UK Politics - a new thread for the new board

[SeanF]

8 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Sure, but wrapping it up as a specific target to Muslim women coming to the UK on spouse reunification visas,and connecting it to the policy of eliminating Muslim extremism is wrong headed thinking and likely to lead to the opposite of what is said to be intended. Any time you give someone the opportunity to see themselves as a victim of targeted oppression, especially religious oppression, you fuel the extremist cause.

Why raise it in a Muslim specific context at all? Presented as "spouse reunification visas for people who's first language is not English can be revoked if the spouse does not make a reasonable attempt to learn English within a reasonable period of time." See no mention of Muslims, nor of any specific language nor or any specific country of origin. This rule applies equally to Russians, Argentinians, Chinese and Iraqis.

Perhaps Cameron was framing it in general terms, but it's being reported in Muslim targeting terms.

Any change to immigration rules will be framed in general terms.

As to why it's raised in a specifically Muslim context, the reason (I imagine) is that lack of proficiency in English for spouses is most common with spouses who come from Pakistan and Bangladesh.  And, one simply can't participate in the employment market, or meaningfully cast a vote, unless one is proficient in English.  And, within those communities, there are people who would rather keep women ignorant of English.

[The Anti-Targ]

3 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Any change to immigration rules will be framed in general terms.

As to why it's raised in a specifically Muslim context, the reason (I imagine) is that lack of proficiency in English for spouses is most common with spouses who come from Pakistan and Bangladesh.  And, one simply can't participate in the employment market, or meaningfully cast a vote, unless one is proficient in English.  And, within those communities, there are people who would rather keep women ignorant of English.

Right, so the answer to women being oppressed and prevented from learning English within their own immigrant community in Britain is to punish the women and deport them back to a country that is oppressive to women as a whole. Very enlightened policy that.

[SeanF]

3 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Right, so the answer to women being oppressed and prevented from learning English within their own immigrant community in Britain is to punish the women and deport them back to a country that is oppressive to women as a whole. Very enlightened policy that.

Well, it does provide a very powerful incentive to learn English, which in turn is essential to get ahead in this country.

[mormont]

11 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Any change to immigration rules will be framed in general terms.

In the legislation itself, yes, if only for legal reasons. However, the complaint here is that the presentation of the change was not done in these terms, and that matters.

11 minutes ago, SeanF said:

As to why it's raised in a specifically Muslim context, the reason (I imagine) is that lack of proficiency in English for spouses is most common with spouses who come from Pakistan and Bangladesh.  And, one simply can't participate in the employment market, or meaningfully cast a vote, unless one is proficient in English.  And, within those communities, there are people who would rather keep women ignorant of English.

It's not actually necessarily true to say that one can't participate in the employment market or meaningfully vote without being 'proficient' in English.

For one thing, it's an unnecessarily binary framing of the issue: either you're proficient, or you're not. That's not how language works, though. Many native speakers are not necessarily 'proficient' in English to the point where they can obtain certain jobs, after all. There are degrees of proficiency.

And it is perfectly possible in the modern world to become and remain well informed on political issues in languages other than English - just ask users of Welsh language news media.

Finally, the problem that you're talking about in that last sentence is primarily about, not language, but domestic abuse of power: people (primarily men) who have the ability to say what their spouse can or can't learn, or may read about. (Not a problem confined to immigrants, of course.)

If your answer is to insist on proof of a minimum level of language proficiency at a single test, what will happen? At best, those women will be coached to the minimum required get through the test and then go back to a situation where they are disadvantaged. How has that solved the problem? It hasn't. Maybe it's helped to provide a tool that the women might be able to use to leverage as a way of getting more independence, but that's a by-product at best. For most women in these circumstances, it won't really empower them sufficiently to change their situation.

So the 'keeping women ignorant' argument is a sideshow here; the real issue is, compelling people who may be choosing not to learn. That's not the best way to approach adult education, I believe. This needs to be framed as an adult education initiative, not an immigration issue, and it needs to be properly funded and supported, and targeted at improving the English of anyone (immigrant or not) who needs it. That would be an initiative that everyone could get behind. This? Is political posturing to look tough on immigration.

[The Anti-Targ]

8 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Well, it does provide a very powerful incentive to learn English, which in turn is essential to get ahead in this country.

Does it? Seems like an adult woman who is a poor immigrant with little or no education in her home country who got in on a spouse reunification visa is unlikely to get ahead at all even if she meets a minimum requirement to have attempted to learn basic conversational English. For the most part the main benefit for non-English speaking immigrants is in the first born generation (or immigrants who arrived as children) and ensuring those kids get a good education and well assimilated into the country. Best thing for them is for the mother to stay in Britain with or without any meaningful competence in English. Deporting a mother is more likely to cause the kids to be resentful towards their country of residence and thus increase extreme attitudes. I don't really see any good case for deporting women who get into a country on spouse reunification on the grounds of lack of English proficiency.

[Denvek]

7 hours ago, SeanF said:

Well, it does provide a very powerful incentive to learn English, which in turn is essential to get ahead in this country.

Which is why it comes along with a cut in funding to the services that actually help immigrants learn English.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jan/18/david-cameron-stigmatising-muslim-women-learn-english-language-policy

Quote

Sufia Alam, the women’s project manager of the east London Maryam centre, pointed out a wide discrepancy between Cameron’s suggestion that 22% of Muslim women had limited or no English, and the 2011 census, which said just 6% struggled significantly with the language.

She also highlighted the deep cuts made to funding for the teaching of English for speakers of other languages (Esol) by the last parliament. “My issue is that community facilities – especially those aimed at women – have faced significant cuts.”

 

 

[The Anti-Targ]

Bloody typical. If you want to stay you have to do X. But we're not going to adequately fund X even though we know there is no chance that the private sector will pick up the slack because there is simply no profit in doing X as a business. So basically fuck back off to where you came from.

[mormont]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/12124345/Tory-MP-calls-for-complete-veil-ban-as-it-stops-women-from-enjoying-British-values-of-smiling-and-saying-hello.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
 

Quote

 

A complete ban on women wearing veils should be introduced because it stops them from "smiling, waving and saying hello" in a very British way, a Tory MP has said.

The MP for Kettering, who is calling for a complete ban on wearing the veil in public, told LBC radio: "I don't want to live in a country where we go around with our faces covered because part of the British way of life is smiling, waving and saying hello to passersby and if we're all going to go around with our faces covered it is going to be a very miserable place indeed.
"I think it is really, really sad in 2016 talking about it being acceptable to live in a miserable country where everyone goes around with their faces covered. How sad is that."

 

Part of the British way of life is smiling, waving and saying hello to passersby? Has this guy actually met any British people? Awkward avoidance of eye contact is the correct British way to respond to passersby!

(Not to mention that a veil isn't really going to stop you saying 'hello' or waving.)

[HexMachina]

On Monday, January 18, 2016 at 7:28 PM, Roose Goose said:

Clearly doesnt do rush hour on the tube. You can almost hear the silent abuse people are throwing at each other

[SeanF]

2 hours ago, mormont said:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/12124345/Tory-MP-calls-for-complete-veil-ban-as-it-stops-women-from-enjoying-British-values-of-smiling-and-saying-hello.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
 

Part of the British way of life is smiling, waving and saying hello to passersby? Has this guy actually met any British people? Awkward avoidance of eye contact is the correct British way to respond to passersby!

(Not to mention that a veil isn't really going to stop you saying 'hello' or waving.)

Hardly.  The correct way of responding is "you looking at me, or something?" (if one is in a good mood) or "the fuck you staring at?" (in a bad mood).

[Sophelia]

@Mormont, Helena, Sean.  So true!

The idea is horrendous.  But also mockable.  This woman would be banned?

 

These occasions would be illegal:

 

[TerraPrime]

Sophelia, I think you're missing the point. We need to ban those other types of veils and face coverings, not these. You know, the types worn by Muslims.

[Sophelia]

Like the hijab?

[Pebble thats Stubby]

They Ban it.  I'll go buy some and wear them.

[Lummel]

On 27/01/2016 at 11:00 PM, Sophelia said:

Like the hijab?

 

Just look at old that poor old woman is being abused, these barbaric headdresses must be banned now.

[ab aeterno]

On 27/01/2016 at 11:48 AM, mormont said:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/12124345/Tory-MP-calls-for-complete-veil-ban-as-it-stops-women-from-enjoying-British-values-of-smiling-and-saying-hello.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
 

Part of the British way of life is smiling, waving and saying hello to passersby? Has this guy actually met any British people? Awkward avoidance of eye contact is the correct British way to respond to passersby!

(Not to mention that a veil isn't really going to stop you saying 'hello' or waving.)

So actually, we should probably support he British way of life by mandating that everyone wear a veil, thereby lessening the chance of making accidental eye contact. It would make Tube journeys less awkward.

On 27/01/2016 at 2:08 PM, SeanF said:

Hardly.  The correct way of responding is "you looking at me, or something?" (if one is in a good mood) or "the fuck you staring at?" (in a bad mood).

*Ahem* One does not simply talk to a stranger. 

 

On 27/01/2016 at 11:00 PM, Sophelia said:

Like the hijab?

The Queen's headscarf is okay, I guess, but just look at that awesome bowler. Man's got style.

[Werthead]

Huzzzzzah! I was made redundant last week, so I had to sign on to our old tried and tested system for Jobseeker's Allowance (whilst also applying for everything in sight).

Except of course that JSA no longer exists in my town and has been replaced by a system called "Universal Credit". My application went thusly:

1) Sign up for JSA online. Be told that JSA no longer applies in my postcode and to use the Universal Credit website.

2) Sign up for UC online. Fill out all my details to be informed that I do not qualify for UC and I should apply for JSA.

3) Went through Stages 1 and 2 several times before concluding the system was fucked.

4) Ring up the JSA helpline number. They took the exact same information as on online and concluded I had to apply for UC online. I explained it was fucked. They tried it and confirmed that it was fucked. They transferred me to the UC helpline.

5) Spent about 15 minutes going through interminable phone options which screamed "SIGN UP ONLINE, SIGN UP ONLINE, DO NOT EVEN THINK OF CALLING US IF YOU CAN SIGN UP ONLINE, WHY ARE YOU NOT SIGNING UP ONLINE PROLE PEASANT SCUM," at me.

6) Got through to phone advisor who politely asked when I was not "SIGNING UP ONLINE" and hey, I could "SIGN UP ONLINE." I explained the website was fucked. He tried it and confirmed that it was fucked.

7) The phone advisor took the exact same information already given in 1, 2 and 4 and then we seemed to get somewhere. All of the benefits that used to be handled separately are now handled together, so that would have been more efficient if it hadn't taken five times longer and giving my details four times than just making two calls under the old system but hey.

8) Hoorah! I was signed up! I should receive my first money on, er, March 11th. I pointed out that this was seven weeks away. He agreed. I pointed out that I had been made redundant with no notice, so I have absolutely no money coming in at all this month. He sympathised. I asked how I was supposed to survive an extra three weeks beyond what would have been my next pay day. He said "No idea," and signed off.

So...yeah. That's this government for you. Spend millions on a new system that's supposed to be more efficient and faster than the old one and come up with something slower, less efficient and will cause untold misery for thousands of people.

In the meantime, I'll be eating beans on toast for the next month and keep applying for jobs like mad.

[Liffguard]

Damn, that fucking sucks. Best of luck.

[SeanF]

Huzzzzzah! I was made redundant last week, so I had to sign on to our old tried and tested system for Jobseeker's Allowance (whilst also applying for everything in sight).

Except of course that JSA no longer exists in my town and has been replaced by a system called "Universal Credit". My application went thusly:

1) Sign up for JSA online. Be told that JSA no longer applies in my postcode and to use the Universal Credit website.

2) Sign up for UC online. Fill out all my details to be informed that I do not qualify for UC and I should apply for JSA.

3) Went through Stages 1 and 2 several times before concluding the system was fucked.

4) Ring up the JSA helpline number. They took the exact same information as on online and concluded I had to apply for UC online. I explained it was fucked. They tried it and confirmed that it was fucked. They transferred me to the UC helpline.

5) Spent about 15 minutes going through interminable phone options which screamed "SIGN UP ONLINE, SIGN UP ONLINE, DO NOT EVEN THINK OF CALLING US IF YOU CAN SIGN UP ONLINE, WHY ARE YOU NOT SIGNING UP ONLINE PROLE PEASANT SCUM," at me.

6) Got through to phone advisor who politely asked when I was not "SIGNING UP ONLINE" and hey, I could "SIGN UP ONLINE." I explained the website was fucked. He tried it and confirmed that it was fucked.

7) The phone advisor took the exact same information already given in 1, 2 and 4 and then we seemed to get somewhere. All of the benefits that used to be handled separately are now handled together, so that would have been more efficient if it hadn't taken five times longer and giving my details four times than just making two calls under the old system but hey.

8) Hoorah! I was signed up! I should receive my first money on, er, March 11th. I pointed out that this was seven weeks away. He agreed. I pointed out that I had been made redundant with no notice, so I have absolutely no money coming in at all this month. He sympathised. I asked how I was supposed to survive an extra three weeks beyond what would have been my next pay day. He said "No idea," and signed off.

So...yeah. That's this government for you. Spend millions on a new system that's supposed to be more efficient and faster than the old one and come up with something slower, less efficient and will cause untold misery for thousands of people.

In the meantime, I'll be eating beans on toast for the next month and keep applying for jobs like mad.

I'm sorry to hear that. Why has your ex-employer made no redundancy payment/pay in lieu of notice?

[Werthead]

I need to find out. My union thinks there is a case so we can force at least 1 week (if not 1 month) more of wages out of him. The big problem was that I was only there 6 months and that he never gave me a written contract. However, apparently that should still default to the 1 week's payment or notice if employed for 1 month or more.