The University of Birmingham discussion board: underground, uncensored, online :: email@example.com
Log in to check your private messages
The Radish Forum Index
Post a reply
View more Emoticons
[quote="naivehottie"][quote="higuy"][quote="naivehottie"] Although the plan for unis was slightly racist the motion goes too far and seems to suggest letting Muslims be extremists and claims it's racist to stop it. [/quote] The motion doesnt really touch on extremism - it just comments on how muslims are being singled out. Will you speak against the motion? I would love to hear how you think this motion goes too far.[/quote] I questioned it at Exec, but the main point was not to target Muslim students who have shown no signs of extremism which I agree with. The only concern was whether the policy would also call for the uni not to disrupt genuine extremists, which when I questioned it I was told that that would still be racist as the people that were being stopped being extremists were Muslim which I disagreed with. I doubt the policy in itself is defending extremists so I'll let it pass, it's just a concern. Personally I think stopping extremism is a very important concern, but spying on all Muslims is the wrong way to do it, and would be racist, but if someone is a terrorist then I'd rather they were stopped saving the lives of people than them be let do it on the fear that it may be mildly racist to stop them.[/quote]
Disable BBCode in this post
Disable Smilies in this post
If you are visually impaired or cannot otherwise read this code please contact the
Confirmation code: *
Enter the code exactly as you see it. The code is case sensitive and zero has a diagonal line through it.
All times are GMT
Select a forum
Guild and University
Sales / Wants / Lost / Found
Activism and Politics
Gigs and Parties
Posted: Thu Dec 21, 2006 3:00 am
i would like to think that anyone can speak without fear of censorship full stop, however i think that any event should be allowed to represent only one side of any argment. eg boris, would have been nice to see his convictions tested in public, as would be the case for any other visiting politician or religious leader.
Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 4:29 pm
"here, have a hall, do a speech, say what you like, it's FREEEEEEDOM man"
Firstly, i think some people would take issue with you implying the ideas of classical liberalism have some connection with hippie culture...
Secondly, the issue isnt as simple as banning people who advocate terrorism. You have to ask what kind of person would take these peoples manipulations seriously. They need to have low expectations and a history of being subject to irrational prejudice. They also must have poor lateral thinking skills and a poor knowledge of history and culture. There are many other factors but these are qualities exhibited by discriminated racial minorities who are forced through a distorted education system and subject to a high level of inter-demographical prejudice. Young muslims are a good fit into this category. They are poor and (hence in this society still) badly educated, in communities with little social mobilisation etc. They also spend most of their time simply absorbing anecdotal bias information from consumer media and different interest groups within their community without the opputunity or the ability to critically assess the information . They become easy targets for confidence-tricks and other manipulations and reject any system which encourages independent enquiry, such as most of their religion. It is then essentially a societal problem. The effect of monitoring these groups in the manner being suggested achieves nothing except to give these people more ammunition when they claim they are be discriminated against and persecuted and then rationalise it to their own satisfaction. We must instead stop patronising muslims and start helping them to tackle these problems in their own communities. Islam is not a primitive or violent religion, it is in some senses more developed than christianity and by no means presents and insurmountable cultural barrier.
Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 2:13 pm
Sorry didn't mean public space surveillance (CCTV has been around since before the new powers in any case) I meant monitoring groups in the way some people think unis shouldn't be doing. Like, "here, have a hall, do a speech, say what you like, it's FREEEEEEDOM man"
Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 1:47 pm
...if you can prove that they actually work. Police are not finding these people because of all the new powers the government is bringing in (which are now happily employed against peaceful protestors) but because of the same old fashioned detective work they have been using for 100 years, and even this isnt good enough to stop a determined terrorist. You can put up as many cameras as you like but there isnt enough people to monitor them 24 hours a day, so they are unlikely to ever give police enough time to stop someone in the act. Its not that hard to hide your identity from a camera either....
Im not entirely sure how censorship is meant to stop this either. Censorship usually means that there is so little unity and coherence in a society that it needs to repress people to mantain control. The fix is with society, not repressing those who dont agree with you.
Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 10:32 am
hopefully your own strong, well-structured, reasonable argument will eventually win.
Against a bomb on a bus? I think not. There is a place for surveillance and intelligence.
Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 9:49 am
Galloway is a vainglorious publicity seeking entrepeneur who left the Labour Party not as a stand against any of their policies but only after they changed the constituency boundaries and effectively forced him out. He loves to be the one who loves Muslims. He is a good orator, better than most politicians, and probably an anti-semite. Oh well. Let him talk nonsense.
Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 9:42 am
I am very surprised that any student would call for surveillance of their societies or censorship of free speach. Isn't there rather enough of that stuff already? If you think a religious or political position radical - in a bad way - then hopefully your own strong, well-structured, reasonable argument will eventually win.
Posted: Sun Nov 19, 2006 8:27 pm
Galloway's speech was many things, but not anti-Semitic.
Posted: Sun Nov 19, 2006 4:50 pm
But there a difference. By trying to be green, you are helping. Maybe not a lot, but every little helps. How does buying your strawberrys from Spain and not Israel help the situation? It does nothing except make you smile on the inside and think your doing something noble. Get real.
Now of course it's silly to say criticism of Israel is anti-semetic, thats just ridiculous. That would mean the whole of Israel is anti-semetic! But the reason people get frustrated is because of the massive amount of attention given to Israel on such matters, while other states get ignored. If anything its anti-muslim, because people don't seem to judge Israel in the same way as others. It's as though you expect less of Muslims. Why is that? Hold everyone to high standards. How many posts are there here about Darfur? Why do you think that is?
Please let's not ever equate Israel to what happened in SA. That's just an insult to the memory of what happened there, and shows a gross misunderstanding or what's going on.
Posted: Sun Nov 19, 2006 4:17 pm
And there was me thinking I just had to be careful where my oranges come from. Thankyou, I will be much better equipped to cripple the Israeli economy now that I know a few more things to boycott.
Am I consistent in my boycotting? No I'm not. I'm not at all consistent in a lot of things, that doesn't mean the principle isn't correct. I like to consider myself fairly 'Green' and yet my lifestyle doesn't completely reflect this. Does that mean that aiming to be 'green' isn't a good thing?
This discussion doesn't even have anything to do with whether or not I am 'noble'. Naivehottie made a false and unsupported allegation that Galloway's speech was anti-semitic, I explained that it wasn't. Whether or not I agreed with the boycott policy I would have made the same case; Boycotting Israeli goods is not anti-semitic.
Would you have made the same argument during apartheid South Africa about poor people losing their jobs as a result of a boycott? Remember not to ignore your convictions before you answer.
Posted: Sun Nov 19, 2006 3:49 pm
Post subject: get real
Gabz, are you using a Windows PC? Have you ever used MSN? Do you use anti-viral software?
O and according to palestinecampaign, you should be boycotting Tesco because it stocks a 'zionist newspaper' and held a competition to win a holiday to Eilat.
O I see,
you will boycott when its easy for you
, but happily ignore your convictions when it doesn't. Very noble of you. Also, very noble of you to try and cripple the Israeli economy so thousands of Israelis and Palestinians are without jobs. Ah yes, you are a kind and compassionate man. You love Peace. You know how to solve the conflict.
Posted: Sat Nov 18, 2006 11:03 am
Whether or not Galloway is or isn't (I believe he isn't), we are discussing his specific speech which you claim was anti-semitic despite not seeing it. You pointed out specific things you thought were anti-semitic, I explained why they were not and yet you still claim that he was. Either give further examples, explain why mentioning that the Israeli flag has blood on it, or explain why boycotting Israeli goods is anti-semitic or retract your comments. He has been known to sue you know...
Posted: Fri Nov 17, 2006 2:15 pm
No, as I've heard that it was, but ti depends how you define it. If it wasn't then it was right on the edge. I don't think being anti-Israel like you lot are is anti-semitic as such, but I feel George Galloway certainly is.
Posted: Fri Nov 17, 2006 1:46 pm
So you retract your comment about the speech being anti-semitic?
Posted: Fri Nov 17, 2006 10:20 am
I don't think it's fair to compare Israel to apartheid South Africa. I don't agree with all of Israel's actions, but they're far from the country with the worst human rights record. For example Saddam Hussein's treatment of the Kurds, to give just one example, although not relevent now, there are many others.
In Israel Palestinians have full citizenship and parties calling for the end of Israel can stand in elections, unlike in Syria where only Muslims can stand. While Israel may overreact to terrorists they also have to be careful they don't look weak as a lot of the countries around them are led by people who want to destroy Israel, and would quite happily kill every Israeli. However, it's clearly a two way thing, neither side being totally innocent.
Whether setting up Israel in the current spot is a mistake is another question, but today's Israelis can hardly be blamed for that.
Being anti-Israel is not anti-semitic in itself, it can be when taken to extremes, and if you want to boycott Israeli goods fair enough, but to be consistent you should boycott goods from a lot of other countries.
© 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
Igloo Theme Version 1.0 :: Created By: