Body & Soul1 min ago
Were Zac's Views So Extreme?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Khandro. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Well Naomi we can both be saddened by each other then. I'm struggling to understand what is so sad about wanting someone to be allowed to do the job they were elected democratically in a free and fair election to do. It's disgusting for the man in the video to suggest that people should be barred from office for -- for what? Being Muslim? Bars on religions from holding public office is an attitude that ought to have died once we got over the whole Catholic/ Protestant thing in this country. It's sickening to see it rear its ugly head. Oh, and the "sharing platforms" thing -- if people can be tainted so easily by association, we could invert it and point out that Zac Goldsmith shared a platform with "known terrorist sympathiser" Sadiq Khan... does that say anything about Goldsmith? No, not really. Sharing a platform and sharing a view are very different things. How easy we find it to taint people by association, if we have some vested interest in doing so. (Should, perhaps, Khan have "no-platformed" the people you're complaining about?)
Apart from the obvious reasons why Muslim population growth can't continue indefinitely at the present rate, there's also the point that after all quite a few Muslims are being "westernised", at least to some extent. Among other things, this will mean that we can expect Muslims to have a more typically Western, low, birth rate; the immigration contribution to growth, too, is unsustainable (not to mention potential rule changes in the coming years that would cap the numbers anyway), for essentially the same reasons.
With respect to the apathy thing -- I don't entirely mean it seriously, but nevertheless around 50% of those eligible to vote in London's election did not. If, in the end, all the warnings about Khan are correct, then it's to those 50% you should probably turn first. In general, we get the politicians we deserve because of this lack of participation in elections -- it's a wider problem that hardly allowed "Just" Sadiq Khan in. Oh and, incidentally, you are repeating an assertion, also unfounded in any actual evidence other than supposition, that Khan effectively wasn't supported by the non-ethnic-minority Londoners. Who knows? Perhaps he could have won there too? Or do you have inside information on exactly who voted for him, and who did not? Your intuition may well be correct, but it is just intuition and not fact at this point.
* * * *
Your last paragraph is typical of the argument presented in the video above, and by others, wrapped up at least in a less aggressive voice, but it makes the same flaw. At the moment, "our country" includes Sadiq Khan, so far as I see it. There is nothing to the contrary that is anything other than a vicious attempt to smear someone because of his religion. As a result, Khan's election does not make me feel that I am faced with the total obliteration of this country.
On the other hand, that Khan's election has exposed the deep-seated prejudices people like you seem determined to pass on to the rest of us, dividing people as far as possible, *does* make me fear for this country. I had hoped we had, by and large, moved past such divisions. Apparently not. We risk tearing ourselves apart in yet another religious war.
What is my attitude in the end? It remains the same -- a point you have consistently failed to address (beyond the vague "links"). What has Khan actually done that suggests he is such a threat? You linked to an article yesterday asking if he would stand up for gay people, same sex marriage, women's rights, etc? Well, he has done. As and when that changes, then we can start to call for him to be ousted. Until then, keep an eye on him, by all means. But don't condemn a man for something you only think he might do. Judge him by what he actually does. Why is that such a frightening attitude?
Apart from the obvious reasons why Muslim population growth can't continue indefinitely at the present rate, there's also the point that after all quite a few Muslims are being "westernised", at least to some extent. Among other things, this will mean that we can expect Muslims to have a more typically Western, low, birth rate; the immigration contribution to growth, too, is unsustainable (not to mention potential rule changes in the coming years that would cap the numbers anyway), for essentially the same reasons.
With respect to the apathy thing -- I don't entirely mean it seriously, but nevertheless around 50% of those eligible to vote in London's election did not. If, in the end, all the warnings about Khan are correct, then it's to those 50% you should probably turn first. In general, we get the politicians we deserve because of this lack of participation in elections -- it's a wider problem that hardly allowed "Just" Sadiq Khan in. Oh and, incidentally, you are repeating an assertion, also unfounded in any actual evidence other than supposition, that Khan effectively wasn't supported by the non-ethnic-minority Londoners. Who knows? Perhaps he could have won there too? Or do you have inside information on exactly who voted for him, and who did not? Your intuition may well be correct, but it is just intuition and not fact at this point.
* * * *
Your last paragraph is typical of the argument presented in the video above, and by others, wrapped up at least in a less aggressive voice, but it makes the same flaw. At the moment, "our country" includes Sadiq Khan, so far as I see it. There is nothing to the contrary that is anything other than a vicious attempt to smear someone because of his religion. As a result, Khan's election does not make me feel that I am faced with the total obliteration of this country.
On the other hand, that Khan's election has exposed the deep-seated prejudices people like you seem determined to pass on to the rest of us, dividing people as far as possible, *does* make me fear for this country. I had hoped we had, by and large, moved past such divisions. Apparently not. We risk tearing ourselves apart in yet another religious war.
What is my attitude in the end? It remains the same -- a point you have consistently failed to address (beyond the vague "links"). What has Khan actually done that suggests he is such a threat? You linked to an article yesterday asking if he would stand up for gay people, same sex marriage, women's rights, etc? Well, he has done. As and when that changes, then we can start to call for him to be ousted. Until then, keep an eye on him, by all means. But don't condemn a man for something you only think he might do. Judge him by what he actually does. Why is that such a frightening attitude?
Well Naomi we can both be saddened by each other then. I'm struggling to understand what is so sad about wanting someone to be allowed to do the job they were elected democratically in a free and fair election to do. It's disgusting for the man in the video to suggest that people should be barred from office for -- for what? Being Muslim? Bars on religions from holding public office is an attitude that ought to have died once we got over the whole Catholic/ Protestant thing in this country. It's sickening to see it rear its ugly head. Oh, and the "sharing platforms" thing -- if people can be tainted so easily by association, we could invert it and point out that Zac Goldsmith shared a platform with "known terrorist sympathiser" Sadiq Khan... does that say anything about Goldsmith? No, not really. Sharing a platform and sharing a view are very different things. How easy we find it to taint people by association, if we have some vested interest in doing so. (Should, perhaps, Khan have "no-platformed" the people you're complaining about?)
Apart from the obvious reasons why Muslim population growth can't continue indefinitely at the present rate, there's also the point that after all quite a few Muslims are being "westernised", at least to some extent. Among other things, this will mean that we can expect Muslims to have a more typically Western, low, birth rate; the immigration contribution to growth, too, is unsustainable (not to mention potential rule changes in the coming years that would cap the numbers anyway), for essentially the same reasons.
With respect to the apathy thing -- I don't entirely mean it seriously, but nevertheless around 50% of those eligible to vote in London's election did not. If, in the end, all the warnings about Khan are correct, then it's to those 50% you should probably turn first. In general, we get the politicians we deserve because of this lack of participation in elections -- it's a wider problem that hardly allowed "Just" Sadiq Khan in. Oh and, incidentally, you are repeating an assertion, also unfounded in any actual evidence other than supposition, that Khan effectively wasn't supported by the non-ethnic-minority Londoners. Who knows? Perhaps he could have won there too? Or do you have inside information on exactly who voted for him, and who did not? Your intuition may well be correct, but it is just intuition and not fact at this point.
* * * *
Your last paragraph is typical of the argument presented in the video above, and by others, wrapped up at least in a less aggressive voice, but it makes the same flaw. At the moment, "our country" includes Sadiq Khan, so far as I see it. There is nothing to the contrary that is anything other than a vicious attempt to smear someone because of his religion. As a result, Khan's election does not make me feel that I am faced with the total obliteration of this country.
On the other hand, that Khan's election has exposed the deep-seated prejudices people like you seem determined to pass on to the rest of us, dividing people as far as possible, *does* make me fear for this country. I had hoped we had, by and large, moved past such divisions. Apparently not. We risk tearing ourselves apart in yet another religious war.
What is my attitude in the end? It remains the same -- a point you have consistently failed to address (beyond the vague "links"). What has Khan actually done that suggests he is such a threat? You linked to an article yesterday asking if he would stand up for gay people, same sex marriage, women's rights, etc? Well, he has done. As and when that changes, then we can start to call for him to be ousted. Until then, keep an eye on him, by all means. But don't condemn a man for something you only think he might do. Judge him by what he actually does. Why is that such a frightening attitude?
Apart from the obvious reasons why Muslim population growth can't continue indefinitely at the present rate, there's also the point that after all quite a few Muslims are being "westernised", at least to some extent. Among other things, this will mean that we can expect Muslims to have a more typically Western, low, birth rate; the immigration contribution to growth, too, is unsustainable (not to mention potential rule changes in the coming years that would cap the numbers anyway), for essentially the same reasons.
With respect to the apathy thing -- I don't entirely mean it seriously, but nevertheless around 50% of those eligible to vote in London's election did not. If, in the end, all the warnings about Khan are correct, then it's to those 50% you should probably turn first. In general, we get the politicians we deserve because of this lack of participation in elections -- it's a wider problem that hardly allowed "Just" Sadiq Khan in. Oh and, incidentally, you are repeating an assertion, also unfounded in any actual evidence other than supposition, that Khan effectively wasn't supported by the non-ethnic-minority Londoners. Who knows? Perhaps he could have won there too? Or do you have inside information on exactly who voted for him, and who did not? Your intuition may well be correct, but it is just intuition and not fact at this point.
* * * *
Your last paragraph is typical of the argument presented in the video above, and by others, wrapped up at least in a less aggressive voice, but it makes the same flaw. At the moment, "our country" includes Sadiq Khan, so far as I see it. There is nothing to the contrary that is anything other than a vicious attempt to smear someone because of his religion. As a result, Khan's election does not make me feel that I am faced with the total obliteration of this country.
On the other hand, that Khan's election has exposed the deep-seated prejudices people like you seem determined to pass on to the rest of us, dividing people as far as possible, *does* make me fear for this country. I had hoped we had, by and large, moved past such divisions. Apparently not. We risk tearing ourselves apart in yet another religious war.
What is my attitude in the end? It remains the same -- a point you have consistently failed to address (beyond the vague "links"). What has Khan actually done that suggests he is such a threat? You linked to an article yesterday asking if he would stand up for gay people, same sex marriage, women's rights, etc? Well, he has done. As and when that changes, then we can start to call for him to be ousted. Until then, keep an eye on him, by all means. But don't condemn a man for something you only think he might do. Judge him by what he actually does. Why is that such a frightening attitude?
jim; //Not to mention the irony of a group calling itself "Liberty GB" proudly trumpeting their hope of denying the liberty of a British citizen his right to stand for, and hold, public office.//
He doesn't deny Khan's right to stand for office, it is a plea for the non-Muslim community to vote and democratically prevent such events from happening again.
He may appear to over-egg the pudding, but there is an indisputable agenda within the Muslim community not to integrate but to, by stealth, dominate British society by the use of our democratic process - which they despise- and when their goal is achieved, they will close down that process.
As Erdogan has said; "Democracy [to the Muslim mind] is like a bus, you use it to get to where you want, and then you get off" - and I would add, permanently disable the engine.
He doesn't deny Khan's right to stand for office, it is a plea for the non-Muslim community to vote and democratically prevent such events from happening again.
He may appear to over-egg the pudding, but there is an indisputable agenda within the Muslim community not to integrate but to, by stealth, dominate British society by the use of our democratic process - which they despise- and when their goal is achieved, they will close down that process.
As Erdogan has said; "Democracy [to the Muslim mind] is like a bus, you use it to get to where you want, and then you get off" - and I would add, permanently disable the engine.
//You still have nothing on Sadiq Khan other than that he's Muslim. Seriously. Judge him for what he actually does.//
if he is a lawyer then he knows well what to do when law conflicts with Islam
the proportion of muslims in London is 12.4% by the way
as far as I know no group has been disenfranchised ( = had their right to vote taken away ) because of a danger of block voting
if he is a lawyer then he knows well what to do when law conflicts with Islam
the proportion of muslims in London is 12.4% by the way
as far as I know no group has been disenfranchised ( = had their right to vote taken away ) because of a danger of block voting
Sorry for the double post by the way. Especially over such a long one.
Problem is that you talk of "the Muslim community" as if it is a single homogeneous whole -- except that it isn't. Early in April, I believe, Naomi cited a survey that was probably the most comprehensive to date about Muslims' views, and while there was plenty about it that was troubling it was also pretty obvious that very few Muslims shared the extreme views, that very many wanted to integrate, and, perhaps most importantly, that there was therefore no sense to the argument that "Muslims think like x" was ever[i universally true. But people persist in thinking like this -- in the comments above by Naomi, by you, by plenty of others on this site, by the man in the video. It is factually wrong. Your own sources show it to be factually wrong to characterise every Muslim as the same, as thinking the same way, as having the same agenda.
How else am I to describe this attempt to characterise a man not by what he is, but by the community he belongs to? It is blatantly discriminating and prejudiced, and it should have no place in a debate.
Mayoral terms are, what four years long? Let's have this conversation again at the end of that time, or at least [i]after] he's done, or tried to do, whatever horrors you envisage. Perhaps even they will never materialise. Although no doubt, in that case, you might argue that he's committed the worst sin imaginable: doing a good job, and making more sinister Muslims more electable in future...
Problem is that you talk of "the Muslim community" as if it is a single homogeneous whole -- except that it isn't. Early in April, I believe, Naomi cited a survey that was probably the most comprehensive to date about Muslims' views, and while there was plenty about it that was troubling it was also pretty obvious that very few Muslims shared the extreme views, that very many wanted to integrate, and, perhaps most importantly, that there was therefore no sense to the argument that "Muslims think like x" was ever[i universally true. But people persist in thinking like this -- in the comments above by Naomi, by you, by plenty of others on this site, by the man in the video. It is factually wrong. Your own sources show it to be factually wrong to characterise every Muslim as the same, as thinking the same way, as having the same agenda.
How else am I to describe this attempt to characterise a man not by what he is, but by the community he belongs to? It is blatantly discriminating and prejudiced, and it should have no place in a debate.
Mayoral terms are, what four years long? Let's have this conversation again at the end of that time, or at least [i]after] he's done, or tried to do, whatever horrors you envisage. Perhaps even they will never materialise. Although no doubt, in that case, you might argue that he's committed the worst sin imaginable: doing a good job, and making more sinister Muslims more electable in future...
Jim, //Apart from the obvious reasons why Muslim population growth can't continue indefinitely at the present rate//
What ‘obvious’ reasons? If they exist they aren’t obvious to me.
//Oh and, incidentally, you are repeating an assertion, also unfounded in any actual evidence other than supposition, that Khan effectively wasn't supported by the non-ethnic-minority Londoners. Who knows?//
I didn’t say that. I said Londoners voted for him – which they did - and that white, indigenous British people are now a minority group in London.
//Perhaps he could have won there too? //
Where too?
//There is nothing to the contrary that is anything other than a vicious attempt to smear someone because of his religion.//
I’m not smearing him. As far as I can see he’s smeared himself.
//On the other hand, that Khan's election has exposed the deep-seated prejudices people like you seem determined to pass on to the rest of us, dividing people as far as possible, *does* make me fear for this country.//
I don’t have prejudices. I consider the evidence and form judgement upon that. The greatest divisions in this country are created, not by immigrants per se, but by Islam in particular. Of that there can be no doubt whatsoever. You should fear for the future of this country.
//I had hoped we had, by and large, moved past such divisions.//
That’s wishful thinking. Islam hasn’t moved on – and it won’t – at least not in the direction you think it will.
//What is my attitude in the end? It remains the same -- a point you have consistently failed to address (beyond the vague "links"). What has Khan actually done that suggests he is such a threat? //
I haven’t failed to address your points. My post at 07:49 confirms that there is cause for suspicion.
//You linked to an article yesterday asking if he would stand up for gay people, same sex marriage, women's rights, etc? Well, he has done.//
Jim, being seen as illiberal is hardly likely to engender the trust of the nation! Use your head. He’s a politician with great ambition – and he’s succeeding in that ambition! Do you really think his Islamic supporters would be waving their banners heralding the triumph of the election of a Muslim London mayor if they really believed he supported same sex marriage and women’s rights? More likely they’d accuse him of apostasy and slap a fatwa on him!! Never forget Taqiyya – deception in the cause of Islam – which includes gaining the trust of non-believers in order to take advantage of their vulnerability to defeat them. They’re certainly succeeding in taking advantage of your vulnerability!
//Judge him by what he actually does.//
That’s exactly what I’m doing.
What ‘obvious’ reasons? If they exist they aren’t obvious to me.
//Oh and, incidentally, you are repeating an assertion, also unfounded in any actual evidence other than supposition, that Khan effectively wasn't supported by the non-ethnic-minority Londoners. Who knows?//
I didn’t say that. I said Londoners voted for him – which they did - and that white, indigenous British people are now a minority group in London.
//Perhaps he could have won there too? //
Where too?
//There is nothing to the contrary that is anything other than a vicious attempt to smear someone because of his religion.//
I’m not smearing him. As far as I can see he’s smeared himself.
//On the other hand, that Khan's election has exposed the deep-seated prejudices people like you seem determined to pass on to the rest of us, dividing people as far as possible, *does* make me fear for this country.//
I don’t have prejudices. I consider the evidence and form judgement upon that. The greatest divisions in this country are created, not by immigrants per se, but by Islam in particular. Of that there can be no doubt whatsoever. You should fear for the future of this country.
//I had hoped we had, by and large, moved past such divisions.//
That’s wishful thinking. Islam hasn’t moved on – and it won’t – at least not in the direction you think it will.
//What is my attitude in the end? It remains the same -- a point you have consistently failed to address (beyond the vague "links"). What has Khan actually done that suggests he is such a threat? //
I haven’t failed to address your points. My post at 07:49 confirms that there is cause for suspicion.
//You linked to an article yesterday asking if he would stand up for gay people, same sex marriage, women's rights, etc? Well, he has done.//
Jim, being seen as illiberal is hardly likely to engender the trust of the nation! Use your head. He’s a politician with great ambition – and he’s succeeding in that ambition! Do you really think his Islamic supporters would be waving their banners heralding the triumph of the election of a Muslim London mayor if they really believed he supported same sex marriage and women’s rights? More likely they’d accuse him of apostasy and slap a fatwa on him!! Never forget Taqiyya – deception in the cause of Islam – which includes gaining the trust of non-believers in order to take advantage of their vulnerability to defeat them. They’re certainly succeeding in taking advantage of your vulnerability!
//Judge him by what he actually does.//
That’s exactly what I’m doing.
Jim, //Naomi cited a survey that was probably the most comprehensive to date about Muslims' views, and while there was plenty about it that was troubling it was also pretty obvious that very few Muslims shared the extreme views, that very many wanted to integrate, and, perhaps most importantly, that there was therefore no sense to the argument that "Muslims think like x" was ever[i universally true.//
The only thing that is ‘pretty obvious’ – although you seem to have missed it - is that Islam is an international brotherhood that embraces allegiance not to individual countries, but to Islam first and foremost.
The only thing that is ‘pretty obvious’ – although you seem to have missed it - is that Islam is an international brotherhood that embraces allegiance not to individual countries, but to Islam first and foremost.
What worries us most, about politicians, is who they serve.
Lobby groups are out there, whether they be "the 1 percent" or "big business" or "welfare recipients", or "the unions". Both sides are susceptible.
Mr Khan will, presumably be suceptible to left-leaning lobby groups. Some, on this thread appear to be of the opinion that he will respond, positively, to the lobbying efforts of Muslims.
We cannot see the innards of his employment contract but, having been a civil servant myself, in the past, I would take it for granted that fair and equal treatment of all races and creeds are written into the job description. Merely being *perceived* to show bias towards one group and not another would be a breach, just as much as if a white mayor was biased towards his own kind.
This is sometimes expressed using the generalism "it is not enough to be fair and impartial (in one's dealings with the public) one must *be seen to be* fair and impartial".
Lobby groups are out there, whether they be "the 1 percent" or "big business" or "welfare recipients", or "the unions". Both sides are susceptible.
Mr Khan will, presumably be suceptible to left-leaning lobby groups. Some, on this thread appear to be of the opinion that he will respond, positively, to the lobbying efforts of Muslims.
We cannot see the innards of his employment contract but, having been a civil servant myself, in the past, I would take it for granted that fair and equal treatment of all races and creeds are written into the job description. Merely being *perceived* to show bias towards one group and not another would be a breach, just as much as if a white mayor was biased towards his own kind.
This is sometimes expressed using the generalism "it is not enough to be fair and impartial (in one's dealings with the public) one must *be seen to be* fair and impartial".
@Khandro
// He may appear to over-egg the pudding, but there is an indisputable agenda within the Muslim community not to integrate but to, by stealth, dominate British society by the use of our democratic process - which they despise- and when their goal is achieved, they will close down that process. //
You're forgetting both the Lords and the Royal prerogative!
Does anyone know if the House of Lords could succumb to some nefarious method of forcing through a motion? Special "National Emergency" powers?
This may not be an ideal example but it got mentioned on the telly, the other day, so was the only one I could think of and therefore be 'google-able'.
http://
(page 4)
"After a highly effective populist campaign led by Enoch Powell MP and Duncan Sandys MP to deprive the British Asians of their right to enter the UK, the Wilson Government introduced emergency legislation – the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1968 – and drove it through all its parliamentary stages in three tumultuous days and nights"
// He may appear to over-egg the pudding, but there is an indisputable agenda within the Muslim community not to integrate but to, by stealth, dominate British society by the use of our democratic process - which they despise- and when their goal is achieved, they will close down that process. //
You're forgetting both the Lords and the Royal prerogative!
Does anyone know if the House of Lords could succumb to some nefarious method of forcing through a motion? Special "National Emergency" powers?
This may not be an ideal example but it got mentioned on the telly, the other day, so was the only one I could think of and therefore be 'google-able'.
http://
(page 4)
"After a highly effective populist campaign led by Enoch Powell MP and Duncan Sandys MP to deprive the British Asians of their right to enter the UK, the Wilson Government introduced emergency legislation – the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1968 – and drove it through all its parliamentary stages in three tumultuous days and nights"
Latest Posts
News1 min ago
Has Sunak Already Made Plans To Leave...
News4 mins ago
Crosswords5 mins ago
Arts & Literature6 mins ago
Crosswords7 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.