First off let me say that my opinion on this is a difficult and possibly controversial one.
Secondly let me say I love the irony that many of the ones who clame to be the liberal-minded people stepping out of the dark ages are talking down or extrapolating the opposite side's argument to unreasonable levels, as a means of dissecting the original viewpoint, while the side you'd "expect" to do that-the right wing side- for the most part aren't. Just an observation.
Also, I find the idea of internationalisation with a 1-party/government world to be very contradictory to traditional liberal values- different opinions, freedom of speech etc. Surely more parties means more ways of life are represented? If you are truely liberal then everyone has the right to their opinion and the right to express it whether you agree with it or not, and you accept that problems caused by this are inherent to a democratic way, just as resentment and scapegoating are inherent to an overly dictatorial/1 party state.
My opinion on nationalism is this- you have every right to be patriotic for your country, but keep it reasonable, especially when a guest in another country- either on holiday or to live there. My definition of foreign/living in another country is someone who was not born there and whose parents were not born there. For example, while my distant geneology no doubt comprises Dutch and Italian, I consider myself as English because I was born in England and so were my parents, and 3 of my grandparents (4th born in Ireland). Furthermore let us suppose somebody was born in England but their parents were born in India- indeed I know several people like this. I would class them as English and think that they'd consider themselves English, but I would not deny them the right to call themselves Indian so long as they still abided by English law and custom.
This leads me on to immigration. Immigration is tricky- if you come to live in another country, you follow their customs. You can still keep elements of your own culture as far as possible yet where it contradicts your new native land you should follow the customs of the place you live. For instance let us take a Sikh, born in India, who moves to the UK. A turban does not contradict anythnig British, so its fine to wear it. Same with practicing Sihkism. However, speaking Indian/the Sikh tongue (I did know its name but I have since forgotten), would contradict with the English language so he should speak English in public and as his primary language. Speaking Indian or whatever language he wishes in his own home however, I have no problem with as that is his private property.
Another slightly different example, with various intricacies, would be a Muslim immigrant. As before- worship in a mosque, fine, wearing the Muslim headcap, fine. However here we must pause and address the burkha and hajib. There is nothing in the Qur'an about the Burkha being part of Islamic religion- I have spoken with several Muslims (and indeed other Asian religious followers such as Hindus) who have confirmed this. it is purely a tool used by the Islamic state. The hajib, yes, that is religious, the burkha no. I understand that it is personal choice to wear the burkha (though not always as some Muslim women are groomed/indoctrinated/forced into wearing it, again what I have found from Muslims) but the fact that it is essentially a symbol of female repression is why I'm of the opinion it should be outlawed. The hajib, thats absolutely fine to wear, the burkha is different. And again, on language- Yes, if they wish or feel comfortable to speak Urdu in private then fine, however in public they should speak the native tongue- in this case English.
Furthermore, in all legal issues, the country laws should take precedence over religious/prior national laws- this also includes "national religious laws"- ie. Christian laws. The country law is always priority and no compensations/alterations should be made. As such Sharia law in my view should not be incorporated to Britain- it is creating a law for 1 specific demographic, which however you slice it is discrimination- discrimination against both the particular demographic and against those who are not covered under such laws.
And finally, on the issue of crime. I believe if you are a convicted criminal you should not be allowed entry unless it is a very minor crime or if there is an oustanding reason to gain entry- seeking to avoid the death penalty is not an adequate reason as the criminal knew the laws where they were when they committed the crime, so should face the consequences. An adequate reason I cannot currently think of, I'm open to suggestions though. Also, I believe if you commit a crime after coming to this country, you should be on 1 warning. Commit another crime, 2nd warning. 3rd crime? Out. A single offence could be down to accident, circumstance or loss of way. Repeat offences suggest something more innate and as such I believe a repeat offender should be asked to leave. it is only what happens at say, a sports game or concert- repeated troublemakers are warned twice then asked to leave. Again- they know the rules of their (new) country, they should abide by them.
Finally I believe there should be no intentional segregation/ghetto culture. It is a fact that in many parts of the UK there are minority ghettos that have sprung up- immigrating families all move to a certain area and distance themselves from any other ethnicity. I know a guy who lived in an area which saw a large number of Muslim families move in. His new neighbours refused to acknowledge or speak to him and so he ended up moving. This should not happen- The point of immigration (and indeed the liberal way) is to mix and to accept and tolerate. This should work both ways- we accept and welcome the immigrating populace but they should accept and mingle with us too. This extends to education too- there is at least 1 school in Blackburn (possibly more elsewhere) where ONLY Muslim-faith children can attend. This is discrimination against non-Muslims. Just as Christian-only schools are discriminations against non-Christians (and so should also be prevented). Again-the purpose of immigration is to come to another country to work, integrate, and find home. If you are to be at home you should be comfortable amongst others. Thus schools should not be allowed to segregate based on ethnicity/religion- REGARDLESS of whether it is a minority ethnicity/faith or the majority ethnicity/faith. I am close to wandering on to minority/majority parties and socieites now but thats another topic.
Let me state I would fully comply with these rules if I were in their situation. If I was to go live in say, Spain, I would abide entirely by Spanish law, I would learn the native language (Spanish or, depending on regions, Catalonian) and I would speak the native language to spanish residents and in public. I would not live in a ghetto environemnt- regrettably many of these exist in Spain, however I would make an effort to integrate to the local populace. I would attend a Spanish college and if i had children, send them to a Spanish school and raise them to speak Spanish primarily, and only use English in the privacy of my own home if desired. I would also be fully prepared to accept any consequences if I broke the law, as I am agreeing to Spanish law.
No doubt there'll be both sides of the fence now pouncing on me calling me stupid, stunted, BNP, wrong, not English anyway, or just snowball my viewpoint into something completely different. Still, thats what I get for posting it, it is about discussion after all not just stating mindsets.
And I can understand shaman's whole nationalist-pagan thing. I can identify with many liberalist/left wing views, and at the same time agree with various conservative/right wing ideals. Yet I don't want to class myself as middle-ground cause that appears indecisive.
__________________
Fuzzle Guy: Apart from going swimming I've never been more wet in my life than when I went to see Take That.
|
