|
|
Post by colbops on Nov 15, 2022 22:12:54 GMT
Well at least we seem to be in agreement that there is no such as a universal morality, and probably never has been. So we are then stuck with our contemporary local version which, if nothing else, describes what is currently fashionable here and now. Until things change of course as they do. It would be interesting to put your assertion about overwhelming support for equal treatment to the test, with proper evidence adduced for the 'unfashionable' side of the ledger. Should racial aliens, for example, be morally entitled to full and equal access to all public resources even if they, or their forebears, have never contributed to their funding. I suspect there might well be some wavering amongst the 'vast majority' as such questions were properly explored. Which of course can't be done at present since the very idea would be 'racist'. That's an interesting one. I think it may be a rather flawed test. Should 'homegrowns' for example, be morally entitled to full and equal access to all public resources even if they, or their forebears, have never contributed to their funding. There are plenty of people that have never contributed a penny in tax, having been born to parents who have also never contributed a penny in tax. There are plenty more that have contributed trivial amounts, and many many more that haven't gotten close to being net contributors. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Nov 16, 2022 10:37:56 GMT
You don't believe that the native peoples of these Isles have a fundamentally stronger claim on its resources than those of foreign extraction? If that's the case then we're going to have to agree to differ.
But anyway, to return to your questionnaire, I feel in a mood for compromise. Pick out your No. 1 most pressing query and I'll give it my best shot.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Nov 16, 2022 10:49:30 GMT
I think it would only be racist if a brown, say, Indian alien were treated differently from a white, say, Belgian, alien. As the law stands, of course, it would be racially discriminatory to treat either differently from a white native.
Interestingly, the law in its current form serves to define in large part what is moral and what is not. It could all change next week but for now it's what moral arbiters tend to rest on.
|
|
|
|
Post by Equivocal on Nov 16, 2022 12:06:41 GMT
I think it would only be racist if a brown, say, Indian alien were treated differently from a white, say, Belgian, alien. As the law stands, of course, it would be racially discriminatory to treat either differently from a white native. I don't believe that to be the case. Perhaps your understanding of 'alien' is different from mine. The idea is the law reflects, if you like, the nation's morality rather than the law defining it for the nation. As you say, it might change. In terms of a change in equal treatment; my guess is neither of us will live to see anything significant. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Nov 16, 2022 12:52:06 GMT
I don't believe that to be the case. Perhaps your understanding of 'alien' is different from mine. The idea is the law reflects, if you like, the nation's morality rather than the law defining it for the nation. As you say, it might change. In terms of a change in equal treatment; my guess is neither of us will live to see anything significant. Both the Equality Act and the suite of legislation that deals with 'expressive discrimination' (the POA86 etc) define race to include nationality and national or ethnic origins. So a Belgian of whatever hue would be protected under the law, just as would an Indian.
My understanding of 'alien' in this context means non-citizen. Racial alien means an individual of non-European ancestry.
I'd suggest that rather than of reflecting the nation's morality, the law at any one point in time reflects instead the currently adopted morality of the pharisee class, and it is only rather later that the public as a whole gets on board (somewhat grudgingly, usually). History is full of instances where legislation has led public opinion, rather than the other way round.
As for changes in the anti-discrimination legislation, I agree they are likely to become more repressive for the native population rather than less, at least in the short to medium term.
|
|
|
|
Post by Equivocal on Nov 16, 2022 14:05:21 GMT
I don't believe that to be the case. Perhaps your understanding of 'alien' is different from mine. The idea is the law reflects, if you like, the nation's morality rather than the law defining it for the nation. As you say, it might change. In terms of a change in equal treatment; my guess is neither of us will live to see anything significant. Both the Equality Act and the suite of legislation that deals with 'expressive discrimination' (the POA86 etc) define race to include nationality and national or ethnic origins. So a Belgian of whatever hue would be protected under the law, just as would an Indian.
My understanding of 'alien' in this context means non-citizen. Racial alien means an individual of non-European ancestry.
I'd suggest that rather than of reflecting the nation's morality, the law at any one point in time reflects instead the currently adopted morality of the pharisee class, and it is only rather later that the public as a whole gets on board (somewhat grudgingly, usually). History is full of instances where legislation has led public opinion, rather than the other way round.
As for changes in the anti-discrimination legislation, I agree they are likely to become more repressive for the native population rather than less, at least in the short to medium term.
Accepting your definitions; we then need to distinguish between properly resident aliens and non-resident aliens. Clearly, there is no difficulty in denying access to national resources to non-resdent aliens, and even properly resident aliens may have to satisfy certain conditions to access some resources.
As you quite properly point out, it would most certainly be racist to deny properly resident racial aliens access to resources whilst allowing properly resident aliens of European ancestry access to the same resources.
I think you are quite right to say that the law does in some cases drive changes in nation's morality. That said, I believe the vast majority of the 'ethnic British' would agree that people should not be discriminated against on the basis of their sex, sexuality or race. I doubt the size of that majority would have changed a great deal in the last 40 years.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Nov 16, 2022 14:25:14 GMT
40 years may be a bit too close-in to be relevant. I do know though, having been around at the time, that there was no great groundswell of public opinion in favour of the 1960s Race Relations Acts (especially the 1968, after Powell's intervention), the 1967 Sex Offenders Act or the 1975 Sex Discrimination Act.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Nov 16, 2022 16:55:38 GMT
After some reflection, prompted in part by others' contributions to this thread, it’s become obvious that an amendment is needed to the Taxonomy, in the form of the addition of an important taxon that I had overlooked previously. Dappy started the ball rolling with his observation: “My interpretation is that you are seeking to argue that all those who disagree with your race-based agenda are al driven by bias, stupidity or self interest.” I can see now that he has a valid point: the taxonomy as originally presented omits an important – perhaps the most important - category of those holding progressive views on race and immigration. So here’s the addition: (d) Inhabitants of a higher moral plane
White males who may or may not be awakened but who, without exception, insist on ‘doing the right thing’ in embracing the liberal idiom even though it may not be to their personal advantage or to the advantage of their own families (or other ethnic kinsfolk) to do so. Although the physical benefits of adopting this stance may be elusive (job security could be one) the real reward is emotional or psychic. It arises from the intensely satisfying and pleasurable feelings that derive from not only doing the right thing but being seen to be doing so. Should one’s social peers, or better yet one’s social superiors, become aware of the depth of commitment to ‘doing the right thing’ then that is a very welcome additional bonus that may deliver its own rewards in terms of social kudos and career progression. |
|
|
|
Post by Equivocal on Nov 16, 2022 18:19:07 GMT
40 years may be a bit too close-in to be relevant. I do know though, having been around at the time, that there was no great groundswell of public opinion in favour of the 1960s Race Relations Acts (especially the 1968, after Powell's intervention), the 1967 Sex Offenders Act or the 1975 Sex Discrimination Act. Maybe, but Denning (later accused of racism) was waxing lyrical in 1949 about how no minorities faced any prejudice as a result of their race in England. The intention to legislate to prevent racial discrimination was clearly set out in Labour's manifesto for the 1964 election. So I think the principle of no discrimination on the basis of race was fairly set in the mind of the nation, as it were.
That's not to say, of course, that opinions could not be swayed against the principle. For example, the black man having the whip hand is a pretty powerful image - particularly when reported as widely as it was at the time.
After some reflection, prompted in part by others' contributions to this thread, it’s become obvious that an amendment is needed to the Taxonomy, in the form of the addition of an important taxon that I had overlooked previously. Dappy started the ball rolling with his observation: “My interpretation is that you are seeking to argue that all those who disagree with your race-based agenda are al driven by bias, stupidity or self interest.” I can see now that he has a valid point: the taxonomy as originally presented omits an important – perhaps the most important - category of those holding progressive views on race and immigration. So here’s the addition: (d) Inhabitants of a higher moral plane White males who may or may not be awakened but who, without exception, insist on ‘doing the right thing’ in embracing the liberal idiom even though it may not be to their personal advantage or to the advantage of their own families (or other ethnic kinsfolk) to do so. Although the physical benefits of adopting this stance may be elusive (job security could be one) the real reward is emotional or psychic. It arises from the intensely satisfying and pleasurable feelings that derive from not only doing the right thing but being seen to be doing so. Should one’s social peers, or better yet one’s social superiors, become aware of the depth of commitment to ‘doing the right thing’ then that is a very welcome additional bonus that may deliver its own rewards in terms of social kudos and career progression. The world you appear to inhabit is foreign to me. Most people do the right thing because it's second nature to them, and it's not even to get their reward in Heaven. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Nov 16, 2022 19:24:41 GMT
"So I think the principle of no discrimination on the basis of race was fairly set in the mind of the nation, as it were."
Not that set, I'd have thought, given Labour's hairline majority of 4 seats.
Actually, the 1965 Race Relations Act came about not as a result of a public clamour for it but rather because of the Faustian bargain the Tories made with Labour to remove race and immigration from party politics. The deal was that the Conservatives wouldn't oppose Labour's anti-discrimination legislation if Labour in turn would agree to dispense with the annual renewal of the Conservatives' 1962 Commonwealth Immigration Act which had, for the first time, made Commonwealth citizens subject to immigration control.
|
|
|
|
Post by Equivocal on Nov 16, 2022 20:10:22 GMT
"So I think the principle of no discrimination on the basis of race was fairly set in the mind of the nation, as it were." Not that set, I'd have thought, given Labour's hairline majority of 4 seats. Actually, the 1965 Race Relations Act came about not as a result of a public clamour for it but rather because of the Faustian bargain the Tories made with Labour to remove race and immigration from party politics. The deal was that the Conservatives wouldn't oppose Labour's anti-discrimination legislation if Labour in turn would agree to dispense with the annual renewal of the Conservatives' 1962 Commonwealth Immigration Act which had, for the first time, made Commonwealth citizens subject to immigration control. Irrespective of any deals (ex post facto), the principle was set out in the manifesto and though only a 4 seat majority - a significant swing to Labour.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Nov 16, 2022 22:30:40 GMT
Extracted from some earlier writings on the emergence of the Race Relations Act 1965:
The bipartisan consensus on race and immigration
One of the most striking features of this period is the emergence of the bipartisan effort to remove race and immigration from party politics. Randall Hansen argues that the consensus was not something that happened as a result of any one or even a particular series of events, but rather an understanding that grew on both sides that both issues were highly radioactive. He credits Frank Soskice with the first practical outcome of the growing consensus, his ‘package deal’ in which Labour would refrain from further opposition to restrictionist legislation (specifically the CIA62) if the Conservatives would acquiesce in the enactment of legislation outlawing racial discrimination and incitement. Hansen states:
The most remarkable aspect of this bipartisan effort to remove race (and immigration) from party politics has been its persistence until the present day. Apart from some minor sabre-rattling during the 1970 election campaign, when Edward Heath was manoeuvered into a more restrictionist posture by Enoch Powell, and a short period following Margaret Thatcher’s accession to the Tory leadership (the infamous remarks on ‘swamping’), neither race nor immigration has since featured prominently in the political platform of any mainstream party. Even more important, the passage through Parliament of all legislation dealing with race relations, including the current Equalities Bill, has been totally serene. The few renegade Tory backbenchers who have stood up in the Commons (or the Lords) to criticise either the content of successive Race Relations Bills or to question whether the legislation is even necessary, were howled down, and most vociferously by their own front bench.
As Hansen states:
Hansen, Randall. 2000.Citizenship and Immigration in Post-war Britain, Oxford: Oxford University Press
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2022 6:00:19 GMT
I'm not a Proggie so I don't fit into any of the categories.
I do think liberalism has been hijacked. I am also not a liberal.
I think Woke is a kind of virus that is going to break most of what is left of the old categories. And although this is its aim, I think it may backfire and create a backlash instead. That, in turn, could led to a revisitaton of oppression, religion or fascism. Or all three.
I do notice that as soon as Dan mentions anything a few good soldiers leap up and condemn him as a racist. Nothing new there. This issue cannot be debated if some posters are not allowed to state their case, no mater what it may be. Simply trying to silence them amounts to bot soldier tactics. It won't help a very real situation rapidly developing in countries where the world's economic migrants have found a way into someone else's benefit system, to say nothing of the havoc this may cause when numbers of these migrants are large and space and resources are limited.
I haven't seen anyone except perhaps Donald Trump who has given serious attention to this problem. This doesn't mean i am a Trump fan, it just means what it says. He is alone in the woke world at the moment with regard to the problem of what vast numbers of unprocessed and unsuitable migrants might do to established populations and systems.
|
|
