This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← David Cameron's attack on multiculturalism divides the coalition

David Cameron's attack on multiculturalism divides the coalition - Comments

Richard Dawkins's Avatar Comment 1 by Richard Dawkins

Just as ‘communities’ has become code for 'Muslims', ‘multiculturalism’ is code for a systematic policy of sucking up to their often loathsome ‘community leaders’: imams, mullahs, 'clerics', and the ill-named ‘scholars’ . I’ve never voted Tory in my life, and I’m pretty sure I never will. But if David Cameron sticks to his guns (and so far he seems to be) he deserves respect from all of us.

Richard

Sun, 06 Feb 2011 10:35:44 UTC | #588502

Rawhard Dickins's Avatar Comment 2 by Rawhard Dickins

Blair's promotion of religious schools has fueled this problem, integration is the key.

Sun, 06 Feb 2011 10:51:20 UTC | #588505

Krasny's Avatar Comment 3 by Krasny

Multiculturalism works just fine.

But it depends on people wanting to participate in a secular society and leave their religion at home.

Many Muslims do not wish to embrace a secular society, indeed they vocally denigrate our values, and espouse values that would turn our society back six hundred years, when Protestants were running about chopping the heads off Catholics and vice versa.

A good question to ask non-secular Muslims is: Wouldn't you be happier living in a country where you are free to oppress women, mutilate the genitals of girls, rape children, execute homosexuals, stone adulterers to death and teach this bigoted nonsense in schools?

No wait! They ARE free to teach this bigoted nonsense in schools. And these schools are funded by the state.

Sun, 06 Feb 2011 10:51:53 UTC | #588506

retep57's Avatar Comment 4 by retep57

religion is a cancer, respect human beings, get rid of foolish superstition , the suck up should stop, tax breaks to allow practitioners of prisetcraft etc should stop.. dont pay people to lie to you.

Sun, 06 Feb 2011 11:10:24 UTC | #588511

billzfantazy's Avatar Comment 5 by billzfantazy

Multiculturism means different things to different people. On the one hand it can mean celebrating diversity and the good things about non British cultures, while on the other, as Richard says it can be a code word for pandering to all that is bad about Islam and... well mostly islam TBH.

I detest Tory ideology, hate the fact that they put profit before compassion & dislike the private school clique that makes up the majority of their MP's. I also worry that this particular attack on multiculturism may give succour to the fascists such as the EDL or BNP.

However it is about time that Islam was seen for what it is, a medieval, misogynistic, homophobic anachronism which should be confined to the vaults of history where it belongs.

Sun, 06 Feb 2011 11:11:07 UTC | #588512

DaveGilbert's Avatar Comment 6 by DaveGilbert

Blair's promotion of religious schools has fueled this problem, integration is the key.

Invading Iraq and other atrocities such as Abu Ghraib hasn't helped either.

Sun, 06 Feb 2011 11:15:11 UTC | #588513

biorays's Avatar Comment 7 by biorays

Remember, do not forget, that religions conceal the imagined absent, ruthless and celestial dictator whose approval is only reserved for those who submit to its human spokespersons.

In effect unchallengeable spokespersons of political enterprise - a self proclaimed deception of elitist people promising fictional next life rewards to maintain their 'holiness'.

And some religions crank up their market share of peoples emotions through the dross of their dogma to discriminate against the rest of the world - to elevate themselves as of greater worth than the rest.

This discrimination cannot be tolerated. And we cannot permit ourselves to be branded intolerant by the most evolved intolerants on planet Earth!

This is a message the religious require education about - NOT who they are, but what their consciousness has been INFECTED by!

Sun, 06 Feb 2011 11:21:42 UTC | #588514

Peter Grant's Avatar Comment 8 by Peter Grant

Not usually interested in political speeches, but after listening to Pat Condell's last podcast and reading Professor Dawkins' endorsement above, I suppose I'd better check it out. Busy downloading them now:

David Cameron's Munich speech on multiculturalism - Part 1

David Cameron's Munich speech on multiculturalism - Part 2

Sun, 06 Feb 2011 12:04:03 UTC | #588529

AtheistEgbert's Avatar Comment 9 by AtheistEgbert

Comment 1 by Richard Dawkins :

Just as ‘communities’ has become code for 'Muslims', ‘multiculturalism’ is code for a systematic policy of sucking up to their often loathsome ‘community leaders’: imams, mullahs, 'clerics', and the ill-named ‘scholars’ . I’ve never voted Tory in my life, and I’m pretty sure I never will. But if David Cameron sticks to his guns (and so far he seems to be) he deserves respect from all of us.

Richard

I don't know about respect, but he definitely gets my support (but not my vote) on speaking out about the failure of multiculturalism.

What Cameron has to do is identify the problems and the solutions and get cross-party support. This is a problem that transcends party politics, and threatens our society.

Sun, 06 Feb 2011 12:07:35 UTC | #588530

sandman67's Avatar Comment 10 by sandman67

Thankyou prof D for allaying my fears that I was drifting into EDL Land. Like you I think the word and term multiculturalism is a lie, a coded surrender to extremist barbarity.

We should live in a monocultural society that celebrates pluralism. You have the right to dress and worship in whatever way you like, but is those acts go against the central core culture then it becomes unacceptable. Our core culture is post Enlightenment secularist which tolerates worship. Humanism and equality are what we have, and any attacks on those must not be tolerated.

I love the way the ratbag Warsi is being recognised now as the Glenn Beck of UK politics. An irrational fear spreading liar for God, a facilitator of barbarity and superstition. Her speech as quoted is laughable and she deserves all the spite and derision it generates.

She said: "The drip-feeding of fear fuels a rising tide of prejudice. So when people get on the tube and see a bearded Muslim, they think 'terrorist' … Just as back in the bad days of the 70s an Irish accent made hackles rise when heard...it has to do with bombs on our streets luvvy

when they hear 'halal', they think 'that sounds like contaminated food' … No sweetie its just we are Brits and dont like cruelty to animals and are a bit picky about H&S regs in respect of slaughterhouses...you are the one who threw "contaminated" into the equation....

and when they walk past a woman wearing a veil, they think automatically, 'that woman's oppressed'. I am still to be persuaded they arent sweetie...and so far the arguments in that field are pretty thin on the ground. Making women dress a certain way on the command of bearded old men is opression love...try thinking with logic instead of God. Or take it to an extreme...is making people wear badges such as yellow stars that identify their faith an opressive act or not? We Brits invented that y'know back in the Middle Ages. Another point...if I cant walk into a bank with a motorbike helmet on (as it obscures my face for the cameras...its a reasonable point and I dont mind) why do the faithful get to wear their face masks?

And what's particularly worrying is that this can lead down the slippery slope to violence." ... really? And what leads to bombs on buses and tube stations then? Preaching love, tolerance and integrtation at Friday prayer meetings I suppose?

Im just glad someone in policits has finally had the balls to stand up and say this stupidity must stop.

Sun, 06 Feb 2011 12:34:31 UTC | #588533

danconquer's Avatar Comment 11 by danconquer

I accept that for a mainstream politician, the constraints of Realpolitik mean there is a requirement to talk in 'code' to some extent.

However, there is a danger that when the PM and newspapers complain about such things as 'segregated communities', they end up looking like the most dreadful hypocrites. Many people will think "But hang on, you white, English-speaking Brits are bloody experts at establishing your 'segregated communities' all over the world".

There is a parallel here with 'political correctness' too I think; it's de rigeur to knock it, but we need to remember that it's the same 'PC' which made it unacceptable to use certain racial slurs beginning with 'n' or 'p', to joke about the rape of women or to use insulting language about people with disabilities. Well I'm glad about all those changes and I just don't want to see the multicultural baby get thrown out with the bathwater.

Sun, 06 Feb 2011 13:25:36 UTC | #588538

Stafford Gordon's Avatar Comment 12 by Stafford Gordon

This is good, and about time too!

We need to cherish our culture more by remembering whence it stemmed eight hundred years ago and the salient moments and movements which have enriched it since.

Sun, 06 Feb 2011 13:51:35 UTC | #588541

Ivan The Not So Bad's Avatar Comment 13 by Ivan The Not So Bad

From a report on Cameron's speech:

“Under the doctrine of state multiculturalism, we have encouraged different cultures to live separate lives, apart from each other and the mainstream"

All Britons should believe in basic values of freedom and equality, and actively promote them, he said. That means ensuring that immigrants learn to speak English and that all schools teach “elements of a common culture and curriculum”.

Mr Cameron said that community groups will be scrutinised in future to see if they promote democracy, equality and integration. Those that fail the “tests” will be cut off. “No public money, no sharing of platforms with ministers,” he said.

The end of faith schools then? No? Thought not.

Proper sex and relationship lessons in faith schools with no exceptions? Yes? I very much doubt it.

Nice speech Dave but unless you see this through to it's conclusions, it's just words.

Sun, 06 Feb 2011 14:11:30 UTC | #588543

Big Gus's Avatar Comment 14 by Big Gus

Dan I think you make a good point there about the PC thing however as with all these things which seek to change the general zeitgeist they can eventually be taken too far. I, of course, don't mean that they are inherently wrong, it's quite right that we no longer regard discrimination against people on the basis of their ethnicity or other physical differences as acceptable. It has produced a paradigm shift in peoples attitudes and made our society better as a consequence. However it only works if everyone accepts it's core principles. I think this is where it is failing now. While I'm perfectly happy to accept people for who they are, I think that generally people do, the wheels will rapidly come off when it starts to become a one way street.

The "European Convention on Human Rights" is a good example of this, many people, in fact most outside of arenas like this regard it as no longer fit for purpose. It has become a scumbags charter to avoid punishment and a charter for enriching lawyers.

I regard that a total waste of what could of been a crowning glory in our enlightened society. The same is true for the efforts of PC. The minute either of these things are perceived by people as, in the first case, a get out of jail free card and in the second a tool to use against Whitey, they are done for. This is why you can see the likes of the BNP and EDL making headway. That is a very dangerous road and one I personally don't want to see us going down.

Sun, 06 Feb 2011 14:17:24 UTC | #588544

inquisador's Avatar Comment 15 by inquisador

This may be a hesitant step in the right direction. It does sound quite similar in parts to speeches over the years by Blair, John Reid, David Blunkett, even Gordon Brown. The acid test, as ever, will be what actions if any come of it.

So Cameron is claiming, if you watch the first of the youtube links above, that Islam is a fine beautiful religion and all the trouble is a result of a totally different thing called Islamism. From there he goes on to define the lines of acceptability to include most Muslims and the unacceptable ones are all those whom he defines as 'Islamists' A nice neat and convenient way of disposing of the problem.

It may be worth a try but it's not likely to work. The elephant in the room is not asleep any longer. In fact it's woken up, is charging around trashing the place and calling to the rest of the herd who are coming to join it. It's name is not Islamism but Islam.

There are thousands of Islamic scholars who know better than Cameron what Islam is really about. There are hundreds of millions of Muslims who learn from them about the true face of Islam with its' Jihad ideology, intolerance of different sects and non-Muslims, inequality, misogyny and surrender to Allah and emulation of the immoral examples of the prophet. And so on.

Still, he couldn't very well tell the truth about all that could he. I just hope that he has some deeper understanding than he shows in this speech. There are at least some useful points in it.

Sun, 06 Feb 2011 14:24:57 UTC | #588546

chawinwords's Avatar Comment 16 by chawinwords

As I read the article, I could not help but think of the experiences of the American natives in the 15th and 16th centuries, and their initial "tolerance" of the white European Christians on their shores.

The natives, in ignorance, even welcomed the invaders and in many cases initially helped the invaders survive -- and some even fell upon their knees, thinking the invaders were gods.

To make a long story short, we know how that tolerance worked out for the native peoples and the changes they were forced to make, including accepting the different Mosaic laws as established by the different European religious tribes upon the pain of death and/or lingering intolerance and centuries of oppression.

Leaving one question: will the human race ever grow up and get rid of the many, murderous "God Delusions"?

Sun, 06 Feb 2011 14:38:01 UTC | #588549

Jos Gibbons's Avatar Comment 17 by Jos Gibbons

Cameron's attack on multiculturalism divides the coalition ... the issue still threatens to divide his party as badly as it did Labour

A few months ago I attended a pro–AV meeting with speakers from several political parties. It had been hard for them to find a Tory advocate, but they had succeeded. He mentioned in his response to the “it’d lead to more coalitions” objection that coalitions’ divisions are not any different in principle from divisions within a single party. That this issue divided Labour illustrates that point as well as any example does. However, the media persist in their efforts to point out every single example they can find of issues which “divide the coalition”, and in general they have meant issues on which the Tories and the Lib Dems are each undivided but on which they differ with each other. Of course, “divide his party” here instead suggests it is the Tories themselves who are divided. I for one really want to know exactly where the lines of division are drawn. Hopefully the rest of this article will clear things up.

[Prevent] originally sought to counter the spread of Islamism by empowering moderate voices in the Muslim world.

What moderate voices? Seriously, name them.

A number of Muslim groups flagged concerns that senior civil servants were in thrall to Islamist organisations that preached non-violence in the UK but endorsed violent extremism abroad.

Which organisations would these Muslim groups have rather had Prevent involve itself with – those preaching violence in the UK, or those not endorsing violent extremism abroad? It is unsurprising some Muslims disliked organisations which operate double–standards. It is sad, however, that statistical facts concerning British Muslims’ opinions don’t make the answer to my question obvious. It ought to be trivial for us to agree violence is bad, not good, but there is no guarantee the Muslim groups in question felt that.

supporting and reaching out to the non-violent extremists would prevent violent extremists from committing acts of terrorism

“Lesser of two evils” at its very worst.

only groups that would encourage integration would receive funding. "Let's properly judge these organisations. Do they believe in universal human rights – including for women and people of other faiths? Do they believe in equality of all before the law?"

Of course, integration and human rights are very different issues, and I for one think rights are much more important. It’s more pressing that women, gays and non–Muslims be treated as well as everyone else than that people all move in the same circles. When Cameron poses the questions above, I am inclined to ask whether HE believes in those things, if only because his critiques of inequalities originating in Islam don’t seem to have extended to those with origins in Christianity. Consider the innumerable cases of British Christians who try to use their powers to discriminate against gays. The courts have roundly condemned this, but I’ve yet to hear Cameron – a Christian who claims his faith won’t harm his politics – follow suit.

Insiders say

Journalists must love that phrase.

Cameron, along with Gove, May, and Neville-Jones, accept there has been too much "passive tolerance" of extremist groups in recent years, while Clegg and Warsi prefer a more multicultural approach.

Oh, quel surprise – the Muslim Warsi doesn’t like Cameron’s stance on Islam. Apart from the case of Warsi, it seems the division is Tory versus Lib Dem. There are of course many other Cabinet members in each party; it’d be worth hearing from them too.

Signs of the tension were evident when Warsi was due to attend the Muslim Global Peace and Unity conference but pulled out under pressure from Tory party officials, alarmed at claims the event was to be attended by Islamist sympathisers.

Yep, it’s Tory vs. Lib Dem as I thought – well, non–Muslim Tory vs. Lib Dem & Warsi.

when people get on the tube and see a bearded Muslim, they think 'terrorist'

Maybe they’ve been watching too much 24.

when they hear 'halal', they think ' contaminated food'

I’ve never even heard that stereotype.

when they walk past a woman wearing a veil, they think automatically, 'that woman's oppressed'.

Well, she is.

what's particularly worrying is that this can lead down the slippery slope to violence.

Who punches Muslims because they don’t like halal meat and find beards and veils scary?

Many Lib Dem MPs and members will feel uneasy at Cameron's claim multiculturalism has failed. The party has seen itself as distinct because of the way it embraces diversity.

This is why I can’t stand “multiculturalism” as a word: what does it even mean? Does it mean treating all people the same, or trying to make them all feel equally welcome by letting them do their own thing? What for that matter does “liberalism” demand?

Clegg was prepared to stick his neck out in the election campaign in support of an amnesty for illegal immigrants, seeing it as an important badge of liberalism.

That’s not true. Clegg said anyone who had been here for 10 years could earn citizenship, but only if they were working in a legal job, thus contributing to the economy. Frankly, there are millions of people born here who haven’t earned citizenship that way.

Many Lib Dems will find being associated with Cameron's approach difficult.

Many members of a mainstream party feel either side of an issue in general. No doubt many Lib Dems – myself included – quite like the sound of at least some of what Cameron says.

Cameron's speech was putting the UK on the same slippery slope

Wait, what slope? Did the article lose a paragraph in the last draft?

coming on the day the EDL staged its largest ever rally

Who cares? “Oh, sorry – I won’t half–agree with a bunch of idiots on a day they’re busy; I’ll wait a day or too.”

We find it very disappointing that, at a time when we should seek to stand together to fight violence and extremism, Mr Cameron omits any reference to this extremist group spreading hate and bigotry against British Muslims in towns and cities up and down this country.

  1. Isn’t treating us all as one culture, as Cameron proposes, a case of standing together? 2. I have never known a Muslim group to agree to stand together with the rest of us in fighting Islamist extremism. 3. Why should Cameron have to mention how much the EDL suck in this context?

Those on the hard right ignore this distinction between Islam and Islamist extremism and just say: 'Islam and the west are irreconcilable'," he said. "These people fuel Islamophobia. And I completely reject their argument."

Aren’t extremism in a religion in general and Islamism in particular just cases of taking the faith seriously? How well can the West ever be reconciled with Islam, given the latter surely will keep producing a lot of Islamism?

The rise of the EDL can be seen as a failure by the British government to get to grips with Islamist extremism

No, it’s their failure to get to grips with anti–Islamic extremism.

Cameron likened Islamist extremists to Nazis. "Just like the Nazis of 1930s Germany, they want to purge corrupt cosmopolitan influences." Meanwhile, the EDL's website also invokes the Nazis.

I hate Godwin’s law. By the way, do you have any idea how many groups wish to corrupt cosmopolitan influences? For starters, the Nazis – the NSDAP – were so called because of the spelling of the German word for national; they were nationalists, and all nationalists and conservatives are liable to have the attitudes Cameron attributes specifically to the Nazis.

It carries a quote from Einstein

He was an expert on relativity, Brownian motion and so on, but ... politics?

The world is a dangerous place to live in; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it.

Is that an argument FOR what the EDL does? It might be better seen as an argument for us smacking them into the ground. Indeed, given my previous observation their existence was a sign of the government’s failures to combat anti–Islamic rather than Islamist extremism, it seems the person who thought otherwise was the sort who does nothing about those like the EDL.

Several EDL members were quick to claim Cameron's speech reflected their own views. By waging war on one form of extremism, Cameron may unintentionally have given succour to another.

Islam sucks, Muslims often don’t. How hard is the distinction to understand? Christianity sucks, Christians often don’t – every gnu atheist is familiar with this concept. Whether or not society as a whole agrees with it, surely they can at least understand the two halves of that claim don’t contradict each other? In other words, a religion sucking doesn’t imply we have to tear its followers limb from limb. Violence is wrong, OK?

Sun, 06 Feb 2011 14:44:19 UTC | #588550

danconquer's Avatar Comment 18 by danconquer

Comment 17 by Jos Gibbons :

What moderate voices? Seriously, name them.

Off the top of my head, voices such as that of the recently-murdered Governor of Punjab Salman Taseer and Pakistan Peoples Party leader Sherry Rehman. Ms Rehman recently received much adulation right here on RDF for her views and campaigning work, don't you recall?

These people are not atheists. They are (err, 'were' in the case of Taseer sadly) influential and powerful voices for secular moderation amongst muslims.

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/582805-sherry-rehman-pakistan-s-defiant-prisoner-of-intolerance-vows-to-stay-put

Sun, 06 Feb 2011 14:57:20 UTC | #588553

God fearing Atheist's Avatar Comment 19 by God fearing Atheist

As many here, I have little time for Cameron, but if he can turn his fine words into effective action he will go up in my estimation.

His speech was all over the broadsheets on Fri. and a read a bit online. There is a difference between a devout Muslim, a cultural Muslim, and a Jihadist. Any policy needs to seperate devout from Jihadist. Immersion in secular/agnostic/atheist/liberal Europe will dampen down the devout into cultural over the next 50-100 years.

Sun, 06 Feb 2011 15:30:19 UTC | #588557

Marc Country's Avatar Comment 20 by Marc Country

It seems a simple question to answer in the affirmative: are women oppressed in Islam?

Of course, women are oppressed in almost all religions, but a veiled Muslim is an obvious example. Oppressed by ignorance.

Sun, 06 Feb 2011 15:41:38 UTC | #588559

Vorlund's Avatar Comment 21 by Vorlund

About bloody time! Go Cameron Go! and don't let the howls of protest from the medieval loonies weaken your resolve. Multiculuralism was a pathetic ill-informed social engineering experiment based on cultural relativism and it is time to put a stop to it.

Don't like our epistomologies our legal system and our values? Then leave!

Sun, 06 Feb 2011 15:58:58 UTC | #588562

El Bastardo's Avatar Comment 22 by El Bastardo

Wouldn't get too excited. He doesn't seem to get the point anyways. A stronger national identity isn't the answer. it just swaps Religious prejudice for "national" ones, exchange thugs screaming "allah akbar" for thugs scream "En-Gur-Land", what's the difference?

Besides, the bigots are too bigoted to take on new bigotry.

He is right the the "can't we all just get along" approach failed, but moving lines that divide isn't a solution. Remove all the lines and realise we all came form the same place (not god) and we're all going to the same opalce (again, still not god0 and you might start to get somewhere.

Sun, 06 Feb 2011 16:24:31 UTC | #588567

Zelig's Avatar Comment 23 by Zelig

Comment 9 by AtheistEgbert :

I don't know about respect, but he definitely gets my support (but not my vote) on speaking out about the failure of multiculturalism. What Cameron has to do is identify the problems and the solutions and get cross-party support. This is a problem that transcends party politics, and threatens our society.

I think this (Cameron's speech) is rather inconsequential. There is not a chance in hell that genuine, active, affirmative commitment to "Enlightenment values" will be endorsed by any main political party, and not the slightest chance that such an act of political suicide would be echoed by the other parties.

The "problems" that will be identified will be of the crassest kind (e.g. terrorism, honour killings etc), and these may indeed have "solutions" (though I very much doubt they'll be implemented). But this is mere surface grammar, and doesn't even begin the attempt to untie this Gordian knot we've created.

The bottom line is that for the overwhelming majority of opinion formers, the cure is worse that the disease. Thus there will be no cure, for where there is no will there is no way.

I've said this before, but i'll say it again: for all my profound aversion to most Islamic tenets, I sometimes find myself having more respect for its adherents than I do for most of us non-Muslim westerners, who seek to beautify and conceal consumerist nihilism and insincerity with the floweriest and most affected language. Let the comedy continue . . .

Sun, 06 Feb 2011 16:29:07 UTC | #588568

kaiserkriss's Avatar Comment 24 by kaiserkriss

My business partner has a PhD in Engineering from a prestigious UK Institution but is also a cultural Muslim, attending the local mosque for regular prayers. His opinion of the Imams, Scholars, clerics etc is that 90% of them are self serving manipulative bastards.

I ask him why he still attends the mosque and his answer is simply to meet people, work with them from the inside, educate them. His group of associates, some of whom I've met are intelligent well respected ethical medical doctors. These people use their skills and education working from the inside trying to bring reason to the undereducated masses of new immigrants found in these establishments.

They could just as easily throw in the towel and have nothing to do with their ex countrymen, but like the rest of us they are herd creatures and desire interaction with people of their own cultural background. To put this into perspective, it would be like asking ex-pats not to associate with other ex-pats while on overseas assignment. When it comes to es-pat clubs, the Brits are probably the worst;-)Get to Brits together in a foreign country and the'll form a club to enjoy their warm beer and over cooked veggies.. ( Tongue firmly in cheek)jcw

Sun, 06 Feb 2011 16:54:00 UTC | #588573

darksmiles22's Avatar Comment 25 by darksmiles22

I noticed Cameron mentioned both nationalism and muscular liberalism, two aims that are contradictory to my way of thinking. I understand as a conservative he couldn't just advocate liberalism, but why not skip the labels and name his values instead? Why not just frame the issue as freedom and equality vs. authority and religion? Or a contest between the state and religion to administer the law?

Sun, 06 Feb 2011 17:14:30 UTC | #588579

gordon's Avatar Comment 26 by gordon

On one hand he wants a stop to multicultural, on the other Messrs Gove etc are planning ‘free’ schools and more faith schools. Apparently the right foot doesn’t know what the left is doing. We never had a multicultural society. We had slabs of monoculture all over our inner cities separated from the mainstream. They don’t mix and never intend to. Some have and some have not. The Jewish community (not the fundies) have become mainstream and many (most) even marry outside the faith, as do more and more Indians. Second and third generation Muslims are more fundamental to their faith than their parents, I deal with many of them. They are isolated, mainly unemployed and victims of mass brainwashing. This gives rise to very dangerous young men. I despise Tory policies but labour was just as bad while Blair was residing in No 10. Nothing will happen as it is just sound bite politics.

Sun, 06 Feb 2011 17:21:33 UTC | #588581

glenister_m's Avatar Comment 27 by glenister_m

I remember discussing immigration with someone back in the 80's, and basically saying that they need to add some kind of education system to the procedure. Along the lines of, in this country you have a lot of freedom, but you are still expected to follow certain rules/guidelines which include trusting & cooperating with the police, obeying the law which includes not..., not peeing on the street, following certain rules of personal hygiene/health, etc. If you aren't willing to follow these, you should reconsider your decision to move here.

They thought this was going too far.

Sun, 06 Feb 2011 17:39:11 UTC | #588586

Richard01's Avatar Comment 28 by Richard01

It screams out at anyone with a brain: religion is at the root of the problem. Only when governments become properly secular and EVERYTHING that the state sponsors is secular and the law of the land is applied irrespective of religious belief will this nonsense go away. No churches or religions should have tax breaks. Any school or other institution that receives state funds must be secular ie no faith schools or institutions whatsoever should receive money from taxpayers. If particular groups want to sponsor churches or schools themselves etc that is their right but no-one in UK has the right to abuse any other human eg to reduce the rights of women and children, to mutilate their genitals, to control their associations etc. It is time the UK took the lead in the world and stopped avoiding the real matter of human rights in its own territory.

Sun, 06 Feb 2011 17:52:51 UTC | #588591

green and dying's Avatar Comment 29 by green and dying

Comment 27 by glenister_m :

I remember discussing immigration with someone back in the 80's, and basically saying that they need to add some kind of education system to the procedure. Along the lines of, in this country you have a lot of freedom, but you are still expected to follow certain rules/guidelines which include trusting & cooperating with the police, obeying the law which includes not..., not peeing on the street, following certain rules of personal hygiene/health, etc. If you aren't willing to follow these, you should reconsider your decision to move here.

They thought this was going too far.

Okay and what about those who are born British, e.g. the 2005 London bombers?

Sun, 06 Feb 2011 18:03:38 UTC | #588593

Neodarwinian's Avatar Comment 30 by Neodarwinian

Gee, by Baroness Warsi's definition I must be an Islamaphobe, or a romantic Every time I pass a women in a veil I think either wedding or chattel.

Sun, 06 Feb 2011 18:06:19 UTC | #588594