Muslims in UK - Operation Trojan Horse

[Retribution]

Not trying to put words in Val's mouth here, but I think I get the point he is trying to make. Recall in my discussion of religion I pointed out that when JFK was elected President there was concern because he was the first Catholic president. The concern was his first allegiance would be to the Vatican and not the Constitution and the office of President of the Untied States.

Using this example, I think Val's point is that it is fine to have your own culture. In the case of Kennedy Irish Catholic, but your first allegiance is to the Constitution and the office of President of the United States in keeping with this example.

[Valthazar]

But that aside, the Muslim Council of Britain weren't involved in operation Trojan Horse.  An ex-member was.  You can see the highlights of the report here with more information on the pages that you yourself link to in the first page.  Again, not clear where you've got that idea from, nothing in this thread beyond your repeated assertions that it's true supports it.

"In his 72-page document, published by the Muslim Council of Britain in 2007, Mr Alam and his co-author, Muhammad Abdul Bari, attacked many state schools for not being “receptive of legitimate and reas-onable requests made by Muslim parents and pupils in relation to their faith-based aspirations and concerns.  They described how Muslim governors could be activated to press the “views and aspirations of Muslim parents and the local community” on reluctant schools.  Among the “aspirations and concerns” for schools were that they should not teach “potentially harmful forms of music” which “promote immoral behaviour” or include “unethical and un-Islamic lyrics”." (Source)

Why is the MCB permitting such content to be published in their releases?

[Kythia]

Which is fine in that case.  The president - I seem to think? - swears some sort of oath to uphold the constitution.  The Muslim Council of Britain have done no such thing, they're a self-appointed body with no official status (almost no, they are consulted on some issues.).  The situations aren't comparable.

"In his 72-page document, published by the Muslim Council of Britain in 2007, Mr Alam and his co-author, Muhammad Abdul Bari, attacked many state schools for not being “receptive of legitimate and reas-onable requests made by Muslim parents and pupils in relation to their faith-based aspirations and concerns.  They described how Muslim governors could be activated to press the “views and aspirations of Muslim parents and the local community” on reluctant schools.  Among the “aspirations and concerns” for schools were that they should not teach “potentially harmful forms of music” which “promote immoral behaviour” or include “unethical and un-Islamic lyrics”." (Source)

Why is the MCB permitting such content to be published in their releases?

Why not?  What's your point here?

[Valthazar]

Why not?  What's your point here?

I linked to MCB's YouTube introductory video earlier - which embodies exactly what I advocate:  A pride and cultural maintenance of Islamic ways, but an unequivocal allegiance to Britain's principles of a free, secular, and just society with rule of law.

Such releases as I indicated above are diametrically opposite to their mission, and ultimately undermine Britain's free society by pushing religious views into a secular environment.

[Ephiral]

The irony in all of this is that I'm not white, and I really have no stake in this perspective.  But for the sake of discussion, here's the reason:

Britain belongs to the British, and any immigration into their country should be supported by their indigenous citizenry.  When 77% of the population is not supporting current immigration trends, it is most certainly threatening to their ways of life.

So, because some white British people choose of their own free will not to live next to brown people, brown people are committing an act of aggression ("threatening", "forcing" white people out, "causing" white flight) by existing in Britain. This is your argument.

I... really don't have anything more to say on that.

[Valthazar]

So, because some white British people choose of their own free will not to live next to brown people, brown people are committing an act of aggression ("threatening", "forcing" white people out, "causing" white flight) by existing in Britain. This is your argument.

Not sure how you got this impression.  I was referring to immigration laws being ideally determined by the citizenry of a country. 

It is threatening to a country's indigenous way of life when government immigration policy does not match the views of its citizens.

[Kythia]

I linked to MCB's YouTube introductory video earlier - which embodies exactly what I advocate:  A pride and cultural maintenance of Islamic ways, but an unequivocal allegiance to Britain's principles of a free, secular, and just society with rule of law.

Such releases as I indicated above are diametrically opposite to their mission, and ultimately undermine Britain's free society by pushing religious views into a secular environment.

So your point is that the Muslim Council of Britain may be hypocrites?  First, sure they may be, I don't know anyone involved with them.  They represent over 500 mosques throughout the UK - there are 363 in London alone.  But that's not really the issue, it is very much a side point.

The main issue is, again, the Muslim Council of Britain weren't involved and there's nothing to suggest they were.  Sure, they shared an agenda.  One would assume the Saudi government also shared that agenda but there's nothing to suggest they were involved either.

But, once again, this is going nowhere.  You know what I think about whether you're a liar or not, I've made that pretty clear.  I don't think reiterating it will help.  I was stupid to get involved and I apologise to the world at large for forcing you to read it all.  I'm heading out, joined a "night running" club.

[Valthazar]

You know what I think about whether you're a liar or not, I've made that pretty clear.  I don't think reiterating it will help. 

I don't know what you mean by this, we share a difference of opinion which I can respect, but I don't think either of us was lying.

[Ephiral]

Not sure how you got this impression.  I was referring to immigration laws being ideally determined by the citizenry of a country. 

It is threatening to a country's indigenous way of life when government immigration policy does not match the views of its citizens.

Then, yet again, you really weren't responding to me. Why are you quoting me if you're not actually addressing anything I say?

You painted white people choosing to move out of neighbourhoods with non-white people in them as minorities "forcing out" these white people and causing white flight. I asked why this was being painted as an act of aggression by the minorities, rather than a voluntary decision by the white people. This has literally nothing to do with immigration policy. Please answer the question or admit you're not going to - the non-sequiturs are doing nothing but confusing a very very simple point.

[Valthazar]

My apologies if I am not explaining properly - I will try to be as concrete as possible.  I realize my perspectives are a little different from yours, which is likely why immigration policy seems like an unrelated topic.

If the majority of white British are not comfortable with current immigration trends, this also suggests that there is likely a problem with having so many immigrants in the UK.  One cardinal issue is the fact that many British feel that UK just isn't "British" anymore, as more immigrants from Eastern Europe and Asia pour in.  As a result, when the British people are not having their opinions heard by the government officials, who continue to bring in more foreigners, it is most certainly seen as an act of aggression by the minorities, who don't seem to be hearing their perspectives on wanting to live in a culture they grew up in, and feel comfortable in.  Thus, this prompts white flight.

[Ephiral]

Okay, I can get why they might perceive it as aggressive. But why are you, personally, painting "being brown and British" as an act of aggression? According to your previous posts, you are neither white nor British, yet you continue to pretend that this is anything but a completely voluntary decision by white people - and that "not being homeless" is an aggression. Why?

[Zakharra]

  If someone moves to another nation voluntarily, they should make the effort to assimilate to that nation's culture. They can and should keep some aspects of their own culture (food is wonderful) and such, but they should not be making full blown enclaves of their former country in the nation they moved to and actively not try to assimilate. People shouldn't be afraid to walk through other neighborhoods just because they are a different skin color, gender, religion or sexual orientation.

Basically, if you move to another nation to live in it, assimilate and be a part of that culture. Add in bits and pieces of your own, but you should not expect to set you your own national enclave and try to impose the laws of the land you left behind in your new home.

[Formless]

My apologies if I am not explaining properly - I will try to be as concrete as possible.  I realize my perspectives are a little different from yours, which is likely why immigration policy seems like an unrelated topic.

If the majority of white British are not comfortable with current immigration trends, this also suggests that there is likely a problem with having so many immigrants in the UK.  One cardinal issue is the fact that many British feel that UK just isn't "British" anymore, as more immigrants from Eastern Europe and Asia pour in.  As a result, when the British people are not having their opinions heard by the government officials, who continue to bring in more foreigners, it is most certainly seen as an act of aggression by the minorities, who don't seem to be hearing their perspectives on wanting to live in a culture they grew up in, and feel comfortable in.  Thus, this prompts white flight.

And to answer this , Zakharra has phrased it accurately.

  If someone moves to another nation voluntarily, they should make the effort to assimilate to that nation's culture. They can and should keep some aspects of their own culture (food is wonderful) and such, but they should not be making full blown enclaves of their former country in the nation they moved to and actively not try to assimilate. People shouldn't be afraid to walk through other neighborhoods just because they are a different skin color, gender, religion or sexual orientation.

Basically, if you move to another nation to live in it, assimilate and be a part of that culture. Add in bits and pieces of your own, but you should not expect to set you your own national enclave and try to impose the laws of the land you left behind in your new home.

Now for what the country should do in regards to its immigration process , requirements and everything entitled under such ... Then there's nothing more I can add to this thread.