Victory in Britain!! Prime Minister says multiculturalism has failed

Blimey 29 pages of people all arguing their corner.......for what religion, belief, colour, nationlism...how stupid we are, supposed to be the most intelligent of all life forms on this beautiful planet and yet still manage to be the most anal !!!

Life is simple, for example if I meet a person and we have similar traits then more than likely we become friends, no harm done. If I meet a person who's traits differ from mine then there is a good chance we don't become friends, still no harm done we just know that we won't interact with each other unless we have to for each others benefit.

BUT when you chuck into the mix religion, belief, colour, nationlism everything goes t**s up, I just cannot understand how shortsighted we are when at the end of the day we are all human.......the one sure fact that binds us all together!!!!!

Wolfie

reply to post by Wolfie_UK


I think that cameron's point was that we are not 'together'. I love Britain's tolerance but sometimes that tolerance has been misguided. e.g. Not realising that forced marriage should be prevented. (Not arranged marriage., requiring the consent of the couple). We accepted forced marriage as a cultural norm when many of the people (women especially but in many cases young men) came here hoping to leave that culture behind. Only recently have we acknowledged that forced marriage is a trauma for those involved.

reply to post by christina-66


Care to guide me and tell me how or why forced marriage came about, is it a cultural act or a religious one, I am in your hands.

Wolfie

reply to post by Wolfie_UK



It's cultural not religious...period. My hands don't care to hold you.

reply to post by Maslo


Jaywalking hurts others? Really?

Yes, but law is also necessary for long-term liberty to exist.

My argument is the exact opposite. It is not possible for law and liberty to co-exist. Ever. In any case. They are mutually exclusive. The 'liberty' that exists in your system of laws is not real liberty at all, because it is a liberty that is circumscribed by the law. No legal society can be closer to the ideal of liberty than any other. They are all equally illiberal. The only difference between them is how many actions are permitted.

In a legal society, it is presumed that all things must be considered illegal until further notice. Consider your responses. How do you decide when some action is too harmful to be legal?

That should be up to societal consensus

You basically leave it to be decided as we go along. You leave it to lawmakers to play it by ear, to make something illegal when it comes to their attention, when the attitude of their noisiest constituents turns against it, when their personal prejudices and biases tell them that it is bad. If you want to determine the law based on the harm principle, and you want to give lawmakers the freedom to define harm, then you are effectively giving them unlimited power to ban action. There is nothing that cannot be reasonably said to cause harm, intolerable harm.

Why do you take liberty as the absolute and sole quality for judging the rightness of societal systems?

That is the essence of a liberal society. A liberal society is free, but David Cameron and other fascists like him think that liberty and fascism are the same thing. Cameron, like all US presidents, like all British premiers, is a liberal fascist. Historically, the English nations have opposed liberty for anybody. Historically they have preferred to appease the public and the intellectuals by giving them more privileges. Rights are not 'god-given.' They are legal claims that are generally recognized by the lawmakers as belonging to all human beings. They are not intrinsic, they are not part of human nature, and the best evidence of this is that what constitutes a 'right' varies from one country to another. A truly liberal society does not enumerate the claims that people have to certain privileges and call it liberty. It has no laws. It is self-governed.

If you think that a society without laws cannot possibly be one in which people respect each other, then you must have a dim view of humanity indeed.

reply to post by SmedleyBurlap


"That is the essence of a liberal society. A liberal society is free, but David Cameron and other fascists like him think that liberty and fascism are the same thing."

And the only reason that David Cameron is getting away with his raping of the British people at the moment is due to the limp wristed leader of the "Liberal" party who wont stand up to him and seems willing to sell out his political party for a front bench seat in parliament... How would you know that a Liberal society is free considering we;ve never experienced one!

reply to post by CholmondleyWarner


The Liberal party is not really liberal. They don't value liberty, they value 'liberty' 'protected' by the law.

Originally posted by SmedleyBurlap
reply to post by CholmondleyWarner

 

The Liberal party is not really liberal. They don't value liberty, they value 'liberty' 'protected' by the law.

But the liberal party are always talking about liberty and freedom for all! Could you please elaborate as I'm not honestly following your argument.

reply to post by CholmondleyWarner


Not everybody agrees with me about this, and they are free to disagree. I think that these political parties that say they stand for liberty and freedom for all are going about it the wrong way. The way to create liberty isn't to make good laws, it's to get rid of laws. Liberal parties aren't going to create much freedom because they choose to work within the law instead of starting a revolution.

The Liberal party in the UK also has an uphill battle to fight because its support collapsed decades ago. It has to win people over, so it promises to give the public as many freedoms as possible - but they will be freedoms that are set up by law, and they're really just permits from the government for the public to act. In the UK it's not hard to think about this - the queen has absolute power, but permits the public to assemble a parliament and chooses to respect the will of that parliament. When they request that she give her subjects more freedoms, she gives her permission for the public to have that freedom (but she is legally free to deny anything the Parliament requests).

I hope I made my argument more clear, I haven't been very clear headed lately.

reply to post by SmedleyBurlap


Dont put yourself down. Your clear headed enough to get your point across to me here in the Uk at 4.30 in the morning. The only point of your argument I would question is over your view of the queen. After the beheading of Charles I, the English republic under cromwell and the inevitable crowing of King Charles II, it was decreed that the king and queen could only rule as long as the people allowed them to! It was no longer a god given right, if you understand what I'm saying.
Thats old adage of power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely has never been more prevelent that it is now in these troubled times.

reply to post by CholmondleyWarner


Thank you, thank you.

I think that, from the monarch's perspective (the Windsor family comes from the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha line, which was not subjected to the English revolution), the monarch rules with the consent of the people and this means both that the people are compelled to consent to being ruled and that the monarch only wishes to rule because they have been requested to rule. The real attitude of the monarchs I cannot say, but it seems likely to me that they did not become liberal democrats overnight (or at all, ever, or else we would not have monarchs!). I don't doubt for a second that the monarchs have maintained their ancient beliefs about their divine right to rule, especially in England, where the Queen is legitimized in part by her role as Protector of the Faith. They may be more temperate and moderate than, say, King John, but they are still god's agents on earth.

reply to post by SmedleyBurlap

Jaywalking hurts others? Really?

Yes, it often causes car crashes which hurt drivers.

No legal society can be closer to the ideal of liberty than any other. They are all equally illiberal. The only difference between them is how many actions are permitted.

Or better, how many actions are restricted, since what is not made illegal is allowed, not the other way around. Law establishes restrictions, not privilegies.

Statements "They are all equally illiberal." and "The difference between them is how many actions are restricted." cannot be true at the same time, it is a logical contradiction.

In a legal society, it is presumed that all things must be considered illegal until further notice.

Wrong, one of the basic principles of western law says exactly the opposite - everything is perfectly legal unless explicitly stated as forbidden by the law. Law establishes restrictions, not privilegies. Also look up the principle of equality before law - noone is privileged above others.

en.wikipedia.org...

You basically leave it to be decided as we go along. You leave it to lawmakers to play it by ear, to make something illegal when it comes to their attention, when the attitude of their noisiest constituents turns against it, when their personal prejudices and biases tell them that it is bad.

In these border and unimportant cases, it is not so easy to determine if the law would be harmful or beneficial compared to the state without law - but thats just the limitation of our ability to determine it in practice, not the principle itself. The principle is clear - if law brings overall more good than bad, its OK. Only in some cases determining whether the law brings more good than bad is hard, or even impossible, at least with our current state of social sciences and available data. And I dont think there is something wrong about that, just like there is nothing wrong with our theory of gravity even if we cant measure for example the weight of an object with infinite accuracy.

That is the essence of a liberal society.

More like anarchic society under your definition of liberty...

But still - that didnt answer my question at all:
Why do you take liberty as the absolute and sole quality for judging the rightness of societal systems? Why do you consider absolute liberal (anarchistic) society better than other societies?

Is it because you are so afraid of the harm excessive restricting of liberty may cause to the people, that you side with the other extreme?

A truly liberal society does not enumerate the claims that people have to certain privileges and call it liberty.

Answered above - the laws enumerate restrictions, not privilegies.

It is self-governed.

Thats a vague term. Elaborate. How exactly would it function, and would it even differ from our current society? How can it be 'governed", even "self-governed" without laws, or some equivalent of them?

If you think that a society without laws cannot possibly be one in which people respect each other, then you must have a dim view of humanity indeed.

You call it dim, I call it realistic. And many people dont need laws, that I agree with. But many do - otherwise there would be no crimes. Even if society without laws could function for long-term without turning into some ugly dictatorship of the powerful and wealthy, it would be suboptimal to society with good laws, and I think some form of laws or equivalent system would still emerge over time. Anarchy is always temporary. Or do you think its just a coincidence that some form of government (monarchy, aristocracy, teocracy, council of elders, democracy..) emerged in every historical society on the planet?

reply to post by Wolfie_UK

Blimey 29 pages of people all arguing their corner.......for what religion, belief, colour, nationlism...how stupid we are, supposed to be the most intelligent of all life forms on this beautiful planet and yet still manage to be the most anal !!!

That's what debate is; arguing your corner. Of course arguing colour is non-sensical and irrationally xenophobic. Most of the people here have general concerns with Islam and their own country. That's what it means to be human, to have your own thoughts, and to be able to challenge other people. Of course there's heated "discussion" when people disagree.

reply to post by Maslo


The argument here is whether or not Leader Cameron was right to say what he did. I am arguin that it is not possible for a 'muscular liberalism' to exist, unless by liberalism one means 'soft fascism'.

Cameron is a fascist, this is not an exaggeration.

A form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion. [Robert O. Paxton, "The Anatomy of Fascism," 2004]

Cameron's speech shows

A) A preoccupation with the decline of 'Britain' and 'British values' as a result of
B) Muslim 'extremists' whose refusal to adopt 'British values' is destroying the country, and so they should
C) all adopt Britishness.

Furthermore, this is supported by a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, the EDL and BNP and others that I am less familiar with. These are basically idiot peasants and racists working in collaboration with traditional elites (Cameron and other Parliamentarians) to abandon democratic liberty.

It is not democratic to say, you are with us or against us. It is not democratic to say that all people have freedom of speech, unless you want to say X, which is illegal. It is undemocratic when a majority targets a minority for immediate 'reform' with threatening language. We have yet to see the internal cleansing that SO MANY have DEMANDED in this thread and EVERY ATS thread about Muslims. It will probably come.

Tell me, if the UK government actually does begin persecuting Muslims, I mean, more than they already are, would you admit that I was right about this?

It is a soft fascism because, as the British are wont to do, they obscure the harshness of the law by extending token freedoms to people. There are many thousands of things which are against the law, and that list grows by the day. The law is not determined just by Parliament. The law in Britain and America and any other bourgeois democracy is formed by the decisions of judges, the decisions of unelected policy makers, the decisions of the police, who are authorized to use their discretion to decide when a crime has been committed. The law is n unwieldy beast, impossible to enforce without growing out of control. It is a soft fascism, one that gets harder every day, one that was hardened by the PATRIOT acts and other repressive LAWS.

An anarchic society is the only society free from law. It is the only society that has real freedom, as the people are not repressed by an impersonal state mechanism. If they abuse each other, enslave each other, coerce each other, that is in accord with liberty. They have the freedom to impress their will upon each other, whereas under the LAW, things inevitably degrade to the point that all things are illegal, that it becomes a legal principle that everybody is a latent criminal, and the state has to take responsibility for everybody. LAW inevitably becomes totalitarian, because to enforce a single law it is necessary to create new laws, to attack the root of the crime that the law was meant to combat.

David Cameron is a liar. He is not a liberal. No parliamentarian in Britain is a liberal, nor have they ever been. They are privileged elites, handing out pittances, permissions to the public so that they won't revolt. That is the essence of British 'liberalism.'

My entire argument here has not been aimed at justifying an anarchic society. It has been directed towards Leader Cameron, who has outright lied to the outright morons that support him.

And, by the way, rights are privileges that apply only to people recognized as citizens, or persons. Slaves are not legal persons and have no rights. Corporations are legal persons and have rights. Animals are not legal persons and have no rights. Children are not legal persons (they are incapable of being legal persons, they have zero understanding of law) and so they are often the target of oppressive, controlling laws.

The word of the law is in no way the same thing as the enforcement of that law. Just because a piece of paper says that you are free does not mean that you are, in fact, free.

reply to post by TheOneElectric


Multiculturalism does work but both sides have to want it. For example the Latino population in the US. We no longer speak English we speak Spanglish to some degree, because you cant order anything in a Mexican restraunt in English and thats the way i like it! Im a white guy 100% Southern 0% racist from TN. But if a population from a country that wants your destruction but all your resources what a better way to take it than from the inside out. Sometime the leaders of countries need to stand up and say no to immigration. Sorry No Vacancy. I couldn`t tell you guys how many times I`ve seen women who cant speak english and has 5 kids and is pregnat with another one just to get money from the government that goes torward bringing in the rest of their families that also have kids and are pregnant to get more money. Church groups are equally responsible but the show is starting.

OK I do have an issue with Islam and Muslims in general for their oppressive nature towards women and of course their undeniable stance to support the Islamification of Europe even a lot supporting 'by any means necessary'.

However rather that keep with the grain of Islamophobia (which can mean a mere fear of the threat posed by Islamofascists) I will say this, most Muslims may seem to segregate themselves but on the same token tend to keep to themselves, their youths largely leave school to attend college, university or work which brings me onto my main point, I would rather fear the small 2% of Muslims in Britain expanding to a still insignificant 4% than put up with the endless streets of no go areas because of chavs (google is your friend if you don't know what chavs are), these job dodging, trouble causing, multiple neglected child producing sponges who spend their days destroying entire estates from a humble poor area struggling to stay afloat to boarded up, burnt out, destroyed, rubbish, drug and drink filled hell holes.

I may feel a little uncomfortable to see a couple of burqa wearing Muslim women who I feel are degraded and wish me to be dead for being a white guy (my opinion) but it end's there, with chav's I feel uncomfortable for the fact I know they have no intention of working, no respect for anyone or anything, their daughter Shantel Demi will be pregnant at 14 and all her friends will get pregnant to keep up, none of which will have their joy riding sperm donors sticking by them, spending their child benefit on cigs, weed and cans of lager while the ankle biting brats are being raised by the street gangs.

I know what I want addressing first and anybody with half a brain would recognise chav lowlife scum as being much more of a problem to society, damaging to the economy, the image and the future of Britain than any Muslims.

I have no problem with people who need to rely on benefits and council houses to get by in troubled times (I've been there), its those that choose to abuse the system and have children for the sake of extra benefits and a council flat then live like lowlifes with no intentions of helping their children develop into decent human beings or getting their own backsides off their cigarette burn hole covered sofas to join in with the world, even if their isn't the jobs available its usually a decent thing to actually attempt to find one rather than stating their is no job because Tony down the pub said so, also being jobless and poor is no excuse for being imbeciles with no self control or parenting skills.
A child is for life not just a council flat and extra benefits.

Chavs first, then lets worry about the 2% population of Muslims.

reply to post by SmedleyBurlap

"David Cameron is a liar. He is not a liberal. No parliamentarian in Britain is a liberal, nor have they ever been. They are privileged elites, handing out pittances, permissions to the public so that they won't revolt. That is the essence of British 'liberalism.' " quote...

I couldn't agree with you more about David Cameron being a blatant liar but surely that's a prerequisite fpr being a member of parliament? Doesn't matter who's in power in this country (UK) the end result is always the same. The rich get richer while the poor are scapegoated and blamed for all of lifes ills. There's nothing more disgusting than seeing Cameron, this snivelling elitist public schoolboy, with his millions sitting in his bank account, allowing the banks and the big multinationals to rip us off for billions while pointing an accussing finger at the sick, elderly, the unemployed, the poor, and blame them for the recession. His constant harping on about how we are all in it together doesn't butter any parsnips either as how can he understand the hardships we are facing when he is a millionaire. Plus its his policies that are creating those hardships!!!! His latest con, The Big Society is basically a plan for slave labour. He'll make you redundant then tell you that you have to continue doing your job to get your benefits!!! Is this really what the UK has become?
The planned strikes by the unions led by Unite scheduled for March could be the beginning of a national strike... If that doesn't work and ousts this disgusting government then I think this country will ignite and explode...
However, getting rid of one corrupt leader only to replace him with another corrupt leader who still works for the elite, is not an option... The UK needs a new way to do politics. It's a disgrace that a politician should be able to appear on national tv and lie about what he is going to do if he gains power, only to do a complete reversal and follow policies previously employed by his predecessor.... Policies which always hurt the most vulnerable in society.
I think the good people of the UK are beginning to wake up. When they find themselves sitting at home watching daytime television living off a pittance I think those still sleepwalking will realise whats going on.

reply to post by andy1033


Can someone from the UK convey to me, without bombast, what the tone is like over there between Muslims and non-Muslims? I live in Texas, USA and from what I gather from the news it sounds like it is Islam vs. Europe over there. It is just that there is so much hyperbole these days that the facts get obscured by the headlines. I don't dislike Islam or Muslims, but I have to admit I'm beginning to believe that there is something to the notion that there are unchecked currents within Islam that really do want to run the world under Islamic law! I don't want to live in a theocracy, no matter what religion runs things. I already can't stand prevalence of the Christian hypocrites like Glenn Beck and FOX news in America...I don't even want to know what it would be like living under the rule absolute religious leaders like the Imams in the Arab world.

Some more admissions from the government, has to be a good thing.

Hopefully they will now do something about it.
news.aol.co.uk...

reply to post by Threadfall


in this town, Muslims generally keep to themselves, there's a more established smaller group, shopkeepers, gp's etc and a lot of newer immigrants that keep to their own communities, there's an entire area of town now that's mostly muslim.

I would say the general concensus is maybe mistrust.