gmc;769615 wrote:
Fundamentalist muslims want to stir up hatred just as our nutty right wingers want to stir it up and for the same reason. In the chaos they get power and mindless followers to do their bidding.
They don't like liberal secular societies because they need someone to hate and despise. Being tolerant and respecting other points of view is actually a lot harder to achieve.
Too true - an excellent post Sir, I only wish I'd made it myself.
Call for sharia law in UK
Call for sharia law in UK
Jester;769817 wrote: And thats kind of my point...
If the UK recognizes Sharia Law then they in effect sanction that religious view, It chooses sides so to speak.
I firmly belive that state sanctioned religion is a wrong ideal to go down. Allowing personal beliefs to be personal is the main point of a personal belief.
The whole of UK law protects all persons living there regardless of religious persuasion and that sas it should be. If fundamentalism of any kind, religious or philisophical, gets to abide legally by their own set of laws then that set of laws legally usurp the law of the land.
If fundamentalist christians stir up hatred by their laws then they should be sanctioned, same as for any religious or philosophical group, muslim, or athiest, whatever, the essential function is that the common person who may be trapped in one of these religious or philisophical groups has a legal means of escape.
But where has anyone suggested that Sharia Law is incorporated into UK Law or that the UK recognise it?
The article is about a faith council ruling on matters of faith and members of that religious community submitting to the verdicts voluntarily. There is nothing stopping the person ignoring the ruling apart from their wish to remain within the community.
Many other faiths have similar bodies so how does this constitute the UK choosing sides?
If the UK recognizes Sharia Law then they in effect sanction that religious view, It chooses sides so to speak.
I firmly belive that state sanctioned religion is a wrong ideal to go down. Allowing personal beliefs to be personal is the main point of a personal belief.
The whole of UK law protects all persons living there regardless of religious persuasion and that sas it should be. If fundamentalism of any kind, religious or philisophical, gets to abide legally by their own set of laws then that set of laws legally usurp the law of the land.
If fundamentalist christians stir up hatred by their laws then they should be sanctioned, same as for any religious or philosophical group, muslim, or athiest, whatever, the essential function is that the common person who may be trapped in one of these religious or philisophical groups has a legal means of escape.
But where has anyone suggested that Sharia Law is incorporated into UK Law or that the UK recognise it?
The article is about a faith council ruling on matters of faith and members of that religious community submitting to the verdicts voluntarily. There is nothing stopping the person ignoring the ruling apart from their wish to remain within the community.
Many other faiths have similar bodies so how does this constitute the UK choosing sides?
Call for sharia law in UK
There is no basis or precedent in English law that would allow for separate set of religious laws to be run concurrently for a tiny minority British citizens based on their religion, no matter how vocal or militant they would be about wanting to be treated differently from their fellow citizens.
To allow Sharia law to be upheld by British courts would give a set of laws based upon the Koran, (which is completely alien to England and its traditions and its people, and considers them to be hostile, infidel members of the "house of war"), to have equal precedence to the English common law, thereby providing for a legal precedent, that taken to its logical conclusion would have to give the Koran potential jurisdiction in all British civil law, in a country where 97 percent of the population are not Muslim.
Its obviously a ridiculous idea, what's really surprising is that some Muslim leaders are actually asking for it, and consider it a reasonable demand, and we are talking about people not considered extremists.
I mean, why not have a separate House of Commons voted for only by Muslims, and a House of Lords (or Sheiks) made up of Muslim notables, and a separate Islamic police force and Judiciary to enforce the Fatwahs handed down by the British Sheiks and Imams, and a separate Islamic army as well to ensure that Muslims are kept secure from their non Muslim neighbours (surely a necessity in a country where there are so many people hostile to Islam), perhaps a separate Muslim head of state to counter the corrosive influence of the Christian Queen, that will surely lead to British unity and understanding.
To allow Sharia law to be upheld by British courts would give a set of laws based upon the Koran, (which is completely alien to England and its traditions and its people, and considers them to be hostile, infidel members of the "house of war"), to have equal precedence to the English common law, thereby providing for a legal precedent, that taken to its logical conclusion would have to give the Koran potential jurisdiction in all British civil law, in a country where 97 percent of the population are not Muslim.
Its obviously a ridiculous idea, what's really surprising is that some Muslim leaders are actually asking for it, and consider it a reasonable demand, and we are talking about people not considered extremists.
I mean, why not have a separate House of Commons voted for only by Muslims, and a House of Lords (or Sheiks) made up of Muslim notables, and a separate Islamic police force and Judiciary to enforce the Fatwahs handed down by the British Sheiks and Imams, and a separate Islamic army as well to ensure that Muslims are kept secure from their non Muslim neighbours (surely a necessity in a country where there are so many people hostile to Islam), perhaps a separate Muslim head of state to counter the corrosive influence of the Christian Queen, that will surely lead to British unity and understanding.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Call for sharia law in UK
posted by galbally
Western civilization and its values are directly based on Christianity (even in its absence in a secular society), not Islam, or Buddhism, or Hinduism, and any attempt to bring in a society based on different sets of basic cultural values and laws will fail utterly and lead eventually to anarchy or war. Some civilizations seem to interact better than others on a ground level, but its always problematic once the numbers of people's of differing religions, civilizations, and world views within a society become significant in a country or region.
Actually I would dispute that. All the concepts of western civilisation that we hold most dear are NOT christian in origin.
The very words we use and the concepts all pre-date Christianity, freedom, liberty, democracy republic, the rule of law and all being equal before it. The protestant reformation IMO was as much a visceral cultural reaction to the injustice and iniquity of the church that people saw around them as much as it was a desire for a purer form of religion. A basic sense of being as good as the next man that is part of our nature. The arguments of the time were expressed in Christian terms but the concepts owe more to a pagan sense that no one could claim to speak for god. A king anointed by god to rule over those of lower birth people just don't swallow that very readily. They might not articulate an alternative very well but the desire for one is always there. We're both celts-a people with a tradition of electing kings by acclamation not primogeniture. The goths, the vandals the franks the huns all had similar traditions. We use the words of the pagans and copy their institutions because that is our real culture not some religion from the middle east.
indeed I would argue that monotheistic religion is inimical to individual freedom. You can't have some wee punter arguing with the priest.
posted by jester
Then why dont they set up a legal and binding contract under UK law? Is the law of the land in which they live not good enough for them?
Doesn't really matter whether they think it not good enough for them they have to abide by it. They can like it or lump it. It's not something that is likely to get a serious hearing in the UK. We don't allow religious courts and haven't done so for quite some time. Nor are we likely do, if you allow sharia law then you have christian sects demanding the same. Sectarianism is just below the surface in the UK, only a complete idiot would want it stirred up and I suspect if they seriously tried for sharia law the overwhelming response would be a resounding no we're not having it. Our more active thugs would take the opportunity to fire-bomb the mosques. We are actually one of the more warlike people around, many people make the mistake of assuming that a preference for tolerance and compromise is synonymous with weakness.
If people choose to accept a priests judgement on something that is their choice but no one can force them to abide by it.
The catholic church can excommunicate ( I think they still do so for divorcees, or not. I don't actually know) someone it doesn't matter unless they decide it does it has no meaning outside of their religion.
Plenty of religious families from all bits of the spectrum will ostracise a daughter or a son for marrying outside the faith. Honour killing for doing so is murder and treated as such.
posted by jester
US catholics are fine to live under their own set or moral principles and the US law system.
I dont hear catholics setting up their own courts to hear issues, I dont doubt that a number of catholics seek a priest prior to legal recourse first, but any legal decisions made are clearly under US law.
I was actually trying to point out to double helix that if 38% muslim population in the UK meant we would end up a moslem country then by the same logic the US would become a catholic one. Leaving aside the inaccuracy of wherever he got his figures from. Never let reality get in the way of a good belief. I think he's been reading a BNP pamphlet or something.
posted by bryn mawr
Too true - an excellent post Sir, I only wish I'd made it myself.
as ever your perspicacity never ceases to impress me
Western civilization and its values are directly based on Christianity (even in its absence in a secular society), not Islam, or Buddhism, or Hinduism, and any attempt to bring in a society based on different sets of basic cultural values and laws will fail utterly and lead eventually to anarchy or war. Some civilizations seem to interact better than others on a ground level, but its always problematic once the numbers of people's of differing religions, civilizations, and world views within a society become significant in a country or region.
Actually I would dispute that. All the concepts of western civilisation that we hold most dear are NOT christian in origin.
The very words we use and the concepts all pre-date Christianity, freedom, liberty, democracy republic, the rule of law and all being equal before it. The protestant reformation IMO was as much a visceral cultural reaction to the injustice and iniquity of the church that people saw around them as much as it was a desire for a purer form of religion. A basic sense of being as good as the next man that is part of our nature. The arguments of the time were expressed in Christian terms but the concepts owe more to a pagan sense that no one could claim to speak for god. A king anointed by god to rule over those of lower birth people just don't swallow that very readily. They might not articulate an alternative very well but the desire for one is always there. We're both celts-a people with a tradition of electing kings by acclamation not primogeniture. The goths, the vandals the franks the huns all had similar traditions. We use the words of the pagans and copy their institutions because that is our real culture not some religion from the middle east.
indeed I would argue that monotheistic religion is inimical to individual freedom. You can't have some wee punter arguing with the priest.
posted by jester
Then why dont they set up a legal and binding contract under UK law? Is the law of the land in which they live not good enough for them?
Doesn't really matter whether they think it not good enough for them they have to abide by it. They can like it or lump it. It's not something that is likely to get a serious hearing in the UK. We don't allow religious courts and haven't done so for quite some time. Nor are we likely do, if you allow sharia law then you have christian sects demanding the same. Sectarianism is just below the surface in the UK, only a complete idiot would want it stirred up and I suspect if they seriously tried for sharia law the overwhelming response would be a resounding no we're not having it. Our more active thugs would take the opportunity to fire-bomb the mosques. We are actually one of the more warlike people around, many people make the mistake of assuming that a preference for tolerance and compromise is synonymous with weakness.
If people choose to accept a priests judgement on something that is their choice but no one can force them to abide by it.
The catholic church can excommunicate ( I think they still do so for divorcees, or not. I don't actually know) someone it doesn't matter unless they decide it does it has no meaning outside of their religion.
Plenty of religious families from all bits of the spectrum will ostracise a daughter or a son for marrying outside the faith. Honour killing for doing so is murder and treated as such.
posted by jester
US catholics are fine to live under their own set or moral principles and the US law system.
I dont hear catholics setting up their own courts to hear issues, I dont doubt that a number of catholics seek a priest prior to legal recourse first, but any legal decisions made are clearly under US law.
I was actually trying to point out to double helix that if 38% muslim population in the UK meant we would end up a moslem country then by the same logic the US would become a catholic one. Leaving aside the inaccuracy of wherever he got his figures from. Never let reality get in the way of a good belief. I think he's been reading a BNP pamphlet or something.
posted by bryn mawr
Too true - an excellent post Sir, I only wish I'd made it myself.
as ever your perspicacity never ceases to impress me
Call for sharia law in UK
gmc;770465 wrote: posted by galbally
Actually I would dispute that. All the concepts of western civilisation that we hold most dear are NOT christian in origin.
The very words we use and the concepts all pre-date Christianity, freedom, liberty, democracy republic, the rule of law and all being equal before it. The protestant reformation IMO was as much a visceral cultural reaction to the injustice and iniquity of the church that people saw around them as much as it was a desire for a purer form of religion. A basic sense of being as good as the next man that is part of our nature. The arguments of the time were expressed in Christian terms but the concepts owe more to a pagan sense that no one could claim to speak for god. A king anointed by god to rule over those of lower birth people just don't swallow that very readily. They might not articulate an alternative very well but the desire for one is always there. We're both celts-a people with a tradition of electing kings by acclamation not primogeniture. The goths, the vandals the franks the huns all had similar traditions. We use the words of the pagans and copy their institutions because that is our real culture not some religion from the middle east.
indeed I would argue that monotheistic religion is inimical to individual freedom. You can't have some wee punter arguing with the priest.
Yes, I wasn't trying to downplay the classical legacy, my point is that once Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire, then it became the primal philosophical idea that began to underpin morality, natural justice, equity, etc etc etc, and not all to the good of course.
Since that time law has developed in Europe to service a Christian people, living lives regulated by Christian tradition, and it was not until the era of the Renaissance and the Reformation that the temporal and moral power of the Christian Church in Europe was diminished to such a point where free inquiry became a thing possible for intelligent men to engage in and question even the teachings of the Church.
Of course they fought hard, they burned Giodorno Bruni, arrested Gallielo, but ultimately they accepted that they were second to the civil law and the power of the prince on this earth at least. But even though the past 400 years in Europe have been a story of trying to emerge from a dark age of superstition and mysticism, we escaped from a "Christian" dark age, not an Islamic dark age, if you know what I mean.
I would also agree completely with your last point in that free inquiry is the death of organized religion, and organized monotheistic religion is the death of any hope of free inquiry or true human liberty. Which is why people in Islamic countries can be sentenced to death for downloading "unIslamic" material on their computer as recently happened in Afghanistan.
Actually I would dispute that. All the concepts of western civilisation that we hold most dear are NOT christian in origin.
The very words we use and the concepts all pre-date Christianity, freedom, liberty, democracy republic, the rule of law and all being equal before it. The protestant reformation IMO was as much a visceral cultural reaction to the injustice and iniquity of the church that people saw around them as much as it was a desire for a purer form of religion. A basic sense of being as good as the next man that is part of our nature. The arguments of the time were expressed in Christian terms but the concepts owe more to a pagan sense that no one could claim to speak for god. A king anointed by god to rule over those of lower birth people just don't swallow that very readily. They might not articulate an alternative very well but the desire for one is always there. We're both celts-a people with a tradition of electing kings by acclamation not primogeniture. The goths, the vandals the franks the huns all had similar traditions. We use the words of the pagans and copy their institutions because that is our real culture not some religion from the middle east.
indeed I would argue that monotheistic religion is inimical to individual freedom. You can't have some wee punter arguing with the priest.
Yes, I wasn't trying to downplay the classical legacy, my point is that once Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire, then it became the primal philosophical idea that began to underpin morality, natural justice, equity, etc etc etc, and not all to the good of course.
Since that time law has developed in Europe to service a Christian people, living lives regulated by Christian tradition, and it was not until the era of the Renaissance and the Reformation that the temporal and moral power of the Christian Church in Europe was diminished to such a point where free inquiry became a thing possible for intelligent men to engage in and question even the teachings of the Church.
Of course they fought hard, they burned Giodorno Bruni, arrested Gallielo, but ultimately they accepted that they were second to the civil law and the power of the prince on this earth at least. But even though the past 400 years in Europe have been a story of trying to emerge from a dark age of superstition and mysticism, we escaped from a "Christian" dark age, not an Islamic dark age, if you know what I mean.
I would also agree completely with your last point in that free inquiry is the death of organized religion, and organized monotheistic religion is the death of any hope of free inquiry or true human liberty. Which is why people in Islamic countries can be sentenced to death for downloading "unIslamic" material on their computer as recently happened in Afghanistan.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Call for sharia law in UK
Galbally;770500 wrote: Which is why people in Islamic countries can be sentenced to death for downloading "unIslamic" material on their computer as recently happened in Afghanistan.
And it may be that, for Afghani society, that's a desirable outcome. I make no assertion that it is or isn't, but I insist that it may be. I maintain my own opposition to the death penalty but that's not the point - substitute an alternative "maximum penalty the law allows" to simplify matters there.
What it isn't is a possible outcome of enabling community courts in England to operate customary law between parties who agree to abide by its judgement. Every sentence of such a court has to be consistent with English law. Whipping, beating, amputating, beheading, crushing, stoning or infecting with deadly diseases are all illegal acts in England. None of them can be imposed as a sentence of any community court here, regardless of how it's constituted or what the parties agree to beforehand.
And it may be that, for Afghani society, that's a desirable outcome. I make no assertion that it is or isn't, but I insist that it may be. I maintain my own opposition to the death penalty but that's not the point - substitute an alternative "maximum penalty the law allows" to simplify matters there.
What it isn't is a possible outcome of enabling community courts in England to operate customary law between parties who agree to abide by its judgement. Every sentence of such a court has to be consistent with English law. Whipping, beating, amputating, beheading, crushing, stoning or infecting with deadly diseases are all illegal acts in England. None of them can be imposed as a sentence of any community court here, regardless of how it's constituted or what the parties agree to beforehand.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Call for sharia law in UK
spot;770504 wrote: And it may be that, for Afghani society, that's a desirable outcome. I make no assertion that it is or isn't, but I insist that it may be. I maintain my own opposition to the death penalty but that's not the point - substitute an alternative "maximum penalty the law allows" to simplify matters there.
What it isn't is a possible outcome of enabling community courts in England to operate customary law between parties who agree to abide by its judgement. Every sentence of such a court has to be consistent with English law. Whipping, beating, amputating, beheading, crushing, stoning or infecting with deadly diseases are all illegal acts in England. None of them can be imposed as a sentence of any community court here, regardless of how it's constituted or what the parties agree to beforehand.
What about forced marriages, honour killings, or bigamy? All allowed under Sharia, where as of course such acts are illegal under English law, and some hold pretty hefty sentences. It is a totally subversive idea to even allow this operation of customary law (under British law court supervision) as it facilitates the belief among many Muslims that they should be allowed to carry out such acts as they are Muslims, regardless of what the actual law of the land says. It simply re-enforces the ability of conservative and extremist Muslims to intimidate their fellow muslims into some self-created Islamic legal ghetto, and to continue with practices like the forced arraigned marriage of 16 year old children, which would earn an ordinary British Citizen a jail term.
In my country during the child abuse scandals, several priests and bishops tried to use the defense that they were guided by their belief in the Canon Law of the RC Church when the tried to hide the evidence of what was going on, the Government had to make it quite clear that there is only one set of laws for dealing with criminal matters, and they are Irish State Laws, not religious ones. Its a pandoras box that is being opened here.
What it isn't is a possible outcome of enabling community courts in England to operate customary law between parties who agree to abide by its judgement. Every sentence of such a court has to be consistent with English law. Whipping, beating, amputating, beheading, crushing, stoning or infecting with deadly diseases are all illegal acts in England. None of them can be imposed as a sentence of any community court here, regardless of how it's constituted or what the parties agree to beforehand.
What about forced marriages, honour killings, or bigamy? All allowed under Sharia, where as of course such acts are illegal under English law, and some hold pretty hefty sentences. It is a totally subversive idea to even allow this operation of customary law (under British law court supervision) as it facilitates the belief among many Muslims that they should be allowed to carry out such acts as they are Muslims, regardless of what the actual law of the land says. It simply re-enforces the ability of conservative and extremist Muslims to intimidate their fellow muslims into some self-created Islamic legal ghetto, and to continue with practices like the forced arraigned marriage of 16 year old children, which would earn an ordinary British Citizen a jail term.
In my country during the child abuse scandals, several priests and bishops tried to use the defense that they were guided by their belief in the Canon Law of the RC Church when the tried to hide the evidence of what was going on, the Government had to make it quite clear that there is only one set of laws for dealing with criminal matters, and they are Irish State Laws, not religious ones. Its a pandoras box that is being opened here.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Call for sharia law in UK
I note (since you didn't bite my bait) that English law also sentences people up to the maximum penalty allowed to English courts, life imprisonment, for downloading material it deems unacceptable within English society. The English and the Afghan governments merely disagree, to a greater or lesser extent, on what that material consists of.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Call for sharia law in UK
Galbally;770508 wrote: What about forced marriages, honour killings, or bigamy?Shall I have a sketchy shot at justifying honour killings? Would that help?
Here we go then.
In some societies there is a pervasive cultural demand that if someone kills your male relative you have to kill the killer regardless of who's right or wrong. This is tribal feuding. It can kill a lot of people in a chain.
One of the triggers starting such a chain is the killing of a man who trifles with the affections of a sister.
Rather than allowing a brother to be put in a position where he has to start a tribal feud, custom allows the brother to nip it in the bud if he decides that the sister herself is in some measure to blame for the perceived tribal insult. This is honour killing. Its purpose is to save life, not to take it.
Once tribal feuding is stopped then honour killing can be stopped. Stopping the honour killing first will only increase the body count.
Neither honour killing nor tribal feuding is anything to do with any religion, it's a cultural circumstance. By all means demonstrate that to be false if it is but I think it's right.
As for bigamy - I'd make marriage illegal if it were up to me.
Here we go then.
In some societies there is a pervasive cultural demand that if someone kills your male relative you have to kill the killer regardless of who's right or wrong. This is tribal feuding. It can kill a lot of people in a chain.
One of the triggers starting such a chain is the killing of a man who trifles with the affections of a sister.
Rather than allowing a brother to be put in a position where he has to start a tribal feud, custom allows the brother to nip it in the bud if he decides that the sister herself is in some measure to blame for the perceived tribal insult. This is honour killing. Its purpose is to save life, not to take it.
Once tribal feuding is stopped then honour killing can be stopped. Stopping the honour killing first will only increase the body count.
Neither honour killing nor tribal feuding is anything to do with any religion, it's a cultural circumstance. By all means demonstrate that to be false if it is but I think it's right.
As for bigamy - I'd make marriage illegal if it were up to me.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Call for sharia law in UK
I'm sure that both are already crimes in England and in the USA, and that's a good thing.
I'm not sure that they should be crimes in every country on the planet. That, presumably, is where we differ. You have no reason to turn every nation on earth into a client state with identical laws, and neither should you be allowed to try. Each country is a little experiment all of its own.
I'm not sure that they should be crimes in every country on the planet. That, presumably, is where we differ. You have no reason to turn every nation on earth into a client state with identical laws, and neither should you be allowed to try. Each country is a little experiment all of its own.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Call for sharia law in UK
Jester;770561 wrote: I absolutely agree. Each place should have a government determined by its people.
When two countries differ and they have issues, then thats where you and I disagree as to what happens.
One day I'm going to ask you what issues the US had with Iraq in 2003 and you'll answer "none".
When two countries differ and they have issues, then thats where you and I disagree as to what happens.
One day I'm going to ask you what issues the US had with Iraq in 2003 and you'll answer "none".
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Call for sharia law in UK
Jester;770574 wrote: I doubt it Spot.
I saw with my own eyes what the Bathaa'sts did to innocent children. Hang them all.
And if it's true, as seems reasonable and likely to me, that the number of dead innocent children is now far higher than it would ever have been without this Western "liberation", presumably we let the interveners off that hook simply because they claim that they meant well. The "liberation" has been a total catastrophe for innocent children in Iraq.
I saw with my own eyes what the Bathaa'sts did to innocent children. Hang them all.
And if it's true, as seems reasonable and likely to me, that the number of dead innocent children is now far higher than it would ever have been without this Western "liberation", presumably we let the interveners off that hook simply because they claim that they meant well. The "liberation" has been a total catastrophe for innocent children in Iraq.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Call for sharia law in UK
Jester;770560 wrote: I am pointing out a possible danger of allowing these courts to work inside the UK. If a case goes agaisnt the ruling in Sharia law and gets dragged into a court case under UK law there may be an instance where sharia law is upheld simply by over lap of the law. I am uncertain of the way UK law works but in the US we operat eunder precedential law.
There is no possible way that UK Law could be over-ridden in that Sharia Law wound never be part of the UK's legal system - it would be an agreement entered into voluntarily by the two parties . If the case gets "dragged into a court case" then the Sharia verdict is an irrelevance.
The nearest equivalent I can put forward is a visit to you local priest for advice on the procedure to follow if you separate from your wife / husband - what church rules do I have to obey in order to be seen as doing right by the Church and the community.
As there is no suggestion that Sharia Law will have any basis within a UK court there is no possibility that honour killing or bigamy can be found acceptable (to do so would be to become an accessory to the crime) and no verdict involving stoning or mutilation could ever be lawfully carried out. An arranged marriage could be upheld as it is a voluntary agreement but a forced marriage is not recognised here and is held null and void if proven.
There is no possible way that UK Law could be over-ridden in that Sharia Law wound never be part of the UK's legal system - it would be an agreement entered into voluntarily by the two parties . If the case gets "dragged into a court case" then the Sharia verdict is an irrelevance.
The nearest equivalent I can put forward is a visit to you local priest for advice on the procedure to follow if you separate from your wife / husband - what church rules do I have to obey in order to be seen as doing right by the Church and the community.
As there is no suggestion that Sharia Law will have any basis within a UK court there is no possibility that honour killing or bigamy can be found acceptable (to do so would be to become an accessory to the crime) and no verdict involving stoning or mutilation could ever be lawfully carried out. An arranged marriage could be upheld as it is a voluntary agreement but a forced marriage is not recognised here and is held null and void if proven.
Call for sharia law in UK
Bryn Mawr;770594 wrote: As there is no suggestion that Sharia Law will have any basis within a UK courtI have a suspicion that if community courts do get official recognition in England it'll be on the basis that if both parties accept the jurisdiction of the community court then the English court will devolve the trial, verdict and sentencing without there being a subsequent risk of double jeopardy. It still won't allow illegal sentences to be passed though.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Call for sharia law in UK
posted by galbally
Of course they fought hard, they burned Giodorno Bruni, arrested Gallielo, but ultimately they accepted that they were second to the civil law and the power of the prince on this earth at least. But even though the past 400 years in Europe have been a story of trying to emerge from a dark age of superstition and mysticism, we escaped from a "Christian" dark age, not an Islamic dark age, if you know what I mean.
People tend to forget just how bloody our own history is.
posted by jester
I am pointing out a possible danger of allowing these courts to work inside the UK. If a case goes agaisnt the ruling in Sharia law and gets dragged into a court case under UK law there may be an instance where sharia law is upheld simply by over lap of the law. I am uncertain of the way UK law works but in the US we operat eunder precedential law.
There is no danger that they will ever be allowed in the UK. Parliament makes the laws with the EU courts in some instances being superior but when it comes down to it it's parliament. They'd have to get then other 97% of the population to agree to it.
English law is a mixture of common law (based on the old danelaw) and statute. It's a complicated mixture. Fascinating to read about if you find that kind of thing interesting or incredibly boring if not.
Scotland has a different legal system, which as you would expect is more logical and much better (OK I'm biased) and even if they were introduced in England the likelihood of Scotland having them is even more remote. The kind of sectarianism it would stir up an incredible stooshie that no one wants.
Of course they fought hard, they burned Giodorno Bruni, arrested Gallielo, but ultimately they accepted that they were second to the civil law and the power of the prince on this earth at least. But even though the past 400 years in Europe have been a story of trying to emerge from a dark age of superstition and mysticism, we escaped from a "Christian" dark age, not an Islamic dark age, if you know what I mean.
People tend to forget just how bloody our own history is.
posted by jester
I am pointing out a possible danger of allowing these courts to work inside the UK. If a case goes agaisnt the ruling in Sharia law and gets dragged into a court case under UK law there may be an instance where sharia law is upheld simply by over lap of the law. I am uncertain of the way UK law works but in the US we operat eunder precedential law.
There is no danger that they will ever be allowed in the UK. Parliament makes the laws with the EU courts in some instances being superior but when it comes down to it it's parliament. They'd have to get then other 97% of the population to agree to it.
English law is a mixture of common law (based on the old danelaw) and statute. It's a complicated mixture. Fascinating to read about if you find that kind of thing interesting or incredibly boring if not.
Scotland has a different legal system, which as you would expect is more logical and much better (OK I'm biased) and even if they were introduced in England the likelihood of Scotland having them is even more remote. The kind of sectarianism it would stir up an incredible stooshie that no one wants.
Call for sharia law in UK
I'm sorry, but I am not letting this one go. How can it be sensible to allow for the promotion and use of officially sanctioned Sharia law in the UK by British citizens (even in an agreed, advisory ad hoc arrangement), which enforces and promotes social doctrines such as forced marriage, or polygamy, or the treatment of women as little better than property with feelings, all of which are not actually recognized and are in reality outlawed under English law? Its complete nonsense. It is the duty of the people empowered to administer the state to legislate for and enforce the agreed rules of society, not to allow for the subversion of the social principals upon which British society rests. Free, open societies are societies of universally agreed, applied, and upheld laws more than anything else. I cannot think of anything more corrosive than to allow a tiny religious minority to be allowed to think that alien religious laws can have any legal identity within Britain, whatever the well-meaning motives of moral relativists are.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Call for sharia law in UK
Chezzie;760740 wrote: THE Sunday Telegraph today tells of demands by senior Muslims that sharia law be given legal authority in the UK.
Dr Hasan is a judge in a sharia court - in east London. It sits, innocuously, at the end of a row of terrace houses in Leyton: a converted corner shop, with blinds on the windows, office- style partitions and a makeshift reception area.
It is one of dozens of sharia courts - also known as councils - that have been set up in mosques, Islamic centres and even schools across Britain.
The number of British Muslims using the courts is increasing.
The judgments of the courts have no basis in British law, and are therefore technically illegitimate - they are binding only in that those involved agree to comply.
"Even though cutting off the hands and feet, or flogging the drunkard and fornicator, seem to be very abhorrent, once they are implemented, they become a deterrent for the whole society," Hasan told the paper.
Jeeez may aswell just give them our bloody country...feels like everyone who wasnt born here has a right except us! Without wishing to come accross as a rasist F--KWIT why doesn't Hassan take his sharia law with him when he goes back to the Muslim country he came from and take his fellow Muslims with him. This is my country and it is not going to be changed at the whim of the Hassans of this world
Dr Hasan is a judge in a sharia court - in east London. It sits, innocuously, at the end of a row of terrace houses in Leyton: a converted corner shop, with blinds on the windows, office- style partitions and a makeshift reception area.
It is one of dozens of sharia courts - also known as councils - that have been set up in mosques, Islamic centres and even schools across Britain.
The number of British Muslims using the courts is increasing.
The judgments of the courts have no basis in British law, and are therefore technically illegitimate - they are binding only in that those involved agree to comply.
"Even though cutting off the hands and feet, or flogging the drunkard and fornicator, seem to be very abhorrent, once they are implemented, they become a deterrent for the whole society," Hasan told the paper.
Jeeez may aswell just give them our bloody country...feels like everyone who wasnt born here has a right except us! Without wishing to come accross as a rasist F--KWIT why doesn't Hassan take his sharia law with him when he goes back to the Muslim country he came from and take his fellow Muslims with him. This is my country and it is not going to be changed at the whim of the Hassans of this world
Call for sharia law in UK
Galbally;770988 wrote: I'm sorry, but I am not letting this one go. How can it be sensible to allow for the promotion and use of officially sanctioned Sharia law in the UK by British citizens (even in an agreed, advisory ad hoc arrangement), which enforces and promotes social doctrines such as forced marriage, or polygamy, or the treatment of women as little better than property with feelings, all of which are not actually recognized and are in reality outlawed under English law? Its complete nonsense. It is the duty of the people empowered to administer the state to legislate for and enforce the agreed rules of society, not to allow for the subversion of the social principals upon which British society rests. Free, open societies are societies of universally agreed, applied, and upheld laws more than anything else. I cannot think of anything more corrosive than to allow a tiny religious minority to be allowed to think that alien religious laws can have any legal identity within Britain, whatever the well-meaning motives of moral relativists are.
How is what was proposed in the original article different from two Jews going to their Rabbi for a ruling on how they should handle a separation or the application of Cannon Law to a Catholic community.
According to Oppenheim in "International Law - A Treatise" :-
The best example of the existence of law outside the State is the law of the Roman Catholic Church, the so- called Canon Law.
How is what was proposed in the original article different from two Jews going to their Rabbi for a ruling on how they should handle a separation or the application of Cannon Law to a Catholic community.
According to Oppenheim in "International Law - A Treatise" :-
The best example of the existence of law outside the State is the law of the Roman Catholic Church, the so- called Canon Law.
Call for sharia law in UK
Bryn Mawr;771040 wrote: How is what was proposed in the original article different from two Jews going to their Rabbi for a ruling on how they should handle a separation or the application of Cannon Law to a Catholic community.
According to Oppenheim in "International Law - A Treatise" :-
The best example of the existence of law outside the State is the law of the Roman Catholic Church, the so- called Canon Law.
The teachings of Catholic scripture, or Rabbinical law are also not provided for under British law and have no legal identity, and the British government should have no truck with the promotion of the idea that Catholics in Britain can live their lives (in the legal sense) according to Canon law (which anyway deals with the lives of the clergy not ordinary Catholics, but still doesn't mean that clergy should every be allowed to think they live by different rules than anyone else), or that British Jews could set up quasi-legal community courts based on their scriptures. I am not saying that people don't have the right to go to the clergy of their religion for advice or counsel, or that they cannot incorporate the teachings of their religions into their lives as British citizens in the general sense. However, where their religious beliefs conflict with civil law that right ends, and it also needs to be stated quite clearly that no religious communities in the U.K. are self-governing, or self legislating. British Christians, Jews, Muslims, and Scientologists living in the U.K. are all identified as British citizens, and that is how they are governed under British law. If you dismantle that principal, you are essentially breaking the U.K. up into religious cantons, recognized under the law.
According to Oppenheim in "International Law - A Treatise" :-
The best example of the existence of law outside the State is the law of the Roman Catholic Church, the so- called Canon Law.
The teachings of Catholic scripture, or Rabbinical law are also not provided for under British law and have no legal identity, and the British government should have no truck with the promotion of the idea that Catholics in Britain can live their lives (in the legal sense) according to Canon law (which anyway deals with the lives of the clergy not ordinary Catholics, but still doesn't mean that clergy should every be allowed to think they live by different rules than anyone else), or that British Jews could set up quasi-legal community courts based on their scriptures. I am not saying that people don't have the right to go to the clergy of their religion for advice or counsel, or that they cannot incorporate the teachings of their religions into their lives as British citizens in the general sense. However, where their religious beliefs conflict with civil law that right ends, and it also needs to be stated quite clearly that no religious communities in the U.K. are self-governing, or self legislating. British Christians, Jews, Muslims, and Scientologists living in the U.K. are all identified as British citizens, and that is how they are governed under British law. If you dismantle that principal, you are essentially breaking the U.K. up into religious cantons, recognized under the law.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Call for sharia law in UK
Galbally;771062 wrote: The teachings of Catholic scripture, or Rabbinical law are also not provided for under British law and have no legal identity, and the British government should have no truck with the promotion of the idea that Catholics in Britain can live their lives according to Canon law (which anyway deals with the lives of the clergy not ordinary Catholics, but still doesn't mean that clergy should every be allowed to think they live by different rules than anyone else), or that British Jews could set up quasi-legal community courts based on their scriptures. I am not saying that people don't have the right to go to the clergy of their religion for advice or counsel, but religious communities in the U.K. are not self-governing, or self legislating. British Christians, Jews, Muslims, and Scientologists living in the U.K. are all identified as British citizens, and that is how they are governed under British law. If you dismantle that principal, you are essentially breaking the U.K. up into religious cantons, recognized under the law.
So where did the original article propose anything other than that?
As far as I could see it was a religious leader setting himself up to provide advice to those that wanted it as to how to act in accordance with Sharia Law. No suggestion that it would have the right to impose punishments that went against British Law. No suggestion that it would replace British Law. No suggestion that anyone would be bound to submit to it or to abide by the ruling handed down.
I do not see where the breach of principle occurs.
So where did the original article propose anything other than that?
As far as I could see it was a religious leader setting himself up to provide advice to those that wanted it as to how to act in accordance with Sharia Law. No suggestion that it would have the right to impose punishments that went against British Law. No suggestion that it would replace British Law. No suggestion that anyone would be bound to submit to it or to abide by the ruling handed down.
I do not see where the breach of principle occurs.
Call for sharia law in UK
Bryn Mawr;771073 wrote: So where did the original article propose anything other than that?
As far as I could see it was a religious leader setting himself up to provide advice to those that wanted it as to how to act in accordance with Sharia Law. No suggestion that it would have the right to impose punishments that went against British Law. No suggestion that it would replace British Law. No suggestion that anyone would be bound to submit to it or to abide by the ruling handed down.
I do not see where the breach of principle occurs.
Why not? The principal is that the Islamic leader in question wants his Sharia court to have a legal identity, in that the British judicial system would recognize his right to dispense religious justice to Muslims, with their agreement, as long as it did not impinge on British law. Why does he seek this? I can think of no instance where a Catholic priest has asked for a similar recognition of Canon law, or a Rabbi of Rabbincal law? Either he is a spiritual leader, or he is not, and he is something more.
To be perfectly frank, aside from the legal principal of universality, Sharia law's concepts of marriage, the rights of women, and the punishment of offenders, and the meeting out of "justice" are so totally at odds with British law, even if the government was so supine as to accept this type of nonsense for political expedience, it would still be a completely ridiculous idea because you cannot legally (for instance) have one wife in England and another in Pakistan, if you do, then you are a bigamist. A Muslim man does not have automatic rights over his wife or children by dint of the fact that he is a man, and therefore you cannot force your daughter to marry someone of your own choosing within your own acceptably prejudice of who is racially and religiously "right" for her, and you cannot kill her with impunity if she refuses, and anyone that promotes those ideas, or sanctions them within Britain could find themselves being made liable, for civil prosecution if people they have "advised" religiously and "legally" in the Sharia sense of the word commit these crimes.
As far as I could see it was a religious leader setting himself up to provide advice to those that wanted it as to how to act in accordance with Sharia Law. No suggestion that it would have the right to impose punishments that went against British Law. No suggestion that it would replace British Law. No suggestion that anyone would be bound to submit to it or to abide by the ruling handed down.
I do not see where the breach of principle occurs.
Why not? The principal is that the Islamic leader in question wants his Sharia court to have a legal identity, in that the British judicial system would recognize his right to dispense religious justice to Muslims, with their agreement, as long as it did not impinge on British law. Why does he seek this? I can think of no instance where a Catholic priest has asked for a similar recognition of Canon law, or a Rabbi of Rabbincal law? Either he is a spiritual leader, or he is not, and he is something more.
To be perfectly frank, aside from the legal principal of universality, Sharia law's concepts of marriage, the rights of women, and the punishment of offenders, and the meeting out of "justice" are so totally at odds with British law, even if the government was so supine as to accept this type of nonsense for political expedience, it would still be a completely ridiculous idea because you cannot legally (for instance) have one wife in England and another in Pakistan, if you do, then you are a bigamist. A Muslim man does not have automatic rights over his wife or children by dint of the fact that he is a man, and therefore you cannot force your daughter to marry someone of your own choosing within your own acceptably prejudice of who is racially and religiously "right" for her, and you cannot kill her with impunity if she refuses, and anyone that promotes those ideas, or sanctions them within Britain could find themselves being made liable, for civil prosecution if people they have "advised" religiously and "legally" in the Sharia sense of the word commit these crimes.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Call for sharia law in UK
Galbally;771113 wrote: Why not? The principal is that the Islamic leader in question wants his Sharia court to have a legal identity, in that the British judicial system would recognize his right to dispense religious justice to Muslims, with their agreement, as long as it did not impinge on British law. Why does he seek this? I can think of no instance where a Catholic priest has asked for a similar recognition of Canon law, or a Rabbi of Rabbincal law? Either he is a spiritual leader, or he is not, and he is something more.
To be perfectly frank, aside from the legal principal of universality, Sharia law's concepts of marriage, the rights of women, and the punishment of offenders, and the meeting out of "justice" are so totally at odds with British law, even if the government was so supine as to accept this type of nonsense for political expedience, it would still be a completely ridiculous idea because you cannot legally (for instance) have one wife in England and another in Pakistan, if you do, then you are a bigamist. A Muslim man does not have automatic rights over his wife or children by dint of the fact that he is a man, and therefore you cannot force your daughter to marry someone of your own choosing within your own acceptably prejudice of who is racially and religiously "right" for her, and you cannot kill her with impunity if she refuses, and anyone that promotes those ideas, or sanctions them within Britain could find themselves being made liable, for civil prosecution if people they have "advised" religiously and "legally" in the Sharia sense of the word commit these crimes.
I did not get from the original article that they wanted recognition within the British legal system - as you say, this would be a no-no.
By definition, any verdict that went against British Law would be invalid and, if carried out, would open the "judge" to being charged as an accomplice. As I said before, this would rule out bigamy, forced marriage, honour killings, stoning etc.
To be perfectly frank, aside from the legal principal of universality, Sharia law's concepts of marriage, the rights of women, and the punishment of offenders, and the meeting out of "justice" are so totally at odds with British law, even if the government was so supine as to accept this type of nonsense for political expedience, it would still be a completely ridiculous idea because you cannot legally (for instance) have one wife in England and another in Pakistan, if you do, then you are a bigamist. A Muslim man does not have automatic rights over his wife or children by dint of the fact that he is a man, and therefore you cannot force your daughter to marry someone of your own choosing within your own acceptably prejudice of who is racially and religiously "right" for her, and you cannot kill her with impunity if she refuses, and anyone that promotes those ideas, or sanctions them within Britain could find themselves being made liable, for civil prosecution if people they have "advised" religiously and "legally" in the Sharia sense of the word commit these crimes.
I did not get from the original article that they wanted recognition within the British legal system - as you say, this would be a no-no.
By definition, any verdict that went against British Law would be invalid and, if carried out, would open the "judge" to being charged as an accomplice. As I said before, this would rule out bigamy, forced marriage, honour killings, stoning etc.
Call for sharia law in UK
Bryn Mawr;771126 wrote: I did not get from the original article that they wanted recognition within the British legal system - as you say, this would be a no-no.
By definition, any verdict that went against British Law would be invalid and, if carried out, would open the "judge" to being charged as an accomplice. As I said before, this would rule out bigamy, forced marriage, honour killings, stoning etc.
Some of the nuttier ones have suggested that they do. You do occasionally meet the odd one that looks on westerners and our lifestyle with contempt. just as you meet many christians who lament the decline of religion and want to turn back the clock.
posted by twizzel
Without wishing to come accross as a rasist F--KWIT why doesn't Hassan take his sharia law with him when he goes back to the Muslim country he came from and take his fellow Muslims with him. This is my country and it is not going to be changed at the whim of the Hassans of this world
Actually it's not your land. Englans' green and pleasant land is not yours, hereditary landowners have been very good at hanging on to what their ancestors took by force-but that's a different topic.
Nothing wrong with being a racist FIW=wit. After all you could make an arguement that those who want sharia law are also racist FiyuiWits or religious bigots.
By definition, any verdict that went against British Law would be invalid and, if carried out, would open the "judge" to being charged as an accomplice. As I said before, this would rule out bigamy, forced marriage, honour killings, stoning etc.
Some of the nuttier ones have suggested that they do. You do occasionally meet the odd one that looks on westerners and our lifestyle with contempt. just as you meet many christians who lament the decline of religion and want to turn back the clock.
posted by twizzel
Without wishing to come accross as a rasist F--KWIT why doesn't Hassan take his sharia law with him when he goes back to the Muslim country he came from and take his fellow Muslims with him. This is my country and it is not going to be changed at the whim of the Hassans of this world
Actually it's not your land. Englans' green and pleasant land is not yours, hereditary landowners have been very good at hanging on to what their ancestors took by force-but that's a different topic.
Nothing wrong with being a racist FIW=wit. After all you could make an arguement that those who want sharia law are also racist FiyuiWits or religious bigots.
Call for sharia law in UK
Bryn Mawr;771126 wrote: I did not get from the original article that they wanted recognition within the British legal system - as you say, this would be a no-no.
By definition, any verdict that went against British Law would be invalid and, if carried out, would open the "judge" to being charged as an accomplice. As I said before, this would rule out bigamy, forced marriage, honour killings, stoning etc.
I think what you have to remember, is that right now, across Britain there are many young Muslim women who are being pressurized (some choose to of course) into living a lifestyle that by any British definition of the rights of non Muslim women citizens, would be considered unacceptably coercive by their families, husbands, and "senior" members of their local Muslim communities. Most of these women do not speak out because they are afraid of the consequences to them and their children. This is completely wrong, the Liberal left are noticeable in their absence in protesting such discrimination, and the British government should be ashamed.
It could rectify this by doing a lot more to stop this abuse by allowing young women who happen to be Muslim to better educated in the fact that they have as many rights under British law as their male relatives and do not have to stand for this crap, while prosecuting offenders without prejudice to religious sensitivities in more than a handful of "token" cases would also help.
In the same way that other British female citizens who are being abused or coerced by their families and partners for any reason, these women and their children are British citizens living in the U.K. and have a right to expect the state to stick up for them. But frankly these people are being failed by the state because of this cowardly attitude of not exposing exactly what is going on inside Britain today because of fear of general Muslim "anger" and a cosy pc consensus that prejudice and discrimination is something that only white males are capable of.
By definition, any verdict that went against British Law would be invalid and, if carried out, would open the "judge" to being charged as an accomplice. As I said before, this would rule out bigamy, forced marriage, honour killings, stoning etc.
I think what you have to remember, is that right now, across Britain there are many young Muslim women who are being pressurized (some choose to of course) into living a lifestyle that by any British definition of the rights of non Muslim women citizens, would be considered unacceptably coercive by their families, husbands, and "senior" members of their local Muslim communities. Most of these women do not speak out because they are afraid of the consequences to them and their children. This is completely wrong, the Liberal left are noticeable in their absence in protesting such discrimination, and the British government should be ashamed.
It could rectify this by doing a lot more to stop this abuse by allowing young women who happen to be Muslim to better educated in the fact that they have as many rights under British law as their male relatives and do not have to stand for this crap, while prosecuting offenders without prejudice to religious sensitivities in more than a handful of "token" cases would also help.
In the same way that other British female citizens who are being abused or coerced by their families and partners for any reason, these women and their children are British citizens living in the U.K. and have a right to expect the state to stick up for them. But frankly these people are being failed by the state because of this cowardly attitude of not exposing exactly what is going on inside Britain today because of fear of general Muslim "anger" and a cosy pc consensus that prejudice and discrimination is something that only white males are capable of.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
-
double helix
- Posts: 257
- Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2006 2:32 pm
Call for sharia law in UK
gmc;770156 wrote: So when will the US adopt Catholicism in the same way? After all all these catholics coming in to the country are bound to have more influence in the future as they become absorbed in to your offices, businesses and legal benches then they will soon be incorporating their "laws" into your legal system?
The actual percentage of muslims in the UK is 2.7%. They tend to be concentrated in the cities.
http://www.vexen.co.uk/UK/religion.html
Actually one of tony blairs legacies is the creation of more faith schools based on the mistaken assumption that the better results is due to the faith aspect rather than the selection of pupils. They're probably the most divisive institutions in the UK, perpetuating sectarianism and prejudice.
Between Swedish, Polish and Norwegian in the mid-western states to Irish, Italian, African/black and French on the East Coast to Mexican, black and mixed mutt on the West Coast, what happened to the original nationals, the Indians? Let me help you, they live on reservations and have casinos and tourist attractions to pay for their peoples governments within our government and suffer bad teeth and diabetes. We have so many different cultural influences in our Nation we simply don't know which "traditions" came from whom or where anymore which is why we can't make up our minds whether to wipe back to front or front to back on any given day!
Well, lets see, my percentage may have been off by a few numbers. I believe its 5-8% of your population that is foreign born right now with 16% of the African population vs 2.7% of nationals working in the health care field. That's just one field of employment now dominated by foreign born.
Try reading this article. Record immigration sees UK population soar
By Philip Johnston, Home Affairs Editorhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml ... ion423.xml
And maybe this one:United Kingdom: Rising Numbers, Rising Anxieties-- http://www.migrationinformation.org/Pro ... cfm?ID=306
The largest foreign-national group in the UK continues to be Irish, though their numbers in 2003 (374,000) had fallen from a peak of over half a million only a couple of decades ago. Taken together, nationals from other European countries (not just the EU) made up almost half of the total foreign national population (1.2 million), with significant numbers coming from Asian countries such as India (159,000) and Pakistan (76,000), the United States (135,000), South Africa (99,000), and Australia (76,000).
Here's one more to look over.
UK immigration statistics for past two years:
http://www.workpermit.com/news/2006_11_ ... istics.htm
According to official UK government estimates, approximately 1,500 migrants arrived to live in the UK every day during 2005. The same figures suggest that 185,000 more people immigrated into the UK than emigrated to another country, yielding a net population gain of 500 per day.
In total, 565,000 people arrived in the UK in 2005 saying they intended to stay for at least a year. At the same time, 380,000 people left. More than half of the 1,000 people a day who left the UK were British citizens.
So, that's an even exchange of 500 nationals leaving to 500 foreign born arriving.
Your UK has a total land mass circumference of, what, Texas and Alaska in the U.S.A.?
My point was that your country has reached and passed its manageable cultural absorption point. Your country will begin to see more dramatic changes in culturally accepted practices as a natural adaptation to the influx of foreign minds and manners and an out flow of nationals.
So, either kick back and go with the flow or, you could always come over to the USA and empress us with your vastly more qualified unemployment skills:D
The actual percentage of muslims in the UK is 2.7%. They tend to be concentrated in the cities.
http://www.vexen.co.uk/UK/religion.html
Actually one of tony blairs legacies is the creation of more faith schools based on the mistaken assumption that the better results is due to the faith aspect rather than the selection of pupils. They're probably the most divisive institutions in the UK, perpetuating sectarianism and prejudice.
Between Swedish, Polish and Norwegian in the mid-western states to Irish, Italian, African/black and French on the East Coast to Mexican, black and mixed mutt on the West Coast, what happened to the original nationals, the Indians? Let me help you, they live on reservations and have casinos and tourist attractions to pay for their peoples governments within our government and suffer bad teeth and diabetes. We have so many different cultural influences in our Nation we simply don't know which "traditions" came from whom or where anymore which is why we can't make up our minds whether to wipe back to front or front to back on any given day!
Well, lets see, my percentage may have been off by a few numbers. I believe its 5-8% of your population that is foreign born right now with 16% of the African population vs 2.7% of nationals working in the health care field. That's just one field of employment now dominated by foreign born.
Try reading this article. Record immigration sees UK population soar
By Philip Johnston, Home Affairs Editorhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml ... ion423.xml
And maybe this one:United Kingdom: Rising Numbers, Rising Anxieties-- http://www.migrationinformation.org/Pro ... cfm?ID=306
The largest foreign-national group in the UK continues to be Irish, though their numbers in 2003 (374,000) had fallen from a peak of over half a million only a couple of decades ago. Taken together, nationals from other European countries (not just the EU) made up almost half of the total foreign national population (1.2 million), with significant numbers coming from Asian countries such as India (159,000) and Pakistan (76,000), the United States (135,000), South Africa (99,000), and Australia (76,000).
Here's one more to look over.
UK immigration statistics for past two years:
http://www.workpermit.com/news/2006_11_ ... istics.htm
According to official UK government estimates, approximately 1,500 migrants arrived to live in the UK every day during 2005. The same figures suggest that 185,000 more people immigrated into the UK than emigrated to another country, yielding a net population gain of 500 per day.
In total, 565,000 people arrived in the UK in 2005 saying they intended to stay for at least a year. At the same time, 380,000 people left. More than half of the 1,000 people a day who left the UK were British citizens.
So, that's an even exchange of 500 nationals leaving to 500 foreign born arriving.
Your UK has a total land mass circumference of, what, Texas and Alaska in the U.S.A.?
My point was that your country has reached and passed its manageable cultural absorption point. Your country will begin to see more dramatic changes in culturally accepted practices as a natural adaptation to the influx of foreign minds and manners and an out flow of nationals.
So, either kick back and go with the flow or, you could always come over to the USA and empress us with your vastly more qualified unemployment skills:D
Call for sharia law in UK
double helix;771330 wrote: My point was that your country has reached and passed its manageable cultural absorption point. Your country will begin to see more dramatic changes in culturally accepted practices as a natural adaptation to the influx of foreign minds and manners and an out flow of nationals.That's how we change, DH. Isn't it great?
47% of Australians have a parent who was born abroad. 50% of those were born abroad themselves. If we try hard we might one day reach those figures, at the moment it's just an aspiration.
47% of Australians have a parent who was born abroad. 50% of those were born abroad themselves. If we try hard we might one day reach those figures, at the moment it's just an aspiration.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Call for sharia law in UK
koan;769330 wrote: I was an immigrant to the UK and they print on your passport visa that you have no recourse to public funds. I'm confused as to how people think that immigrants are given auto welfare. Koan! Koan! Koan! the point is if you are from a white commonwealth country as you are,
of course they will come down on you hard, after all your countrymen gave their lives to defend the mother country. But if you come from a non white country which has a differant religion and set of moral values, then the bleeding hearts in England of whom we have to many are only to ready to betray this country and its people on the basis that our ancesters robbed the poor black man blind a claim I dispute.
of course they will come down on you hard, after all your countrymen gave their lives to defend the mother country. But if you come from a non white country which has a differant religion and set of moral values, then the bleeding hearts in England of whom we have to many are only to ready to betray this country and its people on the basis that our ancesters robbed the poor black man blind a claim I dispute.
-
double helix
- Posts: 257
- Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2006 2:32 pm
Call for sharia law in UK
spot;771331 wrote: That's how we change, DH. Isn't it great?
47% of Australians have a parent who was born abroad. 50% of those were born abroad themselves. If we try hard we might one day reach those figures, at the moment it's just an aspiration.
Please tell where your getting your happy pills. I want some. Then I could go on blithely unaware of the abrasive grind many a countrymen has fallen into thanks to your idea of "change". Remember, somebody has to give up their seat so the new guy can sit.
Why, if America hadn't been the melting pot of the world through it's baby years who knows how we might have turned out! Maybe we wouldn't be killing ourselves with innocuous video games, television, telephones with video games AND Internet, texting and mp3 players. Maybe drugs, disease, alcohol, incest, rape, murder and poverty wouldn't be looming on the lower class citizens impoverished doorstep as they feel the boot pressed into their backs. Maybe the strength of the family would still be strong with children graduating college before they even considered having babies, maybe our values wouldn't have been splintered by too MANY VOICES making such a din that no body can hear much of anything.
If you put all the colors of the color wheel into a pot and stir thoroughly what color do you get? Just one and it ain't too pretty.
47% of Australians have a parent who was born abroad. 50% of those were born abroad themselves. If we try hard we might one day reach those figures, at the moment it's just an aspiration.
Please tell where your getting your happy pills. I want some. Then I could go on blithely unaware of the abrasive grind many a countrymen has fallen into thanks to your idea of "change". Remember, somebody has to give up their seat so the new guy can sit.
Why, if America hadn't been the melting pot of the world through it's baby years who knows how we might have turned out! Maybe we wouldn't be killing ourselves with innocuous video games, television, telephones with video games AND Internet, texting and mp3 players. Maybe drugs, disease, alcohol, incest, rape, murder and poverty wouldn't be looming on the lower class citizens impoverished doorstep as they feel the boot pressed into their backs. Maybe the strength of the family would still be strong with children graduating college before they even considered having babies, maybe our values wouldn't have been splintered by too MANY VOICES making such a din that no body can hear much of anything.
If you put all the colors of the color wheel into a pot and stir thoroughly what color do you get? Just one and it ain't too pretty.
Call for sharia law in UK
I think you should move to England.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Call for sharia law in UK
posted by double helix
Your UK has a total land mass circumference of, what, Texas and Alaska in the U.S.A.?
I see your geography is as good as your arithmetic. Actually the UK would fit comfortably inside either one of those states with plenty of room to spare. It's one of the most heavily populated areas on the planet.
There are issues with immigration we just tend not to get hysterical about it
posted by double helix
Between Swedish, Polish and Norwegian in the mid-western states to Irish, Italian, African/black and French on the East Coast to Mexican, black and mixed mutt on the West Coast, what happened to the original nationals, the Indians? Let me help you, they live on reservations and have casinos and tourist attractions to pay for their peoples governments within our government and suffer bad teeth and diabetes. We have so many different cultural influences in our Nation we simply don't know which "traditions" came from whom or where anymore which is why we can't make up our minds whether to wipe back to front or front to back on any given day!
Exactly what is the point you are trying to make? Are you going to send all the immigrants and descendants of immigrants home? Or will you keep the white ones even though it was them that conquered the country from the indians in the first place? As to the original inhabitants of the UK( the british) they live in reservations in a land calls wales where they live underground and form choirs occasionally defeating their english conquerors in ritual battles called rugby where if they lose the game they always win the singing contest. The original inhabitants of scotland were decisively taken over by a tribe of bog irish called the scots. and the rest went to the strathclyde britons and later the saxons Between glaswegians and teuchters scotland has never been the same. In fact if you try to decide who has the best claim to the UK based on who was there first you just can't. maybe the Us will get there some day.
In the olden days one tribe completely took over from the one being conquered-usually slaughtering all the males and children and taking the women as slaves. Life was uncomplicated then-no worrying about the morality of it all. Just think. If the bleeding heart liberals hadn't stopped it you could have exterminated all the indigenous people in america and had the reservation land as well. By now people would have forgotten they ever existed.
posted by twizzel
[QUOTE]Koan! Koan! Koan! the point is if you are from a white commonwealth country as you are,
of course they will come down on you hard, after all your countrymen gave their lives to defend the mother country. But if you come from a non white country which has a differant religion and set of moral values, then the bleeding hearts in England of whom we have to many are only to ready to betray this country and its people on the basis that our ancesters robbed the poor black man blind a claim I dispute.[/QUOTE]
Course not, everybody knows we build an empire to bring civilisation to the fuzzy wuzzies they just don't have the good grace to appreciate it. Course once scotland reclaims it's independence the first thing we will do is ban all the english that try and move up here because they are being squeezed out of their own country. We've carried you for long enough.
Your UK has a total land mass circumference of, what, Texas and Alaska in the U.S.A.?
I see your geography is as good as your arithmetic. Actually the UK would fit comfortably inside either one of those states with plenty of room to spare. It's one of the most heavily populated areas on the planet.
There are issues with immigration we just tend not to get hysterical about it
posted by double helix
Between Swedish, Polish and Norwegian in the mid-western states to Irish, Italian, African/black and French on the East Coast to Mexican, black and mixed mutt on the West Coast, what happened to the original nationals, the Indians? Let me help you, they live on reservations and have casinos and tourist attractions to pay for their peoples governments within our government and suffer bad teeth and diabetes. We have so many different cultural influences in our Nation we simply don't know which "traditions" came from whom or where anymore which is why we can't make up our minds whether to wipe back to front or front to back on any given day!
Exactly what is the point you are trying to make? Are you going to send all the immigrants and descendants of immigrants home? Or will you keep the white ones even though it was them that conquered the country from the indians in the first place? As to the original inhabitants of the UK( the british) they live in reservations in a land calls wales where they live underground and form choirs occasionally defeating their english conquerors in ritual battles called rugby where if they lose the game they always win the singing contest. The original inhabitants of scotland were decisively taken over by a tribe of bog irish called the scots. and the rest went to the strathclyde britons and later the saxons Between glaswegians and teuchters scotland has never been the same. In fact if you try to decide who has the best claim to the UK based on who was there first you just can't. maybe the Us will get there some day.
In the olden days one tribe completely took over from the one being conquered-usually slaughtering all the males and children and taking the women as slaves. Life was uncomplicated then-no worrying about the morality of it all. Just think. If the bleeding heart liberals hadn't stopped it you could have exterminated all the indigenous people in america and had the reservation land as well. By now people would have forgotten they ever existed.
posted by twizzel
[QUOTE]Koan! Koan! Koan! the point is if you are from a white commonwealth country as you are,
of course they will come down on you hard, after all your countrymen gave their lives to defend the mother country. But if you come from a non white country which has a differant religion and set of moral values, then the bleeding hearts in England of whom we have to many are only to ready to betray this country and its people on the basis that our ancesters robbed the poor black man blind a claim I dispute.[/QUOTE]
Course not, everybody knows we build an empire to bring civilisation to the fuzzy wuzzies they just don't have the good grace to appreciate it. Course once scotland reclaims it's independence the first thing we will do is ban all the english that try and move up here because they are being squeezed out of their own country. We've carried you for long enough.
Call for sharia law in UK
double helix;771896 wrote: Why, if America hadn't been the melting pot of the world through it's baby years who knows how we might have turned out! [...] If you put all the colors of the color wheel into a pot and stir thoroughly what color do you get? Just one and it ain't too pretty.
There are so many points this raises.
How about "through it's baby years" not one African actually volunteered to make the trip across the Atlantic but six and a half million actually got there alive at roughly two hundred a boatload? You wanted a melting pot, you got one.
Or do your "baby years" include all those Irish and Swedes and Germans and Ukrainians? Who knows how you might have turned out without them.
The real way to have retained the racial purity of your continent was to have forbidden immigration in 1492 and stuck to it. No Canadian border, no Mexican border, no stirred pot.
There are so many points this raises.
How about "through it's baby years" not one African actually volunteered to make the trip across the Atlantic but six and a half million actually got there alive at roughly two hundred a boatload? You wanted a melting pot, you got one.
Or do your "baby years" include all those Irish and Swedes and Germans and Ukrainians? Who knows how you might have turned out without them.
The real way to have retained the racial purity of your continent was to have forbidden immigration in 1492 and stuck to it. No Canadian border, no Mexican border, no stirred pot.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Call for sharia law in UK
This thread is turning into a very delightful read.
twizzel... what??
I tried to clean up some broad statements about immigrants showing up and taking handouts and your comments deny fact with a bunch of sweeping statements. I really was asking for evidence that immigrants are sponging all the tax money. Do you have any?
On other matters,
It's nice when a country has some other group to blame for its problems, I suppose. It's not that the founding fathers made a few mistakes along the way, its those damn immigrants. :rolleyes:
twizzel... what??
I tried to clean up some broad statements about immigrants showing up and taking handouts and your comments deny fact with a bunch of sweeping statements. I really was asking for evidence that immigrants are sponging all the tax money. Do you have any?
On other matters,
It's nice when a country has some other group to blame for its problems, I suppose. It's not that the founding fathers made a few mistakes along the way, its those damn immigrants. :rolleyes:
Call for sharia law in UK
"Exactly what is the point you are trying to make? Are you going to send all the immigrants and descendants of immigrants home? Or will you keep the white ones even though it was them that conquered the country from the indians in the first place? As to the original inhabitants of the UK( the british) they live in reservations in a land calls wales where they live underground and form choirs occasionally defeating their english conquerors in ritual battles called rugby where if they lose the game they always win the singing contest. The original inhabitants of scotland were decisively taken over by a tribe of bog irish called the scots. and the rest went to the strathclyde britons and later the saxons Between glaswegians and teuchters scotland has never been the same. In fact if you try to decide who has the best claim to the UK based on who was there first you just can't. maybe the Us will get there some day. "
Hey watch who you are calling Bog Irish you haggis-eating, Kilt-wearing amadan, we prefer to call them Low pH Peat-based biodiversity pools. You better watch your manners or we will have to come back over to teach you how to speak Irish properly again, to keep your arms at your sides when you are dancing, and to stop playing the fiddle so fast, Jaysus. :wah:
Hey watch who you are calling Bog Irish you haggis-eating, Kilt-wearing amadan, we prefer to call them Low pH Peat-based biodiversity pools. You better watch your manners or we will have to come back over to teach you how to speak Irish properly again, to keep your arms at your sides when you are dancing, and to stop playing the fiddle so fast, Jaysus. :wah:
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
-
double helix
- Posts: 257
- Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2006 2:32 pm
Call for sharia law in UK
[QUOTE=gmc;771972]posted by double helix
I see your geography is as good as your arithmetic. Actually the UK would fit comfortably inside either one of those states with plenty of room to spare. It's one of the most heavily populated areas on the planet.
There are issues with immigration we just tend not to get hysterical about it
posted by double helix
Exactly what is the point you are trying to make? Are you going to send all the immigrants and descendants of immigrants home? Or will you keep the white ones even though it was them that conquered the country from the indians in the first place? As to the original inhabitants of the UK( the british) they live in reservations in a land calls wales where they live underground and form choirs occasionally defeating their english conquerors in ritual battles called rugby where if they lose the game they always win the singing contest. The original inhabitants of scotland were decisively taken over by a tribe of bog irish called the scots. and the rest went to the strathclyde britons and later the saxons Between glaswegians and teuchters scotland has never been the same. In fact if you try to decide who has the best claim to the UK based on who was there first you just can't. maybe the Us will get there some day.
In the olden days one tribe completely took over from the one being conquered-usually slaughtering all the males and children and taking the women as slaves. Life was uncomplicated then-no worrying about the morality of it all. Just think. If the bleeding heart liberals hadn't stopped it you could have exterminated all the indigenous people in america and had the reservation land as well. By now people would have forgotten they ever existed.
posted by twizzel
Koan! Koan! Koan! the point is if you are from a white commonwealth country as you are,
of course they will come down on you hard, after all your countrymen gave their lives to defend the mother country. But if you come from a non white country which has a differant religion and set of moral values, then the bleeding hearts in England of whom we have to many are only to ready to betray this country and its people on the basis that our ancesters robbed the poor black man blind a claim I dispute.[/QUOTE]
Course not, everybody knows we build an empire to bring civilisation to the fuzzy wuzzies they just don't have the good grace to appreciate it. Course once scotland reclaims it's independence the first thing we will do is ban all the english that try and move up here because they are being squeezed out of their own country. We've carried you for long enough.
The point is diversity of a society is fine, but when you start blending individual ideals together you end up with a watered down version of a people that have become lost and unidentifiable. Yes, eventually if the rate of immigration and national exit-gration in the UK continues Sharia will have there members sitting on benches in Parliament changing your English laws to better fit their cultural laws.
I see your geography is as good as your arithmetic. Actually the UK would fit comfortably inside either one of those states with plenty of room to spare. It's one of the most heavily populated areas on the planet.
There are issues with immigration we just tend not to get hysterical about it
posted by double helix
Exactly what is the point you are trying to make? Are you going to send all the immigrants and descendants of immigrants home? Or will you keep the white ones even though it was them that conquered the country from the indians in the first place? As to the original inhabitants of the UK( the british) they live in reservations in a land calls wales where they live underground and form choirs occasionally defeating their english conquerors in ritual battles called rugby where if they lose the game they always win the singing contest. The original inhabitants of scotland were decisively taken over by a tribe of bog irish called the scots. and the rest went to the strathclyde britons and later the saxons Between glaswegians and teuchters scotland has never been the same. In fact if you try to decide who has the best claim to the UK based on who was there first you just can't. maybe the Us will get there some day.
In the olden days one tribe completely took over from the one being conquered-usually slaughtering all the males and children and taking the women as slaves. Life was uncomplicated then-no worrying about the morality of it all. Just think. If the bleeding heart liberals hadn't stopped it you could have exterminated all the indigenous people in america and had the reservation land as well. By now people would have forgotten they ever existed.
posted by twizzel
Koan! Koan! Koan! the point is if you are from a white commonwealth country as you are,
of course they will come down on you hard, after all your countrymen gave their lives to defend the mother country. But if you come from a non white country which has a differant religion and set of moral values, then the bleeding hearts in England of whom we have to many are only to ready to betray this country and its people on the basis that our ancesters robbed the poor black man blind a claim I dispute.[/QUOTE]
Course not, everybody knows we build an empire to bring civilisation to the fuzzy wuzzies they just don't have the good grace to appreciate it. Course once scotland reclaims it's independence the first thing we will do is ban all the english that try and move up here because they are being squeezed out of their own country. We've carried you for long enough.
The point is diversity of a society is fine, but when you start blending individual ideals together you end up with a watered down version of a people that have become lost and unidentifiable. Yes, eventually if the rate of immigration and national exit-gration in the UK continues Sharia will have there members sitting on benches in Parliament changing your English laws to better fit their cultural laws.
Call for sharia law in UK
double helix;772524 wrote:
posted by twizzel
Quote:
Koan! Koan! Koan! the point is if you are from a white commonwealth country as you are,
of course they will come down on you hard, after all your countrymen gave their lives to defend the mother country. But if you come from a non white country which has a differant religion and set of moral values, then the bleeding hearts in England of whom we have to many are only to ready to betray this country and its people on the basis that our ancesters robbed the poor black man blind a claim I dispute.
If you are going to quote the situation in the UK the you could at least use a representative view. This quote has nothing to do with reality.
posted by twizzel
Quote:
Koan! Koan! Koan! the point is if you are from a white commonwealth country as you are,
of course they will come down on you hard, after all your countrymen gave their lives to defend the mother country. But if you come from a non white country which has a differant religion and set of moral values, then the bleeding hearts in England of whom we have to many are only to ready to betray this country and its people on the basis that our ancesters robbed the poor black man blind a claim I dispute.
If you are going to quote the situation in the UK the you could at least use a representative view. This quote has nothing to do with reality.
Call for sharia law in UK
[QUOTE=double helix;772524][QUOTE=gmc;771972]posted by double helix etc etc
DH, much as I enjoy reading your posts I haven't a clue which bits of that were written by you and which bits were quotes, that was just a jumble of words. Keeping everyone else's words inside boxes and your own words outside makes a lot of difference.
DH, much as I enjoy reading your posts I haven't a clue which bits of that were written by you and which bits were quotes, that was just a jumble of words. Keeping everyone else's words inside boxes and your own words outside makes a lot of difference.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
freetobeme
- Posts: 258
- Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2007 1:05 pm
Call for sharia law in UK
The's a piece here talking about additional benefits going to some immgrants
I wouldn't think this was strictly a Toronto problem either.
http://www.torontosun.com/News/TorontoA ... 8-sun.html
Harems pay off for Muslims
Islamic leaders: Hundreds in GTA get extra welfare for polygamous unions
Mumtaz Ali: "Very liberal-minded country". (Sun Media Photo)
Hundreds of GTA Muslim men in polygamous marriages -- some with a harem of wives -- are receiving welfare and social benefits for each of their spouses, thanks to the city and province, Muslim leaders say.
Mumtaz Ali, president of the Canadian Society of Muslims, said wives in polygamous marriages are recognized as spouses under the Ontario Family Law Act, providing they were legally married under Muslim laws abroad.
"Polygamy is a regular part of life for many Muslims," Ali said yesterday. "Ontario recognizes religious marriages for Muslims and others."
He estimates "several hundred" GTA husbands in polygamous marriages are receiving benefits. Under Islamic law, a Muslim man is permitted to have up to four spouses.
However, city and provincial officials said legally a welfare applicant can claim only one spouse. Other adults living in the same household can apply for welfare independently. cont...
I wouldn't think this was strictly a Toronto problem either.
http://www.torontosun.com/News/TorontoA ... 8-sun.html
Harems pay off for Muslims
Islamic leaders: Hundreds in GTA get extra welfare for polygamous unions
Mumtaz Ali: "Very liberal-minded country". (Sun Media Photo)
Hundreds of GTA Muslim men in polygamous marriages -- some with a harem of wives -- are receiving welfare and social benefits for each of their spouses, thanks to the city and province, Muslim leaders say.
Mumtaz Ali, president of the Canadian Society of Muslims, said wives in polygamous marriages are recognized as spouses under the Ontario Family Law Act, providing they were legally married under Muslim laws abroad.
"Polygamy is a regular part of life for many Muslims," Ali said yesterday. "Ontario recognizes religious marriages for Muslims and others."
He estimates "several hundred" GTA husbands in polygamous marriages are receiving benefits. Under Islamic law, a Muslim man is permitted to have up to four spouses.
However, city and provincial officials said legally a welfare applicant can claim only one spouse. Other adults living in the same household can apply for welfare independently. cont...
senior's politics and discussion