[Doofy]

...following on from the Burger King thread, here's another little snippet which illustrates just how crazy the UK is getting.

(the flag we're talking about is the English one)

http://www.bbc.co.uk./dna/mbradio2/f...thread=1097097

I have recently arrived home, in Leeds, from work to be confronted by two police officers, who according to neighbours have been calling back and forth most of the day and at one point sat outside my door for over an hour during which time a number of neighbours were quizzed as to my whereabouts and "what sort of person I am". Many of whom thought that perhaps I had commited some heinous crime.

Had I killed a child, robbed the local bank at gun point or held membership to an international drug cartel? The answer to that question is a resounding NO. My "crime"? I have flown the national flag of England on my property for the past two years since we bought this house, and I have been told, in no uncertain terms, that I risk arrest if I continue to do so.

It appears that someone who walked past my house over the weekend has reported that she finds seeing the national flag of this country "uncomfortable" and has surmised that I am clearly a racist and should be stopped from doing so.

The police were quite candid in explaining that the complainant is Asian, probably Islamic, and lives in the area but not in my street (a cul-de-sac), but can see my flag when he walks through the park that is situated in close proximity to me. This person's discomfort was not reported to the local police station but to a "community constable" of whom there are many since the London bombings.

I told the police that the Pakistani flag is often seen flying in this area of Beeston on both cars and buildings and that I sometimes found that uncomfortable but was warned that "those sort of comments were racist".

Perhaps someone can help me here? Someone complains about the Cross of St George and is instructed, on pain of arrest,to remove it from private property in England, yet to complain about the Pakistani flag being flown in England is "racist"?? Is it just me or there something wrong with this picture?

[Wiskedjak]

"Asian, probably Islamic"? How does one conclude "probably Islamic" from "Asian"?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

"Asian, probably Islamic"? How does one conclude "probably Islamic" from "Asian"?

In the UK, "Asian" doesn't mean "Chinese/Japanese/Korean" - it means "Pakistani/Indian/Bangladeshi". And since the Indians never whine about anything...

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

"Asian, probably Islamic"? How does one conclude "probably Islamic" from "Asian"?

Many Islamic nations are lcoated in Asia, but I don't see how you could get "probably Islamic" from that fact alone. If we go by population, there are probably almost as many Hindus and Christians of various denominations, and then there are Buddhism and other traditionally Eastern religions.

That said, the "probably Islamic" may come from the fact that the woman was flying St. George's Cross (the flag of England), not the Union Flag (the flag of the UK). There are quite a few Muslims who have trouble with the image of a red cross on a white background, I suspect this goes back to the Crusades; it was a popular symbol for the European fighters then.

Either way, it's ridiculous. Islam requires its followers to respect the laws of the land, as long as those laws do not force them to sin. The laws do dictate that St. George's Cross is the flag of England, but they do not force anyone to fly it or any other flag, and so they do not force anyone to sin. It is a shame that the neighbor feels a need to take offense, but that is nobody's problem other than the neighbor's. If the neighbor is truly so uncomfortable, then he should start a petition or write letters to the appropriate MPs to have the flag changed. I doubt this course of action has any hope of success, at least not in the short term and hopefully not in the long term either, but it's the most one can do while respecting fair laws.

Then again, I suppose this shouldn't be unexpected. It's analogous to controversy in the US over any state flag which contains an image of the Confederate flag. In fact, if you think about it, it's disturbingly similar in a lot of ways. If it's not right to fly one flag because it offends people, then certainly it's not right to fly the other one for the same reason. But is it really not right to fly a flag because it offends people?

For the record, I don't have any flags, of my state or country or any other. I don't see a need to have them myself. But I recognize and respect that many people find it important to fly a flag -or, at times, to burn a flag- and so I have a lot of trouble when others try to silence that form of expression.

[Dakar]

Ridiculous. I would like to see this explained as a crime though.

[Millennium]

They'd probably try and call it some form of harrassment. They might even try to paint it as a hate crime.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

"Asian, probably Islamic"? How does one conclude "probably Islamic" from "Asian"?

the head scalf(attire) and skin tone.

That being said.... her claim is rediculious. and if it is the free world, you are allowed to fly whatever flag you want. that being said...the UK is a Christian nation, and if they want a red cross on their flag then so be it. if ppl find it offensive...dont look at it, or dont migrate to that country in the first place. Its obvious to me that the 'racist' here, is the woman who complained. And from the looks of the way she chose to handel the situation, a coward. People usually have the decency or sorting out issues between themselves, before alerting authorities. if i was that dude, id goto court and sue her arse.

[nath]

Originally Posted by Doofy

In the UK, "Asian" doesn't mean "Chinese/Japanese/Korean" - it means "Pakistani/Indian/Bangladeshi". And since the Indians never whine about anything...

I live in the UK and I take Asian to mean from Asia.

As the OP is a post on a messageboard I give it the same amount of credibility that I do any uncorroborated polemic. It ain't a fact just because someone has posted that it is.

edit: I just walked home through East London. I saw a lot of flags, including St George's, half crescents and a guy in a Pakistan t-shirt. People seemed pretty relaxed about them.

Just my anecdote. No more or less reliable or believable than "Keith's".

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Millennium

Many Islamic nations are lcoated in Asia, but I don't see how you could get "probably Islamic" from that fact alone.

Here in the UK, there's only one type of Asian who whines about flags. That's the muslim ones.

Originally Posted by Millennium

Then again, I suppose this shouldn't be unexpected. It's analogous to controversy in the US over any state flag which contains an image of the Confederate flag. In fact, if you think about it, it's disturbingly similar in a lot of ways.

Not really. It's more akin to a muslims complaining about your flying Old Glory. The St. George Cross is the flag of a country, not a state.

This is on a par with my coming to the US and demanding that the US flag be removed at the same time as my waving the Union Jack around - and the police/powers-that-be helping me.

Originally Posted by Millennium

For the record, I don't have any flags, of my state or country or any other. I don't see a need to have them myself. But I recognize and respect that many people find it important to fly a flag -or, at times, to burn a flag- and so I have a lot of trouble when others try to silence that form of expression.

Look beyond the flag. It's not about that. It's about changing our culture.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by nath

I live in the UK and I take Asian to mean from Asia.

You mustn't get out from inside the M25 much then. In the rest of the country it means Pakistani/Bangladeshi/Indian.

(For everyone else not from the UK who may be questioning my response here: Londoners are regarded by most of the rest of the country as being completely out of touch with what's happening outside the M25 (London orbital motorway). For the most part it's true - they're like their own little separate country down there.)

Originally Posted by nath

As the OP is a post on a messageboard I give it the same amount of credibility that I do any uncorroborated polemic. It ain't a fact just because someone has posted that it is.

No, but the same kind of thing has been in my local paper. During the world cup, the muslim community around here was moaning like hell about the proliferation of George Cross emblems on cars. A couple of coppers made a guy take them off his car when he'd parked outside the late-night chemist (which happens to be on a main road running through the main muslim community).
It's not like this report posted on that BBC notice board is a one-off occurrence.

[nath]

Originally Posted by Doofy

You mustn't get out from inside the M25 much then.

I've lived in Devon, Dorset and Birmingham, the first two for a longer duration than the last seven years, which I've spent in London. NEXT!

Originally Posted by Doofy

In the rest of the country it means Pakistani/Bangladeshi/Indian.

The definition of the word Asian is pretty clear. What you believe or want it to mean for the purposes of backing up your own belief system is another matter.

Originally Posted by Doofy

(For everyone else not from the UK who may be questioning my response here: Londoners are regarded by most of the rest of the country as being completely out of touch with what's happening outside the M25 (London orbital motorway). For the most part it's true - they're like their own little separate country down there.)

If that means London has managed to rise above the petty hatred espoused by Little Englanders such as yourself (despite being the only area thus far to actually be attacked by 'Islamic' terrorists) then fine. I'll take it.

The point you didn't reply to was that there are lots of English flags flying in my area, which has a pretty high Muslim (and Asian!) population. So if you and 'Keith' are telling the truth, I guess it's not just the white English people that are more tolerant in London.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by nath

I've lived in Devon, Dorset and Birmingham, the first two for a longer duration than the last seven years, which I've spent in London. NEXT!

Arh. The last seven years. Safe to say that you haven't experienced what Blair's policies have done to the rest of the country outside London then.

Originally Posted by nath

The point you didn't reply to was that there are lots of English flags flying in my area, which has a pretty high Muslim (and Asian!) population. So if you and 'Keith' are telling the truth, I guess it's not just the white English people that are more tolerant in London.

So Ken Livingstone (that's London's mayor for all you non-UK folks) didn't try to ban London taxis from flying the George Cross during the World Cup then? Wonder why he did that if it's all happiness and light down there?

[Monique]

Let get this straight the guy in Leeds, England was threatened with arrest for flying an Union Jack in England. This is totally ridiculous. If the Asian person doesn't want to see a British flag maybe they should move out of England and move back to the country where they come from.

I have on my wall a British flag and a Russian flag and will get a German flag and French flag one day because I love those countries and love the colours or their flags. The person who would tell me that I cannot express my likes on my property would be very unhappy.

According to this Asian person should Parliament and Buckingham Palace take down the British flag from their buildings.

And yes there are a lot of Islamic people in Asia, countries like Jakarta, Indonesia and many others have a lot of Muslims living there. Do not forget that there are one billion Muslims in the world.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Not really. It's more akin to a muslims complaining about your flying Old Glory. The St. George Cross is the flag of a country, not a state.

There are those in the South who would say something similar about the Confederate flag, or state flags which contain it. Many states in the US retain a very strong sense of identity, not unlike the countries which make up the UK, but in both cases to most outsiders they're not seen as separate nations. Most people see the US use of the term "state" as something akin to a province, but from a structural standpoint they have considerably more autonomy than the term "province" usually connotes. They're not quite sovereign nations in their own right, but they're not all that far from it. This is where the "states' rights" debates come from.

Look beyond the flag. It's not about that. It's about changing our culture.

Oh, I quite agree.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by Monique

Let get this straight the guy in Leeds, England was threatened with arrest for flying an Union Jack in England.

Not quite. He wasn't flying the Union Jack; he was flying St. George's Cross. This is the flag of England (as opposed to the flag of the entire UK). Scotland has a corresponding flag of its own: Saint Andrew's Cross. The flag of the UK -also called the Union Flag or Union Jack- is not quite the same as both crosses together, but its design started with that concept in mind. Look at all three of them together to see how it came about.

[nath]

Originally Posted by Monique

Let get this straight the guy in Leeds, England was threatened with arrest for flying an Union Jack in England.

No, you've not got it straight. It wasn't a Union Jack. And it was a post on a forum. Not exactly the gold standard for truth.

Originally Posted by Doofy

Arh. The last seven years. Safe to say that you haven't experienced what Blair's policies have done to the rest of the country outside London then.

No, I haven't. But I'm assuming that any policies that Blair - as Prime Minister of the UK -has introduced relating to the flying of flags, would apply in London as much as anywhere else. So why don't you enlighten me as to what these policies are, and how exactly they have impacted the flying of flags in areas outside London?

Originally Posted by Doofy

So Ken Livingstone (that's London's mayor for all you non-UK folks) didn't try to ban London taxis from flying the George Cross during the World Cup then? Wonder why he did that if it's all happiness and light down there.

Well Sherwin, I'm not sure anywhere is 'all happiness and light'. YMMV.

But as I said, today there are George Crosses flying happily and unmolested in East London, and I actually took a taxi a couple of weeks ago that was flying one (the night England played Northern Ireland). The driver of that particular cab didn't seemed too bothered by Ken's occasional battiness; neither do most people judging by his pretty much unassailable popularity.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by nath

petty hatred espoused by Little Englanders such as yourself

See what I mean? I posted about someone moaning at someone flying their own flag in their own country. You then proceed to call me a "Little Englander" (for folks outside the UK, that's basically nath calling me a racist).

So it's racist to want to fly the flag of the country? "Hatred" for wanting to fly the flag of my own country in my own country? You've just proved the point.

[turtle777]

Easy solution: fly an American flag !
That'll teach them

-t

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Millennium

There are those in the South who would say something similar about the Confederate flag, or state flags which contain it. Many states in the US retain a very strong sense of identity, not unlike the countries which make up the UK, but in both cases to most outsiders they're not seen as separate nations. Most people see the US use of the term "state" as something akin to a province, but from a structural standpoint they have considerably more autonomy than the term "province" usually connotes. They're not quite sovereign nations in their own right, but they're not all that far from it. This is where the "states' rights" debates come from.

OK, accepted.

BTW, Birmingham City Council did actually once ban plastic carrier bags with the Union Jack on them in case it offended ethnic minorities.

[Hawkeye_a]

Calm down you nit wits . Your missing the whole pointf or this debate.

To clarify....


So for a moment, put your bickering aside. I think we are in agreement that arresting someone for flying any of the flags above is absurd. correct ? i mean heck...theyre flying them i nthe U.K.

Now the validity of the source is questionable. I have no clue as to what goes on in England & the U.K. apart from what i see in the news (Blair kissing Bush's arse...but thats another topic all together ). I do remember reading about race riots involving asian muslims in the U.K. mid-90s maybe ?

Also 'Asian' is a rather broadterm...here in OZ it means, Chineeses, Vietnameeses, Koreans, japaneeses, etc...east asians. I reckon i nthe U.K. it means south-east asians.....indian/pakistani/bangladeshis. why ? because of the sheer proportions. ive flown through Heathrow a couple of times...and ive seen more indian/pakistanis/bangladeshis working there than anglo-saxons. So if someone fro mthe U.K. says....asian 'muslim' looking, chances are they deduced it using:
-drescode
-skin tone
-language
-the fact that a flag with a red cross was found offensive.

So IF this little 'post'/article were true. i think we are in agreement that it's absurd that a citizen of England be forced to dake down the national flag.

If untrue.....who cares ? no one got hurt. right ? it's merely lies on an internet form. big deal.

[TETENAL]

That is ridiculous. In Germany you can show the flag of the state you are living in (though not the crest or the so called "service flags").

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Doofy

OK, accepted.

BTW, Birmingham City Council did actually once ban plastic carrier bags with the Union Jack on them in case it offended ethnic minorities.

Birmingham UK or Birmingham US ?

-t

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by turtle777

Birmingham UK or Birmingham US ?

UK.

[nath]

Originally Posted by Doofy

See what I mean? I posted about someone moaning at someone flying their own flag in their own country. You then proceed to call me a "Little Englander" (for folks outside the UK, that's basically nath calling me a racist).

Right, so 'Asian' means 'Muslim' and 'Little Englander' means 'racist'?

Little Englander

Now, a "Little Englander" is assumed to be either ignorant and boorish, or an extreme nationalist (chauvinist), typically with anti-immigration views.

I think the problem here is your difficulty with the English language, Sherwin. Still interested to hear how Blair's policies have affected your flag-flying rights outside of London though.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

I do remember reading about race riots involving asian muslims in the U.K. mid-90s maybe ?

July - August 2001.

Here's a bit of something from the "other" Asian community on the subject.
http://hindutva.org/oldham.html
(notice how they're annoyed at the media using "Asian" to describe something involving muslims)

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by Doofy

(notice how they're annoyed at the media using "Asian" to describe something involving muslims)

Well thats perfectly understandable, considering theyre Asian and non-muslims. i dont think it's accurate enough to descibe muslims as just being Asians. Most muslims are asians, but most Asians(by a much larger number) are not muslims.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by nath

Right, so 'Asian' means 'Muslim'

See link above.

Originally Posted by nath

'Little Englander' means 'racist'?

So what did you mean by it?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

Well thats perfectly understandable, considering theyre Asian and non-muslims. i dont think it's accurate enough to descibe muslims as just being Asians. Most muslims are asians, but most Asians(by a much larger number) are not muslims.

No, I agree with them. Just pointing out to Nath that the general population (including the media) of the UK uses "Asian" interchangeably with Pakistani/Bangladeshi/Indian. If they didn't, the "other" Asians writing that site wouldn't have needed to write their disclaimer, would they?

[nath]

Originally Posted by Doofy

See link above.

Why? Your original comment was

In the UK, "Asian" doesn't mean "Chinese/Japanese/Korean" - it means "Pakistani/Indian/Bangladeshi"

That is just complete bollocks. You still haven't managed to stand that statement up, either with links or any kind of semi-coherent argument. Asia is a really big place Sherwin, and it includes lots of countries other than the ones you mention. I don't know how to explain it to you in a more simplified form of words than that.

Originally Posted by Doofy

So what did you mean by it?

As the Wiki definition which I posted for your educational benefit states;

Now, a "Little Englander" is assumed to be either ignorant and boorish, or an extreme nationalist (chauvinist), typically with anti-immigration views.

You have openly stated your anti-immigration views on these pages before (in your previous guise of Sherwin) and (IMO) you are ignorant and boorish. Pretty clear, non?

[nath]

Originally Posted by Doofy

No, I agree with them. Just pointing out to Nath that the general population (including the media) of the UK uses "Asian" interchangeably with Pakistani/Bangladeshi/Indian. If they didn't, the "other" Asians writing that site wouldn't have needed to write their disclaimer, would they?

Now you're being silly. Of course people from Pakistan/Bangladesh/India can be described as Asian. However the phrases are not interchangable since those countries are not the sole constituents of Asia.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by nath

That is just complete bollocks. You still haven't managed to stand that statement up, either with links or any kind of semi-coherent argument. Asia is a really big place Sherwin, and it includes lots of countries other than the ones you mention. I don't know how to explain it to you in a more simplified form of words than that.

So why do the coppers who went round to see that guy say "Asian, probably muslim"?

...Because everyone else in the country associates "Asian" with Pakistani/Bangladeshi/Indian. Nobody associates "Asian" with a white girl from Vladivostok, even though according to your definition she'd be "Asian". In the real UK outside your commie-run city, everyone else doesn't even use "Asian" for Chinese or Japanese - they use "Chinese" or "Japanese". That's a fact.

Argue semantics all you like. Doesn't make you right.

Originally Posted by nath

You have openly stated your anti-immigration views on these pages before (in your previous guise of Sherwin) and (IMO) you are ignorant and boorish. Pretty clear, non?

I don't mind immigration at all - as long as the immigrants don't whine at us when we fly our own flag or expect our culture to bend to theirs. Kind of the point of this thread - "when in Rome".

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

That being said.... her claim is rediculious.

Not saying it isn't

[Monique]

Still on his property and he can do whatever he pleases not that he was telling everyone to kill all Scots or Irish or Welch; just a flag and it is his personal business.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by Monique

Still on his property and he can do whatever he pleases not that he was telling everyone to kill all Scots or Irish or Welch; just a flag and it is his personal business.

True, though it's worth noting that to many Muslims, particularly those from the Middle East, a red cross on a white background is a symbol of genocide against their people dating back hundreds of years. They view the word 'crusade' the same way that we in the West view the word 'jihad', right down to the nuance. To the people of England, however, it's a symbol of pride in one's heritage, having basically nothing to do with the ancient Crusades where it first became popular; you often see it at sporting events for this reason.

This brings up a point: when a symbol like this means different things to different people, whose view is more important: the one who displays the symbol, or the one who sees the symbol? Consider this in light of the Confederate flag as well as Saint George's Cross, because the battles are similar: in both cases, one side views the flag as a symbol of horrible atrocities from ages past, while the other side views it as a symbol of pride in their heritage having nothing to do with those atrocities. Which side wins?

[nath]

Originally Posted by Doofy

In the real UK outside your commie-run city

Keep squealing to that tune Sherwin. I'm sure Pachead or somebody will come to the rescue of you and your tattered arguments eventually.

[Hawkeye_a]

Millennium,
the star spangled banner could be interpreted as hostile towards native americans. The british/english flag could be 'interpreted' as hostile towards the galic people(who were the first slaves in recorded history), or towards South Africans or Indians who at one point were slaves to the English empire. If this womans argument is based on her interpretation, she needs to be locked up for false accusations. The crusades happened centuries ago...still going on now imo (Israel vs palestine etc). but if muslims have the luxury of claiming he crusades as defence against the flag of england, how about the christians(majority) who find it offensive to have flags of muslim countries flying around Britain after the whole london bombings fiasco ? Should they have to bear it, and if so why ?

If the country/state of England chooses to have a red cross on it's flag, then so be it. its been that way for centuries. Having people oppose that is fine. but you cant have autorities having people bring down flags from their own private property. Having said that, maybe the U.K. needs to have more stringent immigration laws to prevent such stupidity in the first place. Im not against immigration, most of us in the free world fall under that category.... but part of choosing to immigrate to a country involves embracing the lifestyle and customs of the place. If you expect to immigrate to a country and object to something as important as the national anthem or flag, maybe you're the one making the mistake moving there in the first place.

As far as "asian", "muslim", etc... you can distinguish between muslim and non muslims by their dress code, pakistanis dont dress like indians, who dont dress like arabians who dont dress like persians. Just as you can guess the origin of a caucasian by their accent, or their pecular custums(food, etc). I suggest those of you arguing the technicalities of the language, take a break and discuss the actual purpose of this topic for starters, otherwise we wont get anyway.

EDIT>>my stance on the matter is clear. fly whatever flag you want on your private property (house, car, etc).

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

Millennium,
the star spangled banner could be interpreted as hostile towards native americans. The british/english flag could be 'interpreted' as hostile towards the galic people(who were the first slaves in recorded history), or towards South Africans or Indians who at one point were slaves to the English empire. If this womans argument is based on her interpretation, she needs to be locked up for false accusations. The crusades happened centuries ago...still going on now imo (Israel vs palestine etc). but if muslims have the luxury of claiming he crusades as defence against the flag of england, how about the christians(majority) who find it offensive to have flags of muslim countries flying around Britain after the whole london bombings fiasco ? Should they have to bear it, and if so why ?

Good point !

-t

[Monique]

Was this person alive during the Crusades. No, the crusades are things of many many centuries ago. Let's not go crazy, here. And who goes around and look in someone's house to find something offensive. Another Muslim woman might find it offensive that a couple make love in the nude are we going to arrest everyone who make love in the nude because Muslims do it trough a sheet. Give me a break; there are a lot of things I do not agree, like the nazi symbol but you might have one in your house or you might have a confederate flag but unless I put my face in your window how am I going to find out and still even though I find it offensive you have the right to have anything on your walls. As long as you do not promulgate hate, tell everyone you want to kill every Jew or every black person around you, well put any flag you want on your walls and do not tell me please.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

If you expect to immigrate to a country and object to something as important as the national anthem or flag, maybe you're the one making the mistake moving there in the first place.

Exactly my point.
I wouldn't move to America then moan whenever I heard the Star Spangled Banner. That'd be ridiculous.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by nath

Keep squealing to that tune Sherwin. I'm sure Pachead or somebody will come to the rescue of you and your tattered arguments eventually.

You're not very good at this Nath. Shouldn't you be out burning capitalists or something?

[moodymonster]

In the UK Asian tends to mean someone of Indian/Pakistani (or thereabouts) descent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian

I live on the edge of London and apparently have no clue as to what is going on in the rest of the world so I might be wrong, but where I live people from the sub continent are the majority - and are referred to as Asian.

google UK Asian and see what comes up…

There are racist connotations with the English flag and I personally think it is high time it was taken back. That's not going to happen if people aren't allowed to fly it. Wouldn't happen in Scotland or Wales.

[UNTeMac]

Originally Posted by Millennium

True, though it's worth noting that to many Muslims, particularly those from the Middle East, a red cross on a white background is a symbol of genocide against their people dating back hundreds of years. They view the word 'crusade' the same way that we in the West view the word 'jihad', right down to the nuance. To the people of England, however, it's a symbol of pride in one's heritage, having basically nothing to do with the ancient Crusades where it first became popular; you often see it at sporting events for this reason.

This brings up a point: when a symbol like this means different things to different people, whose view is more important: the one who displays the symbol, or the one who sees the symbol? Consider this in light of the Confederate flag as well as Saint George's Cross, because the battles are similar: in both cases, one side views the flag as a symbol of horrible atrocities from ages past, while the other side views it as a symbol of pride in their heritage having nothing to do with those atrocities. Which side wins?

Damnit, you beat me to it. I read the whole thread hoping no one had stated this point yet. Well said. I think they both have some ground to stand on but getting the police involved is a bit overbearing if you ask me.

[cpt kangarooski]

Hawkeye_a--

but part of choosing to immigrate to a country involves embracing the lifestyle and customs of the place.

Which is why the original settlers that came to America joined Indian tribes?

If you immigrate to a place, you should be treated the same as anyone else. This includes being free to criticize your new home just as much as the people who were born there are free to criticize it. Immigrating shouldn't be significantly different than moving to the next town over.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

Millennium,
the star spangled banner could be interpreted as hostile towards native americans. The british/english flag could be 'interpreted' as hostile towards the galic people(who were the first slaves in recorded history), or towards South Africans or Indians who at one point were slaves to the English empire. If this womans argument is based on her interpretation, she needs to be locked up for false accusations. The crusades happened centuries ago...still going on now imo (Israel vs palestine etc). but if muslims have the luxury of claiming he crusades as defence against the flag of england, how about the christians(majority) who find it offensive to have flags of muslim countries flying around Britain after the whole london bombings fiasco ? Should they have to bear it, and if so why?

Actually, I actually agree with everything you've said here. I think the neighbor's complaint is ridiculous. All I'm trying to do is frame the situation in light of a similar controversy: namely, that of the Confederate flag.

I think that many will have very inconsistent beliefs about these two situations, favoring the one who flies the flag in one situation and the one who sees the flag in the other situation. I hope that by phrasing each controversy in terms of the other, some of those inconsistencies might be resolved. Personally, I favor the one who flies the flag in both. I doubt everyone will see it that way, but that's my stance.

[Hawkeye_a]

Kangarooski....agreed. bad example on my part i guess.

But having someone threatened to be arrested because they fly the national flag of the country they are in is still rather absurd to me.

Unfortunately the native Americans, aboriginies, and other peoples of that time period didnt have immigration procedures/screenings, etc the way we do today.

Also, assuming it's a eutopia where everyone will get along while having their own opposing opinions is also rather immiginary to me. Things like the crusades have already been mentioned here. This is a clash of civilizations imo.

Yes, you should be allowed to criticize your own home. but saying its as simple as moving from one town to the next is rather .....well stupid...cause it isnt. Your taking completely different cultures and putting them next to each other....that involves(among other things), different clothes, foods and beleifs. Now, from my personal experience, people get along just fine. ive lived amony a variety of different communities, and everything was fine as long as everyone had their opinions about the other but didnt pick a fight because they disagreed. For example... ive lived i nthe middle east, muslims have different dress codes, in fact it never was an issue...at least i was never aware of it being an issue(personally i loved seeing people of diffferent cultures with different clothes, different foods, etc) ....i respect their choice as they respected mine to wear jeans and t-shirts. i didnt ask/expect them to change or preach ot them, and they afforded m the same respect. Shouldnt that(tolerance) be a requirement when mixing cultures that have been at odds over the centuries ? yet, if true, you have people complaining about a red cross, thats not in their home and in no way obstructing them, and with clearly no intention of hurting them. All happening while they CHOOSE to live in and around that place.

The issue here, to me, isnt the flag.......it's tolerance, and respect for the democratic process. if you have the citizens of the U.K. vote on whether or not the flag should carry the red cross (in my opinion they already have), should this woman be allowed to alert authorities everytime she 'feels' offended at seeing the flag ? thats absurd. Part of what holds communities together are things like flags and national anthems. If i were an anglo-saxon male i nthe U.K. and i goto the authorities and complain about the cresent moon on top of the local mosque, what do you reckon they'd call me ? i'm guessing 'racist', and yet it's my home as well, isnt it ?

Have your opinions, but if you choose to live in an area, be ready to tolerate all that comes with it. this woman comes out as being a racist to me. if St. George's flag is to be brought down, maybe head scalves should be banned as well ? eh ? see whats gonna happen ?

Not good.

Millennium>> yeah i agree with you as well. in fact i think everyone here agrees that, if true, this woman is guilty of racism, and the authorities would be guilty of idiocy. lol. As far as teh confederate flag...ive seen and hear a lot about it.....my opinion: have whatever opinions you want and whatever flags you want, as long as you dont oppose others' pursuit of happiness, do whatever the hell you want. life's too short to be bickering about such trivial things as flags and dress codes imo.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by cpt kangarooski

If you immigrate to a place, you should be treated the same as anyone else. This includes being free to criticize your new home just as much as the people who were born there are free to criticize it.

...as long as you want to actually be part of the culture there, rather than have your imported culture displace the local one (which is actually what is happening beyond the flag facade).

[Face Ache]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

The issue here, to me, isnt the flag.......it's tolerance

Tolerance and common sense.

And fairies and unicorns!

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

Millennium,
the star spangled banner could be interpreted as hostile towards native americans. The british/english flag could be 'interpreted' as hostile towards the galic people(who were the first slaves in recorded history), or towards South Africans or Indians who at one point were slaves to the English empire. If this womans argument is based on her interpretation, she needs to be locked up for false accusations. The crusades happened centuries ago...still going on now imo (Israel vs palestine etc). but if muslims have the luxury of claiming he crusades as defence against the flag of england, how about the christians(majority) who find it offensive to have flags of muslim countries flying around Britain after the whole london bombings fiasco ? Should they have to bear it, and if so why ?

If the country/state of England chooses to have a red cross on it's flag, then so be it. its been that way for centuries. Having people oppose that is fine. but you cant have autorities having people bring down flags from their own private property. Having said that, maybe the U.K. needs to have more stringent immigration laws to prevent such stupidity in the first place. Im not against immigration, most of us in the free world fall under that category.... but part of choosing to immigrate to a country involves embracing the lifestyle and customs of the place. If you expect to immigrate to a country and object to something as important as the national anthem or flag, maybe you're the one making the mistake moving there in the first place.

As far as "asian", "muslim", etc... you can distinguish between muslim and non muslims by their dress code, pakistanis dont dress like indians, who dont dress like arabians who dont dress like persians. Just as you can guess the origin of a caucasian by their accent, or their pecular custums(food, etc). I suggest those of you arguing the technicalities of the language, take a break and discuss the actual purpose of this topic for starters, otherwise we wont get anyway.

EDIT>>my stance on the matter is clear. fly whatever flag you want on your private property (house, car, etc).

Absoloutly agreed with everything stated above. I think it is incredible that the event described in the original post occurred but if it did the immigrant complaining should consider moving back to wherever she came from.

You immigrate and you adapt. Simple as that.

cheers

W-Y

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by cpt kangarooski

Hawkeye_a--


Which is why the original settlers that came to America joined Indian tribes?

If you immigrate to a place, you should be treated the same as anyone else. This includes being free to criticize your new home just as much as the people who were born there are free to criticize it. Immigrating shouldn't be significantly different than moving to the next town over.

Calling the Conquest of the Americas by the Europeans immigration is a stretch. It was conquest. It was an invasion.

cheers

W-Y

[Taliesin]

Off course the complaint of the asian muslim is rediculous, but it seems to me like two other points are more important and overlooked in this thread:

1. Eventhough it is rediculous, the asian muslim has the right and is within the law to complain about that flag and to voice the complaint towards the police and to ask them to intervene, and it's the police's duty to evaluate that complaint and to call it rediculous and not to intervene if that's the right decision. So in a nutshell it's not the asian muslim who has acted wrongly, it's the police and I don't mean that famous british band.

2. Let's just take it for granted that the story is true to begin with, it should be noted that if it didn't have a probable muslim as a protagonist, it would have never made a news-headline. That's a dangerous path of which I thought that after the lectures of history about ww2 and holocaust and antisemitism would not be so easily travelled on again. Nowadays any blog or blurb, if invented or true, that only hints at a muslim being maybe involved gets disproportional attention and gets exagerrated and collected in the subconscious that webs these small stories into one big danger of a subverting and uniform enemy within. (Just look at the thread-title, it's not one probable muslim using legal means to voice a complaint, it's more muslims whining!)

Taliesin