View Full Version : Sharia law has been adopted in Britain
I think this is total madness, how can we have two sets of laws? Do we get to choose?:confused
So much for integration and social cohesion, eh?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article4749183.ece
Melancholy Man
15-Sep-08, 11:21
I think this is total madness, how can we have two sets of laws? Do we get to choose?:confused
I'll hang fire for the moment, but this appears to be following existing arbitration legislation. Muslims will not be *obliged* to submit themselves to it, although I am concerned about the disempowered, especially women feeling pressured. Those claiming that, because it ain't criminal Sharia, we have no reason to worry are either missing the point or showing their contempt for Muslims in general, and women in particular.
Oh, it's only going to be family and financial and domestic issues! You mean, everywhere in which women are disadvantaged?
Also, good to see that silky-voiced reactionary, Inayat Bungie-thingie, judging it all in terms of what the Jews do. Gimp. So is Rowan Williams. Have they got a real Christian for the job?
First off, I didn't read the story because I heard plenty about it a couple of months ago on TV & Jeremy Vines Radio 2 show.
The only laws which should apply here are the ones we already have in place. Battles were fought to rule this country for hundreds of years until we finally united 300 years ago. Whether you agree with certain laws is another matter but we, as a (supposedly) civilized society, have a system in place that for the most part does work.
We should not be allowing any religion and/or culture which we've welcomed into the UK from setting it's own laws. The whole point of them coming here is for a better way of life and part of that is an acceptance of our laws and culture. Our laws have faults but everyone is equal in the eyes of the law. No-one is a second class citizen.
It shows a blatant disrespect for our way of life if they haven't fully integrated into our society and it's rules. We can't have two different types of law here-if we allow it to happen then others will want to follow suit. In time we'll see other religions wanting to apply their laws too and eventually society itself will break down.
We cannot and must not allow Sharia law to apply in this country.
As Scots law is almost entirely separate from English law is Sharia law applicable here? Just wondering?
As Scots law is almost entirely separate from English law is Sharia law applicable here? Just wondering?
The report says a sharia court is being set up in Glasgow, so I guess yes.
Melancholy Man
15-Sep-08, 12:07
As Scots law is almost entirely separate from English law is Sharia law applicable here? Just wondering?
Not related directly (although "almost entirely" is a bit of an overstatement, a murder is a murder wherever it's committed), the status of Scots Law against that of England and Wales, and Northern Ireland is *not* comparable. These are represent a corpus of both criminal and civil legislation, and most importantly apply according to geographic location. A Scotsman in England is subject to those laws, and vice versa.
It is *not* communalist.
arana negra
15-Sep-08, 12:13
Everywhere we look here in Spain we ( as in foriengers) read about it being best we try to intigrate, we should intigrate because we are living here, we should live by their laws /culture etc etc
jixville I totally agree with your statement ... It shows a blatant disrespect for our way of life if they haven't fully integrated into our society and it's rules. We can't have two different types of law here-if we allow it to happen then others will want to follow suit.
absolutely agree with joxville. when are the powers that be going to say enough is enough. If you want to live here fine - but we are not going to bend over backwards to accommodate you.
First off, I didn't read the story because I heard plenty about it a couple of months ago on TV & Jeremy Vines Radio 2 show.
The only laws which should apply here are the ones we already have in place. Battles were fought to rule this country for hundreds of years until we finally united 300 years ago. Whether you agree with certain laws is another matter but we, as a (supposedly) civilized society, have a system in place that for the most part does work.
We should not be allowing any religion and/or culture which we've welcomed into the UK from setting it's own laws. The whole point of them coming here is for a better way of life and part of that is an acceptance of our laws and culture. Our laws have faults but everyone is equal in the eyes of the law. No-one is a second class citizen.
It shows a blatant disrespect for our way of life if they haven't fully integrated into our society and it's rules. We can't have two different types of law here-if we allow it to happen then others will want to follow suit. In time we'll see other religions wanting to apply their laws too and eventually society itself will break down.
We cannot and must not allow Sharia law to apply in this country.
kinda go with this view also......
kinda go with this view also...... (Jeremy Vines show)
Have to say so do I, the girl in Saudi who was caught supposedly having sex on a beach in a country where sex before marriage is illegal has to follow theire judicial system so why should we bend over backwards to accomodate rules that do not apply in this country. Muslims etc choose our country so why should they have options when it comes to the law, the rest of us do not.
(Jeremy Vines show)
Have to say so do I, the girl in Saudi who was caught supposedly having sex on a beach in a country where sex before marriage is illegal has to follow theire judicial system so why should we bend over backwards to accomodate rules that do not apply in this country. Muslims etc choose our country so why should they have options when it comes to the law, the rest of us do not.
It was in UAE, not Saudi and her and her "partner" deserve all they get. IMHO having sex in the middle of the afternoon on a populated beach ANYWHERE is unacceptable.
Melancholy Man
15-Sep-08, 17:42
(Jeremy Vines show)
Have to say so do I, the girl in Saudi who was caught supposedly having sex on a beach in a country where sex before marriage is illegal has to follow theire judicial system so why should we bend over backwards to accomodate rules that do not apply in this country.
It was actually Dubai, she'd previously been given a ticking off for the ol' display of affection (when a non-Westerner would have been arrested) and sex in public places is an offence in this country as well. Other than that, spot on!
Taken from The Sun (http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/expats/expats_news/article1639702.ece):
“I was passing Jumeirah Beach when I was stopped by a couple of people who told me, ‘There’s a guy and a girl having sex.’ I took a torch and went to check it out."
So I would have.
Muslims etc choose our country so why should they have options when it comes to the law, the rest of us do not.
You want to be subject to Sharia civil courts? You strange person.
:mad:
It was in UAE, not Saudi and her and her "partner" deserve all they get. IMHO having sex in the middle of the afternoon on a populated beach ANYWHERE is unacceptable.
I did not say I agreed with her "crime" more that she had to follow the rules of the country she resides in. Where when Sharia law starts being brought in its then different rules for different sections of society. I think this is wrong, the BNP will have a field day which is something I for one do not want. I am not racist but I believe that when in Rome etc....
Melancholy Man
15-Sep-08, 18:05
I did not say I agreed with her "crime" more
It was a crime. It's called gross indecency and, even if punishable by a lesser sentence in this country, also a crime here. From what I've seen, the policeman was *still* willing to let them off, but she proceeded to berate and assault him.
Little native, daring to tell a whitey what to do, eh? Whoopsie.
that she had to follow the rules of the country she resides in.
And British Muslims remain subject to criminal law and secular civil law, as well as having the option not to enter into these courts. I am uneasy about the potential for decisions being binding, and handing more control to patriarchal control, but desist with the claim this is setting up a communalist system.
I think this is wrong, the BNP will have a field day
Being a bunch of racists and convicted thugs, drug dealers and sex offenders, the BNP really doesn't need a reason to target any group.
Its another one of those "lets bend over backwards and give them what they want".
So what happens if someone then decides they wish to be Jedi and will only accept the rules of the galaxy!! why not?.
I'm all for interrogation oops I mean integration but lets be fair here this isnt right, how can it be deemed fair, the women will never get a chance because in sharia law they are nobodies, so how can a so-called liberal free thinking country of ours accept that?. Not very PC is it!:(
Stinks of double standards.
It was actually Dubai, she'd previously been given a ticking off for the ol' display of affection (when a non-Westerner would have been arrested) and sex in public places is an offence in this country as well. Other than that, spot on!
Just wondering:-
Concerning Ramadan, The Sun says:-
"It is the holiest month in the Muslim calendar — and followers are asked to refrain from thinking about or having sex during daylight hours"
The quote made later was:-
“I was passing Jumeirah Beach when I was stopped by a couple of people who told me, ‘There’s a guy and a girl having sex.’ I took a torch and went to check it out."
Now, if they were having sex during daylight hours, why did the guy need a torch?
I think that, if a couple were having sex on the beach, in the dark, and I felt the need to get a torch and go check it out, I'd be labelled a dirty perv!!
I cannot see what the problem is, all citizens are subject to the same legislature,whether it be Scots or English law.
We have recourse to various forms of arbitration rather than using the judicial system and from what I have read these will be dealing with sensitive personal civilian disputes.The jewish community has a similar dispensation and I don't see any one getting het up about that.
We are all hot on being a multi-racial society so why are so many unable to accept that in certain matters this is far more appropriate.
No one is advocating full Sharia Law merely acknowledging that the practice of a faith other than the christian one can often cause serious problems within the system which can be incomphrehensible at it's worse and downright right stupid at it's best.
I cannot see what the problem is, all citizens are subject to the same legislature,whether it be Scots or English law.
We have recourse to various forms of arbitration rather than using the judicial system and from what I have read these will be dealing with sensitive personal civilian disputes.The jewish community has a similar dispensation and I don't see any one getting het up about that.
We are all hot on being a multi-racial society so why are so many unable to accept that in certain matters this is far more appropriate.
No one is advocating full Sharia Law merely acknowledging that the practice of a faith other than the christian one can often cause serious problems within the system which can be incomphrehensible at it's worse and downright right stupid at it's best.
But Jews treat women more equally than the Muslim faith,which I think is the biggest stumbling block.
percy toboggan
15-Sep-08, 18:39
...We are all hot on being a multi-racial society.... .
Speak for yourself. I'm one of thse that's living on the edge of it although I didn't vote for it, ask for it, invite it....and least of all wanted it. I was happy with the Britain of the early sixties thanks very much...some other races sure, all added to the variety of life but what we have now is entirely different.
I might even get the odd brave orger to agree with me publicly, but I doubt it.
What we have largely is a collection of groups living
parallel lives most of whom want little to do with any of the others. Now we have parallel laws too. Smashing! :roll:
Nobody can say we didn't see it coming but the speed of advance of such concessions given by out of touch
twerps in Westminster is staggering.
But Jews treat women more equally than the Muslim faith,which I think is the biggest stumbling block.
How can you treat something "more" equally? :)
Try getting a divorce under jewish law and then see how fairly they treat women!
Welcomefamily
15-Sep-08, 18:50
This is absolute madness, this must be politicial suicide, what next they be asking us to leave our country (GB) next.
I cannot think of any words that could possibly put such actions into context.
Melancholy Man
15-Sep-08, 20:07
I'm one of thse that's living on the edge of it
Oh, gee, honey! We done got us a real city person who did has lived with real ethnics!
I was happy with the Britain of the early sixties thanks very much.
Thirty years after the Jew-bashing and Yemeni riots of the 1930s? A time at which sodomy was an offence, rape victims usually thought gagging for it and when signs were still seen, "No dogs, Irish or blacks"?
Given that you were all of 10 or 11 at the time, I'm surprised you remember it with such clarity.
Now, if they were having sex during daylight hours, why did the guy need a torch?
It has puzzled me, but as the pair of randy goats have admitted to it, is not much of a concern. Still, I can appreciate that he'd have wanted to see it in as much detail as possible. For investigative purposes.
So what happens if someone then decides they wish to be Jedi and will only accept the rules of the galaxy!!
Difference being Jedi ain't a recognized religion, as those who spoiled their Census papers didn't realize.
We are all hot on being a multi-racial society so why are so many unable to accept that in certain matters this is far more appropriate.
Now, if you'd said multi-*cultural* you'd have a point. What is there about different racial/ethnic groups which assume the members have to follow a certain moral code?
From:
The jewish community has a similar dispensation and I don't see any one getting het up about that.
To:
Try getting a divorce under jewish law and then see how fairly they treat women!
I said above how little surprised I was to see Bungle-whatever bring Jews (proper nouns! Capitals!) into it, but I am surprised it here. It is true that Beth Din courts have existed for a century, but British Jews are generally far more integrated into secular society, as a group, as the "Muslim community". Plus, more homogeneous. British Muslims can hail from anywhere from West Africa to Indonesia, the Maghreb to the Punjab, or include converts.
There have also been far more family murders (erroneously called honour killings) amongst Muslims than Jews. In fact, I cannot think of a single case of the latter. It has to be said, though, that Sikhs and Hindus are not immune to similar domestic abuse.
Also, it is perfectly true that some oppressive behaviour occurs behind closed-doors with Charedis, and that the Talmud contains a fair bit of horrific injunctions. Yet, the Haskalah is two centuries old and Jewish feminists have been grappling with it for decades. The same has not yet occurred with Islam and Muslims, but it is starting.
I didn't know a lot about Sharia Law until I read this thread and went off googling.
I'm more confused now than I was when I started! However, a few things I did find out: you can be executed for committing adultery and also for sodomy (Shaira does not allow for sexual self-determination). Oh and also for apostasy (there's a new word for you), conversion to another faith, you can be executed. The age of consent for a woman is 9. It also appears that rape doesn't exist, or homosexuality, according to the Iranian prime minister.
I have to say, that was enough to put me off. I know not all Muslim countries interpret the laws like that but it's still so alien to the democratic rights that we have. Amnesty International regularly report on human rights abuses related to this law.
However, if these Jewish courts already exist, how can you refuse to allow the Sharia courts. Is this not racist? Shouldn't we just have one law that applies to everyone, which has nothing to do with religion? Sharia Law is immersed in religion and I know, our law has some roots there too but not to the extent that you're stoned, flogged or mutilated for breaking them, or killed for leaving the faith.
I think it's frightening and we should protect all our citizens equally, not just Christians. Who's to say that both parties are really consenting to this court and that they haven't been pressurised?
I stand corrected, thank you for pointing out the error.
With morality at such a low ebb within these islands surely we should show a little respect for those that do have a moral code even if it not a familiar one.
There are muslims that are fully integrated into society and perhaps if we all took the time to understand those who live around us then there would be no need for a thread such as this.
Melancholy Man
15-Sep-08, 20:48
Lizz, all religious traditions are a mixture of profound, mundane and horrific, and have developed over the course of many centuries if not more, absorbing new precepts and discarding others as social mores change (excepting, maybe, Mormonism). The difference being some have a clearer vision of the divine, whilst others are not as far along the road of ditching the horrific parts.
However, a few things I did find out: you can be executed {...}
Specifically, this is the penal code, which is not being discussed here. But, nor does that make this any less concerning. Once again, control will likely be passed to the likes of Bungla-lalalalalalalalala who is under the impression that criticism of religion is already an offence, along with that of ethnic groups.
It also appears that rape doesn't exist, or homosexuality, according to the Iranian prime minister.Does so (http://widgets.nbc.com/o/4727a250e66f9723/486fcedc254e032f)!
Oh and also for apostasy (there's a new word for you), conversion to another faith, you can be executed.Kill the Jedis, I agree. And the Ewoks. Especially the little furry buzzards.
Tell me about it Melancholy Man, I have no religion appart from life itself and yes quite agree that as man's knowledge moves on the archaic lore that is incorporated in many could do with some serious rethinking.
Melancholy Man
15-Sep-08, 20:57
Even if it's Paganism which floats your boat, fair enough. Yet, New Age stuff is to it as homoeopathy is to herbalism, or that awful poo-doctor (http://www.stablesound.co.uk/poo.php) is to dieticians.
<retires to bunker>
percy toboggan
15-Sep-08, 21:01
[quote=Melancholy Man;432330]
Thirty years after the Jew-bashing and Yemeni riots of the 1930s? A time at which sodomy was an offence, rape victims usually thought gagging for it and when signs were still seen, "No dogs, Irish or blacks"?
quote]
Early sixties that then was it ? I could issue the following rejoinder...
...So, a decade or so later some Irish were letting off bombs...later still some blacks are responsible for about fifty per cent of knife crime in the capital...and imported 'mugging'soon to become so popular the term replaced 'robbery' in popular street lingo ....'sodomy' might not be an offence but surely it's ill advised on any kind of regular basis be it homo or hetero - nature and design you see, (ever seen a damaged, ravaged sphincter?) Perhaps some over indulgent sodomites need saving from themselves and their iffy, un-natural habit.
Dogs are okay though, so the early sixties weren't perfect.
But I don't think I will.
As for my recollection of the time I was nine to thirteen years old I have many of them and they are very clear in my head. The fact that you might see this as unusual puzzles me...perhaps your memory has been fogged by reading too many pretentious sounding books. Maybe you should stick to simpler fare.
Oh! and 'rape victims thought gagging for it' what a strange world you inhabit...the phrase is ugly and you really have been swayed by femininist and left wing propaganda who seem to pull facts from the air when it suits them.You may well find that the incidence of criminal conviction for rape against acquittals was indeed higher in the early sixties proportionately than it is today.
Melancholy Man
15-Sep-08, 21:25
As for my recollection of the time I was nine to thirteen years old I have many of them and they are very clear in my head.
When I was 11, we took a family holiday some two hundred miles by car. I was convinced I could cycle behind the car.
In other words, they are not clear.
Early sixties that then was it ?
Even you wouldn't have been dippy enough to speak approvingly of a time two decades before you were born. You suggested the time of your childhood - which we tend to look back on as an unremittingly lovely period... well, most of us - was one of racial stability and social cohesion. Of course you were suggesting that it had all been tickity-boo until this entirely arbitrary cut-off point, after which everything became so much worse than the Russophobia of the turn of the century (this was a real word back then) or the fears of an Irish-tide 50 years before that.
One hundred years ago, three quarters of my family line was ensconced in the Scottish Highlands with one quarter recently settled in Edinburgh. Many of your 'indigenous' city dwellers' lines came from the rural areas in the decades before that, and were treated with distrust at first, and ultimately acceptance. The idea, though, that they were seen as any less different that that which we now see Turkish or Nigerians or Chinese is, well, just the sort of codswallop we'd expect from someone who thinks the 1960s was a golden period.
by femininist and left wing propaganda
D'you get paid for this?
You may well find that the incidence of criminal conviction for rape against acquittals was indeed higher in the early sixties proportionately than it is today.
Can you not read? I did not say trials. Sexual assault occurred without getting to the courts stage.
What Sharia has to do with the non-white population, which is predominately non-Muslim, I don't know.
....'sodomy' might not be an offence but surely it's ill advised on any kind of regular basis be it homo or hetero - nature and design you see, (ever seen a damaged, ravaged sphincter?) Perhaps some over indulgent sodomites need saving from themselves and their iffy, un-natural habit[/I].
Thanks Percy you always manage to de-base your argument by being unable to get your point of view over....
percy toboggan
15-Sep-08, 21:35
If you thought you could keep up with yer Dad's Morris Minor on your push bike when you were ELEVEN then you were a numpty as a child as well.
I'm really not sure why I allow you to goad me into uttering repsonses to this tripe.
I seldom use the word 'boring' because I have a high boredom threshold,. However I have to say your posts really do bear the hallmark of the terminally melancholic. I really must stop responding to your wittering. It's a matter of self-discipline I suppose.
Can you not take yourself off up the Zambesi in search of your Katherine...that's where I last saw your belle....
I expect censure for this from those on high and shall take it on the chin.
percy toboggan
15-Sep-08, 21:36
Thanks Percy you always manage to de-base your argument by being unable to get your point of view over....
Are you advocating regular sodomy then Benji ?
I don't fancy it meself.
I'd feel a bit 'de-based'
Are you advocating regular sodomy then Benji ?
I don't fancy it meself.
I'd feel a bit 'de-based'
The only thng I am advocating is fr you to be able to put your point of view accross in a less inflamatory way
ps its myself
(ever seen a damaged, ravaged sphincter?)
Does Amir Khan count? ;)
teenybash
15-Sep-08, 21:51
I do not think it is a good idea as it will lead eventually to criminal cases being heard....Britains culture, society and laws are already diluted......and this will lead to further watering of down of what Britain is/was.
I think it will be similar to....now the foot is in the door, the shoulder follows and the next you know the whole caboodle.:eek:
Melancholy Man
15-Sep-08, 22:36
Bloomin' 'eck, Benji (the name has numerous unrelated associations for me), d'you lurk here and only comment when Percy comes out to play?
If you thought you could keep up with yer Dad's Morris Minor on your push bike when you were ELEVEN then you were a numpty as a child as well.
You're so thick, I could almost fancy you! Through anecdote, I was explaining that 11 year olds do not have a fully cognizant view of the world.
Plus, I like the way you assume it was my dad driving! Still, at least it's endearing as opposed to tasteless in suggesting that hidden sexual assault was not an issue 50 years ago on the day that the Daily Record runs a headline about the need for panic rooms, and the week when another victim of serial rapist Adam Carruthers was identified.
I'm really not sure why I allow you to goad me into uttering repsonses to this tripe.Because you're staggering unaware and don't realize, in holding the early 1960s up as the watershed for 'your' country turning into a miscenegated hell and dismissing the racial-strife of two decades whence as irrelevant, you have conceded that, if anything, the status quo ante was an aberation? Just a thought.
Until you blundered in, this thread was about an elective system (let's just say it is 100% voluntary) for British Muslims which will affect only them in certain civil matters (although, as McCaugm is disappointed it won't apply to her, we could always make exceptions) and not about non-Muslim immigration in general. Nor would it affect you. Is that not what you want? Keeping domestic issues behind closed doors?
Plus, as I've from the start being arguing *against* handing control to the likes of Inayat Whatever, your efforts to portray me as supporting the atomisation of society looks doubly odd.
EDIT and let me once again raise a glass to the Moderators who will issue me with infraction points for racism, and leave Toboggan to burble away.
northener
16-Sep-08, 00:37
From The Sunday Times
September 14, 2008...
Sheikh Faiz-ul-Aqtab Siddiqi, whose Muslim Arbitration Tribunal runs the courts, said he had taken advantage of a clause in the Arbitration Act 1996......
....Under the act, the sharia courts are classified as arbitration tribunals. The rulings of arbitration tribunals are binding in law, provided that both parties in the dispute agree to give it the power to rule on their case.....
So let's face facts.
This is not some Islamic assault on John Bull and the Great British Legal System, it is a way of allowing a large minority of British subjects some level of self-governance in matters that they feel are best served by their own code of conduct - whlst still remaining in the framework of British law.
Not exactly turning the world upside down, is it?
Big headlines about a non-event?
Well said northener that was the point I was trying to make.
Well said northener that was the point I was trying to make.
I totally agree with you Lizz, Thanks Northener, for putting the forum back on an even keel, talk about mountains out of molehills. [disgust]
Welcomefamily
16-Sep-08, 10:47
I still totally disagree, it is hardly intergration into the UK community, how many fringe group should we give those rights too.
Melancholy Man
16-Sep-08, 11:25
Let's just say this once again. This is making use of *existing* arbitration legislation, and concerns only the setting up of regional offices... no... courts... that sounds scary. Muslims will neither be legally obliged to submit nor show any indication of wanting to in anything like a sizeable minority.
Those assuming the overwhelming majority don't just want to live their lives in the plurality of British society - or, even, are Muslims as opposed to of Muslim heritage (this ain't an ethnic group, unlike Hindus or Jews) - or that provision of civil law means an irrevocable journey to the application of criminal law are, I am afraid, optical isomers of Kaa Bungie-thingie.
percy toboggan
16-Sep-08, 18:05
I assumed your father was driving because MY memories of 1962/3/4 are very clear in my head. Women drivers were a comparative rarity - I'd guess about six per cent.
Thank you for calling me 'thick' as it's water off a ducks back and I now place you officially in the realm of the dull. You could have chosen so many better words.Why resort to common language when you are so up yourself? (I doubt anyone else would bother)
Still, I'm not responding to you am I?
To 'almost fancy someone' means you dont fancy 'em at all so that's a relief.
There is no place for separate laws in this country no matter what religion you follow. We are now on the slippery slope of more demands being made for even greater powers being granted to these 'courts'.
Sod them all. If anyone wishes to live here then no concessions should be made to accomodate them. If they dont like it then they are welcome to move to a country that supports their beliefs.
I stand corrected, thank you for pointing out the error.
With morality at such a low ebb within these islands surely we should show a little respect for those that do have a moral code even if it not a familiar one.
There are muslims that are fully integrated into society and perhaps if we all took the time to understand those who live around us then there would be no need for a thread such as this.
I totally disagree. I do not see this as a 'moral code'. I see it as a violation of the human rights of those who are different from what is regarded as the 'norm'. I know our laws aren't perfect but at least we try to have equality regardless of gender, sexuality or race. I have a problem with these courts operating because of the extremeties that are perpetuated in its name in various parts of the world. I understand, as has been pointed out, that these will not be penal courts but I still have a problem with our government condoning these courts and allowing them to operate alongside our legal system.
One fair and just law for all, regardless of faith.
Welcomefamily
16-Sep-08, 19:46
Yes I agree otherwise where does it stop.
Melancholy Man
16-Sep-08, 19:54
I assumed your father was driving because MY memories of 1962/3/4 are very clear in my head.Considering my daddy had yet to meet my mummy at this point, let alone her reaching the age of consent, I don't see the relevance. Plus, between those dates, you were aged 11-3. That is, even were you a precocious child and fully aware of your family life, you would not have been a good judge of the national spirit.
My guess is that you lived in either suburbia or the country. Despite the efforts of Mr N Griffin - mediocre farmer and willing recipient of EU funds - this, not the inner cities is the natural BNP support-base.
Yes I agree otherwise where does it stop.The thing is, it doesn't stop. There will be more demands made, that is for sure. Meanwhile, citizens of this union have to sit back and be told what to think and what to say or face the consequences because we must not air our views and upset anyone that wishes to live in our country under their own terms and conditions, i.e, they want their cake and to eat it to.
teenybash
16-Sep-08, 21:09
There is no place for separate laws in this country no matter what religion you follow. We are now on the slippery slope of more demands being made for even greater powers being granted to these 'courts'.
Sod them all. If anyone wishes to live here then no concessions should be made to accomodate them. If they dont like it then they are welcome to move to a country that supports their beliefs.
TBH you are just so.... TBH, outspoken, straight to the point and no beating about the bush....great stuff...:p
Considering my daddy had yet to meet my mummy at this point, let alone her reaching the age of consent, I don't see the relevance. Plus, between those dates, you were aged 11-3. That is, even were you a precocious child and fully aware of your family life, you would not have been a good judge of the national spirit.
My guess is that you lived in either suburbia or the country. Despite the efforts of Mr N Griffin - mediocre farmer and willing recipient of EU funds - this, not the inner cities is the natural BNP support-base.Nice call Melancholy. If something doesn't agree with the social restrictions you place on yourself then it must be wrong.
percy toboggan
16-Sep-08, 21:57
Considering my daddy had yet to meet my mummy at this point, let alone her reaching the age of consent, I don't see the relevance. Plus, between those dates, you were aged 11-3. That is, even were you a precocious child and fully aware of your family life, you would not have been a good judge of the national spirit.
My guess is that you lived in either suburbia or the country. Despite the efforts of Mr N Griffin - mediocre farmer and willing recipient of EU funds - this, not the inner cities is the natural BNP support-base.
Your first pragaraph mystifies me but it's par for the course with some of your stuff. I was never particularly precocious but always cogniscent, certainly from the age of ten when I printed a weekly free 'newspaper' for my small cul-de-sac and distributed it on a weekly basis for about six months.
I used a thirty year old typewriter which might today be found in a museum. Content was parochial...at ten my travelling brief only extended to a one and sixpence 'all-day' ticket on the Manchester Coporation Bus network. Marvellous big red things which fascinated me. It was quite safe to wander the streets of the city centre, and the surrounding satellite towns like Bury, Hyde, Ashton-Under-Lyne etc. Assuming one could avoid peroxide blondes with piercing eyes.
Nothing groundbreaking in the newsheets but I took note of what was happening around me...and notes. I'm minded of this activity for the first time in decades....for which I have you to thank :confused I guess it satisfied my need to write, which now manifests in replies like this one. With aspirational parents earning better incomes I might have gone on to be a hack for a local newspaper, who knows.
Suburbia? On the edge of the largest council housing estate in Europe at the time. A fine place to grow up. Not hard, not tough...just decent people for the most part.
I'm not surprised you think the BNP should be strong in 'country' areas.
You're wrong of course. Out of sight, out of mind. The rural lobby will moan and groan about all manner of things but the extreme right will never catch on there. It never has you see. Those unfortunate enough to live on the real interface, whose back to back home might well soon back on to a Sharia law area...they are the ones attracted by the BNP's message, some might say understandably so.
Welcomefamily
17-Sep-08, 05:17
I dont know about that Percy, coming from a very rural community I would consider that they were far less adaptable to change than city folk. Certainly far more racist, and the BNP consistantly got votes. I know in some town areas you do have flash points when people say enough is enough and then you get large scale swings.
I would not like to consider myself as a racist but I am increasingly seeing the BNP as an option for a protest vote.
The reason the BNP is increasing in popularity?- Simple ,The Government.
Many citizens see ministers bending over backwards to accomodate minorities but rejecting the majority. Its well known on here my views on our country so I wont bore everyone ;)
If Muslims can have their own court why not let every other religion have one, if not thats bigoted and racist isn't it?. The Church of scotland has a ruling body as does the Catholic Church. They meet and discuss issues that effect their numbers. They then publish their findings. They then HOPE that their congregation will follow what they say,not FORCE them into a corner and banish them to an eternity in hell. Their members can still go to church if they wish, they wont stop them. But if someone has been to a Sharia court and is female and has "lost" then they are seen as an outcast.In a religion like Islam it is very much "close knit" similar to Judaism where being "In the crowd" helps your business and your life.If your outcast by the court then you are effectively "Blackballed" and have little hope in succeeding within your own community.
Its the women I feel sorry for.
Husband wants conjiguals, wife says "No I've got a headache", they go to sharia court Husband wins as the wife has denied him his weeklys!!!!! Cant see that as being very fair or we'd all be in court! ;)
northener
17-Sep-08, 09:26
I can agree with a lot of the opinions against Sharia Court, I certainly would not support anything that I felt undermined our civil liberties or judicial system.
But, the Muslim community have simply used existing UK law.
Now, we may not like it but unfortunately we live in a democracy. Part of being a democracy is allowing everyone in that Democratic State equal access and right to the laws of the land.
You cannot simply state that you disagree with Sharia Law and deny members of the Islamic community the same level of tolerance and legal status that applies to non-Muslims - there definitely lies the slippery slope to ruin.
Hotrod states that the Catholic church has its own courts system (Canon Law) and therefore, should be allowed the same status. To put it simply, there is no reason why it couldn't go down that path. The Anglican Churches could do the same with the Synods...if they chose to.
But they won't, because in Britain we have fought hard since the Middle Ages to remove legislative power from the Churches and place it firmly in the hands of a secular government. The Churches no longer have the status and sway in the Christain community that they once had.
The Islamic faith, on the other hand, has a large number of its followers who feel they would be better served by a religious court that has legal standing. More power to them, I say. Providing UK laws are not being broken.
Now, to fend off the rather obvious posts about "being over here" and "if they don't like it" etc..ad naseum:
I disagree with people coming into the UK and failing to integrate with the Uk community - the same as I disagree with people moving to Caithness and then expecting the locals to fall in line with 'their' ways of doing things.
I also believe our Immigration policy is in need of a major overhaul and needs to be more robust.
I also will not stand for any noisy minority group trying to dictate national policy to the residents of the UK.
But if a group decides to use existing UK Law to benefit their peer group without impacting on those who choose not to be held accountable...then that's part of being in a democracy.
Would we have the same reactions and fears if, say, a Scots Presbyterian, Spanish Catholic or North American based Evangelist group were to go down the same path?.....I think not. Why's that then?
Because we see Islam as a dangerous religion populated by misogynists, rabid clerics and institutional cruelty.
Which is a bit of an odd thing to think when you consider that the Koran is not that far away from the Bible...and there are some rather nasty people and religious groups operating under the banner of Christianity too.[disgust]
Melancholy Man
17-Sep-08, 11:43
Drop it, Toboggan. Even at the age of 13, the mind is still plastic. Simple as. Perceptions and opinions are seen through the prism of family life. In latter years we go on to develop our emotional intelligence: some reach it by early twenties; others later; some never do.
So you didn't hail from the same social background as public school boy and Oxbridge graduate, Nick Griffin, and other movers and shakers in a political party which is based in the inner city of Waltham Cross. Life must for tough for whiteys in Zone 6.
However, you will note that I made clear I was making an informed guess, based on my knowledge of a political party which is a heck of a lot greater than yours. Whether you like to admit it or not, it was founded by and is dominated by middle to upper class racists, and has at its core a bunch of thugs {1} and unreconstructed Nazis who, even before your magical cut-off date of the early 1960s, would have loathed the inner cities as miscegenated hell-holes.
This ain't to say that white working classes vote for them (learn how to close-read), but 'successes' you trump tend to be based on pathetically low turn-outs (as low as 25%). The popular vote for the BNP in last Holyrood elections was higher than the London Mayor, did you know that? The best by-election result was in Sedgefield, led by that workers' hero and fuel-protest organizer, Andrew Spence {2}, did you know that?
You're what's commonly known as a useful idiot. Now scram.
{1} On the edge you have the absolute maniacs in Combat-18. I will never stop laughing at how they must have felt when they woke up one morning to discover the were an MI5 construct!
{2} Making your effort to disown the "rural lobby" all the more risible. Those goons who rioted in Parliament Square are as part of your party as the Bullington Club is of the Tories.
Melancholy Man
17-Sep-08, 12:51
(TBH, d'you want me to repost emails from my Kitten Roasting friend?)
Northerner, I can't see how you can speak approvingly of the separation of Church and state for Christians, and then say more power to Islamic bodies attempting to set-up their parallel systems. Although I've said from the beginning that this is using existing arbitration legislation, it has been in response to the mis-information that it involves penal law or will be enforced on non-Muslims.
Look at what Hotrod said:
Husband wants conjiguals, wife says "No I've got a headache", they go to sharia court Husband wins as the wife has denied him his weeklys!!!!! Cant see that as being very fair or we'd all be in court!I know of one prosecution in which a British Muslim man anally raped his wife, and informed her she wouldn't have the courage to bring attention to this shaming/shameful event. She did. And he was convicted.
See also the bodacious Ed Hussein (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/20/islam.religion). As sure as eggs is eggs, UK laws will be broken or recourse denied to women.
Or:
If Muslims can have their own court why not let every other religion have one, if not thats bigoted and racist isn't it?
Precisely. We already have crack-pot Italian judges ordering the arrest (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4732048.ece) of individuals (http:///www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dante) mocking the Pope or evangelical Christians travelling two hundred miles to be offended by Jesus with a stiffie (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/03/religion.art).
Whichever way we look at attempts to accommodate this, they do not come out smelling of roses. Either non-Muslims are considered to be too important to submit to similar courts, or Muslims are thought to be docile religionists who'd *all* willingly submit themselves.
Or this is a softening up for extending control of gatekeepers in other religions. It was amazing how Rowan Williams, a middle-aged and middle-class bloke argued for control to be passed to other middle-aged and middle-class blokes.
Which is a bit of an odd thing to think when you consider that the Koran is not that far away from the Bible...
Treating the respective texts dispassionately, the New Testament is a true anti-imperialist text which renders unto God's which is God's and unto Ceasar which is Ceasar's where the Koran wishes to replace the imperial power of one (al-Rum, i.e. Rome) with another (al-Islam). Contemporary historical records speak of a military force emerging from the desert, and one John of Damascus states that the Christian saviour did not come at the reins of a chariot.
Esoterically, there's the matter of the denial of the Cruxifixion and substitution of Jesus by Judas Iscariot.
and there are some rather nasty people and religious groups operating under the banner of Christianity too
And I have no time for them, or for the difficulty Christian states have had in turning the other cheek. But this is about the expression of Islam by British Muslims.
northener
17-Sep-08, 17:00
(TBH, d'you want me to repost emails from my Kitten Roasting friend?)
Northerner, I can't see how you can speak approvingly of the separation of Church and state for Christians, and then say more power to Islamic bodies attempting to set-up their parallel systems. Although I've said from the beginning that this is using existing arbitration legislation, it has been in response to the mis-information that it involves penal law or will be enforced on non-Muslims..........
.
Simple really, the Church governed Britain with a power to rival that of the King/Queen, they could sieze property, funds, arrest people and punish them. The current system does not allow for this to happen again, and rightly so.
Sharia law courts are fine by me if they operate within current UK law. I don't recall them being granted any powers of arrest, imprisonment, seizure of goods or funds etc.....
(TBH, d'you want me to repost emails from my Kitten Roasting friend?)Aye, go for it.:roll:
Melancholy Man
17-Sep-08, 17:27
Simple really, the Church governed Britain with a power to rival that of the King/Queen, they could sieze property, funds, arrest people and punish them.
So, you're saying that we should not criticize the gatekeepers of and self-appointed spokesmen for the "Muslim community" in 2008 because of that power the Pope exercised over 500 years ago? Your opinion of Muslims is so low that you judge them against how we were in the Early Modern period?
Sharia law courts are fine by me if they operate within current UK law.
The caveat is the only saving grace in this attitude. Judging by all the available evidence, they *won't*.
Imagine this. At your workplace, your immediate superior takes to belittling you in front of colleagues and frustrating your daily work. Not a criminal offence, but you complain, and they are disciplined according to in-house procedures.
Fair enough.
Now imagine this superior proceeds to assault you on site. When you attempt to report it to the police, you are pressured into keep it in-house. Getting the picture?
I don't recall them being granted any powers of arrest, imprisonment, seizure of goods or funds etc.....
Last time I checked, murder was a criminal offence, but this is a far more potent risk for errant women in (apparently integrated, but patriarchal) Muslim social circles which then rely on extended family members to cover it up. The same attitude which supports Sharia courts. The same attitude which drove the rapist husband in my anecdote.
Likewise, financial/inheritance disputes will see women less favoured than men in accordance to Sharia law. It is illegal under British law.
northener
17-Sep-08, 17:39
So, you're saying that we should not criticize the gatekeepers of and self-appointed spokesmen for the "Muslim community" in 2008 because of that power the Pope exercised over 500 years ago? Your opinion of Muslims is so low that you judge them against how we were in the Early Modern period?
.
Sometimes, MM your mind is so convoluted that you make simple things quite difficult.
It is still quite simple:
Fears have been expressed over whether Sharia Law courts will be able to punish individuals outside the current UK Law system. I mentioned the seperation of Church and State to point out that we are not governed by religion but by the State. We binned religous courts a long time ago.
The Muslims want to deal with some matters 'in house'. So using existing law they have set up a Religious Court. They will not have the powers that Uk religious courts had 500 years ago.
Now how the hell have you arrived at the assumption that I have a low opinion of Islam from that? Jeez....
northener
17-Sep-08, 17:44
Imagine this. At your workplace, your immediate superior takes to belittling you in front of colleagues and frustrating your daily work. Not a criminal offence, but you complain, and they are disciplined according to in-house procedures.
Fair enough.
Now imagine this superior proceeds to assault you on site. When you attempt to report it to the police, you are pressured into keep it in-house. Getting the picture?
.
Ah, those damned Muslims...you can't expect any behaviour other than this from them can you?
Are you seriously suggesting that Muslims have the exclusive franchise on pressurising their peers? If so, MM you really need to get out more my friend. I've worked in places with the attitude that you used as an example, it's common in any group - be it religious or even the local Scout troop.
Have just noticed MM that you are a guardian reader.
Thought this might interest you! ;)
There are many stereotypes, but perhaps the most prominent is that of the Labour-voting middle-class Guardian reader with centre-left/left-wing politics rooted in the 1960s, working in the public sector or academia, sometimes eating lentils and muesli, living in north London (especially Camden and Islington), wearing sandals, sometimes believing in alternative medicine and natural medicine though more often atheistic or non-religious and rational.
Melancholy Man
17-Sep-08, 18:21
Come the revolution, Hotrod, the homoeopaths and nutritionists will be first against the wall, I tells you!
Ah, those damned Muslims...you can't expect any behaviour other than this from them can you?
This is becoming surreal. Of all people, I am being accused of stereotyping Muslims and thinking they're capable only of unthinking violence. What next? A bunch of fascists turning up and explaining why Mussolini was a closet pacifist???
Are you seriously suggesting that Muslims have the exclusive franchise on pressurising their peers?No.
I've worked in places with the attitude that you used as an example, it's common in any group - be it religious or even the local Scout troop.Who cares if the proposal hands control to extreme morally conservative and patriarchal gatekeepers, Scotland has never won the World Cup!
The Muslims want to deal with some matters 'in house'.Says whom? Inayat Bunglawala? The twerp who defines the beginning of Muslim empowerment as the time he marched calling for the judicial execution of an author?
I mentioned the seperation of Church and State to point out that we are not governed by religion but by the State. We binned religous courts a long time ago.What the Dickens? In order to allay fears of a theocratically-mandated arbitration system being granted quasi-official control over already socially margionalized women (and others), you cite the effective separation of Church and state centuries ago?
This is gibberish.
Now how the hell have you arrived at the assumption that I have a low opinion of Islam from that?Muslims, baby. Muslims.
northener
17-Sep-08, 18:33
This is becoming surreal. Of all people, I am being accused of stereotyping Muslims and thinking they're capable only of unthinking violence. What next? A bunch of fascists turning up and explaining why Mussolini was a closet pacifist???
.
Well, MM it's just as surreal as you claiming that I have a low opinion of Muslims.......what's the matter? Getting a bit irate?
northener
17-Sep-08, 18:39
What the Dickens? In order to allay fears of a theocratically-mandated arbitration system being granted quasi-official control over already socially margionalized women (and others), you cite the effective separation of Church and state centuries ago?
This is gibberish.
MM you disappoint me.
It's obviously going straight over your head......if you cannot see the relevance then may I politely I suggest you read up on the subject.
Gibberish? Cheap shot.........
Melancholy Man
17-Sep-08, 18:42
Well, MM it's just as surreal as you claiming that I have a low opinion of Muslims
No, I asked you if you did, being unsure because of the opacity of your argument which is flitting from endorsing one state of affairs for Muslims which you said was better than that which had been abolished for Christians centuries ago to suggesting that because oppressive and abusive behaviour has been practised by elements in secular bodies, we shouldn't be expressing disdain when certain Muslims try it.
Incidentially, I've just seen that Anjem Choudhary is vying for inclusion onto these courts. I have a mate who was at university with him, and recalls this great fount of Islamic jurisprudence as a pot-head and heavy drinking randy goat.
percy toboggan
17-Sep-08, 19:10
[quote=hotrod4;433254]Have just noticed MM that you are a guardian reader.
quote]
I'd never have guessed. :roll:
No, I asked you if you did, being unsure because of the opacity of your argument which is flitting from endorsing one state of affairs for Muslims which you said was better than that which had been abolished for Christians centuries ago to suggesting that because oppressive and abusive behaviour has been practised by elements in secular bodies, we shouldn't be expressing disdain when certain Muslims try it.
Incidentially, I've just seen that Anjem Choudhary is vying for inclusion onto these courts. I have a mate who was at university with him, and recalls this great fount of Islamic jurisprudence as a pot-head and heavy drinking randy goat.
And we all know what they do to goats!! ;)
After the BNP was mentioned had a wee look at their site to see for myself what their stance was on this. Must admit cant see anything wrong with what they are saying, they seem to have hit the nail on the head and must admit that I agree with the majority of what they say.(wont post the link as it may offend the blind! ;))
percy toboggan
17-Sep-08, 19:15
Drop it, Toboggan..... You're what's commonly known as a useful idiot. Now scram.....
........{2} Making your effort to disown the "rural lobby" all the more risible. Those goons who rioted in Parliament Square are as part of your party as the Bullington Club is of the Tories.
Scram? Not a chance.
I'd not go as far as calling you 'useful' old chum.
The BNP is not 'my party' . I'm loyal to none. It's called being open minded and adaptable...not a trait of Guardian reading sandal wearing toe rags.
I the cap fits.... Ill be surprised you didn't need a bigger one.
percy toboggan
17-Sep-08, 19:17
After the BNP was mentioned had a wee look at their site to see for myself what their stance was on this. Must admit cant see anything wrong with what they are saying, they seem to have hit the nail on the head and must admit that I agree with the majority of what they say.(wont post the link as it may offend the blind! ;))
Much of their manifesto chimes with the average gadgey in the street.
They are not blessed with good media performers though and many of their representatives are extremely average in front of the camera, and behind the podium.
Melancholy Man
17-Sep-08, 19:34
I would not like to consider myself as a racist but I am increasingly seeing the BNP as an option for a protest vote.
After the BNP was mentioned had a wee look at their site to see for myself what their stance was on this. Must admit cant see anything wrong with what they are saying, they seem to have hit the nail on the head and must admit that I agree with the majority of what they say.
Then you deserve as much scorn and derision as the likes of Inayat Bunglawala and Anjem Choudary.
And we all know what they do to goats!!Who are "they"? I'm talking about one layabout student who found religion and became a sanctimonious prig. I hope you ain't talking about Muslims. That's the sort of thing which makes people think BNP supporters of being a bunch of racists (or, whatever you call anti-Muslim cobblers).
[quote="Hotrod4"]Have just noticed MM that you are a guardian reader.
quote]
I'd never have guessed. :roll:
Just how thick are you? I *linked* to the Graun site. I also linked to the Times. I could just have easily linked to the Telegraph. Plus, if you had the a glimmer of background knowledge, you'd know that Ed Hussein - God, he's posh! - represents everything against the attitude you're trying to pin on me.
The BNP is not 'my party'.Still lying, I see. You have previously admitted to voting for them, and every one of your burbles comes straight from their manifesto. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, chances are it's a duck.
I'm loyal to none. It's called being open minded and adaptableNo, it's called being a Strasserite and dim, unthinking pillock. Plus, adaptable from someone who wishes the past 50 years never happened?
You couldn't make it up. But you did.
northener
17-Sep-08, 21:29
No, I asked you if you did, being unsure because of the opacity of your argument which is flitting from endorsing one state of affairs for Muslims which you said was better than that which had been abolished for Christians centuries ago to suggesting that because oppressive and abusive behaviour has been practised by elements in secular bodies, we shouldn't be expressing disdain when certain Muslims try it......
.
OK, MM you seem to have a real problem getting to grips with this - so I'll give it one last shot:
Earlier in the thread someone (Hotrod, I think) stated that maybe the Catholic Church etc should be allowed to have their own courts.
I replied that they could, in fact they used to have - but were eradicated for being too powerful and imposing their will on the whole population.
I then pointed out that the Sharia courts would not have the same authority as the old Canon Courts etc - so therfore they were not a threat to anyone who did not volountarily offer themselves up for arbitration.
I stated that the Christian community in the UK was on the wane whilst the voice of Islam was deeply meaningful to a large sector of our community. At no point did I advocate the setting up of an Islamic court whilst deriding the introduction of a 'Christian' court.
If you care to read this thread in it's entirety instead of cherry-picking snippets to browbeat people over, you will also note that I stated that if the Evangelist/Catholic/Presbyterian churches were to set up their own courts - we wouldn't have the furore we have at the moment...
Now, could you point out exactly where I was "endorsing one state of affairs for Muslims which.......was better than that which had been abolished for Christians"
You won't find it.......
To be honest and I can't help myself, it was the way I was brought up, I have no idea what MM thinks! Am I being thick? It sounds really good and everything but I just can't make head nor tail of it.
It's been a long day. I'll come back tomorrow when my brain is working.
percy toboggan
17-Sep-08, 21:41
Just how thick are you?.
Thick skinned certainly. It's thick enough to shrug off all the crap you throw this way. Don't be telling me about links and details of your posts because I just skim them (very) quickly for my amusement. I look for the references to me to be honest and they are always there. You are like a dog with a bone, without the charm.
To suggest a BNP voter is akin to the likes of those who support active murderers and terrorists suggests to me though that you are a rather deluded & disturbed chap and may be deserving more of pity than scorn. Have you ever suffered from clinical depression?
northener
17-Sep-08, 21:43
Personal insults and lashing out?....doesn't look good MM.
Personal insults and lashing out?....doesn't look good MM.
Its ok, he must have learnt it from Percy. Percy always defaults to that type of response.
Its ok, he must have learnt it from Percy. Percy always defaults to that type of response.
Got to disagree with that statement, I do not always agree with Percy and his views, no doubt he disagrees with mine also, but I can honestly say in all the years I have known Percy, and I knew him in his original persona, he never resorts to that type of default, maybe he is too near the truth for your liking.
Melancholy Man
17-Sep-08, 22:53
Personal insults {...} doesn't look good MM.
Why on earth not? There is absolutely nothing which precludes the use of personal insults *as* *part* of coherent argument. If X has been convicted of fraud, it will be a personal insult on future occasions to tell them they are not trusted with petty cash. It will also be appropriate.
What is it about this board in which posters who insist they ain't racist will then defend the virtue and innocence of life of a self-confessed voter for and supporter of an attested racist political party, and direct personal insults only against those calling the little Strasserites to account? It's happened both to me and to Benji, and no doubt others.
and lashing out?....Oh, please, get a sense of proportion. Toboggan has been loose with his 'personal insults', culminating in a pig ignorant jibe about his not being surprised that I'm a "Guardian reader". Because I linked to *articles*, not *comment* or *editorial* to reference a news-event. Here it is from the Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2008/07/27/nstatue127.xml). Am I a Tory voter now?
However, instead of addressing this, or his more serious racialist insults (and Hotrod's potentially highly unpleasant goat remark) you fall on me for calling this a thick thing to say. And that pales into insignificance against suggesting Ed Hussein is a woolly-minded liberal: this requires exceptional stupidity.
OK, MM you seem to have a real problem getting to grips with this - so I'll give it one last shot:I can only go on what you write here, and what I see is your expressing yourself very badly.
You speak of a group called "the Muslims" wanting Sharia in the current hands (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article4258052.ece). They don't. The likes of Inayat Bunglawala and Anjen Choudrey may want us to think they speak for the "Muslim community", but they speak primarily for their own aggrandizement and Mawdubist reaction.
What was permitted in this country in centuries past has no relevance to what is being permitted in 2008. The difference is I am not arguing for a return to this. If I do not want to see Rowan Williams get any additional influence on policy, I certainly don't want the Mawdubis to do so.
For what it's worth, I think you're speaking out of a genuine desire for tolerance, but it is rooted in the 1990s. Dividing Britons in different faith groups called 'communities' is just the sort of communalist nonsense which has got us into this mess. Yours is a lack of knowledge (as opposed to wilful ignorance). You have said you have no problem with Sharia where "individuals voluntarily offer themselves up for arbitration". Nor would I, and there will be those who regard this as their pious duty to do so.
However, with the current set-up, it will manifestly go beyond that. That I am citing names like Bungle (that I know how much it annoys him to have his name mis-spelt) show give you a clue that I know a fair bit about him and his MCB clique.
Don't be telling me about links and details of your posts because I just skim them (very) quickly for my amusement.
I will take this as an admission that you haven't read a blind word I've said, and are just trolling.
I look for the references to me to be honest and they are always there. Considering you thought I am a "Guardian reader" (but not a Times reader or a Sun reader; yes I linked to the Sun) and that Ed Hussein is an appeaser of Islamism, this judgement is precisely worthless.
You are like a dog with a bone, without the charm.And you are like the Strasser brothers, without the feral intelligence.
To suggest a BNP voter is akin to the likes of those who support active murderers and terrorists {...}What, like David Copeland or Martyn Gillieard? But, no, I am not. Learn to read. I am suggesting a BNP voter is like a common racist and supporter of street-thugs.
Have you ever suffered from clinical depression?Ah, yes, Golach, what a charmer this chap is. Who else would impute mental illness in their critics? Names are coming to me... oh, yes! The Strasser brothers!
Ne pasaran. Ne pasa-bleeding-ran.
northener
18-Sep-08, 07:27
Why on earth not? There is absolutely nothing which precludes the use of personal insults *as* *part* of coherent argument. ........
Your blind arrogance even exceeds mine..and believe me MM that takes some doing.
Obviously referring to someone who has posted on here as a "dim unthinking pillock" because you disagree with their views, is acceptable to you. I can think of a few people on here who's views I disagree with vehemently - yet I would not indulge myself by lashing out with witless base insults.....
Still, blind arrogance assumes a perpetual state of being right and treating those who disagree with scorn. It hardly leaves the way open to rational discussion - does it?
northener
18-Sep-08, 07:56
I can only go on what you write here, and what I see is your expressing yourself very badly.
You speak of a group called "the Muslims" wanting Sharia in the current hands (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article4258052.ece). They don't. The likes of Inayat Bunglawala and Anjen Choudrey may want us to think they speak for the "Muslim community", but they speak primarily for their own aggrandizement and Mawdubist reaction.
What was permitted in this country in centuries past has no relevance to what is being permitted in 2008. The difference is I am not arguing for a return to this. If I do not want to see Rowan Williams get any additional influence on policy, I certainly don't want the Mawdubis to do so.
For what it's worth, I think you're speaking out of a genuine desire for tolerance, but it is rooted in the 1990s. Dividing Britons in different faith groups called 'communities' is just the sort of communalist nonsense which has got us into this mess. Yours is a lack of knowledge (as opposed to wilful ignorance). You have said you have no problem with Sharia where "individuals voluntarily offer themselves up for arbitration". Nor would I, and there will be those who regard this as their pious duty to do so.
However, with the current set-up, it will manifestly go beyond that. That I am citing names like Bungle (that I know how much it annoys him to have his name mis-spelt) show give you a clue that I know a fair bit about him and his MCB clique.
.
Firstly, thanks for smiling beningly on my stumbling attempts at discussion.....
As for dismissing my 'communalist' view of Britain (sooo 1990's dear....): Unfortunately you can argue academic points for eternity. The reality is that we are physically living in such a community (yes, even though this is not the 1990's). And have been for a good few years. It isn't going to change. Period.
To get back on track, stating that there are those who will push for Sharia Courts to go further and therefore should not be allowed is a pretty reasonable statement. Until you realise that you are tarring a whole community with the actions of a minority.
I don't know how old you are MM, but I can remember back in the 70's how all Irish Catholics were treated with deep suspicion in the UK through the actions of a minority Catholic terrorist group.
Would you be advocating the ban on arbitrary rule for a Catholic Canon court because of the actions of the IRA and the Catholic views on abortion and contraception (an oppression of womens right to choose)?...I think not.
We're probably closer than you think on this one MM, we both want religious tolerance (within reason) and I think neither of us are particlarly impressed with any religion at all.
But this is a Democracy....if they are working within UK law, there is effall me and thee and Percy and Benjii and Hotrod etc can do about it.
percy toboggan
18-Sep-08, 19:12
quote toboggan <have you ever suffered from clinical depression?>
Ah, yes, Golach, what a charmer this chap is. Who else would impute mental illness in their critics? Names are coming to me... oh, yes! The Strasser brothers!
Ne pasaran. Ne pasa-bleeding-ran.
Why the pretentious lingo?
A simple yes or no would have sufficed.
I don't have time for you tonight.
More important people need my attention.
Please do not take it to heart, I'll probably be back tomorrow.
Benji: I'm capable of insult but as Golach so kindly opined I do not 'default' to it.
Melancholy Man
18-Sep-08, 19:28
I do not recall ever voting to allow Percy into Scotland, let alone Caithness. Thus, why is he allowed in?
Got to disagree with that statement, I do not always agree with Percy and his views, no doubt he disagrees with mine also, but I can honestly say in all the years I have known Percy, and I knew him in his original persona, he never resorts to that type of default, maybe he is too near the truth for your liking.
Are you for real or is this tongue in cheek. If it is for real read any of his posts!
Melancholy Man
18-Sep-08, 19:46
Can't say I've ever noticed (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZoSqPxsNtU&feature=related), Benji.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.