Muslim / Gypsy burial conflict - The facts

[jeds]

The reason this thread exists is not because somebody complained, it us because a mendacious journo saw the opportunity to whip up synthetic rage by suggesting some body was going to be dug up.

And because some Islamophobes, who will believe any anti-Muslim story, took the opportunity to get excited.

I agree this is basically a non-story invented in the twisted mind of a fifth rate journalist. However, that doesn't excuse the intolerance of the complainers in this case. In my view the policy of the cemetery is correct; line up peacefully with the others or go elsewhere. Segregation isn't tolerated in life and shouldn't be tolerated in death.

 

[RNReindeer]

The reason this thread exists is not because somebody complained, it us because a mendacious journo saw the opportunity to whip up synthetic rage by suggesting some body was going to be dug up.

And because some Islamophobes, who will believe any anti-Muslim story, took the opportunity to get excited.

I agree this is basically a non-story invented in the twisted mind of a fifth rate journalist. However, that doesn't excuse the intolerance of the complainers in this case. In my view the policy of the cemetery is correct; line up peacefully with the others or go elsewhere. Segregation isn't tolerated in life and shouldn't be tolerated in death.

The cemetery advertised themselves as a multi-denominational cemetery accomodating all faiths and religions. That means being aware of the various religious requirements and accomodating them.
Whatever your view of this, it's unfair and improper to advertise oneself as something which you cannot accomodate, or fail to through "cock-ups".

If I claim to be a mulit-denominational restaurant but I cannot or do not accomodate various dietary requirements I'm incompetent.
The first occasion to highlight that failling is fully justified in complaining.
Anyone who twists the story into an accusation that the customer is being intolerant is persuing a political or racial agenda.

 

[Brigadier]

The reason this thread exists is not because somebody complained, it us because a mendacious journo saw the opportunity to whip up synthetic rage by suggesting some body was going to be dug up.

And because some Islamophobes, who will believe any anti-Muslim story, took the opportunity to get excited.

I agree this is basically a non-story invented in the twisted mind of a fifth rate journalist. However, that doesn't excuse the intolerance of the complainers in this case. In my view the policy of the cemetery is correct; line up peacefully with the others or go elsewhere. Segregation isn't tolerated in life and shouldn't be tolerated in death.

The cemetery advertised themselves as a multi-denominational cemetery accomodating all faiths and religions. That means being aware of the various religious requirements and accomodating them.
Whatever your view of this, it's unfair and improper to advertise oneself as something which you cannot accomodate, or fail to through "cock-ups".

If I claim to be a mulit-denominational restaurant but I cannot or do not accomodate various dietary requirements I'm incompetent.
The first occasion to highlight that failling is fully justified in complaining.
Anyone who twists the story into an accusation that the customer is being intolerant is persuing a political or racial agenda.

The "customer" has a right to be aggrieved. Through no fault of their own, they have been put into a situation they'd expressly taken measures to avoid.
That said, they could either tolerate that unsatisfactory situation, or not.
By not tolerating it, are they not, logically, intolerant?

 

[RNReindeer]

The reason this thread exists is not because somebody complained, it us because a mendacious journo saw the opportunity to whip up synthetic rage by suggesting some body was going to be dug up.

And because some Islamophobes, who will believe any anti-Muslim story, took the opportunity to get excited.

I agree this is basically a non-story invented in the twisted mind of a fifth rate journalist. However, that doesn't excuse the intolerance of the complainers in this case. In my view the policy of the cemetery is correct; line up peacefully with the others or go elsewhere. Segregation isn't tolerated in life and shouldn't be tolerated in death.

The cemetery advertised themselves as a multi-denominational cemetery accomodating all faiths and religions. That means being aware of the various religious requirements and accomodating them.
Whatever your view of this, it's unfair and improper to advertise oneself as something which you cannot accomodate, or fail to through "cock-ups".

If I claim to be a mulit-denominational restaurant but I cannot or do not accomodate various dietary requirements I'm incompetent.
The first occasion to highlight that failling is fully justified in complaining.
Anyone who twists the story into an accusation that the customer is being intolerant is persuing a political or racial agenda.

The "customer" has a right to be aggrieved. Through no fault of their own, they have been put into a situation they'd expressly taken measures to avoid.
That said, they could either tolerate that unsatisfactory situation, or not.
By not tolerating it, are they not, logically, intolerant?

Oh come on, Brigadier. If I ask you to build me a brick built garage and you use timber, so I complain and refuse to accept your substitute, you claim that I'm being intolerant. You're on the wrong planet.
I suggest that I am insisting on getting what I ordered, not some sub-standard substitute.
Additionally, as exhumation is probably worse than sharing the consecrated ground with a non-believer, I suspect that they'll have no choice but to tolerate it.
I also suspect that the Muslim community will be looking elsewhere for their final resting places.
Certainly Burbage Cemetery cannot, will not, or do not accomodate their requirements.

Incidentally, I tried accessing the original Burbage Herald (or whatever it was called) article. It's gone, non-existent, not available, does not exist!
Is that a clear admission of poor journalism?

Additionally, your argument could be applied to the Gypsy family who refused to relocate their plot five days before the funeral.
I suspect, pure conjecture mind, that the council would have recompensed them for any financial loss and offered suitable alternative location.
Were they intolerant to have refused?

 

[cajar]

so if DAVE books a restaurant and state at the time he doesnt want to sit next to Muslims or Chinese people, and then a Muslim family comes in and He complains loudly within earshot of all the diners....would your first thought be, "that man is simply asking for his agreement with the restaurant to be honoured. he is the innocent party, and the restaurant are in error here. "

 

[Brigadier]

The "customer" has a right to be aggrieved. Through no fault of their own, they have been put into a situation they'd expressly taken measures to avoid.
That said, they could either tolerate that unsatisfactory situation, or not.
By not tolerating it, are they not, logically, intolerant?

Oh come on, Brigadier. If I ask you to build me a brick built garage and you use timber, so I complain and refuse to accept your substitute, you claim that I'm being intolerant. You're on the wrong planet.
I suggest that I am insisting on getting what I ordered, not some sub-standard substitute.

You're comparing a purchase with an arbitrary belief?

Additionally, as exhumation is probably worse than sharing the consecrated ground with a non-believer, I suspect that they'll have no choice but to tolerate it.

...implication being that, they are currently not "tolerating" it.

I also suspect that the Muslim community will be looking elsewhere for their final resting places.
Certainly Burbage Cemetery cannot, will not, or do not accomodate their requirements.

Possibly - that is their right.

Incidentally, I tried accessing the original Burbage Herald (or whatever it was called) article. It's gone, non-existent, not available, does not exist!
Is that a clear admission of poor journalism?

Don't know.

Additionally, your argument could be applied to the Gypsy family who refused to relocate their plot five days before the funeral.
I suspect, pure conjecture mind, that the council would have recompensed them for any financial loss and offered suitable alternative location.
Were they intolerant to have refused?

Semantically, as they would be unwilling to be tolerant, they would be.


In the end, it's the Council royal balls-up, with two families suffering for it.

 

[handyjack]

If I claim to be a mulit-denominational restaurant but I cannot or do not accomodate various dietary requirements I'm incompetent.

That is why there is no such thing as multi-denominational restaurant.

But you could say my restaurant is open to all religions. That puts you under no obligation to cater for all different dietary needs.

 

[jeds]

That means being aware of the various religious requirements and accomodating them.

I accept a certain degree of accommodation, but I see no justification for separation from other faiths in what is a multi denominational cemetery. I have some doubts over the story as a whole but if it is true and the Muslim family took offense simply because their relative was next to a Catholic grave then that is unacceptable in my view and should not be condoned.

Your example of the restaurant isn't the same thing. A closer example would be a restaurant where a Muslim family objects to being placed on a table next to a Catholic diner.

 

[RNReindeer]

That means being aware of the various religious requirements and accomodating them.

I accept a certain degree of accommodation, but I see no justification for separation from other faiths in what is a multi denominational cemetery. I have some doubts over the story as a whole but if it is true and the Muslim family took offense simply because their relative was next to a Catholic grave then that is unacceptable in my view and should not be condoned.

Your example of the restaurant isn't the same thing. A closer example would be a restaurant where a Muslim family objects to being placed on a table next to a Catholic diner.

Sorry jeds, you're confusing two primary roles of two service industries. My comments apply equally to handyjack and cajar.
The primary function of a resataurant is to supply and serve food.
The primary role of a cemetery is to provide a final resting place.

Your analogies are akin to complaining to a cemetery that their sandwhiches are stale. That is not their primary function!
So it is not the primary function of a restaurant to guarrantee diners exclusive dining space. Unless the restaurant explicitly provides secluded dining. It would be an acceptable analogy if the restaurant provided a secluded and private party room, but then allowed in non-guests. Then the customer would have a justifiable complaint! The religion or ethnicity of the non-guests would be immaterial! They would not fit the criteria agreed with the restaurant. Similarly, in the cemetery, the "neighbours" did not fit the criteria agreed.

As far as your comment re justification of providing separation, the cemetery promoted itself as a multi-denominational cemetery and that means, and can be expected, that they are aware of the requirements of all, or even the various, popular faiths.
If they were not, then they were incompetent. If they were aware, but on this occasion "cocked-up" they were incompetent.
I repeat: I'm convinced that they aware, but on this occasion "cocked-up", became aware of their cock-up some five days prior to the Gypsy funeral and tried to correct their mistake, except that the Gypsy family were sticking to their rights, and there's no blame to be attached there.

 

[jeds]

That means being aware of the various religious requirements and accomodating them.

I accept a certain degree of accommodation, but I see no justification for separation from other faiths in what is a multi denominational cemetery. I have some doubts over the story as a whole but if it is true and the Muslim family took offense simply because their relative was next to a Catholic grave then that is unacceptable in my view and should not be condoned.

Your example of the restaurant isn't the same thing. A closer example would be a restaurant where a Muslim family objects to being placed on a table next to a Catholic diner.

Sorry jeds, you're confusing two primary roles of two service industries. My comments apply equally to handyjack and cajar.
The primary function of a resataurant is to supply and serve food.
The primary role of a cemetery is to provide a final resting place.

Your analogies are akin to complaining to a cemetery that their sandwhiches are stale. That is not their primary function!
So it is not the primary function of a restaurant to guarrantee diners exclusive dining space. Unless the restaurant explicitly provides secluded dining. It would be an acceptable analogy if the restaurant provided a secluded and private party room, but then allowed in non-guests. Then the customer would have a justifiable complaint! The religion or ethnicity of the non-guests would be immaterial! They would not fit the criteria agreed with the restaurant. Similarly, in the cemetery, the "neighbours" did not fit the criteria agreed.

As far as your comment re justification of providing separation, the cemetery promoted itself as a multi-denominational cemetery and that means, and can be expected, that they are aware of the requirements of all, or even the various, popular faiths.
If they were not, then they were incompetent. If they were aware, but on this occasion "cocked-up" they were incompetent.
I repeat: I'm convinced that they aware, but on this occasion "cocked-up", became aware of their cock-up some five days prior to the Gypsy funeral and tried to correct their mistake, except that the Gypsy family were sticking to their rights, and there's no blame to be attached there.

There was no error. Burbage cemetery rules state that grave spaces are allocated "in sequence" with "no opportunity for selection" and that's exactly what was done. But this is just clouding the issue. What is distasteful here has nothing to do with cemetery rules, it is to do with the objection raised to a grave being located next to another purely on the grounds of faith.

 

[JBR]

Yes. I see only one religion complaining here.

 

[JohnD]

What is distasteful here is some hack journo writing a story that untruthfully suggests some body is going to be dug up.

And a bunch of Islamophobes continue to rant and ignore the fact:

"An inaccurate, divisive and inflammatory article printed in The Hinckley Times appeared to indicate that Burbage Parish Council has considered the exhumation of a person recently interred at Burbage Cemetery – this is totally untrue and without foundation. "

 

[RNReindeer]

There was no error. Burbage cemetery rules state that grave spaces are allocated "in sequence" with "no opportunity for selection" and that's exactly what was done. But this is just clouding the issue. What is distasteful here has nothing to do with cemetery rules, it is to do with the objection raised to a grave being located next to another purely on the grounds of faith.

That would appear to be the case, at first glance, and I've reproduced your reference below:

19. All grave spaces are allocated in sequence with no opportunity for selection.
http://burbage.leicestershireparishcouncils.org/uploads/1753f5e60e15b20521633126.pdf

However, what appears to be a subsequent leaflet (judging by the style, etc) states:

Families using the Burbage cemetery can nominate special
areas as the resting places of loved

That's due in part to a flexible approach to laying out the cemetery's various sections -
A flexibility extended to the options offered to families planning the
final resting place of loved ones.

http://www.leicestershirevillages.com/uploads/84e948487c8701262232455.pdf

which not only contradicts the earlier statement, but appears to supercede it: "Families can nominate special areas".
Additionally, and as confusing the special advice to Muslim families has the following index page:

Page 1 This Page - Contents
Page 2 General Requirements of the Muslim Religion
Length of Notice
Booking a Funeral
Page 3 Place and Method of Interment
Page 4 Burials without coffins
Page 5 Appendix 1 – Initial Contact Form
Page 6 Appendix 2 – Notifiable Diseases
Page 7 Appendix 3 - Example of grave for burials without a coffin

http://burbage.leicestershireparishcouncils.org/uploads/174f995368af884380109035.pdf

except that page 3 "place and method of intenment" has absolutely no reference to "place". Only method.

Aditionally, the Gypsy family were allowed to choose their plot.

So, we can assume that families can now select which plot to "occupy".

And as I said before the cemetery was promoted as multi-denominational, (Julie Perin's statement).
One could assume that the place of internment for Muslims is not mentioned because it would be in the "Muslim" section, simply because a multi-denominational cemetery would be or should be aware of that requirement.

As I said, if they weren't, and as it now appears, choice of plot is available, they were incompetent.
I suspect, it was a "cock-up" which they tried to rectify five days prior to the funeral.

 

[Norcon]

There's no evidence to suggest they were incompetent other than bending over backwards to pacify racist muslims..

 

[RNReindeer]

There's no evidence to suggest they were incompetent other than bending over backwards to pacify racist muslims..

Brilliant, nocon. Your islamophobia is so intense that you prefer to defend the Roman Catholic Gypsies.