BE BRITISH FIRST

[rederech]

Tory leader Michael Howard has called for a greater effort to promote a sense of "British identity" among immigrant communities.

He said the "complacency" over the UK's record in integrating other communities into British society has been "shattered" by the London bombings.

Quote :

"We should be British first and British last, while staunchly adhering to our respective faiths."
'

"We had to face the terrible truth of being the first western country to have suffered terrorist attacks perpetrated by 'home-grown' suicide bombers," Mr Howard said.

Mr Howard went on to say that such a sense of allegiance needed to be made "more meaningful", if necessary through the deportation of people who would not accept it.

Link : http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-13414478,00.html

I totally agree.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Mr Howard went on to say that such a sense of allegiance needed to be made "more meaningful", if necessary through the deportation of people who would not accept it.

So who is to define what "Britishness" is?

And who will decide what degree of divergence from that merits punishment?

And on what legal basis, and to where, will people born here be deported if they wish to campaign (peacefully) for a very different society to the one we have now?

 

[rederech]

Mr Howard went on to say that such a sense of allegiance needed to be made "more meaningful", if necessary through the deportation of people who would not accept it.

So who is to define what "Britishness" is?

And who will decide what degree of divergence from that merits punishment?

And on what legal basis, and to where, will people born here be deported if they wish to campaign (peacefully) for a very different society to the one we have now?

ban-all-sheds

In this country laws are legislated by the democratic government and interpretation and enforcement left to the various agencies. i.e. Law Courts, Judges and police.

As Michael Howard was a barrister I believe he was well aware of what he was saying and the implications involved.

As to campaigning (peacefully) for a different society.

Society changes only to the will of the people .

 

[rederech]

Mr Howard went on to say that such a sense of allegiance needed to be made "more meaningful", if necessary through the deportation of people who would not accept it.

So who is to define what "Britishness" is?

And who will decide what degree of divergence from that merits punishment?

And on what legal basis, and to where, will people born here be deported if they wish to campaign (peacefully) for a very different society to the one we have now?

ban-all-sheds

At great trouble I have been onto Conservative Headquarters for the past
half hour, been speaking to her /him about your comments needing
some clarification and believe it or not I got put through to the man himself,
the honorable, Mr Howard. I was totally ,'gobsmacked'.

He is a real gentleman and I explained the situation.

He told me that his intentions was for laws in a similar line to the
Patriot Act which has restored pride in nationality in the U.S.A.

He stated that he had just returned from America and that he was
astounded at the strong display in patroitism of the Americans
in all walks of life and creeds.

He commented that although America appeared to be the main country
of hate of fundalmentalists, that he felt safe walking about freely.

On returning to Britain he thought that dialogue regarding Nationality was
being suppressed and that there was a sort of apathy. No one
seemed to be proud of their country and its achievements.

I told him not to worry that I would spread the news.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

The USA PATRIOT Act has nothing to do with patriotism, "American-ness", pride in your country etc.

USA PATRIOT stands for "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism", and it's all about government access to personal information. Civil liberties and privacy organisations in the US are gravely concerned about it.

http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=12126&c=207

http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot/default.html

 

[ban-all-sheds]

As Michael Howard was a barrister I believe he was well aware of what he was saying and the implications involved.

I'm sure he is, as am I, (although perhaps not as well as him), but my questions were largely rhetorical.

I'm also sure that he's engaging in political opportunism, desperately trying to find ways to score points over Tony Bliar.

 

[Freddie]

As Michael Howard was a barrister I believe he was well aware of what he was saying and the implications involved.

I'm sure he is, as am I, (although perhaps not as well as him), but my questions were largely rhetorical.

I'm also sure that he's engaging in political opportunism, desperately trying to find ways to score points over Tony Bliar.

Impossible he's not listening he disapeared 2 weeks ago---not great wnen the people who pay your wages dont know where you have gone and arent allowed to find out

 

[rederech]

The USA PATRIOT Act has nothing to do with patriotism, "American-ness", pride in your country etc.

USA PATRIOT stands for "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism", and it's all about government access to personal information. Civil liberties and privacy organisations in the US are gravely concerned about it.

http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=12126&c=207

http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot/default.html[/QUOTE]


Democracy works like it or not

22 July, 2005

House approves renewal of Patriot Act


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The House voted by a wide margin Thursday night to renew expiring provisions of the USA Patriot Act, the collection of antiterrorism measures passed after the September 11, 2001, attacks.

Link : http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/21/patriot.act/

Full reading of the Patriot Act

Link : http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html

 

[kendor]

So what is Britishness then red?

 

[pipme]

So what is Britishness then red?

He knows. ... The question is ...........

 

[rederech]

So what is Britishness then red?

It is much easier to tell you what Britshness is not like Mr Plunkett
above stated :

forced marriages and genital mutilation - which he said were certainly not part of Britishness.

If you do not know what Britishness is then I will enlighten you

This is a personal opinion not anything taken from a book or other
source.

Britishness is

To be proud of your country, its traditions, history, values.
To be able to unite against a common enemy and to act as one
against danger. In the forty's the threat of invasion of the Germans
and in todays life the threat of terrorist attack.
To respect the decisions of a democratic government and not use the bomb to kill those who disagree with you. Although I have seen
some comments from some users that they would like other members
on this form to be 'shot' for posting views in opposition to their own.
This is definitely not britishness.

Britishness I will got on further is to show tolerance to others as long as the others beliefs and traditions do not harm you or your way of living.

Britishness is to be prepared to take up 'arms' to defend freedoms of
others who are not so fortunate as ourselves. As in Iraq where we support
our troops . Government figures estimate that there are at least 75
British born males in Iraq attacking coalision forces .

To conclude Britishness is to be 'Fair' to those you live with be it abroad or here.

The meaning of 'Fair' in this context is free from discrimination.


Finally it was Mr. Howard that mentioned the word, 'Britishness '.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

To be proud of your country, its traditions, history, values.

I hope it's also OK to be ashamed of terrible things your country has done in the past, and in the present, and to criticise and demonstrate against them?

To be able to unite against a common enemy and to act as one
against danger. In the forty's the threat of invasion of the Germans
and in todays life the threat of terrorist attack.

Maybe not in the 40's but in the 30's there were many people who you would think were the epitome of "Britishness" - members of the aristocracy, and even the Royal Family who did not want to fight the Germans. Moseley's movement attracted large numbers of people who saw themselves as patriotic, defending their country against dangerous incomers and influences.

Ignoring the easy 20:20 of hindsight, at the time how far should a democracy have gone to suppress those dissenting views? Or declare them "non-British"?

To respect the decisions of a democratic government and not use the bomb to kill those who disagree with you.

Sounds reasonable. If we could take the bombs out of the picture for a minute though, what should we do when the decisions of a "democratic government" are taken on the basis of lies? How much should we respect them?

And if we put bombs in all their forms back into the picture, shouldn't the respect that you mention also include respecting the United Nations and not using bombs to kill people in other countries?

Although I have seen
some comments from some users that they would like other members
on this form to be 'shot' for posting views in opposition to their own.
This is definitely not britishness.

You should read that topic more closely, and understand the background to it, and see who is really saying they would like other people to be shot.

Britishness I will got on further is to show tolerance to others as long as the others beliefs and traditions do not harm you or your way of living.

But you don't want to tolerate forced marriages and genital mutilation. And rightly so, but I assume that those practices don't harm you or your way of life, so there's obviously more to it than your simple equation, isn't there.

So there are beliefs and traditions that don't harm you, that you will nevertheless not tolerate. But when it comes to ones which do, how much harm do you think should be allowed? Are you only talking about physical harm? There are people whose beliefs certainly include harm to the way of life of "fat cat" industrialists - is there a point, short of physical harm, where you think the FCIs should not tolerate those beliefs?

Britishness is to be prepared to take up 'arms' to defend freedoms of
others who are not so fortunate as ourselves. As in Iraq where we support
our troops . Government figures estimate that there are at least 75
British born males in Iraq attacking coalision forces .

Given their track record, those Government figures could be a complete lie. And also there is the minor matter that we did not invade Iraq to defend the freedoms of people less fortunate than ourselves. If we did then I'd like to see how we can justify the killing of tens of thousands of those less fortunate people as somehow defending them.

But that's all incidental - the point you raise is interesting. What if those British born males are in Iraq, fighting coalition forces, precisely because they believe that they are defending the freedoms of people less fortunate than themselves? It fits one of your definitions of "Britishness"...

To conclude Britishness is to be 'Fair' to those you live with be it abroad or here.

The meaning of 'Fair' in this context is free from discrimination.

Are you saying that Slogger is not British, or is anti-Britishness?

 

[rederech]

ban-all-sheds

On all forums there are people like you they are called
'Vulchers' they nit pick there, they nit pick there making
snidy remarks and contributing NOTHING.

My comments were my own opinion which I am entitled to hold.

I will not be drawn into further debate with you other than say
if you don't like the country you are well entitled to leave.

Finally Britishness is where you country should come first and your
beliefs are secondary.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

ban-all-sheds

On all forums there are people like you they are called
'Vulchers' they nit pick there, they nit pick there making
snidy remarks and contributing NOTHING.

My remarks were not snide or nit-picking. I was contributing to a debate.

You must live in a very odd world if your definition of "chat" is that you say something and everybody else remains silent.

My comments were my own opinion which I am entitled to hold.

Of course you are, as I am mine. You did more than hold your opinions, you came here and voiced them. Am I not entitled to voice mine? Am I not entitled to reply to anything you say here?

Just how do you think a discussion forum should work?

I will not be drawn into further debate with you other than say
if you don't like the country you are well entitled to leave.

Did I insult you?

Did I ridicule you?

Was I intolerant towards you?

If you don't want to debate things, don't post.

Finally Britishness is where you country should come first and your
beliefs are secondary.

Ah - "My country right or wrong". A very dangerous philosophy, and a complete abdication of the responsibilities that go hand-in-hand with being "proud of your country, its traditions, history, values".

I am generally proud of those, and when I see them under attack, either by individuals or by the Government, I firmly believe that putting my country first and asserting my beliefs are the same thing, and are indivisible.

How can you say that a persons beliefs should be secondary when it is the broad historical sweep of the beliefs of people in this country that have defined the traditions history and values that you take pride in?

 

[rederech]

ban-all-sheds

Well, welll well.

I suggest that people should look at your previous posts under
Ban-all-sheds and let them draw their own conclusions.

Go to search and type in Ban-all-sheds.

I will say no more.