"possession of a record of terrorist information of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terror" is a ridiculous crime.
Rewrite the law, or else apply it fairly - and bring hundreds of thousands of people to court.
I assume hundreds of thousands of people don’t have this problem.
Last year Mr Walker travelled to the Middle East to help Kurdish fighters and was detained by officers at Gatwick Airport on his return to the UK in December, the court heard.
It strikes me that, as with his time as Justice Minister, Gove has decided that he needs to adopt a radical but informed agenda for his brief. He also does not strike me as someone who is in hoc to the big Agri-businesses and so is more willing to look at the real issues rather than just going along with the status quo.
This is why Michael Gove is a great minister. Trouble is he takes his eye off the day job so does not even notice the shortfalls in school places, and the shortfall in prison places. If true to form, Gove will introduce ecologically sound soil guidelines while supermarket shelves are bare and food is left to rot in post-Brexit customs warehouses.
I hardly think that is fair given that one of his actions as Justice Secretary was to announce the building of 9 new prisons to house an extra 10,000 prisoners.
Yes one can always do more but a 12% increase in prison places is hardly a case of not noticing.
The question should be why there should be a 12% increase in prison places if crime is falling.....
Fewer crimes but more imprisonable offences being committed.
Got to put all those twitter trolls somewhere.
I suppose they need space for the exhumed corpses of deceased paedophiles too, if they ever actually manage to make a case against any of them.
"possession of a record of terrorist information of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terror" is a ridiculous crime.
Rewrite the law, or else apply it fairly - and bring hundreds of thousands of people to court.
I assume hundreds of thousands of people don’t have this problem.
Last year Mr Walker travelled to the Middle East to help Kurdish fighters and was detained by officers at Gatwick Airport on his return to the UK in December, the court heard.
That's irrelevant to the prosecution, no?
Why isn't he being prosecuted for that?
I dunno the laws around discussion of cases, so it's probably best to shut up until the verdict.
Peters set out his proposals for a CCER in a speech in February 2016, in which he said he hoped the UK would leave the EU to “heal a rift” with NZ that occurred when the UK joined the EEC. He noted that Boris Johnson had backed a migration agreement between the UK, NZ, Australia and Canada, suggesting that a future migration agreement between these four countries could be based on the current Transtasman Travel Agreement (the agreement between Australia and NZ that allows an automatic right to live and work).
'Cos they're mostly white and speak English? That would make it better?
Much better. We voted to leave the EU to cut down on the number of immigrants who change the nature of our neighbourhoods and don't integrate and cover their faces half the time.
Can't tell if you're serious or sarcastic but Islam is the religion of 1.8% of the EU and 2.6% of Australia so again no that's not it.
Wiki has the number of Muslims in the EU at 3.8% in 2010, so must be getting on for 5% now.
No idea where you're getting your 1.8% figure from.
"possession of a record of terrorist information of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terror" is a ridiculous crime.
Rewrite the law, or else apply it fairly - and bring hundreds of thousands of people to court.
I assume hundreds of thousands of people don’t have this problem.
Last year Mr Walker travelled to the Middle East to help Kurdish fighters and was detained by officers at Gatwick Airport on his return to the UK in December, the court heard.
That's irrelevant to the prosecution, no?
I’m guessing when he was detained at Gatwick that was the trigger for the police to search his property and that’s when they found it.
The reaction of the Labour Party over Jared O'Mara is no surprise.
Because they behaved exactly the same over the BNP.
When former BNP members were found to have joined UKIP, the Tories or the LIbDems, it was evidence of disturbing undercurrents of evil racism in those parties.
But when a former BNP councillor joined Labour in Darwen, the Labour Party were so pleased they made him Mayor.
Peters set out his proposals for a CCER in a speech in February 2016, in which he said he hoped the UK would leave the EU to “heal a rift” with NZ that occurred when the UK joined the EEC. He noted that Boris Johnson had backed a migration agreement between the UK, NZ, Australia and Canada, suggesting that a future migration agreement between these four countries could be based on the current Transtasman Travel Agreement (the agreement between Australia and NZ that allows an automatic right to live and work).
Peters set out his proposals for a CCER in a speech in February 2016, in which he said he hoped the UK would leave the EU to “heal a rift” with NZ that occurred when the UK joined the EEC. He noted that Boris Johnson had backed a migration agreement between the UK, NZ, Australia and Canada, suggesting that a future migration agreement between these four countries could be based on the current Transtasman Travel Agreement (the agreement between Australia and NZ that allows an automatic right to live and work).
'Cos they're mostly white and speak English? That would make it better?
Much better. We voted to leave the EU to cut down on the number of immigrants who change the nature of our neighbourhoods and don't integrate and cover their faces half the time.
Can't tell if you're serious or sarcastic but Islam is the religion of 1.8% of the EU and 2.6% of Australia so again no that's not it.
Wiki has the number of Muslims in the EU at 3.8% in 2010, so must be getting on for 5% now.
No idea where you're getting your 1.8% figure from.
"possession of a record of terrorist information of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terror" is a ridiculous crime.
Rewrite the law, or else apply it fairly - and bring hundreds of thousands of people to court.
I assume hundreds of thousands of people don’t have this problem.
Last year Mr Walker travelled to the Middle East to help Kurdish fighters and was detained by officers at Gatwick Airport on his return to the UK in December, the court heard.
That's irrelevant to the prosecution, no?
I’m guessing when he was detained at Gatwick that was the trigger for the police to search his property and that’s when they found it.
It strikes me that, as with his time as Justice Minister, Gove has decided that he needs to adopt a radical but informed agenda for his brief. He also does not strike me as someone who is in hoc to the big Agri-businesses and so is more willing to look at the real issues rather than just going along with the status quo.
This is why Michael Gove is a great minister. Trouble is he takes his eye off the day job so does not even notice the shortfalls in school places, and the shortfall in prison places. If true to form, Gove will introduce ecologically sound soil guidelines while supermarket shelves are bare and food is left to rot in post-Brexit customs warehouses.
I hardly think that is fair given that one of his actions as Justice Secretary was to announce the building of 9 new prisons to house an extra 10,000 prisoners.
Yes one can always do more but a 12% increase in prison places is hardly a case of not noticing.
The question should be why there should be a 12% increase in prison places if crime is falling.....
Perhaps because prison officers and reform organisations have been complaining for years about overcrowding.
Either that or they are planning on imprisoning all Momentum supporters
"possession of a record of terrorist information of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terror" is a ridiculous crime.
Rewrite the law, or else apply it fairly - and bring hundreds of thousands of people to court.
I assume hundreds of thousands of people don’t have this problem.
Last year Mr Walker travelled to the Middle East to help Kurdish fighters and was detained by officers at Gatwick Airport on his return to the UK in December, the court heard.
That's irrelevant to the prosecution, no?
I’m guessing when he was detained at Gatwick that was the trigger for the police to search his property and that’s when they found it.
Prosecutors claimed that Mr Walker had “no reasonable excuse” to own the manual, which was found in a drawer under his bed during a search of his home after he arrived back at Gatwick airport on December 29 last year.
Hundreds and thousands of people don't go that part of the world to fight.
"possession of a record of terrorist information of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terror" is a ridiculous crime.
Rewrite the law, or else apply it fairly - and bring hundreds of thousands of people to court.
I assume hundreds of thousands of people don’t have this problem.
Last year Mr Walker travelled to the Middle East to help Kurdish fighters and was detained by officers at Gatwick Airport on his return to the UK in December, the court heard.
That's irrelevant to the prosecution, no?
I’m guessing when he was detained at Gatwick that was the trigger for the police to search his property and that’s when they found it.
Prosecutors claimed that Mr Walker had “no reasonable excuse” to own the manual, which was found in a drawer under his bed during a search of his home after he arrived back at Gatwick airport on December 29 last year.
Hundreds and thousands of people don't go that part of the world to fight.
And isn't this what we have courts for? A fair way of determining how a law should be interpreted and enforced and then how that impacts on an individual case.
Without the full facts, it is impossible to judge whether the prosecution is justified. From the short articles, it would appear not - but we don't have all the evidence that the DPP did.
"possession of a record of terrorist information of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terror" is a ridiculous crime.
Rewrite the law, or else apply it fairly - and bring hundreds of thousands of people to court.
I assume hundreds of thousands of people don’t have this problem.
Last year Mr Walker travelled to the Middle East to help Kurdish fighters and was detained by officers at Gatwick Airport on his return to the UK in December, the court heard.
That's irrelevant to the prosecution, no?
I’m guessing when he was detained at Gatwick that was the trigger for the police to search his property and that’s when they found it.
Prosecutors claimed that Mr Walker had “no reasonable excuse” to own the manual, which was found in a drawer under his bed during a search of his home after he arrived back at Gatwick airport on December 29 last year.
Hundreds and thousands of people don't go that part of the world to fight.
If travelling to syria and fighting against ISIS is a crime, then prosecute him for that.
Pretty sure that sort of talk was being raised as the reason certain communities don't vote Tory.
Indeed it was. On the previous thread.
The cognitive dissonance of those who see no issue with the immigration of large numbers of people from misognynistic and homophobic and racist cultures but then complain loudly at the increase in misogyny and homophobia and racism is one of the wonders of our age.
Apparently it is illiberal to point this out. And liberal to welcome an increase in mysogynistic communities.
As Ms Rayner pointed out, quite a lot of these people will vote for them. So challenging their views is just not British. Or something.
Or possibly they're all a load of hypocrites who think that it is enough to proclaim their opposition to homophobia, racism and misogyny while opposing all and any practical measures to reduce it. Or to challenge those who practice it.
"possession of a record of terrorist information of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terror" is a ridiculous crime.
Rewrite the law, or else apply it fairly - and bring hundreds of thousands of people to court.
I assume hundreds of thousands of people don’t have this problem.
Last year Mr Walker travelled to the Middle East to help Kurdish fighters and was detained by officers at Gatwick Airport on his return to the UK in December, the court heard.
That's irrelevant to the prosecution, no?
I’m guessing when he was detained at Gatwick that was the trigger for the police to search his property and that’s when they found it.
Prosecutors claimed that Mr Walker had “no reasonable excuse” to own the manual, which was found in a drawer under his bed during a search of his home after he arrived back at Gatwick airport on December 29 last year.
Hundreds and thousands of people don't go that part of the world to fight.
If travelling to syria and fighting against ISIS is a crime, then prosecute him for that.
But that's not what this prosecution is about.
CPS may have decided that there was a better chance of securing a conviction for this charge.
"possession of a record of terrorist information of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terror" is a ridiculous crime.
Rewrite the law, or else apply it fairly - and bring hundreds of thousands of people to court.
I assume hundreds of thousands of people don’t have this problem.
Last year Mr Walker travelled to the Middle East to help Kurdish fighters and was detained by officers at Gatwick Airport on his return to the UK in December, the court heard.
That's irrelevant to the prosecution, no?
I’m guessing when he was detained at Gatwick that was the trigger for the police to search his property and that’s when they found it.
Prosecutors claimed that Mr Walker had “no reasonable excuse” to own the manual, which was found in a drawer under his bed during a search of his home after he arrived back at Gatwick airport on December 29 last year.
Hundreds and thousands of people don't go that part of the world to fight.
If travelling to syria and fighting against ISIS is a crime, then prosecute him for that.
But that's not what this prosecution is about.
CPS may have decided that there was a better chance of securing a conviction for this charge.
Yes, I suspect that's what has happened.
"possession of a record of terrorist information of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terror" is a stupid, generalized, non-specific crime that shouldn't be on the books.
"possession of a record of terrorist information of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terror" is a ridiculous crime.
Rewrite the law, or else apply it fairly - and bring hundreds of thousands of people to court.
I assume hundreds of thousands of people don’t have this problem.
Last year Mr Walker travelled to the Middle East to help Kurdish fighters and was detained by officers at Gatwick Airport on his return to the UK in December, the court heard.
That's irrelevant to the prosecution, no?
I’m guessing when he was detained at Gatwick that was the trigger for the police to search his property and that’s when they found it.
Prosecutors claimed that Mr Walker had “no reasonable excuse” to own the manual, which was found in a drawer under his bed during a search of his home after he arrived back at Gatwick airport on December 29 last year.
Hundreds and thousands of people don't go that part of the world to fight.
If travelling to syria and fighting against ISIS is a crime, then prosecute him for that.
But that's not what this prosecution is about.
CPS may have decided that there was a better chance of securing a conviction for this charge.
Yes, I suspect that's what has happened.
"possession of a record of terrorist information of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terror" is a stupid, generalized, non-specific crime that shouldn't be on the books.
Is it? That's a fairly generalised, non-specific and, if you don't mind my saying so, rather stupid reaction. Doesn't it depend on the information being held e.g. details of when soldiers are entering or leaving barracks + information on how to detonate a bomb using a mobile phone + a map of said barracks?
Pretty sure that sort of talk was being raised as the reason certain communities don't vote Tory.
Indeed it was. On the previous thread.
The cognitive dissonance of those who see no issue with the immigration of large numbers of people from misognynistic and homophobic and racist cultures but then complain loudly at the increase in misogyny and homophobia and racism is one of the wonders of our age.
Apparently it is illiberal to point this out. And liberal to welcome an increase in mysogynistic communities.
As Ms Rayner pointed out, quite a lot of these people will vote for them. So challenging their views is just not British. Or something.
Or possibly they're all a load of hypocrites who think that it is enough to proclaim their opposition to homophobia, racism and misogyny while opposing all and any practical measures to reduce it. Or to challenge those who practice it.
Prosecutors claimed that Mr Walker had “no reasonable excuse” to own the manual, which was found in a drawer under his bed during a search of his home after he arrived back at Gatwick airport on December 29 last year.
Hundreds and thousands of people don't go that part of the world to fight.
If travelling to syria and fighting against ISIS is a crime, then prosecute him for that.
But that's not what this prosecution is about.
CPS may have decided that there was a better chance of securing a conviction for this charge.
Yes, I suspect that's what has happened.
"possession of a record of terrorist information of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terror" is a stupid, generalized, non-specific crime that shouldn't be on the books.
Is it? That's a fairly generalised, non-specific and, if you don't mind my saying so, rather stupid reaction. Doesn't it depend on the information being held e.g. details of when soldiers are entering or leaving barracks + information on how to detonate a bomb using a mobile phone + a map of said barracks?
No. It depends on the motivation for holding that information. The information itself it just information.
"preparing an act of terror" should absolutely be a crime.
"possession of a record of terrorist information of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terror" criminalizes the innocent and facilitates ideologically motivated proxy prosecutions for those with agendas.
Pretty sure that sort of talk was being raised as the reason certain communities don't vote Tory.
Indeed it was. On the previous thread.
The cognitive dissonance of those who see no issue with the immigration of large numbers of people from misognynistic and homophobic and racist cultures but then complain loudly at the increase in misogyny and homophobia and racism is one of the wonders of our age.
Apparently it is illiberal to point this out. And liberal to welcome an increase in mysogynistic communities.
This. A thousand times, this.
In any compromise between food and poison, only poison can win. Some ideologies are poisonous and to allow them quarter in a liberal democratic society is asking for trouble. It is, as you put it, cognitive dissonance in the extreme and I cannot fathom it.
If it were down to me I would make all immigrants sign a citizen's charter and attend mandatory citizenship classes before allowing them the right to remain in the country long term.
There seems to be some disquiet expressing itself at the heart of the EU Project.....
Maybe Tusk has rediscovered his Polish origins - the Poles are possibly the least accepting nation in terms of immigrstoon from outside Europe in the EU.
Some cultures - plural - are more homophobic and misogynistic than others.
Are cultures fixed?
They can be if they are inward looking and not challenged.
Misogyny doesn't disappear just like that. It has to be challenged. And even in Western countries which profess equality between men and women there is a lot to do, as, for instance, the Weinstein affair shows. But you have a chance if fixed ideas about the role of women are challenged.
Or you can have societies, like ours, which proclaim equality between the sexes but allow the creation, at public expense, of schools where girls are treated as inferior to such an extent that Ofsted fails the school and only after endless legal challenges is that decision finally upheld. We obsess about what some actresses endured but turn a blind eye to what young British girls were made to endure during their childhood and education because, well because bluntly, such girls were not white and we were too afraid to challenge the bullies who inflicted this on them.
60 years after the Board of Education vs Brown in the US we're having to fight our own "separate but equal" nonsense here. And complaining about being put in this position is somehow illiberal.
Some cultures - plural - are more homophobic and misogynistic than others.
There are around 74 nations where homosexuality remains illegal. The common thread is either they are majority Islamic nations or they are former British colonies - and never abolished the laws the UK introduced. There is only one such nation outside Asia and Africa - Guyana - the only former UK colony in South America!
Some cultures - plural - are more homophobic and misogynistic than others.
There are around 74 nations where homosexuality remains illegal. The common thread is either they are majority Islamic nations or they are former British colonies - and never abolished the laws the UK introduced. There is only one such nation outside Asia and Africa - Guyana - the only former UK colony in South America!
Some ideologies are poisonous and to allow them quarter in a liberal democratic society is asking for trouble. It is, as you put it, cognitive dissonance in the extreme and I cannot fathom it.
Some ideas are too unwelcome to allow them to be expressed in a liberal democratic society? Liberal democratic in the Zhirinovsky sense? Nonsense.
If democracy doesn't include space for ideas not currently regarded as "acceptable", it is no longer free. And yes, I would also defend the right to believe in, say, Nazism or ISIS. The only constraint I'd put is that ideas should not be put in a manner clearly intended to cause conflict (including actual violence, of course).
I even defend the right to oppose free expression, as you do. I'll see you at the ballot box.
Some ideologies are poisonous and to allow them quarter in a liberal democratic society is asking for trouble. It is, as you put it, cognitive dissonance in the extreme and I cannot fathom it.
Some ideas are too unwelcome to allow them to be expressed in a liberal democratic society? Liberal democratic in the Zhirinovsky sense? Nonsense.
If democracy doesn't include space for ideas not currently regarded as "acceptable", it is no longer free. And yes, I would also defend the right to believe in, say, Nazism or ISIS. The only constraint I'd put is that ideas should not be put in a manner clearly intended to cause conflict (including actual violence, of course).
I even defend the right to oppose free expression, as you do. I'll see you at the ballot box.
I had thought 'allowing them quarter' meant not challenging unwelcome views, and thus we should challenge them, not that they could not be expressed at all, since not challenging ideas if they belong to specific cultures can be problematic.
I had thought 'allowing them quarter' meant not challenging unwelcome views, and thus we should challenge them, not that they could not be expressed at all, since not challenging ideas if they belong to specific cultures can be problematic.
Ah, if that's what I meant then I apologise, and agree.
I had thought 'allowing them quarter' meant not challenging unwelcome views, and thus we should challenge them, not that they could not be expressed at all, since not challenging ideas if they belong to specific cultures can be problematic.
Ah, if that's what I meant then I apologise, and agree.
I hope that's what it meant.
There's also the issue that while I have no doubt you would stand up for the right of others to express views you find personally disagreeable, even abhorrent, the trend is towards the opposite. 'How can such be an [elected representative] if they believe X?' is a comment I am sure we have all seen. This is a place where a lot of people all over the spectrum were so worried the public would be taken in by Nick Griffin they were furious he appeared on QT. Now he had no right to be on there, they can invite or not invite people, but there seemed a real worry if you allow someone to express unwelcome views, there is groundswell of people just waiting to be brainwashed by them. In which case the problem is not really the person expressing the view at all really.
Some cultures - plural - are more homophobic and misogynistic than others.
There are around 74 nations where homosexuality remains illegal. The common thread is either they are majority Islamic nations or they are former British colonies - and never abolished the laws the UK introduced. There is only one such nation outside Asia and Africa - Guyana - the only former UK colony in South America!
The Communists were pretty brutal towards homosexuals, although there are few Communist States left.
Oddly, homosexuality was legalised in France in 1791, and so, never became a crime in the French Empire (though several countries made it a crime, after independence).
Some ideologies are poisonous and to allow them quarter in a liberal democratic society is asking for trouble. It is, as you put it, cognitive dissonance in the extreme and I cannot fathom it.
Some ideas are too unwelcome to allow them to be expressed in a liberal democratic society? Liberal democratic in the Zhirinovsky sense? Nonsense.
If democracy doesn't include space for ideas not currently regarded as "acceptable", it is no longer free. And yes, I would also defend the right to believe in, say, Nazism or ISIS. The only constraint I'd put is that ideas should not be put in a manner clearly intended to cause conflict (including actual violence, of course).
I even defend the right to oppose free expression, as you do. I'll see you at the ballot box.
Fair enough. I think cultural relatavism is an absolutely cancerous ideology in and of itself - some beliefs simply aren't compatible with an open and tolerant society and the only way to protect our way of life is to be intolerant of them. There is enough bigotry and intolerance in the country already without importing it wholesale.
For some time, 2018 has been favourite - though it's been gradually, but steadily drifting. Only 2 or 3 days ago it was almost an exact co-favourite with 2019 and 2022.
Well it's now gone clear 3rd favourite - Betfair back prices:
I haven't seen many posts on here on the subject - but it does seem over the last week or two that things have significantly calmed down - less sense of an imminent challenge to May and a sense that the Brexit negotiations are unlikely to fall apart soon (even if opinions vary re the amount of actual progress).
It's starting to look as if the Brexit talks crunch will be October 2018 - with a challenge to May unlikely before then as long as negotiations don't completely break down before then.
If the above is right, a GE within the next 12 months is becoming more unlikely - and Betfair seems to reflect that.
Some cultures - plural - are more homophobic and misogynistic than others.
There are around 74 nations where homosexuality remains illegal. The common thread is either they are majority Islamic nations or they are former British colonies - and never abolished the laws the UK introduced. There is only one such nation outside Asia and Africa - Guyana - the only former UK colony in South America!
Some cultures - plural - are more homophobic and misogynistic than others.
There are around 74 nations where homosexuality remains illegal. The common thread is either they are majority Islamic nations or they are former British colonies - and never abolished the laws the UK introduced. There is only one such nation outside Asia and Africa - Guyana - the only former UK colony in South America!
For some time, 2018 has been favourite - though it's been gradually, but steadily drifting. Only 2 or 3 days ago it was almost an exact co-favourite with 2019 and 2022.
Well it's now gone clear 3rd favourite - Betfair back prices:
I haven't seen many posts on here on the subject - but it does seem over the last week or two that things have significantly calmed down - less sense of an imminent challenge to May and a sense that the Brexit negotiations are unlikely to fall apart soon (even if opinions vary re the amount of progress).
It's starting to look as if the Brexit talks crunch will be October 2018 - with a challenge to May unlikely as long as negotiations don't completely break down before then.
If the above is right, a GE within the next 12 months is becoming more unlikely - and Betfair seems to reflect that.
Seems sound. Every time there is a crisis the overall weakness of the government means it seems like a GE could come at any time, but it's simply not easy to have one anymore, and the party in power is in no hurry to have one, so as you say unless a major break down forces a challenge, I think we're spared a GE until 2019 at least.
Interesting indeed. I certainly don't know the region, but since one of the younger generation was put in a position of power there has to be the chance of some measure of change at least (albeit not necessarily for the better in all things).
Fair enough. I think cultural relatavism is an absolutely cancerous ideology in and of itself - some beliefs simply aren't compatible with an open and tolerant society and the only way to protect our way of life is to be intolerant of them. There is enough bigotry and intolerance in the country already without importing it wholesale.
Thank you for your temperate response to my rather overheated post.
There was an interesting test case some years ago in Sweden. The Swedes had (and for all I know may still have) a tax on mass-marke tadvertising, the proceeds from which are used to subsidise newspapers promoting little-heard views, the idea being to offer consumers the greatest possible range of opinions. The Government received an application from a little-known Trotskist group which favoured "peaceful struggle for workers' conttrol and the abolition of bourgious democracy". The authorities said hmm, yes, that's a little-heard opinion, and gave them some funding.
Is that a sign of democratric strength, confident enough to give a hearing to its opponents? Or of letting loonies take the piss? I've never been sure, but I do admire the attempt to be consistent.
Some cultures - plural - are more homophobic and misogynistic than others.
There are around 74 nations where homosexuality remains illegal. The common thread is either they are majority Islamic nations or they are former British colonies - and never abolished the laws the UK introduced. There is only one such nation outside Asia and Africa - Guyana - the only former UK colony in South America!
Pretty sure that sort of talk was being raised as the reason certain communities don't vote Tory.
Indeed it was. On the previous thread.
The cognitive dissonance of those who see no issue with the immigration of large numbers of people from misognynistic and homophobic and racist cultures but then complain loudly at the increase in misogyny and homophobia and racism is one of the wonders of our age.
Apparently it is illiberal to point this out. And liberal to welcome an increase in mysogynistic communities.
As Ms Rayner pointed out, quite a lot of these people will vote for them. So challenging their views is just not British. Or something.
Or possibly they're all a load of hypocrites who think that it is enough to proclaim their opposition to homophobia, racism and misogyny while opposing all and any practical measures to reduce it. Or to challenge those who practice it.
Fair enough. I think cultural relatavism is an absolutely cancerous ideology in and of itself - some beliefs simply aren't compatible with an open and tolerant society and the only way to protect our way of life is to be intolerant of them. There is enough bigotry and intolerance in the country already without importing it wholesale.
Thank you for your temperate response to my rather overheated post.
There was an interesting test case some years ago in Sweden. The Swedes had (and for all I know may still have) a tax on mass-marke tadvertising, the proceeds from which are used to subsidise newspapers promoting little-heard views, the idea being to offer consumers the greatest possible range of opinions. The Government received an application from a little-known Trotskist group which favoured "peaceful struggle for workers' conttrol and the abolition of bourgious democracy". The authorities said hmm, yes, that's a little-heard opinion, and gave them some funding.
Is that a sign of democratric strength, confident enough to give a hearing to its opponents? Or of letting loonies take the piss? I've never been sure, but I do admire the attempt to be consistent.
The debate here is always very spirited but mostly polite I find!
I suppose with the Swedish situation the views are marginal enough that they aren't worried about them gaining a foothold in society at large. The situation for immigration into the UK is rather different given the scale of it and the de facto open door policy we've had for many years.
The question for me is what if one in four immigrants to the UK holds say, the view that homosexuality is a sin (and should be punished in some way), believes that women are inferior to men, or that Jews are sub-human - what then? What if, within their own communities, these views are allowed to go unchallenged and unchecked? They take root.
I'm not advocating an end to immigration nor the suppression of freedom of speech, not at all. I just think the people we accept here should voluntarily agree to abide by a code of conduct that respects minorities, women, sexualities and so forth, and undergo mandatory citizenship classes before being able to 'qualify' for long term residency. It may not solve all our problems, but in terms of ensuring the people who come to the UK are willing and able to integrate, it would be a good start.
Fair enough. I think cultural relatavism is an absolutely cancerous ideology in and of itself - some beliefs simply aren't compatible with an open and tolerant society and the only way to protect our way of life is to be intolerant of them. There is enough bigotry and intolerance in the country already without importing it wholesale.
Thank you for your temperate response to my rather overheated post.
There was an interesting test case some years ago in Sweden. The Swedes had (and for all I know may still have) a tax on mass-marke tadvertising, the proceeds from which are used to subsidise newspapers promoting little-heard views, the idea being to offer consumers the greatest possible range of opinions. The Government received an application from a little-known Trotskist group which favoured "peaceful struggle for workers' conttrol and the abolition of bourgious democracy". The authorities said hmm, yes, that's a little-heard opinion, and gave them some funding.
Is that a sign of democratric strength, confident enough to give a hearing to its opponents? Or of letting loonies take the piss? I've never been sure, but I do admire the attempt to be consistent.
Would you, and the Swedes, have felt the same if the group was advocating criminalising homosexuality, removing women's rights and the return of the death penalty for minor crimes. These are views which, in spite of being held by some minority groups, our society rightly says are dangerous and should be actively resisted as they have no place in our culture.
Indeed we need to draw a distinction between your Trotskyite example which I would contend is a political difference of view and those advocating Sharia solutions which we would view as fundamentally culturally different.
It is one thing to say (rightly) that we should allow as wide a range of diverse opinions as possible and should support those voices being heard. It is quite another to sit back whilst some people work to violently try and replace our culture with something that is a complete anathema to our way of life.
I had thought 'allowing them quarter' meant not challenging unwelcome views, and thus we should challenge them, not that they could not be expressed at all, since not challenging ideas if they belong to specific cultures can be problematic.
Ah, if that's what I meant then I apologise, and agree.
I hope that's what it meant.
There's also the issue that while I have no doubt you would stand up for the right of others to express views you find personally disagreeable, even abhorrent, the trend is towards the opposite. 'How can such be an [elected representative] if they believe X?' is a comment I am sure we have all seen. This is a place where a lot of people all over the spectrum were so worried the public would be taken in by Nick Griffin they were furious he appeared on QT. Now he had no right to be on there, they can invite or not invite people, but there seemed a real worry if you allow someone to express unwelcome views, there is groundswell of people just waiting to be brainwashed by them. In which case the problem is not really the person expressing the view at all really.
Indeed. See the reaction to Jacob Rees-Mogg setting out his Catholic beliefs. To some, expressing old-fashioned views can have no mitigating circumstances whereas expressing crude, vicious remarks about violence to women is somehow excusable on the grounds of age or disability or whatever.
People have the right to believe in and say what they want, short of inciting violence. That is what the right to free speech means.
But that does not mean that others have an obligation to give them a platform.
The two are often confused. And they ought not to be.
Some cultures - plural - are more homophobic and misogynistic than others.
There are around 74 nations where homosexuality remains illegal. The common thread is either they are majority Islamic nations or they are former British colonies - and never abolished the laws the UK introduced. There is only one such nation outside Asia and Africa - Guyana - the only former UK colony in South America!
The Communists were pretty brutal towards homosexuals, although there are few Communist States left.
Oddly, homosexuality was legalised in France in 1791, and so, never became a crime in the French Empire (though several countries made it a crime, after independence).
Spain decriminalised homosexuality in 1832 - and then recriminalised it in 1928, then legalised it in 1932, then it was made illegal under Franco and made legal in 1979 again. That 1832 to 1928 period may also reflect why there are no former Spanish colonies in South America where being gay is illegal.
Fair enough. I think cultural relatavism is an absolutely cancerous ideology in and of itself - some beliefs simply aren't compatible with an open and tolerant society and the only way to protect our way of life is to be intolerant of them. There is enough bigotry and intolerance in the country already without importing it wholesale.
Than
The debate here is always very spirited but mostly polite I find!
I suppose with the Swedish situation the views are marginal enough that they aren't worried about them gaining a foothold in society at large. The situation for immigration into the UK is rather different given the scale of it and the de facto open door policy we've had for many years.
The question for me is what if one in four immigrants to the UK holds say, the view that homosexuality is a sin (and should be punished in some way), believes that women are inferior to men, or that Jews are sub-human - what then? What if, within their own communities, these views are allowed to go unchallenged and unchecked? They take root.
I'm not advocating an end to immigration nor the suppression of freedom of speech, not at all. I just think the people we accept here should voluntarily agree to abide by a code of conduct that respects minorities, women, sexualities and so forth, and undergo mandatory citizenship classes before being able to 'qualify' for long term residency. It may not solve all our problems, but in terms of ensuring the people who come to the UK are willing and able to integrate, it would be a good start.
I wouldn't go that far, although it does strike me as interesting that to a large proportion in this day and age the idea of placing any restrictions on who can enter a country, and certainly restriction on the type of people or what you will demand of them when they enter, is seen as something terribly unreasonable, when historically it would be perfectly normal. Which is not to say we should just accept things because we did them in the past - heck, that is part of our problem, sometimes - but it is interesting, particularly when the logic of being against any kind of restriction - which is a valid position for people to adopt - butts up against, say, wanting to prioritise one's own citizens or people in a regional area.
Pretty sure that sort of talk was being raised as the reason certain communities don't vote Tory.
Indeed it was. On the previous thread.
The cognitive dissonance of those who see no issue with the immigration of large numbers of people from misognynistic and homophobic and racist cultures but then complain loudly at the increase in misogyny and homophobia and racism is one of the wonders of our age.
Apparently it is illiberal to point this out. And liberal to welcome an increase in mysogynistic communities.
As Ms Rayner pointed out, quite a lot of these people will vote for them. So challenging their views is just not British. Or something.
Or possibly they're all a load of hypocrites who think that it is enough to proclaim their opposition to homophobia, racism and misogyny while opposing all and any practical measures to reduce it. Or to challenge those who practice it.
Ms Ratner pointed this out did she? Angela Rayner didn’t mention the race or ethnic group that the voters she talked to were from. Misogyny is not the preserve of only one group of people, as Jared O’Mara demonstrates.
It is not illiberal to want those with similar values on gender equality and homosexuality to come to Britain. What is illiberal though, is to be anti-immigration in general. What is liberal is to profess liberalism not only on issues concerning gender and sexuality but also on race. Liberals also shouldn’t forget it wasn’t too long that Britain’s attitudes on homosexuality for example, weren’t very liberal. As pong excellently notes, cultures are not fixed - and perhaps British Culture is one of the best examples of this.
Fair enough. I think cultural relatavism is an absolutely cancerous ideology in and of itself - some beliefs simply aren't compatible with an open and tolerant society and the only way to protect our way of life is to be intolerant of them. There is enough bigotry and intolerance in the country already without importing it wholesale.
Thank you for your temperate response to my rather overheated post.
There was an interesting test case some years ago in Sweden. The Swedes had (and for all I know may still have) a tax on mass-marke tadvertising, the proceeds from which are used to subsidise newspapers promoting little-heard views, the idea being to offer consumers the greatest possible range of opinions. The Government received an application from a little-known Trotskist group which favoured "peaceful struggle for workers' conttrol and the abolition of bourgious democracy". The authorities said hmm, yes, that's a little-heard opinion, and gave them some funding.
Is that a sign of democratric strength, confident enough to give a hearing to its opponents? Or of letting loonies take the piss? I've never been sure, but I do admire the attempt to be consistent.
Would you, and the Swedes, have felt the same if the group was advocating criminalising homosexuality, removing women's rights and the return of the death penalty for minor crimes. These are views which, in spite of being held by some minority groups, our society rightly says are dangerous and should be actively resisted as they have no place in our culture.
Indeed we need to draw a distinction between your Trotskyite example which I would contend is a political difference of view and those advocating Sharia solutions which we would view as fundamentally culturally different.
It is one thing to say (rightly) that we should allow as wide a range of diverse opinions as possible and should support those voices being heard. It is quite another to sit back whilst some people work to violently try and replace our culture with something that is a complete anathema to our way of life.
Sharia solutions are not just "fundamentally culturally different". Sharia law has been declared by the ECHR to be fundamentally incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
Turning a blind eye to the spread of sharia inspired practices in our societies makes an absolute mockery of our belief in human rights, our own laws, our belief that everyone is equal under the law and that the law should apply to all equally.
And yet look at how difficult it has been to get the British government to take action to outlaw sharia tribunals which deprive British women of their rights under British law.
Pretty sure that sort of talk was being raised as the reason certain communities don't vote Tory.
Indeed it was. On the previous thread.
The cognitive dissonance of those who see no issue with the immigration of large numbers of people from misognynistic and homophobic and racist cultures but then complain loudly at the increase in misogyny and homophobia and racism is one of the wonders of our age.
Apparently it is illiberal to point this out. And liberal to welcome an increase in mysogynistic communities.
As Ms Rayner pointed out, quite a lot of these people will vote for them. So challenging their views is just not British. Or something.
Or possibly they're all a load of hypocrites who think that it is enough to proclaim their opposition to homophobia, racism and misogyny while opposing all and any practical measures to reduce it. Or to challenge those who practice it.
There was a Labour guy (can't remember his name) who said much the same a few years ago: that the more multicultural and fragmented a society became the harder it was to maintain support for a welfare state.
The answer to that question depends on whether you think there is or can be a "moderate" form of Wahabi Islam. Or, to put it another way, what a younger generation of Saudis might think of as "moderate" might be light years away from what you and I think of as "moderate".
Just because the same words are used does not mean that we mean the same things by them.
Prosecutors claimed that Mr Walker had “no reasonable excuse” to own the manual, which was found in a drawer under his bed during a search of his home after he arrived back at Gatwick airport on December 29 last year.
Hundreds and thousands of people don't go that part of the world to fight.
If travelling to syria and fighting against ISIS is a crime, then prosecute him for that.
But that's not what this prosecution is about.
CPS may have decided that there was a better chance of securing a conviction for this charge.
Yes, I suspect that's what has happened.
"possession of a record of terrorist information of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terror" is a stupid, generalized, non-specific crime that shouldn't be on the books.
Is it? That's a fairly generalised, non-specific and, if you don't mind my saying so, rather stupid reaction. Doesn't it depend on the information being held e.g. details of when soldiers are entering or leaving barracks + information on how to detonate a bomb using a mobile phone + a map of said barracks?
No. It depends on the motivation for holding that information. The information itself it just information.
"preparing an act of terror" should absolutely be a crime.
"possession of a record of terrorist information of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terror" criminalizes the innocent and facilitates ideologically motivated proxy prosecutions for those with agendas.
He said it was for an innocent purpose (to the extent that war gaming is innocent).
The jury looked at his track record and chose not to believe him
Also, re the welfare state: I have yet to see evidence that since the post war period support for the welfare state has declined because black and brown people are now British as well. If anything, more people than ever seem to what many things nationalised - they want to see the state become bigger, not smaller.
Pretty sure that sort of talk was being raised as the reason certain communities don't vote Tory.
Indeed it was. On the previous thread.
The cognitive dissonance of those who see no issue with the immigration of large numbers of people from misognynistic and homophobic and racist cultures but then complain loudly at the increase in misogyny and homophobia and racism is one of the wonders of our age.
Apparently it is illiberal to point this out. And liberal to welcome an increase in mysogynistic communities.
As Ms Rayner pointed out, quite a lot of these people will vote for them. So challenging their views is just not British. Or something.
Or possibly they're all a load of hypocrites who think that it is enough to proclaim their opposition to homophobia, racism and misogyny while opposing all and any practical measures to reduce it. Or to challenge those who practice it.
There was a Labour guy (can't remember his name) who said much the same a few years ago: that the more multicultural and fragmented a society became the harder it was to maintain support for a welfare state.
The cognitive dissonance of those who see no issue with the immigration of large numbers of people from misognynistic and homophobic and racist cultures but then complain loudly at the increase in misogyny and homophobia and racism is one of the wonders of our age.
Apparently it is illiberal to point this out. And liberal to welcome an increase in mysogynistic communities.
Or possibly they're all a load of hypocrites who think that it is enough to proclaim their opposition to homophobia, racism and misogyny while opposing all and any practical measures to reduce it. Or to challenge those who practice it.
Ms Ratner pointed this out did she? Angela Rayner didn’t mention the race or ethnic group that the voters she talked to were from. Misogyny is not the preserve of only one group of people, as Jared O’Mara demonstrates.
It is not illiberal to want those with similar values on gender equality and homosexuality to come to Britain. What is illiberal though, is to be anti-immigration in general. What is liberal is to profess liberalism not only on issues concerning gender and sexuality but also on race. Liberals also shouldn’t forget it wasn’t too long that Britain’s attitudes on homosexuality for example, weren’t very liberal. As pong excellently notes, cultures are not fixed - and perhaps British Culture is one of the best examples of this.
"What is illiberal though, is to be anti-immigration in general. " This is a woolly statement which is meaningless. Immigrants don't come from some place called ImmigrantLand. They come from cultures, countries, places with histories.
Some are of great value to us and should be welcomed with open arms. Others are not and should not be.
We need to make a choice between those that are of value and those that are not.
What is nonsensical is the assumption that all immigrants are the same and should either all be welcomed en masse or none should be.
I want us to make a choice. I do not want to have immigrants coming here who are homophobic, for instance, and very resistant to changing their views or to integrating at all. And the reason I don't is precisely because of the changes which have happened to British society on this topic which are for the better and which mean that my son is likely to have a much happier and freer life than if he had been born 30 or 50 or 80 years ago.
And that is also why I call out as utter hypocrites those who are all in favour of gay rights on the one hand while wanting an open door to people who want to kill people like my son and then say that people like me are "illiberal" when I challenge them on their hypocrisy and want such immigrants to be challenged - rather than indulged - on their views.
Fair enough. I think cultural relatavism is an absolutely cancerous ideology in and of itself - some beliefs simply aren't compatible with an open and tolerant society and the only way to protect our way of life is to be intolerant of them. There is enough bigotry and intolerance in the country already without importing it wholesale.
Than
The debate here is always very spirited but mostly polite I find!
I suppose with the Swedish situation the views are marginal enough that they aren't worried about them gaining a foothold in society at large. The situation for immigration into the UK is rather different given the scale of it and the de facto open door policy we've had for many years.
The question for me is what if one in four immigrants to the UK holds say, the view that homosexuality is a sin (and should be punished in some way), believes that women are inferior to men, or that Jews are sub-human - what then? What if, within their own communities, these views are allowed to go unchallenged and unchecked? They take root.
I'm not advocating an end to immigration nor the suppression of freedom of speech, not at all. I just think the people we accept here should voluntarily agree to abide by a code of conduct that respects minorities, women, sexualities and so forth, and undergo mandatory citizenship classes before being able to 'qualify' for long term residency. It may not solve all our problems, but in terms of ensuring the people who come to the UK are willing and able to integrate, it would be a good start.
I wouldn't go that far, although it does strike me as interesting that to a large proportion in this day and age the idea of placing any restrictions on who can enter a country, and certainly restriction on the type of people or what you will demand of them when they enter, is seen as something terribly unreasonable, when historically it would be perfectly normal. Which is not to say we should just accept things because we did them in the past - heck, that is part of our problem, sometimes - but it is interesting, particularly when the logic of being against any kind of restriction - which is a valid position for people to adopt - butts up against, say, wanting to prioritise one's own citizens or people in a regional area.
It would be interesting to compare those people who support unrestricted immigration to those who would oppose a McDonalds opening on their street.
Fair enough. I think cultural relatavism is an absolutely cancerous ideology in and of itself - some beliefs simply aren't compatible with an open and tolerant society and the only way to protect our way of life is to be intolerant of them. There is enough bigotry and intolerance in the country already without importing it wholesale.
Thank you for your temperate response to my rather overheated post.
There was an interesting test case some years ago in Sweden. The Swedes had (and for all I know may still have) a tax on mass-marke tadvertising, the proceeds from which are used to subsidise newspapers promoting little-heard views, the idea being to offer consumers the greatest possible range of opinions. The Government received an application from a little-known Trotskist group which favoured "peaceful struggle for workers' conttrol and the abolition of bourgious democracy". The authorities said hmm, yes, that's a little-heard opinion, and gave them some funding.
Is that a sign of democratric strength, confident enough to give a hearing to its opponents? Or of letting loonies take the piss? I've never been sure, but I do admire the attempt to be consistent.
At the risk of coming in on the fag (cigarette) end of a discussion:
There is a difference between expressing a view and infringing other people's rights. There was a very shocking radio piece last year on the complete ostracism some women face in ultra-orthodox Jewish sects, for example, if they dare to leave abusive husbands.
As a society we have to stand up for what we believe in: people can advocate a different way but any one in our country has certain minimum rights
Fair enough. I think cultural relatavism is an absolutely cancerous ideology in and of itself - some beliefs simply aren't compatible with an open and tolerant society and the only way to protect our way of life is to be intolerant of them. There is enough bigotry and intolerance in the country already without importing it wholesale.
Thank you for your temperate response to my rather overheated post.
Is that a sign of democratric strength, confident enough to give a hearing to its opponents? Or of letting loonies take the piss? I've never been sure, but I do admire the attempt to be consistent.
Indeed we need to draw a distinction between your Trotskyite example which I would contend is a political difference of view and those advocating Sharia solutions which we would view as fundamentally culturally different.
It is one thing to say (rightly) that we should allow as wide a range of diverse opinions as possible and should support those voices being heard. It is quite another to sit back whilst some people work to violently try and replace our culture with something that is a complete anathema to our way of life.
Sharia solutions are not just "fundamentally culturally different". Sharia law has been declared by the ECHR to be fundamentally incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
Turning a blind eye to the spread of sharia inspired practices in our societies makes an absolute mockery of our belief in human rights, our own laws, our belief that everyone is equal under the law and that the law should apply to all equally.
And yet look at how difficult it has been to get the British government to take action to outlaw sharia tribunals which deprive British women of their rights under British law.
FGM is the killer, 10,000 British girls are "cut" - genitally mutilated - every year. One an hour. ONE AN HOUR.
There has yet to be one single successful conviction.
It's like we've reimported witch-burning and everyone just pretends it isn't happening even as they see the pyres and scaffolds erected on British street corners, and the smoke drifts on the wind.
AFAIK most Muslims of Asian origin find FGM as revolting as we do. It’s primarily a Somali cultural practice. But I agree, I fail to understand why there hasn’t been a successful prosecution. Reducing the nu,mber of Health Visitors hasn’t helped.
And re the comment about why some groups don’t vote Tory: well, if you tell a group of people you don’t really like them, then they won’t for you. Or at the very least if you give them that impression, they won’t vote for you. That’s why young people don’t vote Tory, and it’s been a significant reason why ethnic minorities generally don’t vote Tory either. And as we’ve found out since last GE, the Conservative party need to start persuading more young people and ethnic minorities to vote for them if they want to win in 2022.
FGM is the killer, 10,000 British girls are "cut" - genitally mutilated - every year. One an hour. ONE AN HOUR.
There has yet to be one single successful conviction.
It's like we've reimported witch-burning and everyone just pretends it isn't happening even as they see the pyres and scaffolds erected on British street corners, and the smoke drifts on the wind.
52% of British Muslims think that homosexuality should be illegal (compared to 5% of the UK population as a whole), 39% agree with the statement "a wife should always obey her husband" and 23% support the introduction of Sharia law.
But you have put it so much more eloquently. We sit here, pretending not to notice which way the wind is blowing. Because we're afraid of being called racists or bigots or worse, working class (because only the terrible white working class have such bigoted views, of course). So we talk about how wonderful multiculturalism is while simultaneously erecting anti-crash bollards around bridges and markets.
As said downthread, intolerance is the one thing a liberal society such as ours cannot be prepared to tolerate, if it is to thrive.
Some cultures - plural - are more homophobic and misogynistic than others.
There are around 74 nations where homosexuality remains illegal. The common thread is either they are majority Islamic nations or they are former British colonies - and never abolished the laws the UK introduced. There is only one such nation outside Asia and Africa - Guyana - the only former UK colony in South America!
Also, re the welfare state: I have yet to see evidence that since the post war period support for the welfare state has declined because black and brown people are now British as well. If anything, more people than ever seem to what many things nationalised - they want to see the state become bigger, not smaller.
Would you, and the Swedes, have felt the same if the group was advocating criminalising homosexuality, removing women's rights and the return of the death penalty for minor crimes. These are views which, in spite of being held by some minority groups, our society rightly says are dangerous and should be actively resisted as they have no place in our culture.
Indeed we need to draw a distinction between your Trotskyite example which I would contend is a political difference of view and those advocating Sharia solutions which we would view as fundamentally culturally different.
It is one thing to say (rightly) that we should allow as wide a range of diverse opinions as possible and should support those voices being heard. It is quite another to sit back whilst some people work to violently try and replace our culture with something that is a complete anathema to our way of life.
I can't speak for the Swedes, but I'd accept that as a political viewpoint that has a right to be expressed - lots of people still believe in the death penalty and I'm not in favour of making it illegal for them to express their views. You added the word "violently" in the final sentence, and of course that's a different matter.
I think in the light of this discussion that we all agree that it should be legal to hold any opinion - indeed, it's hard to see how it can be prevented that people think what they like - and we're mostly OK with people expressing those views in an unthreatening way. I take the point that it'd be uncomfortable if a quarter of the population peacefully expressed an opinion that we thought vile, and I know Americans who have left to live elsewhere because they feel that they don't wish to live in a country where half the population agrees with Mr Trump.
I think I agree with kyf that it's reasonable to expect immigrants to state that they accept the rules of the game - support for freedom of opinion, tolerance of other relgions, and so on. Where I'd draw the line is requiring that they have any particular opinions within those rules - for or against the death penalty, for instance.~These things change over time and are best argued out by persuasion.
I'm logging off for now, but thanks all for an interesting discussion.
And re the comment about why some groups don’t vote Tory: well, if you tell a group of people you don’t really like them, then they won’t for you.
I brought that up because the saintly EU as indicated by the President of the Council was talking about defending the borders against migrants to preserve the cultural community, which if a Tory had said would be condemned as illiberal and probably racist as well.
I happen to think immigration is not so simplistic a situation one can merely declare that being against it in some fashion is inherently unreasonable. Personally I have never once been inconvenienced by the scale of immigration, I was fine with not placing restrictions on eastern european migration and so on, but I know that to be a minority view, and think society can only take so much if a majority believe there to be a problem, particular if they believe it to be from certain groups, and ignoring it and being unwilling to talk about it sure doesn't help, and if we declare it off limits it will just get worse.
@Cyclefree It is not a woolly statement that is meaningless. To be anti-immigration is to oppose immigration to Britain in general. It’s a fairly obvious in its meaning. To not be able know what it means.... is well odd.
Who is assuming all immigrants are the same? Who has said here that immigrants should be welcomed en masse? In the Labour Manifesto, the party proclaimed that they’d end freedom of movement. In the 2015 GE both the Conservatives and Labour expressed desires to control immigration. Literally no mainstream party now is arguing for immigration en masse.
I don’t think anyone is calling you ‘illiberal’ because you don’t want people to kill your son. What’s being called illiberal is professing a narrative that is anti-immigration generally, as opposed to ‘we want immigrants with similar to ours, and we are open to that immigration’. That’s different to wanting people to speak out ‘against the idea of immigration.
And re the comment about why some groups don’t vote Tory: well, if you tell a group of people you don’t really like them, then they won’t for you. Or at the very least if you give them that impression, they won’t vote for you. That’s why young people don’t vote Tory, and it’s been a significant reason why ethnic minorities generally don’t vote Tory either. And as we’ve found out since last GE, the Conservative party need to start persuading more young people and ethnic minorities to vote for them if they want to win in 2022.
Of course a party should do these things.
But if reaching out to a particular community, say, meant that you were prepared to tolerate behaviour which was contrary to British law and your own values, for instance, honour killings, rape, inciting the killing of Jews, do you still think you should reach out to those voters?
Because it would be silly, wouldn't it, to confuse saying "we don't really like you" with "we really don't like what you do because it is contrary to our laws and values"
Or should you actually stand for the values you proclaim and the requirements of British law?
Too many politicians, in the pursuit of votes, have been prepared to abandon their loftily proclaimed principles and, indeed, to turn a blind eye to crimes. We can do without that sort of reaching out to a community, frankly.
I can't speak for the Swedes, but I'd accept that as a political viewpoint that has a right to be expressed - lots of people still believe in the death penalty and I'm not in favour of making it illegal for them to express their views. You added the word "violently" in the final sentence, and of course that's a different matter.
I think in the light of this discussion that we all agree that it should be legal to hold any opinion - indeed, it's hard to see how it can be prevented that people think what they like - and we're mostly OK with people expressing those views in an unthreatening way. I take the point that it'd be uncomfortable if a quarter of the population peacefully expressed an opinion that we thought vile, and I know Americans who have left to live elsewhere because they feel that they don't wish to live in a country where half the population agrees with Mr Trump.
I think I agree with kyf that it's reasonable to expect immigrants to state that they accept the rules of the game - support for freedom of opinion, tolerance of other relgions, and so on. Where I'd draw the line is requiring that they have any particular opinions within those rules - for or against the death penalty, for instance.~These things change over time and are best argued out by persuasion.
I'm logging off for now, but thanks all for an interesting discussion.
For later reading.
One of the countries I do think has this right is Norway. Anyone wishing to settle permanently in the country has to undertake 300 hours of compulsory lessons in Norwegian language, history and customs. That is a huge undertaking but it makes a real difference. I was bemused when Anders Brevik claimed that the country was being destroyed by multiculturalism. It is one of the least multicultural countries in Europe as they encourage immigrants to become as Norwegian as possible.
I think these sorts of initiatives are important for limiting cultural strife and the reactions we see from the far right in some countries. That is not to say that cultures don't get changed by immigration but it is in an osmotic manner rather than a sudden shift. And is all the better for that.
FGM is the killer, 10,000 British girls are "cut" - genitally mutilated - every year. One an hour. ONE AN HOUR.
There has yet to be one single successful conviction.
It's like we've reimported witch-burning and everyone just pretends it isn't happening even as they see the pyres and scaffolds erected on British street corners, and the smoke drifts on the wind.
Actually the final paragraph is the problem. FGM is an invisible crime. There are no pyres or scaffolds to see, there is no smoke drifting on the wind. I have never met or spoken to anyone who has said that they are in any way affected by this. In real life, off the internet, I simply see no evidence whatsoever that this is happening. As a father of two beautiful young girls I simply struggle to comprehend or make real the idea some parents are abusing their kids like that.
Sure it is happening, but it is by nature underground. Hidden. Out of sight, out of mind.
If it was so flagrant, then more would likely react to it. Doesn't make the crime any less heinous.
FGM is the killer, 10,000 British girls are "cut" - genitally mutilated - every year. One an hour. ONE AN HOUR.
There has yet to be one single successful conviction.
It's like we've reimported witch-burning and everyone just pretends it isn't happening even as they see the pyres and scaffolds erected on British street corners, and the smoke drifts on the wind.
Actually the final paragraph is the problem. FGM is an invisible crime. There are no pyres or scaffolds to see, there is no smoke drifting on the wind. I have never met or spoken to anyone who has said that they are in any way affected by this. In real life, off the internet, I simply see no evidence whatsoever that this is happening. As a father of two beautiful young girls I simply struggle to comprehend or make real the idea some parents are abusing their kids like that.
Sure it is happening, but it is by nature underground. Hidden. Out of sight, out of mind.
If it was so flagrant, then more would likely react to it. Doesn't make the crime any less heinous.
The kids are taken out of school and disappear for an extended period where they are sent abroad. It is not invisible.
@Cyclefree It is not a woolly statement that is meaningless. To be anti-immigration is to oppose immigration to Britain in general. It’s a fairly obvious in its meaning. To not be able know what it means.... is well odd.
Who is assuming all immigrants are the same? Who has said here that immigrants should be welcomed en masse? In the Labour Manifesto, the party proclaimed that they’d end freedom of movement. In the 2015 GE both the Conservatives and Labour expressed desires to control immigration. Literally no mainstream party now is arguing for immigration en masse.
I don’t think anyone is calling you ‘illiberal’ because you don’t want people to kill your son. What’s being called illiberal is professing a narrative that is anti-immigration generally, as opposed to ‘we want immigrants with similar to ours, and we are open to that immigration’. That’s different to wanting people to speak out ‘against the idea of immigration.
On the contrary, the Labour leader as I understand it, believes that there should be no controls on immigration.
I may be wrong, of course. He changes what he says depending on his audience. FoM from the EU is precisely the sort of immigration we should, IMO, welcome. I am one of the few on here who though Britain not placing restrictions on FoM from Eastern Europe was a good and noble act. It is immigration from the Third World and certain Third World countries in particular which I would limit very severely, if not end altogether, precisely because such immigrants, on the whole, do not have similar views to ours and because of well-attested problems of integration.
FGM is the killer, 10,000 British girls are "cut" - genitally mutilated - every year. One an hour. ONE AN HOUR.
There has yet to be one single successful conviction.
It's like we've reimported witch-burning and everyone just pretends it isn't happening even as they see the pyres and scaffolds erected on British street corners, and the smoke drifts on the wind.
Actually the final paragraph is the problem. FGM is an invisible crime. There are no pyres or scaffolds to see, there is no smoke drifting on the wind. I have never met or spoken to anyone who has said that they are in any way affected by this. In real life, off the internet, I simply see no evidence whatsoever that this is happening. As a father of two beautiful young girls I simply struggle to comprehend or make real the idea some parents are abusing their kids like that.
Sure it is happening, but it is by nature underground. Hidden. Out of sight, out of mind.
If it was so flagrant, then more would likely react to it. Doesn't make the crime any less heinous.
The kids are taken out of school and disappear for an extended period where they are sent abroad. It is not invisible.
People go abroad all the time for a variety of reasons, my in-laws live in Canada and I've taken my girls there for extended periods to meet their grandparents.
Without telescopic x-ray goggles what happens thousands of miles away in another nation is invisible.
FGM is the killer, 10,000 British girls are "cut" - genitally mutilated - every year. One an hour. ONE AN HOUR.
There has yet to be one single successful conviction.
It's like we've reimported witch-burning and everyone just pretends it isn't happening even as they see the pyres and scaffolds erected on British street corners, and the smoke drifts on the wind.
Actually the final paragraph is the problem. FGM is an invisible crime. There are no pyres or scaffolds to see, there is no smoke drifting on the wind. I have never met or spoken to anyone who has said that they are in any way affected by this. In real life, off the internet, I simply see no evidence whatsoever that this is happening. As a father of two beautiful young girls I simply struggle to comprehend or make real the idea some parents are abusing their kids like that.
Sure it is happening, but it is by nature underground. Hidden. Out of sight, out of mind.
If it was so flagrant, then more would likely react to it. Doesn't make the crime any less heinous.
The kids are taken out of school and disappear for an extended period where they are sent abroad. It is not invisible.
People go abroad all the time for a variety of reasons, my in-laws live in Canada and I've taken my girls there for extended periods to meet their grandparents.
Without telescopic x-ray goggles what happens thousands of miles away in another nation is invisible.
There is a particular very clear pattern. And lets just say the kids don't normally come back with a big smile on their face after being on a holiday of a lifetime.
Teachers have reported on it, but they often feel powerless on what to do, who to report it to, etc etc etc.
He’s not going to have an easy job, but I think there’s been a change of mood in recent years as the oil money has started to run out. The demographics are getting much younger, and there’s more international experience among those younger generations of what happens in the rest of the world.
There’s theme parks and cinemas already under contruction, although it will probably be a few years before we see bars in the hotels of Riyadh.
Also, re the welfare state: I have yet to see evidence that since the post war period support for the welfare state has declined because black and brown people are now British as well. If anything, more people than ever seem to what many things nationalised - they want to see the state become bigger, not smaller.
Culture and colour are not the same thing. Black and brown people are as British as anyone else. It's not people's colour which matters.
Also nationalisation is not the same as the welfare state.
Looking at that article now, it’s interesting but I can’t see evidence for support for the welfare state in Britain declining as a whole, only just certain measures weren’t popular.
Fair enough. I think cultural relatavism is an absolutely cancerous ideology in and of itself - some beliefs simply aren't compatible with an open and tolerant society and the only way to protect our way of life is to be intolerant of them. There is enough bigotry and intolerance in the country already without importing it wholesale.
Thank you for your temperate response to my rather overheated post.
Is that a sign of democratric strength, confident enough to give a hearing to its opponents? Or of letting loonies take the piss? I've never been sure, but I do admire the attempt to be consistent.
Indeeof life.
Sharia solutions are not just "fundamentally culturally different". Sharia law has been declared by the ECHR to be fundamentally incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
Turning a blind eye to the spread of sharia inspired practices in our societies makes an absolute mockery of our belief in human rights, our own laws, our belief that everyone is equal under the law and that the law should apply to all equally.
And yet look at how difficult it has been to get the British government to take action to outlaw sharia tribunals which deprive British women of their rights under British law.
FGM is the killer, 10,000 British girls are "cut" - genitally mutilated - every year. One an hour. ONE AN HOUR.
There has yet to be one single successful conviction.
It's like we've reimported witch-burning and everyone just pretends it isn't happening even as they see the pyres and scaffolds erected on British street corners, and the smoke drifts on the wind.
AFAIK most Muslims of Asian origin find FGM as revolting as we do. It’s primarily a Somali cultural practice. But I agree, I fail to understand why there hasn’t been a successful prosecution. Reducing the nu,mber of Health Visitors hasn’t helped.
It is certainly not "primarily Somali" - FGM is widespread right across the MENA. It is very much a Muslim phenomenon, but you can also find it eagerly practised by Christians, in places like Egypt and Nigeria
TMay has feebly pursued this cause earlier in her career. She is now PM, with all the power tat goes with. She should be all over it: forcing the first convictions, changing the law so the parents are automatically culpable. Her failure is dismal. She is dismal.
She was Home Secretary before becoming PM. Ensuring crime was tackled literally her job already before becoming PM.
FGM is the killer, 10,000 British girls are "cut" - genitally mutilated - every year. One an hour. ONE AN HOUR.
There has yet to be one single successful conviction.
It's like we've reimported witch-burning and everyone just pretends it isn't happening even as they see the pyres and scaffolds erected on British street corners, and the smoke drifts on the wind.
Actually the final paragraph is the problem. FGM is an invisible crime. There are no pyres or scaffolds to see, there is no smoke drifting on the wind. I have never met or spoken to anyone who has said that they are in any way affected by this. In real life, off the internet, I simply see no evidence whatsoever that this is happening. As a father of two beautiful young girls I simply struggle to comprehend or make real the idea some parents are abusing their kids like that.
Sure it is happening, but it is by nature underground. Hidden. Out of sight, out of mind.
If it was so flagrant, then more would likely react to it. Doesn't make the crime any less heinous.
The kids are taken out of school and disappear for an extended period where they are sent abroad. It is not invisible.
People go abroad all the time for a variety of reasons, my in-laws live in Canada and I've taken my girls there for extended periods to meet their grandparents.
Without telescopic x-ray goggles what happens thousands of miles away in another nation is invisible.
There is a particular very clear pattern. And lets just say the kids don't normally come back with a big smile on their face after being on a holiday of a lifetime.
Teachers have reported on it, but they often feel powerless on what to do, who to report it to, etc etc etc.
Teachers understand the pupils in their care better than any other non-parent ever likely will.
But for the rest of us who aren't teachers, life goes on. There is literally nothing to see. It isn't happening on our street corners.
FGM is the killer, 10,000 British girls are "cut" - genitally mutilated - every year. One an hour. ONE AN HOUR.
There has yet to be one single successful conviction.
It's like we've reimported witch-burning and everyone just pretends it isn't happening even as they see the pyres and scaffolds erected on British street corners, and the smoke drifts on the wind.
Actually the final paragraph is the problem. FGM is an invisible crime. There are no pyres or scaffolds to see, there is no smoke drifting on the wind. I have never met or spoken to anyone who has said that they are in any way affected by this. In real life, off the internet, I simply see no evidence whatsoever that this is happening. As a father of two beautiful young girls I simply struggle to comprehend or make real the idea some parents are abusing their kids like that.
Sure it is happening, but it is by nature underground. Hidden. Out of sight, out of mind.
If it was so flagrant, then more would likely react to it. Doesn't make the crime any less heinous.
The kids are taken out of school and disappear for an extended period where they are sent abroad. It is not invisible.
People go abroad all the time for a variety of reasons, my in-laws live in Canada and I've taken my girls there for extended periods to meet their grandparents.
Without telescopic x-ray goggles what happens thousands of miles away in another nation is invisible.
There is a particular very clear pattern. And lets just say the kids don't normally come back with a big smile on their face after being on a holiday of a lifetime.
Teachers have reported on it, but they often feel powerless on what to do, who to report it to, etc etc etc.
Teachers understand the pupils in their care better than any other non-parent ever likely will.
But for the rest of us who aren't teachers, life goes on. There is literally nothing to see. It isn't happening on our street corners.
I don't see drug dealing or murders going on my street corner either, but I expect the authorities to do something about them.
FGM is the killer, 10,000 British girls are "cut" - genitally mutilated - every year. One an hour. ONE AN HOUR.
There has yet to be one single successful conviction.
It's like we've reimported witch-burning and everyone just pretends it isn't happening even as they see the pyres and scaffolds erected on British street corners, and the smoke drifts on the wind.
Actually the final paragraph is the problem. FGM is an invisible crime. There are no pyres or scaffolds to see, there is no smoke drifting on the wind. I have never met or spoken to anyone who has said that they are in any way affected by this. In real life, off the internet, I simply see no evidence whatsoever that this is happening. As a father of two beautiful young girls I simply struggle to comprehend or make real the idea some parents are abusing their kids like that.
Sure it is happening, but it is by nature underground. Hidden. Out of sight, out of mind.
If it was so flagrant, then more would likely react to it. Doesn't make the crime any less heinous.
FFS. It is blatant. It is so blatant there is now a well-known "cutting season", when British migrant girls - mainly Muslim, some African Christian - are taken abroad to be cut. Like a Gap Year, but closer to the legal burning of widows.
Blatant if you look for it. Which the experts, teachers, health-care professionals and most importantly the Police should be doing.
But your allegory references smoke billowing and "pyres and scaffolds erected on British street corners". Crimes committed while on holiday in another country is not the same as on British street corners.
And re the comment about why some groups don’t vote Tory: well, if you tell a group of people you don’t really like them, then they won’t for you. Or at the very least if you give them that impression, they won’t vote for you. That’s why young people don’t vote Tory, and it’s been a significant reason why ethnic minorities generally don’t vote Tory either. And as we’ve found out since last GE, the Conservative party need to start persuading more young people and ethnic minorities to vote for them if they want to win in 2022.
FGM is the killer, 10,000 British girls are "cut" - genitally mutilated - every year. One an hour. ONE AN HOUR.
There has yet to be one single successful conviction.
It's like we've reimported witch-burning and everyone just pretends it isn't happening even as they see the pyres and scaffolds erected on British street corners, and the smoke drifts on the wind.
Actually the final paragraph is the problem. FGM is an invisible crime. There are no pyres or scaffolds to see, there is no smoke drifting on the wind. I have never met or spoken to anyone who has said that they are in any way affected by this. In real life, off the internet, I simply see no evidence whatsoever that this is happening. As a father of two beautiful young girls I simply struggle to comprehend or make real the idea some parents are abusing their kids like that.
Sure it is happening, but it is by nature underground. Hidden. Out of sight, out of mind.
If it was so flagrant, then more would likely react to it. Doesn't make the crime any less heinous.
The kids are taken out of school and disappear for an extended period where they are sent abroad. It is not invisible.
FGM is the killer, 10,000 British girls are "cut" - genitally mutilated - every year. One an hour. ONE AN HOUR.
There has yet to be one single successful conviction.
It's like we've reimported witch-burning and everyone just pretends it isn't happening even as they see the pyres and scaffolds erected on British street corners, and the smoke drifts on the wind.
Actually the final paragraph is the problem. FGM is an invisible crime. There are no pyres or scaffolds to see, there is no smoke drifting on the wind. I have never met or spoken to anyone who has said that they are in any way affected by this. In real life, off the internet, I simply see no evidence whatsoever that this is happening. As a father of two beautiful young girls I simply struggle to comprehend or make real the idea some parents are abusing their kids like that.
Sure it is happening, but it is by nature underground. Hidden. Out of sight, out of mind.
If it was so flagrant, then more would likely react to it. Doesn't make the crime any less heinous.
The kids are taken out of school and disappear for an extended period where they are sent abroad. It is not invisible.
People go abroad all the time for a variety of reasons, my in-laws live in Canada and I've taken my girls there for extended periods to meet their grandparents.
Without telescopic x-ray goggles what happens thousands of miles away in another nation is invisible.
There is a particular very clear pattern. And lets just say the kids don't normally come back with a big smile on their face after being on a holiday of a lifetime.
Teachers have reported on it, but they often feel powerless on what to do, who to report it to, etc etc etc.
Teachers understand the pupils in their care better than any other non-parent ever likely will.
But for the rest of us who aren't teachers, life goes on. There is literally nothing to see. It isn't happening on our street corners.
I don't see drug dealing or murders going on my street corner either, but I expect the authorities to do something about them.
@Cyclefree It is not a woolly statement that is meaningless. To be anti-immigration is to oppose immigration to Britain in general. It’s a fairly obvious in its meaning. To not be able know what it means.... is well odd.
Who is assuming all immigrants are the same? Who has said here that immigrants should be welcomed en masse? In the Labour Manifesto, the party proclaimed that they’d end freedom of movement. In the 2015 GE both the Conservatives and Labour expressed desires to control immigration. Literally no mainstream party now is arguing for immigration en masse.
I don’t think anyone is calling you ‘illiberal’ because you don’t want people to kill your son. What’s being called illiberal is professing a narrative that is anti-immigration generally, as opposed to ‘we want immigrants with similar to ours, and we are open to that immigration’. That’s different to wanting people to speak out ‘against the idea of immigration.
On the contrary, the Labour leader as I understand it, believes that there should be no controls on immigration.
I may be wrong, of course. He changes what he says depending on his audience. FoM from the EU is precisely the sort of immigration we should, IMO, welcome. I am one of the few on here who though Britain not placing restrictions on FoM from Eastern Europe was a good and noble act. It is immigration from the Third World and certain Third World countries in particular which I would limit very severely, if not end altogether, precisely because such immigrants, on the whole, do not have similar views to ours and because of well-attested problems of integration.
Corbyn’s views on immigration are that, I agree. But Corbyn’s views are not Labour policy - that’s what really matters.
I agree with you on FoM from Europe - I think immigrants from Europe have been a positive addition to this country. I hope that they can stay when we leave the EU.
What Third world countries would you want to limit immigration from?
And re the comment about why some groups don’t vote Tory: well, if you tell a group of people you don’t really like them, then they won’t for you. Or at the very least if you give them that impression, they won’t vote for you. That’s why young people don’t vote Tory, and it’s been a significant reason why ethnic minorities generally don’t vote Tory either. And as we’ve found out since last GE, the Conservative party need to start persuading more young people and ethnic minorities to vote for them if they want to win in 2022.
I voted Tory in 2017. There. I said it
So did my mum in 2017, and she’s black. It doesn’t really change that they have issues concerning not many minorities voting for them.
Some are of great value to us and should be welcomed with open arms. Others are not and should not be.
We need to make a choice between those that are of value and those that are not.
What is nonsensical is the assumption that all immigrants are the same and should either all be welcomed en masse or none should be.
I want us to make a choice. I do not want to have immigrants coming here who are homophobic, for instance, and very resistant to changing their views or to integrating at all. And the reason I don't is precisely because of the changes which have happened to British society on this topic which are for the better and which mean that my son is likely to have a much happier and freer life than if he had been born 30 or 50 or 80 years ago.
And that is also why I call out as utter hypocrites those who are all in favour of gay rights on the one hand while wanting an open door to people who want to kill people like my son and then say that people like me are "illiberal" when I challenge them on their hypocrisy and want such immigrants to be challenged - rather than indulged - on their views.
So you are proposing an immigration policy based on an assessment of cultural compatibility? I can think of many issues with this, not least that nations themselves have a variety of different cultures within them. Nations also have good people and bad people within them. How do you ever make an assessment of an individual in the context of a visa application?
Would Uganda be in or out? On the one hand it has state sponsored homophobia, but on the other hand someone from Uganda could not be homophobic at all. They could even be gay. But how would you really know at the point they arrive?
It seems to me that this logic leads to Trumps muslim ban, where you get moderate muslims from Iraq who have fought at great personal danger with the Americans, refused a visa because of these arbitrary rules.
I am posing these problems because I agree with a lot of what you are saying, but don't agree with your solutions. The danger is that we get stuck in inertia while the world collapses around us. Something pretty fundamental has to change though.
Some are of great value to us and should be welcomed with open arms. Others are not and should not be.
We need to make a choice between those that are of value and those that are not.
What is nonsensical is the assumption that all immigrants are the same and should either all be welcomed en masse or none should be.
I want us to make a choice. I do not want to have immigrants coming here who are homophobic, for instance, and very resistant to changing their views or to integrating at all. And the reason I don't is precisely because of the changes which have happened to British society on this topic which are for the better and which mean that my son is likely to have a much happier and freer life than if he had been born 30 or 50 or 80 years ago.
And that is also why I call out as utter hypocrites those who are all in favour of gay rights on the one hand while wanting an open door to people who want to kill people like my son and then say that people like me are "illiberal" when I challenge them on their hypocrisy and want such immigrants to be challenged - rather than indulged - on their views.
So you are proposing an immigration policy based on an assessment of cultural compatibility? I can think of many issues with this, not least that nations themselves have a variety of different cultures within them. Nations also have good people and bad people within them. How do you ever make an assessment of an individual in the context of a visa application?
Would Uganda be in or out? On the one hand it has state sponsored homophobia, but on the other hand someone from Uganda could not be homophobic at all. They could even be gay. But how would you really know at the point they arrive?
It seems to me that this logic leads to Trumps muslim ban, where you get moderate muslims from Iraq who have fought at great personal danger with the Americans, refused a visa because of these arbitrary rules.
I am posing these problems because I agree with a lot of what you are saying, but don't agree with your solutions. The danger is that we get stuck in inertia while the world collapses around us. Something pretty fundamental has to change though.
Some are of great value to us and should be welcomed with open arms. Others are not and should not be.
We need to make a choice between those that are of value and those that are not.
What is nonsensical is the assumption that all immigrants are the same and should either all be welcomed en masse or none should be.
I want us to make a choice. I do not want to have immigrants coming here who are homophobic, for instance, and very resistant to changing their views or to integrating at all. And the reason I don't is precisely because of the changes which have happened to British society on this topic which are for the better and which mean that my son is likely to have a much happier and freer life than if he had been born 30 or 50 or 80 years ago.
And that is also why I call out as utter hypocrites those who are all in favour of gay rights on the one hand while wanting an open door to people who want to kill people like my son and then say that people like me are "illiberal" when I challenge them on their hypocrisy and want such immigrants to be challenged - rather than indulged - on their views.
So you are proposing an immigration policy based on an assessment of cultural compatibility? I can think of many issues with this, not least that nations themselves have a variety of different cultures within them. Nations also have good people and bad people within them. How do you ever make an assessment of an individual in the context of a visa application?
Would Uganda be in or out? On the one hand it has state sponsored homophobia, but on the other hand someone from Uganda could not be homophobic at all. They could even be gay. But how would you really know at the point they arrive?
It seems to me that this logic leads to Trumps muslim ban, where you get moderate muslims from Iraq who have fought at great personal danger with the Americans, refused a visa because of these arbitrary rules.
I am posing these problems because I agree with a lot of what you are saying, but don't agree with your solutions. The danger is that we get stuck in inertia while the world collapses around us. Something pretty fundamental has to change though.
Richard Tyndall makes a good point on the Norwegian system. You have to complete 300 hours of language, culture and history lessons.
I would suggest a similiar system for the UK before anyone is granted the right to remain here long term (three years? so 100 hours of citizenship classes a year, or two hours a week - hardly a burden). With the added proviso that a 'fail' means refusal of right to remain in the UK.
So you are proposing an immigration policy based on an assessment of cultural compatibility? I can think of many issues with this, not least that nations themselves have a variety of different cultures within them. Nations also have good people and bad people within them. How do you ever make an assessment of an individual in the context of a visa application?
Would Uganda be in or out? On the one hand it has state sponsored homophobia, but on the other hand someone from Uganda could not be homophobic at all. They could even be gay. But how would you really know at the point they arrive?
It seems to me that this logic leads to Trumps muslim ban, where you get moderate muslims from Iraq who have fought at great personal danger with the Americans, refused a visa because of these arbitrary rules.
I am posing these problems because I agree with a lot of what you are saying, but don't agree with your solutions. The danger is that we get stuck in inertia while the world collapses around us. Something pretty fundamental has to change though.
It is very difficult to see into mens' souls as you say.
What you can do is limit certain types of immigration where you already know there are problems e.g. cousin marriages from Pakistan, say. You don't, like Mrs Merkel, let in en masse a load of young men who have fought their way to your border. You have schemes which allow in those from strife ridden countries who are the most vulnerable e.g. persecuted Yazidis and Syrian Christians. You have some sort of intelligent points system which lets in those with real value to a country - skills, education, with no obvious bad points against them. And you have numerical limits on those allowed in from certain countries or groups of countries, precisely so as to avoid creating large communities of people who do not have to integrate. And above all you make a concerted effort to make immigrants integrate and adopt a British outlook. So rather than say that it is OK to live in Britain as if you were still in your Waziristan village you make sure that this is not really an option (you have to learn English and so on). And if people break the rules then you have to have an effective way of deporting them.
And that is also why I call out as utter hypocrites those who are all in favour of gay rights on the one hand while wanting an open door to people who want to kill people like my son and then say that people like me are "illiberal" when I challenge them on their hypocrisy and want such immigrants to be challenged - rather than indulged - on their views.
So you are proposing an immigration policy based on an assessment of cultural compatibility? I can think of many issues with this, not least that nations themselves have a variety of different cultures within them. Nations also have good people and bad people within them. How do you ever make an assessment of an individual in the context of a visa application?
Would Uganda be in or out? On the one hand it has state sponsored homophobia, but on the other hand someone from Uganda could not be homophobic at all. They could even be gay. But how would you really know at the point they arrive?
It seems to me that this logic leads to Trumps muslim ban, where you get moderate muslims from Iraq who have fought at great personal danger with the Americans, refused a visa because of these arbitrary rules.
I am posing these problems because I agree with a lot of what you are saying, but don't agree with your solutions. The danger is that we get stuck in inertia while the world collapses around us. Something pretty fundamental has to change though.
Richard Tyndall makes a good point on the Norwegian system. You have to complete 300 hours of language, culture and history lessons.
I would suggest a similiar system for the UK before anyone is granted the right to remain here long term (three years? so 100 hours of citizenship classes a year, or two hours a week - hardly a burden). With the added proviso that a 'fail' means refusal of right to remain in the UK.
These type of bureaucratic exercises rarely work out they way they were intended.
You may as well just make it much harder to actually become a citizen. At the moment it is very easy, happens automatically after you stay here for five years (slight exaggeration, but it still seems ridiculously easy). I'm not an expert at all but we probably need something more like the swiss system which puts a lot more scrutiny in to the process.
And re the comment about why some groups don’t vote Tory: well, if you tell a group of people you don’t really like them, then they won’t for you. Or at the very least if you give them that impression, they won’t vote for you. That’s why young people don’t vote Tory, and it’s been a significant reason why ethnic minorities generally don’t vote Tory either. And as we’ve found out since last GE, the Conservative party need to start persuading more young people and ethnic minorities to vote for them if they want to win in 2022.
What if people just have values that are totally at variance with yours? How do you win them over?
One comment I've heard several times in relation to child rape cases, involving Muslim men, is that while these are bad, they should be "punished by the community" rather than through the criminal justice system. Which translates as, they should be swept under the carpet.
That represents a very huge difference in outlook between Conservatives and these communities.
I see one of the retiring Republican Senators who has taken aim at Trump commented that 'anger and resentment are not a governing philosophy'. That's a shame, as it's pretty popular.
What effect (if any) do you think the death of the Queen might have on politics in this country if it happens in this parliament?
It would dominate the news for at least 6 months (think Brexit x10), the state funeral and the coronation of King Charles IIIrd. Some in Labour around Corbyn may try to push the republican cause on the accession of the new monarch but I think he will prove a more hardworking monarch than some imagine and of course the future of the monarchy, William and Kate and their children and Harry will come even more to the fore.
@Cyclefree It is not a woolly statement that is meaningless. To be anti-immigration is to oppose immigration to Britain in general. It’s a fairly obvious in its meaning. To not be able know what it means.... is well odd.
Who is assuming all immigrants are the same? Who has said here that immigrants should be welcomed en masse? In the Labour Manifesto, the party proclaimed that they’d end freedom of movement. In the 2015 GE both the Conservatives and Labour expressed desires to control immigration. Literally no mainstream party now is arguing for immigration en masse.
I don’t think anyone is calling you ‘illiberal’ because you don’t want people to kill your son. What’s being called illiberal is professing a narrative that is anti-immigration generally, as opposed to ‘we want immigrants with similar to ours, and we are open to that immigration’. That’s different to wanting people to speak out ‘against the idea of immigration.
On the contrary, the Labour leader as I understand it, believes that there should be no controls on immigration.
I may be wrong, of course. He changes what he says depending on his audience. FoM from the EU is precisely the sort of immigration we should, IMO, welcome. I am one of the few on here who though Britain not placing restrictions on FoM from Eastern Europe was a good and noble act. It is immigration from the Third World and certain Third World countries in particular which I would limit very severely, if not end altogether, precisely because such immigrants, on the whole, do not have similar views to ours and because of well-attested problems of integration.
Corbyn’s views on immigration are that, I agree. But Corbyn’s views are not Labour policy - that’s what really matters.
I agree with you on FoM from Europe - I think immigrants from Europe have been a positive addition to this country. I hope that they can stay when we leave the EU.
What Third world countries would you want to limit immigration from?
Those countries with a predominantly credal culture because, for the reasons spelt out in a thread header earlier this year, there are real issues with absorbing large numbers from such countries. We need to think hard about how many we can absorb and what is involved and not blithely assume that such integration is easy and will happen automatically.
It is very easy to find the difficulties with possible solutions. That should not be allowed to turn into an attitude of "well we can do nothing because anything we might do is too difficult".
Comments
Last year Mr Walker travelled to the Middle East to help Kurdish fighters and was detained by officers at Gatwick Airport on his return to the UK in December, the court heard.
I suppose they need space for the exhumed corpses of deceased paedophiles too, if they ever actually manage to make a case against any of them.
Why isn't he being prosecuted for that?
I dunno the laws around discussion of cases, so it's probably best to shut up until the verdict.
But that law is seriously messed up.
Mind you if Islam is causing this much terrorism with just 1.8% of the population then that's even more alarming.
Because they behaved exactly the same over the BNP.
When former BNP members were found to have joined UKIP, the Tories or the LIbDems, it was evidence of disturbing undercurrents of evil racism in those parties.
But when a former BNP councillor joined Labour in Darwen, the Labour Party were so pleased they made him Mayor.
Eurobarometer says 4.7% while the UK census said 4.8%
That is a rounding error difference not miles!
The times writeup;
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/student-josh-walker-who-fought-isis-kept-bomb-manual-under-bed-in-uk-q097xz9fw
Either that or they are planning on imprisoning all Momentum supporters
Prosecutors claimed that Mr Walker had “no reasonable excuse” to own the manual, which was found in a drawer under his bed during a search of his home after he arrived back at Gatwick airport on December 29 last year.
Hundreds and thousands of people don't go that part of the world to fight.
Without the full facts, it is impossible to judge whether the prosecution is justified. From the short articles, it would appear not - but we don't have all the evidence that the DPP did.
But that's not what this prosecution is about.
The cognitive dissonance of those who see no issue with the immigration of large numbers of people from misognynistic and homophobic and racist cultures but then complain loudly at the increase in misogyny and homophobia and racism is one of the wonders of our age.
Apparently it is illiberal to point this out. And liberal to welcome an increase in mysogynistic communities.
As Ms Rayner pointed out, quite a lot of these people will vote for them. So challenging their views is just not British. Or something.
Or possibly they're all a load of hypocrites who think that it is enough to proclaim their opposition to homophobia, racism and misogyny while opposing all and any practical measures to reduce it. Or to challenge those who practice it.
"possession of a record of terrorist information of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terror" is a stupid, generalized, non-specific crime that shouldn't be on the books.
"preparing an act of terror" should absolutely be a crime.
"possession of a record of terrorist information of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terror" criminalizes the innocent and facilitates ideologically motivated proxy prosecutions for those with agendas.
In any compromise between food and poison, only poison can win. Some ideologies are poisonous and to allow them quarter in a liberal democratic society is asking for trouble. It is, as you put it, cognitive dissonance in the extreme and I cannot fathom it.
If it were down to me I would make all immigrants sign a citizen's charter and attend mandatory citizenship classes before allowing them the right to remain in the country long term.
Page 24 seems very clear - 'we will work with the European Union not as members but as partners.'
Surely that can be read as we won't be an EU member if Labour won
http://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/labour-manifesto-2017.pdf
Misogyny doesn't disappear just like that. It has to be challenged. And even in Western countries which profess equality between men and women there is a lot to do, as, for instance, the Weinstein affair shows. But you have a chance if fixed ideas about the role of women are challenged.
Or you can have societies, like ours, which proclaim equality between the sexes but allow the creation, at public expense, of schools where girls are treated as inferior to such an extent that Ofsted fails the school and only after endless legal challenges is that decision finally upheld. We obsess about what some actresses endured but turn a blind eye to what young British girls were made to endure during their childhood and education because, well because bluntly, such girls were not white and we were too afraid to challenge the bullies who inflicted this on them.
See http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/13/islamic-faith-schools-gender-segregation-unlawful-court-rules/
60 years after the Board of Education vs Brown in the US we're having to fight our own "separate but equal" nonsense here. And complaining about being put in this position is somehow illiberal.
Give me a f***ing break!
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/gay-lesbian-bisexual-relationships-illegal-in-74-countries-a7033666.html
If democracy doesn't include space for ideas not currently regarded as "acceptable", it is no longer free. And yes, I would also defend the right to believe in, say, Nazism or ISIS. The only constraint I'd put is that ideas should not be put in a manner clearly intended to cause conflict (including actual violence, of course).
I even defend the right to oppose free expression, as you do. I'll see you at the ballot box.
There's also the issue that while I have no doubt you would stand up for the right of others to express views you find personally disagreeable, even abhorrent, the trend is towards the opposite. 'How can such be an [elected representative] if they believe X?' is a comment I am sure we have all seen. This is a place where a lot of people all over the spectrum were so worried the public would be taken in by Nick Griffin they were furious he appeared on QT. Now he had no right to be on there, they can invite or not invite people, but there seemed a real worry if you allow someone to express unwelcome views, there is groundswell of people just waiting to be brainwashed by them. In which case the problem is not really the person expressing the view at all really.
Oddly, homosexuality was legalised in France in 1791, and so, never became a crime in the French Empire (though several countries made it a crime, after independence).
For some time, 2018 has been favourite - though it's been gradually, but steadily drifting. Only 2 or 3 days ago it was almost an exact co-favourite with 2019 and 2022.
Well it's now gone clear 3rd favourite - Betfair back prices:
2017 - 50
2018 - 4
2019 - 3.1
2020 - 10
2021 - 9
2022 - 3.65
I haven't seen many posts on here on the subject - but it does seem over the last week or two that things have significantly calmed down - less sense of an imminent challenge to May and a sense that the Brexit negotiations are unlikely to fall apart soon (even if opinions vary re the amount of actual progress).
It's starting to look as if the Brexit talks crunch will be October 2018 - with a challenge to May unlikely before then as long as negotiations don't completely break down before then.
If the above is right, a GE within the next 12 months is becoming more unlikely - and Betfair seems to reflect that.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Guyana
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/24/i-will-return-saudi-arabia-moderate-islam-crown-prince
There was an interesting test case some years ago in Sweden. The Swedes had (and for all I know may still have) a tax on mass-marke tadvertising, the proceeds from which are used to subsidise newspapers promoting little-heard views, the idea being to offer consumers the greatest possible range of opinions. The Government received an application from a little-known Trotskist group which favoured "peaceful struggle for workers' conttrol and the abolition of bourgious democracy". The authorities said hmm, yes, that's a little-heard opinion, and gave them some funding.
Is that a sign of democratric strength, confident enough to give a hearing to its opponents? Or of letting loonies take the piss? I've never been sure, but I do admire the attempt to be consistent.
Indo-Guyanese made up 51.9% of the total population in 1980, but by 1991 this had fallen to 48.6%, and then to 43.5% in the 2002 census.
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/10/immigration-modern-liberalism/543744/
I suppose with the Swedish situation the views are marginal enough that they aren't worried about them gaining a foothold in society at large. The situation for immigration into the UK is rather different given the scale of it and the de facto open door policy we've had for many years.
The question for me is what if one in four immigrants to the UK holds say, the view that homosexuality is a sin (and should be punished in some way), believes that women are inferior to men, or that Jews are sub-human - what then? What if, within their own communities, these views are allowed to go unchallenged and unchecked? They take root.
I'm not advocating an end to immigration nor the suppression of freedom of speech, not at all. I just think the people we accept here should voluntarily agree to abide by a code of conduct that respects minorities, women, sexualities and so forth, and undergo mandatory citizenship classes before being able to 'qualify' for long term residency. It may not solve all our problems, but in terms of ensuring the people who come to the UK are willing and able to integrate, it would be a good start.
Indeed we need to draw a distinction between your Trotskyite example which I would contend is a political difference of view and those advocating Sharia solutions which we would view as fundamentally culturally different.
It is one thing to say (rightly) that we should allow as wide a range of diverse opinions as possible and should support those voices being heard. It is quite another to sit back whilst some people work to violently try and replace our culture with something that is a complete anathema to our way of life.
People have the right to believe in and say what they want, short of inciting violence. That is what the right to free speech means.
But that does not mean that others have an obligation to give them a platform.
The two are often confused. And they ought not to be.
Brazil effectively legalised it in 1830.
It is not illiberal to want those with similar values on gender equality and homosexuality to come to Britain. What is illiberal though, is to be anti-immigration in general. What is liberal is to profess liberalism not only on issues concerning gender and sexuality but also on race. Liberals also shouldn’t forget it wasn’t too long that Britain’s attitudes on homosexuality for example, weren’t very liberal. As pong excellently notes, cultures are not fixed - and perhaps British Culture is one of the best examples of this.
Turning a blind eye to the spread of sharia inspired practices in our societies makes an absolute mockery of our belief in human rights, our own laws, our belief that everyone is equal under the law and that the law should apply to all equally.
And yet look at how difficult it has been to get the British government to take action to outlaw sharia tribunals which deprive British women of their rights under British law.
There was a Labour guy (can't remember his name) who said much the same a few years ago: that the more multicultural and fragmented a society became the harder it was to maintain support for a welfare state.
The answer to that question depends on whether you think there is or can be a "moderate" form of Wahabi Islam. Or, to put it another way, what a younger generation of Saudis might think of as "moderate" might be light years away from what you and I think of as "moderate".
Just because the same words are used does not mean that we mean the same things by them.
The jury looked at his track record and chose not to believe him
Really?
"We ..... seek to unite the country around a Brexit deal that works for every community in Britain."
and a bit later on:
"Freedom of movement will end when we leave the European Union."
When, not if.
Some are of great value to us and should be welcomed with open arms. Others are not and should not be.
We need to make a choice between those that are of value and those that are not.
What is nonsensical is the assumption that all immigrants are the same and should either all be welcomed en masse or none should be.
I want us to make a choice. I do not want to have immigrants coming here who are homophobic, for instance, and very resistant to changing their views or to integrating at all. And the reason I don't is precisely because of the changes which have happened to British society on this topic which are for the better and which mean that my son is likely to have a much happier and freer life than if he had been born 30 or 50 or 80 years ago.
And that is also why I call out as utter hypocrites those who are all in favour of gay rights on the one hand while wanting an open door to people who want to kill people like my son and then say that people like me are "illiberal" when I challenge them on their hypocrisy and want such immigrants to be challenged - rather than indulged - on their views.
There is a difference between expressing a view and infringing other people's rights. There was a very shocking radio piece last year on the complete ostracism some women face in ultra-orthodox Jewish sects, for example, if they dare to leave abusive husbands.
As a society we have to stand up for what we believe in: people can advocate a different way but any one in our country has certain minimum rights
But I agree, I fail to understand why there hasn’t been a successful prosecution. Reducing the nu,mber of Health Visitors hasn’t helped.
52% of British Muslims think that homosexuality should be illegal (compared to 5% of the UK population as a whole),
39% agree with the statement "a wife should always obey her husband"
and 23% support the introduction of Sharia law.
But you have put it so much more eloquently. We sit here, pretending not to notice which way the wind is blowing. Because we're afraid of being called racists or bigots or worse, working class (because only the terrible white working class have such bigoted views, of course). So we talk about how wonderful multiculturalism is while simultaneously erecting anti-crash bollards around bridges and markets.
As said downthread, intolerance is the one thing a liberal society such as ours cannot be prepared to tolerate, if it is to thrive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent#/media/File:Age_of_Consent_-_Global.svg
Culture and colour are not the same thing. Black and brown people are as British as anyone else. It's not people's colour which matters.
Also nationalisation is not the same as the welfare state.
I think in the light of this discussion that we all agree that it should be legal to hold any opinion - indeed, it's hard to see how it can be prevented that people think what they like - and we're mostly OK with people expressing those views in an unthreatening way. I take the point that it'd be uncomfortable if a quarter of the population peacefully expressed an opinion that we thought vile, and I know Americans who have left to live elsewhere because they feel that they don't wish to live in a country where half the population agrees with Mr Trump.
I think I agree with kyf that it's reasonable to expect immigrants to state that they accept the rules of the game - support for freedom of opinion, tolerance of other relgions, and so on. Where I'd draw the line is requiring that they have any particular opinions within those rules - for or against the death penalty, for instance.~These things change over time and are best argued out by persuasion.
I'm logging off for now, but thanks all for an interesting discussion.
I happen to think immigration is not so simplistic a situation one can merely declare that being against it in some fashion is inherently unreasonable. Personally I have never once been inconvenienced by the scale of immigration, I was fine with not placing restrictions on eastern european migration and so on, but I know that to be a minority view, and think society can only take so much if a majority believe there to be a problem, particular if they believe it to be from certain groups, and ignoring it and being unwilling to talk about it sure doesn't help, and if we declare it off limits it will just get worse.
It is not a woolly statement that is meaningless. To be anti-immigration is to oppose immigration to Britain in general. It’s a fairly obvious in its meaning. To not be able know what it means.... is well odd.
Who is assuming all immigrants are the same? Who has said here that immigrants should be welcomed en masse? In the Labour Manifesto, the party proclaimed that they’d end freedom of movement. In the 2015 GE both the Conservatives and Labour expressed desires to control immigration. Literally no mainstream party now is arguing for immigration en masse.
I don’t think anyone is calling you ‘illiberal’ because you don’t want people to kill your son. What’s being called illiberal is professing a narrative that is anti-immigration generally, as opposed to ‘we want immigrants with similar to ours, and we are open to that immigration’. That’s different to wanting people to speak out ‘against the idea of immigration.
Of course a party should do these things.
But if reaching out to a particular community, say, meant that you were prepared to tolerate behaviour which was contrary to British law and your own values, for instance, honour killings, rape, inciting the killing of Jews, do you still think you should reach out to those voters?
Because it would be silly, wouldn't it, to confuse saying "we don't really like you" with "we really don't like what you do because it is contrary to our laws and values"
Or should you actually stand for the values you proclaim and the requirements of British law?
Too many politicians, in the pursuit of votes, have been prepared to abandon their loftily proclaimed principles and, indeed, to turn a blind eye to crimes. We can do without that sort of reaching out to a community, frankly.
One of the countries I do think has this right is Norway. Anyone wishing to settle permanently in the country has to undertake 300 hours of compulsory lessons in Norwegian language, history and customs. That is a huge undertaking but it makes a real difference. I was bemused when Anders Brevik claimed that the country was being destroyed by multiculturalism. It is one of the least multicultural countries in Europe as they encourage immigrants to become as Norwegian as possible.
I think these sorts of initiatives are important for limiting cultural strife and the reactions we see from the far right in some countries. That is not to say that cultures don't get changed by immigration but it is in an osmotic manner rather than a sudden shift. And is all the better for that.
Sure it is happening, but it is by nature underground. Hidden. Out of sight, out of mind.
If it was so flagrant, then more would likely react to it. Doesn't make the crime any less heinous.
I may be wrong, of course. He changes what he says depending on his audience. FoM from the EU is precisely the sort of immigration we should, IMO, welcome. I am one of the few on here who though Britain not placing restrictions on FoM from Eastern Europe was a good and noble act. It is immigration from the Third World and certain Third World countries in particular which I would limit very severely, if not end altogether, precisely because such immigrants, on the whole, do not have similar views to ours and because of well-attested problems of integration.
Without telescopic x-ray goggles what happens thousands of miles away in another nation is invisible.
Teachers have reported on it, but they often feel powerless on what to do, who to report it to, etc etc etc.
There’s theme parks and cinemas already under contruction, although it will probably be a few years before we see bars in the hotels of Riyadh.
But for the rest of us who aren't teachers, life goes on. There is literally nothing to see. It isn't happening on our street corners.
But your allegory references smoke billowing and "pyres and scaffolds erected on British street corners". Crimes committed while on holiday in another country is not the same as on British street corners.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33572428
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-34335853
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35767664
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-40491311
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37364079
There would be a very close correlation between the parts of Britain where the victims are concentrated and Labour constituencies and Labour councils.
I agree with you on FoM from Europe - I think immigrants from Europe have been a positive addition to this country. I hope that they can stay when we leave the EU.
What Third world countries would you want to limit immigration from?
Would Uganda be in or out? On the one hand it has state sponsored homophobia, but on the other hand someone from Uganda could not be homophobic at all. They could even be gay. But how would you really know at the point they arrive?
It seems to me that this logic leads to Trumps muslim ban, where you get moderate muslims from Iraq who have fought at great personal danger with the Americans, refused a visa because of these arbitrary rules.
I am posing these problems because I agree with a lot of what you are saying, but don't agree with your solutions. The danger is that we get stuck in inertia while the world collapses around us. Something pretty fundamental has to change though.
I would suggest a similiar system for the UK before anyone is granted the right to remain here long term (three years? so 100 hours of citizenship classes a year, or two hours a week - hardly a burden). With the added proviso that a 'fail' means refusal of right to remain in the UK.
What you can do is limit certain types of immigration where you already know there are problems e.g. cousin marriages from Pakistan, say. You don't, like Mrs Merkel, let in en masse a load of young men who have fought their way to your border. You have schemes which allow in those from strife ridden countries who are the most vulnerable e.g. persecuted Yazidis and Syrian Christians. You have some sort of intelligent points system which lets in those with real value to a country - skills, education, with no obvious bad points against them. And you have numerical limits on those allowed in from certain countries or groups of countries, precisely so as to avoid creating large communities of people who do not have to integrate. And above all you make a concerted effort to make immigrants integrate and adopt a British outlook. So rather than say that it is OK to live in Britain as if you were still in your Waziristan village you make sure that this is not really an option (you have to learn English and so on). And if people break the rules then you have to have an effective way of deporting them.
I did a thread header last year on how I thought an immigration policy ought to be constructed - http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/05/31/mind-the-gap/
You may as well just make it much harder to actually become a citizen. At the moment it is very easy, happens automatically after you stay here for five years (slight exaggeration, but it still seems ridiculously easy). I'm not an expert at all but we probably need something more like the swiss system which puts a lot more scrutiny in to the process.
One comment I've heard several times in relation to child rape cases, involving Muslim men, is that while these are bad, they should be "punished by the community" rather than through the criminal justice system. Which translates as, they should be swept under the carpet.
That represents a very huge difference in outlook between Conservatives and these communities.
It is very easy to find the difficulties with possible solutions. That should not be allowed to turn into an attitude of "well we can do nothing because anything we might do is too difficult".