Counting the cost of limousine liberalism in Britain:
Labour's immigration policy turns out to have been a very effective campaign tactic in the class war - only with the twist that, in this case, Labour has been on the side of the haves rather than the have-nots. The wonderful thing about dramatically increasing immigration in the way Labour has done over the past decade is that advocates of that policy can present it to themselves not as a way of forcing down the wages of the poorest Britons to the great advantage of the employing classes, but as an altruistic attempt to help the impoverished of the developing world. They see it as an exercise in compassion and social justice.Advocates of unrestricted or very high levels of immigration into Britain often seem simply to have deluded themselves into portraying what is actually a piece of economic self-interest as high-minded philanthropy. Still, underlying the question of how many people from developing economies we should welcome into Britain, there is a very fundamental issue about the basis of rights, and who owes how much to whom.
On one side, there is the rationalist, universalist view, which says that the basis of rights and entitlements is "human-ness" - and that morally, every government should treat every human being in exactly the same way. On the other, there is the view that governments can never be more than the guardians of the interests of the particular group of people who elect them and contribute to them. That is why, as a member of a particular nation, you have a right to a voice in deciding what laws govern your society, but outsiders do not. It is also why you also have an entitlement to benefits that is not universally shared.
Labour's policy on immigration has been based on the rationalist, universalist view. That is why its immigration policy, with its insistence that every immigrant has exactly the same rights as long-standing members of British society, has come into such sharp collision with the views of the white working class. They think that the Government should recognise that it has special obligations to its own citizens which it does not have to humanity in general. They, along with most of the rest of us, are sceptical of any politician who claims to be following "universal reason", especially when the "rational policy" requires sacrifices from people who are not politicians. Most British citizens think that the British Government has no obligation whatever to extend to arrivals from Third World countries the benefits to which only being a citizen entitles you.
Obviously this person is a racist whose views deserve nothing more than condemnation. Move on folks, nothing to see here.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Birth rates declining in first world countries. Without question. But why? Some argue family limitation is due to attempts to remain or continue upward mobility. Financial considerations. Should these first world countries experiment with ways to stimulate domestic birth rates? Possibly "dramtic and significant" tax incentives. Obviously, only families with financial wherewithal (most from employment provided from higher education) would benefit? What would be the outcry?
To the Your Name that questioned where I got my immigration figures. I did not use Wikipedia. Nice try. Maybe you should know what you are talking about before commenting.
Shari'a law is binding if and only if all parties to a dispute agree to be bound to it. YIKES!
So Sharia law is being practiced. Toro said it didn't know where Sharia law was being practiced. I provided an article. You read it and came to the conclusion that Sharia law is being practiced, but you still seem confused. The English language is still used in Ireland, yes?
Toro, I did not call you a lying troll, although I do think it is interesting that you added that adjective. The reason I gave immigration country names for both percentages and total number of immigrants was so you would not have an out when faced with information that conflicted with your observations. Everything you are saying is based on your observations and opinions. These do not equal facts no matter how obnoxious you are online. You might think you are being a witty Brit, but you aren't. You are a boor. A huge difference. If you were really British you would know this.
Toro Toro must be one of those study abroad students...I mean immigrants who isn't doing much to help increase productivity. It has spent the time productive British workers are sleeping to troll on this here blog.
"So Sharia law is being practiced. Toro said it didn't know where Sharia law was being practiced. I provided an article. You read it and came to the conclusion that Sharia law is being practiced, but you still seem confused. The English language is still used in Ireland, yes?"
toro was not confused, although it seems you are. sharia courts are employed as arbitration bodies in the UK. you don't seem to understand:
1. what "abritration" is, or
2. how "arbitration" works, or
3. how "arbitration" is employed in anglo-american law.
arbitatrion is an alternative dispute resolution process, requiring an agreement by both parties PRIOR to or concurrent with contract to submit to arbitration in a dispute. look at those impossible "contracts" you get with your credit card from time to time - there will ALWAYS be an arbitration provision, to which you have agreed by getting the card. arbitration pretty much never arises in a non-contractual dispute. there are certain matters that are, as a matter of law, not arbitrable. such restrictions as there are vary by jurisdiction.
an arbitrator, at least in the US, may make a legally binding decision using almost any logic he pleases, with some exceptions and restrictions (although these can be further eased by contractual agreement). arbitration clauses are typically severable, meaning that if the rest of the contract's validity is in total dispute, this will not automatically void the arbitration clause. courts will, absent some dispute over the nature of the arbitration itself, enforce the abritrator's decision. arbitration has a long history in anglo-american law.
as others have noted, as in the US, jewish religious courts have been considered valid alternative dispute resolution bodies in the UK and have enforced decisions. these almost always relate to marriage contracts and wills, and i imagine they're much the same in sharia courts.
remember: for there to be a valid arbitration award or decision enforceable by the courts there must have been a prior agreement to arbitrate, so unless muslims in the UK are going around signing real contracts for everything you won't see sharia applied to anything outside contractual disputes (i.e. marriage contracts just like jewish courts).
in short, the mere fact that sharia is used in making decisions in expressly muslim arbitration panels dealing with contractual issues between muslims in somewhat religious settings (i.e. marriage contracts), is unsurprising and unremarkable.
it seems you see the word "sharia" and "UK" and immediately think it's hands getting sawed off by scotland yard and the like, and you're wrong.
"To the Your Name that questioned where I got my immigration figures. I did not use Wikipedia. Nice try. Maybe you should know what you are talking about before commenting."
That was me. I note you don't say where you *did* get them. In any case, the points about being (a) meaningless, (b) misinterpreted by you, and (c) not relevant to the period in question still stand.
"Toro, I did not call you a lying troll, although I do think it is interesting that you added that adjective. The reason I gave immigration country names for both percentages and total number of immigrants was so you would not have an out when faced with information that conflicted with your observations. Everything you are saying is based on your observations and opinions. These do not equal facts no matter how obnoxious you are online. You might think you are being a witty Brit, but you aren't. You are a boor. A huge difference. If you were really British you would know this."
(a) You called me a troll, and claimed that I was lying about my nationality. So, you know, yes you did.
(b) The numbers were not for percentage of immigrants, they were for percentage *increase* in immigrants. I pointed out - as did your source - that this was a perfectly useless measure.
(c) Your data could not have conflicted with my observations, since they covered an entirely different time period. Again, we've been over this.
(d) Everything I am saying is based on my observations and opinions *except for* the bits that aren't. For instance, the links I gave you to actual census data pertaining to the period in question.
(e) I do not think I am any kind of Brit. I have already pointed out that I am Irish, living in Britain. Hence my sarcasm about your apparently not knowing Ireland was in the EU.
(f) I cannot deny that I am a boor. But you, sir, are a fool.
"Toro Toro must be one of those study abroad students...I mean immigrants who isn't doing much to help increase productivity. It has spent the time productive British workers are sleeping to troll on this here blog. "
*Even if* this were the case, how do you imagine it would strengthen your argument?
Oh, and what "what?" explains about arbitration procedures. The fact that two Muslims can agree, if they so wish, to have their non-criminal disputes adjudicated according to Shari'a law no more means that that law is "being practiced" in Britain than Judge Judy means the USA has now adopted "CBS Law".
With regards to third world colonization of todays western civilization, it's not a big secret. Whatever happens ( and things start with words ) and then actions, the world can count on a backlash. We can blame the governments, globalists and political correctness. It's not hard to figure. Truth hurts.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.