Islamaphobia Legislation (UK)

[StriderX]

The current Left is almost wholly aligned with Globalism these days. It doesn't need to be and hasn't always been in the past. But the current Left / Globalist de facto alliance makes support for Islam (itself a globalist doctrine) a logical outcome. Plus there's a lot of money and support that comes with getting in bed with Turkish imams, etc. The goal of the Far Left is power. Fascism has always been an ideology of pragmatism. There's a globalist v. nationalist split in the Right as well but in the Right the nationalists are in the majority though perhaps not in control (see Trump's support base vs. the neocon-Zionist leadership in the Republican party and its talking heads). But in the Left it's overwhelmingly globalist and I can't remember the last time I had a real conversation with a non-globalist Leftists. Maybe a year ago at least. They're like hen's teeth.

Because globalism has catapulted the majority of the planet out of abject poverty, no one is going to argue against it after that except bigots who thought it was only for globalism for rich people.

So it’s no surprise that the far left think it’s cool now, as ideas of nationalism make little sense in that sphere anyway. (Ignoring the fact that’s nationalism is a ‘leftist’ idea in its basic form, putting a largely arbitrary group identity above the individual as a whole is not liberty in any stretch working inside the Americans silly unidirectional politics)

I think a lot of people who think that they’re right wing are only appearing as such because they’re picking and choosing things they ‘feel’ belongs and whatever fits the current argument they’re having. There’s also the peer pressure argument, that people are only saying they believe in things publicly because it falsely makes them aligned with their friend group (which is honestly ******* sad).

The sunk social cost of reaffirming things they don’t actually believe in surely becomes impossible to reconcile. The only way out is to abandon everything they know or start believing in it.

 

[Nasher]

The majority of the planet is Asia and Africa, who are probably worse off than they have ever been. Because now globalism has also wrecked their habitat.

 

[StriderX]

The majority of the planet is Asia and Africa, who are probably worse off than they have ever been. Because now globalism has also wrecked their habitat.

What?

Human habitat is an utterly abstract thing, we survive in deserts, marsh, maritime, jungles, tundra and ultimately our own. The entire planet could be a barren **** hole, as long as we had the ability to survive, it would still be our habitat. (Literally have had people live in space for 20 odd years)

You can’t look a Chinese person in the face and say that they are much worse off compared to Mao era policies or when imperial Japan was literally raping them.

 

[Scort]

I hope none of them do, frankly.

Likewise, but they can't do it for one or two, they have to be fair and offer the same level of protection to all - maybe even to atheists and agnostics. With any luck, a believer couldn't criticize a non-believer and vice-versa, so all talk of religion will be outlawed by this new legislation

Face it though, the UK are likely to just offer protection to the most violent followers, for fear of repercussions.

 

[Hagar]

Because globalism has catapulted the majority of the planet out of abject poverty, no one is going to argue against it after that except bigots who thought it was only for globalism for rich people.

I'd argue against that on several counts. The asian/african subsistance farmer producing only goods that he and his neighbours need may have seemed to be poor to the outside world, but what did he need cash money for when he was able to support his family mainly by barter or with a small amount of money. Glabalisation came along and saw a lot of land that could be used for cash crops, coffee, tobacco, soya etc. Then the farmer needed to sell these crops on the market with fluctuating prices and only one or two buyers. He needs money to pay for the items he used to grow or barter for before and also for seed to plant next year. So he has become a consumer, richer in cash terms maybe or turnover but probably no richer overall.

I tend to right of centre thinking normally, but I cannot see that everyone or even a majority of the planet is always helped by global industry decision making.

 

[StriderX]

I'd argue against that on several counts. The asian/african subsistance farmer producing only goods that he and his neighbours need may have seemed to be poor to the outside world, but what did he need cash money for when he was able to support his family mainly by barter or with a small amount of money. Glabalisation came along and saw a lot of land that could be used for cash crops, coffee, tobacco, soya etc. Then the farmer needed to sell these crops on the market with fluctuating prices and only one or two buyers. He needs money to pay for the items he used to grow or barter for before and also for seed to plant next year. So he has become a consumer, richer in cash terms maybe or turnover but probably no richer overall.

I tend to right of centre thinking normally, but I cannot see that everyone or even a majority of the planet is always helped by global industry decision making.

That farmer better get a better job then, what’s that lovely right wing saying? Something to do with bootstraps and pulling them up?

You can’t complain about a way of life and support capitalism in the same breadth, people have been forced to work where the jobs were since jobs were a thing.

Those farmers are being replaced by mega farms in arable parts of Siberia with the usage of automated equipment.

It is a objective truth that Chinese people, are as a whole far, far wealthier than they were a hundred years ago. Just because you can point at 0.000000001% of them as being ****** over is irrelevant and purposely misleading. The gist of your argument centers on some philosophical argument against fiat transactions, I’m not even going to bother with that.

 

[Caracus2k]

Cant have been very popular amongst muslims if it couldnt even get support in Bradford.

The section of the populace that would vote for such a party (i.e almost exclusively Muslims) is currently too small to make voting for such a party worthwhile, its a wasted vote.

So for now the group that would vote for such a party will predominately vote for parties that suit at least some of their agenda or pander to them (so predominately Labour at the moment).

But your are a fool of you think that wouldn't suddenly change if the relevant voting block became large enough to secure victories in national elections.

 

[Amnesia]

The section of the populace that would vote for such a party (i.e almost exclusively Muslims) is currently too small to make voting for such a party worthwhile, its a wasted vote.

So for now the group that would vote for such a party will predominately vote for parties that suit at least some of their agenda or pander to them (so predominately Labour at the moment).

But your are a fool of you think that wouldn't suddenly change if the relevant voting block became large enough to secure victories in national elections.

err that party doesnt even exist anymore, it didnt get the support of the muslims.
feel free to carry on scare mongering though

 

[LabR@t]

The majority of the planet is Asia and Africa, who are probably worse off than they have ever been. Because now globalism has also wrecked their habitat.

Lol

Humans have never had it so good.

 

[LabR@t]

It makes no sense. Islam is pretty far right when you look at the rules it wants people to follow. Yet the far left defend it above social issues, which they also supposedly support.

They will protest about stuff like the apparent gender pay gap, but say nothing about the burka and how many women are pressured (sometimes threatened) in to covering up in public. They can't have it both ways.

Tbh it's the left, lbg* Rudy need to fear Islam the most.

 

[Caracus2k]

err that party doesnt even exist anymore, it didnt get the support of the muslims.
feel free to carry on scare mongering though

Its almost as if you didn't read all of my post?

In which I specifically outlined exactly why such a political party (currently) wouldn't have much success as their polices would only appeal to one specific group and there isn't (currently) enough people in that group to form a voting block large enough to be be relevant in a fptp voting system.

 

[TehJumpingJawa]

We should all be equal under the law and there shouldn't be laws favouring some groups over others.

My only addition to that being that there should be only one law.

As far as I'm concerned people can believe whatever denomination of religious nonsense that they like, but trying to enforce these beliefs upon others, whether or not they're of the same faith, is a big no no.
'Sharia law' is an example of this, and as such has no legitimacy and its practise undermines the law of the land.

 

[enkoda]

My only addition to that being that there should be only one law.

As far as I'm concerned people can believe whatever denomination of religious nonsense that they like, but trying to enforce these beliefs upon others, whether or not they're of the same faith, is a big no no.
'Sharia law' is an example of this, and as such has no legitimacy and its practise undermines the law of the land.

You don't have to wait for Sharia law to be implemented, Islam has already begun to impose itself on us:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/police-intervene-in-battle-of-offensive-china-pigs-1157337.html

 

[ANDREW GREEN]

It sound like lip service to be honest: 'the possibility of creating legal instruments to tackle it'

They're not going to start locking people up for analysing the moral ambiguity of Muhammed's actions or whether a certain Islamic ritual is ethical in the 21st century. You'll be free to question whether Muhammed who's life wasn't recorded until 200 years after his supposed death was a real person. The police are not going to be knocking on Richard Dawkins door with an arrest warrant.

To me the whole crux of the seems to be stereotypical discriminatory generalisations:

Islamophobia however goes much beyond this
and incorporates racial hatred, intolerance, prejudice,
discrimination and stereotyping.

I have never heard an explanation given as to why so called 'islamophobia' is racism that would not also implicitly make opposition to and/or criticism of a wide range of other beliefs systems racism aswell (including non religious and quasi religious ones).

Because certain people use religious intollerance to mask racial discrimination against people from a Muslim background. I'm originally from West Yorkshire where you have white and Pakistani communites and used to walk past a piece of graffiti that said "Muslims Stink of Curry". That mentality alongside the mentality of the EDL who marched through Muslim communities, smashing up Pakistani take aways, trying to get into fights with locals, disrespectfully walking through mosques without taking your dirty shoes off and generally trying to terrorise the local populace all while doing Nazi salutes. None of that has anything to do with those people who have a disagreement with an outdated religion but don't openly discriminate against it's observers.

Then there's the like of Tommy Robinson claiming 'I'm not racist, I just have a problem with Islam'. Then he reports on all the crimes of Muslims around the world, while never looking the crimes of those of people from other backgrounds. Is it not a blatant discriminatory agenda? Grooming gangs are a major problem within the Pakistani community too but in turn there's sexual deviants all over the place. Go in any 'Adult Chat Room' to try to talk to a woman and you're bombarded with Pedos. You'll get some vigilantes trying to meet them and publically out them. Where as Tommy Robinson doesn't seem to have a problem with the homegrown Pedo.

I have no love for Islamic Foundamentalism and believe it needs tackling. Removing funding for Islamic schools maybe be a start as they're certainly anti-integration. But really Islam can be good and bad depending on the outlook of the individual much like Christianity. Both can be used as an excuse for violence and conquest. Both can be used as a tool to be charitable and kind and forgiving. Narcissists are likely to embrace the former and empaths the latter. Ofcourse it can be used as a crutch and if it can be a source of hope, in the

 

[sinwave]

Then there's the like of Tommy Robinson claiming 'I'm not racist, I just have a problem with Islam'. Then he reports on all the crimes of Muslims around the world, while never looking the crimes of those of people from other backgrounds. Is it not a blatant discriminatory agenda? Grooming gangs are a major problem within the Pakistani community too but in turn there's sexual deviants all over the place. Go in any 'Adult Chat Room' to try to talk to a woman and you're bombarded with Pedos. You'll get some vigilantes trying to meet them and publically out them. Where as Tommy Robinson doesn't seem to have a problem with the homegrown Pedo.

given the premise that muslim rape gangs are over represented in overall rape gang statistics relative to the muslim portion of the population, it wouldn't be particularly productive use of his time to report on the non muslim rape gangs.

 

[ANDREW GREEN]

given the premise that muslim rape gangs are over represented in overall rape gang statistics relative to the muslim portion of the population, it wouldn't be particularly productive use of his time to report on the non muslim rape gangs.

In grooming gangs specifically but not in child sexual abuse as a whole though:

The vast majority of child sex offenders in England and Wales are male, with men representing 98% of all defendants in 2015/16, and white, with whites representing 85% of convicted child sex offenders and 86% of the general population in 2011.

 

[sinwave]

In grooming gangs specifically but not in child sexual abuse as a whole though:

The vast majority of child sex offenders in England and Wales are male, with men representing 98% of all defendants in 2015/16, and white, with whites representing 85% of convicted child sex offenders and 86% of the general population in 2011.

accepting your statistic at face value, does this in any way exclude the man from taking up a single issue politically which affects his community specifically?

edit: let's say invalidate rather than exclude.

 

[sinwave]

looking at that statistic again, for argument's sake, assuming that convictions flawlessly determine guilt (untrue), and assuming that white does not mean muslim (untrue), this would mean that white people within england and wales are underrepresented in child sexual offenses and there is a potential 15% of child sex offenses committed by muslims as compared to a 5% muslim population in england and wales.

edit: tidied up english.

 

[ANDREW GREEN]

accepting your statistic at face value, does this in any way exclude the man from taking up a single issue politically which affects his community specifically?

edit: let's say invalidate rather than exclude.

Peadophilia from whites also affects severely his community and every community. But let's pretend for a minute it doesn't - it does - but let's pretend that for a minute. Let's say he's only looking out for an issue close to his personal community.

Then why does he fly out to Palestinian areas and portray the Palestinians in a negative light? Why does he fly out to Italy to portray immigrants in a negative light? Yet never, ever looks at the crimes or wrong doings of people from a white background.

He's sinister and he is a racist, he'll argue with people 'can you tell me how I'm racist exactly' because he knows they aren't smart enough to pull him up on his behaviour.

 

[sinwave]

Peadophilia from whites also affects severely his community and every community.

this is about proportion and what would be productive about robinson joining in with the consensus that paedophilia is bad in general when his community is disproportionately affected by the issue he is actually publicising?

excuse edit for second part.

Then why does he fly out to Palestinian areas and portray the Palestinians in a negative light? Why does he fly out to Italy to portray immigrants in a negative light? Yet never, ever looks at the crimes or wrong doings of people from a white background.

i don't keep up with robinson and I don't know the nature of his media produced in palestine. i think I'll have to make too many assumptions to comment specifically on this, but I do understand he's opposed to islam in general and i'm sure any variety and big impact media will help bring attention to the core campaign.