Briddish Leader Admits Multiculturalism Has Failed Badly
- Thread starter bill barilko
- Start date
I suppose it depends on how success is defined. I haven't been in Britain in quite some time and I have no idea how strongly multiculturalism is promoted there, if it ever was. But I do notice many differences in British culture so far as the way Britain is depicted in the media. The first is the presence of many non-whites in the media as actors, newsreaders, reporters and the like. I also note that many of Britain's best athletes are non-white. In addition, a good deal of the food Brits eat is definitely not British in origin. I am not sure if these are true signs of multiculturalism, but they do show that Britain is different from the way it used to be.
Of course, Britain has not had nearly the influx of immigrants that Canada has had, especially in relation to the numbers of the indigenous population. There are also a considerable differences in Britain, especially in regions like Scotland and Wales as well as dozens of regional accents. This may account for the so-called "failure" of multiculturalism. If a country still has differences that date back to the Middle Ages it is somewhat unlikely to be as open to change as a country like Canada which has fewer regional differences.
Of course, Britain has not had nearly the influx of immigrants that Canada has had, especially in relation to the numbers of the indigenous population. There are also a considerable differences in Britain, especially in regions like Scotland and Wales as well as dozens of regional accents. This may account for the so-called "failure" of multiculturalism. If a country still has differences that date back to the Middle Ages it is somewhat unlikely to be as open to change as a country like Canada which has fewer regional differences.
Let'snot forget empire. Not all of Britain's visible minorities are recent immigrants. In the time of the British Empire, subjects were free to roam the empire, and that included the mother country. Those who'd migrated to Britain at that time could not be considered immigrants seeing that they were in fact already citizens by virtue of being subjects within the British Empire.
Granted there has been much immigration since Britain's lost much of the empire; I'm just pointing out though that not all visible minorities in the UK today are necessarily immigrants or even descendants of immigrants as some are descendants of migrants from within the Empire.
How's this?
Yes I find that offensive, but no more so than Christian Reconstructionism, let alone :
Judicial Warfare: Christian Reconstruction's Blueprints For Dominion, by Greg Loren Durand
Or what about this:
YouTube - Not Imposing Christianity Through National Law
Yet most of them are probably not immigrants. So, do we kick them out?
I am not a conservative but I have for the most part given up on the Multicultural idea. We have
tried a deadly experiment in that for some reason we insist on trying to forge a society on the
belief we can mix, societal people with tribal people on a large scale. I does not work period.
We in the west believe in the system of law and constitution democracy that is based on the
concept that everyone is equal (in the eyes of the law) we have the right to believe what we
want to believe and we can criticize the authorities that govern us.
In parts of the world especially in the Middle East. they are loyal to their tribes and their own
version of Islam. There is both Sunni and Sharia groups in the main but not entirely. The whole
religion is divided by two versions of the religion. Sunni is Arabic based and and the ultra
conservative version Sharia. These people do not tolerate democracy they do not allow for the
freedom of expression and they are in your face, attempting to impose their views on the rest of
western society.
The time has come for Western Governments to act. We must in fact maintain a balance between
the rights of those who disagree with us and the rights of the rest of society. We must not allow
any one group to make demands beyond the rule of law in our nation.
tried a deadly experiment in that for some reason we insist on trying to forge a society on the
belief we can mix, societal people with tribal people on a large scale. I does not work period.
We in the west believe in the system of law and constitution democracy that is based on the
concept that everyone is equal (in the eyes of the law) we have the right to believe what we
want to believe and we can criticize the authorities that govern us.
In parts of the world especially in the Middle East. they are loyal to their tribes and their own
version of Islam. There is both Sunni and Sharia groups in the main but not entirely. The whole
religion is divided by two versions of the religion. Sunni is Arabic based and and the ultra
conservative version Sharia. These people do not tolerate democracy they do not allow for the
freedom of expression and they are in your face, attempting to impose their views on the rest of
western society.
The time has come for Western Governments to act. We must in fact maintain a balance between
the rights of those who disagree with us and the rights of the rest of society. We must not allow
any one group to make demands beyond the rule of law in our nation.
Immigration can, although ironically, destroy established and assimilated immigrant communities.
For instance, the Canton Hongkonese (who make up 99% of current Chinese immigrants) have emmigrated in the millions, since 1992 and have otherwise destroyed and displaced the historical Chinese communities in British Columbia and even abroad in London, Wellington and Sydney. There are more Chinese living in Richmond now than in historical China Town in Vancouver, Victoria; et al.
The same could hold true for other established communities in Canada. How would the Japanese-Canadians, in Steveson, fair if 500,000 Japanese born in Japan moved to Steveson tommorrow? Much like the historical Chinese, they would probably be displaced overnight.
For instance, the Canton Hongkonese (who make up 99% of current Chinese immigrants) have emmigrated in the millions, since 1992 and have otherwise destroyed and displaced the historical Chinese communities in British Columbia and even abroad in London, Wellington and Sydney. There are more Chinese living in Richmond now than in historical China Town in Vancouver, Victoria; et al.
The same could hold true for other established communities in Canada. How would the Japanese-Canadians, in Steveson, fair if 500,000 Japanese born in Japan moved to Steveson tommorrow? Much like the historical Chinese, they would probably be displaced overnight.
Last edited:
I think you'll find that the Northern Irish, Welsh and Scots are British as well. They can hardly tell the Brits to go home because they ARE Brits. It'll be like people in Alberta telling the Canadians to "go home." And it's not just Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales which aren't independent countries. England isn't either. And at least those three nations have their own parliaments as well as the parliament for the whole of the UK at Westminster, unlike England which is ruled solely by Westminster.
There wouldn't be an EDL today if it wasn't for the previous Labour Government's open-door immigration policy, where every Tom, Dick and Abdul was allowed to wander into our country with the minimum of checks. I think only two other EU countries - Republic of Ireland and Sweden - had such a devastating open-door policy.
Wrong. When the British Empire was dismantled, there were many various forms of nationality, most of which did not include citizenship of the UK & Northern Ireland proper. To this day, the categories of British Overseas National and other various, unique but similar-sounding status of nationality still exist. For instance, once South Africa became independent in 1961, all British subjects, whether in the UK or SA lost that status. The same can be said for India and every other former colony.
Needless to say, they were never the same type of 'citizen', or citizen at all, that natural born Anglos/Scots/Celts were.
Indians that relocated by virtue of being British subjects to the United Kingdom were immigrants and they always will be, just as any Indian-born Briton will always be and remain British: Joanna Lumley comes to mind.
Is Joanna Lumley Indian?
Machjo: You obviously have a very poor understanding of British nationality law.
The Netherlands and to a lesser degree, Denmark have also followed similar paths.
Needless to say, they were never the same type of 'citizen', or citizen at all, that natural born Anglos/Scots/Celts were.
Indians that relocated by virtue of being British subjects to the United Kingdom were immigrants and they always will be, just as any Indian-born Briton will always be and remain British: Joanna Lumley comes to mind.
OK, there is a lot to read on this, so I'll have to look further into it. However, it's clear that the British Empire encouraged Britons to settle throughout, thus naturally increasing the chances of them intermarrying. Also, according to this at least:
History of British nationality law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
OK, I may have been wrong. I'll have to look further into it. I know France had granted all Algerians born prior to independence French citizenship by virtue of having been born within the Empire, and so perhaps mistakenly assumed the British would have been as kind. After all, if the British could roam abroad and lord over other countries, it would only have been common courtesy to return the favour and allow the colonists to go to the UK.
No Britian is different than France in nationality laws. Even as late as 1997, Hong Kong citizens were never granted British citizenship and were only offered BN(O) passports without the right of abode. This status is not even transferrable to children of BN(O)s.
Then I stand corrected. Sounds like they were greater pricks than I'd originally thought as they lorded over their colonists.
Brought civilisation and infrastructure to much of the world means they were pricks?
I was thinking the same thing...... In regards to the topic, the only reason why muticulturalism fails, is due to not implimenting it correctly.
There can be successful multiculturalism used as a nation's identity if done right..... it fails when you do not set a base set of rules, laws and regulations for all entering/living in your country to understand and follow. Allowing every type of culture to freely follow their own ways of living, their own mentalities from their home countries, to the point where they feel it's their right to invoke violence or oppression against their fellow citizen...... is a true sign of failure.... and if that's what this "Briddish Leader" is getting at, then he only has himself and the rest of the government to blame for not doing it right.
And you can't separate all the cultures from one another into little ghettos or sections of a city and still let them practice their old ways freely, because then you still don't have multiculturalism..... you have little teeny-tiny countries of people and cultures very close to one another.
Some basic things needed for successful multi-c I think are the following:
- You must clearly understand, read and use one or more of the host nation's languages.
- You must accept that you are entering a host nation that consists of multiple beliefs, cultures and way of life that may be different from your own.
- You must accept the provincial/state and/or federal laws of the host nation, you must follow those laws and not break them. Doing so will result in prosecution and/or deportation from host nation. Your cultural background and beliefs do not void your responsibility from following the host nation's laws. This is where the freedom of your cultural background and beliefs end.
- You must accept the host nations' Bill/Charter of Human Rights that apply for all who enter or live in that host nation. By not abiding by the Bill/Charter of Human Rights of the host nation, the end result will be prosecution and/or deportation from host nation. Your cultural background and beliefs do not void your responsibility from following the host nation's laws. This is where the freedom of your cultural background and beliefs end.
- You do not have the right/freedom to force others to follow your cultural/spiritual beliefs, even if your culture/spiritual beliefs or the nation you come from says so. This is where the freedom of your cultural background and beliefs end.
^ Without some sort of guidelines like the above, perhaps more in depth then the above, you will end up with a country with residents/citizens who can't speak the nation's language(s) and must be catered to...... you will have people pushing their beliefs onto others....... you will have certain cultures oppressing and committing violent acts not just on other citizens/residents of the nation, but those in their family as well...... you will have large divisions within the nation and your nation will not have any true identity, certainly not a multicultural identity.
The identity would resemble some gypsy market filled with cut throat bandits...... where the law doesn't touch most people because their religious or cultural beliefs/backgrounds say those laws don't apply to them.
Responding to the bold section: But there in lies the problem..... you say we can not promote a Canadian identity when all immigrants hang onto their culture and language...... if that was the case, there wouldn't be any Highland Games in the Maritimes, nobody in Cape Breton would be practicing or teaching Gaelic (which has since almost completely died out in Scotland)..... the Acadians in NB and NS would no longer be around, everybody in NB and NS would be speaking english and Quebec would have been completely assemilated.
Perhaps some might see those things as a good thing..... but our general national identity is based on many different cultures and beliefs...... so why shouldn't new immigrants be allowed to bring along their own beliefs and languages like our families did?
The key is where one draws the line...... and the line is drawn with our charter of rights and our provincial and federal laws that currently exist...... the line is also drawn with these new immigrants either knowing English or French, or both...... and for them to understand that their cultural beliefs & their spiritual beliefs do not give them freedom to break our laws or our human rights..... and if they can't figure that out, then they shouldn't be allowed into our country.
It should be as simple as that...... but our bureaucracy seems to have a way of giving these assclowns a way of appealing and fighting to get into our country via discrimination, or they come into our country claiming refugee status..... claiming that their home countries might torture and/or kill them.
Too damn bad.... in order to come into our country, they have to prove they won't end up doing the same to our own people. (ie: dragging their baggage from their country over to here)
You can't wipe multiculturalism from our nation, it's a part of our national identity...... but you can't just leave the flood gates wide open either.... there is a very visible line that can be made between the two.
How's this?
At least he's smiling......
Last edited:
'' I think you'll find that the Northern Irish, Welsh and Scots are British as well.''
Try saying that the Irish Republican Army and others.
Try saying that the Irish Republican Army and others.
British Isles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Actually he's right, since British has a number of meanings, including a non-political geographical one, comprising the British Isles including Northern Ireland. So while an Irishman may be happy Ireland is an independent state, he still acknowledges that it comprises the British Isles. A comparison in the Americas might be the term 'Cascadian', which any can use if he live in Western BC, Southern Alaska, or even much of Washington and Oregon. There is a difference of course in that British has both a political and non-political sense so some might be hesitant to use the term to avoid confusion. But still the term can be applied non-politically too just like the term Cascadian.
HItler was never elected as a dictator - he simply abused the enabling act and stayed in power as a dictator. In that regard, Hitler wasn't any different than Trudeau who had the same potential with the War Measures Act during the October Crisis. Trudeau probably did consider this option as he was known in the 1940s to associate with Quebecois Fascists.
Trudeau could had decided he liked the War Measures Act too much and he could had been our "First Secretary", until he was overthrown or died of old age in 2000.
Trudeau could had decided he liked the War Measures Act too much and he could had been our "First Secretary", until he was overthrown or died of old age in 2000.
How's this?
I am not sure I understand your point. Are you claiming that a lunatic religious fringe that is not supported by the majority of British Muslims is proof that multiculturalism in Britain has failed? You could make the same claim in Canada using the Christian Heritage Front, a nut case right wing party that has so little support it no longer contests elections.