On integration

[Regina]

So I fell across this video on Youtube and as usual it's Muslim "victim" tears.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqAlpoWodvU

I actually live in the featured city, and I have seen first hand the way a lot (not all!!! FFS #notallmuslims) of Muslims settle here. There's a very observable pattern to it. I see a lot of selective outrage in British Muslims who talk about discrimination and the "lack of integration". A good number of Muslims in The UK seem pretty good to live in segregated communities. The inner-city neighbourhood my Maltese grandparents moved into in the 50s has completely transformed. It used to be a very diverse mixed British and immigrant area (of all nationalities). Now it's an almost exclusively Muslim neighbourhood, and (trust me, we've seen it all), it is HOSTILE to my widowed Grandmother and other Non-Muslims who live there or come to visit relatives. It was always a relatively poor, working class neighbourhood, now it's a downright slum.

You don't see this level of segregation and "issues" in any other minority of British people, you just don't. You don't see many completely segregated black neighbourhoods in The UK, or Indian neighbourhoods, or Irish or Jewish neighbourhoods. All of those groups, even if it hasn't always been a cosy fit (there has been some conflict and discrimination, admittedly), have largely managed to integrate, contribute, and develop distinct home-grown minority British subcultures that are compatible with wider society. This is important, because to me it debunks this idea of Britain being this "intolerant" society that detests minorities. I think it's very interesting that the video shows a black woman (another minority) going OFF on some Muslims on a bus. Now I don't know if her anger was justified, I'm not necessarily defending her, but clearly it's not just white people in our society Muslims seem to have trouble mixing with, it's everyone.

So I feel like, what do you want? On one hand you don't want to integrate into British society, you're good to live in a little segregated community and let Britain happen around you. Then on the other hand you're pissed because you "don't feel British" and other people don't know how to approach you? Why are you surprised?

And why does the responsibility of integration always rely on the "host country"? Sure, British people should try to be inclusive, we should, there's nothing wrong with multiculturalism as a lived experience (not political). However, when you've got a group like this, who actively demonstrate time and time again that they don't (really, in practice) give 2 fucks about "integration", why is it such a deplorable thing for people to say "ok, you can leave if you want, hand in your passport"? Why do we tolerate this?

[ReptilianPeon]

According to David Cameron, because I don't support Western imperialism, I'm a sympathizer for al-Saud's henchmen in Iraq and Syria too - the man in the shisha lounge is right to point out David Cameron's idiocy. And these "beefed up anti-terror laws" are not needed. They were "beefed up" because the political right is weak and scared of everything. They love to sell fear so that they can take away more of our freedoms.

Way more people die as a directly result of motor vehicles everyday (be it in accidents, because of air pollution or as result of incompetent driving) than in "terrorist attacks" but nobody ever says "let's ban cars". If David Cameron was really that concerned about the deaths of innocent people than he can stop sucking Saudi royal penis. But we all know that he won't. And we all know that imperialists never learn. The West (in general) desperately needs an economy not based on oil.

But are the whiny Salafa/Wahaabis in Britain? Obviously. But all of the people in that video you provided didn't strike me as unreasonable.

People get angry when you squander money on pointless wars and drop bombs on their friends and family. The more bombs that are dropped the more people become terrorists. I always found it funny how the United States can always seem to find the money for more war, but not government funded health care or paid maternity or paternity leave.

[Excited Penguin]

It helps me remind myself that there's two sides to the story. Thanks, OP.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Hmm.

Integration issues in the UK have been around since the post war migration Rush from former colonies and the lack of town and city planning implemented by both national and local governmental bodies.

In fact town planning took a back seater in the 50s since the Windrush landed on British soil as the rush to get new migrants into jobs left by the number of dead and vacated from the war took precedent. Unfortunately, since then, no government has really been sure what they intended for the new migrant communities who set up shop; assimilation? integration? Multicultural norms?

The first two in the list have never been perused in the UK. The latter was, disastrously, by Blair in 97. Discourse from central government has been sparse, leaving communities to effectively fend for themselves in cities which initially boomed with the new labour supply (Birmingham being a prime example, where I am also from), only to later fall into the shit when the boom fell away and industry went abroad. With white flight into the suburbs occuring in the 60s, and new migrant communities setting up in the inner city areas vacated (Nechelles, Lozells, Ladywood, parts of Edgbaston etc), the money left too, leaving what we're left with now of nearly 10 wards (last time I chekced) in Birmingham being amongst the poorest in the UK, and almost all being migrant muslim and black communities.

The problem is now we have entrenched segregation and de facto ghettoisation. We have a 4th generation who have grown up in a society that has known nothing but a 'community of communities', and the result is the physical lines you can draw between inner city constituenices between certain communities. This has always been the case with some demographics (Jews in North London for example), but it's arguably now even more pronounced, and shows no sign of abating.

[abaris]

Some questions. Apart from looking at internet movies, do you actually bother to open your eyes on the streets? Muslims come in all shapes an colors and that's not based on internet vids, posted by more or less dubious sources. The elderly couple shouldering just purchased bed cloths on their way home in the sub. The young couple holding hands and the ones, actually follwing the cliché of the woman walking two steps behind the man.

That's why the broad brush doesn't cut it.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

...And these "beefed up anti-terror laws" are not needed. They were "beefed up" because the political right is weak and scared of everything. They love to sell fear so that they can take away more of our freedoms.

Factually incorrect. The overwhelming vast majority of terror legislation was written up 4 or even 5 parliaments ago. 'PREVENT' (which is what I presume you were referring to) was a labour invention, as was the 06 Terrorism act which sought the 90 day incarceration without charge (amended to 28 days after rejection in the Commons), which was actually opposed by the Conservative party.

[abaris]

Factually incorrect. The overwhelming vast majority of terror legislation was written up 4 or even 5 parliaments ago. 'PREVENT' (which is what I presume you were referring to) was a labour invention, as was the 06 Terrorism act which sought the 90 day incarceration without charge (amended to 28 days after rejection in the Commons), which was actually opposed by the Conservative party.

Doesn't change the fact that 9/11 was a perfect pretext to put Orwell to shame. Regardless of the ones actually signing the acts. Some politicians have wet spots on their pants because of the opportunity presented to them.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Factually incorrect. The overwhelming vast majority of terror legislation was written up 4 or even 5 parliaments ago. 'PREVENT' (which is what I presume you were referring to) was a labour invention, as was the 06 Terrorism act which sought the 90 day incarceration without charge (amended to 28 days after rejection in the Commons), which was actually opposed by the Conservative party.

Doesn't change the fact that 9/11 was a perfect pretext to put Orwell to shame. Regardless of the ones actually signing the acts. Some politicians have wet spots on their pants because of the opportunity presented to them.

'The right' in the sense of the text quoted is meaningless, however. Terrorism legislation in the UK has always inspired either bi-partisan agreement or cross bench disagreement. Case in point is the 2006 Terrorism act, which is arguably the most prominent of the UK's anti-terror lesiglation, which had agree the and disagreements on both sides of the house. Ultimately it pales in comparison to legislation enacted elsewhere in the world to constrain terrorism offenses.

I can't comment on the politicians not knowing what politicians are being referred to. One thing I will say is that UK government's have been guilty of giving with one hand and taking with the other. The initial implementation of PREVENT was an unmitigated disaster for community relations, yet NL also channelled millions into community projects and inter-community forums to try and demolish barriers between them. Again, in Birmingham, millions was ploughed into inter-faith forums in various inner city wards where tensions have always been high and liable to overspill. It was a massive contradiction, not caused IMO by a nefarious intent, but more by the government's left hand not knowing what it's right hand was doing.

[abaris]

I can't comment on the politicians not knowing what politicians are being referred to.

Across the board, actually. Some always wanted to know what goes on in the bedrooms and pants of their citizens. They got their chance, and it's a downhill race for the last decade.

[ReptilianPeon]

Factually incorrect. The overwhelming vast majority of terror legislation was written up 4 or even 5 parliaments ago. 'PREVENT' (which is what I presume you were referring to) was a labour invention, as was the 06 Terrorism act which sought the 90 day incarceration without charge (amended to 28 days after rejection in the Commons), which was actually opposed by the Conservative party.

Come on, Tony Blair is so to the right he is basically a Conservative anyway. I wouldn't trust either party. Both are full of imperialists.