Quote:

Dominic Grieve: Society damaged by Labour's politically correct policies on multiculturalism By Martin Beckford, Religious Affairs Correspondent Last Updated: 3:56PM GMT 04 Mar 2009 Mr Grieve, the shadow justice secretary, claims the regulation of private opinions and public debate have left people unable to say what they think is right or wrong. He believes Britain is suffering an "identity breakdown" after a decade in which the Government has destroyed respect for the country's history and culture. And he warns that the failure to discuss multiculturalism by mainstream political groups has been exploited by the far-right British National Party, which is now taking council seats across the country. His comments come a week after Hazel Blears, the Communities Secretary, said people must be free to discuss contentious issues without fear of "over-reaction". But speaking at the Lord Smith of Clifton Lecture at Queen Mary, University of London, Mr Grieve said: "In fact if she is serious, she is heralding a U-turn on 12 years of Labour policy. "A decade of ranking people as members of neatly categorised ethnic, religious or social groups, rather than treating everyone as an individual in their own right." He highlighted the cases of Caroline Petrie, the nurse suspended for offering to pray for a patient, and Jennie Cain, the school receptionist whose five-year-old daughter was scolded for talking about Hell to another girl, as examples to "disproportionate reactions" that damage "the worthy cause of promoting harmony". Mr Grieve went on: "At the other extreme, the lack of a credible response from the mainstream right to the current issues of multiculturalism has now left a gap, which is being filled by extremist voices. UKIP and the British National Party have taken advantage to suggest policies not based on a reasoned morality but which play on fear and encourage hatred. "The zealous regulation of conduct, the imposition of state-defined orthodoxy on public and private conscience and the overburdening of law and regulation, have the consequence of undermining that confidence and are deterring participation and engagement. "Increasing prescription is robbing us of our ability to decide ourselves what is right and wrong. "Indeed the reluctance to exercise reasonable judgment and to criticise or challenge negative cultural imports into our country, including discriminatory practises against women and corrupt political and electoral practises, is one of the most troubling consequences of a culture that wishes to avoid offence and accusations of racism. "Multiculturalism was intended to create a more cohesive and friendlier society by facilitating bringing people together. But instead the laws and concepts underlying it seem to me to drive people apart endangering our traditional sense of community based on commons values. "I am convinced that this approach has hindered more recent immigrants to this country developing a sense of belonging. Faced with a society that seems to be suffering an identity breakdown, should we be surprised that they find a common identity with their fellow countrymen hard to identify?"

Source: Telegraph, UK
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/conservative/4934169/Dominic-Grieve-Society-damaged-by-Labours-politically-correct-policies-on-multiculturalism.html

BNP's take on it:


Quote:

Tory Frontbencher Admits: Multiculturalism Has Failed and Conservatives Have No Policies Tory immigration spokesman Mr Dominic Grieve (image alongside) has admitted that multiculturalism has failed and that his party has no policies whatsoever to redress the problem. The shocking admission of the utter bankruptcy of the Conservative Party on immigration, was made by its most senior spokesman on the topic, Mr Grieve, at a lecture at Queen Mary, University of London yesterday. “Multiculturalism was intended to create a more cohesive and friendlier society by facilitating bringing people together,” Mr Grieve said. “But instead the laws and concepts underlying it seem to me to drive people apart endangering our traditional sense of community based on common values.” After damning his own party’s policies of the last thirty years, Mr Grieve then went on to make his admission that the Tories have no clue how to solve the problem. “The lack of a credible response from the mainstream right to the current issues of multiculturalism has now left a gap, which is being filled by . . . the British National Party,” the Tory spokesman said, interspersing his remarks with the usual knee-jerk meaningless anti-BNP rhetoric. Although Mr Grieve may have thought he was being clever with his remarks, they will be seen by the public for exactly what they are: an admission by the most senior Tory spokesman that his own party’s social policies have caused division and that they have no answer to the problems they have created. Instead of drawing the logical conclusion that his party’s policies have been a disaster, Mr Grieve then went on to demand even more “integration and interaction between different groups in society,” adding that “Greater diversity within our society must be recognised and applauded.” The Tories - more of the same as Labour.  Only the British National Party offers a real alternative to the Tweedledee Tweedledum other parties.

Source: BNP website
http://bnp.org.uk/tag/tories-admit-they-are-wrong/

I'm beginning to understand more about the doctrine of multiculturalism lately.  It was introduced for a reason and it's actual origins are linked to an agenda of the world's most elite and greedy people to protect their interests.

This article is a bit over the top - but I can't find the right one I need at the moment.  Extract...The Caliphate vs Multiculturalism

Multiculturalism is Western culture on a starvation diet. Whether calculated or not, it creates a deprivation and a hunger that winds up ultimately being filled by foreign cultures and beliefs. This vacuum of culture and faith, this starvation diet for the mind and the soul, creates an inferiority complex among liberals in the west, a complex that insures hatred for their society and a desire to identify with outsiders, even its enemies.

Browsing through the websites of liberal churches and temples one finds extensive celebrations of other people’s religions. Studies of Islam, Buddhism and everything but their own actual faiths. Diversity is the priority in the new salad bar of civilizations. Two hundred Guatemalans emigrating to the United States is met with joy, but if two hundred Irish were to make the same trip, no one would much care. The story of the 55 member black congregation that converted in Cairo, Illinois is all the talk of the press, yet if 55 Jews were to join a synagogue, what Reform synagogue would care or even accept them if they lacked the means. Despite the blatant failures of multiculturalism, in America, Europe and Israel the cry goes up for more diversity.

America has long ago prioritized immigration from the Third World over immigration from the West, leading to a bizarre situation in which the United States takes in hundreds of thousands of people with no job skills and heavy social services needs while hardworking Irish immigrants in New York remain illegal, because their quota is ridiculously small. Meanwhile the actual Ireland is busy transforming itself into the New Ireland, a vision of Ireland that is no longer Irish in order to accommodate the tide of African immigrants. In Israel and America, the key Jewish social services venture is not aid for those displaced by expulsion and war, but lobbying to bring a million Ethiopians to Israel. In France Sarkozy is backing away away from his pledge to crack down on illegal third world immigrants. The pattern stays true everywhere.

If you starve people long enough of anything to feel pride in and find meaningful that is their own, they inevitably develop an inferiority complex, a state of mind that devalues what is their own and celebrates diversity not out of a genuine appreciation of other cultures, but out of a lack of their own culture.

Multiculturalism is the West’s cultural anorexia, a mental disease masquerading as a moral cause, a culture forever trapped in looking in the mirror and seeing its own bloated corruption like an inverted Dorian Gray, seeing evils that are not there and others that are laughable in contrast with the brutal dictatorships of Islam.

If the West is suffering from anorexia, Islamism is the obsessive eater, gorging on everything in sight. The West has a fear of power but the East has a fear of powerlessness, their destructive collision forms a grotesque abusive relationship as the Islamists devour Western civilization while the multicultural apologists make excuses for them all the while.

Is it any wonder that having to choose between life in a multicultural society and an Islamist one, Muslims in the West ultimately choose the Islamist way? After all who would willingly choose to starve when they can feast? The lack of self-respect that multiculturalism shows its own society and culture only confirms to Western Muslims that there is no reason or basis for respecting it. The Caliphate emerges for them as a strong and appealing vision, all the more so because it is a myth and can never be realized. And best of all there is no reason to choose, because multiculturalism’s fatal flaw is that it is willing to tolerate and give ground to even the beliefs that call for its destruction.

And so Muslims in the West can work as doctors, socialize, marry, receive benefits and have access to everything Western society has to offer while still supporting terrorism and Jihad. And it is no wonder, multiculturalism allows them to receive all the benefits of Western living while still being true to the Muslim code of conquering the Dar Al Harb. This makes the multicultural vision of promoting a moderate Islam or a reformed Islam laughable. After all why should Islam reform as long as it’s winning?

http://www.israpundit.com/2007/?p=7171

Quote:

The Caliphate emerges for them as a strong and appealing vision, all the more so because it is a myth and can never be realized.

Quite laughable, especially since the Caliphate was realised for well over 1300 years, longer in fact than any other state system known to man.

Quote:

Quite laughable, especially since the Caliphate was realised for well over 1300 years, longer in fact than any other state system known to man.

Yes that comment seemed a bit strange Abu.  I didn't post the article because of the reference to Muslims - I basically wanted to point out this World Order conspiracy in which it appears all roads lead to.  

I should have just quoted a couple of paragraphs which were fairly descriptive, possibly exaggerated - but interesting nonetheless.

abu_rashid wrote on Mar 10^th, 2009 at 6:07pm:

Quote: The Caliphate emerges for them as a strong and appealing vision, all the more so because it is a myth and can never be realized. Quite laughable, especially since the Caliphate was realised for well over 1300 years, longer in fact than any other state system known to man.

abu, when we discussed flags you told me that there were few different caliphates. Which one of them was realised for well over 1300 years?

tallow,

Just because there were different periods/dynasties of the Caliphate, does not mean it did not last for 1300 years.

Rashidi -> Umawi -> Abbasi -> Uthmani

Go learn some history.

And did these dynasties each rule over all the Musulmans of their respective periods?  No. But isn't the  caliphate the one kingdom that rules them all (muslims)?
That has never happened since Mohammed died.

British born, er... muslims convicted for supplying terrorists.
Look at these faces. They just look THICK. You can almost hear them. Whatever these types might ever come to dominate will go to the dogs within a very, very short time.

---

Although a Caliphate must strive to rule over all Muslims, not achieving as such, would not make it invalid, in the least.

That's a false condition of your own forging.


Quote:

That has never happened since Mohammed died.

Just to show how inaccurate your [mis]information is, the 4 Caliphs (ie. The Rashidis) after Muhammad (pbuh) all ruled over a united Caliphate. As did the Umawis or most of their time, as did the Abbasis for some of their time.

abu_rashid wrote on Mar 10^th, 2009 at 11:05pm:

Although a Caliphate must strive to rule over all Muslims, not achieving as such, would not make it invalid, in the least. That's a false condition of your own forging.

So you can have a calphate of 2? Is it just a matter of thriving?

Or is it just another word for a managable juristidction and nothing more. Like a kingdom, say.

abu_rashid wrote on Mar 10^th, 2009 at 9:42pm:

... Just because there were different periods/dynasties of the Caliphate, does not mean it did not last for 1300 years. Go learn some history.

The same can be said about Pharaoh's Egypt and Rule of Rome but of course it means that your remark

Quote:

the Caliphate was realised for well over 1300 years, longer in fact than any other state system known to man.

is either islamic ignorance or islamic lie so instead of telling me to "Go learn some history" cut of your muslim lies and learn history yourself.

BTW, this is not the first time your lack of historical knowledge and your islamic lies were exposed for which you banned me from your pet islamist board but your jihad of lies have failed. ;)

Quote:

The same can be said about Pharaoh's Egypt and Rule of Rome but of course it means that your remark

They didn't keep the same ideology/ruling system. The Caliphate is an ideology/ruling system, that's what we're talking about. Not the fact they were located in the same city, or region or spoke the same language.

abu_rashid wrote on Mar 11^th, 2009 at 8:34am:

Quote: The same can be said about Pharaoh's Egypt and Rule of Rome but of course it means that your remark They didn't keep the same ideology/ruling system. The Caliphate is an ideology/ruling system, that's what we're talking about. Not the fact they were located in the same city, or region or spoke the same language.

We are talking about "state system".
Pharaoh's Egypt kept the same state system longer then caliphate.

Actually few people realise that even though the term "Pharaoh" is applied to all ancient Egyptian rulers. The term itself was only ever used during a very brief period of the New Kingdom, specifically, during the middle of the eighteenth dynasty.

It was not as continuous a state system as you might like to believe. It underwent massive changes in state structure, religion and ideology from dynasty to dynasty.

abu_rashid wrote on Mar 11^th, 2009 at 7:55pm:

Actually few people realise that even though the term "Pharaoh" is applied to all ancient Egyptian rulers. The term itself was only ever used during a very brief period of the New Kingdom, specifically, during the middle of the eighteenth dynasty. It was not as continuous a state system as you might like to believe. It underwent massive changes in state structure, religion and ideology from dynasty to dynasty.

Which of course is neither here nor there as far as the caliphate is concerned or indeed multiculturalissm in Britain or anywhere else.
But do go on about it.



The caliphate is a sepia-coloured nostalgia for the future, a dream, like the triumph of the working class, of the arian race, of Scientology.

Never happened, never will.

abu, which caliphate are you talking about. What was it's flag? Which ethnic people were the rulers? What were the names of rulers? Where was the capital of the caliphate you are talking about. At which time of history?

Quote:

What was it's flag

Irrelevant. Many states have changed their flags throughout their history. Rather insignificant piece of cloth. but nonetheless symbolic of the 'fabric' of your argument.


Quote:

Which ethnic people were the rulers?

Again completely irrelevant, as Islam places absolutely no emphasis on ethnicity. A Caliphate has nothing to do with ethnic background of rulers.


Quote:

Where was the capital of the caliphate you are talking about.

It had many capitals. First was Madina, last was Constantinople. Again, irrelevant question. Melbourne was once the capital of Australia... so what?


Quote:

At which time of history?

From the time of Muhammad (pbuh) until the official abolition on March 3rd. 1924.

abu_rashid wrote on Mar 11^th, 2009 at 10:52pm:

Quote: What was it's flag Irrelevant. ...

I agree, caliphates are irrelevant, always were and always will be.

The point is any of them never were longest form of state known to man as you try to make us to believe.

"......"Increasing prescription is robbing us of our ability to decide ourselves what is right and wrong.

"Indeed the reluctance to exercise reasonable judgment and to criticise or challenge negative cultural imports into our country, including discriminatory practises against women and corrupt political and electoral practises, is one of the most troubling consequences of a culture that wishes to avoid offence and accusations of racism."




DT,

Wow!

Excellent Telegraph, UK article , in the first post, in this thread.

It makes so much sense.






People are not necessarily racists because they see something evil, or wrong, and then criticise what they see.

To me the critics [of some injustice or evil] can be [often] demonstrating common sense, not racism.

And those calling their critics 'racists', on inspection of the facts, often seem to demonstrate that they have some sort of [self-serving??, irrational/illogical] agenda which they wish to protect.

Quote:

People are not necessarily racists because they see something evil, or wrong, and then criticise what they see.

If they make such observations based on race, then they are.

Demonising certain sectors of society based on their racial background IS racist. No matter how many evil acts members from the same background might commit.

Uh uh...  racism is a specific belief.
Racialism is recognising races and their differences.

abu_rashid wrote on Mar 12^th, 2009 at 1:15pm:

Quote: People are not necessarily racists because they see something evil, or wrong, and then criticise what they see. If they make such observations based on race, then they are.

abu,

Completely incorrect [in my book].

Racism could be categorised as exercising a prejudice against someone, based on race.

That is all.


If i am a white policeman, and i arrest a black criminal,  [or vice-versa]
.....I AM NOT BEHAVING, AS A RACIST.







Quote:

Demonising certain sectors of society based on their racial background IS racist. No matter how many evil acts members from the same background might commit.

I do agree with the part i have highlighted.

Can we all agree on 'culturalism'? That is what we are really talking about, after all.

Cultures, subject to conscious choice and individual cultivation, are and should be ranked.

Inferior ideologies and the cultural practices that grow from them are subject to criticism and are and should be further discouraged and severely at that. Some are barred, others should be too. And it don't matter who your mamma and dadda were.

Quote:

If i am a white policeman, and i arrest a black criminal,  [or vice-versa] .....I AM NOT BEHAVING, AS A RACIST.

And nowhere have I insinuated as such.


Quote:

[quote]Demonising certain sectors of society based on their racial background IS racist. No matter how many evil acts members from the same background might commit.

I do agree with the part i have highlighted.[/quote]

It's a start, but why do you not agree with the part you didn't highlight? Do you think there's a certain threshold at which it becomes acceptable to demonise certain sectors of society based on their racial background? If let's say 10% more of that particular race are involved in nasty activities than the general population, does it become acceptable to demonise the lot? 20%? 30%?

Yadda wrote on Mar 12^th, 2009 at 11:27am:

"......"Increasing prescription is robbing us of our ability to decide ourselves what is right and wrong. "Indeed the reluctance to exercise reasonable judgment and to criticise or challenge negative cultural imports into our country, including discriminatory practises against women and corrupt political and electoral practises, is one of the most troubling consequences of a culture that wishes to avoid offence and accusations of racism." DT, Wow! Excellent Telegraph, UK article , in the first post, in this thread. It makes so much sense. People are not necessarily racists because they see something evil, or wrong, and then criticise what they see. To me the critics [of some injustice or evil] can be [often] demonstrating common sense, not racism. And those calling their critics 'racists', on inspection of the facts, often seem to demonstrate that they have some sort of [self-serving??, irrational/illogical] agenda which they wish to protect.

Thanks, Yadda.

abu_rashid wrote on Mar 12^th, 2009 at 5:11pm:

Demonising certain sectors of society based on their racial background IS racist. No matter how many evil acts members from the same background might commit.

I do agree with the part i have highlighted.[/quote]

It's a start, but why do you not agree with the part you didn't highlight? Do you think there's a certain threshold at which it becomes acceptable to demonise certain sectors of society based on their racial background? If let's say 10% more of that particular race are involved in nasty activities than the general population, does it become acceptable to demonise the lot? 20%? 30%?
[/quote]

Yes, there is a threshold. You know, the idea that at a certain point one cannot claim bystandard status. That is the same tipping point at which one becomes an enabler. The old 'water in which the nasties swim' metaphor, remember? Muslims in France, England, Denmark, Muslims in the Lakemba ghetto have reached that tipping point. They are either working for changing their 'brothers' or they are art of the problem. If 20 or 30 % of, say, 'your people' commit evil acts, you are responsible for that because at that rate you know more than a few of the evil doers. To do nothing is then a choice to enable evil.

abu_rashid wrote on Mar 12^th, 2009 at 5:11pm:

Quote: If i am a white policeman, and i arrest a black criminal,  [or vice-versa] .....I AM NOT BEHAVING, AS A RACIST. And nowhere have I insinuated as such.

abu,

That is the claim you make, here.




But it is common to hear muslim community spokesmen categorise police action against any criminal behaviour of muslims as a clear example of  'racism'.


Google,
policing against muslims racist
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=policing+against+muslims+racist&btnG=Google+Search&meta=




And this protestation [by muslims], is just another attempt by ISLAMISTS to deflect criticism from their foul, uncivilised behaviour,
.....BY CASTIGATING, DENIGRATING THEIR OWN ACCUSERS.


This is pure ISLAMIC 'victimhood'.

....."Ooooo look! The evil Kuffar hates us, because we are muslims!"

Its a total crock!


And in response to this crock.....

We non-muslims should come to understand that we must confront the three very effective weapons which muslims use against us,

• muslim lies,
  
• muslim deceit [deception, and denial of TRUTH],
  
• and muslim violence.
  

If we are not prepared to confront these evils, ISLAM will prevail,
.....WE WILL LET IT PREVAIL.




Islam is a lie and truth is killing it.
Alaskan
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/023681.php#c602782




All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
Edmund Burke (1729-1797)

Racism is the belief in the superiority or inferiority of one race in regards to another.  Pure and simple.

Islam is NOT a race.  Prejudice against Muslims because they are Muslims, is NOT therefore, racist or racial.