Are they racist - yes Do they carry out the will of the people - I assume so. From an outsiders perspective they seem to be volatile and quick to action, they also seem very union driven, even worse than over here in the seventies before Maggie sorted that out.
Yeah right, do you honestly believe that in the event of labour being elected Starmer would be in charge of the decision making? They are all self serving parasites, 8 labour politicians have been jailed in the past 10 years.
So to carry on from your assumption of another persons post, my assumption is you believe France to be a racist country? that is quite broad, do you have any idea historically why France acted in the way that they did in the cases that I highlighted? because you might be interested to know and to be fair the left in France were quite the driving force in a lot of those decisions. You are correct about the unions, but I suspect you don't know half of it.
Labour are not in power so the now should be about highlighting what they would do. immigration is a always a topic, it is to working class people, it matters . All parasites yes. Noses in troughs like Bristols mayor. I wont hold my breath and nose Labour are **** but as **** as the Tories would be?? hard to be this rancid so its back to my first line. Labour have to to show they are better with clear direction to deal with immigation and stop the all the racism accusing ****e.
Exactly having concerns about immigration is not racism. I cant get in my local GP's for waiting lists. houses are out of reach for many working class people so lets keep bringing in hundreds of thousands of people in every year. Wanting this to be better controlled because it matters to our lives is not racism. This Rwanda thing is a sideshow, its a tiny drop in the ocean (no joke there)!!
Ah right, but as I have been saying an opposition has to view themselves as the government in waiting, so do you honestly believe if elected labour would do anything other than adopt a German Merkel model of immigration?
Their policies are racist, at least the one to stop the wearing of certain religious Clothes is, of course individually they are not all racist, I don’t know that much about them, that’s why I said from an outsiders perspective, I appreciate the views I expressed may be inaccurate it’s how I perceive them looking in.
Well the law about religious symbolism and the public wearing of the burkha, was actually driven by the teaching profession, a profession usually left leaning/thinking. It was brought in because indigenous French school children especially in inner city schools and colleges were in a huge minority and made to feel different in their own country and to be fair even as a catholic country they banned the overt/visual wearing of even a crucifix in schools and colleges, now if you still believe this to be racist, I see no answer.
Totally agree about immigration not being racist .... anyone who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves. Until 20 plus years ago our nation was dependant on a controlled immigration policy. We allowed a number in, either permanent or for seasonal periods, it worked fine. We had no poverty, / [ a small % ] of the population. Poverty % of the amount claimed in todays figures is un bearable, and breakdowns do imply that it is aided/enhanced/caused by illegal immigration numbers [ people coming here known or unknown ] Stop one stop them both ... but inthe right order!
Are you saying the Labour Party can't have an immigration policy as they're not in power. But they can on VAT. They can on NI. They can on a oil companies windfall tax etc etc But not a policy on immigration. Hmm !
A study released today about the banning of overt religious symbols including islamic veils in 2004 in French schools and colleges, has concluded that muslim females get higher grades and are more likely to marry outside of their religion since the ban, I would call that win/win and a 3rd win for integration, which is what migration should be about.
Jesus, it's exactly what should happen, immigrants should try to integrate, this is good news and a success and trumps any opinion, your post about French racism is ill founded and your response to my post gives the impression that you are against integration, these females have not only improved themselves but by having relationships outside of their faith will lead to greater understanding.
I mostly agree, but you say it as if it’s fact, it’s an opinion. Be a bit more humble and a bit less shouty.
Muslim women get higher grades than before the ban - FACT. Of course France could reverse this and go back to the days where muslim women didn't perform so well, I am sure that the male dominated faith would love that, put them pesky women back in their place. Muslim women are more likely to marry outside of their faith - FACT. This is integration, of course France could reverse this and go back to the days, where we live here, the jews live over there, the muslims live over there, I mean that really helps with integration. Talking about humble and shouty, "their policies are racist", France was a multi cultural society long before the UK even heard of that particular phrase and is still more so today, why do you think think that after WW1 and WW2 many black performers from America moved there to live? The difference is France believes that their laws are to be followed by everybody and that if you settle there as a migrant, you should abide by those laws and at least attempt to integrate to become a French citizen. I would have thought that should be the norm anywhere.
I’m not sure which part of I mostly agree with you that you didn’t understand. I was just pointing out others may have different opinions that are equally valid. Ie some may prefer that women wear religious clothes, we may not agree with them, but they are entitled to their opinion.
When in Rome and all that...……. The Australians also got it right, and told people coming to their country that qualified for re-settlement/immigration that they were more than welcome, BUT as part of the deal they had to integrate and basically become Australian in their values, and allegiances, and you can't argue with their sentiments. But here, there would be lawyers involved and Amnesty International, ECHR etc if we told a Syrian or Afghani rescued from a dinghy that they had to renounce all of their beliefs and values and become British, integrate, speak English, know British history etc and that's where our society and systems fall down as we don't have the willpower to set the laws and stick 2 fingers up to those who oppose common sense. And while we continue to have Faith Schools (and areas of the country) where little or no English is spoken and where students don't mix with white English kids, we will continue to see radicalisation and downstream more murders. assassinations, and terrorism against the majority of our peaceful population.
Not equally valid when it's the law of the land and backed up by research. I have to point out here the religious symbolism law was brought about in 2004 and has diddly squat to do with the burkha ban which was brought in in 2010 as a separate law. The religious symbolism law was not aimed at any particular religion, it was aimed at all of them, even a crucifix could not be on show, unlike here in the UK where the wearing of religious symbolism is allowed by law but in some cases only christians are asked by some employers to cover up icons like the crucifix.
