Pigs are disappearing all over England, but not because of some porcine variant of Mad Cow Disease: rather, the most implacable foe of the swine is turning out to be multiculturalism.

The latest assault came in the benefits department at Dudley Council, West Midlands, where employees were told that they were no longer allowed to have any representations of pigs at their desks. Some had little porcine porcelain figurines. Others had toys or calendars of cute little pigs. One had a tissue box depicting Winnie the Pooh and Piglet. All of this had to go, not because of new some new anti-kitsch ordinance, but because Muslims might be offended — particularly now, what with Ramadan beginning. How could a pious Muslim in the Dudley Council, West Midlands benefits department redouble his efforts to conform his life to the will of Allah with all these . . . pigs staring him in the face? It was an insult!
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Questions for Debate:

1. Should non-gov't organizations accomodate the religious needs of employees, even if it imposes on the rest of the company?

2. Is multi-culturalism so important that it changes the face of the workplace?

3. Will such actions be pursued in the US? If so, how would it benefit (be detrimental to) the effectiveness and morale of a company?

Should non-gov't organizations accommodate the religious needs of employees, even if it imposes on the rest of the company?
I'd have to say that's a strange question for a conservative to ask.

It goes right to the issue of the motivation in the private sector.

If a company feels this "pork-free" policy will enhance productivity who's to say they aren't allowed to do it?

There's is no right to place a pig on the company desk.

I think it's rather silly myself, there's nothing in Muslim doctrine that suggest that seeing a fake pig is somehow forbidden.

..but it's the company's call, now isn't it?

I'd love to see a source on the story because I almost certain something is being overlooked in your description.

Is multi-culturalism so important that it changes the face of the workplace?
If the company thinks it will increase profits, then the answer is pretty obvious.

Multi-culturalism is quite possibly one of the most important aspects of modern society, I'm never ready to sell it short.

It's a cornerstone of democracy in the US and UK.

Will such actions be pursued in the US? If so, how would it benefit (be detrimental to) the effectiveness and morale of a company?
That's the management's call, this is not some law or anything.

The private-sector leaders made this call to enhance productivity.

So I don't see the point in arguing whether it hurts morale.

Business is not about making people happy.

Once again, the common misperception that the religious movement somehow embodies conservatism...when in fact it goes directly against conservative idealogy--but that's another thread

Otherwise, I agree with Turnea's statements. There is nothing in Islam that prevents looking at real pigs, much less fake ones...they are only forbidden from eating them. They are also forbidden from eating most shellfish, so I guess all the oceanscape pictures have to as well? Not to mention anything depicting Judasim or Christianity...but wait, according to true Muslim theology, these are all people of the book, despite the fact that this viewpoint is seldom put forth within Muslim communities. So, would those be forbidden as well, or not? What's more important...one person's right to have a porcelain figurine, or another person's claim that they're offended by that (even though that offense has no theological basis)? Gosh, this gets confusing pretty quickly, doesn't it?

Is multi-culturalism so important that it changes the face of the workplace?

There is also, IMHO, a common misperception of true multiculturalism here. True multiculturalism would be the acceptance of all viewpoints, including those that desire to put porcelain figurines on their desk. This is more an example of non-culturalism, in which no one can depict anything for fear that it would offend someone else (which something always would). Carried to its logical conclusion, this viewpoint could only accept a completely staid envirnonment, absolutely devoid of any cultural influence whatsoever, since that would be the only way to avoid offending everybody. How is that multicultural?

Will such actions be pursued in the US? If so, how would it benefit (be detrimental to) the effectiveness and morale of a company?

Probably..after all, we have more lawyers here than anywhere else. Whether or not it would be successful is an entirely different question. Legal issues aside, companies generally act in ways to reduce the impact of these sorts of issues. Therefore, the impact of allowing the porcine depictions on Muslims would be weighed against the impact of forcing other employees to remove them. Generally, these things work out so that personal freedom of expression is allowed to the point where it becomes a workplace distraction. Porceline figurines would probably be allowed, but someone bringing a pig into the office to emphasize the point would probably be discouraged

Ah, but that wasn't the aspect of conservatism I was refering to.

Rather I was commenting on the effciency of the "free market" and how businesses make decisions to maximize profits.

I found asking whether comapany's "should" make this decision odd in that light.

If it makes them more money than that's what they will do. Free-market principles 101: a cornerstone of conservatism.

I see not input from lawyers here, their is no law involved, just a private-sector company looking to maximiz profits.

turnea, the Dudley Council is kind of like a US city council. It's not a private company.

I can't find a straight news link, but I read Mark Steyn on this and thought he was hilarious. telegraph link

This simple-minded American feels compelled to comment that banning cartoon pig-branded tissue does not feel "tolerant and accepting" but that's just me. This isn't the only example of multiculturalism affecting the gov't in the UK - there is also a movement to get rid of the St. George's cross. The flag of England. CNN link

Yeah, misconstrued. Right.

edited to add news link

I'd love to see a source on the story because I almost certain something is being overlooked in your description..... nice stab... but not at all. Here you go:
http://www.expressandstar.com/articles/new...ticle_81092.php
That's just one... ask for more and I'll gladly deliver...

However, the funny thing is that if the company allows "personal items", then pigs are allowed. The company policy would probably read something about "non-offensive or vulgar" items, but that's generally all the law allows for.

Are pigs offensive? Hmmm.... and to whom?

You said:
"Multi-culturalism is quite possibly one of the most important aspects of modern society, I'm never ready to sell it short."

I question, "for whom?". Frankly, I will never come to understand America's need to embrace cultures diametrically opposed to ours (in this case- Britian's need...). Here's where your logic is flawed turnea. If a company is marketing to a different nation or culture, it will tailor it's marketing and/or product to meet the need of said demographic. Is that the same as conforming to the need of the few at the behest of the many?

If a single mother had a piglet doll on her desk that was given to her by her child (or whomever), and a muslim co-worker was the reason that she had to take it down, do you honestly think that it won't cause division within the office? (especially here or in the UK?)

You negate the need for effective morale building and it's affect on efficiency and productivity. A cohesive group works faster and more efficiently than one that is tentative in its interaction. Team Building isn't just the new corporate buzz-word, sir, but one of the most important parts of running an effective organization. (why do you think I can spend time on AD during the day... I have a ROCK STAR crew! )

Simply put, the complaintant probably didn't understand that any efforts that she/he makes from here on out will be met with apprehension and antipathy coupled with the fact that interaction will be less than amicable going forward. How is that effective? (umm... it's not.)

Maximize profits? Where on the face of the planet would you ever believe that this would increase profitiability? Not at all, and to quite the contrary.

In this case, I believe that in America this would be met with sincere resistance. What if my religion doesn't believe in partaking in caffeine? (i.e. Mormans... by the way, I'm not a Morman). Would the company then need to remove all coffee from the office? If I had a cross on my desk and a Satanist came into the office, would I be required to remove it??

In anticipation of such ludicrous lawsuits in the US, I pray that we have the gumption to put a foot on this one fast, quick, and in a hurry.

Of course you don't see the point of arguing morale... but all businesses with staffs that are attempting to make money probably do...!

One of Denmark's greatest imports is bacon (to the Britis amongst others). Pork is the largest domestic meat product in Denmark.

Due to the risk of 'offending' Muslims, children in Danish schools are no longer fed pork produce.

Instead they are fed, halal butchered beef.



1. Should non-gov't organizations accomodate the religious needs of employees, even if it imposes on the rest of the company?

No. Minority religious rights should never be imposed on a majority. It is for the religious minority to adapt to the non/other religious majority.


2. Is multi-culturalism so important that it changes the face of the workplace?

Multi-culturalism is not important at all. When multi culture imposes blanket changes on the basis of religion, then it is nothing but a direct obstacle to integration.


3. Will such actions be pursued in the US? If so, how would it benefit (be detrimental to) the effectiveness and morale of a company?

No idea.

Thanks it helps to have some idea of what where talking about.

I will hold the obvious next question (who the heck is Dudley and why does he have a council?) for later.


There was indeed something missing as carlitoswhey was kind enough to point out: the public (rather than private) nature of the organization.

That info would have been of great help is placed beside the questions.

It involved an entirely different dynamic.


..and I will never understand the need to tip the scales by discussing multiculturalism in the most absurd contexts.

The objection to a porcelain pig is ridiculous on it's face, I agree. That does not translate to the entire concept anymore than the silliness of objecting to women in bathing-suits at a beach necessarily means all indecency laws are pointless.

A question of scale is at work here.

Accommodation of varying cultures is one of the best traits of America when done reasonably. Accommodation is excess, like freedom of speech in excess is a bad thing, sure.


I was responding under the conception that this was a for-profit venture.

In that case, by necessity, all decisions of company policy would be driven by the need to maximize profits.


I was stating that the decision would be up to management as to whether removing distraction form the office (porcine or otherwise) would boost productivity.

Same reason as banning any personal item.

To take this situation as a microcosm of the entire concept of multiculturalism is ridiculous.

Turnea I found a source on this story:

http://www.expressandstar.com/articles/new...ticle_81092.php



1. I do not see any problem with non-governmental organisations accomodating the religious needs of their employees. That is a purely private decission.
What I do find strange about this story is that it doesn't talk about a private non-gov't organisation. Dudley Counsel is, like Carlitoswhey pointed out earlier, a governmental organisation, comparable with a US city council. As a strong advocate of a clear seperation between State and Church I think this whole issue can set a dangerous precedent. A religious (minority) group should never be able to dictate their will on the rest of society in a modern western democratic country.
This whole claim that some muslims during Ramadan may regard pictures, sculptures or other references to pigs offensive or insulting is ridiculous. The worst thing is the government obeyed their wishes and changed their policy.

2. Multi-culturalism is a beautiful aspect of modern day societies.

Wikipedia:


It is all about balance. Balance between the dominant culture of the receiving country and the various new foreign cultures. To find this balance is a difficult road with many mistakes and successes. It is an evolution of rejecting/ accepting / respecting eachother. Everybody has to find their place and the government can help this go as smoothly as possible.
The fact that a ridiculous claim on religious aspects of Islamic culture changed the policy of a governmental institution is, in my eyes, in conflict with the seperation of State and Church. (I wonder what the general opinion in Britain is on this issue?)

3. I hope not. In a private company you can do what you want, but in regard to governmental institutions, in my opinion, separation between State and Church should always be upholded.

Questions for Debate:

1. Should non-gov't organizations accomodate the religious needs of employees, even if it imposes on the rest of the company?

2. Is multi-culturalism so important that it changes the face of the workplace?

3. Will such actions be pursued in the US? If so, how would it benefit (be detrimental to) the effectiveness and morale of a company?



1. Well, the example you give is, apparently, a governmental organization, so let's discuss that first. (It's also a British governmental agency, of course, but let's talk about the USA.)

I support the absolute separation of church and state, and the maximum religious freedom for the individual. These two goals are not opposites; in fact, they go hand in hand. When questions of religious expression, or lack of religious expression, come up, I have to ask myself this:

Is the government or a private individual expressing a religious opinion (or being prevented from expressing a religious opinion?)

(Example: Roy Moore puts up the Ten Commandments in his private office -- fine. Roy Moore puts up the Ten Commandments in the courtroom -- not fine.)

In this case, individuals are being asked to refrain from a form of expression (which they do not think of as religious or anti-religious in any way, of course.) This is a bad idea. In the USA, it would stand a good chance of being considered unconstitutional.

Now let's think about private companies. The consensus around here seems to be that private businesses can make any demands they wish of employees that are not actually illegal. I don't 100% agree with that, but I certainly respect the wishes of a private business to come up with rules, within reason, for the workplace. I think that the "no pigs" rule is silly, but a Muslim business owner might not think so. (I am not at all making fun of Islam here, by the way; I think that many business rules are silly.)

What you are really asking, I think, is should a business owner be forced (by a lawsuit, or whatever) to make such a rule. On this question, I am absolutely 100% on your side. This should not be required at all.

(Let's consider another case, just to show you where I stand on issues of individual religious expression. Should a private business be allowed, for example, to ban an employee from reading the Bible, or the Koran, or American Atheist during break time? I would say not, but it seems that some folks around here believe that private employers should have such power.)

2. I must quibble with your use of the word "multi-culturalism." The British case is an example, in my opinion, of ANTI-multi-culturalism. Persons from one culture were trying to bend another culture to their will. This is not multi-culturalism, but the exact opposite of it.

Let's consider the example offered by moif. Did the Danish public schools completely remove pork from the food eaten by all children? This would be ANTI-multi-culturalism, and I oppose it. Or did the Danish public schools offer both pork and non-pork meals? This would be multi-culturalism, and I support it.

Using my definition of multi-culturalism, it is always a good thing, and very important for society. I think that it is always good for business, too. Why would you want to unreasonably limit the personal freedom of your employees, as long as it does not disrupt business? Why would you want to limit the number of your potential customers? If I ran a business, wouldn't it be foolish of me to refuse to allow employees to say "Merry Christmas" to each other, even though I hate Christmas more than you can imagine? Should I put up a sign that says "We Do Not Serve Scientologists," even though I think Scientology is a wicked cult? (Let me say here that Scientologists themselves are not bad people, but victims of this cult.)

I am pro-multi-culturalism, and pro-small-business. They should be allies.

3. I don't see any possibility of any American governmental organization making such a rule. I don't see any possibility of any lawsuit against any private American business having any merit. Some private American businesses may voluntarily adopt such a rule, no matter how goofy I think it is.

If such a thing happened, it would indeed be bad for business. ANTI-multi-culturalism, as I have explained, is always bad for business. Multi-culturalism is always good for business.

This is the problem I have with the supposed application of multiculturalism in this manner. What about the aspect of society that created the porceline porcines in the first place? What makes this part of culture suddenly less worthy than something else, and how does this really translate to multiculturalism. Almost everything causes someone out there some offense. If removal of offense is then the goal, the only way to accomplish it would be to remove any and all artifacts, creating, as I said initially, a completely staid culture, absolutely devoid of any distinguishing characteristics whatsoever. This isn't then multiculturalism at all--since all cultural aspects would be removed. It is non-culturalism, not multi, and it is highly questionable whether such a state is either desirable or achievable if it were. I would imagine these very same Muslims would be even more incensed over, say, churches than they would mere porcine depictions....why not remove those as well? What about the fact that, in today's society, simply appearing Muslim is offensive to many. Shouldn't we then demand that any and all traces of Muslim culture be removed? And how is all of this embracing different cultures again? Multi-culturalism, like political correctness, is a misnomer....a term that generally means exactly the opposite of what it claims. It would more truly be defined as anti-culturalism, but, then, who would back that?

I agree with you. Multi-culturalism should never strive to remove every possible offensive aspect in a society. A culture, completely devoid of dinstiguished cultural characteristics, is not the way for a succesfull intergration. As I said before, it is all about balance. A balnace between the dominant culture and different foreign cultures. Complete assimilation of foreigners is wrong (and impossible), but complete adaption of the dominant culture to wishes of minorities is equally wrong.
But that doesn't mean that multi-culturalism is in essence a danger to society. It is a bumpy road, but we should try to follow it, no matter how difficult it seems to be.




As I said before this case is an example of wrong intergration policy. If multi-culturalism leads to non-culturalism it is time to reevaluate governmental policy.



The fact that this example shows that giving in to much is the wrong way to deal with foreign cultures, does not automatically lead to the assumption that multi-culturalism leads to a dead end. The ideas behind a multi-cultural society are admirable. The problem is how to politically achieve this ideal without damaging the dominant culture too much and maintaining the peace within society.

1. Should non-gov't organizations accomodate the religious needs of employees, even if it imposes on the rest of the company?
Well, up to a point, it makes sense. If you have a lot of Muslims on your staff, it isn't unreasonable for them to be able to take breaks to say their prayers somewhere quiet. (And no different to the breaks non-Muslims take to smoke cigarettes or drink coffee.) It is unreasonable to expect prayer breaks and still get the coffee / cigarette breaks on top.

As for Dudley Council's decision, the first thing to point out is that Dudley has a much higher Asian / Muslim (mostly Pakistanis & Bangladeshis) population than the national average. And missing from the reportage is a sense of quite what the office politics were. It may be that the person with the pigs was TRYING to offend his or her Muslim co-workers, in which case maybe the ban isn't such a dreadful thing.

But as things stand, and on the evidence so far reported, I have to say I think this type of thing is defiantly, resolutely stupid. I have nothing against multicultrualism . Indeed, I think it could and shoul be a positive good.

However, I would much prefer that the style of multiculturalism we were moving towards was one where every felt free to make fun of everyone else's religion, in much the same way that Christianity (still the established state religion of the UK, remember - here there is no formal separation of church and state) can be lampooned with impunity.

When the play that showed scenes of sex and violence set in the Golden Temple of Amritsar was taken down following violent protests by Sikh demonstrators last year, I would have much preferred the demonstrators to have been arrested, and generally ridiculed, than the play taken off, in much the same way that the Christian protestors were largely ignored and ridiculed (They objected to the BBC showing the satrical musical "Jerry Springer - The Opera" which showed Jesus in a poor light - as a gay in a diaper, for example.)

2. Is multi-culturalism so important that it changes the face of the workplace?

I think multi-culturalism is important, and I think it is bound to affect the workplace, as much as anywhere else. However, I think this example is one that demonstrates what can hapen when it is taken too far (and in completley the wrok direction).

3. Will such actions be pursued in the US? If so, how would it benefit (be detrimental to) the effectiveness and morale of a company?
I have no idea. I rather doubt it - freedom of speech is far more ingrained there than it is even here in the UK.

This is way too funny. I knew that Muslims and Jews don't eat pork, but I wasn't aware that Muslim are against public display of images of pigs too. Learn something new everyday I guess.

Considering how cows are holy to Hindus and the fact that there is a sizable Indian population in the U.K., maybe bovines would be next. LOL



Non-governmental organizations, by definition, can do whatever-the-heck they want provided it is legal and does not breach any agreement they entered into with their employees.


Yes, and sometimes for the better. The introduction of women into some workplace has demanded that every man working there wear a shirt.


Ah, the future prediction business, me like. Yes, given enough time, anything can happen in the U.S., just like everywhere else. It will stir up a debate just like things such as Blacks, women and gays in the military did years before, and at the end, everyone walks away a little more enlightened.

Its a constant source of wonder to me how having entire parts of a nation being colonised by fast growing ethnic populations from the far side of the planet can be considered a a 'positive good'. Just what does this mass of people bring that makes their presence a positive good?

People, especially in the UK, love to harp on about multi culturalism as if it were a new religion and I note with some amusement that every single ethnic festivity that comes along gets special attention on the BBC world services... except the British ones.
Britain, like the rest of the post colonial powers, is wallowing in self loathing and allowing unscrupulous people to take any advantage of us they care to under the guise of multi culture.

This is the perfect example of how 'multi culture' is a means to an end. Europe is being colonised by a one way flow of 'ethnicity' that will talk of harmony and tolerance whilst seeking to end anything that stands in its way. If there is such a thing as kharma, then we are paying dearly for our grand parents sins.

How is the sight of a pig any more significant than the sight of a hajib? I am offended by the sight of women being oppressed, even if they agree to it themselves, but my sentiments carry no weight what so ever.

Polls in Denmark indicate that half the Danish population wants nothing to do with immigrants (or in other words, Muslims) that 47% of the Danish population have no inclination to even talk to an immigrant and only 13% are willing to go out of their way to accomidate them into society.

Why? Since when was Denmark an intolerant or racist state?

Its because the Danes can see what s happening in places like Holland and Britain and we don't want to lose our country to a bunch of religious immigrants who talk about tolerance yet practice oppression, violence and terrorism.

..and what is this supposed to mean?

So what if there are from the far side of the planet?

...not to mention Europe and the Middle East are actually on the same "side" of the world. They almost run right into each other.

Europeans and Muslims have been living together for years and it seems neither side has gotten used to it yet.

Are all or even most Muslims oppressive, violent, terrorists?

Colonization was what many Westerns country did so many decades ago, it has nothing to do with immigration.

The strength of multiculturalism is that is disregard these and other alarmist, xenophobic statements for acknowledgment of the simple fact that the world is a smaller place than it was in the 19th century.

People from all over the world are no able to seek homes that they feel are best for themselves.

It's not a belief, it's a fact of life.

Now if we can all manage to get used to it....

Renger, I agree with your points. However, I don't think balance is really the key so much as acceptance is. One culture can accept another's presence within it without having to remove anything. To carry this example forward...pigs wouldn't need to be removed at all--Muslims would be allowed to display their own cultural edifacts. Embracing another culture (which I believe is the real point of multiculturalism) shouldn't require the removal of anything, rather it should encourage displays from all cultures. I think once you start advocating the removal of things, you quickly go down the slippery slopes I was describing...getting farther and farther from true multiculturalism with each step.

1. Should non-gov't organizations accomodate the religious needs of employees, even if it imposes on the rest of the company?

My understanding (here in the U.S.) has been that my rights end where someone else's begin, i.e., we are not to encroach upon one another unnecessarily.

I wear a crucifix at times, my oncologist always wears his yarmulke, and the concierge at the hospital where I go for chemotherapy always wears wears a hijab. Now, I've seen no porcine figurines around the hospital, but everybody, patients and staff, gets along fine. The religious expressions that we wear don't seem to offend anyone.

Non-government organizations have the right to look the way the owner and/or board of directors dictate. But government officials are supposed to represent their constituency. This would mean that the will of the majority would hold sway.

2. Is multi-culturalism so important that it changes the face of the workplace?

As has already been expressed by several previous posters, this does not represent multi-culturalism. Recognition and tolerance (if not unequivocal acceptance) of diversity is key to multi-culturalism. This requirement represents intolerance. If the employees felt sensitive to the beliefs of the Muslims and then voluntarily removed the porcine figures from the workplace, that would be a different story. (I just can't imagine someone being offended by Piglet! )

3. Will such actions be pursued in the US? If so, how would it benefit (be detrimental to) the effectiveness and morale of a company?

I hope such actions will not be pursued here. (However, I do remember the story of an employee supposedly fired by her employer for having a John Kerry campaign bumpersticker on her car in the company parking lot.)

It would be detrimental to the morale of the company and serve to depersonalize work spaces. Employees try to have their cubicles or offices reflect their personalities. Who really wants to work in an atmosphere that seems cold and unfriendly?

moif

I am in favour of multiculturalism for one excellent reason. I am from a minority culture in the UK - the Welsh culture.

Until the 1950s the powers that be pretty much uniformly applied the "everyone must conform to the dominant culture" idea that opponents of multiculturalism think should apply instead. As a consequence (for example), my maternal grandfather was beaten at school if any of the staff heard him speaking in Welsh (his mother tongue) during school hours.

The forced suppression and attempted annihilation* of the Welsh language is what happens to ethnic minority languages when the nation decides that everyone MUST conduct their business in the majority language to "build a single national identity".

(My parents and my generation - those from the Anglicised South of Wales that were just abit too old to benefit from the state-supported resurgence of the Welsh language in the late 1970s and onwards - never had the opportunity to learn Welsh except in adult education)

In the British context, every appeal to reinforce Anglo-Saxon standards and sensibilities is always going to come against resistance, because even among the home nations, it only really applies to England, and not even all of England (Cornwall is in the early stages of a revivial of it's sense of separate identity, and good for them).

So I am not in any way kidding myself when I say that multiculturalism can and should be a good thing. Far from it. I am rejoicing in it because I am personally a beneficiary of it. Although I live in England, and I like England, and I might look and sound English to an outsider, and although I can't speak my own language (yet - it's on my to-do list to take night classes), I am not English, I am Welsh. I am a product of the multiculturalism that you condemn.

And so were you when you lived here.



Don't get me wrong - I do not say that the current practical manifestations of multiculturalism are an especially edifying experience. There IS too much of a one-way-street in favour of some minorities, most particularly Muslim ones, in most European countries at the moment. We're all tiptoeing around their religious sensibilities instead of just laughing at the stupidities of them, the way we have (for at least the last cenury or more, and in Britain at least) laughed at the stupidities of the Christian sensibility.



Since it began behaving in a racist or intolerant manner. Any fool can be racially tolerant and inclusive when there are no ethnic or racial minorities to test the theoretical ideas. Once you have an ethnic minority population of any significance, racism and intolerance are measured by what you do, not by what you say you do.



No. It is because Danes are ethnically and nationally homogeneous that they do not understand what a good thing multiculturalism can be (when it is done well). Denmark has many things to learn from Britain on the subject of multiculturalism, just as Britain itself has more to learn on the subject. But Denmark has nothing to teach Britain in this area (unlike many others).

This example is just one of many. I think in many cases and there are many examples..that multi-culturalism does fail. At some point people need to know that they are a minority and their views and beliefs will be expressed accordingly. That is why I am more in favor of pluralism. I feel multi-culturalism gives the idea we are one of many of all equal parts of the culture..that it is shared. Whereas pluralism is more realistically about the idea we are many distinct separate parts who tolerate each other..not accommodate or relate... just plain tolerate.

Sorry but I don't want to have to view a pig or the Star of David like a Muslim does as I am not Muslim.

Here in another example of a similar incident....
Teacher told to drop Star of David

It means countries like Holland and Britain risk losing their cultural identity as well as control over their society. It means that large groups of immigrants are gradually dominating the nations they reside in and changing them to suit their needs.

Most of all however, it means there is an ever growing Arab and Asian presence in Europe and no European presence in Asia or Arabia in return. Its a one way street where we are gradually being eroded in favour of people who do not share our culture or our values.


Yes. In my opinion Islam is an ideology of oppression masquerading under the justification of 'religion'. It is an intrusive and dominating philosophy that plays on human weakness in order to exist.


The guilt of European colonisation and the treatment of civilians, especially the Jews, during the second world war is the blunt instrument that is being used to bludgeon Europe into accepting mass immigration.


No it isn't turnea. The world is EXACTLY the same size it always was. Whats changed is the amount of people, especially in the middle east and third world


What is a fact is that running away from a problem never solved it.

Mass immigration in search for the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow brings no benefit to the host nation or any one else.




Yeah I hear this one a lot in the UK and I have to put it to you Julian that its utter rubbish. Welsh culture is not so very different from English culture. Yeah you might have a different language, but so what?

Its the same with Denmark. Denmark and England and Ireland and Scotland and Norway and Germany and France are all part and parcel of one over riding Northern European culture. Our histories are so intertwined and convoluted that trying to compare yourself with a Hindi or an Arab is like trying to compare a dog with a cat on the basis that they both have four legs.

And lets get something else on the level. I'm NOT saying immigration is wrong. I don't mind immigrants at all. What I'm objecting to is mass immigration. When you have hundreds of immigrants entering the country almost daily and in the space of a five decades you've gone from virtually no Muslims to over two million. Thats not immigration. Its invasion.


Well, when people kill you for not taking them seriously, then you tend to lose your sense of humour.


What racial intolerance?

And what do you mean by 'any fool can be racially tolerant and inclusive when there are no ethnic or racial minorities to test the theoretical ideas'? Denmark's tolerance was tested and in full measure by the nazi's when we were the only nation in Europe to defy them and act to save our Jewish population. Our king even rode his horse through the streets of København wearing the star of David in defiance. This country has always been one of the most open minded, liberal, nations of Europe.

Now suddenly we're behaving in a racist or intolerant manner? How are we racists now?


Oh yeah, we're sooo isolated and ignorant of whats going on in England...

Give me a break Julian. Britain has nothing to teach us except what not to do. We have our own ethnic minorities and we've had them for just as long as Britain has. We know well enough the lessons of 'multi culture' as its understood in Britain.

The only difference between Denmark and Britain in this context is the fact that Britain had the largest colonial empire on Earth, and like France is now paying dearly for that. The only difference is the scale of the problem. Your 'original people's', the English, the Welsh and the Scots have some of the lowest fertility rates on the planet. Just like Denmark you are all well below the global average.

Your immigrant populations however, still mentally wrapped up in the cultures they brought with them have far higher fertility rates, and there are more coming every day.

Considering the size of India, Pakistan, Africa, Arabia and Asia, and the sheer numbers of immigrants still entering Britain, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that one day, in the not to distant future, the Welsh, Scots and English are going to find themselves minorities in their own country's.

Happy Navratri by the way.

Questions for Debate:

1. Should non-govt organizations accommodate the religious needs of employees, even if it imposes on the rest of the company?

Employers have long made accommodations for employees who would not work on their Sabbath or Holy days. That is nothing new.

But artwork? My recollection is that I have been told that the Muslim religion forbids the portrayal of any living object. That is, you are not allowed to have a photograph of your family, or a painting of a vase of flowers. I don't understand why artwork depicting pigs has been outlawed in particular. No one is asking anyone to cook their children's Piggy Bank, and it is most likely porcelain or plastic anyway. What possible harm can come from looking at a picture of Piglet?

2. Is multi-culturalism so important that it changes the face of the workplace?

It has!

In 1964, I was hired by a company with a black supervisor. "If working for a colored man bothers you, we can fire him and promote someone else." From 1966 - 1996, I worked for a corporation where people could remember the names of the black employees, and when they had been hired. They could in fact recall when the sheriff stopped escorting blacks to the County line and warning them not to return. In 1974, 6,315 hourly employees went out on strike, and we all knew the names of both of the females in the union... (There were no blacks yet.)

The laws have changed, and employers in the United States simply are not allowed to discriminate to that extent any more. It is something that people convinced the Congress was unjust.

3. Will such actions be pursued in the US? If so, how would it benefit (be detrimental to) the effectiveness and morale of a company?

I can recall when a grievance was filed by a female employee. She stated that she found Centerfolds, Ridgid calendars, and the like personally offensive. She won the grievance, and "pornography" was banished from the workplace. It was likely a good decision. It is unlikely that many current employees still recall when they decorated every lunchroom and locker room. It did nothing however to facilitate the acceptance of women in the workforce by men who felt that, "A woman's place is in the home."

If Muslim employees begin to demand that we take the pictures of our family off our desks, remove the paintings of living things from the walls, etc., it could instigate an actual war against their religion. Imagine wanting to decorate your first house, then going to Wal-Mart to discover that they had removed all artwork portraying living things from their stores because it offended one of their employees and they lost a lawsuit!

This is completely off-topic, but I had to share this with y'all. Below is quoted the advertising banner on top of this thread.





Ok, I'll address one of the questions posed so I don't get into trouble here.....

2. Is multi-culturalism so important that it changes the face of the workplace?



This is a question that I've been considering particularly with regard to Moif's comments here. I'll try to frame another thread concerning "multi-culturalism" at some point because based on this thread, I'm not really sure what that means anymore. Bucket talks about "pluralism" and perhaps that might be a fruitful thing to explore in another thread as well.

It seems to me that the answer to this question lies in the nature of the change in the workplace. If it is an inclusionary change, then I believe it is important and helpful. If it is exclusionary, then no, it is destructive because it places one culture's feelings above those of others. I don't honestly understand how seeing a picture of a pig could cause anyone any grief. It's just a picture for goodness sakes. What happens when someone brings in a BLT for lunch? Does a riot break out? This is taking PC to new heights....

Look out, Aquilla...I'm about to agree with you!

I was thinking about a ham and cheese sandwich lunch break, myself.

When "multiculturalism" translates to tyranny of the few against the majority, it isn't multiculturalism anymore. And as Curmudgeon brought up earlier, the Muslim religion, when strictly adhered to, prohibits art work of any living thing. It is an iconoclastic religion.

Nearly anything can and will offend a person who is determined to be intolerant.