that. They have withdrawn all computer games dealing with the Civil War from their app store because of the presence of the Confederate flag. They have bowed over the last 24 hours to pressure and reinstated a few that people shouted about most loudly but they are still banning many games.
It is a facile, stupid and ignorant move - just as the banning of any historic Confederate flag is akin to banning the English flag because a few morons from the far right make use of it.
I agree - the context is everything. Are we to see civil war films with the confederate flag blanked out? I cannot remember exactly... but Das Boot was a highly regarded German film about WW2. I imagine that somewhere in it was the odd swastika. The logic of banning the confederate flag is to also ban carpet bags.
I think closing down the mosques permanently would be a mistake and cause a lot of tension, but closing them temporarily for a review of their links to extremism is not going to be a big deal. Most mosques will be open within a month and those that aren't will be the ones with links to extremist preachers. Getting these vile people out of the mosques (and the country) needs to be step one, having a state review of mosques is the only way I can see it being effective, the self regulation by the Muslim community has been utterly ineffective.
What would it take for the UK to shut down every mosque madrassa and religious school in the country? Is this possible. under any scenario that we can conceive of?
There are surely only so many times our politicians can say that this is a peaceful religion without endangering their own safety. My guess is that someone like France may go down this road first but if they did would we be far behind?
My liberal sensibilities are being tested to the limits by these lunatics.
What will it take to shut down all white people based on Charleston's attack last week?
I hope we never reach that point.
I very much hope we don't either but I think we are a lot closer than our MSM or political class think. You can't shut down "white people" but the change of attitude to Confederacy paraphanalia and symbols after that has been very marked and swift. And quite right too. A lot of self indulgence about a regime that was fundamentally evil has been addressed for the first time.
What an ignorant statement.
The Confederate battle flag is not so much a symbol of hatred as it is an object of hatred, a target of hatred. Vilification of that battle flag and the Confederacy is part of the cultural revolution in America that flowered half a century ago. Among its goals was the demoralization of the American people by demonizing their past and poisoning their belief in their own history. Straight out of the Marxist playbook, never miss the opportunity to exploit a tragedy.
The flag is an important part of Southern heritage and honours those who sacrificed themselves for the same principles on which the US was founded on.
It has no place of pride in any civilised country.
True but here's the thing. Many southern soldiers fought against the North simply because ''y'all are down here''. Most owned either zero slaves, or perhaps one or two who helped out on a small farm.
The vast majority were not the slave masters hollywood has constructed, they were simply men who believed a far off government was dictating what they should, or shouldn't do.
The Confederate flag covers a lot more than segregation, which hasn't been part of the system in decades. It's about a core belief in not being part of the current USA set up. A bit like other places that are trying for independence themselves.
I think it's a massive liberal overreaction and a deliberate bit of culture war posturing on both sides.
Mr. Thompson, very unfair comparison, given the confederate flag is being taken down left, right and centre in response.
Would you be appalled at an anti-Swastika hysteria?
Fact is that the Confederate flag is a deeply potent symbol which is at root one of racial supremacy. It was about the right to keep a race enslaved, first literally then - after defeat in 1865 - practically. With the Jim Crow era fading into history, that might become less potent in due course but as long as people believe it to be so, that flag will remains a symbol of rebellion against the state, of rejecting the legitimacy of laws that one doesn't like and of the right of one people to keep another in chains.
It has no place of pride in any civilised country.
I agree with you entirely Plato. Just as the Civil War was not just about slavery neither is the Battle Flag of Northern Virginia primarily about racial discrimination. Whilst a small number of people have taken it over for that reason the vast majority see it as a symbol of States Rights against the Federal Government and that is a perfectly valid and legitimate cause.
Mr. Max, must disagree hugely. If all mosques were (temporarily) closed there would be mass demonstrations and more than a little violence. It would also increase terrorist attacks.
Miss Plato, not au fait with the civil war and its modern connotations. The only thing I'd say is excessive, that I've heard of, is Steam removing all games (reportedly) which include the confederate flag. Given it's a historical emblem as well as a matter for current events, that's as daft as removing all games with the Nazi flag.
Apple have done that, Steam haven't. Though Germany bans the swastika in law so many WWII games like Paradox Games' Hearts of Iron series for one don't include the Nazi flag as a result. Even though they could just release an altered game for the German market.
Actually Apple have done exactly that. They have withdrawn all computer games dealing with the Civil War from their app store because of the presence of the Confederate flag. They have bowed over the last 24 hours to pressure and reinstated a few that people shouted about most loudly but they are still banning many games.
It is a facile, stupid and ignorant move - just as the banning of any historic Confederate flag is akin to banning the English flag because a few morons from the far right make use of it.
I agree - the context is everything. Are we to see civil war films with the confederate flag blanked out? I cannot remember exactly... but Das Boot was a highly regarded German film about WW2. I imagine that somewhere in it was the odd swastika. The logic of banning the confederate flag is to also ban carpet bags.
What would it take for the UK to shut down every mosque madrassa and religious school in the country? Is this possible. under any scenario that we can conceive of?
There are surely only so many times our politicians can say that this is a peaceful religion without endangering their own safety. My guess is that someone like France may go down this road first but if they did would we be far behind?
My liberal sensibilities are being tested to the limits by these lunatics.
What will it take to shut down all white people based on Charleston's attack last week?
I hope we never reach that point.
I very much hope we don't either but I think we are a lot closer than our MSM or political class think. You can't shut down "white people" but the change of attitude to Confederacy paraphanalia and symbols after that has been very marked and swift. And quite right too. A lot of self indulgence about a regime that was fundamentally evil has been addressed for the first time.
Indeed. I have just come back from the US and the only thing the news channels were talking about was the Confederate flag issue.
There is far too much self-indulgence of the whiny "nothing is ever our fault" brigade within the Muslim community (note that not all Muslims - see, for instance, Maajid Nawaz and others are like this) who are all too willing to play the "ummah" we're all one big Muslim community card when it suits (when trying to explain / justify why young men in Yorkshire get upset at what happens to their "brothers" in distant countries) and then try to pretend that when someone from their family let alone their immediate community does something bad and it turns out was radicalised at the local mosque, all of a sudden they turn into raging individualists who are deaf and blind to what goes on around them and who are seemingly astonished that preaching about fighting the evil West might persuade someone hearing that day in day out actually to, you know, fight the evil West.
I for one am sick of this and even more sick of politicians trying to excuse and gloss over this.
Mr. Thompson, very unfair comparison, given the confederate flag is being taken down left, right and centre in response.
I don't think it's appropriate to fly it from public buildings, given its partisan nature, but I agree that the drive to eradicate all symbols of the Confederacy is both hysterical and hypocritical. Many of the Founding Fathers, who appear on banknotes, coins, stamps etc., have statues and monuments to them, were slave masters. Andrew Jackson and other 19th century Presidents slaughtered Indians and waged wars of aggression. The Stars and Stripes is hated by millions of people the world over. Remove everything contentious from public view, and you're left with very little.
Except that the Confederate flag has no historical relevancy for being flown other than as white supremacy. In 1870 flying Confederate flags would have been considered treason - no States fly flags dating back to then. In the same way as the Confederacy was a rebellion against abolition of slavery, the flags were re-introduced in the 20th century as a (smaller scale) rebellion against civil rights laws. They serve no purpose today.
It is not a Godwin to compare Confederate flags to the swastika - they are both symbols of white supremacy and have a vile history attached that was defeated in war.
The Confederate flag covers a lot more than segregation, which hasn't been part of the system in decades. It's about a core belief in not being part of the current USA set up. A bit like other places that are trying for independence themselves.
I think it's a massive liberal overreaction and a deliberate bit of culture war posturing on both sides.
Mr. Thompson, very unfair comparison, given the confederate flag is being taken down left, right and centre in response.
Would you be appalled at an anti-Swastika hysteria?
Fact is that the Confederate flag is a deeply potent symbol which is at root one of racial supremacy. It was about the right to keep a race enslaved, first literally then - after defeat in 1865 - practically. With the Jim Crow era fading into history, that might become less potent in due course but as long as people believe it to be so, that flag will remains a symbol of rebellion against the state, of rejecting the legitimacy of laws that one doesn't like and of the right of one people to keep another in chains.
It has no place of pride in any civilised country.
The Confederacy covers nothing over that slavery/segregation - other than treason. "Not being part of the USA" was deemed treason and a Civil War was fought about it, not sure flying a flag of treason on an official monument is much better than flying a flag of slavery.
It might be different if South Carolina was seeking independence (though it'd be smart to go for a different symbol), but its not.
What would it take for the UK to shut down every mosque madrassa and religious school in the country? Is this possible. under any scenario that we can conceive of?
There are surely only so many times our politicians can say that this is a peaceful religion without endangering their own safety. My guess is that someone like France may go down this road first but if they did would we be far behind?
My liberal sensibilities are being tested to the limits by these lunatics.
What will it take to shut down all white people based on Charleston's attack last week?
I hope we never reach that point.
I very much hope we don't either but I think we are a lot closer than our MSM or political class think. You can't shut down "white people" but the change of attitude to Confederacy paraphanalia and symbols after that has been very marked and swift. And quite right too. A lot of self indulgence about a regime that was fundamentally evil has been addressed for the first time.
The Union side was just as fundamentally evil. They were just fundamentally evil to a different group of people - and were so successful in it that there are very few of them left to complain about the Stars and Stripes these days. I am sure there are more than a few native americans looking on in irony at the current debate about 'evil flags'.
The Confederate flag covers a lot more than segregation, which hasn't been part of the system in decades. It's about a core belief in not being part of the current USA set up. A bit like other places that are trying for independence themselves.
I think it's a massive liberal overreaction and a deliberate bit of culture war posturing on both sides.
Mr. Thompson, very unfair comparison, given the confederate flag is being taken down left, right and centre in response.
Would you be appalled at an anti-Swastika hysteria?
Fact is that the Confederate flag is a deeply potent symbol which is at root one of racial supremacy. It was about the right to keep a race enslaved, first literally then - after defeat in 1865 - practically. With the Jim Crow era fading into history, that might become less potent in due course but as long as people believe it to be so, that flag will remains a symbol of rebellion against the state, of rejecting the legitimacy of laws that one doesn't like and of the right of one people to keep another in chains.
It has no place of pride in any civilised country.
The Confederacy covers nothing over that slavery/segregation - other than treason. "Not being part of the USA" was deemed treason and a Civil War was fought about it, not sure flying a flag of treason on an official monument is much better than flying a flag of slavery.
It might be different if South Carolina was seeking independence (though it'd be smart to go for a different symbol), but its not.
Wow. That's an incredibly ignorant comment.
Edit:
If you want to start to understand something about the origins of the Civil War in the US go and read Shelby Foote's epic history of the conflict. At least please do so before commenting on here about the subject.
ISIS must think we're as soft as clarts. And we are far too soft.
What can we do? what would you do?
Much of the Muslim community works on a system of patronage. A small number of "community leaders" have been the interface with local and national Govt. In return, they have become hugely influential (and in some cases, very rich) on the back of that interface.
The entire notion of "community leaders" is backwards thinking.
Most normal Muslims I know have as little to do with these so-called "community leaders" as most workers I know have as little to do with Len McCluskey.
We should do away with notions of community leaders altogether and start treating everyone as individuals.
Abso-bloody-lutely.
Try it. See how far you get. (Prediction - nowhere.)
I did try it when I was a councillor. The Community leaders put up the shutters and they still held sufficient sway that Community at large refused to engage. I still think it was the right thing to do.
We vote OUT in 2017 before Cameron's renegotiation has been finalized.
Renegotiation continues and we have to vote again in 2018 or 2019...
This time IN win's.
#democracy
No chance. Out is out, the English do not put up with being asked the same question twice.
Depends on the victory margin. If the result is close, expect the losing side to reopen the issue within a decade.
If Out wins by a narrow margin, the pro-EU camp will campaign to re-enter the EU, claiming they can negotiate better terms this time, and blaming all the UK's troubles on us having left.
If In wins by a narrow margin, before long the Out camp will start claiming the EU has failed to keep its promises to us, 'just as we warned', and say that this invalidates the referendum result, which therefore needs to be rerun.
I'm not sure how large a victory margin will be needed to close the issue for good. I doubt 5% would be enough, and 20% ought to be, but in between, who knows?
The Confederate flag covers a lot more than segregation, which hasn't been part of the system in decades. It's about a core belief in not being part of the current USA set up. A bit like other places that are trying for independence themselves.
I think it's a massive liberal overreaction and a deliberate bit of culture war posturing on both sides.
Mr. Thompson, very unfair comparison, given the confederate flag is being taken down left, right and centre in response.
Would you be appalled at an anti-Swastika hysteria?
Fact is that the Confederate flag is a deeply potent symbol which is at root one of racial supremacy. It was about the right to keep a race enslaved, first literally then - after defeat in 1865 - practically. With the Jim Crow era fading into history, that might become less potent in due course but as long as people believe it to be so, that flag will remains a symbol of rebellion against the state, of rejecting the legitimacy of laws that one doesn't like and of the right of one people to keep another in chains.
It has no place of pride in any civilised country.
The Confederacy covers nothing over that slavery/segregation - other than treason. "Not being part of the USA" was deemed treason and a Civil War was fought about it, not sure flying a flag of treason on an official monument is much better than flying a flag of slavery.
It might be different if South Carolina was seeking independence (though it'd be smart to go for a different symbol), but its not.
Wow. That's an incredibly ignorant comment.
Explain how. Were the CSA not traitors? Or were they not in favour of slavery?
Miss Plato, not au fait with the civil war and its modern connotations. The only thing I'd say is excessive, that I've heard of, is Steam removing all games (reportedly) which include the confederate flag. Given it's a historical emblem as well as a matter for current events, that's as daft as removing all games with the Nazi flag.
Apple have done that, Steam haven't. Though Germany bans the swastika in law so many WWII games like Paradox Games' Hearts of Iron series for one don't include the Nazi flag as a result. Even though they could just release an altered game for the German market.
Actually Apple have done exactly that. They have withdrawn all computer games dealing with the Civil War from their app store because of the presence of the Confederate flag. They have bowed over the last 24 hours to pressure and reinstated a few that people shouted about most loudly but they are still banning many games.
It is a facile, stupid and ignorant move - just as the banning of any historic Confederate flag is akin to banning the English flag because a few morons from the far right make use of it.
I agree - the context is everything. Are we to see civil war films with the confederate flag blanked out? I cannot remember exactly... but Das Boot was a highly regarded German film about WW2. I imagine that somewhere in it was the odd swastika. The logic of banning the confederate flag is to also ban carpet bags.
Well, that's one TV show that presumably won't be getting reboot any time soon I suppose.
Mr. Thompson, very unfair comparison, given the confederate flag is being taken down left, right and centre in response.
I don't think it's appropriate to fly it from public buildings, given its partisan nature, but I agree that the drive to eradicate all symbols of the Confederacy is both hysterical and hypocritical. Many of the Founding Fathers, who appear on banknotes, coins, stamps etc., have statues and monuments to them, were slave masters. Andrew Jackson and other 19th century Presidents slaughtered Indians and waged wars of aggression. The Stars and Stripes is hated by millions of people the world over. Remove everything contentious from public view, and you're left with very little.
Except that the Confederate flag has no historical relevancy for being flown other than as white supremacy. In 1870 flying Confederate flags would have been considered treason - no States fly flags dating back to then. In the same way as the Confederacy was a rebellion against abolition of slavery, the flags were re-introduced in the 20th century as a (smaller scale) rebellion against civil rights laws. They serve no purpose today.
It is not a Godwin to compare Confederate flags to the swastika - they are both symbols of white supremacy and have a vile history attached that was defeated in war.
It all depends where you stand. To many Southerners, it symbolises regional pride. Had the CSA established their independence, flying the Confederate flag would now be no different to flying the Stars and Stripes.
In the same way, I like to see the Union Flag and Cross of St. George being flown. But, to Irish Republicans, they're vile symbols of oppression. Conversely, there are places where flying the Irish Tricolour will provoke a riot. Or take the French Tricolour. To me, it's a celebration of mass murder - but a Frenchman sees it very differently.
Much of the Muslim community works on a system of patronage. A small number of "community leaders" have been the interface with local and national Govt. In return, they have become hugely influential (and in some cases, very rich) on the back of that interface.
The entire notion of "community leaders" is backwards thinking.
Most normal Muslims I know have as little to do with these so-called "community leaders" as most workers I know have as little to do with Len McCluskey.
We should do away with notions of community leaders altogether and start treating everyone as individuals.
Absolutely. Dealing with so called community leaders is at best patronising, as if Muslims are fundamentally like children unable to think for themselves, or at worse reinforces the medieval patriarchy that is the problem in the first place.
So-called community leaders have been part of the problem rather than any sort of solution. Enough with them.
What would it take for the UK to shut down every mosque madrassa and religious school in the country? Is this possible. under any scenario that we can conceive of?
There are surely only so many times our politicians can say that this is a peaceful religion without endangering their own safety. My guess is that someone like France may go down this road first but if they did would we be far behind?
My liberal sensibilities are being tested to the limits by these lunatics.
I mentioned something like this yesterday, glad to see I'm not going mad as the only person to feel we need to step up the anti-extremist measures.
The government needs to take a long hard look at its extremism prevention strategy and begin immediate deportation of preachers of violence without the right to appeal the verdict of a trial. If Strasbourg doesn't like it then they can go take a hike. We've put up with appeasement of these vile people for far too long and look where it has got us, the solution does not include "rehabilitation" of extremists barring exceptional circumstances like a willingness to cooperate with the SIS and bring down other extremists. Imprisonment and deportation is the only way to deal with them.
Tbh I hesitated about posting it. I just keep coming to the view that so many of our policies in these areas are completely delusional and based almost entirely on how we would like the world to be as opposed to how it is. I do wonder how long this can go on in the face of overwhelming evidence.
I too feel the same. We need to stop deluding ourselves about what is going on.
Mr. kle4, indeed. Sooner or later, the situation either improves or a party (perhaps UKIP) will step away from the 'religion of peace' nonsense.
Saw most of the Sky paper review last night, and the guests rightly said there's no religion of peace, texts can be interpreted and acts justified in just about any way.
The 'religion of peace' nonsense is an insult to the intelligence of the nation. It's as if Cameron thinks that if he didn't say it we would all go out lynching Muslims. I'm sure if someone felt like doing that they wouldn't be stopped by Cameron's words and most people just find it patronising
Very well said. If anything, people's reaction has been too phlegmatic. I am not advocating a violent reaction. But our fundamentally decent reaction - these people are nutters, don't represent the majority and the innocent mustn't suffer - has perhaps made our enemies think we are weak and has, crucially, permitted the self-delusion within our Muslim community and the delusions about the violence within Islam or inspired by it to endure for far too long.
The Confederate flag covers a lot more than segregation, which hasn't been part of the system in decades. It's about a core belief in not being part of the current USA set up. A bit like other places that are trying for independence themselves.
I think it's a massive liberal overreaction and a deliberate bit of culture war posturing on both sides.
Mr. Thompson, very unfair comparison, given the confederate flag is being taken down left, right and centre in response.
Would you be appalled at an anti-Swastika hysteria.
The Confederacy covers nothing over that slavery/segregation - other than treason. "Not being part of the USA" was deemed treason and a Civil War was fought about it, not sure flying a flag of treason on an official monument is much better than flying a flag of slavery.
It might be different if South Carolina was seeking independence (though it'd be smart to go for a different symbol), but its not.
Wow. That's an incredibly ignorant comment.
Explain how. Were the CSA not traitors? Or were they not in favour of slavery?
I saw in State Rights the only availing check upon the absolutism of the sovereign will, and secession filled me with hope, not as the destruction but as the redemption of Democracy. The institutions of your Republic have not exercised on the old world the salutary and liberating influence which ought to have belonged to them, by reason of those defects and abuses of principle which the Confederate Constitution was expressly and wisely calculated to remedy. I believed that the example of that great Reform would have blessed all the races of mankind by establishing true freedom purged of the native dangers and disorders of Republics. Therefore I deemed that you were fighting the battles of our liberty, our progress, and our civilization; and I mourn for the stake which was lost at Richmond more deeply than I rejoice over that which was saved at Waterloo.
The Confederate flag covers a lot more than segregation, which hasn't been part of the system in decades. It's about a core belief in not being part of the current USA set up. A bit like other places that are trying for independence themselves.
I think it's a massive liberal overreaction and a deliberate bit of culture war posturing on both sides.
Mr. Thompson, very unfair comparison, given the confederate flag is being taken down left, right and centre in response.
Would you be appalled at an anti-Swastika hysteria?
Fact is that the Confederate flag is a deeply potent symbol which is at root one of racial supremacy. It was about the right to keep a race enslaved, first literally then - after defeat in 1865 - practically. With the Jim Crow era fading into history, that might become less potent in due course but as long as people believe it to be so, that flag will remains a symbol of rebellion against the state, of rejecting the legitimacy of laws that one doesn't like and of the right of one people to keep another in chains.
It has no place of pride in any civilised country.
Indeed. And in what way do they see themselves as "not being part of the current USA set up"? In what way do they see themselves as peculiarly different?
Remind me again what the issue was the last time they were "trying for independence themselves"?
It is not possible to dissociate the Confederate flag from the Confederate cause.
The Confederate flag covers a lot more than segregation, which hasn't been part of the system in decades. It's about a core belief in not being part of the current USA set up. A bit like other places that are trying for independence themselves.
I think it's a massive liberal overreaction and a deliberate bit of culture war posturing on both sides.
Mr. Thompson, very unfair comparison, given the confederate flag is being taken down left, right and centre in response.
Would you be appalled at an anti-Swastika hysteria?
Fact is that the Confederate flag is a deeply potent symbol which is at root one of racial supremacy. It was about the right to keep a race enslaved, first literally then - after defeat in 1865 - practically. With the Jim Crow era fading into history, that might become less potent in due course but as long as people believe it to be so, that flag will remains a symbol of rebellion against the state, of rejecting the legitimacy of laws that one doesn't like and of the right of one people to keep another in chains.
It has no place of pride in any civilised country.
The Confederacy covers nothing over that slavery/segregation - other than treason. "Not being part of the USA" was deemed treason and a Civil War was fought about it, not sure flying a flag of treason on an official monument is much better than flying a flag of slavery.
It might be different if South Carolina was seeking independence (though it'd be smart to go for a different symbol), but its not.
Wow. That's an incredibly ignorant comment.
Explain how. Were the CSA not traitors? Or were they not in favour of slavery?
Some were and some were not. What they were in favour of was States Rights and the slavery issue just happened to be the one that brought the matter to a head. Nor was the Union even suggesting getting rid of slavery. All they were suggesting was not allowing it to be extended to any of the new states that were being formed in the move west. Of course at the same time they were quite happy to commit genocide against the native americans who got in the way.
And no it was not treason. Each state was supposed to be essentially independent and it was the extension of federal laws into areas they had not previously existed that sparked the war.
The Confederate flag covers a lot more than segregation, which hasn't been part of the system in decades. It's about a core belief in not being part of the current USA set up. A bit like other places that are trying for independence themselves.
I think it's a massive liberal overreaction and a deliberate bit of culture war posturing on both sides.
Mr. Thompson, very unfair comparison, given the confederate flag is being taken down left, right and centre in response.
Would you be appalled at an anti-Swastika hysteria?
Fact is that the Confederate flag is a deeply potent symbol which is at root one of racial supremacy. It was about the right to keep a race enslaved, first literally then - after defeat in 1865 - practically. With the Jim Crow era fading into history, that might become less potent in due course but as long as people believe it to be so, that flag will remains a symbol of rebellion against the state, of rejecting the legitimacy of laws that one doesn't like and of the right of one people to keep another in chains.
It has no place of pride in any civilised country.
The Confederacy covers nothing over that slavery/segregation - other than treason. "Not being part of the USA" was deemed treason and a Civil War was fought about it, not sure flying a flag of treason on an official monument is much better than flying a flag of slavery.
It might be different if South Carolina was seeking independence (though it'd be smart to go for a different symbol), but its not.
Wow. That's an incredibly ignorant comment.
Explain how. Were the CSA not traitors? Or were they not in favour of slavery?
Rather like the Founding Fathers, then.
The only difference between the rebellion of 1776 and that of 1861 is that one succeeded and the other didn't.
Mr. Thompson, very unfair comparison, given the confederate flag is being taken down left, right and centre in response.
I don't think it's appropriate to fly it from public buildings, given its partisan nature, but I agree that the drive to eradicate all symbols of the Confederacy is both hysterical and hypocritical. Many of the Founding Fathers, who appear on banknotes, coins, stamps etc., have statues and monuments to them, were slave masters. Andrew Jackson and other 19th century Presidents slaughtered Indians and waged wars of aggression. The Stars and Stripes is hated by millions of people the world over. Remove everything contentious from public view, and you're left with very little.
Except that the Confederate flag has no historical relevancy for being flown other than as white supremacy. In 1870 flying Confederate flags would have been considered treason - no States fly flags dating back to then. In the same way as the Confederacy was a rebellion against abolition of slavery, the flags were re-introduced in the 20th century as a (smaller scale) rebellion against civil rights laws. They serve no purpose today.
It is not a Godwin to compare Confederate flags to the swastika - they are both symbols of white supremacy and have a vile history attached that was defeated in war.
It all depends where you stand. To many Southerners, it symbolises regional pride. Had the CSA established their independence, flying the Confederate flag would now be no different to flying the Stars and Stripes.
In the same way, I like to see the Union Flag and Cross of St. George being flown. But, to Irish Republicans, they're vile symbols of oppression. Conversely, there are places where flying the Irish Tricolour will provoke a riot. Or take the French Tricolour. To me, it's a celebration of mass murder - but a Frenchman sees it very differently.
Except this argument is fallacious because as I said the flying of the flag in the South does not date back to the Confederacy. It was reintroduced as a gesture of opposing civil rights laws. Furthermore the Southern States are not seeking to leave the USA and these aren't being flown by people opposed to the Stars and Stripes seeing that as a symbol of oppression.
If the Germans were to re-introduce the swastika as a gesture to show how they oppose civil rights laws would you support that being flown officially in official German sites? Or think its unacceptable?
The Confederate flag covers a lot more than segregation, which hasn't been part of the system in decades. It's about a core belief in not being part of the current USA set up. A bit like other places that are trying for independence themselves.
I think it's a massive liberal overreaction and a deliberate bit of culture war posturing on both sides.
Mr. Thompson, very unfair comparison, given the confederate flag is being taken down left, right and centre in response.
Would you be appalled at an anti-Swastika hysteria?
Fact is that
It has no place of pride in any civilised country.
The Confederacy covers nothing over that slavery/segregation - other than treason. "Not being part of the USA" was deemed treason and a Civil War was fought about it, not sure flying a flag of treason on an official monument is much better than flying a flag of slavery.
It might be different if South Carolina was seeking independence (though it'd be smart to go for a different symbol), but its not.
Wow. That's an incredibly ignorant comment.
Explain how. Were the CSA not traitors? Or were they not in favour of slavery?
Some were and some were not. What they were in favour of was States Rights and the slavery issue just happened to be the one that brought the matter to a head. Nor was the Union even suggesting getting rid of slavery. All they were suggesting was not allowing it to be extended to any of the new states that were being formed in the move west. Of course at the same time they were quite happy to commit genocide against the native americans who got in the way.
And no it was not treason. Each state was supposed to be essentially independent and it was the extension of federal laws into areas they had not previously existed that sparked the war.
The Civil War was 1861-5; and the Union abolished Slavery in 1863 -but only in the Confederacy. Slavery in the Union was not abolished until after the war finished in 1865. The Union had slaves in Missouri, Kentucky and Maryland as well as occupied parts of the Confederacy.
Though obviously the Slave issue was at the roots of the Civil War, which started in Charleston with the State attacking the Federal Fort Sumpter.
Mr. Thompson, very unfair comparison, given the confederate flag is being taken down left, right and centre in response.
Would you be appalled at an anti-Swastika hysteria?
Fact is that the Confederate flag is a deeply potent symbol which is at root one of racial supremacy. It was about the right to keep a race enslaved, first literally then - after defeat in 1865 - practically. With the Jim Crow era fading into history, that might become less potent in due course but as long as people believe it to be so, that flag will remains a symbol of rebellion against the state, of rejecting the legitimacy of laws that one doesn't like and of the right of one people to keep another in chains.
It has no place of pride in any civilised country.
You have come out with a surprisingly ignorant comment. Some people who are already deeply sick racist and ignorant may well seize on the confederate flag to prop up their prejudice but its wider context (eg Dukes of Hazard 'Gen Lee') is mostly one of a historical pride in a folk memory. The American Civil War was a long time coming its reasons complex. The flag, like the event, cannot be erased and it will always have some potency as a symbol of defiance in defeat. The (northern) Baltimore police attacks and shooting and beatings of black people and riots have nothing to do with the Confederacy.
Miss Plato, not au fait with the civil war and its modern connotations. The only thing I'd say is excessive, that I've heard of, is Steam removing all games (reportedly) which include the confederate flag. Given it's a historical emblem as well as a matter for current events, that's as daft as removing all games with the Nazi flag.
Apple have done that, Steam haven't. Though Germany bans the swastika in law so many WWII games like Paradox Games' Hearts of Iron series for one don't include the Nazi flag as a result. Even though they could just release an altered game for the German market.
Actually Apple have done exactly that. They have withdrawn all computer games dealing with the Civil War from their app store because of the presence of the Confederate flag. They have bowed over the last 24 hours to pressure and reinstated a few that people shouted about most loudly but they are still banning many games.
It is a facile, stupid and ignorant move - just as the banning of any historic Confederate flag is akin to banning the English flag because a few morons from the far right make use of it.
I agree - the context is everything. Are we to see civil war films with the confederate flag blanked out? I cannot remember exactly... but Das Boot was a highly regarded German film about WW2. I imagine that somewhere in it was the odd swastika. The logic of banning the confederate flag is to also ban carpet bags.
Well, that's one TV show that presumably won't be getting reboot any time soon I suppose.
It would be like removing the statue of Cromwell from outside Parliament because people of Irish descent objected.
The only difference between the rebellion of 1776 and that of 1861 is that one succeeded and the other didn't.
To the victor goes the spoils, that's a very big difference. Considering the Southern States are not seeking independence now, flying a flag of treason/slavery now from official sites in order to demonstrate an opposition to civil rights represents what positive symbolism exactly then?
Mr. Thompson, very unfair comparison, given the confederate flag is being taken down left, right and centre in response.
Would you be appalled at an anti-Swastika hysteria?
Fact is that the Confederate flag is a deeply potent symbol which is at root one of racial supremacy. It was about the right to keep a race enslaved, first literally then - after defeat in 1865 - practically. With the Jim Crow era fading into history, that might become less potent in due course but as long as people believe it to be so, that flag will remains a symbol of rebellion against the state, of rejecting the legitimacy of laws that one doesn't like and of the right of one people to keep another in chains.
It has no place of pride in any civilised country.
You have come out with a surprisingly ignorant comment. Some people who are already deeply sick racist and ignorant may well seize on the confederate flag to prop up their prejudice but its wider context (eg Dukes of Hazard 'Gen Lee') is mostly one of a historical pride in a folk memory. The American Civil War was a long time coming its reasons complex. The flag, like the event, cannot be erased and it will always have some potency as a symbol of defiance in defeat. The (northern) Baltimore police attacks and shooting and beatings of black people and riots have nothing to do with the Confederacy.
Mr. Max, must disagree hugely. If all mosques were (temporarily) closed there would be mass demonstrations and more than a little violence. It would also increase terrorist attacks.
We know enough about some mosques to focus on them and the people preaching at them. There is no need to close down all mosques. But there is every need to say to those mosques that permit radical preachers to say that they have forfeited their right to consideration as a religious place of worship until steps are taken to expel and shut down those preachers.
Just because a place calls itself a religious place of worship does not mean that it is. And if a mosque harbours those who preach and incite terrorism and in some cases harbours actual bomb-making equipment, as was the case with the Finsbury Park mosque, for instance, then we should stop tiptoeing around and do what we would do with any other place/group of people which committed criminal acts.
The East London mosque, for instance, in Tower Hamlets has an appalling record of talking out of both sides of its face and this is pretty well-documented. And what do our feeble politicians and security services do? Nothing.
Except this argument is fallacious because as I said the flying of the flag in the South does not date back to the Confederacy. It was reintroduced as a gesture of opposing civil rights laws. Furthermore the Southern States are not seeking to leave the USA and these aren't being flown by people opposed to the Stars and Stripes seeing that as a symbol of oppression.
If the Germans were to re-introduce the swastika as a gesture to show how they oppose civil rights laws would you support that being flown officially in official German sites? Or think its unacceptable?
Untrue. The flag in South Carolina was flying over a war memorial which happens to be within the grounds of the statehouse.
Swastikas? Really? There are so many straw men in today's thread that I'm getting hay fever symptoms.
Mr. Thompson, very unfair comparison, given the confederate flag is being taken down left, right and centre in response.
Would you be appalled at an anti-Swastika hysteria?
Fact is that the Confederate flag is a deeply potent symbol which is at root one of racial supremacy. It was about the right to keep a race enslaved, first literally then - after defeat in 1865 - practically. With the Jim Crow era fading into history, that might become less potent in due course but as long as people believe it to be so, that flag will remains a symbol of rebellion against the state, of rejecting the legitimacy of laws that one doesn't like and of the right of one people to keep another in chains.
It has no place of pride in any civilised country.
You have come out with a surprisingly ignorant comment. Some people who are already deeply sick racist and ignorant may well seize on the confederate flag to prop up their prejudice but its wider context (eg Dukes of Hazard 'Gen Lee') is mostly one of a historical pride in a folk memory. The American Civil War was a long time coming its reasons complex. The flag, like the event, cannot be erased and it will always have some potency as a symbol of defiance in defeat. The (northern) Baltimore police attacks and shooting and beatings of black people and riots have nothing to do with the Confederacy.
It is exactly the same, it is a symbol of white supremacy. One is literally a symbol of slavery, the other a symbol of genocide and both are symbols of white supremacy. They are two sides of the same coin.
Mr. Thompson, very unfair comparison, given the confederate flag is being taken down left, right and centre in response.
Would you be appalled at an anti-Swastika hysteria?
Fact is that the Confederate flag is a deeply potent symbol which is at root one of racial supremacy. It was about the right to keep a race enslaved, first literally then - after defeat in 1865 - practically. With the Jim Crow era fading into history, that might become less potent in due course but as long as people believe it to be so, that flag will remains a symbol of rebellion against the state, of rejecting the legitimacy of laws that one doesn't like and of the right of one people to keep another in chains.
It has no place of pride in any civilised country.
You have come out with a surprisingly ignorant comment. Some people who are already deeply sick racist and ignorant may well seize on the confederate flag to prop up their prejudice but its wider context (eg Dukes of Hazard 'Gen Lee') is mostly one of a historical pride in a folk memory. The American Civil War was a long time coming its reasons complex. The flag, like the event, cannot be erased and it will always have some potency as a symbol of defiance in defeat. The (northern) Baltimore police attacks and shooting and beatings of black people and riots have nothing to do with the Confederacy.
Except this argument is fallacious because as I said the flying of the flag in the South does not date back to the Confederacy. It was reintroduced as a gesture of opposing civil rights laws. Furthermore the Southern States are not seeking to leave the USA and these aren't being flown by people opposed to the Stars and Stripes seeing that as a symbol of oppression.
If the Germans were to re-introduce the swastika as a gesture to show how they oppose civil rights laws would you support that being flown officially in official German sites? Or think its unacceptable?
Untrue. The flag in South Carolina was flying over a war memorial which happens to be within the grounds of the statehouse.
Swastikas? Really? There are so many straw men in today's thread that I'm getting hay fever symptoms.
The flag was raised in 1961. Not in the Civil War era, check your facts.
Mr. Thompson, very unfair comparison, given the confederate flag is being taken down left, right and centre in response.
Would you be appalled at an anti-Swastika hysteria?
Fact is that the Confederate flag is a deeply potent symbol which is at root one of racial supremacy. It was about the right to keep a race enslaved, first literally then - after defeat in 1865 - practically. With the Jim Crow era fading into history, that might become less potent in due course but as long as people believe it to be so, that flag will remains a symbol of rebellion against the state, of rejecting the legitimacy of laws that one doesn't like and of the right of one people to keep another in chains.
It has no place of pride in any civilised country.
You have come out with a surprisingly ignorant comment. Some people who are already deeply sick racist and ignorant may well seize on the confederate flag to prop up their prejudice but its wider context (eg Dukes of Hazard 'Gen Lee') is mostly one of a historical pride in a folk memory. The American Civil War was a long time coming its reasons complex. The flag, like the event, cannot be erased and it will always have some potency as a symbol of defiance in defeat. The (northern) Baltimore police attacks and shooting and beatings of black people and riots have nothing to do with the Confederacy.
It is exactly the same, it is a symbol of white supremacy. One is literally a symbol of slavery, the other a symbol of genocide and both are symbols of white supremacy. They are two sides of the same coin.
You don't have to like the Founding Fathers to recognise that the Confederacy was created to preserve and entrench slavery. It is right there in the Cornerstone Speech.
The Founders mostly believed that slavery was wrong and contradictory to Created Equal, but couldn't and wouldn't do anything about it.
Lincoln just wanted to restrict the spread of slavery in new states. For that, they rebelled and fired on Fort Sumter.
Ladbrokes Politics @LadPolitics Ladbrokes offer odds on the [Greek] referendum result: 1/3 NO to deal 2/1 YES to deal
I think the Yes side looks pretty good at those odds, even though Tsipras is setting himself up to campaign against. The polls have long shown the Greekas are keen to stay part of the Euro and it's clear no deal means exit from the Euro.
The Confederate flag covers a lot more than segregation, which hasn't been part of the system in decades. It's about a core belief in not being part of the current USA set up. A bit like other places that are trying for independence themselves.
I think it's a massive liberal overreaction and a deliberate bit of culture war posturing on both sides.
Mr. Thompson, very unfair comparison, given the confederate flag is being taken down left, right and centre in response.
Would you be appalled at an anti-Swastika hysteria?
Fact is that the Confederate flag is a deeply potent symbol which is at root one of racial supremacy. It was about the right to keep a race enslaved, first literally then - after defeat in 1865 - practically. With the Jim Crow era fading into history, that might become less potent in due course but as long as people believe it to be so, that flag will remains a symbol of rebellion against the state, of rejecting the legitimacy of laws that one doesn't like and of the right of one people to keep another in chains.
It has no place of pride in any civilised country.
The Confederacy covers nothing over that slavery/segregation - other than treason. "Not being part of the USA" was deemed treason and a Civil War was fought about it, not sure flying a flag of treason on an official monument is much better than flying a flag of slavery.
It might be different if South Carolina was seeking independence (though it'd be smart to go for a different symbol), but its not.
Wow. That's an incredibly ignorant comment.
Explain how. Were the CSA not traitors? Or were they not in favour of slavery?
There is a good argument that in a federation, ultimate sovereignty rests with the states, whatever power may be conferred from them to the centre, and as such they should have been able to secede from the Union. That argument is of course contested but it's one that's won the backing of history with the principle of self-determination.
Mr. Thompson, very unfair comparison, given the confederate flag is being taken down left, right and centre in response.
I don't think it's appropriate to fly it from public buildings, given its partisan nature, but I agree that the drive to eradicate all symbols of the Confederacy is both hysterical and hypocritical. Many of the Founding Fathers, who appear on banknotes, coins, stamps etc., have statues and monuments to them, were slave masters. Andrew Jackson and other 19th century Presidents slaughtered Indians and waged wars of aggression. The Stars and Stripes is hated by millions of people the world over. Remove everything contentious from public view, and you're left with very little.
Except that the Confederate flag It is not a Godwin to compare Confederate flags to the swastika - they are both symbols of white supremacy and have a vile history attached that was defeated in war.
It all depends where you stand. To many Southerners, it symbolises regional pride. Had the CSA established their independence, flying the Confederate flag would now be no different to flying the Stars and Stripes.
In the same way, I like to see the Union Flag and Cross of St. George being flown. But, to Irish Republicans, they're vile symbols of oppression. Conversely, there are places where flying the Irish Tricolour will provoke a riot. Or take the French Tricolour. To me, it's a celebration of mass murder - but a Frenchman sees it very differently.
Except this argument is fallacious because as I said the flying of the flag in the South does not date back to the Confederacy. It was reintroduced as a gesture of opposing civil rights laws. Furthermore the Southern States are not seeking to leave the USA and these aren't being flown by people opposed to the Stars and Stripes seeing that as a symbol of oppression.
If the Germans were to re-introduce the swastika as a gesture to show how they oppose civil rights laws would you support that being flown officially in official German sites? Or think its unacceptable?
The swastika, inside the white circle and on a red background, is exclusive to Nazism, so I wouldn't welcome it's reintroduction. Of course, the swastika per se is completely innocuous and you'll see it all over any district that has a big Hindu population.
The Confederate flag, IMHO, is more akin to the Imperial German Flag. People fought under it for what they believed to be right (however misguided one may think them). I think it's entirely appropriate for people to use it.
Mr. Thompson, very unfair comparison, given the confederate flag is being taken down left, right and centre in response.
Would you be appalled at an anti-Swastika hysteria?
Fact is that the Confederate flag is a deeply potent symbol which is at root one of racial supremacy. It was about the right to keep a race enslaved, first literally then - after defeat in 1865 - practically. With the Jim Crow era fading into history, that might become less potent in due course but as long as people believe it to be so, that flag will remains a symbol of rebellion against the state, of rejecting the legitimacy of laws that one doesn't like and of the right of one people to keep another in chains.
It has no place of pride in any civilised country.
You have come out with a surprisingly ignorant comment. Some people who are already deeply sick racist and ignorant may well seize on the confederate flag to prop up their prejudice but its wider context (eg Dukes of Hazard 'Gen Lee') is mostly one of a historical pride in a folk memory. The American Civil War was a long time coming its reasons complex. The flag, like the event, cannot be erased and it will always have some potency as a symbol of defiance in defeat. The (northern) Baltimore police attacks and shooting and beatings of black people and riots have nothing to do with the Confederacy.
It is exactly the same, it is a symbol of white supremacy. One is literally a symbol of slavery, the other a symbol of genocide and both are symbols of white supremacy. They are two sides of the same coin.
Mr. Thompson, very unfair comparison, given the confederate flag is being taken down left, right and centre in response.
I don't think it's appropriate to fly it from public buildings, given its partisan nature, but I agree that the drive to eradicate all symbols of the Confederacy is both hysterical and hypocritical. Many of the Founding Fathers, who appear on banknotes, coins, stamps etc., have statues and monuments to them, were slave masters. Andrew Jackson and other 19th century Presidents slaughtered Indians and waged wars of aggression. The Stars and Stripes is hated by millions of people the world over. Remove everything contentious from public view, and you're left with very little.
Except that the Confederate flag It is not a Godwin to compare Confederate flags to the swastika - they are both symbols of white supremacy and have a vile history attached that was defeated in war.
In the same way, I like to see the Union Flag and Cross of St. George being flown. But, to Irish Republicans, they're vile symbols of oppression. Conversely, there are places where flying the Irish Tricolour will provoke a riot. Or take the French Tricolour. To me, it's a celebration of mass murder - but a Frenchman sees it very differently.
Except this argument is fallacious because as I said the flying of the flag in the South does not date back to the Confederacy. It was reintroduced as a gesture of opposing civil rights laws. Furthermore the Southern States are not seeking to leave the USA and these aren't being flown by people opposed to the Stars and Stripes seeing that as a symbol of oppression.
If the Germans were to re-introduce the swastika as a gesture to show how they oppose civil rights laws would you support that being flown officially in official German sites? Or think its unacceptable?
The swastika, inside the white circle and on a red background, is exclusive to Nazism, so I wouldn't welcome it's reintroduction. Of course, the swastika per se is completely innocuous and you'll see it all over any district that has a big Hindu population.
The Confederate flag, IMHO, is more akin to the Imperial German Flag. People fought under it for what they believed to be right (however misguided one may think them). I think it's entirely appropriate for people to use it.
Except this argument is fallacious because as I said the flying of the flag in the South does not date back to the Confederacy. It was reintroduced as a gesture of opposing civil rights laws. Furthermore the Southern States are not seeking to leave the USA and these aren't being flown by people opposed to the Stars and Stripes seeing that as a symbol of oppression.
If the Germans were to re-introduce the swastika as a gesture to show how they oppose civil rights laws would you support that being flown officially in official German sites? Or think its unacceptable?
Untrue. The flag in South Carolina was flying over a war memorial which happens to be within the grounds of the statehouse.
Swastikas? Really? There are so many straw men in today's thread that I'm getting hay fever symptoms.
The flag was raised in 1961. Not in the Civil War era, check your facts.
The swastika, inside the white circle and on a red background, is exclusive to Nazism, so I wouldn't welcome it's reintroduction. Of course, the swastika per se is completely innocuous and you'll see it all over any district that has a big Hindu population.
The Confederate flag, IMHO, is more akin to the Imperial German Flag. People fought under it for what they believed to be right (however misguided one may think them). I think it's entirely appropriate for people to use it.
I'm sure many Germans fought for what they believed in too (concentration camps being secret). Doesn't change history. There is nothing innocent in the usage of any Confederate flags which is why their usage died out and why they were chosen by white supremacists and re-introduced when they were.
History shows that Islam has only been a peaceful religion when it suits itself to be. The first physical expansion of Islam was by the sword and it is a pity that most politicians are quite ignorant of history.
Currently our FO is being mealy-mouthed and should advise that no holidays should be taken in any countries/places where Islam is a strong faith.
As Christianity no longer believes in its tenets of belief, then to many, Islam with its certainties of belief is very attractive.
The UK's problem (and that of other European countries) is that willingly and initially through ignorance we have taken a viper into our bosom. And now we do not know how to control or even interact with it and it has now grown so many children that it is a significant part of our population.
Our security services are largely unable to combat it as it is so alien to their understanding and this difficulty has been enlarged by the nigh unrestricted growth and use of electronic media.
There are solutions that can be taken, but they would not be popular with our liberal judiciary or many of our ill-prepared politicians.
What would it take for the UK to shut down every mosque madrassa and religious school in the country? Is this possible. under any scenario that we can conceive of?
There are surely only so many times our politicians can say that this is a peaceful religion without endangering their own safety. My guess is that someone like France may go down this road first but if they did would we be far behind?
My liberal sensibilities are being tested to the limits by these lunatics.
What will it take to shut down all white people based on Charleston's attack last week?
I hope we never reach that point.
I very much hope we don't either but I think we are a lot closer than our MSM or political class think. You can't shut down "white people" but the change of attitude to Confederacy paraphanalia and symbols after that has been very marked and swift. And quite right too. A lot of self indulgence about a regime that was fundamentally evil has been addressed for the first time.
Lincoln's attitude to the South was one very much of forgiveness. His successor was not so benign. Grants terms of surrender, based on what he knew of Lincoln's opinion was to effectively absolve confederates of 'treason'. Some of the worst crimes of the war - for which the confederate commandant was executed, were inflicted on white people in the Anderson prison stockade. Jefferson Davis was never tried for treason or for anything. Many pro war democrats were anti abolitionists. Like it or not 600,000 people died most of them fighting bravely under one flag or another. To compare the confederate flag to the nazi symbol just shows how stupid people are.
Mr. Max, must disagree hugely. If all mosques were (temporarily) closed there would be mass demonstrations and more than a little violence. It would also increase terrorist attacks.
I agree but more needs to be done to stop Saudi and salafist ideology being propagated in this country. In Chechnya this was blocked and traditional Chechen Sufi ideology encouraged which has had a great deal of success.
Ultimately this is really an immigration issues for me though, tighten the borders and start making a judgement about who is compatible with our society. The open borders approach has failed, catastrophically so.
The swastika, inside the white circle and on a red background, is exclusive to Nazism, so I wouldn't welcome it's reintroduction. Of course, the swastika per se is completely innocuous and you'll see it all over any district that has a big Hindu population.
The Confederate flag, IMHO, is more akin to the Imperial German Flag. People fought under it for what they believed to be right (however misguided one may think them). I think it's entirely appropriate for people to use it.
I'm sure many Germans fought for what they believed in too (concentration camps being secret). Doesn't change history. There is nothing innocent in the usage of any Confederate flags which is why their usage died out and why they were chosen by white supremacists and re-introduced when they were.
I don't see the US civil war as a conflict between good and evil, but rather as a conflict between various shades of grey. The confederate flag is no better or worse than most.
Did you read all of that? Like how the flag we're talking about had died out but was re-introduced by the KKK? That it was specifically chosen as a symbol for racism and white supremacy?
From your link:
Southern historian Gordon Rhea further wrote in 2011 that: It is no accident that Confederate symbols have been the mainstay of white supremacist organizations, from the Ku Klux Klan to the skinheads. They did not appropriate the Confederate battle flag simply because it was pretty. They picked it because it was the flag of a nation dedicated to their ideals: 'that the negro is not equal to the white man'. The Confederate flag, we are told, represents heritage, not hate. But why should we celebrate a heritage grounded in hate, a heritage whose self-avowed reason for existence was the exploitation and debasement of a sizeable segment of its population?[43]
What would it take for the UK to shut down every mosque madrassa and religious school in the country? Is this possible. under any scenario that we can conceive of?
There are surely only so many times our politicians can say that this is a peaceful religion without endangering their own safety. My guess is that someone like France may go down this road first but if they did would we be far behind?
My liberal sensibilities are being tested to the limits by these lunatics.
What will it take to shut down all white people based on Charleston's attack last week?
I hope we never reach that point.
I very much hope we don't either but I think we are a lot closer than our MSM or political class think. You can't shut down "white people" but the change of attitude to Confederacy paraphanalia and symbols after that has been very marked and swift. And quite right too. A lot of self indulgence about a regime that was fundamentally evil has been addressed for the first time.
Lincoln's attitude to the South was one very much of forgiveness. His successor was not so benign. Grants terms of surrender, based on what he knew of Lincoln's opinion was to effectively absolve confederates of 'treason'. Some of the worst crimes of the war - for which the confederate commandant was executed, were inflicted on white people in the Anderson prison stockade. Jefferson Davis was never tried for treason or for anything. Many pro war democrats were anti abolitionists. Like it or not 600,000 people died most of them fighting bravely under one flag or another. To compare the confederate flag to the nazi symbol just shows how stupid people are.
Many German soldiers were brave. Many in the IRA were brave. Bravery doesn't stop a cause being morally, criminally wrong. Stupidity is ignoring the cause of the Confederacy and celebrating it with w flag.
Mr. Thompson, very unfair comparison, given the confederate flag is being taken down left, right and centre in response.
Would you be appalled at an anti-Swastika hysteria?
Fact is that the Confederate flag is a deeply potent symbol which is at root one of racial supremacy. It was about the right to keep a race enslaved, first literally then - after defeat in 1865 - practically. With the Jim Crow era fading into history, that might become less potent in due course but as long as people believe it to be so, that flag will remains a symbol of rebellion against the state, of rejecting the legitimacy of laws that one doesn't like and of the right of one people to keep another in chains.
It has no place of pride in any civilised country.
You have come out with a surprisingly ignorant comment. Some people who are already deeply sick racist and ignorant may well seize on the confederate flag to prop up their prejudice but its wider context (eg Dukes of Hazard 'Gen Lee') is mostly one of a historical pride in a folk memory. The American Civil War was a long time coming its reasons complex. The flag, like the event, cannot be erased and it will always have some potency as a symbol of defiance in defeat. The (northern) Baltimore police attacks and shooting and beatings of black people and riots have nothing to do with the Confederacy.
Obviously racism was and is not restricted to the South but that's a straw man.
You are right that in the absence of other connotations, the Confederate flag could develop a looser cultural association as a symbol of regional identity. The problem is that there isn't an absence of other connotations.
You say that it's use is "mostly one of a historical pride in a folk memory". Leaving aside the 'mostly', which does beg the question about the remainder, what exactly is that folk memory and of what is it in which people have pride?
The folk memory is surely of the Civil War as a glorious but doomed quest; of a moment when a people came together in defence of an ideal and fought against the odds to preserve their identity, culture and independence; and of the defiance in defeat that lasted for at least a century thereafter. And so it is. But none of that can be separated from the brutal racism that underlies the War and its cause.
The flag has an attraction to racists because it is the symbol of a racist regime. Those who display it cannot evade that symbolism - and nor, all too frequently, do they want to.
Put it another way, how many blacks in the South fly the flag?
Actually they did, it was a battle flag. They literally fought under it.
Correct. This is one reason why it's revered, they are mostly (if they survived) full of bullet holes. Its the flag of the army not the nation, although at some time or another the 'national' flag incorporated it. The whole link shows the mixed use and thus affiliation that the flag represents today.
What would it take for the UK to shut down every mosque madrassa and religious school in the country? Is this possible. under any scenario that we can conceive of?
There are surely only so many times our politicians can say that this is a peaceful religion without endangering their own safety. My guess is that someone like France may go down this road first but if they did would we be far behind?
My liberal sensibilities are being tested to the limits by these lunatics.
What will it take to shut down all white people based on Charleston's attack last week?
I hope we never reach that point.
I very much hope we don't either but I think we are a lot closer than our MSM or political class think. You can't shut down "white people" but the change of attitude to Confederacy paraphanalia and symbols after that has been very marked and swift. And quite right too. A lot of self indulgence about a regime that was fundamentally evil has been addressed for the first time.
Lincoln's attitude to the South was one very much of forgiveness. His successor was not so benign. Grants terms of surrender, based on what he knew of Lincoln's opinion was to effectively absolve confederates of 'treason'. Some of the worst crimes of the war - for which the confederate commandant was executed, were inflicted on white people in the Anderson prison stockade. Jefferson Davis was never tried for treason or for anything. Many pro war democrats were anti abolitionists. Like it or not 600,000 people died most of them fighting bravely under one flag or another. To compare the confederate flag to the nazi symbol just shows how stupid people are.
Many German soldiers were brave. Many in the IRA were brave. Bravery doesn't stop a cause being morally, criminally wrong. Stupidity is ignoring the cause of the Confederacy and celebrating it with w flag.
Should we seek to ban the Irish Tricolour, given its association with the IRA? Or t-shirts and posters with Mao or Che Guevara?
Like it or not 600,000 people died most of them fighting bravely under one flag or another. To compare the confederate flag to the nazi symbol just shows how stupid people are.
Like it or not over 24 million people died in WWII most of th em fighting bravely under one flag or another.
It is not a Godwin when it is relevant. The Confederate flag is equivalent to the swastika, that is why both were resurrected by the KKK and other white supremacist organisations.
William Miles’s disappointment with the Stars and Bars went beyond his strong ideological objections to the Stars and Stripes. He had hoped that the Confederacy would adopt his own design for a national flag-the pattern that later generations mistakenly and ironically insisted on calling the Stars and Bars. … Charles Moise, a self-described “southerner of Jewish persuasion,” wrote Miles and other members of the South Carolina delegation asking that “the symbol of a particular religion” not be made the symbol of the nation.
In adapting his flag to take these criticisms into account, Miles removed the palmetto tree and crescent and substituted a diagonal cross for the St. George’s cross. Recalling (and sketching) his proposal a few months later, Miles explained that the diagonal cross was preferable because “it avoided the religious objection about the cross (from the Jews & many Protestant sects), because it did not stand out so conspicuously as if the cross had been placed upright thus.” … If Miles had not been eager to conciliate southern Jews, the traditional Latin (or St. George’s) cross would have adorned his flag.
It's an inclusive flag, I don't know why the left gets so worked up about it, unless it's pure dislike of white southerners masquerading as something else. Demonisation of a people's symbols and beliefs often is merely a stepping stone to something else.
Actually they did, it was a battle flag. They literally fought under it.
Correct. This is one reason why it's revered, they are mostly (if they survived) full of bullet holes. Its the flag of the army not the nation, although at some time or another the 'national' flag incorporated it. The whole link shows the mixed use and thus affiliation that the flag represents today.
No that is not true. The flag was history until its resurrection by the KKK and protests against civil rights. It was and is a symbol of white supremacy.
Ladbrokes Politics @LadPolitics Ladbrokes offer odds on the [Greek] referendum result: 1/3 NO to deal 2/1 YES to deal
I think the Yes side looks pretty good at those odds, even though Tsipras is setting himself up to campaign against. The polls have long shown the Greekas are keen to stay part of the Euro and it's clear no deal means exit from the Euro.
Did you read all of that? Like how the flag we're talking about had died out but was re-introduced by the KKK? That it was specifically chosen as a symbol for racism and white supremacy?
From your link:
Southern historian Gordon Rhea further wrote in 2011 that: It is no accident that Confederate symbols have been the mainstay of white supremacist organizations, from the Ku Klux Klan to the skinheads. They did not appropriate the Confederate battle flag simply because it was pretty. They picked it because it was the flag of a nation dedicated to their ideals: 'that the negro is not equal to the white man'. The Confederate flag, we are told, represents heritage, not hate. But why should we celebrate a heritage grounded in hate, a heritage whose self-avowed reason for existence was the exploitation and debasement of a sizeable segment of its population?[43]
What would it take for the UK to shut down every mosque madrassa and religious school in the country? Is this possible. under any scenario that we can conceive of?
There are surely only so many times our politicians can say that this is a peaceful religion without endangering their own safety. My guess is that someone like France may go down this road first but if they did would we be far behind?
My liberal sensibilities are being tested to the limits by these lunatics.
What will it take to shut down all white people based on Charleston's attack last week?
I hope we never reach that point.
I very much hope we don't either but I think we are a lot closer than our MSM or political class think. You can't shut down "white people" but the change of attitude to Confederacy paraphanalia and symbols after that has been very marked and swift. And quite right too. A lot of self indulgence about a regime that was fundamentally evil has been addressed for the first time.
Lincoln's attitude to the South was one very much of forgiveness. His successor was not so benign. Grants terms of surrender, based on what he knew of Lincoln's opinion was to effectively absolve confederates of 'treason'. Some of the worst crimes of the war - for which the confederate commandant was executed, were inflicted on white people in the Anderson prison stockade. Jefferson Davis was never tried for treason or for anything. Many pro war democrats were anti abolitionists. Like it or not 600,000 people died most of them fighting bravely under one flag or another. To compare the confederate flag to the nazi symbol just shows how stupid people are.
Many German soldiers were brave. Many in the IRA were brave. Bravery doesn't stop a cause being morally, criminally wrong. Stupidity is ignoring the cause of the Confederacy and celebrating it with w flag.
Should we seek to ban the Irish Tricolour, given its association with the IRA? Or t-shirts and posters with Mao or Che Guevara?
Most normal people are not proposing banning it, just taking it down from official monuments and flagstaffs from which it was raised in the 50s and 60s as a symbol of white supremacism. Do you disagree with that?
History shows that Islam has only been a peaceful religion when it suits itself to be. The first physical expansion of Islam was by the sword and it is a pity that most politicians are quite ignorant of history.
Currently our FO is being mealy-mouthed and should advise that no holidays should be taken in any countries/places where Islam is a strong faith.
As Christianity no longer believes in its tenets of belief, then to many, Islam with its certainties of belief is very attractive.
The UK's problem (and that of other European countries) is that willingly and initially through ignorance we have taken a viper into our bosom. And now we do not know how to control or even interact with it and it has now grown so many children that it is a significant part of our population.
Our security services are largely unable to combat it as it is so alien to their understanding and this difficulty has been enlarged by the nigh unrestricted growth and use of electronic media.
There are solutions that can be taken, but they would not be popular with our liberal judiciary or many of our ill-prepared politicians.
Indeed. Islam spread through violence, was peaceful mostly when it was in charge - and even then treated non-Muslims as lesser beings - or when weak and constrained by outside parties. Whatever was the case at the time of the Alhambra, it is undoubtedly the case that it is currently undergoing a violent period.
At a minimum it seems to me that we have to restrict any further immigration of Muslims into Western Europe. That means, for instance, hard as this policy is, to turn back those in boats sailing from Northern Africa not distributing them round Europe. It means deporting those non-UK citizens who are Muslims who are not engaging and integrating peacefully and not taking years to do so. It means taking actual steps to restrict the spread of the terrorist ideology within mosques, schools, universities etc - and not just making speeches. It means prosecuting those who lie to Parliamentary select committees. It means challenging and not excusing those who associate with or justify terrorists not inviting them to put themselves forward as leaders of democratic political parties as if such behaviour and attitudes merited no condemnation or disapproval. It means not funding groups, mosques and others who actively oppose the West or turn a blind eye to what is going on within their organisations. It means pointing out the grotesque decadence of organisations such as UCL which does nothing about Islamist societies on its campus hosting gender segregated talks and allowing hate preachers to preach violence to to others but gets into a lather about some silly and tasteless but ultimately harmless jokes by an elderly and eminent professor. And so on and so on.
Under the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964, a judge can rule that a person is unfit to plead in relation to charges. A ‘trial of the facts’ can take place in such instances and does not constitute a formal trial. As such the court cannot pass a criminal sentence but can make a hospital order, order for supervision or order a defendant’s absolute discharge.
Janner would not need to be present in court but instead a defence counsel could refute the allegations on his behalf. The aim of such trials is to not seek punishment for an accused but to protect the public under limited circumstances.
Labour MP Simon Danczuk, who has supported historical abuse victims in their campaign for justice, said:"It looks as though Janner's case may now be examined in court. This is all the alleged victims have wanted. All we've ever asked for is the law to run its course. No one can be above the law."
Good news there, I think; but I don't know if there is a finding of guilt and if not whether nevertheless we could ever conclude that Janner "did" those things of which he is accused no matter the finding of the court.
William Miles’s disappointment with the Stars and Bars went beyond his strong ideological objections to the Stars and Stripes. He had hoped that the Confederacy would adopt his own design for a national flag-the pattern that later generations mistakenly and ironically insisted on calling the Stars and Bars. … Charles Moise, a self-described “southerner of Jewish persuasion,” wrote Miles and other members of the South Carolina delegation asking that “the symbol of a particular religion” not be made the symbol of the nation.
In adapting his flag to take these criticisms into account, Miles removed the palmetto tree and crescent and substituted a diagonal cross for the St. George’s cross. Recalling (and sketching) his proposal a few months later, Miles explained that the diagonal cross was preferable because “it avoided the religious objection about the cross (from the Jews & many Protestant sects), because it did not stand out so conspicuously as if the cross had been placed upright thus.” … If Miles had not been eager to conciliate southern Jews, the traditional Latin (or St. George’s) cross would have adorned his flag.
It's an inclusive flag, I don't know why the left gets so worked up about it, unless it's pure dislike of white southerners masquerading as something else. Demonisation of a people's symbols and beliefs often is merely a stepping stone to something else.
Richard Tyndall expressed it well yesterday when he said that for left-wing social media users, it's taken as a given that people South of the Mason Dixon line are evil.
What would it take for the UK to shut down every mosque madrassa and religious school in the country? Is this possible. under any scenario that we can conceive of?
There are surely only so many times our politicians can say that this is a peaceful religion without endangering their own safety. My guess is that someone like France may go down this road first but if they did would we be far behind?
My liberal sensibilities are being tested to the limits by these lunatics.
What will it take to shut down all white people based on Charleston's attack last week?
I hope we never reach that point.
I very much hope we don't either but I think we are a lot closer than our MSM or political class think. You can't shut down "white people" but the change of attitude to Confederacy paraphanalia and symbols after that has been very marked and swift. And quite right too. A lot of self indulgence about a regime that was fundamentally evil has been addressed for the first time.
Lincoln's attitude to the South was one very much of forgiveness. His successor was not so benign. Grants terms of surrender, based on what he knew of Lincoln's opinion was to effectively absolve confederates of 'treason'. Some of the worst crimes of the war - for which the confederate commandant was executed, were inflicted on white people in the Anderson prison stockade. Jefferson Davis was never tried for treason or for anything. Many pro war democrats were anti abolitionists. Like it or not 600,000 people died most of them fighting bravely under one flag or another. To compare the confederate flag to the nazi symbol just shows how stupid people are.
Many German soldiers were brave. Many in the IRA were brave. Bravery doesn't stop a cause being morally, criminally wrong. Stupidity is ignoring the cause of the Confederacy and celebrating it with w flag.
Should we seek to ban the Irish Tricolour, given its association with the IRA? Or t-shirts and posters with Mao or Che Guevara?
Most normal people are not proposing banning it, just taking it down from official monuments and flagstaffs from which it was raised in the 50s and 60s as a symbol of white supremacism. Do you disagree with that?
Sorry but I think your last sentence is ridiculous. I can think of few traditions that are more deeply rooted in the (US) Nation's history than marriage.
The issue is whether gay marriage is objectively, deeply rooted in the nation's history and traditions. The majority do not argue that it is.
Well said. That marriage is a right protected by the 14th Amendment is not news, that was agreed not on a split decision but unanimously in Loving v Virginia as well as other precedence.
The case precedence on this matter were clearly in favour of yesterday's decision. At issue were two fundamental questions 1: Is marriage a right protected by the 14th Amendment. Yes, unanimously agreed decades ago in Loving. 2: Does the 14th Amendment protect gays. Yes, agreed 6-3 in Lawrence v Texas.
There is no way to reconcile this precedence with any outcome other than yesterday's decision - and the fact that Kennedy wrote the majority opinion on Lawrence personally made how he'd vote pretty obvious to me.
What Loving decides is that a state cannot restrict the ambit of marriage at common law and/or attach criminal penalties for entering into such a marriage. Obergefell is not concerned with a restriction adopted by a state, since the majority accept that for the entirety of human history, marriage has been defined as union between a man and a woman. There is of course a strong political argument for changing that, but it has nothing to do with the fourteenth amendment. The majority's argument leads to the conclusion, inevitably, that there is a constitutional right to polygamy. Lawrence is an implied right to privacy case, prohibiting the attachment of criminal penalties to consenting homosexual activity. It has no bearing on marriage, which is by its nature public. You cannot add the results of cases together as if they were numbers, without looking at the basis on which they were decided.
What would it take for the UK to shut down every mosque madrassa and religious school in the country? Is this possible. under any scenario that we can conceive of?
There are surely only so many times our politicians can say that this is a peaceful religion without endangering their own safety. My guess is that someone like France may go down this road first but if they did would we be far behind?
My liberal sensibilities are being tested to the limits by these lunatics.
What will it take to shut down all white people based on Charleston's attack last week?
I hope we never reach that point.
I very much hope we don't either but I think we are a lot closer than our MSM or political class think. You can't shut down "white people" but the change of attitude to Confederacy paraphanalia and symbols after that has been very marked and swift. And quite right too. A lot of self indulgence about a regime that was fundamentally evil has been addressed for the first time.
Lincoln's attitude to the South was one very much of forgiveness. His successor was not so benign. Grants terms of surrender, based on what he knew of Lincoln's opinion was to effectively absolve confederates of 'treason'. Some of the worst crimes of the war - for which the confederate commandant was executed, were inflicted on white people in the Anderson prison stockade. Jefferson Davis was never tried for treason or for anything. Many pro war democrats were anti abolitionists. Like it or not 600,000 people died most of them fighting bravely under one flag or another. To compare the confederate flag to the nazi symbol just shows how stupid people are.
Many German soldiers were brave. Many in the IRA were brave. Bravery doesn't stop a cause being morally, criminally wrong. Stupidity is ignoring the cause of the Confederacy and celebrating it with w flag.
Should we seek to ban the Irish Tricolour, given its association with the IRA? Or t-shirts and posters with Mao or Che Guevara?
Most normal people are not proposing banning it, just taking it down from official monuments and flagstaffs from which it was raised in the 50s and 60s as a symbol of white supremacism. Do you disagree with that?
No there's a difference between private citizens and the state. Saying the state shouldn't fly a flag of racism is different to saying it should be banned.
William Miles’s disappointment with the Stars and Bars went beyond his strong ideological objections to the Stars and Stripes. He had hoped that the Confederacy would adopt his own design for a national flag-the pattern that later generations mistakenly and ironically insisted on calling the Stars and Bars. … Charles Moise, a self-described “southerner of Jewish persuasion,” wrote Miles and other members of the South Carolina delegation asking that “the symbol of a particular religion” not be made the symbol of the nation.
In adapting his flag to take these criticisms into account, Miles removed the palmetto tree and crescent and substituted a diagonal cross for the St. George’s cross. Recalling (and sketching) his proposal a few months later, Miles explained that the diagonal cross was preferable because “it avoided the religious objection about the cross (from the Jews & many Protestant sects), because it did not stand out so conspicuously as if the cross had been placed upright thus.” … If Miles had not been eager to conciliate southern Jews, the traditional Latin (or St. George’s) cross would have adorned his flag.
It's an inclusive flag, I don't know why the left gets so worked up about it, unless it's pure dislike of white southerners masquerading as something else. Demonisation of a people's symbols and beliefs often is merely a stepping stone to something else.
Richard Tyndall expressed it well yesterday when he said that for left-wing social media users, it's taken as a given that people South of the Mason Dixon line are evil.
Surely that should read "WHITE people South of the Mason Dixon line are evil"?
Mr. Max, must disagree hugely. If all mosques were (temporarily) closed there would be mass demonstrations and more than a little violence. It would also increase terrorist attacks.
I agree but more needs to be done to stop Saudi and salafist ideology being propagated in this country. In Chechnya this was blocked and traditional Chechen Sufi ideology encouraged which has had a great deal of success.
Ultimately this is really an immigration issues for me though, tighten the borders and start making a judgement about who is compatible with our society. The open borders approach has failed, catastrophically so.
No Saudi money for any educational or religious institution in this country. This is not charity. That money is being used to spread a world view which is fundamentally hostile to ours.
What would it take for the UK to shut down every mosque madrassa and religious school in the country? Is this possible. under any scenario that we can conceive of?
There are surely only so many times our politicians can say that this is a peaceful religion without endangering their own safety. My guess is that someone like France may go down this road first but if they did would we be far behind?
My liberal sensibilities are being tested to the limits by these lunatics.
What will it take to shut down all white people based on Charleston's attack last week?
I hope we never reach that point.
I very much hope we don't either but I think we are a lot closer than our MSM or political class think. You can't shut down "white people" but the change of attitude to Confederacy paraphanalia and symbols after that has been very marked and swift. And quite right too. A lot of self indulgence about a regime that was fundamentally evil has been addressed for the first time.
Lincoln's attitude to the South was one very much of forgiveness. His successor was not so benign. Grants terms of surrender, based on what he knew of Lincoln's opinion was to effectively absolve confederates of 'treason'. Some of the worst crimes of the war - for which the confederate commandant was executed, were abolitionists. Like it or not 600,000 people died most of them fighting bravely under one flag or another. To compare the confederate flag to the nazi symbol just shows how stupid people are.
Many German soldiers were brave. Many in the IRA were brave. Bravery doesn't stop a cause being morally, criminally wrong. Stupidity is ignoring the cause of the Confederacy and celebrating it with w flag.
Should we seek to ban the Irish Tricolour, given its association with the IRA? Or t-shirts and posters with Mao or Che Guevara?
Most normal people are not proposing banning it, just taking it down from official monuments and flagstaffs from which it was raised in the 50s and 60s as a symbol of white supremacism. Do you disagree with that?
My view (as expressed unthread) is that it shouldn't be flown from public buildings because of its partisan connotations (like flying the Palestinian flag, for example). I think public buildings should only fly a national or local flag. I don't consider it inappropriate to fly it from war memorials to confederate soldiers. Still less would I condemn people who fly it from private property or want to play computer games that use the symbol. And I certainly wouldn't be looking to remove statues of Robert E Lee.
Actually they did, it was a battle flag. They literally fought under it.
Correct. This is one reason why it's revered, they are mostly (if they survived) full of bullet holes. Its the flag of the army not the nation, although at some time or another the 'national' flag incorporated it. The whole link shows the mixed use and thus affiliation that the flag represents today.
No that is not true. The flag was history until its resurrection by the KKK and protests against civil rights. It was and is a symbol of white supremacy.
Yes,the Democrat Party-created-and-led KKK were responsible for a temporary co-option of the flag for their unpleasant reasons ... rather like the EDL and the English flag. That was no reason to allow the EDL to win i the same reason that the KKK/Democrats should win.
Ironically this debate about the consequences of their actions is taking place long after the actual demise of the KKK. Some dribbling idiot brought up the Monday Club on a previous thread in the same way.
Now, with no sense of historical irony it's the left in the US that is eating itself by demanding history to be rewritten to suit themselves once again.
Sorry but I think your last sentence is ridiculous. I can think of few traditions that are more deeply rooted in the (US) Nation's history than marriage.
The issue is whether gay marriage is objectively, deeply rooted in the nation's history and traditions. The majority do not argue that it is.
Well said. That marriage is a right protected by the 14th Amendment is not news, that was agreed not on a split decision but unanimously in Loving v Virginia as well as other precedence.
The case precedence on this matter were clearly in favour of yesterday's decision. At issue were two fundamental questions 1: Is marriage a right protected by the 14th Amendment. Yes, unanimously agreed decades ago in Loving. 2: Does the 14th Amendment protect gays. Yes, agreed 6-3 in Lawrence v Texas.
There is no way to reconcile this precedence with any outcome other than yesterday's decision - and the fact that Kennedy wrote the majority opinion on Lawrence personally made how he'd vote pretty obvious to me.
What Loving decides is that a state cannot restrict the ambit of marriage at common law and/or attach criminal penalties for entering into such a marriage. Obergefell is not concerned with a restriction adopted by a state, since the majority accept that for the entirety of human history, marriage has been defined as union between a man and a woman. There is of course a strong political argument for changing that, but it has nothing to do with the fourteenth amendment. The majority's argument leads to the conclusion, inevitably, that there is a constitutional right to polygamy. Lawrence is an implied right to privacy case, prohibiting the attachment of criminal penalties to consenting homosexual activity. It has no bearing on marriage, which is by its nature public. You cannot add the results of cases together as if they were numbers, without looking at the basis on which they were decided.
No. The institution is marriage. It is you who us making the distinction between straight and gay marriage. Your argument could apply equally well to mixed race marriage and would be equally wrong.
Just briefly on Greece, I think the likely result of the referendum depends on how Tsipras plays it.
If he comes out and says "Vote down this vicious austerity, and we get to stay in the Euro even if we vote for No", then I think the vote will be a decisive 'no', and Grexit will swiftly follow.
Alternatively: "I know this is hard, and there is much that is difficult in front of us, but the best option for Greece is to vote 'no', and leave the Euro" means a narrow 'no', and Grexit.
Alternatively: "Austerity is terrible. But the package we have been offered means a dramatic reduction in our debts. It will be a difficult few years, but this is surely the right thing for Greece" results in a moderate win for 'yes'.
So far, he has described the package as "humiliating", which suggests he's not going for the third option. However, some SYRIZA officials this morning have been going around saying "if the debt write-off - in whatever form it is delivered - is meaningful, then we believe SYRIZA will be able to support the package."
It's hard to tell if this is a masterstroke by Tsipiras which will lead to concrete proposals on debt relief by the 5th. Or an act of lunacy which sees the country become a failed state.
Welcome back to the comforting bosom of Blighty, Mister Owls, where you can sleep tight knowing that the sound of gunfire is just local drug gangs having a falling out...
Hope the family don't have any lasting issues from their trauma.
Just briefly on Greece, I think the likely result of the referendum depends on how Tsipras plays it.
If he comes out and says "Vote down this vicious austerity, and we get to stay in the Euro even if we vote for No", then I think the vote will be a decisive 'no', and Grexit will swiftly follow.
Alternatively: "I know this is hard, and there is much that is difficult in front of us, but the best option for Greece is to vote 'no', and leave the Euro" means a narrow 'no', and Grexit.
Alternatively: "Austerity is terrible. But the package we have been offered means a dramatic reduction in our debts. It will be a difficult few years, but this is surely the right thing for Greece" results in a moderate win for 'yes'.
So far, he has described the package as "humiliating", which suggests he's not going for the third option. However, some SYRIZA officials this morning have been going around saying "if the debt write-off - in whatever form it is delivered - is meaningful, then we believe SYRIZA will be able to support the package."
It's hard to tell if this is a masterstroke by Tsipiras which will lead to concrete proposals on debt relief by the 5th. Or an act of lunacy which sees the country become a failed state.
Just briefly on Greece, I think the likely result of the referendum depends on how Tsipras plays it.
If he comes out and says "Vote down this vicious austerity, and we get to stay in the Euro even if we vote for No", then I think the vote will be a decisive 'no', and Grexit will swiftly follow.
Alternatively: "I know this is hard, and there is much that is difficult in front of us, but the best option for Greece is to vote 'no', and leave the Euro" means a narrow 'no', and Grexit.
Alternatively: "Austerity is terrible. But the package we have been offered means a dramatic reduction in our debts. It will be a difficult few years, but this is surely the right thing for Greece" results in a moderate win for 'yes'.
So far, he has described the package as "humiliating", which suggests he's not going for the third option. However, some SYRIZA officials this morning have been going around saying "if the debt write-off - in whatever form it is delivered - is meaningful, then we believe SYRIZA will be able to support the package."
It's hard to tell if this is a masterstroke by Tsipiras which will lead to concrete proposals on debt relief by the 5th. Or an act of lunacy which sees the country become a failed state.
Sorry but I think your last sentence is ridiculous. I can think of few traditions that are more deeply rooted in the (US) Nation's history than marriage.
The issue is whether gay marriage is objectively, deeply rooted in the nation's history and traditions. The majority do not argue that it is.
Well said. That marriage is a right protected by the 14th Amendment is not news, that was agreed not on a split decision but unanimously in Loving v Virginia as well as other precedence.
The case precedence on this matter were clearly in favour of yesterday's decision. At issue were two fundamental questions 1: Is marriage a right protected by the 14th Amendment. Yes, unanimously agreed decades ago in Loving. 2: Does the 14th Amendment protect gays. Yes, agreed 6-3 in Lawrence v Texas.
There is no way to reconcile this precedence with any outcome other than yesterday's decision - and the fact that Kennedy wrote the majority opinion on Lawrence personally made how he'd vote pretty obvious to me.
What Loving decides is that a state cannot restrict the ambit of marriage at common law and/or attach criminal penalties for entering into such a marriage. Obergefell is not concerned with a restriction adopted by a state, since the majority accept that for the entirety of human history, marriage has been defined as union between a man and a woman. There is of course a strong political argument for changing that, but it has nothing to do with the fourteenth amendment. The majority's argument leads to the conclusion, inevitably, that there is a constitutional right to polygamy. Lawrence is an implied right to privacy case, prohibiting the attachment of criminal penalties to consenting homosexual activity. It has no bearing on marriage, which is by its nature public. You cannot add the results of cases together as if they were numbers, without looking at the basis on which they were decided.
No. The institution is marriage. It is you who us making the distinction between straight and gay marriage. Your argument could apply equally well to mixed race marriage and would be equally wrong.
Well said. The decision goes into great details how marriage has changed but fundamentally this is simply marriage, not artificial gay or straight marriage.
Comments
Though if the Germans were flying the swastika from their Bundestag or monuments then we'd be looking askance at that. The Confederate flags are equivalent, as relevant to Civil War games as the swastika is to WWII games - but belonging to museums in real life not relevant to the modern era.
I think there are some things we can and should be doing and have mentioned some of them before - at the time of the Charlie Hebdo massacres in France. Worrying about what people might think of us, particularly what our enemies might think of us, is pathetic and distracts us from what needs to be done.
Ideas coming in a separate post.
I hope that BJO and family are safely home now and enjoying all the biscuits their hearts desire.
I think it's a massive liberal overreaction and a deliberate bit of culture war posturing on both sides.
I'm happy to be unpopular on here.
The logic of banning the confederate flag is to also ban carpet bags.
The Confederate battle flag is not so much a symbol of hatred as it is an object of hatred, a target of hatred. Vilification of that battle flag and the Confederacy is part of the cultural revolution in America that flowered half a century ago. Among its goals was the demoralization of the American people by demonizing their past and poisoning their belief in their own history. Straight out of the Marxist playbook, never miss the opportunity to exploit a tragedy.
The flag is an important part of Southern heritage and honours those who sacrificed themselves for the same principles on which the US was founded on.
True but here's the thing. Many southern soldiers fought against the North simply because ''y'all are down here''. Most owned either zero slaves, or perhaps one or two who helped out on a small farm.
The vast majority were not the slave masters hollywood has constructed, they were simply men who believed a far off government was dictating what they should, or shouldn't do.
Perhaps The Dukes of Hazzard will be next for the chopping block. FFS.
There is far too much self-indulgence of the whiny "nothing is ever our fault" brigade within the Muslim community (note that not all Muslims - see, for instance, Maajid Nawaz and others are like this) who are all too willing to play the "ummah" we're all one big Muslim community card when it suits (when trying to explain / justify why young men in Yorkshire get upset at what happens to their "brothers" in distant countries) and then try to pretend that when someone from their family let alone their immediate community does something bad and it turns out was radicalised at the local mosque, all of a sudden they turn into raging individualists who are deaf and blind to what goes on around them and who are seemingly astonished that preaching about fighting the evil West might persuade someone hearing that day in day out actually to, you know, fight the evil West.
I for one am sick of this and even more sick of politicians trying to excuse and gloss over this.
It is not a Godwin to compare Confederate flags to the swastika - they are both symbols of white supremacy and have a vile history attached that was defeated in war.
'I think it's a massive liberal overreaction and a deliberate bit of culture war posturing on both sides. '
Gesture politics at their worst,much easier to get rid of a flag that can't kill anyone than the millions of guns that do.
It might be different if South Carolina was seeking independence (though it'd be smart to go for a different symbol), but its not.
Edit:
If you want to start to understand something about the origins of the Civil War in the US go and read Shelby Foote's epic history of the conflict. At least please do so before commenting on here about the subject.
If Out wins by a narrow margin, the pro-EU camp will campaign to re-enter the EU, claiming they can negotiate better terms this time, and blaming all the UK's troubles on us having left.
If In wins by a narrow margin, before long the Out camp will start claiming the EU has failed to keep its promises to us, 'just as we warned', and say that this invalidates the referendum result, which therefore needs to be rerun.
I'm not sure how large a victory margin will be needed to close the issue for good. I doubt 5% would be enough, and 20% ought to be, but in between, who knows?
In the same way, I like to see the Union Flag and Cross of St. George being flown. But, to Irish Republicans, they're vile symbols of oppression. Conversely, there are places where flying the Irish Tricolour will provoke a riot. Or take the French Tricolour. To me, it's a celebration of mass murder - but a Frenchman sees it very differently.
-Letter from Lord Acton to Robert E Lee
Remind me again what the issue was the last time they were "trying for independence themselves"?
It is not possible to dissociate the Confederate flag from the Confederate cause.
And no it was not treason. Each state was supposed to be essentially independent and it was the extension of federal laws into areas they had not previously existed that sparked the war.
The only difference between the rebellion of 1776 and that of 1861 is that one succeeded and the other didn't.
If the Germans were to re-introduce the swastika as a gesture to show how they oppose civil rights laws would you support that being flown officially in official German sites? Or think its unacceptable?
Though obviously the Slave issue was at the roots of the Civil War, which started in Charleston with the State attacking the Federal Fort Sumpter.
The American Civil War was a long time coming its reasons complex. The flag, like the event, cannot be erased and it will always have some potency as a symbol of defiance in defeat.
The (northern) Baltimore police attacks and shooting and beatings of black people and riots have nothing to do with the Confederacy.
I'm finding this discussion fascinating. And WTF has it got to do with Nazis? Nothing bar a large chunk of invoking Godwin reductionism.
Just because a place calls itself a religious place of worship does not mean that it is. And if a mosque harbours those who preach and incite terrorism and in some cases harbours actual bomb-making equipment, as was the case with the Finsbury Park mosque, for instance, then we should stop tiptoeing around and do what we would do with any other place/group of people which committed criminal acts.
The East London mosque, for instance, in Tower Hamlets has an appalling record of talking out of both sides of its face and this is pretty well-documented. And what do our feeble politicians and security services do? Nothing.
Swastikas? Really? There are so many straw men in today's thread that I'm getting hay fever symptoms.
It's saying Get Off My Property and I Don't Recognise Your Authority.
The Founders mostly believed that slavery was wrong and contradictory to Created Equal, but couldn't and wouldn't do anything about it.
Lincoln just wanted to restrict the spread of slavery in new states. For that, they rebelled and fired on Fort Sumter.
Ladbrokes offer odds on the [Greek] referendum result:
1/3 NO to deal
2/1 YES to deal
I think the Yes side looks pretty good at those odds, even though Tsipras is setting himself up to campaign against. The polls have long shown the Greekas are keen to stay part of the Euro and it's clear no deal means exit from the Euro.
The Confederate flag, IMHO, is more akin to the Imperial German Flag. People fought under it for what they believed to be right (however misguided one may think them). I think it's entirely appropriate for people to use it.
http://www.cgpgrey.com/blog/not-the-confederate-flag
Currently our FO is being mealy-mouthed and should advise that no holidays should be taken in any countries/places where Islam is a strong faith.
As Christianity no longer believes in its tenets of belief, then to many, Islam with its certainties of belief is very attractive.
The UK's problem (and that of other European countries) is that willingly and initially through ignorance we have taken a viper into our bosom. And now we do not know how to control or even interact with it and it has now grown so many children that it is a significant part of our population.
Our security services are largely unable to combat it as it is so alien to their understanding and this difficulty has been enlarged by the nigh unrestricted growth and use of electronic media.
There are solutions that can be taken, but they would not be popular with our liberal judiciary or many of our ill-prepared politicians.
Sheldon would approve
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeyofQK6tRw
Jefferson Davis was never tried for treason or for anything. Many pro war democrats were anti abolitionists.
Like it or not 600,000 people died most of them fighting bravely under one flag or another. To compare the confederate flag to the nazi symbol just shows how stupid people are.
Ultimately this is really an immigration issues for me though, tighten the borders and start making a judgement about who is compatible with our society. The open borders approach has failed, catastrophically so.
From your link:
You are right that in the absence of other connotations, the Confederate flag could develop a looser cultural association as a symbol of regional identity. The problem is that there isn't an absence of other connotations.
You say that it's use is "mostly one of a historical pride in a folk memory". Leaving aside the 'mostly', which does beg the question about the remainder, what exactly is that folk memory and of what is it in which people have pride?
The folk memory is surely of the Civil War as a glorious but doomed quest; of a moment when a people came together in defence of an ideal and fought against the odds to preserve their identity, culture and independence; and of the defiance in defeat that lasted for at least a century thereafter. And so it is. But none of that can be separated from the brutal racism that underlies the War and its cause.
The flag has an attraction to racists because it is the symbol of a racist regime. Those who display it cannot evade that symbolism - and nor, all too frequently, do they want to.
Put it another way, how many blacks in the South fly the flag?
It is not a Godwin when it is relevant. The Confederate flag is equivalent to the swastika, that is why both were resurrected by the KKK and other white supremacist organisations.
In adapting his flag to take these criticisms into account, Miles removed the palmetto tree and crescent and substituted a diagonal cross for the St. George’s cross. Recalling (and sketching) his proposal a few months later, Miles explained that the diagonal cross was preferable because “it avoided the religious objection about the cross (from the Jews & many Protestant sects), because it did not stand out so conspicuously as if the cross had been placed upright thus.” … If Miles had not been eager to conciliate southern Jews, the traditional Latin (or St. George’s) cross would have adorned his flag.
It's an inclusive flag, I don't know why the left gets so worked up about it, unless it's pure dislike of white southerners masquerading as something else. Demonisation of a people's symbols and beliefs often is merely a stepping stone to something else.
It's not that simplistic. Or should we ban the England flag too?
Despite being the worst few hours of my life I feel very lucky.
Spoke to dozens of people who had suffered much worse than us.
Hell of an ordeal, feel really sorry for the bereaved and their families and equally for the Tubisian hotel staff, who we thought were briliant.
I was told RIU sacked all staff last night at Imperial Marhaba sad if true but clearly not going to be a lot of visitors for a while.
Oh nearly forgot the unfortunate dozen new guests arriving as 400 Brits were evacuated. They were clearly completely out of the loop.
Finally thanks to all on PB for the advice and links to latest news while we were barricaded in our room. Much appreciated as are the kind PMs.
Off to bed now hopefully can sleep for a few hours.
At a minimum it seems to me that we have to restrict any further immigration of Muslims into Western Europe. That means, for instance, hard as this policy is, to turn back those in boats sailing from Northern Africa not distributing them round Europe. It means deporting those non-UK citizens who are Muslims who are not engaging and integrating peacefully and not taking years to do so. It means taking actual steps to restrict the spread of the terrorist ideology within mosques, schools, universities etc - and not just making speeches. It means prosecuting those who lie to Parliamentary select committees. It means challenging and not excusing those who associate with or justify terrorists not inviting them to put themselves forward as leaders of democratic political parties as if such behaviour and attitudes merited no condemnation or disapproval. It means not funding groups, mosques and others who actively oppose the West or turn a blind eye to what is going on within their organisations. It means pointing out the grotesque decadence of organisations such as UCL which does nothing about Islamist societies on its campus hosting gender segregated talks and allowing hate preachers to preach violence to to others but gets into a lather about some silly and tasteless but ultimately harmless jokes by an elderly and eminent professor. And so on and so on.
Ironically this debate about the consequences of their actions is taking place long after the actual demise of the KKK. Some dribbling idiot brought up the Monday Club on a previous thread in the same way.
Now, with no sense of historical irony it's the left in the US that is eating itself by demanding history to be rewritten to suit themselves once again.
I didn't realise until yesterday that a beds primary use is as a barricade
If he comes out and says "Vote down this vicious austerity, and we get to stay in the Euro even if we vote for No", then I think the vote will be a decisive 'no', and Grexit will swiftly follow.
Alternatively: "I know this is hard, and there is much that is difficult in front of us, but the best option for Greece is to vote 'no', and leave the Euro" means a narrow 'no', and Grexit.
Alternatively: "Austerity is terrible. But the package we have been offered means a dramatic reduction in our debts. It will be a difficult few years, but this is surely the right thing for Greece" results in a moderate win for 'yes'.
So far, he has described the package as "humiliating", which suggests he's not going for the third option. However, some SYRIZA officials this morning have been going around saying "if the debt write-off - in whatever form it is delivered - is meaningful, then we believe SYRIZA will be able to support the package."
It's hard to tell if this is a masterstroke by Tsipiras which will lead to concrete proposals on debt relief by the 5th. Or an act of lunacy which sees the country become a failed state.
My daughter tells me our local post office was held up yesterday. Thankfully i was away!!
Hope the family don't have any lasting issues from their trauma.
'The UK's problem (and that of other European countries) is that willingly and initially through ignorance we have taken a viper into our bosom. '
Spot on,terrorism, child abuse on an industrial scale,poison being indoctrinated in some of our schools,politics being trashed and sport corrupted.
Hardly any part of society that has not been contaminated by this small minority.The days of simply brushing it under the carpet have long passed.
Is Skeg Vegas safe?
Must go now but thanks everyone