Tony Blair News Conference

smooth_boarder · August 5, 2005

I just watched a good 20 minutes of the new conference by Tony Blair, and after watching him, I actually felt the need to vent. Blair was talking about changes that are about to happen which would give the government new powers to deport anyone who inciting terrorism. The new power will also clamp down on immigration and asylum processes.

I am terribly disappointed with Blair's comments today. Although I agree that the promotion of the killing of innocent people should be outlawed, I cannot agree with his other comments.

One reporter mentioned that someone has asked the government to end their policy on multiculturalism. Blair swiftly answered that he doesn't really know what multicultralism is, even though he uses the word all the time. The reporter also asked for Blair's comment on implimenting the policy of integration for all future immigrants. Blair mentioned that people can keep their own lifestyle while being integrated into the British society; however, it worries him that there are people who have been in Britain for 20 years and still cannot speak English.

First of all, the ability to speak fluent English has no merit in this discussion at all. It has already started... the issue on terrorism is now overreaching into other aspects of our lives... especially race, religion, and lifestyle. Terrorism is becoming the stepping stone for more discrimination against the visible minorities. It is in these trying times that civil liberties must be upheld... What good is a constitution if it cannot stand the test of any challenges. What blair is suggesting is to do away with one's freedom of association... To be properly integrated into the mainstream, you must be associated with a certain group of people, or even to be able to speak a certain language.

We MUST learn from history... During WWII, thousands of CANADIANS of Japanese ancesitry were jailed for no apparant reason. Many Japanese Canadians fought in WWI and only to be jailed later on. They were ready to sacrifise their lives for Canada, but yet Canadians were not willing to take a chance on them. Families were relocated. Rightful possessions were stripped. There was no justice. What if a group of Caucassian chruch-goers decided they would like to bring terror to other religions... will they be deported? Will there be a mass incarceration? I am doubtful, since they are the majority.

This is the reason the Charter is in place. To protect the individual from the evil majority if there is ever such a case. The situation in Britain seems like the start to the tyrrany of the majority. I sincerely hope Canadians do not follow suit. Straighten out the law BEFORE any terriorist attacks. Dont make radical changes when the PERCEIVED threat is high. We all know not to go grocery shopping when hungry...

Argus · August 5, 2005

I just watched a good 20 minutes of the new conference by Tony Blair, and after watching him, I actually felt the need to vent. Blair was talking about changes that are about to happen which would give the government new powers to deport anyone who inciting terrorism. The new power will also clamp down on immigration and asylum processes.
I am terribly disappointed with Blair's comments today.

Why? Any nation should have the absolute moral and legal right to evict any newcomers, any immigrants, or refugees it has given shelter to, if it finds those newcomers are acting against it.

First of all, the ability to speak fluent English has no merit in this discussion at all.

It has a lot to do with it. The suggestion is that people come to Britain and basically live in ethnic enclaves which are little more than mini states within their borders, retaining all their old cultural baggage, their old political affiliations, and without any hope of blending in with what are supposed to be their fellow citizens due to lack of language skills. If someone is in Britain for 20 years and speaks no English that's an indication that that person is still, basically, a foreigner in their midst.

What blair is suggesting is to do away with one's freedom of association...

To a certain degree. If you affiliate with terrorists, or Hells Angels, you are going to fall under suspicion. And should.

To be properly integrated into the mainstream, you must be associated with a certain group of people, or even to be able to speak a certain language.

That being the native tongue of the country, yes. How can you possibly be integrated as a citizen while still speaking only Arabic, watching Arabic TV on the satellite dish, reading Arabic newspapers from "home", and dealing only with fellow Arabs. Not only aren't you integrated in any way you are not a citizen of any kind. Yet, the country is expected to treat such people as citizens and give them all rights accorded to citizens.

We MUST learn from history... During WWII, thousands of CANADIANS of Japanese ancesitry were jailed for no apparant reason.

The reason ws the fear they would sympathise more for the people we were fighting. And this suggestion has a lot of merit with regard to Muslims, who have already demonstrated that some of them have far more loyalty to Muslims elsewhere in the world than they do to Britain, even to the extent of being willing to murder their "fellow citizens" on behalf of foreigners.

This is the reason the Charter is in place. To protect the individual from the evil majority if there is ever such a case.

And what protects the majority from an evil minority?

smooth_boarder · August 5, 2005

Why? Any nation should have the absolute moral and legal right to evict any newcomers, any immigrants, or refugees it has given shelter to, if it finds those newcomers are acting against it.

I agree, but the issue here is not how the government is acting against the newcomers who are against Britain. The government is generalizing the act of hostility while dragging other non-related issues into play. I believe there is no disagreement in the fact that those who engage or support in terrorist activities should be dealt with swiftly.

It has a lot to do with it. The suggestion is that people come to Britain and basically live in ethnic enclaves which are little more than mini states within their borders, retaining all their old cultural baggage, their old political affiliations, and without any hope of blending in with what are supposed to be their fellow citizens due to lack of language skills. If someone is in Britain for 20 years and speaks no English that's an indication that that person is still, basically, a foreigner in their midst.

The fact that someone does not speak English does not make a difference in their status as a British citizen. The problem of integration has NOTHING to do with the act of terrorism. Majority of the terrorists are well-integrated into the society of their targets. They attend school, they are employed, and of course, they speak fluent English. You cannot preach multiculturalism and then turn around to accuse the immigrants of maintaining their own identity. I believe that it is acceptable for people to maintain their own identity and culture if it does not cause harm to the country. Quebecois have a different cultural background from the rest of Canada. If you visit New Brunswick, they are different culturally from Ontario. Culture is what we define it to be, and it is especially the case in a relatively young nation of Canada. We can either let our culture be the multiculturalism we preach, or we can "integrate" the rest into a model that the majority would like them to be... What if the integration fails? Do we exterminate them like the Nazi's or do we deport Canadian-born "foreigners"? Should we include immigrants from European countries, or just the immigrants from Asia and the middle-east? Should the First Nations have the right to deport anyone they wish?

To a certain degree. If you affiliate with terrorists, or Hells Angels, you are going to fall under suspicion. And should.

Again, the issue here is not the affliation with terrorist groups. If you are affliated with them, you should be investigated, and actions should be taken against the members. The concern is when the only affliation one has with the terrorist group is their religion or skin colour, they should not be treated as if they were part of that group and have part of their rights and dignity taken away.

That being the native tongue of the country, yes. How can you possibly be integrated as a citizen while still speaking only Arabic, watching Arabic TV on the satellite dish, reading Arabic newspapers from "home", and dealing only with fellow Arabs. Not only aren't you integrated in any way you are not a citizen of any kind. Yet, the country is expected to treat such people as citizens and give them all rights accorded to citizens.

Your comments are very disturbing. You are implying, if I am not mistaken, you should only be afforded the rights of a citizen if you are properly integrated into a society. Who is to decide what integration means? If a English-speaking, caucassian, British citizen is a hermit, and only deals with other fellow hermits... does that make him poorly integrated? Should he be deported? If your answer is no, then the issue to you is a racial one, and it has nothing to do with protecting the country from terrorist activities.

The reason ws the fear they would sympathise more for the people we were fighting. And this suggestion has a lot of merit with regard to Muslims, who have already demonstrated that some of them have far more loyalty to Muslims elsewhere in the world than they do to Britain, even to the extent of being willing to murder their "fellow citizens" on behalf of foreigners.

Again, the actions of SOME Muslims DO NOT represent the actions of all other peaceful Muslims. You are completely missing the point. You cannot justify your actions by this ridiculous accusation that since the person is a Muslim, he/she should automatically be deemed as a terrorist suspect. Many interned Japanese Canadians were born in Canada and spoke only English with no affliation with Japan. The fact is that they were jailed simply because of their heritage. That is against the fundamental principles of justice. How would you feel if you were a suspect of a murder; however, no conclusive evidence could be found to clear your name, and the government decided to give you a life sentence just to cover their basis? If you are okay with serving a life-sentence for a crime you did not commit, then I would find your argument to be of merit from your perspective. If not, then you are just a hypocrit.

And what protects the majority from an evil minority?

In a democratic society, the protection of the majority comes from the legislature, and this is not hard to see. The courts, enforcing the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, act as the checks and balances for the actions of the legislature. You do not have a valid point in a political sense, but I will assume that you are speaking of the evil minority in a violent sense (terrorists). You CANNOT shield a mass population from any element of evil (crimes). The government can do its best to prevent such crimes, but unless someone is able to predict the future, a total prevention will not be possible. I am not sure if you are attaching a racial context to this evil minority you speak of, but I will not assume this fact. I will take out any other variables of race, religion, way of life, ect. Murders still happen regardless of which country you are in or how homogeneous the society is. Evil minority does exist no matter where you go.

Let's make a point to go after these mass murderers and bring them to justice; however, leave the innocent people alone. What good is a justice system if it does not distinguish between the rightful guilty from the wrongfully accused. Leave race, religion, and all others out of the debate.

kimmy · August 6, 2005

So who's suggesting the mass internment of Muslims? I didn't get anything like that from what Blair actually said. Did I miss something?

Up until now, Britain has been tolerant to the point of allowing its own citizens to openly preach violence and insurrection and now that this absurdity has come to an end people are criticizing the loss of civil liberties?

The stupidity of it makes me want to ram my head into a plate glass window over and over again until peaceful oblivion washes over me.

-k

smooth_boarder · August 6, 2005

So who's suggesting the mass internment of Muslims? I didn't get anything like that from what Blair actually said. Did I miss something?

I don't think I've suggested that Blair will intern Muslims. I merely use the injustice suffered by the Japanese Canadians during WWII as an example of the wrong a nation can commit. Unless you do not think the internment was morally unjust.

Up until now, Britain has been tolerant to the point of allowing its own citizens to openly preach violence and insurrection and now that this absurdity has come to an end people are criticizing the loss of civil liberties?

At no time did I say the preaching of violence and insurrection should be tolerated. I have no clue where you got that from... Perhaps you can point that out to me, and I can better explain my argument to you.