Baroness Warsi taking advantage of her position

[GORGEOUSX]

In thinking that it hasn't taken Baroness Warsi long to take advantage/abuse? her position by saying that she wants to fight bigotry towards Muslims.

Of all the causes she could have used her position to put her weight behind, I'm dismayed that she has chosen this one.

Perhaps Baroness Warsi will suggest to her fellow muslims that they should have a bit more tolerance of non-muslims around their own dinner tables and then maybe the media wouldn't be so quick to describe them as moderate or radical.

What about Ayan Hirsi Ali? Is she an ignorant creep too?

I read the title of this thread & thought it was going to be about fiddling expenses..

Of course she isn't abusing her position. There is a lot of bigotry towards Muslims. Too much generalisation and 'all Muslims are terrorists' bandied about and it needs to be tackled.

Slightly fatuous point, atrocities are frequently committed in the name of and by followers of religions. No one really believes that God, Allah or Siva floats down and smites the non-believer, any more than the ethereal spirit of basque separatism sets the fuse on a bomb. The point is that if things are done in the name of a religion or movement, why shouldn't people have the right to question what in the doctrine of that particular movement is causing people to comitt atrocities in its name, without being accused of bigotry.

And the majority of people I know are perfectly capable of understanding that nearly all Muslims aren't terrorists, but are we really not allowed to express the opinion that the women having to cover their hair is odd, for example? Or are we simply supposed to accept that because it's someone else's religious belief, it's beyond question? In Iran the age of consent is 9 years old by law, am I allowed to express disapproval of that, or does that make me s bigot too?

I am not supporting discrimination, but nor am I willing to tell people they no longer have the right to disapprove or question something which is present in their society.

FWIW, I have never heard anyone say "all Muslims are terrorists"

Ahh ... I see this thread is actually a bigot's corner.

I sure you're being horribly victimised by Baroness Warsi's attempts to tackle prejudice.

Ayan Hirsi Ali is not a creep - she is however a politician that switched sides as it suited her. She's no angel either, I agree with a lot of what she says but not all. I also think she used some shock tactics that did more harm than good to her own cause.

Nobody is saying that Islam is all good - I believe all religions should be kept indoors and as far away from public policy, schools and real life in general as possible. That goes for all of them, Hindu, Catholic, Islam right through to Wiccan and 7th Day Adventists.

Islam happens to be the 21st century bogeyman. Nobody is going to make me believe that 99.9% of Muslims are not regular people doing their own thing, allowing demonisation of them because of a handful of very highly publicised nutjobs is wrong and should not be defended by anyone with any decency.

I like Baroness Warsi. She was pelted with tomatoes by extremists once. Not that that's a reason to like her, but she's an intelligent and independent woman and I trust what she says. If both sides hate her, she must be doing something right!

Every group in society is prejudiced against by some other group somewhere. It's distasteful perhaps, but not legal. If one wants to express a dislike for Islam, Christianity, impressionist art or the tellutubbies, one can. It's only when prejudice turns to discrimination, positive or negative that it becomes anyone else's business.

No one is claiming to be victimized by what warsi said, calm down and put down the pitchfork before you have someone's eye out.

Katiepoes, I agree with you 100%, I just don't think its any business of hers what opinions people hold, ignorant or otherwise. It certainly isn't the job of politicians to have anything to do with religion.

Yes, you are playing the victim card. You're bleating on about free speech, which no-one is threatening at all. Warsi is confronting prejudice not trying ot legislate against freedom.

I'm just glad I could kick my FIL out of the door after hearing one two many ''Sambos & Paki's'' comments at my own dinner table.

I have often heard people comment about Muslims being terrorists..the usual ''careful of that one he/she might be a sucide bomber'' 'joke'. Of course people have the right to a freedom of speech, but it's comments like that which can allow seeds to be sown in other peoples brains.

We just have to rely on a certain amount of intelligence to know that isn't true.

But it's NONE OF HER BUSINESS! I don't care if she sits around the dinnertable talking about how much she hates Christians, or Jews or dressmakers, because its none of my effing business. My free speech is under no threat at all, I just it was a waste of clout to start harping on about prejudice. As long as prejudice doesn't make the jump to discrimination, its legal and frankly, human nature.

Needle - No it's not fatuous. When someone says "Islam is the only religion planning to blow up parts of Britain" rather than "Some people are planning to blow up parts of Britain. We think this may be linked to their Islamic beliefs" they are making several errors of fact.

a) It's implying that Islam is a discreet and distinct entity. It isn't. Even less so than Christianity. There isn't the same level of centralized control of doctrine that there is in the large Christian Churches.

b) It implies that one of the aims of this mythical institution is to blow up parts of Britain. That's not the case. All actions of these kinds are condemned by the mainstream strands of Islam.

c) It's implying that followers of a religion will support and be guided by that religion as a matter of course. That is not the case. People pick and choose the bit's of religion they like. They will be influenced by it, but in the end people make their own decisions.

As far as I can tell she's saying that prejudice against Muslims is becoming increasingly socially acceptable and that where prejudices are socially acceptable this can lead to discrimination, so discouraging prejudice is a good idea.

i can imagine few things less controversial and obvious. As a Muslim prominent in public life it seems a perfectly reasonable thing for her to say.

I have made the point repeatedly that I differentiate between extremists and peaceful Muslims who don't condone violence.

Anyway, this has been all kinds of fun, but i've a baby who needs feeding. Have a nice evening all x

"british" people aren't the only ones who feel threatened, france and germany fear for their national identities. So while i like the baroness, i don't think there's a reason to condemn conversations like this. Tís a big debate. No reason to stop people discussing what she said. Or people will just bottle it up and seethe.

Have any of you studied the life of Mohammed? Do any of you know what the Koran says? Do you really think it is equivalent to the New Testament?

As long as prejudice doesn't make the jump to discrimination, its legal and frankly, human nature.

But left unchallenged Needle it does make the jump. It does. We would not have the laws we have got against discrimination if people had not confronted the ideas behind it. In the 1950s when racist attitudes were commonplace and unchallenged, discrimination was rife. It took years of confronting those attitudes before practical change to stop discrimination became possible.

oldmumsy -- that's neither here nor there

eldritch -- and we have to be careful about making that "thought control" jump, very careul indeed

it's as insidious as discrimination and tiptoes into the territory of free speech

the distinction between prejudice and discrimination is a proper one but British people have always been over the top self flagellants so it's not such a bad thing to point out the difference

we don't need to hate ourselves all that much

don't have my new strike trousers on properly

anyway it's too much to start throwing around bigot accusations

OldMumsy - My bible comes with an old testament as well, which is pretty keen on smiting the unbeliever, massacring the entire inhabitants of a city etc etc. Not sure there's a lot of moral high ground to be claimed there TBH.

Obviously Koran does not = NT, if it did Christianity and Islam would be the same religion. And we'd all have to live in peace, like some sort of bloody hippies. Nightmare!

I don't think anyone should pretend that Islam at the moment is just like any religion. I mean, as a religion it is, iyswim. But as a culture it isn't. It's extremely powerful, has a very wealthy and very oppressive sect wielding enormous amounts of power in the Middle East and across the globe, whilst in its name the most vile atrocities are carried out in Yemen, Saudi Arabia, historically Afghanistan, Iran, and it's tied up with the oil question.

This must feel to some people as though now they're not even going to allowed to express concerns in the privacy of their own dining room, and are so to be made completely powerless in the face of such a powerful culture. So it's very important to talk about what the Baroness means.

For some reason the IRA atrocities didn't besmear catholicism in the same way. Presumably because islam is a relatively new cultural phenomenon in the UK. But it should all be talked about.

yab bloody U

i dont much care for Baroness Warsi

Appletrees ah, you see that's the thing. The issue is oppressive regions and the way they use Islam ad a tool of control and how that then has knock on effects. It' nothing to do with Islam per se. It could just as easily be Christianity, and indeed it used to be.