h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

>would be if it had been a Christian minority view objecting to a Police initiative. Actually, I think I know.<

I was waiting for that..

As ever you see things in simplistic black and white. It may escaped your notice that there is no *one* reaction of this forum. But a variety of reactions looking at a complex issue, that *isn't* just about religion. This has been a Christian country for at least a thousand years. There is state established form of Christianity. The Queen is the head of The C of E.

The Muslim issue is as much about race and minorities as it is about religion, as much as some people might want to reduce complex sociological issues to that.

In my posts I made it clear that I disagree with all censorship, is long as there is fair play for all.

And if you want to hide behind excessively vague phrases like >the reaction in this forum< it shows you haven't been reading the variety of posts and POVs here. Like so many with entrenched views, it's convenient to throw around generalities like, London centric, politically correct, liberal, chattering class, sexually balanced, positive action, rather than examining the true complexity of these sort of issues for our multi cultural society.

Fanny, I've been here for three years. I just know what the overall reaction would be if a Christian-Voice type tried to stop a community initiative on the basis of religion. Two or three might support him, about a dozen would attack him. There would be no attempt to put his actions in a cultural perspective, the posts would quickly degenerate into attacks on feeble-minded people believing in imaginary gods and talking to the weather. Within 10 posts, reference would be made to the Archbishop of Atheism, Richard Dawkins. I've seen it happen so many times it gets predictable. Just as anyone who dare question the practices and bizarre beliefs of Muslims inevitably gets called a bigot or a racist.

I wonder you bother coming here at all then if everything is all so predictable.

I see the opposite. The complexity of debate and viewpoints. The often unpredictability, because so often there are no 'right' answers. I frequently change my mind, and often contradict myself. That's very much my view. People are complicated. Life is complicated. Issues are complicated. But then I don't tend to see the world in black and white

Novo:

"There are now significant areas almost entirely occupied by what posters refer to as a minority. They are not a minority there."

Agreed. Where there is poverty and segregation, problems are pretty much inevitable. It's very hard to know what to do once things get this bad. My brother was brought up (like me) in London but went to university in a similar town to the ones you mentioned, and so I take his worries about these things very seriously.

"Such feelings are exacerbated by the drip drip of the persistent claims that we must respect their rights and their culture. Fine. But do we get the same consideration of the indigenous population's culture? No, we don't: it is always suggested that 'we' should be tolerant but I think it should work both ways."

Absolutely it should work both ways. But what I don't understand is in what way you (and others) think that it isn't at the moment. For the sake of argument, let's say that our culture is pseudo-Christian/secular-liberal-consumer-individualism. When you're part of the dominant culture, it's sometimes hard to see the ways in which everything about society and the state is set up in favour of the dominant culture. One quick example - most bank holidays, many school holidays, and shop and leisure facilities opening times are based around Christian or secularised Christian festivals.

But let me put it another way - what "consideration of the indigenous population's culture" do you (and others) want that you don't feel you're getting at the moment from immigrant communities in particular? I can think of plenty of things I *don't like* about the way that certain communities conduct themselves, but that's not the same thing.


SWL:

I'll defer to your detailed knowledge of Dundee, of course, but it does seem to me that missing out on posters in 80 shops in a city with 140k people is quite substantial. Even if it's just 40, that still strikes me as being quite a lot of lost impact.

And as I understand it, the object was not to the initiative *at all* but to the picture of a puppy on the poster. There's no need or point to using a puppy other than it's eye catching, and there's plenty of alternatives they could have used. I know about the police dog blog or whatever and understand the thinking, but does anyone honestly think that some other image wouldn't have been equally visually... arresting? Would nothing but the puppy have done the trick?

The objection - judging from the quotes in the article - is that the campaign could and should have been more effective. He's not - as far as I know - calling for the pulping of these leaflets, just making the very modest point that the police should have checked first before issuing the posters, and that the campaign will be less successful because of it. He's not "trying to block a community initiative". By no stretch of the imagination is this story worthy of being a national news story. "Councillor tells police that their PR initiative will be slightly less successful than they hoped, police agree and apologise" is not national news.

It's difficult to imagine a scenario where a similar problem could be caused to Christians, because the public understanding of Christianity and Christian culture is much better. The police made a mistake (an honest mistake) because they didn't know about the Muslim cultural issue with dogs (and before this, I didn't either). There's no realistic parallel case that I can think of, but I'm open to examples.

But if there were one, I'd hope I'd be consistent. This is a simple community campaign - hello everyone, here's a non-emergency phone number you can contact us on. It ought not be beyond the wit of humankind to produce a simple poster than everyone would feel comfortable displaying.

What about cats on the card then? Oh, hold on, Egyptians might be offended 'cos that's bad luck. Tricky innit? Some cultures have weird superstitions and in this multicultural Britain it's so easy to accidentally transgress against one. Seems to me this diversity officer the Police have employed must be a pretty knowledgeable chap to keep up to speed with the hundreds of cultures around. Mind you, if he concentrated on Islam he'd probably have most bases covered as that's who seems to be the most culturally sensitive. Such precious flowers aren't they? A cartoon sends some of them into a killing frenzy. Now we find that dogs cause so much offence that even a *picture* of one is dangerous ground.

Britain's often described as a nation of animal lovers. In fact, isn't pet dog ownership the highest in the world per capita here? So the image of the puppy could be expected to have an impact. Shucks, maybe that's why it was chosen? Yup, the Police were right to apologise. But right after they said sorry they should have said "Tough Titties".

Incidentally, I'm willing to bet that if these postcards had been for sale with the shopkeepers making a small profit, there would have been no complaint at all. In my experience, "Muslim" shopkeepers worship the same god as the rest of us - money. Funny how their religious sensibilities are set aside to sell alcohol, pork, porn ...

Perhaps it's peculiar to the middle eastern religions, this dislike of dogs. They're descended from the wolf after all. In the middle ages the Christians believed the wolf was a symbol of "the evil one". The poor animals had no chance. They'd already been persecuted for hundreds of years, but once they'd been marked as something worse than sheep worriers - and listed as some sort of demon in the medieval Christian bestiary, they were doomed. Seems nobody put their foot down when the first wave washed in from the east, introducing these strange and irrational beliefs. Now they're talking about reintroducing wolves into Scotland. I wonder if the wildlife ecology bods have thought about consulting anyone other than the sheep farmers.

"Fanny, I've been here for three years. I just know what the overall reaction would be if a Christian-Voice type tried to stop a community initiative on the basis of religion. Two or three might support him, about a dozen would attack him.

The only thing youhave right in there is that youve been here about three years.

No one is "stopping" the police using pictures of dogs, what mindless distortion of the facts. ONe bloke said "You might want to reconsider using a picture of a dog if you want the people you want to bi involved to put the card up"

Good advice, how has this become a censorship issue. Because people like you and WA would rather put words in other people's mouths than deal with the facts.

WHen anyone fomr ANY religion tries to stopothers doing something lawful andconsensual my reaction and the reaction of most anti-theists here is th same EVERY time.

If as a closer analogy Philip Gree went tot he Arts Council and said "Hey you knowthat poster for the arts festival you are running, you might want to take the picture of "Piss Christ" of it as it mayannoy some Christians"

Id say the sameas I haveoverthis Muslim issue i.e. much as I dont see it their way as tax payers thay deserve services that where reasonably possible are sensitive to their beliefs.

I still cant see what the problem is.

one love

Novo I will get to your post later

This article from the front of today's Independent is relevant to our discussion and seems to support my view that despite years of multi-cultural correctness the very factions who's sensitivities are meant to be being protected are feeling threatened. Something isn't working.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/muslims-feel-like-jews-of-europe-859978.html

About the only thing you got right there was "I still can't see".

<>

The police have apologised. Do you think they will run the same postcard again? Now that it's been publicised, do you think any police force will? So it's effectively been stopped.

<>

Is it not lawful & consensual to distribute cards with a picture of a puppy? This guy objected and you reckon it's "good advice".

Well I do make a distinction between Christianity and other religions to a *certain* degree. Being the state religion, having it rammed down my throat, being indoctrinated by it at school, on Tv, indirectly via most of out laws which are built on a christian ethos. I think sensitivites over Christian issues are fair game. They are happy to try to brain wash the majority. Christ, even when out of my mind in hospital, a bloody official christian visited me, 'officially'. The hospital had a church in its grounds, which patients, many who were emotionally vulnerable, were encouraged to attend.

You don't hear bleating from the moral majority about any of that stuff.

But one eensy weensy little story like this gets all the Mail types twisting their knickers 360 degrees. What a bunch of over sensitive wooses they themselves are; the very thing they accuse other religious minorities of. Methinks there is much hypocrisy and disingenuousness going on from these fragile butterflies, who think 'their', but not *my* way of life is so threatened.

I've been depressed and threatened in my way of life, by these 'types' and their status quo structures. But I get over it; it's the way societal structures operate.

The bleating is laughable deafening over this little non story.

I mean I ask you how much panic can anyone get in over such a silly little non story?

Thanks for the link, WA. So what do you think "isn't working", and why? And what should be done about it?

In my view, the answer is in the article - it's because of the constant drip of distorted, manipulated, or downright falsified stories about Muslims and about Islam.

The problem isn't that we've head "years of multi-cultural correctness" - rather the opposite. As the article indicates, it seems to be open season on Muslims, Islam, and anything related to Islamic culture in certain sections of the media. There are legitimate criticisms to be made of Islam, the behaviour of certain Muslims, and aspects of quasi-Islamic culture and tradition, as there are legitimate criticisms to be made of pretty much every culture to varying degrees.

But the criticisms and attacks that are being made generally aren't legitimate - they're based on lies and on deliberate distortion (inaccurate or partial précis is the usual MO -hysterical headline and first paragraphs not justified by the rest of the story). There are good reasons for criticising Islam and broader Muslim culture - treatment of women, attitude to homosexuals etc - but these aren't the criticisms being made.

The result? The development or entrenchment of a siege mentality among Muslims and increasing fear and resentment among non-Muslims as we've seen in this thread.

Lets look at the latest UK Census figures from 2001: 92.1% of the ppoulation is white and 7.9% from the minority ethnic group. Those figures in no way present a threat to the tradional way of life, the culture or relgion of society.

But, and this is my point, the effect of multi-cultural corectness has been to present that 7.9% as being much, much larger and that in turn causes the BNP and tabloid rantings.

The last time I travelled into London, by rail, from the West, just after Reading the station signs are all depicted in English and I assume Urdu. The subliminal message transmitted is that at least half the population must be Pakistani. Not so, as demonstrated by the stats, but to the xenophobes it's proof that their way of life is under threat.

If we were more relaxed and took care to depict the population mix as it is and not how the pc rule book dictates we may improve things.

<>

can anybody see the deliberate mistake

muslim - dog bad

muslim selling booze - ok????????????????????

No he did not object and even if you want to contrue his advice to the police as an objection you have to agree he did he did it in a fair way. No placard waving pressure just a quite word in the right direction.

The police *decided* to change their tack with no undue force being involvedin their decision. If you stop at a red light there is nothing actually stopping you you just agree that its in your own and everyones best interests if you do thingsin a way that makes things work better. The police were not stopped. They decided on advice to change what they were doing to make it work better.

Sorry, you and others have a problem with that and I just cant see why.

WA do you need me to explain population distribution to you?

While Im at it I'll deal with Novo's wrongheaded ideas about pretty much the same issue.

IN the fifties large influxes of people whol looked different appeared on these shores and the influx continued in fits and starts right up to now.

Obviously these people needed somewhere to live. They chose places that were cheap in generally in the poorer parts of towns or in posher areas where large houses could be split in to small bedsits or appartments. The other and more important consideration was this, they needed to be near work. Large factories, large hospitals and such like and you only find these in big cities.

Some people decided they didnt like living near "darkies" and buggered offand houses became vacant and cheap because there wasnt so much demand for houses on streets where "sambos and curry munchers" lived. So more cheap places for new immmigrants could live. So many that it became worthwhile opening shops and selling backhome food and clothes.

Ask yourself this where would you chose to live if you just got off the boat

a) in a place where you you know no one and some people give you a *unpleasant* vibe/

OR

b) in a place where some people give you anunpleasant vibe but there are also other people who share your type of worship culture and accent/language oh andyou have lots of lovely food to buy and its chaeper and near work?

So we end up where we are today with health authorities and local councils knowing that it is cheaper and more effective to print signs and leaflets in a range of languages than it is to attempt to get everyone through ESOL classes.

Now I dont like everything about the modern world, but I dont automatically blame it on a conspiracy by a group pf peoplewho hate me and want to destroy my way of life.

The traditional way of life in this coutry has been changed that's true but what you grew up with probably wasnt traditional before you did it and so on and so forth going back past William the Conquerer and The Romans.

Get over it and stop trying to blame people with dark skin.

>The traditional way of life in this coutry has been changed that's true<

Yes and thank the Lord for that. Some of us w*t*ies, (I've had such ridiculous yikesed before by sensitive folk,hence asterisks), positively welcome change. There was nothing more stifling than my growing up in a white dreary monoculture in provincial Kent; a positive cultural desert. I never felt at ease or at home there. Don't ask me why. I'm so much happier where I live now, or as some here, sneeringly refer to it as multi cultural la la land. But believe it or not I've discovered plenty of other Anglos who feel the same as me; admittedly mostly younger, forward looking types; but then I hope I'll be always young at heart. Some people are just born middle aged. And change any change, even a sign written in two languages, makes them think Armagedon is nigh...

Thanks, WA. Interesting post. I had a figure of 10% in my head for BME groups, but obviously I was a little out.

Interesting point about how anti-racism messages may mislead about the numbers of non-whites and create fear and resentment. A similar point was made recently in the Guardian about there being too many black and Asian faces on TV, but far too few involved in running TV.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/jun/26/bbc.television

I also find some of the tokenism irritating. Where I work, we have very 'correct' brochures with pictures of photogenic people chosen in part to show diversity (white male, black male, white female, Asian female is the usual, it seems). But it's a diversity that's not actually reflective of how things are round here, and it does look like either tokenism, wishful thinking, or 'correctness'. I don't know about multi-lingual train signs in Reading or anywhere else, but if true that doesn't seem justified to me (except perhaps in Wales). Translating vital information leaflets is one thing, railways signs are another. But I can't find any details of these signs - google thinks that Reading is reading, so to speak, and won't help.

Having said that, I do think that having inclusive literature and publicity material is important. It says to minority groups of various kinds (including LGBT and disabled people) that you're welcome here. I don't think there always needs to be "one of each" in every picture, as it were, but I think the message is important. I'll invite Blicky to say something about the effect of inclusive images if I may, rather than speculate from a position of relative ignorance myself. But if, for example, all university publicity and prospectus pictures only had pictures of white Sloanes I think it would have an effect on how university is regarded.

It's odd though.... your point, WA, is about numbers being exaggerated, while Novo's is almost the opposite - fear of becoming a minority in certain parts of the country.

But I honesty don't think it's the 'inclusive' (or 'correct') agenda that's generating the lion's share of the problem. I think people are, for the most part, reasonable. Earlier I said there were two categories of people who get upset by the story that started the thread - those who *want* to get upset and will believe extraordinary claims on the flimsiest of evidence. There's not much to be done about people like that, other than try to keep debunking the myths wherever possible and putting the other argument

But I think the second category of people have concerns that are, in large part, caused by the constant drip of distortions and misinformation. Having said that, I don't discount the points you make about over-representation, because I can see how that might play a role in affecting people's perceptions.

WA,
I'm sorry to see you being so abused by others here. Your initial inquiry and propositions are fine by me and your defense is admirable (if futile) against such wailing whinies.

As for the the ugly little black puppy sitting on the copper's hat I have to question why anyone would use such a nasty little cur in any advertising. It is not a loveable puppy; it is not a commanding 'police dog' type; it doesn't even appear to be healthy or happy and was obviously weaned far too young.

Those who don't like dogs in general are doomed to a loveless eternal hell anyway but this particular little mutt is likely to offend even most of us doglovers, or anyone who likes to see real dogs doing real dog stuff besides crapping in a copper's hat.

No amount of mustard, fried onions or sauce could help this mongrel.

~jwf~

Backing up WA's earlier link from the Independent is this - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1031769/Is-post-war-Britain-anti-Muslim.html

Mind you, it's from the Mail so it therefore must be rubbish

I find it a bit rich to hear a Muslim complaining that Muslims in Britain are treated in the same way that Jews once were in Europe, considering what the Koran has to say about Jews and how Jews are treated in countries where Islam holds sway.

Let's compare the Jews of 1930s Germany with the Muslims of 21st Century Britain.

Is it part of the National Curriculum in British schools for children to be taught the evils of Muslims?

Is it illegal for the Public Sector to deal with Muslim businesses?

Has there been a national campaign urging "British people, protect yourselves. Do not buy from Muslims"?

Have any Muslims been sent to prison on the charge of "Consorting with British girls"?

Are Muslim newspapers banned?

Are Muslims barred from political office?

Are Muslims prevented by law from marrying British non-Muslims?

Did the Jews in 1930's Germany march in opposition to German foreign policy?

Did Jews march under banners threatening to cut the heads off Germans?

Did the Jews burn books?

Were there any Jewish terrorist atrocities?

Did Rabbis stand in pulpits and preach hatred towards Germans?

The claim that Muslims are treated like the Jews in Nazi Germany is hysterical hyperbole. And you have to wonder why it is that Muslims claim to be victims whilst someone from the same village back in India but who happens to be Hindu or Sikh doesn't express the same experience.

And there goes another straw target...

From the Independent article:

"Mr Malik made clear that he was not equating the situation with the Holocaust but warned that many British Muslims now felt like "aliens in their own country .... I think most people would agree that if you ask Muslims today what do they feel like, they feel like the Jews of Europe," he said. "I don't mean to equate that with the Holocaust but in the way that it was legitimate almost – and still is in some parts – to target Jews, many Muslims would say that we feel the exact same way.

An analogy is being drawn between the vilification of Jews in Nazi Germany and the vilification of Muslims now, not between the treatment of Muslims now and the Holocaust. It's also not clear to me how British Muslims are responsible for the behaviour of 'Muslim' countries. The issue is how *they* behave in the UK, which they do have control over.

Interesting to read that article in the Hate. I have to admit I was very surprised to see that. It would have been more impressive, however, if there had been some admission of their own culpability, and if the article wasn't punctuated with hysterical and misleading headlines about Sharia law.