Closet bigotry?

[Lippytarian]

It is now 10 days since anyone other than me posted anything other than how much they dislike foreign people, immigration and the giving of foreign aid. Nothing else, apparently, is worth talking about here.

And yet in real life months go by without bigotry of any kind rearing its ugly head. Not where I live, and not where I work, which must be as multi-racial,-ethnic,-national a workplace as ever you will see.

Is it that the kind of bigotry which is common currency in places like this is in real life now so discredited and unacceptable that people slink off to anonymous places online to peddle their grubby little thoughts - thoughts which out there in the sunlight they have to keep to themselves?

[John]

What a self righteous little prick you are


Bigotry=Definition from my Collins=a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his own, esp. on religion politics or race(My italics)

Religion ****, that is you. You are always proclaiming your Atheism you bigot you.

Watch out for the glass in that house in which you live.

[Tattie]

It is now 10 days since anyone other than me posted anything other than how much they dislike foreign people, immigration and the giving of foreign aid. Nothing else, apparently, is worth talking about here.

And yet in real life months go by without bigotry of any kind rearing its ugly head. Not where I live, and not where I work, which must be as multi-racial,-ethnic,-national a workplace as ever you will see.

Is it that the kind of bigotry which is common currency in places like this is in real life now so discredited and unacceptable that people slink off to anonymous places online to peddle their grubby little thoughts - thoughts which out there in the sunlight they have to keep to themselves?

A bit of a plaintive wail and, as I have posted in the last 10 days, I should respond.

First of all as I am pretty universal with my prejudices, I don't think I can be called a bigot( a grumpy oldish man maybe, but not a bigot I hope).
This year I have confined myself to comments on
a) Qatada whose presence in this country I find offensive but it is the inability of our government to decide on who remains in our country that I rail against. I couldn't care less what his ethnicity is, he is a cancer and should be invited to return whence he came.
b) Immigration is, to me, a matter of how well it is controlled and how effective it is as far as (i) meeting our needs and (ii) how well immigrants are integrated. It is perhaps a shame that the current flood of immigrants are conspicuous in appearance and tend to congregate in areas that discourage integration.
c) Sharia law isn't(IMHO) a law designed to protect the universal community that is the UK. It is a law designed to protect customs and prejudices that evolved in an environment alien to ours and, as such, shouldn't be recognised.

I'm happy to recognise that we have a red-top media that is evil in it's tendency to be selective and in it's pandering to prejudices based largely on fear and ignorance. But the "chicken and egg" question raises it's head here and I'm not sure who is feeding whom.

You seem look upon things very much from a black or white perspective. Everything needs to be in the context of human rights and enshrined in law. That might be a comfortable armchair for your conscience to inhabit(and rigorously defend) but there are vast swathes of the world where human rights, as you see them don't exist, and the law is dictated by the gun. I don't want that to happen here and if that means that our laws need to be bent sometimes for what I(admittedly) perceive as the greater good then so be it. Qatada's fate is for us to decide as are levels of immigration and the (non)-recognition of an alien book of law.

We have enough problems of our own making to deal with without indulging the ambitions and prejudices of outsiders and until we get our house in order we shouldn't be doing so. You obviously see it differently so I ask you
a) what should be done with Qatada?
b) what should our immigration policy be?
c) is any immigrant community entitled to adopt their own set of laws?
 

[Lippytarian]

You are always proclaiming your Atheism....

Something which is more convenient to do here than elsewhere because most of the constraining factors that apply in real-life do not apply.

Maybe you are to be found out on the highways and byways of Kent gobbing-off at "rag-heads" and "thick Greeks", telling some people they should be deported, not given access to justice, and generally espousing a nasty narrow brand of nationalism, racial and religious bigotry for everyone to enjoy. But somehow I doubt it.

How frustrating for you. That would be why there is little else you want to talk about here.

[Lippytarian]

We have enough problems of our own making to deal with without indulging the ambitions and prejudices of outsiders and until we get our house in order we shouldn't be doing so. You obviously see it differently so I ask you
a) what should be done with Qatada?
b) what should our immigration policy be?
c) is any immigrant community entitled to adopt their own set of laws?

a) If there is evidence against him, sufficient to have a reasonable chance of leading to a conviction, then he should be charged. If he is charged then according to the usual rules until the trial he should either be held on remand or released on bail with appropriate bail conditions. In the absence of evidence he should be released [correction: in the absence of criminal charges he should be released.] If the police suspect he might commit a crime then they should monitor his activities.

If he is not entitled to that, then you are not entitled to that either. The thing about rights is that they are perfectly absolute. And if you don't believe in ordinary rights under the law for those you don't like then you don't believe in rights at all.

b) It is about right at the moment. The system for non-EU migration sometimes seems a bit arbitrary, a points system like the Australian one might be more transparent and fairer.

c) No. But the question is bogus. They can't. They don't. And nobody is suggesting they should. The legal status of these "Sharia Courts" is exactly what was said in the article you posted - it is just some people sitting in a room and settling their differences.

[Tattie]

a) If there is evidence against him, sufficient to have a reasonable chance of leading to a conviction, then he should be charged. If he is charged then according to the usual rules until the trial he should either be held on remand or released on bail with appropriate bail conditions. In the absence of evidence he should be released [correction: in the absence of criminal charges he should be released.] If the police suspect he might commit a crime then they should monitor his activities.

Must just pop down to my local church/town hall/Speaker's Corner to exhort all my rabid followers to eliminate those of a different creed or country especially Asians, Africans and Jews. I can hand out pamphlets and issue wtfucks showing them how.

If he is not entitled to that, then you are not entitled to that either. The thing about rights is that they are perfectly absolute. And if you don't believe in ordinary rights under the law for those you don't like then you don't believe in rights at all.

How smug! How self-satisfied is that and how naive? How many tablets of stone were needed for the 30? I suppose the theory is that whilst we stick to as many of the "commandments" as we can others can be far more selective

b) It is about right at the moment. The system for non-EU migration sometimes seems a bit arbitrary, a points system like the Australian one might be more transparent and fairer.

I'll have to come back to this.

c) No. But the question is bogus. They can't. They don't. And nobody is suggesting they should. The legal status of these "Sharia Courts" is exactly what was said in the article you posted - it is just some people sitting in a room and settling their differences.

Is it?

“Sharia courts are utterly opposed to equal rights and they discriminate against women,” says Jim Fitzpatrick, the Labour MP for Poplar and Canning Town, an area with a population now dominated by Bangladeshi Muslims.

Fitzpatrick recently chaired a debate in the House of Commons on Sharia.“I’m concerned that they are creating a cultural stranglehold over their communities and leading to the Islamification of our society,” he says."

Precisely. And dare I ask how you square that with human rights?

[John]

If there is evidence against him, sufficient to have a reasonable chance of leading to a conviction, then he should be charged.

And if the presentation of that evidence in open court would put our security and intelligence people at risk of being uncovered what then?
I`ll tell you what then, he should be deported because his presence here is not in the public interest. Nuff said.