View Full Version : Birmingham Play
What does everyone think about Behzti in Birmingham being cancelled due to the Sikh community rioting.
Perhaps this is not very PC, but i suspect that if the riot was not instigated by an ethnic minority, all rioters would at least have been lifted by the police and charged in the courts.
We are expected to respect their beliefs however it would appear that they have no tolerance for others.
I was brought up to believe that "when in Rome....."
Totally agree, but watch out - the PC brigade on here are coming to get you :D
I have no problem with people from different ethnic cultures living here, but they should be required to adapt as much as possible to our way of life, and certainly not vice versa as seems to be the case.
What does everyone think about Behzti in Birmingham being cancelled due to the Sikh community rioting.
Well, to start with I think it was cancelled due to some members of the Sikh community rioting and not the Sikh community as a whole.
I do think that it is awful that a few protestors have managed to get what they want through violence. That's not a good example to set.
However, those whose reaction to this was to cry 'freedom of speech' have, to my mind, failed to grasp the ramifications of that 'freedom'. Sure, we have the legal entitlement to speak our minds without fear of persecution. But with that entitlement comes responsibility.
I heard a spokesman for the play on the radio yesterday saying that it was a work of fiction and was not intended as anything more than a work of fiction. I'm left wondering if 'freedom of speech' was really intended to allow us to cause deep insult to people in the name of 'entertainment'.
Perhaps this is not very PC, but i suspect that if the riot was not instigated by an ethnic minority, all rioters would at least have been lifted by the police and charged in the courts.
Really? Do you remember this?
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40074000/jpg/_40074250_police_hunt203ap.jpg
An estimated 10,000 protestors. Bottles and fireworks thrown at the police. Sixteen members of the public were hurt. One police officer was injured. Were the cells of London's police stations brimming with protestors that night? No, they were not. In fact, only eleven people were arrested.
It seems to me that the police dealt with the riot in Birmingham in the same way as they deal with every other riot.
Now, since we've heard what you suspect, here's what I suspect. I suspect that had the rioters been Christians we would not automatically assume that they represented the entire Christian community and, though still disagreeing with them, I suspect that we would have felt a little more sympathy for their position. I suspect that this is because we live in a predominantly Christian society where even if we don't follow the Christian faith its teachings are quietly drummed into us throughout our lives. I suspect that if you had as full an understanding of Sikhism as you do Christianity your post would have been very different.
We are expected to respect their beliefs however it would appear that they have no tolerance for others.
Sorry. Who are you talking about here when you say their: Sikhs or the rioters?
I was brought up to believe that "when in Rome....."
I was brought up to believe in tolerance…
I was brought up to believe that "when in Rome....."
Have you ever been abroad? If so, where did you go?
they should be required to adapt as much as possible to our way of life
Define 'our way of life'.
jjc - appologies for not being as eloquent or tolerant as you.
My grievance is that this and other issues including the Pro-Hunt "protests" seem to indicate that we are bowing down to mob rule. Surely this is not the way to behave in a democracy??
p.s. Ttravelling abroad??? I have been to Inverness once. When I could not find the duty free shop I decided not to go back :roll:
I was responding to tip top's comments and not directly at this particular case. It was a general remark on the way things are going in this country at the moment. It is almost at the stage where we are adopting their cultures at the expense of our own. And no, I am NOT racist before you start going down that road. I do object however to immigrants arriving in this country and trying to tell us how things should be done at school etc. etc. How often do you hear about rows at schools because somebody won't wear the school uniform because they have to wear their own national costume? That type of thing is happening all the time.
Stand back and wait for political correctness police to slap my wrist......... :D
No one is a political correctness policeman however we have to be specific. I think if a school adopts a uniform then it should be flexible to allow peple to adapt it to their faith. headscarves, trousers whatever should all be accomodated. This isnt being PC its being flexible and tolerant.
If people dont approve of something then they have the right to protest. they should demonstrate and they should be allowed to demonstrate. Violence is not acceptable. It was interesting to note that previous nights had deminstrations that have been peaceful and i would like to know what changed to make this a violent and angry demonstration.
There are demonstrations all through the year - a few in Wick this year too - We may not share the beliefs of those demonstrating in Birmingham and may even think they are wrong about this particular play but we surely cant deny them the right to demonstrate simply cos they it is based on their communities beliefs.
I think that the more tolerant and open our society is the better. Variety and diversity is what gives us a better life experience if you ask me.
The demos in Wick were slightly different though! :D
jjc - appologies for not being as eloquent or tolerant as you.
Accepted.
My grievance is that this and other issues including the Pro-Hunt "protests" seem to indicate that we are bowing down to mob rule. Surely this is not the way to behave in a democracy??
'Mob rule' is the backbone of our governmental system. Every four years (or so) we elect people to Parliament. The 'mob' with the biggest presence 'rules' until the next election.
However, I take your point. I agree that violent demonstration has no place in a democratic society and it is saddening that this play was cancelled due to such demonstration.
I am a little confused by something though. If your concern is simply with a general indication that 'we are bowing to mob rule' and if that includes the pro-hunt demonstrators, why did you feel the need to make this particular thread about the ethnicity of the rioters in Birmingham? Surely that is irrelevant to the point you were trying to make?
brokencross
21-Dec-04, 13:36
Let me see "When in Rome...."
If I recall British law was changed to allow Sikhs not wear a crash helmet when riding a motorcycle because wearing a turban was deemed to be an integral part of their religion.
Also a Sikh boy was allowed to carry a ceremonial dagger while he was in school,... yes because it is to do with his religion.
A Muslim schoolgirl girl has taken her school to court because the school will not let her wear the jilbab as the school has a strict uniform code. The school has 79% Muslim pupils and makes provision/leeway for the wearing of certain religion related garments, however, the jilbab is not on the list. The girl and her parents MUST have known the dress code when she first attended the school so why on earth should the school change. Guess who is representing her Cherie Booth (Blair)QC, not a cheap act to hire I am sure. She wants to wear it because it is practicing her religion.
I could give many other examples.
Integration, what integration?? There are certain members of every ethnic minority and religious group who try to push the boundaries to the limit and beyond, wanting laws changed, extra concessions in this and that, just to suit themselves.
This latest Sikh play fiasco is getting towards the last straw. The Sikh community were involved in build up to the play being performed, statements were read out before the show explaining the Sikh community's objections to the play. They were allowed to protest peacefully outside; it was not a peaceful demonstration that got out of hand...they invaded the theatre and caused thousands of pounds of damage. It sends out the message that if you want your own way be violent.
Maybe Enoch Powells "Rivers of Blood" speech was more a metaphor, because nearly every day you hear stories of increasing racial and religious tension. I fear for the future because if you say anything against ethnic minorities you are instantly branded a racist so I, a 51 year old, white male am gradually becoming the minority (voice) in my own country.
WAKE UP, my rant is finished!!
Brokencross - excellent post. I think that's what I was trying to say :D
It is reaching the point where being a white heterosexual male is a major disadvantage in life :D
It was a general remark on the way things are going in this country at the moment. It is almost at the stage where we are adopting their cultures at the expense of our own.
Okay, you didn't bother to explain what you believe 'our way of life' is. Perhaps you can answer this. What, specifically, is it that we are losing in our culture? What are you having to surrender?
How often do you hear about rows at schools because somebody won't wear the school uniform because they have to wear their own national costume? That type of thing is happening all the time.
All the time? Really? I've only heard of one case; that of Shabina Begum. It's an ongoing case that has been dragging on for some time and as such has received a fair bit of media attention – but it's still only one case.
It is reaching the point where being a white heterosexual male is a major disadvantage in life :D
So whats new about that?
Being a man has ALWAYS been a disadvantage :evil
it was not a peaceful demonstration that got out of hand...they invaded the theatre and caused thousands of pounds of damage. It sends out the message that if you want your own way be violent.
On the news last night i thought it said that there had been demonstrations outside the theatre al the nights of the play and these had been peaceful on every other night. I am sure the police are looking at what happened to turn the saturday night demonstration into a violent one. Violence is never aceptable but surely for what has been a series of peaceful demonstrations where, as you say, the community was involved prior to the run up to the play being performed seems a worth more investigation.
If I recall British law was changed to allow Sikhs not wear a crash helmet when riding a motorcycle because wearing a turban was deemed to be an integral part of their religion.
So you consider wearing a crash helmet to be part of your ethnic identity? Interesting.
Here's something else you might find interesting. Wearing of motorcycle helmets became mandatory in 1973. It was only three years later, in 1976, that legislation was introduced exempting Sikhs from this requirement.
So, it took you just three years to integrate mandatory wearing of motorcycle helmets into your ethnic identity. Damn, that's fast.
Also a Sikh boy was allowed to carry a ceremonial dagger while he was in school,... yes because it is to do with his religion.
That's true. Can't argue with that… except that this was in QUEBEC. :roll:
A Muslim schoolgirl girl has taken her school to court because the school will not let her wear the jilbab as the school has a strict uniform code. The school has 79% Muslim pupils and makes provision/leeway for the wearing of certain religion related garments, however, the jilbab is not on the list. The girl and her parents MUST have known the dress code when she first attended the school so why on earth should the school change. Guess who is representing her Cherie Booth (Blair)QC, not a cheap act to hire I am sure. She wants to wear it because it is practicing her religion.
It's true. She did take her school to court. She lost. The reason the case is back in the media spotlight is that her appeal opened on Monday.
I wonder, does her school allow the wearing of a Crucifix or a Kipot?
I could give many other examples.
Well if you're going to go as far afield as Quebec, I'm sure you can.
Integration, what integration?? There are certain members of every ethnic minority and religious group who try to push the boundaries to the limit and beyond, wanting laws changed, extra concessions in this and that, just to suit themselves.
That's true. Take the recent example of the Mental Capacity Bill. The infamous letter from the Lord Chancellor that won over many of the rebel MPs was not addressed to any of those MPs but, instead, was addressed to the Archbishop of Cardiff. It's crazy how these religious groups get involved in politics.
Next you'll be telling me there's a religion that is automatically granted twenty-six seats in the House of Lords…
They were allowed to protest peacefully outside; it was not a peaceful demonstration that got out of hand...they invaded the theatre and caused thousands of pounds of damage.
That's right, some of them did… the others were part of a peaceful demonstration that got out of hand.
It sends out the message that if you want your own way be violent.
And nobody here has contested that fact.
I fear for the future
Don't. You're 51. The future is quite safe in my hands.
I am sure the police are looking at what happened to turn the saturday night demonstration into a violent one.
I'd heard a report [can't remember where, but I'm looking] that the peaceful demonstration became violent after a group of 'westernised' Sikh youths arrived via a local drinking establishment. I don't know if this is true or not. It doesn't excuse the violence. Just thought I'd throw it into the pot.
jjc - read the post by brokencross - it's got three examples. There are more, many more reported regularly but I can't quote them specifically.
I can see where you are coming from though so this is a pointless discussion. We are not going to agree on it.
jjc - read the post by brokencross - it's got three examples.
Indeed it does. If you read my second-last post you'll find my responses to those examples.
Quebec... [lol]
I gave up on your post because it was so disjointed, dissecting everything bit by bit. Bad reading.
Basically what brokencross has said is dead right. You can pick away at the details all you like but the main points are spot on.
I gave up on your post because it was so disjointed, dissecting everything bit by bit. Bad reading.
Makes sense to me. Perhaps if I spell everything out phonetically for you?
Basically what brokencross has said is dead right. You can pick away at the details all you like but the main points are spot on.
You're right, I was simply nit-picking… that a Sikh boy in Quebec was allowed to take a ceremonial dagger to his school is entirely relevant to a discussion of multiculturalism in the UK. Likewise, Sikhs being exempt from a requirement to wear motorcycle helmets is a perfect example of the erosion of British culture. :roll:
I note, by the way, that you have still not given a response to my request for specific details of what it is you consider you are losing from your culture. You are quite adamant that your culture is being eroded so I'm sure you have specifics readily at hand…
I'm not giving you the opportunity to dissect my every word and twist them to suit your own needs. As I stated previously you and I are not going to agree about this as you are coming from a completely different angle, so let's just leave it. If you can't figure out what I am getting at from previous posts then that's your problem.
I picked on the Birmingham example because it is topical.
'Mob rule' is the backbone of our governmental system. Every four years (or so) we elect people to Parliament. The 'mob' with the biggest presence 'rules' until the next election.
Nice One!!
However I was thinking more along the lines of Al Capone etc. No slight intended on any Sicilians :lol:
brokencross
21-Dec-04, 17:09
jjc
Having read all your posts on this subject at least once or twice (in some cases three times) to make sure I understand exactly what you are saying, or trying to say. I must respond. You are quick to criticise, but don't actually put your full views and opinions on the line.
Crash helmets, ethnic identity...what??? .who said that?.....I said British law being changed to suit an ethnic group. WHY
Ceremonial Knife, there was a case in the UK, although I have been to Quebec, ruddy cold this time of year!! I will try to find references.
I realise the girl is at the appeal court....(for the sake of brevity I did not go into detiails) should she be allowed to flaunt well established school rules or not???
I was intrigued by your last comment about "The future is quite safe in my hands".
With your attitude. the rudeness and the contempt you treat other contributors, I fear even more for the future. Maybe you are a Sikh who wasn't wearing their crash helmet and fell off their motorbike or did your jilbab get caught in the wheels??!! (joke, joke.... non offensive totally un PC attempt at ethnic humour)
I read with interest your profile on this messageboard, yes nothing there, I could have guessed.
Watch this space.... because in between this post and your last post there have been many good points raised and I have to consult my solicitor to see if I am allowed to write what probably millions of people feel but are too afraid to say. Meanwhile write a little profile about yourself on the board. Go on give us a clue where you are coming from!
In case you didn't recognise this post it involves sarcasm, irony and general pee-taking.
I will resond in depth though when you put forward your case to support the total integration, acceptance, mutual respect etc etc of all races and creeds in the UK. Do not sit on the fence now will you?????
I'm not giving you the opportunity to dissect my every word and twist them to suit your own needs. As I stated previously you and I are not going to agree about this as you are coming from a completely different angle, so let's just leave it. If you can't figure out what I am getting at from previous posts then that's your problem.
Oh, I have a pretty good idea as to what you are getting at. Your refusal to voice your opinions for public scrutiny merely confirms it for me. Thanks.
brokencross
21-Dec-04, 17:54
jjc
I have not had the time or inkling to read your other 461 posts so excuse me if I have missed something, but what is this George W. Bush postscript to all your messages mean??
"There's no telling how many wars it will take to secure freedom in the homeland"
It is just like your last few posts, ambiguous, trying to be provocative and well, a little bit lacking in many ways!! i.e. it does not say whether you are pro George Dubya, against him, or well just a little bit confused.......pray tell which it is!!!
Not had time to do all my research yet, my database is not as efficient as yours, but the carrying of ceremonial weapons in schools is certainly mentioned in the DFES website.
You've confirmed that you are a pompous clown who only listens to the bits he wants to. I have made my feelings quite clear, and just because you don't agree you get all uppity and try to score points by acting all clever. It's like being back at school, but then again I'm not convinced you're not still at school.
Oh and by the way, your earlier post whether you like it or not is a complete mess, with bits of text and quotes strewn all over the place. "Maybe I could spell everything out phonetically for you" - see what I mean. Acting all superior. It's impossible to have a sensible argument/discussion if you keep putting down other people's views.
You are quick to criticise, but don't actually put your full views and opinions on the line.
What would you like to know? Unlike Apollo69 I don't have any qualms about voicing my opinions. Ask and you shall be answered.
Crash helmets, ethnic identity...what??? .who said that?.....I said British law being changed to suit an ethnic group. WHY
First, and I feel this is an important point to make, I think you meant 'minority ethnic group'. ALL laws are formed and changed to suit an (or possibly several) ethnic group. I, and I guess from your attitude you, am fortunate enough to belong to the majority ethnic group on these fair Isles and, as such, the laws are usually written with me in mind.
Now that we have that out of the way… I don't have the figures for 1996 when the law was changed, but in 2001 there were 336,000 Sikhs in the UK. That's 336,000 people whose religious beliefs were 'overlooked' when the original legislation was introduced in 1993. Unless Sikhs being allowed to wear a Turban instead of a crash helmet when riding a motorbike somehow impacts upon you I believe that the question should not by "why?", rather it should be "why not?"
Ceremonial Knife, there was a case in the UK … I will try to find references.
Good luck. Looking forward to reading all about it. In the mean time, here's (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1994676.stm) mine.
Should she be allowed to flaunt well established school rules or not???
Absolutely not. But then, she hasn't been allowed to flaunt (sic) school rules, has she. In fact, because she was in breach of school rules, she has not been allowed to attend classes since September 2002.
Your turn. Should she be denied the right to question rules that she believes are discriminatory?
I read with interest your profile on this messageboard, yes nothing there, I could have guessed. […] write a little profile about yourself on the board. Go on give us a clue where you are coming from!
Oh, I see. You're one of those messageboarders. The type who believe it is necessary to share personal details with the whole world before your point of view is worth reading. It's strange. Normally people with that attitude use their names instead of pseudonyms.
I will resond in depth though when you put forward your case to support the total integration, acceptance, mutual respect etc etc of all races and creeds in the UK. Do not sit on the fence now will you?????
Oh, that's easy. I support the total integration, acceptance and mutual respect of all races and creeds in the UK because I am neither arrogant nor ignorant enough to believe my race to be superior to any other.
I have not had the time or inkling to read your other 461 posts so excuse me if I have missed something, but what is this George W. Bush postscript to all your messages mean??
"There's no telling how many wars it will take to secure freedom in the homeland"
It is just like your last few posts, ambiguous, trying to be provocative and well, a little bit lacking in many ways!! i.e. it does not say whether you are pro George Dubya, against him, or well just a little bit confused.......pray tell which it is!!!
A subject for a different thread perhaps? Get it started and I'll see you there.
Not had time to do all my research yet, my database is not as efficient as yours, but the carrying of ceremonial weapons in schools is certainly mentioned in the DFES website.
Perhaps there's something wrong with my search (http://www.dfes.gov.uk/search/results/kbsearch?sr=0&nh=10&cs=&sb=0&hs=0&ha=1&sc=dfes&qt=ceremonial+weapons&mt=0)? Maybe you can provide an actual link?
I have made my feelings quite clear
No, you haven't. What you've done is agree with Tip Top, agree with Brokencross and then refuse to give your own opinion.
Your own feelings are, I am afraid, a mystery.
It's impossible to have a sensible argument/discussion if you keep putting down other people's views.
How could I possible put down your point of view? You haven't voiced it yet.
You seem quite confident that what you believe is sensible and true. I don't understand your reluctance to put your thoughts down in a post.
Oh and by the way, your earlier post whether you like it or not is a complete mess, with bits of text and quotes strewn all over the place.
I guess that's what happens when there's more than one point to reply to. It saves me typing "and when you said" or "with regards to" repetitively. It also helps me to keep track of who I'm talking to in which post. I make no apologies for your inability to work out that what follows a quote is in response to that quote.
"Maybe I could spell everything out phonetically for you" - see what I mean. Acting all superior.
Not at all, it was a genuine offer.
RandomHero
21-Dec-04, 19:46
sikhs? they don't like us putting up xmas decorations because their religion doesn't agree with it. they take theatre away from us? what next?
if we asked them to take of their turbans, would they do it?
we fold too easily, we need to stand up against them.
jjc - I've posted this at the start, and stand by it. It's fairly self-explanatory but if you need some help ask your english teacher at school tomorrow.
"I have no problem with people from different ethnic cultures living here, but they should be required to adapt as much as possible to our way of life, and certainly not vice versa as seems to be the case."
That means they adopt the British culture rather than expect us to change to suit them. I really don't see what you are getting your knickers in such a twist for really.
Go on act all pompous again and ask me to put it into a 1000 word essay or something. It's there very simple and very easy to understand and was there from the start.
What an attention seeking clown.
That means they adopt the British culture rather than expect us to change to suit them. I really don't see what you are getting your knickers in such a twist for really.
Go on act all pompous again and ask me to put it into a 1000 word essay or something. It's there very simple and very easy to understand and was there from the start.
You see, you know exactly where the problem lies with your statement. It's not got any substance. It's a nonsense.
I don't want 1000 words. As many as you can muster will suffice. What part of 'British culture' are you losing because of multiculturalism? Surely, as you so adamantly believe that it is being eroded, you can point to just one example?
What an attention seeking clown.
Can we get this over and done with? Just call me a "PC policeman" and get it out of your system. Once you have, can we try and stick to actually discussing this issue rather than hiding behind infantile name-calling? And to think, you thought I was still at school. :roll:
brokencross
21-Dec-04, 20:22
jjc
The Dfes section on ceremonial knives is : http://www.dfes.gov.uk/schoolsecurity/dwtannexf.shtml
Regarding integration, it is very difficult to do so when many of the immigrants choose to set up home in already well established Asian, Afro Carribean etc communities and then exist as if they were still in their country of origin. I appreciate there are some bigots around who will not give any person of a different colour the time of day, but you must admit the actions of certain members of minority ethnic groups cause bad feelings which do not lend themselves to harmonious integration, Abul Hamza being a rather extreme but classic example. Do you think that all immigrants should learn to speak English??
As regards your personal details, I couldn't give a hoot. An age group, your sex, country of birth would be good enough. Up to you , if you are too ashamed or secretive that is your choice.
Re the schoolgirl and the jilbab, I repeat the dress code was already in place so where is the discrimination. It is blatantly a challenge to set a precedent and then where will it stop.
Do you consider me a racist because I do not hold the same totally liberal views as yourself regarding race, integration and treatment of immigrants.
George W. Bush says jump....Tony Blair says how high and which way???
captain chaos
21-Dec-04, 20:24
jjc You need to get out more often :)
Jeez you certainly know how to spoil a subject
George W. Bush says jump....Tony Blair says how high and which way???
Ah, perhaps you ought to go and read a few posts of jjc's after all.
Or did you actually intend to agree with jjc on something? :D
He sure needs to get a life. He must spend hours putting all this rubbish together, and still doesn't read what others post.
jjc - I've said what I wanted to say on the subject, and have no need to justify myself to any attention seeking saddo who doesn't happen to agree with my thoughts. You are making it up as you go along. "What part of 'British culture' are you losing because of multiculturalism? Surely, as you so adamantly believe that it is being eroded" - Where did you dig that out from? They're certainly not my words. You're that high up on your soapbox you have lost the whole point. Which is and still is in my first post, and it is very simple and straightforward. There are enough examples in this thread to be going on with, or do I have to have them in my own words?
I'm bored with your pompous outbursts now. Must go and annoy some other numpty now. :D
brokencross
21-Dec-04, 21:00
Drutt
OOOPPS, I certainly didn't intend agreeing with jjc......just goes to show we all make mistakes, eh!
I wish I was perfection personnified like some of the posters on this site, instead I am just a self opinionated thicko.
Apollo69
Don't get riled by jjc... you stick by your guns, your opinions are as valued as everyone elses. Just because they are not agreed with does not make them wrong or less valid.
Thank you brokencross - I intend to. There's few (just a few mind) posters on here that will not accept that some people can think for themselves and are prepared to stand up for what they think is right. If you stray from the official line, you are branded as racist, homophobic,sexist, bigoted etc. You can't have a debate with them though because they are not listening, they are already telling you you are wrong.
RandomHero
21-Dec-04, 21:15
nice one apollo. i couldn't agree more. he's always like that
squidge wrote
I think if a school adopts a uniform then it should be flexible to allow peple to adapt it to their faith. headscarves, trousers whatever should all be accomodated. This isnt being PC its being flexible and tolerant.
If a uniform becomes flexible to suit peoples religion then by definition it ceases to be a uniform?
jjc wrote
What part of 'British culture' are you losing because of multiculturalism?
Doesn't British culture include the Rule of Law where the Law applies equally to all its citizens?
How come Sikhs are exempt to the law relating to crash helmuts?
Anyway, a little history lesson.
200 years ago, the British usurped the Indian ruling classes with the sole intention of creating money and 'Little Brown Englishmen'.
British culture has the greatest ability to get the the best out of other cultures and make them our own.
We are actually a country of tolerance, so much so that people of the Dominions have the right to live here and they do so in droves.
Ironically, the 'Little Brown Englishmen' that they actually will create will be their own descendants, but I doubt if that was their intention!!
The Dfes section on ceremonial knives is : http://www.dfes.gov.uk/schoolsecurity/dwtannexf.shtml
Thanks. I see it’s up to the LEA to decide what style of Kirpan children will be allowed to carry. Can you direct me to any LEA(s) that allow the full traditional dagger?
Interestingly, the same clause in the Offensive Weapons Act 1996 that allows Sikhs to wear Kirpans on school grounds also allows for children to carry blades as part of a national dress… the Sgian Dubh comes to mind.
Regarding integration, it is very difficult to do so when many of the immigrants choose to set up home in already well established Asian, Afro Carribean etc communities and then exist as if they were still in their country of origin.
This could arguably be said to be the result of socio-economic factors. The percentage of working-age adults earning below 50% of the national mean income are as follows:
White = 14%
Black Caribbean = 18%
Black Non-Caribbean = 28%
Indian = 24%
Pakistani / Bangladeshi = 58%
Other = 15%
It seems to me as though those on the lowest incomes are likely to group together in the cheapest housing.
you must admit the actions of certain members of minority ethnic groups cause bad feelings which do not lend themselves to harmonious integration, Abul Hamza being a rather extreme but classic example.
No. I admit no such thing. These people are individuals. Just as I do not hold myself responsible for people like Nick Griffin simply because we share racial characteristics, I do not hold all Muslims responsible for Abu Hamza.
Do you think that all immigrants should learn to speak English??
I do, yes. It is the language of the country they have migrated to. Do I think they should be marched to evening classes and forced to learn English? No.
As regards your personal details, I couldn't give a hoot. An age group, your sex, country of birth would be good enough. Up to you , if you are too ashamed or secretive that is your choice.
All of this information has been given in previous threads when it has been relevant to the topic being discussed. I am neither ashamed nor secretive, I just didn’t realise I need to post a resume at the beginning of every thread I take part in and don’t feel that it has the slightest bearing on this subject. Stick around, I’m sure it’ll come up again.
Re the schoolgirl and the jilbab, I repeat the dress code was already in place so where is the discrimination. It is blatantly a challenge to set a precedent and then where will it stop.
So, do you think she should be denied the right to question rules that she feels are discriminatory?
Do you consider me a racist because I do not hold the same totally liberal views as yourself regarding race, integration and treatment of immigrants.
No. You have said nothing here that would lead me to believe you are ‘racist’. I just disagree with some of the things you have said.
George W. Bush says jump....Tony Blair says how high and which way???
Ooops :lol:
Try here (http://www.caithness.org/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=3254&start=0) or here (http://www.caithness.org/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=2677&start=0).
Happy reading. :)
nice one apollo. i couldn't agree more. he's always like that
You’ve been a member for one month today (congratulations). I’m honoured that after our one other conversation you took the time to read back through all 472 of my posts to see what I’m ‘always like’.
Doesn't British culture include the Rule of Law where the Law applies equally to all its citizens?
How come Sikhs are exempt to the law relating to crash helmuts?
Because we have laws that prevent discrimination.
As you say, the law is applied equally, but that means there’s a quandary here: either we apply anti-discrimination laws equally or we apply crash helmet laws equally. I don’t know about you, but I’d say it is inherently more ‘British’ to make sure that people aren’t discriminated against than it is to make sure that they wear crash helmets… and that means that giving Sikhs the option of not wearing crash helmets is actually defending British culture and not eroding it.
IF you apply the discrimination thing first jjc, and the helmet thing second, isn't that then discrimination in reverse against the British guy who has to wear a helmet?
This is my whole point - we are become the ones discriminated against in our own country. Thank you for helping me clear that up my friend!
There is also the point of view that the Government (in principle at least) has a duty of care over its citizens.
I would shudder if it has happened but if a Sikh did actually receive serious head injuries because the law allowed him not to wear a crash helmet then the Government has surely failed in its duty of care? And it would be subject to litigation?
An analogy would be the Saudi government passing drink/drive laws but allowing Christians exemption because drinking wine was at the heart of holy communion!
Sad thing is the Sikh would probably sue the British government for letting him ride the bike without a helmet! Go on jjc, tell me that isn't exactly what is going on in this country
:eyes
captain chaos
22-Dec-04, 00:16
A sad ,but true fact apollo69.
We are now the minority in what was our own Country
IF you apply the discrimination thing first jjc, and the helmet thing second, isn't that then discrimination in reverse against the British guy who has to wear a helmet?
And you equate having to wear a crash helmet to religious discrimination? :roll:
IF you apply the discrimination thing first jjc, and the helmet thing second, isn't that then discrimination in reverse against the British guy who has to wear a helmet?
And you equate having to wear a crash helmet to religious discrimination? :roll:
Obviously the Sikh community does!!!!
You really aren't as clever as you'd like everybody to think are you?
If you say it's more important to let the turban wearer have his beliefs and wear no helmet on his bike,then he is getting preferential treatment to the non-turban wearer who gets no such special treatment. Therefore discrimination in reverse, but that doesn't matter does it, because white people, men or heterosexuals cannot be discriminated against in your little world.
Is that hard to understand? I suppose it must be. It's true what they say, there's none as blind as those that will not see.
My final dialogue with you on this matter, you don't listen to anybody anyway.
What is to stop a Christian biker wearing a turban and claiming he is a recent convert to Sikhism?
Will he be exempt from the helmet law?
If not then the law is discriminatory because how can it prove he is not a Sikh?
A christian does not need to go to Church to be a Christian, surely a Sikh does not need to wear the 5 Ks to be a Sikh?
If a Sikh HAS to where the 5Ks all the time then surely Sikhism is an intolerant religion and has no place in a country that prides itself in religious tolerance?
A bit of case law needed there i think?
There is also the point of view that the Government (in principle at least) has a duty of care over its citizens.
Indeed it does. But then lets look at this duty of care for a moment.
Smoking, horse riding, drinking alcohol, contact sports. These things are dangerous. I presume that none of you smoke or drink alcohol? Anybody play rugby?
Yes. The government has a duty of care to the people. But that doesn't mean that everything that carries an inherent risk should automatically be banned regardless of the ramifications. If the only way to protect a person from possible harm is to surpress their religious beliefs then I would have to say that the government should not interfere.
IF you apply the discrimination thing first jjc, and the helmet thing second, isn't that then discrimination in reverse against the British guy who has to wear a helmet?
And you equate having to wear a crash helmet to religious discrimination? :roll:
Obviously the Sikh community does!!!!
No, the Sikh community doesn't. The Sikh community believes it is religious discrimination to be forced to remove an integral symbol of their religion.
A sad ,but true fact apollo69.
We are now the minority in what was our own Country
We being... ??
There is also the point of view that the Government (in principle at least) has a duty of care over its citizens.
Indeed it does. But then lets look at this duty of care for a moment.
Smoking, horse riding, drinking alcohol, contact sports. These things are dangerous. I presume that none of you smoke or drink alcohol? Anybody play rugby?
Yes. The government has a duty of care to the people. But that doesn't mean that everything that carries an inherent risk should automatically be banned regardless of the ramifications. If the only way to protect a person from possible harm is to surpress their religious beliefs then I would have to say that the government should not interfere.
IF you apply the discrimination thing first jjc, and the helmet thing second, isn't that then discrimination in reverse against the British guy who has to wear a helmet?
And you equate having to wear a crash helmet to religious discrimination? :roll:
Obviously the Sikh community does!!!!
No, the Sikh community doesn't. The Sikh community believes it is religious discrimination to be forced to remove an integral symbol of their religion.
If a Sikh has an issue with British Law and with Sikh religious Law then the 2 issues are inextricable? So when the helmet law came into force, Sikh bikers should have hung up their leathers?
A christian does not need to go to Church to be a Christian, surely a Sikh does not need to wear the 5 Ks to be a Sikh?
If a Sikh HAS to wear the 5Ks all the time then surely Sikhism is an intolerant religion and has no place in a country that prides itself in religious tolerance?
You really aren't as clever as you'd like everybody to think are you?
Almost certainly not, no.
If you say it's more important to let the turban wearer have his beliefs and wear no helmet on his bike,then he is getting preferential treatment to the non-turban wearer who gets no such special treatment. Therefore discrimination in reverse, but that doesn't matter does it, because white people, men or heterosexuals cannot be discriminated against in your little world.
Do you object to having to wear a helmet? Do you believe it is an imposition that should never have been allowed? Is there something about crash helmets that offends you? Perhaps you are offended by turbans?
To me it's simple. For those who do not need to remove their religious clothing, crash helmets are not offensive. Perhaps some find them inconvenient, but they are not offensive. To the Sikh, the enforced use of crash helmets is the enforced removal of their religious clothing and that is deeply offensive. Recognising this the government had three choices. 1 - ignore this discrimination. 2 - remove the requirement to wear crash helmets for Sikhs. 3 - remove the requirement to wear crash helmets all together.
As has been said, they have a duty of care so 3 wasn't really an option, but then they can't legislate blatant religious discrimination into our laws. So the only option left open was option 2, to remove the requirement for Sikhs to wear crash helmets.
Here's a thought... Sikhs are excempt from wearing crash helmets because their religion requires them to wear a turban. It took over three years for this to be recognised in the legislation making crash helmets mandatory. If Christianity required the wearing of a turban (or any other religious headgear) do you think wearing crash helmets would ever have become mandatory?
jjc wrote
Do you object to having to wear a helmet? Do you believe it is an imposition that should never have been allowed? Is there something about crash helmets that offends you?
As a motorcyclist, I think the helmet law infringes my human rights to ride a motercycle on how I see fit!
So to allow a Sikh to do what I feel I should be allowed to do is totally reprehensible!
A christian does not need to go to Church to be a Christian, surely a Sikh does not need to wear the 5 Ks to be a Sikh?
If you're going to equate churches and turbans... churches occupy land that is, by the nature of the building upon it, reserved for the use of Christians. Would it be okay to burn down all churches to make way for multi-faith civic centres - after all, Christians don't need their churches?
That aside, I thought it might be interesting if we got a better idea as to why Sikhs wear turbans (lest anybody mistakenly think that they are simply dandy fashion statements).
Why Sikhs Wear a Turban
The dastaar, as the Sikh turban is known, is an article of faith that has been made mandatory by the founders of Sikhism. It is not to be regarded as mere cultural paraphernalia.
When a Sikh man or woman dons a turban, the turban ceases to be just a piece of cloth and becomes one and the same with the Sikh's head. The turban as well as the other articles of faith worn by Sikhs have an immense spiritual as well as temporal significance. The symbolisms of wearing a turban are many from it being regarded as a symbol of sovereignty, dedication, self-respect, courage and piety but the reason all practicing Sikhs wear the turban is just one - out of love and obedience of the wishes of the founders of their faith.
The turban has been an integral part of the Sikh Tradition since the time of Guru Nanak Dev. Historical accounts relay to us that all Sikh Gurus wore turbans and their followers --Sikhs-- have been wearing them since the formation of the faith.
The turban serves as a mark of commitment to the Sikh Gurus. It distinguishes a Sikh as an instrument of the Guru and decrees accountability for certain spiritual and temporal duties. It is a mark of the Guru and declares that the Sikh wearing a turban is a servant of the Divine Presence.
Wearing the turban gives much inner strength as well. Sikhs take this gift of the Guru with them everywhere they go. Just by being exposed to this regal quality, their attitudes and psyche get shaped in a certain way. At the same time, there is a great deal of responsibility accompanied by the turban. A person's actions are no longer just tied to him or her. Since Sikhs who wear the turban represent the Guru, their actions too reflect on the Guru and the Sikh Nation. In this sense, the turban serves to increase a Sikh's commitment to Sikhism and lends to him or her becoming a more disciplined and virtuous person.
The turban certainly deepens the connection between the Sikh and the Guru. The turban proclaims the followers of Guru Nanak as Sikhs but at the same time, it is not what makes them Sikhs. Prophet Mohammed in one of his hadiths states that the turban is a frontier between faith and unbelief. This aptly describes the significance of the turban for a Sikh as well. It is a true mark of sovereignty and a crown.
Due to its distinguishable nature, the turban has often been a target during times of persecution. There have been times in the relatively short history of the Sikh nation that if one wore a turban, it was reason enough for his or head to be cut off by the tyrannical regimes of the time. The collective response of the Sikh Nation was "You may take off my head but not my turban." When many discarded their turbans, those that proudly adorned them in those times, even though it meant certain death, fully appreciated its significance. After all, it is in times of adversity that faith is tested and one must prove true to core values.
By adorning their turbans, Sikhs serve as ambassadors of the Sikh faith and commit externally to following the path laid down by the Sikh Gurus. True submission, of course, occurs internally.
The next time you see a Sikh, greet him or her and know that the turban you see is the same turban and stood up against oppression against those identified as lower castes in India, tyranny in WWI, the Nazi empire in WWII. As Sikhs tie their turbans each day, they should be heedful that it represents a very real commitment to the founders of the Sikh faith. The turban is deeply intertwined with the Sikh identity and is a manifestation of the mission given to all Sikhs - to act as a divine prince or princess by standing firm against tyranny and protecting the downtrodden.
So no, I don't think it's as easy as saying that a turban is not required.
If a Sikh HAS to wear the 5Ks all the time then surely Sikhism is an intolerant religion and has no place in a country that prides itself in religious tolerance?
What? That makes no sense. Sikhism having a recognisable symbol that all followers wear does not make it intolerant, it merely makes it identifiable.
As for this being a country that prides itself in religious tolerance... I read this thread and wonder.
As a motorcyclist, I think the helmet law infringes my human rights to ride a motercycle on how I see fit!
So to allow a Sikh to do what I feel I should be allowed to do is totally reprehensible!
Ah, I see. So we're no longer concerned with the government's duty of care?
I take it that you have raised this infringement of your human rights with your MP or started legal proceedings? I'd hate to think you were simply blaming Sikhs for this.
Religious tolerance indeed...
The turban certainly deepens the connection between the Sikh and the Guru. The turban proclaims the followers of Guru Nanak as Sikhs but at the same time, it is not what makes them Sikhs.
So, by my interpretation of the above, turban wearing is not an essential identifiable symbol of Sikhism. If Sikhs know they are Sikhs while riding motorcycles and they don't need a turban to identify them, why have they got immunity to crash helmet legislation?
Could it be they just can't be bothered to take off their turban?
jjc wrote
Ah, I see. So we're no longer concerned with the government's duty of care?
I take it that you have raised this infringement of your human rights with your MP or started legal proceedings? I'd hate to think you were simply blaming Sikhs for this.
No, the Government's duty of care does include crash helmet wearing but in my opinion the Government's policy should only involve outlining the risks of not wearing them, short of making them compulsory!
An analogy would be pointing out the dangers of smoking but not banning the consumption of tobacco.
The turban certainly deepens the connection between the Sikh and the Guru. The turban proclaims the followers of Guru Nanak as Sikhs but at the same time, it is not what makes them Sikhs.
So, by my interpretation of the above, turban wearing is not an essential identifiable symbol of Sikhism. If Sikhs know they are Sikhs while riding motorcycles and they don't need a turban to identify them, why have they got immunity to crash helmet legislation?
First, let me draw your attention to the first sentence of the article I quoted:
The dastaar, as the Sikh turban is known, is an article of faith that has been made mandatory by the founders of Sikhism. It is not to be regarded as mere cultural paraphernalia.
That a Sikh knows he or she is a Sikh regardless of their apparel is undeniable, but this doesn't mean that it is justifiable to force them to remove an article of their faith.
Could it be they just can't be bothered to take off their turban?
Could this be that religious tolerance you are so proud of?
No, the Government's duty of care does include crash helmet wearing but in my opinion the Government's policy should only involve outlining the risks of not wearing them, short of making them compulsory!
An analogy would be pointing out the dangers of smoking but not banning the consumption of tobacco.
What about seat belts? Is the government right to make them mandatory?
On your first point, it is obvious that Sikh religious law places very strict codes on its adherents. So much so that it is incompatable with a multicultural and secular society, and intolerant for British Law.
Your second point(if there was one), I am proud of this country's religious tolerance, in this country we are free to practice any religion we chose or not to. But where my tolerance falls down is where religious law takes precedence over civil malpractice.
Eg. Sikhs wearing turbans, male circumcision, female circumcision, barbaric rituals on animal slaughter, arranged marriages, honour killings, Sunday closing, Snake cruelty,denying women an education, denying women suffrage, denying euthenasia, denying people the right to eat perfectly healthy foods, fasting, wearing hair shirts, standing on tall pillars, restricting medical research,denying freedom of expression and speech etc etc etc.
If you think about it, the Sikhs that were peaceful outside the Birmingham theatre were exercising their right to free speech inorder to restrict another's right to freedom of expression. Surely that is the highest double standard of all?
In Saudi Arabia, the mere act of giving a Bible to a non-Christian carries a beheading
sentence, that is religious intolerance.(giving a Bible away is a non offensive act yeh?) Therefore I wouldn't dare to give away Bibles nor would I dare to challenge Sharia law because of what might happen to me.
It just seems to me, that people come to Britain for 'a better life' away from intolerance and prejudice and once they get here they start to erode the religious tolerance and disregard British Law that brought them here in the first place.
Your third point,
jjc wrote
Indeed it does. But then lets look at this duty of care for a moment.
Smoking, horse riding, drinking alcohol, contact sports. These things are dangerous. I presume that none of you smoke or drink alcohol? Anybody play rugby?
Yes. The government has a duty of care to the people. But that doesn't mean that everything that carries an inherent risk should automatically be banned regardless of the ramifications
What about seat belts? Is the government right to make them mandatory?
Your position here is unclear? You seem to advocate state intervention on the duty of care bit but you reject it on the next sentence?
I always clunked and I always clicked on every trip, I only needed Jimmy Saville to point out the dangers!
I have a few points i would like to make - not suggesting i am bored with the turban v crash helmet issue but i think there are other points worth discussing.
jjc
Regarding integration, it is very difficult to do so when many of the immigrants choose to set up home in already well established Asian, Afro Carribean etc communities and then exist as if they were still in their country of origin. I Do you think that all immigrants should learn to speak English??
Housing is an interesting issue as is language. Historically whenever immigrants arrived in the UK they were met with suspicion and fear. It was very difficult for them to find housing as many landlords felt that they would not be reliable or trustworthy. Therefore it was usually only one landlord or one area where thy could find housing which they could rent - this was often the poorest most deprived areas and they then settled there. Choice? I think not. This equally applied to polish ukranian irish pakistani indian afro carribbean immigrants and happened regardless of their background or educational ability. Children grow up in these areas - is it surprising they want to live near where their families are. In my class from primary school - a school in a predominantly white working class area most of my school mates still live within a 5 mile radius of where we all grew up. Married and with thir own houses thats where they choose to be. Why should we expect that immigrants into our country would feel differently? Choice again?
Language too is interesting… I can only speak about areas that I know but certainly where I come from employers often took whole shifts of Pakistani or Bangladeshi workers on together. There was no expectation that they would speak English or work different shifts – they did whatever shift was allocated to their racial group. Even in the late 80s there were very few English classes outside of works hours and when King cotton finally heaved its last gasps we had loads of unemployed doffers and doublers who were highly skilled at their jobs but spoke very little English because they had never needed to. Choice? Im not sure.
Integration is a funny word - do we mean a seamless disappearance into a grey mass of people who all look the same sound the same and have no real identity about them? Or would we prefer to see people who live here practicing their own religious festivals, wearing their own clothing, speaking their own language. Today we recognise that people need help to feel at home here, they need language classes, they need reasonable housing and not to be exploited in the same way as our british born population does. I think we should be celebrating the diversity we have in our country, we are richer for the presence of people with different cultures and we should be glad of that.
On your first point, it is obvious that Sikh religious law places very strict codes on its adherents. So much so that it is incompatable with a multicultural and secular society, and intolerant for British Law.
No, it isn't. The Sikh religion applies to Sikhs. It is not intolerant of Christians, Buddhists, Muslims or Jedi Knights.
I've certainly never encountered a Sikh in the High Street telling me I'm going to hell for not bowing down to his God.
Your second point(if there was one), I am proud of this country's religious tolerance, in this country we are free to practice any religion we chose or not to. But where my tolerance falls down is where religious law takes precedence over civil malpractice.
Eg. Sikhs wearing turbans, male circumcision, female circumcision, barbaric rituals on animal slaughter, arranged marriages, honour killings, Sunday closing, Snake cruelty,denying women an education, denying women suffrage, denying euthenasia, denying people the right to eat perfectly healthy foods, fasting, wearing hair shirts, standing on tall pillars, restricting medical research,etc etc etc.
Sikhs wearing turbans is under discussion.
Male circumcision is not illegal in this country and can be carried out for religious reasons or for aesthetic reasons at the discretion of the doctor. Your attempt to use it as a stick to beat religions is bogus.
Female circumcision is illegal in this country regardless of religion. No concession is made to give religious law precedence.
The Halal and Kosher slaughter techniques do indeed seem barbaric. The Farm Animal Welfare Council says that the exemption of these methods from cruelty legislation should be lifted. I agree.
Snake cruelty? I'm sorry, you're going to have to explain that one.
Show me the clause in British legislation that allows for women to be denied an education due to religion.
Show me the clause in British legislation that allows for women to be denied suffrage due to religion.
The legislation preventing euthanasia is the same for all Britons. There is no difference for some religious groups. It is not discriminatory.
Show me the clause in British legislation that allows for the denial of foods to certain religions.
Show me the clause in British legislation that either prevents or enforces fasting.
Show me the clause in British legislation that either prevents or enforces the wearing of hair shirts.
Show me the clause in British legislation that either prevents or enforces standing on tall pillars.
Show me the clause in British legislation that says we can perform whatever medical research we want regardless of the moral implications.
Did you see a pattern there? It seems as though the majority of your gripes are just that; gripes. You say that these are examples of religious laws taking precedence over civil malpractice, but most of them are not permitted in this country and, therefore, take precedence over nothing.
It just seems to me, that people come to Britain for 'a better life' away from intolerance and prejudice and once they get here they start to erode the religious tolerance and disregard British Law that brought them here in the first place.
Now either you're suggesting that the majority of immigrants to this country are criminals or you are generalising based on the actions of a few. Which is it?
Your position here is unclear? You seem to advocate state intervention on the duty of care bit but you reject it on the next sentence?
I always clunked and I always clicked on every trip, I only needed Jimmy Saville to point out the dangers!
Don't worry, I'm working up to an explanation. But first, another question.
Do you recognise the danger of not wearing a crash helmet?
squidge wrote
I think we should be celebrating the diversity we have in our country, we are richer for the presence of people with different cultures and we should be glad of that.
Well said, but the danger here is making the majority of British citizens disenfranchised in their own country by giving immigrants preferential treatment?
jjc wrote
No, it isn't. The Sikh religion applies to Sikhs. It is not intolerant of Christians, Buddhists, Muslims or Jedi Knights.
Yes, Sikhism is intolerant to British law otherwise they would have complied with the original legislation regarding crash helmets!
They could have gone about it a different way, eg done the same for their dagger in schools IOW make it small enough to be practical to fit within a helmet or had one that was stitched into the lining of a helmet, so when they take off the helmet they can put on a traditional turban.Or there could have been a helmet design that could be wrapped up into the turban or helmets designed to look like turbans.
jjc wrote
Male circumcision is not illegal in this country and can be carried out for religious reasons or for aesthetic reasons at the discretion of the doctor. Your attempt to use it as a stick to beat religions is bogus.
Female circumcision is illegal in this country regardless of religion. No concession is made to give religious law precedence
Both sound barbaric to me and painful, why the sexual disparity here?, I am sure certain religious groups would like concessions to perform female circumcision
jjc wrote
Snake cruelty? I'm sorry, you're going to have to explain that one.
Show me the clause in British legislation that allows for women to be denied an education due to religion.
Show me the clause in British legislation that allows for women to be denied suffrage due to religion.
The legislation preventing euthanasia is the same for all Britons. There is no difference for some religious groups. It is not discriminatory.
Show me the clause in British legislation that allows for the denial of foods to certain religions.
Show me the clause in British legislation that either prevents or enforces fasting.
Show me the clause in British legislation that either prevents or enforces the wearing of hair shirts.
Show me the clause in British legislation that either prevents or enforces standing on tall pillars.
Show me the clause in British legislation that says we can perform whatever medical research we want regardless of the moral implications
An american cult exercises cruelty to snakes as part of their religious belefs.
Thats the thing! If Britain was a theocracy then there would be legislation and all those religious infringements and practices may well be forced upon us.
Roman Catholics deny women a career in the priesthood, overseas Anglicans do the same.
yet another piece of religious law infringing women's rights.
jjc wrote
Now either you're suggesting that the majority of immigrants to this country are criminals or you are generalising based on the actions of a few. Which is it?
I am merely suggesting that honour killings, circumcision, arranged marriages, failing to wear a crash helmet, refusing someone food to those in your care, standing on a tall pillar thus causing a breach of the peace, cruel acts towards animals, insisting people go through a slow lingering death, denying people the right to education and democracy should be criminal acts regardless of which country you live in.
And anyone who advocates the above should be treated as a criminal.
And finally, yes I do recognise the dangers of not wearing a crash helmet as well as the other activities that you mention.
But let us not muddy the waters here, I disagree with the helmet legislation but I recognise that the law relating to them has to be obeyed.
Hmmmmmmmm
Well said, but the danger here is making the majority of British citizens disenfranchised in their own country by giving immigrants preferential treatment?
Where is there preferential treatment as opposed to equal treatment?
Are we back to the crash helmet thing again :eyes
In housing? A single asian man has as much chance of being housed as a single white man - none!!! However we are offering homes to asylum seekers and refugees – would you suggest we let them sleep on the streets?
In benefits? A single asain man has exactly the same entitlements as a single white man
In employment? Hmmmmmmmmmm positive discrimination? As i understand it employers can encourage applications from underrepresented minority groups but this would include people with disabilities and women and men too. Only if there is a genuine occupational qualification can people who speak a particular language or look a particular way be specifically asked for
In health? Inequalities in health do exist but as health is poorer for people living in socially deprived areas and we have already talked about socially deprived housing being the areas where immigrants tend to live then its likely they might have poorer health than their white counterparts.
In religion? Mosques temples synagogues churches – people should have somewhere to practice their religion, preferential? I don’t see it particularly
In education? Areas with bigger ethnic populations tend to be – I know im saying it once again – areas of social deprivation and the schools tend to be lower down the league tables - is it wrong to spend money to try to redress this?
In law? The law is the law is the law, there may be some exceptions and here we are heres the crash helmet thing again. But there are exceptions to the seat belt law too, There are no exceptions to the law on murder or drink driving or theft or I am sure many other laws.
In dress? Anyone can wear what we want unless we choose to wear nothing and then walk the length of the country cos i think we would get arrested
So far all we have is the crash helmet thing..............................
What culture allows rioting as an acceptable form of protest????
(With or without crash helmet)
Answers in less that 10,000 words please
What culture allows rioting as an acceptable form of protest????
(With or without crash helmet)
Answers in less that 10,000 words please
None. Show me where anybody here has excused the violence outside (and inside) the theatre?
What culture allows rioting as an acceptable form of protest????
(With or without crash helmet)
Answers in less that 10,000 words please
Rioting isnt acceptable but demonstration is
squidge wrote
In dress? Anyone can wear what we want unless we choose to wear nothing and then walk the length of the country cos i think we would get arrested
Ah, the naked rambler!! It is not illegal to be naked in public, only if it is sexually offensive.
squidge wrote
In law? The law is the law is the law, there may be some exceptions and here we are heres the crash helmet thing again. But there are exceptions to the seat belt law too, There are no exceptions to the law on murder or drink driving or theft or I am sure many other laws.
Yes there are exceptions to murder eg self defence but I would hate to see a defence to murder on honour to the family grounds.
Yes there are exceptions to theft, for instance it would be totally legal if i stole your TV but i honestly thought you would have allowed it. Also it would be totally legal to find something of yours but i honestly thought that finding the true owner would be difficult.
squidge wrote
In religion? Mosques temples synagogues churches – people should have somewhere to practice their religion, preferential? I don’t see it particularly
Yes they should but I don't think the tax payer should pay for them.
squidge wrote
In employment? Hmmmmmmmmmm positive discrimination? As i understand it employers can encourage applications from underrepresented minority groups but this would include people with disabilities and women and men too.
I am sure new Labour felt a pressure to get more women, ethnic minority groups and disabled into the House of Commons. Are you sure some more qualified fully fit male white candidates weren't passed over to fulfil Tony's quota of minority groups?
This put select committees in a position of racial descriminating against people who would have otherwise got the job.
I always thought you should vote for someone on the content of their heart rather than the colour of their skin? Would a Sikh replacement to John Thurso get elected? I doubt it, but if he showed that he was true in his intention to represent the people of Caithness fairly and passionately then he would get my vote!
jjc - I'm not suggesting that anyone did state that rioting is acceptable
squidge - I agree demonstration is acceptable, however it must be done in a legal manner "storming" the theatre cannot be legal.
The exceptions are not based on colour creed ethnicity or religion though Rheghead.
The selection processes for parliament are a mystery to me however i have been involved in Civil service recruitment and i know that the process is as fair as it can possibly be. The only concession is made to people with disabilities and allows them to be guaranteed an interview providing they meet the minimum criteria. The introduction of competence based recruitment rather than qualification based recruitment and the use of blind sifts all help to work towards a fair and open recruitment system which disregards race and sex and focuses on the ability of individuals. The whole process from begining to end is audited and checked.
It is of course worth pointing out that where human beings are involved there is always room for discriminatory behaviour on the part of the interviewer but this is not likely to offer preferential treatment to a minority applicant and is actually more likely to be the opposite.
Why would you assume that in areas where a minority candidate or a female candidate was chosen there was a a white better qualified male candidate? I am sure that there is an interview process and people with better qualifications do not always perform better at an interview or may have some area of experience missing which is needed to ensure the best person for the job. I have found over the considerable number of interviews i have carried out that higher qualifications do not necessarily mean the best person.
Would a Sikh replacement to John Thurso get elected? I doubt it, but if he showed that he was true in his intention to represent the people of Caithness fairly and passionately then he would get my vote!
Exactly - if he was able to show he understood the problems faced by people living in Caithness, the rural dimension, the employment problems, the economy and was forward thinking and innovative in his approach he could very well be the best person for the job - even if he was up against a Wicker with a MBA! So why would it be suggested that in the other areas where women, someone with a disablity or someone from a different cultural background was successful they would not have been shown to be the best person for the post rather than just selected to fill a gap?
Yes, Sikhism is intolerant to British law otherwise they would have complied with the original legislation regarding crash helmets!
Somebody once told me a story about a bluebottle and an elephant. I can't quite place my finger on why, but I keep being reminded of it… :roll:
But I have to say that I feel privileged to be in the presence of one so honourable as you. I didn't think I'd ever see the day when I met somebody who didn't 'borrow' office stationary (theft), use the office telephone for personal calls (fraud) or speed whilst driving. Good for you!
They could have gone about it a different way, eg done the same for their dagger in schools IOW make it small enough to be practical to fit within a helmet or had one that was stitched into the lining of a helmet, so when they take off the helmet they can put on a traditional turban.Or there could have been a helmet design that could be wrapped up into the turban or helmets designed to look like turbans.
Oh, that's good. I've not chuckled so much since I found out I am working all four bank holidays over the next few weeks.
Both sound barbaric to me and painful, why the sexual disparity here?, I am sure certain religious groups would like concessions to perform female circumcision
Your point, when referring to these practices, was that we have allowed religious laws to take precedence over civil malpractice. Whether religious groups would like to practice FGM is beside the point. They aren't allowed to practice it and, therefore, we have not allowed religious law precedence.
Was this, perhaps, another 'myth' of cultural degradation?
An american cult exercises cruelty to snakes as part of their religious belefs.
Do they have a presence in the UK? If so, have you reported them for their actions?
Thats the thing! If Britain was a theocracy then there would be legislation and all those religious infringements and practices may well be forced upon us.
That's what thing? It seems to me that you might have a misguided belief that a minority group is about to overthrow the government and set up a religious state.
Roman Catholics deny women a career in the priesthood, overseas Anglicans do the same.
yet another piece of religious law infringing women's rights.
Actually, no; it isn't 'religious law'. The law you are referring to is the Sex Discrimination Act. There is a clause in the act that allows for the 'Genuine Occupational Requirement'. Basically, this means that if an employer can demonstrate that there is a genuine requirement for a role to be filled by one gender only then it is exempt from the Act. The Catholic Church use this clause (by claiming that as the religion does not allow for women priests a women employed as a priest could not properly represent the religion – a catch-22 situation) but the clause itself is not religious.
I am merely suggesting that honour killings, circumcision, arranged marriages, failing to wear a crash helmet, refusing someone food to those in your care, standing on a tall pillar thus causing a breach of the peace, cruel acts towards animals, insisting people go through a slow lingering death, denying people the right to education and democracy should be criminal acts regardless of which country you live in.
And anyone who advocates the above should be treated as a criminal.
Quite right… but then Sikhs democratically campaigned for exemption from crash helmet legislation. As you would deny them that, should we be treating you as a criminal?
And finally, yes I do recognise the dangers of not wearing a crash helmet as well as the other activities that you mention.
But let us not muddy the waters here, I disagree with the helmet legislation but I recognise that the law relating to them has to be obeyed.
Yes, but you also called Sikh exemption from crash helmet laws reprehensible. I assume you also find it reprehensible that pregnant women and taxi drivers are exempt from seat belt legislation?
squidge wrote
The exceptions are not based on colour creed ethnicity or religion though Rheghead.
Quite right, so can you tell me on what grounds the Sikh exemptions to crash helmet law are made on? :eyes
jjc wrote
Yes, but you also called Sikh exemption from crash helmet laws reprehensible. I assume you also find it reprehensible that pregnant women and taxi drivers are exempt from seat belt legislation?
Those exemptions are made on health and safety issues not religion.
Those exemptions are made on health and safety issues not religion.
Oh, I see. So it's okay to have exceptions to legislation so long as you agree with them? I understand…
Those exemptions are made on health and safety issues not religion.
Oh, I see. So it's okay to have exceptions to legislation so long as you agree with them? I understand…
my point being, the law should not make exemptions on religious grounds whether i agree with them or not.
Lets say there was a law that exempted a person from prosecution on religious grounds from stoning his wife to death because she was raped by another man. What sort of message will that send out?
I accept the bluebottle and the elephant accusation here but I am referring to the principle of exemptions on religious grounds only.
In fact to find an example of religious and racial intolerance nearer to home (and that is in force )is not difficult.
On the Isle of Lewis, the only place I could find to eat in Stornaway on a Sunday was in the Indian restaurant. No gripes there because I doubt that they are Christian so how tolerant of the people over there?
So seeing as I come from Christian parentage and am a white male. Do you think I could open a shop on a Sunday in Stornaway without fear of ostracisation or a religious backlash?
I neither share the majority views on religion also, so I should be treated the same as the guys in the Indian restaurant shouldn't I?
Lets say there was a law that exempted a person from prosecution on religious grounds from stoning his wife to death because she was raped by another man. What sort of message will that send out?
But there isnt a law like that and there is never likely to be here in the UK. that would be unacceptable and no one is suggesting that we allow religion to override laws in a wholesale and completely arbitrary manner. I agree that if there was a law like that then it would be abhorrent to most people. Thats not something which comes from Tolerence but from inotolerence.
Forgive me Rheghead but neither jjc nor i have advocated that we turn over laws wholesale but where there is a good ground for exemption and people can be accommodated with little or no impact on others then why would we not do so? It may be more dangerous for a sikh to wear a turban than a crash helmet but it is of the utmost importance that he does so. It makes not one iota of difference to most people whether they do or they dont. There fore that law CAN be changed to allow for religious beliefs without offence being caiused to others an whilst protecting the safety of the majority of the people affected by it.
Why would school children be not allowed to carry their ceremonial dagger if it is safe to do so, my son was allowed to take a sword into his school for a project he was doing. why would we not allow girls to wear headdresses as part of the uniform if is safe to do so - we allow woolly hats when its cold? It strikes me that this is simply the "because i say so" school of thought or even the "thats the way its always been". Society changes and grows and develops. In all these posts i have seen nothing to justify the remarks that were made earlier which suggested that British Culture is under threat or that it immigrants are being given preferential treatment and the rest of the population is a browbeaten minority.
squidge - if you can't see what is happening in this country you are obviously suffering from the same kind of blindness as the pompous one.
We protect immigrants at the expense of our own people, that is a FACT. Everybody who is not desperate to be politically correct and 'modern' thinking, are too scared to go against the grain for fear of ending up in court. Why should any law or rule be changed to suit anybody, whatever the reason?
Why do immigrants cross many countries to get to Britain? Becasue we are a soft touch. We will house them, feed them, hand out benefits to them, and then give them tax-payers money to take us to court for stopping them from being the way they were in the country they walked thousands of miles to get away from.
If a white man fights with a coloured man it is a racist attack. If it's the other way about it is not considered racist. If I call somebody black I am racist, but they can call themselves black or me white and nobody takes offence.
If I was to move to a foreign country, where a totally different culture existed, there's no way they would let me flout laws and bend rules for any reason. By all means practice your beliefs, but within the rules, and don't try to force others to join in.
If you don't like the rules/laws of a country you should have two choices, put up with it/adapt, or go somewhere else.
And I wasn't talking to you jjc, oh god of political correctness, and google inspired essays, so you can save yourself getting the Thesaurus out again.
squidge wrote
In all these posts i have seen nothing to justify the remarks that were made earlier which suggested that British Culture is under threat or that it immigrants are being given preferential treatment and the rest of the population is a browbeaten minority
So allowing the Indian restaurant to open on Sunday is not preferential treatment whilst I would not be allowed to open a Fish & Chip shop?
Hmm sounds as if the god fearing crowd of Stornaway are descriminating against the majority ethnic group to me?
BTW squidge you have not answered my question, On what grounds are the Sikhs are exempted from prosecution in relation to failing to wear crash helmets?
Any exemptions from the law on religious grounds are by nature discriminatory and you can argue yourselves blue in the face to the contrary but you will be wrong!!
So allowing the Indian restaurant to open on Sunday is not preferential treatment whilst I would not be allowed to open a Fish & Chip shop?
Hmm sounds as if the god fearing crowd of Stornaway are descriminating against the majority ethnic group to me?
Who says you wouldn’t be allowed to open a Fish & Chip shop on a Sunday? Have you tried?
Your explanation seems to be that the people of Stornaway have picketed and ostracised anybody who tried to open a restaurant or takeaway on a Sunday except for the Indian proprietor.
I would suggest that a far more likely explanation is that the only person who wants to open for business on a Sunday is the Indian.
And I wasn't talking to you jjc, oh god of political correctness, and google inspired essays, so you can save yourself getting the Thesaurus out again.
Well it’s a good thing one of the freedoms our culture allows is that of speech… not that you’d ever try to suggest I not exercise that right, eh?
Why should any law or rule be changed to suit anybody, whatever the reason?
If you don't like the rules/laws of a country you should have two choices, put up with it/adapt, or go somewhere else.
You’re absolutely right. Let’s go back to the good old days when laws were laws and society was good. How about 1883 when a wife was legally listed as the property of her husband? How about a few centuries back when we burned people at the stake for heresy? Why did we ever repeal such sensible legislation?
We could stick a little closer to the now if you like? How about 1997? I mean really… what did you Scots think you were playing at trying to get a Parliament of your own? I’m sure you’ll agree that you should just have adapted or emigrated?
If a white man fights with a coloured man it is a racist attack. If it's the other way about it is not considered racist.
Absolute rubbish.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4101337.stm
If I call somebody black I am racist, but they can call themselves black or me white and nobody takes offence.
Oh please... you're just showing yourself up now. :roll:
I rest my case - what a plonker. He just twists everything to look like he's right and others are wrong. The kind of person that, when they are losing an argument, speaks louder so nobody can hear the other side of it. Complete and utter ignorance hidden behind all sorts of junk. There's criticism of every word anybody utters but when you look at it there's absolutely no arguement, just put downs. What that 19th cantury nonsense was all about only he will know, but it sounds good, and if you type enough crap people won't notice. Scottish Parliament? Where is the point/argument in that point?
jjc you are the weakest link - goodbye.
What that 19th cantury nonsense was all about only he will know, but it sounds good, and if you type enough crap people won't notice. Scottish Parliament? Where is the point/argument in that point?
I’m sorry, was I going too fast for you again? Let me try to explain.
You said that laws should not be changed (whatever the reason) and that anybody who disagreed with laws should either put up with them or emigrate. If that were truly the way that the legislative process worked then wives would still be the property of their husbands, as the law would never have been changed.
There's criticism of every word anybody utters but when you look at it there's absolutely no arguement, just put downs
Tell me about it. Here are a few examples:
What an attention seeking clown.
you are a pompous clown
I'm bored with your pompous outbursts now.
you are obviously suffering from the same kind of blindness as the pompous one.
what a plonker
you are the weakest link – goodbye
It must be blissful being you… :roll:
I can't be bothered agruing with you - you are always right, however I am going to answer this bit. At no time did I EVER say that anybody who disagreed with the laws should emigrate. What I said was if you go to live in a different country, you either should accept THEIR laws, or don't go there. Now you can act all superior and clever, but you come across as somebody who hears but does not listen.
Feel free to twist things around to achieve what you want.
I really really want to get involved in this thread but i cant, i will get barred from this site if i post my views, lets just say that i totally agree with Rheghead & apollo69.
But i will say this
Why are millions of people in this world so obsessed with religion??, the last time i looked into it i found out there is not one single piece of physical evidence to confirm the existence of the christian God, Jesus or any other religious deity, the bible, koran etc......they should all be in the 'Fiction' section of your local library.
I do not believe in any form of religion, it's all a load of codswallop as far as i'm concerned, and i get along fine without having to believe in any religious deity.
you are always right
Thanks.
I do not believe in any form of religion, it's all a load of codswallop as far as i'm concerned, and i get along fine without having to believe in any religious deity.
Me too, but then that’s a choice I’ve made for myself and I don’t see what gives me the right to force it upon anybody else.
:D Don't mention it - it's Xmas and all that!
apollo69 - I commend you for your honesty in expressing your opinion rather than hiding behind screeds and screeds of tripe that no one other than the authors can be bothered reading.
How sweet. I haven’t seen such blatant mutual adoration since Blair’s last visit to the White House.
RandomHero
22-Dec-04, 21:42
get them out the country. i no u shudnt generalise a religion/group of people but it's the only way sumtimes. they come into our country and push us about. they want us to take down our xmas decorations because their religion doesn't agree with it. but they are in our country! they take theatre away from us coz 'they don't agree with it'! equality! equality?! when someone rides a motorcycle they have to wear a helmet except if it's a muslim because it may mess up their turban. if you ask me the race that's discriminated against the most it's whites. we r pushed around by muslims coz if we say anything we'll be accused of rasicm. muslims are taking over our countrey. they shouldn't b allowed to go any further. if they don't like our decoration they can get lost out of our country.
jjc - back to personal insults again???
get them out the country. i no u shudnt generalise a religion/group of people but it's the only way sumtimes. they come into our country and push us about. they want us to take down our xmas decorations because their religion doesn't agree with it. but they are in our country! they take theatre away from us coz 'they don't agree with it'! equality! equality?! when someone rides a motorcycle they have to wear a helmet except if it's a muslim because it may mess up their turban. if you ask me the race that's discriminated against the most it's whites. we r pushed around by muslims coz if we say anything we'll be accused of rasicm. muslims are taking over our countrey. they shouldn't b allowed to go any further. if they don't like our decoration they can get lost out of our country.
You do understand that Sikhism and Islam are different religions... don't you?
back to personal insults again???
... hiding behind screeds and screeds of tripe ...
It would appear so, yes.
The apparent increase in racial intolerance is, to me anyway, a worrying and very serious issue. If you want to discuss it as such please let me know, otherwise I think I'm done.
hey hey there random, its not just the muslims that find yer xmas deccys offensive, I'm a scottish born white male, with scottish born white parents (and so on and so on through all the generations) and I'm not a christian and I dont agree with the whole town being decorated with faulty attempts to christmassy up the place. Fine, do your own house/shop/garden if you like but why does there have to be a half broken "angel" (or is it supposed to be santa) glaring into my living room window every night for a month and a half???????? Did I ask for it to be there? After all, you can bet your bottom dollar that I wont be getting a rebate on my council tax or whatever other bill is paying the leccy for em, neither will the muslims or anyone else for that matter. So dont forget that there are some of us in this country that belong here by your definition and dont like what you stand for or the customs you keep and especially the attitudes you think we all should have!
I really really want to get involved in this thread but i cant, i will get barred from this site if i post my views, lets just say that i totally agree with Rheghead & apollo69.
But i will say this
Why are millions of people in this world so obsessed with religion??, the last time i looked into it i found out there is not one single piece of physical evidence to confirm the existence of the christian God, Jesus or any other religious deity, the bible, koran etc......they should all be in the 'Fiction' section of your local library.
I do not believe in any form of religion, it's all a load of codswallop as far as i'm concerned, and i get along fine without having to believe in any religious deity.
Thank you Gizmo you already have contributed to this thread, you sound like a person after my own heart! I may however not have the same views as Apollo69 or Random_hero but I can understand their point of view though i may not share it. jjc just seems to pick out points and make unrelated statements (non-siquitters or something they are called)
However if people want to believe in all that religious stuff then its up to them I will not criticise them for one second until their actions come into conflict with the land they live in!
jjc wrote
Who says you wouldn’t be allowed to open a Fish & Chip shop on a Sunday? Have you tried?
Your explanation seems to be that the people of Stornaway have picketed and ostracised anybody who tried to open a restaurant or takeaway on a Sunday except for the Indian proprietor.
I would suggest that a far more likely explanation is that the only person who wants to open for business on a Sunday is the Indian
You poor naive child of the pc world!
No I have not tried because I have been reliably informed that any effort to do so would be rewarded with ostracisation and a religous backlash!
And it has happened on Lewis, people have been ostracised for working on a Sunday!
Get real!
I reiterate my 2 main issues here.
Exemptions to the law on religous/race grounds are by nature discriminatory
People who use their freedom of speech to suppress others of theirs is reprehensible to democracy.
Tip Top I am trying not to hide behind screeds of stuff – I am trying to put my point across in as concise yet comprehensive way as possible. I don’t do hoards of research, I know what I know and that is it. Please tip top if you don’t want to read my opinions then don’t read them.
Rheghead – fish and chip shops and Indian restaurants in Stornoway are hardly the hot bed of social breakdown that constitutes the end of our country as we know it. Its interesting that you say if you tried you would be faced with ostracism and religious backlash? Is that a law thing? Is there a “law” which says you cant open a chip shop or are we really talking about the pressure local religion has. That is changing after all; they have Sunday flights now to Stornoway I believe, See - change reflects the society we live in. I am not a lawyer at all but I don’t believe that exemptions to the law are necessarily divisive and discriminatory; often they can be inclusive and enabling. Sikhs would not be able to ride a motorcycle if that particular law was not changed, people in wheelchairs would not be able to access many premises if the DDA was not brought it,
Apollo I am not blind at all in fact I think I can open MY eyes and see people for what they are rather than where they come from and also see the benefits they bring to our country. Immigrants arrive here because we are exactly that multi cultural – the reasons why they leave their homes are many and include threats to their life, persecution and economic migration too. Free hand outs is just not true, anyone with knowledge of the benefit system would know that. And besides after you have maybe waited in a detention centre, been housed in a grotty high rise flat where no one else wanted to live don’t you still have to get vouchers for your food cos you aren’t actually allowed to work?
The vast majority of people who arrive here want to work, they want to look after their families and they want to live a law-abiding life. Apollo – laws do change if they didn’t we would be still hanging people for stealing sheep. Laws change to reflect the society we live in and that is right and proper,
Freedom of speech is a fundamental right Rheghead I agree with you. With that right comes responsibilities, the play write acknowledged that by the level of consultation there was prior to the performances, the sikh community acknowledged that by the non violent nature of their demonstrations. Seems to me something went wrong and that’s where the search needs to start. This is not the beginning of the end of civilisation as we know it though folks it was a violent outburst and I expect it will be investigated and those participating will be arrested and punished
Squidge - I know laws change, my point is it should be the same for everybody.
Squidge - I know laws change, my point is it should be the same for everybody.
So far there have been no concrete examples of where there are exemptions other than this flaming crash helmet.................
squidge wrote
Freedom of speech is a fundamental right Rheghead I agree with you. With that right comes responsibilities, the play write acknowledged that by the level of consultation there was prior to the performances, the sikh community acknowledged that by the non violent nature of their demonstrations. Seems to me something went wrong and that’s where the search needs to start.
squidge,Thank you for agreeing with me re freedom of speech.
lets get back to the original thread subject?
But let us discuss the following points about the play shall we?
Do you think the playwright should have made the play less offensive to Sikhs?
Was she aware it would cause offense?(she is a Sikh)
Are Sikhs too sensitive about their religion?
It (I believe) depicts a murder and homosexuality in a Sikh temple, is this blasphemous to Sikhs?
Has the violence triumphed over freedom of expression?
I believe there is a play running down South where Jesus is depicted as a homosexual, I think the playwright's aim was just to portray the story of Jesus in a modern light? Just as Shakespeare's plays can be rehashed into a modern style?
Is this blasphemous or just freedom of expression?
But let us discuss the following points about the play shall we?
Do you think the playwright should have made the play less offensive to Sikhs?
Was she aware it would cause offense?(she is a Sikh)
Are Sikhs too sensitive about their religion?
It (I believe) depicts a murder and homosexuality in a Sikh temple, is this blasphemous to Sikhs?
Has the violence triumphed over freedom of expression?
I believe there is a play running down South where Jesus is depicted as a homosexual, I think the playwright's aim was just to portray the story of Jesus in a modern light? Just as Shakespeare's plays can be rehashed into a modern style?
Is this blasphemous or just freedom of expression?
1. Absolutely not. the woman wrote a play, she wrote from her heart i presume and she wrote a story as she saw it
2. Yes of course she did, thats why there was a dialogue about the play before it began
3. Members of most religions are "sensitive" about it - this is to do with faith and the fact that they believe what they are saying is absolutely true. I doubt that sikhs are any more or less devout in their beliefs than others.
4. To a sikh it obviously is but i am not sure why as i am not sufficently knowledgeable about their faith to explain why.
5. I would hope not. I understand that another theatre has offered to host the play to allow it to finish its run.
The play about Jesus is probably Blasphemous to a Christian, however to an atheist basphemy is immaterial. If they were wanting to put this play on in a church hall i would expect they wouldnt get permission but they could probably perform it at a local theatre without any trouble. Demonstrations maybe expected but should be peaceful.
I like these questions and answer sessions Rheghead - any more?
Do you think the playwright should have made the play less offensive to Sikhs?
Was she aware it would cause offense?(she is a Sikh)
Are Sikhs too sensitive about their religion?
It (I believe) depicts a murder and homosexuality in a Sikh temple, is this blasphemous to Sikhs?
Has the violence triumphed over freedom of expression?
1 & 2: She is a Sikh herself so I would assume that she had an understanding of the offence this might cause when she was writing it. Whether she did or not is something only she can know. However, she had been made aware of the issue before the play opened.
The question of changing the play is slightly more complex. Freedom of speech is freedom of speech. If she truly wanted to make the setting for the rape scene in this play the inside of a Gurdwara then she was free to do so. But this was not a deeply serious play designed to highlight the plight of the oppressed in Sikhism, it was a black comedy.
I'd say that, as with anything, a balance should be sought between the importance of the message you are trying to convey, the way you choose to convey it and the offence it is likely to cause. If she misjudged the offence she was going to cause when she was writing the play then perhaps redressing the balance once she found out was called for.
Saying that, she retains her right to free speech and clearly felt it appropriate to maintain the original setting regardless of how inappropriate it might have been.
3 & 4: I don't know. I'm not a Sikh. Perhaps they are, but just as the playwright retains her right to offend anybody she sees fit in the name of entertainment, so Sikhs must retain their right to feel offence.
5: Yes. Peaceful demonstration is all well and good but when the crowd became violent they crossed the line.
Another question worth asking is whether freedom of expression has triumphed over common decency?
Lets put the boot on the other foot and it was a play about a murder in a Church and homosexuality in the Church.
Would Christians find it just as Blasphemous?
If they do then why are there not similiar scenes outside blasphemous productions(including TV drama studios like Miss Marple)
Are Christians more sympathetic to freedom of expression?
Do religions need rehashing to adapt to modern life?
I believe there is a play running down South where Jesus is depicted as a homosexual, I think the playwright's aim was just to portray the story of Jesus in a modern light? Just as Shakespeare's plays can be rehashed into a modern style?
Is this blasphemous or just freedom of expression?
It depends who you ask. Just as the crowd outside (and inside at points) the theatre in Birmingham did not represent every Sikh in the UK, the Christian reaction to the play you mention has been variable. Some have simply shrugged, others have reported the play to the police as blasphemous (talk about your religiously biased laws…), others have staged protests… then we have the fine God-fearing folk down at Christian Voice.
This is a big one. We cannot let this pass, or it will happen again and again. Direct action might even be more effective than a blasphemy law […]
Please email or telephone me if you take this seriously enough, which I hope you do, and are near enough, to get to St Andrews on Thursday evening, Friday evening, Saturday afternoon or Saturday evening when the play is being staged, or Saturday morning when we intend to mount another sort of protest.
Rheghead - We're back on track, thanks.
Squidge and jjc - Spot on
Perhaps christians are more tolerant than other religions and that is why Miss Marple has not been strung up???
What were the Sikh's main points of objection?
Those crimes could never happen in a Sikh temple?
No Sikh could possibly commit those crimes?
A Sikh temple is such a holy place then the idea of crime in a temple should not be topic in a play?
Or do they just perceive the play as a general attack on their religion while possibly not knowing what the plot of the play is about?
Hm ok boots duly swapped
1. Some clearly do and jjc has of course done the research to prove that. Try putting that play on in the - deserted chip shop on a sunday in Stornoway and see what happens :D
2. I think there have been and are clearly demonstrations by christians about things they find unacceptable. The rection to section 18 showed that the church was right there in the middle of the protests.
3. I think the influence of the "church" is less now than it ever has been, fewer people attend and therefore the strictures of the religion are less tying. In addition Christianity preaches forgiveness and love - maybe that has something to do with it.
4.How do you "rehash" a religion? its not like decorating a room you know - "oh we will throw this out and move this here and put this in the loft" Religions do change in ways but this might take a bit of time - women priests in the Church of england for example...
Oh more questions Rheghead
Hm now i might not know the answers to that without looking
squiidge wrote
In addition Christianity preaches forgiveness and love - maybe that has something to do with it.
4.How do you "rehash" a religion? its not like decorating a room you know - "oh we will throw this out and move this here and put this in the loft" Religions do change in ways but this might take a bit of time - women priests in the Church of england for example...
Are you saying Sikhism doesn't teach love and forgiveness?
Ermmm, Jesus rehashed the Jewish religion, are you discounting the possibility of a 2nd coming?
Are you saying Sikhism doesn't teach love and forgiveness?
Ermmm, Jesus rehashed the Jewish religion, are you discounting the possibility of a 2nd coming?
No i am saying neither of those things - it was an observation about christianity and not about sikhs. Out of interest one of the most unpleasant and unforgiving people i ever met pronounced herself to be a "Christian" and regularly attended church every sunday to show that.
Do i discount the possiblility of a second coming?
If the answer is yes then i am clearly not a christian and would not have anything to say on the matter cos its all nonsense anyway. If however i am a Christian then i beleive that on the glorious day Jesus will return and those who have Jesus in their heart will be taken to live with him in paradise and i would look forward to that day with excitement and hope.
Christianity a rehash hmmmmmmmmm perhaps.... although i see it as more than that because he didnt just change the Jewish religion he started a whole new one.
As far as the acts in the play being offensive to Sikhs, perhaps they were supposed to be offensive to bring about shock, a powerful emotion drawn upon by many dramas. Look at films like "Scum", "Clockwork Orange", "Once Upon A Time in America", the list goes on and on. Whilst those I've mentioned may not deal with religeon, they certainly rely heavily on shock value to get their message across. Perhaps this is something that offends more people than just those in the Sikh community, but even in Shakespeare there is the use of shocking scenes to make a strong point. I think that perhaps these sorts of things are new to the Sikh community as in the homeland of the religeon these kinds of things may be taboo and never before has anyone ever conceived of putting such things in a play.
The christian community has had more experience with these things as its a religeon that in the west at least has had many more horrific things written about it, see "The Exorsist" and the "Omen" films as an example. (I'm sure someone can give far more brutal examples) This is perhaps why there was such an outburst of raw emotion (riot) and why we view it all with such contempt. You can blame the riot on drunken youths if you like, but surely they were just the match for the fire so to speak.
I'm sure that once things have calmed down and someone else writes something equally distasteful about something in a Sikh setting, they will begin to see these writings for what they really are, shocking but pure fiction, possibly making a very valid statement but not claiming that this is normal or acceptable behaviour.
squidge
Christianity a rehash hmmmmmmmmm perhaps.... although i see it as more than that because he didnt just change the Jewish religion he started a whole new one.
Would you think it fair to say that Christians are Jews but they accept Jesus as the messiah and Jews do not?
If the second coming did happen, in this world of fast communication, the Messiah would be able to preach to a wider audience including Sikhs, Moslems, and other Religions.
Would they accept his teachings? Or would they find it too much of a wrench from their traditional beliefs?
Or is it presumptious of me to think that His teachings will be on the Judeo-Christian lines rather than on another Religion say, Islam or Buddhism?
Come to think of it, why didn't Jesus appeal to a more Global audience in the first place?And why didn't He make a faster Global impact nearer to His life, it took 700 years to reach Scotland!? Although the Welsh have retained their Christian beliefs since Roman times? Still the Romans took 400 years to catch onto the idea?
Anyway back to the thread, what were the Sikhs objecting to ?
Would you think it fair to say that Christians are Jews but they accept Jesus as the messiah and Jews do not?
No i would say christians are christians and jewish people are jewish. There is a common foundation but the religions are very different now.
If the second coming did happen, in this world of fast communication, the Messiah would be able to preach to a wider audience including Sikhs, Moslems, and other Religions
Or is it presumptious of me to think that His teachings will be on the Judeo-Christian lines rather than on another Religion say, Islam or Buddhism?
Its presumptious i think...
Come to think of it, why didn't Jesus appeal to a more Global audience in the first place?And why didn't He make a faster Global impact nearer to His life, it took 700 years to reach Scotland!? Although the Welsh have retained their Christian beliefs since Roman times? Still the Romans took 400 years to catch onto the idea?
I told you already it takes ages!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Anyway back to the thread, what were the Sikhs objecting to ?
Im still looking :confused
although thats the first time i have tried lots of qotes in one post for ages and it worked - yippeee
The play depicts sexual abuse, homosexual activities, rape and murder in a Gurdwara.
(A Gurdwara is a sacred place of worship for Sikhs)
RandomHero
23-Dec-04, 20:18
if ur from here and don't like the decorations ur goin to have to lump it. if you're foreign and don't like them - get out.
You do understand that Sikhism and Islam are different religions... don't you?
they're all under the same turban.
people from the middle east find it offensive if u say to them u can't understand their english. they call it rasicm but it ain't. there mouths arn't formed to say the english language so in conclusion they shouldn't be able to work english speaking in call centres or places of such description.
but i suppose u class that as racism to??? :eyes
tip top wrote
The play depicts sexual abuse, homosexual activities, rape and murder in a Gurdwara.
(A Gurdwara is a sacred place of worship for Sikhs)
It sounds a bit extreme for a Miss Marple mystery?
However the Bible contains similiar outrages and that is read to kids at Sunday school!
I'm not a great Agatha Christie reader, however I do believe there was a Miss Marple story entitled "The man found dying in the church sanctuary". Perhaps not as controversal, however it could be if you wanted to make it that way!!!!
TS Eliot Wrote "Murder in the Cathedral" completely in verse. This is a political play which makes a political comment on the times. It deals with the murder of Thomas a Becket in 1170. AS far as i can see it hasnt been denounced as Blasphemousd but 1170 was a long time ago nad the event prtrayed did actualy happen.
I guess the point of this is that the temple is sacred and to suggest these things take place in a temple is offensive to sikhs. We are not in a position to judge whether that offence is justified or not because we dont share their beliefs. Things that offend one person might not offend another and it is a very subjective emotion.
squidge wrote
This is a political play which makes a political comment on the times. It deals with the murder of Thomas a Becket in 1170
This murder caused an outrage across Christendom at the time but history judges the murder justified because it was England's first step away from a theocracy into a secular state.
BTW Indira Ghandi was assassinated by her own Sikh bodyguards (who were in turn shot by her own Sikh bodyguards) for ordering troops to occupy the Sikh Golden temple.
Henry II never had to put up with such assassination attempts (as far as I know by his Christian bodyguards) for ordering troops into the Cathedral!
He may have been excommunicated but i am not sure.
Perhaps christians are more tolerant than other religions and that is why Miss Marple has not been strung up???
Perhaps. But perhaps there's also a little bit of truth in Christians being more tolerated than other religions?
This murder caused an outrage across Christendom at the time but history judges the murder justified because it was England's first step away from a theocracy into a secular state.
.
thats quite right but the play itself didnt particularly cause any outrage when it was written.
That's probably because the outrage was 'old hat' and Agatha had failed to touch upon anything new and controversial?
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.