"I'm a gay man and mass Muslim immigration terrifies me"
Discussion
JagLover said:
AJS- said:
Then that would imply that everyone was pro-Islamist.
Fair points though. Why 'the left'?
Left and right are very broad terms for a huge range of opinions, but most of the defence and apologies I hear for radical Islam come from an identifiably left wing, cultural marxist perspective of everyone and everything being equal, and the real root of the problem lying with European imperialism and wealth disparities.
I think we actually have another divide which I have observed over the last few years on PHs. Fair points though. Why 'the left'?
Left and right are very broad terms for a huge range of opinions, but most of the defence and apologies I hear for radical Islam come from an identifiably left wing, cultural marxist perspective of everyone and everything being equal, and the real root of the problem lying with European imperialism and wealth disparities.
A number of people have built their entire belief system on the policy that mass immigration shouldn't be constrained both on economic grounds, but also due to their belief in some sort of "world" citizenship.
Hence why you get a number of posters who are centre-right Tories telling us why we shouldn't stop the current migration from the Middle East. In their view why would you stop a migration of people who have as much right to be here as you and I and will bring us more prosperity besides?.
They become even more passionate about defending the principle of mass Muslim immigration because this is where their philosophy most clearly breaks down. Not only on economic grounds, as Muslim communities are usually at the bottom in terms of economic performance throughout Europe, but also in that it exposes our society to danger to boot.
blindswelledrat said:
Super Slo Mo said:
I
The left leaning atheist types are also the ones who're leaning towards supporting Islam, which I find utterly bizarre. They're vociferous in their criticism of Christianity, but ambivalent or apologetic regarding Islam.
.
Is this actually true?The left leaning atheist types are also the ones who're leaning towards supporting Islam, which I find utterly bizarre. They're vociferous in their criticism of Christianity, but ambivalent or apologetic regarding Islam.
.
I have never heard anyone non-religious 'supporting Islam'. It doesn't even make sense.
If you are an atheist then you don't support any religious because you believe they are all nonsense.
Why would you arbitrarily choose a religion to support
My gut feeling as that along with AJS you are mistaking being in favour of helping refugees as being 'pro islamist'.
Or perhaps being anti-racist as being 'pro islamist'.
I'm definitely seeing anti-Christian rhetoric from a few people, while they're not doing the same regards Islam. I did say 'leaning towards supporting', which is a little different than actively supporting it, although it is a fine line I will admit.
I have yet to have a conversation with anyone about it, but I will as soon as the opportunity avails itself. I'll report back, and retract my views above if I'm incorrect.
Jag Lover
Yes, it's very much of that mould.
Left was probably the wrong word, but seemed like the best catch all for those view points usually advanced in defence of Islam.
If we had a bunch of conservatives saying that we should let in more Muslim migrants as they have sound views on homosexuality and dealing with criminals then I would have said the pro-Islamic right.
BV
I don't know how these cases go so correct me if I am wrong, but as a founding partner of the company she works for and the wife of the PM, surely she would have been able to pass that case on if she really felt strongly against it?
I suspect it was more of a misguided PR move aimed at 'moderate Muslims' than a sincere wish to promote Sharia law, but it just seems to demonstrate a deeply misguided approach to dealing with radical Islam.
Yes, it's very much of that mould.
Left was probably the wrong word, but seemed like the best catch all for those view points usually advanced in defence of Islam.
If we had a bunch of conservatives saying that we should let in more Muslim migrants as they have sound views on homosexuality and dealing with criminals then I would have said the pro-Islamic right.
BV
I don't know how these cases go so correct me if I am wrong, but as a founding partner of the company she works for and the wife of the PM, surely she would have been able to pass that case on if she really felt strongly against it?
I suspect it was more of a misguided PR move aimed at 'moderate Muslims' than a sincere wish to promote Sharia law, but it just seems to demonstrate a deeply misguided approach to dealing with radical Islam.
Bluebarge said:
Here we go. Another PHer inventing new windmills to tilt against. Meanwhile, back in the real world, these people you describe don't exist.
Oh reallyIn case you were unaware I have always openly supporting an Australian style VISA system for highly skilled immigrants on this forum. I am married to an immigrant and my two nieces are mixed race and yet I have been called a host of insulting names designed to shut down rational debate for questioning open borders.
Why are some posters so intent on denigrating a viewpoint that was official Conservative policy in the government of the 90s and seems entirely rational in a small overcrowded island facing massive population growth.
I put it mainly down to desperation myself. Many of these people are intelligent and well read and can see as well as I do that despite the age of mass migration the government finances are still in a poor state, with a budget deficit of around 4% well into the recovery. The number of working households in receipt of housing benefit has doubled in a few years and the tax credit bill is also rising sharply.
Productivity has been flat since 2007 whereas the 1980s and 90s saw sharply rising productivity at a time of limited immigration.
They wonder where the new Jerusalem they were promised is and they lash out.
JagLover said:
Oh really
In case you were unaware I have always openly supporting an Australian style VISA system for highly skilled immigrants on this forum. I am married to an immigrant and my two nieces are mixed race and yet I have been called a host of insulting names designed to shut down rational debate for questioning open borders.
Why are some posters so intent on denigrating a viewpoint that was official Conservative policy in the government of the 90s and seems entirely rational in a small overcrowded island facing massive population growth.
I put it mainly down to desperation myself. Many of these people are intelligent and well read and can see as well as I do that despite the age of mass migration the government finances are still in a poor state, with a budget deficit of around 4% well into the recovery. The number of working households in receipt of housing benefit has doubled in a few years and the tax credit bill is also rising sharply.
Productivity has been flat since 2007 whereas the 1980s and 90s saw sharply rising productivity at a time of limited immigration.
They wonder where the new Jerusalem they were promised is and they lash out.
This simple defiance of any real logic is quite strange, and alarming.In case you were unaware I have always openly supporting an Australian style VISA system for highly skilled immigrants on this forum. I am married to an immigrant and my two nieces are mixed race and yet I have been called a host of insulting names designed to shut down rational debate for questioning open borders.
Why are some posters so intent on denigrating a viewpoint that was official Conservative policy in the government of the 90s and seems entirely rational in a small overcrowded island facing massive population growth.
I put it mainly down to desperation myself. Many of these people are intelligent and well read and can see as well as I do that despite the age of mass migration the government finances are still in a poor state, with a budget deficit of around 4% well into the recovery. The number of working households in receipt of housing benefit has doubled in a few years and the tax credit bill is also rising sharply.
Productivity has been flat since 2007 whereas the 1980s and 90s saw sharply rising productivity at a time of limited immigration.
They wonder where the new Jerusalem they were promised is and they lash out.
I have a pet theory that Islam basically appeals to the very worst in people. If someone steals from you chop off their hand. If your wife has another man stone her to death. If people don't accept your truth then subjugate them and brutalise them until they do. And if anyone should reject your truth after accepting it, the very worst thing, then you chop off their head. This is the one true and eternal truth and everything else is contemptible.
With communism failing, the globe stubbornly refusing to warm and the welfare states collapsing under their own profligacy where else does your 'progressive' turn?
Breadvan72 said:
Er, you do know that barristers are taxis on a rank, and that they don't have to agree with their client's positions, er, don't you? Cherie Booth, in real life, deplores Islamic dress for women (I know this because she told me so, while we were in a cab on the way to a meeting with some mega capitalists that we were acting for at the time)
How do you know that was her real life opinion?Possibly she was representing a client's position at the time
AJS- said:
J..
BV
I don't know how these cases go so correct me if I am wrong, but as a founding partner of the company she works for and the wife of the PM, surely she would have been able to pass that case on if she really felt strongly against it?
...
Top tip: inform yourself before expressing a view. Cherie Booth is not a founding member of a company and does not work for a company. She was (probably still is) a member of a set of chambers called Matrix Chambers (not my chambers, by the way). That is a group of self employed sole traders who pool their resources to rent a building, hire staff, do marketing and so on. I add that Matrix Chambers may collectively own a service company that performs various tasks (my chambers has such a company - it employs the staff and does other bits and bobs - it does not sell anything), but barristers do not practise as either companies or firms. I add also that new rules allow barristers to incorporate their individual practices, but a set of chambers is not a company, or even a partnership. It's a sort of trading collective (and that is as true of the most starchy, Tory tinged commercial set as it is of an avowedly radical set such as Matrix).BV
I don't know how these cases go so correct me if I am wrong, but as a founding partner of the company she works for and the wife of the PM, surely she would have been able to pass that case on if she really felt strongly against it?
...
Being married to the PM had nothing to do with the case. Cherie kept her legal work separate from her role as Tony Blair's wife. She was, FWIW, a reasonable lawyer. Not the best, but quite good (better than Tone). Later she went a bit nuts, and often showed poor personal judgment, what with Carole whatever her name was and all that, and relentless and unfair media pressure, but she is not the demon that the Mail etc portray her as being.
As a self employed barrister, Cherie Booth was bound by the professional rules that govern all barristers to accept any case within her field of practice. There are ways of getting around this cab rank rule, but why should she turn down the case? The law is improved by the arguing of cases. JS Mill said (I paraphrase) that truth is strengthened by collision with error. Even those with bad cases have a right to be heard, and to be represented. I could quote Dr Johnson on this subject, but you can Google that (search "Dr Johnson and law"). Anyway, a barrister is an advocate. He or she sells legal advice, and, if a case goes to court, sells his or her skills in putting together an argument. A barrister doesn't have to agree with the argument he or she is paid to advance. A person selling Audis might think that BMWs are better cars, but it is that person's job to sell Audis. Next week that person gets a better offer and goes to sell Volvos.
I reiterate: If you do not know about a subject, why not do some research about the subject before you express firm views about it?
Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 18th November 19:41
J4CKO said:
What about Gay Muslims, that must be a confusing and difficult combination, do Gay Muslims just keep quiet, somehow leave the faith or is there any acceptance for Gay Muslims in the UK from their own communities ?
Religion appears to have been generally written by straight men, a few thousand years back whilst making a really strong point that they weren't gay by rattling on about killing gays.
Its a long, long time later, the policy of killing gays hasnt worked really has it, Hitler had a go as well, perhaps just time to stop worrying about what other people do in the bedroom ?
But oh no, its religion, it cannot change, because it is old, because it is "Holy", what does "Holy" even mean, it means someone deemed it important a long time ago, I am declaring this post Holy, it is scared and you must bow in reverence and awe.
Gay Muslims keep quiet in the 'native' countries otherwise put in prison or worse and in the UK still keep that side of their lives quiet...I.e. Put on a front of being straight. Not that out of the realms of normality when you consider 60 years ago in the UKReligion appears to have been generally written by straight men, a few thousand years back whilst making a really strong point that they weren't gay by rattling on about killing gays.
Its a long, long time later, the policy of killing gays hasnt worked really has it, Hitler had a go as well, perhaps just time to stop worrying about what other people do in the bedroom ?
But oh no, its religion, it cannot change, because it is old, because it is "Holy", what does "Holy" even mean, it means someone deemed it important a long time ago, I am declaring this post Holy, it is scared and you must bow in reverence and awe.
Breadvan72 said:
Er, you do know that barristers are taxis on a rank
Ah, just you wait until we apply the Uber model to your taxi rank.I'm not sure about the branding - "LegalUber" might be sailing close to the wind trademark-wise, perhaps "Luber" might work.
A shiny, slick iPhone app geolocating Barristers in the vicinity for hire, together with a sophisticated model for predicting the likely fees (highly discounted, this will be a buyer's market) and probability of acquittal for whatever villany the punter has in mind. For those clients who also require expeditious transit somewhere sharpish in addition to immediate legal triage, I'm sure we could work out a co-resourcing agreement with Uber whereby the Barristers double as Uber drivers when they're not...er...barristering.
Frankly, it looks like an absolute gold mine. Can't wait to get started.
Anyway, back to the Muslim bashing.
Seek said:
Breadvan72 said:
Er, you do know that barristers are taxis on a rank, and that they don't have to agree with their client's positions, er, don't you? Cherie Booth, in real life, deplores Islamic dress for women (I know this because she told me so, while we were in a cab on the way to a meeting with some mega capitalists that we were acting for at the time)
How do you know that was her real life opinion?Possibly she was representing a client's position at the time
Thanks for the clarification BV.
Randy
If that was the case then the ones born in Luton and Rotherham etc would not be Muslim.
Culturally it matters, but I don't believe anyone in anything like a free country should feel compelled to practice a particular religion on pain of death. You can't really legislate for the ostracisation and exclusion that goes with apostasy for people from Muslim families and communities, but you can express strong disapproval of it.
Randy
If that was the case then the ones born in Luton and Rotherham etc would not be Muslim.
Culturally it matters, but I don't believe anyone in anything like a free country should feel compelled to practice a particular religion on pain of death. You can't really legislate for the ostracisation and exclusion that goes with apostasy for people from Muslim families and communities, but you can express strong disapproval of it.
AJS- said:
Perhaps because so many refuse to distinguish themselves?
I do wonder if some people see only what they WANT to see, or see only that which fits in with their prejudices.There have been thousands of posts and videos where Muslims have condemned ISIS, and the atrocities carried out by them both in the ME and elsewhere. Perhaps they need to wear some sort of symbol to distinguish themselves......
Countdown said:
AJS- said:
Perhaps because so many refuse to distinguish themselves?
I do wonder if some people see only what they WANT to see, or see only that which fits in with their prejudices.There have been thousands of posts and videos where Muslims have condemned ISIS, and the atrocities carried out by them both in the ME and elsewhere. Perhaps they need to wear some sort of symbol to distinguish themselves......
I see very few.
Some do. The article by the Iraqi editor I posted earlier lays the blame squarely on the culture of Muslims and in particular Arab Muslims. Maajid Nawaz campaigns to reform Islam.
What's your point here?
I just named 2 moderate Muslims who say things I do agree with.
Yesterday I posted 2 articles by Arab Muslims who pointed to the need to reform that culture for the modern world.
I am well aware that there are Muslims who are happy to coexist and to bring their religion into the modern age. Either of those articles would have drawn howls of indignation and cries of racism if they had appeared in a western newspaper.
It is not that I think all Muslims are evil people who want to kill or convert the entire world . I think that Islam is a dangerous doctrine which if taken too literally leads to bigotry and violence.
Those peaceful Muslims are fighting a losing battle because they are shouted down and subjected to violence by a huge number of violent zealous Islamic fundamentalists and find no protection in the cowed and bullied middle ground of cultural Muslims.
This ridiculous policy of 'tolerance' is doing absolutely nothing to help sensible Muslims drive the reforms that are needed and everything to fuel the fire of intolerant radicalism.
I just named 2 moderate Muslims who say things I do agree with.
Yesterday I posted 2 articles by Arab Muslims who pointed to the need to reform that culture for the modern world.
I am well aware that there are Muslims who are happy to coexist and to bring their religion into the modern age. Either of those articles would have drawn howls of indignation and cries of racism if they had appeared in a western newspaper.
It is not that I think all Muslims are evil people who want to kill or convert the entire world . I think that Islam is a dangerous doctrine which if taken too literally leads to bigotry and violence.
Those peaceful Muslims are fighting a losing battle because they are shouted down and subjected to violence by a huge number of violent zealous Islamic fundamentalists and find no protection in the cowed and bullied middle ground of cultural Muslims.
This ridiculous policy of 'tolerance' is doing absolutely nothing to help sensible Muslims drive the reforms that are needed and everything to fuel the fire of intolerant radicalism.
JagLover said:
Oh really
In case you were unaware I have always openly supporting an Australian style VISA system for highly skilled immigrants on this forum. I am married to an immigrant and my two nieces are mixed race and yet I have been called a host of insulting names designed to shut down rational debate for questioning open borders.
Why are some posters so intent on denigrating a viewpoint that was official Conservative policy in the government of the 90s and seems entirely rational in a small overcrowded island facing massive population growth.
I put it mainly down to desperation myself. Many of these people are intelligent and well read and can see as well as I do that despite the age of mass migration the government finances are still in a poor state, with a budget deficit of around 4% well into the recovery. The number of working households in receipt of housing benefit has doubled in a few years and the tax credit bill is also rising sharply.
Productivity has been flat since 2007 whereas the 1980s and 90s saw sharply rising productivity at a time of limited immigration.
They wonder where the new Jerusalem they were promised is and they lash out.
Again, you portray yourself as the fount of all logic and assume that people that oppose your views are not "rational". You then ascribe to them characteristics that explain their lack of reason, which characteristics you have fabricated to explain the apparent anomaly of seemingly rational people not agreeing with you.In case you were unaware I have always openly supporting an Australian style VISA system for highly skilled immigrants on this forum. I am married to an immigrant and my two nieces are mixed race and yet I have been called a host of insulting names designed to shut down rational debate for questioning open borders.
Why are some posters so intent on denigrating a viewpoint that was official Conservative policy in the government of the 90s and seems entirely rational in a small overcrowded island facing massive population growth.
I put it mainly down to desperation myself. Many of these people are intelligent and well read and can see as well as I do that despite the age of mass migration the government finances are still in a poor state, with a budget deficit of around 4% well into the recovery. The number of working households in receipt of housing benefit has doubled in a few years and the tax credit bill is also rising sharply.
Productivity has been flat since 2007 whereas the 1980s and 90s saw sharply rising productivity at a time of limited immigration.
They wonder where the new Jerusalem they were promised is and they lash out.
The alternative view , that a certain level of immigration is necessary for an economy that wishes to expand, most especially one with an ageing population and a high welfare spend, is one you wilfully ignore, or assume is evidence of irrationality. The German economy is facing medium-to-long-term decline precisely because it does not have enough immigration to feed its economy. But then, all those economists are plainly nuts and we'd be much better off with a closed economy that is reliant on Chinese orders for stuff dug out of the ground, like Australia.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff