This is true. I'm all for practicing religion and whatnot as you may know, but it shouldn't affect a judicial system that is supposed to be (for the most part) standardized and impartial.KILLSWITCH wrote:
Mek-Stizzle wrote:
The right way forward would be to ban all sorts of religious ruling.
What good is islamic law if you can't stone your wife to death for being raped?Scorpion0x17 wrote:
They don't.deeznutz1245 wrote:
My question is this: if it is a contractual agrement other than British law, how would either party expect it to be governed by British law when one or both parties faults?
As long as punishments don't contravene British law, then I don't really see any problem with this - it's like having a gentleman's agreement - it's not legally binding, but is informally binding - only in this case, any agreement entered into under Sharia law wouldn't be binding by British law, but may be by Sharia law.
Impossible, Cam and his minions has already informed us that this can not happen and would never be allowed....ATG wrote:
Q: what are you thinking?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … judge.htmlI think some of that wig material worked it's way into his brain.Lord Chief Justice Lord Phillips said that Islamic legal principles could be employed to deal with family and marital arguments and to regulate finance.
He declared: 'Those entering into a contractual agreement can agree that the agreement shall be governed by a law other than English law.'
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/07/ … 33x381.jpg
I'm impressed at how you skipped the discussion of how this doesn't actually affect legal rulings in any way and just blindly assumed that ATG was right because it suits your purposes.
Except that it isn't. Western nations, and the US in particular, are heavily influenced by Christian belief. That needs to be fixed.DesertFox- wrote:
This is true. I'm all for practicing religion and whatnot as you may know, but it shouldn't affect a judicial system that is supposed to be (for the most part) standardized and impartial.KILLSWITCH wrote:
Mek-Stizzle wrote:
The right way forward would be to ban all sorts of religious ruling.
Not in the slightest. No one speaking out against what he said seems to have the remotest idea of what he did actually say, which was that British law applies in all instances and takes presidence. He also asserted that no Sharia punishments could be used.usmarine2 wrote:
The point of the OP is why the Brits are letting islam dictate their laws.ZombieVampire! wrote:
And the point of the OP is the attitude of a Western government in relation to Sharia law.
Or isn't it? How would you describe it?
Sharia law is most commonly applicable in marital disputes, which English Common Law already permits, and has always permitted, the use of a third party to resolve the dispute - which is exactly what this is.Lord Phillips said that any sanctions must be 'drawn from the laws of England and Wales'. Severe physical punishment - he mentioned stoning, flogging or amputating hands - is 'out of the question' in Britain, he added.
It's just a whole load of controversy over nothing. People hear Sharia and panic. Usually people who have no real idea of what it entails and just have images of floggings, beheadings and amputations.Lord Phillips wrote:
Those who are in dispute are free to subject it to mediation or to agree that it shall be resolved by a chosen arbitrator. There is no reason why principles of sharia law or any other religious code should not be the basis for mediation or other forms of dispute resolution.
He was pointing out that some aspects of Sharia law can be used in harmony with the British legal system as it stands and promoting resolutions of family disputes through religious intermediaries, what is wrong with that?
Bertster, you should know that Islam is evil and should never be used, regardless of any beneficial results.
Silly, silly you.
Silly, silly you.
No, people hear experts who referred to London as "londanistan" or something like that, then hear about stuff like this.Bertster7 wrote:
People hear Sharia and panic.
Last edited by usmarine2 (2008-07-05 08:01:13)
Link?
you really have no idea about anything outside of the internet do you?ZombieVampire! wrote:
Link?
--------------
http://www.heritage.org/Press/Events/ev051006a.cfm
"The suicide bombings carried out in London in 2005 by British Muslims revealed an enormous fifth column of Islamist terrorists and sympathizers. Under the noses of British intelligence, London had become the European hub for the promotion, recruitment and financing of Islamic terror and extremism – so much so that exasperated European security agencies mockingly dubbed Britain “Londonistan.”
"The presence of militants like Bakri has earned the British capital the sobriquet "Londonistan" among diplomats and terrorism experts, who see London as a worldwide center of Islamic terrorism."
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c … 7SF4U1.DTL
Last edited by usmarine2 (2008-07-05 08:01:28)
A quick search reveals the speaker to be a firm defender of Israel: that is, she has an ulterior motive for the statement. Indeed, she doesn't even have any formal qualifications to speak on the subject of terrorism.
Meanwhile, the article claims that terrorism experts call it Londonistan without quoting a source.
So, essentially we have no evidence that it's actually called Londonistan by anyone, just a bunch of people saying other people call it Londonistan. Effectively I could do the same to anywhere (i.e. Melbournistan) by printing it in an article and waiting for others to say the same.
Meanwhile, the article claims that terrorism experts call it Londonistan without quoting a source.
So, essentially we have no evidence that it's actually called Londonistan by anyone, just a bunch of people saying other people call it Londonistan. Effectively I could do the same to anywhere (i.e. Melbournistan) by printing it in an article and waiting for others to say the same.
People misquote the legal professional's opinion on such matters (Re: the integration and recognition of varying different cultural and moral systems within a uniform application of standard criminal/civil law), and the British tabloid media of course takes every opportunity to blow it up into a huge furore in which a 'posh old toff in a wig' invariably declares that our society should change into a polygamous male-dominated world with regular public beheadings over night. It's so trite and boring, it really is.
This is very similar to the controversy surrounding the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, who is an official of jurisprudence and a doctor of theology. He too propounded the idea in a speech regarding the English legal system to recognise and apply differing cultural/moral systems (including religious-based law systems such as Halakha - Jewish law - and Sharia law) in an effort to achieve fairness and equal treatment to all. Law as a concept has a terrible job of balancing the conflicting interests of defendants/prosecution, as well as achieving a middle-point between applying strict legal code and enforcing popular moral attitude.
Personally I see nothing controversial or 'wrong' in what he was saying- in a secular and multicultural nation it is perhaps recommended that at times we bear in mind or make reference to the authority and precedence laid down by various religious law or moral code. Public opinion- and furthermore, public safety and wellbeing - has always been a huge priority in achieving justice within law-- such to the point that the 'State' and its public interests will often far outweigh the inequalities of the individual, and in today's modern Britain, 'public opinion' is a very loose term indeed that no longer only encapsulates the values of Western European white men with Conservative political leanings.
To the layperson these arguments and debates are very hard to understand and contemplate, and as such all you get in popular mainstream culture and media is these 'outcrys' and 'scandals'- not of course because anything scandalous has occurred, but simply because of the ulterior motive of it selling lots of papers to average morons who lap this tosh up and become equally incensed. And please, to all those above who are already predictably leading on this Islamic discussion to one revolving around terrorism... just stop. Law making and proposed/suggested reforms and improvements in the law are not influenced by terrorism; Britain's judiciary is quite separate from the government and executive in its decisions and actions (see: Montesquieu's separation of powers), quite unlike the American system- ahem.
Not surprised that the Americans on this Forum create a bigger fuss than the (submissive?) Brits do... nevermind, Islam and it's evil malevolent influences are still very much a threat to us all as long as Iran remains, err, lacking a certain 'liberation'.
This is very similar to the controversy surrounding the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, who is an official of jurisprudence and a doctor of theology. He too propounded the idea in a speech regarding the English legal system to recognise and apply differing cultural/moral systems (including religious-based law systems such as Halakha - Jewish law - and Sharia law) in an effort to achieve fairness and equal treatment to all. Law as a concept has a terrible job of balancing the conflicting interests of defendants/prosecution, as well as achieving a middle-point between applying strict legal code and enforcing popular moral attitude.
Personally I see nothing controversial or 'wrong' in what he was saying- in a secular and multicultural nation it is perhaps recommended that at times we bear in mind or make reference to the authority and precedence laid down by various religious law or moral code. Public opinion- and furthermore, public safety and wellbeing - has always been a huge priority in achieving justice within law-- such to the point that the 'State' and its public interests will often far outweigh the inequalities of the individual, and in today's modern Britain, 'public opinion' is a very loose term indeed that no longer only encapsulates the values of Western European white men with Conservative political leanings.
To the layperson these arguments and debates are very hard to understand and contemplate, and as such all you get in popular mainstream culture and media is these 'outcrys' and 'scandals'- not of course because anything scandalous has occurred, but simply because of the ulterior motive of it selling lots of papers to average morons who lap this tosh up and become equally incensed. And please, to all those above who are already predictably leading on this Islamic discussion to one revolving around terrorism... just stop. Law making and proposed/suggested reforms and improvements in the law are not influenced by terrorism; Britain's judiciary is quite separate from the government and executive in its decisions and actions (see: Montesquieu's separation of powers), quite unlike the American system- ahem.
Not surprised that the Americans on this Forum create a bigger fuss than the (submissive?) Brits do... nevermind, Islam and it's evil malevolent influences are still very much a threat to us all as long as Iran remains, err, lacking a certain 'liberation'.
Last edited by Uzique (2008-07-05 08:58:48)
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Need more? or have you come out of your pc room yet?
"They could preach hatred, they could recruit followers, they could raise funds, and they could even call for Jihad – Holy war – as long as they didn’t call for attacks on British soil. London became such a safe haven for Muslim militants that it came to be known as "Londonistan."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/ … 2308.shtml
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/k … 110810.asp
Also bubbalo, you will see that is the title of her book, and you will also see many people including terrorists agree with that term. troll
"They could preach hatred, they could recruit followers, they could raise funds, and they could even call for Jihad – Holy war – as long as they didn’t call for attacks on British soil. London became such a safe haven for Muslim militants that it came to be known as "Londonistan."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/ … 2308.shtml
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/k … 110810.asp
Also bubbalo, you will see that is the title of her book, and you will also see many people including terrorists agree with that term. troll
Last edited by usmarine2 (2008-07-05 10:19:20)
What's the Daily Mail's infatuation with Muslims? Do they "report" on anything else?
Is the Daily Mail the one with hot chicks on page 3?
Is the Daily Mail the one with hot chicks on page 3?
No it's a rag tabloid that attempts to come across as a broadsheet. It's prim, proper and conservative. The one you're talking about is The Sun - which is a Murdoch rag.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
What's the Daily Mail's infatuation with Muslims? Do they "report" on anything else?
Is the Daily Mail the one with hot chicks on page 3?
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-07-05 10:19:51)
I would rather live in a free and liberal 'Londonistan' than closed and conservative 'London'.usmarine2 wrote:
you really have no idea about anything outside of the internet do you?ZombieVampire! wrote:
Link?
--------------
http://www.heritage.org/Press/Events/ev051006a.cfm
"The suicide bombings carried out in London in 2005 by British Muslims revealed an enormous fifth column of Islamist terrorists and sympathizers. Under the noses of British intelligence, London had become the European hub for the promotion, recruitment and financing of Islamic terror and extremism – so much so that exasperated European security agencies mockingly dubbed Britain “Londonistan.”
"The presence of militants like Bakri has earned the British capital the sobriquet "Londonistan" among diplomats and terrorism experts, who see London as a worldwide center of Islamic terrorism."
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c … 7SF4U1.DTL
But, the strange thing is, the UK is reputed to have the highest level of CCTV coverage in the world.
Treat people like criminals and terrorists and they'll behave like criminals and terrorists.
Treat them like good and honest citizens and they'll behave like good and honest citizens.
It's all about respect, and respect is a two-way street.
I highly recommend "Londonstani" by Gautam Malkani, great read indeed..
kthx
The point i'm making is this Marine, that scaremongering ho who you have quoted as "evidence" gave that interview around the time that the novel Londonstani was all the buzz, so, I doubt very much European security agencies mockingly dubbed Britain “Londonistan" and this perceived massive fifth column, as she would like to lead her readers to believe!, but rather the term originated from within third generation Asian youth subculture from in and around London to refer to themselves and their Ghetto's, she is just deliberately being a conniving cunt, ya gets me?
Well if you can move past the ho and watch or read the 60 minutes interview with a terrorist recruiter, he agrees with the term.IG-Calibre wrote:
The point i'm making is this Marine, that scaremongering ho who you have quoted as "evidence" gave that interview around the time that the novel Londonstani was all the buzz, so, I doubt very much European security agencies mockingly dubbed Britain “Londonistan" and this perceived massive fifth column, as she would like to lead her readers to believe!, but rather the term originated from within third generation Asian youth subculture from in and around London to refer to themselves and their Ghetto's, she is just deliberately being a conniving cunt, ya gets me?
There are some very concerning aspects of the radicalisation and recruitment of vulnerable youths in the UK at the moment, however, the way to deal with this problem is not through denying ethnic minorities the right to practise and adhere to their chosen religious laws.usmarine2 wrote:
Well if you can move past the ho and watch or read the 60 minutes interview with a terrorist recruiter, he agrees with the term.IG-Calibre wrote:
The point i'm making is this Marine, that scaremongering ho who you have quoted as "evidence" gave that interview around the time that the novel Londonstani was all the buzz, so, I doubt very much European security agencies mockingly dubbed Britain “Londonistan" and this perceived massive fifth column, as she would like to lead her readers to believe!, but rather the term originated from within third generation Asian youth subculture from in and around London to refer to themselves and their Ghetto's, she is just deliberately being a conniving cunt, ya gets me?
As long as those religious laws conform with British Law then there can be no harm - and, in fact, is exactly the kind of positive win-win strategy that we need to take in dealing with the threat of terrorism.
Terrorists exist because they feel aggrieved.
We need to show them that we will respect their rights, and they will respect ours.
This is the lesson we learned in NI.
Last edited by Scorpion0x17 (2008-07-05 13:56:44)
Come on dude, you truly cannot beleive that?Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Terrorists exist because they feel aggrieved.
We need to show them that we will respect their rights, and they will respect ours.
BTW, you guys tried that already...(from the cbs link)
"They could preach hatred, they could recruit followers, they could raise funds, and they could even call for Jihad – Holy war – as long as they didn’t call for attacks on British soil. London became such a safe haven for Muslim militants that it came to be known as "Londonistan."
"Do you think this was an unspoken deal with the establishment? That, do whatever you want here as long as you don't blow us up?" Simon asks Butt.
"Absolutely. I believe that sincerely," Butt tells Simon. "That was an unspoken deal. And as a result of that, what tended to happen is the British government lost count of how many people were going abroad getting trained and coming back and going into operational mode as sleeper cells."
Injustice breeds extremism. The taliban were founded AFTER Russian aggression towards Afghanistan. Hamas was founded AFTER Israeli aggression towards the Palestinians. Hezbollah was founded AFTER Israeli aggression in Lebanonetc. Again injustice breeds extremism. People only look at the symptoms not the causesusmarine2 wrote:
Come on dude, you truly cannot beleive that?Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Terrorists exist because they feel aggrieved.
We need to show them that we will respect their rights, and they will respect ours.
BTW, you guys tried that already...(from the cbs link)
"They could preach hatred, they could recruit followers, they could raise funds, and they could even call for Jihad – Holy war – as long as they didn’t call for attacks on British soil. London became such a safe haven for Muslim militants that it came to be known as "Londonistan."
"Do you think this was an unspoken deal with the establishment? That, do whatever you want here as long as you don't blow us up?" Simon asks Butt.
"Absolutely. I believe that sincerely," Butt tells Simon. "That was an unspoken deal. And as a result of that, what tended to happen is the British government lost count of how many people were going abroad getting trained and coming back and going into operational mode as sleeper cells."
Last edited by rammunition (2008-07-05 14:14:16)
^So how come there are no American Indians running around the country blowing shit up?
Last edited by usmarine2 (2008-07-05 14:11:06)
They've got their Casinos to tend tousmarine2 wrote:
^So how come there are no American Indians running around the country blowing shit up?
i don't know, maybe America killed them all, but i don't know much, if any, about them.usmarine2 wrote:
^So how come there are no American Indians running around the country blowing shit up?
Source: http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 8#p2032818