It’s a problem, but not that big a problem… Yet.

It’s all about honour, at least in the eyes of the perpetrators, though sadly for the victims it’s simply bullying, violence and often enough murder. Yet astonishingly enough more than two thirds of young British Muslims believe that maiming and killing to preserve family honour is acceptable. Or do they…

Mail.

The majority of young British Muslims support violence against women who ‘dishonour’ their families, a Panorama investigation will claim today.
The hard-hitting BBC documentary reveals more than two thirds of Asians between the ages of 16 and 34 say communities should live according to ‘honour’ or ‘izzat’.
Research carried out for the show found nearly one in five – 18 per cent – said certain acts thought to shame families were justification for violence.
The possible reasons included disobeying a father, marrying someone unacceptable or wanting to end a marriage.
Honour-related violence can include acid attacks, abduction, mutilations, beatings, and death. But 94 per cent of those questioned said there was ‘never a justification’ for murder.

Well how very nice of the 94% though that still leaves us with a problem in that according to the Mail 2/3rds of the young people interviewed believe that violence and oppression of free will is acceptable in dealing with family members whose lifestyle they don’t approve of. Except that it doesn’t either, it’s only 18% which admittedly is still way too high.

What is obvious is that the policy of multiculturalism which protects certain communities from criticism and allows ghettoisation of their communities is also allowing those communities to inculate their offspring with values at opposition to the mainstream. For instance a Muslim woman is forbidden by religion and “izzat” from marrying (or even befriending) a non Muslim male, though I’d be the first to admit that there are exceptions. However the stronger the community, the more likely it is that cultural values at odds to the mainstream become dominant. That’s why mass uncontrolled immigration coupled with the policies of multiculturalism and non integration have left us with a massive and growing problem on our hands.

Sooner or later, it doesn’t matter how tolerant the host country is, a culture which allows intolerance to deal with its members will come into conflict with the majority. It doesn’t matter that they use the excuse of honour or religion to justify their actions, if the host citizens don’t like what they are doing, then there will be problems and as the alien values are reinforced by ever more immigrants and a higher birth rate than the host nation you can see major problems looming on the horizon.

Ever since Labour opened the floodgates to uncontrolled immigration there has been a rise in ethnic and civic nationalism within England (as the majority of immigrants have settled there) As the indigenous population have seen their ancient rights removed and been told to tolerate the actions of immigrants which go against their beliefs or be labelled racist, bigot, fascist then they have moved away from the mainstream parties who uphold the rights of immigrants over their own.

At the moment the various nationalist groups are splintered and have many factions, some like the EDL and CXF are apolitical, merely having political aims within a certain narrow perspective, other like the BNP have had a mild blossoming only to fall upon corruption and leadership issues. New parties keep arising on the ruins of the old and policies generally are ill thought out and unworkable.

Sooner or later though a nationalist party will tip the threshold and move into the area that the mainstream parties have abandoned.

That’s when the real trouble will start…

10 comments for “It’s a problem, but not that big a problem… Yet.

  1. Mudplugger
    March 19, 2012 at 4:16 pm

    The slippery slope started when the motor-cycle crash-helmet law was compromised for Sikhs. Once that was done, it became open-season for all incoming minorities to claim ‘cultural’ or ‘religious’ necessity for all manner of perversions. That the trendy Left (who don’t have to live amongst them) supported it for their own postal-vote electoral reasons should be no suprise.

    And it’s no surprise where it’s led us. To a point where incoming migrants are positively encouraged to conduct their old tribal village practices in conflict with our own laws and customs. Not only the ‘honour’ offences, but the active corruption of our politics and sport too.

    Living close to one very segregated area, I know only too well the mindset of the local immigrant community. Even the young ones, who you would imagine should have progressed, actually want what they consider the best of both worlds – they want the freedoms and benefits available to Western young people but want to be able to impose their traditional rules whenever they prefer that.

    Clearly this cannot continue and the conclusion that it will only take some well-organised nationalist party to light the blue touch-paper is well made. The previous occasional riots will seem like a vicarage tea-party in comparison.

    • Maaarrghk!
      March 20, 2012 at 6:04 am

      I’ve always found it most irksome how well the death of Fred Hill has been erased from the memories of most outside of (and many inside) the motorcycling “community”. The only notable exception being the late Auberon Waugh.

      It was the Sikh exemption rather than the helmet law itself that prompted Fred to begin the protest that would end in his death whilst serving his 31st prison sentence for non payment of fines for not wearing a helmet.

  2. March 19, 2012 at 4:34 pm

    Actually, i thought the Sikhs had a pretty good argument, although the helmet law is itself illiberal.
    Maybe someone should start a Liberal Nationalist party quick, before a leftist nationalist party with a well run leadership DOES appear…

  3. March 19, 2012 at 6:41 pm

    And now we have ken Livingstone promising to be a ‘beacon’ to educate the masses of non-Muslims about the virtues of Islam. As part of his bid for the London Mayoralty Ken gave a speech at the Finsbury Park Mosque He claimed to have read, and been inspired, by the final sermon of Mohamed. Check out the video on you tube

  4. Humph
    March 19, 2012 at 9:16 pm

    Shirley you mean ‘Asians’ as reported by the BBC? Not Muslims but ‘Asians’.

    • March 20, 2012 at 5:41 am

      Ooooh, how I loathe that little conceit. Not as much as the Chinese/Malaysians/Vietnamese must, though.

  5. March 20, 2012 at 11:10 am

    Where would we be without honour? Although you can go too far, of course.

  6. March 20, 2012 at 3:17 pm

    For instance a Muslim woman is forbidden by religion and “izzat” from marrying (or even befriending) a non Muslim male, though I’d be the first to admit that there are exceptions.

    Oh my goodness, did I lead her into apostasy?

  7. Mustapha Bunn
    March 21, 2012 at 12:23 am

    Ref.the motorcycle helmet law,Fred Hill and Sikhs …….. at the time this law,and it’s exemptions were brought in I was working at a RAF unit where Indian Air Force aircraft often landed.The pilots of these aircraft were invariably Sikh and ALL of them wore a standard issue crash helmet exactly like those worn by RAF aircrew.On landing the Sikh aircrew would remove the helmet and don the approprite headgear for their religion,i.e. a turban.
    This was common practice at the same time that Fred Hill was beginning the first of his 31 incarcerations.

  8. March 21, 2012 at 10:37 am

    When I was a defence solicitor more than 30 years ago a police sergeant in Nottingham told me that violence against girls was commonplace among ethnic minorities in that city, but that the police accepted grisly stories of self-immolation as suicide without question, because “our senior officers would accuse us of racism if we tried to treat them as the murders they obviously are”

    To my shame, naieve young idealist that I was, I disbelieved him and called him a racist, thereby proving his point. We made this mess by losing confidence in our own values and our right to insist on them in our own country. We have blood on our hands and the solution is not to replace one authoritarian outlook with another – it’s to turn on the authoritarians we already have telling us to deny the truths before our eyes.

Comments are closed.