Reverse racism , no?

[carl]

All terrible events but when one looks at the number of Muislims involved..the threat is tiny in context

 

None of those warrant being fearful of all Mislims, demonising Mulsims, laws specific to Muslims and so on

 

 

 

I refer you to my previous answer

 

 

 

Quite the opposite..there is a small risk that some of us will be affected by Muslim terrorist activity and of course we have to have measures in palce to combat that and punish the guilty. But they have to be proportionate..so for example we don't 'punish' all Muslims cos of the activities of a relatively small number

 

 

 

No need to repeat that

 

 

 

Proposterous as usual

 

And make you mind up..do I actually belive all is rosy or am i pretending that all is rosy? Can't be both

 

 

 

Indeed they do...your reaction to the threat it totally over the top in that you see all Muslims as some sort of threat cos of the actions of a tiny moniroty..including the perfectly inncocent Muslim woman walking down the street taking her kids to school wearing a Burka who is apparently a threat to national security..still no answer to that one

 

Any comment on the latest British beheading JA?? Starting to become a trend- Lee Rigby, Edmonton and Davd Haines. Lets not pretend the majority of muslims have even attempted to protest against this because they havent- simply because they back the jihadists and the odd spokesman might condemn the bombings in the same way as Gerry Adams did refering to the IRA on behalf of Sinn Fein. The doctrine which is the Q'aran is being interpreted on dangerous levels we have not seen before. Do you really really believe that the problems are staying in Iraq and do you truly believe that all our anti-intergration freinds believe in 'peace'??

[carl]

And half of them apparently choose to express their serious concerns and fear thru extreme violence:doh:

 

I trust you condemn 100% those who would seek to express their disgreement with Yukon thru violence

 

Selective quotes again. I would say more a minority. There were a lot of angry protesters yet- but most did not resort to physical violence let's not dilute the two categorys of 'angry' and 'violent'

[Paul6754]

That is factually incorrect as you want to take away the option of wearing a burka form those women that want to..so it's incorrect that you want freedom of choice 100% of the time for 100% of women. I do, you defnitely as you have stated do not.

 

You factually chose to forget "Within the laws of the UK".........

 

Absolute claptrap..I want them to have freedom of choice whatever their choice..you don't. I am in no way happy that 'someone else' can make the choice for any woman and have stated so several times.

 

So why do you allow it to happen?

 

"No as I have clearly stated forcing a woman to wear a Burka is wrong and that in some circumstance the wearing of it is always wrong (cort, banks etc) and it shoud be removed"

 

So why do you allow it to happen.

 

For the sake of every God..I have repeatedly stated that i accept that it happens and that it is always wrong to force a woman or girl to wear a burka. As you say "some women and some school girls" so you have to accept that not all who wear a burka are forced to.

 

Some women are not forced to wear the Burka but some are so why do you allow it to happen?

 

It will for example not stop it in private homes, it wil not stop it in mosques, it will not stop it at private events..you will just push it underground, push the affected Muslim women even more into the background and under the control of their husbands and make it even more difficult to deal with.

 

Monitoring what goes on in the home behind closed doors is an issue but if a woman is forced to wear it against her will then there is always the option to call the authorities, schools would not be able to enforce it and if mosques allowed or enforced it they could be punished.

[Yukon]

Any comment on the latest British beheading JA?? Starting to become a trend- Lee Rigby, Edmonton and Davd Haines. Lets not pretend the majority of muslims have even attempted to protest against this because they havent- simply because they back the jihadists and the odd spokesman might condemn the bombings in the same way as Gerry Adams did refering to the IRA on behalf of Sinn Fein. The doctrine which is the Q'aran is being interpreted on dangerous levels we have not seen before. Do you really really believe that the problems are staying in Iraq and do you truly believe that all our anti-intergration freinds believe in 'peace'??

 

SO if you don't openly protest against extremists, you agree with them? That's it, rational thought simply can not compete with stupidity of that level

[JOHNNYAITCH]

Any comment on the latest British beheading JA??

 

A despicable inhuman act

 

Starting to become a trend- Lee Rigby, Edmonton and Davd Haines.

 

Well hardly a trend,..the chances of it happening to any individuasl are very slim..although one is one too many

 

Lets not pretend the majority of muslims have even attempted to protest against this because they havent-

 

have the majority of non-Muslims protested against it? Someone not avtively protesting is no indication of how they feel

 

simply because they back the jihadists

 

Show me some evidence of that please

 

and the odd spokesman might condemn the bombings in the same way as Gerry Adams did refering to the IRA on behalf of Sinn Fein.

 

So the majoirty of the irish supported the IRA bombings cos they didn't actively protest against them? Pathetic

 

the doctrine which is the Q'aran is being interpreted on dangerous levels we have not seen before.

 

We know that...at least you admit that it's just an interpretation

 

Do you really really believe that the problems are staying in Iraq and do you truly believe that all our anti-intergration freinds believe in 'peace'??

 

All of them? No I don't believe that all of them do. Who on earth belives that all of them believe in peace? i don't belive that all non-Mulsims believe in peace either. What a pointless question that is when the answer is obvious.

 

I suppose the perfectly innocent Muslim woman walking down the street taking her kids to school wearing a Burka is a supporter of the jihadists cos she is taking her kids to school instead of protesting against them, as well as being a threat to national security..still no answer on that one. I don't suppose there wil be now as it was and is a load of prejudiced garbage.

[JOHNNYAITCH]

Selective quotes again. I would say more a minority. There were a lot of angry protesters yet- but most did not resort to physical violence let's not dilute the two categorys of 'angry' and 'violent'

 

Coming form someone who completley misquotes that is comic gold of the first order

 

You said 50/50 chance of getting his head kicked in..you judged what the EDL members response would be not me

[aspins-revenge]

Just a few points to add on the migration issue

 

The majority of out-migrants are former in-migrants. So we're not replacing one group with another. They're often the same group, returning home.

 

Most in-migrants are from White European (protestant and catholic) backgrounds, mainly from EU accession countries, but also from Australia, Canada and the US.

 

Immigrant families do tend to have higher birth rates. However, historically, this tends to level out with non-immigrant families over a generation or two, as has been the case with the Irish and Indian groups.

 

The birth rate needs to be quite high as we have an ageing population and need young people and people of working age to contribute in taxes to maintain support for the older non-working population (pensions, health care, etc.).

 

For the record, these aren't politically correct points I'm making here. I'm of the view that immigration needs to be managed better than it has been. But, that immigration remains vital to the well-being of the economy and that cultural diversity in the workplace is a positive thing.

 

I will make one leftie point though. As long as small and large businesses provide work for illegal immigrants (at very low wages and no benefit to the tax payer, but to the business in terms of maximising profit with no nod in the direction of workers rights) then illegal immigration will continue.

[JOHNNYAITCH]

You factually chose to forget "Within the laws of the UK".........

 

Actually i didn't forget..I accidentally ommitted it when quoting

 

Still of that's all you've got. You clealry have no answer to that fact that you wnat to take away choice despite claiming to want to give chocie 100% of the time..you contradict yourself

 

 

So why do you allow it to happen?

 

In what way do I allow it to happen? The law should outlaw the forced wearing of the Burka. I don't want to allow it.

 

So why do you allow it to happen.

 

See above

 

 

Some women are not forced to wear the Burka but some are so why do you allow it to happen?

 

Why do you want to stop those who want to from wearing it despite claiming to want to give them 100% choice 100% of the time?

 

I don't want to allow it..forcing women to wear a burka should be illegal.

 

Monitoring what goes on in the home behind closed doors is an issue but if a woman is forced to wear it against her will then there is always the option to call the authorities, schools would not be able to enforce it and if mosques allowed or enforced it they could be punished.

 

Absolutley and i advocate that completely if someone is forced to wear a Burka, schools should not be able to enforce it, neither should mosques and so on..no one should

 

Nevertheless you want to take away the choice to wear it despite your claims to want to provide 100% choice 100% of the time (within UK law)..so let's keep it legal in UK law)...you clearly want to remove choice and have said so.

 

 

You can decide if the following is genuine and if the woman here is being honest or not..I have no reason to doubt any of it

 

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/02/04/france.burqa.ban/

[JOHNNYAITCH]

For the record, these aren't politically correct points I'm making here. I'm of the view that immigration needs to be managed better than it has been. But, that immigration remains vital to the well-being of the economy and that cultural diversity in the workplace is a positive thing.

 

Totally agree.

 

My point about the birth rate amongst immigrants wasn't aimed at highlighting it as being 'worse' than thought..just to highlight that it's a factor that may have to be built into any calculations. Doesn't bother me remotely as well managed immigration can only be good for us

 

I will make one leftie point though. As long as small and large businesses provide work for illegal immigrants (at very low wages and no benefit to the tax payer, but to the business in terms of maximising profit with no nod in the direction of workers rights) then illegal immigration will continue.

 

Agreed..but it's not just illegal but legal immigrants who are able to undercut the local workforce..all has to be managed better

[aspins-revenge]

There's some interesting data on the ONS site about average household size by ethnicity.

 

Although, such data doesn't take account of household size by ethnicity and generation.

 

For example, whilst I (white) live alone (single occupancy), my next door neighbours (Sikh) live in a house with seven people (multi-occupancy), but it's across three generations (2 grandparents, 2 parents and 3 kids).

[Paul6754]

Actually i didn't forget..I accidentally ommitted it when quoting

 

Still of that's all you've got. You clealry have no answer to that fact that you wnat to take away choice despite claiming to want to give chocie 100% of the time..you contradict yourself

 

"Within UK laws" is a major point to the meaning of the sentence and in situations like this it's always what is acceptable within the law. I would anticipate that a male or female would beak the law if they walked down the street wearing clothes that are all totally see through, the choice of what to wear (as with something like fee speech) is not absolute but freedom of choice is always 100% within the laws or you face the consequences.

 

"Accidentally ommitted" is the same as saying you forgot or you omitted it 'cause you didn't/don't understand the implication of the phrase to the sentence, hopefully it's clear now.

[JOHNNYAITCH]

"Within UK laws" is a major point to the meaning of the sentence and in situations like this it's always what is acceptable within the law.

 

Of course it is but my point is that the law should allow the weraring of the Burka but not the forced wearing of it

 

I would anticipate that a male or female would beak the law if they walked down the street wearing clothes that are all totally see through, the choice of what to wear (as with something like fee speech) is not absolute but freedom of choice is always 100% within the laws or you face the consequences.

 

Of course it is. And as i have repestedly stated (and no doubt will have to do so again) the law should allow the wearing of the Burka in most circumstance but not the dorced wearing of itr

 

"Accidentally ommitted" is the same as saying you forgot or you omitted it 'cause you didn't/don't understand the implication of the phrase to the sentence, hopefully it's clear now.

[Paul6754]

Of course it is but my point is that the law should allow the weraring of the Burka but not the forced wearing of it

 

Of course it is. And as i have repestedly stated (and no doubt will have to do so again) the law should allow the wearing of the Burka in most circumstance but not the dorced wearing of itr

 

We'll agree to disagree as usual. At least you came around to accepting that some women are forced to wear the Burka (once it was pointed out) which I believe weren't there in your initial comments on this subject.

[JOHNNYAITCH]

"Accidentally ommitted" is the same as saying you forgot or you omitted it 'cause you didn't/don't understand the implication of the phrase to the sentence, hopefully it's clear now

 

You sink to new levels of claptrap with that

 

I have not come around to anything..it's rather pathetic to draw an inference from absence...like Carl suggesting the absence of protest against something means you agree with it. The only one to change his view on this is you who now accepts that some women choose to wear the Burka.

 

I've had enough of this..fed up of having to repeat myself to people who don't want to listen even when it's there in black and white

[Paul6754]

You sink to new levels of claptrap with that

 

Not sunk at all!!!....and the statement is fair based on your reply

 

I have not come around to anything..it's rather pathetic to draw an inference from absence...like Carl suggesting the absence of protest against something means you agree with it. The only one to change his view on this is you who now accepts that some women choose to wear the Burka.

 

Be honest with yourself. Drawing inference from absence is not pathetic, it's quite logical sometimes as in this case when a phrase which is important to the meaning of a sentence in a debate is left out and it usually means the point hasn't been grasped. My view hasn't changed at all, you should know what it is and why it is.

 

I've had enough of this..fed up of having to repeat myself to people who don't want to listen even when it's there in black and white

 

The only one who can stop you repeating yourself is you.....good luck with that one.