[casinobonusa]

Like learn the language?

[pimbertiemoft]

Yes.

[thighikergove]

I don't see this as the end of multiculturalism. I see this rather fixing the current problems with it that are quite obvious, well at least in some European countries.

That is, alienation of the immigrant groups, unemployment, not speaking the language and not wanting to learn, welfare up to everyones ass and this all leads to hostilities and there's just no avoiding it. And of course this leads to growing crime as well.

So yeah.. I see this rather as an attempt to FIX these problems by actively putting responsibility to incoming people. Forcing them to consider the integration as something one should try to do.

Integration does not mean abolishing cultural inheritance. It means to be able to blend in within the country. You have to respect the laws of that country, you can't have any of that elderly **** going on in here, that overrides the justice system we have, especially if it has very different values. Stuff like women not having equal rights and stuff.

And if there are folks that are genuinely hostile, I don't see why they should be allowed in anyway. If you openly admit you hate this country and you want to see the destruction of it... yeah,, good bye and don't let the door hit you on the way out.

[LongaDonga]

Send all religious people to Mingapulco

[Marinausa]

The Onion


What, it was for real? Good for them.

[Dr. Shon Thomson]

Originally posted by aneeshm


Did you bother to even read the damn speech? Why should I? Blair lost his flair ages ago. Plus whenever people attempt to define "British" (and they mean English) culture, they can never do much better than a wishy washy set of values that might fit any Western civilisation. Besides, the Telegraph has always treated "multiculturalism" as a dirty word.

[Kinds Of Pain Meds]

Originally posted by aneeshm
Because what you're railing against is not what the guy actually said? For someone who hasn't read Blair's speech, his criticism is remarkably accurate:

whenever people attempt to define "British" (and they mean English) culture, they can never do much better than a wishy washy set of values that might fit any Western civilisation.
Starchild

[Daruhuw]

Right, I've read though Blair's speech. Its hardly the death of multiculturalism in the UK like the Telegraph proclaims.

Asking people to adhere to a set of common standards, even if they're hardly uniquely British, isn't "intergrate or get out".

[harriettvanders]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Ban hindu religious attire

There isn't any standard, really.

[Biassasecumma]

Originally posted by aneeshm
Good old Tony has finally decided to end this stupidity once and hopefully for all. You must choose. EITHER:
-India has a unique and wonderful culture, and therefore Indians should be deported.
OR
-India has no unique culture of its own and is essentially British.

[Singukil]

Blair

[DrKirkNoliss]

The numbers wearing them are pretty low to begin with.

[dHXaE2h9]

and veils are really hot in the summer.

[WaysletlyLene]

Yes, do what the US did with the Irish?

Make Ireland look better than us.

[SingleMan]

"since multiculturalism is the principle of different cultures coexisting harmoniously and in tolerance of each other within one nation, there is no part of Blair's speech that actually goes against that principle."

That's not what most people understand by 'multiculturalism'. You've made a statement which most reasonable people couldn't disagree with, not a definition of multiculturalism.

In Canada multiculturalism is a legally defined term (potentially)entitling members of a minority community to financial support for the purpose of perpetuating their culture.

And actually, "different cultures...coexisting...in tolerance of each other" DOES seem to be at issue here. Wearing the veil is part of some Muslims cultures. If the British or other governments is no longer prepared to "tolerate" that, don't you see how it changes multiculturalism?

Let's see the new definition of multiculturalism if cultural practices like the veil/burka become illegal:

"multiculturalism is the principle of different cultures coexisting (relatively) harmoniously and in tolerance of each other within one nation, with said tolerance existing within certain limits imposed by the cultural and legal standards of the majority culture therefore forbidding such cultural practices as burka wearing, FGM, Muti, Sharia, etc."

Legally it would be quite a change. Which definition of multiculturalism is Blair's speech more consistent with, yours or mine?

[huedaanydrax]

Originally posted by Seeker
That's not what most people understand by 'multiculturalism'. You've made a statement which most reasonable people couldn't disagree with, not a definition of multiculturalism. mul·ti·cul·tur·al·ism

–noun
1. the state or condition of being multicultural.
2. the preservation of different cultures or cultural identities within a unified society, as a state or nation.

Shocking stuff, right? Where's the unreasonable stuff in there?

In Canada multiculturalism is a legally defined term (potentially)entitling members of a minority community to financial support for the purpose of perpetuating their culture. Lucky old Canada. Why should your silly legal minutiae be considered binding on the English language and definitions of multiculturalism in the wider world?

Does multiculturalism only exist when state funds are at stake?


And actually, "different cultures...coexisting...in tolerance of each other" DOES seem to be at issue here. Wearing the veil is part of some Muslims cultures. If the British or other governments is no longer prepared to "tolerate" that, don't you see how it changes multiculturalism? We've had a couple of politicians declaring a preference for people removing veils to talk to them. They're entitled to their opinions. It's not as if laws are being passed (they'd almost certainly be unworkable anyway).

Let's see the new definition of multiculturalism if cultural practices like the veil/burka become illegal:

"multiculturalism is the principle of different cultures coexisting (relatively) harmoniously and in tolerance of each other within one nation, with said tolerance existing within certain limits imposed by the cultural and legal standards of the majority culture therefore forbidding such cultural practices as burka wearing, FGM, Muti, Sharia, etc."

Legally it would be quite a change. Which definition of multiculturalism is Blair's speech more consistent with, yours or mine?
Mine. Thanks for playing.

[tinetttstation]

Originally posted by Dis


has it occurred to anyone that veils are stupid? And women shouldn't be forced to wear them? I remember a few years back here in Arkansas during July a muslim family came in to a store with the woman covered head to toe except her eyes. The guy was wearing a tank top, shorts and flip flops while the two kids (both girls) were wearing shorts and tank tops as well.

[zbckFNlW]

Originally posted by DaShi
Yes, do what the US did with the Irish?
Which was nothing compared to what Britain did with them. I don't recall millions of them having been left starving here.

[Npbfamgt]

Originally posted by aneeshm


Hindus and Sikhs are successfully integrated precisely because they harbour no secret dreams of shaping British society to be like Indian society. They go with full awareness that they will have to adopt British culture. Which is why they all adopt the official state religion of Britain, and British dress codes, presumably. Yes, I'm being sarcastic.

The only difference is the lack of militants. That's it.

And again, Blair spoke against multiculturalism as in "anything goes", not as in "harmonious co-existence of people from different cultural backgrounds". The difference is crucial. "Anything goes", as in imposing your cultural whims forcibly on others, is not multiculturalism. It's fascism. The difference, as I'm sure you'll appreciate, is crucial.

[skydaypat]

But this is, in truth, not what I mean when I talk of integration. Integration, in this context, is not about culture or lifestyle. It is about values. It is about integrating at the point of shared, common unifying British values. It isn't about what defines us as people, but as citizens, the rights and duties that go with being a member of our society.

Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs and other faiths have a perfect right to their own identity and religion, to practice their faith and to conform to their culture. This is what multicultural, multi-faith Britain is about. That is what is legitimately distinctive.
This is part of Blair's speech that the right-wing Telegraph curiously omitted. Now doesn't that look remarkably like the definition of multi-culturalism that I used?