From the article

"he has been filmed making remarks including “Somalis are backward barbarians”, calling British Muslims “enemy combatants who want to kill you, maim you and destroy you”, and claiming refugees are “raping their way through the country”.

We actually agree on this.

I think the problem here is that we don't really experience, for example, Christian extremism of the kind that threatens us. However. we do experience Islamic extremism here in Britain and worldwide.
Of course, it is illogical to blame every Muslim for the deeds of extremists but the painful truth is that the existence of these people among us leads to the immediate danger just in the same way that the clash of Catholic and Protestant lead to the IRA bombings. At least they had a cause that was practical and not purely ideological.

It's obvious that when one group in society produces extremists that threaten life and lifestyle then that group as a whole will be treated with suspicion and some resentment. It is purely about self-preservation.

To start yelling racist is anti intellectual. It shows no understanding of the natural human desire to protect and feel safe from perceived danger.

All Irish Catholics were not in the IRA but back in the dark times, an Irish accent in England was reason enough for suspicion. Such an attitude was born from self preservation and the knowledge that extremist had sympathisers who would never deliver a bomb themselves but probably knew someone who might.

It had nothing to do with 'racism' then and it doesn't now. I am partly Irish but I was no different back then.

Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (26 Apr 2019 12.36pm)

I could have "ended my days" in a great number of places. There is actually a very interesting and diverse environment here but although my home is here I still travel a lot and will soon be back in Asia for a while.

It's always nice to find some agreement among the thorns of disagreement!

There is much that I too can agree with in your post. My concern though is not so much about the terminology as the effects. Understanding why some people feel uncomfortable only means we need to find ways to reassure them. Using rabble rousing rhetoric is not going to do that. It is likely to incite the already uncomfortable to become more so, and raise the possibility of direct confrontation with others who are actually no threat and cause further divisions. This is why I oppose Robinson and those who flock to his banner.

It's always nice to find some agreement among the thorns of disagreement!

There is much that I too can agree with in your post. My concern though is not so much about the terminology as the effects. Understanding why some people feel uncomfortable only means we need to find ways to reassure them. Using rabble rousing rhetoric is not going to do that. It is likely to incite the already uncomfortable to become more so, and raise the possibility of direct confrontation with others who are actually no threat and cause further divisions. This is why I oppose Robinson and those who flock to his banner.

But people have every reason to feel uncomfortable.

We have Muslims pouring into this country year after year and producing children who are at risk of radicalisation. You can't just dismiss these concerns just because you believe that certain individuals use the situation to push their own type of radicalism.
Whether they do or not does not alter the reasonable concerns of the many.

In a previous post, you said the world would be better without religion. I 100% agree. But that is not going to happen in the foreseeable future and nor is cultural harmony.
Human beings can't help but divide each other. They are tribal. We even fight over a game of football.

There is no way that things will ever change. This country like so many other parts of the world will become a battleground for the young and deluded while the elites that created it laugh and pour another glass of Champagne.