Tree Slayers Case Moved To The Crown...
News1 min ago
The Horrific Consequences Of The Multi Cultural Dream
39 Answers
http://
/// The crazed attacker wrongly believed his daughter-in-law was 'sleeping with a ***' and that she had 'ruined his family', Snaresbrook Crown Court heard. ///
/// The crazed attacker wrongly believed his daughter-in-law was 'sleeping with a ***' and that she had 'ruined his family', Snaresbrook Crown Court heard. ///
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. 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.
But you are using a horrible cross-cultural act (admittedly carried out in Britian) to illustrate your belief that the 'multi-cultural experiment' in these islands has failed.
Such cross-cultural atrocities occur all over the planet and is is simply impossible to create, or even envisage, a world where all cultures live in perfect isolation from one another.
Such cross-cultural atrocities occur all over the planet and is is simply impossible to create, or even envisage, a world where all cultures live in perfect isolation from one another.
AOG - "/// If a white British man mutiltes is daughter-in-law because he believes she is having an affair with a Scotsman, does that mean that the 'Non Multi-Cultural Dream' is equally fractured? ///
Your analogy is (excuse me), just plain ridiculous."
You are absolutely excused - I used the analogy in order to point out the reaching-but-failing scenario you used to illustrate the failure of 'The Multi Cultural Dream' which appears to be a concept youhave invented for the purposes of your OP.
My comparison is facile on purpose - what's your excuse?
Your analogy is (excuse me), just plain ridiculous."
You are absolutely excused - I used the analogy in order to point out the reaching-but-failing scenario you used to illustrate the failure of 'The Multi Cultural Dream' which appears to be a concept youhave invented for the purposes of your OP.
My comparison is facile on purpose - what's your excuse?
“...it would have happened wherever the families concerned were living “
Yes jack, but it would not have happened here had we not encouraged all and sundry, some of them with outrageous attitudes such as this, to settle here.
“Sikhs and Muslims have a volatile relationship.....it is a) cultural, b) religious and c) there is a great deal of ill-will on both sides over disputed territory in North India/Pakistan..... “
So I’m told. But these people live in Ilford. It’s about time their ill will over disputed territory five thousand miles away was put to bed. This is a big part of the problem. They have settled in the UK (or more likely have been born here) and choose to stay presumably because it is a somewhat more agreeable existence than some kharzi of a village in the Khyber Pass. So why don’t they forget about those disputes. I know they probably blame them on the Brits for their hasty and badly drawn up partition plans for India but that was 67 years ago. Life goes on and I suggest that if they are all that concerned about matters on the India/Pakistan border to such a degree that they compelled to gouge a woman’s eyes out, that they take up residence a little nearer that disputed zone. They would also do well not to concern themselves about the religion of their children’s chosen partners, concubines or lovers. Mrs New Judge’s father did not ask me mine when I was introduced to him and I was not the least bit concerned about his.
Yes jack, but it would not have happened here had we not encouraged all and sundry, some of them with outrageous attitudes such as this, to settle here.
“Sikhs and Muslims have a volatile relationship.....it is a) cultural, b) religious and c) there is a great deal of ill-will on both sides over disputed territory in North India/Pakistan..... “
So I’m told. But these people live in Ilford. It’s about time their ill will over disputed territory five thousand miles away was put to bed. This is a big part of the problem. They have settled in the UK (or more likely have been born here) and choose to stay presumably because it is a somewhat more agreeable existence than some kharzi of a village in the Khyber Pass. So why don’t they forget about those disputes. I know they probably blame them on the Brits for their hasty and badly drawn up partition plans for India but that was 67 years ago. Life goes on and I suggest that if they are all that concerned about matters on the India/Pakistan border to such a degree that they compelled to gouge a woman’s eyes out, that they take up residence a little nearer that disputed zone. They would also do well not to concern themselves about the religion of their children’s chosen partners, concubines or lovers. Mrs New Judge’s father did not ask me mine when I was introduced to him and I was not the least bit concerned about his.
New Judge - i find myself seroipously surprised that you seem to be aligning yourself with AOG insofar as looking for the utopian version of life today, as against the realities that we all live with - most unlike you!
Yes, in an ideal world, such tribal and religious rivalries would be long dead and buried - tell that to the people of Belfast - but you know as well as I that these are factors that affect behaviours and attitudes, sometimes with tragic consequences, as here.
It's no use hand-wringing and saying this should all be done and dusted - it should - but it's not, but that does not for one moment mean that the concept of multi-culturalism (as daft a label as that is!) is dead and buried because of it.
Yes, in an ideal world, such tribal and religious rivalries would be long dead and buried - tell that to the people of Belfast - but you know as well as I that these are factors that affect behaviours and attitudes, sometimes with tragic consequences, as here.
It's no use hand-wringing and saying this should all be done and dusted - it should - but it's not, but that does not for one moment mean that the concept of multi-culturalism (as daft a label as that is!) is dead and buried because of it.
Andy, //tell that to the people of Belfast//
The people of Belfast still live there, and therefore the problems of Belfast still affect them - whereas since these people no longer live in their own version of 'Belfast' they are no longer affected by what goes on there. Nevertheless, they continue as though they are - and I think that is the point that NJ is making.
The people of Belfast still live there, and therefore the problems of Belfast still affect them - whereas since these people no longer live in their own version of 'Belfast' they are no longer affected by what goes on there. Nevertheless, they continue as though they are - and I think that is the point that NJ is making.
naomi - "Andy, //tell that to the people of Belfast//
The people of Belfast still live there, and therefore the problems of Belfast still affect them - whereas since these people no longer live in their own version of 'Belfast' they are no longer affected by what goes on there. Nevertheless, they continue as though they are - and I think that is the point that NJ is making."
I appreciate that point, but my counter-point is that simply relocating to another country does not mean that anyone would, or indeed should, abandon and eliminate all apsects of their culture and faith which helps to frame who they are.
The notion that people will forget centuries old hostilities simply by virtue of relocation is niiave, and does sit well with AOG's OP.
But such attitudes are deeply engrained into children from their parents, and perpetuate the same way - which is why they survive and thrive across centuries. A simple geographical re-arrangement is not going to alter that.
The people of Belfast still live there, and therefore the problems of Belfast still affect them - whereas since these people no longer live in their own version of 'Belfast' they are no longer affected by what goes on there. Nevertheless, they continue as though they are - and I think that is the point that NJ is making."
I appreciate that point, but my counter-point is that simply relocating to another country does not mean that anyone would, or indeed should, abandon and eliminate all apsects of their culture and faith which helps to frame who they are.
The notion that people will forget centuries old hostilities simply by virtue of relocation is niiave, and does sit well with AOG's OP.
But such attitudes are deeply engrained into children from their parents, and perpetuate the same way - which is why they survive and thrive across centuries. A simple geographical re-arrangement is not going to alter that.
-- answer removed --
andy-hughes
/// New Judge - i find myself seroipously surprised that you seem to be aligning yourself with AOG insofar as looking for the utopian version of life today, as against the realities that we all live with - most unlike you! ///
No need to criticise New judge for aligning himself with views of not only me but the millions who do not walk about in rose tinted spectacles, especially you who is forever seeking out various 'Utopian Dreams'
I cannot find myself to go on addressing various further points in your post, because what you have put is almost a mirror image of what you come on here to say regularly, ie 'Utopian dreams', 'Hand-wringing' and 'ideal worlds'.
/// New Judge - i find myself seroipously surprised that you seem to be aligning yourself with AOG insofar as looking for the utopian version of life today, as against the realities that we all live with - most unlike you! ///
No need to criticise New judge for aligning himself with views of not only me but the millions who do not walk about in rose tinted spectacles, especially you who is forever seeking out various 'Utopian Dreams'
I cannot find myself to go on addressing various further points in your post, because what you have put is almost a mirror image of what you come on here to say regularly, ie 'Utopian dreams', 'Hand-wringing' and 'ideal worlds'.
This case just proves to me that,as recent reports show,this type of behaviour is almost accepted in their own country and the Pakistani police will turn a blind eye(no humour or pun in any way intended ) to stoning to death of family members etc.They do not wish to accept it is against our laws and culture to behave in this savage way in our country and therefore they do not wish to be part of a multi cultural society and integrate and conform to our way of life in the UK.
Andy, //simply relocating to another country does not mean that anyone would, or indeed should, abandon and eliminate all apsects of their culture and faith which helps to frame who they are. //
Indeed - except in this instance abandoning and eliminating this aspect of their culture and faith would have been the sensible thing to do. This is no commendation for 'who they are'.
Indeed - except in this instance abandoning and eliminating this aspect of their culture and faith would have been the sensible thing to do. This is no commendation for 'who they are'.
I’m afraid, Andy, I must take issue with your suggestion that people who come to live in the UK (or are born here into families whose culture differs wildly from ours) should not “...abandon and eliminate all apsects of their culture and faith which helps to frame who they are.”
Nobody is asking them to do that. What is being suggested is that they abandon the aspects of their faith and culture which are very clearly alien to those of most people in the UK. I know that we cannot create a Utopian dream. The damage has been done (and indeed damage it is) and cannot be reversed. However, even in these enlightened times, I don’t think it’s too much to ask to get people to understand that it is somewhat unacceptable under our culture and values to gouge a woman’s eyes out in front of her children because it is suspected she is sleeping with a man of whom the attacker disapproves. This sort of behaviour is clearly acceptable elsewhere in the world and those who want to indulge in these practices should up sticks from the UK and go there.
There should be no accommodation of excuses for offences such as these or indeed for many other practices which are offensive to most people in the UK but which are tolerated because it is “their culture”. It is because people of different cultures have been led (under a banner of creating a “multicultural society“) to believe that their customs and practices will be accommodated come what may that we should even be discussing this. The country should adopt one culture. This includes:
wearing crash helmets on a motorbike
conducting all business in English
allowing women to bare their arms and their heads in public
allowing women to associate with men in public
mixed bathing
going swimming during Ramadan
It does not include:
segregating children by gender during their education
providing workplace facilities to pray to Mecca on Fridays
gouging people’s eyes out
(neither list is exhaustive)
Nobody is asking them to do that. What is being suggested is that they abandon the aspects of their faith and culture which are very clearly alien to those of most people in the UK. I know that we cannot create a Utopian dream. The damage has been done (and indeed damage it is) and cannot be reversed. However, even in these enlightened times, I don’t think it’s too much to ask to get people to understand that it is somewhat unacceptable under our culture and values to gouge a woman’s eyes out in front of her children because it is suspected she is sleeping with a man of whom the attacker disapproves. This sort of behaviour is clearly acceptable elsewhere in the world and those who want to indulge in these practices should up sticks from the UK and go there.
There should be no accommodation of excuses for offences such as these or indeed for many other practices which are offensive to most people in the UK but which are tolerated because it is “their culture”. It is because people of different cultures have been led (under a banner of creating a “multicultural society“) to believe that their customs and practices will be accommodated come what may that we should even be discussing this. The country should adopt one culture. This includes:
wearing crash helmets on a motorbike
conducting all business in English
allowing women to bare their arms and their heads in public
allowing women to associate with men in public
mixed bathing
going swimming during Ramadan
It does not include:
segregating children by gender during their education
providing workplace facilities to pray to Mecca on Fridays
gouging people’s eyes out
(neither list is exhaustive)
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.