Link to the Daily Mail = EPIC FAIL
[quote]Nikiforos wrote:
This is blowing this way out of proportion (surprise?)Slippery slope fallacy.
As someone who studies the law, I suggest anyone who is outraged by this to look up “Alternative dispute resolution” and understand its full extent.
There is no authority or power being given to the Muslims, other than the whole “slippery slope” argument fallacy.[/quote]
Good post.
Makkun
How do battered women fit into this? They aren’t ruling on domestic violence cases, are they? Please tell me you folks aren’t stupid enough to allow that?
[quote]ninearms wrote:
Sifu wrote:
That is old testament. The Jews may have their issues but they are not seeking to take over entire countries and force their religion on others.
If you read the news on a regular basis you will see that there is not a week that goes by where a muslims terrorist does not set a bomb off somewhere killing a bunch of people who are merely going about their lives. Just this week there was a series of bombs set off in India by Muslims.
Your attempts to rationalize muslim bad behaviour by attacking other religions that are not behaving like muslims is ridiculous and childish. You are trying to change the subject by blaming others who are not engaged in the same behaviour. Those diversionary tactics are weak and they are not going to work here.
Christ…
Whether it’s the Old or New Testament is irrelevant - it’s the same God, committing, inciting, or endorsing the very actions that lead you to call all muslims evil.
Once you start deporting/imprisoning people based on the behaviour of whatever fictional character from the world of literature they structure their beliefs around you’re on very sketchy ground and not really any different from those deluded fools that want to destroy the infidels. Plus you’d have to imprison or deport pretty much every person on the planet who follows an Abrahamic religion, not just muslims.
The real problem is not extremists, but “moderates” (of whatever religious persuasion) and the unwarranted respect that is automatically given to whatever false delusions they subscribe to, no matter how ridiculous.
[/quote]
I don’t think mohammad was not a fictional character.
Your attempts to divert this into a debate of the metaphysical are not going to work. The only way god comes into this is they are claiming god gives them the authority to be instruments of his vengence and vidictiveness therefore anything they do is gods work.
My thesis is based entirely upon the actions of the human being who was the prophet who founded the religion. For Christianity it was Jesus. For Islam it was mohammad. God has nothing to do with my arguement.
The Abrahamic religions are not all like islam either. Though Judaism is closer than any other. You are trying to twist my point into something it isn’t. It won’t work.
The ideology of islam is not just about religion, it is also an ideology of government. This is why muslims must be kept out of non-muslim countries, because they will try to impose a muslim government. A countries legal system is an important function of government. Getting their own legal system is a big step in the direction of having their own government.
The muslims do not want to live in Britain as a part of the British nation. They are setting up a seperate nation within the British nation that they intend to grow to the point that it becomes the dominant nation. This is exactly what they did the the monotheistic Zaroastrians of Persia.
The historical record clearly supports what I am saying. Your pretense that the muslims do not want to take over the world is not supported by history and in fact denies history.
[quote]Nikiforos wrote:
“In the six cases of domestic violence, Siddiqi said the judges ordered the husbands to take anger management classes and mentoring from community elders. There was no further punishment.”
Assuming you’re referring to this. The key thing here is that women chose to withdraw their police complaints. However to call this a serious criminal case is intellectually dishonest. [/quote]
No I was referring to the case of a man who was stabbed with a knife. The assailants family was able to “encourage” his victim to take the case to a sharia court where in exchange for the assailant paying a fine, he was able to avoid having a criminal assault on his record.
That case and the domestic violence cases are another example though of what is wrong with sharia courts. It gives a way for violent thugs in the muslim community a way to avoid having a criminal record, because they can now bully people into the sharia system.
[quote]
It’s like saying that me deciding not to take someone to court for hitting me is “Imposing Greek Law on London” or some such. The women have that freedom of choise ANYWAY during alternative dispute resolution which has been fully encouraged since the Woolf reforms. You can make a claim for this being a bad influence on Muslim communities etc, but the UK has definitely NOT given them the powers to rule bindingly on criminal cases.
At that point, no matter what, the police will not look further into it.[/quote]
While I do realize that you Greeks are very chauvanistic, I am a little surprised that you would have such an ignorant view of the dynamics of domestic violence. But then again you are a Greek so any debate about the impropriety of spousal abuse is probably a waste of time.
[quote]ninearms wrote:
Link to the Daily Mail = EPIC FAIL[/quote]
So 3,600 new criminal offences weren’t created?
[quote]Loose Tool wrote:
ninearms wrote:
Link to the Daily Mail = EPIC FAIL
So 3,600 new criminal offences weren’t created?
[/quote]
The Dailymail is despised by British liberals because it does not act as a propaganda arm of the labour party. Labour has done a lot of fucked up things to Britain and the Dailymail does not gloss them over or ignore them.
It is an old tactic, if you cannot dispute the message attack the messenger.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[i]There are concerns that women who agree to go to tribunal courts are getting worse deals because Islamic law favours men.
Siddiqi said that in a recent inheritance dispute handled by the court in Nuneaton, the estate of a Midlands man was divided between three daughters and two sons.
The judges on the panel gave the sons twice as much as the daughters, in accordance with sharia. Had the family gone to a normal British court, the daughters would have got equal amounts.
In the six cases of domestic violence, Siddiqi said the judges ordered the husbands to take anger management classes and mentoring from community elders. There was no further punishment.
In each case, the women subsequently withdrew the complaints they had lodged with the police and the police stopped their investigations.
Siddiqi said that in the domestic violence cases, the advantage was that marriages were saved and couples given a second chance.[/i]
What utter shit. If you want Sharia law, stay in whatever god-forsaken hell hole you crawled out of instead of forcing your beliefs on others.
[/quote]
Amen.
Deport the ones from Pakistan to Pakistan. Deport those from Sri Lanka to Sri Lanka. No need to invent new countries. Your post gives me the lulz.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
The idea of deporting muslims “back to where they came from” gave me even bigger lulz. Where would this be? The Greek island of Muslimos? The former Soviet republic of Islamistan?
Deport the ones from Pakistan to Pakistan. Deport those from Sri Lanka to Sri Lanka. No need to invent new countries. Your post gives me the lulz. [/quote]
Let me note the impracticality, nay, impossibility of deporting people based on their religion. (a lot of them are fully fledged British citizens by virtue of birth in the country)
[quote]pat wrote:
Nikiforos wrote:
This is blowing this way out of proportion (surprise?)Slippery slope fallacy.
As someone who studies the law, I suggest anyone who is outraged by this to look up “Alternative dispute resolution” and understand its full extent.
There is no authority or power being given to the Muslims, other than the whole “slippery slope” argument fallacy.
The adoption of Sharia Law into Common Law is a problem, but keep hiding your head in the sand if you want to. It will affect you sooner than me.[/quote]
It isn’t adopted into Common Law. Alternative dispute resolution is voluntary and is not part of the judiciary in, and it exists in civil cases alone. ADR’s been encouraged ever since the Woolf reforms as civil cases were absolutely bogging down the courts with a workload they were never going to catch up on.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Nikiforos wrote:
No I was referring to the case of a man who was stabbed with a knife. The assailants family was able to “encourage” his victim to take the case to a sharia court where in exchange for the assailant paying a fine, he was able to avoid having a criminal assault on his record.
That case and the domestic violence cases are another example though of what is wrong with sharia courts. It gives a way for violent thugs in the muslim community a way to avoid having a criminal record, because they can now bully people into the sharia system.
While I do realize that you Greeks are very chauvanistic, I am a little surprised that you would have such an ignorant view of the dynamics of domestic violence. But then again you are a Greek so any debate about the impropriety of spousal abuse is probably a waste of time.
[/quote]
Your ad hominem accusations aside,
If people are using this as an alternative to English criminal law, then that is illegal and that should be cut at the root. This is something the government should react to, but it has nothing with any supposed power being given to these Muslim communities.
If people are using this as a vehicle to bully people into dropping their claims, again, this is illegal and should be cut at the root. This has nothing to do with any supposed power being given to these Muslim communities.
The problem, if there exists one is THEM and not the legal system. They operate outside it.
[quote]Nikiforos wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
The idea of deporting muslims “back to where they came from” gave me even bigger lulz. Where would this be? The Greek island of Muslimos? The former Soviet republic of Islamistan?
Deport the ones from Pakistan to Pakistan. Deport those from Sri Lanka to Sri Lanka. No need to invent new countries. Your post gives me the lulz.
Let me note the impracticality, nay, impossibility of deporting people based on their religion. (a lot of them are fully fledged British citizens by virtue of birth in the country)[/quote]
Didn’t your people live under shari’ah, dhimma, and divershme for centuries of Turkish rule? Weren’t you people ethnically cleansed from Anatolia after millenia of living there?
I find your failure to comprehend Islam’s campaign of inches in Britain to be startling given your background. You know what they say about those who refuse to learn the lessons of history…But then again, Greece itself is importing Moslem savages by the boatload and failing to have any children of her own. Perhaps Greece will be in the same situation as Britain shortly, after only a century since throwing off the yoke of the Ottomans.
Oh well.
[quote]Nikiforos wrote:
Assuming you’re referring to this. The key thing here is that women chose to withdraw their police complaints. However to call this a serious criminal case is intellectually dishonest.[/quote]
Because there’s no way that they might have been pressured into withdrawing an official complaint, right?
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Nikiforos wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
The idea of deporting muslims “back to where they came from” gave me even bigger lulz. Where would this be? The Greek island of Muslimos? The former Soviet republic of Islamistan?
Deport the ones from Pakistan to Pakistan. Deport those from Sri Lanka to Sri Lanka. No need to invent new countries. Your post gives me the lulz.
Let me note the impracticality, nay, impossibility of deporting people based on their religion. (a lot of them are fully fledged British citizens by virtue of birth in the country)
Didn’t your people live under shari’ah, dhimma, and divershme for centuries of Turkish rule? Weren’t you people ethnically cleansed from Anatolia after millenia of living there?
I find your failure to comprehend Islam’s campaign of inches in Britain to be startling given your background. You know what they say about those who refuse to learn the lessons of history…But then again, Greece itself is importing Moslem savages by the boatload and failing to have any children of her own. Perhaps Greece will be in the same situation as Britain shortly, after only a century since throwing off the yoke of the Ottomans.
Oh well. [/quote]
What do my feelings on the matter have to do with it? Yes, I personally feel that Asia Minor is Greek and that Northern Cyprus was pretty much stolen from the Greeks not long ago by the Turks. I feel that Greek culture and influence has diminished significantly as a result, which is definitely not a good thing for the world given our history. My grandmother is from Anatolia and my grandad was also an immigrant from Anatolia who lived in Hitler’s Germany before fleeing back to Greece as one of his grandads was a Greek Jew.
My response is pragmatic. I don’t think Islam is a positive influence on the world. I’m not against the war on Iraq.
However your measures are not “drastic”, they are insane and impossible. How would you deport millions of Muslim people who have British citizenship? Would you do it on the basis of their faith? Would you do it on basis of their ethnicity? Would you then go on to ban the religion? Please give me a serious reply instead of sentimental crap and spurious predictions.
[quote]Nikiforos wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
The idea of deporting muslims “back to where they came from” gave me even bigger lulz. Where would this be? The Greek island of Muslimos? The former Soviet republic of Islamistan?
Deport the ones from Pakistan to Pakistan. Deport those from Sri Lanka to Sri Lanka. No need to invent new countries. Your post gives me the lulz.
Let me note the impracticality, nay, impossibility of deporting people based on their religion. (a lot of them are fully fledged British citizens by virtue of birth in the country)[/quote]
Your point uderscores the neccessity of acting now. The more children they have the more difficult it will be to resolve when people finally have had enough. This is why they need to stop all further immigration of muslims.
There are things that could be done with the ones who were born there. ie The Orkneys are sparsely populated they could create a colony for all of them there. If at any time they wanted to leave for somewhere else they would be free to go. It would not be that hard to get them to go either they all send their kids to madrassa’s in Pakistan now so they can learn hatred of the west. All they would need to do is tell them once you go there don’t come back.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Nikiforos wrote:
Assuming you’re referring to this. The key thing here is that women chose to withdraw their police complaints. However to call this a serious criminal case is intellectually dishonest.
Because there’s no way that they might have been pressured into withdrawing an official complaint, right?[/quote]
Read my reply to his comment. If they were bullied into doing so, that is illegal. If the government is turning a blind eye into these people breaking the law, then that is wrong.
However, if they voluntarily did so in A CIVIL matter, that is what ADR (Alternative dispute resolution) is and it existed before these guys called it “Sharia Law”. The law-makers are the last people at fault in such a scenario.
[quote]Nikiforos wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Nikiforos wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
However your measures are not “drastic”, they are insane and impossible. How would you deport millions of Muslim people who have British citizenship? Would you do it on the basis of their faith? Would you do it on basis of their ethnicity? Would you then go on to ban the religion? Please give me a serious reply instead of sentimental crap and spurious predictions.[/quote]
They could send them to the country of their parents birth. These measures would not be insane they would be pragmatism. Because otherwise the muslims population of Britain is going to keep growing and their demands are going to become greater. Eventually Britain is going to be torn apart by civil war just like Lebanon if it does not nip it in the bud and stop this trend now.
If you ever listen to the ideology of the islmaic groups in Britain they are saying what they are going to do, but people are not listening to them. It is just like how Hitler said he was going to decimate the Jews and noone took him seriously. Then afterwards when we found out he slaughtered at least six million people were saying: “what a surprise!” “who would have thought he would do something like that?”
[quote]Nikiforos wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Nikiforos wrote:
Assuming you’re referring to this. The key thing here is that women chose to withdraw their police complaints. However to call this a serious criminal case is intellectually dishonest.
Because there’s no way that they might have been pressured into withdrawing an official complaint, right?
Read my reply to his comment. If they were bullied into doing so, that is illegal. If the government is turning a blind eye into these people breaking the law, then that is wrong.
However, if they voluntarily did so in A CIVIL matter, that is what ADR (Alternative dispute resolution) is and it existed before these guys called it “Sharia Law”. The law-makers are the last people at fault in such a scenario.[/quote]
The concept that you are not grasping is that the availability of these courts opens the door to bullying. The Sharia courts unlike the Beth Din courts do not base their rulings within the principles of British law. ie The inheritance case in the times article, the sons got twice as much inheritance as the daughters. Under British law it is not legal to discrminate on basis of sex. Under sharia discriminating on basis of sex is called for.
The equality of women that has developed over the last hundred years is an important aspect of western culture, of western civilization. These sharia courts give the muslims a legal system that denies women equality and allows them to roll back the clock to the dark ages.
This is all about a vulnerable segment of society being opened up to abuse.
What is “insane” and “impossible” to one is another’s statesmanship.
We have two choices: continue to appease these immigrant savages, giving in to their campaign of inches little-by-little until they outnumber the indigenous (that word, again) British, or we deport them now and let them stew in the pot of their own Islamic making back in Pakistan or some other third world backwater.
My solution prevents bloodshed. Yours doesn’t. The fact that you are both Greek and partially Jewish should make heading off the future ethnic cleansing of the British, French, and other Europeans by these seventh century Arabists all the more appealing, as Islam has caused irreparable damage to both.
To paraphrase Churchill, we can choose dishonor or war. We’ve chosen dishonor, we’ll get war also.