Egypt4u

Can't say I've personally ever followed Russian politics or Vladimir Putin other than to occasionally see him half stripped off riding a horse, wrestling a bear, shooting a gun or doing some such. This is a forward of an email sent to me. Reminds me of the emails I got with a similar speech from Australia:


On February 4th, 2013, Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, addressed the Duma, (Russian Parliament), and gave a speech about the tensions with minorities in Russia:

"In Russia live Russians. Any minority, from anywhere, if it wants to live in Russia, to work and eat in Russia, should speak Russian, and should respect the Russian laws. If they prefer Sharia Law, then we advise them to go to those places where that's the state law. Russia does not need minorities. Minorities need Russia, and we will not grant them special privileges, or try to change our laws to fit their desires, no matter how loud they yell 'discrimination'. We better learn from the suicides of America, England, Holland and France, if we are to survive as a nation. The Russian customs and traditions are not compatible with the lack of culture or the primitive ways of most minorities. When this honorable legislative body thinks of creating new laws, it should have in mind the national interest first, observing that the minorities are not Russians.

The politicians in the Duma gave Putin a standing ovation for five minutes.

Seems we are not the only ones to be feeling the push from Minority groups. Sure begs lots of questions on how to handle the real or perceived 'Rights' of everybody. Bottom line question is: "Can we? Can we handle the Rights of everybody? And should we ensure the Rights of minorities when these, in fact, often impinge upon the Rights of the Majority?"

Brilliant man . I would have been applauding too . . such a shame for GB that they only have weaklings - - -

I suspect that he now represents the view of a good many people and who can blame them? We have for many years had an open door policy and a very accommodating nature towards most nationalities and groupings of people. However we have changed from being a country that allows other nationals to reside within it and be protected by our national laws, to a country that bends over backwards to accommodate any sort of demands made by those same minority groups. So instead of people living within a particular country (and this applies both ways) and accepting its customs and ways, they start making demands that we should change to accommodate them, rather that they assimilate into the community they have entered. There is a distinct difference between holidaying or working in another country for shorter periods of time and accepting that within reason some things that do not clash with the majority view can be allowed, such as alcohol in tourist hotels if it is forbidden elsewhere. This does not have to be allowed if it goes against certain teachings, but a country may choose to relax the rules on alcohol if it is in their own interest, it does not however have to impose those changes upon its own nationals. The same example can be made of Halal meats, if a minority groups desires to eat Halal meat then it can be allowed as an import subject the that countries health regulations, but again it should not be imposed upon the majority and our own strict rules for animal slaughter developed over many years should not be changed to suit the Halal requirement either.

There is a distinct difference between a tourist or expat worker and someone who wishes to live permanently within your country, the former has to accept the local conditions as they find them and may be accorded some special considerations that only apply to that group of people. The latter have to accept the fact that they are living in another culture, a culture that they chose to live in, they were not coerced in any way, it was their own choice to live here. They may have been refugees or a persecuted minority, but they chose the option to accept our hospitality and protection and should therefore accept our culture for what it is and not be trying to change it to suit their own culture or religious beliefs. By accepting the right to live within that other culture it is a prerequisite that you will assimilate yourself into that new culture and raise your children in the ethics of that same culture, if you do not do so then you have no right to live within it and certainly no right to attempt to change it to your own ways and beliefs. It is not to say that as a new immigrant that you cannot retain some traditions and preferences for certain foods, but by the second generation their children should be just as assimilated as a 10th generation indigenous person and not still be attempting to impose the customs of their parents homeland upon others.

Some nationalities seem to fit that profile and assimilate quite well, it is common for example to see Chinese people as single families embedded within a community and I am sure many eat as much foreign food as we eat Chinese food and their cultural traditions are easily celebrated and shared as they are of a more entertaining nature and not particularly religious in nature. Not everything in life can be equal and that is where the problem has lain for far too long, it is time we stopped pandering to every minority group that wants to change our own ethnic identity in favour of their own. A classic example of this pandering to minorities started long ago and involved the wearing of a crash helmet on a motorbike, it was and still is UK law that everyone riding a motorcycle must wear a crash helmet. It is done for a reason and that reason must be applicable to all regardless of the colour of your skin or your religious beliefs, it is simply this: "If you have an accident you may be killed if you are not wearing a helmet" So by law we all have to wear a crash helmet except, male members of the Sikh religion because they cannot remove their Turban in public! another example of pandering to a minority. The simple answer should have been "If you cannot wear a crash helmet, you cannot ride a motorbike" simple really, either design a suitable crash helmet that complies with our laws or do not ride a motorbike, its your choice, no one is stopping you from doing so providing you obey the law. it is the same when people are working in a warehouse and they refuse to move pallets of goods that contain alcohol or Pork products! again there is a simple answer, if you wish to drive a forklift in a warehouse, then there will be numerous items on those pallets and if that is a problem to you then change your job, no one is forcing you to do it.

It is the same with cultural dress, if you wish to walk around in a dress mode suited to another country, climate or another religion, then why did you choose to live here in the first place? What gives you the right to impose your cultural or religious views upon me? why for example should I be treated by a person who wishes to hide their face from me? something I find alien to my own culture. Many people ask these questions and are confused as to why a person would want to come and live in another country and then try to make it like the one they have just left? The answers would seem to be obvious, they have left their home country because of war or strife, because of political or religious persecution or because of financial gain, or even because they think this is the best place in the world to live. Either way they came here because they wanted to, they chose to do so and in making that choice it is beholden upon them to leave their cultural baggage behind and assimilate. I now believe that in most countries this level of tollerance has been stretched to the limit and the old adage of "give them an inch and they will take a yard" has been well and truly proven by some minorities and peoples anger at this is starting to show.

Totally completely 110%+ agree H.

I think some of it started when 'we' (majority) got wind of a few extreme examples of how we were hurting minorities. This caused us to start looking at how we do things and we made a few exceptions and rightly so to accomodate everybody - BUT (and there always seems to be a BIG BUT) this giving of a small mere inch opened the flood gates for everybody to demand a mile and they did and not only do they want a mile they want more. Actually I believe they want everything to be just as they came from which begs the question - "why did you leave?" and I believe the answer to be that they left as we have made life real cushy for them. They do not have to work, get freebie after freebie and 'we' are not able to say 'NO' cause (as I said recently on the Blue) we are petrified of being labelled racist. That one word is the biggest fear known to the white world. It is the tar and feather admonishment of our society and it is going to be our downfall.

We've allowed the tolerati to define it and to use it against us for any perceived slight whether true or not and to our own detriment and abhorrence and fear of being called a racist we are allowing the rest of the world to tear down our own culture.

We NEED to BE and SHOULD BE able to extract the BEST of each other and share it. Just because in the office I say "Merry Christmas" should not imply I'm stomping all over somebody else!!! They can actually exchange greetings and it is ok but for me it is not That is just one example but I do believe things have gone too far. If in Rome do what the Romans do (or at least accept what they do without complaint cause after all it IS Rome)

BTW - this just came across the Yahoo News Wire. California is passing a Bill that would allow ILLEGALS to sit on Jury Panels!!!:

The California Assembly passed a bill on Thursday that would make the state the first in the nation to allow non-citizens who are in the country legally to serve on jury duty.
Assemblyman Bob Wieckowski, D-Fremont, said his bill, AB1401, would help California widen the pool of prospective jurors and help integrate immigrants into the community.

It does not change other criteria for being eligible to serve on a jury, such as being at least 18, living in the county that is making the summons, and being proficient in English.

The bill passed 45-25 largely on a party-line vote in the Democratic-controlled Assembly and will move on to the Senate. One Democrat — Assemblyman Adam Gray, of Merced — voted no, while some other Democrats did not vote.

Democratic lawmakers who voted for the bill said there is no correlation between being a citizen and a juror, and they noted that there is no citizenship requirement to be an attorney or a judge. Republican lawmakers who opposed Wieckowski's bill called it misguided and premature.

Assemblywoman Diane Harkey, R-Dana Point, said there is no shortage of jurors.

"Jury selection is not the problem. The problem is trial court funding," Harkey said before the vote. "I hope we can focus on that. Let's not break something; it's not broken now. Let's not whittle away at what is reserved for U.S. citizens. There's a reason for it."

Wieckowski's office said the bill is the first of its kind in the nation and suggested that courts regularly struggle to find enough prospective jurors because jury duty is often seen as an inconvenience, if not a burden. His office did not cite any statistics but pointed to a 2003 legislative report that said numerous articles have noted high rates of non-participation.

A 2007 survey by the Center for Jury Studies said 20 percent of courts across the country reported a failure to respond or failure to appear rate of 15 percent or higher. The center is run by the National Center for State Courts, a Virginia-based nonprofit dedicated to improving court systems.

It's not clear, however, if that rate translates to a shortage of jurors in California.

Noting that women were once kept off juries, Assembly Speaker John Perez, D-Los Angeles, said the judicial system should be changed to allow a person to be judged by their peers.

"This isn't about affording someone who would come in as a juror something," Perez said. "But rather understanding that the importance of the jury selection process of affording justice to the person in that courtroom."

An estimated 10 million Californians are summoned for jury duty each year and about 4 million are eligible and available to serve, according to the Judicial Council, which administers the state's court system. About 3.2 million complete the service, meaning they waited in a courthouse assembly room or were placed on call.

In 2010-2011, the most recent year available, only about 165,000 people were sworn in as jurors.

The judicial branch has not taken a position on AB 1401.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04 ... z2RbY5z8mF