I wholly disagree. Banning the Burkha is an ieffectual popularist piece of politics. What purpose does it serve?
Personally, I find the wearing of the Burkha strange and religion in general abhorant. I also find the latest mens fashion of showing your pants uncouth but so what... Having travelled much of the world, I've found most cultures and people widely accepting of Westerners. Why does the reverse not appear to be true?
As a society we require that all people are treated with a certain level of respect, dignity and equality. That respect, equality and dignity should cross all boundaries, including those of religion, with no exceptions. If someone is being ill-treated in any way, our existing laws should be used to prevent it with no regard to religious belief. Specific laws against specific religions (which this is) have no place in a country that calls itself secular. The State should have no opinion on religion.
Regarding your friend, I wouldn't care to comment on his particular case. I would say that, whilst disabled people fight for equal rights and the opportunity to work, why is it that a section of society is so willing to avoid work through "disability", "sickness" and "depression". As far as I'm concerned, I see little reason why many disabled people would be incapable of some form of work. Any benefits should reflect the fact that their scope of job opportunities is more limited but it should not be an open chequebook to be abused by some.
Regarding the immigrants moving into a house. Firstly, English born citizens are by far the greatest abusers of the benefits system. What's the relevance of their immigrant status to our broken benefits system? Secondly, why is it more acceptable to see an immigrant family on the streets but not an English family? The morals of such an argument don't stack up. Thirdly, these stories are rarely what they seem. Finally, immigration is, has been and most likely always will be a benefit to our economy and country as a whole.
Dave
|
|