Can Britain Survive Multiculturalism?

Discuss world politics in relation to Islam and Muslims.
User avatar
Trojan
Posts: 324
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 8:47 pm
Location: Inside the kaaba

Can Britain Survive Multiculturalism?

Post by Trojan »

It's a shame what their forefather's fought to preserve, the British politicians in their campaign of political correctiveness and appeasment are freely surrendering to this small and notorious "protected religious group"...

Please watch this ! ! !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DANUGbwmgE" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Winston Churchill On Islam

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property - either as a child, a wife, or a concubine - must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men." "Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen; all know how to die; but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science - the science against which it had vainly struggled - the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome."
(The River War, first edition, Vol. II, pages 248-50) London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1899

Sadly now the civilization of modern Europe that Curchill spoke of is on the cusp of falling to the hordes of Islamic Arabia..
Awake from your slumber you foolish Britons, Islam comes to conquer your Land, and destroy your Laws and your Liberties....

Give up your dreams and expectations of Muslims integrating into the British (or any other) society, they are here to assimilate you into their cult.
:nono:

"Muslims are the first victims of Islam, to liberate them from this religion is the best service that one can render them..."
Ernest Renan (1823-1892)

Quills
Posts: 266
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 7:36 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Can Britain Survive Multiculturalism?

Post by Quills »

I watched the video and I was truly sickened to see how far Britain allowed themselves to be taken over. I think Multiculturalism can work, but it can only work with cultures that have the same values about life and freedom.

Quills
"Woe to those who are saying that good is bad and bad is good, those who are putting darkness for light and light for darkness, those who are putting bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter." Isaiah 5:20

User avatar
Cassie
Posts: 2523
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 8:32 am

Re: Can Britain Survive Multiculturalism?

Post by Cassie »

There is a vibrant Hindu Indian culture and a vibrant West Indian culture in England. Only the Muslim 'culture' is the problem. As is always the case everywhere.

Pragmatist
Posts: 1785
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 9:20 am

Re: Can Britain Survive Multiculturalism?

Post by Pragmatist »

Multi Cultutralism is OK as you say Cassie when you have rational civilized cultures to be Multi with. However Islam does not tick any box in the Multi Culti plan it is Arrogant, Egotistical, Triumphalist, intransigent and by its very nature and ideals completely unable to integrate with ANY other culture except when IT plays the dominant role and sets the rules. The ONLY solution is the banning of the CULT as it is totally unacceptable to civilized societies.
Does a God create you simply to punish you in Hellfire well PREDESTINATING evil, illogical, sadistic allah DOES.

User avatar
The Cat
Posts: 2055
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:23 pm

Re: Can Britain Survive Multiculturalism?

Post by The Cat »

Pragmatist wrote:Multi Cultutralism is OK as you say Cassie when you have rational civilized cultures to be Multi with. However Islam does not tick any box in the Multi Culti plan it is Arrogant, Egotistical, Triumphalist, intransigent and by its very nature and ideals completely unable to integrate with ANY other culture except when IT plays the dominant role and sets the rules. The ONLY solution is the banning of the CULT as it is totally unacceptable to civilized societies.
The only possible way out that I can see is to limit the freedom of religion to whatever is religious and ban all the seditious political compounds forming many creeds. Following the principle of the division between churches and States to its conclusion. For example, this was exactly done through the surrendering conditions imposed on Japan, after WWII. All of a sudden the emperor ceased to be a living God, and started to walk like anybody else! Democracy was enacted and Japan began to rise from its rusk...

It's interesting to learn how the Mikado-Bushido religion was enacted in Japan to mobilize an otherwise peaceful Buddhist gent.

In fact, it's -exactly- how and why Islam has been built like it is...

Inventing a religion: The Mikado Worship (1912), by Basil Hall Chamberlain (1850-1935) .
http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/2510" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://hoary.org/scand/invent.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

My coverage on this (in the old forum):
http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewt ... 028#803028" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.

Pragmatist
Posts: 1785
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 9:20 am

Re: Can Britain Survive Multiculturalism?

Post by Pragmatist »

Sounds great but what OTHER creed or religion professes itself to be the only guide to mankind and to contain ALL the rules by which to live your life except the CULT of Islam and don't confuse this with the guide to ethics and morals that other religions have. Islams ethics and morals are for Mohammedans ONLY. Islam is a totalitarian megalomaniacs control device disguised as a religion which is also disguises its true identity that of a Mohammad worshiping CULT. So it is ONLY Islam that needs to be controlled. Other religions do not threaten normal civilized actions by Governments as Islam does.
Does a God create you simply to punish you in Hellfire well PREDESTINATING evil, illogical, sadistic allah DOES.

User avatar
The Cat
Posts: 2055
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:23 pm

Re: Can Britain Survive Multiculturalism?

Post by The Cat »

Yes. But we must make something -general-: In France, they banned ALL religious symbols in schools...

That's the way to go, I think, if to avoid racist and discrimination thunders & furies.
Don't make Muslims sound like martyrs! DON'T EVER give them that excuse...
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.

Pragmatist
Posts: 1785
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 9:20 am

Re: Can Britain Survive Multiculturalism?

Post by Pragmatist »

The Cat wrote:Yes. But we must make something -general-: In France, they banned ALL religious symbols in schools...

That's the way to go, I think, if to avoid racist and discrimination thunders & furies.
Don't make Muslims sound like martyrs! DON'T EVER give them that excuse...
No such race as Islam and fools who try to play the race card in that connection should be dismissed for the diversionary charletans that they are. We don't need to make martyrs of Islam the "religion of perpetual victimhood" does a wonderful job of that itself.
Does a God create you simply to punish you in Hellfire well PREDESTINATING evil, illogical, sadistic allah DOES.

whitegold
Posts: 11
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 12:02 pm

Re: Can Britain Survive Multiculturalism?

Post by whitegold »

In France, they banned ALL religious symbols in schools...
Actually in many ways in the UK we are approacing this, in some ways we are not.

I think you are dead wrong about this btw Cat. It is the PC left which has been so damaging to us in the UK. It has allied itself with Islam and has been anti-christian. (christian = white = uk culture = evil is the form of 'logic' used by leftists.)

I think those of us who are in the UK recognise that more legislation to 'curb religion' in the Uk will be, in main, a one way street which will do little to effect Islam but will further empower leftists with their agenda of hate and control.

There is a way out of this morass in the UK. But it should have NOTHING to do with a leftist agenda, which is the cancer destroying the UK at the moment. It involves a rejection of the left, and its all pervasive influence in politics and local politics.

Whilst leftism wleds such power there is no solution, for the simple reason that leftism and Islam is an unholy alliance.

Not wishing to be political, but such leftism has increased in power and influence since Labour got into power. Whilst Labour had rejected socialism which meant socialists tended to describe Labour as 'right wing', Labour was still into big government and a strong leftish agenda.

Virtually everyday somewhere in the media you can get stories of ridiculous PC-ism in the UK, and of people unable to say or do (or even think) anything that is unPC. I won't bore you with lots of links but the last thing we want or need is yet another PC initiative dictating to us all.

Ram
Posts: 2136
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 4:40 am

Re: Can Britain Survive Multiculturalism?

Post by Ram »

The Cat wrote:Yes. But we must make something -general-: In France, they banned ALL religious symbols in schools...

That's the way to go, I think, if to avoid racist and discrimination thunders & furies.
Don't make Muslims sound like martyrs! DON'T EVER give them that excuse...
I am sorry. Banning religious symbols does not end racism or discrimination. There are two extremes. The British have surrendered to Islam in the name of tolerance. This will never end racism or discrimination. The British have given licence to Muslims to discriminate against Christians, Jews and Hindus, so much so that Muslims are free to spread their message of hatred. But Christians are punished for displaying their religious symbols.

India and the UK, both countries have capitulated to Muslim bigots and made the discrimination against Hindus and Christians legal. France has adopted a different approach. But France also has capitulated to Islam by allowing Muslims to attack Jews in the name of tolerance. Banning of religious symbols is a meaningless gesture.
वासुदैव कुटुम्बकम्।
سارا سنسار ایک پریوار ہے۔
The Whole World is a Family.

Pragmatist
Posts: 1785
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 9:20 am

Re: Can Britain Survive Multiculturalism?

Post by Pragmatist »

Britain has already surrendered with a whimper in all but name. Just look at all the instances of UK citizens being punished and sacked for expressing Christian ideals and look at Mohammedans on the streets shouting abuse and death threats with no punishment or indeed no fear of any punishment at all. Just look at two items currently in the news 1) The Dutch MP Geert Wilders gets banned form UK for telling the TRUTH about Islam. 2) The UK Government are FIGHTING to bring back a Mohammedan Terrorist to UK from Gitmo and he is ETHIOPIAN not even British. The UK Security Services and the CIA identify UK resident Pakistanis as a major source of worlds terrorism and the UK signs a deal to bring 5000 Halal butchers with their families from PAKISTAN at the SAME time as this news come out.

I for one am going to renounce my UK citizenship ASAP I do not want to be associated with a craven cowardly Islamic cesspit like UK any longer.
Does a God create you simply to punish you in Hellfire well PREDESTINATING evil, illogical, sadistic allah DOES.

User avatar
The Cat
Posts: 2055
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:23 pm

Re: Can Britain Survive Multiculturalism?

Post by The Cat »

Ram wrote:
The Cat wrote:Yes. But we must make something -general-: In France, they banned ALL religious symbols in schools...

That's the way to go, I think, if to avoid racist and discrimination thunders & furies.
Don't make Muslims sound like martyrs! DON'T EVER give them that excuse...
I am sorry. Banning religious symbols does not end racism or discrimination. There are two extremes. The British have surrendered to Islam in the name of tolerance. This will never end racism or discrimination. The British have given licence to Muslims to discriminate against Christians, Jews and Hindus, so much so that Muslims are free to spread their message of hatred. But Christians are punished for displaying their religious symbols.

India and the UK, both countries have capitulated to Muslim bigots and made the discrimination against Hindus and Christians legal. France has adopted a different approach. But France also has capitulated to Islam by allowing Muslims to attack Jews in the name of tolerance. Banning of religious symbols is a meaningless gesture.
Hi, Ram. My quote was related to another one and doesn't express my idea by itself out of context. It's far more reaching...

I've written to Pragmatist:
The only possible way out that I can see is to limit the freedom of religion to whatever is religious and ban all the seditious political compounds forming many creeds. Following the principle of the division between churches and States to its conclusion. For example, this was exactly done through the surrendering conditions imposed on Japan, after WWII. All of a sudden the emperor ceased to be a living God, and started to walk like anybody else! Democracy was enacted and Japan began to rise from its rusk...
So the banning of religious symbols in schools is just a tiny example of the 'way to go'. The real bottom of the idea is to draw the principle of division between religions and states to its conclusion. That is: whatever creed preaching a political seditious agenda shouldn't be protected anymore by the unshakable -freedom- of religion.

Islamic so-called 'religious' duty is to enslave you. What is 'religious' in this? Under the umbrella of our freedom of religions, they are given the -right- to spew such nonsense. If this -right- is taken away, Islam falls down to its knees. It is disarmed...

Then again, limiting the freedom of religion to whatever is truly religious mustn't sounds like aiming at Islam alone. Muslims would then find themselves in the position of defending their seditious creed without the pervasive freedom of religion.

The task would then be to draw a fine -legal- line between what is religious and what isn't.

I hope I've made myself clearer...
Bye.
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.

Pragmatist
Posts: 1785
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 9:20 am

Re: Can Britain Survive Multiculturalism?

Post by Pragmatist »

The Cat wrote:
Ram wrote:
The Cat wrote:Yes. But we must make something -general-: In France, they banned ALL religious symbols in schools...

That's the way to go, I think, if to avoid racist and discrimination thunders & furies.
Don't make Muslims sound like martyrs! DON'T EVER give them that excuse...
I am sorry. Banning religious symbols does not end racism or discrimination. There are two extremes. The British have surrendered to Islam in the name of tolerance. This will never end racism or discrimination. The British have given licence to Muslims to discriminate against Christians, Jews and Hindus, so much so that Muslims are free to spread their message of hatred. But Christians are punished for displaying their religious symbols.

India and the UK, both countries have capitulated to Muslim bigots and made the discrimination against Hindus and Christians legal. France has adopted a different approach. But France also has capitulated to Islam by allowing Muslims to attack Jews in the name of tolerance. Banning of religious symbols is a meaningless gesture.
Hi, Ram. My quote was related to another one and doesn't express my idea by itself out of context. It's far more reaching...

I've written to Pragmatist:
The only possible way out that I can see is to limit the freedom of religion to whatever is religious and ban all the seditious political compounds forming many creeds. Following the principle of the division between churches and States to its conclusion. For example, this was exactly done through the surrendering conditions imposed on Japan, after WWII. All of a sudden the emperor ceased to be a living God, and started to walk like anybody else! Democracy was enacted and Japan began to rise from its rusk...
So the banning of religious symbols in schools is just a tiny example of the 'way to go'. The real bottom of the idea is to draw the principle of division between religions and states to its conclusion. That is: whatever creed preaching a political seditious agenda shouldn't be protected anymore by the unshakable -freedom- of religion.

Islamic so-called 'religious' duty is to enslave you. What is 'religious' in this? Under the umbrella of our freedom of religions, they are given the -right- to spew such nonsense. If this -right- is taken away, Islam falls down to its knees. It is disarmed...

Then again, limiting the freedom of religion to whatever is truly religious mustn't sounds like aiming at Islam alone. Muslims would then find themselves in the position of defending their seditious creed without the pervasive freedom of religion.

The task would then be to draw a fine -legal- line between what is religious and what isn't.

I hope I've made myself clearer...
Bye.

I have highlighted your 'moral equivalence' presumption CAT you still fall in to the PC Multi Culti trap of PRESUMING that all religions are basically the same and at their core GOOD. This is patently not so with Islam and trying to be Oh so PC all the time just does not make it so sorry. No need for legal line drawing just HONEST criticism which you seem incapable of. I hope I have made myself clear.
Last edited by Pragmatist on Fri Feb 13, 2009 8:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
Does a God create you simply to punish you in Hellfire well PREDESTINATING evil, illogical, sadistic allah DOES.

User avatar
The Cat
Posts: 2055
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:23 pm

Re: Can Britain Survive Multiculturalism?

Post by The Cat »

Pragmatist wrote:CAT you still fall in to the PC Multi Culti trap of PRESUMING in a state of moral equivalence that all religions are basically the same and at their core GOOD.
Who's presuming here? Where did I write that?
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.

Pragmatist
Posts: 1785
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 9:20 am

Re: Can Britain Survive Multiculturalism?

Post by Pragmatist »

The Cat wrote:
Pragmatist wrote:CAT you still fall in to the PC Multi Culti trap of PRESUMING in a state of moral equivalence that all religions are basically the same and at their core GOOD.
Who's presuming here? Where did I write that?
Did I say you actually wrote those words please don't YOU try to put words in my mouth. What I did say is that it is obvious by the way you write that at the core of your thinking is 'moral equivalence' and that all religions are basically good at heart or have good in them. This is as I said patently NOT the case with Islam so no compromise is possible with Mohammedans. I have highlighted your 'moral equivalence' presumption in your previous posting and here is a copy.

The CAT posted:-

"Then again, limiting the freedom of religion to whatever is truly religious mustn't sounds like aiming at Islam alone. Muslims would then find themselves in the position of defending their seditious creed without the pervasive freedom of religion."
Does a God create you simply to punish you in Hellfire well PREDESTINATING evil, illogical, sadistic allah DOES.

User avatar
The Cat
Posts: 2055
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:23 pm

Re: Can Britain Survive Multiculturalism?

Post by The Cat »

Pragmatist wrote:
The Cat wrote:
Pragmatist wrote:CAT you still fall in to the PC Multi Culti trap of PRESUMING in a state of moral equivalence that all religions are basically the same and at their core GOOD.
Who's presuming here? Where did I write that?
Did I say you actually wrote those words please don't YOU try to put words in my mouth. What I did say is that it is obvious by the way you write that at the core of your thinking is 'moral equivalence' and that all religions are basically good at heart or have good in them. This is as I said patently NOT the case with Islam so no compromise is possible with Mohammedans. I have highlighted your 'moral equivalence' presumption in your previous posting and here is a copy.

The CAT posted:-

"Then again, limiting the freedom of religion to whatever is truly religious mustn't sounds like aiming at Islam alone. Muslims would then find themselves in the position of defending their seditious creed without the pervasive freedom of religion."
Where is the 'moral equivalence' and where's my stating that all religions are basically good...
Again, who's presuming here? You make allegations from deductions that aren't there.

Now, I don't give a damn if Muslims pray five times a day towards Mecca, fast during Ramadan, say the Shahada, give to (real) charity or perform the hajj to Mecca. I don't mind the -religious- parts of ANY religion.

What is at stake in my comments is the political seditious parts of Islam (sanctified hatred), OR of ANY other faith, which must be eradicated from the umbrella of freedom of religion. And this must be -general- so to be effective, not limited only to Islam.

Your way is bloody confrontational, and Muslims are professionals at martyrdom which you'd fuel.
Mine is acting with as much civility as possible, within the realm of legality, with end results in sight.

Freedom of religion must be defined as to what is religious and what isn't. Simple as Occam's razor.
Are Muslims allowed to blow your head and rape your wife under the freedom to practice their religion?
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.

Pragmatist
Posts: 1785
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 9:20 am

Re: Can Britain Survive Multiculturalism?

Post by Pragmatist »

Pragmatist wrote:
The Cat wrote:
Pragmatist wrote:CAT you still fall in to the PC Multi Culti trap of PRESUMING in a state of moral equivalence that all religions are basically the same and at their core GOOD.
Who's presuming here? Where did I write that?
Did I say you actually wrote those words please don't YOU try to put words in my mouth. What I did say is that it is obvious by the way you write that at the core of your thinking is 'moral equivalence' and that all religions are basically good at heart or have good in them. This is as I said patently NOT the case with Islam so no compromise is possible with Mohammedans. I have highlighted your 'moral equivalence' presumption in your previous posting and here is a copy.

The CAT posted:-

"Then again, limiting the freedom of religion to whatever is truly religious mustn't sounds like aiming at Islam alone. Muslims would then find themselves in the position of defending their seditious creed without the pervasive freedom of religion."
Where is the 'moral equivalence' and where's my stating that all religions are basically good...
Again, who's presuming here? You make allegations from deductions that aren't there.

Now, I don't give a damn if Muslims pray five times a day towards Mecca, fast during Ramadan, say the Shahada, give to (real) charity or perform the hajj to Mecca. I don't mind the -religious- parts of ANY religion.

What is at stake in my comments is the political seditious parts of Islam (sanctified hatred), OR of ANY other faith, which must be eradicated from the umbrella of freedom of religion. And this must be -general- so to be effective, not limited only to Islam.

Your way is bloody confrontational, and Muslims are professionals at martyrdom which you'd fuel.
Mine is acting with as much civility as possible, within the realm of legality, with end results in sight.

Freedom of religion must be defined as to what is religious and what isn't. Simple as Occam's razor.
Are Muslims allowed to blow your head and rape your wife under the freedom to practice their religion?[/quote]

Your extremely foolish ASSUMPTION is that there is something in Islam worth saving and that Mohammedans will allow ANYONE to mess with their god given book of Hate and War and their presumption that they will and MUST eventually rule all the world. In that You are monumentally misinformed and have no insight into Mohammedanism at the very LEAST if you think Mohammedans will allow that to happen. My comments about your attitude stand. You are either very stupid or extremely naive. You choose which.

:*) :*)
Does a God create you simply to punish you in Hellfire well PREDESTINATING evil, illogical, sadistic allah DOES.

Pragmatist
Posts: 1785
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 9:20 am

Re: Can Britain Survive Multiculturalism?

Post by Pragmatist »

It just gets worse and worse in the UK
This from the UK Daily Mail

Labour 'smeared independent statisticians' over report on TRUE number of foreign workers in Britain

By James Slack
Last updated at 8:43 AM on 13th February 2009

* Comments (27)
* Add to My Stories


Labour was last night accused of a 'disgraceful' attempt to 'bully' independent statisticians who revealed uncomfortable truths about the number of foreign workers in the UK.

Senior party figures launched a vicious whispering campaign against the Office of Nationals Statistics after it released figures showing a surge of 214,000 in the number of non-UK born people working here as the country slid into recession.

The data made a mockery of Gordon Brown's promise to create 'British jobs for British workers', as unemployment among UK-born people soared to a 12-year high.

But, instead of debating the ONS's report, ministers launched a behind closed doors smear campaign against the Whitehall statisticians.
A demonstrator holds a placard outside the Total Lindsey refinery, in Lincolnshire

A demonstrator holds a placard outside the Total Lindsey refinery in Lincolnshire during wildcat strikes over the use of foreign labour

Unnamed sources told the Times newspaper that ministers were 'fizzing' with anger, accusing the ONS of a political act designed to embarrass Gordon Brown over his 'British jobs' soundbite.

A senior government source told the Labour supporting newspaper: 'The fact that they highlighted this in this way, in a press release, looks like they are trying to embarrass the Government over the slogan ‘British Jobs for British workers’.

Last night, ministers - who have been repeatedly criticised for manipulating or 'spinning' ONS statistics - were attacked for their tactics.

Critics suggested their intention was to bully the ONS into dropping the publication of similar statistics in future.

The ONS's report pointed out that the total number of non-UK born workers increased by 214,000 - to 3.8 million - in the year to December. At the same time the number of UK-born workers in employment fell by 278,000 to 25.6 million.

Shadow home secretary Chris Grayling said: 'The Government is utterly hypocritical when it comes to using official statistics. If the news is bad, they want it buried. If it's good, they want it all over the front page.


More...

* JAMES SLACK: A disgraceful campaign to hide the truth about foreign workers
* Bank chief warns economy could shrink by 6%... just three months after Alistair Darling predicted a fall of 1.25%
* Labour isn't working . . . again: 400-strong jobless queue echoes famous poster as unemployment reaches 12-year high

'When he became Prime Minister, Gordon Brown promised a new era of open Government. Now things are tough for him, he'll do anything he can to avoid facing up to what is really happening.'

Tory MP James Clappison, a member of the Commons home affairs committee said there was a need for an open and honest debate on migration policy.

He added: 'It is disgraceful that the Government should seek to bully an independent statistics authority.'

Sir Andrew Green, chairman of Migrationwatch UK, said: 'It is astonishing that the ONS should be attacked for setting out the facts of the case.

'In the past the public have been deeply suspicious of official statistics on immigration. It is absolutely right for the ONS to seek to rebuild their confidence.'

Those questioning the ONS included Keith Vaz, the Labour chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee.

He said: 'The danger is that such information could be misconstrued or misused by those who do not support the view that Britain should be a diverse and multicultural society.'

Yesterday, Mr Vaz raised the issue directly with Mr Brown at a Parliamentary committee.

Mr Brown said: 'This is a decision that the independent Office for National Statistics has made. This is not a decision that the Government has made to publish this information.'

He also sought to distance himself from the 'British jobs' promise he made in September 2007.

Mr Brown told MPs: 'Statements taken out of context can be completely misleading. think if you look back on the speech that I made, I wanted to say that in an open, global economy where there is a huge amount of mobility it is important that we do everything in our power to give British workers the skills that are necessary for them to be able to get the jobs that are available in our country.'

The ONS said the employment statistics released yesterday included the number of UK-born and non-UK born workers in the same way as they do every time they are released.

The only different step taken today was that the ONS published a short release specifically highlighting the figures. This analysis had been due to be released in two week's time, alongside a raft of other immigration statistics, but was brought forward to make it more relevant.

A spokesman said: 'Given the level of interest in this aspect of the labour market, and since calculations are not straightforward, we decided to publish estimates by our standard techniques.

'The aim is to help public information and avoid potential confusion if alternative statistics were published.'
Does a God create you simply to punish you in Hellfire well PREDESTINATING evil, illogical, sadistic allah DOES.

User avatar
The Cat
Posts: 2055
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:23 pm

Re: Can Britain Survive Multiculturalism?

Post by The Cat »

Pragmatist wrote:
The Cat wrote:Now, I don't give a damn if Muslims pray five times a day towards Mecca, fast during Ramadan, say the Shahada, give to (real) charity or perform the hajj to Mecca. I don't mind the -religious- parts of ANY religion.

What is at stake in my comments is the political seditious parts of Islam (sanctified hatred), OR of ANY other faith, which must be eradicated from the umbrella of freedom of religion. And this must be -general- so to be effective, not limited only to Islam.

Your way is bloody confrontational, and Muslims are professionals at martyrdom which you'd fuel.
Mine is acting with as much civility as possible, within the realm of legality, with end results in sight.

Freedom of religion must be defined as to what is religious and what isn't. Simple as Occam's razor.
Are Muslims allowed to blow your head and rape your wife under the freedom to practice their religion?
Your extremely foolish ASSUMPTION is that there is something in Islam worth saving and that Mohammedans will allow ANYONE to mess with their god given book of Hate and War and their presumption that they will and MUST eventually rule all the world. In that You are monumentally misinformed and have no insight into Mohammedanism at the very LEAST if you think Mohammedans will allow that to happen. My comments about your attitude stand. You are either very stupid or extremely naive. You choose which.
That's why the idea goes with a law, defining was is religious and what isn't, for ALL faiths.
Freedom of religion is enshrined in most Constitutions, no one will change the basic of it.

To state that there's nothing ''in Islam worth saving'' is either Utopian or Hitlerian (just switch Judaism for Islam).
I don't go for fanaticism, yours included...
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.

Pragmatist
Posts: 1785
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 9:20 am

Re: Can Britain Survive Multiculturalism?

Post by Pragmatist »

The Cat wrote:
Pragmatist wrote:
The Cat wrote:Now, I don't give a damn if Muslims pray five times a day towards Mecca, fast during Ramadan, say the Shahada, give to (real) charity or perform the hajj to Mecca. I don't mind the -religious- parts of ANY religion.

What is at stake in my comments is the political seditious parts of Islam (sanctified hatred), OR of ANY other faith, which must be eradicated from the umbrella of freedom of religion. And this must be -general- so to be effective, not limited only to Islam.

Your way is bloody confrontational, and Muslims are professionals at martyrdom which you'd fuel.
Mine is acting with as much civility as possible, within the realm of legality, with end results in sight.

Freedom of religion must be defined as to what is religious and what isn't. Simple as Occam's razor.
Are Muslims allowed to blow your head and rape your wife under the freedom to practice their religion?
Your extremely foolish ASSUMPTION is that there is something in Islam worth saving and that Mohammedans will allow ANYONE to mess with their god given book of Hate and War and their presumption that they will and MUST eventually rule all the world. In that You are monumentally misinformed and have no insight into Mohammedanism at the very LEAST if you think Mohammedans will allow that to happen. My comments about your attitude stand. You are either very stupid or extremely naive. You choose which.
That's why the idea goes with a law, defining was is religious and what isn't, for ALL faiths.
Freedom of religion is enshrined in most Constitutions, no one will change the basic of it.

To state that there's nothing ''in Islam worth saving'' is either Utopian or Hitlerian (just switch Judaism for Islam).
I don't go for fanaticism, yours included...
You keep on CONFIRMING exactly what I said about you and your "moral equivalence" much as you try to deny it. Why on earth should I want to and how is it remotely possible to equate Islam with Judaism ???

What in Judaism tells them that EVERYONE is born a Jew, that Jews will and MUST eventually rule all the world and anyone who leaves Judaism should be murdered, and all non Jews are second class citizens or vermin and that all Mohammedans should be killed ????


Nothing at all of course but YOU think they can be equated by someone like me. Because you want to think I am just as illogical and irrational as YOU obviously are. Sorry Moonbat I am not.


:prop: :prop: :prop:
Does a God create you simply to punish you in Hellfire well PREDESTINATING evil, illogical, sadistic allah DOES.

Post Reply