Originally Posted by Hands Sandon
There aren't many people who aren't going to find criticism of killing UK forces by Brits going on trips to kill them worthy of criticism and I highly doubt that anyone would call them racist even if they empathised with them.
Well obviously I think you are wrong in that regard and I suspect when folks like yourself step forward with their views and get the sort of push back I'm discussing then the eyes begin opening and the base beliefs underneath the general platitudes get examined.
Cutting benefits to certain groups because a tiny majority abuse the benefits likely would spur accusations of racism and in my opinion would be warranted. I would doubt too that benefits can actually play much of a funding role. Benefits are minimal, usually set at an amount that covers the basics and no more, so how many flights to Afghanistan etc that's going to pay for again will be arbitrary.
Perhaps we don't quite the same definition of benefit. I consider all wealth transfers of any sort to be a benefit. Health care for example, subsidized rates on utilities, etc. You wouldn't likely think of them as such because they are merely the benefits of being a citizen but that is my point, if you are off in another country shooting at your "fellow countrymen" then you don't deserve those benefits.
A quick question Hands, your article noted the example was a mini-cab driver. Do you think with that without the state apparatus providing what it does, he could work 9 months a year and then take three off to go fly half way across the world while also providing financial assistance for projects within their "home" country?
This need not be an issue of cutting off benefits. The state could simply disallow sending remittances to countries that are allowing terrorists cells to operate within their borders. They could simply investigate those who's passports show activity within their countries and deal with it individually. There's no need to whole sale toss away benefits for entire groups.
Yet here is the point that would bring about the cries of racism. Do you provide benefits to someone so they can live a culturally separate life within their home/host (depending upon where born regardless of who they most identify with) and undermine the values that make it that country? Why sharia courts for example?
Now, I can see your larger point. You're saying, I think, that people come here because it's an easy number, have no particular love of the UK and have no want to change their way of being but instead want to change ours/mine to help make them distinct from us. This leaves them empowered to further the goals that are more in keeping with their country of origin than say, the UK. That view has some merit, the boundaries that are crossed cause tension whether we like it or not. It is going to happen. I veer towards having confidence that people will respect there new country and not want to damage it, indeed better it by bringing new energy and ideas, culture etc. Taking the opposite view from me I believe is likely to more harm than good.
Well in this instance you've been more respectful but we are going to disagree. While no one need look a certain way to be willing to come to a country and take on the culture, language and trappings that make it the way it is, by general definition one has not been respectful if they expect the country to bend to it when they have chosen to move there rather than the opposite.
Also you call the ideas new, when they aren't new but merely different. When someone demands a sharia court be set up for example that isn't new. It is an aspect of their former country they are demanding the state set up for them here. It is separate from the main culture and indicates a desire to remain separate. That new energy is being consumed in crafting parallel lives rather than lives being lived together for the benefit of all.
I didn't read it but Chancellor Merkell in Germany spoke about muti culturalism was failing. I don't know what stance she took, but will read it. Personally the banning of minerets I find horrible. That's not how I see Europe, very sad.
Cultures cannot be above the other societal impulses. As I was noting in the thread about discussion about the Islamic cultural center, if they can keep out Walmart, they can keep out a cultural center. You have to look at the impulses that empower such a thing and then declare that all must be under them or none. Selective exceptions cannot be granted in some lame attempt to show selective and token tolerance.
The Swiss also banned violent videogames. What phobia would we call that? Is this type of censorship the type of Europe you know as well? It's worth a thought isn't it?
Originally Posted by FineTunes
Since the failure is in your ability to comprehend, you'll be waiting quite a long time.
Originally Posted by segovius
It failed in Germany in the 30s too.
It's not failure that is the issue it's why it fails.
If my car doesn't work it's not quite the whole truth to say the engine failed if someone took a sledgehammer to it.
Don't make stuff up. At least by American definitions, multiculturalism has never been previously attempted in Europe. By our standards, Europe has always been profoundly clannish to a ridiculous level. The EU has been the closest attempt to addressing this and as we can see, that attempt is broadly failing. You don't get points for warring against each other for a thousand years and starting a new country every time a few villages speak a different language, hold different customs, etc.