[1]Withdrawal from the EU wouldn't stop migration, it would merely mean it could be more controlled....if we had the political will.
[2]You can't tell the difference between immigrants and asylum seekers, neither will you accept there are large numbers of asylum seekers who only graduate to that status when they're caught as illegal immigrants.
1. Who wants to stop migration?
2. Sorry, not with you - when you say "you" do you mean me personally or as in society as a whole? Are you saying that there is no such thing as an asylum seeker?
That is one point we agree on. Your solution to illegals and religion would be interesting. I think we already agree on the religion as you did not dispute the points.
Agree about religion in what respect?
You know that I am opposed to religious worship in schools and look forward to the day when children do not have their parents ramming religion down their throats.
An illegal immigrant is an illegal immigrant (I loathe the term "illegals").
I have never understood why someone would go through so much hardship to escape torture in their muslim countries and yet still believe in what they believe in. Some of them never embrace western culture. One doesn't have to give up their beliefs completely, but at least integrate.
You know that I am opposed to religious worship in schools and look forward to the day when children do not have their parents ramming religion down their throats.
An illegal immigrant is an illegal immigrant (I loathe the term "illegals").
An absolute right to criticise it and ridicule it and to apply hate speech laws equally to published material.
EDit. An illegal immigrant is indeed an illegal immigrant, hating the term illegals does not actually address the issue. Do you have a solution? Do you see it as not a problem?
Add to that some 10.000 migrants who when they realise that they can't get what they're looking for here in Europe will turn to various forms of radicalism. I'm reading ion a Macedonian news site that migrants are refusing boxes with food because of the Red Crosd logo printed on them.
I have never understood why someone would go through so much hardship to escape torture in their muslim countries and yet still believe in what they believe in. Some of them never embrace western culture. One doesn't have to give up their beliefs completely, but at least integrate.
Are you saying a Christian who undergoes torture in a Christian country and flees to another Christian country where they will not be tortured should automatically jettison their faith? *
Like many who fled S. American Fascist dictatorships in the past, for instance?
Interesting concept.
* Apologies for the surfeit of Christians in this sentence.
[1]An absolute right to criticise it and ridicule it and to apply hate speech laws equally to published material.
EDit. An illegal immigrant is indeed an illegal immigrant, hating the term illegals does not actually address the issue. [2]Do you have a solution? Do you see it as not a problem?
1. I only see you ridiculing one religion, Blair. You are completely inconsistent. The type of Islamophobic ridicule you subscribe to is purely designed to foster religious hate (i.e. Islamic hate) in the UK, which is why you are a supporter of the BNP in this respect.
2. No, I have no solution for stopping all illegal immigration to this country.
800 going out to assist ISIS in their aims.
What about them all coming in?
I believe there has to be radicals amongst these people and that they are sent by terrorist groups to infiltrate the Muslim population and try to enact more terrorist attacks in Europe.
The stated aim of Islam is to rule the world and put all those that don't conform to death.
This is not a modern aim its part of the teaching from the Koran.
The facts are right there [there are more Muslims joining terrorist groups in their own countries than there are running away from them].
why would you want to close mosques ? The majority of Muslims seem to be law abiding in this country . Yes there are a large number who also seem to hate Britain and the evil west but closing down mosques will achieve nothing . There are other means to address them i.e new laws and the enforcement of the law.
Like I say, you need to set the bar as low as it needs to be set for the few, not the many. And it really ain't all that few - one in four British Muslims supported the Charlie Hebdo killers' aims. I would rather that one in four go somewhere else to kill people in the name of some absurd sky fairy. Like where their kind originated, for example.
Closing down legitimate places of worship would go against all that Britain stands for . I would prefer to live in a liberal democracy where freedom to practice whatever your religion is sacroscant
Ffff, it's not what I and many others stand for. I don't want freedom to practice loopy-doo religions that results in irreplaceable property destruction and mass murder.
Security forces believe it to be 20-25% of this peaceful religion are radicalised or sympathetic to the daesh, hardly a few bad eggs.
20-25% is still low...
i never said the religion is peaceful
I am not a muslim but my point was mosques etc shouldn't be closed because some people are evil. Its not fair on the ones who obey by laws and are not extremists.
I went to school with a lot of muslims..work with them etc...and they are some of the nicest people you can meet. I just hate that everybody should be grouped together because of some peoples actions.
Like I say, you need to set the bar as low as it needs to be set for the few, not the many. And it really ain't all that few - one in four British Muslims supported the Charlie Hebdo killers' aims. I would rather that one in four go somewhere else to kill people in the name of some absurd sky fairy. Like where their kind originated, for example.
Ffff, it's not what I and many others stand for. I don't want freedom to practice loopy-doo religions that results in irreplaceable property destruction and mass murder.
Views like yours are just part of the problem. Closing mosques won't solve anything..it will just eradicate the problem and cause more disharmony.
Not every muslim is bad. So the non bad muslims should have their place of worship closed because of a bad section of their 'religion'..two wrongs don't make a right.
Ffff, it's not what I and many others stand for. I don't want freedom to practice loopy-doo religions that results in irreplaceable property destruction and mass murder.
Neither do I. But we shouldn't remove the freedom to practice a religion just because of a very slim possibility that some nutter in the future will use that religion as a convenient excuse to justify his desire to bomb people.
It is not worth preventing a terror attack, or even multiple terror attacks, if the cost of doing so is removing core liberties, the heart of what makes us a free country. So there's no "After X many civilians die in Britain to terror attacks we will implement more strict measures", because there is no number high enough that justify removing the things that makes this country free.
Are you claiming Saddam Hussein did not possess and never used WMD's in the form of nerve gas and chemical agents?
Nope. But he wasn't able to use them to attack us within 45 minutes, which was the claim used to justify the war. I also heard somewhere that he was rumored to have given an evacuation warning before gassing certain areas, which (if true) puts a new perspective on the narrative that he randomly gassed innocent people.
Neither do I. But we shouldn't remove the freedom to practice a religion just because of a very slim possibility that some nutter in the future will use that religion as a convenient excuse to justify his desire to bomb people.
It is not worth preventing a terror attack, or even multiple terror attacks, if the cost of doing so is removing core liberties, the heart of what makes us a free country. So there's no "After X many civilians die in Britain to terror attacks we will implement more strict measures", because there is no number high enough that justify removing the things that makes this country free.
We wouldn't be removing freedom from anyone other than those groups who have the potential to harm others.
Are you saying a Christian who undergoes torture in a Christian country and flees to another Christian country where they will not be tortured should automatically jettison their faith? *
Like many who fled S. American Fascist dictatorships in the past, for instance?
Interesting concept.
* Apologies for the surfeit of Christians in this sentence.
If someone left 16th century Spain to escape the Inquisition, would you expect them to support the establishment of an official Inquisition in the country they migrate into?
There were good reasons why the Catholic church was banned in England and Wales for many decades.
Neither do I. But we shouldn't remove the freedom to practice a religion just because of a very slim possibility that some nutter in the future will use that religion as a convenient excuse to justify his desire to bomb people. .
How do you stand on religions which in the present preach and practise homophobia, misogyny and racism?
We wouldn't be removing freedom from anyone other than those groups who have the potential to harm others.
So you'd be removing freedoms from everyone then. Every one of us is part of a group who has the potential to harm others; Humans. But we don't remove the freedoms of every human being just because some humans have done terrible things. And nor should we deprive Muslims of their rights because a terrorist happened to be a Muslim as well.
How do you stand on religions which in the present preach and practise homophobia, misogyny and racism?
I have no problem with them preaching it. I feel that it is vital to allow free discussion, debate, and exploration of views and opinions, even if most of society thinks those opinions are pretty bad. Opinions change over time, so we shouldn't "lock out" specific beliefs from being discussed just because they are unpopular at the time. Homosexuality was once just as unacceptable as homophobia is now, but our opinion as a society changed because people had the freedom to discuss it and put forward an argument that gays deserved equal rights. If the people preaching these views act on them and in doing so break a discrimination law, they deserve to be punished like everyone else.
1. I only see you ridiculing one religion, Blair. You are completely inconsistent. The type of Islamophobic ridicule you subscribe to is purely designed to foster religious hate (i.e. Islamic hate) in the UK, which is why you are a supporter of the BNP in this respect.
2. No, I have no solution for stopping all illegal immigration to this country.
And neither have you.
1 You do not look hard enough. Where have I ridiculed any religion? Observing what Islam says and what Muslims do is not ridiculing. I also observe what Christianity says and what Christians do as well as what Judaism says and its followers do. IN terms of fostering hate can you point to any instance where I have said Muslims are the vilest of creatures, I can point to non Muslims being called the vilest of creatures. Pointing out where Islam engenders hate seems to be 'Islamophobic'. You really cannot be serious?
3 I have a solution for controlling immigration and removing illegals.
1 You do not look hard enough. Where have I ridiculed any religion? Observing what Islam says and what Muslims do is not ridiculing. I also observe what Christianity says and what Christians do as well as what Judaism says and its followers do. IN terms of fostering hate can you point to any instance where I have said Muslims are the vilest of creatures, I can point to non Muslims being called the vilest of creatures. Pointing out where Islam engenders hate seems to be 'Islamophobic'. You really cannot be serious?
3 I have a solution for controlling immigration and removing illegals.
1. I will point out your ridiculing of Islam and gratuitous bad mouthing of its adherents next time you do it - I'm not trawling back through your posts.
2.I know how you would control immigration, but how do you propose to identify all illegal immigrants?
Comments
1. Who wants to stop migration?
2. Sorry, not with you - when you say "you" do you mean me personally or as in society as a whole? Are you saying that there is no such thing as an asylum seeker?
Agree about religion in what respect?
You know that I am opposed to religious worship in schools and look forward to the day when children do not have their parents ramming religion down their throats.
An illegal immigrant is an illegal immigrant (I loathe the term "illegals").
An absolute right to criticise it and ridicule it and to apply hate speech laws equally to published material.
EDit. An illegal immigrant is indeed an illegal immigrant, hating the term illegals does not actually address the issue. Do you have a solution? Do you see it as not a problem?
Well it seems to be quoting the Mail accurately which in turn seems to be quoting the Intelligence services accurately.
Are you saying a Christian who undergoes torture in a Christian country and flees to another Christian country where they will not be tortured should automatically jettison their faith? *
Like many who fled S. American Fascist dictatorships in the past, for instance?
Interesting concept.
* Apologies for the surfeit of Christians in this sentence.
1. I only see you ridiculing one religion, Blair. You are completely inconsistent. The type of Islamophobic ridicule you subscribe to is purely designed to foster religious hate (i.e. Islamic hate) in the UK, which is why you are a supporter of the BNP in this respect.
2. No, I have no solution for stopping all illegal immigration to this country.
And neither have you.
What about them all coming in?
I believe there has to be radicals amongst these people and that they are sent by terrorist groups to infiltrate the Muslim population and try to enact more terrorist attacks in Europe.
The stated aim of Islam is to rule the world and put all those that don't conform to death.
This is not a modern aim its part of the teaching from the Koran.
The facts are right there [there are more Muslims joining terrorist groups in their own countries than there are running away from them].
Like I say, you need to set the bar as low as it needs to be set for the few, not the many. And it really ain't all that few - one in four British Muslims supported the Charlie Hebdo killers' aims. I would rather that one in four go somewhere else to kill people in the name of some absurd sky fairy. Like where their kind originated, for example.
Ffff, it's not what I and many others stand for. I don't want freedom to practice loopy-doo religions that results in irreplaceable property destruction and mass murder.
Is that the same intelligence service that told us Saddam had WMDs?
i never said the religion is peaceful
I am not a muslim but my point was mosques etc shouldn't be closed because some people are evil. Its not fair on the ones who obey by laws and are not extremists.
I went to school with a lot of muslims..work with them etc...and they are some of the nicest people you can meet. I just hate that everybody should be grouped together because of some peoples actions.
Views like yours are just part of the problem. Closing mosques won't solve anything..it will just eradicate the problem and cause more disharmony.
Not every muslim is bad. So the non bad muslims should have their place of worship closed because of a bad section of their 'religion'..two wrongs don't make a right.
Neither do I. But we shouldn't remove the freedom to practice a religion just because of a very slim possibility that some nutter in the future will use that religion as a convenient excuse to justify his desire to bomb people.
It is not worth preventing a terror attack, or even multiple terror attacks, if the cost of doing so is removing core liberties, the heart of what makes us a free country. So there's no "After X many civilians die in Britain to terror attacks we will implement more strict measures", because there is no number high enough that justify removing the things that makes this country free.
Nope. But he wasn't able to use them to attack us within 45 minutes, which was the claim used to justify the war. I also heard somewhere that he was rumored to have given an evacuation warning before gassing certain areas, which (if true) puts a new perspective on the narrative that he randomly gassed innocent people.
We wouldn't be removing freedom from anyone other than those groups who have the potential to harm others.
If someone left 16th century Spain to escape the Inquisition, would you expect them to support the establishment of an official Inquisition in the country they migrate into?
There were good reasons why the Catholic church was banned in England and Wales for many decades.
How do you stand on religions which in the present preach and practise homophobia, misogyny and racism?
So you'd be removing freedoms from everyone then. Every one of us is part of a group who has the potential to harm others; Humans. But we don't remove the freedoms of every human being just because some humans have done terrible things. And nor should we deprive Muslims of their rights because a terrorist happened to be a Muslim as well.
I have no problem with them preaching it. I feel that it is vital to allow free discussion, debate, and exploration of views and opinions, even if most of society thinks those opinions are pretty bad. Opinions change over time, so we shouldn't "lock out" specific beliefs from being discussed just because they are unpopular at the time. Homosexuality was once just as unacceptable as homophobia is now, but our opinion as a society changed because people had the freedom to discuss it and put forward an argument that gays deserved equal rights. If the people preaching these views act on them and in doing so break a discrimination law, they deserve to be punished like everyone else.
That would be all religious groups then.
Wow.
I would prefer a more organic withering away of the influence of organised religion in our society.
Your method seems rather............ authoritarian, to put it mildly.
How would we know? We have no exit count!..... Don't even know how many people are in this bloody country.
1 You do not look hard enough. Where have I ridiculed any religion? Observing what Islam says and what Muslims do is not ridiculing. I also observe what Christianity says and what Christians do as well as what Judaism says and its followers do. IN terms of fostering hate can you point to any instance where I have said Muslims are the vilest of creatures, I can point to non Muslims being called the vilest of creatures. Pointing out where Islam engenders hate seems to be 'Islamophobic'. You really cannot be serious?
3 I have a solution for controlling immigration and removing illegals.
1. I will point out your ridiculing of Islam and gratuitous bad mouthing of its adherents next time you do it - I'm not trawling back through your posts.
2.I know how you would control immigration, but how do you propose to identify all illegal immigrants?