AAAAAARRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 27 Feb 2013, 02:32

I haven't read much of the above because it rather goes around in circles.

Just a point though. If a Moslem comes here and preaches in public he has no problem. If he did it in St Peter's Square in Rome he probably wouldn't have a problem, although he may be ushered out of St Peter's Square. If a Christian tried that anywhere in Saudi Arabia, or most Moslem countries, he would be lucky to get away with his life.

Some people have different standards and they are welcome to them, in their own countries. Perhaps we should have a test like they do in Norway for people asking for citizenship; they have to be competent in the language for a start: and believe that all people are equal and have equal rights, privileges and responsibilities. Perhaps we should ask people if they accept ALL the laws of this country and whether they will not just tolerate but accept others who have different religious beliefs or even no religious beliefs; sworn on the bible, koran or what ever they hold dear.

I believe it is a privilege to live in the UK and we should require all who want to live here to accept what a wonderful place it is and to abide by the rules and norms of this country. If they don't abide by the rules and norms they should be chucked out again.

Totally_Baffled · Post by **Totally_Baffled** » 27 Feb 2013, 06:59

lol thread has drifted back to the cultural issues again

What is the view on the other issues caused by the massive numbers arriving each year?

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 27 Feb 2013, 08:16

kenneal - lagger wrote: Some people have different standards and they are welcome to them, in their own countries.

No, they are not welcome to them. Universal human rights are universal. We have a duty to intervene when those rights are breached. Sometimes that has even been used to justify intervening violently Sierrra Leone, Kosova .... it's a long list. It is part of the culture of British foreign policy. We don't always go to war for entirely selfish reasons.

(Of course intervening violently represents a failure of diplomacy and often causes more problems than it solves so should be embarked upon with a lot more reluctance than history relates.)

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 27 Feb 2013, 08:58

biffvernon wrote:
kenneal - lagger wrote: Some people have different standards and they are welcome to them, in their own countries.
No, they are not welcome to them. Universal human rights are universal. We have a duty to intervene when those rights are breached. Sometimes that has even been used to justify intervening violently Sierrra Leone, Kosova .... it's a long list. It is part of the culture of British foreign policy. We don't always go to war for entirely selfish reasons.

(Of course intervening violently represents a failure of diplomacy and often causes more problems than it solves so should be embarked upon with a lot more reluctance than hhistory relates.)

Well, yes. The UK's history of violent intervention has had a very mixed degree of success. However, it's all moot now anyway. This country is simply not rich enough to throw its weight around anymore, not that it should have half the time previously anyway.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 27 Feb 2013, 09:01

The blackest of clouds have their silver linings. From another thread:

kenneal - lagger wrote: I only buy from this one kebab van because I know the bloke who runs it and over the years that I have been buying from him the quality has been excellent. The salad provided is always fresh, tasty and, most importantly, copious. I also know the person who set him up, and most of the kebab vans locally to us, and would trust him to provide a good product. They are all Iraqi Kurds.

PS_RalphW · Post by **PS_RalphW** » 27 Feb 2013, 10:32

biffvernon wrote: No, they are not welcome to them. Universal human rights are universal. We have a duty to intervene when those rights are breached.

The more I read on the history of societies and cultures the more I am sadly convinced that there is no such thing as universal human rights. All rights and morality are constrained and over time adapt to the physical reality of the environment the culture or tribe finds itself in.

Morality and human kindness seem to be built in, but individual rights in most cultures are simply the subset of all that we would like them to be that are compatible with survival of the tribe or culture in the local area. Once tribes evolve into larger structures and states, then morality can get hijacked into being what is in the best interests of TPTB in those states or religions or whatever, but at tribal level that does not happen.

Universal rights are meaningless in a localised world. I very much question that all the things we (liberal western well fed and industrial society) consider a right are even desirable and in our own best interests.

The world is getting larger. All we can do is look after our own corner in future.

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 27 Feb 2013, 11:06

RalphW wrote:The more I read on the history of societies and cultures the more I am sadly convinced that there is no such thing as universal human rights.

Oh, I'm sure you're aware there are - but they're simply not accepted by everyone yet.

RalphW wrote:I very much question that all the things we (liberal western well fed and industrial society) consider a right are even desirable and in our own best interests.

Gosh. For instance?

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 27 Feb 2013, 12:34

RalphW wrote: The more I read on the history of societies and cultures the more I am sadly convinced that there is no such thing as universal human rights.

It's no good looking at history for human rights. They are an emergent property of civilisation, something that has only recently emerged and has a long way to go before becoming universal. I want to be one of the people that helps rather than hinders the emergence of universal human rights.

The nay-sayers are the hinderers.

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 27 Feb 2013, 12:39

biffvernon wrote:
RalphW wrote: The more I read on the history of societies and cultures the more I am sadly convinced that there is no such thing as universal human rights.
It's no good looking at history for human rights. They are an emergent property of civilisation, something that has only recently emerged and has a long way to go before becoming universal. I want to be one of the people that helps rather than hinders the emergence of universal human rights.

The nay-sayers are the hinderers.

Not true. It is being "hindered" because not everybody out there agrees with you, and you have no power to force them to comply. The "nay-sayers" - by which I presume those who are accusing you of idealism - are merely pointing out this state of affairs.

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 27 Feb 2013, 14:03

biffvernon wrote:..No, they are not welcome to them. Universal human rights are universal. We have a duty to intervene when those rights are breached. Sometimes that has even been used to justify intervening violently Sierrra Leone, Kosova .... it's a long list. It is part of the culture of British foreign policy. We don't always go to war for entirely selfish reasons.

(Of course intervening violently represents a failure of diplomacy and often causes more problems than it solves so should be embarked upon with a lot more reluctance than history relates.)

Should our troops be leaving Afghanistan at a time when we have not assured the continuation of the rights of women or the education of female children?

Should we go into Pakistan to assure thee rights as well?

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 27 Feb 2013, 14:17

Hard questions Ken. There are times when military intervention seems to have helped but these seem to have been outnumbered by times when things have gone awry. One is tempted to wonder whether an 'army' of nurses, doctors, agricultural advisers, engineers etc might not have won the 'hearts and minds' of the good folk of those lands more effectively than soldiers with guns and drones.

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 27 Feb 2013, 15:15

You wouldn't have got them in there with the Taliban in place, Biff. The troops had to go in to clear the way for any one not armed to the teeth. In Pakistan, a supposedly civilised country, the Taliban are killing local nurses and doctors who are immunising the children against polio. They tried to kill a child who was campaigning for girls education. What chance sending nurses and teachers into a Taliban run country?

PS_RalphW · Post by **PS_RalphW** » 27 Feb 2013, 15:46

Human rights especially for women were dramatically better in Afghanistan when it was under Soviet military control in the 1970s.

Everything that 'Western Liberal Democracy' has done since then has made life far, far worse there.

Now we are declaring victory and leaving. It is the best we can do, given the situation we now find ourselves in.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 27 Feb 2013, 18:09

As I said, Ken, they are hard questions. Did you ever read Ahmed Rashid's book 'Taliban', first published in 2000 and then republished in 2001 after the 9/11 attacks with a new foreword? Most enlightening, but much of his story was lost in the fog of war.

RenewableCandy · Post by **RenewableCandy** » 27 Feb 2013, 18:11

kenneal - lagger wrote: They tried to kill a child who was campaigning for girls education.

Yes, and they failed. And then things got interesting. A lot of Islamic people were on Malia's side rather than the fundies'. It is perfectly possible that, left to get on with it, everybody would eventually come round to enough of an agreement on human rights. The state of "being at war" seems to detract from this process.