Multiculturalism is ruining equality before the law.

[Yerda]

In this instance I didn't find what Farage had to say objectionable. Rarity.

If those who did the murdering at Charlie Hebdo can incite us to be as offensive as possible to the Muslim community at large I think they would have achieved their aim.

From: Between the Hammer and the Anvil

"Don't Al Qaeda realise that killing people like this will increase hatred towards Muslims and lead inevitably to more violence against them?"

To which the answer is, Of course they do. That's exactly why they kill people like this in the first place.

Maybe I'm reading the wrong papers and speaking to the wrong people, but it's incredible to me that we can be fourteen years into a supposed war on terrorism, and it still doesn't seem to be common knowledge that Al Qaeda et al desperately want us all to fear, hate and fight each other as much as possible.

 

[Ultimatum]

Great. And none of that actually has to do with multiculturalism. It has to do with immigration policy. To have immigration policy you must first have multiculturalism to a degree but multiculturalism is simply a culture that has several cultures within it. Different religions, languages, foods, dress, ect. You might as well say that you are irritated at boats for allowing them to come across on them.

I am afraid that our thoughts are not connecting. But immigration, and we are talking on a large scale here, is increasingly dividing communities within societies for the sake of multiculturalism.

All of your problems are not with multiculturalism but with other problems. That is why I don't understand your anti-multicultrualism.

I'm not anti-multiculturalism. But we must, as modern, progressive, Western societies, assert our common law and culture over those who come to our countries. It is simple common sense.

 

[Midnight Rain]

I am afraid that our thoughts are not connecting. But immigration, and we are talking on a large scale here, is increasingly dividing communities within societies for the sake of multiculturalism.

It isn't for the sake of multiculturalism.

I'm not anti-multiculturalism. But we must, as modern, progressive, Western societies, assert our common law and culture over those who come to our countries. It is simple common sense.

And when has multiculturalism ever stated we need to amend the laws? The point of multicultural societies is that you live in a semi-tolerant government where you are free to your own culture but under a secular law of the land. No culture has a free pass on it. Biased or discriminatory laws are often seen as wrong but I assume you aren't inferring that you implement those.

 

[Father Heathen]

Multi-culturalism only works when there is mutual respect and tolerance.

 

[oldbadger]

People should have the right to offend. And this implies that there are no limits.
It's hypocritical that the media are able to show a picture of Jesus, but are scared and weak at the knees when it comes to showing a depiction of Mohammed.

Thoughts and comments?

Hi....
Ummmm..... No.
Your analogy of Jesus images which Christians enjoy, and Muhammad images which Muslims do not..... is askew.
You want limitless offensiveness? Do you want our children to be limitlessly offensive? They'll copy you, you know.
Look, if 3rd rate comedians and comics need to stretch to taunting, offensive, inciteful and harassing speech and expression to get noticed, doesn't that tell you something?
Let's teach our children to be decent and discreet, always looking for ways to reduce contention and conflict.
Your way is the conflict way. In my opinion.

 

[Father Heathen]

Hi....
Ummmm..... No.
Your analogy of Jesus images which Christians enjoy, and Muhammad images which Muslims do not..... is askew.
You want limitless offensiveness? Do you want our children to be limitlessly offensive? They'll copy you, you know.
Look, if 3rd rate comedians and comics need to stretch to taunting, offensive, inciteful and harassing speech and expression to get noticed, doesn't that tell you something?
Let's teach our children to be decent and discreet, always looking for ways to reduce contention and conflict.
Your way is the conflict way. In my opinion.

By what criteria would a government use to deem something "offensive" in order to ban it? Some people consider homosexual or inter-racial couples holding hands, women without head coverings, secular music, and dogs in public areas to be offensive. You suggest the government crack down on all that?
Most adults get along fine by simply ignoring or avoiding things they consider offensive rather than attempt to restrict and control others.

 

[dust1n]

I have got to disagree with you on this point as this is not the case in the United Kingdom.
Over here our doors are open to an unlimited number of immigrants (this is multiculturalism) at a time when large sectors of our market towns and cities are non-English speaking areas, we have a huge oversupply in the unskilled labour market, and also at a time where 1,000,000 British youths cannot get a job. And now we are extending this hand of "come on over" every day.

If Brits are so against multiculturalism, I don't see why they attempted to conquer hundreds of other cultures in the first place.

 

[Yerda]

If Brits are so against multiculturalism, I don't see why they attempted to conquer hundreds of other cultures in the first place.

To get rid of them. Dope.

 

[Drolefille]

I absolutely agree with this point.

The point then, is that multiculturalism and immigration - while they do function together - are not the same thing. You ban immigration today and you will still have the same diversity in the UK that you do now. Multiculturalism is as much saying that it is important to preserve Scottish, Irish and Welsh or that having kilts as a military (or whatever) garment is acceptable as it is allowing Sikhs to wear turbans when they serve in the military or printing Arabic forms for public aid.

 

[Laika]

If you are an Economist, you certainl studied some law subjects at college. Your speech is not juridic.
You can't speak about laws without using a juridic way of reasoning.

Laws are made on the basis of scientific reasoning. Law is a science: it doesn't care about people's emotions.
Religions are not living beings. Historical characters are dead.
so anyone can express their opinion about religions and\or historical characters.
because they will not feel insulted.

so in this case, the freedom of speech is

Third parties have no rights. It's like someone insulted you and you decided not to report them.
do I have the right to report them? I don't. I don't have any rights

I did a year of economics and the name "Red economist" stuck, so I haven't touch philosophy of law (beyond a quick look into Marxist jurisprudence). A friend of mine studied law in the year above me and so I often give a historical perspective on things whereas he gives the legal one. I confess that I am not familiar with the term "juridic".

I have to disagree on the strongest possible terms; law cannot be a science (in the recognizable sense). it is made by human beings and so emotions are directly involved, whether we like it or not. Nor are laws for dealing with the past, but for the present and the social conflicts. Whilst historical figures may not have rights because they are dead, the people who express outrage at his or her depiction do. equally, any system of law based entirely on logic is almost bound to head into absurd extremes, such as "free speech without limits" or "limiting free speech to not cause offense", neither of which actually reflect the 'human' content in human rights. people are flawed and fallible, and so are the laws we create.
The balance between the two is a compromise which is a subjective, value based judgement arising from political conflict. Legal systems and rights evolve over time. Our conception of rights does not wholly originate from objective ethical standards. Philosophically, I'm heavily relativistic which makes legal reasoning difficult because it requires absolute ethical standards in order to make laws.

 

[Estro Felino]

I have to disagree on the strongest possible terms; law cannot be a science (in the recognizable sense). it is made by human beings and so emotions are directly involved, whether we like it or not. Nor are laws for dealing with the past, but for the present and the social conflicts. Whilst historical figures may not have rights because they are dead, the people who express outrage at his or her depiction do. equally, any system of law based entirely on logic is almost bound to head into absurd extremes, such as "free speech without limits" or "limiting free speech to not cause offense", neither of which actually reflect the 'human' content in human rights. people are flawed and fallible, and so are the laws we create.
The balance between the two is a compromise which is a subjective, value based judgement arising from political conflict. Legal systems and rights evolve over time. Our conception of rights does not wholly originate from objective ethical standards. Philosophically, I'm heavily relativistic which makes legal reasoning difficult because it requires absolute ethical standards in order to make laws.

Free speech IS limitless, when physical beings are not involved.
You know, in my country, freedom of press and freedom of speech are sacred. Journalists don't spare anyone and anything, and sometimes they are ruthless. They are even compared to jackals, because they speculate on people's emotions and lives.
but the law protects them.

the law guarantees freedom, and thank God we have a secular law.
maybe you would like a return to medieval mentalities

 

[Bunyip]

With respect, I don't think this is a problem of multiculturalism per se - but more reflective of how badly we manage multiculturalism. Rather like when people want to ban Christmas stuff for fear it will offend - why be offended with how others celebrate significant events?

We need better tools to govern multicultural societies, but multiculturalism is an absolute benefit.

 

[Ultimatum]

And when has multiculturalism ever stated we need to amend the laws? The point of multicultural societies is that you live in a semi-tolerant government where you are free to your own culture but under a secular law of the land. No culture has a free pass on it. Biased or discriminatory laws are often seen as wrong but I assume you aren't inferring that you implement those.

I am not sure about the country you live in but, certainly, in the United Kingdom the media have refused to show the cover of the recent Charlie Hebdo magazine. The public broadcasters have been told by certain people that they cannot show these pictures because they may cause offense.
It may not seem like much, but if we do not have the backbone to stand up for ourselves, then we are going down a very vulnerable path.

Hi....
Ummmm..... No.
Your analogy of Jesus images which Christians enjoy, and Muhammad images which Muslims do not..... is askew.

Why is it? Christian doctrine allows depictions of Jesus non-believers. Islamic doctrine allows depictions Mohammed by non-believers.

You want limitless offensiveness? Do you want our children to be limitlessly offensive? They'll copy you, you know.
Look, if 3rd rate comedians and comics need to stretch to taunting, offensive, inciteful and harassing speech and expression to get noticed, doesn't that tell you something?
Let's teach our children to be decent and discreet, always looking for ways to reduce contention and conflict.
Your way is the conflict way. In my opinion.

I will not teach my children to be offensive. I will teach them that they can be offensive if they so wish and not fear for prosecution.

The point then, is that multiculturalism and immigration - while they do function together - are not the same thing.

I understand. The point is that multiculturalism is a by-product of immigration. And the more immigration you have, the stronger these different cultures become and the more they dilute the primary, nation culture that governs our borders.

 

[Ultimatum]

We need better tools to govern multicultural societies, but multiculturalism is an absolute benefit.

Absolutely.
But we cannot let these other cultures take precedence over our own beliefs.
And we certainly cannot uphold mass-immigration!

 

[Yerda]

You know, in my country, freedom of press and freedom of speech are sacred.

Just so you know, Italy ranked 49th in the world in the 2014 press freedom index. Just below Niger.

Reporters Without Borders

 

[Ultimatum]

In this instance I didn't find what Farage had to say objectionable. Rarity.
.

Rarity? What do you think he says that is objectionable?

 

[Bunyip]

Absolutely.
But we cannot let these other cultures take precedence over our own beliefs.
And we certainly cannot uphold mass-immigration!

They don't need to. We can keep our cultures and traditions, so can others. Mass migration was indeed painfully shortsighted, with that I would not argue.

Importing cheap migrant workers was frankly an entirely racist solution that we should have moved past.

 

[Ultimatum]

They don't need to. We can keep our cultures and traditions, so can others. Mass migration was indeed painfully shortsighted, with that I would not argue.

Would you say the media being scared of showing the Charlie Hebdo cover is "keeping our culture and tradition" of satire and having a laugh about something?

 

[Bunyip]

Hell no. They should have publjshed it.

 

[oldbadger]

By what criteria would a government use to deem something "offensive" in order to ban it? Some people consider homosexual or inter-racial couples holding hands, women without head coverings, secular music, and dogs in public areas to be offensive. You suggest the government crack down on all that?
Most adults get along fine by simply ignoring or avoiding things they consider offensive rather than attempt to restrict and control others.

Very good. In fact, some members have recently pointed out how offended they feel when told 'Bless you', and stuff like that. I know a neighbour who feels massively offended when she sees bright young girls wearing summer outfits and swim costumes.
But....... (my posts gotta have a 'but')........ our media is inhibited from using a varied collection of words, the first coming to mind being 'n*****', in fact when I watch US programs like bait-car, where conversation between some of the car-thieves can be heard, some of them address each other as 'n*****' and yet such words are blanked out on our subtitles (we can't understand you lot! )

Now why do you think that is? I can think of lots of those words. I'll tell you what I think it's all about...... Countries are really really worried about upsetting a huge mass of people through indiscretion, harassment, taunts, incitement and other reasons.

Bingo! Double standards. Hypocrisy. Carelessness......... about the smaller minorities?