Linkey
Sadly, he appears to be going off on a tangent against Muslim Extremism, but the point is valid more generally.
Nothing bar the rhetoric so far, but it's a start.
~:smoking:
Printable View
Linkey
Sadly, he appears to be going off on a tangent against Muslim Extremism, but the point is valid more generally.
Nothing bar the rhetoric so far, but it's a start.
~:smoking:
More nonsense from a conservative. I'm not surprised.
Does this mean he will disband the union and renounce his rule over Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland?
You are aware what constitutes the UK, right?
~:smoking:
Where was he the rest of the time, can't really take the newfound insights of Camaron and that plumb eastblock workhorse Merkel very seriously. But it's a start at least agreed
or in reality, it is a damned good idea that should have been implemented decades ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
a healthy and vibrant nation thrives or dies by the its sense of family and that necessitates a certain degree of shared and common values.
and excellent article by charles moore is here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/c...at-speech.html
Quote:
Within Government – among ministers, Coalition partners, officials and agencies – there is an endless battle on this matter. It is a fight between those who think that the way to win is to empower nasty people to control even nastier ones, and those who believe that the best way to deal with extremism is to confront it and reward only those who reject it. It is an argument between those who think that only violence need concern us, and those who believe that it is from bad ideas that bad actions spring.
The former view, held by Charles Farr, the MI6 man who is now the head of the Government's Office of Security and Counter-Terrorism, is essentially the old imperialist one – do a deal with the bloodthirsty natives (the Mau-Mau, Makarios, the IRA are well-known examples) to buy a quiet life. The latter view believes that Britain cannot treat its own inhabitants colonially: we can only be a free nation if we live by common values, and we must exclude those who reject those values. Mr Cameron is in this latter camp; it is part of his idea that "we're all in this together".
The battle will be visible, on Wednesday, in the result of the counter-terrorism and security powers review. Control orders, to make life easier for Nick Clegg, will be done away with by name, but not in fact. The curfews so much attacked by the civil liberties lobby will be replaced by "compulsory overnight stays". It isn't easy to see the difference between the two.
The fight continues, also, in the current review of Prevent, the set of government programmes which seeks to tackle the social causes of Islamist radicalisation. Prevent has too often used partners and advisers who are themselves extremist. Such people exploit the status government has conferred on them to argue that there would be no trouble if only public policy addressed the "grievances" which Islamists feel – foreign policy, police surveillance, mixed bathing, whatever. The worst fault of Lady Warsi's speech was that it helped nurture Muslim grievance instead of prompting Muslim self-examination.
This refusal to confront bad ideas means, for example, that the public authorities have shied away from having a look at what is preached at university Islamic societies. The security services do not investigate and combat subversion, as they did in the Cold War. Yet we know, from cases like that of the "Underpants Bomber", that students are often recruited for extremism by contacts at their universities. It is a pity Lady Warsi said none of this to her university audience.
Similarly, the Government's independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, Lord Carlile, has been pointing out for years that Islamic charities in this country are often subverted (or even invented) for extreme political purposes, but no one knows how to investigate them. Again, as free schools extend their scope, more Muslim schools, like Church or Jewish ones, will wish to set up. As I have discovered from the research done by Policy Exchange, the think tank that I chair, few in authority know enough about the backgrounds of the people involved. A unit for "due diligence" is needed, so that power and public money do not go to fanatics and scoundrels.
Britain is one nation one culture one people!Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Scottish/Irish/Welsh nationalists are mostly just communists.
For teh lefties, what we have here is pubicly admitting that multiculteralism was always ideoligy, Middle class now sees change they don't believe in all that much
Personally I don't see what is wrong with the different European countries trying to maintain their culture. Multiculturalism is good for a nation that never really had a solid "type" of culture in the first place.
I don't want to sound pompous here, but the US is really the only country that really should be following a policy of "multicultural" we are a country of immigrants from all type. Europeans have their origins and their history, it should be preserved and flourish.
But knowing the extreme right, if they had the opportunity they would go the exact opposite and persecute and segregate those of different cultures. Europe just needs to have cultural qualifications for people to become a citizen. Learn the language, know the history, obey and adhere to western law, etc...
The extreme right has as much power as a lame dick. The extreme left on the other handQuote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
Multicultural has and is always a very bad thing. It is one of the most stupidest things I ever heard.
On the otherhand, a Open Culture is a very good thing. This is a strong dominant culture which is open to new ideas and influences. An Open Culture acts like the 'borg', as it were, it assimilates all that is good from a culture while disregarding/ignoring the inferior aspects. An Open Society also has set ideals such as Democracy and Liberty, which are always maintained within in.
Oh really, what's the change of heart. It kinda annoys me, for years the dangers of multiculteralism have been pretty obvious. And now you always thought it was a bad idea? At least admit it when you have been wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
Erm... where have I said I been pro-multiculturalism?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
I have always argued for an Open Society in every thread similar to this vein.
However, I have never argued for 'indiscriminate hating' of Muslims. Those who oppose that are not Multiculturists.
Interesting, you people say america is the only place where multiculturalism works yet to become a citizen you have to speak english and have a understanding -if brief- of american history. Kinda funny that the worlds melting pot, who should be more accepting of other culures in theory, has a "you are an american first an englishman/frenchman/whatever second policy" and we dont.
It's because being British/French/German etc is about blood. They're ethnic identities. Some people might contest that but that's how they've been seen for the most part historically.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
There's no such ethnicity as American, its an identity based on beliefs/values.
i would violently disagree with you there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
British Nationalism is pretty much the definition of Civic Nationalism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism
Please don't make the mistake of assuming that the BNP defines British Nationalism.
Both France and the UK have a strong component of “well it doesn't matter what dump you come from, you're still one for the Empire/Republic” to their nationalism. Germany is simply content to beat the others at just about all other pursuits, that's their source of pride. ~;)
I heartily agree. One is British if one thinks of oneself as British. My colleague at work might have ancestry in Shri-Lanka, but she was born in Britain, she speaks English - she is British as she thinks she is British.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
~:smoking:
which is not weird. multiculturalism does also include the american culture which again includes american language and history. thus it is reasonable that the immigrant should speak the language and have atleast decent knowledge of customs and history. this should however not mean that he has to forsake his own roots.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
and you should be an american first and whatever it was that u were before u came to that country second, because now you are a citizen of that state and loyal to that state as long as that state provides for you as a citizen equal among all other citizens.
personally i prefer a different system but since at least now what i prefer isnt yet possible i think the philosophy of america is a good one, though the practical implementation often fails. but hey, communism is a good idea on paper :P
absolutely correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Civic nationalism is a pretty modern phenomenon, I did say "historically". To say nationalism is about civic rather than ethnic identity seems like backtracking to me, a bit like a poster in a recent thread that muddied racist comments by talking about culture.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
The rightists realise that the public will no longer tolerate openly racist nationalistic sentiments, so nowadays rather than talking about the British race they'll talk about British values or such.
It's the first step in them admitting that they are losing ground, and that the path to national borders and nationalism in general becoming obsolete is pretty much inevitable.
Since before the Romans there has been influxes of people to the UK. Bar the mentally challenged, everyone knows that there is no "race" in the UK, it is a mix of many.
~:smoking:
disagreed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
there are always head-banging elements, but the concept of civic nationalism has been around just as long in the context of britain, sounds like you are trying to justify why you don't like something.
Those who somehow instinctively read that absolutely are. Glad it's becomming a derogatory term though, the arrogant old left, or the leftist church have lost the high-ground. I'm a happy man, that's all I ever really wanted as a moderation-extremistQuote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
Which doesn't change the fact that for centuries nationalism was based on an the idea that there was a British/English/Irish/Scottish etc race.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
And it doesn't lend any support to civic nationalism either. What is an actual 'British' value? Usually people say things like democracy, or tolerance. Hardly anything that sets apart the British nation from any other western liberal democracy.
Civic nationalism is no more real than ethnic nationalism. Heck, its really just an attempt to mask the prejudices of the old ethnic nationalism, but ends up failing in its purpose anyway, because it is as I said meaningless.
It might provide nice propaganda to tell immigrants they are 'British' so they feel like they're part of the group identity and don't look to their roots instead and end up blowing themselves up, but its just rhetoric.
Nationalism is kinda 19th century, if you say centuries there are too many of them.
dont forget 20th century. different kind of nationalism or patriotism exist tho. the french revolution gave rise to the modern form, though the american revolution may have proceeded it, both root in the same philosophy. nationalism isnt much different from religious fanatism and one could argue that the crusades, however only maybe for a limited group of nobles, was also patriotic, though more to the kingdom of god than to any earthly domain.
Fascism has it roots in the 19th century, it was basically a nationalist reaction to class struggle. Nationalism more generally has been around since the medieval kingdoms started to centralise, hardly surprising that the top two at the head of the game in that respect (England and Frenchland) should also have been the first to have strong national identities.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Look at 17th century rhetoric in England... it's all about birthrights, the rights of their ancestors etc. Do you really think they would ever accept a Sri Lankan as an Englishman/woman?
Most of the political theorists these days will say that civic nationalism is a result of an identity through shared institutions eg the welfare state, and since these have only been around since after WWII, civic nationalism couldn't have existed before then. You can't read it back into history.
No idea what they are talking about then. Nationalism came from liberalism not the other way around, it's also admitting other people right to have a place of their own. They are welcome, but there are boundaries. The multicultists wanted to destroy them. For what, I don't get them
delete
Liberalism = 18 centuryQuote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Nationalism = since the Stone Age