All UK Parties must stand up against Islamophobia

[Gardener]

That's sexism which the liberal-leftists NEVER criticise, albeit if you don't prod them.

Then they wonder why the gulf between they and the non-PC public grows ever wider.

and racist, too, if you think about it. People are being singled out as unworthy of basic human rights because of their ethnicity.

 

[Republic_Of_Public]

Ah yes, the great 'R' word. Cuts only one way apparently.

And when it does it seems usually misguided or clouded by the Red mist.

 

[gunner]

Yes, because she is a piece of property and not a human being.

and, of course, in your world, anybody who might oppose this situation is an "Islamophobe".

Their YOU go again dragging the debate to the extremities and getting personal, gee and you always get away with it:yawn:

Paul

 

[Republic_Of_Public]

OOOOoooooooooooooo, cheeky!


I'm of similar mind and think of the names I've been called. Alexa, for example, called me sick and nauseous for not agreeing with her. (See 13 and 14):

http://www.debatepolitics.com/europe/68555-edl-choose-bolton-2.html#post1058631164




Mind, Andalablue's own testimonial mustn't be forgotten, though I am by no means complaining because my heart swells with pride to read it.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/europ...ns-scum-bag-competition-5.html#post1058719063


No, smugness actually.

There's quite a qualitative difference between calling someone a daft bat and calling someone a paedophile, scum, **** and all the panoply of filth you pour on liberals and left-wingers.

Anyway, calling someone 'Islamophobe' isn't personal. Bandying such a tag is misleading and babyish (as it at least implies wrongness in being afraid of Islamic extremism or supremacism). Then Lefties wonder why people are disrespectful back to them. (I'm lookin' at YOU Gordon!)

 

[gunner]

You do not believe that this is a set up and simply saves them setting laws like Belgium or France to get a ban specifically against Muslim women who wear face coverings.

Alexa, France citizenship is based on Republicanism and expects certain behaviours in keeping with their tradition. This tradition stresses the need for the state and its citizens to be a community. It places strong emphasis on the responsibilities of the citizen and need for the integration of the community. This of course causes conflict when sections, for whatever reason, deviate from that expectation.

French citizen status has three categories

- french by birth

- french by 'acquisition'

-and foreign

Once foreigners are naturalised, their children born on French soil are declared French by birth.
So in defense of the French system its their country to govern as they please [and enjoys much support]. The National and Ethnic origin does not appear in official documents and has no legal status or statistical significance. Moreover, naturalised citizens have been expected to assimilate into the dominant culture, losing- rather than retaining or celebrating-their particular cultural practices.
So this model is in direct opposition to say the UKs pluralism. This is reinforced by Frances cross party support stressing the incompatibility of Multiculturalism.
With this in mind, France has laid it on the table what it expects from the population under its umbrella.


Paul

 

[alexa]

Alexa, France citizenship is based on Republicanism and expects certain behaviours in keeping with their tradition. This tradition stresses the need for the state and its citizens to be a community. It places strong emphasis on the responsibilities of the citizen and need for the integration of the community. This of course causes conflict when sections, for whatever reason, deviate from that expectation.

French citizen status has three categories

- french by birth

- french by 'acquisition'

-and foreign

Once foreigners are naturalised, their children born on French soil are declared French by birth.
So in defense of the French system its their country to govern as they please [and enjoys much support]. The National and Ethnic origin does not appear in official documents and has no legal status or statistical significance. Moreover, naturalised citizens have been expected to assimilate into the dominant culture, losing- rather than retaining or celebrating-their particular cultural practices.
So this model is in direct opposition to say the UKs pluralism. This is reinforced by Frances cross party support stressing the incompatibility of Multiculturalism.
With this in mind, France has laid it on the table what it expects from the population under its umbrella.


Paul

I am aware of all this Paul. This does not stop France's attempt to Ban the Burka or veil, which is apparently used by 367 women updated to 2000 when they people who did the research were told this was too low a number, as being thinly disguised right wing prejudice.

with regards France it does appear that it might in any effect be illegal

The French government is drawing up a law to ban Muslim women from wearing a full-face veil in public, despite advice that it could be illegal.

......

It suggested a full ban could be declared unconstitutional and overturned in court.

French to ban Muslim women from wearing veil - Telegraph

In both Belgium and France it is a very small percentage of Muslims who wear this. All adults. Many by choice. Those not by choice may well become imprisoned in their homes. That will help them no end.

 

[gunner]

I am aware of all this Paul. This does not stop France's attempt to Ban the Burka or veil, which is apparently used by 367 women updated to 2000 when they people who did the research were told this was too low a number, as being thinly disguised right wing prejudice.

with regards France it does appear that it might in any effect be illegal

French to ban Muslim women from wearing veil - Telegraph

In both Belgium and France it is a very small percentage of Muslims who wear this. All adults. Many by choice. Those not by choice may well become imprisoned in their homes. That will help them no end.

I was just trying to add abit of background as to what France expects from its citizens. And, highlight the French systems incompatibility with certain freedoms.

From your link

"We're legislating for the future. Wearing a full veil is a sign of a community closing in on itself and of a rejection of our values

This confirms the assimilating element of French citizenship.

Paul

 

[mbig]

the islamophobia myth
KenanMalik.com (UK)
prospect, february 2005
Kenan Malik's essay 'The Islamophobia Myth'

Ten years ago no one had heard of Islamophobia. Now everyone from Muslim leaders to anti-racist activists to government ministers want to convince us that Britain is in the grip of an irrational hatred of Islam - a hatred that, they claim, leads to institutionalised harassment, physical attacks, social discrimination and political alienation. Former Home Office Minister John Denham has warned of the 'cancer of Islamophobia' infecting the nation. The veteran anti-racist Richard Stone, who was a consultant to the Stephen Lawrence inquiry, suggests that Islamophobia is 'a challenge to us all'. The Director of Public Prosecutions has worried that the war on terror is 'alienating whole communities' in this country. The government is so concerned that it is introducing a new law outlawing incitement to religious hatred.

But does Islamophobia really exist? Or is the hatred and abuse of Muslims being exaggerated to suit politicians' needs and silence the critics of Islam?
The trouble with Islamophobia is that it is an irrational concept. It confuses hatred of, and discrimination against, Muslims on the one hand with criticism of Islam on the other.
The charge of 'Islamophobia' is all too often used not to highlight racism but to stifle criticism. And in reality discrimination against Muslims is not as great as is often perceived - but criticism of Islam should be greater.

In making a film on Islamophobia for Channel 4 what became clear is the gap between perception and reality. Islamophobia driven by what people want to believe is true, rather than what really is true. A good example is the debate about police harassment of Muslims. Last summer the Home Office published figures that revealed a 300% increase in the number of Asians being stopped and searched under Britain's anti-terror laws. Journalists, Muslim leaders and even the Home Office all shouted 'Islamophobia'. 'The whole Muslim community is being targeted by the police', claimed Khalid Sofi of the Muslim Council.

Certainly, the bald figure of a '300% increase' suggests heavy handed policing and continual harassment. But dig a little deeper and the figures reveal something very different. They show that just 3000 Asians had been stopped and searched in the previous year under the Terrorism Act. Of these probably a half were Muslim. In other words around 1500 Muslims out of a population of more thtan 1.6 million had been stopped and searched under the terror laws - hardly a case of the police targeting every Muslim.

A total of 21,577 had been stopped and searched under the terror laws. The vast majority of these - 14,429 - were in fact white. Yet when I interviewed Iqbal Sacranie, general secretary of the Muslim Council of Britainhe insisted that '95-98% of those stopped and searched under the anti-terror laws are Muslim'. The real figure is actually 15%. But however many times I showed him the true statistics he refused to budge. I am sure he was sincere in his belief. But there is no basis for his claim that virtually all those stopped and searched were Muslim - the figures appear to have been simply plucked out of the sky...."

 

[Gardener]

Their YOU go again dragging the debate to the extremities and getting personal, gee and you always get away with it:yawn:

Paul

I'm not interested in your extremities, Paul.

This nonsense that one must support the treatment of women as property in order to avoid being called an "Islamophobe" is the issue here.

 

[alexa]

That's sexism which the liberal-leftists NEVER criticise, albeit if you don't prod them.

Then they wonder why the gulf between they and the non-PC public grows ever wider.

Your argument holds no logic. It was the woman who was fined £430

 

[alexa]

Instead of just whining about Iswamophobia, the likes of the squeaky Left should ask how we came to such a situation in the first place.


Take us. The way I see it is that the first generation of large-scale Muslim immigrants just wanted to settle in and mix with everyone else by and large. Indeed, any genuine aggressive racism of the old days would be aimed more at 'Pakis' than at 'Muslims'.

When people were no longer allowed to shout 'paki' plus expletive abuse at them they changed it to Muslims plus expletive abuse. 9/11 was the icing on the cake for such people. You fed right into the desires of Bin Laden.

But more recently, swaggering second-generation Muslims of mainly Pakistani origin have been pressing for Islamic this, Sharia that, Caliphate the other and no-go area to top it. Not just a radicalisation amongst the younger Muslims but also sympathy for terrorist supremacist aggression in its name. The likes of open-door immigration have allowed swathes of our towns and cities to become effective segregated areas full of people who insist on being different (either volatile or benign), even unapproachable in cases.

How do you react to that? How do you cap it and sort it out, short of sending them 'home'? We've just got to do what we think is best, voting for those who to us'll sort out the Islamification problem. 'Different culture' is one thing but it's a line in the sand thing with cases like this.

Sharia law for family and neighbourhood business just like the Jewish community have had for over a hundred years.

LOL your posts are so dull. They have all be seen before.

Dear British Muslims… ? Suspect Paki

But then you are a Daily Mail Reader, a BNP voter and have friends in the EDL so we can expect no better.:roll:

 

[Gardener]

the islamophobia myth
KenanMalik.com (UK)
prospect, february 2005
Kenan Malik's essay 'The Islamophobia Myth'

What I see as the real tragedy of this extreme dogmatism where the faithful scream "Islamophobe" over and over is that they aren't actually defending the rank and file Muslims who might actually be a victim of discrimination, but the most extreme elements within Islam -- the elements within Islam that are most prone to target other Muslims who don't conform with the proper zeal. Just as the example here proves where Alexa supports the notion of a man owning a woman as long as they are Muslim (after all, in the example she gave, it was the woman's owner who objected), it isn't any actual attitudes or actions that matter, but simply how one can apply a label.

This racially based support for totalitarianism and extreme misogyny only hurts the one's the deluded think they are protecting, and is tantamount to supporting the Nazis in the thirties under the misapprehension that one was somehow supporting Germans.

 

[Republic_Of_Public]

Sharia law for family and neighbourhood business just like the Jewish community have had for over a hundred years.

Quite apart from the fact that we have indeed had a very boring unending list of Islamic outrage for me to repeat, whilst we get nothing but good behaviour from the Jews, they call that Appeasement. Chamberlain tried that with your old friend Hitler and look what happened.

I think despite the howling about him even now, Hitler is the liberal-left's greatest friend. If such a bogeyman didn't exist he would have to have been invented. Sure as eggs are eggs you would never invoke Stalin in his place.


There. A little bit of patronising in return for your insinuation that being a Daily Mail reader is a bad thing, that frustrated people are rendered invalid for voting BNP once and that your lie that I have mates in the EDL.