Saturday, February 05, 2011

David Cameron's Munich speech - an end to multiculturalism and an end to Islamic extremism

Less than a month ago, His Grace was asking when the Prime Minister would begin to fulfil his pledge to end of the curse of state multiculturalism. And in a speech in Munich today he will do precisely that.

But this is not a speech of appeasement or 'peace in our time' (BCP): David Cameron has come to bring a sword to slay multicturalism. And intrinsic to that must be an end to the Sharia agenda in all its manifestations. Any expansion of Sharia law in the UK would undermine society and alienate other communities. We cannot permit two codes of law to work side-by-side: one must give way to the other. We cannot have different laws for different communities: all citizens must be equal before the law, under the ultimate jurisdiction of English (or Scottish) law.

Irritatingly, His Grace has not been sent a copy of the speech in advance (CCHQ only send him banal press releases, and, unlike The White House, No10 sends him nothing). When it is published, it will be reproduced here in its entirety. In the meantime, distilled from the privileged media, it may be discerned that the Prime Minister is intent on actively promoting British values of 'freedom of speech and worship, democracy, rule of law and equal rights regardless of race, sex or sexuality'.

In warning about the dangers of 'passive tolerance', he asserts that what is 'at stake is not just lives, it's our way of life'.

His attack is focused on the policy of multiculturalism which has dominated state policy since the 1970s: "I would argue an important reason so many young Muslims are drawn to it (Islamic extremism] comes down to a question of identity," he is due to say, reflecting on the 'British experience'.

He will go on: "Under the doctrine of state multiculturalism, we have encouraged different cultures to live separate lives, apart from each other and the mainstream. We have failed to provide a vision of society to which they feel they want to belong."

He adds: "We need a lot less of the passive tolerance of recent years and much more active, muscular liberalism."

"A passively tolerant society says to its citizens: As long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone. It stands neutral between different values. A genuinely liberal country does much more. It believes in certain values and actively promotes them."

And he complains that Britain has for too long tolerated communities behaving in ways contrary to British values, highlighting the issue of forced marriages within the Muslim community.

Last night, Downing Street denied that the Prime Minister was attempting to take on a French model of race relations, which has seen items such as the burqa banned, forces everybody to speak French, but has led to riots in some major cities.

Mr Cameron's speech, to be made at a conference in the symbolically important German city of Munich, has echoes of Gordon Brown's (vacuous) attempts to define Britishness. But the Prime Minister goes much further in suggesting that these values need to be promoted actively.

He has insisted that the government will block 'preachers of hate', such as some Muslim clerics entering the country. But he also insists people coming to live in the UK learn English and adhere to its values.

In tones reminiscent of Norman Tebbit's cricket test, Mr Cameron appears to question whether those who do not accept British values 'belong' in the country.

His speech, though, is largely aimed at young Muslims who, he claims, have been left 'rootless' by multiculturalism, and he appears to suggest that the Government fears losing a generation to Islamic extremism.

He suggests the state has also had double standards over the way it views different groups. He will say: "When a white person holds objectionable views - racism, for example - we rightly condemn them. But when equally unacceptable views or practices have come from someone who isn't white, we've been too cautious, frankly even fearful, to stand up to them."

He adds: "The failure of some to confront the horrors of forced marriage, the practice where some young girls are bullied and sometimes taken abroad to marry someone they don't want to, is a case in point."

He will say that the values of tolerance, freedom and democracy are essential and call on a hard-nosed attitude in promoting these values: "To belong here is to believe in these things. Each of us in our own countries must be unambiguous and hard-nosed about this defence of our liberty."

And he will warn the leaders of the West to think about the groups they are sharing platforms with, while calling for more organisations to be proscribed and banned.

"So 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? Do they believe in democracy and the right of people to elect their own government? Do they encourage integration or separatism?" he will say.

"Fail these tests and the presumption should be not to engage with organisations. No public money. No sharing of platforms with ministers at home."

Mr Cameron will also make it clear he wants religious identity no longer to be a barrier to national identity and for Muslims to consider themselves part of the country they live in: "It will also help build stronger pride in local identity so people feel free to say yes, I am a Muslim, I am a Hindu, I am Christian, but I am also a Londoner or a Berliner too."

UPDATE (11.00am)
The full speech has now been released:

PM’s speech at Munich Security Conference

Today, I want to focus my remarks on terrorism.

But first, let me address one point.

Some have suggested that by holding a Strategic Defence and Security Review, Britain is somehow retreating from an activist role in the world.

This is the complete reversal of the truth.

Yes, we are dealing with the deficit, but we are also making sure our defences are strong.

Britain will continue to meet the NATO two per cent target for defence spending.

We still have the fourth largest military budget in the world.

And at the same time, we are putting that money to better use, focusing on conflict prevention and building a much more flexible army.

That’s not retreat, it’s hard headed. Every decision we take has three aims firmly in mind.

First, to support our continuing NATO mission in Afghanistan.

Second, to reinforce our actual military capability.

As Chancellor Merkel’s government is showing here in Germany what matters is not bureaucracy – which frankly Europe needs a lot less of – but the political will to build the military capability we need, as nations and allies, to deliver in the field.

And third, to make sure Britain is protected from the new and various threats it faces.

That’s why we’re investing in a national cyber-security programme and sharpening our readiness to act on counter-proliferation.

The biggest threat to our security comes from terrorist attacks – some of which are sadly carried out by our own citizens.

It’s important to stress that terrorism is not linked exclusively to any one religion or ethnic group.

The UK still faces threats from dissident republicans.

Anarchist attacks have occurred recently in Greece and Italy.

And of course, yourselves in Germany were long-scarred by terrorism from the Red Army Faction.

Nevertheless, we should acknowledge that this threat comes overwhelmingly from young men who follow a completely perverse and warped interpretation of Islam and who are prepared to blow themselves up and kill their fellow citizens.

Last week at Davos, I rang the alarm bell for the urgent need for Europe to recover its economic dynamism.

And today, though the subject is complex, my message on security is equally stark.

We won’t defeat terrorism simply by the actions we take outside our borders.

Europe needs to wake up to what is happening in our own countries.

Root of the problem
Of course, that means strengthening the security aspects of our response – on tracing plots and stopping them, counter-surveillance and intelligence gathering.

But this is just part of the answer. We have to get to the root of the problem.

We need to be absolutely clear on where the origins of these terrorist attacks lie – and that is the existence of an ideology, ‘Islamist extremism’.

And we should be equally clear what we mean by this term, distinguishing it from Islam.

Islam is a religion, observed peacefully and devoutly by over a billion people. Islamist extremism is a political ideology, supported by a minority.

At the furthest end are those who back terrorism to promote their ultimate goal: an entire Islamist realm, governed by an interpretation of sharia.

Move along the spectrum, and you find people who may reject violence, but who accept various parts of the extremist world-view including real hostility towards western democracy and liberal values.

It’s vital we make this distinction between the religion and the political ideology.

Time and again, people equate the two. They think whether someone is an extremist is dependent on how much they observe their religion.

So they talk about ‘moderate’ Muslims as if all devout Muslims must be extremist. This is wrong.

Someone can be a devout Muslim and not be an extremist.

We need to be clear: Islamist extremism and Islam are not the same thing.

Muddled thinking
This highlights a significant problem when discussing the terrorist threat we face: there is so much muddled thinking about this whole issue.

On the one hand, those on the hard right ignore this distinction between Islam and Islamist extremism and just say:

Islam and the West are in irreconcilable. This is a clash of civilisations.

So it follows: we should cut ourselves off from this religion – whether that’s through the forced repatriation favoured by some fascists or the banning of new mosques as suggested in some parts of Europe.

These people fuel Islamaphobia. And I completely reject their argument.

If they want an example of how Western values and Islam can be entirely compatible, they should look at what’s happened in the past few weeks on the streets of Tunis and Cairo.

Hundreds of thousands people demanding the universal right to free elections and democracy.

The point is this: the ideology of extremism is the problem. Islam, emphatically, is not.

Picking a fight with the latter will do nothing to confront the former.

On the other hand, there are those on the soft left who also ignore this distinction.

They lump all Muslims together, compiling a list of grievances and arguing if only governments addressed them, this terrorism would stop.

So they point to the poverty that so many Muslims live in and say: get rid of this injustice and the terrorism will end.

But this ignores that fact that many of those found guilty of terrorist offences in the UK have been graduates, and often middle class.

They point to the grievances about Western foreign policy and say: stop riding roughshod over Muslim countries and the terrorism will end.

But there are many people – Muslim and non-Muslim alike – who are angry about western foreign policy and don’t resort to acts of terrorism.

They also point to the profusion of unelected leaders across the Middle East and say: stop propping them up and creating the conditions for extremism to flourish.

But this raises the question: if a lack of democracy is the problem, why are there extremists in free and open societies?

Now, I am not saying these issues aren’t important.

Yes, we must tackle poverty.

Yes, we must resolve sources of tension – not least in Palestine.

And yes, we should be on the side of openness and political reform in the Middle East.

On Egypt, our position is clear: we want to see the transition to a more broadly based government with the proper building blocks of a free and democratic society.

I simply don’t accept that there’s a dead-end choice between a security state and Islamist resistance.

But let’s not fool ourselves, these are just contributory factors. Even if we sorted out all these problems, there would still be this terrorism.

Identity and radicalisation
The root lies in the existence of this extremist ideology.

And I would argue an important reason so many young Muslims are drawn to it comes down to a question of identity.

What I’m about to say is drawn from the British experience, but I believe there are general lessons for us all.

In the UK, some young men find it hard to identify with the traditional Islam practised at home by their parents whose customs can seem staid when transplanted to modern Western countries.

But they also find it hard to identify with Britain too, because we have allowed the weakening of our collective identity.

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

We have failed to provide a vision of society to which they feel they want to belong.

We have even tolerated these segregated communities behaving in ways that run counter to our values.

So when a white person holds objectionable views – racism, for example – we rightly condemn them.

But when equally unacceptable views or practices have come from someone who isn’t white, we’ve been too cautious, frankly even fearful, to stand up to them.

The failure of some to confront the horrors of forced marriage the practice where some young girls are bullied and sometimes taken abroad to marry someone they don’t want to is a case in point.

This hands-off tolerance has only served to reinforce the sense that not enough is shared.

All this leaves some young Muslims feeling rootless.

And the search for something to belong to and believe in can lead them to this extremist ideology.

For sure, they don’t turn into terrorists overnight.

What we see is a process of radicalisation.

Internet chatrooms are virtual meeting places where attitudes are shared, strengthened and validated.

In some mosques, preachers of hate can sow misinformation about the plight of Muslims elsewhere.

In our communities, groups and organisations led by young, dynamic leaders promote separatism by encouraging Muslims to define themselves solely in terms of their religion.

All these interactions engender a sense of community, a substitute for what the wider society has failed to supply.

You might say: as long as they’re not hurting anyone, what’s the problem with all this?

I’ll tell you why.

As evidence emerges about the backgrounds of those convicted of terrorist offences, it is clear that many of them were initially influenced by what some have called ‘non-violent extremists’ and then took those radical beliefs to the next level by embracing violence.

And I say this is an indictment of our approach to these issues in the past.

And if we are to defeat this threat, I believe it’s time to turn the page on the failed policies of the past.

So first, instead of ignoring this extremist ideology, we – as governments and societies – have got to confront it, in all its forms.

And second, instead of encouraging people to live apart, we need a clear sense of shared national identity, open to everyone.

Let me briefly take each in turn.

Tackle all forms of extremism
First, confronting and undermining his ideology.

Whether they are violent in their means or not, we must make it impossible for the extremists to succeed.

For governments, there are obvious ways we can do that.

We must ban preachers of hate from coming to our countries.

We must also proscribe organisations that incite terrorism – against people at home and abroad.

Governments must also be shrewder in dealing with those that, while not violent, are certainly, in some cases, part of the problem.

We need to think much harder about who it’s in the public interest to work with.

Some organisations that seek to present themselves as a gateway to the Muslim community are showered with public money despite doing little to combat extremism.

As others have observed, this is like turning to a right-wing fascist party to fight a violent white supremacist movement.

So 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?

Do they believe in democracy and the right of people to elect their own government?

Do they encourage integration or separatism?

These are the sorts of questions we need to ask.

Fail these tests and the presumption should be not to engage with organisations.

No public money. No sharing of platforms with Ministers at home.

At the same time, we must stop these groups from reaching people in publicly funded institutions – like universities and prisons.

Some say: this is incompatible with free speech and intellectual inquiry.

I say: would you take the same view if right-wing extremists were recruiting on campuses?

Would you advocate inaction if Christian fundamentalists who believe Muslims are the enemy were leading prayer groups in prison?

And to those who say these non-violent extremists are helping to keep young, vulnerable men away from violence, I say nonsense.

Would you allow the far right groups a share of public funds if they promise to lure young white men away from fascist terrorism?

But, at root, challenging this ideology means exposing its ideas for what they are –completely unjustifiable.

We need to argue that terrorism is wrong – in all circumstances.

We need to argue that their prophecies of a global war of religion pitting Muslims against the rest of the world are rubbish.

Governments cannot do this alone.

The extremism we face is a distortion of Islam so these arguments, in part, must be made by those within Islam.

So let’s give voice to those followers of Islam in our own countries – the vast often unheard majority – who despise the extremists and their worldview.

Let’s engage groups that share our aspirations.

Stronger citizenship
Second, we must build stronger societies and identities at home.

Frankly, we need a lot less of the passive tolerance of recent years and much more active, muscular liberalism.

A passively tolerant society says to its citizens: as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone.

It stands neutral between different values. A genuinely liberal country does much more.

It believes in certain values and actively promotes them.

Freedom of speech. Freedom of worship. Democracy. The rule of law. Equal rights regardless of race, sex or sexuality.

It says to its citizens: this is what defines us as a society.

To belong here is to believe in these things.

Each of us in our own countries must be unambiguous and hard-nosed about this defence of our liberty.

There are practical things we can do as well.

That includes making sure immigrants speak the language of their new home.

And ensuring that people are educated in elements of a common culture and curriculum.

Back home, we are introducing National Citizen Service – a two-month programme for sixteen year-olds from different backgrounds to live and work together.

I also believe we should encourage meaningful and active participation in society, by shifting the balance of power, away from the state and to people.

That way common purpose can be formed, as people come together and work together in their neighbourhoods.

It will also help build stronger pride in local identity so people feel free to say yes, I am a Muslim, I am a Hindu, I am Christian but I am also a Londonder or a Berliner too.

It’s that identity – that feeling of belonging in our countries that is the key to achieving true cohesion.

Conclusion
Let me end with this. This terrorism is completely indiscriminate and has been thrust upon us.

It can’t be ignored or contained.

We need to confront it with confidence.

Confront the ideology that drives it by defeating the ideas that warp so many minds at their root.

And confront the issues of identity that sustain it by standing for a much broader and generous vision of citizenship in our countries.

None of this will be easy. We need stamina, patience and endurance. And it won’t happen at all if we act alone.

This ideology crosses continents – we are all in this together.

At stake are not just lives, it’s our way of life.

That’s why this is a challenge we cannot avoid – and one we must meet

136 Comments:

Anonymous non mouse said...

Oh dear, Your Grace! Irritatingly, His Grace has not been sent a copy of the speech in advance (CCHQ only send him banal press releases, and, unlike The White House, No10 sends him nothing). Pray forgive him... we know that he knows not what he does. Let's just hope he doesn't botch this one.


wv: eudyi!!!

5 February 2011 at 09:43  
Anonymous Davros said...

Your Grace,

I would be interested to hear your views on Mr Cameron's use of 'liberalism' as an ideology robust enough to counteract multiculturalism. Especially since it has, arguably, been the blind tolerance of much liberalism which has allowed or encouraged 'different cultures to live separate lives, apart from each other and the mainstream.'

Thank you.

5 February 2011 at 09:53  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Davros,

'Liberalism', rather like 'Conservatism', has come to mean whatever the speaker wants it to mean.

5 February 2011 at 09:54  
Blogger Gnostic said...

Cameron growing a pair and delivering on a sensible promise? I'll believe it when I see it, Your Grace.

5 February 2011 at 09:55  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"So 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? Do they believe in democracy and the right of people to elect their own government? Do they encourage integration or separatism?" he will say.

I think many Christian groups would fall foul of some of those criteria.

5 February 2011 at 09:55  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

I rather like the sound of 'active, muscular liberalism' but then I'm gay. :)

It all sounds very vote-winning, with probably enough caveats to get away with it.

Not sure about this though: "Mr Cameron appears to question whether those who do not accept British values 'belong' in the country."

It's hard luck now, they're British and they're here. Actually, my niece is a Muslim convert and she's British even according to the BNP I expect. Where would she go?

I suppose supporters of women's rights 100 years ago might not have belonged in the country in this way of thinking. But they changed social values instead. A Good Thing in that particular example.

5 February 2011 at 10:15  
Blogger LeucipottomySpoon82 said...

Cast-Iron Dave, the All Talk No Action Man. His reputation precedes him.

5 February 2011 at 10:22  
Anonymous Voyager said...

'peace in our time':

was the phrase used by Benjamin Disraeli after returning from the Berlin Conference 1878 having resolved the Balkan Crisis (temporarily)

peace for our time was the phrase used by Neville Chamberlain alluding to the earlier (1878) negotiations in Germany over ethnic border disputes once more resolved by negotiations in Germany

5 February 2011 at 10:34  
Blogger Maturecheese said...

Until one can convert from Islam to Christianity without fear of death, A Muslim can never really be British.
The damage done so far by the levels of immigration, just look at our inner cities, can't be undone by some 'new initiative' from the very class of people that screwed us over in the first place.(the so called Elite)

5 February 2011 at 10:49  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Do they believe in universal human rights - including for women and people of other faiths?

MOST of the world does not believe in Individual Rights at all. It is a Judeao-Christian construct.

MOST of the world believes in GROUP rights - of the tribe, the religious group, the nation.

Cameron is flogging a dead horse. There is no identifiable group in Britain that is prepared to defend its identity - only the Ummah. The option is either Submission or civil war

5 February 2011 at 10:50  
OpenID yokel said...

Like others above, I will believe he means it only when I see some effective action. Action that he cannot weasel out of when he thinks that no-one is watching.

To borrow the mother-in-law's phrase "Handsome is as handsome does!"

5 February 2011 at 11:02  
Blogger Manfarang said...

Where do the young dissident Republicans fit in with all this?

5 February 2011 at 11:09  
Anonymous bluedog said...

Your Grace

It is hard to believe that Dave would have said these things without the leadership of Angela Merkel. He needed her to go first. His attack on British Multiculturalism is therefore reinforced by being launched on German soil, and think of the photo-ops with Angela!

As we know, Dave does words and pictures but gets a bit confused by actions. Expect a long pause while the Germans develop the policy initiatives to deal with Islam. Dave can then pipe up with a 'Me too' from behind Ma Merkel's skirts.

In fact this makes sense. If only one EU country cracks down on Islam, the problem will take the line of least resistance and pop up elsewhere. One can therefore envisage a succession of co-ordinated initiatives in other EU states hard-opressed by the scourge of Islam.

That apart, its the best thing that's happened to the UK for years. Perhaps the Thirty Years War on the British way of life is coming to an end.

Slow learners, the political elite.

Mr DanJO, were you around in the Wilson era? You sound as though you might of enjoyed 'The smack of firm Government', one of Wislon's favourite phrases.

5 February 2011 at 11:28  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Cameron’s speech is utter, utter rubbish. Worse than that it is a cacophony of lies from start to finish.

The native British are going to pay with their blood for the political elite’s folly of nurturing this barbaric and backward ideology on our islands. My father and grandfathers did not fight in two world wars for this. My father is still alive and feels bitterly betrayed.

7/7 was just the beginning. Over one thousand ‘terrorists’ have been jailed in Britain in recent years yet very few cases are reported. Why? It is a cover up or appeasement or both.

We need real action, not more spin. Cease the insane mass immigration of people with nothing to offer but contempt for our western values. The human rights of law abiding citizens must always be put before those who wish to harm us. Deport all foreign terrorists, murderers and rapists back to their counties of origin and revoke their British citizenship if they have it. Nothing less will do.

5 February 2011 at 11:56  
Blogger Graham Davis said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

5 February 2011 at 11:58  
Blogger Graham Davis said...

For those of us who have been saying for years that multiculturalism is a failed experiment, these are welcome words. Although you Christians and we atheists disagree about so much we probably can agree that we share a British/English cultural tradition in which democracy, the rule of law and freedom of speech are enshrined and in which fairness is an important component, along with a sense of humour and other qualities. It is a tradition that has been informed not just by Christian values but also by secular humanism. The result has been a respect for our political and justice system by many aspiring nations and a status amongst the nations of the world disproportionate to our size or current economic might.

In other words we know what being British is.

In the US most immigrants are equally proud of their allegiance to America as they are of the cultural traditions of the countries from which they came, whereas in Britain some immigrant groups use our country simply as a host. This essentially parasitic relationship has been enabled by multiculturalism. Although it is possible for Muslims to be absorbed into our cultural tradition, too often their communities remain ghettoised (as in Luton and Bradford).

What separates Islam from other belief system is the demand of total obedience by its followers, so that those who do become integrated (into British society) have compromised with the Infidel. Fundamentalism is not an extreme version of Islam; it is at the very heart of its teachings and so is incompatible with the democratic values that we cherish.

DC has put a marker down but it doesn’t go far enough. It must be explicitly stated that to live in this country you must accept our values and that means your religion cannot be allowed to corrupt our laws and traditions. Either love us or leave us.

5 February 2011 at 12:01  
Anonymous bluedog said...

Your Grace

Cameron is clearly doing his best but is afraid to to tell the truth. And he's plain wrong about Islam, which is a political philosophy masquerading as a religion. You cannot deal with that sort of problem in the secular terms Dave outlines. If you define Islam as a religion and then say you have freedom of conscience the whole exercise is self-defeating.

Dave is right about the pro-democracy movements in Tunisia and Eqypt. Osama bin Laden would have turned off his satellite TV at the sight. Here are the young and educated of the Ummah rejecting the appeal of Al-Qaeda for the political philosophy of the Great Satan.

This is truly Death to Islam.

How to get the same result in the West?

5 February 2011 at 12:07  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuYKtwnzG7M

Mmmm one wonders what the hidden hand up his jacksie must be thinking!

5 February 2011 at 12:09  
Anonymous Voyager said...

hard to believe that Dave would have said these things without the leadership of Angela Merkel.

Hardly. Angela Merkel was shoring up her position after she used East German tactics on Thilo Sarrazin for his book "Deutschland schafft sich ab" by having him removed from his job and vilified because he attacked multiculturalism and the public revolted against her.

Sarrazin's book is Germany's top non-fiction bestseller in its 18th printing


Sarazzin

Merkel showed her Stasi mentality by condeming a book she had never read and instructing the "independent" Bundesbank to remove him from his job

5 February 2011 at 12:13  
Anonymous Old Grumpy said...

Has anyone noticed that what the muzzies actually want in the UK is a form of cultural apartheid. They want to practice being a pure muslim without any state interference. For now, anyway, they want separate development, in fact, in the way that the much derided South African regime was derided for doing.

Bear in mind, though, that within 20 years the UK will be facing exactly the same thing, with a muslim majority complaining about minority white supremiscts not allowing them their Sharia led state. Since they'll be the majority by then, on what legitimate basis might it be opposed without claims of "apartheid!" being touted around?

Interestingly the South African regime still generates a massive amount of hate, even today, despite the fact that it's been decades now since it finally fell. I happened to look on You Tube the other day for some extracts of a rather fine film called "Gold" and found all manner of expletive-filled, hate filled postings (which I'm slightly shocked You Tube allow) that the movie somehow propped up the values of the apartheid regime. IMHO this is rubbish, not least because the actual hero of the movie, never mind Roger Moore, was actually the black miner who selflessly laid down his life so that Moore could sh*g Susannah York. And the real villains were the foreign (British) financiers, so surely everyone could agree on that?

Please forgive the digression here.

5 February 2011 at 12:53  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

Anon: "Over one thousand ‘terrorists’ have been jailed in Britain in recent years yet very few cases are reported. Why? It is a cover up or appeasement or both."

Where's that figure from? I thought it was 240 or so convicted in the last decade or so. That's convicted under anti-terrorism and related laws and not necessarily sent to prison.

5 February 2011 at 12:54  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

At last! An acceptance of the need to defend liberalism, protect pluralism and fight for our open and tolerant values. 'Active, Muscular Liberalism' is what DC called for - couldn't agree more! http://bit.ly/gq7mXk

5 February 2011 at 12:57  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

Old Grumpy: "Bear in mind, though, that within 20 years the UK will be facing exactly the same thing, with a muslim majority complaining about minority white supremiscts not allowing them their Sharia led state."

A majority within 20 years? We're a country of about 61 million people, and there are probably 2.5 million of us who are Muslims. Where is that projection from? How will they find time to even pray at that rate? :O

5 February 2011 at 13:00  
Blogger Owl said...

"That way common purpose can be formed, as people come together and work together in their neighbourhoods.

Freudian slip?

Thesis: Christianity
Antithesis: Islam
Synthesis: Secular Humanism

Conclusion: NWO is coming along nicely, thanks Dave.

BTW: Angela Merkel's father was a clergy man who operated in the old East Germany. It has always been a matter of conjecture as to why he was accepted in the atheist state whereas most christian clergy were refused admittance.
Angela learnt her religion at her father's knee and it certainly wasn't christian.

5 February 2011 at 13:03  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

What shared values do people in the UK have that could be used to differentiate between the 'belonging' and the 'not belonging?'

If a newspaper like the Daily Mail or the Telegraph embodies our values then I think I might be in the 'not belonging' section. If the Times does then I might be in with a hope.

It seems to me that we are a very diverse society now, even ignoring immigration, and identifying groups who have shared values might be a tad hard. Lordy, even defining the middle class or classes is hard enough.

I'd point at the values in the EDHR as a start but there's enough criticism of the HRA instantiation of that by some Christians to keep us going for a while.

5 February 2011 at 13:13  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Cameron's speech is an appeasing Munich speech on Islam.

The ideology of Islam, as made clear in the tenets of Islamic ideology, and the history of over 1300 years of Islamic imperialism, is violently supremacist.

Islam aims to supersede Judeo-Christian civilisation, and is not to be appeased.

5 February 2011 at 13:47  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

‘So let’s properly judge Islam: Does it believe in universal human rights—including for women and people of other faiths? Does it believe in equality of all before the law? Does it believe in democracy and the right of people to elect their own government? Does it encourage integration or separatism?’ Cameron ought to have said.

Islam fails on every count. Making a speech full of fine intentions is one thing but when will our political élite confront the reality of a rapidly increasing Muslim population that will, inevitably, make Britain an Islamic country?

5 February 2011 at 13:49  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Not only governments, but the attitude of the BBC is crucial. But this egregious organisation continues to be an apologist for militant islam, and vilifies all who attempt to portray the this appalling socio-policito-religious cult in its true light. It is aiding and abetting the desruction of western, Christian, values.

5 February 2011 at 14:00  
Blogger Owl said...

Anonymous 14:00

The BBC will change it's approach when it is told to do so.

At the moment the agenda is to pit Christianity against Islam by provocation, i.e. seeming to take sides.

And the end solution is folks?

It's all too bloody obvîous.

5 February 2011 at 14:10  
Blogger DAD said...

Cave-in Dave says

"Stronger citizenship
Second, we must build stronger societies and identities at home."

This is a man who would have the British citizenship swapped for control by the EU. He is a man who can hold two opposing views at the same time. He is guilty of “double-speak”. I am of the opinion that he, and many other politicians suffer from some sort of mental bi-polar problem when they are able to think about supporting British Sovereignty and, at the same time, the subservience of Britain to the EU – and believe in both propositions at the same time.

5 February 2011 at 14:22  
Blogger Maturecheese said...

Reading between the lines, I see even more oppression on the way. Just as Ms May has shamelessly stated that any adult caught in possession of a knife should expect a jail term (I have always carried a penknife on my keyring and don't see why I should stop), thereby bringing in draconian laws because of the behaviour of 'certain sections' of society. How many more 'bans' and blanket laws are going to come our way to cope with the absolute mess that our immigration policies have reaped, coupled with the lack of strong common sense sentencing when dealing with crimes committed and not worrying about whether someone 'might' commit a crime.

5 February 2011 at 14:30  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

We have failed to provide a vision of society to which they feel they want to belong.

Until the Third World arrived in strength, we were a White Christian country that had no earthly need for a vision. With the White British on their way to becoming an ethnic minority, Cameron now expects us to scratch around for visions to make the Third World feel at home.

5 February 2011 at 14:32  
Blogger Span Ows said...

DanJO, you mention your niece is a convert; any particular reason? If it's 'because of a boy' I suggest your sibling keep a close eye on their offspring.

5 February 2011 at 14:39  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

Johnny: "Until the Third World arrived in strength, we were a White Christian country that had no earthly need for a vision."

But at least they were useful during our post-war labour shortages, eh? I live in a very ethnically mixed area of the UK and I think the cultural diversity brought about in part by post-war immigration is bloody marvellous, actually.

Would I go back to a 'white Christian' mono-culture? No way. It's not all the Us and Them you seem to imply, it's mostly Us x many.

You know, I've spent time in Morocco in both the cities and the rural areas. That country is mostly Muslim but the cities have lots of cultural Muslims. These are people, especially young people, who want to drink alcohol every so often, hang around with the other sex, listen to music, and not really bother with Ramadan.

5 February 2011 at 14:53  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

Span Ows: "DanJO, you mention your niece is a convert; any particular reason? If it's 'because of a boy' I suggest your sibling keep a close eye on their offspring."

That's a bit cheap, if you mean what I think you mean.

She's married, with kids. I don't think there's a problem.

5 February 2011 at 14:56  
Anonymous Atlas shrugged said...

Your Grace has reported on much, however I am left with little better then confusion.

Therefore IMO, it would be best to remember the following.

The DEVIL is in the DETAIL.

The words of politicians are like the shifting sands of the desert. Here today, and very likely gone tomorrow, or changed in such a way that things may seem to have not changed at all, but have in reality changed in all other important respects.

There is not a politicians either local or national that if made to swear in court that they will tell the truth, the hole truth, and nothing but the truth, previously to getting elected, who would not been doing serious time at her majesties pleasure within their first 12 months in office. In most cases 12 days.

The devil is not only in the detail, but it is also in the practice, and the consequences. We are mind controlled into believing that there exists some kind of natural law of unforeseen consequences.

However in the majority of cases, especially when it comes to government policy, very little could be further from the real TRUTH of the matter.

Government, or should I say the REAL government are not anywhere near like the headless chickens we are led to believe they are.

Short, (1-20 years), medium (20-100 years) and long term (1-2 hundred years,)policy are the stuff of REAL government.

Party politics on the other hand is the stuff of mind controlled fools, and self-interested despots. Like for example Cameron, Brown, Blair, Bush, Obama, Hussain, Hitler, Stalin, Pol-Pot, FDR, Churchill, and most, if not all of the rest world-wide.

In summary

Words can be all good, and fine, however it is the actual actions, as well as the almost always DELIBERATE consequences of these actions, that really matter.

The trick is knowing what the end is, so that you can usefully work out the means being used to get there.

5 February 2011 at 15:08  
Anonymous Voyager said...

I'd point at the values in the EDHR as a start

I wouldn't. They were created by British Lawyers to embarrass Central Europe under Stalin. It was part of The Cold War ethos rather like the CIA sponsored mosque in Munich...
.
Munich

The ECHR was one of those Wilsonian Documents that no government believed in. The two countries most complained about at Strasbourg are Italy and the United Kingdom - largely because of protracted and insufferable legal delays

DanJ0 wants to impose his value system on everyone but cannot accept it is simply not accepted.

Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe may have drawn up this Charter but I don't see any point in soldiers dying to defend it - it is simply persiflage and subservient to bayonets

5 February 2011 at 15:58  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

"The two countries most complained about at Strasbourg are Italy and the United Kingdom - largely because of protracted and insufferable legal delays"

Perhaps one of the reasons was that we didn't have enough redress at the national level. Now we have with the HRA. We even have a Supreme Court now so that the judiciary and the legislature are properly separate.

"DanJ0 wants to impose his value system on everyone but cannot accept it is simply not accepted."

That's such an odd, almost meaningless thing to say. It's like an empty slogan. I'm simply one citizen in 61 million and I have an opinion for which I try to argue intelligently.

No doubt you want to 'impose your value system on everyone but cannot accept it is simply not accepted' too. Where does that leave us?

Oh, it leaves us as signatories to the ECHR and it leaves us with the HRA. Moreover, it leaves us with a legal system which is more along the lines of H.L.A. Hart and John Stuart Mill than Patrick Devlin, for which I am thankful.

It also leaves you sounding rather angry and bitter, to be honest.

5 February 2011 at 16:22  
OpenID antifo said...

IMO both Nazism and Islam(ism) are essentially a degenerated variation of liberalism. Why? Because the followers of both ideologies take themselfs an immoderation of freedoms in fighting their enemies.

5 February 2011 at 16:24  
Anonymous Old Grumpy said...

@ DanJo -

OK my friend, let's have a go at the demograhics here. We'll use some Muzzie friends of mine as an example. They're good people, no bombers or extremists.

So off we go. Mr and Mrs A arrive in the UK from Pakistan 25 years ago. They have 4 nice kids. Now, the kids are all married, with spouses parachuted in from....yes, Pakistan. 3 or the 4 kids have 4 kids, the 4th has 3 kids (so far)

Nothing unreasonable about that? Well, not in itself. But that means from the original 2 adults, we now have 6 adults and 15 kids, a total of 21. That's almost a 10 fold increase.

So from your baseline of 2.5m moslims, we're looking at 25million in the same period....and don;t think that they can't do that, because they can.

In the same way that the pope commands catholics to produce as many kids (good catholics) as possible, so do the mosques for moslims.

Couple this with the expected sudden fall-off in the white population as the baby boomers of the 1950's fall off their perches in large numbers over the same period, and you're rapidly looking at a sudden tip-over in population demograhics

It's not a pretty picture and I for one can see no future for the UK in its present form. There are enough militant moslims who will settle for nothing less than the flag of Islam flying over no.10.

Already one London borough is controlled, indirectly, but quite legally, by the London Mosque. The population of Leicester is expected to be majority moslim within 5 years.

Of course, there are plenty of good, moderate moslims out there. The problem is that there is no such thing as a moderate Islam, which seeks to rule the world.

Old Grumpy

5 February 2011 at 16:43  
Blogger Jonathan Hunt said...

Oh dear. Dave is pointing to Egypt as an example of how Islam and Western Values combine? I think he might be just a tad premature.

5 February 2011 at 17:18  
Anonymous Voyager said...

We even have a Supreme Court now so that the judiciary and the legislature are properly separate.

We don't have a Supreme Court....that is a real misnomer.

The Supreme Court is the highest court of appeal in the United Kingdom. However, The Court must give effect to directly applicable European Union law, and interpret domestic law so far as possible consistently with European Union law.


Under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (article 267), The Court must refer to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in Luxembourg any question of European Union law, where the answer is not clear and is necessary for it to give judgment.



It is a subsidiary court of the ECJ in any area that the ECJ determines. It is not therefore a Supreme Court but a Regional Appeal Court subject to ECJ jurisdiction

5 February 2011 at 17:27  
Anonymous Voyager said...

It also leaves you sounding rather angry and bitter, to be honest.

Hardly, but I do find lawyers to be self-conceited and to have designed a system that favours themselves over other inhabitants of the country.

There is no group more keen to become a Secular Priesthood than the Masters of Fluid Truth engaged in theatrical pageantry

5 February 2011 at 17:31  
Anonymous Trencherbone said...

"I would argue an important reason so many young Muslims are drawn to it (Islamic extremism] comes down to the fact that the Perfect Man and role model for all Muslims bragged 'I have been made victorious with terror!'

5 February 2011 at 17:45  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ DanJ0 (14:53)—I think the cultural diversity brought about in part by post-war immigration is bloody marvellous, actually.

Post-war immigration will, in time, produce a Muslim majority in Britain. Look at how Muslim countries treat non-Muslims and compare the level of freedom in Muslim countries to that in the West. You find cultural diversity ‘bloody marvellous’. Spare a thought for future generations who will find themselves under the rule of a religion dreamt up in Arabia with doctrines of hatred that are fixed for all eternity because they’re the word of Allah.

5 February 2011 at 17:48  
Anonymous len said...

If there is a problem with the U K it is we are too passive and too tolerant.I do not mean this in an aggressive way,but if we have a value system and cultural roots we should be prepared to uphold them!
Islam seems to be advancing through displacement, ie our Legal System should be considered fair enough to encompass all races and creeds.Why should we set up parallel systems?.
If people want to change our society, our moral outlook,our Religion,our culture then why, we should ask ourselves have they come here at all?
I believe minorities should be protected but it is a fine line we walk on where freedoms of speech and expression are concerned.

5 February 2011 at 18:03  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

Old Grumpy: "OK my friend, let's have a go at the demograhics here. We'll use some Muzzie friends of mine as an example. [...]"

Is that what actually happens then? People just have lots of kids, who have lots of kids, who have lots of kids? No limiting factors involved, like jobs, houses, and so on?

I'm not sure how reliable these projections are but I've seen this projection presented a number of times. It has the Muslim population almost doubling in 20 years to under 6 million: 1,172,000 (1990) -> 2,869,000 (2010) -> 5,567,000 (2030).

http://pewforum.org/The-Future-of-the-Global-Muslim-Population.aspx

"The population of Leicester is expected to be majority moslim within 5 years."

Where does that one comes from? Leicester is my closest city. I'd have said the Indian population would be the largest ethnic group and they're mainly Hindus and Sikhs.

It has been predicted for a long time that Leicester would become majority ethnic soon. I guess the 2011 census will tell us. That's not the same as saying majority Muslim though! Incidentally, Leicester is a great city.

Let's look:

http://www.leicester.gov.uk/EasySiteWeb/GatewayLink.aspx?alId=52551

2007 estimates: 60% white, 31% Asian (28% Indian, 2% Pakistani, 1% Bangladeshi), 8% black. It says of the Indian population: 61% Hindu, 35% Muslim, 4% Sikh. If I'm reading and understanding the slides correctly, 35% Muslim of the 28% Indian is about 10% Muslim of the total population. Assuming the Pakistanis and Bangladeshis are Muslim too then that's 13% of the total population isn't it?

So, your data please.

5 February 2011 at 18:10  
Blogger oldmaid said...

“common purpose “

An interesting phrase, given that Common Purpose is rife right across all the public sector institutions, including councils and especially the BBC and other media organisations.

It would appear, economic circumstances, or maybe because it has now run its course here, it is now going to introduced and implemented across wider spectrum, no doubt under the ‘big society’ sound-bite.

Appears to me the Goebbels principle is still alive and well in the corridors of Whitehall.

However, whether Cameron can collectively ‘brainwash’ wider society to be compliant units for the collective good of the ‘must not be mentioned’ remains to be seen.

5 February 2011 at 18:11  
Blogger Span Ows said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

5 February 2011 at 18:33  
Blogger Span Ows said...

That's a bit cheap, if you mean what I think you mean.

She's married, with kids. I don't think there's a problem.

But my question was why did she convert to Islam. I think you've got the wrong end of the stick but I realise I didn't really put it very clearly.

If she is married then is the husband a Muslim? Did she convert from being active in another religion? If not did she just "become a Muslim". And my interest is genuine.

5 February 2011 at 18:34  
Blogger Span Ows said...

Sorry, message above isn't clear either! Should read:

DanJOThat's a bit cheap, if you mean what I think you mean.

She's married, with kids. I don't think there's a problem.


But my question was why did she convert to Islam. I think you've got the wrong end of the stick but I realise I didn't really put it very clearly.

If she is married then is the husband a Muslim? Did she convert from being active in another religion? If not did she just "become a Muslim". And my interest is genuine.

5 February 2011 at 18:37  
Anonymous PW said...

“A genuinely liberal country…believes in certain values and actively promotes them. Freedom of speech. Freedom of worship. Democracy. The rule of law. Equal rights regardless of race, sex or sexuality.”

Some wriggle room here for those that want to curtail religious liberty - for Christians at least. Unless I missed it, Mr Cameron doesn’t include freedom of religion, conscience or association, which are basic freedoms of a free nation. Only freedom of worship. Therefore, it is OK to worship in private or within the 4 walls of churches. But freedom to peacefully manifest and live out one’s religion in the public sphere, even in one’s own home if you’re a B&B owner, must be dependent on conforming to Big State doctrines e.g. on homosexuality, or the force of the State will be used to punish you. Mr Cameron supported Labour’s Sexual Orientation Regulations, which are the legislative opportunity to persecute religious B&B owners. “Equal rights regardless of…sexuality” must trump all other freedoms, it seems.

“Freedom of speech” ? 1) In that case let’s hope Mr Cameron amends S5 of the Public Order Act to make it more difficult to get one’s collar felt for merely sharing Biblical truth in public. 2) He doesn’t believe in freedom of speech in his own party. Evidence: sacking of councillors and candidates for merely expressing principled and moderate concern about the promotion of homosexuality to schoolchildren.

While advocacy of violence and murder must be tackled, the danger of prescribing core values is that the Big State then determines what those values are, and freedom is OK only as long as one conforms accordingly.

As for the difficulty of some Muslims in identifying with Britain, perhaps the promotion of moral permissiveness in recent decades might have something to do with this. If this is the case, reassertion of traditional family values would help. But of course one cannot expect Mr Cameron to do that as it would contravene the wishes of the LGBT lobby.

“ (People who don’t make the distinction between religion and political ideology) think whether someone is an extremist is dependent on how much they observe their religion. So they talk about ‘moderate’ Muslims as if all devout Muslims must be extremist. This is wrong. Someone can be a devout Muslim and not be an extremist.” It is a pity Mr Cameron’s govt doesn’t apply this to Christians. Mr Gove has labelled devout Christians who believe in creationism as “extremists”.

While most Muslims do not adhere to violent extremism, I wonder if Mr Cameron underplays a possible link between Islam as a “religion” and “Islamist extremism” as a political ideology that could arise from Koranic encouragement (as interpreted by some) to violence and the often understood aim of Islam bringing the world under subjection to Allah, by force if necessary. However he does acknowledge that “ you find people who may reject violence, but who accept various parts of the extremist world-view including real hostility towards western democracy and liberal values”.

But Mr Cameron’s critiques of “State multiculturalism” because of its contribution to the development of segregated communities, and of the idea that things like poverty and foreign policy are causes of extremism – not everyone who is poor or disagrees with foreign policy end up as extremists – are welcome.

5 February 2011 at 18:43  
Anonymous Old Grumpy said...

@DanJo
Thanks for your data on Leicester. BTW, I never said anything about it not being a great city.
As for data, it's a census year. We should have a better idea as to how trends are performing when the results are admitted. I would like to be re-assured, but I;ve a nasty feeling that I won;t be.

5 February 2011 at 18:53  
Anonymous PW said...

“A genuinely liberal country…believes in certain values and actively promotes them. Freedom of speech. Freedom of worship. Democracy. The rule of law. Equal rights regardless of race, sex or sexuality.”

Some wriggle room here for those that want to curtail religious liberty - for Christians at least. Unless I missed it, Mr Cameron doesn’t include freedom of religion, conscience or association, which are basic freedoms of a free nation. Only freedom of worship. Therefore, it is OK to worship in private or within the 4 walls of churches. But freedom to peacefully manifest and live out one’s religion in the public sphere, even in one’s own home if you’re a B&B owner, must be dependent on conforming to Big State doctrines e.g. on homosexuality, or the force of the State will be used to punish you. Mr Cameron supported Labour’s Sexual Orientation Regulations, which are the legislative opportunity to persecute religious B&B owners. “Equal rights regardless of…sexuality” must trump all other freedoms, it seems.

“Freedom of speech” ? 1) In that case let’s hope Mr Cameron amends S5 of the Public Order Act to make it more difficult to get one’s collar felt for merely sharing Biblical truth in public. 2) He doesn’t believe in freedom of speech in his own party. Evidence: sacking of councillors and candidates for merely expressing principled and moderate concern about the promotion of homosexuality to schoolchildren.

While advocacy of violence and murder must be tackled, the danger of prescribing core values is that the Big State then determines what those values are, and freedom is OK only as long as one conforms accordingly.

As for the difficulty of some Muslims in identifying with Britain, perhaps the promotion of moral permissiveness in recent decades might have something to do with this. If this is the case, reassertion of traditional family values would help. But of course one cannot expect Mr Cameron to do that as it would contravene the wishes of the LGBT lobby.

“ (People who don’t make the distinction between religion and political ideology) think whether someone is an extremist is dependent on how much they observe their religion. So they talk about ‘moderate’ Muslims as if all devout Muslims must be extremist. This is wrong. Someone can be a devout Muslim and not be an extremist.” It is a pity Mr Cameron’s govt doesn’t apply this to Christians. Mr Gove has labelled devout Christians who believe in creationism as “extremists”.

While most Muslims do not adhere to violent extremism, I wonder if Mr Cameron underplays a possible link between Islam as a “religion” and “Islamist extremism” as a political ideology that could arise from Koranic encouragement (as interpreted by some) to violence and the often understood aim of Islam bringing the world under subjection to Allah, by force if necessary. However he does acknowledge that “ you find people who may reject violence, but who accept various parts of the extremist world-view including real hostility towards western democracy and liberal values”.

But Mr Cameron’s critiques of “State multiculturalism” because of its contribution to the development of segregated communities, and of the idea that things like poverty and foreign policy are causes of extremism – not everyone who is poor or disagrees with foreign policy end up as extremists – are welcome.

5 February 2011 at 18:56  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

"Unless I missed it, Mr Cameron doesn’t include freedom of religion, conscience or association, which are basic freedoms of a free nation."

Article 9 of the HRA. Part 1 is an absolute right, and Part 2 is a qualified right. The B&B owner falls under Part 2.

"He doesn’t believe in freedom of speech in his own party."

I work for a large company. They don't believe in freedom of speech either when I'm in my role as one of their employees. I'm a staunch liberal and I agree with them. Freedom of speech doesn't mean what you think it does, I'd say.

"If this is the case, reassertion of traditional family values would help. But of course one cannot expect Mr Cameron to do that as it would contravene the wishes of the LGBT lobby."

'Traditional family values' Oh-oh, that sounds very ominous if the LGBT lobby won't want that. So, what are they then? Is this a notion that the nuclear family is the only valid family arrangement or something?

5 February 2011 at 19:24  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

Old Grumpy: "As for data, it's a census year. We should have a better idea as to how trends are performing when the results are admitted. I would like to be re-assured, but I;ve a nasty feeling that I won;t be."

I hate to nag but did you just make up that thing about a Muslim majority in Leicester? Or did it actually come from somewhere?

5 February 2011 at 19:27  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

Cameron talks of ‘muddled thinking’ and then gives a breathtaking example of his own muddled thinking: ‘The point is this: the ideology of extremism is the problem. Islam, emphatically, is not.’

Islam emphatically is the problem because the extremists draw their inspiration from its teachings. Even if we managed to persuade the current generation of British Muslims to abjure the Qur’anic verses inciting violence against non-Muslims the verses would remain extant, ready to inspire future generations to violence.

5 February 2011 at 19:48  
Anonymous non mouse said...

Cameron says: "Back home, we are introducing National Citizen Service – a two-month programme for sixteen year-olds from different backgrounds to live and work together."

That would make me nervous, if I had a sixteen-year-old. That's just when the young are getting out of the 'oversight' loop, to a life where they won't have to snitch and sneak on everything that's said at home. That's just when parents might have a chance to bring their offspring back to family values and into our own culture. Right then, our arm of the euSSR wants a final shot at brainwashing, under boarding school conditions. Wonderful.

Oh - and do we pay twice for this programme as well? Or is it "courtesy" of our Masters?

5 February 2011 at 20:34  
Anonymous dave s said...

Politicians make me cynical- particularly when they deliver a much trailed set piece speech. Is this speech really aimed at the Muslim community? Or have Cameron's private sources told him of a real hardening in attitude amongst the white ( working and rural classes) towards multiculturalism and Islam in particular.
"Don't worry chaps the government is going to do something and has got your fears in mind" seems about the strength of it.
It is far too late in the day and if you listen ,as I do , as I travel around the country you know the natives have started to make up their minds and the verdict on the multicultural experiment is not promising.
A wise and far seeing government would never have attempted to foist such foolishness upon an ancient and very conservative people.

5 February 2011 at 20:43  
Blogger joe six-pack said...

Getting rid of Islamic law is a good step. Many other steps need to be taken, but the idea of two legal systems in the same country is begging for conflict.

5 February 2011 at 20:57  
Blogger Owl said...

A couple of observations:

Dave doesn't use the word "left" or "left-wing" at all.
He uses the word "liberal(ism)" twice, "muscular liberalism" and "genuinely liberal". Both relatively positive usages.

Lets look at how he uses the word "right".
"...right-wing faschist party"
"...right-wing extremists"
"..far right groups.. = ..fascist terrorism"
"...hard right"

Besides the fact that he obviously hasn't read Jonah Goldberg's book "Liberal Fascism", he is using semantics to move any right-wing philosophy into a negative light. This is standard social engineering but the direction of it gives him away (again).

I wonder what happened to the conservatives.

He also states the following:
"And of course, yourselves in Germany were long-scarred by terrorism from the Red Army Faction." without mentioning that this was once again left-wing terrorism

"Anarchist attacks have occurred recently in Greece and Italy" once again without mentioning the close ties between these anarchist groups and left-wing radicals.

So Dave's message is we won't put a negative slant on the left, liberal is good and the right is evil.

And this from the leader of the so called conservative party.

Dave's conclusion:

"And confront the issues of identity that sustain it by standing for a much broader and generous vision of citizenship in our countries."

Sorry Dave, it's more than broad and generous enough already, in fact, it is at breaking point.

The man is a dangerous joke.

5 February 2011 at 21:04  
Anonymous Oswin said...

All that can be said is that it is a 'start' ... and about time too!

5 February 2011 at 21:09  
Anonymous non mouse said...

Dave S - As we know, our
'conservative people' can no longer suppose that we have conservative representatives among the 'elected.' Indeed, a re-check of DC's speech suggests that he's no longer even interested in hiding his anti-conservative proclivities.

Firstly, my 'find' option reveals no reference to conservatism. DC appropriates the 'buzz' polarities, however; and his only references to the political "right" appear in the following terms:
"hard right"; "a right-wing fascist party"; "right-wing extremists," and "far right groups." His only reference to the left appears in the criticism: "On the other hand, there are those on the soft left who also ignore this distinction" [between Islam and extremist ideology].

Not even "soft left" is very 'acceptable,' then. Who'da thunk it?

5 February 2011 at 21:13  
Anonymous non mouse said...

Gosh -Owl... we must be on a wavelength! :)

5 February 2011 at 21:15  
Anonymous bluedog said...

DanJO, as you have said that you are gay, it is probable that you have no children of your own. It is therefore likely that you will spend your twilight years in a retirement home where you will be looked after by someone else's children. Given that the White British population is contracting in real terms and not just relative terms, it is possible that your carer's will be British Muslims.

In view of the attitudes of most Muslims towards homosexuals, are you comfortable with this possibilty?

Or does it worry you, just a little bit?

5 February 2011 at 21:15  
Anonymous len said...

Looking at David Cameron in his 'Chamberlain' guise reminds me of looking at old newsreel footage and wondering "Did Chamberlain really know what he was up against, was he just 'buying time'or was he living in a 'fools paradise?"
Hitler obviously considered Chamberlain a gullible fool.
In retrospect would Chamberlain have acted differently?

5 February 2011 at 21:24  
Blogger Owl said...

non mouse

Some say coincidence, Jung refered to it as synchronicity.

According to Jung it must have been important for this to happen:)

5 February 2011 at 21:28  
Blogger The Gray Monk said...

Multi Culturalism is the idea that underlay Apartheid and leads the same way. At least in Germany they have taken a lead - if you want to live here, speak the language ad live by German laws, recognising that it is a Christian country, though the French tried to "secularise" it in the 18th/19th Centuries.

Democracy, to work, requires that the will of the majority is always respected, but that also requires that any minorities are also protected. That is why so many have escaped the hell holes that most Islamic countries have become, chose to come to Britain, a country famed for its tolerance and belief in giving evryone a fair crack at the whip - until Liebor started labelling evrything and everyone English as "Institutionally Racist" - a falsehood that the left have used to promote Islam as superior to Christianity, to stuff the Civil Service with "minority representatives" and to impose the "Equalities Act."

Let us hope that Cameron actually has the courage to undo at least some of this.

Your Grace, with due respect, I would hold back on any pronouncements as to the "achievement of liberty and democracy" in Egypt, Tunisia or any other Islamic state currently in the throes of civil upheaval. It is my experiebce of these places that they do not have a tradition of democracy and the first flush of success usually brings in a coalition of extremists whose only common interest was overthrowing the previous "tyrant." I say, watch this space, both Tunisia and Egypt are now poised for a lurch into the hands of fundamentalists like those running Iran.

As the scriptures tell us after the casting out of demons, unless the "house" is cleaned and reoccupied by a fresh spirit of grace, the demon will return bringing with him others far worse than himself and the last state of that man is then worse than the first.

We delude ourselves in our belief that the western model of democracy will "cure" all the ills of countries dominated by fundamentalist beliefs and administrations stuffed to the brim with bureaucrats who preside over every form of corruption. It barely works in the UK, why do we think it will work in a country like Tunisia or Egypt?

5 February 2011 at 21:39  
Anonymous bluedog said...

Len, that's a very interesting qustion. People forget that in his day Chamberlain was leader of the parliamentary Conservative Party and commanded the House of Commons as no other man could. Churchill was regarded as an unpredictable and untrustworthy outsider. In the end of course, Churchill's hawkish judgement of Hitler proved right. I suspect Chamberlain was a more wily bird that popular history admits.

The novels of Michael Dobbs on the period are worth reading, if you have not already done so.

Link: http://michaeldobbs.com/uk/index.php?id=21,0,0,1,0,0

5 February 2011 at 21:44  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ Owl (21:04) and non mouse (21:13)—Your analyses of Cameron’s use of ‘right-wing’ are fascinating and must surely give traditional Conservatives pause. Any thoughts, Your Grace?

5 February 2011 at 23:05  
Anonymous Guy Gibson said...

I pledge my allegiance to The United Kingdom,
basing my hope for this country’s future on the trust of our forebears who could not have imagined the present we now have, yet held faith for it nonetheless,
I will serve my country at all times, using all resources, intellect and strength at my disposal to protect the values of freedom, fairness and love that have held these nations as a beacon for all generations.
I will support my fellow subjects with honour, respect and love. I will challenge my leaders to perform their God given duty with all their power and will respond with all my passion to those who I lead, aiming for their greatness, and for the greatness of their country beyond my own.

5 February 2011 at 23:07  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Johnny Rottenborough,

Yes.

5 February 2011 at 23:23  
Anonymous bluedog said...

Dave's core competency is Public Relations. Attacking Multiculturalism and declaring Islamic extremism unacceptable are 'Right Wing' acts. Solution, demonise the right wing to distance yourself from the accusation that you are right-wing.

The real test is whether Dave can follow through. For example, if a more than usually toxic Iman is preaching in a mosque in a key marginal, will Dave expel the Iman and shut the mosque, risking a Coalition loss? By concentrating as they have, the Ummah can potentially pick off constitutencies one by one. Dave offers no remedy to this tactic.

6 February 2011 at 00:06  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

‘Albert’, who claims to be an employee of the US State Department, left a comment on the Mangan’s blog and it has been reposted here. This is an excerpt:

‘The United Kingdom, which has terminal cancer, is dying and should serve as a warning to all Anglo nations, but hasn’t to date. It’s almost impossible to overstate the abject ugliness and dysfunction of this nation that once ruled the world, a nation whose capital you can fly to today and literally see the barbarians walking the streets of Empire, streets they themselves lack the capacity to build. … The U.K. is doing the Anglosphere a final service by demonstrating in real time where we are all headed. It needs to be pointed to and its warning heeding.’

6 February 2011 at 00:51  
Blogger Owl said...

non mouse

Thank you. I missed the reference to "soft left".

So left is "soft" = harmless, non aggressive

right is "hard" = harmful, aggressive

The method is to use word association to implant an emotion in the target (you and me).

aggression leads to fear, non aggression leads to peaceful nights.

I once read a paper describing this use of word association to influence an audience but I no longer know where I read it. It might have been from Tavistock but I am not sure.

6 February 2011 at 01:04  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

bluedog: "DanJO, as you have said that you are gay, it is probable that you have no children of your own. It is therefore likely that you will spend your twilight years in a retirement home where you will be looked after by someone else's children. [...] In view of the attitudes of most Muslims towards homosexuals, are you comfortable with this possibilty?"

Twilight years? Perhaps the future will be different now society is changing but we have a tendency to kill ourselves before then. That's if we actually get beyond our teenage years of course. A lifetime of alienation, you see. Wears you down.

You know, I comment on newspaper sites and occasionally spend time on Christian blog sites. I know what some Christians think of us too. Why would a Muslim make our lives a misery but a Christian wouldn't? Muslims are people too, you know. Some of the stuff I read from Christians would probably make God nauseous.

I have to regularly remind myself that there are millions of non-vocal Christians who are good, kind people in real life despite what is said on blogs and newspaper comments. Anyway, how would a carer when I'm 80 know that I was gay? Will there be a pink equivalent of a Star of David to sew on at some point if the religious get their way?

6 February 2011 at 04:39  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

joe six-pack: "Getting rid of Islamic law is a good step. Many other steps need to be taken, but the idea of two legal systems in the same country is begging for conflict."

We'll be getting rid of Beth Din too then?

6 February 2011 at 04:57  
Anonymous bluedog said...

Dear Mr DanJO @ 0439

The question: Or does it worry you, just a little bit?

An answer: No.

Your answer: comprehensive, implying possibly 'Yes'.

Religion is all about mankind's relationship with mortality. From the individual perspective everyone worries about the manner of their passing, just as when as a child you are suddenly stricken with the fear that your parents will die.

We all like to think we will not die alone or violently but peacefully and comforted by those we love and those that love us.

The secret fear is that our own love may not be returned by those who watch as as we die.

In that case the eternal love of Jesus Christ is there to comfort and welcome those of us who chose to believe.

For my part I hope you are never forced to wear a pink Star of David. But if you wish, I'm sure it can be arranged!

6 February 2011 at 07:45  
Anonymous non mouse said...

Thanks also, Owl. I hope Jung proves to be right in this case; then perhaps others will accept the evidence of DC's 'drift.'

I had missed the glossing over of communist-inspired strife. Further, DC's take on the "normalising" of present turmoil leads me to appreciate Grey Monk's note on Tunisia and Egypt: "the first flush of success usually brings in a coalition of extremists whose only common interest was overthrowing the previous "tyrant" [etc]." DC's implicit nod to the communist dialectic must suit our Masters.

On rhetoric: our idiots presume to emulate old ways. The hard/soft motif has roots in Socrates, as Plato tells us when he describes a metaphor of “interior painting,” where we imprint memories on mental 'wax.' There, the consistency and quality of the 'wax' determine a person's capacity for developing opinions that incorporate truth and true judgment. Chaucer certainly used that reference,** and the principle seems consistent with our parallels today!

Anyway, the application of sublime opposites harks back to oral techniques that informed Greek and Roman literatures.*** Later, Anglo-Saxon work was full of echoes and allusions that encourage word association in the way you describe. DC and his anti-traditional spinners are incapable of making the cut on sublimity though: their teflon-coated wax repels truth; and it is oblivious of cosmic grandeur... to the point of denial.

*Burnyeat, Myles, ed. The Theaetetus of Plato, with a translation of Plato’s Theaetetus by M. J. Levett and revised by Myles Burnyeat. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1990. 70-73, 190c-191e, 325.
**In the House of Fame Geffrey was: “wery was forgo/On pilgrymage myles two/To the corseynt Leonard,/To make lythe of that was hard” (115-18).
***Longinus. On the Sublime Trans. H. L. Havell. Aristotle’s Poetics, Demetrius
on Style, Longinus on the Sublime
Ed. John Warrington. London: J. M. Dent, 1963.

6 February 2011 at 07:58  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

From David Lonsdale

Your Grace,
What we refer to as a British cultural identity was founded on Christianity. When the British people rejected Christianity they began the process of cultural integration. There is only one way to answer Islam and that is to show them that Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life. If the British people do not embrace the gospel once again then the spiritual vacuum will be filled with Baal worship.

Does the A of C understand this I wonder.

6 February 2011 at 08:02  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Churchill's hawkish judgement of Hitler proved right

but Churchill was so understanding of Joe Stalin and gave him everything Hitler had wanted......Chamberlain simply declared war in a fit of pique and protecting Stalin from Hitler's advances....they even became allies !

6 February 2011 at 08:03  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ref above. Sorry your Grace, I meant "cultural disintegration"

David Lonsdale

6 February 2011 at 08:04  
Anonymous Voyager said...

When the British people rejected Christianity

They did not
They have not

The Church simply failed to uphold Christianity or to transmit its values just as The Temple had become a market place making money for social elites of The Sanhedrin and a Jew from Gallilee came to urge a return to Faith

6 February 2011 at 08:06  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

bluedog: "The question: Or does it worry you, just a little bit? An answer: No. Your answer: comprehensive, implying possibly 'Yes'."

The question: Why would a Muslim make our lives a misery but a Christian wouldn't? Your answer: [no answer]

Are you just a little bit ashamed?

6 February 2011 at 08:25  
Anonymous len said...

Christianity to many of the British people is merely a 'tick' on a form , and a visit to a Church for a Baptism or a Death.
Perhaps it will take a time of ' God`s shaking' to shake people out of their sense of complacency and apathy and wake up!

6 February 2011 at 08:25  
Anonymous len said...

Danjo,
You have free will, God will respect this even if it leads to your destruction.
The duty of Christians is to lay facts before people,we are failing in our Christian duty if we don`t!

You call.!

6 February 2011 at 08:28  
Anonymous Seth said...

It's all very well YG, but Mr Cameron and his Coalition have the habit of saying one thing just before they go and do the precise opposite.

Expect enforced halal wintervals this Christmas!

6 February 2011 at 08:42  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

len: "The duty of Christians is to lay facts before people,we are failing in our Christian duty if we don`t!"

Len, if there is a god who is intimately interested in mankind and it isn't utterly disgusted by those Christians then it's not worth avoiding destruction for.

If you fancy yourself as Elijah today then go for it. One of my local vicars, now retired, thought he was Elijah too I think. I imagine it's personally very fulfilling. It has, afterall, a natural feedback loop as the more people who walk away, the more it seems to confirm the righteousness of it.

He used to write to our local newspaper denouncing homosexualists and Muslims, telling us we'd burn in the fires of hell. Bless him. The bishop and, I expect, most of the Christians in the area breathed a huge sign of relief when he finally retired.

6 February 2011 at 08:49  
Anonymous bluedog said...

DanJO @ 08.25 asked: Are you just a little bit ashamed?

Answer: No

6 February 2011 at 09:20  
Blogger ENGLISHMAN said...

One must ask oneself why would a man who has reneged on everything that is dear to the indigenous population of England,suddenly begin to say things of this order?this is just a carrot for the donkey to chew,while the real secret agenda is quietly imposed,why would he go against his paymasters unless they were in full agreement and had a new wheeze to make our lives more worthless.

6 February 2011 at 09:21  
Anonymous bluedog said...

Mr Voyager @ 08.03, it is famously said that when you start a war you don't know when it will end. Or how. Or where.

I recently read a wonderful book 'The Last 1000 Days of the British Empire' by Peter Clarke. You may have read it yourself, but in any event I commend it.

It deals thoroughly with the great irony of WW2; that Britain and France went to war ostensibly to save Poland but lost it to the USSR. The book also covers the ambiguous role of the USA with regard to British power...

6 February 2011 at 09:34  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Len, if there is a god who is intimately interested in mankind .

You disqualify yourself by doubting the existence of God so you can have no theological discussion on Islam or Judaism or Christianity.

You are non-believing and anathema to Christian and Muslim.

6 February 2011 at 09:36  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Bluedog, try this interesting book...

Buchanan

6 February 2011 at 09:38  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

DanJ0 said..."But at least they were useful during our post-war labour shortages, eh?"

They brought them here from India to work in the mills, then closed down the mills and moved our jobs to India.

Now they come from Eastern Europe to work in all the companies that are closing down and being moved to Eastern European Countries.

Do you see a pattern emerging.

6 February 2011 at 10:07  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

Voyager: "You are non-believing and anathema to Christian and Muslim."

Thank you. There in a nutshell we have the reason why we in the UK must have a secular state to protect ourselves from the likes of you, and to protect the likes of you from each other. It doesn't take much for the 'Jesus love' to peel away when we scratch the surface, does it? But we knew that already from history.

6 February 2011 at 10:17  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

bluedog: "Answer: No"

You are still ignoring the actual question, though. Why should I as a gay man worry about a carer being Muslim when I am old but not a Christian carer when we can see what some Christians think and say of gay people and what at least one Christian here thinks of atheists: an anathema i.e. we are detested and cursed?

6 February 2011 at 10:22  
Anonymous Voyager said...

you can have no theological discussion on Islam or Judaism or Christianity.

Stop pronouncing on theology DanJ0. Like all Secularists you want Obedience to The STATE and cannot render unto Caesar.....

Your Absolutist Hegelianism is transparent

6 February 2011 at 10:25  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

Voyager: "Stop pronouncing on theology DanJ0."

One of my other local vicars did not actually believe in god. It used to drive the Elijah one to distraction, as you can imagine.

But why shouldn't I talk about or discuss theology even if I'm atheist? Actually, have you ever said you're a Christian? You're against all sorts, and a 'google savant', but what are you actually for?

6 February 2011 at 10:37  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

In a liberal country like England I think people should protect the British values from extremism. I am a Buddhist from Sri Lanka and I was raised in London. I always love london and its multiculturism which is the true spirit and beatuy of London.
But I also have felt very disgusted by the extremists. Most of the Muslim extremists come here , claim their asylum and then try their best to destroy the liberal society in England. If you are so in to Islam, let me remind you that this is England. Our men and women ain't forced to do things like else where. Adjust your self or you have the freedom to leave.
I strongly condemn extremism from any religon. Reliogon suppose to create peace in your mind, not anger or hate. If a religon does support anger or hate, then it is not a religon but a mere extreme selfish movement.
This issue is not about multiculturalism.....This issue is about exteme muslims!.
But I must say there are a huge muslim community out there who loves peace with others.
God Bless you all!

6 February 2011 at 10:42  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

Bred in the bone: "Do you see a pattern emerging."

Yes. Globalisation. Labour chasing capital, and capital chasing labour. It's not much of a surprise, it's been going on for centuries in one form or another.

6 February 2011 at 10:47  
Anonymous Voyager said...

One of my other local vicars did not actually believe in god. It used to drive the Elijah one to distraction, as you can imagine.

Not really, seems par for the course with an Erastian Church as a branch of The Home Office

6 February 2011 at 12:19  
Anonymous len said...

Voyager,
To whom are you addressing your remarks at 09 36?
And in what context?

6 February 2011 at 12:28  
Anonymous len said...

Danjo,
The God who you seem to disdain is the One who hang on the Cross at Calvary for the redemption of YOUR sin!.


You would seem to want to create a god in your image to cater for your own particular tastes and desires.Who would leave humanity in its sin perhaps just turn a 'blind eye 'to sin although knowing this sin places you under bondage to of demonic powers?
This god who would be acceptable to you and others would have to be totally callous and uncaring.
Which would be the better surgeon when presented with a patient with acute appendicitis, the one who told him he loved him and cared for him, or the one who removed the appendix and saved the patients life? .
An imperfect analogy but have you grasped the principle yet?

6 February 2011 at 12:46  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Len, not to you but to DabJ0 08.49 who quoted:

Len, if there is a god who is intimately interested in mankind and it isn't utterly disgusted by those Christians then it's not worth avoiding destruction for.

Apologies for any misapprehension

6 February 2011 at 13:22  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

Len: "An imperfect analogy but have you grasped the principle yet?"

Len, I was brought up in the CofE. I understand at least the basics of this stuff and I don't need to be patronised. I know you believe this stuff. I can see you believe your particular approach is right. I just reject the many assumptions on which you base it and, it has to be said, your particular approach. I have my own instead.

There is no original sin, we are not inherently corrupted. We are not intelligently designed for anything in particular. There is no cosmic battle between good and evil. No-one died on any cross for me. Sex in itself is not a big deal, despite what the religious say. My actions are not sinful in some god-chosen way, they just have consequences in our world. We are basically just smart and gregarious apes. And that is in itself a wonderful thing!

I don't have the spiritual appendicitis you claim. I don't think I actually need a doctor and I certainly don't need religious snake oil salesmen. We all need to live together as far as possible without harming each other because we're better as a society than on our own. What we do is create and interact and, well, enjoy stuff according to our nature. For the most part, it's a joy in itself to be alive.

I have a conscience, and a set of ethics, and I have both sympathy for, and empathy with, my fellow man. It extends to non-human animals too, in great measure I might add. I deliberately perform random acts of kindness every day, and acts of altruism regularly.

I dare say religion is a phenomenon arising out of the human condition. It's probably the result of our self-awareness. When people 'have' religion, they're variously better or worse because of it because it's a reason for stuff. It empowers our natural conscience and provides an impetus for our actions.

The type of Christians I talk about aren't doing their duty to their god, they're using religion to power their own viciousness or small-mindedness. It's been ever thus. Take a look around the next church committee meeting you attend, or the neighbourhood watch scheme, or most clubs. Make someone feel a bit righteous and it's a fair bet they're powered up to turn it against their fellow man.

I was brought up in the CofE as I have said. I did the Sunday Schooling and I attended services. What I've taken out of that is that the god concept there is a concept of love (i.e. a deep understanding that we're essentially the same) and respect, and equality and justice. Possibly I'm wrong there, or I have a shallow view of it. Now I'm an adult and I have a broader experience of life, I mostly see that message perverted for institutional reasons. It's a terrible shame in my view.

6 February 2011 at 13:53  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

"Who would leave humanity in its sin perhaps just turn a 'blind eye 'to sin although knowing this sin places you under bondage to of demonic powers?"

Can you not trust that to your god? I and many others are knowingly fallen, in the Christian argot. We've heard the message and understood it and turned our backs. Let your god speak to us itself now, I remain certain it has the power if it exists. If I'm wrong then I'm in terrible trouble when I die. If I am right then you've wasted the only life you have on nonsense. If you are wrong because you've backed the wrong horse and it is Allah on the throne then stand next to me. I'll draw the most fire, I expect and save you some of it. :)

6 February 2011 at 14:04  
Anonymous Voyager said...

I was brought up in the CofE as I have said. I did the Sunday Schooling and I attended services.

Noone seriously believes attending C of E services is "Christian". It is social, a badge of membership like being in Rotary or the golf club.

The Church of England is the greatest promoter of atheism in Britain. Western "Christianity" is so far removed from Jesus of Nazareth and is little more today than Sentimentalism and Socialism.

It should be easy for DanJ0 to be fully active in the C of E with his lack of faith in anything but himself. He is at one with those who crucified Christ because he demanded FAITH and not ritual

6 February 2011 at 14:16  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

Voyager: "It should be easy for DanJ0 to be fully active in the C of E with his lack of faith in anything but himself."

Am I in the third person now because your gish-galloping hasn't worked?

You know, I am pretty optimistic about humanity. We're an amazing species and we live in a beautiful world. There's a supreme joy in standing on top of a hill in windy weather and simply being. Try it, I thoroughly recommend it.

Look at how few generations actually exist between (say) Cranmer's time and now, and at how far we've come in that time. We're bloody marvellous really.

How about that for faith and belief? I could shout it from the top of that hill while you lot are in church.

6 February 2011 at 14:52  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

DanJ0 "Yes. Globalisation. Labour chasing capital, and capital chasing labour. It's not much of a surprise, it's been going on for centuries in one form or another."

Godless Commercial terminology with no understanding of a peoples spirit and will to survive.

6 February 2011 at 15:26  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

Bred in the bone: "Godless Commercial terminology with no understanding of a peoples spirit and will to survive."

But it answered your question perfectly and it's true. I'm sorry if the answer didn't suit the point you perhaps wanted to make.

Indians and other immigrants came here to work because they had British passports. Now how on earth did that happen?

6 February 2011 at 15:48  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

Oh for sure Danjo, the British Raj deposed many tribal Kingdoms in India in their conquest for dominance.

British Royalty are a Merchant class and the passport is a Commercial document.

That partly is my point.

6 February 2011 at 16:28  
Anonymous len said...

Danjo,
If there is no original sin then Humans and the World are perfect as this is what God said when he created it.
Look around you, death,disease, murders, suicides,pornography, crime, etc, etc,
Your basic argument,( your foundation,) is flawed so your whole philosophy (your edifice) is flawed.

Sorry to have to point this out to you, sorry to offend your sensibilities,but this is the truth,like it or not!.
I am not a 'holier than thou Christian'just a honest human being who has glimpsed the Truth!.

6 February 2011 at 16:48  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Cameron usually does quite the opposite of anything he "promises" or undertakes to do.
We are mugs if we expect him to pursue any measures to roll back the effects of the mistaken policy of multiculturism.
If anything his speech is designed to divert all true brits attention from other actions such as the pro eu and "progressive" policies his government is furthering.
I didnt vote for him last time round and will definitly not vote for him the next time either. He is a duplicitous fraud and a lightweight.

6 February 2011 at 16:53  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

Bred, the UK is where is it today because we colonised other lands and used their resources. In doing so we changed their cultures dramatically, although arguably for the better in many cases.

East Europeans come here for a number of reasons but one is because there is a difference in income which they can use to their advantage back home.

British engineers did the same in Saudi and other places in the 1970s and 1980s. Pensioners do it now in Spain and Greece, though perhaps for not much longer.

6 February 2011 at 16:55  
Anonymous len said...

Danjo,
I am not surprised (at all)at your reaction to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

The Gospel is an offence (to many)
The Bible says "The sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so." (Romans 8:7)

It takes some pretty honest searching(and the help of the Holy Spirit|) to come to self realisation and to see the need for a Saviour.
Many never reach that stage I pray that you do.

6 February 2011 at 17:01  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Indians and other immigrants came here to work because they had British passports. Now how on earth did that happen?

Clement Attlee's Labour Government failed to withdraw from India properly and drafted a poor Bill in 1948. One of a series of disasters Labour perpetrated over postwar years

6 February 2011 at 17:06  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

"If there is no original sin then Humans and the World are perfect as this is what God said when he created it."

Len, I reject your premises so it is pointless saying stuff like this. It works both ways. There is almost certainly no god, at least as Christians would define it.

Believe in the god hypothesis as you wish, I'll support you in that as a liberal and a secularist, but you can hardly expect all the rest of us to do so in society just because you do.

Why should we change our lives based on your beliefs? What's the point of your pointing out our 'sin' when we don't accept the basis of 'sin' in the first place?

Convince us there is a god first otherwise it is all pointless judgement. A good way of doing that is described in Matthew 5-14. For me, that means being the carrot rather than a stick.

6 February 2011 at 17:07  
Anonymous Voyager said...

East Europeans come here for a number of reasons

SOLELY because Blair lifted EU restrictions on movement of labour. The EU did NOT require free movement for Accession States until March 2011.

As in everything Blair had to be the cocky kid in class to cock a snook at everyone......and we can pay for his vanity

6 February 2011 at 17:08  
Anonymous Voyager said...

There is almost certainly no god, at least as Christians would define it.

Certainly

My, your Religion is Assertively Certain

6 February 2011 at 17:10  
Anonymous Voyager said...

British engineers did the same in Saudi and other places in the 1970s and 1980s

They did so to service technology we had sold Saudi Arabia not to collect welfare nor to build Churches or sell pork

However only 12% Non-EU immigrants come to Britain to work. The rest are clearly independently wealthy........???

6 February 2011 at 17:12  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Convince us there is a god first otherwise it is all pointless judgement.


That isn't how it works. You should read up on the notion of Election

6 February 2011 at 17:16  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

"That isn't how it works. You should read up on the notion of Election"

Lordy, I had a number of conversations with an American cell church member about that a few years ago.

So, in either definition of that, what is the point of pointing out our sin to us before we're part of the church?

6 February 2011 at 17:22  
Anonymous len said...

Danjo, Jesus(god in the flesh)came to Earth and not many believed Him, most of the Religious community wanted to kill Him.
Jesus fulfilled every Biblical prophesy( even to the very day!!)predicted thousands of years in advance.
What makes you think it would be any different today,if Jesus walked the streets?
Unless you seek, and God opens your eyes, you will remain blissfully ignorant in your darkness.
You may have ( like so many others) had a dose of Religion and decided you didn`t like it but knowing Jesus has nothing to do with religion (which is mostly about Jesus not knowing Him. )

6 February 2011 at 17:29  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

Actually, what am I doing? Lol. Voyager is an AI program created by an Oxbridge undergrad or something. It picks keywords or sentences out of a piece of text and does a google search, returning some italised text that has a vague link to the original. It doesn't answer questions as such. Duh, I feel daft now. It's surprising how these things pull you in sometimes. :)

6 February 2011 at 17:29  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

DanJ0 said "Bred, the UK is where is it today because we colonised other lands and used their resources"

Land and resources for your Kinfolk are the only wars worth fighting.

Where we are today is because our Kind have no representation.

6 February 2011 at 17:33  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

Len: "Jesus fulfilled every Biblical prophesy( even to the very day!!)predicted thousands of years in advance."

Or, the accounts and stories written decades afterwards were deliberately matched to the prophecies very well known at the time so create a narrative.

You should engage some Muslims on their own chat sites and the like. They have similar stuff as you and appear to believe it implicitly. The Qur'an has knowledge of science that it couldn't possibly have had at the time, etc.

I appreciate this probably doesn't go down that well but when you stand outside of all this, you can see these things much clearer I think.

6 February 2011 at 17:35  
Anonymous Indigo said...

Cameron seems to have omitted to say that Islamic terrorism is partly due to our foreign policy - and that of the US, which we have for years supinely endorsed - inflaming sensibilities in Muslim countries. And the way the UK pussyfoots around the State of Israel's oppression of Palestinians.

6 February 2011 at 19:53  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

DanJo said 6 February 2011 17:07

A good way of doing that is described in Matthew 5-14. For me, that means being the carrot rather than a stick.
Or the town rather than the hill, Ducks?

I know exactly what you mean my dear, after years of working in the civil service.
I felt completely naked.

Peter Flowerdew

6 February 2011 at 21:24  
Anonymous len said...

Danjo,
I don`t think you are interested in the Truth .
You seem a lot happier to live under a delusion.
I have fulfilled my obligation to you, told you the Truth.
I know shake the dust from my feet and depart.

6 February 2011 at 22:01  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

Len: "I don`t think you are interested in the Truth. You seem a lot happier to live under a delusion."

Back at ya.

7 February 2011 at 04:28  
Anonymous Voyager said...

inflaming sensibilities in Muslim countries.


Immigration and behaviour in Denmark, Netherlands, Sweden, Britain of those Muslims engaged in threatening host populations has seriously inflamed sensibilities......maybe these invaders should leave ?.

7 February 2011 at 05:12  
Blogger killemallletgodsortemout said...

"Anyway, how would a carer when I'm 80 know that I was gay?"

Simple. Homosexuals can't resist telling everyone that they are homosexuals, as you did in your first comment on this thread.

"I rather like the sound of 'active, muscular liberalism' but then I'm gay. :)"

7 February 2011 at 11:17  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

killemallletgodsortemout: "Homosexuals can't resist telling everyone that they are homosexuals, as you did in your first comment on this thread."

I see. The fact it is relevant in many of the discussions here but not in, say, my various workplaces where no-one has ever known in the 20 years of my career is by the by I suppose. Mustn't joke about it though. Got it.

Oh yes. The unfortunate outing of David Laws was because he was shouting it from the rooftops every day but no-one was listening rather than because he carefully hid it from public consumption and fell foul of the expenses scandal as a result. Of course.

Etc.

Thanks for clearing that up.

7 February 2011 at 11:33  
Anonymous Voyager said...

fell foul of the expenses scandal as a result.

It just caught him as it was passing no doubt.

Who filled in the forms to appropriate taxpayer funds ? He is a wealthy City banker but had to obtain money under false pretences....must let him off because he sleeps with a man.

Your morality is different. Larceny is still larceny

7 February 2011 at 18:52  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

No, that's not the reason. He broke the rules and that's that. Your comment about my morality is a non sequitur. I simply gave a reason for why he did it, I didn't excuse the rule breaking. If you look into the details without prejudice then you'll see why he did it and it wasn't for financial gain. If you were in the least bit empathic then you'd probably understand too. Good luck with your next attempt. :)

7 February 2011 at 19:09  
Anonymous Voyager said...

it wasn't for financial gain.

The day he filed a claim it was for financial gain.

It is simply astounding that he is not in the dock with Chaytor and Ilsley....but neither were they when thie party was in power

7 February 2011 at 20:13  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older