World Politics

i believe they've done it in france recently too, but i think only in public sector/nationalised areas (schools etc). i have to confess i'm torn on it - my liberal, freedom of expression side thinks that as an expression of religion it should be left alone and people should be able to wear it as much as they want. however, my secular and feminist sides don't see eye to eye with me on that! personally i think as a secular nation (which france definitely is, the uk is in practice if not in theory, and i don't know about belgium actually) then ALL religious symbols should be kept to an absolute minimum in areas where the wearer is a public servant or in a public institution (like in school, for instance). as for the feminist bit, i just tend to see them as symbols of oppression. i know a lot of women choose to wear them so i argue with myself quite a lot on this one, but i think given the historiography of *why* women choose to wear them i still come down on the side that they symbolise the oppression of women. that said, if a woman really does want to wear one, if it's in her own home or in the street or whatever, i'd never try to stop them! just as i wouldn't expect anyone to stop me smoking in my own home or an outdoor public place.

it's all about tolerance. and even the most tolerant person alive probably has that bugbear issue that digs at their normally liberal outlook (hell, i'm sure even gandhi & the dalai lama hate something!). for me, it's religion, i totally believe in freedom of expression and that includes religious freedom, but a big part of me wishes i could have a magic wand and just ban all religion outright because it just makes me so bloody angry. but then, i'm a vicar's daughter, i guess it stands to reason:lol:

as for ukip, well, they're just a joke, no one really takes them seriously (apart from kilroy and he's a joke too!)

yep, i do - and this is the problem, the government are more inclined to listen to the rantings of the press than their own appointed advisers, because the appointed advisers can't bring them down. i wish there could just be a reasonable debate on this subject without everyone kicking off. it's unlikely....

i didn't watch it, i wasn't in the best of moods and they were only going to piss me off :lol:

i did see a little of it, the bit about the pope's visit, what was that all about? i can see why the question came up: blair converted to catholicism during (or maybe just after) his terms, and as a nominally anglican and practically secular nation i think it was relevant to find out just why the pope would be coming anyway. and given all the scandals in the catholic church right now (*must not get started, head might explode with rage*) i think it was kind of relevant. i think the more relevant part of the question was the bit they all ignored - about how far they were going to tackle him on issues like contraception, aids in africa, abortion, gay rights etc. there are a lot of catholics in this country and the church really does need to get with the programme. the fact that it's been doing massive damage in africa by putting it around in "lessons" to the people that condoms spread aids (*listens* yep, that's the sound of my head exploding), that's an issue that affects us as well, because aids in africa and the consequences thereof can impact on our economy when it comes to things like aid. not to mention the fact that catholic (and one or two other religions') faith schools are trying to teach a separate sex ed agenda whereby it's taught that gay rights are wrong and sinful and/or that contraception is wrong and abstinence until marriage is the only thing (ha, try telling that to a room full of 15 year olds!) - since blair reintroduced the idea of privately backed state schools these really do have an impact, these ideas are going to affect people's education and in this country we're generally pretty modern and tolerant and progressive, i think it should be important to find out if catholic schools' doctrine in this country is going to be holding people back. so i think the point of the question was more along the lines of "are you going to try to make the pope see sense on these issues that really do have an impact on people's lives?" as opposed to "will you have fun when the pope comes over?"

i switched on about 5 mins before that question and once they'd answered it (badly) i promptly switched off again!

i assume you mean immigration?! emigration is people leaving:lol:

yeah it's a dodgy issue - i don't know what to make of it, but i wish, like you, they'd had a referendum when it really started being an issue. i believe australia have a cap, and they also have the thing brown's proposing whereby you have to have a "needed" job skill/qualification, so if they have too many plumbers and you're a plumber, they'll not let you in. one of my friends went over there to be a hairdresser because apparently they had a shortage (!!!!!:lol

one thing i always find really really weird is that it's generally the right leaning parties that are more anti immigration. but right leaning politics, on the whole, is all about free market economy which includes free movement of labour, which includes free movement of people. it's one of those glaring contradictions that i've never quite got my head around.

as for the EU thing, i'm not so sure, i believe most of the poles that came over recently have now returned, or at least are only here some of the time. and frankly the ones that are here i think we need, because as mentioned in a previous post on education, we don't have enough labourers. i think the big problem was just that labour underestimated just how many people would come from the eu - i think they estimated 300,000 or something and it was almost a million. i can't remember the figures but something like that.

i realise we're only a small island but i really don't see immigration as that big a problem. i mean, i think something has to change because we're gonna be full up soon, but it's such a tough one to legislate on.

i laughed recently when some politician said "immigration has never been a problem in the uk before" (it might have been last week's debate actually i'm not sure) and i was just like "haven't you heard of the windrush? or the big influx from asia over the last 50-100 years, the huguenots, the jews in the east end, the bloody norman conquest!!!???" - i think for me that's the biggest problem, we are all getting het up about this as if it's a new problem but it's been going on for ever, we're a nation of immigrants and we should be proud of our multiculturalism, and every time there's been a big immigration backlash in the past (the most obvious example being the windrush) it's usually amounted to nothing, numbers have settled down, people have learnt to get along, it's really only the people like the bnp who continue to make an issue of things.

er, just about.... what a mess!

 

yeah, i agree pretty much. i think there is a problem when people are asked not to wear it for whatever reason and start saying that it's a mandatory symbol of their faith, because that's crap, frankly (and the same goes for christian symbols for the record - i believe that very few religious symbols are in fact mandatory, i think maybe the jewish skullcap is one, and a couple of others). but i guess a lot of this is down to (a) semantics and (b) personal opinion.

yeah, i know! hence this is why i'm so torn on it! overall i'm very liberal and swear by js mill's harm principle (ie no one should be stopped from doing anything unless it harms someone else), but my view on religion generally (and not just islam, by the way) is pretty negative so that clouds my judgement in this area. ultimately i think as long as there's no harm potential in wearing various veils (and i don't think there is generally) then they should be allowed. that doesn't mean i have to agree with them. and yeah, i think there would be outrage, and rightly so.

i've spoken to a few women about them, yeah, but again it's a very subjective view point. i actually think 2000 years of christianity have done more to oppress women than the burqa ever could, and from what i've read of islam (i've read a few books about it and bits of the koran) islam is much less oppressive than christianity. however, the whole modesty thing (which is present in both religions, and judaism as well) bothers me because as a feminist i get irked by the idea that women should have to be modest, it makes them some how subservient to men. but like i said, if a woman chooses to wear one, that's her prerogative.

i don't know what'll happen with the new nations, i guess with the recession, britain's status as a shining beacon of opportunity might be somewhat dented, which would probably have an impact on immigration. but yes, they should've put it to the public before it all kicked off!

oh joy, here's hoping they get laughed/egged out of town. vile vile people.

 

Illegal Immigration is a total problem here in the U.S., especially in Texas, Arizona and California. I've got nothing against the poor people who want to flee Mexico to have a better life here, however they immediatley go on welfare and food stamps which drain our economy. If Mexico wasn't so corrupt and violent, they wouldn't want or need to come here. Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona just signed a tough Immigration Law~

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/04/23/arizona-gov-jan-brewer-signs-tough-immigration-law/

 

^ although i guess with the recent border closures owing to the major drugs problem in mexico, that might be changing a little?

illegal immigration is a problem here too but the reality is illegal immigrants will do the jobs that most settled people would never do, and for very low pay. which isn't right, in terms of upsetting the local population, in terms of cocking up the jobs market and driving wages down, or in terms of tackling the immigration issues. it's not a good state of affairs.

but given that the US economy is entirely built on freedom of the market, which includes freedom of movement of labour and given that the entire country was built by immigration, it's a very tough one to get around. and the same goes for the UK really.

 

i hope no one minds that this is a double post - i would've edited but edit was no longer available.

did anyone in the uk see nick griffin on channel 4 news this evening (sun)? omg that man really is an odious little piece of ....... vile vile human being. it was lovely to see krishnan guru-murthy (a) keeping his cool while talking to a bona fide white supremacist and (b) getting in a sly little dig without ever going outside professionalism. it was pretty despicable though. i wish fewer people would take the bnp/nick griffin so seriously

 

The new Arizona law is a bit strict and could be considered 'racial profiling' as they [the authorities] can stop any Hispanic who they think looks suspicious, but if they have the proper paperwork or their 'green card' then no problem. If not, then buh-bye. That's how it will be from now on:wtf:

 

ugh, the NF and BNP are both vile. what i find baffling is that they try to claim that they're different from eachother! maybe one is white supremacist and the other is some dulux off white supremacist:lol:

no, i didn't - i wonder if it'll be on the net. i've seen a couple of undercover things about them in the past, usually on c4, which were pretty horrendous, i wonder if it was a rehash of one of those or something new...?

yeah it seems very harsh, it's a worrying development i think. we've had huge problems with stop & search over here, in different contexts but just in the way that such a vast majority of people stopped and searched are black or asian, it does absolutely nothing to engender peaceful racial relations. i remember in brixton in 1981 and 1984 when there were huge riots, the racial bias in stop & search was a huge trigger for that. i can understand that immigration needs to be monitored and so on but there has to be a more subtle way to do it, one that doesn't just put entire groups under instant suspicion and that doesn't cause people's backs to be up so that you're just asking for trouble.

 

oh yeah, i know, it just baffles me that the BNP continue to claim that they are different from the NF and the other splinter groups from when they were all one party - they are essentially the same thing. what baffles me more is that so many people *believe* the BNP are this new, shiny, non NF party, their presentation of a fluffy, sensitive new front is so obviously just a cover, it makes me sad that people don't seem to see through it.

o.m.f.g. that is horrible. what a total :censored::censored:

 

Wow, that video is pretty sickening :wtf:
Nick Griffin was invited by the NSV (Nationalistic Students Union, a rather extreme right minded students organization) about two months ago. There was a big fuss about it around the university. The lefties tried to prevent him from being invited, the righties said they had the right of freedom of speech, etc....

Meanwhile, we were a few streets further down holding a demonstration against far right. I think the video you posted just proved our point. We (well, our organization ) also made a video to let people know who Nick Griffin really is. (You can watch it here, the written parts are dutch, but you'll get the gist of it).

Meanwhile here in Belgium, we're almost definitely getting new elections, probably June 13th. The king accepted the government's resignation, after a last attempt to compromise over Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde. But that failed. Again. Obviously.

 

Erm, sorry to interrupt your UK conversation but here's something about Greece once again.

from bbc.co.uk

Okay...so Greece has got several millions of wrongly paid euros for agriculture from EU and so on. They cannot ask farmers to pay back (or any other industry that has been given money for wrong reasons)... Greece is already in debt for billions and now it's asking money from IMF to pay the debt and ...will we never get back that money? I am sorry but I highly doubt it. They got into euro with lies and now we are stuck with them. I cannot believe any civilisized country can behave like that.

 

WOW> thank's Ducky Things none of us know in the U.S., lots of interesting stuff~


And then there's our big deal issues with this Arizona immigration law. First a letter to our local newspaper from a reader, then a rebuttal pertaning to the decision~

LAUD DECISIVE ARIZONA
Hurray for Arizona. It's about time something is done about our southern neighbors coming here, living off the citizens, and sending money to their country to help their people. They use our services for free and then hold protests while they are her illegally. If they did things the way they're supposed to, we eould not have so many problems. Sometimes, I think the Mexican government sends them here to get them out of their
countryHARSH~

And a bit from an editorial from the same paper~
Over the past three years, federal agents have made 990,000 arrests of immigrants crossing the border illegally into Arizona, or an average of 900 a day. The figures represent 45% of all arrests of illegal immigrants along the U.S. borders. Authorties routinely come across safe houses and vehicles jammed with immigrants across the vast Arizona desert. Last week, 67 illegal immigrants were found crammed inside a U-Haul truck-a fairly typical scenario in the state. "We're on a hamster wheel here, were chasing our tail until that border is secured", said Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babea, whose territory includes busy smuggling corridors. The volume of drugs coming through the Arizona border is also eye-popping. Federal agenst seized 1.2 million pounds of marijuana last year in Arizona. That amounts to an average of 1.5 tons per day. Pot busts have become so common that until recently federal prosecutors in Arizona generally declned to press charges against the marijuana smugglers caught with less than 500 pounds. Phoenix has also been dubbed the kidnapping capital of the U.S. amid a surge of extortion-related abductions tied to drugs and human smuggling. The city has averaged about one kidnapping a day in recent years-some resulting in torture and death. Victims legs have benn burned with irons, their arms tied to the ceiling, and their fingers broken with bricks Thus, the new law is hoping to cut down on this or completely stop it all together~

PE, Riverside, CA~