09 Jan 08
Unless Prime Minister Gordon Brown does something to slow, even reverse, Muslim immigration, Britain, as we've known it, will be lost and radical Islam will remake Britain in its own image, writes Cal Thomas in today's Washington Times:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20080109/COMMENTARY09/116525974/1012/COMMENTARY
Debate: What are the best ways Great Britain could change it's immigration laws to prevent the flood of non-Christians into the country?
09 Jan 08
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterCal Thomas is an idiot.
Unless Prime Minister Gordon Brown does something to slow, even reverse, Muslim immigration, Britain, as we've known it, will be lost and radical Islam will remake Britain in its own image, writes Cal Thomas in today's Washington Times:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20080109/COMMENTARY09/116525974/1012/COMMENTARY
Debate: What are ...[text shortened]... n could change it's immigration laws to prevent the flood of non-Christians into the country?
09 Jan 08
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterThats called Racism DSR & its also against the EU freedom off movement / employemnt laws.
Unless Prime Minister Gordon Brown does something to slow, even reverse, Muslim immigration, Britain, as we've known it, will be lost and radical Islam will remake Britain in its own image, writes Cal Thomas in today's Washington Times:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20080109/COMMENTARY09/116525974/1012/COMMENTARY
Debate: What are ...[text shortened]... n could change it's immigration laws to prevent the flood of non-Christians into the country?
Every EU citerzen in a EU country is allowed by law to move / work anywhere in the EU, thats fact.
By targetting Muslims as you suggest / impley, thats racisim and against the human rights off a EU citezern (as well as breck EU law)
Their are many Muslims in Europe, to say to a French Muslim for example, that you canlt come to UK is illegial.
I find it funny that you as a American would be worried about Britain being lost...very funny.....maybe you should worry about US immigration policies
I donlt think you even have a basic understanding of British culature, if you did then you would know that the UK is one off the most tolerate places in the world.
I place I do love
For many years many types off immigration have occured that have enriched and add to the UK as a whole.
For example, Curry is very big in UK, this was bought over by Indian / Bengali / Paksiatni immigrates.
If you saying that radical Islam should be stopped, then I can understand that, but how do you know wheather a givern Muslims is radical ?
Its impossiable by just looking at them.
What you also fail to understand is that to get British nationality for an immigrate, they do have to learn and pass a test which takes into consideration Britains history etc.
I think thats a great idea for intergartion.
09 Jan 08
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterNo change in immigration laws needed. A lot of what is happening in Britain can, I believe, be put down to a self-deprecating political correctness. By simply ensuring that religious priorites (muslim/jewish/christian) are made pressure group issues rather than a religious issue which must obviously take higher precedence, then the views of muslims will be given as much heed as is deserved by their numbers.
Unless Prime Minister Gordon Brown does something to slow, even reverse, Muslim immigration, Britain, as we've known it, will be lost and radical Islam will remake Britain in its own image, writes Cal Thomas in today's Washington Times:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20080109/COMMENTARY09/116525974/1012/COMMENTARY
Debate: What are ...[text shortened]... n could change it's immigration laws to prevent the flood of non-Christians into the country?
With a combination of political correctness and weird immunity for religious beliefs, the minority of muslims a few years ago had a stronger voice than their numbers deserved. There is a difference between a racist/sexist comment and criticism of religion, people don't choose their race or their sex, but they do choose their religion.
By showing that that choice will be challenged like any other and given no special privileges simply because it is a religion, Britain will become a less attractive country to those who, unhappy with where they are, want to go somewhere else and make it the same as where they want to leave...
09 Jan 08
It's too late, friend. Muhammed is now the 2nd most popular name for boys in Great Britain.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23428641-details/Mohammed%20now%20second%20most%20popular%20boys’%20name%20in%20Britain/article.do?expand=true#StartComments
But don't fret, sacrificing England to be politically correct and celebrate diversity will be appreciated by the new majority.
09 Jan 08
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterFiretrucks with holy water. Or do Protestants have holy water?
Unless Prime Minister Gordon Brown does something to slow, even reverse, Muslim immigration, Britain, as we've known it, will be lost and radical Islam will remake Britain in its own image, writes Cal Thomas in today's Washington Times:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20080109/COMMENTARY09/116525974/1012/COMMENTARY
Debate: What are ...[text shortened]... n could change it's immigration laws to prevent the flood of non-Christians into the country?
09 Jan 08
1 edit
Originally posted by Sam The ShamIt might be something to do with the fact that Muslims families have more children (in general) than non-muslim families and the declining birth rate overall.
It's too late, friend. Muhammed is now the 2nd most popular name for boys in Great Britain.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23428641-details/Mohammed%20now%20second%20most%20popular%20boys’%20name%20in%20Britain/article.do?expand=true#StartComments
But don't fret, sacrificing England to be politically correct and celebrate diversity will be appreciated by the new majority.
Being called M (PBUH) is no big deal, no I'm not sure what your actually saying ?
Are you linkng radical Islam to the name ?
Or are you suggesting that with the increasing off the name, the UK would also have an increase in radicals ?
09 Jan 08
Originally posted by RSMA1234Religion marks culture, not race.
Thats called Racism DSR & its also against the EU freedom off movement / employemnt laws.
Every EU citerzen in a EU country is allowed by law to move / work anywhere in the EU, thats fact.
By targetting Muslims as you suggest / impley, thats racisim and against the human rights off a EU citezern (as well as breck EU law)
Their are many Muslims in E ...[text shortened]... h takes into consideration Britains history etc.
I think thats a great idea for intergartion.
They need to have been a citizen of an EU country before EU freedom of movement law applies, where did they all come from?
I do have an issue with targetting just muslims, if a policy is to be made, it should be across the board and justifiable. I go into more detail on removing religions diplomatic immunity in my previous post.
As I said above, they need to have been in France first. Notice that Frances muslim population is neither enormous nor a powerful lobby group due to French law giving no extra power to a voice simply because it is a religious one.
I think it's good to see DSR coming out of his bubble and realising that America needs at least some allies, Britain having been one of the best in recent times, makes such concern understandable, though I'm certain there's a healthy dose of $hit stirring going on too.
I however do have an understanding of British culture, and what you call tolerance is fudged application of political correctness. Religion is a choice and should be criticised like any other choice. Why do the BNP get so much flak, while a huge proportion of muslims who want to live in Britain under SHARIA LAW don't? Because in the first case, they are seen as views and thus can be challenged, and rightly so. In the second, they're seen as religious views and given immunity from criticism. That's not tolerance, that's stupidity.
I don't understand the Iplace I do love line...
Yes, that is true, but these immigrants have incorporated themselves into British culture much more succesfully than the muslim population. Also, the cricket watching, curry shop owner grandson of a guy who was born in a British ruled India, probably wouldn't appreciate the comparison you're making between the cultural enrichment of his immigration to that of the undeniable problem that islamic immigration is presenting.
If a given muslim is radical, they will be discouraged by a country which gives no automatic immunity to religious statements, while the moderate muslim would see this as fair. Give religion an open mike and while teh number of moderate muslims likely stays the same, the number of radical outspoken muslims increases. Seems pretty logical to me, and no institutional selection committee or expensive background checks required.
Yes, to obtain British nationality, you have to pass such a test, but when I'm studying for a physics exam, I don't integrate with the physics community, for a history exam, I as a muslim am unlikely to go down to Cl. Whitcoombe and ask him about his WWII experiences, am I? Even if I, the real me, was taking the test, I'd get the curriculum, learn it and pass the test, no integration required. The test is more to see that you can speak and understand English than anything else.
09 Jan 08
Originally posted by agrysonI agree with the comment of PC going mad.
No change in immigration laws needed. A lot of what is happening in Britain can, I believe, be put down to a self-deprecating political correctness. By simply ensuring that religious priorites (muslim/jewish/christian) are made pressure group issues rather than a religious issue which must obviously take higher precedence, then the views of muslims wi ...[text shortened]... h where they are, want to go somewhere else and make it the same as where they want to leave...
I do beleive that PC has gone to far.
For exmaple, some office are not allowed to put up X mas decorations for example, (because that might offend the non-christain poplulations)
I thinks that foolish, as none of the people I know would be offended by them.
Acting in such a manner I feel does not lead to understanding and in effect helps to create a xenophoibic society
09 Jan 08
Originally posted by Sam The ShamHmm... that's a really solid case you have there, I can see why they call you "The Sham".
It's too late, friend. Muhammed is now the 2nd most popular name for boys in Great Britain.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23428641-details/Mohammed%20now%20second%20most%20popular%20boys’%20name%20in%20Britain/article.do?expand=true#StartComments
But don't fret, sacrificing England to be politically correct and celebrate diversity will be appreciated by the new majority.
09 Jan 08
Originally posted by RSMA1234So, as a muslim (I presume you are, as you added peace be upon him after mention of your prophets name, correct me if I'm wrong), would you agree or disagree with the idea that religious speech should be given no special priority over any other? I do not propose the removal of rights or even a change in law, just a change in attitude towards the immunity of religious views to criticism in the professional domain in Britain?
I agree with the comment of PC going mad.
I do beleive that PC has gone to far.
For exmaple, some office are not allowed to put up X mas decorations for example, (because that might offend the non-christain poplulations)
I thinks that foolish, as none of the people I know would be offended by them.
Acting in such a manner I feel does not lead to understanding and in effect helps to create a xenophoibic society