Film, Media & TV1 min ago
Were Zac's Views So Extreme?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Khandro. 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.
Khandro, I copied this from yesterday's 'Sun'. Some might find it interesting - others may not want to read it.
//Trevor Phillips, the highly respected former chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, has warned that a "dangerously misguided" liberal elite is ignoring the fact that Britain's rapidly changing cultural landscape is causing friction in communities where there was once tranquility. He says: "Rome may not yet be in flames but I think I can smell smouldering whilst we hum to the music of liberal self-delusion."
Last week, Labour's Sadiq Khan became the first Muslim mayor of our capital city and promised to act on behalf of "all Londoners".
But in a letter published the following day, one Muslim woman observed: "However liberal Mr Khan professes to be, he comes from a culture which would leave him with no alternative but to obey the Muslim Council of Great Britain and other Islamic factions. Is he prepared to fight for equal rights for gay people, for women to dress as they please and to marry whom they choose?"
Is he indeed?//
//Trevor Phillips, the highly respected former chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, has warned that a "dangerously misguided" liberal elite is ignoring the fact that Britain's rapidly changing cultural landscape is causing friction in communities where there was once tranquility. He says: "Rome may not yet be in flames but I think I can smell smouldering whilst we hum to the music of liberal self-delusion."
Last week, Labour's Sadiq Khan became the first Muslim mayor of our capital city and promised to act on behalf of "all Londoners".
But in a letter published the following day, one Muslim woman observed: "However liberal Mr Khan professes to be, he comes from a culture which would leave him with no alternative but to obey the Muslim Council of Great Britain and other Islamic factions. Is he prepared to fight for equal rights for gay people, for women to dress as they please and to marry whom they choose?"
Is he indeed?//
i'm not sure comparing one religion's "fantasy literature" with another's when those in power are swearing an oath of office on them is entirely appropriate when it comes to islam and christianity. Islam is more than a religion, it's a total way of life in which everything, every action, of its adherents is prescribed - including how to go to the toilet.
//Is he prepared to fight for equal rights for gay people, for women to dress as they please and to marry whom they choose?" //
If he is prepared to fight for those rights then it is commendable to some but he will make himself an Uncle Tom to the more extreme Muslims he also chooses to defend.
The very term he used against moderate muslims!
The future should be interesting.
If he is prepared to fight for those rights then it is commendable to some but he will make himself an Uncle Tom to the more extreme Muslims he also chooses to defend.
The very term he used against moderate muslims!
The future should be interesting.
From the article Naomi quoted:
"Is [Sadiq Khan] prepared to fight for equal rights for gay people, for women to dress as they please and to marry whom they choose?"
Well, whenever this issue has come up in Parliament, he's voted in favour of equal right for gay people, and for freedom of marriage. Not sure the "women to dress as they please" thing has come up yet. But on the signs of what he has *actually* done, Sadiq Khan seems to stick to what he says.
So I suppose that makes the answer to the question posed "Yes. Yes he is."
"Is [Sadiq Khan] prepared to fight for equal rights for gay people, for women to dress as they please and to marry whom they choose?"
Well, whenever this issue has come up in Parliament, he's voted in favour of equal right for gay people, and for freedom of marriage. Not sure the "women to dress as they please" thing has come up yet. But on the signs of what he has *actually* done, Sadiq Khan seems to stick to what he says.
So I suppose that makes the answer to the question posed "Yes. Yes he is."
I'm sure I did a thread about it but, until I can retrieve it and post a link to it, I'll pose the question again, in connection with the swearing of oaths
"Do Abrahamic religions prohibit lying?"
Chapter/verse references would be most welcome.
@Khandro
a fast forward mark/counter position would also be spiffing!
"Do Abrahamic religions prohibit lying?"
Chapter/verse references would be most welcome.
@Khandro
a fast forward mark/counter position would also be spiffing!
Hypognosis, "Do Abrahamic religions prohibit lying?"
Judaism/Christianity : Several verses prohibit lying, most notably this one.
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. Exodus 20:1-17
Islam: Lying and deception is acceptable. Take your pick.
http://
Jim, take note.
Judaism/Christianity : Several verses prohibit lying, most notably this one.
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. Exodus 20:1-17
Islam: Lying and deception is acceptable. Take your pick.
http://
Jim, take note.
jim;//Yes. It started badly, and tailed off in the middle, and the less said about the end the better. But apart from that.//
So you say with swagger. I agree that the end contained his own assumptions - Muslim PM in Downing St etc. (IMO highly probable) But what do you say is factually wrong with anything else he said?
Are you yet another messenger-shooter?
So you say with swagger. I agree that the end contained his own assumptions - Muslim PM in Downing St etc. (IMO highly probable) But what do you say is factually wrong with anything else he said?
Are you yet another messenger-shooter?
A few things, perhaps. Although I'm not sure they are the same things that would concern you.
There's just too many things he says to try and paint a particular picture that are complete non sequiturs. Gromit tried to rubbish the Koran thing earlier, and I won't add to that except to agree with it. There's also the links to friends and family: with family at least, we can't really help our connections -- for someone who's very obviously not a Tory, you wouldn't know it from my ex-Tory councillor UKIP-voting grandmother, for example; my views on Israel are coloured by my uncle only in as much as I reject everything he says in his anti-Zionist conspiracy-theorising anti-Semitic rants in their entirety (git); I don't think you'd find my social positions matching those of my Dad, or those on religion agreeing with my Mum's or best friend's. And on and on... trying to say that Sadiq Khan is an extremist because he knows people who are, or is related to them, is just blatantly unfair.
The list of people Khan represented as a Human Rights lawyer is interesting, and I would need to read more into that, but again it seems dubious to read too much into that. Someone had to defend these people if the legal system is to work, but the people who do defend the accused shouldn't as a rule be presumed to support their clients' actions. It's a job. You'd have to ask Sadiq Khan why he chose the cases he did, and those he did not, unless you don't expect an honest answer to that anyway. In which case what is even the point in having the debate?
I'm fairly sure he's being dishonest about the demographics, too. It's pretty much a given that the number of Muslims in this country is going to increase still further, but a) the current rate doesn't give them majority in (no more than) 30 years, and b) the current rate is clearly unsustainable in the long term anyway. Oh, and c) there were obviously enough people in London to deny Khan the seat, so he wasn't voted in against the will of Londoners because they were outnumbered, but -- if at all -- because they were apathetic (which is already too much of a problem in elections).
Not to mention the irony of a group calling itself "Liberty GB" proudly trumpeting their hope of denying the liberty of a British citizen his right to stand for, and hold, public office.
I can't see anything that is particularly concrete to support distrusting Sadiq Khan in particular other than suggestion and innuendo. And it's pretty shameful when people think that's somehow a legitimate form of argument.
There's just too many things he says to try and paint a particular picture that are complete non sequiturs. Gromit tried to rubbish the Koran thing earlier, and I won't add to that except to agree with it. There's also the links to friends and family: with family at least, we can't really help our connections -- for someone who's very obviously not a Tory, you wouldn't know it from my ex-Tory councillor UKIP-voting grandmother, for example; my views on Israel are coloured by my uncle only in as much as I reject everything he says in his anti-Zionist conspiracy-theorising anti-Semitic rants in their entirety (git); I don't think you'd find my social positions matching those of my Dad, or those on religion agreeing with my Mum's or best friend's. And on and on... trying to say that Sadiq Khan is an extremist because he knows people who are, or is related to them, is just blatantly unfair.
The list of people Khan represented as a Human Rights lawyer is interesting, and I would need to read more into that, but again it seems dubious to read too much into that. Someone had to defend these people if the legal system is to work, but the people who do defend the accused shouldn't as a rule be presumed to support their clients' actions. It's a job. You'd have to ask Sadiq Khan why he chose the cases he did, and those he did not, unless you don't expect an honest answer to that anyway. In which case what is even the point in having the debate?
I'm fairly sure he's being dishonest about the demographics, too. It's pretty much a given that the number of Muslims in this country is going to increase still further, but a) the current rate doesn't give them majority in (no more than) 30 years, and b) the current rate is clearly unsustainable in the long term anyway. Oh, and c) there were obviously enough people in London to deny Khan the seat, so he wasn't voted in against the will of Londoners because they were outnumbered, but -- if at all -- because they were apathetic (which is already too much of a problem in elections).
Not to mention the irony of a group calling itself "Liberty GB" proudly trumpeting their hope of denying the liberty of a British citizen his right to stand for, and hold, public office.
I can't see anything that is particularly concrete to support distrusting Sadiq Khan in particular other than suggestion and innuendo. And it's pretty shameful when people think that's somehow a legitimate form of argument.
@jim360
//a) the current rate doesn't give them majority //
Don't need a majority; need 33%, nationally, to boss FPTP the way the Tories have done. Although the scenario involves Muslims shifting allegiance, en masse, to their own party. And PR, not FPTP because they are too clustered together. (The opposite of UKIP's problem but at least they have MPs in Westminster, giving them *some* voice.
// in (no more than) 30 years, //
Dunno.
//and b) the current rate is clearly unsustainable in the long term anyway.//
I will continue to make references to my thread about sewage infrastructure. Three towns, the size of Newcastle? How many new sewage farms built, so far?
Blue Flag beaches? Wot dem den?
//a) the current rate doesn't give them majority //
Don't need a majority; need 33%, nationally, to boss FPTP the way the Tories have done. Although the scenario involves Muslims shifting allegiance, en masse, to their own party. And PR, not FPTP because they are too clustered together. (The opposite of UKIP's problem but at least they have MPs in Westminster, giving them *some* voice.
// in (no more than) 30 years, //
Dunno.
//and b) the current rate is clearly unsustainable in the long term anyway.//
I will continue to make references to my thread about sewage infrastructure. Three towns, the size of Newcastle? How many new sewage farms built, so far?
Blue Flag beaches? Wot dem den?
@jim360
// but the people who do defend the accused shouldn't as a rule be presumed to support their clients' actions. //
True. But unhelpful.
What is being imputed is that, while other lawyers turn their noses up at odious defendants, he stuck a clothespeg on his 'ooter and went ahead.
Now, nobody with sense dares to insult lawyers because you never know when you'll need to rely on one for help and ma(cough)ns an' all. So I'm in a minefield when it comes to choosing an epithet and I'm having to mince my words but it smacks of desperation for work to accept cases that others turn down.
Or, it could be someone being tewibbly, tewibbly noble about representing clients with extreme or obnoxious views.
I may watch the video, at a more convenient time. So I hope I haven't over-egged this reply.
// but the people who do defend the accused shouldn't as a rule be presumed to support their clients' actions. //
True. But unhelpful.
What is being imputed is that, while other lawyers turn their noses up at odious defendants, he stuck a clothespeg on his 'ooter and went ahead.
Now, nobody with sense dares to insult lawyers because you never know when you'll need to rely on one for help and ma(cough)ns an' all. So I'm in a minefield when it comes to choosing an epithet and I'm having to mince my words but it smacks of desperation for work to accept cases that others turn down.
Or, it could be someone being tewibbly, tewibbly noble about representing clients with extreme or obnoxious views.
I may watch the video, at a more convenient time. So I hope I haven't over-egged this reply.
Jim, there are an awful lot of ‘buts’ in your response.
//I can't see anything that is particularly concrete to support distrusting Sadiq Khan in particular other than suggestion and innuendo. And it's pretty shameful when people think that's somehow a legitimate form of argument.//
Khan has shared platforms with some less than savoury characters, he has been linked to suspect organisations and he did refer to moderate Muslims as ‘Uncle Toms’. That is neither suggestion nor innuendo, and the only shame is in denial of those facts.
//he wasn't voted in against the will of Londoners because they were outnumbered, but -- if at all -- because they were apathetic//
You’re right in one respect only. He wasn’t voted in against the will of Londoners, but Londoners weren’t apathetic. Londoners voted and he was elected by the majority who happen to be something other than white, indigenous British - now a minority group in the capital.
//the current rate [of the growth in the Muslim population] is clearly unsustainable in the long term anyway//
Why? What makes you think the rate is likely to slow down?
Your attitude truly saddens me. I can’t help feeling that ultimately, faced with the future obliteration of our country and our culture as we know it, you, and people who think like you will simply hold up your hands, roll over, and die - and take the rest of us with you.
//I can't see anything that is particularly concrete to support distrusting Sadiq Khan in particular other than suggestion and innuendo. And it's pretty shameful when people think that's somehow a legitimate form of argument.//
Khan has shared platforms with some less than savoury characters, he has been linked to suspect organisations and he did refer to moderate Muslims as ‘Uncle Toms’. That is neither suggestion nor innuendo, and the only shame is in denial of those facts.
//he wasn't voted in against the will of Londoners because they were outnumbered, but -- if at all -- because they were apathetic//
You’re right in one respect only. He wasn’t voted in against the will of Londoners, but Londoners weren’t apathetic. Londoners voted and he was elected by the majority who happen to be something other than white, indigenous British - now a minority group in the capital.
//the current rate [of the growth in the Muslim population] is clearly unsustainable in the long term anyway//
Why? What makes you think the rate is likely to slow down?
Your attitude truly saddens me. I can’t help feeling that ultimately, faced with the future obliteration of our country and our culture as we know it, you, and people who think like you will simply hold up your hands, roll over, and die - and take the rest of us with you.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank1 min ago
Arts & Literature2 mins ago
Perhaps The Prince Should Sort Them Out.
News2 mins ago
ChatterBank5 mins ago
News7 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.