Can't decide which

Since we seem to be indulging in some mud slinging, I have a question.

Why are there so many Iraqi, Afghan and Iranian asylum-seekers in Britain? I mean if they are seeking asylum from oppression surely they wouldn’t be seeking asylum in one of those countries that was responsible for oppressing them? And if they are being oppressed in their own countries, who are they being oppressed by?

I know that isn’t a scientific measure of ‘high moral ground’ but don’t you think that it is a good indicator?

I don’t live in a Moslem country, and I don’t know weather you do, but do you think many British people seek asylum abroad?

Well I know many English people emigrate to warmer climates when they retire! 🙂

I would bet that most of those asylum seekers are actually in the UK for economic reasons, rather than being specifally oppressed. I’m not saying the Western powers oppress directly, but rather their policies in most of the world are “claimed” to be being taken on a moral higher ground, but are in fact based on personal and national interests. For example, when it comes to the Israeli/Palestinian issue, India/Pakistan, Iran, Iraq.

Because it is always western powers claiming to take the moral high ground in terms of foreign policy and preaching to other religions/cultures/countries all in the name of claiming to be morally superior…

Since we seem to be indulging in some mud slinging, I have a question.

Why are there so many Iraqi, Afghan and Iranian asylum-seekers in Britain? I mean if they are seeking asylum from oppression surely they wouldn’t be seeking asylum in one of those countries that was responsible for oppressing them? And if they are being oppressed in their own countries, who are they being oppressed by?

I know that isn’t a scientific measure of ‘high moral ground’ but don’t you think that it is a good indicator?

I don’t live in a Moslem country, and I don’t know weather you do, but do you think many British people seek asylum abroad?

Flying Monkey,I assume you’re male.I’m not,so I can say I don’t believe there’s a woman alive who would swathe herself in a shapeless garment from head to foot if she had complete freedom of choice.I accept many women may happily choose to wear the burkha,and that’s fine.But the feeling in the West is that in the 21st century women should not have such a garment imposed on them.It goes against our ideal of freedom of choice.In my town there are many women who appear in public in a sea of black material with only their eyes able to give any expression that they are unique,individual human beings.Their husbands enjoy the latest Western fashions,jeans leather jackets,anything they fancy.King Abdullah doesn’t pronounce on what Western women should wear because he knows that Western men don’t presume to control every aspect of women’s lives .

BumbleBee, yes I am male and I understand what you are saying. I actually agree with you, I don’t think there is any need for wearing the complete burka from head to toe, the religion doesnt actually specify any one particular form of dresswear for women, that would be rediculous. What the religion does suggest is that women dress modestly and not degrade themselves. Now this has been interpreted quite differently all over the Muslim world, from the extreme which we see in Saudi and Afghanistan to the moderate in the form of the headscarf in Turkey, other parts of Europe, most of North Africa and the far East (Malaysia and Indonesia).

What really annoys me is the typical Western view of personal female liberation being only based on what she wears! You will find that in most of the Muslim world, just because a woman wears the head scarf, doesn’t mean she has fewer opportunities. In most moderate and even “hardline” islamic states, women have equal if not greater opportunites in terms of education, jobs, business, social standing, heck even becoming front line fighter pilots such as in the Pakistan airforce!

But you seem to be contradicting your own morality, that of personal freedom. If a woman chooses to wear a head scarf or burka, why can’t she?

Flying Monkey,I assume you’re male.I’m not,so I can say I don’t believe there’s a woman alive who would swathe herself in a shapeless garment from head to foot if she had complete freedom of choice.I accept many women may happily choose to wear the burkha,and that’s fine.But the feeling in the West is that in the 21st century women should not have such a garment imposed on them.It goes against our ideal of freedom of choice.In my town there are many women who appear in public in a sea of black material with only their eyes able to give any expression that they are unique,individual human beings.Their husbands enjoy the latest Western fashions,jeans leather jackets,anything they fancy.King Abdullah doesn’t pronounce on what Western women should wear because he knows that Western men don’t presume to control every aspect of women’s lives .

Spot On ! 😉

Flying Monkey,I assume you’re male.I’m not,so I can say I don’t believe there’s a woman alive who would swathe herself in a shapeless garment from head to foot if she had complete freedom of choice.I accept many women may happily choose to wear the burkha,and that’s fine.But the feeling in the West is that in the 21st century women should not have such a garment imposed on them.It goes against our ideal of freedom of choice.In my town there are many women who appear in public in a sea of black material with only their eyes able to give any expression that they are unique,individual human beings.Their husbands enjoy the latest Western fashions,jeans leather jackets,anything they fancy.King Abdullah doesn’t pronounce on what Western women should wear because he knows that Western men don’t presume to control every aspect of women’s lives .

What makes you think that your stereotypes are any less invalid than anyone else’s?

Because it is always western powers claiming to take the moral high ground in terms of foreign policy and preaching to other religions/cultures/countries all in the name of claiming to be morally superior, when in actuall fact it is rather more to do with national interests.

My apologies if I was being obtuse, it wasn’t deliberate; but your posts did seem, to me anyway, to support an exception to the law.

Fair enough. I still can’t see where you got that idea from, though. :confused:

Most of the views expressed so far are the usual self righteous hypocritical garbage that has typified western views of Islam for many years and more yet to come.

What makes you think that your stereotypes are any less invalid than anyone else’s?

Most of the views expressed so far are the usual self righteous hypocritical garbage that has typified western views of Islam for many years and more yet to come.

Why does it bother people in the West what Muslim women CHOOSE to wear?

What gives the West the right to dictate to other religions, cultures etc?

Do you really think there are similar conversations going on in Muslim countries about what Western womern wear or that most people over there actually give a damn?

Have you ever seen a Muslim leader or politician dictating to the West how people should live or what to wear? I’ve never seen King Abdullah telling Western women what to wear or what not to wear…

Sorry, got a bit sidetracked there. 😮

Is anyone on the forum happy for his wife to wear a burkha?

I don’t know…..is she happy to wear one? :diablo:

I think the French decicion is a very controversial stance to take since it brings the state onto a collision-course with religion.

While I can’t really see any problem with anybody wearing whatever they feel comfortable wearing, those that choose to cover their face must, in the west at least, expect to be viewed and treated differently. Covering your face in western culture has associations with secrecy, disguise, shame, crime and so there are bound to be issues of trust.

So we agree then; Sikhs should wear a crash helmet if they want to ride a motorcycle, just like everybody else.

My apologies if I was being obtuse, it wasn’t deliberate; but your posts did seem, to me anyway, to support an exception to the law.

The bit where exceptions are made for certain religions…..obviously.

Are you being deliberately obtuse, or have you simply mis-read what I put?

The quote in my last posting makes my own stance on this unmistakably clear.

Here it is again: “The law should be the same for everyone, no excuses, no exceptions“.

Would you care to explain why you are demanding that I defend a position I have never adopted?

Which bit of “The law should be the same for everyone, no excuses, no exceptions.” are you struggling with, exactly?

The bit where exceptions are made for certain religions…..obviously.

Yes,my passport says British,but did Shakespeare close the wall up with our BRITISH dead?

Given that in Shakespeare’s day Scotland was a foreign country, I invite you to find a better example. Preferably one from later than 1707. 🙂

But along the line somewhere, Sikhs must have argued that their wish to ride a motorcycle (and not break the law) was more important that a law without exceptions.

In much the same way as you decided that your wish to drive faster than the speed limit was more important than a law without exceptions, you mean?

You didn’t answer my question. Would you be happy if because of my religion I didn’t have to obey the speed limit?

Which bit of “The law should be the same for everyone, no excuses, no exceptions.” are you struggling with, exactly?

Yes,my passport says British,but did Shakespeare close the wall up with our BRITISH dead?Is there some corner of a foreign field that is forever BRITAIN?I’m English,even though I love it here so much that when I do finally ring down the curtain and join the choir invisible I’m having my ashes scattered in Australia.Sorry I’m digressing .

No, it’s exactly the same thing.

No, it isn’t.

The law should be the same for everyone, no excuses, no exceptions.

I agree.

You can’t really criticise some (not all) Sikhs for not wanting to obey one law while you’re happy to flout another.

I’m not, I’m criticising the law for making exceptions based on the religious choice of individuals.

But along the line somewhere, Sikhs must have argued that their wish to ride a motorcycle (and not break the law) was more important that a law without exceptions.

Whether you pay the fines or not is beside the point.

No it isn’t, the law still applies to me in exactly the same way as everybody else…..no exceptions.

You didn’t answer my question. Would you be happy if because of my religion I didn’t have to obey the speed limit?

Anyway,I’m not British,I’m English .

Your passport says otherwise. :p

Not the same thing at all

No, it’s exactly the same thing.

The law should be the same for everyone, no excuses, no exceptions.

You can’t really criticise some (not all) Sikhs for not wanting to obey one law while you’re happy to flout another.

Whether you pay the fines or not is beside the point.

The same can, of course, be said of people who think that speed limits apply to everyone else on the road and/or that it’s perfectly OK for them to drive and use their mobile phone at the same time.

I doubt that all of these people are Sikhs. 🙂

Not the same thing at all.

People who speed (like me) are breaking the law; when I get caught I pay the fine and take the points.

If however because of my religious beliefs I was exempt from obeying the speed limit would you be happy?

That’s because the British are among the most ignorant people on the planet!

Paul

SOME of the British are ignorant,and I’d like to know why a disproportionate number of those who are choose to live in my town.But I still think this is a pretty good country.Anyway,I’m not British,I’m English .

I was watching a programme yesterday on British people who’d emigrated to Spain and seemed quite proud of the fact that they couldn’t speak any Spanish .

That’s because the British are among the most ignorant people on the planet!

Paul