‘Muslim Patrol’ vigilantes forcing ‘people to stop drinking and women to cover up’ in London

[Sci-2]

That's how we do things in France and we've been criticised a lot for it in this forum.

Please elaborate. My awareness of what France has done is attempt to ban things like head scarves and crosses in schools, which is to me seems in opposition to religious freedom.

Admittedly, I confess to not knowing all the details or being incorrect.

[Zoë Sumra]

I'm confused. You said immigrant, rather than citizen or subject, but I'll assume she has a legal right to vote. Nothing wrong with that. I would, however, think it morally wrong for someone from Mexico, to move of the US (legally) and begin agitating to make Spanish, the official language.

How is this different? One person moves legally to one country, gets the right to vote, and intends to vote for the country to which she moved to break up. Another person moves legally to another country, gets the right to vote, and if the question were ever asked, would vote for a particular language to become an official language of the country.

Do you mean Mormont's acquaintance should be able to vote on the topic but not campaign for it? Citizens have the right to campaign for things in their country of residence, provided they do so in a legal manner (e.g. these guys in the OP are not behaving legally because harrassment is illegal, but protesting in a more conventional way is legal). It would be a difficult legal issue as well as moral issue to restrict the right to political campaigning to those who were born with their present domicile.

[awesome possum]

I haven't really read the thread, but just wanted to comment on the OP: so what? Loud-mouthed, overly opinionted douchebags proliferate everywhere. What makes this one such a big deal? Because they're Muslims and Muslims are supposed to be the Big Bads of the world or something?

[Robin Of House Hill]

Why? What makes that morally wrong, rather than just merely impractical?

I would have thought that moving to a country and agitating for a change that is harmful to that country would be morally wrong, or do you consider having a country make its offical language something the bulk of its population doesn't speak, a good thing?

How is this different? One person moves legally to one country, gets the right to vote, and intends to vote for the country to which she moved to break up. Another person moves legally to another country, gets the right to vote, and if the question were ever asked, would vote for a particular language to become an official language of the country.

Do you mean Mormont's acquaintance should be able to vote on the topic but not campaign for it? Citizens have the right to campaign for things in their country of residence, provided they do so in a legal manner (e.g. these guys in the OP are not behaving legally because harrassment is illegal, but protesting in a more conventional way is legal). It would be a difficult legal issue as well as moral issue to restrict the right to political campaigning to those who were born with their present domicile.

Ar citizens the only people who may legally live in a country?

[Opisthokont]

I would have thought that moving to a country and agitating for a change that is harmful to that country would be morally wrong, or do you consider having a country make its offical language something the bulk of its population doesn't speak, a good thing?

Knowingly agitating for something that is harmful would probably be wrong under most moral systems, but what difference does it make whether the person doing it is an immigrant or a native?

[Zoë Sumra]

Ar citizens the only people who may legally live in a country?

That's why I said "right to vote". My sister is a legal resident of the USA and may legally work there, but she hasn't got the right to vote. I assume, but I don't know, that those who have the right to vote in both the UK and US are citizens, so in my example I posited two people who have both moved to another country and gained that right in their new country. I didn't say "citizen" because I wasn't sure that citizen and legal-voter are the same thing.

You did state in your original example that your hypothetical person who has moved from Mexico to the US did so legally. If someone does so, and goes through the process to become the class of person who can vote - as many Mexican people do - I see no difference between your hypothetical and Mormont's actual example. In fact, the person who wants Spanish to become an official US language is going to vote for, and potentially campaign for, a smaller change to the country than the person who moves to the UK, becomes a voter and votes for Scottish independence.

[Lord of Oop North]

Heretic burning? On St Agnes' Day? Some people just have no sense of propriety any more. :crying:

The bitch is the patron saint of chastity. Can't get any more chaste than burnt to death.

[Castel]

Knowingly agitating for something that is harmful would probably be wrong under most moral systems, but what difference does it make whether the person doing it is an immigrant or a native?

Yeah, what ,as a natural-born citizen, I start agitating for disastrous economic policies that benefit me and harm the rest of the country? Is there any functional difference? Is one more immoral?

[Merentha]

I would have thought that moving to a country and agitating for a change that is harmful to that country would be morally wrong, or do you consider having a country make its offical language something the bulk of its population doesn't speak, a good thing?

It would be a terrible thing, which is why it would be, as I said, incredibly impractical. I think a lot of things should happen that many (and in some cases the majority) would find to be detrimental to the country. When can those people tell me that "agitating" for UHC is morally wrong and I should get out? Or, for that matter, when can I start endorsing the deportation and silencing of those advocating for neoliberal economic policies?

What makes it morally wrong? And what makes it automatically harmful? Does endorsing laws/amendments or getting rallies in support of a spanish language amendment cause harm? Is it the moving to a country part that makes it morally wrong? Could I, as a US citizen born in India, and living there until I was 5, "agitate" for a Spanish language amendment without being morally wrong? Or would the only people who could morally do so be US citizens born and raised in America?

I might agree that moving to another country to incite change that you know would be detrimental to the wellbeing of the country might constitute moral wrongdoing, but then you need to define harm. Either that, or you're saying that groups supporting women in Saudi Arabia trying to change public driving laws are immorally trying to change the fabric of their society. (Note, not an argument for moral relativism, as changing the patriarchal nature of Iran would be detrimental to the fabric of Iranian society as it stands. That such a destruction may, and in my opinion is, better for the PEOPLE of Iran is a different argument).

edited for correctness

[Lyanna Stark]

You have to be a citizen of the UK to vote in the elections for Parliament or the like, but the EU grants EU citizens the right to vote in local elections in their country of residence, which may be different from the country in which they are citizens.For instance, while living in the UK, I was permitted to vote in local elections, but not to vote for Parliament. As a Swedish citizen, I could instead vote in the elections for the Swedish parliament.

Similarly, now when my husband and I reside in Sweden, he is allowed to vote in the local elections (and to stand for a party of his choosing in the local elections) but on the national level he is only entitled to vote for the UK parliament. (Apparently this right can be revoked, but I got the impression due to the paper work I got that I was definitely eligible to vote locally in the UK, and the Swedish rules I know.)

The Scottish independence vote may be considered as either something residents or only citizens will be able to vote in. Normally elections on a national level are for citizens only. In that case, it can hardly be seen as "foreigners coming over to steal our elections" since a citizen is well, a citizen, regardless of origin, and has the same legal status.

EDIT: Just realised, my daughter has double citizenship (British and Swedish). I haven't even begun to consider what she can vote for!

[Merentha]

You have to be a citizen of the UK to vote in the elections for Parliament or the like, but the EU grants EU citizens the right to vote in local elections in their country of residence, which may be different from the country in which they are citizens.

I did not know this. That is incredibly awesome.

[Robin Of House Hill]

If people who have no permanent ties to the country in which they reside, I believe it is inappropriate for them to influence how the country is run. Not surprisingly, I also think the concept of dual citizenship is wrong.

[Lyanna Stark]

I did not know this. That is incredibly awesome.

According to the Wiki this is at the membership states' discretion, but it certainly seemed to work that way in the UK, and I know it works that way in Sweden. Not sure if it's the same in the UK, but a EU citizen can also stand for election in Sweden in local elections.

It's pretty neat actually, since if you live somewhere, it's rather natural that you care about local politics due to how it directly influences your life. Stuff like schools, the local hospital, the city's roads etc. After all, being "foreign" doesn't spare you from paying tax which supposedly should be used locally, too.

If people who have no permanent ties to the country in which they reside, I believe it is inappropriate for them to influence how the country is run. Not surprisingly, I also think the concept of dual citizenship is wrong.

Have you lived for a long time in a country where you were not a citizen? If not, I have to say you have no idea about what you are talking about, and how living as an ex-pat affects your life and your views.

EDIT: I might add that I felt an almost stronger feeling of loyalty for my "adopted" home country, the UK, which was a place that accepted me in despite being "foreign" and where I was very happy to work and pay tax to support public health care, schools, roads etc. For example, my daughter was born there, and for that I will always and forever hold the NHS in the highest regard.

Once I actually permanently settled in the UK (or so I thought, the move away from there was triggered mainly by the downturn in the economy) I cared far more about UK politics thant Swedish politics, because as a resident, that concerned me more. Not sure why that sort of interest is "inappropriate". It seemed very appropriate to me, since my family and I lived there, both my husband and I worked there and my daughter would have gone to school there too. As it happened, we ended up moving countries, but it was not a given and totally dictated by the economic crisis, which we did not foresee.

[mormont]

I agree with your point, in theory, but I have to say that, in practice, this particular example makes me slightly uncomfortable. It does seem odd to move to a country and quickly become passionate about breaking it up, while other members of the union to be broken up have no say.

'Quickly' doesn't apply: my friend has a longstanding relationship with the country, from her student days onwards. As to the latter, I think we've danced that one before - in the nature of independence referenda within existing nation-states, IMO it's politically neither possible nor practical to offer the whole state a vote. You could wind up with the rest of the country having effectively vetoed a 'Yes' vote in the territory concerned, which would be all kinds of a political nightmare.

I'm confused. You said immigrant, rather than citizen or subject, but I'll assume she has a legal right to vote. Nothing wrong with that. I would, however, think it morally wrong for someone from Mexico, to move of the US (legally) and begin agitating to make Spanish, the official language.

I would have thought that moving to a country and agitating for a change that is harmful to that country would be morally wrong

Two more examples of the unexamined assumptions that simply riddle your original proposition to the point where it's basically meaningless and untenable. You're using 'immigrants' as a catchall, without distinguishing between citizens and non-citizens, and what's a 'harmful' change? Clearly, my friend thinks that Scottish independence is not a 'harmful' change: equally clearly, many people vehemently disagree.

[Merentha]

If people who have no permanent ties to the country in which they reside, I believe it is inappropriate for them to influence how the country is run. Not surprisingly, I also think the concept of dual citizenship is wrong.

And "permanent ties" is defined as? Citizenship? Born in a country? Both? Lived for ___ years? And what level do you define country? And influence? I, as a hypothetical immigrant, found a business that is very influential in the local economy. Should I be banned from putting up a poster in my store that says "politician x's policies will hurt this business"? Is it okay if it is a local politician? How about "politician X will hurt this country (that I love dearly but am blocked from becoming a citizen of because the US has such an abysmal immigration policy)"?

Think it through, you're advocating for a blanket ban on speech (since everything is political) in order to preserve some ephemeral core soul of the country that you can't even define.

[Robin Of House Hill]

Clearly we're at an impasse, but I am withdrawing from this part of the conversation. Simply stated, while I believe in my position, I have no wish to say something personally hurtful. You aren't anywhere near nasty enough to deserve that.

[The Iceman of the North]

If people who have no permanent ties to the country in which they reside, I believe it is inappropriate for them to influence how the country is run. Not surprisingly, I also think the concept of dual citizenship is wrong.

A citizenship is not a permanent tie?

[Robin Of House Hill]

A citizenship is not a permanent tie?

Citizenship, yes. Dual citizenship is a conflict of interests.

[The Iceman of the North]

So if the Mexican in your example was a citizens, his agitation would not be immoral?

[Robin Of House Hill]

Since, he'd then have the same rights as every other citizen, I'd suppose so. I'd still view it as harmful, however.