PDA

View Full Version : England Is Dying



DDT
25-12-2008, 05:51
Daily Express | UK News :: Make Sharia part of UK law, says QC (http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/72992/Make-Sharia-part-of-UK-law-says-QC)


Leading U.K. Barrister Says Sharia Should Be Incorporated into British Law

The former chairman of the Bar Council in England suggests that Sharia law should be incorporated into the British legal system because of the growing Muslim population. Barrister Stephen Hockman suggested that while speaking speaking at a meeting organized by the website, Islam4UK. Does Barrister Hockman know the definition of the word capitulation?

“Otherwise we will find that there is a significant section of our society which is increasingly alienated, with very dangerous results.

“There should perhaps be a standing committee comprising Parliamentarians, lawyers and religious leaders to consider how this could be achieved and what legal changes might be framed.”

The meeting was held at the National Liberal Club in Whitehall.


SHARIA law will “inevitably” become part of the legal system and work should begin now to incorporate it into British law, a leading barrister said last night.


The Archbishop of Canter*bury Dr Rowan Williams said in February that the adoption of some aspects of Sharia law seemed “unavoidable”.

Leading U.K. Barrister Says Sharia Should Be Incorporated into British Law (http://stopsharialaw.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=296:leading-uk-barrister-says-sharia-should-be-incorporated-into-british-law&catid=56:bottom-bottom-right)

Wodin
25-12-2008, 14:09
ummm...do illuminate me oh mighty one...but what exactly is wrong with allowing people to marry according to the rites they are comfortable...inherit according to the rules they prefer...and settle petty disputes on the basis of their own cultural backgrounds?

We already have it for Jewish people...we also have it for christians...whyever not for muslims?

I'm baffled at how that quote indicates that England is dying though....

fenrir
25-12-2008, 14:25
ummm...do illuminate me oh mighty one...but what exactly is wrong with allowing people to marry according to the rites they are comfortable...inherit according to the rules they prefer...and settle petty disputes on the basis of their own cultural backgrounds?

We already have it for Jewish people...we also have it for christians...whyever not for muslims?

I'm baffled at how that quote indicates that England is dying though....

For one thing, bigamy is illegal in the UK but the Muslims want to change that. Why should the Brits legalize bigamy just to accommodate the Muslims? Btw, the article talks about changes to the law. What changes in marriage and inheritance laws have Jews and Christians made?

RRM
25-12-2008, 14:33
Bigamy is okay by law for the muslims in India. Does it harm anybody or any religion apart from the consenting people ?

MissAnnElk
25-12-2008, 14:38
It also just says "adoption of some aspects of Sharia law."

I give the UK lawmakers enough credit to be reasonable. Maybe I'm off base . . .

darthvader
25-12-2008, 15:06
England is finished? Its amazing what some people write. Here, for example, one writes "Europe is Finished"! How weird is that? Come on, get real! ;-)

Europe is Finished?

"Mark Steyn (edit: do some of you switch off now?), political columnist and cultural critic, has written a remarkable book, 'America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It (Regnery). He combines several virtues uncommonly found together – humor, accurate reportage, and deep thinking – then applies these to what is arguably the most consequential issue of our time: the Islamist threat to the West.

Mr. Steyn offers a devastating thesis but presents it in bits and pieces, so I shall pull it together here.

He begins with the legacy of two totalitarianisms. Traumatized by the electoral appeal of fascism, post-World War II European states were constructed in a top-down manner "so as to insulate almost entirely the political class from populist pressures." As a result, the establishment has "come to regard the electorate as children."

Second, the Soviet menace during the cold war prompted American leaders, impatient with Europe's (and Canada's) weak responses, effectively to take over their defense. This benign and far-sighted policy led to victory by 1991, but it also had the unintended and less salutary side-effect of freeing up Europe's funds to build a welfare state. This welfare state had several malign implications.

* The nanny state infantilized Europeans, making them worry about such pseudo-issues as climate change, while feminizing the males.
* It also neutered them, annexing "most of the core functions of adulthood," starting with the instinct to breed. From about 1980, birth rates plummeted, leaving an inadequate base for today's workers to receive their pensions.
* Structured on a pay-as-you-go basis, it amounted to an inter-generational Ponzi scheme, where today's workers depend on their children for their pensions.
* The demographic collapse meant that the indigenous peoples of countries like Russia, Italy, and Spain are at the start of a population death spiral.
* It led to a collapse of confidence that in turn bred "civilizational exhaustion," leaving Europeans unprepared to fight for their ways.

To keep the economic machine running meant accepting foreign workers. Rather than execute a long-term plan to prepare for the many millions of immigrants needed, Europe's elites punted, welcoming almost anyone who turned up. By virtue of geographic proximity, demographic overdrive, and a crisis-prone environment, "Islam is now the principal supplier of new Europeans," Mr. Steyn writes.

Arriving at a time of demographic, political, and cultural weakness, Muslims are profoundly changing Europe. "Islam has youth and will, Europe has age and welfare." Put differently, "Pre-modern Islam beats post-modern Christianity." Much of the Western world, Mr. Steyn flat-out predicts, "will not survive the twenty-first century, and much of it will effectively disappear within our lifetimes, including many if not most European countries." With even more drama, he adds that "it's the end of the world as we know it."

(In contrast, I (Pipes) believe that Europe still has time to avoid this fate.)

America Alone deals at length with what Mr. Steyn calls "the larger forces at play in the developed world that have left Europe too enfeebled to resist its remorseless transformation into Eurabia." Europe's successor population is already in place and "the only question is how bloody the transfer of real estate will be." He interprets the Madrid and London bombings, as well as the murder of Theo van Gogh in Amsterdam, as opening shots in Europe's civil war and states, "Europe is the colony now."

The title America Alone refers to Mr. Steyn's expectation that the United States – with its "relatively healthy demographic profile" – will emerge as the lonely survivor of this crucible. "Europe is dying and America isn't." Therefore, "the Continent is up for grabs in a way that America isn't."......"

Europe is Finished, Predicts Mark Steyn - article by Daniel Pipes (http://www.danielpipes.org/article/4121)

An old 2006 part-review (of the best selling politcial book in that year). A fun read i thought. Amazing what these non-Lefties write, don't you think?

Hawk
25-12-2008, 15:27
Try excercising British rights in Saudi Arabia or most Arab countries...
There is almost zero tolerance for anything but their own laws religions...!!!!

Multiculturism is casuing issues.........

A country should have its own laws, and all foreigners should accept those laws, or be considered as a foreigner....

Sidney Bliss
25-12-2008, 17:01
And a very merry Christmas to you, DDT.

RRM
25-12-2008, 17:02
Acceptable words but then call Britain a Christian country and keep the laws based on Christianity just like the Saudi's do. Once you do that you will never have any basis for some of the stupid wars. Its not the multiculturalism, but the hypocrisies that are causing the issues.


Try excercising British rights in Saudi Arabia or most Arab countries...
There is almost zero tolerance for anything but their own laws religions...!!!!

Multiculturism is casuing issues.........

A country should have its own laws, and all foreigners should accept those laws, or be considered as a foreigner....

Scrat335
25-12-2008, 19:18
I often wonder about this phenom in Europe. Cultures/peoples do change given time it's just a question of how.
I really think that too much is given to radical parts of change and the slower more benign changes are hardly noticable. This thread, these articles go into how Muslims are changing europe, what about how europe is changing Muslims?

I think that a Muslim that moves to Europe today and starts a family will largely be the same in culture but the children and grandchildren will all be different. With time and with successive generations most people, both Europeans and Muslims will become something else.

fenrir
25-12-2008, 23:12
Bigamy is okay by law for the muslims in India. Does it harm anybody or any religion apart from the consenting people ?

That's in India, not the UK. It's illegal in the UK so if they want to have multiple wives, they can stay in their countries and live how they wish.

DDT
26-12-2008, 05:51
And a very merry Christmas to you, DDT.Thinkest thou not I come to bring peace, but divide with a sword.:reindeer:

RRM
26-12-2008, 07:43
That's in India, not the UK. It's illegal in the UK so if they want to have multiple wives, they can stay in their countries and live how they wish.

And India isnt Saudi Arabia as well. The law makers considered it and made it legal only for the muslims.
If you notice in the post, the lawmakers in Britain are considering it so it then becomes a law once it has been recognized. And which countries do you recommend Muslims should live when they happen to be British themselves ? You can be British and belong to any religion. How does bigamy for muslims only affect your lifestyle if you arnt a muslim ? If a girl is forced into it, then it is definitely against her wishes and in this case it is crime.

DDT
26-12-2008, 10:39
And India isnt Saudi Arabia as well. The law makers considered it and made it legal only for the muslims.
If you notice in the post, the lawmakers in Britain are considering it so it then becomes a law once it has been recognized. And which countries do you recommend Muslims should live when they happen to be British themselves ? You can be British and belong to any religion. How does bigamy for muslims only affect your lifestyle if you arnt a muslim ?
They should not have been allowed to bring in their wives to England in the first place, since polygamy is illegal and therefore they can not be recognised as wives in the civilized world.

The problem is that we have asswipers for politicians these days. Look, the average person does not want this stuff, they are abhorred by it.

Len Ganley Stance
26-12-2008, 12:25
The Daily Express eh! LMAO

DDT you should read the Daily Mail but make sure that you have a box of Kleenex handy as it comes out with even more rightwing ramblings than even you could probably handle at once.

Qdos
26-12-2008, 12:25
What changes in marriage and inheritance laws have Jews and Christians made?

The obvious one recent change is that of same-sex weddings... :neiner:

Matt24
26-12-2008, 12:30
The problem is that we have asswipers for politicians these days. Look, the average person does not want this stuff, they are abhorred by it.


Might I suggest that the average person is an asswiper, and would be most likely to be abhored by the abscence of this paractise in anyone who wasn't too young or incapicitated or an habitual Bidet user.

Happy Saint Stephens day

Matt

fenrir
26-12-2008, 13:14
And India isnt Saudi Arabia as well. The law makers considered it and made it legal only for the muslims.
If you notice in the post, the lawmakers in Britain are considering it so it then becomes a law once it has been recognized. And which countries do you recommend Muslims should live when they happen to be British themselves ? You can be British and belong to any religion. How does bigamy for muslims only affect your lifestyle if you arnt a muslim ? If a girl is forced into it, then it is definitely against her wishes and in this case it is crime.

Because then you do not have equality under the law. How can you if a law only applies to one segment of the population and not the others? If Muslims are allowed this, then they are being given preferential treatment over all religions, not to mention the state will be legitimizing a religious law. Why not legitimize the religious laws of all peoples living in the UK then? Why only for Muslims? For example, Hindus make up 1% of the Brit population. Why not legalize the caste system if the Hindus want it?

Gypsy
26-12-2008, 13:25
Daily Express | UK News :: Make Sharia part of UK law, says QC (http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/72992/Make-Sharia-part-of-UK-law-says-QC)





Leading U.K. Barrister Says Sharia Should Be Incorporated into British Law (http://stopsharialaw.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=296:leading-uk-barrister-says-sharia-should-be-incorporated-into-british-law&catid=56:bottom-bottom-right)
Quoting a racist website via a racist newspaper is pathetic.

What about posting what the man actually said - in context. Can't do that, DDT, can we, it might not suit your purposes?

English law has been changing for, well, forever. It has constantly changed to assimilate immigrants,from Romans,through Saxons, Vikings, Normans etc etc and will I hope keep changing.

We have always made the changes necessary to reflect the wishes of the population and I trust will always do so. There have always been those reactionaries and racists who have opposed them and been proven wrong. This will happen again.

It is very sad that pathetic racist trash rags like the Express and Mail continue to stir up racism like this.

RRM
26-12-2008, 14:02
Big democracies can only function in a tolerant society. It has nothing to do with preferential treatment. If it doesnt harm anyone, then whats the big deal.

Why would the hindu's in the UK want a caste system in the UK ? The caste system itself isnt illegal, it had been created by the Aryans 1000's of years ago. But ill treating someone on the basis of a caste system is illegal. That is true even in a pre-dominantly Hindu dominated country.



Because then you do not have equality under the law. How can you if a law only applies to one segment of the population and not the others? If Muslims are allowed this, then they are being given preferential treatment over all religions, not to mention the state will be legitimizing a religious law. Why not legitimize the religious laws of all peoples living in the UK then? Why only for Muslims? For example, Hindus make up 1% of the Brit population. Why not legalize the caste system if the Hindus want it?

fenrir
26-12-2008, 14:25
Why would the hindu's in the UK want a caste system in the UK?

Why do the Muslims want bigamy in the UK? Modern life has shown that one wife is enough. There is no real need or necessity for two. Next the Mormons will be asking for the same 'right.'

Wodin
26-12-2008, 15:13
Isn't it just great to watch the site's resident islamophobics in action...just luv it i do!

Can I just, very respectfully inform both DDT and Fenrir, neither of whom, if memory serves, is British, that you are both way out on this matter.

Now, for a spot of education:

The Sharia Law being referred to is NOT the stoning and chopping off of hands bit. For a start nobody wants that, least of all the muslim people living in the UK, and secondly it would never be accepted by our LIBERAL INCLUSIVE culture.

What is being discussed is allowing a bit of Private Law with opt ins and opt outs and the right of appeal, where required, to the Civil Courts (you know...the ones where they refer to HM the Queen and the Judges wear those robes and funny wigs). We already have examples of Private Law as it relates to non-christian, non-anglo communities. Jews, for instance. In my view, there is absolutely nothing wrong with allowing muslim people to adopt a particular method to regulate how they marry and how they divorce, as long as both parties agree to it. There is no harm in letting Mr Hasan Abdul sr determine which of his multiple progeny are to inherit his corner shop business, and how the rest of the brood are to be compensated. There is nothing wrong with allowing financial institutions to structure their business in a different way which would match their customers' cultural preferences...etc etc etc etc etc. Our country can afford to allow these because it is a serene country, confident in its multi culturalism where anybody on the extremes, whether muslim or fascist, is likely to be rejected.

The benefits of instituting some aspects of Sharia is that it actually brings in those people who presently live under sharia in the UK without the protections that the civil law can provide. Therefore bringing Sharia into the mainstream would actually provide more protection to the weaker members of the muslim community in that they would be able to act in their own best interests, under a body of law that is seen as mandatory gods' law by their opressors in am manner that is public.

Can I also point out to Fenrir, who seems to be a bit hung up on bigamy, that muslims in the UK do not actually need a law to allow them to do that. It is not exceptional, in some muslim areas of Greater London, Brummieland and Manchester, for a man to have more than one "wife". The way it works is that man and wife number 1 go to an imam and get hitched, without necessarily registering their marriage, and later, man and wife number 2 reprise. Result, man with two common law wives in the eyes of the state and man with two wives in the eyes of Islam.

Oh...and one other tiny detail...I don't want Britain to become a Muslim State...or a Christian State...or any other state where policy is based on a religious set of beliefs...I want Britain to remain a liberal state, where laws are promulgated with good intent (including the stupid ones) intended to make all our(ie Brits of whichever colour or religion) lives safer, easier, wealthier and more congenial.

Other countries...i don't care about!

DDT
26-12-2008, 21:44
Quoting a racist website via a racist newspaper is pathetic.

What about posting what the man actually said - in context. Can't do that, DDT, can we, it might not suit your purposes?

English law has been changing for, well, forever. It has constantly changed to assimilate immigrants,from Romans,through Saxons, Vikings, Normans etc etc and will I hope keep changing.

We have always made the changes necessary to reflect the wishes of the population and I trust will always do so. There have always been those reactionaries and racists who have opposed them and been proven wrong. This will happen again.

It is very sad that pathetic racist trash rags like the Express and Mail continue to stir up racism like this.
Like I said...."England is dying"!

DDT
26-12-2008, 23:12
Isn't it just great to watch the site's resident islamophobics in action...just luv it i do!

Can I just, very respectfully inform both DDT and Fenrir, neither of whom, if memory serves, is British, that you are both way out on this matter.

Now, for a spot of education:

The Sharia Law being referred to is NOT the stoning and chopping off of hands bit. Actually it is exactly that! Families among other things, can request the death penalty.
Islamic Law: Myths and Realities (http://www.iol.ie/~afifi/Articles/law.htm)



For a start nobody wants that, least of all the muslim people living in the UK, and secondly it would never be accepted by our LIBERAL INCLUSIVE culture.That's is what they will get if they take the first step. Why? because you will eventually be outnumbered.


In my view, there is absolutely nothing wrong with allowing muslim people to adopt a particular method to regulate how they marry and how they divorce, as long as both parties agree to it. There is no harm in letting Mr Hasan Abdul sr determine which of his multiple progeny are to inherit his corner shop business, and how the rest of the brood are to be compensated. There is nothing wrong with allowing financial institutions to structure their business in a different way which would match their customers' cultural preferences...etc etc etc etc etc.
They already have these rights under English Law.




Our country can afford to allow these because it is a serene country, confident in its multi culturalism where anybody on the extremes, whether muslim or fascist, is likely to be rejected.
Stupidity and arrogance! You don't know the future. The future can only be protected by the present. That means standing by English Common law and The Constitution as it has been written.




The benefits of instituting some aspects of Sharia is that it actually brings in those people who presently live under sharia in the UK without the protections that the civil law can provide. Therefore bringing Sharia into the mainstream would actually provide more protection to the weaker members of the muslim community in that they would be able to act in their own best interests, under a body of law that is seen as mandatory gods' law by their opressors in am manner that is public.
What a load of tripe! Does that actually mean something in English? Kumbaya.



Can I also point out to Fenrir, who seems to be a bit hung up on bigamy, that muslims in the UK do not actually need a law to allow them to do that. It is not exceptional, in some muslim areas of Greater London, Brummieland and Manchester, for a man to have more than one "wife". The way it works is that man and wife number 1 go to an imam and get hitched, without necessarily registering their marriage, and later, man and wife number 2 reprise. Result, man with two common law wives in the eyes of the state and man with two wives in the eyes of Islam.
Then why do they need Sharia instituted? Listen...you can't have 2 common law wives. One of them is not legal. They have to choose which one is their common law wife for any legal purpose.....the other chick will get the shaft, like she should. The only way they can get around this is the change The Law. And that's precisely the topic of the thread!


Oh...and one other tiny detail...I don't want Britain to become a Muslim State...
Well you're going the right way to ensure that it does!



or a Christian State..Britain has done pretty well for last 1,000 years! What's your problem with it now?


Other countries...i don't care about!
You should! Perhaps then you would understand what is about to happen to your own country.

DDT
26-12-2008, 23:18
This is Shariah Law 15110

DDT
26-12-2008, 23:21
Coming soon to a town near you!
15111

fenrir
26-12-2008, 23:36
Isn't it just great to watch the site's resident islamophobics in action...just luv it i do!

Can I just, very respectfully inform both DDT and Fenrir, neither of whom, if memory serves, is British, that you are both way out on this matter.

Now, for a spot of education:

The Sharia Law being referred to is NOT the stoning and chopping off of hands bit. For a start nobody wants that, least of all the muslim people living in the UK, and secondly it would never be accepted by our LIBERAL INCLUSIVE culture.

What is being discussed is allowing a bit of Private Law with opt ins and opt outs and the right of appeal, where required, to the Civil Courts (you know...the ones where they refer to HM the Queen and the Judges wear those robes and funny wigs). We already have examples of Private Law as it relates to non-christian, non-anglo communities. Jews, for instance. In my view, there is absolutely nothing wrong with allowing muslim people to adopt a particular method to regulate how they marry and how they divorce, as long as both parties agree to it. There is no harm in letting Mr Hasan Abdul sr determine which of his multiple progeny are to inherit his corner shop business, and how the rest of the brood are to be compensated. There is nothing wrong with allowing financial institutions to structure their business in a different way which would match their customers' cultural preferences...etc etc etc etc etc. Our country can afford to allow these because it is a serene country, confident in its multi culturalism where anybody on the extremes, whether muslim or fascist, is likely to be rejected.

The benefits of instituting some aspects of Sharia is that it actually brings in those people who presently live under sharia in the UK without the protections that the civil law can provide. Therefore bringing Sharia into the mainstream would actually provide more protection to the weaker members of the muslim community in that they would be able to act in their own best interests, under a body of law that is seen as mandatory gods' law by their opressors in am manner that is public.

Can I also point out to Fenrir, who seems to be a bit hung up on bigamy, that muslims in the UK do not actually need a law to allow them to do that. It is not exceptional, in some muslim areas of Greater London, Brummieland and Manchester, for a man to have more than one "wife". The way it works is that man and wife number 1 go to an imam and get hitched, without necessarily registering their marriage, and later, man and wife number 2 reprise. Result, man with two common law wives in the eyes of the state and man with two wives in the eyes of Islam.

Oh...and one other tiny detail...I don't want Britain to become a Muslim State...or a Christian State...or any other state where policy is based on a religious set of beliefs...I want Britain to remain a liberal state, where laws are promulgated with good intent (including the stupid ones) intended to make all our(ie Brits of whichever colour or religion) lives safer, easier, wealthier and more congenial.

Other countries...i don't care about!

I didn't mention other countries. RRM did.

What does me not being British have to do with this? (Watch how you answer this one. You are in minefield territory here.)

What protections don't Muslims get under the law now that they will get if Sharia law is rolled into British law?

Do you agree with the Mormons getting this too?

What about marrying girls as young as 7 or 9 and consummating said marriages when the girls hit puberty? That is also part of Muslim marriage law? You okay with that?

Qdos
27-12-2008, 00:32
This thread seems to be populated by one or two racial extremists, might be best if it were locked given the amount of bigotry which one poster has seen fit to inject.

I swear I can see his spittle frothing on his lips as he posts his racist rant, making me wonder if he's got a signed copy of 'the Satanic verses' on his bookshelves... :gay:

Gypsy
27-12-2008, 01:34
Like I said...."England is dying"!
So still not prepared to publish what the man actually said in context; only a racist site's commentary on extracts of it.

That says everything we need to know about you DDT.

DDT
27-12-2008, 05:51
This thread seems to be populated by one or two racial extremists, might be best if it were locked given the amount of bigotry which one poster has seen fit to inject.
Tell me, What and where Race has been mentioned? Do you even know what islam is?



I swear I can see his spittle frothing on his lips as he posts his racist rant, making me wonder if he's got a signed copy of 'the Satanic verses' on his bookshelves... :gay:
Again, you sound like you don't know what The satanic Verses are!

These refer to the sayings of Mohamed which Muslims took out because they proved that Mohammed changed his mind as to how many gods there are. He changed his mind twice and they even went so far as to try to burn all of the existing copies of the Koran with the verses still in them.

DDT
27-12-2008, 06:39
What Australian Treasurer Peter Costello has said :

Costello said those wishing to abide by sharia law “should go to countries where they feel comfortable” and cited Iran and Saudi Arabia. He also demanded that Muslim leaders “rather than criticise me” should “pledge themselves unequivocally to these values first of all”.

“[T]he citizenship pledge should be a big flashing warning sign to those who want to live under sharia law. A person who does not acknowledge the supremacy of civil law laid down by democratic processes cannot truthfully take the pledge of allegiance. As such they do not meet the pre-condition for citizenship,” he declared.

Prime Minister Howard who told Southern Cross Broadcasting the comments were “fundamentally accurate”. “What Peter (Costello) was basically saying is if people don’t like what this country is then they shouldn’t come here.”

PETER COSTELLO: What I've said is that this is a country, which is founded on a democracy. According to our Constitution, we have a secular state. Our laws are made by the Australian Parliament. If those are not your values, if you want a country which has Sharia law or a theocratic state, then Australia is not for you. This is not the kind of country where you would feel comfortable if you were opposed to democracy, parliamentary law, independent courts and so I would say to people who don't feel comfortable with those values there might be other countries where they'd feel more comfortable with their own values or beliefs.

PETER COSTELLO: I'd be saying to clerics who are teaching that there are two laws governing people in Australia, one the Australian law and another the Islamic law, that that is false. It's not the situation in Australia. It's not the situation under our Constitution. There's only one law in Australia. It's the law that's made by the Parliament of Australia and enforced by our courts. There's no second law. There's only one law that applies in Australia and Australia expects its citizens to observe it.


PETER COSTELLO: Well, if you can't agree with parliamentary law, independent courts, democracy and would prefer Sharia law and have the opportunity to go to another country which practises it, perhaps then that's a better option.


PETER COSTELLO: The only thing I would say - and let me say it again - is we can't be ambivalent about this point. Australia has one law, Australia has a secular state and anybody who teaches to the contrary doesn't know Australia and anybody who can't accept that, can't accept something that is fundamental to the nature of our society.

PETER COSTELLO: Essentially, the argument is Australia expects its citizens to abide by core beliefs - democracy, the rule of law, the independent judiciary, independent liberty. When you come to Australia and you go to take out Australian citizenship you either swear on oath or make an affirmation that you respect Australia's democracy and its values. That's what we ask of people that come to Australia and if they don't, then it's very clear that this is not the country - if they can't live with them - whose values they can't share. Well, there might be another country where their values can be shared.

rusmeister
27-12-2008, 06:48
There are two false views on the general topic of introducing diversity into a country (but even words like "diversity" are loaded with assumptions that you read into them without the words actually meaning that, making it a kind of 'bait and switch' - the trouble is, the meaning is assumed and not examined):

1)The first, and obvious, extreme view is that everything foreign is evil and ought to be eradicated.

2) The second is the popular modern fallacy - that having different philosophies co-exist strengthens a nation and helps it grow (words like 'strengthen' and 'grow' are in the same category as 'diversity' - one must ask exactly what they mean here).

Common sense (which, evidently, is no longer common) ought to tell people that any civilization is based on a philosophy, a view of life. The modern fallacy (#2) is based on the idea that those philosophies do no matter - that what a person believes is personal, private, and should not affect public policy. That said public philosophy is built on a philosophy goes unexamined. The whole approach of modern pluralism is to cloak the philosophies and hide the differences - so that they remain seething* (adjective added by author) under the surface. It says that those philosophies do not matter. You may speak about anything, any detail - but do not speak of a philosophy (from which those details spring) as being true or false.

Thus the contradiction. Ideas like tolerance and diversity are now considered to be unquestioned truth, but we are not allowed to question the philosophy on which they are based. As soon as a thinking person does, he is branded "a bigot' or some other such term to present him as being unreasonable.

British law is based largely on its Christian history and the moral assumptions (not talking about how people with power have subverted them, just the bases) on Christianity. Islamic law is based (duh!) on Islam. Wherever those ideologies conflict it will affect the laws. The modern approach is to say that those ideologies do not matter - by default, that they are false. They may be false. But the logician will admit that this should not be admitted until they have been fairly examined - which most never do.

So, in a real sense, England IS dying, as is America and Europe in general, and this is because the proposition on which they were all built (meaning here their laws and concepts of right and wrong) - that Christianity is true - has been rejected. Thus, much of traditional law becomes meaningless. I said somewhere else here that George Washington warned in his farewell address against attempting to maintain morality in the exclusion of the religious principle - people chose to listen to Jefferson, rather than Washington, and here is the result.

For those who can read and understand longer quotes (for those who can't I highlighted the high points):


It is foolish, generally speaking, for a philosopher to set fire to another philosopher in Smithfield Market because they do not agree in their theory of the universe. That was done very frequently in the last decadence of the Middle Ages, and it failed altogether in its object. But there is one thing that is infinitely more absurd and unpractical than burning a man for his philosophy. This is the habit of saying that his philosophy does not matter, and this is done universally in the twentieth century, in the decadence of the great revolutionary period. General theories are everywhere contemned; the doctrine of the Rights of Man is dismissed with the doctrine of the Fall of Man. Atheism itself is too theological for us to-day. Revolution itself is too much of a system; liberty itself is too much of a restraint. We will have no generalizations. Mr. Bernard Shaw has put the view in a perfect epigram: "The golden rule is that there is no golden rule." We are more and more to discuss details in art, politics, literature. A man's opinion on tramcars matters; his opinion on Botticelli matters; his opinion on all things does not matter. He may turn over and explore a million objects, but he must not find that strange object, the universe; for if he does he will have a religion, and be lost. Everything matters--except everything.

Examples are scarcely needed of this total levity on the subject of cosmic philosophy. Examples are scarcely needed to show that, whatever else we think of as affecting practical affairs, we do not think it matters whether a man is a pessimist or an optimist, a Cartesian or a Hegelian, a materialist or a spiritualist. Let me, however, take a random instance. At any innocent tea-table we may easily hear a man say, "Life is not worth living." We regard it as we regard the statement that it is a fine day; nobody thinks that it can possibly have any serious effect on the man or on the world. And yet if that utterance were really believed, the world would stand on its head. Murderers would be given medals for saving men from life; firemen would be denounced for keeping men from death; poisons would be used as medicines; doctors would be called in when people were well; the Royal Humane Society would be rooted out like a horde of assassins. Yet we never speculate as to whether the conversational pessimist will strengthen or disorganize society; for we are convinced that theories do not matter.

This was certainly not the idea of those who introduced our freedom. When the old Liberals removed the gags from all the heresies, their idea was that religious and philosophical discoveries might thus be made. Their view was that cosmic truth was so important that every one ought to bear independent testimony. The modern idea is that cosmic truth is so unimportant that it cannot matter what any one says. The former freed inquiry as men loose a noble hound; the latter frees inquiry as men fling back into the sea a fish unfit for eating. Never has there been so little discussion about the nature of men as now, when, for the first time, any one can discuss it. The old restriction meant that only the orthodox were allowed to discuss religion. Modern liberty means that nobody is allowed to discuss it. Good taste, the last and vilest of human superstitions, has succeeded in silencing us where all the rest have failed. Sixty years ago it was bad taste to be an avowed atheist. Then came the Bradlaughites, the last religious men, the last men who cared about God; but they could not alter it. It is still bad taste to be an avowed atheist. But their agony has achieved just this-- that now it is equally bad taste to be an avowed Christian. Emancipation has only locked the saint in the same tower of silence as the heresiarch. Then we talk about Lord Anglesey and the weather, and call it the complete liberty of all the creeds.
But there are some people, nevertheless--and I am one of them-- who think that the most practical and important thing about a man is still his view of the universe. We think that for a landlady considering a lodger, it is important to know his income, but still more important to know his philosophy. We think that for a general about to fight an enemy, it is important to know the enemy's numbers, but still more important to know the enemy's philosophy. We think the question is not whether the theory of the cosmos affects matters, but whether in the long run, anything else affects them. GK Chesterton, "Heretics" ch 1 Heretics -- Introductory Remarks on the Importance of Orthodoxy (http://www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/heretics/ch1.html)

DDT
27-12-2008, 10:41
YouTube- Truth of Sharia Compliant Finance: Funding Islamic Agenda?

DDT
27-12-2008, 11:17
YouTube- One Law For All - No Sharia
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKsb7yTGdvQ
YouTube- UK Gov Supporting Sharia Courts

Gypsy
27-12-2008, 11:37
Proselytising is against Forum rules.

What DDT is doing here is no different except that instead of blindly pumping out propaganda in favour of a particular religion he is blindly pumping out racist garbage attacking another religion.

Wodin, in the spirit of debate, has tried to have a constructive discourse explaining that England has always assimilated immigrants and taken on some of their customs, and passed many ofthose into law. DDt instead of arguing that has resorted yet again to blind, racist, anti Islamic diatribes.

Why is this not banned?

Just for the record, I have no more love for Islam than I do for Judaism or christianity (in its many forms) they are all dangerous; but in the guise of wanting debate DDT has done nothing but post racist, anti-Islamic rubbish.

That is not debate.

DDT
27-12-2008, 11:50
Just for the record, I have no more love for Islam than I do for Judaism or christianity
That is not debate.

Yes, you do!

DDT
27-12-2008, 12:02
Anyway, here is another article on the Sharia law row.


He said it would be "simply impossible" to bring sharia law into British law "without fundamentally affecting its integrity".

Sharia "would be in tension with the English legal tradition on questions like monogamy, provisions for divorce, the rights of women, custody of children, laws of inheritance and of evidence.

"This is not to mention the relation of freedom of belief and of expression to provisions for blasphemy and apostasy."



Politicians joined the chorus of condemnation, with Downing Street saying British law should be based on British values. Tory and LibDem leaders also voiced strong criticism.

Even prominent Muslims were rounding on Dr Williams. Shahid Malik, Labour MP for Dewsbury, said: "I haven't experienced any clamour or fervent desire for sharia law in this country.

"If there are people who prefer sharia law there are always countries where they could go and live."
Sharia law row: Archbishop is in shock as he faces demands to quit and criticism from Lord Carey| News | This is London (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23436203-details/Adoption+of+Islamic+Sharia+law+in+Britain+is+%27unavoidable%27%2C+says+Archbishop+of+Canterbury/article.do)

Gypsy
27-12-2008, 12:14
Yes, you do!
No I don't - but I do hate racism as much as I loathe religion so your posts will naturally attract more criticism from me.

Qdos
27-12-2008, 12:21
You should read the rules DDT, because I'd imagine people are reporting your plainly racist comments to admin left, right, and centre.

It is beneath most peoples dignity to even attempt top challenge your petty narrowminded views - which is, I guess the reason that you have to make multiple consecutive posts of your own to keep 'your thread' bumped up when no decent minded posters are actually interested in your hate-speech. :bowdown:

DDT
27-12-2008, 12:37
You should read the rules DDT, because I'd imagine people are reporting your plainly racist comments to admin left, right, and centre.

It is beneath most peoples dignity to even attempt top challenge your petty narrowminded views - which is, I guess the reason that you have to make multiple consecutive posts of your own to keep 'your thread' bumped up when no decent minded posters are actually interested in your hate-speech. :bowdown:
No you should read a book....perhaps a history book. If my comments are racist to you then you obviously don't have the mental ammunition for this thread. That's why you haven't bothered add anything to the subject yet except for your labeling the messenger with racism, when you don;t even know what racism is. You want to call me a racist? Name calling is against the rules. So I suggest you buck up right now and prove your charge of racism.
Let's see it, name caller. Where's your evidence? Put it up right now or get out of this thread and leave room for serious debate on why a 1,000 years of English Law should be changed to accommodate Sharia!

Gypsy
27-12-2008, 14:13
No you should read a book....perhaps a history book. If my comments are racist to you then you obviously don't have the mental ammunition for this thread. That's why you haven't bothered add anything to the subject yet except for your labeling the messenger with racism, when you don;t even know what racism is. You want to call me a racist? Name calling is against the rules. So I suggest you buck up right now and prove your charge of racism.
Let's see it, name caller. Where's your evidence? Put it up right now or get out of this thread and leave room for serious debate on why a 1,000 years of English Law should be changed to accommodate Sharia!
Well firstly,the post with the most blatant examples of racism has been deleted by the Mods because of racism, so it is now harder to cite the specific examples here. Secondly the 1000 years of English Law comment is absolute nonsense. English Law has been changing constantly for well over 1000 years. And if we accept your argument then we would have to freeze english law as it was in 1009. I don't think that would be to everyone's tastes. Why, we might even have to return to chopping off the hands of thieves, and torturing and executing people because they expressed free will - as practised by the Christians at that time. What changed that? The enlightenment. Left to the Christian church we would still be back in the dark ages.

English Law has developed continuously over the last 1000 years-and a lot longer than that - by assimilating the customs of each successive set of immigrants - the English are a mongrel race, something I am proud of; and by respecting the rights of man. If it becomes sensible to incorporate some aspects of what is called Sharia Law then as long as the majority are in favour - so what?

No one is suggesting we return to the old christian practises of chopping off hands, torture and execution of non believers, or any of the other scare stories you have published. No one. And it will not happen.

Wodin
27-12-2008, 15:18
Brilliant reply DDT. Demonstrates exactly what I meant to say about your lack of knowledge of the subject under question (ie implimenting some aspects of Sharia into the English mainstream legal system) and your islamophobic nature.

Now then, to business.


Actually it is exactly that! Families among other things, can request the death penalty.
Islamic Law: Myths and Realities (http://www.iol.ie/~afifi/Articles/law.htm)

That might be the case in Saudi, but what's being proposed in England has absolutely nothing at all to do with that. I suggest that you read the original statements rather than something printed on a rather notorious newspaper. Again, and for your delectation, what is being proposed is to incorporate some aspects of sharia, mainly those to do with family matters, business and so on, into the main body of the Law, subsidiary to the the normal appeals and applicable only where both parties to a dispute agree to abide by that particular law. Very much the same as, if you and I were to have a business contractual relationship, we could agree to make our contract subject to the Laws in Delaware..or Outer Mongolia.

I therefore repeat to you, the more...esoteric...aspects of Sharia, including the detachment of the various body parts, the application of propelled stones and so on, are not being contempletd for inclusion.



That's is what they will get if they take the first step. Why? because you will eventually be outnumbered.

Wrong again. I suggest you check the statistics. First. The number of UK inhabitants who classify themselves as muslim amounts to a bit less than 5% of the total population. Secondly, they can no longer afford to breed like rabbits. The norm for today's muslim families (ie 2nd generation or more) is 1.7 kids. Thirdly, many many third generation muslims (that's the 20 - 30 year olds) are as non-religious and as liberally inclined as the rest of us.

In any case, even if we were to accept your thesis that Islam is the fastest growing religion, and that therefore, in time, there will be more muslims living in Britain than non Muslims...well then..so be it. However, I for one don't think that your thesis is correct.


They already have these rights under English Law.

Actually they don't. Not in a way that coincides exactly with their eligious and cultural beliefs.




Stupidity and arrogance! You don't know the future. The future can only be protected by the present. That means standing by English Common law and The Constitution as it has been written.

Ok. I'm afraid that your lack of knowledge is showing. We have NO written constitution, and Common law is but one aspect of our body of legislation (we also have Precedent and Statute, but increasingly, the relevance of CL and Precedent have been diluted by Statute). In any case, it's clearly the case that if one brings a greay area into the mainstream then the protection given to the weak is greater. In other words, there are people in the UK who today, live under Sharia. Simply because that's what they want to do. It's administered by the local Imam and the community elders. No right of appeal to the Courts, no oversight. It's a bit of a no brainer to say that if that were brought into statute, then the Imams and elders would be replaced by trained judges and magistrates subject to the COCP.



What a load of tripe! Does that actually mean something in English? Kumbaya.

Yeah it does! Read it carefully and invest in a dictionary.


Then why do they need Sharia instituted? Listen...you can't have 2 common law wives. One of them is not legal. They have to choose which one is their common law wife for any legal purpose.....the other chick will get the shaft, like she should. The only way they can get around this is the change The Law. And that's precisely the topic of the thread!

Simple answer: Inheritance rights, Divorce settlement and proceedings rights, and owenership rights. Pulling that aspect of Sharia into the law (ie allowing bigamy when all parties agree) will extend protection to ALL the wives...not just the first one.


Well you're going the right way to ensure that it does!

errm...was the word you used Tripe...?


Britain has done pretty well for last 1,000 years! What's your problem with it now?

None. We have done well for well more than 1,000 years actually...try 1,500. Britain has done well because it always managed to incorporate the various waves of imigrants into a homogenous population. This happened because all segments of the population managed to get to exercise their rights as They saw them to be. That's what's happening again now.



You should! Perhaps then you would understand what is about to happen to your own country.

I'm afraid the word that best describes this statement cannot be stated in this folder...It starts with a B and has 7letters and desribes exactly what you wrote there.

Wodin
27-12-2008, 15:32
I didn't mention other countries. RRM did.

Doesn't matter. I only said that I don't care about other countries.


What does me not being British have to do with this? (Watch how you answer this one. You are in minefield territory here.)

It means that what you, and other non-natives know, is taken from the news, websites and, in some cases from having lived there, in an expat mode, for a few years. It also means that you can't possibly have a detailed knowledge of the relationships between the various communities and the day to day effects to these relationships. As to minefields...i just luv 'em...so fire away.


What protections don't Muslims get under the law now that they will get if Sharia law is rolled into British law?

Imagine a 60 year old pakistani woman who came to england when her hubby moved there and has lived all her life in the ghetto, doesn't speak english and looks up to the local Imam and the local elders as her guiding stars. Her daugher, english speaking, cross over culture, wers mini skirts, wants to marry a muslim man, whose parents just happens not to be from the same village in pakistan that the mother came from. If sharia were available, the daugher would be able to convince the mum to abide, as sharia would be a culturally acceptable body of law, in fact, mandatory, for the mother. This of course, is seen by many, except islamophobes, as being preferable to the daughter being disowned, in some cases have to live in fear, for marrying the bloke.


Do you agree with the Mormons getting this too?

Yes. As long as all the parties to the contract, these being the man and the various women involved, agree and have avenues to apply to in the event that they don't agree or are being pressured.


What about marrying girls as young as 7 or 9 and consummating said marriages when the girls hit puberty? That is also part of Muslim marriage law? You okay with that?

Nobody is suggesting incorporating that into the Law. Same as nobody is suggesting that if one gets caught in flagrante they get stoned, same as nobody, except those who chose to read or hear what they want, is suggesting that the next thief to be caught will have his hands loped off.

rusmeister
27-12-2008, 17:07
You should read the rules DDT, because I'd imagine people are reporting your plainly racist comments to admin left, right, and centre.

It is beneath most peoples dignity to even attempt top challenge your petty narrowminded views - which is, I guess the reason that you have to make multiple consecutive posts of your own to keep 'your thread' bumped up when no decent minded posters are actually interested in your hate-speech. :bowdown:

Not sure if I would defend DDT's position or not - but there IS a rational case for rejecting enforced multiculturalism that does not involve bigotry, or "narrow-mindedness" - which, used as rhetorical weapons, are in need of definition and clarification. Indeed, the term used to defend one's own culture from imposed assimilation by an external one in my univ was "cultural centeredness" -something that was clearly to be afforded to minorities and denied to the majority in the US. I've definitely come around to the right of a people to maintain their "cultural-centeredness" and reject the imposition of other cultures on them. There is a world of difference between the question of ignorance vs knowledge (not knowing about other cultures and being offered the chance to learn about them) and concluding that one's own culture really is preferable as a basis for civilization. Of course, in the end, it really does come down to whether what you believe is really true, or at least more true than the beliefs of others, whether pluralism is your god (ie, there is no truth or perhaps no god) or some specific religion.

fenrir
27-12-2008, 17:09
1: It means that what you, and other non-natives know, is taken from the news, websites and, in some cases from having lived there, in an expat mode, for a few years. It also means that you can't possibly have a detailed knowledge of the relationships between the various communities and the day to day effects to these relationships. As to minefields...i just luv 'em...so fire away.


2: Imagine a 60 year old pakistani woman who came to england when her hubby moved there and has lived all her life in the ghetto, doesn't speak english and looks up to the local Imam and the local elders as her guiding stars. Her daugher, english speaking, cross over culture, wers mini skirts, wants to marry a muslim man, whose parents just happens not to be from the same village in pakistan that the mother came from. If sharia were available, the daugher would be able to convince the mum to abide, as sharia would be a culturally acceptable body of law, in fact, mandatory, for the mother. This of course, is seen by many, except islamophobes, as being preferable to the daughter being disowned, in some cases have to live in fear, for marrying the bloke.

3: Yes. As long as all the parties to the contract, these being the man and the various women involved, agree and have avenues to apply to in the event that they don't agree or are being pressured.

4: Nobody is suggesting incorporating that into the Law. Same as nobody is suggesting that if one gets caught in flagrante they get stoned, same as nobody, except those who chose to read or hear what they want, is suggesting that the next thief to be caught will have his hands loped off.

1: I'll just remember this point anytime you have something to say about the US or any other country you are not from.

2: This makes no sense to me at all. Under UK law she can marry pretty much who she wants without anyone else's permission. How many people in the UK (or anywhere else for that matter) have married someone their parents did not approve of? And parents of any religion can disown their kids for any reason.

3: At least you are consistent. I respect that.

4: But that is the next step. You want to accept some of their marriage laws but not all, even though they have a tradition that goes back to Mohammed himself. Why are you being so prejudiced against their time-honored traditions?

Judge
27-12-2008, 21:56
This thread is going the way like many others have gone... hateful posts against another religion...
Expat.ru is not the place for this.
Thread closed.