egafd.com

"Funnily enough David, they held pretty much the same view as me - not being backward fundamentalist types and all that. They worked hard, paid their taxes, lived and let lived and for the most part were very westernised in their outlook. And I have no problem with that. They celebrated Xmas, drank alcohol, the women wore make-up, the kids went to state schools etc. etc. ."

In short, just like my own experiences of a multicultural Britain and of most people I know.

So Eric, in terms of multicultural Britain are you against:

The Chinese? - I don't think so.
The Sikhs? - I don't think so.
The Philippinos? - I don't think so.
The Hindus and their corner shops? - I don't think so.
The Muslims who buy their rounds? - Clearly not.

So what are you against?

"It's the placard-waving poppy-burning nutters who I'd like to see the back of"

Okay it's those Muslims who do not share your views of the wars in Iraq etc and protest about them.

So don't go on about multiculturalism Eric, because it has nothing whatever to do with your views obviously. You just object to those radical Islamists who have come to this country and oppose the war(s).

"You're making the fundamental (and very silly) mistake of equating scepticism about "multiculturalism" with xenophobia."

And you Eric are making the extraordinarily stupid mistake of equating a dislike of radical Islam with multiculturalism. As if multicultural Britain just includes one type of faith.

Jeez, get a grip, Eric!!!

It's not having a mosque as such, it is the size of this one that troubled me. I said earlier that the largest religious buildings in any country should be of the dominating religion in that country, and to have the largest religious building in London being of a religion other than Christianity is wrong. There aren't many countries that would even consider such a thing. Go to Saudi Arabia and propose building a Cathedral the height of the Empire State Building and see how you get on...

I've always found it interesting how a mix of races is referred to as being a mix of cultures. It should really be called a multi-ethnic society, rather than a multi-cultural one. Nigeria is a multi-cultural society, it has large groups of people of different cultures (Shik, Muslim, Christian) but is mono-ethnic (everyone is black). Britain therefore is mainly a multi-ethnic society, and also a multi-cultural one. There are white people who are Christian and white people who are Jews, there are black people who are Christian and black people who are Muslim, and so on. The thing that trouble me the most is multi-allegiance. I think anyone who comes here and demands to be treated as a Brit, and to take all the perks that come with that, should act like a Brit and be as loyal to the country to the same degree as they demand loyalty from the country. This so often doesn't happen. My view is people who become Brits become Brits, they are now basically ex-foreigners and should show loyalty to here. I don't have a problem with people practicing different religions, as long as Christianity and its traditions always remain the main and dominant thing, and so long as people obey the law and people's attitudes are in keeping with the spirit of how we do things here. So often people turn a blind eye to all of that though. The sexism that comes with Islam, for example, is tolerated here but would not be if anyone else did it. Obey the law and the spirit of how we do things here, show loyalty, and I don't have too much of a problem.

I agree with that, that people bringing positive things through arriving with different cultures and attitudes is fine - but the negatives should not be tolerated. I find it amazing how the Left, who would be jumping up and down the most if someone was sexist towards a woman in general society, are the most mute when it comes to sexism in Islam. There are many women in the country whose men demand they put a sack over their head when they go out, with just two slits for the eyes, and there are Sharia Courts in Britain (local mediation bodies with no real legal powers) that openly discriminate against women, and that is all seen as ok. If a man who was non-muslim treated his wife or partner like that all these Guardian reading Left-wingers would be jumping up and down going mad. You don't hear a peep from them regarding the sexism within Islam in Britain though. A multi-cultural society (as they call it) seems to involve a blind-eye being turned to the negatives those things bring aswell.

*Happy to David.

Of course it IS indeed "a pile of shite put together by the Labour government". Well spotted!

But you're also right in saying that this is only part of the definition, and a tad over-simplistic. I'll give you that one.

How would I define it? Well I think that first we need to look at the woolly, muddle-headed liberal definition of it. Which seems to be that if different cultures ? along with all their different and often conflicting cultural ideas, mores, values and moral codes - are all brought together and are allowed and/or encouraged and/or forced to intermingle, all the "best bits" from each culture will rub off on all the other cultures, all the "bad bits" will fall by the wayside and will somehow be magically eliminated. And everybody will then live happily ever after in some kind of utopian "rainbow nation".

This is idealistic, cloud-cuckoo-land bollox.

Because what it means in practice is that once you start encouraging all manner of minority groups by telling them that their cultural ideas, mores, values and moral codes are equally "valid" in the "host" culture, then what's inevitably going to happen is that you're going to end up with a cuckoo-in-the-nest situation in which the loudest, most aggressive and most strident minority groups are going to start demanding more and more prominence, concessions and "rights" and will then go running to the courts moaning about their "human rights" being violated once they get challenged. They end up using our own "tolerance" against us and undermining the "host" society from within. Resulting in more disharmony and resentment, not less. The complete opposite of what was originaly intended.

This is multiculturalism in practice in the UK today. And while I'm not of the "all immigrants are scrounging lazy bastards" / "if it's black send it back" school, I do think that the virtual open-door immigration policy is a complete disaster, as is the constant pandering to minorities that we have seen not just from Labour but from the current bunch of clowns as well. I think that's a disaster because it has the potiential to ultimately result in major confrontation, social disorder and ultimately our society breaking down.

I think that any society has to have a basic set of tenents by which it functions, and for centuries in the UK these have been (broadly speaking) a Western parliamentary-style secular Christian democracy with the associated values which (although by no means perfect) have served us reasonably well on the whole over the years.

I think our message to immigrants and minorities should be that "you're welcome here, (a) provided you actually bring something useful to the table, and (b) remember that this is how we do things here. Because If you seek to try and impose your system on us, you can fuck off back to where you came from". After all, they do it in places like Australia, Canada and NZ. So why not here?

We should be "tolerant" of other cultures, sure. But not to the point of letting them take the piss. I suppose I'm a "uniculturalist".

You'll probably disagree vehemnetly of course. But you're entitled to your own view.

Now perhaps in return you'd be kind enough to tell us why you apparently think that multiculturalism is such a wonderful thing. Thanks!

- Eric

------------------------------------------------------------

You say some interesting things in your comment there. I agree with what you say.

It would be grand if after all this time of using the forum, you got the hang of threads, Eric.

Now to the topic in discussion.

"Which seems to be that if different cultures ? along with all their different and often conflicting cultural ideas, mores, values and moral codes - are all brought together and are allowed and/or encouraged and/or forced to intermingle, all the "best bits" from each culture will rub off on all the other cultures, all the "bad bits" will fall by the wayside and will somehow be magically eliminated. And everybody will then live happily ever after in some kind of utopian "rainbow nation".

This is very long winded and secondly not a definition of multiculturalism that I would recognise or in fact, I suspect the overwhelmingly majority of the UK population. "All the bad bits will fall by the wayside"? You haven't been reading the Jackanory Definition of Multiculturalism have you?

I will try to give you more precise definition(s).

Multiculturalism can be used simply as a descriptive term, referring to the simple fact of cultural diversity: it is generally applied to the demographic make-up of a specific place e.g. schools, businesses, neighbourhoods, cities, or nations.

Now with regard to the above definition, Britain is multicultural whether you like it or not and nothing short of extermination camps or enforced emigration is going to change that. It is also worth pointing out that many of the immigrants and their families arriving in this country were invited here by the British Government in the 50s and 60s to fill many of the employee shortages arising after the Second World War. WIthout doctors and nurses from the old Empire, the NHS would have collapsed.

A second definition of multiculturalism is one in which cultural diversity is supported and encouraged. For many on this forum this is "naughty" multiculturalism. And results in views like your own e.g. "Because what it means in practice is that once you start encouraging all manner of minority groups by telling them that their cultural ideas, mores, values and moral codes are equally "valid" in the "host" culture, then what's inevitably going to happen is that you're going to end up with a cuckoo-in-the-nest situation in which the loudest, most aggressive and most strident minority groups are going to start demanding more and more prominence".

Max Tranmere is also a proponent of "naughty" multiculturalism. What denotes many of the people who hold similar views is how limited and insular their outlooks are. For example, Max has no Muslim friends. Has never had Muslim or Hindu friends and shows no interest in ever having friends from these cultures. Nor have I ever heard you, Eric talk about mates such as Muslims and Hindus that you have. The result of this insularity seems to be an overwhelming tendency to lump people of a particular religious faith together like Muslims and Hindus in a way you would never do with CHristians. So many people on this forum come out with ridiculous generalisations as if there was a hook-nosed Muslim with a large knife hiding under their bed just waiting to decapitate them.

Let me give you an example of cultural divesity. I am white English, brought up in the mining community of the North East. The culture of my upbringing is based on the closeness of the mining community and the many shared facets of life then. I am delighted that the government/council helps fund festivals and museums that keep alive the story of that culture.

Many British are of Asian descent. The culture of their upbringing in terms of dance, story telling etc is completely different from mine. I am delighted that the government/council helps fund festivals such as the various melas which celebrate Asian culture. I enjoy visiting these festivals even though it is a million miles from my upbringing. Just as I enjoy West Indian festivals/carnivals.

Now that isnt to say everything is hunky dory with multiculturalism in the sense there will always be groups that take the piss. That is basically what the Canadian is on about. However what you do not seem to have cottoned on to is that she comes across as a supporter of multiculturalism whilst pointing out that there can be groups whose views are inimicable to those of western states.

But hey in the case of the world of Islam, the British government's decision to illegally invade Iraq and kill hundreds of thousands of innocent Muslims, to stay in Afghanistan for longer than the two world wars put together and to condone the unmanned drone attacks in Pakistan, is not really an act of great kindness is it ? And hey not all British Muslims think it is fantastic? What a surprise?

In short, I think that yourself, Max and the "naughty" multicultural believers need to get out and about a bit more, make Muslim/Hindu friends, travel to some of the countries that are overwhelmingly Muslim and/or Hindu. And you might have a bit more balanced view of reality.

--------------------------------------------------

David, you are right that I don't know anyone of the backgrounds you mention. Perhaps it would broaden my mind if I did. Who knows. What I would say is that the negatives to do with Islam, feeling a close allegiance to others who are of the same religion as you more than you do other people, extreme sexism from men to women, are things that are questionable and a debate should be had.

"It's the placard-waving poppy-burning nutters who I'd like to see the back of"

Okay it's those Muslims who do not share your views of the wars in Iraq etc and protest about them.

-------


David, it is very wrong to see those two as the same thing. The first is very offensive, should be an automatic jailing offence in my view, even deportation. To chose to live in a country and to dine out very sumptiously every day on the sacrifice of millions of our war dead, who died to give everyone here a better life, and to be ungrateful for that sacrifice, is bad enough - but to despise everything about them (burning poppies) is beyond unforgivable.

David Johnson wrote:

> Okay it's those Muslims who do not share your views of the wars
> in Iraq etc and protest about them.


There you go again David - cherry-picking one sentence, ignoring the rest and making silly assumptions based on things that I *haven't* said.

Where have I said that I support the war in Iraq? Or the one in Afghanistan? Because you seem to be assuming that I do support them when as a matter of fact I think that both are fool's errands.

I do though support the troops because believe it or not David, it is possible to support the troops but oppose the war. The two are not mutually exclusive. In fact that's probably the view of (if I can borrow your phrase from higher up) "the overwhelmingly majority of the UK population".

The problem is that our politicians' actively pursuing a policy of "multiculturalism" and their fear of clamping down properly on trucluant elements for fear of upsetting "cultiral sensitivities" has allowed radical Islamist groups to flourish and take the piss. And you can scoff and name-call and toss around sarcastic barbs as much as you like, and call those who disagree with your rose-tinted view of multiculturalism bigots and fools. But that's how it is.

I could carry on arguing the toss about the perils of unfettered multiculturalism (and no it's not just about radical Islam) with you. But really - what's the fucking point? You're not interested in discussion, only on imposing the "David Johnson view of the world" on the rest of the forum in your variously pompous, venomous, morally-superior and hectoring manner. So I'll leave you to it.

No doubt you'll want to have "the final word" (as usual) but honestly - I couldn't give a fuck. So knock yourself out.

Cheerio.

- Eric

Oh dear, Eric, you must try and get used to people disagreeing with you.

You lecture on multiculturalism and its evils despite allegedly having a personal life which has been a shining example of multiculturalism in action.

You lecture on the evils of multiculturalism, mentioning only radical Islam as an example of that evil. You make zero reference to any other culture. As you must know, a number of radical Islam groups have been banned over the years and a few nutters threatening to burn poppies is hardly a condemnation of the decades in which Muslims have been living in the UK.

"Okay it's those Muslims who do not share your views of the wars
> in Iraq etc and protest about them.


There you go again David - cherry-picking one sentence, ignoring the rest and making silly assumptions based on things that I *haven't* said. Where have I said that I support the war in Iraq? Or the one in Afghanistan? Because you seem to be assuming that I do support them when as a matter of fact I think that both are fool's errands."

Do you share the views of Muslims who protest against Iraq and Afghanistan with threats to burn poppies?

Obviously not. So why blather on about me misinterpreting your views?

In short Eric, you clearly haven't a clue what multiculturalism actually means nor can you come up with examples of the evils that you refer to, other than one particular virulent aspect of one particular faith, Islam.

Swear and shout all you want, but in summary, you haven't got a clue what you are talking about.

"David, it is very wrong to see those two as the same thing. The first is very offensive, should be an automatic jailing offence in my view, even deportation. To chose to live in a country and to dine out very sumptiously every day on the sacrifice of millions of our war dead, who died to give everyone here a better life, and to be ungrateful for that sacrifice, is bad enough - but to despise everything about them (burning poppies) is beyond unforgivable."

Max, get a sense of perspective. Go away and check the following:

1. How many Muslims were involved in poppy burning threats?
2. What proportion of the entire UK population do they represent?

I guess that the percentage will be something similar to the percentage of the white population who have pissed on War Memorials.

You can't judge millions by the action of the few.