Re: SCW's legacy

On 19 Jul 2005 12:14:48 -0700, "Richard Bridgman" <rhb919@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

>Charles wrote:
>> On 19 Jul 2005 06:48:23 -0700, "Richard Bridgman" <rhb919@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Charles wrote:
>> >[snip]
>> >> >Firstly, all four perpetrators were British. Three of the four were
>> >> >born and had lived all their lives in Britain. One was a Briton born
>> >> >in Jamaica. So it's incorrect to call them "four immigrants".
>> >>
>> >> That is naive or obtuse!
>> >
>> >Why? What are you really saying? I have followed this ongoing argument
>> >of yours and I must say you appear to be obfuscating. You have never
>> >really expanded on your original comment, although you have certainly
>> >sought to defend it.
>>
>> Then you haven't been "following" very attentively Richard.
>>
>> >I can only assume you are saying immigration is
>> >the root cause - or at the very least a strong contributing factor,
>>
>> It is certainly safe to "assume" that assumption.
>>
>> >and
>> >I must further assume you are trying to say that if the UK refused
>> >entry to anyone (i don't know...are you saying *anyone* or just
>> >Muslims?) this attack would never have happened.
>>
>> I said quite clearly:
>>
>> "The harsh fact is that immigration *is* a problem and needs to be
>> addressed with some urgency. Whether the immigrant is a new asylum
>> seeker or the product of successive generations from the early
>> immigrations of the 1950's, the problem and the solution appears to be
>> to do with assimilation and integration.
>>
>> All immigrants must be made to accept the following before they are
>> allowed leave to stay:
>>
>> 1. The rule of secular law.
>>
>> 2. The sovereignty of parliamentary democracy.
>>
>> 3. Loyalty to the nation of the United Kingdom.
>>
>> 4. The separation of church and state.
>>
>> 5. The authority of the Crown (as opposed to monarchy).
>>
>> 6. The requirement to be competent in the English language.
>
>How very strange! How would these criteria be enforced, and by what
>right would they be imposed? The only requirement should, IMO, be
>implied understanding that the immigrant abides by the laws of the
>country. That's it, nothing else. If they break the law, then just like
>every other citizen they will be subject to arrest and due process.
>
>> And having complied with all that, by leading by example all
>> succeeding generations
>
>How on earth would that be enforced? Would the sins of the sons be
>visited on the fathers? Once a person is 18 years old, they are
>responsible for their own actions.
>
>> This means not simply paying lip service for the purpose of
>> expediency, but wanting to become British citizens without ulterior
>> motives. It certainly does not mean coming to Britain to remain aloof
>> and outside the mainstream population, and attempting to undermine
>> Britain's traditional culture,
>
>Cultures and traditions change, like it or not. In a few generations
>we'll have a new "traditional culture"...one influenced by the large
>number of immigrants.
>
>> with the intention of imposing Sharia law.
>
>Their "intentions" are their own. There are some people who would like
>to impose a fascist, right wing regime (National Front, etc.). There
>are those who would prefer total anarchy. It's called freedom of
>speech.
>
>> This does not mean giving up cultural or religious inclinations, but
>> rather accepting them as subservient to the reality of being British
>> first, and all that proudly stands for. Those cultural and religious
>> differences can and do make a rich contribution to our multi-cultural
>> nation, but they should not be prioritised above citizenship.
>
>That's up to the individual citizen to decide. "Being British" can mean
>having a Pakistani heritage for example. You say the differences make a
>"rich contribution" whilst at the same time you seem to be saying these
>differences should be curbed - I don't know how or where you would draw
>the line, and in fact I don't think a line should be drawn.
>
>> >
>> >If I'm wrong, I apologise, but assuming i'm not your point of view is
>> >misguided, trite, racist, illogical, unhelpful and quite frankly
>> >bizarre.
>>
>> Then you Sir, are quite clearly out of step with the vast majority of
>> the UK population.
>
>You may well be right.
>
>> You must allow people to express their views, without the necessity of
>> responding to them with the hackneyed responses of the politically
>> correct, who seek to deny us our freedom of speech, that would allow
>> us to have only one point of view, and who have the tendency to label
>> people racists etc, if we dare to have 'other' opinions on matters
>> that are important to us all.
>
>Charles, that is ridiculous and I suspect you know it. I have in no way
>implied you should *not* express your view, I'm merely debating them.
>My responses are neither "hackneyed" nor "politically correct". It
>seems to me it is you who are suggesting how people should act, how
>they should conduct themselves, and prescribing a notion of citizenship
>for them to abide by.
>
>> By so doing you are merely acting out the role of "misguided, trite,
>> racist, illogical, unhelpful and quite frankly bizarre" sort of person
>> that you are so quick to label other people.
>
>I stand by those descriptions, although I used them to refer to your
>opinions. You have used them to refer to me as a person. Who's labeling
>who, Charles?
>
>> What you haven't done is offer your own views of how we should respond
>> to the London bombings, and the quite clear association between that
>> horror and Islam! Are you denying the threat and from where it comes.
>
>Very well, here you go: Given the attacks are a crime, the proper
>authorities should seek out those responsible. Furthermore, those
>promoting or conspiring to commit other such crimes should be similarly
>pursued. As to the Islam issue, I believe Western governments need to
>engage with the Arab world on a much less superficial level. We need to
>address the issues affecting ordinary Muslims, such as poverty,
>disenfranchisement; and we need to pressure those oppressive regimes
>(Saudi Arabia as just one example) to introduce reforms designed to
>improve the outlook for their citizens. I believe problems experienced
>by young Muslims in many countries - problems caused and exacerbated by
>their own governments - find an outlet in the current anti-Western
>fervor. Not surprising really when we prop-up those same regimes in the
>interest of money. Oh and invading Iraq, and supporting Israels
>occupation of Palestine doesn't help either. So that's just a brief
>smattering of some of my opinions on the matter...I could go on, but
>we're supposed to be talking about Rugby.
>
>> If you do have any opinions, which I doubt,
>
>A ridiculous statement, even for you. I missed that when I read your
>post the 1st time. If I had seen it I wouldn't have bothered replying
>to you.
>
>> you will find that
>> whatever they are, some smart know-all will tear them up for arse
>> paper should you care to venture them!!
>
>Perhaps. Free speech. That's the beauty of usenet.

A good response with some well-argued points, and all in a reasonable
tone. I won't bother to answer point by point as there is nothing
which I really oppose.

If I was rude it was not my intention, but the likes of "wooks" have
got me in a slightly more combative mode today. Please accept my
apologies.

You will see by the responses I have received from a couple of other
people, why I rarely discuss politics. A very small minority has us in
its thrall. They are vociferous and they go for the throat by
name-calling and spewing all their venom. It is why decent people
won't go up against them. There is no way I could be a politician.

The only reason for wandering into this vexed arena is because of the
lack of rugby. I shall be a little more circumspect in future. The odd
thing is that I discuss these matters with friends and colleagues with
no acrimony. What happens to people when they come to Usenet?

I heard briefly that two of England's junior players were sent off,
but I can find no reference to it anywhere. Have you any idea?
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: SCWs legacy
    ... What are you really saying? ... Whether the immigrant is a new asylum ... Charles, that is ridiculous and I suspect you know it. ... improve the outlook for their citizens. ...
    (rec.sport.rugby.union)
  • Re: Rebuking those who say they are Christians
    ... These children are US citizens. ... illegal immigrant whose child is a US citizen is caught and ... To me a significant difference between the Mexican illegals and most other groups of immigrants legal or not, is in whether the immigrant has chosen a new home to become part of the community and care about the wellbeing and future of the community, or whether the purpose is to exploit the community and send its value elsewhere. ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • Re: A Day Without an Illegal Immigrant
    ... WEALTHY CITIZENS!! ... immigrant with a work visa -- no job equals no work ID either. ... immigrant who can is facing legal barriers but has never committed a crime ... citizens who commit far more crime in this country that immigrants who have ...
    (alt.home.repair)
  • Re: OT - May Day Walkout
    ... face to ever immigrant who has worked hard to come here the LEGAL way. ... and bankrupt the businesses that hire them! ... a legal immigrant, I'd be pissed off. ... his citizens more than the government he's in charge of gives them. ...
    (sci.med.transcription)
  • Re: was it a fair trial death penalty
    ... >2) Uk citizens go there regularly and may find themselves on the receiving ... >3) *if* the offender is still at large he still presents a threat ... Well I kept pushing the trial point and got three good responses for ... my trouble. ...
    (uk.legal)