I am sure, despite his denials, that he would like us to think so. I suppose selective amnesia is better than lying, but then unlike lying it can't be proven incorrect. He epitomises the lack of depth amongst the Labour wannabes.
I am not convinced that Mr Umuuna has the wider populations best interests at heart. This is a man who helped re launch the Black Socialist Society (BSS) the aim to recruit more BAME (black, asian minority ethnic) Creating a ' niche' for fellow British citizens concerns me in that we continue to appease the minorities who appear to want more than equality. Constant claims of a lack of representation, lack of employment opportunities, lack of ethnic minorities in senior positions within all forms of the work place. There is no " non ethnic minority " groups that I can join to voice my concern over the future of my children, the future of the country, the lack of credible political leadership in any party. I don't seek to establish a group that ' takes care' of a select percentage of this nation. I don't want to be labelled as special, to be given priority for job interviews. There are thousands of disaffected non ethnic minorities suffering the same injustice, poverty and gloomy future as our ethnic minority brothers and what voice do they have? what representation? Stop the active discrimination that allows a Black Police Federation, the BSS and BAME. Why is the Police Federation not good enough for ethnic minorities? Can of worms..opened....we are all to blame for the state of this nation and if you like the wider global issue but boxing us off into associations and members only groups simply underlines how very un multi cultural this so called society is. This thread was started in response to the awful acts of cowardice in Paris but has clearly stirred public opinion on the fears of what is much closer to home. And before anyone cynically suggests I try the BNP, UKIP or similar, they hold little value in my eye and simply add fuel to the fire.
The right wingers in this country never tire of telling us about human rights come with responsibilities, and that I think is absolutely fair. Whilst, freedom of speech is a human right,IMHO anyway, I believe it should be exercised responsibly. The cartoon which sparked the gun attack was a long way from the first to offend Moslems. There have been dozens. Whilst the attacks can never be justified or condoned and must be condemned as a complete over reaction, it is perhaps not surprising that militant Islamists have taken this course of action. As for the pope, I like him, despite not being a believer in the invisible sky god.
You are forgetting that they are murdering scum and no one, not even 'Muslim Lights' should get upset over a silly cartoon - they should all fucking grow up!!! That's what I think anyhow
Just because the reaction of the militants not surprising, it doesn't make it any the less unacceptable. I find your view unacceptable too. But your right to hold it, and mock mine, is unequivocally respected. It's called being civilised - something a religion rooted in the Middle Ages finds it difficult to be at the moment. Islam is 600 years younger than Christianity and is, perhaps, only now undergoing the reformation into the 'modern' religion we see today that the latter experienced in the 16th century. The sad thing is that Islam has had the experience of the Christian church to draw on for all that time but has learned nothing from it and continues to insist on dominating the lives of its adherents in an arcane manner. Islam means submission remember. Once you are in the club you need never think for yourself again. Every question you might ask yourself is answered in the Koran - by a doctrine formulated in the desert hundreds of years ago and scarcely fit for purpose in a mature, 21st-century, industrialised democracy.
think i am seeing a wee pattern here, the pro indi supporters are in favor off inclusion, most of the rest want to blow them out the water without actually saying so. why's that then?
I'd have to guess that as citizens of an independent Scotchland, you wouldn't have to worry about "inclusion" or integration so much as it wouldn't be your problem and it wouldn't affect you. What do I win?
We have to remember that what you rightly say about submission follows for ALL organised religion. All religions are about domination of their subjects( victims) through fear of one kind or another, manipulation through control of thought (doctrine) aggressive and non aggressive 'cleansing' (ex communication, threats of apostasy) when doctrine is questioned, and for me the greatest trick of all, use of the word "faith".. To quote loosely, " Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for though not yet beheld..." So with "faith" , you must believe without question some fantastic lie, that cannot be proven. Doubt of that is apostasy, which leads to repercussions. Those that subscribe to that really are sheep, led about by the contorted teaching of the (put whatever religious name you like here) faith. I have met some intelligent people with faith, in fact I'd say my own father is one of them, but he's spent the last 50 years chasing a pipe dream, a lottery win and has wasted his life in the study of a book that gives a number of versions of a perceived truth. Its also said that faith helps people endure.. My wife's mother had MS, which she sadly died of and had no religious beliefs. My own mother has MS too which has left her near paralysed now. Through what I've seen, her faith hasn't made her live longer, eases the physical pain or given her some extra peace. What extra thing has a faith given her? None as far as I can see. As far as I can see, religion is a crutch for the weak, the main reason behind intolerance ( despite what it preaches ) and the poison that is dripped into the ears of the masses that will destroy our society. (Hope that doesn't come across as too harsh)
Moving the debate back to Muslim inclusion in the whole of the UK, I'm quite happy to include anyone in our democratic, capitalist way of life, provided they subscribe to the tenets of freedom that underpin it. However, Sharia Law is not compatible with it and I believe decries even the lending of money for interest - one of the mainstays of our economic system - so anyone who feels they want to be bound by that medieval world view needs to ask themselves if they really want to be part of our way of life before moving to the West.
This is a petty point I know, but why is it OK for my Muslim shopkeeper to sell me bacon and beer also?
Good question and not petty at all. Surely he is offending himself on a daily basis. Perhaps he flogs himself in his stock room!
I fail to see why the idea of rights balanced by responsibilities should be a particularly right-wing notion. I should have thought it was common sense. In fact, if the fundamental Christian tenet that one's duty towards others comes before all thoughts of oneself were to be universally adopted, "Rights" would take care of themselves. And that's from an agnostic. But then Rights aren't about how I can defend others, they're about what I can demand for myself. Or if you're a HR lawyer, how much money you can make from the process. But the point at issue isn't really about rights - the right to freedom of speech or the right to offend, its about how your respond to being offended. I'd never heard of Charlie Hebdo before this atrocity. From what I've learned about it since I think its highly unlikely I shall be subscribing any time soon. As far as I can tell it is an aggressively left-wing, anti-theistic magazine which trades in sneering disdain for those whose spiritual or political beliefs it does not share. Some call that satire, some think it just another form of intolerance. But if Charlie Hebdo's writers are offended by religious belief or a particular spectrum of political thought they choose to mock/satirise it (depending on your point of view) with jokes and silly drawings. They don't go out and kill over it, nor do they incite others to do so. By the same token, Islam, with its subjugation of women, its persecution of homosexuals, its suppression of democratic freedom and its desire through a global Caliphate to force its doctrines on people who do not want them, its treatment of non-Muslims as second class human beings whose lives are worth less than believers and its view that apostates have no right to life at all is deeply offensive to most non-Muslim people, of any religion and none. Yet we who are offended express our feelings through denunciation; we publish cartoons, we protest in the street, we elect political leaders who will represent our views democratically, we spout off on internet forums. But we don't kill people over it. Those are the rules of civilised society. Muslims, or at least some of them, appear to believe that they alone are exempt from those rules. That is the problem and it won't be smoothed away with a show of multi-culti sensitivity or appeasement.
well i guess the powers that be must come up with an acceptable plan, because i wont be jumping on no band wagon until they do. i think they call that sitting on the fence.
Some good recent posts. I thought I'd just add this into the mix: Is there a litmus test for "moderate Islam"? I've come up with this: You shouldn't support the death penalty, ideally at all, but in any event for anything less than murder. That means no death for blasphemy, adultery, apostasy etc etc. The liberal democracies' view is that nothing justifies the death penalty. In some states of the US, you can still get topped for murder. But death though having the wrong thoughts, or sex with the wrong person is not western. So it should be easy to spot a moderate Muslim - they wouldn't support the death penalty (at least not for anything short of murder).
There are other tests that would be necessary as they are scarcely less crucial than Glidd's execution test. Off the top of my head, these would include women's and children's rights in respect of (arranged) marriage ... mind you, as transgressions all seem to be punishable by death or mutilation , or both, I suppose they all fit under Glidd's umbrella. Glidd, change your terms of reference to "execution and/or mutilation" and I think we are onto a winner.
That's one way of putting it, but on that definition, moderate muslim = ex-muslim. To meet your test an individual would have to repudiate integral parts of islam, start thinking for themselves, and thus become an apostate. Thus a pretty fair test, I would say.
