Multi-culturalism boon or bane?

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by Mari

*seriously considers moving to a different country* Any room left in Belgium for another Dutchie, Eärn?

Always room for one more, I think. But you're not necessarily going to be better off here, we've got nearly all the problems you're having and then some language troubles beside!

[Mari]

Uhm... je ne parle pas Francais? I'll just make sure I stay on the right side... which means the left side.
But if that doesn't work I can always move to the UK or the US. Or Russia.

[The Gaffer]

You have a point, inked, but I think it is mischievous.

Your assumption is that these two cultures are mutually exclusive. In reality, there is no "absolute" freedom of expression, just like there is no "absolute" intolerance of non-Muslim cultures. This can be shown empirically.

We always have constraints on expression, whether that's due to social norms, access to channels of communication, editorial fief or whatever. Even in Saudi Arabia, they don't smite unbelievers as soon as they step off the plane, as far as I know.

It is only troublemakers that try to assert absoluteness on either side, particularly those who wish to advance an "us versus them" agenda.

Indeed, it is the absence of absolute morality that allows them to co-exist.

If anything, your line of argument speaks more to the absurdity of moral absolutism than against multiculturalism.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

oooh. finesse, Gaff.

[inked]

OOhh, I think not, Gaffer.

From whence do you arrive at reasonable restraints on free speech and why?

Assumption of the absolute standard of relativism is no less absolute than the assertion of the existence of absolutes. You have merely elevated relativism to the status of absolute. But the presence of mutually exclusive cultural views is not thereby imparied, is it?

For an interesting take...
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedi...lumn?track=rss

[The Gaffer]

Whatever the faults of "Fitna," it ain't no Darwin fish.

That guy is barking. FACT

From whence do you arrive at reasonable restraints on free speech and why?

Empirical observation. Description not prescription.

Interestingly, David Cameron, our next Prime Minister , has just announced a policy on the BBC which is tailor made to endear him to Rupert Murdoch's media empire. There you go: unfree speech in action.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...servatives2001

Assumption of the absolute standard of relativism is no less absolute than the assertion of the existence of absolutes.

Sorry, I can't discuss this because I would clearly have to explain what relativism means and don't have the time.

[inked]

It'a a shame Gaffer that you don't have the time to explain relativism because I'd really like to think you knew what it was. But I'll wait.

Describe the limits on free speech you think are "right" and defend them from "relativists" who have differing conceptions than yours. Appeal to a tertium quid will constitute failure of your argument. I am particularly interested in the "empirical" approach you allege you advocate. You seem to assume that "empirical" is superior to something else.

Does empirical cover all of history or just your miniscule part and experience of life on this planet? Don't forget the freedom of speech in the USSR and the Third Reich and Yugoslavia as well as Turkey, Saudi Arabia, et cetera in your empiricism.

[The Gaffer]

Don't hold your breath. Sorry to let you down, mate

Just to be clear: I was not being PREscriptive, merely DEscriptive. That is, what I observe is that there are limits in all societies on freedom of speech (some more than others, clearly). If anyone can provide me with evidence to the contrary, historical or otherwise, I will happily revise my views accordingly.

[inked]

Okay. I can breathe again. I figure I saved the output of carbon a miniscule and infinitesimal bit so I feel good about being an environmentalist.....

Here's multicultural for you:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/03/...on/edcohen.php

The End of the White Man ... prosperity returneth to Asia where it belongeth...historically speaking.

[inked]

Hmmm, for all the trouble, would it be worth it?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1770

Can anyone explain how the fact that he has two wives and commutes abates the laws about speed limits, especially the ones about automatic forfeiture of license?

Seems a bit tooooooooooooo multicultural. But what do I know?

Would it work if he had been in an accident or killed a pedestrian, you think?

Or, is it evidence that anyone crazy enough to have two wives ought not have a driver's license? ought to be required to live within proximity to prevent speeding? be judged by sharia law (does it have a penalty for speeding?)?

[The Gaffer]

First question is irrelevant because it is the custom in this culture NOT to disqualify drivers if they need their car for their work. Judicial discretion.

Second question, less than zero if you rely on evil, hate-filled toilet paper like the Daily Mail for information. (Stop and think where this story comes from: they employ someone to trawl the court reports on routine offences looking for anti-Muslim, anti-gay or anti-whoever stories.)

Third, no, if the offence was more serious, or a repeat offence, he would likely have got a ban or even jail.

[inked]

Gaffer, I don't rely on the Daily Mail for such. I merely came across a reference to the article and followed up on it. I didn't perceive the take to be all those naughty, naughty things you suggested it might be. In fact, I thought it favorable to the "break speed limits to fulfill matrimonial duties" sort. If I get caught speeding I suppose I could try that defense (does it require a claim to the effective interval of, say, Viagra or some similar medication?) or you could. Let's let one another know how that turns out for us, shall we?

How many repeats does one have to get to land in the ban or jail for this sort of clear violation of the speed limit?

Anyone know about the Sharia consequences for this sort of behaviour? (only in those enclaves where the Archbishop suggests it might be appropriate, of course)? How about in Islamic regimes or countries? Merely for comparison.

[The Gaffer]

The defence wouldn't work, however if you said that you needed your car for your work, as this man did (which fact is somewhat underplayed by the Daily Mail, who preferred to focus on his ethnic status), you would likely get off.

I have a good friend who, technically, should be banned right now but isn't because his business would collapse, and people would lose their jobs, if he did. He, however, is white, so I don't expect it to get reported in the Daily Mail any time soon. Just for interest, I posted a similar (more polite) comment to the site. Guess what? It didn't get past the Mods.

That's the nature of the systematic distortion in the way this article has been written. They want to make it look like he got off with it because he's a muslim, and twisted the facts to suit.

It really is a disgusting, hate-filled rag.

[inked]

Hmmm, just say "I need my car for work, Officer"?

Speaking of cultural distortions, here's a very prevalent one used for all sorts of proposed cultural interventions......

http://www.american.com/archive/2008...new-dissidents

[Jonathan]

Cultural? In what ways?

[The Gaffer]

But there’s one hot-button issue on which virtually no dissent is allowed: climate change.

This is proven false empirically, as the internet and other media is full of dissent on climate change. The dissenters get far, far greater media attention than their relative numbers, or the evidence for their arguments merit.

nearly three dozen top scientists

is a pathetic turnout.

What they really are really complaining about is that the science suggests a 90% chance that they are wrong, and people have the audacity to tell them so when they spout their nonsense.

[inked]

Jonathan, see The Gaffer's comments. Cultural in the sense of politically correct and media frenzy and distortion of dissent, you know, the usual.......

[inked]

Here it is: Sharia in Britain!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m.../21/do2103.xml

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by inked

Here it is: Sharia in Britain!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m.../21/do2103.xml

Trust the author, The Rt Revd Dr Michael Nazir-Ali, Bishop of Rochester, to hold a non-biased view on this

[inked]

Well, Coffeehouse, either the Telegraph is wrong about the state of the law and the courts named in the article or it is not. Which is it? Right or wrong in fact? And what does the Bishop-ness have to do with the factual state of the sharia courts in England?

Not suggesting ad hominem as an answer are ya?