As a Londoner, I've lived with the threat of terror most of my life - the response of the general public after 7/7 here and in Paris last night isn't just defiance, it's a re-affirmation of the people we are, not the people terror and fear would make us. Life goes on - I intend to live it in my way, on my terms with my compassion and tolerance intact.
Can someone talk me through why that Guardian article - which is one of many published on its website - is so offensive?
Consider why comments are closed, why comments are removed. The Guardian has an odd approach to free comments, rather than let readers decide that some posters have joined the politics of delusion, or hate or irrationality it resorts to censorship.
The Algerian War dates back 60 years, Mitterrand was a hard line interior Minister in the Fourth Republic with responsibilities for Algeria. De Gaulle arrived in the chaos of 1958. Not all Muslims in Algeria fought for Independence, some escaped to France many of those who fought with the French died after the French left.
The journalist appears to believe that there will be a hard right backlash, what does it mean? Fights on the streets, killings or the election of Le Pen.
Plato, banning the way we slaughter animals is neither here nor there, it's tinkering around the edges of a far more serious problem. You might say it's a start, but it's trivial. However I do think labelling should be made law to give people a chance to choose.
Mr. Felix, my mum used to work in a school. One dinnertime, when she was on playground duty, she heard the innovative excuse: "I didn't kick him. He headbutted my foot."
Wesley Brown is a seven year old delinquent, and I claim a hammer and sickle lapel pin.
Edited extra bit: a spoof account? My lapel will have to go pinless, then.
Plato, banning the way we slaughter animals is neither here nor there, it's tinkering around the edges of a far more serious problem. You might say it's a start, but it's trivial. However I do think labelling should be made law to give people a chance to choose.
How do you deal with prepared food? Or imported food?
I used to work for a major chain which I will not name and don't want anyone to guess which used Halal chicken (since it was imported that way, not deliberately) but which had a policy of not advertising itself as Halal. We were told if a customer who wanted Halal food asked if our food was Halal then the answer was to be no (because our own handling procedures were not Halal). This was not an intent to mislead but to avoid doing so.
That said, it's an actual not theoretical risk to life if you're the one making the magazine. Glad that my writing comedy is largely taking the piss out of elves who, although being total bastards, are not renowned for acts of terrorism over cartoons.
As with others, appalled by the events in Paris overnight and the dreadful taking of innocent lives.
For all David H's fine words, I'm reminded that one of our "values" (well, it's one of mine at any rate) is compassion and for all the hard-nosed talk about how we should treat the exodus from the Syrian battlefields and elsewhere, it seems that fear rather than compassion is winning the day.
The alternatives seem either to condemn people to possibly years of futile existence in refugee camps where we routinely pick and choose those we want from the pool of the displaced and the dispossessed or we condemn those who physically come to Europe to either existence on the margins of society or worse facing a European winter with little or no help.
Ultimately, if we become a fearful, insular society, distrusting of certain groups and relying on endless surveillance and the rule of authority to create a facade of security and comfort for some, then, in some ways, terror will have won as we will have traded tolerance and compassion for security and comfort.
"Fortress Europe" was a term once used in a different context to describe a continent designed to be impervious to external threats (and Britain was that threat). Now, the Fortress is less a physical reality then a mentality - build the walls ever higher, make the surveillance ever more intrusive and perhaps we'll be safe.
As a Londoner, I've lived with the threat of terror most of my life - the response of the general public after 7/7 here and in Paris last night isn't just defiance, it's a re-affirmation of the people we are, not the people terror and fear would make us. Life goes on - I intend to live it in my way, on my terms with my compassion and tolerance intact.
The problem with your position here - admirable as it undoubtedly is from a compassionate position - is that we are not dealing with a limited number of migrants. The current EU policy as dictated by Merkel is one which actively encourages large scale migration with the three consequent issues that should give such concern - the importation of people who are diametrically opposed to our way of life and will oppose it with violence, the shear numbers of people involved which will overwhelm out western welfare and housing systems and, most importantly perhaps from a humanitarian point of view, the numbers of people who are going to die making the attempt to reach the promised land.
As far as I can see you offer no solutions to these issues nor even any recognition of their existence.
As with others, appalled by the events in Paris overnight and the dreadful taking of innocent lives.
For all David H's fine words, I'm reminded that one of our "values" (well, it's one of mine at any rate) is compassion and for all the hard-nosed talk about how we should treat the exodus from the Syrian battlefields and elsewhere, it seems that fear rather than compassion is winning the day.
The alternatives seem either to condemn people to possibly years of futile existence in refugee camps where we routinely pick and choose those we want from the pool of the displaced and the dispossessed or we condemn those who physically come to Europe to either existence on the margins of society or worse facing a European winter with little or no help.
Ultimately, if we become a fearful, insular society, distrusting of certain groups and relying on endless surveillance and the rule of authority to create a facade of security and comfort for some, then, in some ways, terror will have won as we will have traded tolerance and compassion for security and comfort.
"Fortress Europe" was a term once used in a different context to describe a continent designed to be impervious to external threats (and Britain was that threat). Now, the Fortress is less a physical reality then a mentality - build the walls ever higher, make the surveillance ever more intrusive and perhaps we'll be safe.
As a Londoner, I've lived with the threat of terror most of my life - the response of the general public after 7/7 here and in Paris last night isn't just defiance, it's a re-affirmation of the people we are, not the people terror and fear would make us. Life goes on - I intend to live it in my way, on my terms with my compassion and tolerance intact.
Stodgy: it's not fear I feel but defiance and a bloody-minded determination not to continue tolerating the intolerable, to push back against it, compassion for the victims, their families and friends, hatred for those who bring evil into our lives and utter contempt for those who seek to justify and excuse them.
As a Londoner, I've lived with the threat of terror most of my life - the response of the general public after 7/7 here and in Paris last night isn't just defiance, it's a re-affirmation of the people we are, not the people terror and fear would make us. Life goes on - I intend to live it in my way, on my terms with my compassion and tolerance intact.
We might be a collection of small rainy archipelagos in the North Atlantic but we've consistently led the fight against tyranny and oppression in all its guises for centuries.
Plato, banning the way we slaughter animals is neither here nor there, it's tinkering around the edges of a far more serious problem. You might say it's a start, but it's trivial. However I do think labelling should be made law to give people a chance to choose.
In principle I agree but as a meat eater I have to accept that animals are slaughtered and I don't want to contemplate what goes on in abbatoirs. Label food and give people the choice is far better than banning IMO.
Plato, banning the way we slaughter animals is neither here nor there, it's tinkering around the edges of a far more serious problem. You might say it's a start, but it's trivial. However I do think labelling should be made law to give people a chance to choose.
How do you deal with prepared food? Or imported food?
I used to work for a major chain which I will not name and don't want anyone to guess which used Halal chicken (since it was imported that way, not deliberately) but which had a policy of not advertising itself as Halal. We were told if a customer who wanted Halal food asked if our food was Halal then the answer was to be no (because our own handling procedures were not Halal). This was not an intent to mislead but to avoid doing so.
urious: Reports Al Qaeda has condemned the attacks in Paris and pointed the finger at IS.
Is it possible that this is partly to divert attention from the fact that ISIS is starting to lose in Iraq and Syria?
Are they? It would be true to say they are under much greater concerted and conventional military pressure but I'd not call it losing yet.
What I do know, is that the Nusra front, the Al Qaeda offshoot in Syria, was ordered by its spiritual bosses not to bother trying to attack 'Western' targets a number of months back.
'For all David H's fine words, I'm reminded that one of our "values" (well, it's one of mine at any rate) is compassion and for all the hard-nosed talk about how we should treat the exodus from the Syrian battlefields and elsewhere, it seems that fear rather than compassion is winning the day.'
I'm reminded that the first duty of leaders is to protect their citizens and clearly this is impossible when hundreds if not thousands of additional terrorists are allowed unchecked entry into Europe every day.
Plato, banning the way we slaughter animals is neither here nor there, it's tinkering around the edges of a far more serious problem. You might say it's a start, but it's trivial. However I do think labelling should be made law to give people a chance to choose.
How do you deal with prepared food? Or imported food?
I used to work for a major chain which I will not name and don't want anyone to guess which used Halal chicken (since it was imported that way, not deliberately) but which had a policy of not advertising itself as Halal. We were told if a customer who wanted Halal food asked if our food was Halal then the answer was to be no (because our own handling procedures were not Halal). This was not an intent to mislead but to avoid doing so.
The West’s values of liberty, of freedom of speech, thought and association, of secularity, of democracy are innately superior to any alternatives. We must not be afraid of saying so. To be afraid, either out of intimidation from those who would destroy them or from a cringing fear of causing offence, is halfway to losing them. That those values are not universally applicable in a practical sense is beside the point: it is not the West’s fault that not every country in the world is mature and civilized enough to handle them. Nor is it racist to say so: no truth ever is.
A fine passage, but I fear other than token words even that will be beyond us as a society. It will be said, briefly, and then the same old behaviours of constant self blame will reassert. I'm as guilty of that sort of thing as anyone, and we and our leaders lack the will even to say such things, let alone move on to concrete actions of any kind.
The problem is millions of people support or tolerate the sort of thing that went on last night. IS fell in a previous form once, but it reemerged because of those millions, and when IS goes, the same thing will happen whether we do nothing, or everything. No one would deny it is not a majority of muslims who feel that way, but the uncomfortable fact is even if it is a tiny majority driving it, there are still far too many who put up with it.
Really our issue, the issue behind our lack of will, is we have through these times of peace and largess, allowed ourselves to be deluded that the world has not always been a very brutal place. History is not some inevitable march to a place of enlightenment, and though it's not exactly at civilization destroying levels, this sort of threat, persistent and unsolvable, and potentially mitigated only through actions we deem unpalatable, shows our delusion is under threat.
BB63 You may be missing the point..the method of slaughter has to do with the level of needless suffering to the animal..If we have to kill them in order to eat them then let the killing be as swift and as painless as possible..not drawn out because of some nutty religious element.
I'm anything but. i have more affection for france than anywhere. Probably the most civilized country in the world which is what makes these events particularly tragic
There's a reluctance to face facts from some people. IS has proclaimed a Caliphate which it intends to spread to the rest of the world. It is not open to negotiation and even if the West pulled out of other countries, it would make no difference.
Most Muslims disapprove but plenty support these aims. Useful idiots abound and are probably over-represented in the media and left wing commentators.
Facts won't matter, but they are entitled to their opinions. Best to ignore them as the great majority do understand the problem.
There will be a few more of these atrocities but we'll win in the end.
Sky News Newsdesk @SkyNewsBreak now5 seconds ago French president Francois Hollande says #Paris attacks were "an act of war" and organised & planned from abroad with help inside France
BB63 You may be missing the point..the method of slaughter has to do with the level of needless suffering to the animal..If we have to kill them in order to eat them then let the killing be as swift and as painless as possible..not drawn out because of some nutty religious element.
A lot of abbatoirs globally use kosher/halal methods of slaughter, one reason being perhaps local customs, another simply that it gives a wide range of customers. If we are to ban kosher/halal do we ban the import of meat that is killed that way too? Unless imports are banned a ban would be utterly pointless.
As Mr. Herdson indicates, Schengen (and Merkel's migration madness) make this much easier in the EU than elsewhere. There are now hundreds of thousands of unchecked migrants, mostly men, in Germany and elsewhere in the EU.......
Good solid article from Mr Herdson. Schengen also permits the flow of arms etc throughout the area. Unchecked via cars and vans. I listened to more than half the R4 Today programme and cannot recall a discussion of the effect of Schengen on this and how it has to be abandoned.
After 9am I tuned into LBC on my walk and there was the best analyst I have heard since 10pm yesterday. Tim Marshall ex Sky News Foreign Affairs Editor. In 5 minutes he provided more insight than the hours of stuff churned out. The % of muslims in France (7% reported and 10% probably), Schengen , the EC referendum, armed police in our cities etc etc..... If only the BBC had people of that quality.
'For all David H's fine words, I'm reminded that one of our "values" (well, it's one of mine at any rate) is compassion and for all the hard-nosed talk about how we should treat the exodus from the Syrian battlefields and elsewhere, it seems that fear rather than compassion is winning the day.'
I'm reminded that the first duty of leaders is to protect their citizens and clearly this is impossible when hundreds if not thousands of additional terrorists are allowed unchecked entry into Europe every day.
Exactly so. And so we must take steps to stop the unchecked migration. It is not compassionate to expose our societies and our peoples to the threats and consequences identified by Richard Tyndall below.
Mr. kle4, as Mr. Royale mentioned last thread, it has shades of the fall of Rome.
Rome's martial spirit and patriotism was enervated by decades of luxury, prosperity and peace. When tyrants and barbarians suddenly turned up, Rome was too busy weakening itself with civil wars and too bereft of virtues to assert what had made it glorious.
Miss Plato, won't happen. Politicians love passing laws. Makes them feel like they're doing something.
Our politicians - all of them, all of the party leaders and the big players - have had a quarter century, since the Salman Rushdie affair, to think about how a multicultural society deals with those who won't accept its norms. They have failed - Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron - to do this, and failed us all. And Obama and Merkel and Hollande and Europe. Failed Failed Failed Failed.
Are we compelled to respect the beliefs of others who don't see us as equals? Are we forbidden to discriminate against those who don't like us? Are we compelled to respect religious beliefs in all times and all places? Or do we need to think more intelligently about what a modern society will tolerate and what, and who it may reject ? And most of all are we allowed to say what we damn well like about anything - islam, or the character of the prophet Muhammed - And know that our right to free speech will be honoured and protected, with the force of law if necessary?
Our politicians - all of them, all of the party leaders and the big players - have had a quarter century, since the Salman Rushdie affair, to think about how a multicultural society deals with those who won't accept its norms. They have failed - Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron - to do this, and failed us all. And Obama and Merkel and Hollande and Europe. Failed Failed Failed Failed.
Are we compelled to respect the beliefs of others who don't see us as equals? Are we forbidden to discriminate against those who don't like us? Are we compelled to respect religious beliefs in all times and all places? Or do we need to think more intelligently about what a modern society will tolerate and what, and who it may reject ? And most of all are we allowed to say what we damn well like about anything - islam, or the character of the prophet Muhammed - And know that our right to free speech will be honoured and protected, with the force of law if necessary?
BB63 You may be missing the point..the method of slaughter has to do with the level of needless suffering to the animal..If we have to kill them in order to eat them then let the killing be as swift and as painless as possible..not drawn out because of some nutty religious element.
A lot of abbatoirs globally use kosher/halal methods of slaughter, one reason being perhaps local customs, another simply that it gives a wide range of customers. If we are to ban kosher/halal do we ban the import of meat that is killed that way too? Unless imports are banned a ban would be utterly pointless.
Mr Dodd I'm not missing the point, if I had to kill my own meat I'd be a vegetarian, I hate the thought of animals being killed but if we're to eat meat they will be. Rather than ban religious slaughter simply label food then we all have a choice.
I'd like to ban live exports because that creates work for slaughterhouses and packagers here.
Mr. Betting, great shame Marshall isn't Sky's diplomatic editor any more, he's a top drawer chap. I believe his successor, referring to a terrorist attack in south-east Asia, mentioned a 'Hindu mosque'.
''There will be a few more of these atrocities but we'll win in the end.''
Perhaps it is worth considering after remembrance day that what ISIS is doing is a tiny fraction of what we did to each other in the last century. Doesn;t make it any less horrible, of course.
Sky News Newsdesk @SkyNewsBreak now5 seconds ago French president Francois Hollande says #Paris attacks were "an act of war" and organised & planned from abroad with help inside France
A 5th column as Farage might say.... what an awful person, why'd he have to say such nasty things?
PT I agree it is difficult but if the method of slaughter was printed on the products packaging then the customer can decide and buy or not buy...that will concentrate the minds of the product producers
Our politicians - all of them, all of the party leaders and the big players - have had a quarter century, since the Salman Rushdie affair, to think about how a multicultural society deals with those who won't accept its norms. They have failed - Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron - to do this, and failed us all. And Obama and Merkel and Hollande and Europe. Failed Failed Failed Failed.
Are we compelled to respect the beliefs of others who don't see us as equals? Are we forbidden to discriminate against those who don't like us? Are we compelled to respect religious beliefs in all times and all places? Or do we need to think more intelligently about what a modern society will tolerate and what, and who it may reject ? And most of all are we allowed to say what we damn well like about anything - islam, or the character of the prophet Muhammed - And know that our right to free speech will be honoured and protected, with the force of law if necessary?
Enoch Powell predicted this would happen, Farage has been warning this would happen... the people in power, and those who worship at their feet, have smeared them and denounced their predictions to the detriment of us all
Read the comments on here when Gerard Batten suggested Muslim Leaders sign a charter denouncing jihadi violence
There's a lot that I agree with in David's column, and I've thought for some time that so far as I can tell, supporting Assad is the least bad option for the West. And thanks to David for, unlike some, avoiding treating the occasion as a moment to do party politics.
But it's necessary to recognise that defeating ISIS will not entirely solve the problem, any more than banning halal or burqas or other random digs at Muslims in general. France in particular but the world in general has a small number of disaffected young men who are prepared to kill us, and a somewhat wider circle of people who are reluctant to inform on them. That won't change according to whatever we do in the Middle East. Nor is it realistic to think we can entirely eliminate them - from time to time you will get an individual group of nutters (e.g. the Baader-Meinhof group). But we can make them extremely isolated and rare - cf. Mao and the fish in the sea.
The three priorities are (1) to maximise information on people taking an interest in terror. I have lost interest in measures to protect us against authorities checking out what website we look at or reading our emails. I think the situation requires that we allow it, with a reasonable code of practice and a review process to check how it is used. (2) to minimise tolerance of nutters among people to whom contact with the authorities doesn't come naturally. That means a concerted effort with mosques and others to tell people that their duty is to report anything of this kind. Mainstream Muslim leaders will help - it is not in their interest to have the communiy associated with the nutters. (3) to do what we can to prevent the arrival of new recruits. As readers here will know, I'm not bothered by immigration and I support giving refuge to people in fear, but even if you disagree, the issue that terrorists will try to get in no matter how many walls we build needs to be addressed. The process needs to be channeled and monitored, which means setting up application camps where people have a reasonable chance of admission but everyone will be checked, and maintaining sufficient border guards to make the application camps the best option. It will be expensive, but not doing it will be more expensive.
There are moments when a politician says something so stupid that you cannot believe they were spoken out loud. Often, nor can they. I am pretty sure that Tracey Couch regrets speaking her brain. But then there are the politicians who never surprise you with their stupidity.
The West’s values of liberty, of freedom of speech, thought and association, of secularity, of democracy are innately superior to any alternatives. We must not be afraid of saying so. To be afraid, either out of intimidation from those who would destroy them or from a cringing fear of causing offence, is halfway to losing them. That those values are not universally applicable in a practical sense is beside the point: it is not the West’s fault that not every country in the world is mature and civilized enough to handle them. Nor is it racist to say so: no truth ever is.
A fine passage, but I fear other than token words even that will be beyond us as a society. It will be said, briefly, and then the same old behaviours of constant self blame will reassert. I'm as guilty of that sort of thing as anyone, and we and our leaders lack the will even to say such things, let alone move on to concrete actions of any kind.
The problem is millions of people support or tolerate the sort of thing that went on last night. IS fell in a previous form once, but it reemerged because of those millions, and when IS goes, the same thing will happen whether we do nothing, or everything. No one would deny it is not a majority of muslims who feel that way, but the uncomfortable fact is even if it is a tiny majority driving it, there are still far too many who put up with it.
Really our issue, the issue behind our lack of will, is we have through these times of peace and largess, allowed ourselves to be deluded that the world has not always been a very brutal place. History is not some inevitable march to a place of enlightenment, and though it's not exactly at civilization destroying levels, this sort of threat, persistent and unsolvable, and potentially mitigated only through actions we deem unpalatable, shows our delusion is under threat.
Well we had better rid ourselves of two delusions pretty smartish: that saying we are strong and will endure is enough and, second, that we are not somehow under attack.
And if we want to continue taking the fight against tyranny and oppression, as TSE puts it downthread, we are going to have to take tough and unpalatable actions.
Our politicians - all of them, all of the party leaders and the big players - have had a quarter century, since the Salman Rushdie affair, to think about how a multicultural society deals with those who won't accept its norms. They have failed - Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron - to do this, and failed us all. And Obama and Merkel and Hollande and Europe. Failed Failed Failed Failed.
Are we compelled to respect the beliefs of others who don't see us as equals? Are we forbidden to discriminate against those who don't like us? Are we compelled to respect religious beliefs in all times and all places? Or do we need to think more intelligently about what a modern society will tolerate and what, and who it may reject ? And most of all are we allowed to say what we damn well like about anything - islam, or the character of the prophet Muhammed - And know that our right to free speech will be honoured and protected, with the force of law if necessary?
Enoch Powell predicted this would happen, Farage has been warning this would happen... the people in power, and those who worship at their feet, have smeared them and denounced their predictions to the detriment of us all
Read the comments on here when Gerard Batten suggested Muslim Leaders sign a charter denouncing jihadi violence
I thought he looked rather shell-shocked. His manner was too - as if he couldn't quite get his head around having to comment and not just in his usual groove.
I saw Corbyn speaking on TV, about 20 mins ago, but sat on the zapper, and lost the channel. Any ideas what he said.
He looked as if he aged overnight. But I didn't catch what he said.
Hate to be the one to bring up the raison d'etre of this site, but does this change the dynamics of the Oldham by election, and UKIP's odds of success?
» show previous quotes Enoch Powell predicted this would happen, Farage has been warning this would happen... the people in power, and those who worship at their feet, have smeared them and denounced their predictions to the detriment of us all
Read the comments on here when Gerard Batten suggested Muslim Leaders sign a charter denouncing jihadi violence
I am not going to get into 'Enoch was right' and all that. Apart from anything else, he clearly missed which immigrant group was less likely to integrate (Afro-Caribbean communities have in general integrated very well across all classes). That speech is a distraction. The problem we have is now.
Sorry I'm not having that
Enoch was motivated by the events in India in the 40s, and by the case of the Sikh bus conductor who refused to wear the uniform on religion grounds... It is a nonsense to say he was talking about Jamaicans or Afro Caribbeans in particular, an absolute nonsense
Clearly you're much more knowledgeable about the man and the speech than am I. However, having checked it out, I stand by my point. Powell makes reference several times to 'black man', 'negro', 'picanniny' and the like. By contrast, he makes just one reference to Sikhs and none at all to muslims, Asians, Indians, Pakistanis or the like.
In that speech he quotes an example of woman who lives in a street with a majority of black people, and refers to "American Negroes" to point out that our problem is not the same as theirs. The words "black man" "picanninny" were not Powells but quotes from constituents
His broader point was that it was the number of immigrants that mattered, not where they came from... actually he said the problem would be the same if the same number of germans were immigrating, though Im not sure that holds true
"Commonwealth immigrants" is the phrase he used most often, and "coloured" which was not controversial in that era as it is now. If you think his speeches and opinions were directed at Afro Carribeans in particular, you have got it very wrong, as you will find if you look properly into his views
You should watch his interview w David Frost, a compelling insight
I have better things to do with my time, particularly today.
I will say this though. I heard him speak once, at Durham Union Society, when he was already past 80. I've never seen anyone before or since with such presence.
Anyone interested in politics, particularly the immigration issue, should watch the Frost Interview if they want to be better informed. I'd have thought it would be of interest to a political writer, but your choice of course
Your inherent racism is taking your eye off the ball.
Immigration of Hindi and Sikhs from India has been an unqualified success, that from the Caribbean more of a qualified success but certainly not particularly problematic.
The problem is Islam and its festering underpinnings which spread a creed which is utterly destructive to our cultures and values.
There's a lot that I agree with in David's column, and I've thought for some time that so far as I can tell, supporting Assad is the least bad option for the West. And thanks to David for, unlike some, avoiding treating the occasion as a moment to do party politics.
But it's necessary to recognise that defeating ISIS will not entirely solve the problem, any more than banning halal or burqas or other random digs at Muslims in general. France in particular but the world in general has a small number of disaffected young men who are prepared to kill us, and a somewhat wider circle of people who are reluctant to inform on them. That won't change according to whatever we do in the Middle East. Nor is it realistic to think we can entirely eliminate them - from time to time you will get an individual group of nutters (e.g. the Baader-Meinhof group). But we can make them extremely isolated and rare - cf. Mao and the fish in the sea.
The three priorities are (1) to maximise information on people taking an interest in terror. I have lost interest in measures to protect us against authorities checking out what website we look at or reading our emails. I think the situation requires that we allow it, with a reasonable code of practice and a review process to check how it is used. (2) to minimise tolerance of nutters among people to whom contact with the authorities doesn't come naturally. That means a concerted effort with mosques and others to tell people that their duty is to report anything of this kind. Mainstream Muslim leaders will help - it is not in their interest to have the communiy associated with the nutters. (3) to do what we can to prevent the arrival of new recruits. As readers here will know, I'm not bothered by immigration and I support giving refuge to people in fear, but even if you disagree, the issue that terrorists will try to get in no matter how many walls we build needs to be addressed. The process needs to be channeled and monitored, which means setting up application camps where people have a reasonable chance of admission but everyone will be checked, and maintaining sufficient border guards to make the application camps the best option. It will be expensive, but not doing it will be more expensive.
Good post, Nick. Thank-you. But there will be a time when we need go beyond trying to persuade. There has to be compulsion.
I saw Corbyn speaking on TV, about 20 mins ago, but sat on the zapper, and lost the channel. Any ideas what he said.
He looked as if he aged overnight. But I didn't catch what he said.
Hate to be the one to bring up the raison d'etre of this site, but does this change the dynamics of the Oldham by election, and UKIP's odds of success?
These tragic events certainly underline what Nigel has been warning of and I suspect Corbyn knows that.
Our politicians - all of them, all of the party leaders and the big players - have had a quarter century, since the Salman Rushdie affair, to think about how a multicultural society deals with those who won't accept its norms. They have failed - Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron - to do this, and failed us all. And Obama and Merkel and Hollande and Europe. Failed Failed Failed Failed.
Are we compelled to respect the beliefs of others who don't see us as equals? Are we forbidden to discriminate against those who don't like us? Are we compelled to respect religious beliefs in all times and all places? Or do we need to think more intelligently about what a modern society will tolerate and what, and who it may reject ? And most of all are we allowed to say what we damn well like about anything - islam, or the character of the prophet Muhammed - And know that our right to free speech will be honoured and protected, with the force of law if necessary?
Very very well said.
And the answers to your questions are that no, we are not compelled and should not be compelled to respect anyone or any thing, including religious belief. Respect is earned not demanded. And anyone who demands it, particularly under threats of violence, does not deserve respect.
And no we should not be obliged to tolerate the intolerable. And we should discriminate against those who seek to undermine us. Discrimination is only bad when it is done for irrelevant reasons. Discriminating against someone who hates you or tries to kill you is not just tolerable but essential.
And, yes, we can and should and, as far as I'm concerned, will continue to say what we damn well like about anything at all.
» show previous quotes Enoch Powell predicted this would happen, Farage has been warning this would happen... the people in power, and those who worship at their feet, have smeared them and denounced their predictions to the detriment of us all
Read the comments on here when Gerard Batten suggested Muslim Leaders sign a charter denouncing jihadi violence
Well said."
The fascists are gathering already
The fascists were the ones bombing and shooting innocent civilians in Paris last night.
Enoch was motivated by the events in India in the 40s, and by the case of the Sikh bus conductor who refused to wear the uniform on religion grounds... It is a nonsense to say he was talking about Jamaicans or Afro Caribbeans in particular, an absolute nonsense
Clearly you're much more knowledgeable about the man and the speech than am I. However, having checked it out, I stand by my point. Powell makes reference several times to 'black man', 'negro', 'picanniny' and the like. By contrast, he makes just one reference to Sikhs and none at all to muslims, Asians, Indians, Pakistanis or the like.
In that speech he quotes an example of woman who lives in a street with a majority of black people, and refers to "American Negroes" to point out that our problem is not the same as theirs. The words "black man" "picanninny" were not Powells but quotes from constituents
His broader point was that it was the number of immigrants that mattered, not where they came from... actually he said the problem would be the same if the same number of germans were immigrating, though Im not sure that holds true
"Commonwealth immigrants" is the phrase he used most often, and "coloured" which was not controversial in that era as it is now. If you think his speeches and opinions were directed at Afro Carribeans in particular, you have got it very wrong, as you will find if you look properly into his views
You should watch his interview w David Frost, a compelling insight
I have better things to do with my time, particularly today.
I will say this though. I heard him speak once, at Durham Union Society, when he was already past 80. I've never seen anyone before or since with such presence.
Anyone interested in politics, particularly the immigration issue, should watch the Frost Interview if they want to be better informed. I'd have thought it would be of interest to a political writer, but your choice of course
Your inherent racism is taking your eye off the ball.
Immigration of Hindi and Sikhs from India has been an unqualified success, that from the Caribbean more of a qualified success but certainly not particularly problematic.
The problem is Islam and its festering underpinnings which spread a creed which is utterly destructive to our cultures and values.
You can f right off, I am not racist
Secondly, I am making the same point as you, you utter cretin
Why people are banned for using bad language but not for calling people racist I do not know
» show previous quotes Enoch Powell predicted this would happen, Farage has been warning this would happen... the people in power, and those who worship at their feet, have smeared them and denounced their predictions to the detriment of us all
Read the comments on here when Gerard Batten suggested Muslim Leaders sign a charter denouncing jihadi violence
Well said."
The fascists are gathering already
The fascists were the ones bombing and shooting innocent civilians in Paris last night.
» show previous quotes Enoch Powell predicted this would happen, Farage has been warning this would happen... the people in power, and those who worship at their feet, have smeared them and denounced their predictions to the detriment of us all
Read the comments on here when Gerard Batten suggested Muslim Leaders sign a charter denouncing jihadi violence
It's quite right that they should be jailed. After all, Red Bull aren't going to be winning any more trophies in the foreseeable future. Except for the sore loser trophy, which is going to be theirs for quite some time ...
If Hollande says this was an act of war by ISIS then we, along with France and US and whoever else need to go into Syria right now sort this mess out.
That is exactly what ISIS wants to happen. It will prolong the violence there and just recruits even more "soldiers" to their jihadist SS, as per what happened in Iraq.
Much better to stay out and let events take their course. As the news yesterday from Sinjar shows, ISIS is in retreat and its "society" is collapsing under the weight of its own contradictions. These attacks are a desperate attempt to distract from that. They are a sign of weakness, not strength.
A more sober analysis of these atrocities, thanks David for writing it.
Yes, a very good piece. The fact is that we will win. We are stronger and we are better.
We are better. And we can be stronger. But we have to use our strength. Words are not enough.
We also need to stop poking our noses into other countries and thinking they should be run like ours. Time they started looking to sort the shambles the UK is in and leave the middle east to sort out their own problems. If you poke a hornets nest you can expect to get stung. Time to stop the wishy washy liberals, we cannot solve the world's problem's and solution is not them all moving to Europe.
» show previous quotes Enoch Powell predicted this would happen, Farage has been warning this would happen... the people in power, and those who worship at their feet, have smeared them and denounced their predictions to the detriment of us all
Read the comments on here when Gerard Batten suggested Muslim Leaders sign a charter denouncing jihadi violence
Well said."
The fascists are gathering already
The fascists were the ones bombing and shooting innocent civilians in Paris last night.
Sorry Lucy, in some eyes the fascists are the ones that aren't comfortable with maniacs throwing grenades into cafes.
It's a very deliberate choice of words that allows other things to happen. How can we not side with France here?
Where Labour will stand on military action now will be interesting to say the least.
On another note, I just have to vent re Obama - I can't stand his All About Me speechifying. I heard him last night and wanted to knock the TV over. I very very rarely feel like that.
A more sober analysis of these atrocities, thanks David for writing it.
Yes, a very good piece. The fact is that we will win. We are stronger and we are better.
We are better. And we can be stronger. But we have to use our strength. Words are not enough.
We also need to stop poking our noses into other countries and thinking they should be run like ours. Time they started looking to sort the shambles the UK is in and leave the middle east to sort out their own problems. If you poke a hornets nest you can expect to get stung. Time to stop the wishy washy liberals, we cannot solve the world's problem's and solution is not them all moving to Europe.
If Hollande says this was an act of war by ISIS then we, along with France and US and whoever else need to go into Syria right now sort this mess out.
That is exactly what ISIS wants to happen. It will prolong the violence there and cement their leadership with the "true believers"
Much better to stay out and let events take their course. As the news yesterday from Sinjar shows, ISIS is in retreat. These attacks are an attempt to distract from that.
and then the next time, and then the next time.....
Thats just appeasement, simple appeasement. The same when Hitler was gobbling up europe until a line in the sand had to be drawn.
Plato, banning the way we slaughter animals is neither here nor there, it's tinkering around the edges of a far more serious problem. You might say it's a start, but it's trivial. However I do think labelling should be made law to give people a chance to choose.
Jews have been in England continuously since Cromwell invited them back in the 17th century, and they've always been able to observe halacha. Many of our most important historic figures, culturally, economically and politically, have been Jewish. A strand of Judaism forms part of our shared British cultural identity. It's not clear to me why a massacre in Paris would lead us to attempt to cut this strand off, particularly on the grounds of Jews being insufficiently 'British' to be allowed to continue their practices.
We also need to get our heads round the fact that an even more numerically chunky segment of British society is Muslim, and to find an accommodation with what "British culture" might mean in this context. We seem to have accepted the cuisine created by Bangladeshis from Sylhet as a pretty fundamental part of British culture. There are Muslim British cultural and political figures who seem to be accepted as "proper Brits". It's what becomes of the millions of ordinary people that's the issue here - how do you stop a tiny but significant minority seeking "justice" in the form of violent extremism, how do you get the majority to feel comfortably "British"? It seems self evident to me that if you define British cultural identity as, by definition, "not Muslim", then you're going to have a heck of a lot harder of a job to integrate hundreds of thousands of Muslims. I can't see the need for this: successful integration has generally been tolerant and accepting, rather than oppressive and imposing. And by its nature it's a two-way process with an element of cultural fusion: even a smaller (sub) culture can leave a strong and distinctive mark on wider society. (It's likely easier if numbers are smaller and communities are less ghettoized - there is immigration policy to look at, but also housing, anti-poverty/social inclusion, and education.)
As for the animal welfare angle, my personal view is that no form of slaughter is acceptable to me, though as a vegetarian I'm in a small but growing minority. Unlike many vegetarians I have zero intention of imposing my ethical views on animal slaughter on others: I've always thought doing so is unseemly, and somehow unbritish.
They've got the 2015 Long Distance Dummy-Spitting title sewn up.
True, I was dissembling. They're also going to get the 'pi**ing off the partners who gave you success' trophy. It's a very large pile of bitter lemons.
The Syrian and Sub-Saharan Diasporas have different origins and reasons but the net effects are the same. In Syria, the exodus will end as and when it becomes possible to restore stability to that country and create conditions to encourage voluntary repatriation. That won't be with a vengeful Assad and his security apparatus in place.
The fact is the migrants are here and perhaps winter will slow them down, perhaps not but it is a humanitarian disaster in the making if we do not quickly make arrangements to allow these people to survive.
I'm not sure our positions are that far apart but I don't have your anger. Perhaps I should but I don't. Intolerance and evil comes in all shades, colours and creeds - all have to be resisted.
I am not going to get into 'Enoch was right' and all that. Apart from anything else, he clearly missed which immigrant group was less likely to integrate (Afro-Caribbean communities have in general integrated very well across all classes). That speech is a distraction. The problem we have is now.
Sorry I'm not having that
Enoch was motivated by the events in India in the 40s, and by the case of the Sikh bus conductor who refused to wear the uniform on religion grounds... It is a nonsense to say he was talking about Jamaicans or Afro Caribbeans in particular, an absolute nonsense
Clearly you're much more knowledgeable about the man and the speech than am I. However, having checked it out, I stand by my point. Powell makes reference several times to 'black man', 'negro', 'picanniny' and the like. By contrast, he makes just one reference to Sikhs and none at all to muslims, Asians, Indians, Pakistanis or the like.
In that speech he quotes an example of woman who lives in a street with a majority of black people, and refers to "American Negroes" to point out that our problem is not the same as theirs. The words "black man" "picanninny" were not Powells but quotes from constituents
His broader point was that it was the number of immigrants that mattered, not where they came from... actually he said the problem would be the same if the same number of germans were immigrating, though Im not sure that holds true
"
You should watch his interview w David Frost, a compelling insight
I have better things to do with my time, particularly today.
I will say this though. I heard him speak once, at Durham Union Society, when he was already past 80. I've never seen anyone before or since with such presence.
Anyone interested in politics, particularly the immigration issue, should watch the Frost Interview if they want to be better informed. I'd have thought it would be of interest to a political writer, but your choice of course
Your inherent racism is taking your eye off the ball.
Immigration of Hindi and Sikhs from India has been an unqualified success, that from the Caribbean more of a qualified success but certainly not particularly problematic.
The problem is Islam and its festering underpinnings which spread a creed which is utterly destructive to our cultures and values.
If Hollande says this was an act of war by ISIS then we, along with France and US and whoever else need to go into Syria right now sort this mess out.
That is exactly what ISIS wants to happen. It will prolong the violence there and cement their leadership with the "true believers"
Much better to stay out and let events take their course. As the news yesterday from Sinjar shows, ISIS is in retreat. These attacks are an attempt to distract from that.
and then the next time, and then the next time.....
Thats just appeasement, simple appeasement. The same when Hitler was gobbling up europe until a line in the sand had to be drawn.
Huh? The analogous situation to what I've said above would have been Hitler being driven out of the Sudetenland...
"And no we should not be obliged to tolerate the intolerable. And we should discriminate against those who seek to undermine us. Discrimination is only bad when it is done for irrelevant reasons. Discriminating against someone who hates you or tries to kill you is not just tolerable but essential"
How does that translate into action? Who exactly do we discriminate against and what form should this take? We have plenty of laws against those who threaten to kill or who actually kill. In what way can we take it further?
Powell cannot lay claim to giving birth to that notion, which in any case is neither quite what I wrote nor, of itself, inherently wrong. It's a pretty poor attempt at guilt by association.
One fact worth mentioning though, given that you've brought up Powell, is that he was complaining against 50000 immigrants a year coming from British Commonwealth countries; places where the intrinsic culture was not all that different from Britain. As noted in the leader, Germany expects twenty times as many immigrants in just three months, most of whom will be far more culturally removed from Germany than Jamaicans were from Britain.
I am not going to get into 'Enoch was right' and all that. Apart from anything else, he clearly missed which immigrant group was less likely to integrate (Afro-Caribbean communities have in general integrated very well across all classes). That speech is a distraction. The problem we have is now.
Sorry I'm not having that
Enoch was motivated by the events in India in the 40s, and by the case of the Sikh bus conductor who refused to wear the uniform on religion grounds... It is a nonsense to say he was talking about Jamaicans or Afro Caribbeans in particular, an absolute nonsense
Clearly you're much more knowledgeable about the man and the speech than am I. However, having checked it out, I stand by my point. Powell makes reference several times to 'black man', 'negro', 'picanniny' and the like. By contrast, he makes just one reference to Sikhs and none at all to muslims, Asians, Indians, Pakistanis or the like.
Stop digging David, just take it on the chin , even you get it wrong sometimes
Jews have been in England continuously since Cromwell invited them back in the 17th century, and they've always been able to observe halacha. Many of our most important historic figures, culturally, economically and politically, have been Jewish. A strand of Judaism forms part of our shared British cultural identity. It's not clear to me why a massacre in Paris would lead us to attempt to cut this strand off, particularly on the grounds of Jews being insufficiently 'British' to be allowed to continue their practices.
We also need to get our heads round the fact that an even more numerically chunky segment of British society is Muslim, and to find an accommodation with what "British culture" might mean in this context. We seem to have accepted the cuisine created by Bangladeshis from Sylhet as a pretty fundamental part of British culture. There are Muslim British cultural and political figures who seem to be accepted as "proper Brits". It's what becomes of the millions of ordinary people that's the issue here - how do you stop a tiny but significant minority seeking "justice" in the form of violent extremism, how do you get the majority to feel comfortably "British"? It seems self evident to me that if you define British cultural identity as, by definition, "not Muslim", then you're going to have a heck of a lot harder of a job to integrate hundreds of thousands of Muslims. I can't see the need for this: successful integration has generally been tolerant and accepting, rather than oppressive and imposing. And by its nature it's a two-way process with an element of cultural fusion: even a smaller (sub) culture can leave a strong and distinctive mark on wider society. (It's likely easier if numbers are smaller and communities are less ghettoized - there is immigration policy to look at, but also housing, anti-poverty/social inclusion, and education.)
As for the animal welfare angle, my personal view is that no form of slaughter is acceptable to me, though as a vegetarian I'm in a small but growing minority. Unlike many vegetarians I have zero intention of imposing my ethical views on animal slaughter on others: I've always thought doing so is unseemly, and somehow unbritish.
Pretty much a perfect example of the cultural relativism that David was criticising. Sorry MBE but to my mind you are utterly wrong in almost everything you have written there.
Mr. Taffys, indeed. The British press refused to show the picture and we now have a de facto blasphemy law for Mohammed.
I think that European governments need to completely rethink their attitudes towards discrimination and "hate" speech. Currently, the default official position is to treat White Europeans as perpetrators of racial and religious discrimination, and ethnic minorities in general, and Muslims in particular, as their victims. A good example was Nadim Zahawi's recent article on Con Home which asserted, without proof, that top British universities discriminate against black applicants. Now, if that's what an ostensibly centre-right politician believes, we can guess what kind of attitudes prevail in more left wing circles.
And, if you promote the idea that particular groups are the victims of White Europeans, you shouldn't be surprised if some of them are disaffected from European societies.
Comments
from special adviser to Jeremy Corbyn
https://twitter.com/WesleyBrownLab/status/665455922916040705
Edited - apparently a fake tweet. Apologies
The Algerian War dates back 60 years, Mitterrand was a hard line interior Minister in the Fourth Republic with responsibilities for Algeria. De Gaulle arrived in the chaos of 1958. Not all Muslims in Algeria fought for Independence, some escaped to France many of those who fought with the French died after the French left.
The journalist appears to believe that there will be a hard right backlash, what does it mean? Fights on the streets, killings or the election of Le Pen.
Every step forward we make to reclaim our own cultural values is a good thing.
Wesley Brown is a seven year old delinquent, and I claim a hammer and sickle lapel pin.
Edited extra bit: a spoof account? My lapel will have to go pinless, then.
I used to work for a major chain which I will not name and don't want anyone to guess which used Halal chicken (since it was imported that way, not deliberately) but which had a policy of not advertising itself as Halal. We were told if a customer who wanted Halal food asked if our food was Halal then the answer was to be no (because our own handling procedures were not Halal). This was not an intent to mislead but to avoid doing so.
Compare with the reality of the Charlie Hebdo editor confirming in July this year that the magazine will no longer be drawing mohammed.
That said, it's an actual not theoretical risk to life if you're the one making the magazine. Glad that my writing comedy is largely taking the piss out of elves who, although being total bastards, are not renowned for acts of terrorism over cartoons.
As far as I can see you offer no solutions to these issues nor even any recognition of their existence.
Stodgy: it's not fear I feel but defiance and a bloody-minded determination not to continue tolerating the intolerable, to push back against it, compassion for the victims, their families and friends, hatred for those who bring evil into our lives and utter contempt for those who seek to justify and excuse them.
We shall endure because we always have done.
We might be a collection of small rainy archipelagos in the North Atlantic but we've consistently led the fight against tyranny and oppression in all its guises for centuries.
We will do so again. There is no other option.
Is it a spoof account?
Quite. Despite all the noise about solidarity, in the real world the Charlie Hebdo atrocity was a big victory for islamism.
What I do know, is that the Nusra front, the Al Qaeda offshoot in Syria, was ordered by its spiritual bosses not to bother trying to attack 'Western' targets a number of months back.
Hollande has said it was IS.
https://twitter.com/DarrenGrintz
'For all David H's fine words, I'm reminded that one of our "values" (well, it's one of mine at any rate) is compassion and for all the hard-nosed talk about how we should treat the exodus from the Syrian battlefields and elsewhere, it seems that fear rather than compassion is winning the day.'
I'm reminded that the first duty of leaders is to protect their citizens and clearly this is impossible when hundreds if not thousands of additional terrorists are allowed unchecked entry into Europe every day.
A fine passage, but I fear other than token words even that will be beyond us as a society. It will be said, briefly, and then the same old behaviours of constant self blame will reassert. I'm as guilty of that sort of thing as anyone, and we and our leaders lack the will even to say such things, let alone move on to concrete actions of any kind.
The problem is millions of people support or tolerate the sort of thing that went on last night. IS fell in a previous form once, but it reemerged because of those millions, and when IS goes, the same thing will happen whether we do nothing, or everything. No one would deny it is not a majority of muslims who feel that way, but the uncomfortable fact is even if it is a tiny majority driving it, there are still far too many who put up with it.
Really our issue, the issue behind our lack of will, is we have through these times of peace and largess, allowed ourselves to be deluded that the world has not always been a very brutal place. History is not some inevitable march to a place of enlightenment, and though it's not exactly at civilization destroying levels, this sort of threat, persistent and unsolvable, and potentially mitigated only through actions we deem unpalatable, shows our delusion is under threat.
Quite. There's absolutely nothing wrong with the society that the elite have created for us, didn't you know? Didn't you get the memo?
https://twitter.com/DarrenGrintz
" Woger the Appologist, there's a shocker."
I'm anything but. i have more affection for france than anywhere. Probably the most civilized country in the world which is what makes these events particularly tragic
which it intends to spread to the rest of the world. It is not open to negotiation and even if the West pulled out of other countries, it would make no difference.
Most Muslims disapprove but plenty support these aims. Useful idiots abound and are probably over-represented in the media and left wing commentators.
Facts won't matter, but they are entitled to their opinions. Best to ignore them as the great majority do understand the problem.
There will be a few more of these atrocities but we'll win in the end.
French president Francois Hollande says #Paris attacks were "an act of war" and organised & planned from abroad with help inside France
After 9am I tuned into LBC on my walk and there was the best analyst I have heard since 10pm yesterday. Tim Marshall ex Sky News Foreign Affairs Editor. In 5 minutes he provided more insight than the hours of stuff churned out. The % of muslims in France (7% reported and 10% probably), Schengen , the EC referendum, armed police in our cities etc etc..... If only the BBC had people of that quality.
Rome's martial spirit and patriotism was enervated by decades of luxury, prosperity and peace. When tyrants and barbarians suddenly turned up, Rome was too busy weakening itself with civil wars and too bereft of virtues to assert what had made it glorious.
Miss Plato, won't happen. Politicians love passing laws. Makes them feel like they're doing something.
@jessicaelgot: Hollande blames Paris attacks on Islamic state, declares three days of mourning https://t.co/0FKkEH0PRf
Are we compelled to respect the beliefs of others who don't see us as equals? Are we forbidden to discriminate against those who don't like us? Are we compelled to respect religious beliefs in all times and all places? Or do we need to think more intelligently about what a modern society will tolerate and what, and who it may reject ? And most of all are we allowed to say what we damn well like about anything - islam, or the character of the prophet Muhammed - And know that our right to free speech will be honoured and protected, with the force of law if necessary?
And clearly we can't.
I'd like to ban live exports because that creates work for slaughterhouses and packagers here.
Ahem.
Perhaps it is worth considering after remembrance day that what ISIS is doing is a tiny fraction of what we did to each other in the last century. Doesn;t make it any less horrible, of course.
Read the comments on here when Gerard Batten suggested Muslim Leaders sign a charter denouncing jihadi violence
But it's necessary to recognise that defeating ISIS will not entirely solve the problem, any more than banning halal or burqas or other random digs at Muslims in general. France in particular but the world in general has a small number of disaffected young men who are prepared to kill us, and a somewhat wider circle of people who are reluctant to inform on them. That won't change according to whatever we do in the Middle East. Nor is it realistic to think we can entirely eliminate them - from time to time you will get an individual group of nutters (e.g. the Baader-Meinhof group). But we can make them extremely isolated and rare - cf. Mao and the fish in the sea.
The three priorities are (1) to maximise information on people taking an interest in terror. I have lost interest in measures to protect us against authorities checking out what website we look at or reading our emails. I think the situation requires that we allow it, with a reasonable code of practice and a review process to check how it is used. (2) to minimise tolerance of nutters among people to whom contact with the authorities doesn't come naturally. That means a concerted effort with mosques and others to tell people that their duty is to report anything of this kind. Mainstream Muslim leaders will help - it is not in their interest to have the communiy associated with the nutters. (3) to do what we can to prevent the arrival of new recruits. As readers here will know, I'm not bothered by immigration and I support giving refuge to people in fear, but even if you disagree, the issue that terrorists will try to get in no matter how many walls we build needs to be addressed. The process needs to be channeled and monitored, which means setting up application camps where people have a reasonable chance of admission but everyone will be checked, and maintaining sufficient border guards to make the application camps the best option. It will be expensive, but not doing it will be more expensive.
Oh dear Jezza's running scared.
What else to expect from a BBC employee?
And if we want to continue taking the fight against tyranny and oppression, as TSE puts it downthread, we are going to have to take tough and unpalatable actions.
And clearly we can't.
Fat Steve has summed up what I want to say perfectly.
https://twitter.com/DarrenGrintz
Why are we not surprised he works for the BBC!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsRrt8vKtWE
No one asked him anything tricky - yet.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-34810131
Its all the fault of.....France's secular tradition, doncha know.
10:11AM
isam said:
» show previous quotes
Enoch Powell predicted this would happen, Farage has been warning this would happen... the people in power, and those who worship at their feet, have smeared them and denounced their predictions to the detriment of us all
Read the comments on here when Gerard Batten suggested Muslim Leaders sign a charter denouncing jihadi violence
Well said."
The fascists are gathering already
Immigration of Hindi and Sikhs from India has been an unqualified success, that from the Caribbean more of a qualified success but certainly not particularly problematic.
The problem is Islam and its festering underpinnings which spread a creed which is utterly destructive to our cultures and values.
And the answers to your questions are that no, we are not compelled and should not be compelled to respect anyone or any thing, including religious belief. Respect is earned not demanded. And anyone who demands it, particularly under threats of violence, does not deserve respect.
And no we should not be obliged to tolerate the intolerable. And we should discriminate against those who seek to undermine us. Discrimination is only bad when it is done for irrelevant reasons. Discriminating against someone who hates you or tries to kill you is not just tolerable but essential.
And, yes, we can and should and, as far as I'm concerned, will continue to say what we damn well like about anything at all.
Secondly, I am making the same point as you, you utter cretin
Why people are banned for using bad language but not for calling people racist I do not know
You are a fool
Much better to stay out and let events take their course. As the news yesterday from Sinjar shows, ISIS is in retreat and its "society" is collapsing under the weight of its own contradictions. These attacks are a desperate attempt to distract from that. They are a sign of weakness, not strength.
They've got the 2015 Long Distance Dummy-Spitting title sewn up.
Where Labour will stand on military action now will be interesting to say the least.
On another note, I just have to vent re Obama - I can't stand his All About Me speechifying. I heard him last night and wanted to knock the TV over. I very very rarely feel like that.
Thats just appeasement, simple appeasement. The same when Hitler was gobbling up europe until a line in the sand had to be drawn.
Roger has made it clear on many occasions who he thinks is the real enemy.
We also need to get our heads round the fact that an even more numerically chunky segment of British society is Muslim, and to find an accommodation with what "British culture" might mean in this context. We seem to have accepted the cuisine created by Bangladeshis from Sylhet as a pretty fundamental part of British culture. There are Muslim British cultural and political figures who seem to be accepted as "proper Brits". It's what becomes of the millions of ordinary people that's the issue here - how do you stop a tiny but significant minority seeking "justice" in the form of violent extremism, how do you get the majority to feel comfortably "British"? It seems self evident to me that if you define British cultural identity as, by definition, "not Muslim", then you're going to have a heck of a lot harder of a job to integrate hundreds of thousands of Muslims. I can't see the need for this: successful integration has generally been tolerant and accepting, rather than oppressive and imposing. And by its nature it's a two-way process with an element of cultural fusion: even a smaller (sub) culture can leave a strong and distinctive mark on wider society. (It's likely easier if numbers are smaller and communities are less ghettoized - there is immigration policy to look at, but also housing, anti-poverty/social inclusion, and education.)
As for the animal welfare angle, my personal view is that no form of slaughter is acceptable to me, though as a vegetarian I'm in a small but growing minority. Unlike many vegetarians I have zero intention of imposing my ethical views on animal slaughter on others: I've always thought doing so is unseemly, and somehow unbritish.
@Richard Tyndall:
The Syrian and Sub-Saharan Diasporas have different origins and reasons but the net effects are the same. In Syria, the exodus will end as and when it becomes possible to restore stability to that country and create conditions to encourage voluntary repatriation. That won't be with a vengeful Assad and his security apparatus in place.
The fact is the migrants are here and perhaps winter will slow them down, perhaps not but it is a humanitarian disaster in the making if we do not quickly make arrangements to allow these people to survive.
@Cyclefree:
I'm not sure our positions are that far apart but I don't have your anger. Perhaps I should but I don't. Intolerance and evil comes in all shades, colours and creeds - all have to be resisted.
We should not walk into ISIS's trap.
"And no we should not be obliged to tolerate the intolerable. And we should discriminate against those who seek to undermine us. Discrimination is only bad when it is done for irrelevant reasons. Discriminating against someone who hates you or tries to kill you is not just tolerable but essential"
How does that translate into action? Who exactly do we discriminate against and what form should this take? We have plenty of laws against those who threaten to kill or who actually kill. In what way can we take it further?
And, if you promote the idea that particular groups are the victims of White Europeans, you shouldn't be surprised if some of them are disaffected from European societies.