The hidden hand of the left

First topic message reminder :

Nigel Farage challenged the Labour Party to explain its segregated meeting earlier this weekend. The BBC's Andrew Neil put the questions to Labour MP Luciana Berger. You won't believe her response...

https://www.facebook.com/nigelfarageofficial/videos/vb.133737666673845/844092505638354/?type=2&theater


A case of their eagerness to pander to "minority religion" rather than promote human rights

If you are LGBT perhaps you should beware of labours "hidden hand"

The left would just as soon climb into bed with the devil as be upright and open....

trust them at your peril

moreover

you will note how conveniently my other point was ignored

would it been just as acceptable if gays had been excluded to the lobby due to the "culture" of the participants??

or is that too difficult to answer and causes brain seize in lefties.....

By Left, you mean Labour

And this is a nonsense, there is no way that segregated audiences are acceptable in modern Britain. I have no interest in fellow liberal minded people justifying this- we shouldn't be accepting this just because they are all Muslim- as we shouldn't really accept the Burkha or Sharia law in Muslim communities. Its hypocrisy and wrong.

Eilzel wrote:By Left, you mean Labour

And this is a nonsense, there is no way that segregated audiences are acceptable in modern Britain. I have no interest in fellow liberal minded people justifying this- we shouldn't be accepting this just because they are all Muslim- as we shouldn't really accept the Burkha or Sharia law in Muslim communities. Its hypocrisy and wrong.

Thank you EIL, there are a few brains left on the left after all...I was beginning to wonder...at least you see my point....
have a

but sadly for you labour are the representatives of the left here.....

darknessss wrote:

Eilzel wrote:By Left, you mean Labour

And this is a nonsense, there is no way that segregated audiences are acceptable in modern Britain. I have no interest in fellow liberal minded people justifying this- we shouldn't be accepting this just because they are all Muslim- as we shouldn't really accept the Burkha or Sharia law in Muslim communities. Its hypocrisy and wrong.

Thank you EIL, there are a few brains left on the left after all...I was beginning to wonder...at least you see my point....
have a

but sadly for you labour are the representatives of the left here.....

Which is tragic, I feel that the problem with Muslims being a minority is it pushes some LW liberals to a situation where they are conflicted between the worse kind of conservative social regressions and the fact the ones preaching them are the minority...

I don't really see Labour and Tory as representing Right or Left though. They both slightly incline one way but generally just swim in the centre ground. What we have in this story is Labour pandering to a particular group in order to secure votes.

No 1.   It was hardly 'segregation' sitting either side of an aisle.  Segregation would have been different rooms.

No. 2    All boys schools, all girls schools, men's clubs etc

No. 3    Synagogues are segregated, never hear a word about that.

Better ban hen nights, stag nights etc as well.

If it's forced, stop it. If people object to it, stop it. If people are happy with it, it's none of our damn business.

risingsun wrote:No 1.   It was hardly 'segregation' sitting either side of an aisle.  Segregation would have been different rooms.

No. 2    All boys schools, all girls schools, men's clubs etc

No. 3    Synagogues are segregated, never hear a word about that.

Better ban hen nights, stag nights etc as well.

If it's forced, stop it.  If people object to it, stop it.  If people are happy with it, it's none of our damn business.

How do you know how happy they are about it? Sure they might say they are, but they may also just be obedient little women in a very male dominated culture- at least inquire as to WHY the need to separate surely?

Defending it on the grounds of what synagogues do is not defense, it just shows that some branches of Judaism are equally as backward as some branches of Islam.

risingsun wrote:No 1.   It was hardly 'segregation' sitting either side of an aisle.  Segregation would have been different rooms.

No. 2    All boys schools, all girls schools, men's clubs etc

No. 3    Synagogues are segregated, never hear a word about that.

Better ban hen nights, stag nights etc as well.

If it's forced, stop it.  If people object to it, stop it.  If people are happy with it, it's none of our damn business.

Only the left could possible come out with the most daftest answers to accomdate 7th century thinking.

1) Yes it was segregation because they were not allowed to sit next to each other, so you allow blacks and whites to be segregated ion the same room based off this principle if it was asked by the KKK a Christian political group?

2) All boy schools and all girl schools have male and female teachers, it is not fully segregated, where they often participate in competitions with other schools and this is not something I back either and is wrong. This again was a political meeting..

3)  Well most hen nights end up in bars and clubs with men, so that has to be the most stupidest answer yet. Any place of of worship that segregates is wrong. Why do people always use two wrongs as if to justify inequality?

This is the 21st century where women have fought for years for equality, this is a step backwards allowing inequality, where it should never be the norm again.

and of course

with sassys reasoning they could just as well have forced gays to sit in the lobby/hallway

it is pandering at the highest level...and a large part of what led to rotherham etc......

the left (as epitomised by labour ) indeed do have a negotiable variable in the concept of "equality"

indeed by sassy and Bens view those guys that refused to make the wedding cake for the gay folks were quite right

since a) they were following their "religious" convictions

and b) in reality the gay folk were NOT in any way "harmed" by it....(i.e they could easily have gone elsewhere)

and dont trry to wriggle too much....

because the two cases hinge around exactly the same argument

.

darknessss wrote:indeed by sassy and Bens view those guys that refused to make the wedding cake for the gay folks were quite right

since a) they were following their "religious" convictions

and b) in reality the gay folk were NOT in any way "harmed" by it....(i.e they could easily have gone elsewhere)

and dont trry to wriggle too much....

because the two cases hinge around exactly the same argument

.

Fully agreed; what IF a woman had not agreed to the segregation? As I said its a wish to be as accommodating as possible without any consideration of the wider implications

Lefties quantum thinking allows them to have two opposing opinions at the same time...

Its really no surprise that the latin for left is "sinistre" or in english sinister is it

the left hand that conceals the dagger of duplicity...

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:
A moderate leftie is like a moderate Muslim... both appearing as quite pleasant, easy going, relaxed and of promises of 'better times' if you follow their 'way'...

Then when you look at the reality of where 'their ways' lead to...


Both are fundamentally totalitarian and authoritarian regimes leading to misery, pain, suffering, hunger, deprivation, brutality. torture, death, destruction...

...you can start to understand why they are natural bed fellows now... and have a close connection in the past...

Here we go again. Liberals defend the rights of Muslims and suddenly we LUUURRRVVVE Islam, and we love all the horrible things people have done in its name, blah blah blah. I would be interested, though, in hearing more about this "close connection in the past." It should be good for a laugh.

TYPICAL Tommy "Gun" Monk lunacy at it's best !

LET'S NOT forget ~ as well as not understanding half of those big words that he copies and pastes so faithfully;

TOMMY M. stated last week that only bad people are seen running ~ and as a consequence all runners deserve to be shot ! Doubly so if they're running away ~ because IF they're running away they must be criminals..  

NO DOUBT Tommy would be first in line for the honours..
SHOULD make the next Olympics and Commonwealth Games more interesting, at any rate !

I write my own words flea keeper, if I have pasted something it will be identified as such and source given.



And it is quite true that people generally don't resist arrest, assault police officers and run away if they are law abiding citizens.

trust the old bat to support this with yet more excuses

"Labour's deputy leader Harriet Harman this morning defended the party's controversial gender-segregated election rally – insisting it was 'better than a men-only meeting'.

Ms Harman, who has made her political career fighting for women's rights, said boycotting the meeting would have been 'rude'.

It comes after the party was dragged into a furious 'sexism' row after senior Labour figures, including Ms Harman's husband Jack Dromey, spoke at a meeting in Birmingham on Saturday even though men sat on one side of the room and women on the other.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3070435/Labour-s-women-s-rights-champion-Harriet-Harman-DEFENDS-sexist-party-rally-Muslim-men-women-seated-apart.html#ixzz3ZOdLfJiD
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

darknessss wrote:indeed by sassy and Bens view those guys that refused to make the wedding cake for the gay folks were quite right

since a) they were following their "religious" convictions

and b) in reality the gay folk were NOT in any way "harmed" by it....(i.e they could easily have gone elsewhere)

and dont trry to wriggle too much....

because the two cases hinge around exactly the same argument

.

Wrong. For one, the Muslim audience here was dealing with one another, not with outsiders who didn't share their values. Again, there is no evidence that the women didn't want to sit apart from the men based on their own religious beliefs.

Women brought up in patriarchal religious systems often fervently support them. It was a woman, Phyllis Schlafly, who rallied American women to oppose the Equal Rights Amendment, which would have legally guaranteed equality of the sexes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phyllis_Schlafly

I can only think that she believes what she says.

Secondly, there was no transaction going on, thus no denial of service based on discrimination. If you look at the photos, I'm sure both sides of the room were able to see and hear the candidate equally well.

Third, you and others on this thread keep working from but not proving the premise that this is done to oppress women:

Islam discourages free mixing between men and women (known as Ikhtilat (Arabic: اختلاط)), especially when alone. The intention of all restrictions is to keep interaction at a modest level.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_segregation_and_Muslims

It seems more to be about the repression of sexuality than the oppression of women.

@ben
Phyllis Schlafly proves your point wrong

Secular values must always come first
the fact some are brainwashed into accepting oppression does not justify the oppression nor is Stockholm syndrome a reason to accept discrimination or segregation.

Islam like any other religion MUST conform to secular values when conducting itself within the politics of a secular nation. It was a political party conference therefore it is NOT allowed any concession to religion that contravenes the rights of the Everybody. anyone is legally allowed to attend so in the basic idea of secular freedom "You are allowed your freedom Until it denies someone else theirs" means you cannot tell someone thy have to sit on one side of the room because of their gender.

The English Labor Party are short sighted idiots, it may have had good intentions but it is still wrong for a secular political party to allow.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

darknessss wrote:indeed by sassy and Bens view those guys that refused to make the wedding cake for the gay folks were quite right

since a) they were following their "religious" convictions

and b) in reality the gay folk were NOT in any way "harmed" by it....(i.e they could easily have gone elsewhere)

and dont trry to wriggle too much....

because the two cases hinge around exactly the same argument

.

Wrong. For one, the Muslim audience here was dealing with one another, not with outsiders who didn't share their values. Again, there is no evidence that the women didn't want to sit apart from the men based on their own religious beliefs.

Women brought up in patriarchal religious systems often fervently support them. It was a woman, Phyllis Schlafly, who rallied American women to oppose the Equal Rights Amendment, which would have legally guaranteed equality of the sexes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phyllis_Schlafly

I can only think that she believes what she says.

Secondly, there was no transaction going on, thus no denial of service based on discrimination. If you look at the photos, I'm sure both sides of the room were able to see and hear the candidate equally well.

Third, you and others on this thread keep working from but not proving the premise that this is done to oppress women:

Islam discourages free mixing between men and women (known as Ikhtilat (Arabic: اختلاط)), especially when alone. The intention of all restrictions is to keep interaction at a modest level.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_segregation_and_Muslims

It seems more to be about the repression of sexuality than the oppression of women.

Absurd reasoning. For many years and you still see this today women are taught for example by literal Christians as they are within Muslim societies to be sub servant to men. So to say they may not mind this is because their religious teaching allows for the women to be taught the wrong beliefs about their rights in the first place to have equality. This again went on for centuries in this country which led to many years of denying women equality in this country. If women are brought up with a system that denied them equality and in all the Abraham faiths women are taught as second to me. You only have to look at the bible and the Quran for evidence of this. In the Bible, women are blamed for the first sin, a woman is blamed for the downfall of Samson, the list is endless of women being portrayed as wicked or the cause of man's fall into temptation. So what you are basically saying is that we should accept where a faith teaches that they should be second to men. So if that teaching is wrong just like any bad idea for example homophobia, racism etc which again stem from religious beliefs, then you need to teach and show such ideas are bad. What you are in fact endorsing is allowing women to be treated as second to men, if that faith beliefs and teaches this in a country that has fought centuries to bring about equality to women. This is why Islam is lagging behind where Christianity has in the main progressed in the west. If women are mistakely taught they are second to men, then the problem stems from the religion itself, which again you are endorsing by allowing them to segregate women. All of which you have no idea if any of these women agree with. You do realise these religions have been used by men to subjucate women to their bidding and I find it appalling that you would even try to defend this claiming you are a Liberal. Its time you look at what values you follow, because as seen here you are going against the very values that Liberal teachings promote.

I'm not defending anything and you know it. Don't preach to me. You're verging on some Nazi-esque vision of forcing people to think as you do these days. You have to allow people the freedom to disagree with you, or you're a monster.

You have this bizarre notion of what it means to be a liberal, you haven't the slightest clue. You have to force everything into one of a pitifully small group of simplistically defined categories, but the world doesn't work that way. Just stick to being one of the good conservatives who tries mightily to keep up with the times as best as you know how and stop pretending you understand anything at a more complex level, because it's sad to watch you flounder like that.

Ben_Reilly wrote:I'm not defending anything and you know it. Don't preach to me. You're verging on some Nazi-esque vision of forcing people to think as you do these days. You have to allow people the freedom to disagree with you, or you're a monster.

You have this bizarre notion of what it means to be a liberal, you haven't the slightest clue. You have to force everything into one of a pitifully small group of simplistically defined categories, but the world doesn't work that way. Just stick to being one of the good conservatives who tries mightily to keep up with the times as best as you know how and stop pretending you understand anything at a more complex level, because it's sad to watch you flounder like that.

You are defending the actions of separating women and men based on whether they would find it acceptable, there is no two ways about this, which is seen by your very answers, so stop coming out with utter bullshit. So you are saying we should just do away with equality laws and thus allow segregation of black people by some white people as they should have the freedom to disagree. It shows your methodology is utterly flawed and quite honestly bloody stupid. This is the UK where we have equality. I know this may come as a shock to you being as you are from Texas, a hot bed of discrimination, but here in the UK we have laws governing discrimination. I have a far better notion of what Liberal values are, where yours conflict at every turn and why I have utterly no respect for a pathetic appeaser such as yourself to poor religious views. It is cretins like yourself that would turn the clock backwards and allow discrimination to be a problem again. You forget those that hold these views are at odds with equality and this country tries to provide equality for its people. Now you are a pathetic wet yank, that needs to understand the problems in your own country before you start questioning the UK. So as you intent to insult me and make a point on me leaving then I shall treat you as the pathetic champion of discrimination that seeks to deny women equality based on appeasing centuries old discrimination. This is what is wrong with some of the left, they are the most hypocritical idiots I have sadly had the displeasure of coming across.

This is the UK, not Afghanistan or any other nation that allows woman to be treated as sub-servant to men, and its time you got that in your thick skull. If anything every woman needs to go up to you and give you a right old good slap in the face for insulting them on this. So if you want to be a rude twat, it will happily be replicated and proves you are losing the argument.

You don't force non-discrimination down people's throats against their will, and you don't take people whose mentality might be stuck centuries in the past and beat them over the head until they come around to how you want the world to be. You're advocating tyranny that may be well-intentioned, but it's still tyranny, and people will always fight that. The only way to honestly and morally bring people around is to show them a better way of doing things and ask them to be part of it, and to trust that most people do want the world to be better for everyone. You don't change the world by treating everyone who disagrees with you like a naughty child in need of punishment.

Ben_Reilly wrote:You don't force non-discrimination down people's throats against their will, and you don't take people whose mentality might be stuck centuries in the past and beat them over the head until they come around to how you want the world to be. You're advocating tyranny that may be well-intentioned, but it's still tyranny, and people will always fight that. The only way to honestly and morally bring people around is to show them a better way of doing things and ask them to be part of it, and to trust that most people do want the world to be better for everyone. You don't change the world by treating everyone who disagrees with you like a naughty child in need of punishment.

Again you cannot understand this so again.
There are people who are racist and homophobic, so you are saying they should be allowed to be openly discriminating against these groups now, because of their beliefs in the work place etc?
Wrong, laws were introduced rightly to stop such discrimination.
It has fuck all to do with tyranny, this again is the UK where it it endorses equality.
This was not a religious event either, it was a political meeting where people were not asked if they wanted to sit on either side of the room, they were in fact directed to sit on either side of the room. That is taking choice away from the people in the first place. Can you not see this one simple fundamental fact.

Where is the choice to decide here?

The fact is here it is a group of Muslims that have decided where the men and women sit and thus it is they who are enforcing their ideas and beliefs to the people that attended the event. So if non-Muslims attended this event, are you saying the women would then have to sit separate from the men, because of what they organizers decide on this. What you are doing is encouraging a backward belief that allows discrimination in this country based off beliefs. This country fought long and hard to change such ideas and you wish again to make theman acceptable place in society. That is wrong and is at odds with the very liberal values this country has.

So can you show to me where anyone had a choice as to where to sit in this event?

This is the problem you did not think about, because it is choice that has been denied from the very start.

Nemesis wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:You don't force non-discrimination down people's throats against their will, and you don't take people whose mentality might be stuck centuries in the past and beat them over the head until they come around to how you want the world to be. You're advocating tyranny that may be well-intentioned, but it's still tyranny, and people will always fight that. The only way to honestly and morally bring people around is to show them a better way of doing things and ask them to be part of it, and to trust that most people do want the world to be better for everyone. You don't change the world by treating everyone who disagrees with you like a naughty child in need of punishment.

Again you cannot understand this so again.
There are people who are racist and homophobic, so you are saying they should be allowed to be openly discriminating against these groups now, because of their beliefs in the work place etc?
Wrong, laws were introduced rightly to stop such discrimination.
It has fuck all to do with tyranny, this again is the UK where it it endorses equality.
This was not a religious event either, it was a political meeting where people were not asked if they wanted to sit on either side of the room, they were in fact directed to sit on either side of the room. That is taking choice away from the people in the first place. Can you not see this one simple fundamental fact.

Where is the choice to decide here?

The fact is here it is a group of Muslims that have decided where the men and women sit and thus it is they who are enforcing their ideas and beliefs to the people that attended the event. So if non-Muslims attended this event, are you saying the women would then have to sit separate from the men, because of what they organizers decide on this. What you are doing is encouraging a backward belief that allows discrimination in this country based off beliefs. This country fought long and hard to change such ideas and you wish again to make theman acceptable place in society. That is wrong and is at odds with the very liberal values this country has.

So can you show to me where anyone had a choice as to where to sit in this event?

This is the problem you did not think about, because it is choice that has been denied from the very start.

I can only ask you to think deeper. Maybe you need to study the civil rights movements of the U.S. to really understand where I'm coming from.

You are the one that needs to think deeper
I will prove to you why there was no choice here Ben.
If there was choice, there would have been 3 sections.
One for just men, one for just women and one that was mixed.
That is how I know there was no choice and it was deliberately segregated. Hence why I know you never have thought any of this through. Again I agree on teaching on equality views to people that hold religious beliefs, but this was pure and simple discriminating segregation based off backward beliefs that treat women as inferior. You do not change such values by not being critical of them and you have not once been critical of this.

The last think any British person needs is a lesson from the yanks on history of civil rights. Maybe you should learn for once to learn from the British, it may help you.

I shall await your apology for being very out of touch with reality here

Have a nice day

Nemesis wrote:You are the one that needs to think deeper
I will prove to you why there was no choice here Ben.
If there was choice, there would have been 3 sections.
One for just men, one for just women and one that was mixed.
That is how I know there was no choice and it was deliberately segregated. Hence why I know you never have thought any of this through. Again I agree on teaching on equality views to people that hold religious beliefs, but this was pure and simple discriminating segregation based off backward beliefs that treat women as inferior. You do not change such values by not being critical of them and you have not once been critical of this.

The last think any British person needs is a lesson from the yanks on history of civil rights. Maybe you should learn for once to learn from the British, it may help you.

I shall await your apology for being very out of touch with reality here

Have a nice day

You don't have to wait -- I'm truly sorry for your being so out of touch with reality

I don't have much more to add to this thread, but I do want to say something about what I think it means to be liberal as it relates to what it means to be human.

Liberals are always trying to pull society forward toward a better future, quite idealistically and often un-pragmatically. But being human means at some point you make some amount of peace with your past and your upbringing and all the bullshit your parents taught you in order to get along in the world and with yourself.

I don't begrudge that, and I don't believe there is any progress to be made from preaching to people they are bad, they're wrong, everything they've been raised to believe and to be is backwards, because it's simply human nature to rebel against people saying that. We are naturally self-defensive and we have a limited capacity to admit that we're wrong.

So what to do, if you want the world to be more egalitarian? Fight every last minute injustice you perceive, or turn to a form of triage based on what you see as the worst things people are getting up to?

I choose the triage; I choose (for example) not making a fuss over people segregating themselves by gender, in favor of making a fuss over people killing gays and feminists, in favor of making a fuss over police killing ethnic minorities, in favor of peace, etc. I think tolerating killing is a lot worse than indulging people who have the sexual peccadilloes of your typical maiden aunt, and I know from experience that people are going to resist someone coming to them and trying to change who they believe themselves to be.

I think the unwise condemnation of every single unlikable characteristic, no matter how trivial, that people you disagree with possess is the best way to ensure that those characteristics will live on.

Peace/out

Ben_Reilly wrote:I don't have much more to add to this thread, but I do want to say something about what I think it means to be liberal as it relates to what it means to be human.

Liberals are always trying to pull society forward toward a better future, quite idealistically and often un-pragmatically. But being human means at some point you make some amount of peace with your past and your upbringing and all the bullshit your parents taught you in order to get along in the world and with yourself.

I don't begrudge that, and I don't believe there is any progress to be made from preaching to people they are bad, they're wrong, everything they've been raised to believe and to be is backwards, because it's simply human nature to rebel against people saying that. We are naturally self-defensive and we have a limited capacity to admit that we're wrong.

So what to do, if you want the world to be more egalitarian? Fight every last minute injustice you perceive, or turn to a form of triage based on what you see as the worst things people are getting up to?

I choose the triage; I choose (for example) not making a fuss over people segregating themselves by gender, in favor of making a fuss over people killing gays and feminists, in favor of making a fuss over police killing ethnic minorities, in favor of peace, etc. I think tolerating killing is a lot worse than indulging people who have the sexual peccadilloes of your typical maiden aunt, and I know from experience that people are going to resist someone coming to them and trying to change who they believe themselves to be.

I think the unwise condemnation of every single unlikable characteristic, no matter how trivial, that people you disagree with possess is the best way to ensure that those characteristics will live on.

Peace/out

Sorry that will just not cut it and even now you cannot condemn a poor idea, which if allowed to go uncriticized is in fact endorsing bad ideas. The worst part is that every day these same people que up at a bank or supermarket together with the opposite sex. On a train, a tube or a bus. So they do this normally in society and thus there is no reason to do this when they are in a majority group within a meeting. This is then one step away from where within an area they start to iumpose this even more in society, where what next, on a bus route or in a bank where there are seperate ques. What you do not do as you are doing now is pander to poor ideas based off myths. For centuries women have faced inequality off religion and to now say, well lets allow this to stand is fundementally going against equality in itself. The problem is down to out dated religious beliefs, which again you are pandering too. Even if they offered a mixed section it will still be a poor and disrespectful way these people are treating this country in regards to equality because it shows they have no respect for equality, the point you miss at every turn. Once you allow bad ideas to stand, those views spread and become acceptable and as I say have no place in modern society.

I respect that, but I don't think that's the way to progress society in a spirit of togetherness. I think in order to make people know they're accepted, you have to forgive their minor transgressions, of course never tolerating truly destructive ideas to flourish.

Peace out indeed ben, I just wish you would open your eyes as I have now done, This is about helping change bad ideas in society and you do not do that by backing them when they happen but by condemning them. We did not change racist views by pandering to them. It took people to stand up to bad ideas and be critical of them. If anything I suggest you read about William Wilberforce how he stood up to bad ideas to show they were wrong to bring about an end to slavery. He did not do this by pandering to this but challenging it every step of the way.

Peace out bro

Nemesis wrote:Peace out indeed ben, I just wish you would open your eyes as I have now done, This is about helping change bad ideas in society and you do not do that by backing them when they happen but by condemning them. We did not change racist views by pandering to them. It took people to stand up to bad ideas and be critical of them. If anything I suggest you read about William Wilberforce how he stood up to bad ideas to show they were wrong to bring about an end to slavery. He did not do this by pandering to this but challenging it every step of the way.

Peace out bro

I guess I see it as equivalent to letting people have their jokes about race while condemning unequal treatment of different ethnicities.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Nemesis wrote:Peace out indeed ben, I just wish you would open your eyes as I have now done, This is about helping change bad ideas in society and you do not do that by backing them when they happen but by condemning them. We did not change racist views by pandering to them. It took people to stand up to bad ideas and be critical of them. If anything I suggest you read about William Wilberforce how he stood up to bad ideas to show they were wrong to bring about an end to slavery. He did not do this by pandering to this but challenging it every step of the way.

Peace out bro

I guess I see it as equivalent to letting people have their jokes about race while condemning unequal treatment of different ethnicities.

Ben you know of all people I am against racism etc, I just think at the very core of the Abrahamic faiths is a religious form of racism, which is where the problem starts and where people are often discrminated against.

We will have to agree to disagree here, but to me the best way is to be vocal against bad ideas. Sorry if some are offended by this, then they need to then look at why they have really no place to be offended at all.

Silly ideas are a part of being human, in the larger sense. But I do see where you're coming from. I just wonder about the premise that in the long term, fighting against every backward idea is productive in terms of moving society forward.

But, I have no stake in your elections and it won't affect me in the least -- so y'all vote your consciences and we'll see what happens ... um ... is that happening today?!

Keep me posted!

Mind you, I see this idea as backward in the terms that human sexuality should be repressed. I never accepted any notion that this was an anti-feminist thing. Just to be clear

Ben_Reilly wrote:Silly ideas are a part of being human, in the larger sense. But I do see where you're coming from. I just wonder about the premise that in the long term, fighting against every backward idea is productive in terms of moving society forward.

But, I have no stake in your elections and it won't affect me in the least -- so y'all vote your consciences and we'll see what happens ... um ... is that happening today?!

Keep me posted!

I am not even voting as I fail to see the point. Who ever ends up in power will please or let donw some people, which is just some ending circle in this country with little change. I think people are just now acclimatized to the point it does not really matter who is in power as there is very little to chose between them. It would be better if they all worked together but they have a more vested interest in being at odds with each other.

Cheers Ben

Nemesis wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:Silly ideas are a part of being human, in the larger sense. But I do see where you're coming from. I just wonder about the premise that in the long term, fighting against every backward idea is productive in terms of moving society forward.

But, I have no stake in your elections and it won't affect me in the least -- so y'all vote your consciences and we'll see what happens ... um ... is that happening today?!

Keep me posted!

I am not even voting as I fail to see the point. Who ever ends up in power will please or let donw some people, which is just some ending circle in this country with little change. I think people are just now acclimatized to the point it does not really matter who is in power as there is very little to chose between them. It would be better if they all worked together but they have a more vested interest in being at odds with each other.

Cheers Ben

Cheers to you as well. I would say my view of this comes from the Xanth series of novels by Piers Anthony ... in it, the goblins are always making trouble and mischief. Later on, it's shown that it's mainly goblin males who are responsible for this, and the goblin women decide to rectify the matter by marrying the least-bad goblin males available.

It's a pretty valid idea if you ask me ...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FVsCWKgKEY

Basically, we reward the best of the bad until we actually have good people to reward

darknessss wrote:

risingsun wrote:Segregation is against the law?  Really?  Funny it is practiced in all synagogues.

yes yes sassy we know you dislike the jews...

I suppose then that if my local labour mp had a meeting it would be ok to keep  gays out in the lobby if the Muslims objected?

I happen to find religious segregation wrong no matter where practiced
I happen to find having "laws for them and laws for us" abhorrent

and yes Ben

at teh bottom line segregation IS the same as stoning

its one law for us and one for them....

IF they wish to live here....they accept, fully and unconditionally OUR laws......why is that so difficult for a lefty

Good post

veya_victaous wrote:@ben
Phyllis Schlafly proves your point wrong

Secular values must always come first
the fact some are brainwashed into accepting oppression does not justify the oppression nor is Stockholm syndrome a reason to accept discrimination or segregation.

Islam like any other religion MUST conform to secular values when conducting itself within the politics of a secular nation. It was a political party conference therefore it is NOT allowed any concession to religion that contravenes the rights of the Everybody. anyone is legally allowed to attend so in the basic idea of secular freedom "You are allowed your freedom Until it denies someone else theirs" means you cannot tell someone thy have to sit on one side of the room because of their gender.

 The English Labor Party are short sighted idiots, it may have had good intentions but it is still wrong for a secular political party to allow.

Spot on!


You are starting to see the madness that is our labour party.

Wow, truly surreal... dodge speaking against Muslims and Ben saying enforcing views of non discrimination on others is tyranny!

does every party do the same..