NationStates Jolt Archive

You should IGNORE the ECHR.
How, pray tell, should the UK government legitimately ignore the UK constitution?

You know, Britain wouldn't have let this stand two hundreds years ago.
Britain would have also gone to war with France, subjugate a number of native peoples around the world, and sent your criminal ancestors to Oz two hundred years ago.

Thank goodness this country has matured.

How, pray tell, should the UK government legitimately ignore the UK constitution?

FIND A WAY.


Britain would have also gone to war with France, subjugate a number of native peoples around the world, and sent your criminal ancestors to Oz two hundred years ago.

My ancestors come from continental Europe. Nice try, though.

Thank goodness this country has matured.

Yeah, now you harbour terrorists. Way to go.

FIND A WAY.
A foolproof argument sir.

I applaud you.

My ancestors come from continental Europe. Nice try, though.
Well, the criminal ancestors of somebody else.

Point being, it was a terrible thing to do, and I'm glad the UK government refrains from doing many of the things it's predecessors were doing 200 years ago.

Yeah, now you harbour terrorists.
We make sure (or put pressure on HM's govt to make sure) terrorists are given a fair trial, and hold up our government to the standards it is supposed to abide to.

I think that's rather admirable.

We make sure (or put pressure on HM's govt to make sure) terrorists are given a fair trial, and hold up our government to the standards it is supposed to abide to.

I think that's rather admirable.

He's not even British! How is he any of your problem?

He's not even British! How is he any of your problem?

We have to give him a fair trial and give him the right to apeal against it.

See, I understand it, I just really couldn't give two fucks. The British should ignore this left-wing bullshit, and kick the prick out.

Left Wing? It was the labour party who introduced the Human Rights Act 1998- they are centre-right. And as for not giving two fucks shows that you understand the legislation but try to ignore it or find a way round it- that isn't the way politics is supposed to work.

I like the way you support a law when it's in your favour, but when you've got something like the US's "right to bear arms", OH THEN YOU'VE GOT TOO FAR!
It has gone to far think about all the school massacres and the the gun culture in the US.

Wondeful attitude. Personally I think the west has far more to fear from that kind of thing than anything from Islam.

Personaly I think we have alot to fear from both, the two together only make the situation worse.

He's not even British! How is he any of your problem?

He's in the UK - you know, the area where British rule of law exist?

Does that mean anything to you?

You should IGNORE the ECHR.
Why?

Why?

Because they're a bunch of whiny Liberal pussies. *Runs*

No, we would have sent him to Australia

Poor bastard. The ocean would be fairer.

not racist- realist
not xenophobic- nationalist
just because someone is patriotic does not been they're racist. it is a persons right to protest and it should not be frowned upon to protest against immigration.
Nationalism or patriotism has nothing to do with the ethnicity of citizens. If you're a patriot, it doesn't matter whether your fellow citizens, or their parents, came from the same part of the world as you do or not.

No, we would have sent him to Australia

Or to the american colonies, like the other religious extremists on the Mayflower... does this explain something about the psychology of the average american citizen, I wonder. ;)

Because they're a bunch of whiny Liberal pussies. *Runs*

but... but... in Europe, Liberals are right-wing! :eek:

We had Lord Chief Justice Phillips arguing in favour of Sharia Law; that would worry anyone now, would it not? Sharia Law, you know the type of law that Afghanistan had before 9/11.
I'd like to see Sharia law implemented as a form of secondary justice system the way it is in some countries.

I saw a BBC documentary about Sharia in...now where was it?...and the concept was brilliant: Swift and quite fair justice at low (read: near zero) cost.

The sharia system in Britain - or anywhere in Europe - wouldn't resemble the institution in place on some of the more backward places on Earth, but would offer easily accessible, alternative minimal delay court of law for the masses.

~ googles ~

Yar, that (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/this_world/7021676.stm) be the documentary.

I'd like to see Sharia law implemented as a form of secondary justice system the way it is in some countries.

I saw a BBC documentary about Sharia in...now where was it?...and the concept was brilliant: Swift and quite fair justice at low (read: near zero) cost.

The sharia system in Britain - or anywhere in Europe - wouldn't resemble the institution in place on some of the more backward places on Earth, but would offer easily accessible, alternative minimal delay court of law for the masses.

~ googles ~

Yar, that (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/this_world/7021676.stm) be the documentary.

Of course it would... however there a problem
Say a non-muslim drove into a muslim (an accident) as its a civil case does it goto a sharia court or a british law court?
Or a divorce case between a muslim and a non-muslim(left islam for personal reasons) is it held in a sharia court or british court.
Which system of justice take precedence?

Its no good saying they are equal as the results of the 2 different systems can be quite different.
Once you go down the route of seperate court systems, how long until other religions want their own? how long until the Jedi's want their own? and more to the point, by establishing sharia courts, that would drive another wedge between muslim immigrant communities and the rest of the UK

Of course it would... however there a problem
Say a non-muslim drove into a muslim (an accident) as its a civil case does it goto a sharia court or a british law court?
Or a divorce case between a muslim and a non-muslim(left islam for personal reasons) is it held in a sharia court or british court.
Which system of justice take precedence?

Its no good saying they are equal as the results of the 2 different systems can be quite different.
Once you go down the route of seperate court systems, how long until other religions want their own? how long until the Jedi's want their own? and more to the point, by establishing sharia courts, that would drive another wedge between muslim immigrant communities and the rest of the UK

I would think that Sharia would only play a role if all parties asked/accepted it, otherwise state law would prevail.

Of course it would... however there a problem
Say a non-muslim drove into a muslim (an accident) as its a civil case does it goto a sharia court or a british law court?
Or a divorce case between a muslim and a non-muslim(left islam for personal reasons) is it held in a sharia court or british court.
Which system of justice take precedence?

Its no good saying they are equal as the results of the 2 different systems can be quite different.
Once you go down the route of seperate court systems, how long until other religions want their own? how long until the Jedi's want their own? and more to the point, by establishing sharia courts, that would drive another wedge between muslim immigrant communities and the rest of the UK

You're misunderstanding what Phillips meant. He was advocating that Sharia courts be used as a form of dispute resolution where both parties agreed to be bound by it in CIVIL matters. There are already Jewish courts that operate like this but no one mentions them much.

In civil matters in Britain if both parties agree to be bound by the decision of an arbiter they can have whoever they like ajudicate it using any system they liked. This would just come under that. You can still appeal to the courts but short of a blatant miscarriage of justice they'd just back the arbiter's decision.

He was absolutely not talking about Sharia law/courts/etc being involved in criminal cases.

words

Have you seen the documentary, or read about religious tribunals that serve to arbitrate civil cases? If not, I could make speculations too.

He's not even British! How is he any of your problem?
Because the British government is attempting to treat him in a way that is against British law; the law that the government must abide by.

They're also attempting to treat him in what I believe is an immoral manner; this is one of those occasions where law and morality agree.


You're misunderstanding what Phillips meant. He was advocating that Sharia courts be used as a form of dispute resolution where both parties agreed to be bound by it in CIVIL matters. There are already Jewish courts that operate like this but no one mentions them much.

In civil matters in Britain if both parties agree to be bound by the decision of an arbiter they can have whoever they like ajudicate it using any system they liked.
Forskaia's hit the nail on the head here.

Forskaia's hit the nail on the head here.

But then that takes away from the appeal of the "OMG Ebil Mozlemz want to impose Sharia on everyone!!!!!1111one" rants.

But then that takes away from the appeal of the "OMG Ebil Mozlemz want to impose Sharia on everyone!!!!!1111one" rants.
So does the realisation that 'sharia' is an amorphous term, interpretable as a wide range of rules.

Because the British government is attempting to treat him in a way that is against British law; the law that the government must abide by.

They're also attempting to treat him in what I believe is an immoral manner; this is one of those occasions where law and morality agree.

Boy, you just love those terrorists, don't you? Were you one of those guys who partied on 9/11?

Boy, you just love those terrorists, don't you? Were you one of those guys who partied on 9/11?

As you are a terrorist, you will now be shot on sight. There is no need for due process or burden of proof, as the law need not apply to terrorists. Good bye Rust.

Boy, you just love those terrorists, don't you? Were you one of those guys who partied on 9/11?

Do they do debates in Australian secondary schools? I thought they did.....

Do they do debates in Australian secondary schools? I thought they did.....

You can't debate a liberal. It's always "political correctness" this and "save the terrorists" that.

Do they do debates in Australian secondary schools? I thought they did.....

They do, but potato boy was disqualified for lack of anything approaching a cohesive argument and poo flinging.

You can't debate a liberal. It's always "political correctness" this and "save the terrorists" that.

And like the good Bushevik you are Tater you're pushing for ignoring inconvenient laws, human rights violations, racial profiling, demagoguery and jingoism.

Hardly a surprise coming from a Howardista who would gladly kow tow to Dear Leader like Johnny did.

You can't debate a liberal. It's always "political correctness" this and "save the terrorists" that.

"save the terrorists" in quotes? Dear me.

Could you link to that post?

The sharia system in Britain - or anywhere in Europe - wouldn't resemble the institution in place on some of the more backward places on Earth, but would offer easily accessible, alternative minimal delay court of law for the masses.


What about equality? Sharia doesn't grant equality to citizens, hence it cannot be applied in the EU.

Example: Constitution of Italy, art.3: "All citizens have equal social dignity and are equal before the law, without distinction of sex, race, language, religion, political opinions, personal and social conditions."

wiki:sharia
Sharia and non-Muslims

Sharia attributes different legal rights to different groups. Sharia distinguishes between men and women, as well as between Muslims, "people of the Book" such as Jews and Christians and other non-Muslims.

wiki:dhimmi
A dhimmi ([ˈðɪmːiː]; Arabic: ذمي‎, collectively أهل الذمة ahl al-dhimmah, "the people of the dhimma or pact of protection"; Ottoman Turkish & Urdu zimmi, "one whose zimma [responsibility of protection] has been taken") is a non-Muslim subject of a state governed in accordance with sharia law. The term connotes an obligation of the state to protect the individual, including the individual's life, property, and freedom of religion and worship, and required loyalty to the empire,[1] and a poll tax known as the jizya.
This status was originally only made available to non-Muslims who were People of the Book (i.e. Jews and Christians), but was later extended to include Sikhs[citation needed], Zoroastrians, Mandeans, and, in some areas, Hindus[2] and Buddhists.[3][4]
...
Conversion by a dhimmi to Islam was generally easy, and almost without exception emancipated the new convert from all legal impairments of his previous dhimmi status. Violently forced conversion was rare or unknown in early Islamic history, but increased in frequency in later centuries, such as in the Almohad dynasty of North Africa and al-Andalus[/B].[7][8]
...
Dhimmis were subject to legal and social inferiority, and discrimination was, necessary, and "inherent in the system and institutionalized in law and practice," due to the fact that Dhimmis were not allowed to testify against a Muslim in court.



I'd say that Sharia would be highly anticonstitutional.

I have no problem with muslims specifically, but I have HUGE problems with ANY religion that attempts to impose its values on others and which attempts to stifle any criticism of itself.
In Europe, that used to be the prerogative of christianity but islam is now the main protagonist of such antisocial practices.
For example:
1. In many areas of England (and France) with a large muslim population, schools have been forced into a policy of ONLY buying halal meat for the preparation of school meals. Many non-muslims, myself included, consider this method of ritual slaughter to be barbaric and unfitted to a modern world. I will not knowingly eat halal/kosher meat and do not expect my children to be forced into doing so.
2. Any criticism, or even visual depiction of Mohammed immediately evokes calls for the perpetrators to be beheaded.
The usual reply to the above is 'It's only a small minority of muslims that feel that way' - Consider this: 42% of British muslims were unwilling to condemn the London underground bombings. A similar percentage felt that the Twin Towers incident had some justification.

The usual reply to the above is 'It's only a small minority of muslims that feel that way' - Consider this: 42% of British muslims were unwilling to condemn the London underground bombings. A similar percentage felt that the Twin Towers incident had some justification.

Got a link for that statistic?

What about equality? Sharia doesn't grant equality to citizens, hence it cannot be applied in the EU.


Depends how it's applied - the current (and as far as I know, only serious) suggestions in England/Wales are in civil law, as part of a "3rd party mediation". This is allowed within English/Welsh law, as long as all parties agree and can be overruled by secular civil court is appeal is made and upheld (and of course the rulings cannot violate British law). Jewish courts do this at the moment, I see no reason why Sharia courts could not too. In many ways that's a side issue that gets blown out of proportion when it comes to integration.

The probelm isn't the use of Sharia law to resolve civil disputes, the problem is the possible isolation/lack of integration of certain muslim communities and importantly, vulnerable individuals within this, which may result in it becoming a less than voluntary means of civil dispute resolution.

Got a link for that statistic?

Sorry about that. I was in error. It should have read '42% of LUTON muslims'.
This particular survey was done in Luton about 4 or 5 weeks after the London bombings and was published in a local newspaper. It did appear on the internet but has since been removed. I'm not reading anything sinister into that - newspaper articles DO get removed after a certain period of time. :(

Sorry about that. I was in error. It should have read '42% of LUTON muslims'.
This particular survey was done in Luton about 4 or 5 weeks after the London bombings and was published in a local newspaper. It did appear on the internet but has since been removed. I'm not reading anything sinister into that - newspaper articles DO get removed after a certain period of time. :(

So your answer to my question is "No"

So your answer to my question is "No"

I believe that was the gist of my posting.

You can't debate a liberal. It's always "political correctness" this and "save the terrorists" that.
That is so 2004.

Depends how it's applied - the current (and as far as I know, only serious) suggestions in England/Wales are in civil law, as part of a "3rd party mediation". This is allowed within English/Welsh law, as long as all parties agree and can be overruled by secular civil court is appeal is made and upheld (and of course the rulings cannot violate British law). Jewish courts do this at the moment, I see no reason why Sharia courts could not too. In many ways that's a side issue that gets blown out of proportion when it comes to integration.One could, of course, make it impossible for any kind of such religiously-inspired court, as opposed to opening it to all of them...

Granted, without having actually read up on it, it sounds like a variant of seeking out-of-court settlements, except in the nearest church/ mosque/synagogue, and there's not really much to be said against it. But I can't help disliking the concept of the church holding that kind of influence.The probelm isn't the use of Sharia law to resolve civil disputes, the problem is the possible isolation/lack of integration of certain muslim communities and importantly, vulnerable individuals within this, which may result in it becoming a less than voluntary means of civil dispute resolution.And this is why.

I would think that Sharia would only play a role if all parties asked/accepted it, otherwise state law would prevail.
At least at first it would be, but this sort of thing is the thin end of the wedge. I think it would be dangerous to give sharia law even the slightest foothold in British society.

Anyway, regarding the Abu Qatada deportation, it's easy to get rid of him. All we need is a government that isn't so spineless. Simply repeal the human rights act, withdraw from the ECHR and repeal any other laws which prohibit his deportation. Then we can be shut of the guy while fully respecting the rule of law. I think we need to get rid of this assumption that we have an obligation to protect everyone. I we want to deport someone, there should be nothing that stops us and the treatment they face in their home countries should not play a part in the decision.

At least at first it would be, but this sort of thing is the thin end of the wedge. I think it would be dangerous to give sharia law even the slightest foothold in British society.

Anyway, regarding the Abu Qatada deportation, it's easy to get rid of him. All we need is a government that isn't so spineless. Simply repeal the human rights act, withdraw from the ECHR and repeal any other laws which prohibit his deportation. Then we can be shut of the guy while fully respecting the rule of law. I think we need to get rid of this assumption that we have an obligation to protect everyone. I we want to deport someone, there should be nothing that stops us and the treatment they face in their home countries should not play a part in the decision.

What if they want to deport you?

One could, of course, make it impossible for any kind of such religiously-inspired court, as opposed to opening it to all of them...

Of course you can't have even one. Opening it for ONE religion means that you'll have to open it for ANY religion (and why not, philosophy, political ideas...)

So you'll have a Jedi arbitrate, a Stalinist arbitrate, a We-Like-Cheese arbitrate. And, of course, if a Stalinist crashes his car into yours and you refuse the local Stalinist arbitrate and apply to ordinary justice instead, you'll face ostracism from your local Stalinist neighbourhood. Next thing, you move somewhere else. Next thing, you have just Stalinists living there, under Stalinist arbitrare ONLY.

Naaaah. Not a good idea. (Except for the We-Like-Cheese arbitrate). Secular state, laicitè, and secular law all the way, please.

What if they want to deport you?
I should probably have clarified it as only applying to foreign nationals. And before you go on with any "But they'll come for you later!!!!!" stuff, we (And plenty of other countries) already deport foreign nationals without deporting our own people. So I really wouldn't be too worried. Besides, Qatada's a wanted man so it's not like we'd have any difficulty finding a place to deport him to.

I should probably have clarified it as only applying to foreign nationals. And before you go on with any "But they'll come for you later!!!!!" stuff, we (And plenty of other countries) already deport foreign nationals without deporting our own people. So I really wouldn't be too worried. Besides, Qatada's a wanted man so it's not like we'd have any difficulty finding a place to deport him to.

But, it's easy to get rid of you. All we need is a government that isn't so spineless. Simply repeal the human rights act, withdraw from the ECHR and repeal any other laws which prohibit your deportation. Then we can be shut of you while fully respecting the rule of law. I think we need to get rid of this assumption that we have an obligation to protect everyone. I we want to deport someone, there should be nothing that stops us and the treatment they face in other countries should not play a part in the decision.

Boy, you just love those terrorists, don't you?
First off, I don't buy into this whole use of the term 'terrorist' as a kind of person; it's a tactic, not a somebody.

Secondly, I simply see no reason why anybody, no matter their alleged wrongs, should be given anything less than an open, fair trial.

It's easy to understand; we don't (or shouldn't) use evidence extracted through torture, and we don't (or shouldn't) extradite people to places where they have a chance of being executed.

You can't debate a liberal.
Then have no fear, my worried little friend.

For I am no liberal.



Granted, without having actually read up on it, it sounds like a variant of seeking out-of-court settlements, except in the nearest church/ mosque/synagogue, and there's not really much to be said against it. But I can't help disliking the concept of the church holding that kind of influence.
You're quite right, it's a method of seeking out-of-court settlements, actively encouraged by the civil courts; it frees up a lot of court time. Folks already get their minister/rabbi/imam to advice them on civil matters, and putting this process in a more open, transparent setting seems sensible.

Once again, it must be stressed that no Beth Din or Sharia court can ever pronounce judgement on a criminal matter, nor can it make a ruling in contradiction to UK law.

But, it's easy to get rid of you. All we need is a government that isn't so spineless. Simply repeal the human rights act, withdraw from the ECHR and repeal any other laws which prohibit your deportation. Then we can be shut of you while fully respecting the rule of law. I think we need to get rid of this assumption that we have an obligation to protect everyone. I we want to deport someone, there should be nothing that stops us and the treatment they face in other countries should not play a part in the decision.
Well there would be the difficulty of finding a place to send me to. No other country would want to take me. You're being ridiculous anyway. Governments worldwide deport foreign nationals all the time without deporting their own people. The idea that one will inevitabley lead to the other is ridiculous. All we'd be doing is removing our obligations towards foreign nationals, particularly those who are of any possible threat to this country.

All we'd be doing is removing our obligations towards foreign nationals...
Exactly the point; removing our obligations to them.

Why should foreign nationals be seen as lesser beings in the eyes of the law?

Exactly the point; removing our obligations to them.

Why should foreign nationals be seen as lesser beings in the eyes of the law?
Because of what it's done to this country. Over the years we've been taking in extremists from all over the world and it's unsurprisingly made this country a hotbed of islamic extremism. I'm not saying we should deport every foreign national to a country where they face mistreatment, but the option should always be there for when we're faced with dodgy characters like Abu Qatada.

Besides, wether you like it or not foreign nationals already have a different set of rights to citizens. Non-EU foreign nationals aren't allowed to live here without permission from the relevant authorities, they're not allowed to vote, they're not allowed to do a hell of a lot of things. Will you tell me that's wrong as well? I don't see why the right to Britain's protection should be something inaliable.

Because of what it's done to this country. Over the years we've been taking in extremists from all over the world and it's unsurprisingly made this country a hotbed of islamic extremism. I'm not saying we should deport every foreign national to a country where they face mistreatment, but the option should always be there for when we're faced with dodgy characters like Abu Qatada.

Do you have any evidence for the bolded claim?

Besides, wether you like it or not foreign nationals already have a different set of rights to citizens. Non-EU foreign nationals aren't allowed to live here without permission from the relevant authorities, they're not allowed to vote, they're not allowed to do a hell of a lot of things. Will you tell me that's wrong as well? I don't see why the right to Britain's protection should be something inaliable.

But we can just change the laws so that UK citizens have no rights either. I don't see why the right to Britain's protection should be something inaliable.

Because of what it's done to this country.
'Its'?

Over the years we've been taking in extremists from all over the world and it's unsurprisingly made this country a hotbed of islamic extremism.
A hotbed?

Really?

Besides, wether you like it or not foreign nationals already have a different set of rights to citizens.
They're not, importantly, seen as lesser people in the eyes of the law, i.e., they're not, and shouldn't be, subject to illegal treatment.

It's the Human Rights Act, not the EU Citizens Rights Act.

Non-EU foreign nationals aren't allowed to live here without permission from the relevant authorities, they're not allowed to vote, they're not allowed to do a hell of a lot of things. Will you tell me that's wrong as well?
As an anti-statist with great sympathies for the removal of any border controls (indeed, any borders), I would, in fact.

Of course you can't have even one. Opening it for ONE religion means that you'll have to open it for ANY religion (and why not, philosophy, political ideas...)

So you'll have a Jedi arbitrate, a Stalinist arbitrate, a We-Like-Cheese arbitrate. And, of course, if a Stalinist crashes his car into yours and you refuse the local Stalinist arbitrate and apply to ordinary justice instead, you'll face ostracism from your local Stalinist neighbourhood. Next thing, you move somewhere else. Next thing, you have just Stalinists living there, under Stalinist arbitrare ONLY.

Naaaah. Not a good idea. (Except for the We-Like-Cheese arbitrate). Secular state, laicitè, and secular law all the way, please.

It's open not just to religious arbitration but any sort of arbitration, as has been mentioned it frees up a lot of court time.

Essentially the court says "both of you agree that this person should decide this matter and will abide by it? Wonderful, come back if they break the law but otherwise if you're both happy with it, we're happy with it".

It's not just religious involvement it's all kinds of civil matters for any number of reasons and all kinds of arbiters. Again NOT criminal matters, that's completely separate.

I'd like to see Sharia law implemented as a form of secondary justice system the way it is in some countries.

I saw a BBC documentary about Sharia in...now where was it?...and the concept was brilliant: Swift and quite fair justice at low (read: near zero) cost.

The sharia system in Britain - or anywhere in Europe - wouldn't resemble the institution in place on some of the more backward places on Earth, but would offer easily accessible, alternative minimal delay court of law for the masses.


But Sharia law does not make all citizens equal, so it could not be used in the EU. But I do think that there is a place for parts of the law in the UK and Europe. for instance the fast and cheap trials that they have- British trails go on far to long and cost a lot more money than is needed and often a criminal can get away on a technicality. But I do not know if Britain is ready for any form of Sharia law.

Boy, you just love those terrorists, don't you? Were you one of those guys who partied on 9/11?
Love them? no. but I do not hate them as they are fighting for cause that they believe in (all be it that many, if not most have been brainwashed)
And who the FUCK would party after 9/11? (except terrorists)

I've observed on media that Islam is a much more powerful source of contention than it is here in North America. I've also noticed that some British members of NSG vocalize a lot of anti-Islam sentiment, notwithstanding majority NSG's stance on religion of course.

In the anti-Islam perspective, some of the misgivings of Islamic integration which I've read on various sources, ranging from the Al-Jazeera to the anal fissures of Stormfront is that:

- Islam is destroying European culture
- Islam is destroying European politics and liberal ideals

and so on.

Is the "Islamic threat" merely an inflated CNN phenomenon entirely unrepresentative of the appreciative, docile aspect of the European Muslim population, or is there a genuine radicalization in this group of people?

If that is true, would European members, and especially UK members describe how Islam/Muslims are affecting European culture and politics, and to what extent has political Islamification in Europe undergone?




In my Canadian perspective, immigrant Muslims seem like a more conservative group of people who are more concerned with putting food on the table, rather than what media has apparently portrayed Muslims as being a bunch of protesting extremists.

The only Islamification I've seen here is the establishment of mosques and halal markets, which I wholly welcome as a benefit of peaceful multiculturalism in the post-9/11 era, where ordinary citizens get a chance to witness the average-Muhammad side of Islam.

Btw, I have yet to see Little Mosque in the Praries.


Peace with Islam requires one thing I will never agree too ... become a
Muslim by claiming the Muslim Creed . As an American I have no problem
with the Muslim people having their own beliefs. However I do have a problem
with a any group that requires that all people become a member of their religion or die. As a Christian, I refuse to except there creed as true because it is not. I suggest you all look up a book written by a ex-muslim terrorist named Walid Shoebat. The Name of the book is " Gods War on Terrorism ", you will find all you need to know about Islam in this book.

Peace with Islam requires one thing I will never agree too ... become a
Muslim by claiming the Muslim Creed. As an American I have no problem
with the Muslim people having their own beliefs. However I do have a problem
with a group that requires that all people become Muslim or die. As a Christian, I refuse to except there creed as true because it is not. I suggest you all look up a book written by a ex-muslim terrorist named Walid Shoebat.
The Name of the book is " Gods War on Terrorism ", you will find all you need to know about Islam in this book.

:rolleyes:

:rolleyes:


Stop trying to change the subject Knight. Just read the book, maybe
Mr. Shoebat's nouns will be exceptable to you.

Stop trying to change the subject Knight. Just read the book, maybe
Mr. Shoebat's nouns will be exceptable to you.

Why would I read the book? The only reason anyone knows about it is because som Western Christians are so insecure about their own religion, they need books from converts to reaffirm their belief.

There are tons of books by Athiests who were ex-Christians who tell about how terrible Christianity is. But I dont go around telling everyone to read them.

I know everything I need to know about Islam. I got it from the Qu'ran.

Maybe thats the book you should read.

But Sharia law does not make all citizens equal
Only according to a specific set of interpretations of Sharia. It isn't a static set of rules, only understood in one way. There are at least five main schools of Sharia thought, and numerous smaller ones.



Peace with Islam requires one thing I will never agree too ... become a Muslim by claiming the Muslim Creed .
Only according to a certain interpretation of Islam.

As an American I have no problem with the Muslim people having their own beliefs. However I do have a problem with a any group that requires that all people become a member of their religion or die.
Only a certain interpretation of Islam requires this.

See a pattern emerging?

Why would I read the book? The only reason anyone knows about it is because som Western Christians are so insecure about their own religion, they need books from converts to reaffirm their belief.

There are tons of books by Athiests who were ex-Christians who tell about how terrible Christianity is. But I dont go around telling everyone to read them.

I know everything I need to know about Islam. I got it from the Qu'ran.

Maybe thats the book you should read.

While I believe their are books written by Athiests trying to spread lies about Christianity. I don't believe that any of these unnamed books are accurate. Also I posted this information here in answer to the authors question.

While I believe their are books written by Athiests trying to spread lies about Christianity. I don't believe that any of these unnamed books are accurate.

Ah, but the zillions of books from converts are 100% accurate about Islam?

Like I said. If you really want to know the truth about Islam, and arent just looking for books that will reassure you that all your biases and beliefs are correct, read the Qu'ran.

Otherwise, you dont really want to know about Islam. You want your bias reaffirmed.

Peace with Islam requires one thing I will never agree too ... become a
Muslim by claiming the Muslim Creed . As an American I have no problem
with the Muslim people having their own beliefs. However I do have a problem
with a any group that requires that all people become a member of their religion or die. As a Christian, I refuse to except there creed as true because it is not. I suggest you all look up a book written by a ex-muslim terrorist named Walid Shoebat. The Name of the book is " Gods War on Terrorism ", you will find all you need to know about Islam in this book.

You're wrong and your statements in this post are worthy of no consideration.

Mr. Shoebat's nouns will be exceptable to you.
It would (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walid_Shoebat#Criticism) seem (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/07/us/07muslim.html?_r=2&sq=Walid%20Shoebat&st=nyt&oref=slogin&scp=1&pagewanted=print) Mr. Shoebat is not without criticism.


You're wrong and your statements are worthy of no consideration.
On the contrary, if his/her statements are wrong, I would urge you to show them to be.

Dismissing statements without refutation is a poor way to argue for the truth.

While I believe their are books written by Athiests trying to spread lies about Christianity. I don't believe that any of these unnamed books are accurate. Also I posted this information here in answer to the authors question.

Again, you're wrong and your statements in this post are worthy of no consideration.

Again, you're wrong and your statements in this post are worthy of no consideration.
Please, if you don't want to debate him, leave the thread.

Ah, but the zillions of books from converts are 100% accurate about Islam?

Like I said. If you really want to know the truth about Islam, and arent just looking for books that will reassure you that all your biases and beliefs are correct, read the Qu'ran.

Otherwise, you dont really want to know about Islam. You want your bias reaffirmed.

This isn't necessarily true. It's like saying if you want to know about Judaism, just read the old testament. There is a lot more in terms of philosophy, history, interpretation, etc. that goes into the religion and "knowing about it." Claiming knowledge of the religion because you've ready ANY single book is absolute nonsense, especially considering the importance of the Hadith, the varying Sunni interpretations and that little Sunni/Shi'ite religious divide thing we occasionally hear tell about.

This isn't necessarily true. It's like saying if you want to know about Judaism, just read the old testament. There is a lot more in terms of philosophy, history, interpretation, etc. that goes into the religion and "knowing about it." Claiming knowledge of the religion because you've ready ANY single book is absolute nonsense, especially considering the importance of the Hadith, the varying Sunni interpretations and that little Sunni/Shi'ite religious divide thing we occasionally hear tell about.

Claiming knowledge without reading the basis for that religion's beliefs is foolish. Thats my point.

Saying "zomg i noz bout Islam cuz i read this book by this guy who became a Christian and he said Islam was ebil!" is idiotic.

I would say anyone who claims to know about a faith, yet hasnt read any of the core texts of that faith, doesnt know jack shit. And if they really wanted to know about that faith, theyd read its core text.

Again, you're wrong and your statements in this post are worthy of no consideration.


Can you prove my statements are wrong? Have you read the Qu'ran? I have, it says that there is two kinds of people in the world ... Muslim and Infindels. It says all Infindels must change over to the Muslim religion or be killed.

Saying "zomg i noz bout Islam cuz i read this book by this guy who became a Christian and he said Islam was ebil!" is idiotic.
Especially if there's evidence (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/07/us/07muslim.html?_r=2&sq=Walid%20Shoebat&st=nyt&oref=slogin&scp=1&pagewanted=print) to suggest he did no such thing.

Saying things like this:
It says all Infindels must change over to the Muslim religion or
be killed.
make believing this:
Have you read the Qu'ran? I have
hard.

Can you prove my statements are wrong? Have you read the Qu'ran? I have, it says that there is two kinds of people in the world ... Muslim and Infindels. It says all Infindels must change over to the Muslim religion or be killed.

Yes, I know what the Quran says.

And it doesn't say A THING of what you're saying it says.

I said you were wrong and I said your posts merited no consideration for a reason.

Your statements are YOURS to prove. That you gave yourself the impossible task of proving a bullshit statement is your problem, however. But do feel free to try, as I could use the amusement your antics will most certainly provide.

Especially if there's evidence (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/07/us/07muslim.html?_r=2&sq=Walid%20Shoebat&st=nyt&oref=slogin&scp=1&pagewanted=print) to suggest he did no such thing.



I have one last thing to say here because I refuse to continue arguing with you. According to the Bible we all have freewill to make our own choice concerning our religious beliefs. I back that point up, you are all free to make your own choices .... chose well.

Claiming knowledge without reading the basis for that religion's beliefs is foolish. Thats my point.

Saying "zomg i noz bout Islam cuz i read this book by this guy who became a Christian and he said Islam was ebil!" is idiotic.

I would say anyone who claims to know about a faith, yet hasnt read any of the core texts of that faith, doesnt know jack shit. And if they really wanted to know about that faith, theyd read its core text.

Oh, agreed. But I was simply expanding on the point even more that even knowledge of just the Qoran does not really give anyone authority on the religion aside from those specifics relegated solely to the Qoran (which is a small component of the whole).

Also, Kormanthor, rather than ask people to prove that such and such quote does NOT exist within the texts (you know, thereby requiring someone to post the entirety of the scripts), why don't you provide a quote of the line you are referring to.

Can you prove my statements are wrong? Have you read the Qu'ran? I have, it says that there is two kinds of people in the world ... Muslim and Infindels. It says all Infindels must change over to the Muslim religion or be killed.

Congratulations, you, the Taliban and al-Qaeda have many things in common.


I don't, however. Sufi Muslims reaffirm the most basic belief that goodness is the ultimate redeemer.

I have one last thing to say here because I refuse to continue arguing with you. According to the Bible we all have freewill to make our own choice concerning our religious beliefs. I back that point up, you are all free to make your own choices .... chose well.

Non-sequitur.

Isn't it cute?

But it's WRONG! *Trumpet sound*

I have one last thing to say here because I refuse to continue arguing with you. According to the Bible we all have freewill to make our own choice concerning our religious beliefs. I back that point up, you are all free to make your own choices .... chose well.

So you ignore everything thats been said, dont back up yor bullshit claims, evangelize to us, and leave?


Tell me, why did you enter this discussion in the first place?

Also, Kormanthor, rather than ask people to prove that such and such quote does NOT exist within the texts (you know, thereby requiring someone to post the entirety of the scripts), why don't you provide a quote of the line you are referring to.

*To the sound of neeners-neeners-neeners*

'Cuz he doesn't have it!
'Cuz he doesn't have it!

Neeners-neeners-neeners!

So you ignore everything thats been said, dont back up yor bullshit claims, evangelize to us, and leave?


Tell me, why did you enter this discussion in the first place?

For my personal amusement! :D

I have one last thing to say here because I refuse to continue arguing with you. According to the Bible we all have freewill to make our own choice concerning our religious beliefs.

That is so incredibly different from the Koran :eek2:

That is incredibly different from the Koran :eek2:

It's also different from the BIBLE in parts as well.

Also, Kormanthor, rather than ask people to prove that such and such quote does NOT exist within the texts (you know, thereby requiring someone to post the entirety of the scripts), why don't you provide a quote of the line you are referring to.


Really, just citing the passage where it says that all non-Muslims need to die would have been enough for me. I have a feeling I know which passage he is refering to. Its one that often gets taken out of context or poorly translated, and has various other passages that can be used to counter it.

But I know he has no idea what hes talking about. He heard some talking head or read one of the books he mentioned earlier and took it as the gospel without fact checkin on his own.

Have you read the Qu'ran? I have, it says that there is two kinds of people in the world ... Muslim and Infindels. It says all Infindels must change over to the Muslim religion or be killed.
Then you could happily point us to the passage(s) in the Koran which say, incontrovertibly and without alternative interpretation, that all non-Muslims must be killed?

Read it for yourself:

http://www.shoebat.com/book_gods_war_on_terror.php

Read it for yourself:

http://www.shoebat.com/book_gods_war_on_terror.php

Read it for yourself:

http://www.ibcshop.co.uk/images/book%20quran%20colour%20coded%202.gif

Read it for yourself:

http://www.ibcshop.co.uk/images/book%20quran%20colour%20coded%202.gif


I read all of it I need too, Thank You very much.

I read all of it I need too

So, none of it. Youve shown that already.

Read it for yourself:

http://www.shoebat.com/book_gods_war_on_terror.php
Walid Shoebat... is that you? Are your posts a clever marketing strategy? I'm supposed to cough up 33.95$ now?

Read it for yourself:

http://www.shoebat.com/book_gods_war_on_terror.php

Read it for yourself:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots.html

As valid a source as that book.

I read all of it I need too, Thank You very much.

No you didn't, you're welcome.

I read all of it I need too, Thank You very much.

Then back up your bullshit since you're such the Orientalist scholar, apparently.

Then back up your bullshit since you're such the Orientalist scholar, apparently.

Easy, now, hush hush hush...

I don't think Kormanthor seems to realize the poor spectacle he's making out of himself here. Let's wait and watch...

Edit: Is it disturbing that I'm quoting the woman in the Sweeney Todd reference? :confused:

I read all of it I need too, Thank You very much.

Hai gais, I am studying Islam, and I have selectively read the war passages, and is therefore qualified to make judgement on the entire book. I do want to noe moar about Islam, so I picked up Rushdie's Satanic Verses. My what an accurate book it is on Islam, I am going to suggest all Muzlimz to read it :D


Hai again, I just read Leviticus, and I therefore conclude that all Jews and Christians are defying the rule of God. But wait, Jesus says they are obsolete you say? Nevermind, Matthew 5:17 clearly contradicts that :(

I suggest you all look up a book written by a ex-muslim terrorist named Walid Shoebat. The Name of the book is " Gods War on Terrorism ", you will find all you need to know about Islam in this book.

The guy that never actually was a "terrorist"...yeah, great.

Hai gais, I am studying Islam, and I have selectively read the war passages, and is therefore qualified to make judgement on the entire book.


Hai again, I just read Leviticus, and I therefore conclude that all Jews and Christians are defying the rule of God. But wait, Jesus says they are obsolete you say? Nevermind, Matthew 5:17 clearly contradicts that :(

Wait, there is a Matthew 0.29411764705882352941176470588235... ?

I read all of it I need too, Thank You very much.

Pssst....

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/4/index.htm#89

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/4/index.htm#91

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/9/index.htm#5

Those are the three bits of the Quran that best support religious genocide.

Go hard.

Congratulations, you, the Taliban and al-Qaeda have many things in common.


I don't, however. Sufi Muslims reaffirm the most basic belief that goodness is the ultimate redeemer.

Sufis are still Muslims. That still makes them terrrorists.

However, they are terrorists that know how to dance.

http://www.mideastweb.org/Middle-East-Encyclopedia/sufi_dervishes.jpg

Pssst....

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/4/index.htm#89

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/4/index.htm#91

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/9/index.htm#5

Those are the three bits of the Quran that best support religious genocide.

Go hard.


Those are very good passages that can be used in all contexts. The moral, peaceful polytheists clearly made sure that society was very compatible with Islam [/not so subtle anymore sarcasm]

Sufis are still Muslims. That still makes them terrrorists.

However, they are terrorists that know how to dance.

http://www.mideastweb.org/Middle-East-Encyclopedia/sufi_dervishes.jpg

Oh my God...

THE WEST IS SCREWED!!! :eek:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DanceBattler

Then you could happily point us to the passage(s) in the Koran which say, incontrovertibly and without alternative interpretation, that all non-Muslims must be killed?

Well to be fair, he does have a well-known authority on Islam to back up his claim:

http://www.whokilledbambi.co.uk/public/2008/05/achmed.png

Well to be fair, he does have a well-known authority on Islam to back up his claim:

http://www.whokilledbambi.co.uk/public/2008/05/achmed.png

I hate Jeff Dunham:p

Pssst....

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/4/index.htm#89

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/4/index.htm#91

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/9/index.htm#5

Those are the three bits of the Quran that best support religious genocide.

Go hard.


I think you made my point

I think you made my point

Nevermind the context and all the passages that contradict those.

But hey, if you wanna play that game:
Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)

If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. (Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB)

Cursed be he who does the Lords work remissly, cursed he who holds back his sword from blood. (Jeremiah 48:10 NAB)

Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)

And to pre-empt your inevitable counter:
For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. (Matthew 5:18)

I think you made my point

Indeed you think so.

I think you made my point

No. I didn't.

I just did your research for you. Now you have to show how these passages actually support religious genocide.

There are an equal number, if not more, in the Christian Bible that also can be shown to support religious genocide.

Such as: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/1sam/15.html#2

15:2 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt.
15:3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

Anyway, regarding the Abu Qatada deportation, it's easy to get rid of him. All we need is a government that isn't so spineless. Simply repeal the human rights act, withdraw from the ECHR and repeal any other laws which prohibit his deportation. Then we can be shut of the guy while fully respecting the rule of law. I think we need to get rid of this assumption that we have an obligation to protect everyone. I we want to deport someone, there should be nothing that stops us and the treatment they face in their home countries should not play a part in the decision.

...do you even know what the ECHR is?

I think you made my point
The passages linked to don't incontrovertibly, and without alternative interpretation, support the killing of all non-Muslims, and, as GoG has said, they are countered by other passages.

If you're going to say that these few passages show Islam to be a bloodthirsty religion, then you'll be forced to say that Christianity, and many other religions I imagine, are just as bloodthirsty.

No. I didn't.

I just did your research for you. Now you have to show how these passages actually support religious genocide.

There are an equal number, if not more, in the Christian Bible that also can be shown to support religious genocide.

Such as: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/1sam/15.html#2

15:2 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt.
15:3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

I have done research, I just don't have it available on the Library Computer I am forced to use right now. These scriptures are found in the Old Testament, I believe that the Ten Commandments are what we should
go by if you wish to look at Old Testament scripture. These scriptures were
given to folks before Christs arrival on Earth. And like us all some of the folks
in these scriptures were sometimes kind of hard headed and refused to do what God required of them. What people seem to forget is that even Christians are not perfect by any means, the only differance between Christains and the rest of mankind is the salvation given them by the Lord Jesus Christ. Further it is openly offered to all people, but allows any one the right to refuse the offer. This is called freewill, we all have it. All I am saying is choose well.

There are an equal number, if not more, in the Christian Bible that also can be shown to support religious genocide.

So ? Christians tend to mostly ignore the Bible and make up some rules and ideas about what God wants themselves. That alone does not mean the book they officially follow is not promoting genocide - just that they have decided to conveniently ignore that.

While I on some level consider such cherrypicking to somewhat defeat the whole justification for their religion, my pragmatism is happy to see that most Christians are not genocidal rapepromoting wife oppressing slaveholders ;)

So ? Christians tend to mostly ignore the Bible and make up some rules and ideas about what God wants themselves. That alone does not mean the nook they officially follow is not promoting genocide - just that they like to cherrypick.


I can not speak for all people, but for myself I follow the teachings of Christs to the best of my ability. What more can I do?

While I on some level consider such cherrypicking to somewhat defeat the whole justification for their religion, my pragmatism is happy to see that most Christians are not genocidal rapepromoting wife oppressing slaveholders ;)
I cannot think of a religion where the majority are "genocidal rapepromoting wife oppressing slaveholders".

i like all people.......the only person i could possibly take a dislike to would be a person that harmed me or my family........otherwise i like everyone :-) the world needs different cultures to flourish....i understand people dont want to mix races......but it isnt common. but cultures and nationalities have lived amongst one another for thousands of years.

if the truth be known most people are mixed race....its unavoidable through history. im french german viking and who knows what else......yes im white but that is just one of the many wonderful skin tones the earths people have to offer :-)

most of these so called 'problem people' are in the imagination of some very narrow minded individuals, who incite fear and hatred into unsuspecting people.....it has always happened.....its just scare mongering!!!

No. I didn't.

I just did your research for you. Now you have to show how these passages actually support religious genocide.

There are an equal number, if not more, in the Christian Bible that also can be shown to support religious genocide.

Such as: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/1sam/15.html#2

15:2 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt.
15:3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.
Gigidy. . . ?

I can not speak for all people, but for myself I follow the teachings of Christs to the best of my ability. What more can I do?

But , as Alma Mater and Chumblywumbly pointed out, most people of the Abrahamic religions aren't going out raping and beheading each other despite the fact that their holy book tells them to. So that suggests that following the teachings of your holy book requires some interpretation other than the purely literal.

Now, why do you think that your particular interpretation of the teachings of Christ is better than say, the average Muslim's interpretation of the Quran?

I cannot think of a religion where the majority are "genocidal rapepromoting wife oppressing slaveholders".

Happy thought, isn't it ? It suggests that people are somewhat decent despite believing in a higher power that tells them they should be just that.

Though I sometimes wonder about the WBC. And some sarcastic people could argue that the word "anymore" could be added to the sentence quoted. But let us not listen to them on this merry day.

thanks for your balanced view and question to kormanthor.

everything is open to interpretation........everyone has good as vell as evil in them.......its an instinct all animals have.......the thing we all need to do is keep the balance in the right direction.
:-)

Though I sometimes wonder about the WBC.

The congregation are all related by blood or marriage, and Fred Phelps looks like both Jack Chick and the evil preacher from the Poltergeist movies. Need you more explanation?

The congregation are all related by blood or marriage, and Fred Phelps looks like both Jack Chick and the evil preacher from the Poltergeist movies. Need you more explanation?

:D
Lol!

While I on some level consider such cherrypicking to somewhat defeat the whole justification for their religion, my pragmatism is happy to see that most Christians are not genocidal rapepromoting wife oppressing slaveholders ;)

You are absolutely right, Christians have always been unoppressing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_inquisition), women-accepting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Baptist_Convention) peaceful (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Wars_of_Religion) bunch of people.

The majority of Christians are just and accepting, just as the majority of Muslims are.

i've been trying to think of a region on earth that has seen or been subjected to such horrors of war and death than the middle east almost continuously.......and i cant!....why must this carnage continue.........the abrahamic religions are all related...saints are shared......god is god, the same god....just the name is different and the holy book has a different name.......the religions all tell people to be good and charitible etc........so why all the continued crap????? its absolute and utter madness

i've been trying to think of a region on earth that has seen or been subjected to such horrors of war and death than the middle east almost continuously.......and i cant!....

I believe the longest era of peace on the European continent was during the cold war. Other than that, there were always wars between countries there ;)

usually for the glory of god........what glory?......it was usually bully tacktics and pure greed that drove these wars.....like i said.......its all just utter madness

usually for the glory of god........what glory?......it was usually bully tacktics and pure greed that drove these wars.....like i said.......its all just utter madness

Unfortunately people like [flamebait removed] do not understand this.

im white...christened....gay....i have a problem with religion as it has a problem with me.....but im not blinkered into seeing everything with rose tinted glasses!....why is it always the muslims fault?.....or the jews fault?........remember the first aggressor starting a holy war in the middle east was the POPE........the roman church was frightened that the muslims would destroy everything, the pope paid for the crussades....and nobles from europe my family included!.....went to make a name for themselves brainwashed with fantasy......i honestly dont think there would of been a problem.......i think it was strategic for the european traders and a source of wealth for the church......of course this is my opinion and i am entitled to post as is the next person.

and to ellaborate on my previous post........the reason i dont think there was going to be a problem is this.........i said that all abrahamic religions are related....jews christians and muslims......saints are shared and the holy land probably is the only place the saints that are buried their are related in the abrahamic religions so would a jew or a muslim destroy the tomb or shrine of one of their saints?....i think not as the christians wouldnt....this is why i think it would always be the holy land and safe from this. the crusades were for other means.

What more can I do?

Argue. Argue decently. Speak to facts, analyze them without that ugly, obvious bias you seem to hold onto for dear life. Speak, but speak of facts, think, but think logically. Syllogism, premise, other premise, conclusion. ARGUE. Make your posts worthy of our time.

CAN you do that?

You are absolutely right, Christians have always been unoppressing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_inquisition), women-accepting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Baptist_Convention) peaceful (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Wars_of_Religion) bunch of people.


Tsk tsk. I mentioned something in my post about sarcastic people that would want to put the word "anymore" behind my statement. Shush - go forth and be merry !

The majority of Christians are just and accepting, just as the majority of Muslims are.

Of course. Which is why people like WIlders are being silly.

The world would be better off with out the Abrahamic religions in many respects. People have used them as an excuse to go war for centuries. To me the whole concept of religion is flawed. No where in any holy book should it instruct it's readers to destroy anyone is not of their religion. The bible was wriitern to keep the people in power who were in power and to supress women- why would you base your life on such a thing?

This really is one of the more shitty, useless threads to have emerged since I joined here (that hasn't been locked). Even thats a sign of how shite it is...

im white...christened....gay....i have a problem with religion as it has a problem with me.....but im not blinkered into seeing everything with rose tinted glasses!....why is it always the muslims fault?.....or the jews fault?........remember the first aggressor starting a holy war in the middle east was the POPE........the roman church was frightened that the muslims would destroy everything, the pope paid for the crussades....and nobles from europe my family included!.....went to make a name for themselves brainwashed with fantasy......i honestly dont think there would of been a problem.......i think it was strategic for the european traders and a source of wealth for the church......of course this is my opinion and i am entitled to post as is the next person.

Do capital letters hurt to use? And bullshit, the Pope called a Crusade because the Turks were attacking the Byzantines.

Do capital letters hurt to use? And bullshit, the Pope called a Crusade because the Turks were attacking the Byzantines.

Yep. And they arrived in Jerusalem because their GPS was wonky.

so the turks attacking the byzantines?........where in the holy land was byzantium?...if you read what i wrote i was talking of the crusades to the holy land.

byzantium (at the time) was smaller than modern turkey, and was the remnants of the eastern roman empire.......remnants cause rome...and the pope had cut off the aid it once gave.....of course the turks were going to take advantage.......anyone would.....and as for your 'do capital letters hurt to use' comment.......this is a thread not a bloody letter

The best defense is a good offense.

Getting back to the original thread question - I think what Europeans might have a problem with is the culture of violence that runs through the European Arab population - the culture that promotes, and occassionally actualizes:

Bloody riots (France)
Honor killings (United Kingdom)
Rape (vis a vis what happened to women in Sweden)
Successfully putting a hit out on cartoon artists who speak the truth (Denmark)
Genocide (Boznia-Herzegovina - although admittedly here both Muslims and non-Muslims engaged in despicable acts)

For some reason, the US and Canada have been spared these more egregious offenses for now, which is why we don't generally weigh in on the subject as much. I wonder if it's because people are more afraid to do bad things over here?

so the turks attacking the byzantines?........where in the holy land was byzantium?...if you read what i wrote i was talking of the crusades to the holy land.

byzantium (at the time) was smaller than modern turkey, and was the remnants of the eastern roman empire.......remnants cause rome...and the pope had cut off the aid it once gave.....of course the turks were going to take advantage.......anyone would.....and as for your 'do capital letters hurt to use' comment.......this is a thread not a bloody letter

It wasn't, they got the idea of freeing the Holy Land later. Anyway, it makes you look more intelligent if you use capitals, and it doesn't hurt people's eyes as much.

Bloody riots (France)
The French have no history of rioting, you say?


Honor killings (United Kingdom)
Define "Honor killings".

Rape (vis a vis what happened to women in Sweden)
What exactly happened to women in Sweden? Have you been reading Fjordland again?

Successfully putting a hit out on cartoon artists who speak the truth (Denmark)
Successfully? Who's dead?

Genocide (Boznia-Herzegovina - although admittedly here both Muslims and non-Muslims engaged in despicable acts)
90% of the dead were Muslims, and you want to lay the blame on them? Hmm...

For some reason, the US and Canada have been spared these more egregious offenses for now, which is why we don't generally weigh in on the subject as much.
Have they? How many honour killings happen in the US, the UK and Canada each year? You can answer after you've defined the term...

lol........i would look more intelligent if i used capitals.......i didnt know i needed to look more intelligent.

and remember folks.......gods good, and the devils not bad, if you know them both :-)

Define "Honor killings".


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honour_killings

Apparently 13 women a year are victims of honour killings in the UK.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honour_killings

Apparently 13 women a year are victims of honour killings in the UK.

I believe that the definition used by wiki is too narrow and excludes more honour killings that's more common in the west, more usually seen as murder-suicides.

So I believe the number is greater than 13.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honour_killings

Apparently 13 women a year are victims of honour killings in the UK.

Compared to 760 to over 1000 (http://www.murderuk.com/misc_crime_stats.html) murders. Where's the call - the vitriolic, hostile, self-righteous, shrill and demanding call - to stamp out "British culture?"

Do capital letters hurt to use? And bullshit, the Pope called a Crusade because the Turks were attacking the Byzantines.

It was an excuse to take the Holy Land, the whole "mending the rift between Catholic and Orthodox" was just an excuse.

Its funny how the might mkes right crowd stops believing in the right to conquer and subjegate the weaker when its Muslims doing the conquering.

Successfully putting a hit out on cartoon artists who speak the truth (Denmark)

The arrogance, it burns!

Who are you to say the cartoonists were speaking a "truth"?

It wasn't, they got the idea of freeing the Holy Land later.

No, that was pretty much the goal the whole time. Thats why they only briefly stopped in Byzantium.

Its funny how the might mkes right crowd stops believing in the right to conquer and subjegate the weaker when its Muslims doing the conquering.

Because Givers almost never like to be Receivers.

The arrogance, it burns!

Who are you to say the cartoonists were speaking a "truth"?

An arrogant person. You hit the mark the first time.:wink:

The arrogance, it burns!

Who are you to say the cartoonists were speaking a "truth"?

An arrogant person. You hit the mark the first time.
I don't see how believing a certain position is the truth is arrogance.

If it were, surely all of us in this thread would be guilty of it?

I don't see how believing a certain position is the truth is arrogance.

If it were, surely all of us in this thread would be guilty of it?

Yes, we are all guilty of arrogance, every single day. Did you thought I was going to disagree with this statement? No. Arrogance is a sin of every single poster in this thread.

Yes, we are all guilty of arrogance, every single day.
Again, though, why is holding a certain position to be true an act of arrogance?

Again, though, why is holding a certain position to be true an act of arrogance?

Arogance:
The act or habit of making statements based on pride, self-importance, conceit, or the assumption of intellectual superiority and the presumption of knowledge that is not in evidence or supported by any facts or experience.

I do not think that either of the two posts are arogant- except for the fact that they have not based them on facts, nor did they show any evidence that prove their statements were true. But we all do that on posts. I think that one is far more likley to think of somthing is as arogant if it differs with our opinion, espescialy if it is put in a blunt manner with no evidence or explanation.

The French have no history of rioting, you say?

In modern France, the demographic of people who riot has shifted. Like I said at the end of my post, the two reasons we haven't had riots over here are:

1) Our people have been spoiled fat, dumb, and happy, and haven't had much reason to riot (so ridiculous that our riots which result in death are over baseball games!)
2) Our government/communities are less lenient towards violent offenders in general.


Define "Honor killings".


Someone followed up on this already with a very good article. Stop asking me what the definition of is is. Don't join the many on NSG who plead ignorance.


What exactly happened to women in Sweden? Have you been reading Fjordland again?

I don't know what Fjordland is, but I'll do the work for you.

http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/1492
http://fjordman.blogspot.com/2005/12/immigrant-rape-wave-in-sweden.html - maybe you meant Fjordman?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1372959/posts
www.hvk.org/articles/0205/22.html




Successfully? Who's dead?


Pardon me, I got my atrocities mixed up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theo_van_Gogh_(film_director)

I was referring to this - which is what European Muslims have been commanded to do to the Danish cartoonists.


90% of the dead were Muslims, and you want to lay the blame on them? Hmm...


I should have researched this better. My fuzzy recollection was that both sides had committed genocides and that the serbian conflict was a tipping point in the escalations, but I can't find any documentation of this.


Have they? How many honour killings happen in the US, the UK and Canada each year? You can answer after you've defined the term...

It's safe to say that less of them happen over on this continent then on the European subcontinent, especially if you judge the statistics per capita.

Again, though, why is holding a certain position to be true an act of arrogance?

If the position is baseless. You believe lemons are purple, but someone tells you they're really ranging from green to yellow and presents you with evidence, wouldn't it be arrogant to keep saying lemons are purple?

All here have committed that mistake at one point or another. Some more than others.

Truth is that to say Franco destroyed churches, heriatge sites or otherwise, is a position the poster needs to back up. I know Francisco Franco did not, he was far too religious (although he killed so many).

The enforcement by public authorities of Roman Catholic social mores was a stated intent of the regime, mainly by using a law (the Ley de Vagos y Maleantes, Vagrancy Act) enacted by Azaña[42].
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francisco_Franco#Political_Oppression

If the position is baseless. You believe lemons are purple, but someone tells you they're really ranging from green to yellow and presents you with evidence, wouldn't it be arrogant to keep saying lemons are purple?[/url]

Don't ask me for the whole story, but I DID find out that rotten lemons get purple after spending weeks inside a backpack.

Don't ask me for the whole story, but I DID find out that rotten lemons get purple after spending weeks inside a backpack.

Usted, compadre, sabe a lo que me refiero.

Usted, compadre, sabe a lo que me refiero.

Lo sé, pero queria jugar un poco...

Lo sé, pero queria jugar un poco...

Querías jugar? Pero porqué no me le dijiste y así nos jugamos un partidillo de parchís.:tongue:

Querías jugar? Pero porqué no me le dijiste y así nos jugamos un partidillo de parchís.:tongue:

:p

Piensé que "jugar" era decir, también, "hacer una piada".

:p

Piensé que "jugar" era decir, también, "hacer una piada".

Qué, te me has puesto pícaro? La palabra que buscas es "jugada" o "jugarreta".

Qué, te me has puesto pícaro? La palabra que buscas es "jugada" o "jugarreta".

Er, qué quier decir el "bolded"? o_O

Er, qué quier decir el "bolded"? o_O

Pícaro means "naughty".

As I stated in my OP, I read mostly Al Jazeera, which I consider bettar quality than other networks.

Besides, what is wrong with reading CNN? CNN gets their shit together faster than most other networks. If you can get past their prejudice and biases, CNN is a perfectly acceptable source to keep up with your latest news (election results, regional conflicts).

I prefer the BBC. I find that CNN is wholly loaded with bias, and although they may get their news together quicker than other networks I don't feel that this is a good trade-off. Election coverage, because of the hard facts (i.e: final vote count) may be appropriate to watch on CNN, but every time I flip the channel to CNN 'news', I feel like I am being indoctrinated.

I prefer the BBC. I find that CNN is wholly loaded with bias, and although they may get their news together quicker than other networks I don't feel that this is a good trade-off. Election coverage, because of the hard facts (i.e: final vote count) may be appropriate to watch on CNN, but every time I flip the channel to CNN 'news', I feel like I am being indoctrinated.

I feel the same way each time i turn on the BBC news. Al Jazeera is better, it gives a better overveiw of events. Also you see stuff you might not on other channels, they give more news on a worldwide basis. Wheras the BBC often will talk about somthing doll from the UK rather than somthing interesting from the rest of the world.

Do you have any evidence for the bolded claim?
Having done a quick little google search for stuff about it from different sources, click, (http://www.newstatesman.com/200408090012) click (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/07/24/MNGN67SF4U1.DTL) and click. (http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=932763) Though you shouldn't really need to ask, it's common knowledge. You may as well ask for a source that the sky is blue.

But we can just change the laws so that UK citizens have no rights either. I don't see why the right to Britain's protection should be something inaliable.
Yeah, I get the point - if the government could legally take somebody else's rights away, they could easily do the same to me, of course it's theoretically possible. Just like it's theoretically possible for a Khmer Rouge-style government to take power and kill off a third of the country's population. Or for an asteroid to hit me on the head as I leave the house later. Hell, I'm so much more likely to get hit by a bus tommorow than I am of becoming a government target. I won't be losing sleep over any of these things, even if they are possible. Also, I don't see the point in arguing anymore if you'll just parrot whatever I've said in an inverted way, it's just annoying and gets us nowhere.

As an anti-statist with great sympathies for the removal of any border controls (indeed, any borders), I would, in fact.
Well I suppose at least you're consistent about it, even if your views are totally unrealistic.

...do you even know what the ECHR is?
Yeah, it's the European Convention on Human Rights, which the UK is a signatory to. Plus there's the Human Rights Act which codifies it into UK law. Both of these make deportating criminals much more difficult.

[QUOTE=Banananananananaland;14571785]Having done a quick little google search for stuff about it from different sources, URL="http://www.newstatesman.com/200408090012"]click,[/URL] click (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/07/24/MNGN67SF4U1.DTL) and click. (http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=932763) Though you shouldn't really need to ask, it's common knowledge. You may as well ask for a source that the sky is blue.

Exactly, I've always said that Britain has become a "honeypot" for extremists due to are somewhat laxed immigration laws and poor border controls. To me your origanal statement was obvius and needed little proof, but it probabaly did need you to expand on your argument.

I feel the same way each time i turn on the BBC news. Al Jazeera is better, it gives a better overveiw of events. Also you see stuff you might not on other channels, they give more news on a worldwide basis. Wheras the BBC often will talk about somthing doll from the UK rather than somthing interesting from the rest of the world.

I find the Beeb and CNN rather Anglo-centric.....

Yeah, I get the point - if the government could legally take somebody else's rights away, they could easily do the same to me, of course it's theoretically possible.

Not just "theoretically possible," but likely. Governments have a tendency to base new laws on old ones. Its called precedent, and for that reason...

Just like it's theoretically possible for a Khmer Rouge-style government to take power and kill off a third of the country's population. Or for an asteroid to hit me on the head as I leave the house later.

...it's not comparable with any of these things.

Hell, I'm so much more likely to get hit by a bus tommorow than I am of becoming a government target.

And what makes you so special?

And what makes you so special?

*Shrugs*

Some people just are special enough to get hit by buses on March 5th, 2009.

And what makes you so special?
As far as odds go, whenever people are arrested for terrorist offences/deported/whatever they're always an extremely tiny proportion of the overall population. When you consider the chances of dying in an accident, it seems senseless to worry about the men in black getting ready to jump me and whisk me off to Guantanamo. Besides the odds, I'm white and not muslim so that would decrease my chances further.

As far as odds go, whenever people are arrested for terrorist offences/deported/whatever they're always an extremely tiny proportion of the overall population.

Small comfort that will be to you in that situation.

When you consider the chances of dying in an accident, it seems senseless to worry about the men in black getting ready to jump me and whisk me off to Guantanamo. Besides the odds, I'm white and not muslim so that would decrease my chances further.

Plenty of white, non-Jewish people were persecuted during the Nazi reign. Do you honestly think race or religion will protect you, when they are just the convenient excuses tyrannical-minded people use to sway the masses?

As far as odds go, whenever people are arrested for terrorist offences/deported/whatever they're always an extremely tiny proportion of the overall population. When you consider the chances of dying in an accident, it seems senseless to worry about the men in black getting ready to jump me and whisk me off to Guantanamo. Besides the odds, I'm white and not muslim so that would decrease my chances further.

Being white does make you less likly to be a terrorist in many people's eyes. I think that it is unfair to assume that becuase someone is a muslim or asian they are more likly to be a terrorist. There are white christian terrorists. It is only becuase of atttacks like 9/11 and 7/7 that muslims intsintly become suscpected of being a terrorist (all be it subconsiously, I think that to a certain extent that we all have this predjudice at the back of our minds). You are just as likly to be a terrorist as a muslim, but you are probabaly less likly to be whisked away by men in black than one. After 9/11 many Sihks and Hindus were beaten up , it is injust that we judje someone for their ethnicity- we are reverting somewhat back to the veiws that people once had of black people.

Having done a quick little google search for stuff about it from different sources, click, (http://www.newstatesman.com/200408090012) click (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/07/24/MNGN67SF4U1.DTL) and click. (http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=932763) Though you shouldn't really need to ask, it's common knowledge. You may as well ask for a source that the sky is blue.

Now, you claimed that allowing extremists to immigrate to the UK resulted in turning the UK into a hotbed of Islamic extremism.

Your first link is from the New Statesman. I will quote from it:

In reality, the threat to this country from terrorism is no greater than the threat posed by a variety of terrorist groups in the course of the past 30 years. You are still, statistically speaking, more likely to take your own life than you are to be killed by terrorists.

It also mentions 3 immigrants who are also extremists. Three. Abu Hamza from Egypt, Omar Bakri Muhammad from Syria, and Zacarias Moussaoui from France.

3 people. Not exactly a wave of immigrants and extremists, is it?

My neighbourhood is a hotbed of Latin American socialism because of three of my neighbours, according to your logic.

But let's keep going to the second link:

"Osama bin Laden is a good man. Osama bin Laden wants the same as me -- he wants to see the implementation of God's law," says Khalid Kelly as he sips coffee in a sun-filled London cafe and expounds on his allegiance to the man who has declared war on the West. Kelly, an Irishman, converted to Islam two years ago while imprisoned in Saudi Arabia for distilling and selling alcohol.

Apparently we should have banned immigration from Ireland. So, when Irish criminals convert to Islam, this is due to lax immigration?

Then the article talks about Bakri, one of the three previously mentioned. It also mentions Abu Qatada. Now we're up to four! Five if you count the Irish guy. Well, we're counting the French guy, so we should count the Irish guy. If we're only counting immigrants from predominantly Islamic countries, we're still at three.

The article also says this:

Most mainstream Muslims in Britain strongly condemn Bakri's teachings.

"Al-Muhajiroun are well known for their notorious antics, including publicity stunts on the 9/11 anniversary, calling it a 'towering day in history' and the perpetrators 'the magnificent 19,' " said Inayat Bunglawala, a spokesman for the Muslim Council of Britain. "They clearly set out to create a rift between the Muslim community and white society, and part of their agenda is to destabilize society.''

Last spring, the council contacted 1,000 mosques, urging their congregations to maintain "utmost vigilance" against hard-liners seeking to infiltrate mosques and convert vulnerable young men into fanatics. It has also urged Britain to adopt a law, similar to the one in Germany, outlawing speech that is an incitement to violence.

It would seem that the majority of Muslims seem to oppose extremism. That's odd. I thought you claimed that by allowing Muslims to immigrate to the UK, the UK government had created support for the extremists.

It's almost as if your source doesn't say what you think it says.

The third one is just another article on Hamza.

So. Are you really going to tell me that 5 people counts as evidence that London is a hotbed of foreign Islamic extremism? And that includes an Irishman and a Frenchman.

Yeah, I get the point - if the government could legally take somebody else's rights away, they could easily do the same to me, of course it's theoretically possible. Just like it's theoretically possible for a Khmer Rouge-style government to take power and kill off a third of the country's population. Or for an asteroid to hit me on the head as I leave the house later. Hell, I'm so much more likely to get hit by a bus tommorow than I am of becoming a government target. I won't be losing sleep over any of these things, even if they are possible. Also, I don't see the point in arguing anymore if you'll just parrot whatever I've said in an inverted way, it's just annoying and gets us nowhere.

But you are willing to argue that this person should be denied human rights based on the highly unlikely (see quote from your link above) risk of being a victim of a terrorist attack?

And as for using your own arguments against you, it's just a tactic to highlight your inconsistency. Nothing personal.

Small comfort that will be to you in that situation.
Obviously it wouldn't be any comfort, but it doesn't alter the fact that the odds would be pretty slim.

Plenty of white, non-Jewish people were persecuted during the Nazi reign. Do you honestly think race or religion will protect you, when they are just the convenient excuses tyrannical-minded people use to sway the masses?
I realise this, but even in Nazi Germany, if you were just an ordinary non-Jewish German who kept his head down, you would in all likelyhood escape the attentions of the government. However, you are being a little melodramatic about the whole thing. There's a world of difference between ensuring the deportation of foreign criminals, terrorists and extremists (As many countries already do) and opening up the gas chambers.

But you are willing to argue that this person should be denied human rights based on the highly unlikely (see quote from your link above) risk of being a victim of a terrorist attack?

And as for using your own arguments against you, it's just a tactic to highlight your inconsistency. Nothing personal.
I half expected you to point some inconsistencies in it, purely because of the half-arsed way in which I looked for the sources. It was just a quick google search I did to look for something.

But anyway, I'm not actually worried about terrorists attacks at all. Looking at the small amount of people who die in terrorist attacks every year, it doesn't worry me one bit. For me, it's that I consider the presence of these extremists to be a total insult to this country. You only have to look at the way that despite saving them from opressive governments, they're totally ungrateful and seek to undermine and destroy our way of life. It shows you to be pathetic and weak to worry about the treatment those poor little extremists face in their home countries, and it makes your own country look totally undignified.

....For me, it's that I consider the presence of these extremists to be a total insult to this country. You only have to look at the way that despite saving them from opressive governments, they're totally ungrateful and seek to undermine and destroy our way of life. It shows you to be pathetic and weak to worry about the treatment those poor little extremists face in their home countries, and it makes your own country look totally undignified.

Some people may consider that those who argue for the suspension of civil rights are also a total insult to your country. It could also be viewed as an attack on the very way of life. Should we also deport those people?

Some people may consider that those who argue for the suspension of civil rights are also a total insult to your country. It could also be viewed as an attack on the very way of life. Should we also deport those people?

Some might consider those who do not argue for the suspesision of civil rights for extremists are an insult to this country. And fuck throwing those who have the balls to argue for such things as Banananananananalandsaid out of the country, and after all it is his own country why should he be deported? he's no danger to the state (I hope)

Some might consider those who do not argue for the suspesision of civil rights for extremists are an insult to this country. And fuck throwing those who have the balls to argue for such things as Banananananananalandsaid out of the country, and after all it is his own country why should he be deported? he's no danger to the state (I hope)

I have a good idea that will resolve your problem. Why don't we refuse to deport anyone simply for being an 'insult to the nation'?

Some people may consider that those who argue for the suspension of civil rights are also a total insult to your country. It could also be viewed as an attack on the very way of life. Should we also deport those people?
There's nowhere to deport a lot of them to, particularly when they're British. Besides, the people who cry themselves to sleep every night worrying about civil rights don't want to try and deport anyone. They're too worried about civil rights, you see!

Anyway, the idea that the protection of this country is an inaliable right is only a recent innovation and there's no reason why it should be so. Civil rights are always balanced against the overall good of the country, no matter where you are. If I were convicted of a crime, I wouldn't be allowed to move to many countries, including the US. The US balances my right to move to their country against the their interests to ensure fewer crimes occuring. Most countries seem to ban incitement towards violence, or in some cases, hate speech such as holocaust denial. These countries balance the right of free speech against the overall good of the country. This isn't some radical, revolutionary idea that would result in stormtroopers stomping down the streets. All I'm talking about is moving the balance to somewhere more sensible.

I have a good idea that will resolve your problem. Why don't we refuse to deport anyone simply for being an 'insult to the nation'?
The whole concept of nationality means that we have the right to expect a higher standard of conduct from foreign nationals than we do of our own people, and greater leeway to deport them along with it.

I have a good idea that will resolve your problem. Why don't we refuse to deport anyone simply for being an 'insult to the nation'?

Lets do that, and only deport extremists which are a drain on the taxpayers pockets

Some might consider those who do not argue for the suspesision of civil rights for extremists are an insult to this country.

That has to be the dumbest statement I have seen in many a year

There's nowhere to deport a lot of them to, particularly when they're British.

Let's just deport them to some random country.

Anyway, the idea that the protection of this country is an inaliable right is only a recent innovation and there's no reason why it should be so.

You seem to have a misconception about the right not to be deported at the whim of the government. It is not protection by the UK government. It is protection from the UK government.

Civil rights are always balanced against the overall good of the country, no matter where you are. If I were convicted of a crime, I wouldn't be allowed to move to many countries, including the US. The US balances my right to move to their country against the their interests to ensure fewer crimes occuring. Most countries seem to ban incitement towards violence, or in some cases, hate speech such as holocaust denial. These countries balance the right of free speech against the overall good of the country. This isn't some radical, revolutionary idea that would result in stormtroopers stomping down the streets. All I'm talking about is moving the balance to somewhere more sensible.

That somewhere more sensible seem to be that the UK should be allowed to arrest people without trial and deport people to places where they may be tortured. As long as they're foreigners. That doesn't sound sensible to me. It sounds authoritarian and racist.

The whole concept of nationality means that we have the right to expect a higher standard of conduct from foreign nationals than we do of our own people, and greater leeway to deport them along with it.[/QUOTE]

Lets do that, and only deport extremists which are a drain on the taxpayers pockets

Do you have an actual argument?

Let's just deport them to some random country.
You'd need permission from that country's government first, which they would unlikely give.

You seem to have a misconception about the right not to be deported at the whim of the government. It is not protection by the UK government. It is protection from the UK government.
You seem to have a misconception that there's an automatic right to stay in this country. People like Abu Qatada don't have the right to stay in this country. However, we're prevented from deporting them due to the situation they face in their home countries. Under any other circumstances they would be deported, so yes, we are protecting them.

That somewhere more sensible seem to be that the UK should be allowed to arrest people without trial and deport people to places where they may be tortured. As long as they're foreigners. That doesn't sound sensible to me. It sounds authoritarian and racist.
Maybe it does to you, but it's irrelevant. I'm confident it would be a pretty popular move with the general public. The moaning of the civil liberties 'Save the extremists' brigade wouldn't matter if you just ploughed ahead with it.

I have a good idea that will resolve your problem. Why don't we refuse to deport anyone simply for being an 'insult to the nation'?

But, but... making insulting the nation a crime is only for Drrty Ebil Mozlem countries like Turkey!

But, but... making insulting the nation a crime is only for Drrty Ebil Mozlem countries like Turkey!
I'm not talking about making it a criminal offence and taking anyone to court over it, just using it as a legal reason to cancel someone's immigration status. The criminal justice system and the immigration system are completely different.

I have a good idea that will resolve your problem. Why don't we refuse to deport anyone simply for being an 'insult to the nation'?



Because then the US has to take Madonna back.:p

You'd need permission from that country's government first, which they would unlikely give.

I'm sure some sort of deal could be set up.

You seem to have a misconception that there's an automatic right to stay in this country.

No, I don't. I'm under the impression that Qatada's legal status is complicated and depends on several things including human rights law.

People like Abu Qatada don't have the right to stay in this country. However, we're prevented from deporting them due to the situation they face in their home countries. Under any other circumstances they would be deported, so yes, we are protecting them.

Deporting him to a country where he may face torture is a human rights issue. So, he may actually have the legal right to face trial and punishment here instead of in Jordan. So you can say that he has no right, but I don't think that legal experts would agree.

Maybe it does to you, but it's irrelevant. I'm confident it would be a pretty popular move with the general public. The moaning of the civil liberties 'Save the extremists' brigade wouldn't matter if you just ploughed ahead with it.

:rolleyes:

Deporting him to a country where he may face torture is a human rights issue. So, he may actually have the legal right to face trial and punishment here instead of in Jordan. So you can say that he has no right, but I don't think that legal experts would agree.
Of course they wouldn't, which is why I say we should change the law.

Of course they wouldn't, which is why I say we should change the law.

You should probably try to come up with a logical reason why we should change the law.

In modern France, the demographic of people who riot has shifted.
Indeed. So is it more likely that they riot because of their social situation or their religion?


Someone followed up on this already with a very good article. Stop asking me what the definition of is is. Don't join the many on NSG who plead ignorance.
So having failed to define what you think "honour killing" is, you attack me for asking what you think the definition - that you couldn't provide - is and imply that it was silly of me to have asked in the first place, and you believe that the term is set in stone and absolute?

Interesting.


I don't know what Fjordland is, but I'll do the work for you.
Your claim, the burden of proof is on you. So wrong, it's not my work.

And yes, I mistyped. I meant the infamous and widely discredited Fjordman blog. Which is what your first three links refer to, so they're pretty much without any value.


www.hvk.org/articles/0205/22.html
...which doesn't support any claim about any "immigrant rape wave".


Pardon me, I got my atrocities mixed up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theo_van_Gogh_(film_director)

I was referring to this - which is what European Muslims have been commanded to do to the Danish cartoonists.
And how many of the cartoonists have been killed yet?

For that matter, how many Islamic terror attacks were there in Europe last year?


I should have researched this better. My fuzzy recollection was that both sides had committed genocides and that the serbian conflict was a tipping point in the escalations, but I can't find any documentation of this.
I don't think you'll find much documentation showing any genocide committed on the Serbs, but if you do you're welcome to present it.

And 90% was a little high. It was somewhere between 80% and 90%.


It's safe to say that less of them happen over on this continent then on the European subcontinent, especially if you judge the statistics per capita.
Really? Is honour killings that uncommon in hispanic cultures? I'm thinking of Brazil, Haiti, Argentina, Ecuador, Guatemala, Peru, Venezuela...

And thank Heavens there's never been anybody killed because they dated the "wrong race" or anything like that. And nobody has ever been killed for breaking off a relationship... All ex'es are safe in the US I gather.


Yeah, it's the European Convention on Human Rights, which the UK is a signatory to. Plus there's the Human Rights Act which codifies it into UK law. Both of these make deportating criminals much more difficult.

So why are you against freedom of speech and the right to a fair trial, to mention two points?

i find what you said is a little far fetch don't you think, because you are comparing how the u.k treats muslims to how germany treated jews

You should probably try to come up with a logical reason why we should change the law.
I'm pretty sure it could at least help mitigate domestic islamic extremism by deporting major terrorist ideologists. Also, I just feel it's an insult to this nation and we need to restore this country's dignity.

To tell the truth, I don't think we really need to come up with a logical reason to deport people like him. If the will of the people and the government that represents (Or at least should represent) them declares that we want shut of them, we shouldn't have to justify ourselves to anyone else on this planet.

So why are you against freedom of speech and the right to a fair trial, to mention two points?
I'm not against them, but I don't think the ECHR allows you to pick and choose what bits you follow. So I think it's become necessary to just throw the whole thing out. Hell, it's not as if we were some nazi dictatorship before we had the ECHR. We taught the rest of Europe about human rights from the bottom of a Lancaster bomber, it's not like we need to hear anything from them about it.

I'm pretty sure it could at least help mitigate domestic islamic extremism by deporting major terrorist ideologists.

Do you have any evidence that that would happen?

Also, I just feel it's an insult to this nation and we need to restore this country's dignity.

I don't think that the UK human rights policy should be based on 'your feelings'. I think it should be based on a universal respect for human dignity and rule of law.

To tell the truth, I don't think we really need to come up with a logical reason to deport people like him. If the will of the people and the government that represents (Or at least should represent) them declares that we want shut of them, we shouldn't have to justify ourselves to anyone else on this planet.

What if it was the will of the people to deport homosexuals, or atheists, , or blacks, or people who wear boots with buckles on the side? Should the UK government simply be allowed to do it because "it's the people's will"?

To tell the truth, I don't think we really need to come up with a logical reason to deport people like him. If the will of the people and the government that represents (Or at least should represent) them declares that we want shut of them, we shouldn't have to justify ourselves to anyone else on this planet.

It's a good thing you weren't involved in writing your country's constitution.

It's a good thing you weren't involved in writing your country's constitution.
Hehehe.... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unwritten_constitution)

I'm not against them, but I don't think the ECHR allows you to pick and choose what bits you follow. So I think it's become necessary to just throw the whole thing out.
Which means that you don't value the protections the ECHR lays out, and feel that the people who needs the protections shouldn't have them. I.e, you're against them.

And you fail to see the ramifications of your actions, as you would in essence open up for your government to ignore other human rights at a time of their choosing. Deporting people to countries where they may be tortured, denying people the right to a fair trial... And the erosion of civil liberties can go on unhindered.

And as recent history have shown us, that's not the best road to travel down.

Hell, it's not as if we were some nazi dictatorship before we had the ECHR. We taught the rest of Europe about human rights from the bottom of a Lancaster bomber, it's not like we need to hear anything from them about it.
It's obvious that you do.

I don't think that the UK human rights policy should be based on 'your feelings'. I think it should be based on a universal respect for human dignity and rule of law.

To paraphrase what a professor in Human Rights Law once told me:

Human Rights exsists to protect the people We don't feel deserve them.

Obviously it wouldn't be any comfort, but it doesn't alter the fact that the odds would be pretty slim.


Quite a bit better odds than being struck by a meteorite, however.

I realise this, but even in Nazi Germany, if you were just an ordinary non-Jewish German who kept his head down, you would in all likelyhood escape the attentions of the government.

Ha. Yeah, unless your neighbors thought you were doing something unpatriotic, or associating with unpatriotic people, or maybe related to them distantly, or expressing a view not approved by the government, etc etc. Or perhaps you were gay, lesbian, gypsy, Slavic, etc etc.

And sure you can always say hey, I ain't gay! And be ignored by a government that doesn't give a shit about its peoples rights.

However, you are being a little melodramatic about the whole thing. There's a world of difference between ensuring the deportation of foreign criminals, terrorists and extremists (As many countries already do) and opening up the gas chambers.

Bigotry and persecution of an ethnic/religious minority is what it is. Just because the UK has yet to meet those extremes that the Nazis matched doesn't mean they won't, or can't, or that there aren't substantial groups who would like nothing more than to reach that level.


But anyway, I'm not actually worried about terrorists attacks at all. Looking at the small amount of people who die in terrorist attacks every year, it doesn't worry me one bit. For me, it's that I consider the presence of these extremists to be a total insult to this country.

So you can't even justify this with fear for safety or security... it's about an "insult." An imagined slight. Well cry me a river.

You only have to look at the way that despite saving them from opressive governments, they're totally ungrateful and seek to undermine and destroy our way of life.

Ah. Generalization and stereotype.

It shows you to be pathetic and weak to worry about the treatment those poor little extremists face in their home countries, and it makes your own country look totally undignified.

For a guy who wants to banish people for apparently "insulting" your sense of pride you are awful quick with that "pathetic and weak" label...

It shows you to be pathetic and weak to worry about the treatment those poor little extremists face in their home countries, and it makes your own country look totally undignified.
I fail to see why worrying about incorrect treatment of others, no matter their positions, is a sign of weakness or indignity. Indeed, I would applaud those who treat the worst people as equals.

Anyway, the idea that the protection of this country is an inaliable right is only a recent innovation and there's no reason why it should be so. Civil rights are always balanced against the overall good of the country, no matter where you are.
Bollocks to rights; we're talking about the moral thing to do, not what 'rights' I have.

The whole concept of nationality means that we have the right to expect a higher standard of conduct from foreign nationals than we do of our own people, and greater leeway to deport them along with it.
If true, this shows the entire concept of nationality to be fucked.

Maybe it does to you, but it's irrelevant. I'm confident it would be a pretty popular move with the general public. The moaning of the civil liberties 'Save the extremists' brigade wouldn't matter if you just ploughed ahead with it.
It's got nothing to do with 'saving the extremists', and you know it. It's about a government apparently dedicated to equal and fair treatment, democracy and the rule of law, unfortunately having to be told to give equal and fair treatment, follow democratic principles and upholding the rule of law.

I fail to see why worrying about incorrect treatment of others, no matter their positions, is a sign of weakness or indignity. Indeed, I would applaud those who treat the worst people as equals.

I can not imagine anyone having it in themselves to treat the worst people as equals(except perhaps religious nuts). How could you look at some one who wants to kill people and destroy this countries way of life?



Do you have an actual argument?
Abu Qatada as Banananananananalandhas already said.



I don't think that the UK human rights policy should be based on 'your feelings'.
I think it should at least stuff would get done and wouldn't be held by liberals.



What if it was the will of the people to deport homosexuals, or atheists, , or blacks, or people who wear boots with buckles on the side? Should the UK government simply be allowed to do it because "it's the people's will"?
"The peoples will" is a powerful thing. I think the government would do well to listen to it.

its only a problem if you read the daily fail or the sun, in which case theres not much hope for you anyway...

What if someone reads The Daily Fail strictly for laughs?

Thank you


You might want to read the rules about edited quotes.

You might want to read the rules about edited quotes.

Soz I didn't think it would still say "origanaly posted by Rambhutan"
sorry

Soz I didn't think it would still say "origanaly posted by Rambhutan"
sorry

No problem

No problem

Um can I ask you why you are named after a "medium-sized tropical tree in the family Sapindaceae" that is "native to Indonesia and Southeast Asia"?

Um can I ask you why you are named after a "medium-sized tropical tree in the family Sapindaceae" that is "native to Indonesia and Southeast Asia"?

That would be a rambutan - my nation's name is a cross between that and the country Bhutan. I was planning to start an internet site asking gullible American's to fund the fight against communist rebels in my imaginary country. Though like all good plans it never made it out of the pub.

That would be a rambutan - my nation's name is a cross between that and the country Bhutan. I was planning to start an internet site asking gullible American's to fund the fight against communist rebels in my imaginary country. Though like all good plans it never made it out of the pub.

I reckon you would make Bear money from that. You should definitly do that.
Seriously you could be on to somthing here.

Why did you mix the name of the tree with a country though?

I think it should at least stuff would get done and wouldn't be held by liberals.

This isn't really a sentence, so can you try again? I'm curious to why you would include "liberal" in there, since many conservatives are against the idea of changing the UK human rights policy to lessen the amount of protection against state actions that an individual enjoys.

This isn't really a sentence, so can you try again? I'm curious to why you would include "liberal" in there, since many conservatives are against the idea of changing the UK human rights policy to lessen the amount of protection against state actions that an individual enjoys.

Soz. I fucked that up i meant to stay "I think it should be, at least stuff would get done and wouldn't be held up by liberals."

Looking back it in't a very good post, I was a bit drowsy i had only jut woken up. I think that what this country needs is a strong and bold leader who is unafraid of intanational consicwences (to a cetain extent). I hate the way civil rights come befor the good of the country.

I think that what this country needs is a strong and bold leader who is unafraid of intanational consicwences (to a cetain extent). I hate the way civil rights come befor the good of the country.

So, a fascist leader/state then?

Soz. I fucked that up i meant to stay "I think it should be, at least stuff would get done and wouldn't be held up by liberals."

Looking back it in't a very good post, I was a bit drowsy i had only jut woken up. I think that what this country needs is a strong and bold leader who is unafraid of intanational consicwences (to a cetain extent). I hate the way civil rights come befor the good of the country.

Ah, so in your mind the "good of the country" should trump individual rights? I can't think of a single example from the past where that kind of thinking turned out to be beneficial. And I can assure you, there would be massive resistance to that philosophy from the conservatives, so don't think for a moment that it would be only the liberals who would "hold stuff up".

Who should decide what's the "good of the country" anyway?

Ah, so in your mind the "good of the country" should trump individual rights? I can't think of a single example from the past where that kind of thinking turned out to be beneficial. And I can assure you, there would be massive resistance to that philosophy from the conservatives, so don't think for a moment that it would be only the liberals who would "hold stuff up".

Who should decide what's the "good of the country" anyway?

Apparently, "the good of the country" trumps the right of a rich person to keep his wealth. And "who" is Obama, because "he won".

Apparently, "the good of the country" trumps the right of a rich person to keep his wealth.

When will the rich man ever get a fair deal in this country?

When will the rich man ever get a fair deal in this country?

When I'm rich...

Ah, so in your mind the "good of the country" should trump individual rights? I can't think of a single example from the past where that kind of thinking turned out to be beneficial. And I can assure you, there would be massive resistance to that philosophy from the conservatives, so don't think for a moment that it would be only the liberals who would "hold stuff up".

Who should decide what's the "good of the country" anyway?
Me.
So, a fascist leader/state then?

not facist, more sort of unafaid of what the wold would say due to their actions. I still believe in civil rights, but not when they are in direct opposition with national sucurity.

Abu Qatada as Banananananananalandhas already said.

So, you don't have an argument.

I think it should at least stuff would get done and wouldn't be held by liberals.

Slavery also gets shit done and is disliked by liberals. We should allow the UK to do that too.

"The peoples will" is a powerful thing. I think the government would do well to listen to it.

Not if that means the removal of human rights.

Me.


Funny.

Would you like me to decide? I would promise to not do anything you would disaprove of. Scout's honour.

Ah, so in your mind the "good of the country" should trump individual rights? I can't think of a single example from the past where that kind of thinking turned out to be beneficial. And I can assure you, there would be massive resistance to that philosophy from the conservatives, so don't think for a moment that it would be only the liberals who would "hold stuff up".

Who should decide what's the "good of the country" anyway?

For the good of the country, the Jews must be removed.
Apparently, "the good of the country" trumps the right of a rich person to keep his wealth. And "who" is Obama,

Come back when you actually understand whats going on.

because "he won".

Yeah, that dumbass shouldnt have pointed out he won when he won a legit election by a large margin.

He should have said he had been given a "mandate from God". That seemed to have gone over better.

"The peoples will" is a powerful thing. I think the government would do well to listen to it.

Glad you think so. Most political philosophers, especially the ones who were the foundation for democracy, were afraid of this thing called "tyranny of the majority".

I tend to side with them.

Not if that means the removal of human rights.
I'm so sick of people harping on about human rights.:rolleyes: Give the people what they want.
Apparently, "the good of the country" trumps the right of a rich person to keep his wealth. And "who" is Obama, because "he won".
WTF are you talking about? Obama's got noting to do with anything.
Funny.

Would you like me to decide? I would promise to not do anything you would disaprove of. Scout's honour.
Glad to hear it, in that case I might not have you killed when democracy falls.

For the good of the country, the Jews must be removed. Um, what?



Glad you think so. Most political philosophers, especially the ones who were the foundation for democracy, were afraid of this thing called "tyranny of the majority".

I tend to side with them.
I tend not to, I tend to question these people and the very "foundtions of democracy."

The majority should get what they want, not some stuffed shirts in Downing street.

I tend not to, I tend to question these people and the very "foundtions of democracy."

The majority should get what they want, not some stuffed shirts in Downing street.

The majority in this thread think your opinions suck. Stop posting.

He should have said he had been given a "mandate from God". That seemed to have gone over better.

Well, everyone knows that Sauron is really a dirty closet Muslim so he can't bring himself to call it a "Mandate from God".

I'm so sick of people harping on about human rights.:rolleyes: Give the people what they want....

If you don't want to discuss human rights, click on the X in the top right corner of your browser window.

If you don't want to discuss human rights, click on the X in the top right corner of your browser window.

No no, hes right. It should be about what the rabble want, not people like you, you stuffed shirt on downing street.



Whatever the fuck that means.

I tend not to, I tend to question these people and the very "foundtions of democracy."

The majority should get what they want, not some stuffed shirts in Downing street.

Wait, you question the foundation of democracy, and then yell "GIVE THE MAJORITY WHAT THEY WANT!!!"

You are a confused person.

No no, hes right. It should be about what the rabble want, not people like you, you stuffed shirt on downing street.



Whatever the fuck that means.

In Downig street, dumb ass

Wait, you question the foundation of democracy, and then yell "GIVE THE MAJORITY WHAT THEY WANT!!!"

You are a confused person.

And your a narrow minded one

Wait, you question the foundation of democracy, and then yell "GIVE THE MAJORITY WHAT THEY WANT!!!"

You are a confused person.

Actually it's a new form of selective democracy, like the one being tried out in the Republic of-

FO-ORRRRRRRRRRT SUM-TERRRRRRRRR!!!

In Downig street, dumb ass

Why are you still posting? I thought the majority should always get what they want, regardless?

I'm so sick of people harping on about human rights.:rolleyes: Give the people what they want.

Um, what?

Haha. Of course you wouldn't understand his comment if you're defending tyranny by majority.

And your a narrow minded one

Quit while youre ahead.

Why are you still posting? I thought the majority should always get what they want, regardless?

I thnk the majority on this thread are idiots, so I'm going to overturn your disition just like those on downing street.

I thnk the majority on this thread are idiots,

Ill add this to the thread in moderation Ive started about you.

so I'm going to overturn your disition just like those on downing street.

Ok, so, the majority should always win, unless they disagree with you. So really, you dont think we should listen to the people, just you.

So youre a hypocrit with a bit of a God complex then.

And why do you have the final say, again?

EDIT:
By the way, its "decision", not "disition".

Love you.

So youre a hypocrit with a bit of a God complex then.

Not so much god more of a Messiah .

By the way I'm dyxlexic

Love you too

Not so much god more of a Messiah .

Ah of course. Want to tell me why we should give you the final say? You havent really demonstrated a superior grasp of the issues.


By the way dyxlexic

Of course you are.

The simple reason why we don't allow for human rights to be decided according to the will of the majority is because then the majority can simply choose to remove the rights of any individual or minority they care to.

At this point the concept of human rights is pointless and we might as well not have any government.

Ah of course. Want to tell me why we should give you the final say? You havent really demonstrated a superior grasp of the issues.

I don't need to demonstrate it if I know I'm right, thats enough


Of course you are.

I am

The simple reason why we don't allow for human rights to be decided according to the will of the majority is because then the majority can simply choose to remove the rights of any individual or minority they care to.


Ring has already basically admitted he doesnt give a damn about the "majority" and that he was simply making some inane appeal to some precieved higher power.

He cares about what he thinks and believes we should all listen to him.

I don't need to demonstrate it if I know I'm right, thats enough



Youve yet to show that you are right.

I don't need to demonstrate it if I know I'm right, thats enough

Then we have a bit of a quandry, because I know I'm right too, and we both can't be right. So, how do we resolve this dilemma?

Ring has already basically admitted he doesnt give a damn about the "majority" and that he was simply making some inane appeal to some precieved higher power.

He cares about what he thinks and believes we should all listen to him.




Youve yet to show that you are right.

Like I said if you were following the thread- I don't need to prove anything to you.

And you shouldn't just listern to me you should obey.

Anyway g2g now so you don't have to put up with the "Messiah" anymore

Like I said if you were following the thread- I don't need to prove anything to you

Thats the tricky thing. If youre having a debate, you actually kind of do.

Then we have a bit of a quandry, because I know I'm right too, and we both can't be right. So, how do we resolve this dilemma?


You just admit I'm right and be done

What do u want me to prove?

You just admit I'm right and be done

See, this is why we have a problem taking you seriously.


Good luck with that world domination thing though. Let me know how many people you get to join your Messiah's Liberation Army dealy-o with the arguement "You should do what I say because Im right and Im right because I say so."

What do u want me to prove?

Well, why we should take your opinion seriously, for starters.

See, this is why we have a problem taking you seriously.


Good luck with that world domination thing though. Let me know how many people you get to join your Messiah's Liberation Army dealy-o with the arguement, "You should do what I say because Im right and Im right because I say so."

Already got twelve people behind me. I'll pay you a visit when I hit 100.

Already got twelve people behind me. I'll pay you a visit when I hit 100.

E-threats make you appear so tough.

Ring has already basically admitted he doesnt give a damn about the "majority" and that he was simply making some inane appeal to some precieved higher power.

He cares about what he thinks and believes we should all listen to him.
....

Let us try to lift the debate a bit, shall we?

In Switzerland, there was a proposal (http://www.javno.com/en-world/swiss-reject-controversial-immigration-proposal_152794) that individual communities would get to decide on the eligibility of applications for citizenship.

That would have been an example of allowing civili rights to be decided by the will of the majority.

You just admit I'm right and be done

So, you're not actually interested in a legitimate debate. You'd rather prattle on like a 14 year old with delusions of grandeur. I'm sorry I mistook you for someone worthy of respect. I shall not make such a mistake in the future, and my dealings with you will morph to reflect the contempt I hold for people such as yourself.

Anyway, back to the adult table.

Apparently, "the good of the country" trumps the right of a rich person to keep his wealth. And "who" is Obama, because "he won".

I'm not sure what wealth you're referring to in this post? Are you referring to the $800 billion that average taxpayers had to fork over to keep the rich person afloat because they failed so spectacularly at running a business?

Let us try to lift the debate a bit, shall we?
Spoilsport.

In Switzerland, there was a proposal (http://www.javno.com/en-world/swiss-reject-controversial-immigration-proposal_152794) that individual communities would get to decide on the eligibility of applications for citizenship.

That would have been an example of allowing civili rights to be decided by the will of the majority.
And is a repulsive idea.

Spoilsport.

And is a repulsive idea.

The party that sponsored the proposal rode into government on a raft of, you guessed it, anti-immigration (anti-Muslim to put it baldly) sentiment. One of the things I've noticed about the rise of anti-other flavour of Semitic in Europe is that it's often tied into rises in politcal power. Blocher, Fortyun, Wilders...

The party that sponsored the proposal rode into government on a raft of, you guessed it, anti-immigration (anti-Muslim to put it baldly) sentiment. One of the things I've noticed about the rise of anti-other flavour of Semitic in Europe is that it's often tied into rises in politcal power. Blocher, Fortyun, Wilders...

Well of course. We should let communities decide citizenship so they can keep Muslims (read:terrorists) out.

Ring, I'm not trying to be a complete bitch but there are spell checkers. Firefox often catches mine (I'm slightly dyslexic myself). It may also help prevent problems with people automatically judging your intelligence on what you type as well as other misunderstandings.

Back on topic, I have to agree that the whole Swiss proposal thing is a bit unnerving...



* I hate how sincerity and sarcasm can be completely lost on the internet....*

The party that sponsored the proposal rode into government on a raft of, you guessed it, anti-immigration (anti-Muslim to put it baldly) sentiment. One of the things I've noticed about the rise of anti-other flavour of Semitic in Europe is that it's often tied into rises in politcal power. Blocher, Fortyun, Wilders...

Of course it is. Wherever there is a wave of anti-something sentiment, there is a man willing to ride that wave to a position of power. It's human nature for a leader to rise and exploit a movement for political gain.

The simple reason why we don't allow for human rights to be decided according to the will of the majority is because then the majority can simply choose to remove the rights of any individual or minority they care to.

At this point the concept of human rights is pointless and we might as well not have any government.
This!

Human rights are a safeguard against the more unsavory forms of government. Even if the government we have today seem like a stable and lovable one, we have no guarantee that the government of tomorrow is as nice.

Let us try to lift the debate a bit, shall we?

In Switzerland, there was a proposal (http://www.javno.com/en-world/swiss-reject-controversial-immigration-proposal_152794) that individual communities would get to decide on the eligibility of applications for citizenship.

That would have been an example of allowing civili rights to be decided by the will of the majority.
In one canton of Switzerland they voted to ban women from voting. The majority supported that move, and it took an intervention by the Supreme Court for voting rights to be reinstated.

I'm so sick of people harping on about human rights.:rolleyes: Give the people what they want.

What if the majority want babies boiled to death and then served as food?

What if the majority want babies boiled to death and then served as food?

then they should be able to have it of course!:rolleyes:

In Downig street, dumb ass

And your a narrow minded one

I thnk the majority on this thread are idiots, so I'm going to overturn your disition just like those on downing street.

Trolling and flamebaiting. Nice and efficient. It's a shame that it's considered an offence here. Warned.

In the mean time, acquaint yourself with the rules over here: The One-Stop Rules Shop (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=416023).

The majority in this thread think your opinions suck. Stop posting.

Ill add this to the thread in moderation Ive started about you.

Ok, so, the majority should always win, unless they disagree with you. So really, you dont think we should listen to the people, just you.

So youre a hypocrit with a bit of a God complex then.

And why do you have the final say, again?

EDIT:
By the way, its "decision", not "disition".

Love you.

YOU, however, ought to know better. You're provoking Ring on purpose. I know experience you've been warned before, and for that reason, I'm giving you a 24-hour ban.

Trolling and flamebaiting. Nice and efficient. It's a shame that it's considered an offence here. Warned.

In the mean time, acquaint yourself with the rules over here: The One-Stop Rules Shop (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=416023).


Soz but as you said he was provoking me, and I find it hard to argue when someone is insulting me rather than questioning my views (come to think about it I'm not very good at arguing at all, as I'm sure Knights of Liberty will tell you.
Ring, I'm not trying to be a complete bitch but there are spell checkers. Firefox often catches mine (I'm slightly dyslexic myself). It may also help prevent problems with people automatically judging your intelligence on what you type as well as other misunderstandings.

Back on topic, I have to agree that the whole Swiss proposal thing is a bit unnerving...



* I hate how sincerity and sarcasm can be completely lost on the internet....*
Thank you for the tip, I just put Google Chrome on my computer and that has spell checker.

I also hat the way all sarcasm can be lost on the Internet, such quotes as these are sarcastic, but I fear people took them literally.
You just admit I'm right and be done
Of cause you shouldn't just agree with me that would be stupid. But I was in a rush so I had not the time to prove that I was right.
Already got twelve people behind me. I'll pay you a visit when I hit 100.
Sarcasm.
a) I don't know were you live
b) It would be allot more effort than its worth
c) I haven't realy got the energy
So, you're not actually interested in a legitimate debate. You'd rather prattle on like a 14 year old with delusions of grandeur. I'm sorry I mistook you for someone worthy of respect. I shall not make such a mistake in the future, and my dealings with you will morph to reflect the contempt I hold for people such as yourself.
I'm 15 actually. And there is not need to hold me in contempt, as I said I was being sarcastic and I was in a rush. But I will take up the topic with you once more if you request.




I'm not sure what wealth you're referring to in this post? Are you referring to the $800 billion that average taxpayers had to fork over to keep the rich person afloat because they failed so spectacularly at running a business?
I think that she may mean that and/or the plans of Obama to permintly cripple the US economy
Let us try to lift the debate a bit, shall we?

In Switzerland, there was a proposal (http://www.javno.com/en-world/swiss-reject-controversial-immigration-proposal_152794) that individual communities would get to decide on the eligibility of applications for citizenship.

That would have been an example of allowing civili rights to be decided by the will of the majority.

It is a great idea, the UK should do something similar. It may get a little out of hand, but it is true democracy in action. Britain is not truly democratic, I think that before any law is passed the people should vote on it. I know that the government does some surveys to see what people think, but I do not think these are Adequate .

It is a great idea, the UK should do something similar. It may get a little out of hand, but it is true democracy in action. Britain is not truly democratic, I think that before any law is passed the people should vote on it. I know that the government does some surveys to see what people think, but I do not think these are Adequate .

Did you miss the part in the article where the supreme court called it discriminatory?

Let's say, for example, that Muslims in the UK become a majority and then choose to have this law. They then start systematically voting to remove citizenship from non-Muslims.

Would this be allright with you?

I also hat the way all sarcasm can be lost on the Internet, such quotes as these are sarcastic, but I fear people took them literally.

...

I think that she may mean that and/or the plans of Obama to permintly cripple the US economy

lolirony