Much the same as anywhere else a range of special provisions are made that piss off nearly everyone else. How in a secular democracy that really wants rid of religiosity? You’d think anyone bright enough to get to university would reject godswank, and most do, even amongst immigrant groups. The religious extremism stems not from extremist religion, but from the core violence of Islam Indeed all the ‘desert faiths’ (Judaism, Xtianity and Islam) have a revolting core of violence in alleged holy text and means of control. People essentially threaten their children with demons and excommunication, often linked to actual threat of death. These poor, abused souls turn up on campus traumatised as surely as victims of other forms of abuse.
I’m for tolerance, but it goes two ways or someone’s being mugged. I think all organised religion is based on the manipulation of stupidity, gullibility and fear. Do the clapped-out religionists “tolerate” me? I don’t want to patronise people by pretending I believe in rot or think it’s OK to do so. I welcome the spiritual, but let’s not con ourselves that these religions are spiritual at all – they are political, sly and self-interested.
Girls have often been hyped in the Mosques, believing men can and should have greater freedom than them. The lads should get off and shag, they must remain faithful and virgin until marriage – the usual rot. Homosocial behaviour is promoted and within this many of the boys plat at being ‘hard’, ‘revolutionary’ and so on. I’ve had students, one in particular, who tried to turn every question into one of Islam or racial prejudice. Yet when I put on classes in Islamic banking (much to approve of) they were clueless.
We kow-tow like cowards towards these dated religions, allow all sorts of stuff (Jewish business practices as a degree) that has no place in a modern world under the guise of tolerance. This isn’t tolerance, it’s cowardice and lying. We need to ban faith schools and public schools and get on with teaching those who turn up. Those who won’t send their kids should have to prove they get a real education or go to jail. Schools that produce kids at 18 still confused by religious rot rather than properly skilled in analysis of traditions should be closed down.
The Jihadis are on campus for many reasons. Much concerns the homosocial, and grim attitudes towards women – who are often bullied. I haven’t met a bright Jihadi – this suggests they can’t get their kicks through normal success like most zealots and choose Jihad because no one else can evaluate what they do in it. Our Home Secretary has pointed to the problem but seems to offer nothing on solution. She’s looking more and more ineffective behind her bull.
In practice we should put the cops in hard. They should sweep up the lot, from the real threats to just the creepy children at play with ‘macho’. But politicians need to stop pandering to the religion and its votes, and support tough policing. My guess is that some campus-based plot is due. I’ve seen 20 years of ‘Jihadism’ (the term is often used by Muslim women in ridicule and reports of bullying). It’s a focal point for the unwell as much as for the misplaced fervour of male youth.
It’s time to give up multiculture and start real forms of tolerance. No one would go back to the disgusting child abuse of Victorian England now, and no religious rot that promotes worse should be tolerated. Our Home Secretary has no clue how to come down hard on any of this – she only pretends. The first step would be to repeal all hate crime and religious-racial legislation, and any speech crime rubbish. The next would be to stop the religious dress code rubbish and the violence of the men enforcing it. Then we should extend a welcome with open arms to tolerant society, not one being suckered.
Allcoppedout's Blog 
You start your second paragraph with the words “I’m for tolerance”, but spend the rest of your post demonstrating that you are anything but! Forgive me, but tolerating only that which you believe to be tolerable is not tolerance as any objective reader would recognise it; indeed, it has much more in common with the concept of bigotry.
And as a separate issue, what on earth has this piece got to do with police and policing, other than to suggest that officers should be sent in ‘hard’ against the extremists?
Henry – what is the criteria any objective reader could use – clearly one c an’t have tolerance and such an objective authority. Second, how can you see me as intolerant without more full enquiry? Most of my Islamic students can spot just how false political correctness is a mile away and prefer my honesty. I don;t actually write on police matters other than as they touch to wider organisational issues. Police clearly need to go in hard when necessary – but in this area its hard to spot who is serious and who is playing.
If you think this is bigotry you need to get out more. What piece of moral high ground do you occupy – a middle class one well away from any immigrant issues, immigrants themselves and as far from poverty as possible? Shape up man and look to your own situation and the realities others face.
“If you think this is bigotry you need to get out more. What piece of moral high ground do you occupy – a middle class one well away from any immigrant issues, immigrants themselves and as far from poverty as possible? Shape up man and look to your own situation and the realities others face.”
Oops, have I touched a nerve? Because having started your reply in a measured way, you descend into semi-rant mode in your final paragraph: shape up and man up? For goodness sake!
And to correct one of your mistaken assumptions – forgiveable, as we’ve never met – I live in a town which has an ‘immigrant ‘ (very largely Muslim) population of around 33% and one of the poorest, most deprived council wards in the country; so please do not presume to lecture me about assuming the moral high ground; it would appear that you’ve already laid claim to that particular space.
Enjoying the debate, though!
Tolerance and dialogue would indeed be worthy – we lack both in our public sphere. We end up with ‘manners’ – this being a very different egg (Norbert Elias was an early read here). We have some strange situations – such as people who believe in dross with very violent history that hides behind proclamations of peace, demanding the truth not be spoken, and they be respected. This is hardly tolerance, and as we have an offence of criminal libel to which truth is no defence, it’s hard to justify much race-religion legislation.
The issues are obviously complex and we don’t want prejudice – yet what is more prejudiced than lost religion? Are we really supposed to ‘tolerate’ the vile attitudes towards women and the kaffar? And with massive unemployment and lack of opportunity, declining social mobility, quite what prejudices are at work in our society? Is it an offence to notice there are no white taxi drivers or the prevalence of colour in gang violence? Or to be depressed that people who have no intention of having communal relations with you as neighbours?
That people jump in blazing ‘bigotry’ so easily tends to a lack of tolerance and suggests even discussion of the issues as they are experienced is feared. We are likely to see some pretty dreadful backlash as cuts and inflation bite.