• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

British Muslims becoming a nation within a nation, Trevor Phillips warns

Oh, they do have borders? And they're being carefully guarded?
If you'd read on to the next post of mine (addressing Morris) you'd know by now how you're battling windmills.

Unless, of course, you're being intentionally obtuse.
 
If you'd read on to the next post of mine (addressing Morris) you'd know by now how you're battling windmills. Unless, of course, you're being intentionally obtuse.
In fact Europeans amuse me.
 
They misread or erred somehow in those figures. I did not quote Pew directly.
Bah, what is this?

Heck, straw-manning appears to be the least of the problems.

One spouts out an article and suppresses half of it (the half not substantiating what he clearly wants to push), when challenged on that even admits that he chose by convenience, only to then change the subject, changes it again upon a further challenge by straw-manning like there's no tomorrow and then you come along with a similar but by no means lesser strawman.

To then bring in an article from an outlet that clearly can't read (let alone count), only to state (when this is pointed out) "It's not my fault that what I cite is faulty" ???

Add the pink font panther with the usual inane one liners (that I can unfortunately read due to being quoted) and what we have here is a comedian number that would be hilarious, were it not so sad.

And you lot wonder at not being taken seriously, ever.
 
I provided a new link directly to Pew. Check it out.
Wiki quotes Pew. Do you disagree with it? What are your numbers?
This thing with you is getting boring. Not even the numbers cited in wiki show a category of "always".
 
Bah, what is this?

Heck, straw-manning appears to be the least of the problems.

One spouts out an article and suppresses half of it (the half not substantiating what he clearly wants to push), when challenged on that even admits that he chose by convenience, only to then change the subject, changes it again upon a further challenge by straw-manning like there's no tomorrow and then you come along with a similar but by no means lesser strawman.

To then bring in an article from an outlet that clearly can't read (let alone count), only to state (when this is pointed out) "It's not my fault that what I cite is faulty" ???

Add the pink font panther with the usual inane one liners (that I can unfortunately read due to being quoted) and what we have here is a comedian number that would be hilarious, were it not so sad.

And you lot wonder at not being taken seriously, ever.

I have used that magenta(not Pink) on every forum I have been on. Actually I use it to see what else people can complain about. Not that the great one is going to read this.

So just continue to find every contrary fact that says Islam isn't our biggest problem and exaggerated by fear mongers. That argument is 30 seconds older than the one you criticize. It is not the little inconsistencies that matter. But you are minimizing the dangers of the civilization jihad allowed to continue because of the PC emasculation that you guys got pretty bad.

Anyway. I like magenta.
 
I have used that magenta(not Pink) on every forum I have been on. Actually I use it to see what else people can complain about. Not that the great one is going to read this.

So just continue to find every contrary fact that says Islam isn't our biggest problem and exaggerated by fear mongers. That argument is 30 seconds older than the one you criticize. It is not the little inconsistencies that matter. But you are minimizing the dangers of the civilization jihad allowed to continue because of the PC emasculation that you guys got pretty bad.

Anyway. I like magenta.

Just wait, the rest of the authoritarian left will be along very shortly. You can't be an individual who thinks for themselve, no, lockstep conformity is their demand!
 
and there we have it, as usual with you
.

Usual what?

You ignore Glen's pertinent caveat and even admit that by your highlighting you're not interested in anything other than what you choose to address

What I chose to highlight was the troubling views of a significant portion of British Muslims. What would I constantly repeat lines such as, "not ALL Muslims are terrorists". We ALL know that, don't we?


and then you proceed to brush aside Manc's scrutiny on the survey being flawed by going totally strawman
.

WOW, Manc's scrutiny! That's it, Manc has scrutinized the whole study and decided it is "flawed". Sorry, but a one line knee jerk 'run of the mill' statement is in no way scrutiny.

A Channel 4 survey, ferchrissake. Anyone acquainted with that rag of moving images will know what I mean.

You can run down the source all you like. I find they actually investigate issues many of the other broadcasters stay well clear of. They've done excellent work on: LGBT issues, race, disability etc. Those type of issues may not be of interest to you, but it is nice to see at least one station giving them attention.

You really expect any entry of yours to be taken seriously when it is presented in such dishonesty?

Show me where my facts are dishonest?
 
I'm focussing on the habitually dishonest MO of the presenter.

Or any other of that ilk.

Without that finding address and solution (if at all possible) the Muslim issue, where one exists, can't begin to find sensible address.

And you'd be well advised to not fall into the same straw man habits that he does.

Do you even understand what you write? :doh

How can I be "dishonest" by presenting facts from a survey! The survey was there for everyone to read, and draw their own conclusions. I decided, on balance and ALL things considered (which includes more study into Multiculturalism than you'll know) that Trevor Phillips gave a clear and balanced account.
 
Should we be surprised? No, not at all. You just need to visit some of these enclaves within England, and you'll soon realize, that these attitudes are totally in-keeping, with their segregated existence.

Wait what...? It has absolutely nothing to do with multi-culturalism. Minorities in the UK (and elsewhere) tend to group together.. that is is historical going back centuries. Irish moving to the US pretty much all went to New York or Boston areas for example. Even today Irish Americans are highly concentrated in those areas.. the big melting pot my ass... it is just multi-culturalism.

In the UK you have high concentrations of "Asians" in Birmingham.. why? Because people of the "Asian" persuasion moved there.... not like Birmingham ever was prime real estate. In London, again you have concentrations of "Asians" in specific areas, just as you have concentrations of Jews and other minorities. This almost always happens.

Now some minorities integrate better than others. What is the factors that make this possible?

Religion? One could argue this. Jewish minorities in European countries tend to be relatively apart from the rest of the population. Same goes for some Christian sects. Some Muslims certainly tend to live apart from the rest of the population.

Education? One could argue this... the less educated the more ghetto creation there is. This is evident in the white Christian areas of most countries as well.

Nationality/Origins? One could also argue this. Asians from China and elsewhere tend to integrate well, where as some people from the middle east dont. But then again there are plenty of people from the middle east that do integrate well. Africans tend to not integrate wait well either... but there are exceptions.

Then what is the problem? Case in point from personal experience. In Denmark we have had a lot of Turkish migrants over the decades. They came from mostly the eastern parts of Turkey, so they were either Kurds or not. Now I have seen great integration, and horrible integration as well. The only thing I can put my finger on as the problem is the patriarch of the family. I had Turkish friends where the patriarch allowed and encouraged his wife to learn Danish and his daughters to mingle with Danes and go to school. I have also met patriarch who refused this. Both were religious and Muslim. So blaming Islam is a non starter.

But one thing I constantly heard was the words "racism and discrimination". That my fully integrated Turkish friends experienced racism and discrimination despite looking like a Dane has always worried me. I asked once when it happened and it was usually when they had to give their names.. and then attitudes changed towards them. Now I can see (but not understand) why there is racism and discrimination against people who dont speak Danish or/and look like someone from rural Turkey, but that discrimination happened purely based on someones name always pissed me off. I also remember reading about an American who could not get a job because of his name.. he was latino. So he changed it to the English version and bingo he started getting job offers.

My conclusion has been that in all societies the problem is racism and discrimination. This breed discontent among the people being discriminated against, which in turn forces them to gang together to protect and reinforce their "own people". This in turn breeds more racism and discrimination against them of course and rise of BNP/UKIP/Britain First or what they all are called.

In the end it takes 2 to tango... both sides are at fault for the failed integration and it has only gotten worse since 9/11 and 7/7.. where the actions of the very few are blamed and taken out on the many. Look at the US.. there was just a case where an Iraqi American was taken off a plane because he spoke Arabic. Or the Sikh population who has been attacked and killed since 9/11 because "they look Muslim".. dont you think the Sikh population in the US are not banding together to protect each other? Of course they are.
 
Wait what...? It has absolutely nothing to do with multi-culturalism. Minorities in the UK (and elsewhere) tend to group together.. that is is historical going back centuries. Irish moving to the US pretty much all went to New York or Boston areas for example. Even today Irish Americans are highly concentrated in those areas.. the big melting pot my ass... it is just multi-culturalism.

In the UK you have high concentrations of "Asians" in Birmingham.. why? Because people of the "Asian" persuasion moved there.... not like Birmingham ever was prime real estate. In London, again you have concentrations of "Asians" in specific areas, just as you have concentrations of Jews and other minorities. This almost always happens.

Now some minorities integrate better than others. What is the factors that make this possible?

Then what is the problem? Case in point from personal experience. In Denmark we have had a lot of Turkish migrants over the decades. They came from mostly the eastern parts of Turkey, so they were either Kurds or not. Now I have seen great integration, and horrible integration as well. The only thing I can put my finger on as the problem is the patriarch of the family. I had Turkish friends where the patriarch allowed and encouraged his wife to learn Danish and his daughters to mingle with Danes and go to school. I have also met patriarch who refused this. Both were religious and Muslim. So blaming Islam is a non starter.

But one thing I constantly heard was the words "racism and discrimination". That my fully integrated Turkish friends experienced racism and discrimination despite looking like a Dane has always worried me. I asked once when it happened and it was usually when they had to give their names.. and then attitudes changed towards them. Now I can see (but not understand) why there is racism and discrimination against people who dont speak Danish or/and look like someone from rural Turkey, but that discrimination happened purely based on someones name always pissed me off. I also remember reading about an American who could not get a job because of his name.. he was latino. So he changed it to the English version and bingo he started getting job offers.

My conclusion has been that in all societies the problem is racism and discrimination. This breed discontent among the people being discriminated against, which in turn forces them to gang together to protect and reinforce their "own people". This in turn breeds more racism and discrimination against them of course and rise of BNP/UKIP/Britain First or what they all are called.

In the end it takes 2 to tango... both sides are at fault for the failed integration and it has only gotten worse since 9/11 and 7/7.. where the actions of the very few are blamed and taken out on the many. Look at the US.. there was just a case where an Iraqi American was taken off a plane because he spoke Arabic. Or the Sikh population who has been attacked and killed since 9/11 because "they look Muslim".. dont you think the Sikh population in the US are not banding together to protect each other? Of course they are.

Firstly, what interpretation of Multiculturalism are you using? That is very important, because the UK made it a policy path (based a lot on the Canadian model. See Kymlicka 1995). As Phillips was the guru, so to speak, at the time of the last Labour government he is an authority on what policy path was pursued. From this study, Phillips said:

"The integration of Britain’s Muslims will probably be the hardest task we’ve ever faced. It will require the abandonment of the milk-and-water multiculturalism still so beloved of many, and the adoption of a far more muscular approach to integration.”

http://www.channel4.com/info/press/...ary-reveals-what-british-muslims-really-think


That is something I agree with based on a lot of research into Multiculturalism. I have referred to the work of Ted Cantle for quite sometime now, which I hope gets developed further:

About Community Cohesion | Community Cohesion and Intercultural Relations | Professor Ted Cantle

I'm particularly drawn to his work on 'Interculturalism': About Interculturalism | Community Cohesion and Intercultural Relations | Professor Ted Cantle

"Multicultural policies are toxic – but multicultural societies are the future"


What traction it's getting is hard to discern. Keep in-mind, Cantle has worked vigorously on this since the riots of 2001. In that report, the lack of community cohesion was seen as the tinder for mistrust etc. Fast forward to 2016, it's not some gigantic leap of faith if we suggest this is in some way contributory to those that flock to the banner of Daesh.
 
Integration should be the primary objective of multiculturalism, the outcomes of isolated communities, whether social or geographical, are never as good as the wider community. Muslims should of course be allowed to choose just how religious they want to be, and who they wish to associate with, but ghettoisation should not happen.
 
Integration should be the primary objective of multiculturalism, the outcomes of isolated communities, whether social or geographical, are never as good as the wider community. Muslims should of course be allowed to choose just how religious they want to be, and who they wish to associate with, but ghettoisation should not happen.

And that's the challenge :)
 
Firstly, what interpretation of Multiculturalism are you using?

There is only one interpretation of Multiculturalism and that is people of another culture live and work among us and dont cause problems... preferably also integrated.

A bunch of morons who pander to the far right.. sorry but you can not do policy to force multi-culturalism or in fact integration. It has failed at every attempt even in the US which is the birth place of modern so called multiculturalism. Integration of minorities takes decades if not centuries. The Asian population of the UK only came to the UK after the fall of the British Empire (for the most part). That is only 60 or so years ago. The first generation migrants are in many cases still alive! This does not happen over night.

Like it or not when you move to another country (I have moved to several) you tend to try to find like minded groups, usually from your own country. If you go to any country with a large expat community, then a huge portion of those people only interact with their own countrymen or other foreigners. Even here in Spain that is quite evident for most people..We have large areas of British only here.. hell the regional government had to step in a few years ago to force store owners in a small town near here to have signs and menus in Spanish, because everything was in English! Over time of course you get more and more comfortable with the locals and get local friends. But it takes time, and requires a willingness from you to do so.

So why on earth would Muslims or whatever be any different than your own country men when moving to another country?

What traction it's getting is hard to discern. Keep in-mind, Cantle has worked vigorously on this since the riots of 2001. In that report, the lack of community cohesion was seen as the tinder for mistrust etc. Fast forward to 2016, it's not some gigantic leap of faith if we suggest this is in some way contributory to those that flock to the banner of Daesh.

Mistrust comes from ignorance and stupidity. Why? Because a few rotten eggs taint a whole community and that is what happens with minority groups. It is a sad fact but true. Look at the white Christian community. Does crime by a white Christian taint all white Christians and their attitudes to said community? Of course not.

But take a black Muslim or Asian Muslim doing something wrong and bang it is the fault of the community in not only stopping him but not helping the police to stop him/them.

So of course these minorities see it as an attack on them and they band together to defend themselves against what they see as an attack from the outside. The more they band together, the easier it is to "brainwash" them out of fear. Look at any right wing racist organisation. Why do people think like BNP or UKIP? Because the band together and re-enforce a common belief of us against them and what to do about it. This in turn fortifies both sides and so on and so on.

You want to reach into Muslim communities to stop DAESH? What you have to do is easy, but hard to actually carry out.

1) The Imans in Mosques need vetting without it looking like it is the state appointing them. This is tricky as hell. The Iman is the key to the community, just as the Rabi is in the Jewish community. Have westernized open Imans and the problem dies down considerably. But if you dont allow the community to appoint their own then that will cause problems as well. One way would be to create with the community organisations a vetting process and education system for religious leaders. However you have to do this for all religions..... it could help with the child abuse in the Christian churches..

2) Stop blaming all Muslims for the acts of a few. This is critical and hard as hell to do with UKIP/BNP type people out there.... let alone the right wing who use it as a political weapon of fear to gain support.

3) Stop calling Islam an evil religion.. this alone has rallied many people around the extremists who use it as a rallying cry... Islam is under attack!

4) Reach out women and girls.. the laws are already in place.. Girls HAVE to have an education and freedom. This alone would do wonders.

5) Ban religious based schools. If they want to learn religion.. go to the Mosque/Church school on their own time which has to be controlled by the state to make sure no extremist ideas are being taut. Schools should be for learning facts.. not facts tainted by religious dogma. Any underground schools or teachings should be hit down hard on.. prison and deportation of the teachers.. I have zero respect for these terrorists regardless of the religion.
 
Integration should be the primary objective of multiculturalism, the outcomes of isolated communities, whether social or geographical, are never as good as the wider community. Muslims should of course be allowed to choose just how religious they want to be, and who they wish to associate with, but ghettoisation should not happen.

But ghetoisation always happens. Little Italy, Chinatown, Irish town, Little Havana, Harlem.. ring a bell? Present or former "ghettos" based on some sort of minority population. Even in Denmark where we use to put minorities in "ghettos" back in the 1970s and 80s.. these ghettos in most parts remain and new ones have popped up despite us letting people live where they want. Should we force them to move elsewhere and dictate where you can live based on your nationality and religion?

Or look at Spain. There are ghettos of foreigners here. La Cala de Mijas and Calahonda near me are havens of the British and in part Scandinavians. Los Boliches (my usual go to area) is full of Fins. Germans tend to go to Majorca... the German population there is huge. British live in enclaves up and down the Med coast.... Do they integrate? Not really.. most dont.
 
Just wait, the rest of the authoritarian left will be along very shortly. You can't be an individual who thinks for themselve, no, lockstep conformity is their demand!
But there's always the option of exacerbating the self-created argumentative conundrum with nonsensical statements like these.

The last of the free thinkers :mrgreen:

Well, I guess when one needs to pre-occupy oneself with the maintenance of that delusion, it leaves little to no time to examine what one actually does think, freely or not.
 
In the most comprehensive study into the attitudes of British Muslims, Phillips said:

"Commenting on a ground-breaking survey, Trevor Phillips said we are “in danger of sacrificing a generation of young British people to values that are antithetical to the beliefs of most of us, including many Muslims”[...]

"He called for a new, tougher approach to integration and the abandonment of “the failed policy of multiculturalism"[..]

"One in 25 Muslims (four per cent) said they felt at least some sympathy with people who took part in suicide bombings, while a similar proportion said they had some sympathy with “people who commit terrorist actions as a form of political protest”.
A quarter – 25 per cent – said they could understand why British school girls could be attracted to become “jihadi brides” overseas.

Less than half (47 per cent) agreed that Muslims should do more to tackle the causes of extremism in the Muslim community.

52 per cent believed homosexuality should not be legal in Britain, 39 per cent agreed “wives should always obey their husbands”, and 31 per cent said it was acceptable for a man to have more than one wife."

British Muslims becoming a nation within a nation, Trevor Phillips warns

Yes, Muslims are different. No, we shouldn't accept that - Telegraph


Half of all British Muslims think homosexuality should be illegal, poll finds | UK news | The Guardian

Should we be surprised? No, not at all. You just need to visit some of these enclaves within England, and you'll soon realize, that these attitudes are totally in-keeping, with their segregated existence.

Never permit people to be different. Especially not minorities. Huh?
 
But ghetoisation always happens. Little Italy, Chinatown, Irish town, Little Havana, Harlem.. ring a bell? Present or former "ghettos" based on some sort of minority population. Even in Denmark where we use to put minorities in "ghettos" back in the 1970s and 80s.. these ghettos in most parts remain and new ones have popped up despite us letting people live where they want. Should we force them to move elsewhere and dictate where you can live based on your nationality and religion?

Or look at Spain. There are ghettos of foreigners here. La Cala de Mijas and Calahonda near me are havens of the British and in part Scandinavians. Los Boliches (my usual go to area) is full of Fins. Germans tend to go to Majorca... the German population there is huge. British live in enclaves up and down the Med coast.... Do they integrate? Not really.. most dont.

And how are the economic outcomes in places like Harlem? In a population that holds a propensity for radical ideology, isolation and inequality only exacerbate the problem. Look at the sheer amount of historic violent crime in the US that's associated with Italian communities and the Mafia.
 
Integration should be the primary objective of multiculturalism, the outcomes of isolated communities, whether social or geographical, are never as good as the wider community. Muslims should of course be allowed to choose just how religious they want to be, and who they wish to associate with, but ghettoisation should not happen.
In a perfect world...............

The tendency can be seen that analysing the ratio of being marginalised to self-marginalisation is much like the hen and egg argument. Preferences of perception being made by whatever side of the dividing line dictates the angle of view.

A generalisation, of course, yet not totally without truth.

Surveys like these do not alleviate that problem, they exacerbate it.
 
And how are the economic outcomes in places like Harlem? ~

That's got nothing to do with ghettoes and more to do with centuries denied equal rights and any kind of opportunities to develop as a people. There's a whole intellectual and scientific industry in the US dedicated to promoting horrible views and organisations that keep places like Harlem exactly what they are.
 
But at the same time there's always more than one way to look at a problem. Turning this into an "us and them" sort of situation only drives more people into the hands of the jihadis.

Which is exactly what Baghdadi called for in one of his IS sermons last year. He wants muslims to be demonised and seen as outsiders.

Funny, the same Trevor Phillips pointed out that a huge proportion of rape gangs were made up of Mirpuri muslims from the Mirpur region of Pakistan but this has been painted as a "muslim" thing by a range of posters claiming "rape jihad."

Problem is, Mirpuri rape gangs are infamous in Pakistan too.
 
Back
Top Bottom