Why are you all so upset about a Netherlands Burger Bar, ffs
Surely McDonalds and Burger King won`t mind the competition
And don`t call me surely
Share This Page:
Netherlands Burqa Ban
-
harry hackedoff
- Member
- Posts: 14415
- Joined: Tue 19 Feb, 2002 12:00 am
Have I missed summat while I`ve been adrift
Why are you all so upset about a Netherlands Burger Bar, ffs
Surely McDonalds and Burger King won`t mind the competition
And don`t call me surely
Why are you all so upset about a Netherlands Burger Bar, ffs
Surely McDonalds and Burger King won`t mind the competition
And don`t call me surely
[url=http://www.militaryforums.co.uk/forums/groupcp.php?g=397][img]http://www.militaryforums.co.uk/forums/images/usergroups/listener.gif[/img][/url]
Tab, you misunderstand me: I'm not talking about giving anything away, just having a truely level playing field. A burqa ban while others can wear what they want re: religious items isn't a level playing field. On the opposite end of the scope, affirmative action prioritising places in jobs etc to 'minorities' is also not a level playing field, and also hurts the cause of equality, tolerence et c in my opinion (and also in the opinion of the majority of black/asian etc people I've talked to).
There are also some absolutes, as in the example you mention: you can only have one system of law in a country, and it's the English one. Besides, it's no secret that much of Sharia law is just perverse religious bigotry, and any libertarian-minded person who defends the ideas of individual liberty and equality by arguing that we must be tolerant of intolerance (as many idiotic liberal pressure groups do) is an utter moron, and is blackening the name of otherwise fine ideas.
Pilgrim, the problem I have with assimilating is this: it's a two way street.
If people had done like you say here in the 1950's and forced all the ex-Empire immigrants to adhere exactly to 1950's Britain, we wouldn't have had the kebabs, curries you mention...
If some Jews and Spanish sailors who brought fried fish and potatoes to Britain in the 17th/18th centuries had been turned away, we wouldn't have had fish and chips...
If the Romans had forced all of Britannia to assimilate, we wouldn't have beer...
I don't want to see little fortified enclaves of foreign cultures where I live any more than you do, but if my neighbour's little corner of this green and pleasant land has some weird and wonderful decorations, spicy smells wafting around at dinner time, and snatches of a foreign language in the corridor, then it just makes the world a more interesting place to live.
There are also some absolutes, as in the example you mention: you can only have one system of law in a country, and it's the English one. Besides, it's no secret that much of Sharia law is just perverse religious bigotry, and any libertarian-minded person who defends the ideas of individual liberty and equality by arguing that we must be tolerant of intolerance (as many idiotic liberal pressure groups do) is an utter moron, and is blackening the name of otherwise fine ideas.
Pilgrim, the problem I have with assimilating is this: it's a two way street.
If people had done like you say here in the 1950's and forced all the ex-Empire immigrants to adhere exactly to 1950's Britain, we wouldn't have had the kebabs, curries you mention...
If some Jews and Spanish sailors who brought fried fish and potatoes to Britain in the 17th/18th centuries had been turned away, we wouldn't have had fish and chips...
If the Romans had forced all of Britannia to assimilate, we wouldn't have beer...
I don't want to see little fortified enclaves of foreign cultures where I live any more than you do, but if my neighbour's little corner of this green and pleasant land has some weird and wonderful decorations, spicy smells wafting around at dinner time, and snatches of a foreign language in the corridor, then it just makes the world a more interesting place to live.
-
harry hackedoff
- Member
- Posts: 14415
- Joined: Tue 19 Feb, 2002 12:00 am
-
Pilgrim Norway
- Member
- Posts: 1428
- Joined: Wed 17 Apr, 2002 9:49 am
- Location: Årnes, Norway
Hoy you - you moved my serious bit of contribution so you did -
Nice to see you back .......
AND - if the Romans had assimilated they could have enjoyed the
Newcastle Brown while they were building their Walls
Nice to see you back .......
I've just established the 'Norm' for Mr. Average -Why can't all immigrants join in and do the British 'thing'.....
Down to the Pub after work - darts, crisps, twelve pints of "beer"....
Fish and chips afterwards - or mushie peas - or kebab - or curry -
Back home, slap their partner around - sleep on the toilet .....
Let someone else take care of the 'Politics' bit - don't use the vote.....
Complain when the 'Other Side' win the election - (after having wasted
their own vote )......
What IS so difficult just settling in and being 'Normal'..... ?
AND - if the Romans had assimilated they could have enjoyed the
Newcastle Brown while they were building their Walls
Trog
45 Recce yomper
[url=http://www.militaryforums.co.uk/forums/groupcp.php?g=397][img]http://www.militaryforums.co.uk/forums/images/usergroups/listener.gif[/img][/url]
45 Recce yomper
[url=http://www.militaryforums.co.uk/forums/groupcp.php?g=397][img]http://www.militaryforums.co.uk/forums/images/usergroups/listener.gif[/img][/url]
Now the Sikhs and Jews and even Rastafarian's mix in fairly well, they have different customs and clothes but make No demands on what you should wear. So why are we bending over back wards to accommodate the Muslims. Now they have left there own country to build a better life in this country. Now why did they come here apart from the Benefits, was because this country was free and has a record for tolerance, and because it is a very Democratic country. No sooner they are here they find life very different from what they knew back home, and rather than learn new ways they now want to turn this country in to mess they left behind when they moved, with all there backward looking ways which were not out of place in the middle ages. Also if you are going back to the 1950's influx of immigrants this was brought about by the governments of the day looking for cheap Labour. They had Nationalised every thing in sight and to keep the Labour costs down had recruited from overseas
Pilgrim, you can be damn sure that if the Romans had been drinking Newcastle Brown while they built, we'd all be driving on roundabouts rather than their nice straight roads 
Tab, not entirely sure I agree about the first bit - Orthodox jews demand that skullcaps are worn, and moreover on certain hairstyle etc, Sikhs I believe demand headdress is worn - don't see how it's fair that Muslim attire shouldn't be regulated any more than those (that the religion requires you to wear a symbol in the first place isn't my cup of tea, but that's their choice).
You're right that we are demonstrably bending over backwards on some issues to accommodate Muslims, and as I said above I think this is counter-productive - however, considering the rather tense relations between communities since 2001, it is also neccessary to counter those who would demonise all Muslims for the acts of a few nutjobs.
As for the second part, I similarly don't like the self-ghettoisation which such communities create by trying to recreate the culture of their homeland here, but similar things happened in the 1950's with, for example, Sikhs. Traditionalist families will simply take a few generations to bond into the host culture, and we have to be prepared for it to take that time. The two things which simply don't work is a) encouraging them to stay the same in the name of multiculturalism, and b) forcing them to change from the outside by legislation etc. The only people who can 'assimilate' immigrants into Britain are the 2nd, 3rd, 4th generations who will grow up here and be British. As for how long it takes, whether you like it or not, if trying to force the issue will just make things worse, then the smart thing to do is to let time run it's course.
PS Also the more you try and single out a community and try and force it to change from the outside, the more it will gain an independent identity, most likely based on resistance to the forced change...just look at occupied Europe in WW2 (well, perhaps not France), and think of how Blighty became a focus for resistance against Germany.
Tab, not entirely sure I agree about the first bit - Orthodox jews demand that skullcaps are worn, and moreover on certain hairstyle etc, Sikhs I believe demand headdress is worn - don't see how it's fair that Muslim attire shouldn't be regulated any more than those (that the religion requires you to wear a symbol in the first place isn't my cup of tea, but that's their choice).
You're right that we are demonstrably bending over backwards on some issues to accommodate Muslims, and as I said above I think this is counter-productive - however, considering the rather tense relations between communities since 2001, it is also neccessary to counter those who would demonise all Muslims for the acts of a few nutjobs.
As for the second part, I similarly don't like the self-ghettoisation which such communities create by trying to recreate the culture of their homeland here, but similar things happened in the 1950's with, for example, Sikhs. Traditionalist families will simply take a few generations to bond into the host culture, and we have to be prepared for it to take that time. The two things which simply don't work is a) encouraging them to stay the same in the name of multiculturalism, and b) forcing them to change from the outside by legislation etc. The only people who can 'assimilate' immigrants into Britain are the 2nd, 3rd, 4th generations who will grow up here and be British. As for how long it takes, whether you like it or not, if trying to force the issue will just make things worse, then the smart thing to do is to let time run it's course.
PS Also the more you try and single out a community and try and force it to change from the outside, the more it will gain an independent identity, most likely based on resistance to the forced change...just look at occupied Europe in WW2 (well, perhaps not France), and think of how Blighty became a focus for resistance against Germany.
-
Pilgrim Norway
- Member
- Posts: 1428
- Joined: Wed 17 Apr, 2002 9:49 am
- Location: Årnes, Norway
Sarastro....Now I will agree about the immigrants forming their own ghettos, but back to the dress thing, nethierr a Sikh nor a Jew will insist on you wearing either a Turban or a skull cap. Now if you are invited to a Jewish ceremony you might be offered a skull cap to wear during a certain ceremony you can be polite to your host and wear it, or you could refuse and not be asked again the choice is yours. If you go to Israel or to the Golden Palace in India every thing is quite fairly relaxed, but are there any demands on you to change your ways. Yet try going to Saudi Arabia and try walking around carrying a bible or try getting a drink, and they will come down you like a ton of bricks, as they expect you to follow their laws. So we are back to the old saying when in Rome do as the Romans do. there again if thy don't like it they can always go back home.
Ah, sorry, thought we were talking about being required to wear things within a religion.
Yes, there are places where Islamic law or whatever requires that you bow to their beliefs, yes, it's fundamentalist fascist shite, which is a pretty damn good reason for us not to do the same? Let's be better than them.
Yes, there are places where Islamic law or whatever requires that you bow to their beliefs, yes, it's fundamentalist fascist shite, which is a pretty damn good reason for us not to do the same? Let's be better than them.
-
Pilgrim Norway
- Member
- Posts: 1428
- Joined: Wed 17 Apr, 2002 9:49 am
- Location: Årnes, Norway
-
Artist
- Guest
Have to say I agree with the ban on burkhas (burqas?). Choice and freedom of expression is all well and good, but the burkha is oppressive and many muslim women are simply afraid to say so. It is also a very good way of hiding the signs of domestic abuse that many muslim women suffer from.
Mike made the point about Brown and his support of the Union flag etc... Now while I agree with the points he (Brown) made, I am too cynical to believe that he really believes in them. Brown is only promoting a patriotic agenda because he knows that he is perceived as being too Scottish to be PM.
Sarastro mentioned that integration can only happen over the long term. I agree with this (and a fair bit of what you say) but there has already been a fairly long time since the mass immigration of the '50s. How much longer do they need?
You also say:
Part of the problem is that Muslims demand double standards. They want the right to denounce homosexuality (witness Sir Iqbal Sacranie) - no problem there, that's their right - but at the same time want to silence anyone who criticises their religion. Well sorry guys, either it's free speech or not and that means having to put up with people saying things you don't like. As Voltaire said (thereabouts), 'I may not agree with what you say, but I'll fight for your right to say it.'
In my view this quote from the BBC is about right:
In my view the bottom line is this, the burkha is oppressive and is a bar to integration. Would you walk up to someone in a burkha and ask them the time? If people want to live in a liberal western society, they are going to have to adopt liberal western attitudes.
Dan
Mike made the point about Brown and his support of the Union flag etc... Now while I agree with the points he (Brown) made, I am too cynical to believe that he really believes in them. Brown is only promoting a patriotic agenda because he knows that he is perceived as being too Scottish to be PM.
Sarastro mentioned that integration can only happen over the long term. I agree with this (and a fair bit of what you say) but there has already been a fairly long time since the mass immigration of the '50s. How much longer do they need?
You also say:
True, but no other religion (as far as I'm aware) imposes such an extreme form of clothing on its followers. I have no problem with headscarves, turbans, rasta hats or whatever as they still allow you to interact with the person wearing them. Burkhas do not.I'm not talking about giving anything away, just having a truely level playing field. A burqa ban while others can wear what they want re: religious items isn't a level playing field
Part of the problem is that Muslims demand double standards. They want the right to denounce homosexuality (witness Sir Iqbal Sacranie) - no problem there, that's their right - but at the same time want to silence anyone who criticises their religion. Well sorry guys, either it's free speech or not and that means having to put up with people saying things you don't like. As Voltaire said (thereabouts), 'I may not agree with what you say, but I'll fight for your right to say it.'
In my view this quote from the BBC is about right:
There is nothing wrong with people being proud of their heritage and religion etc... But when in Rome...Holland seems to be lurching from the multicultural option - in which immigrants keep their own languages and cultures, at the risk of becoming ghettoised - to a policy of assimilation, by which newcomers lose all trace of their original identity and become indistinguishable from their "host" nation other than by the colour of their skin.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3417429.stm
In my view the bottom line is this, the burkha is oppressive and is a bar to integration. Would you walk up to someone in a burkha and ask them the time? If people want to live in a liberal western society, they are going to have to adopt liberal western attitudes.
Dan
-
Wholley
- Guest
