ChatterBank22 mins ago
Can We Have Some Answers Please?
148 Answers
Why are the Left not concerned about mass immigration and the detrimental effect on our infrastructure, the invasion of Europe, the threat of Islam on our culture, the increase in knife crime, and the changing face of Britain?
Others can add to this list if they wish.
Others can add to this list if they wish.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
/// Well, if your definition of "invasion" just people moving from one country to another - then I'd say that the "invasion" just doesn't particularly scare me. ///
But it is not just people moving from one country to another is it?
It is the masses of people, who belong to a completely different culture, and it is these people who choose to settle in this country, and then we have to change laws, make special provisions for them, allowing them to build their mosques, which turn the skyline of once English towns and cities into what are more fitting to the middle East.
While at the same time allowing them to create their own ghettos, and for them to treat their women folk in ways that are also alien to western civilisation.
But it is not just people moving from one country to another is it?
It is the masses of people, who belong to a completely different culture, and it is these people who choose to settle in this country, and then we have to change laws, make special provisions for them, allowing them to build their mosques, which turn the skyline of once English towns and cities into what are more fitting to the middle East.
While at the same time allowing them to create their own ghettos, and for them to treat their women folk in ways that are also alien to western civilisation.
Kromovaracun
/// I wouldn't know, I'm not an old man. But, being honest, I don't really think government policy on these things should be informed by how comfortable the elderly feel in their country. ///
Perhaps then, it would be courteous and in some way appreciative for young men such as yourself and our young Government to allow the elderly to die off first, so that they don't have to witness the increasing destruction of the country that they once worked, fought and sacrificed for, so as to make it the country that it once was.
/// I wouldn't know, I'm not an old man. But, being honest, I don't really think government policy on these things should be informed by how comfortable the elderly feel in their country. ///
Perhaps then, it would be courteous and in some way appreciative for young men such as yourself and our young Government to allow the elderly to die off first, so that they don't have to witness the increasing destruction of the country that they once worked, fought and sacrificed for, so as to make it the country that it once was.
"Perhaps then, it would be courteous and in some way appreciative for young men such as yourself and our young Government to allow the elderly to die off first, so that they don't have to witness the increasing destruction of the country that they once worked, fought and sacrificed for, so as to make it the country that it once was"
No, that's a silly idea.
No, that's a silly idea.
The thing about the elderly, though, is that once they die off there tends to me another generation of people who've become elderly in the interim.
The way I see it is that laws shouldn't specifically be framed around a particular age group (or any other division in society for that matter). That may on occasion mean that the "right thing to do" ends up aggravating a certain kind of person. That's democracy, though -- someone always ends up losing, as it's not possible to satisfy everybody.
You're wrong -- in principle, at least, if not in practice -- about the "[having] to change laws, make special provisions for [immigrants]". In the first place there's no special provision allowing Muslims to build mosques, as this is just covered by freedom of religious expression (and then planning laws afterwards). As long as freedom of religious expression doesn't contravene other, more universal laws, then this should be completely uncontroversial. In practice, we probably have tipped too far in some ways into allowing "freedom of religious expression" in some cases and not in others, although inevitably change takes a while to settle and in the long term I expect things will balance out again -- as indeed, is already the case for the majority of migrants.
Lack of integration and interaction with migrants is also an issue, and I don't think that anyone on the "left" would argue with this either. The difference again is how to approach this. Those on the right seem to believe that the answer is to cut off the inflow (almost) entirely, but seem silent on what to do to improve the situation with people already here. I'm also going to be at this point, because the best I can come up with is some kind of hoary old cliche -- but, at any rate, taking an instant distrust of immigrants just because they are from another country is counterproductive.
The current immigration levels we are seeing are unsustainable to be sure, and I am all for active border controls so that we are aware as far as possible who is coming in to the country and what they are doing once they get here. I don't see it as an invasion, though. Invasions imply aggression and hostility, and (at least from most immigrants) these two things are lacking.
The way I see it is that laws shouldn't specifically be framed around a particular age group (or any other division in society for that matter). That may on occasion mean that the "right thing to do" ends up aggravating a certain kind of person. That's democracy, though -- someone always ends up losing, as it's not possible to satisfy everybody.
You're wrong -- in principle, at least, if not in practice -- about the "[having] to change laws, make special provisions for [immigrants]". In the first place there's no special provision allowing Muslims to build mosques, as this is just covered by freedom of religious expression (and then planning laws afterwards). As long as freedom of religious expression doesn't contravene other, more universal laws, then this should be completely uncontroversial. In practice, we probably have tipped too far in some ways into allowing "freedom of religious expression" in some cases and not in others, although inevitably change takes a while to settle and in the long term I expect things will balance out again -- as indeed, is already the case for the majority of migrants.
Lack of integration and interaction with migrants is also an issue, and I don't think that anyone on the "left" would argue with this either. The difference again is how to approach this. Those on the right seem to believe that the answer is to cut off the inflow (almost) entirely, but seem silent on what to do to improve the situation with people already here. I'm also going to be at this point, because the best I can come up with is some kind of hoary old cliche -- but, at any rate, taking an instant distrust of immigrants just because they are from another country is counterproductive.
The current immigration levels we are seeing are unsustainable to be sure, and I am all for active border controls so that we are aware as far as possible who is coming in to the country and what they are doing once they get here. I don't see it as an invasion, though. Invasions imply aggression and hostility, and (at least from most immigrants) these two things are lacking.
'You're wrong -- in principle, at least, if not in practice -- about the "[having] to change laws, make special provisions for [immigrants]". In the first place there's no special provision allowing Muslims to build mosques...'
AOG's mention of mosques obscures his more important point about "special provision". If anybody wants to argue THAT point I will happily give him a list of just such provisions.
AOG's mention of mosques obscures his more important point about "special provision". If anybody wants to argue THAT point I will happily give him a list of just such provisions.
That's why I mentioned the principle vs. practice thing. We shouldn't have to feel obliged to bend over backwards to accommodate other cultural practices. The law should, in principle, be broad enough that it covers most such practices anyway -- eg, there should be a relative freedom to dress how you like, as long as it doesn't interfere with your profession, or endanger your or anyone else's safety, or if it prevents some legal necessity such as confirming identity in court.
jim360
/// The thing about the elderly, though, is that once they die off there tends to me another generation of people who've become elderly in the interim. ///
That is obviously correct, but what you fail to mention is the fact that their age group did not witness how things once were.
/// You're wrong -- in principle, at least, if not in practice -- about the "[having] to change laws, make special provisions for [immigrants]". In the first place there's no special provision allowing Muslims to build mosques, as this is just covered by freedom of religious expression (and then planning laws afterwards). ///
Who particularly mentioned Muslims least of all the alteration of planning laws so as to accommodate the building of Mosques? No I think I mentioned the alteration of laws and certain practices to accommodate immigrants per-se, one of which the non-wearing of crash helmets for Sikh motorcyclists is a prime example, and the lax response to the illegal practice of female genital mutilation is yet another.
/// Those on the right seem to believe that the answer is to cut off the inflow (almost) entirely, but seem silent on what to do to improve the situation with people already here. ///
I don't think all those on the right have suggested the cut of of the inflow entirly, what they have suggested however, that we perhaps it would be wise to do so for a while, at least until we have the infrastructure to accommodate more immigrants, and making sure that our 'own' are accommodated for first. Then and only then should we open our doors to only those who will benefit this country.
/// -- but, at any rate, taking an instant distrust of immigrants just because they are from another country is counterproductive. ///
Not just because they come from another country, but because of the baggage that people from particular countries are known to bring with them.
/// I don't see it as an invasion, though. Invasions imply aggression and hostility, and (at least from most immigrants) these two things are lacking. ///
Have you not noticed the aggression and hostility that some of those 'invaders' are carrying out when they are refused entrance into certain European countries?
/// The thing about the elderly, though, is that once they die off there tends to me another generation of people who've become elderly in the interim. ///
That is obviously correct, but what you fail to mention is the fact that their age group did not witness how things once were.
/// You're wrong -- in principle, at least, if not in practice -- about the "[having] to change laws, make special provisions for [immigrants]". In the first place there's no special provision allowing Muslims to build mosques, as this is just covered by freedom of religious expression (and then planning laws afterwards). ///
Who particularly mentioned Muslims least of all the alteration of planning laws so as to accommodate the building of Mosques? No I think I mentioned the alteration of laws and certain practices to accommodate immigrants per-se, one of which the non-wearing of crash helmets for Sikh motorcyclists is a prime example, and the lax response to the illegal practice of female genital mutilation is yet another.
/// Those on the right seem to believe that the answer is to cut off the inflow (almost) entirely, but seem silent on what to do to improve the situation with people already here. ///
I don't think all those on the right have suggested the cut of of the inflow entirly, what they have suggested however, that we perhaps it would be wise to do so for a while, at least until we have the infrastructure to accommodate more immigrants, and making sure that our 'own' are accommodated for first. Then and only then should we open our doors to only those who will benefit this country.
/// -- but, at any rate, taking an instant distrust of immigrants just because they are from another country is counterproductive. ///
Not just because they come from another country, but because of the baggage that people from particular countries are known to bring with them.
/// I don't see it as an invasion, though. Invasions imply aggression and hostility, and (at least from most immigrants) these two things are lacking. ///
Have you not noticed the aggression and hostility that some of those 'invaders' are carrying out when they are refused entrance into certain European countries?
"VE, what are these special provisions?"
The motorcycle Crash-Helmets (Religious Exemption) Act, 1976.
There have also been instances recently where Muslim women have challenged the generally accepted convention that one does not appear as a participant in court proceedings whilst masked up. Specila deliberations have been undertaken to resolve the matter which would never have been necessary if, say, a person of no particular religious persuasion appeared in an ice hockey goal minder's mask.
Siks do not have to wear turbans; Muslim women do not have to wear face masks. Death or serious injury will not befall them if they don't. It's something they choose to do and special provision has been made for them which would not be made to others.
The motorcycle Crash-Helmets (Religious Exemption) Act, 1976.
There have also been instances recently where Muslim women have challenged the generally accepted convention that one does not appear as a participant in court proceedings whilst masked up. Specila deliberations have been undertaken to resolve the matter which would never have been necessary if, say, a person of no particular religious persuasion appeared in an ice hockey goal minder's mask.
Siks do not have to wear turbans; Muslim women do not have to wear face masks. Death or serious injury will not befall them if they don't. It's something they choose to do and special provision has been made for them which would not be made to others.
One more concession:
//In the United Kingdom (Legal)
It is legal under the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (section 139) and Offensive Weapons Act 1996 (section 3 and 4) for a Sikh to carry a kirpan with a blade for religious reasons (other reasons allowed by the Act are cultural or work related reasons). The Criminal Justice Act 1988 safeguards the rights of the Sikhs to carry the Kirpan as it is deemed a necessary part of their religion.//
As a Christian don't you try it in Southall!!
//In the United Kingdom (Legal)
It is legal under the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (section 139) and Offensive Weapons Act 1996 (section 3 and 4) for a Sikh to carry a kirpan with a blade for religious reasons (other reasons allowed by the Act are cultural or work related reasons). The Criminal Justice Act 1988 safeguards the rights of the Sikhs to carry the Kirpan as it is deemed a necessary part of their religion.//
As a Christian don't you try it in Southall!!
The "Special provisions"?
Here are some:
The exemption of Muslim nurses and doctors from hygiene regulations in hospitals;
the introduction of halal food in schools and prisons (and its reciprocal "special denial" of pork);
allowance of polygamy;
granting Sharia courts the right to adjudicate in matters of family disputes and inheritance:
the acceptance of sexual segregation in areas previously accepted as open forums (.e.g. lecture halls);
the censorship of material or speech which offends the sensibilities of a single group (e.g. the failure to show on TV or in the press the cartoons which led to riots and death in Denmark and, more notoriously still, in France.
Sorry you missed these, Corbyloon. I have more examples if you like.
Here are some:
The exemption of Muslim nurses and doctors from hygiene regulations in hospitals;
the introduction of halal food in schools and prisons (and its reciprocal "special denial" of pork);
allowance of polygamy;
granting Sharia courts the right to adjudicate in matters of family disputes and inheritance:
the acceptance of sexual segregation in areas previously accepted as open forums (.e.g. lecture halls);
the censorship of material or speech which offends the sensibilities of a single group (e.g. the failure to show on TV or in the press the cartoons which led to riots and death in Denmark and, more notoriously still, in France.
Sorry you missed these, Corbyloon. I have more examples if you like.
In point of fact AOG, you did mention mosques specifically:
"... allowing them to build their mosques, which turn the skyline of once English towns and cities into what are more fitting to the middle East. "
Also, when you say
"I don't think all those on the right have suggested the cut of of the inflow entirly, what they have suggested however, that we perhaps it would be wise to do so for a while... "
that to me reads exactly like a suggestion to cut the inflow of migrants entirely -- I guess the difference there is that I hadn't distinguished between "forever" and "just for a while". Also, who are "our own"? Do they include recent migrants? And how looked-after must "our own" be before you started to re-accept immigrants?
NJ's and retrocop's examples are the sort of provisions I had in mind as laws that exist in practice but probably shouldn't in theory, by the way. Particularly motorcycle helmets.
"... allowing them to build their mosques, which turn the skyline of once English towns and cities into what are more fitting to the middle East. "
Also, when you say
"I don't think all those on the right have suggested the cut of of the inflow entirly, what they have suggested however, that we perhaps it would be wise to do so for a while... "
that to me reads exactly like a suggestion to cut the inflow of migrants entirely -- I guess the difference there is that I hadn't distinguished between "forever" and "just for a while". Also, who are "our own"? Do they include recent migrants? And how looked-after must "our own" be before you started to re-accept immigrants?
NJ's and retrocop's examples are the sort of provisions I had in mind as laws that exist in practice but probably shouldn't in theory, by the way. Particularly motorcycle helmets.
http://
Matter of interpretation if a sgian-dubh can be carried in a public place legally. Where,why and the length.? Northern police may exercise discretion.
Matter of interpretation if a sgian-dubh can be carried in a public place legally. Where,why and the length.? Northern police may exercise discretion.
Latest Posts
Masterchef - The Professionals
Film, Media & TV54 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles86 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles86 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles118 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles122 mins ago
