How is that a trap? He asked a very direct question with a simple answer. I can’t believe anybody would accept an answer other than “yes, everybody can contribute something to our society.” Maybe this is part of Britain’s problem with immigrants. An American politician would be roasted if he said something like this, but British people think it’s possible that Muslim women contribute nothing?
I think he deserves a boot in the ass for blowing an easy question.
…and how does he compare to GWB then ?
There is definately a problem with any incoming group of migrants who steadfastly refuse or are unable to learn the language and customs of the host community.
They are far less employable, and their life options generally are limited, it means that many end up dependant upon state benefits, or are vulnerable to those in their own communities that seek to exploit them.
This is not racist, its a fact.
The veil in and of itself is not a problem but in the UK it has become symbolic of a certain attitude and when you read the story about Blair being asked about the veil, it is not about the flimsy piece of cloth - this is a question about integration, which represents in the UK closed communities of immigrants who choose not to become part of the wider collective, except to complain about how we, the overwhelming majority, must change everything about ourselves, our values, even our customs, just to fit in with them.
That is when it become a difficult question, that is when the debate starts, where are those lines to be drawn, should they be drawn at all, but for many of us, why on earth should we who pay taxes be expected to provide resources for those who refuse to learn about us, and to learn to live in our cities.
In Leeds, we have a Bangladeshi community centre, yet there are precious few facilities in that part of town for the rest of the population of blacks, whites, and other immigrant groups, and yet the money to pay for it comes from the city, not the Bangladeshi community.
Lazy people will always find a way to blame others for their problems, and among all the hard working immigrants, there is a small number who are vociferous in their claims, they hit the headlines, make the news and want the entire society in which they live to conform to their demands and ideals.
It makes it so much harder for the rest of us who are also from Pakistani and Indian backgrounds to make our way in the UK, I really despise them.
In terms of what?
Stupid.
But then, I just don’t get the UK and their multicultural quirks. That’s actually being generous - I think they’re infuriating moronic.
“Black community” and “black culture” are tenuous enough terms in the U.S., where most of the black population were created domestically in one region at the beginning of the nation’s history. It should be absolutely meaningless in the U.K. (well, it IS absolutely meaningless - the British just don’t seem to get that).
So what is Britain’s “black community” of diverse immigrants supposed to even do with Blair’s invective? What was America’s “white community” called on to do about the rash of school shooting/suicides that happened a while back?
Thanks casdave. I’d compiled a similar post before I left work and then the electricity went off!
To clarify, I don’t think anyone (reasonable) thinks that it is the case that Muslim women have nothing to contribute and I don’t believe that was what Blair was suggesting. However, there is clearly an issue about integration policy (or the lack of it), and that issue deserves discussion without pointless accusations of racism.
Where criticism can be justly pointed, I think, is that individual events are too often used to try and make general points. There has been a spate of knife crime which seems to be amongst young black people. However, my guess would be that there is an awful lot more knife crime amongst the population at large which has gone unreported, at least at a national level. Even this, perhaps, is indicative of British attitudes and deserves attention.
Similarly, the issue at the time was about the wearing of the veil, and how that might inhibit traditional UK interactions (in the classroom, and in meeting MPs, specifically). Now the question of whether it does or not is absolutely valid, which is what Blair was answering, I believe. The ‘trap’ was precisely to phrase it as a closed question, which meant that the only reasonable answer is ‘it deserves discussion’. Just my view, and YMMV, of course!
Oh, and as far as my mention of being in Britain goes, that was honestly because I don’t know how press conferences, etc. are carried out in the US, and whether the kind of ‘reading between the lines’ approach is utilised to the same extent over there. John Humphreys and Paxman must be about the only journalists who strive to get a straight answer!
Given that this thread is “really” about Blair’s comment about black culture, I don’t think what I’m saying is pointless at all.
I am not trying to gloss over the issues in the UK (and all of Europe, for that matter) related to Muslim immigration and integration. But from what I’m reading, Blair’s response to that issue was “I’m not sure these people have anything to contribute to our society,” and his response to the knife fighting issue is “black culture, not poverty.” I’m wondering if there is a pattern here, because it looks to me like there is.
That sounds less like a trap from the journalist and more like projection on your part. Even if it was a trap it sounds easy to wriggle out of.
Holy crap, that’s a good point.
I’m not sure what you mean here. The majority of black Britons are descendants of West Indians who came over after the war - is it so surprising that after such a short time that there is at least some separately-identifiable “black culture” and “black community”?
Of course, I may well be completely missing your point.
Anyway, the recent spate of knife crime is just stupid teen pretend gangster shit, the likes of which white Glasgow has thrown up for many, many years. It’s got fuck-all to do with skin colour - it’s environment and (relative) poverty that drives stuff like that.
Name a few veils MP’s for me, or Journalists in the UK, or doctors, or civil servants, or professionals, or business women, or even checkout assistants. Gets a little thin when you think about it, doesn’t it? How can you contribute something to a society when a culture restricts your freedom of clothing down to only being able to view the world through a black cloth with eye holes?
I’ve seen plenty of veiled women in my area, and even from Muslims who don’t wear it, they’re considered oppressed.
Personally, I have never ever seen a veiled woman working in any public place, in fact, I haven’t even seen any in any hospitals as employees, nor in any other company where I worked.
I have worked in some big organisations, never seen a veil during that time.
The only times I have seen them, are in certain retail outlets that are family owned, but never ever in a working environment.
I see them on the street, and I know that culturally a muslim woman would have some issues in a working environment dealing with unmarried men - this alone closes a huge area of employment.
Now please, could anyone explain to me why I or anyone else should pay taxation to support a person whose cultural background means that their chance of actually earning a living instead of leeching off society.
Of course, it could be that working muslim women don’t actually wear veils whilst working, but if that’s the case, why do some groups campaign for their rights when veils are clearly not part of the UK work environment and which they can live without, why should I change to accept this ?
If I were in a muslim country, I would abide by the rules or leave, and the rules in some of those countries are somewhat oppressive.
If they prefer to be opressed, then as far as I’m concerned thats their business, go and live in an opressive country but they have no right to try opress me in my country by forcing change upon me, without my consent and by using resources I have earned and which they have not.
Not living in the UK, I could hardly name any of those people with or without a veil. I don’t travel in Muslim circles, so when I see a women wearing a veil or scarf, I don’t know what she does for a living. Sorry I haven’t bothered them or followed them home. Even if they’re raising children and not holding down a day job I’d say they’re contributing to society.
I think they’re oppressed too, but that’s hardly the point. Blair, who I’m sure is viewed negatively by Muslims in the first place, isn’t going to help the situation by belittling them.
On that note, what’s Blair proposing to do about the “black kids” problem? Going after the gangs sounds like a good idea, but other than that he seems to be laying the problem at the feet of black leaders.
Etc etc etc.
So you are quite the informed person then! Do you have any further sermons to hand down from your Mount of Idiocy?
So you’re saying I have to go out of my way to name individual Muslims before you accept that it’s possible for women wearing veils to contribute to your society?
And what sermon are you talking about? My radical theory that it’s possible people can contribute to society regardless of what they wear?
Perhaps a little history is needed.
In the UK the police used to stop and search young black guys on ‘suss’ - which stands for suspicion. It lead to a lot of resentment and got stamped on. The police became very nervous of ‘institutional racism’ and political correctness set in.
Over the past few years we have had a steady increase in violent crimes involving guns and knives. I suspect that some of this is down to Yardies who are really Jamaican and come from a violent culture. I’ve also noticed that Somalis tend to turn up.
The trouble is that knives and especially guns are becoming a status symbol amongst young guys - and in the UK we have very strict gun laws.
The only way of preventing people carrying weopons is to search them, which is a return to ‘suss’ - a sensitive issue.
If the Labour party keeps quiet on the issue, then they risk voters turning to the BNP (British National Party) who are pretty unpleasant, so Blair needs to send out a signal that the government is aware of the problem and is going to tackle it.
I don’t think he is being controversial and I don’t think it will create problems with the vast majority of the black community.
I have to go along with you and FDRE. Many of my fellow Americans see racial issues in black-and-white terms (no pun intended) and don’t really understand the nuances that can develop in different social environments.
Then why not “West Indian community”?
If you wish to take issue with a post or poster, you are free to do so using facts and logic.
If you feel the need to hurl insults, open a thread in the BBQ Pit
[ /Moderating ]
That is a bit tricky, the oldest black community in the UK is of course West Indian, but more recent immigrants from West Africa and East Africa form other communities - and they don’t always get on.
I think also that people of West Indian descent who have lost touch with the homeland would prefer to self describe as ‘Black British’. Actually I think second and third generation people of West Indian descent could be very offended.
He didn’t say that.
He was asked if a woman who wore the veil could make a full contribution to British society.
He said it was a difficult question, and that the evidence shows that those who integrate more also achieve more.
Even if he had said that such women are held back in various ways, and arguably cannot make a “full” contribution, that wouldn’t mean they have nothing to contribute.
You are taking way too much from his answer, especially since you don’t even know what the question was.