Send them back

PureAppleJuice · 24 Dec 2006 at 13:54

Jokester said:
VIRII, I should probably point out at this point that the kid admitted to lying about it.

Jokester

Yeah I was pretty sure he did too, heard it on the news earlier. No one replied to my post about it though

Pretty pathetic that he made it up though, looks like a case of attention seeking, or just stirring things up a bit.

cleanbluesky · 24 Dec 2006 at 13:55

starscream said:
Because it was an open and shut case. The SL case had many arrests, releases, charges, dropped charges and a while public enquirey into the conduct of the police.

If the perpetrators were caught, tried and sentenced in the same way as in the Kriss Donald case, it would have received far less media attention.

It wasn't quite an open and shut case, the perpatrators fled the country. Another interesting idea behind it is that the Stephen Lawrence case has been portrayed as a racial issue despite the fact that there has been no convictions, and the Kriss Donald case has not been used for racial politics to the same extent...

VIRII · 24 Dec 2006 at 13:56

Spawn said:
Seems like quite a few convicts there are as dumb and stupid like their british counterparts....

Seems like a rather racist comment to make.

cleanbluesky · 24 Dec 2006 at 13:57

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/6207509.stm

He just went for a hair cut?

Cheeky sod, although I believe it highlights nicely the way in which ethnic minorities can get PC morons to pander to them...

starscream · 24 Dec 2006 at 14:01

cleanbluesky said:
I think what DD is asking is whether we should automatically respect the ideologies of others, and whether we should take greater than average effort to learn the intricacies of these ideologies?

I don't think there is any reason why a person should be somehow forced to respect certain ideologies. What is important is they respect the freedom of others to practice such ideologies.

cleanbluesky said:
It is not a question of 'enlightened' versus 'closed mind' - I do not know the manufacturing process of a packet of cigarettes, I will likely not be 'enlightened' should I know, nor does it make me 'closed minded' not to know. I merely do not consider the information neccessary

Surely it is better to be educated about something rather than not, regardless of whether you currently consider information necessary or not.

VIRII · 24 Dec 2006 at 14:03

yer_averagejoe said:
Why?

If you're not prejudice toward foreign people, why do they have less rights than us? considering they are living and working here, EXACTLY like you are.

Because they have not got generations of investment into creating the country in the first place.
Presumeably if you buy a car I have every right to use it whenever I like right?

cleanbluesky · 24 Dec 2006 at 14:04

starscream said:
I don't think there is any reason why a person should be somehow forced to respect certain ideologies. What is important is they respect the freedom of others to practice such ideologies.

I don't believe there is any freedom for a person to practice any ideology they want.

Surely it is better to be educated about something rather than not, regardless of whether you currently consider information necessary or not.

Not necessarily. Education can represent control, and I do not believe that there is any imperative to learn about foreign ideology without learning about them in context. There is certainly no imperative to capitulate to the wishes of those who follow ideologies regardless of merit, even if their ideology effects only them directly.

VIRII · 24 Dec 2006 at 14:05

yer_averagejoe said:
As to why they're coming to our country - because they can? Because its better here? Makes sense to me.

And why is it better? Could it be because our forebears created it for us and entrusted it to us to hand to our children? Could it be that if Poland is rubbish it is because the people there messed it up? So why should they come here and not fix their own mess but rather cram into overcrowded roads and cities here and indulge in that which they had no part in making?

Hamster · 24 Dec 2006 at 14:06

cleanbluesky said:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/6207509.stm

He just went for a hair cut?

Cheeky sod, although I believe it highlights nicely the way in which ethnic minorities can get PC morons to pander to them...

Far from condoning the boy's actions, to me it highlights the strain between him wanting to conform to a British lifestyle and his family/community pressure to conform to religious dogma.

VIRII · 24 Dec 2006 at 14:07

starscream said:
Assume you are talking about the Kriss Donald case? I don't understand why everone says this. It was covered extensively in the media, just have a look on the BBC website, there are many stories from the when the attack happened through to the convictions. It may have had slightly more coverage in Scotland due to the location, but to say it "wasn't covered much" is not true.

I disagree. I would think far more people can remember who Stephen Lawrence was that Kris Donald. I think one had hundreds of hours more coverage than the other.

VIRII · 24 Dec 2006 at 14:08

starscream said:
No reason at all, but like any subject, it is better to be enlightened than have a closed mind.

Is it? Isn't religion actually closing minds in the first place? Or does religion "enlighten"?
There is no reason to know about every weird and wonderful custom of the worlds population, nor does knowing anything about these religions improve my life or enlighten me.

VIRII · 24 Dec 2006 at 14:09

Jokester said:
VIRII, I should probably point out at this point that the kid admitted to lying about it.

Jokester

I just found out, was working through the thread

starscream · 24 Dec 2006 at 14:20

cleanbluesky said:
I don't believe there is any freedom for a person to practice any ideology they want.

If not, who should be the judge of whether a person can or can not practice such an ideology?

cleanbluesky said:
Not necessarily. Education can represent control, and I do not believe that there is any imperative to learn about foreign ideology without learning about them in context.

Well lets use the Sikh religion as an example, as that's whats being talked about here. If a person wants to criticise this ideology, consider these 2 statements

A) I dislike like Sikh religion as having studied the Granth a disagree with....etc etc
B) I dislike the Sikh religion because....ummmm......

To me A is enlightened criticism, B is a bigoted opinion.

starscream · 24 Dec 2006 at 14:24

VIRII said:
I disagree. I would think far more people can remember who Stephen Lawrence was that Kris Donald. I think one had hundreds of hours more coverage than the other.

I've never said the KD case received as much attention as the SL case, but although both involved a racist murder, there are huge differences between the two. This was addressed in post 237

starscream · 24 Dec 2006 at 14:27

VIRII said:
There is no reason to know about every weird and wonderful custom of the worlds population, nor does knowing anything about these religions improve my life or enlighten me.

Well if you're argument is that learning does not lead to enlightenment then fair enough. It's not a viewpoint I or I would suggest most people agree with however.

VIRII · 24 Dec 2006 at 14:35

starscream said:
I've never said the KD case received as much attention as the SL case, but although both involved a racist murder, there are huge differences between the two. This was addressed in post 237

Fine compare KD with damiola taylor then. He was just a dead black kid, not racially murdered. Made much bigger news and a lot more people know who he is than KD.

VIRII · 24 Dec 2006 at 14:37

starscream said:
Well if you're argument is that learning does not lead to enlightenment then fair enough. It's not a viewpoint I or I would suggest most people agree with however.

Perhaps you need to clarify "enlightenment", generally it refers to an improved state.
If you feel that people are improved by learning about religions then I disagree. If you mean something else then perhaps you can learn to describe it more accurately.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/enlightenment

Perhaps you just mean *educated as opposed to *enlightened ...

Jokester · 24 Dec 2006 at 14:42

VIRII said:
Fine compare KD with damiola taylor then. He was just a dead black kid, not racially murdered. Made much bigger news and a lot more people know who he is than KD.

The Damilola Taylor case was dogged with controversy though over dodgy police tactics (paying witnesses effectively), police incompetence, cases getting thrown out, and multiple retrials.

The Kris Donald case appears to have went smoothly with clear culprits being found quickly and found guilty in court without any of the above issues occuring.

Jokester

Breeze · 24 Dec 2006 at 14:46

VIRII said:
Actually can you explain to me why anyone SHOULD know, learn or give a flying toss about immigrant religion?
If people come here it is on them to ensure they do not offend and are aware of the laws and culture.
I do not see why those who have the immigrant imposed upon them should have to know or learn anything about that persons religion or beliefs. If the immigrant is offended by others lack of knowledge of his way of life then maybe he should find a more suitable place to live.

Well said!

starscream · 24 Dec 2006 at 14:50

VIRII said:
Perhaps you need to clarify "enlightenment", generally it refers to an improved state.
If you feel that people are improved by learning about religions then I disagree.

Exactly that. Enlightenment means to gain understanding about a subject. The more understand/knowledge/wisdom you have on a given subject, the better position you are to pass comment on it, whether good or bad.