Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
United Kingdom Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Why There's No Hope For Greater Albion - When the Loonies Dictate Policy
swhitebull    7/7/2008 1:33:27 PM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/education/2261307/Toddlers-who-dislike-spicy-food-racist%2C-say-report.html swhitebull - your chief judge saying Sharia law is OK is bad enough, but the nanny thought police are way too much to stomach. We've got our share of domestic loons as well, but it seems to be endemic in England these days, on their way to political correctness and dhimmitude.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
swhitebull    More Madness   7/7/2008 1:41:57 PM

Ah Britain

Forget spicy food — and start kneeling!

Report: Schoolboys Get Detention for Refusing to Pray to Allah

Irate parents said a religious education teacher at the Alsager High School in England told students to wear Muslim headgear during a lesson on Tuesday. "But if Muslims were asked to go to church on Sunday and take Holy Communion, there would be war," the grandfather of one of the students said.

The two boys belong to a class that includes 11- to 12-year-olds, and after their refusal to participate they were given detention, the story says.

Another parent, Karen Williams, told the Mail: "Not only was it forced upon them, my daughter was told off for not doing it right. They'd never done it before and they were supposed to do it in another language."

Deputy Headmaster Keith Plant said the teacher has given her version of the incident but he declined to elaborate.
 
 
swhitebull -  this has happened in the Colonies as well, where students are "required" to act like Muslims for a day in school - unbeknownst to their parents. When they are found out, the Sh-t hits the fan with the schoolboards. All for the sake of "understanding" other cultures, and, of course, the connivance of the Council of American-Islamic Relations (where half of the founding members have been expelled from the States or imprisoned for terrorist connections).

 

 
Quote    Reply

flamingknives       7/7/2008 2:38:12 PM
The guidelines are fairly sensible, especially since successive governments have tried to eliminate personal and social responsibility, aided by the American cult of individualism.

If you read the article, rather than dislocating your kneecap against the desk (or launching you laptop into the ceiling), it is a set of guidelines or warning indicators. Like any set of behaviour indicators, one on it's own means little to nothing, it's many together that starts to ring bells.

To make it clearer, the guidelines do not say that a child must like unfamiliar food, but rejecting it out of hand may be something that they have learnt from their parents, and not a good thing.

The classroom prayer bit is just an example that people out there are idiots. Such teachers are not useful.
 
Quote    Reply

swhitebull       7/7/2008 3:19:45 PM

The guidelines are fairly sensible, especially since successive governments have tried to eliminate personal and social responsibility, aided by the American cult of individualism.




If you read the article, rather than dislocating your kneecap against the desk (or launching you laptop into the ceiling), it is a set of guidelines or warning indicators. Like any set of behaviour indicators, one on it's own means little to nothing, it's many together that starts to ring bells.




To make it clearer, the guidelines do not say that a child must like unfamiliar food, but rejecting it out of hand may be something that they have learnt from their parents, and not a good thing.




The classroom prayer bit is just an example that people out there are idiots. Such teachers are not useful.



The problem with these "guidelines" is several fold: 1) who is an expert, and who decides what is right or wrong behavior? 2) you begin a slippery slope where all thought and comments that are out of the norm of the deciding experts are suspect, and that is exactly what Orwell was saying in 1984; 3) you wind up terrorizing and emasculating "unacceptable" behavior, that can now be labeled as deviant, and therefore stigmatize and punish the individual, for the sake of some utopian multi-culti society, whose goals are wonderfully nebulous, and the road to good intentions run directly to hell; 4) youve violated one of the most treasured tenets of English culture - the right of free speech.  See what's happened in Canada with their Kangaroo Human Rights Commissions,  which I ve documented on the Canada boards; 5) you are correct when one incident in itself is not bad, but the accumulation of many insidious ones bodes poorly for the future -  there are many areas of Britain where "the three little pigs" can not be read in class for fear of offending, for example,  nor piggy banks allowed. I'm sorry,  but no where at least in the United States -  not yet at least - is it forbidden to offend someone and not be sued.  Free speech here DOES give the right to be offensive -  patently so. Look at the recent dustup between Christopher Hitchens and Galloway in their series of debates on your side of the Atlantic for an example of offensive - in spades - as they sliced into each other; 6) Who watches the guardians of these thought police boards and commissions?; 7) You wind up with a population of compliant sheep, where all individualism is stamped out. Shades of Brave New World, Fahrenheit-451, THX-1138, and other distopian Utopians.
 
swhitebull - again,  its a slippery slope, and the very idea that there are actually people being paid by the government to suppress behavior and thought sends chills up my spine. Such crap is to be fought tooth and nail at every opportunity, and the best weapon to fight these schmucks is public ridicule and a heavy dose of disinfectant, like was done by Ezra Levant, Mark Steyn and Macleans against their national and provincial Inhuman Rights Commissions. Free speech is Free Speech is Free Speech - there ARE no buts.
 
Quote    Reply

swhitebull    Rebel Without a Cause   7/8/2008 6:51:41 AM
The Sensitivity Trap  
By John O'Sullivan
New York Post | Tuesday, July 08, 2008

 

MULTICULTURALISM struck again last week. London's Daily Tele graph reported that the Tayside police force in Scotland had apologized to local Muslims for running a public-service ad offensive to their religious sensibilities.

The outrage? A cartoon of the Prophet with a fuse in his turban? A warning that a burqa might camouflage an escaping male terrorist? An incendiary monocultural statement that "kilts will be worn" at the next Police Association's Robert Burns Night?

No, the offensive ad was, I'm sorry to report, a cute little doggie named "Rebel" - a German shepherd puppy pictured on a postcard advertising a new non-emergency police phone number.

In his short official life, Rebel had apparently captured the hearts of the local Tayside people. They logged on to the force's Web site in thousands to follow Rebel's progress in training to be a police dog. The little canine became Rebel after a visit to St. Ninian's primary school, where the tiny tots suggested various names for him.

At this point, you may be reminded of Dorothy Parker's review of the saccharine story "The House at Pooh Corner": "Tonstant Weader Thwowed Up." But a local Muslim councillor had a sterner reaction: He pointed out that Muslims considered dogs ritually unclean and asked for a police apology.

The Tayside police promptly conceded that they should have consulted their "diversity officer." Whereupon the clanking machinery of official multiculturalism rumbled into action, the police withdrew the ad, and everyone agreed to be more sensitive in the future. Heigh-ho. And ho-hum.

This kind of story pops up regularly in the British and international media. Last year, the kitchen staff at a hospital in Poole, Dorset, was told not to distribute the traditional "hot cross buns" to the patients at Easter in case this insensitive action "upset non-Christians."

Two years before that, Burger King withdrew its "spinning whirl" ice cream because, it was alleged, some Muslims had complained that the design bore a resemblance to the word "Allah" in Arabic script.

And just in case Americans are feeling superior to the benighted Brits cowed by these assaults on their regular lives, let me add that the same things happen here, too. Remember the Muslim taxi drivers at the Minneapolis-St. Paul airport who allegedly refused to carry blind passengers with guide dogs or - worse - sighted passengers with duty-free alcohol? Sure, eventually the airport had to instruct the taxi drivers to take whatever passenger was next in line, but its initial reaction had been to surrender to the "cultural" demand.

Occasionally, there is a hitch in such stories. Some reporter phones a reasonable Muslim cleric who says something like: "This is ridiculous. We have no objection to the Christian festivities or symbols of other Brits. And we don't expect them to observe Muslim practices."

That kind of balanced response almost certainly reflects the opinions of most ordinary Muslim citizens in Britain, America and elsewhere. How many Tayside Muslims, for instance, had any serious objection to a postcard photograph of a police dog? Maybe the Muslim councillor, his wife and one of his children - the one who doesn't attend St. Ninian's primary school and hadn't helped select the name Rebel. At most.

Orthodox Jews refrain from eating pork - but they don't try to ban Porky Pig cartoons. And ordinary Muslims may believe dogs to be unclean, but it doesn't follow that they regard stories of dogs loyal to their masters to be sinful or hostile.

The rest of us shouldn't assume airily that they hold these absurd views. There are two real villains in these stories - but they're hiding in the wings.

First, there are the Islamist radicals who invent or exploit most of these trivial "outrages" to sow irritation among the majority and fear among the Muslim community. Not all of these stories are trivial, to be sure. Last year, a British teacher in Sudan was imprisoned and threatened with execution by Sudanese mobs because she had innocently named a teddy bear Mohammed. But none of them are genuine outrages; they're invented to divide us.

The second villains are our own officials in Brita

 
Quote    Reply

swhitebull    More Dog Poop   7/8/2008 3:17:06 PM
From the Sunday Times Online:
 
Police sniffer dogs will have to wear bootees when searching the homes of Muslims so as not to cause offence.

Guidelines being drawn up by the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) urge awareness of religious sensitivities when using dogs to search for drugs and explosives. The guidelines, to be published this year, were designed to cover mosques but have been extended to include other buildings.

Where Muslims object, officers will be obliged to use sniffer dogs only in exceptional cases. Where dogs are used, they will have to wear bootees with rubber soles. ?We are trying to ensure that police forces are aware of sensitivities that people can have with the dogs to make sure they are not going against any religious or cultural element within people?s homes. It is being addressed and forces are working towards doing it,? Acpo said.

Problems faced by the use of sniffer dogs were highlighted last week when Tayside police were forced to apologise for a crime prevention poster featuring a german shepherd puppy, in response to a complaint by a Muslim councillor.

Islamic injunctions warn Muslims against contact with dogs, which are regarded as ?unclean?.

Police dogs at present are issued with footwear only at scenes of explosions to prevent them injuring their paws on broken glass.

Ibrahim Mogra, one of Britain?s leading imams, said the measures were unnecessary: ?In Islamic law the dog is not regarded as impure, only its saliva is. Most Islamic schools of law agree on that. If security measures require to send a dog into a house, then it has to be done. I think Acpo needs to consult better and more widely.

?I know in the Muslim community there is a hang-up against dogs, but this is cultural. Also, we know the British like dogs; we Muslims should do our bit to change our attitudes.?

John Midgley, co-founder of the Campaign Against Political Correctness, said: ?The police are in effect being overly sensitive to potential criminals and not being sensitive enough to the public at large who need to be protected. These sort of things have a counter-productive effect because they cause huge friction between different communities.?

Caroline Kisko, of the Kennel Club, said: ?We would not condone any attempt to make search dogs wear special clothing, which could cause them distress.?

swhitebull - say it ain't so, please!
 
Quote    Reply

flamingknives       7/8/2008 5:24:14 PM
I have seen it mentioned that police dogs are issued boots to protect them from the general detritus in some of the places they get sent into. You wouldn't walk barefoot into a crack den, so why should the dog?

I suspect that someone tried to put a spin on the dogs wearing boots and it came off badly.
 
Quote    Reply

Padfoot       7/8/2008 10:54:44 PM
I think the British media does far more harm than political correctness and do-gooder  politicians.
 
What the hell is wrong with learning about different religions? How is different from dressing up like a Roman Centurion in history class? 
 
The British media are the scum of the earth!!!

 
Quote    Reply

jastayme3       9/11/2008 11:38:59 PM

I think the British media does far more harm than political correctness and do-gooder  politicians.

 

What the hell is wrong with learning about different religions? How is different from dressing up like a Roman Centurion in history class? 

 

The British media are the scum of the earth!!!




There is nothing wrong with learning from other religions. Praying to Allah is to a non-moslem telling a lie about core beliefs. A prayer is a far different thing from just learning. It is solomnly proclaiming a belief one doesn't hold. Sort of like a pledge of allegiance.
 And yes that goes both ways. Which is why I don't think there should be official prayer in public schools and students who wish to pray should do so on their own time.
 

 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics