I'd rather you didn't. It's a weighty topic, but has nothing to do with climate.

Also, I dislike the ideology packaging that goes in on the media, they portray anyone
who dissents as belonging to a wider group which includes right-wing fundamentalist
bigots. Considering a recent thread about Scottish independence, let's not stoke that
particular fire in case we prove them right.

I suspect that the sheer number of Muslim incomers during the past few years in the UK are steadily tipping the balance away from the previously-accepted ways of life in the UK. In my experience, Muslim peoples do not assimilate, but attempt to alter their current surroundings to fit their own cultural habits.
Very similar to UK and European immigrants in NZ since the first wave of their kin arrived here, despite the wishes of the local population 200 years ago!
Brits don't readily assimilate when they transplant themselves on the other side of the planet, either..

Alas, possibly one of the most damaging threads to the credibility of scientific scepticism stutters to life...

I am not denouncing the discussion, only warning that having it on a climate sceptical blog is playing into the ideological prejudices of the enemy.

Dung,

Carry on, you are going to anyway. In many ways your posts here on GHE and now immigration are a 5th column.

I think you'll find most religions are as bad and for many years Christians were as bloodthirsty as ISIS, so the DNA and writings are there as it were. Religion is all about 'my fictional boss is better than your fictional boss and I'll kill you if you disagree.'

Many of the UK radicals are not recent immigrants and often show little real religious interest. It's just another form of gang culture. Many girls who wear the full tent are not following the rules of their culture, they're doing it because they want to. It's the equivalent of tattoos and dyed hair.

Yes, many recent immigrants do not integrate but then we haven't asked them to and have often gone out of our way to stop them needing to.

At the same time we have let people do their own thing, our society endlessly puts itself down. It continuously apologises for past actions, good or bad. It tells teenagers of all walks, 'you deserve more'. They go off and get a poxy degree in something useless and then are furious they don’t get that well paid job they wanted, let alone the directorship at the bank. How often do we hear people whining about the gap between rich and poor? No reminder that the poorest are infinitely better off.

Instead of saying 'yes I know property is expensive and in short supply but the shortfall is equal to all the immigrants we've let in.' they blame the rich, white baby boomers for hogging all the one time cheap property. No mention that not only was it cheap but it was pretty poor quality too. Blame DIY shows or the House Doctor for high priced property. So not only are Muslim children subject to pressures unique to their heritage, they’re being bombarded by the self-indulgent message all kids are getting. Jihad is not dissimilar to all these pop shows. One tells kids that they can become rich and powerful for a few minutes of mediocre singing and the other says they become powerful and rich (maybe in the next life) by blowing somebody up. Nobody’s saying ‘work hard and climb up the prosperity ladder’ anymore. Indeed it’s seen as tacky and a bit plebby. Everybody looks down on the middle classes.

Yes, I know the irony of talking down this country for talking itself down but quite a few of our problems are self-inflicted (yes I know it’s not us at BH). And one of the biggest is pretending that multiculturism isn’t very, very wrong. Race doesn’t matter, culture does and until we stand up for the best parts of ours *, youngsters will take us at our own value and treat us accordingly.

* every culture has its dark side. eg the UK has a serious drinking problem.

It's OK to discuss in public any threat imagined out of nowhere much which will affect our way of life. TBYJ would have it OK to discuss the climate one, but not talk about the other.

Funny, that's the way the BBC and the Guardian see it.

It's my observation that real threats would tend to fall into the category 'not to be discussed, it will stir up hatred, backlash, worry the folks and so on'. Imaginary or largely hypothetical threats (not just climate, but all the scares you can read about in the papers) are to be discussed, at length, by people with agendas.

I am not worried about radical Islam. I am a little worried about fertile Islam in my backyard. More spacist than racist.

And this is a dissentient's blog. It wasn't always about climate, nor must it be now. The bish will snip what he doesn't like.

And this is why we continually fail to score at the open goal of climate stupidity.

TBYJ "open goal of climate stupidity."

Since when was it an open goal? It's very highly defended stupidity as was multiculturism. The reason the two issues are so stupid is due to a bad part of UK culture.

That would be picking on one religion, it wouldn't be fair. What you would need to do is make rules for everyone. So, if you deem faith schools illegal then all faith schools have to be illegal. Does every religious text have to be gone through with a black pen excluding all the unsuitable stuff?

We see the problem with FGM. They are considering if piercings or designer vaginas are the same as FGM. Certainly it has to have a minimum age limit but how do you determine if a wife is being forced to have 'work' and not chosing it because it's her right to do what she wants to her body? When does free speech become incitement to violence or bullying? These types of issues can be endless.

What we need is common sense which is a very rare beast and even harder to agree on. There needs to be national debates about what we want on this and a great many other things.

Perhaps a better discussion here would be how do we determine fairness and rules that carry across all faiths and cultures?

Not so much as what is fair as what you can achieve. Personally I'd like it to be legal to shoot cats but I accept that it would be both wrong and unpopular with cat lovers. I would not be sucessful proposing it as a bylaw and it may become more difficult to get other more important issues raised.

No matter how much you might like your new rules a lot of people won't. However what many would support is a law against anyone inciting hatred against others, irrespective of type. The hard part would be to define it so as not to catch a slanging match between friends or miss somebody demanding cartoonists be killed.