NationStates Jolt Archive

Should public displays or broadcasts of material considered archetypically British be banned to show tolerance of ethnic minorities? Should other nations' cultural symbols or archetypes? Should governments censor displays of the domininant culture in a country to bring comfort to immigrants who don't identify with it?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1533008,00.html

Some apparently see this as an important way of protecting the minority public. Now, I'm not too familiar with the British system, and I'm certain such a ban wouldn't be constitutional here, but I'm willing to accept others' legal attitudes and ideals and give them a fair hearing. Certainly some would be in favor of such treaties, and I'd like to hear from them if they would like.

What does everyone think? Most of Europe and N. America are comprised of nations of immigrants. How far should we go to protect their sensibilites?

Come on, that's bullshit censorship! It's fucking ridiculous!

Have to agree with Potaria. It's bs censorship.

Now that's fuckign retarded.

What does everyone think? Most of Europe and N. America are comprised of nations of immigrants. How far should we go to protect their sensibilites?

In the past, immigrants assimilated. Today they demand multiculturalism. What ever happened to the national culture? If you want to live in the UK, then learn the language, history, and culture. If you want to live in any other country, do the same. Yes, be proud of your heritage, but don't put that ahead of your adopted country.

Bloody political correctness. Next thing will be taking the Union of British produce....
Could we ban public waste of money on 'modern art' to represent British icons instead please?
(Winston Churchill as pile of packing crates if you don't know)

Errr.. I knew that some Britons are anti-EU (can't blame them), but that some of their newspapers produce such nonsense... tsk tsk.

In the past, immigrants assimilated. Today they demand multiculturalism. What ever happened to the national culture? If you want to live in the UK, then learn the language, history, and culture. If you want to live in any other country, do the same. Yes, be proud of your heritage, but don't put that ahead of your adopted country.


Yes, there is that problem here in the US as you probably already know. I don't know how we would personally as a nation deal with this effectively.

In the past, immigrants assimilated. Today they demand multiculturalism. What ever happened to the national culture? If you want to live in the UK, then learn the language, history, and culture. If you want to live in any other country, do the same. Yes, be proud of your heritage, but don't put that ahead of your adopted country.

Well, that's not a very liberal attitude. The SCOTUS has struck down English-competence tests for voting, and Miranda rights must be read in a person's spoken tongue, even if three people in the world speak it, or else they may be let go even if guilty as having had their rights violated. Measures to etablish English as the official language have failed. It seems we don't have much basis for asserting native culture over others, or forcing them to assimilate.

Bloody political correctness. Next thing will be taking the Union of British produce....
Could we ban public waste of money on 'modern art' to represent British icons instead please?
(Winston Churchill as pile of packing crates if you don't know)

Yes, but what of the rights of immigrants? They are the focus of the treaty. Look at how we've treated immigrants in the U.S., with stereotypical treatment and hostility. Outlawing this might be something the British govenment wants to do having learned from our mistakes.

Charlie Chan, for the Chinese. Peter Lorre's "Mr. Moto" for the Japanese. Mob movies for Italians. Endless "dumb Polack" jokes for the Poles. Cheech and Chong, Blaxploitation. Hell, we didn't even consider the Irish human beings until recently. Does asserting the dominant culture as "normal" amount to this?

Should public displays or broadcasts of material considered archetypically British be banned to show tolerance of ethnic minorities? Should other nations' cultural symbols or archetypes? Should governments censor displays of the domininant culture in a country to bring comfort to immigrants who don't identify with it?

...

What does everyone think? Most of Europe and N. America are comprised of nations of immigrants. How far should we go to protect their sensibilites?

The article has nothing to do with immigrant communities: instead the crux of the decision rested on the promotion of good food using particularly British images (as opposed to French, Dutch, German, whatever) - thus apparently promoting British produce as better than other EU produce... and so functioning as a copvert way of subsidising the marketting of British food. I'm not saying that I agree with this call, but it seems to be a very different bone of contention to the one that people are discussing here.

Anyone care to point out the relevance of immigrants or minorities to the article at hand?

NO thats silly you should ban the minorities if anything!

Yes, but what of the rights of immigrants?


Immigrants have nothing to do with this issue: instead the matter is one of using a campaign which is supposed to promote healthy 'good' food to promote a particular nation's products.

Bloody political correctness.

Eh? Where?

I don't care a damn for what happens to any sense of British identity, so long as I can still get a pint of bitter one night and a full English the next morning.

Immigrants have nothing to do with this issue: instead the matter is one of using a campaign which is supposed to promote healthy 'good' food to promote a particular nation's products.

Aaah, I see now. Taking advantage like that is never a good thing.

Everyone knows Jersey cows come from Jersey. Which is a Channel Island. Which is part of the British Isles. So...they would be British. And the Governments supposed to be promoting British produce.
That's the issue, not whether they're being farmed by Eastern European immigrants. I'm the decendent of 'a British minority' seeing my mum's a Chinese immigrant...I don't see why that affects my country's Britishness. :mad:

The majority no longer rules, the Minority doesn't just because we dont want a couple to feel bad, well what about the majority.

As for stereotypes, the Irish are now one of America's proudist anceintors, as are Italians, and Poles. I live in Pennsylvania and those 3 and German use to be what everyone could trace their family to. I also live in a very suburban area that was very peaceful until, all the minority(with the exception of African Americans) started sueing everyone for everthing. My school doesn't allow Santa images to be displayed during Christmas, because the one and only Jewish person is my school family had a problem with it. But they can put up Jewish symbols and no one complains. The Teachers threatened to strike because the same family tryied to get all Christian symbols removed. Now Im not saying every Jew is evil, infact most of them are nice, its just the crazy stereotypes that cause trouble.

NO thats silly you should ban the minorities if anything!

This idiot should be banned for saying that. :mad:

Aaah, I see now. Taking advantage like that is never a good thing.

Key section:

A Defra spokesman confirmed the department believed the “combined effect” of the magazine would breach article 28 “regarding advertising of home market-based products” and was thus ineligible for Rural Enterprise Scheme funds.

Nothing to do with immigration: just one EU country possibly promoting its own products at the expense of other EU country products using EU funding earmarked for promoting healthy eating.

Immigrants have nothing to do with this issue: instead the matter is one of using a campaign which is supposed to promote healthy 'good' food to promote a particular nation's products.

Probably. But it still involves a judgment that a certain culture cannot be displayed, legally, meaning the government's policy has declared the display inappropriate. Perhaps the question should be how far the government should go to prevent others from associating goods with their country of origin, censoroing cultural referrences in the process.

I do apologize for confusing the criticism with the main issue. Just because some see it as multiculturalism run amok, I shouldnt've taken this criticism as the issue.

Should public displays or broadcasts of material considered archetypically British be banned to show tolerance of ethnic minorities? Should other nations' cultural symbols or archetypes? Should governments censor displays of the domininant culture in a country to bring comfort to immigrants who don't identify with it?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1533008,00.html

Some apparently see this as an important way of protecting the minority public. Now, I'm not too familiar with the British system, and I'm certain such a ban wouldn't be constitutional here, but I'm willing to accept others' legal attitudes and ideals and give them a fair hearing. Certainly some would be in favor of such treaties, and I'd like to hear from them if they would like.

What does everyone think? Most of Europe and N. America are comprised of nations of immigrants. How far should we go to protect their sensibilites?
I have NO idea what this all means...

Everyone knows Jersey cows come from Jersey. Which is a Channel Island. Which is part of the British Isles. So...they would be British. And the Governments supposed to be promoting British produce.

No, read the first paragraph of the article again: the government are meant to be promoting 'quality food', not exclusively their own nation's wares.

Ah too tired to read any more and work out subliminal messages...I'll just argue my case until everyone's gone. That's why I'm doing law not journalism :p

That's why I'm doing law not journalism :p

Same here, which is good, cause I kinda misred the article and screwed up the thread... However, there's still an issue here, I know it! :p

Immigrants have nothing to do with this issue: instead the matter is one of using a campaign which is supposed to promote healthy 'good' food to promote a particular nation's products.

The campaign is nothing to do with healthy good food.

In a letter dated March 2, Jeremy Cowper, a senior Defra official, rejected an application for a £300,000 grant under the Rural Enterprise Scheme after assessing a dummy version of the proposed magazine.

This is a UK project to promote migration out of cities into the rural zones. Should it not present the products and opportunities of those zones in the best possible light?

The £1 million project, mentioned in the first paragraph, disappears. It is not named, nor is it specified who is funding it. The Times is an anti-europe paper, and is not above using some journalistic sleight of hand. The only funding mentioned by name is from the Rural Enterprise Scheme.

Well, that's not a very liberal attitude. The SCOTUS has struck down English-competence tests for voting, and Miranda rights must be read in a person's spoken tongue, even if three people in the world speak it, or else they may be let go even if guilty as having had their rights violated. Measures to etablish English as the official language have failed. It seems we don't have much basis for asserting native culture over others, or forcing them to assimilate.

And I don't have the solution. I wish I did. :(

The campaign is nothing to do with healthy good food.

A £1m campaign to promote quality food has been scrapped after the government refused to support it,


I'm ready 'quality' food here as 'healthy/good' food. How are you reading it?



This is a UK project to promote migration out of cities into the rural zones. Should it not present the products and opportunities of those zones in the best possible light?


http://www.defra.gov.uk/erdp/schemes/res/default.htm

What is the Rural Enterprise Scheme?

The Rural Enterprise Scheme (RES) is part of the England Rural Development Programme (ERDP). It provides assistance for projects that help to develop more sustainable, diversified and enterprising rural economies and communities. Its coverage is wide-ranging but the primary aim is to help farmers adapt to changing markets and develop new business opportunities. RES also has a broader role in supporting the adaptation and development of the rural economy, community, heritage and environment.

The £1 million project, mentioned in the first paragraph, disappears. It is not named, nor is it specified who is funding it. The Times is an anti-europe paper, and is not above using some journalistic sleight of hand. The only funding mentioned by name is from the Rural Enterprise Scheme.


The publisher of the proposed free magazine, which would have had a circulation of 1m, said it expected to raise £700,000 from advertising but could not go ahead without the £300,000 grant. According to John Cresswell, a co-director of British Agriculture Marketing, farmers cannot raise their own marketing budgets.

Who is funding the rest of it? Projected advertising sales.

I'm not going to stand and defend the Times - it is one of my least favourite newspapers.

Look at how we've treated immigrants in the U.S., with stereotypical treatment and hostility.

And most of them got over it. The Irish were treated very badly as were the Chinese, but they built the railroads and got over it. Their kids and grandkids grew up as American, not Irish or Chinese. Yes, they respected their heritage, but they became Americans first and Irish or Chinese secondly.

If you want to live in a country your were not born in then you should be willing to assimilated and become a part of that culture first and your native culture second.

Look at how we've treated immigrants in the U.S., with stereotypical treatment and hostility.

And most of them got over it. The Irish were treated very badly as were the Chinese, but they built the railroads and got over it. Their kids and grandkids grew up as American, not Irish or Chinese. Yes, they respected their heritage, but they became Americans first and Irish or Chinese secondly.

If you want to live in a country your were not born in then you should be willing to assimilated and become a part of that culture first and your native culture second.

A £1m campaign to promote quality food has been scrapped after the government refused to support it,


I'm ready 'quality' food here as 'healthy/good' food. How are you reading it?
Go to page two of the report, and you will see that this £1m scheme was to be £300,000 from the RES and £700,000 from advertising. I read quality, therefore as being whatever the advertisers want to promote as being quality. In this case it is British products. My doubt was not over the word quality , but over the presumption that healthy/good food promotion was the aim of the funding. The magazine was obviously designed to promote UK products as it was to be funded by the UK Government and UK advertisers. The funding was also applied for from the Ministry of Agriculture etc., not from the ministry of health. The prime concern has to have been promotion of national product as being of high quality.
Do not be deceived by the Times' very misleading style.






http://www.defra.gov.uk/erdp/schemes/res/default.htm

What is the Rural Enterprise Scheme?

The Rural Enterprise Scheme (RES) is part of the England Rural Development Programme (ERDP). It provides assistance for projects that help to develop more sustainable, diversified and enterprising rural economies and communities. Its coverage is wide-ranging but the primary aim is to help farmers adapt to changing markets and develop new business opportunities. RES also has a broader role in supporting the adaptation and development of the rural economy, community, heritage and environment.

OK so I summarised the purpose of the funding, concentrating on what I knew of it, as an urb. It has other purposes as well. These clearly include promoting the produce of British farmers, so the objections made to this grant request seem stupid. The EU says that it would not be breaking the rules so why does the British civil service say so.

Immigrants have nothing to do with this issue: instead the matter is one of using a campaign which is supposed to promote healthy 'good' food to promote a particular nation's products.

If private companies can promote their "healthy" food (beer, cigarettes, you get the idea) why can't the government promote their truly healthy food? What is wrong with saying, "English grapes are more healthy than French grapes" or American beef is more healthy than Brazilian beef?

Oh, I know! Dumb me. That represents a government subsidy of the product or promoting beef is an insult to people who regard cows as sacred.

Give me a break. :(

If private companies can promote their "healthy" food (beer, cigarettes, you get the idea) why can't the government promote their truly healthy food? What is wrong with saying, "English grapes are more healthy than French grapes" or American beef is more healthy than Brazilian beef?

Oh, I know! Dumb me. That represents a government subsidy of the product or promoting beef is an insult to people who regard cows as sacred.

Give me a break. :(

Something to do with some of the money coming from the EU, and so being tied into certain conditions about not promoting one particular nation's food over another member states, it would appear...


I'll state here and now that I really don't care about the fiendish intricaies of this whole issue, I just wanted to point out that the debate which began to spin off after the first post seemed to have absolutely nothing to do with the referenced article.

The EU says that it would not be breaking the rules so why does the British civil service say so.

Because the Civil Service must justify their jobs.

Something to do with some of the money coming from the EU, and so being tied into certain conditions about not promoting one particular nation's food over another member states, it would appear...


I'll state here and now that I really don't care about the fiendish intricaies of this whole issue, I just wanted to point out that the debate which began to spin off after the first post seemed to have absolutely nothing to do with the referenced article.

Maybe not at face value, but I really don't think you'd see such a ban enforced on French wine, German cars, Swiss chocolate, or the like... And I think Jersey cows belong with those three as a point of pride among British exports. It just seems like a double-standard is being enforced for the content, rather than the economic effect.

Maybe not at face value, but I really don't think you'd see such a ban enforced on French wine, German cars, Swiss chocolate, or the like... And I think Jersey cows belong with those three as a point of pride among British exports. It just seems like a double-standard is being enforced for the content, rather than the economic effect.

The whole point of the article being that it appears certain bureaucrats were being over-sensitive in their interpretation of EU regulations, and the EU didn't back up their interpretations, no? Thus such promotion appears to be allowed under EU legislation.

The whole point of the article being that it appears certain bureaucrats were being over-sensitive in their interpretation of EU regulations, and the EU didn't back up their interpretations, no? Thus such promotion appears to be allowed under EU legislation.

Maybe. I'm not familiar with the regulations, else I wouldn't have started the thread to try and understand it. :)

Because the Civil Service must justify their jobs.

This is why I am a libertarian. Smallest government commensurate with public security. Fewer civil servants :D

Hey, all this points to a good reason not the be in the EU. That is giving up a portion of national sovereignty. But, I'm not a European, so if that is something they want to do then it is up to them. But, they should not carp about the "unintended consequences."

As being in the EU has not actually taken control of the military, the legal system, the legislature, or the economy away from the UK, how has it given up sovereignty. There are international rules and regulations for all kinds of stuff, from the UN, the WTO, the WHO, the IMF, the (more three letter sigils). The international nature of commerce ensures that these rules exist. You can ignore them if you want to, at the risk of being embargoed or something.
All that has happened here is that a "jobsworth" got on his high horse and made a fool of himself. No loss of sovereignty involved.

This idiot should be banned for saying that. :mad:
No you should be Banned why should we destroy a culture????