.
Enough already - Grin with cat attached
Previous Entry Next Entry
Enough already Aug. 3rd, 2005 01:45 pm
My stomach seems ok, but the rest of me's now fucked up. (ETA: feel much better for having eaten)

But hell, at least I'm still not a Tory:

The following is the front page lead article in today's Torygraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/08/03/ndavis03.xml

Multicultural Britain is not working, says Tory chief
By George Jones, Political Editor
(Filed: 03/08/2005)

Muslims must start integrating into mainstream British society, says David Davis, the shadow home secretary and front-runner to take over the Conservative leadership.

Writing in The Daily Telegraph today, Mr Davis signalled a significant shift away from the policy of multi-culturalism, which allows people of different faiths and cultures to settle without expecting them to integrate.

...

From: reddragdiva
Date: August 3rd, 2005 - 01:08 pm (Link)
That's fantastic. That should work about as well as the "It's not racist to just tell you to fuck off, Johnny Foreigner" billboards did in Walthamstow. Remembering of course that immigrants are a natural Conservative constituency - they tend to come to their new land, see it as a land of opportunity and work their arses off, i.e. good solid Tory values. So for the Tories to piss them off by policy is really stupid. Look at the numbers from last election - the Walthamstow vote for Labour went down by 10%, but the Lib Dem vote went up by 12%. (IIRC off the top of my head.)
From: babysimon
Date: August 3rd, 2005 - 01:11 pm (Link)
David Davis front-runner? Wasn't he the one who lost to Ian Duncan Smith for being too boring? This should be fun.
From: wechsler
Date: August 3rd, 2005 - 01:54 pm (Link)
Well, if you can't be interesting, be racist.
From: babysimon
Date: August 3rd, 2005 - 02:03 pm (Link)
And if you can't be racist, then god bless you.
From: fellcat
Date: August 3rd, 2005 - 02:58 pm (Link)
Above all, we must speak openly of what we expect of those who settle here − and of ourselves.

Let us be clear. Non-Muslims have obligations to their Muslim fellow citizens − to strive for equal opportunities for all, to accept the mainstream version of Islam as a part of society and to reject the vile racism of the BNP and its like.

But Muslims in turn have obligations: not simply to condemn terror, as one Labour MP put it, but to confront it.
− David Davis.

That's racist how?

I don't know what integration and multi-culturalism actually really mean, as both words seem to be hijacked by whoever uses them to mean whatever they want them to mean.

What I do know, is that when you go to another country, you should obey that country's laws and accept that country's existing ways of life, and they in turn should accept your way of life. That is what I believe, it's what's I interpreted Mr Davies' statement to mean, and I don't think it racist at all; I think it fair.

However improbable it might seem for a Tory to say something right, it's not an impossibility. A traditional twelve-hour dial clock, when stopped, is still right twice a day. I think it was zotz who said that he would not hold his breath just because a Tory expressed a liking for oxygen.
From: wechsler
Date: August 3rd, 2005 - 03:05 pm (Link)
You appear to be making some particular assumptions about my meaning in posting the above.

As it happens, what Mr Davis appears to have said is somwhat different from what Mr Jones has reported him as saying. However, it is Mr Jones' slant on it which gets most exposure in the hard-copy of the paper.
From: fellcat
Date: August 3rd, 2005 - 03:22 pm (Link)
You appear to be making some particular assumptions about my meaning in posting the above.

It was reddragdiva's response that prompted That's racist how? from me; I should have commented in that thread and not made a new one. D'oh, my bad &c. Apologies to you.

what Mr Davis appears to have said is somwhat different from what Mr Jones has reported him as saying

Why am I not surprised?
From: reddragdiva
Date: August 3rd, 2005 - 04:55 pm (Link)
It was the "It's not racist to propose limits on immigration" billboards around Walthamstow, which in a total surprise were taken to be code for "It's not racist to tell you to just fuck off, Johnny Foreigner". I'm sure you can go to all those people and tell them that's not what those boards were supposed to imply at all.
From: fellcat
Date: August 3rd, 2005 - 05:00 pm (Link)
I agree that such boards would be racist, assuming that the limits were applied only to non-European immigrants. I'm now going to read the article again to try to find whereabouts those boards are mentioned, as I seem to have missed that detail during my first two readings of it.
From: reddragdiva
Date: August 3rd, 2005 - 05:16 pm (Link)
It's not. However, it was the main thrust of the Tory campaign in the recent election, which was just in May. So I think considering the two together is hardly unreasonable, unless you're maintaining the Conservative Party has completely changed its outlook in the last three months.
From: fellcat
Date: August 3rd, 2005 - 06:06 pm (Link)
So I think considering the two together is hardly unreasonable

It's not unreasonable at all, but it is not something that would have occurred to me. I live in a strongly Labour, rural, area, with a very low level of immigrant and foreign people. Tory campaigning was sparse − no billboards − as they know that they do not stand a cat's chance of winning the seat, and mainly centred upon rural issues such as the Government's handling of Foot and Mouth and the ban on hunting with dogs; the only foreign policy mentioned was their anti-EU stance.
From: reddragdiva
Date: August 3rd, 2005 - 06:12 pm (Link)
Which makes it seem even stupider they pursued an anti-immigration publicity campaign somewhere as multicultural as Walthamstow. (Where all ethnicities wear Burberry caps! %-D )
From: fellcat
Date: August 3rd, 2005 - 06:19 pm (Link)
I presume they were trying to get the white vote, which won't work when the target voting group have made friends with people of all skin colours and faiths. People don't generally vote in a way that risks their friends being deported.
From: fellcat
Date: August 3rd, 2005 - 06:14 pm (Link)
Basically, it wasn't at the front of my mind that the Tories were particularly anti-immigrant.
From: mooism
Date: August 3rd, 2005 - 05:11 pm (Link)
Is it Mr Davis’s spin, or Mr Jones’s? There is a Tory leadership election to be held. Do we know whose side Mr Jones is on?
From: meico
Date: August 3rd, 2005 - 05:34 pm (Link)
While I strongly disagree with the tone, intent, and subtext of the torrie's statements there is some small truth to be taken in what they say (not what they mean). The torries apparently have a different definition for the word integration than I do...

While I wholeheartedly agree with multi-culturalism and even an increase in immigration I would state that it must be done within a framework of integration and acceptance. People (both those immigrating and those already present) must agree to integrate (at least minimally) with each other or it will create severe problems.

Many cultures/religions have rules within them that completely go against the ideals of integration and acceptance and create very bad social problems and increase crime and hatred. Without removing or altering those rules allowing individuals of a said culture/faith to enter into another society will only cause problems.

For example some things that should not be acceptable:
  • Rules that disallow you from talking with people outside of their families race/culture/faith/social group.
  • Rules that disallow marriage to people outside of your families race/culture/faith/social group.
  • Rules that require you to try to convert others to your culture/faith.
  • Rules that require you to ostracize those who leave your culture/faith/social group.
  • And, most controversially (and one I may change my mind on if a good enough argument is presented to me), rules that require you to physically mark yourself (through garb or otherwise) as belonging to a specific group.
Will someone who cannot agree to the above really be able to integrate into another society?
From: mooism
Date: August 3rd, 2005 - 08:32 pm (Link)
People come premarked as belonging to a specific ethnic group.
From: meico
Date: August 4th, 2005 - 01:22 pm (Link)
Certainly to a certain extent, but many different groups are only recognizable from a distance as different because of various markings.

While I am happy to celebrate their differences it is far to often the first starting point for segregation... Please see my reply to mrph's comment.
From: mrph
Date: August 3rd, 2005 - 09:00 pm (Link)
And, most controversially (and one I may change my mind on if a good enough argument is presented to me), rules that require you to physically mark yourself (through garb or otherwise) as belonging to a specific group

Depends on the definition of "require" for this one. If you really mean 'or else!', then I reckon this falls under "rules that require you to ostracize".

In Coventry, at least, it seems to run the gamut - plenty of Sikhs who don't bother wearing turbans, plenty of muslims who don't dress traditionally (except on formal occasions). So are the people who do wear turbans or conservative muslim clothes doing so because they've been pressured to conform, because of their faith or some mix between the two? And from an outsider's perspective, how can we judge this?

The other things you list seem to cover the cases where this is a problem as a byproduct anyway, so I think isolating it on its own is just a distraction. But YMMV.
From: meico
Date: August 4th, 2005 - 01:20 pm (Link)
Your point about being unable to tell from the outside is certainly valid and well taken. In general I feel it would certainly be best if people could mark themselves and dress in any way they chose.

Unfortunately such markings it is far to often the first starting point for segregation, self imposed or forced. Segregation is certainly not integration.

While the preceding rules above cover many of the problems caused by this type of segregation wouldn't it be better to avoid the segregation to begin with? I'm open to any ideas...

Think of the fact that the chador/burka physically restricts a woman's capacity for free and independent social intercourse. Think of the Nazis and their use of yellow star of David symbols for targeting the Jewish population.

I guess I am bothered by the fact that the preceding rules only deal with the symptoms of a problem rather than prevent the problem... When it comes to societal problems I would rather prevent the problem than have to deal with fixing the damage after it has already been done.
From: mrph
Date: August 4th, 2005 - 06:51 pm (Link)
Think of the fact that the chador/burka physically restricts a woman's capacity for free and independent social intercourse. Think of the Nazis and their use of yellow star of David symbols for targeting the Jewish population.

Not sure I agree that both of these belong in the same paragraph. The star of David was imposed on an ethnic/religious group by an outside force - their government - that hated them. The chador/burka may restrict the wearer, but it's not being imposed by outsiders - and certainly not by the law of the land - instead it's being driven by a blend of cultural pressure / faith.
From: fellcat
Date: August 3rd, 2005 - 11:25 pm (Link)
And, most controversially (and one I may change my mind on if a good enough argument is presented to me), rules that require you to physically mark yourself (through garb or otherwise) as belonging to a specific group.

For some reason, the image that sprang to mind was of button badges stating Christian, Hindu, Sikh &c.

What about vicars, who have to wear a distinctive white collar, or Catholic priests who must wear robes, or are they exempt because their clothes can be classed as being a uniform for their job?
From: meico
Date: August 4th, 2005 - 01:28 pm (Link)
For some reason, the image that sprang to mind was of button badges stating "Christian", "Hindu", "Sikh" &C.

Well, I was specifically thinking of the forced wearing and marking of buildings with the Star of David and women wearing the chador/burka...

And yes, I think you could argue that religious uniforms are exactly that- uniforms for a specific job...
From: thekumquat
Date: August 4th, 2005 - 05:15 pm (Link)
Just wondering to what extent cultures such as goths or chavs would fall into these categories. Aren't people faced with equal pressures to wear shell suits and big earrings as hijabs and turbans?

In all these arguments about multicultural Britain no-one seems to be addressing the myriad subcultures within Britain and how they integrate. For example, I fit reasonably well into gay, goth, and geek cultures, which tend to melt fairly well. I have no desire to integrate into Sun-reading, boorish boozer, or football-fan cultures, which don't integrate with the first three so well.