The War on Multiculturalism

[Gob]

David Cameron launches a devastating attack today on 30 years of multiculturalism in Britain, warning it is fostering extremist ideology and directly contributing to home-grown Islamic terrorism.

Signalling a radical departure from the strategies of previous governments, Mr Cameron says that Britain must adopt a policy of "muscular liberalism" to enforce the values of equality, law and freedom of speech across all parts of society.

He warns Muslim groups that if they fail to endorse women's rights or promote integration, they will lose all government funding. All immigrants to Britain must speak English and schools will be expected to teach the country's common culture.

The new policy will be outlined today in a speech to an international security conference in Munich and will form the basis of the Government's new anti-terrorism strategy to be published later this year.

But his remarks have already infuriated Muslim groups, as they come on the day of what is expected to be the largest demonstration so far of anti-Muslim sentiment being planned by the English Defence League. They accused Mr Cameron of placing an unfair onus on minority communities to integrate, while failing to emphasise how the wider community can help immigrants feel more welcome in Britain. They suggested his speech was part of a concerted attack on multiculturalism from centre-right European governments and pointed out he was making it in Germany – where Chancellor Angela Merkel recently made a similar attack.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 05074.html

At fucking last....

[Scooter]

Are all Britons going to be expected to endorse women's rights, or only immigrants? Are conservative Christian institutions, for example, who treat women like second class citizens and expect women to be nothing but baby factories who should remain in their kitchens barefoot, going to be told that they need to fall in line? Are those same groups who are intent on denying basic human rights to gay and lesbian citizens going to be told the same?

[Gob]

I certainly hope so...

[Gob]

Here's the affirmation I took when I became an Aussie;

Citizenship Pledge 1
(Oath)
From this time forward, under God, I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people, whose democratic beliefs I share, whose rights and liberties I respect, and whose laws I will uphold and obey.

Citizenship Pledge 2
(Affirmation)
From this time forward, I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people, whose democratic beliefs I share, whose rights and liberties I respect, and whose laws I will uphold and obey.

[Scooter]

Excuse me if I don't hold my breath waiting for the Conservative Party to be espousing such policies, especially since this charge of "illiberalism" only ever seems to conveniently be pulled out to use against Muslims by folks from that quarter.

[Gob]

Ok, you're excused..

[Sean]

Great idea, would do a world of good in the UK. Let's just see if they follow it through...

Learning the language and integrating should always have been the most basic requirements for moving to any country. If a country's culture doesn't suit you don't expect them to change... find a country that does suit you!

As the then Education Minister Brendan Nelson said here in 2005:

If you want to be an Australian, if you want to raise your children in Australia, we fully expect those children to be taught and to accept Australian values and beliefs," he said.

"We want them to understand our history and our culture, the extent to which we believe in mateship and giving another person a fair go, and basically if people don't want to support and accept and adopt and teach Australian values then, they should clear off.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Are all Britons going to be expected to endorse women's rights, or only immigrants? Are conservative Christian institutions, for example, who treat women like second class citizens and expect women to be nothing but baby factories who should remain in their kitchens barefoot, going to be told that they need to fall in line? Are those same groups who are intent on denying basic human rights to gay and lesbian citizens going to be told the same?

Hello again Scooter,

Please direct me to information confirming the existence of "conservative Christian institutions.... who treat women like second class citizens and expect women to be nothing but baby factories who should remain...etc etc".

Please define basic human rights that these same groups deny to homosexuals (a term which applies to both male and female persons). If you refer to marriage then I understand your point - you have at least one. However, I don't know of any groups which (for example) decree that homosexuals may not have drivers licenses, education, freedom of worship, the vote, home insurance (or insurance of any kind), access to government services... etc etc.

Thank you
Meade

[rubato]

The word "multiculturalism" appears to have a very malleable meaning depending on just who needed a stick to hit something with. For the most part it has always meant "liberalism".

yrs,
rubato

[Gob]

So, when a white person holds objectionable views, racist views for instance, we rightly condemn them. But when equally unacceptable views or practices come from someone who isn’t white, we’ve been too cautious frankly – frankly, even fearful – to stand up to them.

Text of Cameron's speech

[dgs49]

Don't take this the wrong way, but FUCK THE MUSLIMS!

If you leave your home country and emigrate somewhere else, it should be presumable that you are willing to adopt the language and predominant culture of the country you land in. If not, STAY THE FUCK WHERE YOU WERE. If it is your desire to establish a little mini-incubator of the culture you just left, GO THE FUCK BACK!

If it appears that you are trying to change or denigrate or assault the prevailing culture in your new home - as is often the case with Wahabi Muslims, the country where you reside has every right to deport you.

Just sayin'.

[Andrew D]

Well, General, you might check out Biola University, which claims to offer "Biblically Centered Education". Its "Cook School of Intercultural Studies" publishes the "Covenant News," whose editor, Jim Rudd, claims that homosexuality is a crime and should be treated as such by civil authorities.

In fact, numerous States had laws criminalizing homosexual behavior -- even in private between consenting adults -- until the Supreme Court held them unconstitutional. (And the case came up on appeal from a prosecution for that "crime," so the laws were not just leftovers from bygone days.) Here you can read how various prominent conservative Christians (and others) reacted to that decision. Although many conservative reactions make complaints on constitutional grounds, it is quite clear that they think that criminalizing homosexual behavior is not only within the constitutional powers of the States but also the right thing to do.

If many conservative Christians think that homosexual sex should be made (or kept) a crime, does it not follow that many conservative Christians think that homosexuals should not have equal rights? It seems clear to me people who think that people who engage in homosexual sex should be imprisoned are pretty likely also to think that they "may not have drivers licenses, education, freedom of worship, the vote, home insurance (or insurance of any kind), access to government services..."

[Gob]

I think Meade was referring to the UK, as in the article, which does not have the extremism of American religion.

[dgs49]

I would guess that most "Conservative Christians" consider homosexual sodomy to be morally objectionable, and categorically deny that any person is compelled by factors beyond their personal control to commit acts of sodomy.

Indeed, "Conservative Christians" acknowledge that the people who engage in such practices are God's children, just as we all are.

But the number of "Conservative Christians" who would advocate (perversely) putting people in jail for committing acts of homosexual sodomy would be quite small. Trending rapidly to zero.

About the only thing "Conservative Christians" would hope to deny to people who habitually engage in homosexual sodomy is the "right" to have access to the legal institution of marriage.

Although I probably fit into that category of "Conservative Christians" (politically, if not behaviorally), my personal view is that the State can recognize any relationships it wants to and call them anything at all, even "marriage." I was married by a priest, not a JP.

[Scooter]

double post

[Scooter]

But the number of "Conservative Christians" who would advocate (perversely) putting people in jail for committing acts of homosexual sodomy would be quite small. Trending rapidly to zero.

Hmm. And yet three of them happened to be members of the SCOTUS (no question having more recently been joined by two more).

If you are claiming that Justices Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas (and I would be the farm that Justices Alito and Roberts would have voted the same way, given the chance) were so completely out of step with the American people in their opinions in Lawrence v. Texas as to be characterized as "perverse", then perhaps some progress is being made.

[MajGenl.Meade]

I think Meade was referring to the UK, as in the article, which does not have the extremism of American religion.

Thank you Gob. That was the subject and (I presumed) Scooter was referring to the UK making 'conservative Christians who...." etc toe the line

Andrew, I have little interest in Bile University. It may be that some people, Christians and non, who believe that homosexuality is immoral behaviour, would deny drivers' licenses to homosexuals. But it is (a) beside the UK point (which I note Scooter has failed to substantiate) and (2) fallacious reasoning and (iii) very silly indeed

Cheers
Meade

[Scooter]

double post

[Scooter]

I most certainly was speaking about the UK and I stand behind my characterization 1000%. And i should have known it was a mistake to attempt once again to engage you when you're into your passive agressive bit on this or any other subject. Shame on me for getting sucked in.

[Andrew D]

I don'ty know, Scooter. Meade's request for specific examples to back up your generalization does not strike me as unreasonable.

And in fairness to Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas, one can take the position that a State has the power to do something without taking the position that the State ought to do that thing. In Griswold v. Connecticut, for example, the dissenting justices expressed their disdain for a State statute but voted to uphold it anyway on the ground that nothing in the Constitution prevented the State from enacting it.