noemon wrote: One would expect that you would be praising the UK for forbidding agent provocateurs from operating in the country and you would be calling more of this for both whites and Islamists.
Why do you say that?
noemon wrote:Is that something that bothers you?
It bothers me in that it reveals the problem with the definition of national identity and citizenship based on the social contract.
Citizenship in the west has increasingly become more about residence in a certain geographical point controlled by a certain state and less about ethno-cultural and religious identity (natural identity).
It is contrary to common-sense
, that the current state of affairs would obtain: A member of the British common-wealth (she is Canadian), WASP background, advocating western ideals, would be forbidden entry into the UK for expressing political opinions on youtube videos, but Muslims, often of middle-eastern descent, who fought for ISIS against coalition forces (that include the United Kingdom) would be permitted reentry or were not sufficiently vetted.
If you are saying that this situation is purely because Lauren Southern is merely a member of the commonwealth; whereas, the ISIS fighters were technically British citizens.....that makes the situation all the more asinine.
This is the reason why the Far-Right has called into question liberal notions of what it means to be "British" or "European." Because for the first time in ages, the immigration policies of the west have made that definition seemingly contrary to the thinking of the common man.
If a Somali ISIS fighter is British while Lauren Southern is a foreigner, then there is something seriously wrong with our definitions.
That is besides the fact that the issue itself seems to show a lack of reasonable priorities. The true foreigners, these unassimilating immigrants, are given passes that seem quite baffling, whereas those of true British descent have to watch what they say on social media in fear of police action.
To anyone with a sense of justice left, this situation should appear nutty.
Thats all that I am pointing out. I find it surprising that someone as common-sense as you would see this as "sensationalist trolling." Its a legit concern among many Americans and Brits and it should be addressed and not merely dismissed. Rarely is collective anxiety entirely
unfounded, even if elements of it are.
noemon wrote:So you are saying that unless the British state starts imposing different “policies” to its own nationals of a different religious persuasion, that is unless Britain endorses racism on an institutional level then all crimes will be attributed to Muslims and Britain’s inability to quarantine them as a group.
Well, I am an Anarcho-Capitalist now, so I don't necessarily think these issues are entirely soluable by governments; however, I will at least say this: Racial profiling is completely rational. If a certain demographic has grossly disproportionate rates of crimes, they should be given special attention by authorities in equal proportion.
If you have an animal destroying property and getting into your garbage, you are going to set traps for the species that is suspected based on their known behaviors.
Thus, you will set traps for raccoons or cats....not bunny rabbits.
That is the problem, if you fear being labeled as racist so much that you won't focus on the demographic in proportion to their criminal contribution, you have lost all hope of really solving the problem.
In the United States, 63% of all crimes are committed by 1% of the populations which is isolated to just a handful of urban areas. These crimes are committed by a certain demographic primarily. So, would it be more rational to address those people, based on what common characteristics they share, or just restrict the rights of everyone, even to the point of restricting the rights of individuals to discuss the common characteristics of these 1%? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3969807/
A scientific method, the method of a lab worker, a trapper, or a salesman, would be to target the common characteristic and address it
. This is manifestly not how the west is dealing with this issue and the public knows it.
This is not sensationalism, this is mere observation.
If that makes me a racist. So be it.
But the rise of the Far-Right in the west in the last ten years didn't happen because everything was "just fine," and if that is not the sort of governments we want making a come back, then perhaps we should discuss their concerns instead of dismissing them.