Mr Cameron suggested there would be greater scrutiny of some Muslim groups which get public money but do little to tackle extremism.
Ministers should refuse to share platforms or engage with such groups, which should be denied access to public funds and barred from spreading their message in universities and prisons, he argued.
"Frankly, we need a lot less of the passive tolerance of recent years and much more active, muscular liberalism," the prime minister said.
"Let's properly judge these organisations: Do they believe in universal human rights - including for women and people of other faiths? Do they believe in equality of all before the law? Do they believe in democracy and the right of people to elect their own government? Do they encourage integration or separatism?
"These are the sorts of questions we need to ask. Fail these tests and the presumption should be not to engage with organisations," he added.
Going after Muslims here on their civil rights record is one thing, there are those who don't take kindly to European liberalism and do strive to abrogate the rights of women and non-Muslims. But if you look at Cameron's words, the first thought that crosses my mind is "Well, he must not be a fan of the Republican Party here, then."
I'm sure that's news to the Republicans. They fail all four of Cameron's questions, having voted against women's rights and calling America a Christian nation, doing everything they can to disenfranchise gays and other minorities legally, wanting to get rid of the 17th Amendment allowing people to elect Senators, and well, they're not real big fans of integration, either.
Does this mean that American Republicans are an extremist group in Britain? Someone should ask him.
Posts
20 comments:
I'm sure that's news to the Republicans. They fail all four of Cameron's questions,...
Wanna bet?
...having voted against women's rights...
That's an outright lie. You have no evidence of that.
...calling America a Christian nation,...
Oh, the horror. Of course, no legitimate Republican is actually advocating for the establishment of a state religion. On the other, Democrats actively want government to be god. That includes Obama the "Christian."
...doing everything they can to disenfranchise gays and other minorities legally,...
This is projection. Democrats are doing everything in their power to disenfranchise conservatives, heterosexuals and other majorities legally.
...wanting to get rid of the 17th Amendment allowing people to elect Senators,...
In case you didn't know, members of Parliament in the House of Lords, the Upper House of Parliament, are not elected. Since it's role is so limited, Britain operates with a more unicameral legislative body than here in the U.S. Plus, since the 17th Amendment, U.S. Senators serve special interest groups more than their states.
...well, they're not real big fans of integration, either.
Would that be the type of forced integration Democrats want to impose? Yes it is.
Does this mean that American Republicans are an extremist group in Britain? Someone should ask him.
This from an extreme leftist who has helped turn American Democrats into an extremist group.
So, Republicans didn't vote unanimously against the Ledbetter fair Pay Act and Paycheck Fairness Act? Republicans aren't trying to redefine rape and legislate a woman's reproductive choices? Republicans aren't trying to get rid of the 17th Amendment? Republicans aren't trying to do away with civil rights protections? Republicans aren't against same-sex marriage?
These are stated positions of Republicans, Steve.
By Cameron's definition, they are extremists.
Have a nice day. You're dismissed.
You're dismissed Steve, you don't have anything to add.
Stupid asshole.
Democrats have done all those things too and more. They're extremists too.
You're an extremist with blood on your hands and you don't even have the balls to admit it. You're a fucking coward.
I'm telling you, not asking you, to shut this blog down.
So, Republicans didn't vote unanimously against the Ledbetter fair Pay Act and Paycheck Fairness Act?
Some woman takes years to bring a case against her employer, a case she would have won if she had filed it on time, and somehow this means Republicans are against equal protection for women when Democrats added the extra time? Spare me.
Republicans aren't trying to redefine rape...
Redefine rape? Are you nuts? What do you think rape is?
...and legislate a woman's reproductive choices?
To a Democrat, a woman's "reproductive choices" means completely deregulated abortion mills, as they were in Pennsylvania.
Republicans aren't trying to get rid of the 17th Amendment?
Yeah, and for the reasons I've mentioned.
Republicans aren't trying to do away with civil rights protections?
Republicans are trying to maintain our civil rights. Democrats believe some have more rights than others.
Republicans aren't against same-sex marriage?
So is Obama, at least that's what he says. Obama ain't a Republican. Most Democrats are against it as well. Why do you think no state has passed anything that recognizes same-sex marriage?
By Cameron's definition, they are extremists.
Only by your bastardization of what you portray Cameron's definition to mean.
...you don't have anything to add.
Sure I do. You provide nothing. I supply the truth. That is an addition.
Why Zandar loses every single argument on his own blog is quite evident.
Every time he accuses a Republican or conservative or Tea Party member with the collective epithet of "winger" of being an extremist, there's a Democrat, liberal, or progressive that has already gone to that extreme.
We point that out, Zandar ignores it or he locks the thread, or he gets his goons to make personal attacks.
Nothing changes the facts:
Did you know that Zandar is a fraud?
He created a commenter named Arcadian as a sock puppet and used the account for months until he got busted.
When real conservative commenters destroy his terrible arguments he panics and he locks his threads so he gets the last word in.
When conservative blogs call him out and PROVE he's nothing more than an ignorant fool, a gullible hack and a race-bating idiot he runs for the hills.
Zandar is a proven liar, fraud, and fool. He will lie to you and try to fool you again because he thinks you're the "Stupid" he's fighting against.
Why are you wasting time on this blog? Don't feed his ego. If you leave, he'll shut this travesty of a blog down. Help this poor, deluded man.
Before he lies to you again. He's pathological.
Oh No!
Ignoring the peanut gallery for the moment:
Here's my thought. Were I to (for some reason) gain high office and demand these questions from Christian organizations, I would probably end up pilloried.
I mean yeah, you might be able to get them to (grudgingly) admit that there's a few jackasses who bomb buildings and shoot heathens, but how DARE I compare them to such unchristian assholes! Of course they're not like them. Jesus was against such acts! They are against extremism and terrorism by default!
By default. Such a funny thing. Culturally, we apply "innocent until proven guilty". We don't assume they are automatically extremists, and we do not require them to vigorously denounce them and their acts to continue to deal with them because we generally assume that they don't truck with them until there is blatantly obvious proof that will not go away.
And yet, this changes when we talk about Muslims. They must prove that they are not extremists to *our* satisfaction. They must denounce Al Qaeda at every turn. They must continue to denounce extremism until we finally say "okay, we believe you, you're not one of those Muslims".
It's astonishing. We do have homegrown terrorists, most of the Christian variety, but MUSLIMS have to scream they're not terrorists every waking moment.
Oh wait, I forgot, those terrorists are all secret leftists and you can't be Christian and leftist at the same time, so it's Muslims 1, Christians 0.
Convienent.
"Ignoring the peanut gallery for the moment:"
We're going with ignoring the facts and the goon squad today, are we?
That's fine. We'll chalk it up to yet another of the dozens of easy victories over liberal hacks like Zandar.
Some corrections to Steve - I remember that McCain stated back when he was running for the GOP candidacy that America was founded on Christian principles, and you can probably find similar remarks from any number of Conservative evangelicals, who do manage to wield quite a bit of power in the GOP. And here's the quote from the Texas GOP Platform 2004:
The Republican Party of Texas affirms the United States of America is a Christian Nation... Page 8 if you're interested, the PDF is online.
So, maybe these aren't legitimate Republicans, I don't know. I do know that anytime someone accuses Dems of 'making government a religion', they are not making sense. Without getting into it, that is a pretty bald assertion to make with the paucity of proof you provided.
Re: the 17th amendment - having said that last part, I find it funny that for someone who is not enamored of government to say 'hey, let's make the selection of our senators less democratic and let the legislatures decide who to send!' I sort of like my right to vote for my senators, and question the necessity of letting them make that choice for me. Not sure why you'd be OK with it. That is what they used to do then, and claiming this would fix corruption in the senate is really quite funny, as state leges are just as likely to be pursued by special interests, which I hold corporate lobbies being especially predatory, as the Senators.
Re: Rape - currently there is a law being proposed that would define rape as something being forced on a woman, and not other types such as 'date rape' or statutory rape for purposes of determining if a woman (or girl for that matter) may get an abortion using fed funds. Even if these acts have no violent component, they should certainly be treated as rape, in my opinion.
Re: Abortion mills - Doubtful it will happen but were you to ask any pro-choice woman what she wanted it would be 'having an abortion treated like any other medical procedure and full rights to do so without being shamed by some blue noser.' I suspect that it would be a lot safer and more regulated for your tastes if that were the case. I mean, if you were interested in the health of the woman and all.
Some corrections to abanterer:
I remember that McCain stated back when he was running for the GOP candidacy that America was founded on Christian principles,...
That's right. Christian principles. Not Christian dogma. Nobody is going to force you to believe Christ is the Savior or read the Bible or take communion.
Re: the 17th amendment - having said that last part, I find it funny that for someone who is not enamored of government to say 'hey, let's make the selection of our senators less democratic and let the legislatures decide who to send!
It's better for out-of-state lobbyists to determine who a state's U.S. Senators are going to be? How is it more democratic now?
Re: Rape - currently there is a law being proposed that would define rape as something being forced on a woman, and not other types such as 'date rape' or statutory rape for purposes of determining if a woman (or girl for that matter) may get an abortion using fed funds.
It's not a re-definition of rape. Rape is still rape. As far as I'm concerned, no federal funds should be used for terminating a pregnancy due to any rape. State governments should pay for them only if it's proven a woman was raped, the rape resulted in a pregnancy, and the woman wants an abortion. The woman should then have the abortion done in an accredited hospital by a licensed abortionist. When the rapist is convicted, the entire cost of the abortion and 20% interest per year should be tacked on to the rapist's punishment so that when he gets out of jail and gets a job, he pays the state back.
Some more corrections to abanterer:
Re: Abortion mills...
Pro-"choice" (pro-abortion) men and women in Pennsylvania had a chance to practice the idea of "having an abortion treated like any other medical procedure and full rights to do so without being shamed by some blue noser," except they were so worried about "accessibility" that they refused to do their jobs. What Kermit Gosnall (allegedly) did (and who knows how many others since Pennsylvania's pro-"choice" people didn't inspect any abortion mill for nearly 20 years) is the result of 40 years of pro-"choice" (pro-abortion) politics. All pro-"choicers" are responsible for Gosnall.
StarStorm:
Such a funny thing. Culturally, we apply "innocent until proven guilty". We don't assume they are automatically extremists, and we do not require them to vigorously denounce them and their acts to continue to deal with them because we generally assume that they don't truck with them until there is blatantly obvious proof that will not go away.
That isn't true. Liberals, by default, assume any conservatives and most Christians are automatically extremists and consistently apply the "guilty before proven innocent" philosophy. How liberals handled the Tucson shootings is proof of that.
We do have homegrown terrorists, most of the Christian variety,...
See what I mean? By the abysmal standards set by liberals, Loughner was a lefty. And as it turns out, the guy who attacked Gov. Nixon was a lefty, the guy who wanted to bomb a mosque was a lefty, rioters who firebombed a bank in Greece were lefties...I could easily go on.
The funny thing is if people like Starstorm and abanterer and Allen really believed in truth and fact and logic, they would call Zandar out on his neck-deep bullshit so that Steve AR and I wouldn't have to.
It's got to be getting old for you guys, defending his terrible arguments, watching this smug fool getting taken apart on a daily basis.
Ultimately, I'm doing you all a favor.
Obviously there is a different definition of "neck deep bullshit" than the one that I am familiar with because I haven't seen y'all be terribly effective in countering anything of late.
You folks really seem like a monty python sketch sometimes.
You take that back, Rob. Monty Python is funny.
So, nothing on the Texas GOP platform or politically influential televangelists on the Christian Nation biz, and a rushed apologia for McCain because he didn't cite the Nicene Creed or something similar, but left it at unnamed Christian principles, which could be anything from 'don't kill people' to 'try to be nice to people for a change' or even 'Anyone who doesn't accept Christ as the Lord and Savior of mankind is not my brother' which was also stated by the Gov of Alabama.
Well, OK. I'm just going to point out that as a counter argument, you really didn't do that hot. I will maintain that there are a number of Republicans, not all, to be clear, but a rather large number, that do consider this to be a Christian Nation, and that anyone who is not of that faith shouldn't be allowed to govern. I point for evidence for this the continuing effort to paint Obama as a Muslim and the fact that a number of state constitutions don't allow known atheists to run for office.
"It's better for out-of-state lobbyists to determine who a state's U.S. Senators are going to be? How is it more democratic now? "
I suppose it's more democratic because people get to vote on it, as opposed to the state lege which is one step removed. Otherwise, why bother with the direct vote at all, and just let the state lege pick everyone, including themselves for office.
If you are going to complain that lobbyists have too much control over the process, you won't get an argument from me, because I'm firmly in the camp that money flowing into a campaign should be regulated and optimally publicly funded to try to curb the reliance of outside money on elections. I hate that any pol can be bought with some shiny beads these days, but how is repealing the 17th going to fix that? Out of state lobbyists affect senate elections right now, why wouldn't they try to affect a state rep as well if they thought it'd benefit them?
On Rape: It takes time to do that, and the woman does not have that luxury and this goes especially in a state that manages to pass a law that prevents abortion in the first place. The state would demand proof of guilt before spending a penny, and all that assumes that a 'father' is caught.
What happens if the guy never leaves prison, dies in prison or something? Or what if he leaves the country? What if he can't be identified or it can't be proven by evidence? The woman pays out of pocket - IF there is a doctor who will do it.
But, let's go back to cases where there's no force, but there is coercion or a lack of consent. In the case where a woman is drunk or drugged, and the man takes advantage? Or the case where a woman is mentally handicapped? Or under the age of consent but old enough to become pregnant? In cases like those, this new definition would totally screw them over. I can just see where some boxing clever lawyer uses the definition to show that it wasn't rape, and maybe becomes precedent. Maybe it won't happen... and maybe it will.
Either way, the result is the same - if she has money, she finds a doctor to do it and pays full price. If she doesn't she is in serious trouble, wouldn't you agree? Jesus, just thinking about this makes me ill. A woman in that situation being forced to carry for a man who deprived her of her own body, and there is nothing she can do about it. Just the hopelessness and despair involved, but never mind that, she gets a baby now and then nothing.
I would take the antis a lot more seriously if they were willing to walk a bit more of their walk and try to maybe provide health and care services for these children in line with the amount of effort they apparently have for a fetus that may or may not survive. But, I am never disappointed by betting short on the GOP to screw children over.
Post a Comment