UK Politics

Discuss events that have an impact on you and the world today. A home for honest, serious, and open discussion.

Re: UK Politics

Unread postby James » Tue Oct 07, 2008 11:19 pm

Not sure about accommodations for the Jewish folk... that shouldn't be tolerated either.

But I'm absolutely certain that a culture so content to trash women needs to keep the f*** out of law.
Kongming’s Archives – Romance of the Three Kingdoms Novel, History and Games
“ They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
  — Ben Franklin
User avatar
James
Sausaged Fish
Sausaged Fish
 
Posts: 17926
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2002 3:21 pm
Location: Happy Valley, UT

Re: UK Politics

Unread postby Ranbir » Tue Oct 07, 2008 11:22 pm

Of course there is accommodation for the Jewish. Their laws are even older.

These courts will have to be stomped out, as they won't die of their own accord...


Typical American answer. I see stomping worked very well in...

Britain is far more devious. You don't solve it with top down action. It will happen itself from the bottom up. A citizen of a democracy and liberal loving nation should know that. The will of the people will ultimately prevail. :)

It is how they dismantled entire continents, a small matter of civil arbitration is child's play.
"The imaginary number is a fine and wonderful resource of the human spirit, almost an amphibian between being and not being." - Gottfried Leibniz
Science snobbery.
User avatar
Ranbir
For Queen and Country
 
Posts: 8479
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2003 9:27 am
Location: Your heart. <3

Re: UK Politics

Unread postby James » Tue Oct 07, 2008 11:48 pm

Ranbir wrote:Typical American answer. I see stomping worked very well in...

Sometimes a good stomping is in order. :lol:

Ranbir wrote:Britain is far more devious. You don't solve it with top down action. It will happen itself from the bottom up. A citizen of a democracy and liberal loving nation should know that. The will of the people will ultimately prevail. :)

In the mean time, Britain has this problem. I hope you're right.
Kongming’s Archives – Romance of the Three Kingdoms Novel, History and Games
“ They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
  — Ben Franklin
User avatar
James
Sausaged Fish
Sausaged Fish
 
Posts: 17926
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2002 3:21 pm
Location: Happy Valley, UT

Re: UK Politics

Unread postby Ranbir » Wed Oct 08, 2008 12:04 am

It's like the fact we have a state religion, barely acknowledged by the majority. I don't doubt it will remain as an institution, but it has diminished.

Aside from the Times and Daily Mail readers, I don't think many will actually give or acknowledge much about this islamie civil arbitration - as it is with the Jewish one. They won't grow, they will shrink and fade away. That's the power of a free state. Minorities will be assimilated.

Resistance is futile.
"The imaginary number is a fine and wonderful resource of the human spirit, almost an amphibian between being and not being." - Gottfried Leibniz
Science snobbery.
User avatar
Ranbir
For Queen and Country
 
Posts: 8479
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2003 9:27 am
Location: Your heart. <3

Re: UK Politics

Unread postby WeiWenDi » Wed Oct 08, 2008 12:06 am

Firstly, let me just state that I wouldn't trust a paper owned by Rupert Murdoch as far as I could throw him (though The Times is very often good for a few cheap laughs).

Secondly, I wrote an article for one of my school newspapers on Dr Rowan Williams' comments on the possible introduction of certain aspects of Sharia law in Britain, much of which is still relevant to this conversation (so I'm posting it in its entirety; skip if you'd like):

WeiWenDi (Matthew Cooper), in the Mayhem's Murmurs wrote:Bishop to F7, Check
Matthew Cooper

The remarks made by the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Most Honourable and Right Reverend Rowan Williams, in an address to the Royal Courts of Justice (with regard to Moslem Sharia customs) seem to have stirred up a sizeable chunk of controversy. The general impression one might get from reading the sound bites in the news coverage of this address was that he was supporting the codification of certain aspects of Sharia into British law. As a result, a number of critics across the political spectrum have called for his resignation and The Sun, with a typically disgusting display of lowbrow neo-conservative sensationalism, labelled Dr Williams ‘a dangerous threat to our nation’ and launched a campaign to remove him from the primacy. Such quotes taken out of their proper context (as our friends at The Index should be well aware) often belie the actual meaning of what was said, and this is certainly the case in this instance.

Dr Williams’ address is a remarkable piece of work which, far from being the kind of ‘appeasement’ that so many media outlets made it out to be, is actually a well-articulated and cleverly nuanced view of justice in what might be considered one of the strongest democratic societies in the world. He argues for a system of law that transcends the empty promises of what he calls ‘legal universalism’ and ‘positivism’ and that actually communicates with rather than dictating to the citizens that such a system of law would serve. He states in no uncertain terms that the law of Britain is the ‘law of the land’, but he calls for a reinterpretation by the people and the civil society of the British Isles as to what the ‘law of the land’ truly entails and how they relate to it. To this end, he uses the examples of certain public spheres of ethical existence: Islam, Orthodox Judaism and Anglican Christianity.

On a purely practical level, religious communities have always been involved in arbitration of disputes, in matters of marriage and other aspects of civil law, with both positive and negative results, even in democratic societies such as Great Britain and the United States. The blunt reality is that these communities of faith form a vital part of civil society; though the ‘law of the land’ is and must always be liberal and secular in a truly democratic society (in which all communities of faith or non-belief are equal), it must relate itself to each community of faith in ways that are reciprocal and mutually enabling, otherwise it risks being relegated to impotence. In this sense, Sharia, much like Kosher laws, must be taken seriously by the ‘powers that be’ – Sharia, like the Kosher body of custom in the Jewish tradition or the rites of the Anglican communion, is a means of expression in the ethical sphere of existence for a significant sector of the British citizenry, which the ‘powers that be’ in the United Kingdom claim to represent. This is a significant aspect of Europe’s current dilemma. Where many European countries are faced with growing numbers of citizens identifying as Moslems, how are these countries best to uphold their societal traditions of Western liberal democracy without trampling on the dignities of people who don’t necessarily value those traditions in the same way?

I don’t think I could express these ideas better than the good Archbishop has already. ‘[O]ur social identities are not constituted by one exclusive set of relations or mode of belonging’, Dr Williams declared. ‘The danger arises not only when there is an assumption on the religious side that membership of the community (belonging to the [umma-Sharia] or the Church or whatever) is the only significant category, so that participation in other kinds of socio-political arrangement is a kind of betrayal. It also occurs when secular government assumes a monopoly in terms of defining public and political identity.’ The European states facing this dilemma would do well to turn to some of their own more famous political theorists, namely Georg Hegel and Jürgen Habermas. The type of rationality embodied in a state’s rule of law does not emerge from individual cognition, but emerges rather from shared ethical spheres of existence and is made real, actual and effective by communication and cooperative action, and this includes communication and cooperative action between religious communities. As such, I don’t see any contradiction between the position that secular, democratic states must make certain demands on their citizens in terms of civic duty, and that the selfsame secular, democratic states would do well not to dictate to their citizens whom they should be first: English before Moslem, French before Christian, American before Jewish.

When framed in this light, the accusations of ‘appeasement’ against Dr Williams become rather ludicrous. Dr Williams was not at all recommending that English law be appended with Sharia, or that a parallel judicial system be created for Moslems in Britain. In fact, this would be quite repugnant to the very concept of a secular democratic state that exists in a reciprocal and mutually-enabling relationship with the religious communities participating in it. The Archbishop of Canterbury has simply begun the process of articulating a way in which a secular system may come to understand and communicate with religious communities which are frequently misunderstood and with which failures of communication occur all too often. And, as you can imagine (for I cannot help but quote the good Archbishop again on the subject), I am not going to complain about that.


I agree completely with Ranbir that the solutions which will help most the fabric of civil society in Britain and these women who have been the victims of abusive men will be solutions which come from the ground up. To bring back the analogy of religious civil war, Cromwell's Roundheads didn't fare too well against the Anglo-Catholics of the established church, though they did about as much stomping as anybody. Indeed, stomping in such cases is as likely as not to cause the Sharia courts to go underground, becoming more and more radical and potentially destructive and violent.

If the article is to be trusted with the facts, I'm just glad that there's a working relationship between these Sharia courts and the government, and that these legal decisions are coming under public scrutiny and dialogue.
Some more blood, Chekov. The needle won't hurt, Chekov. Take off your shirt, Chekov. Roll over, Chekov. Breathe deeply, Chekov. Blood sample, Chekov! Marrow sample, Chekov! Skin sample, Chekov! If I live long enough... I'm going to run out of samples.
User avatar
WeiWenDi
Hedgehog Emperor
 
Posts: 3816
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2008 12:09 am
Location: L'Étoile du Nord

Re: UK Politics

Unread postby Tigger of Kai » Wed Oct 08, 2008 6:36 am

The ornamented vagueries of Rowan Williams had little impact on this decision. The argument put forward by the Islamists was very clear and easy to understand. "If you give us religious rights," said Syed Aziz Pasha, "we will be in a better position to convince young people that they are being treated equally along with other citizens." He had just come from an emergency meeting with Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott, called after the discovery of a plot by British Muslims to blow up a dozen airplanes over the Atlantic. The tradeoff being offered to the government was simple: you officially endorse our polygamy, gaybashing, mistreatment of women, etc., and we'll see to it that no more tube trains blow up.

Make no mistake: a shadow of fear accompanies every dealing we have with the Islamists, and it grows larger with each slavish concession.

Ranbir wrote:It's ok, our liberating westernization of their women shall soon have them refusing to acknowledge these mock courts.

But your Muslim girls are neither liberated nor Westernized. As I said elsewhere, 36% of young British Muslims believe that apostates from Islam should be punished with death. They are more Islamized than their mothers. The Islamists know this, they know that they are winning.
Mithril! The dwarves tell no tales. But just as it was the foundation of their wealth, so also it was their destruction. They delved too greedily and too deep, and disturbed that from which they fled.
User avatar
Tigger of Kai
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 4171
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2003 12:26 am
Location: Scarborough, Canada

Re: UK Politics

Unread postby Ranbir » Wed Oct 08, 2008 9:06 am

We're winning faster than I thought! :)

What wacky survey did that come from?

We've got a census in 2011, we'll see if Muslims numbers have decreased or increased across 10 years. Makes a good period to check given the 2001 kaboom as the starting point.

Census shows other great things, like Muslims having 1 in 3 uneducated - education shall liberate from wacky hook handed people. Highest unemployment - we don't like spongers. Reported worst health - they're dying out, anyway.

On similar subject:

Schools are being given advice on how to prevent pupils becoming drawn to violent extremism and terrorism.
"The imaginary number is a fine and wonderful resource of the human spirit, almost an amphibian between being and not being." - Gottfried Leibniz
Science snobbery.
User avatar
Ranbir
For Queen and Country
 
Posts: 8479
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2003 9:27 am
Location: Your heart. <3

Re: UK Politics

Unread postby James » Wed Oct 08, 2008 4:03 pm

I agree completely with Tigger here... and I think you're seriously underestimating this problem, Ranbir. The Muslim community has been muscling in with its laws through Europe for quite some time now and they are steadily gaining ground. Ignoring the problem and depending on it to right itself will be just as effective as ignoring Germany's advances during World War II. The problem won't go away, the threat is devoted and dedicated.

What bothers me most about the courts is the involvement of the women inside them. Sure, they can say all involved parties gave consent, but those women didn't have much choice. To decline would have surely been affront to their culture and their families, and that would have been a big mess in many cases. Laugh if you will, but sometimes a strong arm and a good smack is what you need to deal with an awful problem.
Kongming’s Archives – Romance of the Three Kingdoms Novel, History and Games
“ They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
  — Ben Franklin
User avatar
James
Sausaged Fish
Sausaged Fish
 
Posts: 17926
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2002 3:21 pm
Location: Happy Valley, UT

Re: UK Politics

Unread postby Ranbir » Wed Oct 08, 2008 4:11 pm

Yes yes, and Jews want to take all our money and send it to Israel. Scientology wants our money too. This is land of the cynics. Civil arbitration is not a threat. Only a third want it and that will decrease. Islam can not usurp the Christian State. They will die out, it is inevitable.

This is unnecessary scaring. I mean, they have Mosques littered around the country too. Maybe we should stomp them out so they can't all gather in one place!

I mean, an environmental minister warned them of inbreeding, so you're gonna get your way eventually.
"The imaginary number is a fine and wonderful resource of the human spirit, almost an amphibian between being and not being." - Gottfried Leibniz
Science snobbery.
User avatar
Ranbir
For Queen and Country
 
Posts: 8479
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2003 9:27 am
Location: Your heart. <3

Re: UK Politics

Unread postby James » Wed Oct 08, 2008 4:26 pm

Ranbir wrote:Yes yes, and Jews want to take all our money and send it to Israel. Scientology wants our money too. This is land of the cynics. Civil arbitration is not a threat. Only a third want it and that will decrease. Islam can not usurp the Christian State. They will die out, it is inevitable.

This is unnecessary scaring. I mean, they have Mosques littered around the country too. Maybe we should stomp them out so they can't all gather in one place!

I mean, an environmental minister warned them of inbreeding, so you're gonna get your way eventually.

Hehe... you're confusing the issue.

Having mosques around is religious freedom.

Altering society's laws or legal structure based on a religious perspective is quite another thing, especially when it is such a lop-sided religious view. Preaching the standard 'love thy neighbor' stuff is fine, but demonstrating an interest in relegating women to the rank of second-class citizen, among other things, is quite another matter.
Kongming’s Archives – Romance of the Three Kingdoms Novel, History and Games
“ They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
  — Ben Franklin
User avatar
James
Sausaged Fish
Sausaged Fish
 
Posts: 17926
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2002 3:21 pm
Location: Happy Valley, UT

PreviousNext

Return to Current Affairs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest

Copyright © 2002–2008 Kongming’s Archives. All Rights Reserved