Here’s some interesting data from the Beeb:
Number of anti-semitic hate crimes ‘reaches high’. Here’s a big clue as to who’s doing it, from the article:
" The transfer of tensions in the Middle East to the streets of Britain has resulted in an unprecedented level of anti-Semitic incidents "
Oh, so the Jews in the UK are somehow going out and provoking these hate crimes, or the Muslims are just doing them? No explanation is given on that front. So, there’s some data, at least.
[quote]red bull wrote:
makkun wrote:
OK - was I dreaming (or having a nightmare) earlier when I checked this thread during the day, and saw a massive BNP copy/paste job by Sifu from the BNP site - or has that been mod-erased as well? If so - well done.
Makkun
BNP. I mean, can you fucking believe it? But let’s not get sidetracked mate. Back to the burning question…
Where are we shipping the Pakistanis out to again? Was it the Isle of Wight or the Shetlands? Lol, I forgot…
[/quote]
There are already people living on the Isle of Wight? The Orkneys are unpopulated.
Well, I found the Home Office crime summary:
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/hosb1107.pdf
They give a total number of racially/religiously motivated violent crimes, but don’t break them down according to religion. I guess you’ll just have to hope the Moslems are as peaceful as you think they are, Makkun.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
I think I’ve made my views wrt religions pretty clear - they are all wrong in my personal view. That includes Islam, Bahai, Shinto. Reading the bible (Mosaic laws, OT) got me pretty scared though back in the days - may have turned me away from this specific form of fantasy literature.
Fascinating. What does this have to do with anything?[/quote]
Just tried to point out that the bible is full of cruel instructions as well - and they have been amply put into practice. And I tried to underline that I am actually opposed to any religious organisation being given rights to rule anything.
[quote][…] No, I’m talking about the specific commands towards warring against non-believers as understood by the Four Schools and Shi’a clerics. All of them are unanimous on the topic of jihad.
Just read the Islamic law manual I linked. No, no, no. You couldn’t bother to do that. You need NuLabour crime statistics to tell you what to think.[/quote]
So they are unanimous on the topic of jihad - big deal. They cannot be put into practice under British law, if they don’t conform with it. End of story.
And as for the crime statistics (some people call them ‘evidence’) - give me alternatives. What do you suggest to base public policy on? You seem to imply they are tainted by the government - give me credible alternatives then. Numbers, figures, any evidence.
[quote]Aside from that, there is no public confidence in government crime statistics:
http://www.crimestoppers-uk.org/media-centre/crime-in-the-news/june-2008--crime-in-the-news/public-has-lost-faith-in-crime-statistics but I have yet to see that the government even keeps track of the category you mentioned.
But that must mean there isn’t a problem, right? Can you find a category along the lines of “religiously motivated crime” studied by the Home Office? [/quote]
What the public believes is often quite contrary to the evidence available. That makes the evidence not less relevant, just the public perception, well … wrong.
But as you are asking, ethnicity and community factors are included and discussed. Women’s Aid (a direct link from the Home Office) has indeed some guidance on how to handle support for women from minority communities and the special challenges they face.
What I haven’t found is any mentioning of the negative influence of Islam as a whole or Muslims as especially evil perpetrators.
Any evidence, stats, sources supporting your ascertions? Oh no wait - not necessary…
But if it helps you, I’m pretty sure you can find a little bit more hate speech from some crazy radical imam. Not that it didn’t have any relevance to the question at hand - that this is all happening under civil arbitration rules and British law.
[quote]It’s bizarre to watch someone who’s obsessed with defending the homosexual agenda on one thread defend the Muslim agenda on another. Truly bizarre.
This must be what its like seeing a frog boiled alive in a beaker.[/quote]
Your metaphors are getting more and more disturbing (and violent if I may say so). You obviously try to personalise this for some reason - and constructing a sinister connection between my views and based on that coming to a negative character assessment seems to be one of your coping strategies. Fascinating - I wonder what’s next.
Makkun
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
[…] It overrules it only when it is willing to overrule it. The British have no will to do so.
[/quote]
Evidence?
Makkun
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
red bull wrote:
But you’re here to quibble about a term used on an American internet forum that most of us here thought was nothing more than a contraction of the term “Pakistani.”…
Quibbling? Is that what you call it - over a racial slur? Man you are such a dick.
I have an idea. ‘Spic’ is short for Hispanic. And ‘chink’ is a contraction of Chinese, well kind of…why don’t we start using those words too and then pretend we had no idea they were offensive.
No idea? Yeah right. You take the piss out of American bodybuilders…
Like I said, you’ve got no problem crying foul over this, but when someone points out the various inconvenient mandates of Mohammed, you become apoplectic.
Islam seeks to Arabize the entire world, a fact with which most non-Arabs have a problem - the religiously mandated racial supremacism. But you’ve got no problem with that. [/quote]
A quite obvious double standard isn’t it. Not only does he cry foul but he goes crying to the mods to censor me.
But unlike Redbullocks I am not going to go crying to the mods like a little girl even though his Spic remark is a direct dig at my Black Irish mother, father, both grandmothers and a grandfather. I also think that my Chinese cousins up in Toronto would not appreciate the chink remark either.
You can call me names I’m not going to push the censorship button because that’s weak.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Here’s something about the unreliability of knife crime statistics in the UK, but let’s go ahead and trust whatever religiously-motivated crime statistics the UK government provides, if, in fact, they actually provide any:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1546085/The-vagaries-of-UK-knife-crime-statistics.html
[/quote]
Is knife crime as common as we think?
Analysis: Crime figures down
Makkun
So, I guess the need for a new “Muslim Marriage contract” (only out for a month) just came out of the thin blue air.
Is your argument seriously that British laws being on the books are enough to prevent crime? Gun crime and knife crime cannot be put into practice under British law either, yet they still are. In fact, guns are banned altogether.
How about news reports we see on a daily basis: “UK Muslims arrested for planning jihad.” Here’s one today:
It may be, it may not be. Specious argument. In this case, the public’s perception was correct, because the government was constantly fiddling with the way crime statistics were reported.
[quote]What I haven’t found is any mentioning of the negative influence of Islam as a whole or Muslims as especially evil perpetrators.
[/quote]
I haven’t found any evidence that the government actually tracks Moslem crime. But to you, this absence of evidence constitutes an evidence of absence. Like I said, your head is in the sand.
[quote]Any evidence, stats, sources supporting your ascertions? Oh no wait - not necessary…
But if it helps you, I’m pretty sure you can find a little bit more hate speech from some crazy radical imam. Not that it didn’t have any relevance to the question at hand - that this is all happening under civil arbitration rules and British law.[/quote]
As a dweller in reality, I am able to read the constant stream of news from the UK and form an opinion. The very fact that the Muslims are getting their own shari’ah courts should be sufficient evidence that a) they’ve got an agenda and b) they are pushing it. It’s reality.
A frog being boiled in a beaker is a ‘disturbing’ and ‘violent’ image to you? Are you likewise terrified if your brown socks are accidentally placed in your white sock drawer? You’re ‘disturbed’ by a common expression of the English language?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
So, I guess the need for a new “Muslim Marriage contract” (only out for a month) just came out of the thin blue air.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/20/islam.religion[/quote]
It’s ‘conservative’, so it’s inadmissible into this discussion, sort of like NARTH. No evidence as to why, but it’s just inadmissible.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Well, I found the Home Office crime summary:
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/hosb1107.pdf
They give a total number of racially/religiously motivated violent crimes, but don’t break them down according to religion. I guess you’ll just have to hope the Moslems are as peaceful as you think they are, Makkun. [/quote]
I don’t think they are more peaceful than any other religious community. Yes, you have radical elements as part of political islamism - we all know that.
But the descriptions in this thread so far have been completely out of proportion of what is being discussed here: civil disputes controlled by civil law.
Makkun
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
[…]Is your argument seriously that British laws being on the books are enough to prevent crime? Gun crime and knife crime cannot be put into practice under British law either, yet they still are. In fact, guns are banned altogether.[/quote]
And compared to many other places, this is a pretty safe country. Of course you have crime - and it’s prevented by policing the CPS, etc. The fact that there is crime does not impede in any form on the fact that laws help to prevent crimes. And again, the sharia arbitration courts are civil courts working on civil matters.
[quote][…]How about news reports we see on a daily basis: “UK Muslims arrested for planning jihad.” Here’s one today:
No one argues that there isn’t islamist motivated terrorism. Again - that has nothing to do with civil dispute arbitration.
Statistics and methodologies are published - and the way they are interpreted changes. And yes, you’ll have a bias - but to conjecture that the overall trends (and that’s downward) are wrong are unfounded.
I’ve found a little bit in a crime strategy paper talking about an increased muslim prison population between 1993 and 2004. But in the same vein you have worst health, highest unemployment, worst housing (classic crime fuelling indicators) of all minorities all firmly in the muslim quarter.
And absence of evidence means absence of evidence - nothing more nothing less. I would say it’s a rather optimistic view not jump to conclusions in the absence of evidence - not putting my head into the sand.
Yes, you can form an opinion - and it can be challenged. Of course you’ve got a multiplicity of agendae by muslim pressure groups. Just like any other religion as well. The law allows them civil arbitration, just like the beth din. I find that crap, but I can live with that - I don’t see any evidence of that being a threat to British society as a whole.
I guess it’s not so funny if you’re the frog.
Makkun
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Here’s some interesting data from the Beeb:
Number of anti-semitic hate crimes ‘reaches high’. Here’s a big clue as to who’s doing it, from the article:
" The transfer of tensions in the Middle East to the streets of Britain has resulted in an unprecedented level of anti-Semitic incidents "
Oh, so the Jews in the UK are somehow going out and provoking these hate crimes, or the Muslims are just doing them? No explanation is given on that front. So, there’s some data, at least. [/quote]
From your article: “We believe that the similarity of figures now indicates that both organisations are becoming effective in identifying and recording anti-Semitism, rather than necessarily reflecting a sudden major rise across the country,” Mr Beckley said.
And, you just assume that majority of these acts are committed by Muslims, rather than good old traditional nazis who would like to send all none whites to the Orkneys. And if you look at it, when it comes to prosecutions, Muslims are actually top of the victim statistics in that year:
“[…]Muslims were the victims in 22 of 44 prosecutions in the year to April 2004, the Crown Prosecution Service said. […] The CPS said the “perceived or actual” religion was Muslim in 22 of the prosecutions, eight were Christian, five Jewish, three Hindu, two Sikh, one Jehovah’s Witness and the remainder unknown.[…]”
Again - this has nothing to do with the civil arbitration we are discussing.
Makkun
[quote]makkun wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Well, I found the Home Office crime summary:
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/hosb1107.pdf
They give a total number of racially/religiously motivated violent crimes, but don’t break them down according to religion. I guess you’ll just have to hope the Moslems are as peaceful as you think they are, Makkun.
I don’t think they are more peaceful than any other religious community. Yes, you have radical elements as part of political islamism - we all know that.
Makkun[/quote]
I think you’ve failed to do the due diligence in researching Islam. You’ve scared yourself with various parts of Deuteronomy and Exodus, no doubt (despite their expiration in the per
son and work of Jesus), but you’ve failed to analyze the violent passages in the Qur’an, which are still very much in effect and morally binding. Mosaic law: fulfilled. Surah 9: not.
If I were to bring up Surah 9:5 and how it’s a moral obligation for Muslims now, you’d happily go to the Old Testament and point out the violent mandates there, despite the fact that Christians believe those are no longer binding because of Jesus (who advocated turning the other cheek).
But that’s where your eyes would glaze over. In your liberal brain, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, and Buddhism are equally violent, despite the actual truth claims of these individual religions and the interpretation of their texts.
And that’s where your lack of curiosity could pose a hazard to your health, and is a further example of how basic moral sense trumps IQ as a survival trait.
But is is interesting to watch you champion the “equality” of homosexuals and “right” of Muslims to shari’ah because the two are fundamentally at odds, man-boy love excluded.
[quote]makkun wrote:
Sloth wrote:
[…] Sorry, I think your laws are failing. “We’ve got our own laws, but go ahead and set up courts subservient women will be pressured (no, outright intimidated) into obeying.”
With the DV rates (including honor killings) of some of these Islamic home countries, shut down the Sharia courts.
And you get the evidence for the above from … where? I’ve spent a good part of today hanging out on the the Home Office’s and British Crime Survey’s and the Women’s Aid websites trying to find links between religious affiliation and domestic violence; [/quote]
Wow are you disingenuous. The Home Office is not an accurate source of information because of the politicisation of government bodies in favour of the ruling party.
The British Crime Survey determines rates of crime based upon interviews with 47,000 people then does some math to extrapolate what the numbers would be if they had interviewed all 60 million. It is hardly an authoratative source.
[quote]
or anything that ascerts your implication that this especially is a muslim problem. Guess what - I’ve been unsuccessful. [/quote]
Really? Here is a question for you then. Are rates of genital mutilation of English girls the same as among muslims? Or is this something that is unheard of amongst the English?
[quote]
And yes, the laws are failing - two women in Britain are killed per week by their (ex-)partners, and rape convictions are down to 3% in spite of overwhelming evidence that only a minimal percentage of rape allegations are false.
Yes, our laws are failing - but you don’t have the evidence to blame that on a small minority of the population.
So far in this thread we have clarified that: sharia based civil arbitration has the backing of the law and one of our most influential christian leaders.
It’s a copy of the practice of jewish civil arbitration services who’ve been in place for about 100 years - and they seem to help religious communities to regulate their affairs without having to resort to the court system; but not in parallel or against it. [/quote]
No it is not not. While the Beth Din courts did set the precedent they subordinate themselves to British law. ie They do not discriminate on basis of sex. The Beth Din courts are different. Besides the Jews are not out to take over the sountry and impose their religion.
[quote]
When crimes occur, the police and CPS must act - even when a complaint has been pulled back. And there seems to be no evidence that: Britain is in any form being taken over by its muslim minority; there is any significant higher incidence of domestic violence (which is a criminal not a civil matter) within the muslim communities in Britain as a whole.
So, as so often: this thread is based on a lack of evidence, a sensational news story by a (conservative) newspaper and the collective negative emotions against islam which has been permeating the political forum for some time. That makes it the only thing that should be shut down here.
Makkun [/quote]
So, as so often: The resident Liberals have jumped to the defense of what they are doing and saying no we haven’t let that many in and you are just a paranoid racist if you challenge what we are doing. While the resident Jihadists have jumped in with their usual denials and disinformation.
[quote]makkun wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Here’s something about the unreliability of knife crime statistics in the UK, but let’s go ahead and trust whatever religiously-motivated crime statistics the UK government provides, if, in fact, they actually provide any:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1546085/The-vagaries-of-UK-knife-crime-statistics.html
Is knife crime as common as we think?
Analysis: Crime figures down
Makkun
[/quote]
It should be noted that the aforementioned British Crime Survey indicates that actual crime rates are double what is actually reported to the police.
It also should be noted that the BBC management is so pro Labour that they cannot be considered an impartial source of information.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
red bull wrote:
But you’re here to quibble about a term used on an American internet forum that most of us here thought was nothing more than a contraction of the term “Pakistani.”…
Quibbling? Is that what you call it - over a racial slur? Man you are such a dick.
I have an idea. ‘Spic’ is short for Hispanic. And ‘chink’ is a contraction of Chinese, well kind of…why don’t we start using those words too and then pretend we had no idea they were offensive.
No idea? Yeah right. You take the piss out of American bodybuilders…
Like I said, you’ve got no problem crying foul over this, but when someone points out the various inconvenient mandates of Mohammed, you become apoplectic.
Islam seeks to Arabize the entire world, a fact with which most non-Arabs have a problem - the religiously mandated racial supremacism. But you’ve got no problem with that.
A quite obvious double standard isn’t it. Not only does he cry foul but he goes crying to the mods to censor me.
But unlike Redbullocks I am not going to go crying to the mods like a little girl even though his Spic remark is a direct dig at my Black Irish mother, father, both grandmothers and a grandfather. I also think that my Chinese cousins up in Toronto would not appreciate the chink remark either.
You can call me names I’m not going to push the censorship button because that’s weak.
[/quote]
Nah, I didn’t report your shitty posts to the mods here. Some good soul did, but not me.
Your attempt at accusing me of racism is risible. Those nasty words which I typed out, words which denigrate Chinese and Hispanic people, were not digs at anyone. I typed them out to highlight the sheer idiocy of your own argument - that people were making a big fuss over a mere, socially acceptable ‘contraction’.
I really couldn’t give a toss where your family are from. The fact that you give the details on your ancestry just comes off as sounding more desperate. People of various ethnic backgrounds display hatred of others all the time - obviously so, because you are a prime example. Your mixed ancestry hasn’t stopped you from posting the kind of comments which you ended up making…
I’m of mixed ethnicity too. So fucking what? I’m sure loads of people are, it’s nothing special. I just don’t go around advocating that anyone gets shipped off to the Orkneys…
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Sifu, you can defend your use of the term “paki” as much as you want. Even if it is acceptable in Britain, this is not a British board. People from all over the world use this site.
I respectfully ask that you all just drop it and the term isn’t used again.
That was two days ago I have moved on. The only ones who haven’t are the resident muslims who have come out of the woodwork.
I wasn’t going to use the word again and incur the wrath of the Mods. But now that you have asked so politely I will most definately refrain. [/quote]
Thank you.
[quote]red bull wrote:
Sifu wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
red bull wrote:
But you’re here to quibble about a term used on an American internet forum that most of us here thought was nothing more than a contraction of the term “Pakistani.”…
Quibbling? Is that what you call it - over a racial slur? Man you are such a dick.
I have an idea. ‘Spic’ is short for Hispanic. And ‘chink’ is a contraction of Chinese, well kind of…why don’t we start using those words too and then pretend we had no idea they were offensive.
No idea? Yeah right. You take the piss out of American bodybuilders…
Like I said, you’ve got no problem crying foul over this, but when someone points out the various inconvenient mandates of Mohammed, you become apoplectic.
Islam seeks to Arabize the entire world, a fact with which most non-Arabs have a problem - the religiously mandated racial supremacism. But you’ve got no problem with that.
A quite obvious double standard isn’t it. Not only does he cry foul but he goes crying to the mods to censor me.
But unlike Redbullocks I am not going to go crying to the mods like a little girl even though his Spic remark is a direct dig at my Black Irish mother, father, both grandmothers and a grandfather. I also think that my Chinese cousins up in Toronto would not appreciate the chink remark either.
You can call me names I’m not going to push the censorship button because that’s weak.
Nah, I didn’t report your shitty posts to the mods here. Some good soul did, but not me.
Your attempt at accusing me of racism is risible. Those nasty words which I typed out, words which denigrate Chinese and Hispanic people, were not digs at anyone. I typed them out to highlight the sheer idiocy of your own argument - that people were making a big fuss over a mere, socially acceptable ‘contraction’. [/quote]
I’m not accusing you of racism. But you are tossing around racial slurs yourself. It’s a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
[quote]
I really couldn’t give a toss where your family are from. [/quote]
Like most Moslems in Britain. All that counts is the Ummah.
Why not? Moslems choose to live seperately from everyone else now. Just look at how they carved Pakistan and Bangladesh out of India. Or Kosovo out of Serbia. It is only a matter of time before British moslems demand a chunk of Britain for their own country. I am sure the liberals would be very happy to devolve them their own parliament. Having their own court system is certainly a step in that direction.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Sifu, you can defend your use of the term “paki” as much as you want. Even if it is acceptable in Britain, this is not a British board. People from all over the world use this site.
I respectfully ask that you all just drop it and the term isn’t used again.
That was two days ago I have moved on. The only ones who haven’t are the resident muslims who have come out of the woodwork.
I wasn’t going to use the word again and incur the wrath of the Mods. But now that you have asked so politely I will most definately refrain.
Thank you.[/quote]
You are welcome. By the way I do apologize if that remark offended you.
This weeks bombing in India and the British Pakistani threats to conduct terror attacks in the UK as a response to American attacks on AlQaeda in Pakistan have been on my mind.