Muslim extremists in the UK are the "mirror image" of the racist British National Party, Conservative leader David Cameron has said.

 

Just like the far-right party, people who demand separate treatment for Muslims or the imposition of sharia law are trying to divide British society and prevent different races from living in peace together, The Tory leader argued.

 

In a keynote speech in Birmingham, Mr Cameron identified five "barriers to community cohesion" - extremism, multiculturalism, uncontrolled immigration, poverty and poor standards of education.

 

He also issued a demand for the end to the oppression of women inside the Muslim community who are denied the opportunity to go out to work or attend university. And he warned that difficult issues must not be avoided by hiding behind "a screen of cultural sensitivity".

 

Mr Cameron's speech follows a newspaper article in which he accused the Government of trying to "bully" the UK's ethnic communities into feeling British by urging Muslim parents to spy on their children or encouraging people to fly the Union flag on their lawns.

 

The article sparked controversy by calling for a new "crusade" for fairness - recalling medieval attacks on the Islamic world in a way which one Muslim leader said devalued his message.

 

The Tory leader did not repeat the word in his latest speech at a church in the Lozells area of Birmingham, which was hit by race riots in 2005.

 

Instead, he warned: "If we want to live together, we need to bring down the barriers that divide us. And ... I can feel the barriers going up, not coming down."

 

Mr Cameron said that there are forces within society actively seeking to prevent Britain's communities living in harmony.

 

"Those who seek a sharia state, or special treatment and a separate law for British Muslims are, in many ways, the mirror image of the BNP," he told an audience of about 80 community representatives. "They also want to divide people into 'us' and 'them'. And they too seek out grievances to exploit."

 

agreed, hes right.

Yeah what he says makes sense, he has to show it is not all soundbites when he comes to power though and actually back stuff up with action

He kinda made sense up until the point he used the word "crusade".... What a tool.... <_< Like there wasn't a better phrase he could've used..? Almost as bad as Dubya really, he kinda shot himself in the foot a bit... But at least he was being a bit more even-handed, criticising some of the sillier Govt 'initiatives'

 

I dont really trust Cameron though, he's just another image/PR obsessed spin merchant like Blair.... We need a serious politician, not a pretty boy who looks good for the cameras and has nothing to offer but a few clever soundbites... I dont think he'll be able to deliver to be honest...

Politicians don't write their own speeches though, Maggie/Blair for instance had/have speechwriters who write their speeches for them at central office or ghost writers at newspapers, the only politician I can think of in living memory who wrote his own speeches was Heseltine so the crusades thing was not likely dreamed up by Cameron but more likely by some spotty graduate straight out of uni in his first PR job so while it has Cameron's name to it I doubt Cameron personally wrote the speech or article that had "crusade" in it

Politicians don't write their own speeches though, Maggie/Blair for instance had/have speechwriters who write their speeches for them at central office or ghost writers at newspapers, the only politician I can think of in living memory who wrote his own speeches was Heseltine so the crusades thing was not likely dreamed up by Cameron but more likely by some spotty graduate straight out of uni in his first PR job so while it has Cameron's name to it I doubt Cameron personally wrote the speech or article that had "crusade" in it

 

Oh mate, come on, dont use that as an excuse... Didn't he actually read through the bloody thing before he said it...? If not, I would be incredibly disturbed, probably even more so than if he actually DID write it in himself, because he's just saying any old sh!te that's put in front of him and not bothering to even check it and change things.... Doesn't exactly fill me with much confidence...

 

Just proves my point that we need serious Politicians and not image-obsessed Spin Merchants... Do you think Churchill needed some 'spotty graduate' to write his speeches... And however you may feel about George Galloway, the man is a brilliant orator who doesn't need ANYONE to put words into his mouth, what he says he damn well means.... That gets my respect (no pun intended..) a lot more than Spinners like Cameron and Blair ever will....

Oh I agree about Galloway, one of the best orators in politics since the war I would say, whether or not he actually took kickbacks from Saddam Hussein or not his performance infront of that Senate committee in America was the work of an outstanding politician that was a hell of a display by the guy

 

 

Oh I agree about Galloway, one of the best orators in politics since the war I would say, whether or not he actually took kickbacks from Saddam Hussein or not his performance infront of that Senate committee in America was the work of an outstanding politician that was a hell of a display by the guy

 

Well, he manage to successfully sue a British newspaper over the whole affair, and there's really been no further follow up from the Senate committee or any sign of an appeal from the newspaper concerned... The Senate expected someone meek and deferential who was going to just kowtow and say 'yes sir', 'no sir'... What they got was GEORGE GALLOWAY, a Glasgow brawler who came through the seriously tough politics of Glasgow City council.... It was like watching a flyweight go up against a just-released-from-prison Mike Tyson.... :lol: :lol: I aint saying the bloke is 100 % squeaky clean, but as for taking kickbacks off Saddam, I reckon that is just unfounded nonsense, and I find it really strange that the Americans chose to believe the word of former Saddam henchmen (yeah, no self-interest there at all eh...?) tbh after saying that the Ba'athists were all basically evil incarnate.... <_<

The Galloway speech in America is my favourite speech by any politician ever.... outstanding.

The Galloway speech in America is my favourite speech by any politician ever.... outstanding.

 

Amazing what can be achieved without spin, image consultants, speech-writers, etc... Just someone having the BALLS not to take any sh!t and telling it like it is... Blair and Cameron can only look in awe of that speech...

 

Such shame he went and totally tarnished his rep by doing Celeb Big Brother.... Oh, George, WHYYYYYYYYYYYYY??? :nono:

 

I just don't understand why multiculturalism can be blamed for all this apparent strife in the UK. Why can't there be a recognition and appreciation for multiculturalism AND an encouragement of assimilation and national participation. It seems to work in Australia, the US and especially Canada. Why are Europeans so threatened by multiculturalism?

 

And anyway, if multiculturalism were to blame, how come Hindus, Jews, Buddhists, etc. seem to be doing fine? What makes Muslims so significant? Is it because they're such brutal savages OR..... OR is it because the UK government's Middle East policies can only by classified as a WAR against Islam??? It's been said soo many times on this board but it's NOT them vs us, it's not ideology, it's not fundamentalism. It's P O L I T I C S.

I just don't understand why multiculturalism can be blamed for all this apparent strife in the UK. Why can't there be a recognition and appreciation for multiculturalism AND an encouragement of assimilation and national participation. It seems to work in Australia, the US and especially Canada. Why are Europeans so threatened by multiculturalism?

 

And anyway, if multiculturalism were to blame, how come Hindus, Jews, Buddhists, etc. seem to be doing fine? What makes Muslims so significant? Is it because they're such brutal savages OR..... OR is it because the UK government's Middle East policies can only by classified as a WAR against Islam??? It's been said soo many times on this board but it's NOT them vs us, it's not ideology, it's not fundamentalism. It's P O L I T I C S.

 

the RATE of change here is one that hasnt been easily absorbed. just a mere 40 years ago i never saw or knew a foriegn person. the problems with mass immigration is that many ethnic groups arnt successfuly integrating into society for a multitude of reasons. as long as there are seperate groups multiculturalism cannot succeed. maybe in australia and canada the ethnic groups are small in the population, and need to integrate more.

 

interestingly... i wonder if we actually NEED multiculturalism?... i wonder what the uk would be like if the foreign population was the same as 40 years ago?.... are we any better off?

I just don't understand why multiculturalism can be blamed for all this apparent strife in the UK. Why can't there be a recognition and appreciation for multiculturalism AND an encouragement of assimilation and national participation. It seems to work in Australia, the US and especially Canada. Why are Europeans so threatened by multiculturalism?

 

And anyway, if multiculturalism were to blame, how come Hindus, Jews, Buddhists, etc. seem to be doing fine? What makes Muslims so significant? Is it because they're such brutal savages OR..... OR is it because the UK government's Middle East policies can only by classified as a WAR against Islam??? It's been said soo many times on this board but it's NOT them vs us, it's not ideology, it's not fundamentalism. It's P O L I T I C S.

 

 

Exactly, well put... It's not as if Britain (well, England more really..) has never had influxes of immigrants in the past - the Romans for example... They came here, built huge roads, aquaducts, brought their slaves, built the huge, commercial centres such as "Londinium" where merchants from all over the known world would come to, very beneficial if you ask me.... Then later there were the Normans....

 

"Multiculturalism" has existed in the UK ever since the Act of Union of the 1700s if you think about it - England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales all have their own particular cultural identities, languages, etc... And we have had plenty of "Seperatist Struggles" throughout out history - from Bonnie Prince Charlie right on through to the IRA... Modern politicial parties such as Sinn Fein, SNP and Plaid Cymru also assert these Cultural identities as well.... These parties may not be advocating violence, but they are advocating separation and a break up of the UK State, as well as their own laws, tax-raising powers, etc (Scotland has had its own education system for years..), and they have fairly significant support in their own patch... So how come these political forces are not considered to be 'dangerous' to Britain...?

 

Blaming Multiculturalism for the current strife is just lazy journalism and even lazier politics... Just about all the recent sh!t that's hit the fan in UK over the past few years can be traced directly back to the Govt's foreign policy..... Muslims have been here for decades in large numbers, cant just be coincidence that now they're getting a bit aggro about things....