A Political Thread

[goodNumber10]

But it makes perfect sense; Duck knows enough about Saudi Arabia (as an example) to know that he does not care to adhere to generally accepted values over there so he stays away since he won't fit without something somewhere having to give.

In the same vein I have my own set of values but you won't find me moving to Swaziland and then insisting on poligamy being outlawed or gay persons to not be murdered (not law but communities would turn a blind eye). Yet the 'West' has to accept the reverse?

essentially what you're both saying is if you move you should just accept your cultural identity is null and void? Which is frankly ludicrous, the western world is built on mass immigration and the cross pollination of cultures.

You wouldn't' even be playing rugby if this wasn't the case.

 

[nickdnz]

There's a double standard when it comes to multiculturalism where minorities are expected to fit in and adapt to their host nation's culture, whilst simultaneously they are being rejected by the majority for being too different. How can you fit in when things such as burqa bans, white flight (and ghettoisation), institutional racism and racism in general exists? Why is the onus upon the poorer and voiceless racial communities to fit in and not on the majority to be more accommodating?

If you don't respect the nation's culture then don't go there. Hence why you won't see me in Saudi Arabia or wherever any time soon.

Not sure these are mutually exclusive.

It's the difference between immigrating to a nation which identifies as multicultural or doesn't. In New Zealand we're only 200 or so years old in any kind of western civilization sense. Basically all of New Zealand could trace their ancestry in one way or another out of New Zealand, most within three or four generations. I think anyone who immigrates to New Zealand should expect that they can practice their cultural within the realms of New Zealand law - as once they are a citizen they are as much apart of New Zealand's makeup as anyone else. This is because we identify as a multicultural society (as it seems does most of the western world).

Now if I was to immigrate to Saudi Arabia I could not do so with the expectations, as they certainly do not identify as a multicultural society. I'm not sure moving to a country which is institutionally intolerant of other cultures is a generally wise move anyway, but I like to think most of the world is more accepting and appreciative of cultural differences. Respecting an adopted nations culture is a little different from totally abandoning ones own (I'm sure you weren't suggesting that either).

 

[thechosenfamily]

Interesting article on freedom in Londons free Metro paper this morning quoting the Rotterdam mayor who is Moroccan born Muslim

http://metro.co.uk/2015/01/13/muslim-mayor-of-rotterdam-tells-extremists-who-dont-like-freedom-f-off-5021103/

Not mincing words is an understatement

 

[j'nuh]

If you don't respect the nation's culture then don't go there. Hence why you won't see me in Saudi Arabia or wherever any time soon.

I think that you have missed the point I was trying to make.

I was trying to say that you can make all the effort to adapt to the culture of a country, but the assimilation process is two-way and demands the majority's acceptance. If you are rebuked for making the effort, then it's hardly your fault for not adapting.

I cited the example of white flight. Richer white families move from poorer, urban, mixed race areas to suburban, white homogeneous communities. It leaves an economically segregated population. How the hell, as a racial minority, do you "fit in" then? My perception is that it isn't minorities that aren't making the effort...

 

[McTallshort]

I think that you have missed the point I was trying to make.

I was trying to say that you can make all the effort to adapt to the culture of a country, but the assimilation process is two-way and demands the majority's acceptance. If you are rebuked for making the effort, then it's hardly your fault for not adapting.

I cited the example of white flight. Richer white families move from poorer, urban, mixed race areas to suburban, white homogeneous communities. It leaves an economically segregated population. How the hell, as a racial minority, do you "fit in" then? My perception is that it isn't minorities that aren't making the effort...

Well they managed OK in Leicester but failed for the most part in Bradford.

 

[William18]

I think that you have missed the point I was trying to make.

I was trying to say that you can make all the effort to adapt to the culture of a country, but the assimilation process is two-way and demands the majority's acceptance. If you are rebuked for making the effort, then it's hardly your fault for not adapting.

I cited the example of white flight. Richer white families move from poorer, urban, mixed race areas to suburban, white homogeneous communities. It leaves an economically segregated population. How the hell, as a racial minority, do you "fit in" then? My perception is that it isn't minorities that aren't making the effort...

Say in England, what do you expect the majority to do to be more accommodating to Muslims?

 

[McTallshort]

Say in England, what do you expect the majority to do to be more accommodating to Muslims?

When you say Accomodating to muslims what do you mean?

 

[William18]

When you say Accomodating to muslims what do you mean?

J'nuh believes that minorities are expected to take up the culture of the country they move to. He thinks this is hypocritical because majorities do not make enough effort. Therefore I have asked him, in England, what he would expect the majority to do to be more accommodating to the Muslims and help them to fit in better.

 

[McTallshort]

J'nuh believes that minorities are expected to take up the culture of the country they move to. He thinks this is hypocritical because majorities do not make enough effort. Therefore I have asked him, in England, what he would expect the majority to do to be more accommodating to the Muslims and help them to fit in better.

Its about respect and compromise. Apart from nipping to the pub I cannot think a anything Muslims do any differently than other people. Go to work? Yes, Educate the kids? Yes, live by the laws of the land? Yes ok most muslims take a strange pride in flashy cars with private number plates but otherwise I dont see a difference.

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

essentially what you're both saying is if you move you should just accept your cultural identity is null and void? Which is frankly ludicrous, the western world is built on mass immigration and the cross pollination of cultures.

You wouldn't' even be playing rugby if this wasn't the case.

You are dealing in absolutes here. What I am saying is when and where aspects of your culture don't align with your host nation you as an individual or as part of a minority should accept the norms in that country (now I don't agree with boundaries as is but it is what it is and that is a whole other discussion entirely). That does not mean your identity is 'null and void' as you put it but you are the one who should either make the compromise or move off is what Duck and I am saying. I am talking about biggish issues here not what you choose to name your child, what you eat, what days you see as significant ect ect. I am talking about the big ones and I mentioned issues such as differing views on poligamy and attitudes towads homosexuals as examples in my post specifically but there are many issues where differing cultures have differing views. I am saying you need to accept you are in a country with a different view on these issues if that is the case. As an extreme example; if you are in Australia and your daughter has sex out of marriage it would be against the law of that country to kill your daughter and you should accept that.

 

[j'nuh]

J'nuh believes that minorities are expected to take up the culture of the country they move to. He thinks this is hypocritical because majorities do not make enough effort. Therefore I have asked him, in England, what he would expect the majority to do to be more accommodating to the Muslims and help them to fit in better.

It would probably require a dissertation to answer this question. There isn't a particularly specific change that needs to be made, but more an increased awareness and acceptance of other cultures.

But a few examples:
1. Less scapegoating of minorities. e.g. immigration is not to blame for every problem Britain is facing, despite what UKIP will tell people.
2. More representation by minorities in the media. The media has been fairly decent at doing this with the LGBT community, with plenty of LGBT characters appearing in shows, both as the main topic of the show and as incidental characters in stories. I'd like to see similar with Muslims and other minority groups.
3. More representation of minorities in politics.
4. Promotion of diversity in the workplace.
5. Tackling poverty in general, especially the North-South divide. There are big Muslim communities living in poor Northern towns/cities.
6. More calling out of racists. Back in my school, the "p word" was far more accepted than the "n word".
7. Further secularisation. The UK should be a secular, not a "Christian country". People should not be expected to adhere to "Christian values", which puts other religious minorities in an "us and them" position. People should be expected to adhere to "secular values" instead. It does not help at all when the Prime Minister is calling us a "Christian country".
8. On the more ridiculous level, let's get rid of a culture test to determine the worthiness of a person to coming into the country, especially given that so many Britons actually fail the test. Knowing who succeeded Queen Anne is not an important factor in moving to the UK.
9. Abolish faith schools. How these exist in the 21st Century is beyond me. It only leads to segregation.
10. Mandatory religious education in schools, that covers religion from a rational point of view and looks at it from a global perspective, rather than focusing on Christianity.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Generally I think there's a difference between a fetus in the first trimester and a child. I feel at that stage a human hasn't developed any sense of identity, contentiousness or other fundamental factors that constitute what it means to be a human. It's more the potential of life than being human in my opinion. While obviously being more developed - I dispatch the potential of human life as regularly as I possibly can, on the good days in a rubber and on the bad days in a tissue. If a woman trips down the stairs while pregnant and loses the child, no one calls in manslaughter as they might if she dropped her child down a flight of stairs. So I think calling it murder is a stretch even if we did consider it a living human.

What's wrong with multiculturalism? There are many instances where multicultural societies have virtually no conflict and result in a rich a varied shared culture. I think it's only ever an issue in instances where cultures that have a historical conflict are forced to amalgamate without conflict resolution.

What's wrong with multiculturalism?

Sorry if I'm digressing, but I had to comment on this.

In South African Law, when you study private law, your first subject is called Law of Persons. And basically a quarter of the books are about the topic of Abortion. Now for me this topic is a grey area.

If I were to go on my religion, then I would be totally against abortion. But because I studied this, it has dimmed my views on the matter.

According to our law, when the fetus isn't born yet and hasn't had it's first breath, it's not a human yet. They call it the Nasciturus-fiction. They say that the fetus while in the womb, cannot be seen as human with rights and recourse if it hasn't been born yet. In other words until that time, it's a fiction. The reason why they say this is because there are so many unknown variables that can happen before birth, and even during birth, which could cause the death of the fetus naturally or unnaturally. And if a pregnant woman was to be harmed in a car accident for instance, there can be no claim on behalf of the unborn baby against the person who caused the accident.

Now while this is a topic for discussion, My personal opinion is that if there are significant reasons as to why the girl/woman wants to have an abortion, I'm all for it. In SA rape is the most common reason. But I'm against it if the reason is stupidity, or not using protection.

 

[William18]

It would probably require a dissertation to answer this question. There isn't a particularly specific change that needs to be made, but more an increased awareness and acceptance of other cultures.

But a few examples:
1. Less scapegoating of minorities. e.g. immigration is not to blame for every problem Britain is facing, despite what UKIP will tell people.
2. More representation by minorities in the media. The media has been fairly decent at doing this with the LGBT community, with plenty of LGBT characters appearing in shows, both as the main topic of the show and as incidental characters in stories. I'd like to see similar with Muslims and other minority groups.
3. More representation of minorities in politics.
4. Promotion of diversity in the workplace.
5. Tackling poverty in general, especially the North-South divide. There are big Muslim communities living in poor Northern towns/cities.
6. More calling out of racists. Back in my school, the "p word" was far more accepted than the "n word".
7. Further secularisation. The UK should be a secular, not a "Christian country". People should not be expected to adhere to "Christian values", which puts other religious minorities in an "us and them" position. People should be expected to adhere to "secular values" instead. It does not help at all when the Prime Minister is calling us a "Christian country".
8. On the more ridiculous level, let's get rid of a culture test to determine the worthiness of a person to coming into the country, especially given that so many Britons actually fail the test. Knowing who succeeded Queen Anne is not an important factor in moving to the UK.
9. Abolish faith schools. How these exist in the 21st Century is beyond me. It only leads to segregation.
10. Mandatory religious education in schools, that covers religion from a rational point of view and looks at it from a global perspective, rather than focusing on Christianity.

Faith schools in New Zealand don't really contribute to segregation. A Catholic School in Wellington even had a Muslim as head girl to not very much controversy. I don't have a problem with faith schools but do not like where they are government funded.

Mandatory religious education is definitely important. It does not happen over here unless you go to a religious school.

 

[Peat]

8. On the more ridiculous level, let's get rid of a culture test to determine the worthiness of a person to coming into the country, especially given that so many Britons actually fail the test. Knowing who succeeded Queen Anne is not an important factor in moving to the UK.

Because, my dear j'nuh, no politician on God's earth has enough time and popular support to go picking a fight with every faith in the country, plus a sizable number of headteachers and concerned parents, when they also have to worry about minor details such as whether we have enough power stations, national security, reversing the trade deficit, closing tax loopholes, opening new tax loopholes to attract business here, and kissing babies. Life is too short and I think you'd struggle to convince me that faith schools ranks highly enough against such concerns.

Actually, being cynical, from a politician's point of view, life is just too short to be promoting multiculturalism full stop. It is very difficult to show success in the area, as it can't be measured, nor will it put money in citizens' pockets, which is the great election winner, nor will it be popular, as it mostly involves telling the majority what they can and can't do. From their point of view, it's an absolute stinker of a subject to get involved with.

 

[nickdnz]

Sorry if I'm digressing, but I had to comment on this.

In South African Law, when you study private law, your first subject is called Law of Persons. And basically a quarter of the books are about the topic of Abortion. Now for me this topic is a grey area.

If I were to go on my religion, then I would be totally against abortion. But because I studied this, it has dimmed my views on the matter.

According to our law, when the fetus isn't born yet and hasn't had it's first breath, it's not a human yet. They call it the Nasciturus-fiction. They say that the fetus while in the womb, cannot be seen as human with rights and recourse if it hasn't been born yet. In other words until that time, it's a fiction. The reason why they say this is because there are so many unknown variables that can happen before birth, and even during birth, which could cause the death of the fetus naturally or unnaturally. And if a pregnant woman was to be harmed in a car accident for instance, there can be no claim on behalf of the unborn baby against the person who caused the accident.

Now while this is a topic for discussion, My personal opinion is that if there are significant reasons as to why the girl/woman wants to have an abortion, I'm all for it. In SA rape is the most common reason. But I'm against it if the reason is stupidity, or not using protection.

Hypothetically what is by chance a contraception didn't work? Say hypothetically a condom had some defect without the user knowing (and it has been known to happen). If a couple took reasonable precautions and by a 0.3% chance they just were unlucky, are they to be hold 'that's the gamble you take' and therefore have to raise a child. It's an interesting topic when viewed as a religious issue, as various Christian denominations have differing views. I do agree with South Africa's definition of life as you describe it, it is far more of a 'potential for life' than a human being in my eyes. From a personal view - if I happened to get someone pregnant accidentally I think I'd certainly favor 'taking the hit' as it were, and trying to raise the child. But at the end of the day I'd accept it's an issue that's more relevant to the mother and so her choice.

 

[j'nuh]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-30875633

Jesus. Are even the working/middle-class right-wing in favour of this? Seems like it should be a universal feeling amongst anyone who isn't part of that 1% that that is outrageous and should not be happening, under any circumstances.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Hypothetically what is by chance a contraception didn't work? Say hypothetically a condom had some defect without the user knowing (and it has been known to happen). If a couple took reasonable precautions and by a 0.3% chance they just were unlucky, are they to be hold 'that's the gamble you take' and therefore have to raise a child. It's an interesting topic when viewed as a religious issue, as various Christian denominations have differing views. I do agree with South Africa's definition of life as you describe it, it is far more of a 'potential for life' than a human being in my eyes. From a personal view - if I happened to get someone pregnant accidentally I think I'd certainly favor 'taking the hit' as it were, and trying to raise the child. But at the end of the day I'd accept it's an issue that's more relevant to the mother and so her choice.

From a christian/religious point of view in the case of the contraception not working, I am a firm believer that it is then "God's will" and that you were meant to have the child.

But my point regarding stupidity, and maybe this is just from my point of view is that in SA there is such a massive focus on teenage pregnancies/AIDS/STD's that educated people should know better. I say should, because it is clearly not the case. And the stupidity comes in that the kids don't even bother using contraception. The "pull-out" strategy is a dumb strategy to take especially when you're not in total control of your body at the point of ejaculation.

from a political standpoint I think that the involved parties are too much vested in their own viewpoint, and they don't always take into consideration the other parties involved, mostly the mother. IMHO it is only the mother who should have the right to decide. Miscarriage is in some ways just like Abortion, as in it's a way to reject the fetus from the body which resluts in the death of the fetus. Miscarriage however doesn't have such a negative connotation like abortion does. But there are ways to "force" a miscarriage. Depression, Anxiety, Stress, Pain and Assault are all factors that could cause miscarriage.

When a woman had a miscarriage she isn't slanted as a killer or anything like that. Instead she recieves pity and sympathy. Yet there are ways to go about to reject the fetus.

 

[UlsterRugby2012]

From a christian/religious point of view in the case of the contraception not working, I am a firm believer that it is then "God's will" and that you were meant to have the child.

I don't understand, so what's the point of contraception in the first place?

 

[Tony Manx]

I don't understand, so what's the point of contraception in the first place?

Reckon a lot of young women feel the same way! Why use condoms when there is the morning after pill (which is another form of abortion) or, if that does not work, abortion!

 

[TRF_heineken]

I don't understand, so what's the point of contraception in the first place?

Any contraceptive isn't a 100% reliable. And like Nick has mentioned it has happened that condoms tear or burst while being used.

Reckon a lot of young women feel the same way! Why use condoms when there is the morning after pill (which is another form of abortion) or, if that does not work, abortion!

Any female can correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know, there is a very small window in which a woman can fall pregnant in her cycle. I think it's something like 4 days after the end of her period, which I think they call "ovulating". The "ovulating" period/window is then for 3 days. So basically for 3 days in a 28 day cycle, a woman can fall pregnant. Once again, I might be wrong, but this is how I understand it.

The morning after pill is a good contraceptive, but it has side effects. It makes the woman nauseas, it changes her normal menstrual cycle and gives them very bad cramps.

The best contraception of all is abstinence...