They're not refugees, we're being invaded

[goonthenflameme]

I admit, the Syrians have got it bad. There is a war and those boys who haven't been shot by ISIL are being conscripted by the President.

But if life is that bad, why do they only want to go to Germany and if they can't go then then they'll go back to Syria.

Why are we now seeing people from Kazakstan joining the throngs?

I agree that people from Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria need help. But the thougsands and thousands of people coming through can't all be refugees in dire need of help if they are so picky as to where they will live.

They're invading Europe. And we are letting them. What's going to happen in 20 years? Will Christianity and western ways be swept under the carpet?

White guilt alive and well I see.

With the tedious cry of 'racist!' if you have a view on immigration.

Oh dear.

Lwiji you don't want to see people blame specific groups for threats to women's rights and securities but the threat is coming from a specific group. It's unfair to say people are racist for pointing this out and being concerned about it.

Racism, as I understand it, is the belief that some people are inherently better or worse than other people, based solely on their ethnicity. I do not think that anyone here believes this to be true. Our concern is about religious beliefs that hold women as less than men and about immigration from countries where this belief is enshrined in law and where immigrants will not adapt to the laws of the countries they move to. We are concerned that our govt are prioritising religious beliefs that we don't share, over their duty to protect us as women and enforce our laws. We don't want to see our country go backwards in terms of human rights, as has happened in Iran etc.

No religion is great for women but most will accept that the law of the country they are in supercedes personal belief and will not attempt to impose their own rules. That is not an unreasonable request to make of people who come here.

Lweji, I'm so very sorry but your posts make this image come into my head and I'm afraid I can't take anything you say very seriously any more.

Lweji For the record, I'm not THAT concerned, I have pointed out that people have expressed racist opinions and that when they preface an opinion with a disclaimer about racism the opinion is OFTEN racist, or with racist undertones, IMO. I'm not working in a court and what is desirable is often more stringent than what is legal.

Who cares? Why would it benefit anyone to go to so much trouble to try and label someone as racist?

You might not be working in a court, but there is a vast body of literature out there free of charge and easily available on the internet. There are, thankfully, many people who are interested enough in this subject to bother educating themselves properly and to take the time and effort to do so. Are you really so arrogant that you think you can supercede this and post offensive opinions on your judgment over who is racist?

Here, for example, is the legal definition of a racially aggravated crime (all UK legislation is free of charge online on the HMO.gov website and has been for years):

Crime and Disorder Act 1998:

"s.28
28

Meaning of “ [F2racially or religiously aggravated]”.
.

(1)

An offence is [F2racially or religiously aggravated] for the purposes of sections 29 to 32 below if—
.

(a)

at the time of committing the offence, or immediately before or after doing so, the offender demonstrates towards the victim of the offence hostility based on the victim’s membership (or presumed membership) of a [F3racial or religious group]; or
.

(b)

the offence is motivated (wholly or partly) by hostility towards members of a [F3racial or religious group] based on their membership of that group.
.

(2)

In subsection (1)(a) above—
.

“membership”, in relation to a [F3racial or religious group], includes association with members of that group;

“presumed” means presumed by the offender.

(3)

It is immaterial for the purposes of paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (1) above whether or not the offender’s hostility is also based, to any extent, [F4on any other factor not mentioned in that paragraph.]
.

(4)

In this section “racial group” means a group of persons defined by reference to race, colour, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins.
.

[F5(5)

In this section “religious group” means a group of persons defined by reference to religious belief or lack of religious belief.]"

Nothing about prefacing opinions with disclaimers about racism. Nor can I find any case law where prefacing an opinion with a disclaimer about racism has constituted an offence. Or even a breach of civil law. The relevant civil law is contained in the Equality Act 2010.

Race is defined in section 9 as one of the protected characteristics, along with sex and others. Note section 3 "A failure in respect of a performance of a duty under section 1 does not confer
a cause of action at private law." No legal requirement not to organise your sentences so as not to include disclaimers about being racist.

Direct discrimination is defined by section 13 as "1) A person (A) discriminates against another (B) if, because of a protected
characteristic, A treats B less favourably than A treats or would treat others."

Note section 14's concept of combined discrimination/dual characteristics (relevant when for example a woman from a racial minority is discriminated against on grounds of sex as well as race).

Note also section 19 which constitutes indirect discrimination: "A person (A) discriminates against another (B) if A applies to B a provision,
criterion or practice which is discriminatory in relation to a relevant protected
characteristic of B’s.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), a provision, criterion or practice is
discriminatory in relation to a relevant protected characteristic of B’s if—
(a) A applies, or would apply, it to persons with whom B does not share
the characteristic,
(b) it puts, or would put, persons with whom B shares the characteristic at
a particular disadvantage when compared with persons with whom B
does not share it,
(c) it puts, or would put, B at that disadvantage, and
(d) A cannot show it to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate
aim."

Again, nothing about using particular words or sentence order, or guessing that someone is a racist from scant evidence. In fact, should you do so, you probably come closer to discriminating against someone on grounds of sex, particularly if the fears that they are discussing are genuine.

Hold on a second, is all this legal definition stuff being posted to show that the legal definition doesn't include using the phase 'I'm not racist but...'? All on the basis of lweji making a observation.

Or have I completely got the wrong end of the stick?

It's funny as fuck if it is.

*Brilliant posts from Scremersford and absolute codswallop from Lewij and the other members of the self-ordained Thought Police.

Screamers is utterly spot-on when she attests to this being an issue of control; you see it all over Mumsnet - from the 'all refugees welcome! We know you're human! We love you!' bleedingn-hearts to the feminists who have no campaigns left to win but manufacture crimes committed by the patriarchy by battering choice of words. I'm sick of it*

HAHAHAHA you've got the support of this person, what a badge of honour!

I think so rafals, IN MY OPINION some of the stereotyping on this thread has been racist. That's not me being the thought police and I'm not looking to report any of you for arrest. Just so that's clear.

there are a lot of people from abroad who keep women down within the family. They don't break the law (except for a very very few who send girls back to Pakistan at 15 to marry or girls of 6 to Somalia to have their genitals cut off). Most comply with the law but the atmosphere at home is women submit to men, men work, women serve, girls don't have careers etc. That is the bigger worry. Not that honour killings will increase. it is not so much that the law will be broken but that the worst aspects of some sexist religions will be increased over here.

No one except the website controls what people write. I am happy to listen to anyone's views and let them speak. I have alway s been pro immigration and am not happy with the recent visa restrictions which make it clear to the world the UK is not the place tos tudy or do business. Unlawful immigration though is totally separate from that as it is separate from free movement of persons in the EU - the latter which I also support.

Hold on a second, is all this legal definition stuff being posted to show that the legal definition doesn't include using the phase 'I'm not racist but...'? All on the basis of lweji making a observation.

Or have I completely got the wrong end of the stick?

It's funny as fuck if it is

No, its not all about Lweji - although I'm sure she/he would like it to be. What its actually about is some posters derailing intelligent discussion because they want to make themselves feel good, and they want to use racism as the tool for doing that.

Its also because we protect against racism by law. Its because in this country we take racism very seriously. Its because some posters might be interested in knowing what the actual definition of racism is.

If Lweji and others still think they witnessed racism on this thread and that is wrong, they should take appropriate action to do something about it, such as reporting it to the appropriate authorities.

No, its not all about Lweji - although I'm sure she/he would like it to be

I am confused now. I'm arrested for apparently stating things as fact, and failing to say it's my opinion, and I'm arrested for saying it's my opinion, which doesn't matter anyway, and because it's all about me.

That will certainly shut me up (and any other pps who dare point out that an opinion might be racist - or sexist or anything ist), because I can't say anything then. :)

I don't think we need to get too bothered about legal definitions. The UK is actually one of the most tolerant non racist places on the planet and we are very lucky that that is so.

The fact some of us know letting 100k or 500k economic migrants in may not be best for them or for us are not racist for saying so and nor is Cameron for that position either. It is the kindest route to support them on their home turf and is fairer to those who apply from abroad to come here through legal channels.

Lweji I am confused now. I'm arrested for apparently stating things as fact, and failing to say it's my opinion, and I'm arrested for saying it's my opinion, which doesn't matter anyway, and because it's all about me.

I'm confused too. You say you are seeing racism just about everywhere, but you do nothing about it. And where have you been arrested? In your imagination?

That will certainly shut me up (and any other pps who dare point out that an opinion might be racist - or sexist or anything ist), because I can't say anything then.

tbh though it is a bit of a village idiot response: Poster A posts reasoned comment about the de-merits of Sharia law. Poster B: "you're racist". Poster C gives a specific incident of a woman suffering under Sharia law". Poster B: "that's racist". Poster E: "racist, racist, racist to even mention the word Muslim".

It would be as unbelievable as someone claiming constantly that you, or similar posters were sexist, every time you made the racist comment, because you were doing nothing to defend Muslim women suffering in this country under a certain culture because you advocated protecting that culture on race grounds.

Imagine if every time you posted, someone labelled you sexist. Or anti-women. That might be a mercifully short debate: Poster A "Racist". Poster B: "Sexist". Poster C: "I'm not sexist but..." Poster D: "Anti-women".

On the subject of Sharia and womens' rights, let's not forget that until an outcry stopped them, the Law Society was prepared to issue guidelines "effectively enshrining aspects of Islamic law in the British legal system" Article here: www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/11250643/Sharia-law-guidelines-abandoned-as-Law-Society-apologises.html

On the face of it, it's withdrawal could be seen as a triumph of democracy and common sense - but shouldn't we perhaps ask why on earth they considered this appropriate in the first place? Remember, this wasn't a bunch of ill informed spitters and screamers - it was our own Law Society

Perhaps this is a good example of why we need to be so vigilant in protecting our hard-won rights and freedoms ...

The fact some of us know letting 100k or 500k economic migrants in may not be best for them or for us are not racist for saying so

I agree that it's not.

Although every year the UK takes about 600k economic migrants already, with a net migration of 300k, so you possibly want to say in addition to the ones already coming.

If so, then I agree that for any country, too many people arriving at the same time is damaging, as it doesn't allow the economy and support systems to adjust in time.

(I could remove the I in the sentences above, but then I'd be accused of stating it as fact, so delete according to your preferences.)

Puzzled that's a really interesting link, I had forgotten about that!

Good quotation from it:

"Sadikur Rahman, a leading member of the Lawyers’ Secular Society, who was among the first to raise concerns about the practice note, praised the Law Society as a rare example of a major organisation publicly changing its mind.

He added that it was a vindication for those who were accused of racism or being anti-Muslim for questioning the wisdom of original practice note.

“You should be able to criticise an ideology, that should not be taken as racism,” he said."

Note also that Sadikur Rahman is a muslim (or has muslim origins), so the discriminatory aspects of Sharia greatly concerns many of those who identify themselves as nominally muslim.

The Law Society practice note was astonishing in the reference sources it used to compile it. One such was Dr. Muhammad al-Jibaly who has this to say on integration & female veiling.

"What is sad to see, for many parents they send their children to the kuffar school, they allow them to mix with the kuffar, play with them [...] so that the lifestyle and the beliefs of the kuffar become deep-rooted in the hearts of the kids. [...]

Command your children to pray when they are seven years old and hit them if they do not pray, or they don't pray right

A girl she should start hijab from the age of seven. By the age of ten it becomes an obligation on us to force her to wear hijab. And if she doesn't wear hijab we hit her."

[Parents should encourage] their children from mixing with the Muslims, staying away from the kuffar, having only Muslims as his friends, feeling the uniqueness and the pride of being Muslim"

These sort of views are being promulgated through many mosques in this country and hence the rise of the 'ghettos' that other posters have mentioned along with increasing numbers of young girls being veiled.

The Law Society was utterly misguided, as are those posters on here shrieking racist at anybody who voices concerns about attitudes and behaviours of a significant portion of the muslim community.

Interesting discussion, the racism label is subjective imo and I think free speech is important. I think it is fair enough to ask questions and be suspicious. I think we need to put our own citizens first and make sure they have homes not economic migrants

Just out of interest, I'd love to know if any of the people who have contributed to this thread are Muslim, or married to a Muslim.

Anyone?

not that the thread started off specifically about Islam but it has pretty much turned into a debate about the perceived challenges and negatives of multiculturalism rather than a debate about immigration policy per se.

Faced with the migration of 500,000 people into Europe its not surprising that some of us are concerned about so many aspects of this huge influx of different cultures, but to state these concerns is considered racist by some posters. How can you have a decent debate of these worries when one particular group just shouts racist to the people who disagree with their views.

Indeed. Many of us lobbied against the unfortunate law society note although white public school lawyer men have much in common with men of rural Pakistan - they all wamnt to keep women down so it's not too surprising there was original Law Society support for the Sharia advice.

I think it all depends on numbers. We have no problems in the UK with the small fundamentalist Jewish groups in Stamford hill. They are fascinating to read about. They don't really protect women's rights but their women have a legal right in English law to leave if they choose and they don't tend to bother the rest of us and indeed nor do most Muslims.

The main problem if we were to allow say 1m immigrants into the UK (on top by the way of rhte 600,000 (gross) number who came to the UK in the last 12 months, 300,000 net) is lack of jobs and housing in the places where there is work and how it changes where we live. If you become "other" in your own land that is quite a change. Now some people live in areas like Northumberland which are 97% white (I used to) and others in areas which have changed beyond recognition. Some move out of mixed areas - white flight.

I suspect most of us want to preserve a prevailing culture in the UK that men and women are equal but are more than happy that individual groups can have different ideas if they want to as long as they don't shout it from the rooftops and push it into our faces. The kewish discretion, mixing in, buy into the country, gratitude to be here I hope we also see from Muslims, as indeed we have definitely seen from all the Ugandan Asians we took in who have done such good for the country.

although white public school lawyer men have much in common with men of rural Pakistan- they all wamnt to keep women down so it's not too surprising there was original Law Society support for the Sharia advice

As dreadful as that Note was, I don't think it had anything to do with collusion of white lawyers in keeping woman down, but it was rather simply a service to their members on guidance on what Sharia compliant wills are.

Its after all not illegal to draw up such a will and I would imagine that most solicitors would be clueless in their understanding of the nature of Sharia directives and would therefore welcome guidance.

The Law Society imo were only guilty of naivety in not realising that their guidance would effectively give respectability and endorsement to discriminatory Sharia principles.

The Law Society practice note was astonishing in the reference sources it used to compile it

Indeed - but while, as you say, there may have been some naivety involved, I'd personally hope that such (presumably) well trained minds would be better able to question and probe the issues presented to them ... wouldn't they?

My DM is Italian and came to the UK in the early 60s. Dad is British. I was brought up as catholic which I rejected as soon as possible. As a teen I was never allowed to go to clubs . I was not allowed to be alone or visit any friends who happened to be boys. And sometimes girls. DM really didn't like me going out at all. One memorable day I was accused of "rolling around in the grass with a boy"

Whenever I wanted to go out anywhere it was "what for" I was bullied at school and felt very low and considered suicide at fourteen.

Being treated as a second class citizen just for being female because of religion and culture is something I have experienced which has helped form my views on this. As I got older and found out about things like the Magdelene laundries I was even more horrified.

Im a pro choice left wing feminist. Just in case anyone was in any doubt.

DM is pro life. We get on now but only if we don't discuss certain subjects.