» Trafigura and Carter Ruck are back in business! 29 mins ago

» Hilarious. ConservativeHome getting blasted from everywhere for posting such a weak list of global warming denialism. 41 mins ago

» Government "urgently" considers legal reforms after court issued arrest warrant for Israeli minister: http://bit.ly/5LQZbe 1 hr ago

» ConservativeHome's cred in shreds; New Scientist refutes 'Global Warming is Natural' list: http://bit.ly/8vpYqw (via @tomstannard) 6 hrs ago

» A 100 reasons why Daily Express is crap enough to lead with 'global warming is natural' story: http://bit.ly/71JcJ9 6 hrs ago

More updates...


  • Family

    • Ala Abbas
    • Clairwil
    • Daily Rhino
    • Leon Green
    • Liberal Conspiracy
    • Sonia Afroz
  • Comrades

    • Andy Worthington
    • Angela Saini
    • Aqoul
    • Bartholomew’s notes
    • Blairwatch
    • Bleeding Heart Show
    • Bloggerheads
    • Blood & Treasure
    • Butterflies & Wheels
    • Campaign against Honour Killings
    • Cath Elliott
    • Chicken Yoghurt
    • Clive Davis
    • Daily Mail Watch
    • Dave Hill
    • Dr StrangeLove
    • Dr. Mitu Khurana
    • Europhobia
    • Faith in Society
    • Feministing
    • Harry’s Place
    • IKWRO
    • Indigo Jo
    • Liberal England
    • MediaWatchWatch
    • Ministry of Truth
    • MT and friends
    • Natalie Bennett
    • New Humanist Editor
    • New Statesman blogs
    • open Democracy
    • Operation Black Vote
    • Our Kingdom
    • Robert Sharp
    • Rupa Huq
    • Septicisle
    • Shiraz Socialist
    • Shuggy’s Blog
    • Stumbling and Mumbling
    • Ta-Nehisi Coates
    • The F Word
    • Though Cowards Flinch
    • Tory Troll
    • UK Polling Report
    • Women Uncovered
  • In-laws

    • Aaron Heath
    • Ariane Sherine
    • Desi Pundit
    • Get There Steppin’
    • Incurable Hippie
    • Isheeta
    • Neha Viswanathan
    • Power of Choice
    • Real man’s fraternity
    • Route 79
    • Sajini W
    • Sarah
    • Sepia Mutiny
    • Smalltown Scribbles
    • Sonia Faleiro
    • The Langar Hall
    • Turban Head
    • Ultrabrown



  • Technorati: graph / links

    Is the English Defence League reaching out to Hindus, Sikhs?


    by guest on 9th October, 2009 at 12:48 PM    

    guest post by Philip Honour

    It appears at the EDL are trying to bolster supporter numbers by reaching out to the UK Sikh and Hindu communities. According to their member’s forum and in a discussion titled “Piece of Advice”, member SUBXUK says:

    If you genuinely are against Islamic extremists and you’re not BNP undercover, you will get Indian Sikh and Indian Hindus onto your side.
    You need to protest in their communities with something like “Stop Islamophobia, But Stop Islamic Extremists

    He continues:

    Or something like recognise Sikhs and Hindus, are different from Muslims… trust me they will come out in numbers, if you get in touch with the Sikh or Hindu Councils in the UK.

    A little bit later, member PAUL81272 responds:

    My wife is a Hindu (originally from India) and I can tell you they know a lot more about religious tension than we could ever know, I have tried to encourage her extended family from Birmingham Preston London etc etc but they are genuinely concerned about the right wing element. We need to actively encourage the other world faiths that the EDL is only anti Islamic extremism.

    This is part of an EDL strategy to reach out to minority communities in the UK to bolster numbers at the protests and using similar tactics to the British National Party, to distract from the islamaphobic, racist overtures of the group. The racism that underpins the group’s aims can be seen clearly in other parts of the forum.

    In a thread titled, “Racist Hate”, member ADDER states:

    Like it or not the Islam hate is understandable. When you get invaders coming into the country, living off benefits, getting free health care paid by the taxpayer who then take to the streets pushing to get Sharia Law in the country, attacking white people, setting up no-go areas for white people and blowing up trains they are going to get hated. Whether it’s a minority of the Muslims or not.

    Which I) don’t think it is, there are far too many incidents for it to be a ‘minority’. I actually think it’s the minority of Muslims who arn’t blinded by their religion and realise the Koran is an outdated, vile, piece of work that has no place in the civilised world.

    And yesterday at 3:50pm, in response to a suggestion by IGNOMINIUS that abusing a visitor might reifornce the view that the EDL are islamaphobes and racists, member ELITE DEFENDER states:

    Yes I agree, always be polite and friendly but then always remember that they want to cut our throats and slaughter us like lambs.

    Stay strong and stay sharp.

    Enough said really….more to follow as the story develops…



    Filed in: Other racists, Race politics, Religion




    • Reza
      "...and using similar tactics to the British National Party, to distract from the islamaphobic, racist overtures of the group."

      Eh? I wasn't aware that the BNP were canvassing support from Hindus and Sikhs.

      And 'islamophobia' is not the same as racism.
    • Rumbold
      Thanks for this Philip. We have to be wary of the divide and conquer mentality.

      Reza:

      The BNP have tried to court other minorities (especially Sikhs) in the past.
    • Shatterface
      Some of us warned that legal pressure on the BNP would result in the far-right simply allying themselves with other ethnic groups who share their prejudices; the EDL are simply a step ahead.

      Bigots of the world unite!
    • Random Guy
      Well, all I can say is that it would be good to have all the racist pricks in one corner. Keep reaching out by all means.
    • Jimmy
      Life is complicated, isn't it?

      All this diversity and anti-diversity stuff is hard to follow ...

      http://www.amren.com/ar/2007/02/index.html

      And it seems just as complicated in Canada, too !
    • Ravi Naik
      All this diversity and anti-diversity stuff is hard to follow …


      It is only hard to follow if you are opposed to it.

      And it seems just as complicated in Canada, too !


      Jared Taylor is a pseudo-intellectual whose arguments are easily refuted. The following is the sort of argument he uses to prove that something is very wrong with diversity:

      Let’s go back to Ontario, where there is the most racial diversity in Canada, and where we should therefore find the most strength. Try a search on the web site for the government of Ontario on the word “racism” and see how many hits you get. I got 4,852 when I tried it in December. And I didn’t even try “discrimination,” “bigotry,” or “hatred,” or any number of other promising terms.
    • Jimmy
      Ravi Naik might choose to spend a little time checking out the ethnic criminality scene in Canada.

      Why are there Tamil gangs and Sikh drug-related murders in Canada, Ravi Naik?

      What have the Canadians done to deserve such a return for their hospitality?

      Tell us all!
    • Don
      Ontario, a fairly diverse city, gets 4,852 hits for racism. Municipal sites for less diverse cities such as Riyadh or Seoul get zero. His point is what? That Ontario should be more like Seoul?

      To be fair, Tokyo also gets zero and Taylor is a huge fan of Japan, apparently regarding asians as the 'most evolved' of the races. Guess who he sees as least.
    • Ravi Naik
      Ravi Naik might choose to spend a little time checking out the ethnic criminality scene in Canada.


      Diversity exists in the UK, more specifically in London where I live.

      Why are there Tamil gangs and Sikh drug-related murders in Canada, Ravi Naik? What have the Canadians done to deserve such a return for their hospitality?


      What percentage of East Indians in Canada belong to gangs? And what percentage works, pays taxes and contributes to the economy of your country? Do you think that Indians in general benefit from gangs? Are there no white criminals and gangs in Canada? Or when it is white crime it has nothing to do with diversity problems, but when it is non-white, OMGZ... there's proof that they can't integrate in our civilized non-third-world country.

      In the UK, East Indians are 4% of the population, but they produce 6% of the wealth.

      To be fair, Tokyo also gets zero and Taylor is a huge fan of Japan, apparently regarding asians as the ‘most evolved’ of the races. Guess who he sees as least.


      As far as I remember, Taylor is actually married to a Japanese woman and he speaks the language.
    • What have the Canadians done to deserve such a return for their hospitality?

      Tell us all!


      LEt me get this straight... are those Sikhs and Tamils not Canadians now?

      And do white Canadians not commit any crime?
    • Reza
      Jimmy

      You must understand the mentality of multiculturalists. They believe in the Diversity Theorem:

      "Groups of people from anywhere in the world, mixed together in any numbers and proportions whatsoever, will eventually settle down as a harmonious society, appreciating — nay, celebrating! — their differences... which will of course soon disappear entirely."

      The other thing you must understand is that rationality, logic or even statistical or scientific truth logic can never be used in these, because the multiculturalist’s thought process goes something like this:

      “Diversity is our strength. That’s why we need diversity. And our strength comes from our diversity. So if we have more diversity we will have more strength.”

      In white multiculturalists, this thought process is followed by a release of soothing endorphins that allows the person to feel nice about themselves.

      They use non sequesters and intangibles because they aren’t able to provide any tangible evidence to refute the grim reality; which is that mass immigration, in particular from very culturally different third-world countries does far more harm to the host society than it does good.

      And finally Jimmy, look at this:

      “LEt me get this straight… are those Sikhs and Tamils not Canadians now?
      And do white Canadians not commit any crime?”

      So you see, whilst the ethnic minority member or the white multiculturalist will invariably use the ‘ethnic’ moniker when discussing those intangibles such as the cultural ‘enrichment’ immigrants provide, they tend to opt for the national moniker to describe criminals.

      And you must understand, that as long as a single white Canadian commits a crime and a single Sikh or Tamil doesn’t, then you can’t use anything so silly as statistics or documentary proof to demonstrate that proportionally, certain groups commit far more crime. That’s how the logic works. Stick around its interesting, even grimly funny at times.
    • halima
      Good post. What I find ludicrous about this latest outreach is that the racists always and everywhere patronise anti-racist groups, and use divide and rule as though we've not seen it before.
    • D-Notice
      Reza

      "They use non sequesters and intangibles because they aren't able to provide any tangible evidence to refute the grim reality; which is that mass immigration, in particular from very culturally different third-world countries does far more harm to the host society than it does good."

      In other words: I'm right and you need to prove me wrong.

      That's not how things work. <bYou're making the claim that immigration is bad, and so, as they say on Wikipedia, [citation needed].
    • D-Notice
      Reza

      "They use non sequesters and intangibles because they aren't able to provide any tangible evidence to refute the grim reality; which is that mass immigration, in particular from very culturally different third-world countries does far more harm to the host society than it does good."

      In other words: I'm right and you need to prove me wrong.

      That's not how things work. You're making the claim that immigration is bad, and so you need to provide the evidence in support, so as they say on Wikipedia, [citation needed].
    • Reza
      D-Notice

      "In other words: I’m right and you need to prove me wrong."

      I see. That's why lefties don’t think they need to put a case highlighting tangible and/or provable benefits to a society gained from increasing its diversity. Because they just ‘know’ they’re right.

      I’d realized that debating with leftie multiculturalists was more like debating with religious zealots, but it seems that it’s worse than I imagined.

      Proving you wrong is easy. I won’t even go very far. Take some time to read the link Jimmy gave in No.5. Here it is again:

      http://www.amren.com/ar/2007/02/index.html

      When you read it, try to counter the points, rationally in your head, using real facts, real figures and real situations. I doubt you’ll be able to and that will feel uncomfortable for you. You’ll probably want to stop reading, but please continue, and ask yourself “why is this making me feel so uncomfortable?”

      I understand that ‘faith’ is a great comfort to people. And having that ‘faith’ proven wrong can hurt.

      But maybe rationally argued truth might be enough to cause you to start questioning your ‘faith’?

      As I did. And believe me, it can be a painful journey.
    • MaidMarian
      Reza (11/14) - Given you do have form for putting words into my mouth on here I reply with a bit of trepidation, but....

      Do you not hold out the slight possibility that things can be viewed through prisms other than identity. Granted, coming onto talkboards and waving your genitals at the straw men 'leftie multiculturalists' of your fetid imagination probably makes you feel all warm inside. But I don't really know what you are getting at.

      Let me give you an example - my wife is white and from Eastern Europe. A lot of her friends (in line with much of the talkboard chatterati) think that Slobodan Milosevic was a misunderstood soul and that the Glorious Orthodox Brotherhood should be indulged at all costs. My wife and I think that this is cobblers.

      These people however all go out, contribute to society, work, provide care and the like. Does your zealotry not allow you to hold out the faint possibility that diversity (political, racial and otherwise) and integration are not mutually exclusive.

      Someone who is different may be a good person, they may be a knobhead. Diversity/integration does not in and of itself affect that.

      Bring me evidence as to why it is that you think your sensitivity about 'identity' outweights my right to choose who I want to marry and you might have a point. At the moment, I'm not sure what your point is other than you don't like 'multiculturalists.'

      The cynic in me wonders whether you are just trying to smear all immigrants, and thus the notion of immigration with the broad brush of multicultural failures - that's it, right? You do understand that immigrants don't all sit around thinking about how they can abuse 'multiculturalism' don't you?
    • Paul
      Unlikely that a group which so actively identifies with English football hooliganism, can attract support from any ethnic minorities. But if you step back from this specific case, then xenophobic nationalists in Europe are doing relatively well at reaching out to two groups, that formerly did not support them: Jews and gays.

      Geert Wilders is the best example of a successful alliance with Jews, because of his own philosemitism and radical pro-Israel policies. And unlike many other right-wing parties, there is absolutely no anti-gay rhetoric or undertone in his politics. But above all it was Pim Fortuyn, who showed that a gay man can be a narrow-minded racist, eurosceptic, conservative, nationalist, xenophobic Islam-basher - and win large-scale support among gays for it.

      Fortuyn almost made it to Prime Minister of the Netherlands, and the opinion polls say Geert Wilders probably will too.
    • Binkstein III
      Paul is wrong, wrong and wrong again!

      The issue of 'RACE' - i.e. skin colour - has f*ck all to do with detesting Radical Islam [i.e. 'Real Islam'] and recognising that most - NOT all - 'moderate Islam' is merely a soft-Jihad form of Real Islam [except for the Nice Islam embraced by no-trouble-at all Sufis, Ahmedis and Ismaelis] and even raising the issue of so-called racism slots you in with the ISLAMOPHOBIA WATCH nutters who love to tie those who detest Islam in the same sack with horrible skin-colour-obsessed Real Racists.

      Can you make the mental effort to get that straight once and for all?
    • Reza
      damon:

      "They were all of a north African or Turkish looking origin.
      As small time drug dealers often are, they looked pretty untrustworthy and shifty. I wonder if resentment towards them from local people boosted support for Wilders’ party."

      Of course this boosting Wilders' support. Did you ever visit Amsterdam 10 or 15 years ago? Have you been to Amsterdam recently?

      You can see, and even feel the difference. It is no longer the laid-back, tolerant and relatively safe place it once was. And immigrants have had a lot to do with that.

      That’s why the Dutch, once the most tolerant people on earth, are accepting that mass third world immigration has severely damaged their country. They are increasingly saying they will no longer tolerate it.

      The Netherlands is the canary in the coalmine of Europe.

      I’m seriously fearful of what will happen there if Wilders becomes Prime Minister.
    • MaidMarian
      Reza (18) - 'I’m seriously fearful of what will happen there if Wilders becomes Prime Minister.'

      Why?

      Oh, and Amsterdam has, for a very long time been horrible. Not as bad as Rotterdam though.
    • George
      Look on the bright side, Reza

      http://www.spectator.co.uk/print/politics/all/5...

      Cheer up!
    • Reza
      George

      I didn't find the article to be particularly cheerful. I did agree with most of it though, particularly this:-

      "The first impediment to progress is a community’s determination to cling on to elements of their own cultural traditions and ways of life."

      It’s inevitable that whenever you have large groups of people living in a foreign country, they’ll establish a parallel society with their original cultures and values.

      We’ve allowed this to happen by allowing ‘communities’ to become very large, very quickly whilst appeasing and accommodating their foreign cultural customs and values.

      And there is no way to counter this without drastic action. Further immigration must be stopped. Continually adding to those 'communities' numbers through immigration and internationally arranged 'fetching' marriages simply makes the problems of tomorrow ever-bigger. And ‘foreign’ cultures, languages and values must not be tolerated in the way they are. ‘Communities’ will only integrate if they are left with little choice but to do so.

      I would love for multiculturalism to work. It’s such a lovely idea. But it isn’t working. It will never work. Human beings are what they are. And the future, whatever route it takes is going to be more and more unpleasant.

      If you haven’t done so already, take a look at this link that Jimmy gave in post 5.

      http://www.amren.com/ar/2007/02/index.html

      I realised this painful truth a few years ago. Diversity is NOT good. It will never come to any good. We have been spun a fantasy, with no basis whatsoever in reality or truth.

      Read the link. And think about it.
    • MaidMarian
      Reza (22) - 'Further immigration must be stopped.'

      Ah, I see now. So it is not about concern over 'multiculturalism' or 'diversity' at all - it's about your whims and indulging your politics regardless of what anyone else thinks. It's about you getting your way.

      'It’s inevitable that whenever you have large groups of people living in a foreign country, they’ll establish a parallel society with their original cultures and values.'

      Pure unadulterated for sheer cobblers!

      Just out of pure interest, these, 'multiculturalists,' you refer to so often who you are so frightened of, can you please name a few? And perhaps what 'values and cultures' it is that you mean? Not getting at you, just curious.

      As to the link you provide - it appears to confuse civil society and difference. Think about it.
    • Reza
      MaidMarian

      "Ah, I see now. So it is not about concern over ‘multiculturalism’ or ‘diversity’ at all – it’s about your whims and indulging your politics regardless of what anyone else thinks. It’s about you getting your way."

      Stick "immigration poll uk" into Google and see that every poll for the last few years shows that the majority of British people want immigration to be stopped. The majority believe that Britain is worse off with immigrants. Yet who is getting their own way? That's right, people like you.

      And it will end in tears.
    • Further immigration must be stopped

      Did you come into this country or did your parent(s)?
    • Ravi Naik
      I realised this painful truth a few years ago. Diversity is NOT good. It will never come to any good. We have been spun a fantasy, with no basis whatsoever in reality or truth.


      Your parents are Iranian immigrants who came to this country and they settled here. What you are saying is that they should have never have come to this country in the first place.
    • Ravi Naik
      Stick “immigration poll uk” into Google and see that every poll for the last few years shows that the majority of British people want immigration to be stopped. The majority believe that Britain is worse off with immigrants. Yet who is getting their own way? That’s right, people like you.


      We are in a recession, and in times of economic downfall it is natural that people are somewhat wary of immigrants. Furthermore, the term "immigrant" is an ambiguous and subjective term and people will be conservative about it.

      The reason we get our way, is only because the majority of people do not vote in parties that are against diversity.

      I have yet to find a good justification of why diversity is bad, and why people of different races and origins cannot live side by side with a sound democratic and secular system, that is commited to equal individual rights. Quite frankly, diversity can only flourish in a liberal democracy, and homogeneity in a totalitarian regime. That in itself should give you a clue.
    • MaidMarian
      Reza - Government by opinion poll? There is a difference between government and politics.

      Good of you at least not to deny that you having your prejudices indulged is what this is all about.

      I can't seem to find that poll you mention where the majority say that, 'Britain is worse off with immigrants.' Can you put the link up please, I'd be interested in that.
    • MaidMarian
      Ravi Naik - I'd be rather more guarded about the term, 'pro-Diversity.'
    • Dave S
      Reza @ 22:
      I would love for multiculturalism to work. It’s such a lovely idea. But it isn’t working. It will never work.


      Oh really? What have you, personally, done to try and make it work? Or are you one of those people who quits and declares a universally applicable "defeat" before you've even started?

      Just because you have convinced yourself you can't make it work, doesn't mean millions of other people aren't living proof that it already does work. (I think the reality is probably somewhere in between, and totally time-dependent - just like wider society is.)

      Integration requires effort from both directions, you know.

      You can always find a thousand xenophobes who will scream "they're not trying to integrate" at some total strangers they've never even met and have no idea about.

      So, why not stop classifying people in easy-to-judge groups and boxes, and instead realise the truth: there are no groups, we are all individuals. Every human must be taken on whatever makes them as an individual tick, and that alone.

      Because I could classify you in ten thousand ways and still know virtually nothing about you, the human being. Labels are just labels.

      Human beings are what they are.


      The world of life is dynamic and changes every moment.

      We've been conditioned to use a static language, with all it's static labels (essentially, judgements, both external and internal) of who people "are". Others apply these judgements to you, and you apply them both to others, and to yourself.

      But you are not the same person you were 10 years ago, and you are not the same person you were an hour ago either - it's just the changes are small enough that you probably aren't aware of them over shorter periods of time.

      Human beings are whatever they think they are at any moment in time - and our remarkable capacity for learning and changing is one of our greatest assets - something to be embraced and celebrated, not feared!

      You would have to be an incredibly unusual human to attribute the exact same, unchanging static labels to yourself for the whole of your life! (You might as well become a stone!)

      Nowadays, I try to remember to avoid getting caught up in what I (or anybody else) think I "am", and try to just focus on (and sometimes marvel at) my capacity for adapting to a huge variety of different temporal roles and circumstances.

      What I am doing is not what I am - though of course, this isn't easy in a society which is obsessed with labels based on things like job title, marital status, social class and so on. We are obsessed with labelling and classifying ourselves, because it is easier than actually making the effort to get to know each other!!

      Yet we ought to rejoice in our own complexity - life is amazing, and we are amazing too!

      Nobody "is" anything without the context of timing at a specific moment, and even then, it's only temporary. (The poem "Zebra Question" by Shel Silverstein is a good read, and expresses this perfectly.)

      Perhaps if you stopped labelling yourself and accepted that you are just you then you'd find it easier to avoid labelling others in such static, immovable ways?

      Each of us is ever changing - always! Nobody "is" anything - not least the sum total of all of humanity being one "thing" or another.

      So I'm afraid I couldn't disagree with your truism any more - it is self-evidently not true!

      And the future, whatever route it takes is going to be more and more unpleasant.


      The future is unwritten. Anything is possible if you think globally, act locally, and change the one thing you can change: yourself.

      I realised this painful truth a few years ago. Diversity is NOT good. It will never come to any good. We have been spun a fantasy, with no basis whatsoever in reality or truth.


      So what with diversity being "NOT good", you'd mate with your siblings, would you?

      Nature is full of examples which prove beyond refute that diversity ensures survival, and that lack of diversity results in extinction.

      You and your outlook on the world are whatever you want them to be, and your reality will be shaped by that. (Though of course, you are also shaped by your environment and upbringing.)

      One person's experiences of our dynamic universe are not necessarily applicable to anybody else, and we would all do well to remember that we only have our own versions of events. We can't read each others' minds, or judge each others' motives in any way - we are too complex for that, and thus we are virtually guaranteed to be wrong if we do!

      The more you try to bend an ever-changing reality to fit a set of static ideas or labels about how the world "is" or human societies "are", the more discomfort you are in for.

      You can try to shift the blame for you unhappiness as much as you want, but there is only one person who can accept responsibility for your views, and do something positive to change them: you!

      Nobody else is "to blame" for it - it is a choice, and you can choose something else if you want to.

      So please, recognise your own capacity for change, cast off those static labels, and liberate yourself and everybody else in the process!

      (Incidentally, having said all that, I am sometimes hypocritical, in that I don't always manage to live up to my own values. But is that a condemnation of my entirety, or an acknowledgement that I can get progressively less stupid if I try to? Does being sometimes hypocritical make me an out-and-out hypocrite in all aspects of my being? No, it does not.)
    • Cauldron
      I thought that Spectator article was really quite thoughtful. But it'll be ignored because it doesn't fit in with the memes being promoted by the loudest voices on either side. It's a lot easier for these groups to talk about race than class.

      (1) On the one hand, focussing on race alone allows one group of extremists to conveniently forget that many of their core Untermensch supporters are too stupid to better their lives, even if there wasn't a single non-white person in the UK.

      (2) On the other hand, the advocates for certain minority communities prefer to hide behind the general banner of anti-racism without any introspection as to why their communities are such failures when compared to other ethnic minority communities.
    • Farah
      It is trying to reach out to Sikh and Hindus, but only the stupid will be divided and conquered, hold onto your hats for more deception and lies from the "we're not connected to football hooligans, casuals or the BNP" party.....give it up. Noone is welcoming the extremists of any kind other than extremists in peace....I am a fundamentalist...I believe fundamentaly in PEACE.
    • persephone
      ^^ The operative word is trying. They would like the public to think that they are reaching out to Sikhs, Hindus and the odd Iranian or two.

      I am expecting someone to say they are a disaffected member of the Taliban or a disaffected Imam to post here soon
    • Reza
      Sunny & Ravi

      “Did you come into this country or did your parent(s)?”

      I came with my parent’s as a young child. And I’m immensely grateful to be here. I’ve been back to Iran, several times in the last few years, and there’s no way I would rather live there.

      But I’ll preempt your probable comeback to that. Yes lax immigration policies benefited me personally. However, my overriding belief in the ‘common good’ of society leads me to oppose mass immigration. Because mass immigration does NOT benefit society in any measurable or tangible way.

      Think of it this way. Is a rich man a hypocrite if he votes for a political party that will raise taxes? Or is he simply demonstrating integrity?

      Ravi

      “…diversity can only flourish in a liberal democracy, and homogeneity in a totalitarian regime. That in itself should give you a clue.”

      The absolute opposite is true.

      Maid Marion

      “Government by opinion poll? There is a difference between government and politics.”

      & Ravi

      “The reason we get our way, is only because the majority of people do not vote in parties that are against diversity.”

      Yet you cannot deny that, over the last few years, every poll has shown that the MAJORITY of British people want ALL immigration to be stopped.

      And isn’t denying the will of the people totalitarianism?

      The other problem, as we can see, is that ignored people will eventually take the desperate step of supporting extremist outfits like the BNP.

      Dave S

      “What have you, personally, done to try and make it work? "

      Personally, I’ve done everything I can to assimilate. My children are as English as any English child. I won’t be putting my daughters in hejabs or any other religious or tribal garb. I won’t be returning to Iran to select a spouse for my kids from my ancestral village. We speak English at home, and I didn’t send my kids to school unable to speak English. I have never had any expectation that this country should adapt to accommodate me. Because that is simply f*cking rude!

      “Or are you one of those people who quits and declares a universally applicable “defeat” before you’ve even started?”

      I have yet to come across a single society where two or more very large and culturally or ethnically distinct groups of people have ever lived together in peace and harmony, without oppressive and totalitarian government. Can you give me an example?

      Diversity as a ‘strength’ is a lie, as Jimmy’s link in Post No. 5 demonstrated so eloquently and irrefutably. The case for mass immigration and multiculturalism have been based upon this lie.

      I challenge anyone to come up with a single objective, provable and tangible benefit to be gained from increasing diversity.

      That’s right there isn’t one, hence the reason multiculturalists always use subjectives to describe the benefits, such as “enriching” making life “more interesting” etc.

      The road we are taking has no historical precedent. No other society has ever willingly ‘diversified’ itself. And history has shown, time and time again, that ‘diversified’ societies will inevitably fracture along cultural, religious or ethnic lines.

      We’re playing with fire.
    • douglas clark
      Reza,

      Leaving aside for one moment what happened to the North American Indians, what about the USA? For all it's faults, you've got to admit it is pretty diverse, don't you?
    • Reza
      Douglas

      Yes, the USA is diverse, but its diversity is hardly a 'strength'.

      Everyone should take time to watch this brilliant documentary:-

      http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1084394...

      (And I'm glad you acknowledged the North American Indians as victims of immigration.)
    • Ravi Naik
      But I’ll preempt your probable comeback to that. Yes lax immigration policies benefited me personally. However, my overriding belief in the ‘common good’ of society leads me to oppose mass immigration. Because mass immigration does NOT benefit society in any measurable or tangible way.


      That's a nice strawman argument there. Every country needs to control immigration since resources are limited, from schools to hospitals - which everyone knows that there are a limited number of places. From the point of view of the economy, immigrants help grow the economy. British Asians, for instance, being 4% of the UK population, produce 6% of the wealth in this country. That's not bad.

      However, you seem to be more preoccupied with "diversity". I have yet to see evidence that in Western liberal countries, diversity has destroyed the ethos of any country. I think the UK, the US, Canada are far more interesting places to live than Korea or Japan, or any homogeneous country. We do hear a lot about racism from newspapers, but then it is a sensationalist subject. The "paki" incident had 3 or 4 article dedicated in PP. I say this is enough evidence that diversity actually works, as long as people learn to respect others for how they are born.

      The absolute opposite is true.


      Oh, in totalitarian regimes you have diversity of views, opinions and freedom of religion and ideas?

      I have yet to come across a single society where two or more very large and culturally or ethnically distinct groups of people have ever lived together in peace and harmony, without oppressive and totalitarian government. Can you give me an example?


      This country.

      Yes, the USA is diverse, but its diversity is hardly a ’strength’. Everyone should take time to watch this brilliant documentary


      It is not brilliant at all. He seems to think he is too clever by making ridiculous observations ("there was a time when “definitions were by definition, definite."). The whole documentary is very biased towards saying that race is not a social construct, but that racism somehow is.

      Race is indeed a social construct, and this is proven by the fact that the definition of 'white' is not the same in every country (how ironic given what he said that definitions should be definite). Racism - as the feeling to exclude or discriminate others on the basis of their ethnicity - is a human trait, pretty much like violence and killing, and has no place in any civilised society.
    • persephone
      “ I challenge anyone to come up with a single objective, provable and tangible benefit to be gained from increasing diversity.”

      Here are a few objectives, benefits & sources:

      1. Genotypes partly determine organisms' physical form and function.

      Examples abound in the scientific literature illustrating how genetic composition affects the form and function of organisms (Hamrick, Linhart, and Mitton 1979; Hedrick 1985; Primack and Kang 1989; Rehfeldt 1990; Allen, Antos, and Hebda 1996; Hartl and Clark 1997). The recognition of genetic variation among individuals was a primary insight that led to the formulation of evolutionary theory as we know it today (Freeman and Herron 1998). Genes regulate body size, shape, physiological processes, behavioral traits, reproductive characteristics, tolerance of environmental extremes, dispersal and colonizing ability, the timing of seasonal and annual cycles , disease resistance, and many other traits (Raven, Evert, and Eichhorn 1986). Thus, to ignore genetic variation in ecology is to ignore one of the fundamental forces that shape the biology of living organisms.

      2 Genetic diversity helps organisms cope with current environmental variability.

      Subtle differences among individuals increase the probability that some individuals and not others will survive to reproduce i.e., the traits are "exposed to selection." Since differences among individuals are determined at least partly by genotype, population genetic theory predicts (and empirical observation confirms) that in variable environments a broader range of genetic variation will persist (Cohen 1966; Chesson 1985; Tuljapurkar 1989; Tilman 1999).

      3. Genetic diversity is the primary basis for adaptation to future environmental uncertainty.

      Genetic variation holds the key to the ability of populations and species to persist over evolutionary time through changing environments (Freeman and Herron 1998). Diversity within populations reduces potentially deleterious effects. In addition to its adaptive value at the population level, genetic variation (or its lack) within individuals can affect their survival and performance. Lack of variety may lead to physiological or behavioral problems of genetic origin, such as malformed physical structure, poor biochemical balance, improper organ formation and function, altered social behavior, and susceptibility to disease (Chai 1976)

      Once species are pushed into marginal habitat at the limitations of their physiological tolerance, they may enter an "extinction vortex," a downward cycle of small populations, reduced genetic variability, reduced ability to adapt to novel conditions, leading to further reductions in population size, and so on (Shaffer and Samson 1985; Gilpin and Soulé 1986). Reduced genetic variability is a key step in the extinction vortex.
    • Ravi Naik
      “ I challenge anyone to come up with a single objective, provable and tangible benefit to be gained from increasing diversity.”


      I think Reza meant a non-scientific leftist socialist argument... ;)
    • Paul
      See the futility of arguing with the xenophobic-nationalist right. Argument and debate with people who simply disagree with every point of criticism is pointless.

      Far more useful would be to recognise what these people (for instance the EDL, the BNP, the supporters of Geert Wilders) actually want, and to examine the concessions that can be made to them. The comments by 'Reza' are very interesting, because he very explicitly presents the white nationalist view, which is often hidden behind disclaimer talk.

      'Reza' claims to be an Iranian immigrant. I have also seen forum posts by an Iranian white nationalist in the US: some ethnic Iranians do identify with Aryan race theories. And in the Netherlands you have Ehsan Jami, an Iranian member of Geert Wilders' PVV. (The Wikipedia article is out of date). So perhaps 'Reza' really is an anti-immigrant immigrant, they do exist.

      Anyway, the point is that, given such a good example of white nationalist attitudes, why not look at their content - instead of treating it all as a school debating contest.
    • Reza
      persephone & Ravi

      I'll avoid 'scientific' benefits that touch upon genetics or human biodiversity because therein lies a very, very ugly road. You should avoid it too.

      Ravi

      "British Asians, for instance, being 4% of the UK population, produce 6% of the wealth in this country..."

      Do you have a link to back that up? Does your source class ethnic Pakistanis and Bangladeshis as 'Asian'? I have figures that demonstrate the opposite.

      http://www.channel4.com/news/dispatches_pdfs/di...

      But let’s just say that your figures for British Asians are justification for letting in more British Asians. Could the same logic be used to keep out Somalis on the basis that 80% of them are unemployed and that they contribute nothing whatsoever to the wealth of this country?

      “I think the UK, the US, Canada are far more interesting places to live than Korea or Japan, or any homogeneous country.”

      Ah, there we have it again, “interesting”. Interesting is purely subjective.

      “…in totalitarian regimes you have diversity of views, opinions and freedom of religion and ideas?”

      No. But you do get different ethnic, cultural and religious groups existing in the same space without anyone killing each other.

      “Racism – as the feeling to exclude or discriminate others on the basis of their ethnicity – is a human trait…”

      If that’s true, then isn’t deliberately increasing our ‘diversity’ going to inevitably increase racism?
    • Reza
      Paul you’re precious!

      “Argument and debate with people who simply disagree with every point of criticism is pointless.”

      No it isn’t. I’m willing to be swayed by rational arguments and facts. Not the subjective pronouncements of leftist ‘believers’.

      “…he very explicitly presents the white nationalist view … ethnic Iranians do identify with Aryan race theories.”

      Oh please. When have I ever said anything of the sort. I would be equally opposed to Europeans migrating en-masse to Pakistan and creating parallel societies there.

      My issue is only with culture. I believe that a multi-racial society may, with difficulty, be made to work, as long as everyone belongs to one nation with one broad set of cultural values.

      But a society made up of two or more large, cultural (and/or religious) groups cannot. It will always end in conflict.

      And all history and current events back this view.

      But wallow in ignorance and denial. And keep ignoring the inconvenient truth before your own lying eyes.
    • Paul
      Why not look at what is actually being presented by 'Reza' and his kind: the claim to a single culturally and preferably ethnically homogenous state and society. If more people were willing to accept that parties like the BNP and Wilders' PVV, and above all their supporters, do in fact want such a society, then there might be some basis for analysis.

      But what we get (see this blog) is people who think that it is all a kind of quiz show or pub game, where you score points for pointing out that Ashely Cole was born in London, and so on. And worse, they think of the BNP in this way, as one of the competitors in this game / quiz.

      So why not take the trouble to understand what the xenophobes, racists, and white nationalists want. Is that so difficult? I can even tell you what they want, if anyone here is interested.
    • Reza
      Paul

      "Why not look at what is actually being presented by ‘Reza’ and his kind...

      ...I can even tell you what they want..."

      Tell me, what do I want? And who are my 'kind'?
    • persephone
      @43

      PP did that very thing by asking the BNP to explain their policies. The links to responses are here:

      http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/4889
      http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/5057

      The trouble was that when PP started digging deeper into what the BNP want, it seems they are largely unable to answer or provide fuller detail. It seems they themselves cannot provide detail as to what they want ... or are not willing to divulge it.
    • coruja
      @ Paul you hit the proverbial on the head.

      The argument seems to be if all immigrants abandoned their primitive/tribal languages/beliefs/funny food/funny customs and settled down to be properly British then we would not have any problems with racism or any immigrant-related crime and social tribulations. However these people who are argue this are fully aware that has never been the case and never will be the case because of how human beings are. Therefore, uncontrolled/mass immigration/multiculturalism is bad. That is the begining and end of all the arguments.

      If people are really concerned with immigration then they should really address how the global economy is structured, how wealthy countries rely on a continous supply of cheap labour to maintain their standards of living. Tackling this would mean 'taking away' some of the wealth concentrated in richer countries in order to distrubute it to the poorer - so they will be less poor and less likely to want to come here? A start would be agricultural subsidies, which the last time i paid attention would release $29 billion in to the global economy. Another would be to stop selling weapons and to bombing countries to get their resources - why not trade instead?

      Unless there is a real attempt to create a fair distribution of wealth, the problems that richer countries face will just get worse. The really rich of course are unaffected by the negative aspects of immigration, instead they derive the benefits of a cheap flexible labour force and a weapon against fairer employment conditions for the local labour force. A politician once, 'off the record', told a journalist that if the government were to deport all illegal immigrants from London then it would grind to a halt. Who will clean the offices, perpare the food and do all those cheap jobs?

      Reality is easily ducked and the racist-nationalists will continue to blame the immigrants/blacks/islamists/&etc for all their ills. People who are for a multicultural society are just finding a reasonable way to live with the situation at hand.

      Why complain about immigrants 'ruining' Amsterdam and the Turkish in Germany. Why were they encouraged to go there and what prevents them from getting ahead once they are there?
    • coruja
      @ Reza, the modern Indian state, not much more than 60 yeras old, with all it's problems, exists as a democratic, multi-cultural, multi-lingual (officially 12?) and multi-ethnic(at least 400 offical 'tribal' groups as well the main ethnic groups) society. So you're wrong in there.
    • Reza
      coruja

      I’m not an expert on Indian history. But I did spend six weeks there (taking in Sri Lanka). And yes, it does seem to muddle along with its disparate populations. However, as you accept, it has had its share of religious and ethnic conflict. Today, we have Hindu extremists warning of the demographic growth of Islam and supporting attacks on the Muslim community. We have Muslim imams telling Muslims to have as many children as possible in order to win the demographic war in India. And we have Sikh separatists, Hindu separatists, Islamists. A political system governed along ethnic and religious lines.

      So yes, India does a remarkable job of functioning as a country, given its multi-religious, multiethnic and multicultural demographic, but it exists in a fragile peace that erupts from time to time in inter-ethnic or religious violence and death.

      I don’t know about you, but the thought of British society ‘evolving’ to resemble India’s leaves me with nothing but dread.
    • Paul
      You see it is pointless to argue with these people. Give an example, and they quote a counter-example. And yes, sometimes they are evasive, but the list of questions to the BNP was not very useful in clarifying the underlying policies. Perhaps this blog can open a separate topic on their value preferences.
    • coruja
      @Reza I just gave an example of a multicultural society that is works, as well as a billion people can get along. To imagine that Britain would evolve in to similar set-up is stupid. But this is the general tack of all your arguments, to claim something, to be shown it is incorrect and then change the claim.
    • persephone
      “I’ll avoid ’scientific’ benefits that touch upon genetics or human biodiversity because therein lies a very, very ugly road. “

      Not quite unavoidable for you as you have stated you have children from a mixed ethnic marriage.

      Your response means you prefer to reside in self created hyperbole and unsubstantiated claims. It negates your positioning as to wanting evidence to seek the truth, a solution for the greater community good and not being drawn into issues stemming from purely skin colour.

      Its your choice but it does not seem to make you happy or content somehow.
    • Reza
      coruja

      "I just gave an example of a multicultural society that is works, as well as a billion people can get along."

      And I put it to you that the situation in India is a terrible example of “people getting along". Or do you feel that a political system governed along ethnic and religious lines, a constant state of ‘low-level war’ that exists in many areas, and regular outbreaks of inter-ethnic or religious violence and killing is a good example a harmonious paradise.

      persephone

      “Not quite unavoidable for you as you have stated you have children from a mixed ethnic marriage.”

      Not at all. The ‘race’ of my children is irrelevant. Their culture is relevant however.

      I avoid discussing genetics just as I avoid discussing race. Because it’s just as easy, and wrong, to make a dysgenic case for the mixing of races as it is to make a eugenic case. So let’s leave this area of ‘science’ out of it.

      In any case, I doubt that your ‘scientific’ example applies when the indigenous gene-pool is sufficiently large (ie tens of millions of people). I don’t think that there is really any chance that white Europeans would become extinct without having their gene pool ‘enriched’ by other races.

      In fact, I find this whole subject rather distasteful, and I’m surprised you’re choosing to pursue it.

      I’ll say it again race should be treated as being irrelevant. But culture is the factor that creates parallel societies.

      And when parallel societies become very large, it inevitably leads to social conflict.
    • Shamit
      "A political system governed along ethnic and religious lines."

      Reza

      Your knowledge about Indian politics and demographic vote patterns need a lot more work.

      If you look at the voting patterns in a state like UP - the breakdown of votes along caste and religion lines did not go as planned by Mayawati or Mulayam Singh Yadav.

      Further the last election proved a vast majority of the Indian populace reject the right wing religion centric political ideology. It was not only the BJP that got slammed but also Samajwadi party who banks on the muslim vote in UP -- even in a state like Maharastra the Shiv Sena along with its off shoots fared rather badly. And I am not just talking about Mumbai.

      And there is a Indian first concept slowly but surely growing.

      India has a lot of problems but it is a successful multi cultural, multi religion society and it works as a functioning democracy. So whats your beef Reza with that?
    • Reza
      Shamit

      "India has a lot of problems but it is a successful multi cultural, multi religion society and it works as a functioning democracy."

      Your answer is in your statement.

      The caveat "has a lot of problems" makes it a pretty poor example to give in the context of this debate.
    • persephone
      "I avoid discussing genetics just as I avoid discussing race."

      Erh you bring up race up a lot ... and race is inextricably linked to genetics. You requested tangible proof of how diversity was a strength – but did not like the answer because it related to genetics...

      I see. You only want to discuss things based on your own pre-judged thought. So your wanting to know what benefits are brought by Somalis, Bangladeshis and Pakistanis is an example of your not wanting to bring up race then?

      “But culture is the factor that creates parallel societies.”

      You are ignoring the fact that class distinctions create parallel societies. But saying that would not enable you to bring in the race, whoops sorry, culture card.
    • Reza
      persephone

      "but did not like the answer because it related to genetics…"

      I’m really surprised you’re not letting this drop. You must realize that the subject of human genetics and human biodiversity touches on some pretty unpleasant areas.

      Areas I prefer to avoid.

      Moreover, I’m familiar with the scientific arguments. And I believe that those arguments should be kept within a purely academic context. Because when discussed outside that context they lead to debates upon the eugenic and dysgenic effects of mixing populations, and that is a debate that I do not wish to enter.

      Not because the debate is not valid, or based upon any truth, but because the complexities and subtleties of the debate are such that it can become all too easy for simplistic people to either use the science to support racial supremacist viewpoints or to denounce the science as ‘racist’ despite the fact that the people leading this area of research include some very eminent minds, including Nobel Prize winners.

      Posting a rebuttal to your assertion, backed with scientific data, to argue that immigrants are having a dysgenic effect on the north-European gene pool is no less ugly than your claim that the effect is eugenic.

      And for that reason, I prefer not to. The subject is altogether too ugly to get into on this level, and the arguments, in my opinion, cause hurt and offense without any benefit to the debate whatsoever.

      My views on race are that whilst I accept that scientifically it does exist (i.e. scientists can identify large groups of closely related people from their genes), I believe that a civilized society ought to treat race as irrelevant.

      My views concerning human biodiversity and genetics follow a similar logic.

      Persephone, I consider you to be an intelligent debater and whilst we don’t often agree, I believe that your arguments are rational and have integrity. I believe that if you were more knowledgeable in this area of science then you would understand my reasons for wishing to avoid it.

      In the scheme of things it is irrelevant. For this reason: human beings cannot change their genes anymore than they can change their race. Therefore, political debates should confine themselves to areas that the individuals in a society can change. Such as culture and values.

      Otherwise we get into very dodgy territory.
    • Reza
      persephone

      Now back to the debate, you said:

      "You are ignoring the fact that class distinctions create parallel societies. But saying that would not enable you to bring in the race, whoops sorry, culture card."

      Exactly, class distinctions DO also create parallel societies. Yet all our political parties, to one extent or another, are committed to creating social mobility and getting people out of class ‘ghettos’. We do not ‘celebrate’ class diversity. We do not ‘value’ the culture and the customs of the so-called ‘under-class’. Do we?

      Yet we have a situation where failing cultural groups (such as some ethnic Pakistanis) exist as parallel societies, for generation after generation, without any political encouragement for them to move out of their ‘ghettos’.

      Indeed we go further. We discourage them from doing through the ideologies of ‘multiculturalism’ and ‘celebrating diversity’.
    • Jai
      I’m not an expert on Indian history. But I did spend six weeks there (taking in Sri Lanka). And yes, it does seem to muddle along with its disparate populations. However, as you accept, it has had its share of religious and ethnic conflict. Today, we have Hindu extremists warning of the demographic growth of Islam and supporting attacks on the Muslim community. We have Muslim imams telling Muslims to have as many children as possible in order to win the demographic war in India. And we have Sikh separatists, Hindu separatists, Islamists. A political system governed along ethnic and religious lines.

      So yes, India does a remarkable job of functioning as a country, given its multi-religious, multiethnic and multicultural demographic, but it exists in a fragile peace that erupts from time to time in inter-ethnic or religious violence and death.

      I don’t know about you, but the thought of British society ‘evolving’ to resemble India’s leaves me with nothing but dread.


      Reza,

      Recycling verbatim posts you previously addressed to other commenters -- http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/6149#co... -- will not assist your credibility, and will add further weight to suspicions that your motives are insincere and that you have an underlying hidden agenda to push.

      I’m not an expert on Indian history. But I did spend six weeks there


      If you're claiming to speak as some kind of "voice of authority from a non-Indian perspective", six weeks doesn't quite compete with -- for example -- Mark Tully's 22-year tenure as the BBC's India Correspondent and his continuing residency in India for many months every year; or the historian William Dalrymple, who has lived in New Delhi for most of the year during the past 20 years.

      Exactly which part(s) of India did you visit, during your six weeks there ?
    • Ravi Naik
      I’ll avoid ’scientific’ benefits that touch upon genetics or human biodiversity because therein lies a very, very ugly road. You should avoid it too.


      Very ugly road? For whom?

      “British Asians, for instance, being 4% of the UK population, produce 6% of the wealth in this country…”

      Do you have a link to back that up? Does your source class ethnic Pakistanis and Bangladeshis as ‘Asian’? I have figures that demonstrate the opposite.


      I believe it does, which makes the figure all the more remarkable. Though, you can see from your report that British Indians earn more than whites and do better in school. The same happens in the US: Indian Americans are now the highest earners in the US, ahead of the Japanese and the Jews. So, here is a successful example of immigration by "darkies" (as you call it) and diversity. These are facts, Reza... deal with them.

      But let’s just say that your figures for British Asians are justification for letting in more British Asians. Could the same logic be used to keep out Somalis on the basis that 80% of them are unemployed and that they contribute nothing whatsoever to the wealth of this country?


      I believe immigration laws should not take into account race, but the needs of the country in order to grow economically. Though I believe it should have a quota for asylum seekers.

      Can I ask you a personal question? Are you as commited of having less Iranians in this country as you are of having less "darkies"?

      Ah, there we have it again, “interesting”. Interesting is purely subjective.


      Well, you are still here.... :)

      No. But you do get different ethnic, cultural and religious groups existing in the same space without anyone killing each other.


      In a totalitarian regime (think Communist or Fascist) everything from culture to religion is dictated and approved by the government. Most of the times, there is a propaganda to brainwash and homogenise the people. There is no real diversity.

      “Racism – as the feeling to exclude or discriminate others on the basis of their ethnicity – is a human trait…”

      If that’s true, then isn’t deliberately increasing our ‘diversity’ going to inevitably increase racism


      That's as true as saying that an increase of population increases crime. Not everyone is violent, but some are not able to repress their instincts and therefore act upon it. I believe racists and xenophobes are selfish bastards who didn't get much love from their parents, and therefore feel the need to make others miserable.

      I firmly believe that immigrants should integrate, and that means being a part of the larger community. They should work as others for the well-being of other communities, not just their own. They also need to understand that their sons and daughters are not just part of their own community, but they are part of the larger community and that means they might fall in love and get married to people of other communities.

      I believe that diversity works because I see it every day. The Eastern European who now cleans my road, the two Africans who inspect cars and give parking tickets, my Jamaican postman who delivers letters, the Turkish guy from the cornershop, the English guy who works at the Tube, and so on. I mean, what is the problem here, Reza?

      I read an article that said that immigrants and their descendants are happier when they feel a part of society, but at the same time are able to express their culture of origin instead of hiding it. When you said that you thought it is rude for people to talk a foreign language in this country - including Farsi - I felt really sorry for you. You clearly have issues to sort out.
    • douglas clark
      On topic?

      What does anyone make of the EDLs' demo in Manchester? It seems to me to have been another damp squib, and, ahem, rather well policed.
    • Ravi Naik
      Immigrants just do the craziest things.
    • Reza
      Jai

      My agenda is not “hidden”. It is explicit. I do not believe that any society that has two or more LARGE and distinct cultural, ethnic or religious groups can ever exist in a completely peaceful and harmonious manner.

      If you look at ANY major conflict in the world today, or throughout history, you will find evidence to back up my view.

      As for the example of India, given to refute that view, I stated, and I’ll state again, that by any measure, the levels of community cohesion and harmony in India do not compare favourably with the levels of community cohesion in ethnically or culturally or religiously homogenous nations.

      I am not criticising India. That nation is a result of migrations, invasions, wars and religious conversions over millennia. It does a brilliant job of functioning given all these complex factors.

      However, I do not see a case for deliberately recreating the ‘Indian model’ where it doesn’t already exist.

      Just because it's 'interesting'.

      But if you can give me a tangiable example of why deliberately increasing a society's 'diversity' is of benefit to that society, then I'd be open to your arguments.
    • Ravi Naik
      But if you can give me a tangiable example of why deliberately increasing a society’s ‘diversity’ is of benefit to that society


      I think MaidMarian made a subtle reference to this. I do not think it is a question of enforcing and actively promoting diversity. The real issue is not going all the way to prevent diversity, which is what you and the BNP seem to advocate.
    • Jai
      Reza,

      I am not criticising India. That nation is a result of migrations, invasions, wars and religious conversions over millennia. It does a brilliant job of functioning given all these complex factors.


      Correct.

      However, to repeat:

      Exactly which part(s) of India did you visit, during your six weeks there ?

      But if you can give me a tangiable example of why deliberately increasing a society’s ‘diversity’ is of benefit to that society, then I’d be open to your arguments.

      Read the Pulitzer-prizewinning book Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond, a professor at UCLA, and you will receive a comprehensive answer to your question.
    • Reza
      Ravi

      “Very ugly road? For whom?”

      For humanity. Could I have made it clearer in Post 56? I don’t believe that discussing racial difference or eugenics is ever helpful. Why are you trying to score points on this issue?

      “…that British Indians earn more than whites and do better in school. The same happens in the US: Indian Americans are now the highest earners in the US, ahead of the Japanese and the Jews. So, here is a successful example of immigration by “darkies” (as you call it) and diversity. These are facts, Reza… deal with them.”

      You’re creating a conflict where none exists. I’m with you on this. However, I believe that in discussing the fact that many immigrants contribute greatly to the host society, we must acknowledge that others do not. And we must also be able to discuss the benefits as well as the disadvantages of immigration. These are currently taboo subjects with the political mainstream and that is wrong and dangerous.

      “I believe racists and xenophobes are selfish bastards who didn’t get much love from their parents, and therefore feel the need to make others miserable.”

      And I agree with you. However, it seems that, looking at all of the major conflicts in the world, past and present, that most of the world’s population falls into that category. In the West, we’ve had a generation of multiculturalist teaching and multicultural ideology in our schools, universities, in our legislature, and our political systems. Yet the issue of ‘racism’ just won’t go away. And throughout Europe we can see an increasing, not decreasing polarization between different ‘groups’ as the non-indigenous populations of increase. What’s the answer? More laws? More ‘education’? What if there’s a chance that we’ll never reach the ideal we hope for? What then?

      I base my fears on reality. You base your faith upon an ideal that has no historical precedent and is so far unproven.

      My main point is that there is no tangible evidence that increasing a nation’s diversity is a ‘strength’. On the contrary, I’ve demonstrated that it also creates problems. Yet the whole ideology of multiculturalism is based upon that unproven spurious belief. That’s clearly not sensible.

      “I firmly believe that immigrants should integrate, and that means being a part of the larger community. They should work as others for the well-being of other communities, not just their own. They also need to understand that their sons and daughters are not just part of their own community, but they are part of the larger community and that means they might fall in love and get married to people of other communities.”

      What can I say? I completely agree with you.

      “I believe that diversity works because I see it every day. The Eastern European who now cleans my road, the two Africans who inspect cars and give parking tickets, my Jamaican postman who delivers letters, the Turkish guy from the cornershop, the English guy who works at the Tube, and so on. I mean, what is the problem here, Reza?”

      My problem? None, as long as the probable future is that the children of those people will interact, even marry and assimilate into a larger British identity.

      “I read an article that said that immigrants and their descendants are happier when they feel a part of society, but at the same time are able to express their culture of origin instead of hiding it. When you said that you thought it is rude for people to talk a foreign language in this country – including Farsi – I felt really sorry for you. You clearly have issues to sort out.”

      Yes, but eventually expressing that ‘culture of origin’ must take a back-seat to feeling part of a ‘nation’. The Americans have a better way of looking at this.

      We cannot have a situation where certain ‘cultures of origin’ exist in a state of self-imposed social exclusion, as parallel societies, speaking a different language, marrying within their own ‘group’, clinging to their ancestral customs.

      Not unless the ‘group’ remains small enough to have little political or social impact on society at large.

      Otherwise you end up with a duo-cultural society, and as I’ve stated again and again, every single conflict you look at in the world has one of these at it’s core.

      Finally Ravi, I'll ask you to look at my exchange with persephone in Post 57. Don't you see that multiculturalism, as it is currently promoted, is hampering intergration?
    • Reza
      “Exactly which part(s) of India did you visit, during your six weeks there”?

      Is it really that relevant?

      My travels were sadly confined to the south of the country, due to my partner becoming ill in Sri Lanka. I was very surprised to find a synagogue in Kochin, serving the hand-full of Jews who living there that hadn’t emigrated to Israel. If I recall, it was Christmas and we treated ourselves to a couple of nights at the Taj Malabar (if I remember rightly) and received very dirty looks from the posh Indian guests because of our scruffy, back-packer attire.

      I loved the India I saw. And I accept Jai, that pluralism does exist there. However, I don’t believe that the majority of Indians would invent their multi-ethnic, multi-cultural and multi-religious society if it didn’t already exist. That’s simply my opinion.

      And I’ll try to read your book if you try to look at this one:

      Christopher Caldwell: Reflections on the Revolution In Europe: Immigration, Islam, and the West
    • Jai
      My main point is that there is no tangible evidence that increasing a nation’s diversity is a ‘strength’.


      There certainly is -- about 13,000 years' worth of global history. Read Professor Diamond's book for extensive details, as recommended in #64.

      You base your faith upon an ideal that has no historical precedent and is so far unproven.


      Incorrect. Historical precedents include the following:

      - The Roman Empire.
      - The empire of Cyrus the Great.
      - The Mughal Empire under Akbar the Great.
      - The Khalsa under Guru Gobind Singh.
      - The Sikh empire under Maharajah Ranjit Singh.
      - Delhi and the remaining Mughal territories under Bahadur Shah II.
    • coruja
      @ Reza, Caldwell has also been dealt with in PP:
      http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/4706

      Next?
    • Jai
      Christopher Caldwell: Reflections on the Revolution In Europe: Immigration, Islam, and the West


      In which case, I have another book to recommend to you: White Mughals, by William Dalrymple.

      Is it really that relevant?


      Yes, Reza, because your experience of India has clearly been very limited, both in duration and in relation to the specific places you visited. For reasons which would be obvious to anyone from the northern half of the subcontinent or at least with a decent level of knowledge of the region, an individual with a very limited familiarity with the north is in no position to credibly comment on the nature of multiculturalism in India or the level of success of the concept in that country, especially if it going to be accompanied with references to "fragile peace" and whatnot.

      And I accept Jai, that pluralism does exist there. However, I don’t believe that the majority of Indians would invent their multi-ethnic, multi-cultural and multi-religious society if it didn’t already exist.


      Pluralism is built into Indian society and culture because of the size of the region, the number of people residing there, and the fundamental basis of the civilisation going back thousands of years. Diversity is not a new concept in the subcontinent. It was already multicultural, multi-ethnic and multi-religious thousands of years ago.

      The reason that, historically, both Jewish people and Zoroastrians found a safe haven in India is because of this. As someone who apparently has roots in Iran, presumably you will appreciate the latter in particular.
    • Ravi Naik
      For humanity. Could I have made it clearer in Post 56? I don’t believe that discussing racial difference or eugenics is ever helpful. Why are you trying to score points on this issue?


      I definitely think you should learn about genetics without fear, and see what it says about race and the human species. Needless to say, it has little to do with appalling social experiments like eugenics, or the pseudo science that comes from psychologists like Charles Murray, who claim there are links between intelligence, behaviour and race.

      But on the subject of race, I notice that you didn't answer my question about whether you are equally keen on having Iranians out as you are with "darkies", like British Asians.

      And we must also be able to discuss the benefits as well as the disadvantages of immigration.


      Absolutely. However, you have been saying since the start that immigration is bad, and that we should stop it. Under these terms, you are not willing to discuss the good and the bad, but rather focus on the bad.

      I base my fears on reality. You base your faith upon an ideal that has no historical precedent and is so far unproven.


      No, Reza. You base your fears on theory. You very easily could argue that Britain should adopt a "one child only" policy like China, because over-population is bad. Well, we know that over-population is a problem, but social policies need to be debated on the present, and how they affect the near, medium and long term. So far, I have not seen any evidence that Britain would be better off if they had closed their doors to immigrants after WW2. At least, you just given evidence that immigration has worked pretty well for your parents and yourself. What actually changed between the point your parents arrived to these shores, and now?
    • sonia
      well said paul in 17

      Reza in 19: really? perhaps they should smoke some more instead of leaving all the goodies to the tourists

      you should probably partake as well - it will chill you out some more. Do you feel more like an alpha male if you are seen to be 'defending' your Castle? I guess it must be a big thing for you -seeing as your family obviously come from somewhere they were desperate to get out of and make a better life for their family. But now you got your castle and boy are you going to defend it anyway you can.

      It's alright. We all know there's an upset little insecure boy deep down inside of you, crying. You just want to know there's a safe place you can call home.
    • sonia
      And that's fine too. But see you don't want to extend to other people what your parents took advantage of. sheltering somewhere else and providing a better future for their family. You don't want to extend the warmth of the castle to any more people. Your folks were the last people in and now you want to shut the doors. Again, we can understand - fair enough - Noah's ark and all that, we can't all fit in! But then its rainy outside. Maybe you can expend your vociferous energies trying to make sure you do your bit to make the rest of the world habitable, before it really and truly gets to Noah's Ark situation.

      (because this town is going down..and you might need to get on that Ark!)
    • persephone
      Reza

      There is nothing ugly about the truth.

      Its a shame that you cannot deal with facts and empirical evidence, perhaps next time when you ask for proof you should submit a list of those that are taboo to you. (...but I thought you did not like taboos...)

      Saying that the mixing of genes is not something you are comfortable is, is contradictory to your using the 'badge' of being married to a European as an indicator of being integrated.

      Your 'take' on genetics was certainly not the focus I was taught at college.

      ‘ghettos’

      The use of this very word gives a perception of an underclass. Obviously class is an issue. You never hear of the ABC1's living in select parts of Bucks being labelled as 'ghettos'. Rather they are referred to as high net worths.

      “without any political encouragement for them to move out of their ‘ghettos’. “

      High density asian areas are created due to the fact that the white people have moved out. What political encouragement do they need to remain/return?

      We do not ‘celebrate’ class diversity.

      Actually I think this does happen. Ascot, debutante balls, Henley etc. The difference is that tickets are now more accessible for those aspiring to emulate certain class lifestyles.

      “ Yet we have a situation where failing cultural groups (such as some ethnic Pakistanis) exist as parallel societies, for generation after generation”

      Some would say that also applies to the WWC and also the Brownies & Guides.
    • Reza
      persephone

      "Saying that the mixing of genes is not something you are comfortable..."

      I said no such thing. I am completely comfortable with interracial marriage or 'mixing of genes'.

      I'm simply not going to get into a debate with you about whether immigrants are somehow improving the indigenous gene-pool. Because as I said, that would be no less ugly than saying immigrants were somehow 'harming' the indigenous gene-pool.

      Your posted piece of 'evidence' was not proof that creating a ethnically, culturally or religiously 'diverse' society is necessarily a strength.

      And you unwittingly make my case for me:

      "High density asian areas are created due to the fact that the white people have moved out. "

      This is clearly too complicated an issue for you.
    • Reza
      Ravi

      "I definitely think you should learn about genetics without fear..."

      Look Ravi, I don't want to pull rank, but the fact is I do know rather a lot about genetics. You clearly do not, given your misunderstanding of words such as 'eugenics'.

      Like persephone, you have got yourself into a muddle over this. As I said to persephone, and I'll repeat to you, I’m simply not going to get into a debate with you about whether immigrants are somehow improving the indigenous gene-pool. Because as I've said several times now, that would be no less ugly than saying immigrants were somehow ‘harming’ the indigenous gene-pool.

      Ravi, of course immigration benefit immigrants. Otherwise they wouldn't emigrate. And I believe that sensible, controlled levels of immigration benefit everyone in society.

      However, the type of uncontrolled mass immigration that we have seen over the last twenty years has harmed our society.

      And even if you're not willing to accept that, accept this; it's not what the majority of British people (including, I suspect, ethnic minorities) want.
    • persephone
      What is clear is that your sole aim is to push your message. Apart from other things I see you also ignore the whole issue of class in this. In your mind all negative roads lead to immigration, eh. Thats a pattern of behaviour that is very ugly.

      And anyone who disagrees, provides counterarguments and counter evidence is seen not to understand your world order. Yet you very easily and conveniently cite far right websites which do not have any solid foundation to base their hyperbolic claims apart from racism.
    • Guest
      Reza @75 - since you have pulled rank over Ravi on genetics, perhaps you can justify why you did so (other than saying Ravi does not understand the term "eugenics") ? Other than taking your word for it, there is no obvious reason to believe that.

      Also, in a couple of postings you referred to the Netherlands "once the most tolerant nation in the world" as the "canary in the coalmine" for Europe. I'm sure that I've seen these phrases in various blogs before. Anyway, in your opinion, in which way is it the "canary" - a Western society suffering because of multiculturalism or as being on the cusp of a Far Right government ?
    • Reza
      persephone

      I have repeatedly linked to the BBC, the Times and the Telegraph, articles that state that according to polls the overwhelming majority of British people support some of the BNP's policies and want immigration severely curtailed or stopped altogether. Would you like to see those links again?

      Adnan

      I’d rather not get into this, but if you must. My degree was in Pharmacy, therefore I have some understanding of life sciences. I’ve explained why I don’t want to get into a ‘eugenic/dysgenic’ debate. The fact that some people don’t understand my reasons for this is proof enough for me that it wouldn't be helpful to discuss it.

      As for my description of the Netherlands as the “canary in the coalmine” for Europe, I probably read that phrase in a speech by Geert Wilders, who could very well become the next Prime Minister of that country. I happen to agree with much of what he has to say.

      And as a frequent visitor to the Netherlands over the last 20 years I am in no doubt that immigration, particularly from North Africa and the middle-east has really f*cked up that once lovely, tolerant and easygoing country.

      Certainly, most Dutch people I meet are of that view. I suppose many here would scream “raacist!” at them. I don’t. I agree with them. It’s clear to anyone who steps onto the streets of Rotterdam or Amsterdam and remembers it 10 or 20 years ago.
    • Quantum_Singularity
      @Reza

      Probably the most refreshing views on immigration I have seen yet. Don't bother trying to convince the folks here with your arguments, they all live in a multicultural wet dream.

      Immigrants and their progeny have a duty to become part of their host communities and work to improve their communities as a whole. Instead many are come solely for the material benefits. Many such people are often isolationist, parochial, and judgmental. Sorry but why the hell should any country accept such people?? I am the son of immigrants, and guess what I both display pride and give loyalty to my adopted country, the US.

      It is sad to see the crude behavior of "immigrants" has turned the Netherlands which once was a beacon of tolerance to what it is today.
    • douglas clark
      Quantum_Singularity, Reza and other folk of a singular opinion.

      I am white so I am, and I suppose I am British according to any of your definitions.

      So, why are you trying to tell me how I should see good people that happen to be immigrants?

      It is as obvious as fuck that the brain dead 'objectors' to either the return of the Luton soldiers or indeed to Geert Wilders are lunatics.

      They are lunatics that do 'The Muslims' no good whatsoever, and frankly ought to be attacked by Muslims, in public, in the press, and here for instance.

      That is a reasonable comment, I think.

      These people are shit stirring freaks and silence over their insanity suggests a fear of big lads with beards.

      I have read an awful lot by moderate Muslims on here. What I have not read, apart from a few, Sid for instance, is anything approaching a complete rejection of these arseholes.

      Y'know, until you reject these freaks, unequivocally, you play into the BNP's agenda.

      It is not good enough to say, as many of you do, what's it do with me? You must come out and reject this pish, up front.

      I think that that is how you should be measured. And I'd assume that that is as controversial as fuck....

      For Muslims are far to silent on the issues surrounding free expression to be seen as true democrats. Burning books is not an answer.
    • douglas clark
      Final paragraph correction:

      "For many Muslims are far too silent on the issues surrounding free expression to be seen as true democrats. Burning books is not the answer."
    • douglas clark
      And remaining silent on it is not an answer either.
    • Quantum_Singularity
      "I am white so I am, and I suppose I am British according to any of your definitions.

      So, why are you trying to tell me how I should see good people that happen to be immigrants?"

      I am not asking you to think or feel anything. I simply pointing out that the frustrations that are voiced by people like Geert Wilders (albeit crudely) are legitimate. And quite honestly a growing of Europeans and British feel the same way.

      "It is as obvious as fuck that the brain dead ‘objectors’ to either the return of the Luton soldiers or indeed to Geert Wilders are lunatics"

      But quite honestly who creates these lunatics? I don't see these extreme types of folks among other ethnic communities. Hmm, maybe it is the result of an isolated and parochial community? One that is here for the money but wants to pretend they are back home in all respects. These larger ethnic communities may not be directly responsible for the violent behavior but they are certainly the enablers. And guess what they have zero interest in changing their behavior.

      "They are lunatics that do ‘The Muslims’ no good whatsoever, and frankly ought to be attacked by Muslims, in public, in the press, and here for instance."

      Do you seriously believe random statements of condemnation by a bunch of a liberal muslims make any real difference? What needs to change is the way a parochial community behaves and interacts.


      "I have read an awful lot by moderate Muslims on here. What I have not read, apart from a few, Sid for instance, is anything approaching a complete rejection of these arseholes."

      Quite honestly words are not enough, their needs to be a rejection of the community behaviors that foster these lunatics. Geert Wilders maybe harsh but he has the right idea: Shape up or ship out. Coddling these groups or "understanding" them via some fantasy wet dream of multiculturalism achieves nothing (as the last few decades have shown).
    • damon
      The problem I have with Reza's point of view is that he has said that he would like to halt all immigration and that multi-culturalism is a disaster.

      It gives the impression, whether intended or not, that he doesn't care to see people of all races living together like we have now. And that when passing through a multi cultural/racial neighbourhood, is tut-tutting about ordinary people going about their business.

      I was in Lewisham in south east London yeaterday. It was a busy saturday afternoon, and though I'm often driving through that area, it's been a couple of years since I was walking around the high street and the market. I was kind of gobsmacked at the extreme multi national/racial look of the area. And its poverty.
      It's almost totally working class, and I'm guessing that more affluent people who live near by, choose not to frequent it that much. That must be the case, as houses nearby are still worth several hundreds of thousands of pounds. I had a look in the Wetherspoons pub, and it's a sad sight to see the poor people in there drinking. Pasty faced white people, and some black people too. But like many Wetherspoons, it attracts those people who you guess might lead sad lives and drink too often.
      It's the same in the betting shops.

      I couldn't help thinking about the National Front riot there in 1977, as it was precisely this future that those bigots were trying to mobilise against.

      I can never agree with Reza's point of view, but I also think that the left and anti-racists are often too rigid and ideological in the way they fight reactionary views in this area.
      I would rather hear about particular areas (naming them), and describing how it is there, whether it's Lewisham or Deptford, or Harlesden, or Moss Side, or Birmingham or Leicester. And people who know those areas telling us what it actually like, and how things are there.

      Here is the front page story on my local newspaper this week. It would seem that some of the 'good folk' of Croydon don't want it to become more like Lewisham (see the comments).
      A bunch of racists many of them seem to be.
      I wonder if the paper was irresponsible to put this story on its front page.
      http://www.thisiscroydontoday.co.uk/people/Excl...

      Should their views be given any creedence? Or should they just be brushed aside because of their xenophobia?
    • slime
      Fuck me wake up and smell the fucking coffee! we can't let these rat bastards pakis keep putting their values on us, were not fucking muslims, these bastards are evil, trust me i'm telling you there growing in numbers! to them they don't care what religion you are, they want the UK to be an islamic state, what is fucking wrong with everyone, i'm a proud sikh, don't like pakis never have never will, you can't trust these fucks. do you realy wanna sit on a train next them i wouldn't good luck to the EDL, at an organisation that is standing up saying you can't push us around anymore, how many fucking mosque do we need! there killing our troops abroad and they are killing us here in our own country, i was born in this country, its already devided, we don't who's who any more i don't want to be branded a paki anymore get the EDL to show some support towards sikhs and hindus and together we can send a real fucking messege!
    • MiriamBinder
      Inhale ... count to 10 and ... exhale. Inhale, count, exhale ... inhale, count, exhale ... repeat as necessary and breathe ....
    blog comments powered by Disqus

    Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2009. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
    With the help of PHP and Wordpress.