Election

[Wickerman]

Some statics (PSU Research Review 2019) show that in a zero-migration scenario, Muslims will become the majority in the UK around 2195.

171 years from now and UK will turn into a muslim country.

Since we are discussing a 136 years old case, that number doesn't look too far ahead from now.

The Baron

It will not take 171 years before we have a Muslim P.M. at No.10.

[The Baron]

Some statics (PSU Research Review 2019) show that in a zero-migration scenario, Muslims will become the majority in the UK around 2195.

171 years from now and UK will turn into a muslim country.

Since we are discussing a 136 years old case, that number doesn't look too far ahead from now.



The Baron

[Wickerman]

Muslim riots in Leeds....

https://youtu.be/jjq6rKBQHiE

https://youtu.be/4chOJafUSC0

[Herlock Sholmes]

I don't know whom this was in reply to, but I see my name mentioned there. Since you are the one condemning 25% of the world's population, you are really not in a position to comment on morality. By your own claims you belong to the majority opinion (or the so-called "silent majority", as so many of you ironically claim, as you shout from the rooftops), and I'm in minority, which logically means that I'm the one with the moral backbone of you and me. You have some serious soul searching to do.

And you need to learn to read. I have not condemned 25% of the world’s population…ever; a fact which should be clear to all. What I have done is to point out a problem that exists within that 25% (which I can’t put a figure on) That it exists is too obvious to require explanation so either you are massively misunderstanding the obvious or you are doing the usual thing - you are deliberately turning a blind eye.

The quotes that I used in the above post were simply examples of the opinions of ordinary, everyday Muslims from different walks of life (the ones that you suddenly don’t want to listen to), which showed that they believed that the Quran should not be questioned because it is the perfect word of god. Others do question it of course. Many intellectuals and theologians spend much time on this, but the point is that most don’t (or at least a sizeable percentage don’t) And so, when these people are faced with statements/pronouncements from more senior men (I can’t recall seeing any women being consulted btw but maybe that’s my poor memory or perhaps it’s something hidden by the right-wing press [but clearly sexism is perfectly ok within a religion but not outside]) how can they reject a call to violence? Or even a call to mistreat someone or some group? How can your average Muslim man reject something that a more senior person within the religion has told him? Recall the fatwa placed on Salman Rushdie? That was very real and caused him to live under police protection. Thirty Four years later he’s blinded in an attack. Do you think that someone held a grudge Karl?

Therefore a problem exists. It doesn’t mean that Muslims are terrible people or that they can’t live completely decent lives but then again, I’ve never stated this….ever, it’s simply been implied by the ill-founded default position that’s assumed by the left when any minority is criticised in any way. Apparently minorities are beyond criticism - a protected species. And we have all seen the results of these ‘problems’ - some of them hugely tragic like the very numerous terrorist incidents like 9/11, the Boston Marathon bombing, the 7/7 London Train Bombings, the ISIS terror, then the treatments meted out by the Taliban, the murder of Theo Van Gogh, the Charlie Hebdo murders, the attack and blinding of Salman Rushdie (I could of course go on and on and on) Not to mention the rape gangs (who by the way are never Sikhs or Hindu’s or Jews or Christians of Buddhists - just thought that I’d point that out….sorry) Then there are the ‘no go’ areas which we all know exist (and perhaps we have noticed that there are no Sikh or Hindu or Buddhist ‘no go’ areas) Again, sorry for pointing out these uncomfortable facts but that’s the problem with problems - they have to be named and dealt with or they tend to worsen. Then there are issues that some find funny like the Halal food issue. Just imagine for a second if you were in your favourite trendy bistro and after you’d ordered your favourite ethically-sourced mung bean and kale curry only to find that the owner had sneaked in some real meat? Imagine the uproar. But if someone had sneakily slipped in meat that has been killed in the cruellest way possible simply to please a religious minority then we are all smiles about it.

So it would be good if the self-righteous might take a little more care in reading and be a little less quick to think that they ‘know’ what someone actually means. I know exactly what I mean and nothing, absolutely nothing that I have said should be treated with the hysterics that we’ve seen here. It seems that when we discuss a certain religion some things certainly are ‘sacred.’ Anything that I’ve said or thought has been stated by others far more eloquently than I have. Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Douglas Murray to name but three.

[Geddy2112]

Interacial racism does exist.

Racism knows many forms.

Can I just add at this juncture I think you are a very learned well rounded person. I enjoy your posts and they always make me go and 'look stuff' up which means I want to be educated more from your initial points. Thank you.
(No I'm not being sarcastic as it's sometimes hard to tell with the 'typed' word, I'm being genuine. Thanks.)

[Karl]

I think you misread it Caz, would you care to take a second look?

"Overall views are divided in Britain. In April 2023, 52% thought that immigration numbers should be reduced."

"In April 2023, 32% thought immigration was a very bad or a bad thing, while 52% thought their numbers should be reduced (a little or a lot) (Figure 1)."

Figure 1 reads:
37% - Reduced a lot.
15% - Reduced a little.

37+15 = 52%

Have a good day.

I forget what the source was. Care to remind us?

[Karl]

Interesting.

So, discrimination is not based on skin colour, in your view?

I never said or suggested anything of the kind. Self-loathing is a thing.

By your logic then, anyone discriminating another person, like calling them "Racist", is themselves being racist.

No, not remotely.

Discrimination, is the rejection of another person for their views, beliefs, ethnicity, age, sex, etc., which is Racist.

No, that's bigotry. Racism, on the other hand, is a more specific form of bigotry: it is discrimination based on race/ethnicity. But calling someone out for being a bigot is not itself bigotry, unless one also discriminates against them. I have neither done nor said anything to disenfranchise you.

[Karl]

Absolutely, when a citizen has justifiable reason against someone they are expected to inform the authorities.

What constitutes justifiable reason? I think your views are pretty extreme, but not nearly to the point that I would consider calling the authorities. How extreme is too extreme? People who do have extremist views crossing the line, tend to keep it to themselves. Who knew Anders B. Brevik would do what he did? Or Brenton Tarrant? People with extreme views usually have the wherewithal to keep them secret, and put on a friendly face for their friends, family and co-workers, not least because they don't want the confrontation that would ensue.

If not, depending on what they knew they could be charged as an accessory.
It's usually called - "tips to the police", it happens all the time.

Usually from paranoid people reporting on "them". People reporting on their own kin are extremely rare, for the reason I have already mentioned. And when one is aware that a friend or family member is harbouring extreme views, one talks to them. That's the normal thing to do, and that's what YOU would do, too. You wouldn't call the police unless you felt pretty sure that they had something very serious planned - and odds are, you'd never know.

[Wickerman]

The answer to this question is "yes". Just like there are black people opposed to BLM. There were Jewish members of the nazi party as well.

Interesting.

So, discrimination is not based on skin colour, in your view?

By your logic then, anyone discriminating another person, like calling them "Racist", is themselves being racist.

Discrimination, is the rejection of another person for their views, beliefs, ethnicity, age, sex, etc., which is Racist.

[Wickerman]

52% of those who were invited to have their say and agreed to take part, Jon, is not the same as 52% of the UK.

I think you misread it Caz, would you care to take a second look?

"Overall views are divided in Britain. In April 2023, 52% thought that immigration numbers should be reduced."

"In April 2023, 32% thought immigration was a very bad or a bad thing, while 52% thought their numbers should be reduced (a little or a lot) (Figure 1)."

Figure 1 reads:
37% - Reduced a lot.
15% - Reduced a little.

37+15 = 52%

Have a good day.

[Wickerman]

I'm still wondering how ordinary, law-abiding Muslims are expected to go about 'weeding out' the extreme elements in their own communities, as one poster suggested, if the best they can do within the laws of their land is to lead by example, or seek to change those laws. Muslims are not an 'organisation', like the police, the clergy or the Government, who can and should be held legally and morally responsible for weeding out their own rotten apples.

Michael Gove has named five groups he said would be assessed against a new government definition of extremism.

The communities secretary told MPs he had concerns about the "Islamist orientation" of three of the organisations.

He also named the Muslim Association of Britain, Cage and Muslim Engagement and Development (MEND) as organisations that "give rise to concern for their Islamist orientation and views".

"We will be holding these, and other organisations, to account to assess if they meet our definition of extremism and will take action as appropriate," he added.

He defined Islamism as a "totalitarian ideology" that calls for "an Islamic state governed by sharia law," and should not be conflated with Islam itself.


Muslim Association of Britain

The MAB was described by Michael Gove as the UK affiliate of the Muslim Brotherhood, an international and complex network of Islamist organisations. Islamism is a political ideology that believes that predominantly Muslim countries should be run according to a form of government drawn from Islam's holy book, the Quran. Islamism has many branches. Some Islamist groups are so extreme they are also terrorist - but that is not true for every such organisation


Cage

Cage emerged as a campaign group against the "War on Terror" that was launched by President George W Bush in the wake of the 2001 attacks on the US. It explicitly campaigned against what it said were abuses perpetrated against Muslims in Afghanistan and elsewhere - but its critics say it was often acting for terrorism suspects. It has never been accused of involvement in terrorism and one of its founders has repeatedly won legal cases where he has been accused of involvement in suspect groups.


MEND

Mend, Muslim Engagement and Development, is a Muslim campaign group that tries to encourage people to get more involved in politics and is active in opposing policies that critics say perpetuate a them-and-us victim mentality. The organisation says it legitimately campaigns to protect the rights of British Muslims and has said it will take the government to court if it is named as extremist.

In fairness, the other two of the five were right-wing White Organisations, but you mentioned Muslim.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-68564577

It has been mentioned that we are not personally responsible for the sins of our ancestors. But do white males, for example, consider themselves responsible for 'weeding out' white male political extremists, religious fanatics, potential terrorists and sexual predators from within their communities or the wider population?

Absolutely, when a citizen has justifiable reason against someone they are expected to inform the authorities.
If not, depending on what they knew they could be charged as an accessory.
It's usually called - "tips to the police", it happens all the time.

[The Rookie Detective]

Seeing as you mentioned it, let me ask you a question.

Given that Muslims (Jews & Christians) are members of the Reform party, do you believe a Muslim can be racist towards their own kind?

Interacial racism does exist.

Racism knows many forms.


It can stem from cultural and religious differences.

For example, when India (Hindu) was divided and in August 1947 Pakistan claimed independence, (and subsequently in March 1971 when Bangladesh separated from East Pakistan) there were major racial issues between opposing factions...despite ethnically all sides originating from India. It was a religious divide and not an ethnic one. India and Pakistan despise each other of course.

There are racial issues in Spain; whereby the Northern areas look down on the south; including Catalonia, where they consider the darker skinned southerners to be bastardized offspring of the Moors.

There are similar racial issues in Italy; whereby the North look down on the darker skinned southerners as not being proper Italians. Southern Italy and Sicily having historically been conquered by the Greeks and the Africans.

There is also a very small section of the Black African community who ridicule sections of the Black Caribbean Community for being the descendants of slaves.
Those with lighter skin are also racially slurred for being of mixed heritage; ergo, having a white Ancestor in their blood line.

In Saudi Arabia the Arabs look down on the Indian and Indonesian workforce; regarding them as sub-human; despite Indonesia also being a Muslim country.

Racial issues also play a part in Cyprus; whereby the Greeks and Turks hate each other and sling racial slurs at each other on a regular basis. Greece of course being occupied and ruled by the Ottoman Turks for many years.

Perhaps a perfect example of interacial racism can be found in the US during the time of Black slavery. Some of the very worst individuals who pedalled and made money from slaves; were the rich black middle class Americans who turned on their own people and became slavers for the sake of power.

When it comes to power and money; men will sell their own Gran and racially slur her for the sake of gaining and retaining power and position.


And so regarding the Reformists; the party is made up of those Conservatives who had enough of the actual Conservatives, and refused to lower themselves to vote Labour.
Whether there are Muslims, Christians or Jews, or White, Black or Asian individuals; the fundamental basis of the Reform Party is a right-er wing extension of the Tories.

Just like UkIP and the Brexit Party; the Reform Party will have its day; and then fade into obscurity until the prodomently right wing thinking white folk choose to rebrand themselves again and throw out more gimmicks to try and appeal to the right wing contingent.


RD

[Karl]

Nothing that I’ve said on this thread shouldn’t be a problem to anyone with a brain. Sadly, with posters like yourself and Karl all we have are examples of the pathetic level of ‘thinking’ that we get from the new Left. We are surrounded with moral cowards whose backbones turn to jelly whenever they are faced with a problem so much so that they prefer to pretend that it doesn’t exist rather than upset anyone.

As predicted the thread soon degenerated into an exercise in name-calling. Standard procedure.

Apologies to mods/admin. I think this post is an issue to do with the amount of links. I didn’t grasp the potential issue at the time and was too late to edit.

I don't know whom this was in reply to, but I see my name mentioned there. Since you are the one condemning 25% of the world's population, you are really not in a position to comment on morality. By your own claims you belong to the majority opinion (or the so-called "silent majority", as so many of you ironically claim, as you shout from the rooftops), and I'm in minority, which logically means that I'm the one with the moral backbone of you and me. You have some serious soul searching to do.

[Karl]

Seeing as you mentioned it, let me ask you a question.

Given that Muslims (Jews & Christians) are members of the Reform party, do you believe a Muslim can be racist towards their own kind?

The answer to this question is "yes". Just like there are black people opposed to BLM. There were Jewish members of the nazi party as well.

[Karl]

Karl.
First thing, let me explain how to play the game.

When you are offering interpretation, theory or beliefs, as we see below, no support is necessary - you are only objecting to the facts.

However, when you are replying to points of fact supported by official statements & links for your consumption.

Let me stop you right there. This is what YOU are doing. YOU are objecting to facts and official figures.

It is expected that you reply in kind. When you contest a point of fact you are expected to provide a quote with references, or a link to support your argument.

I am not contesting facts, I am contesting your claims. And there is no need for me to provide a source, because you have already acknowledged their existence - you simply dismiss them as fabrications from Hamas, an accusation for which your only evidence is "Hamas is in government in Gaza".

Incidentally, if you knew what supplies were provided among humanitarian aid, you would be able to recognise what Hamas confiscate the aid for.
Hamas need food for their terrorist gangs, humanitarian aid includes food.
Hamas need fuel for their vehicles, humanitarian aid includes fuel for hospital & school generators.

Does any fuel get in at all? And food - no matter whom it feeds - is not a military purpose.
Besides, what schools and hospitals? The IDF has levelled them all.