In London, who are the people protesting against President Trump?

[redgunamo]

The usual suspects, is it?

[Pat Vegas]

The usual suspects, is it?

Do you mean George?

[redgunamo]

Do you mean George?

:hehe: Ordinarily, I think he'd be a fan actually.

[Burney]

The usual suspects, is it?

Children and lefties. Which, of course, is a Venn diagram that intersects to a remarkable degree.

[Billy Goat Sverige]

Children and lefties. Which, of course, is a Venn diagram that intersects to a remarkable degree.

Been a lot of back-pedalling over here. After he said what he said about Sweden the immediate reaction was "What is he smoking, nothing happened", and now since he clarified it they're trying their best to put a spin on the negative impact of refugees/immigration.

[Mo Britain less Europe]

Rentamob. The people who don't protest about the Kims and think that Mao's great leap forward won him the Olympic long jump.

[Burney]

Been a lot of back-pedalling over here. After he said what he said about Sweden the immediate reaction was "What is he smoking, nothing happened", and now since he clarified it they're trying their best to put a spin on the negative impact of refugees/immigration.

Pretty classic Trumpery, really. Offer the left an apparently easy target, they bite in great numbers, not realising that by doing so they actually draw attention to an issue they'd actually rather was left alone.

[Billy Goat Sverige]

Pretty classic Trumpery, really. Offer the left an apparently easy target, they bite in great numbers, not realising that by doing so they actually draw attention to an issue they'd actually rather was left alone.

The best bit is it all kicked off in Rinkeby last night (an area with almost 100% immigrant population). Cars were set on fire and when the police showed up they were pelted with stones and had to fire off shots to disperse the crowd and get out of there. The fire crews were then unable to get to the scene because the police wouldn't go back in. This coming a day after the leading tabloid over here did a special piece in English rubbishing the FOX news report, with the part about "no-go zones" being one they were very keen to play down :hehe:

[Burney]

The best bit is it all kicked off in Rinkeby last night (an area with almost 100% immigrant population). Cars were set on fire and when the police showed up they were pelted with stones and had to fire off shots to disperse the crowd and get out of there. The fire crews were then unable to get to the scene because the police wouldn't go back in. This coming a day after the leading tabloid over here did a special piece in English rubbishing the FOX news report, with the part about "no-go zones" being one they were very keen to play down :hehe:

Well exactly. Suddenly people are actually looking at what is going on in Sweden rather than quietly brushing it under the carpet.

Thon POTUS may not be so green as he's cabbage-looking imo.

[Burney]

The best bit is it all kicked off in Rinkeby last night (an area with almost 100% immigrant population). Cars were set on fire and when the police showed up they were pelted with stones and had to fire off shots to disperse the crowd and get out of there. The fire crews were then unable to get to the scene because the police wouldn't go back in. This coming a day after the leading tabloid over here did a special piece in English rubbishing the FOX news report, with the part about "no-go zones" being one they were very keen to play down :hehe:

Also, Spanish police have just shot a 'Swedish man' driving a truck filled with gas canisters at high speed near Barcelona. :rubchin:

[Billy Goat Sverige]

Also, Spanish police have just shot a 'Swedish man' driving a truck filled with gas canisters at high speed near Barcelona. :rubchin:

Just seen this. A good read. I should add, a good read in the sense you get an idea of the self loathing rather than looking at the real problem.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/09/how-sweden-became-an-example-of-how-not-to-handle-immigration/

[SWv2]

Also, Spanish police have just shot a 'Swedish man' driving a truck filled with gas canisters at high speed near Barcelona. :rubchin:

Let's just hope and pray the dude was not a gas delivery driver in which case the whole thing would be quite harsh.

[Burney]

Let's just hope and pray the dude was not a gas delivery driver in which case the whole thing would be quite harsh.

To be fair, I doubt even a Spaniard would just pop a cap in a lorry driver's ass without fairly good cause.

[Monty92]

The best bit is it all kicked off in Rinkeby last night (an area with almost 100% immigrant population). Cars were set on fire and when the police showed up they were pelted with stones and had to fire off shots to disperse the crowd and get out of there. The fire crews were then unable to get to the scene because the police wouldn't go back in. This coming a day after the leading tabloid over here did a special piece in English rubbishing the FOX news report, with the part about "no-go zones" being one they were very keen to play down :hehe:

Is it true the police in Sweden stopped recording the ethnicity of criminals at some point in the recent past?

[SWv2]

Is it true the police in Sweden stopped recording the ethnicity of criminals at some point in the recent past?

Why would they record this in the first place?

It could be deemed as excessive and thus in direct contravention of European Data Protection legislation.

[Burney]

Why would they record this in the first place?

It could be deemed as excessive and thus in direct contravention of European Data Protection legislation.

We do in this country. Ethnicity is just a means of identification. Are you seriously suggesting it should be illegal to record the physical and ethnic details of a convicted criminal?

[Billy Goat Sverige]

Is it true the police in Sweden stopped recording the ethnicity of criminals at some point in the recent past?

The government agency who release the annual crime figures stopped publishing the ethnicity in their yearly report. The police still record it.

[SWv2]

We do in this country. Ethnicity is just a means of identification. Are you seriously suggesting it should be illegal to record the physical and ethnic details of a convicted criminal?

I am just unsure how it could be deemed relevant in the event of certain crimes. Relevance is key here.

If you were a burglar for example it matters not a jot if you are English, Irish or Arab.

[Billy Goat Sverige]

I am just unsure how it could be deemed relevant in the event of certain crimes. Relevance is key here.

If you were a burglar for example it matters not a jot if you are English, Irish or Arab.

Necessary if it goes to court and things like sending them back come up.

[Sir C]

I am just unsure how it could be deemed relevant in the event of certain crimes. Relevance is key here.

If you were a burglar for example it matters not a jot if you are English, Irish or Arab.

But if law-enforcement authorities use the data to identify that 90% of burglaries are committed by Irish, for example, they might be able to address the issues within the Irish community which lead to them being drunken, belligerent, sectarian, wife-beating thieves.

[SWv2]

But if law-enforcement authorities use the data to identify that 90% of burglaries are committed by Irish, for example, they might be able to address the issues within the Irish community which lead to them being drunken, belligerent, sectarian, wife-beating thieves.

Down with racial stereotyping.

There is new European wide DP legislation coming into play next year, I am sure you are all aware of it under the term GDPR. One of the key issues within personal data, and the capture and holding of such data, is that it is relevant.

I may take a challenge against your so called “law-enforcement organisations” to your High Court on this.

[Burney]

I am just unsure how it could be deemed relevant in the event of certain crimes. Relevance is key here.

If you were a burglar for example it matters not a jot if you are English, Irish or Arab.

So if, for instance, 85% of gun crime were being committed by a particular ethnicity, you wouldn't see that as valuable information in the sense of causing you to feel that perhaps there is a particular issue with gun violence among certain communities and perhaps addressing it? You think it would be sensible to treat that community in exactly the same way as you do a community that commits 0% of the gun crime?

[Burney]

Down with racial stereotyping.

There is new European wide DP legislation coming into play next year, I am sure you are all aware of it under the term GDPR. One of the key issues within personal data, and the capture and holding of such data, is that it is relevant.

I may take a challenge against your so called “law-enforcement organisations” to your High Court on this.

Cold, hard, statistically-based facts about given ethnicities are not the same as racial stereotyping, sw.

[SWv2]

So if, for instance, 85% of gun crime were being committed by a particular ethnicity, you wouldn't see that as valuable information in the sense of causing you to feel that perhaps there is a particular issue with gun violence among certain communities and perhaps addressing it? You think it would be sensible to treat that community in exactly the same way as you do a community that commits 0% of the gun crime?

I believe in treating all communites in the same fair way, especially if they have not commited a crime.

[Burney]

I believe in treating all communites in the same fair way, especially if they have not commited a crime.

So if you read a report about a high incidence of drunken disorderly behaviour taking place, you'd make sure you leafletted and ran information campaigns in the muslim community just as much as the white community, would you? Just to be fair, like? :hehe:

[Monty92]

I believe in treating all communites in the same fair way, especially if they have not commited a crime.

You're well thick

[World's End Stella]

But if law-enforcement authorities use the data to identify that 90% of burglaries are committed by Irish, for example, they might be able to address the issues within the Irish community which lead to them being drunken, belligerent, sectarian, wife-beating thieves.

It isn't the role of law enforcement authorities to address issues within communities that lead to crime, I think. I'm not sure it's anyone's responsibility, actually.

[World's End Stella]

So if you read a report about a high incidence of drunken disorderly behaviour taking place, you'd make sure you leafletted and ran information campaigns in the muslim community just as much as the white community, would you? Just to be fair, like? :hehe:

Correct, all communities should be treated equally in this regard even if from a practical standpoint that doesn't make sense.

The reason being that the alternative would require us to engage in an approach which would ultimately lead to chaos and anarchy.

[World's End Stella]

You're well thick

I'm perfectly prepared to engage in a discussion with regard to how thick SW is.

I just think that in order for the discussion to have any sense of validity the instigation needs to come from someone other than you.

[Ash]

Down with racial stereotyping.

There is new European wide DP legislation coming into play next year, I am sure you are all aware of it under the term GDPR. One of the key issues within personal data, and the capture and holding of such data, is that it is relevant.

I may take a challenge against your so called “law-enforcement organisations” to your High Court on this.

You know very well where you can shove your Euro-Imperialist dual penetration legislation, my friend. :vsign:

At least, you could if we ever press that bloody button.

[SWv2]

So if you read a report about a high incidence of drunken disorderly behaviour taking place, you'd make sure you leafletted and ran information campaigns in the muslim community just as much as the white community, would you? Just to be fair, like? :hehe:

I wouldn't be running of your so called leaflet campaigns as I am not a homosexual.

[SWv2]

I'm perfectly prepared to engage in a discussion with regard to how thick SW is.

I just think that in order for the discussion to have any sense of validity the instigation needs to come from someone other than you.

Thank you B.

[Burney]

all communities should be treated equally in this regard even if from a practical standpoint that doesn't make sense.

Just keep reading what you wrote there until you hang your head in shame.

[Monty92]

I'm perfectly prepared to engage in a discussion with regard to how thick SW is.

I just think that in order for the discussion to have any sense of validity the instigation needs to come from someone other than you.

You're not quite as thick, but still pretty thick

[World's End Stella]

Just keep reading what you wrote there until you hang your head in shame.

Nope, it happens to be true. Judging how someone may or may not behave based on which 'community' we think they belong to is just too close to racial/religious/whatever stereotyping for me, Burney.

We must all be treated equally by the authorities with no preconditions or anarchy is not far away. It's part of being civilized.

[Monty92]

Nope, it happens to be true. Judging how someone may or may not behave based on which 'community' we think they belong to is just too close to racial/religious/whatever stereotyping for me, Burney.

We must all be treated equally by the authorities with no preconditions or anarchy is not far away. It's part of being civilized.

So you think the authorities should stop focusing greater attention on mosques than other places of worship in their efforts to root out extremists? In other words, you disagree with the current policies in this regard?

[World's End Stella]

You're not quite as thick, but still pretty thick

I've just left a Facebook message for Ian Harvey which I expect will provoke a typical Ian Harvey response shortly. Ian likes to reduce complex problems down to an absurdly simplified form that suits the narrative that he's seeking to defend. In this case, the GBP exchange rate is currently being controlled solely by the financial markets view of Theresa May, whom Ian hates.

It's nonsense, of course, but Ian can only really deal with simplified forms of the problem because that is all he is capable of understanding and because his narrative is far more important to him than actually understanding the problem.

Kinda like you, Monty.

[Monty92]

I've just left a Facebook message for Ian Harvey which I expect will provoke a typical Ian Harvey response shortly. Ian likes to reduce complex problems down to an absurdly simplified form that suits the narrative that he's seeking to defend. In this case, the GBP exchange rate is currently being controlled solely by the financial markets view of Theresa May, whom Ian hates.

It's nonsense, of course, but Ian can only really deal with simplified forms of the problem because that is all he is capable of understanding and because his narrative is far more important to him than actually understanding the problem.

Kinda like you, Monty.

Actually, I'm almost certain we both feel exactly the same way about the subject of racial/ethnic profiling - that it is a necessary evil, but must always be done in a sensitive, tactful and moderate way.

Because I do not believe you truly think we should be trying to stop jihadists by equally profiling non-muslims, given that 100% of jihadists are muslims

[Burney]

Nope, it happens to be true. Judging how someone may or may not behave based on which 'community' we think they belong to is just too close to racial/religious/whatever stereotyping for me, Burney.

We must all be treated equally by the authorities with no preconditions or anarchy is not far away. It's part of being civilized.

No, it's head-in-the-clouds idiocy driven by a fundamentally misguided idea of what law enforcement bodies are there to achieve. You also don't believe it for a second.
Judging and policing are two different things. We should all be equal before the law, but we most certainly should not be equal before law enforcement bodies. Their job is to prevent and solve crime and that means looking where it is most likely to happen and at those people who are most likely to commit it. If law enforcement bodies behaved as you suggest, they would waste vast resources, crime rates would soar and their clear-up rates would plummet.

Seriously, though, why on earth am I arguing with someone who's already conceded his approach to crime prevention and policing makes no practical sense? Fückssake! :hehe:

[World's End Stella]

Actually, I'm almost certain we both feel exactly the same way about the subject of racial/ethnic profiling - that it is a necessary evil, but must always be done in a sensitive, tactful and moderate way.

Because I do not believe you truly think we should be trying to stop jihadists by equally profiling non-muslims, given that 100% of jihadists are muslims

Aw Monty, you've gone and made me feel guilty by posting something nice and sensible in response to my rather offensive post.

I'm not going to apologise though because you're such a c*nt. :-)

[Monty92]

Aw Monty, you've gone and made me feel guilty by posting something nice and sensible in response to my rather offensive post.

I'm not going to apologise though because you're such a c*nt. :-)

Yes that's all very nice, but it would be more useful if you confirmed your position on how much of our efforts to prevent jihadists should be focused on muslims, given that 100% of jihadists are muslims?

[World's End Stella]

No, it's head-in-the-clouds idiocy driven by a fundamentally misguided idea of what law enforcement bodies are there to achieve. You also don't believe it for a second.
Judging and policing are two different things. We should all be equal before the law, but we most certainly should not be equal before law enforcement bodies. Their job is to prevent and solve crime and that means looking where it is most likely to happen and at those people who are most likely to commit it. If law enforcement bodies behaved as you suggest, they would waste vast resources, crime rates would soar and their clear-up rates would plummet.

Seriously, though, why on earth am I arguing with someone who's already conceded his approach to crime prevention and policing makes no practical sense? Fückssake! :hehe:

Oh I'd be the first to admit that my post was high level, head in the clouds, theoretical view only. In practice, there are times that we have to be more realistic and compromise the approach. But, equally, we need to be sensitive about how we conduct ourselves with respect to the definition of 'communities' and how we approach them.

As an example, would I support the public distribution of anti-terrorism pamphlets in areas which were predominantly Muslim? No, absolutely not as it leaves otherwise innocent people feeling stigmatized. Would I support a government program which sent representatives to mosques around the country in an attempt to understand the degree of radicalization within various communities and what we might be able to do to help address the issue? Absolutely.

Fine lines, Burney. I think my main point is that the definition of 'community' is one we need to be careful with, both the definition and how we use it.

[Burney]

Actually, I'm almost certain we both feel exactly the same way about the subject of racial/ethnic profiling - that it is a necessary evil, but must always be done in a sensitive, tactful and moderate way.

Because I do not believe you truly think we should be trying to stop jihadists by equally profiling non-muslims, given that 100% of jihadists are muslims

I'm sorry, but I have to take issue with you even calling it a 'necessary evil'. It's not an 'evil' in any way, shape or form. It's a necessity driven purely by a logic predicated on the best means of keeping the public at large safe from potential or actual offenders. There is no need for any apologetic language.

[Monty92]

I'm sorry, but I have to take issue with you even calling it a 'necessary evil'. It's not an 'evil' in any way, shape or form. It's a necessity driven purely by a logic predicated on the best means of keeping the public at large safe from potential or actual offenders. There is no need for any apologetic language.

The "evil" to which I refer was very specifically meant in regard to the stigmatisation of communities that profiling can often lead to. Otherwise, I agree with you entirely.

[Burney]

Oh I'd be the first to admit that my post was high level, head in the clouds, theoretical view only. In practice, there are times that we have to be more realistic and compromise the approach. But, equally, we need to be sensitive about how we conduct ourselves with respect to the definition of 'communities' and how we approach them.

As an example, would I support the public distribution of anti-terrorism pamphlets in areas which were predominantly Muslim? No, absolutely not as it leaves otherwise innocent people feeling stigmatized. Would I support a government program which sent representatives to mosques around the country in an attempt to understand the degree of radicalization within various communities and what we might be able to do to help address the issue? Absolutely.

Fine lines, Burney. I think my main point is that the definition of 'community' is one we need to be careful with, both the definition and how we use it.

If someone's response when it is pointed out that there is a group of people within their locality and ethnic group who represent a clear and present terrorist danger to the public is to whine about feeling 'stigmatised' rather than think 'Well, we should do everything possible to aid the police in rooting them out because I don't want that sort of person being seen as having anything to do with me', I'd say that neatly illustrates the fundamental problem. Namely, that they put their carefully-nurtured sense of grievance ahead of the safety of their fellow citizens.

If that's the case, fûck their stigma, fück their feelings, fûck them.

[World's End Stella]

I'm sorry, but I have to take issue with you even calling it a 'necessary evil'. It's not an 'evil' in any way, shape or form. It's a necessity driven purely by a logic predicated on the best means of keeping the public at large safe from potential or actual offenders. There is no need for any apologetic language.

Prejudging how an individual is likely to behave based on his race or religion is an evil, Burney, albeit a potentially necessary one as Monty says.

I don't believe for a second you can't see the downside to it.

[World's End Stella]

If someone's response when it is pointed out that there is a group of people within their locality and ethnic group who represent a clear and present terrorist danger to the public is to whine about feeling 'stigmatised' rather than think 'Well, we should do everything possible to aid the police in rooting them out because I don't want that sort of person being seen as having anything to do with me', I'd say that neatly illustrates the fundamental problem. Namely, that they put their carefully-nurtured sense of grievance ahead of the safety of their fellow citizens.

If that's the case, fûck their stigma, fück their feelings, fûck them.

So, if the government required all heterosexual men to attend rape awareness courses your attitude would be 'well, people of my sex and sexual orientation are almost entirely responsible for rape so it really makes sense for me to attend the course so that we can understand why men rape women and work with the authorities to try and eliminate it'.

Yeah, course you would. :rolleyes:

[SWv2]

So you think the authorities should stop focusing greater attention on mosques than other places of worship in their efforts to root out extremists? In other words, you disagree with the current policies in this regard?

A clever Allan terrorist would not be hanging around mosques.

[Burney]

Prejudging how an individual is likely to behave based on his race or religion is an evil, Burney, albeit a potentially necessary one as Monty says.

I don't believe for a second you can't see the downside to it.


No-one is pre-judging. We are merely talking about weighing the balance of probabilities in order to narrow the search, not waste time and give one the best possible chance of stopping crime in the shortest time possible. Because stopping crime is good, you see?
If there's a rape case, I'm not going to waste my time DNA testing female subjects or gay men. Equally, if I've got intelligence of an Islamic terror plot, I'm not going to waste my time questioning the Chinese community. Nothing 'evil' about that.

[Burney]

So, if the government required all heterosexual men to attend rape awareness courses your attitude would be 'well, people of my sex and sexual orientation are almost entirely responsible for rape so it really makes sense for me to attend the course so that we can understand why men rape women and work with the authorities to try and eliminate it'.

Yeah, course you would. :rolleyes:

Hardly comparable. If I knew or suspected a man I knew was a rapist or heard someone exhorting men to commit rape, I'd contact the police immediately. Do muslims do the same vis-a-vis radicalised young men or radicalising preachers? No, I'm afraid that in many cases they do not.

[Monty92]

So, if the government required all heterosexual men to attend rape awareness courses your attitude would be 'well, people of my sex and sexual orientation are almost entirely responsible for rape so it really makes sense for me to attend the course so that we can understand why men rape women and work with the authorities to try and eliminate it'.

Yeah, course you would. :rolleyes:

If Berni had advocated all muslims having to attend mandatory terrorist awareness courses, this would be a good point

[Monty92]

A clever Allan terrorist would not be hanging around mosques.

So you think the current policies are wrong?

[World's End Stella]

No-one is pre-judging. We are merely talking about weighing the balance of probabilities in order to narrow the search, not waste time and give one the best possible chance of stopping crime in the shortest time possible. Because stopping crime is good, you see?
If there's a rape case, I'm not going to waste my time DNA testing female subjects or gay men. Equally, if I've got intelligence of an Islamic terror plot, I'm not going to waste my time questioning the Chinese community. Nothing 'evil' about that.

We will leave people feeling pre-judged, though. And we shouldn't under-estimate the downside of this, Burney. Stigmatising a cross-section of our society and leaving them feeling alienated is really not a good thing.

Sometimes unavoidable, I agree, my point is only that we need to be sensitive in this regard.

[SWv2]

So you think the current policies are wrong?

I'm not entirely sure what the policies are big man because quite frankly I don't give two ****s about it all.

Generally speaking I not big on getting bogged down on current affairs and issues of global terrorism.

[World's End Stella]

If Berni had advocated all muslims having to attend mandatory terrorist awareness courses, this would be a good point

Or if he had suggested that targeting communities as a whole instead of individuals within those communities when attempting to address an issue. In that case it would also be a good point.

Consider the concept, not necessarily the implementation, Monty.

[Burney]

We will leave people feeling pre-judged, though. And we shouldn't under-estimate the downside of this, Burney. Stigmatising a cross-section of our society and leaving them feeling alienated is really not a good thing.

Sometimes unavoidable, I agree, my point is only that we need to be sensitive in this regard.

Sensitivity is fine, but it goes out of the window when there are potentially lives at stake, I'm afraid. Anyone who can't see that is already fûcked in the head.

To adapt your earlier example to a more precise analogy, would I feel stigmatised as a man if I were asked to rule myself out of a rape enquiry and then asked to keep a look out for a potential rapist in my neighbourhood and report any suspects? Of course not, as I'm not a rapist.
Equally, the only people likely to feel stigmatised as potential terrorists are to my mind ALREADY suspicious to the point of being potential terrorists by virtue of feeling that way. If they weren't potential terrorists, it wouldn't occur to them to feel resentment, since they'd see the logic of the approach and bow to the greater good.

[Ash]

I'm not entirely sure what the policies are big man because quite frankly I don't give two ****s about it all.

Generally speaking I not big on getting bogged down on current affairs and issues of global terrorism.

But you probably cared about Northern Irish catholics getting profiled back during the Troubles. Innocent men went to jail, and 'clampdowns' on nationalist communities arguably did as much to increase support for the armalite as it did too prevent terrorism/armed struggle.

Though you would probably agree that treating elderly Pakistani women as equal suspects in cases where the IRA claimed responsibility for a Spectacular would be tactically a bad move for the authorities.

[Burney]

Or if he had suggested that targeting communities as a whole instead of individuals within those communities when attempting to address an issue. In that case it would also be a good point.

Consider the concept, not necessarily the implementation, Monty.

Individuals are to communities as fish are to water. If you're trying to catch a fish, you have to first 'target' the water.

[World's End Stella]

Sensitivity is fine, but it goes out of the window when there are potentially lives at stake, I'm afraid. Anyone who can't see that is already fûcked in the head.

To adapt your earlier example to a more precise analogy, would I feel stigmatised as a man if I were asked to rule myself out of a rape enquiry and then asked to keep a look out for a potential rapist in my neighbourhood and report any suspects? Of course not, as I'm not a rapist.
Equally, the only people likely to feel stigmatised as potential terrorists are to my mind ALREADY suspicious to the point of being potential terrorists by virtue of feeling that way. If they weren't potential terrorists, it wouldn't occur to them to feel resentment, since they'd see the logic of the approach and bow to the greater good.

Not sure if it ever made it over here, but when I worked in Toronto in the early 90s feminists asked all men to wear pink ribbons on their suit jackets as a demonstration of their support for the elimination of violence committed by men against women.

I refused to participate for obvious reasons. I see very little difference between that and plastering anti-terrorism posters all over predominantly Muslim areas, as an example.

[Monty92]

Sensitivity is fine, but it goes out of the window when there are potentially lives at stake, I'm afraid. Anyone who can't see that is already fûcked in the head.

To adapt your earlier example to a more precise analogy, would I feel stigmatised as a man if I were asked to rule myself out of a rape enquiry and then asked to keep a look out for a potential rapist in my neighbourhood and report any suspects? Of course not, as I'm not a rapist.
Equally, the only people likely to feel stigmatised as potential terrorists are to my mind ALREADY suspicious to the point of being potential terrorists by virtue of feeling that way. If they weren't potential terrorists, it wouldn't occur to them to feel resentment, since they'd see the logic of the approach and bow to the greater good.

I don't agree with your final paragraph as we know that a sense of victimhood is ingrained in many peaceful, law-abiding muslims, just as it is many black people and women. And so stigmatisation does not necessarily point to guilt.

[Ash]

Individuals are to communities as fish are to water. If you're trying to catch a fish, you have to first 'target' the water.

Wasn't this the 'reasoning' behind the napalming of entire villages? Yes, you might succeed in killing a couple of targets but you will have made a lot more enemies.

I'm not arguing against profiling, more questioning the broadness of a target.

[World's End Stella]

Hardly comparable. If I knew or suspected a man I knew was a rapist or heard someone exhorting men to commit rape, I'd contact the police immediately. Do muslims do the same vis-a-vis radicalised young men or radicalising preachers? No, I'm afraid that in many cases they do not.

That's deflection, Burney. What you say is accurate but not material to the point I made.

If it is ok to target Muslim communities in a public way because all Islamic terrorists are Muslims, why is it not ok to target men in a public way when all rapists are men?

[Monty92]

Not sure if it ever made it over here, but when I worked in Toronto in the early 90s feminists asked all men to wear pink ribbons on their suit jackets as a demonstration of their support for the elimination of violence committed by men against women.

I refused to participate for obvious reasons. I see very little difference between that and plastering anti-terrorism posters all over predominantly Muslim areas, as an example.

You are literally all over the place on this issue, Jeff. Almost as if you've never actually really thought about it before and are typing on the fly.

[SWv2]

Individuals are to communities as fish are to water. If you're trying to catch a fish, you have to first 'target' the water.

That's deep man.

[Burney]

Not sure if it ever made it over here, but when I worked in Toronto in the early 90s feminists asked all men to wear pink ribbons on their suit jackets as a demonstration of their support for the elimination of violence committed by men against women.

I refused to participate for obvious reasons. I see very little difference between that and plastering anti-terrorism posters all over predominantly Muslim areas, as an example.

You're comparing an empty gesture to a practical measure, though. Would I wear a pink ribbon? No. Would I do everything in my power to ensure an actual or potential rapist was stopped? Absolutely. Would I feel that the existence of a rapist stigmatised me as a man? Absolutely not.
I'm afraid that, as I've said, in the analogous situation, the same cannot be said about muslims, radicalisation and terror.

[World's End Stella]

You are literally all over the place on this issue, Jeff. Almost as if you've never actually really thought about it before and are typing on the fly.

Um, no, I'm not. I've been completely consistent, thanks.

[World's End Stella]

You're comparing an empty gesture to a practical measure, though. Would I wear a pink ribbon? No. Would I do everything in my power to ensure an actual or potential rapist was stopped? Absolutely. Would I feel that the existence of a rapist stigmatised me as a man? Absolutely not.
I'm afraid that, as I've said, in the analogous situation, the same cannot be said about muslims, radicalisation and terror.

Yes, but the concept is the same. Identifying a cross section of our society and publicly focusing on them as needing to be part of the solution to a problem will necessarily stigmatise that cross-section of our society.

And as I've said, I'm not completely opposed to it, I just think it's a measure of last resort and we need to be very careful with that approach.

[Burney]

Wasn't this the 'reasoning' behind the napalming of entire villages? Yes, you might succeed in killing a couple of targets but you will have made a lot more enemies.

I'm not arguing against profiling, more questioning the broadness of a target.

Well actually it's the fundamental principle of Maoist guerrilla strategy looked at from the other side. And, the fact is that it's effective, as the British proved in the Boer War and Malaya. If you take away the water, the fish die.

Although I'll grant you that it can be a bit messy. :-\

My narrower point, however, was that if you're going to try and catch or stop a terrorist, you go where he is rather than where he isn't.

[Burney]

That's deflection, Burney. What you say is accurate but not material to the point I made.

If it is ok to target Muslim communities in a public way because all Islamic terrorists are Muslims, why is it not ok to target men in a public way when all rapists are men?

Well if by 'target' you mean 'treat as potential suspects until proved otherwise' it's fine by me on both counts. I'm happy to rule myself out of a rape enquiry any time you like, thanks and wouldn't feel stigmatised at all.

[World's End Stella]

Well if by 'target' you mean 'treat as potential suspects until proved otherwise' it's fine by me on both counts. I'm happy to rule myself out of a rape enquiry any time you like, thanks and wouldn't feel stigmatised at all.

So you would have worn the pink ribbon?

[Burney]

I don't agree with your final paragraph as we know that a sense of victimhood is ingrained in many peaceful, law-abiding muslims, just as it is many black people and women. And so stigmatisation does not necessarily point to guilt.

My point is that, if your priorities are already so fûcked that you take it personally that a terrorism enquiry targets your ethnic and religious group because the perpetrators are 99.999999% likely to be from your ethnic or religious group, the problem is already there and all the 'sensitivity' in the world isn't going to shift it.

[Burney]

So you would have worn the pink ribbon?

:rolleyes: No, because it would have had no practical effect and would simply have been an exercise in virtue-signalling.

Stop trying to make bad analogies fit.

[World's End Stella]

:rolleyes: No, because it would have had no practical effect and would simply have been an exercise in virtue-signalling.

Stop trying to make bad analogies fit.

It wasn't a bad analogy. I refused to wear the ribbon not because it had no practical effect but because I felt there was an implication that all men were in some way responsible for violence against women, a presumption that I found offensive.

I guess you wouldn't have felt that way, but many did.

[Monty92]

It wasn't a bad analogy. I refused to wear the ribbon not because it had no practical effect but because I felt there was an implication that all men were in some way responsible for violence against women, a presumption that I found offensive.

I guess you wouldn't have felt that way, but many did.

Were women not asked to wear the ribbon too?

[World's End Stella]

Were women not asked to wear the ribbon too?

Nope, men only

[Monty92]

Nope, men only

I don't agree with this on principle, but I wouldn't have felt stigmatised. I'd have just thought that the people whose idea it was are misguided.

[redgunamo]

Individuals are to communities as fish are to water. If you're trying to catch a fish, you have to first 'target' the water.

Oh, that's rather good. One of yours?

[Burney]

Oh, that's rather good. One of yours?

One of Mao's, I believe.