Perhaps we should call it *religious terrorism*? Does that work?
I think Monty's objection is the level of organisation involved in a terrorist plot versus a lone wolf. In which case the obvious answer is to add the qualifier 'organised terrorism' when talking about the IRA, Al Qaeda, etc.
Perhaps.
The trouble is, ISIS have explicitly called for lone wolf attacks, as part of their global terror strategy. Solitary nutters are what they WANT, as these guys could turn on us any time, any place: increasing the terror quotient.
Perhaps we could call the bigger plots "direct terrorism", and the small scale attacks "religious terror"? Given that the knifeman in Strasbourg shouted Allahu Akhbar it is difficult to *rule out* a religious element.
Maybe we should be encouraging Christians, agnostics, atheists and Jews in the Middle East to wander up to the nearest Mosque and blow themselves up.
The problem is that - without the promise of an afterlife - what's in it for the atheists, agnostics and Jews?
Oh, there is an afterlife for Christians and Jews who do things like that - in a very hot place with lots of forked tails.......which is generally why they don't!
Perhaps we should call it *religious terrorism*? Does that work?
I think Monty's objection is the level of organisation involved in a terrorist plot versus a lone wolf. In which case the obvious answer is to add the qualifier 'organised terrorism' when talking about the IRA, Al Qaeda, etc.
Perhaps.
The trouble is, ISIS have explicitly called for lone wolf attacks, as part of their global terror strategy. Solitary nutters are what they WANT, as these guys could turn on us any time, any place: increasing the terror quotient.
Perhaps we could call the bigger plots "direct terrorism", and the small scale attacks "religious terror"? Given that the knifeman in Strasbourg shouted Allahu Akhbar it is difficult to *rule out* a religious element.
Maybe we should be encouraging Christians, agnostics, atheists and Jews in the Middle East to wander up to the nearest Mosque and blow themselves up.
The problem is that - without the promise of an afterlife - what's in it for the atheists, agnostics and Jews?
Oh, there is an afterlife for Christians and Jews who do things like that - in a very hot place with lots of forked tails.......which is generally why they don't!
Christianity has a heaven and hell. IIRC Judaism does not.
Perhaps we should call it *religious terrorism*? Does that work?
I think Monty's objection is the level of organisation involved in a terrorist plot versus a lone wolf. In which case the obvious answer is to add the qualifier 'organised terrorism' when talking about the IRA, Al Qaeda, etc.
Perhaps.
The trouble is, ISIS have explicitly called for lone wolf attacks, as part of their global terror strategy. Solitary nutters are what they WANT, as these guys could turn on us any time, any place: increasing the terror quotient.
Perhaps we could call the bigger plots "direct terrorism", and the small scale attacks "religious terror"? Given that the knifeman in Strasbourg shouted Allahu Akhbar it is difficult to *rule out* a religious element.
Maybe we should be encouraging Christians, agnostics, atheists and Jews in the Middle East to wander up to the nearest Mosque and blow themselves up.
The problem is that - without the promise of an afterlife - what's in it for the atheists, agnostics and Jews?
Oh, there is an afterlife for Christians and Jews who do things like that - in a very hot place with lots of forked tails.......which is generally why they don't!
Christianity has a heaven and hell. IIRC Judaism does not.
Their mothers try to ensure they experience both here on Earth.
These are not 'fundamentalist' aberrations, death penalties 'committed by fanatics who don't represent their religion'. This is the basic law of many 'moderate' Muslim states. Fuck the lot of them say I.
I think we should have the same attitude towards those countries that great homosexuals and women as second class citizens as we did towards those who treated black people that way.
It is no coincidence that the first thing religious bigots do when they get into power is to limit womens' freedoms. Control of clothing is one way of doing that. It's a point which an awful lot of men find hard to understand. I can remember the debates in the 1970s about trying to get it across to the police and others that how a woman was dressed was not some sort of excuse or justification for rape/assault. It was hard work getting people to realise that a woman's clothing should not be used to justify male misbehaviour. The burqa is the reverse of that: an assumption that a woman is somehow - by her dress - responsible for a man's behaviour, that a man is unable to control himself or be expected to behave in a civilised way and that women must be covered up to prevent incontinently lustful men from gazing on the possession of another.
"It is no coincidence that the first thing religious bigots do when they get into power is to limit womens' freedoms. Control of clothing is one way of doing that."
Womens dress in the west is pretty well unique in the last two thousand years in its revealingness. Nothing like a bikini or tight clothes now worn has been seen since the latter days of Greece or Rome (at least outside elite aristocratic circles).
Peter Hitchens has pointed out that, other than face covering, modern devout muslim dress is little different "modesty" wise to womens dress in Europe prior to world war one (even in regards to "Burkini" swim suits.
It could easily be argued that the west has become decadent and hedonistic and the modest dress of Muslim Women (when not taken to extremes) is a most commendable example to us all (
Being provocative, a culture that allows women to dress revealingly and provocatively and those who use this freedom in conjunction with their sexuality to manipulate men have huge power over (the majority of) men and also gives those women who are most precocious an advantage over other women.
As with all these things a balance is required.
I think it is actually the implicit reproof of the wests godlessness and hedonism that is implicit in muslim womens dress that causes such outrage against muslims. Terrorism is a red herring.
These are not 'fundamentalist' aberrations, death penalties 'committed by fanatics who don't represent their religion'. This is the basic law of many 'moderate' Muslim states. Fuck the lot of them say I.
I think we should have the same attitude towards those countries that great homosexuals and women as second class citizens as we did towards those who treated black people that way.
Trump's speech on this is interesting (no really it is...).
Just as we won the Cold War, in part, by exposing the evils of communism and the virtues of free markets, so too must we take on the ideology of Radical Islam.
While my opponent accepted millions of dollars in Foundation donations from countries where being gay is an offense punishable by prison or death, my Administration will speak out against the oppression of women, gays and people of different faith.
These are not 'fundamentalist' aberrations, death penalties 'committed by fanatics who don't represent their religion'. This is the basic law of many 'moderate' Muslim states. Fuck the lot of them say I.
I think we should have the same attitude towards those countries that great homosexuals and women as second class citizens as we did towards those who treated black people that way.
So we should invade them and have Brits with feathery caps running the place for their own good?
We still are a bit imperialist here in the UK arn't we?
Be intriguing to compare convictions for FGM to convictions for living up to Cameron's dictum on Twitter.
While I think it is vile and rightly illegal in the UK, what F*** business of ours is it if other countries permit the practice. Or is the sovereignty of nations only valid when they act like good Guardian readers.
Let it not be forgotten that the British Empire was far more a moralising guardianista crusade to civilize primative people than a bunch of right wing thugs looting for their own gain.
But that argument is coming close to justification of slavery and other things so long as we don't do it.
In the modern world, there is the concept of universal human rights which does, under international law, transcend national sovereignty.
Anna Turley MP @annaturley 4h4 hours ago Third behind Lib Dems & UKIP in Ormesby by-election. Vote share down 11% on last year. Corbyn is leading our party off a cliff.
I used to love Lemmings, it was one of the very few games I’ve ever played on the PC.
It is no coincidence that the first thing religious bigots do when they get into power is to limit womens' freedoms. Control of clothing is one way of doing that. It's a point which an awful lot of men find hard to understand. I can remember the debates in the 1970s about trying to get it across to the police and others that how a woman was dressed was not some sort of excuse or justification for rape/assault. It was hard work getting people to realise that a woman's clothing should not be used to justify male misbehaviour. The burqa is the reverse of that: an assumption that a woman is somehow - by her dress - responsible for a man's behaviour, that a man is unable to control himself or be expected to behave in a civilised way and that women must be covered up to prevent incontinently lustful men from gazing on the possession of another.
"It is no coincidence that the first thing religious bigots do when they get into power is to limit womens' freedoms. Control of clothing is one way of doing that."
Womens dress in the west is pretty well unique in the last two thousand years in its revealingness. Nothing like a bikini or tight clothes now worn has been seen since the latter days of Greece or Rome (at least outside elite aristocratic circles).
Peter Hitchens has pointed out that, other than face covering, modern devout muslim dress is little different "modesty" wise to womens dress in Europe prior to world war one (even in regards to "Burkini" swim suits.
It could easily be argued that the west has become decadent and hedonistic and the modest dress of Muslim Women (when not taken to extremes) is a most commendable example to us all (
Being provocative, a culture that allows women to dress revealingly and provocatively and those who use this freedom in conjunction with their sexuality to manipulate men have huge power over (the majority of) men and also gives those women who are most precocious an advantage over other women.
As with all these things a balance is required.
I think it is actually the implicit reproof of the wests godlessness and hedonism that is implicit in muslim womens dress that causes such outrage against muslims. Terrorism is a red herring.
These are not 'fundamentalist' aberrations, death penalties 'committed by fanatics who don't represent their religion'. This is the basic law of many 'moderate' Muslim states. Fuck the lot of them say I.
I think we should have the same attitude towards those countries that great homosexuals and women as second class citizens as we did towards those who treated black people that way.
So we should invade them and have Brits with feathery caps running the place for their own good?
We still are a bit imperialist here in the UK arn't we?
I'm not taking about the government doing anything.
These are not 'fundamentalist' aberrations, death penalties 'committed by fanatics who don't represent their religion'. This is the basic law of many 'moderate' Muslim states. Fuck the lot of them say I.
I think we should have the same attitude towards those countries that great homosexuals and women as second class citizens as we did towards those who treated black people that way.
So we should invade them and have Brits with feathery caps running the place for their own good?
We still are a bit imperialist here in the UK arn't we?
Not sure that's why we did imperialism. I think he is referring to economic sanctions (edit: spoke to soon.. not sure what he's referring to then!)
Be intriguing to compare convictions for FGM to convictions for living up to Cameron's dictum on Twitter.
While I think it is vile and rightly illegal in the UK, what F*** business of ours is it if other countries permit the practice. Or is the sovereignty of nations only valid when they act like good Guardian readers.
Let it not be forgotten that the British Empire was far more a moralising guardianista crusade to civilize primative people than a bunch of right wing thugs looting for their own gain.
But that argument is coming close to justification of slavery and other things so long as we don't do it.
In the modern world, there is the concept of universal human rights which does, under international law, transcend national sovereignty.
Just the modern excuse to carry being imperialist while pretending we are not imperialist.
We decide our values are superior and we will impose it on countries that disagree. Two hundred years it was about imposing "Christian Civilization" on "primative" people for their own good, now it is about imposing human rights on them for their own good.
I'm not necessarily saying our values are not superior - I'm just calling out the hypocracy of the stop the war lefty types.
Also it is just this attitude that resulted in Iraq.
Be intriguing to compare convictions for FGM to convictions for living up to Cameron's dictum on Twitter.
While I think it is vile and rightly illegal in the UK, what F*** business of ours is it if other countries permit the practice. Or is the sovereignty of nations only valid when they act like good Guardian readers.
Let it not be forgotten that the British Empire was far more a moralising guardianista crusade to civilize primative people than a bunch of right wing thugs looting for their own gain.
But that argument is coming close to justification of slavery and other things so long as we don't do it.
In the modern world, there is the concept of universal human rights which does, under international law, transcend national sovereignty.
Just the modern excuse to carry being imperialist while pretending we are not imperialist.
We decide our values are superior and we will impose it on countries that disagree. Two hundred years it was about imposing "Christian Civilization" on "primative" people for their own good, now it is about imposing human rights on them for their own good.
I'm not necessarily saying our values are not superior - I'm just calling out the hypocracy of the stop the war lefty types.
Also it is just this attitude that resulted in Iraq.
So, to be clear, for you there are no universal rights. And if there were slavery in, say, Saudi Arabia, you'd think that was none of our business? That we'd have no moral responsibility to act?
These are not 'fundamentalist' aberrations, death penalties 'committed by fanatics who don't represent their religion'. This is the basic law of many 'moderate' Muslim states. Fuck the lot of them say I.
I think we should have the same attitude towards those countries that great homosexuals and women as second class citizens as we did towards those who treated black people that way.
So we should invade them and have Brits with feathery caps running the place for their own good?
We still are a bit imperialist here in the UK arn't we?
Not sure that's why we did imperialism. I think he is referring to economic sanctions (edit: spoke to soon.. not sure what he's referring to then!)
It was an unholy alliance of mercantilism and puritan crusading, with the latter becoming strong as time proceeded and almost dominating by the latter years of the C19.
Be intriguing to compare convictions for FGM to convictions for living up to Cameron's dictum on Twitter.
While I think it is vile and rightly illegal in the UK, what F*** business of ours is it if other countries permit the practice. Or is the sovereignty of nations only valid when they act like good Guardian readers.
Let it not be forgotten that the British Empire was far more a moralising guardianista crusade to civilize primative people than a bunch of right wing thugs looting for their own gain.
But that argument is coming close to justification of slavery and other things so long as we don't do it.
In the modern world, there is the concept of universal human rights which does, under international law, transcend national sovereignty.
Just the modern excuse to carry being imperialist while pretending we are not imperialist.
We decide our values are superior and we will impose it on countries that disagree. Two hundred years it was about imposing "Christian Civilization" on "primative" people for their own good, now it is about imposing human rights on them for their own good.
I'm not necessarily saying our values are not superior - I'm just calling out the hypocracy of the stop the war lefty types.
Also it is just this attitude that resulted in Iraq.
So, to be clear, for you there are no universal rights. And if there were slavery in, say, Saudi Arabia, you'd think that was none of our business?
These are not 'fundamentalist' aberrations, death penalties 'committed by fanatics who don't represent their religion'. This is the basic law of many 'moderate' Muslim states. Fuck the lot of them say I.
I think we should have the same attitude towards those countries that great homosexuals and women as second class citizens as we did towards those who treated black people that way.
So we should invade them and have Brits with feathery caps running the place for their own good?
We still are a bit imperialist here in the UK arn't we?
Not sure that's why we did imperialism. I think he is referring to economic sanctions (edit: spoke to soon.. not sure what he's referring to then!)
It was an unholy alliance of mercantilism and puritan crusading, with the latter becoming strong as time proceeded and almost dominating by the latter years of the C19.
It is no coincidence that the first thing religious bigots do when they get into power is to limit womens' freedoms. Control of clothing is one way of doing that. It's a point which an awful lot of men find hard to understand. I can remember the debates in the 1970s about trying to get it across to the police and others that how a woman was dressed was not some sort of excuse or justification for rape/assault. It was hard work getting people to realise that a woman's clothing should not be used to justify male misbehaviour. The burqa is the reverse of that: an assumption that a woman is somehow - by her dress - responsible for a man's behaviour, that a man is unable to control himself or be expected to behave in a civilised way and that women must be covered up to prevent incontinently lustful men from gazing on the possession of another.
"It is no coincidence that the first thing religious bigots do when they get into power is to limit womens' freedoms. Control of clothing is one way of doing that."
Womens dress in the west is pretty well unique in the last two thousand years in its revealingness. Nothing like a bikini or tight clothes now worn has been seen since the latter days of Greece or Rome (at least outside elite aristocratic circles).
Peter Hitchens has pointed out that, other than face covering, modern devout muslim dress is little different "modesty" wise to womens dress in Europe prior to world war one (even in regards to "Burkini" swim suits.
It could easily be argued that the west has become decadent and hedonistic and the modest dress of Muslim Women (when not taken to extremes) is a most commendable example to us all (
snip
As with all these things a balance is required.
I think it is actually the implicit reproof of the wests godlessness and hedonism that is implicit in muslim womens dress that causes such outrage against muslims. Terrorism is a red herring.
THE PILLS ARE IN THE TOP DRAWER
I rest my case
"I think it is actually the implicit reproof of the wests godlessness and hedonism that is implicit in muslim womens dress that causes such outrage against muslims. Terrorism is a red herring."
Eh? Are you putting in an entry for Pseuds Corner?
These are not 'fundamentalist' aberrations, death penalties 'committed by fanatics who don't represent their religion'. This is the basic law of many 'moderate' Muslim states. Fuck the lot of them say I.
I think we should have the same attitude towards those countries that great homosexuals and women as second class citizens as we did towards those who treated black people that way.
Trump's speech on this is interesting (no really it is...).
Just as we won the Cold War, in part, by exposing the evils of communism and the virtues of free markets, so too must we take on the ideology of Radical Islam.
While my opponent accepted millions of dollars in Foundation donations from countries where being gay is an offense punishable by prison or death, my Administration will speak out against the oppression of women, gays and people of different faith.
How does that go down with some at least of his supporters?
These are not 'fundamentalist' aberrations, death penalties 'committed by fanatics who don't represent their religion'. This is the basic law of many 'moderate' Muslim states. Fuck the lot of them say I.
I think we should have the same attitude towards those countries that great homosexuals and women as second class citizens as we did towards those who treated black people that way.
So we should invade them and have Brits with feathery caps running the place for their own good?
We still are a bit imperialist here in the UK arn't we?
Not sure that's why we did imperialism. I think he is referring to economic sanctions (edit: spoke to soon.. not sure what he's referring to then!)
Although I'm fairly sure that we had good relations with the US before the 1960s...
It is no coincidence that the first thing religious bigots do when they get into power is to limit womens' freedoms. Control of clothing is one way of doing that. It's a point which an awful lot of men find hard to understand. I can remember the debates in the 1970s about trying to get it across to the police and others that how a woman was dressed was not some sort of excuse or justification for rape/assault. It was hard work getting people to realise that a woman's clothing should not be used to justify male misbehaviour. The burqa is the reverse of that: an assumption that a woman is somehow - by her dress - responsible for a man's behaviour, that a man is unable to control himself or be expected to behave in a civilised way and that women must be covered up to prevent incontinently lustful men from gazing on the possession of another.
"It is no coincidence that the first thing religious bigots do when they get into power is to limit womens' freedoms. Control of clothing is one way of doing that."
[Snipped]
I think it is actually the implicit reproof of the wests godlessness and hedonism that is implicit in muslim womens dress that causes such outrage against muslims. Terrorism is a red herring.
Implicit reproof, my arse! Given the way women are treated in Muslim societies, we need no lessons from them on how to treat women well. It's the fantastic hypocrisy that grates. Implicit in their so-called modest dress is the belief that women are the property of men, that women are the source of lust and of lustful desires in others, that men are incapable of controlling themselves and that responsibility for exercising self-control rests not with adult men (the poor dears) but by controlling and limiting women. Insulting to both men and women, frankly.
And of course men from these modest God-fearing societies have never been known to take advantage of Western society to go whoring and drinking and the rest of it, oh no.
I despise the burqa and the attitudes that go with it. They are saying a great big fuck you to our society and our way of life. And I say it back to them, in spades.
Banning breastfeeding in your restaurant isn't just your concern; it's a matter of potential discrimination against customers.
An establishment should have the right to ban such activities if it wishes to.
'Such activities'? A baby who needs feeding? No, it shouldn't.
Indeed, the idea of banning a baby from eating in a restaurant is particularly absurd. Thankfully we have laws preventing such idiocy.
I seem to recall Betty Boothroyd ordering a female MP out of the Chamber when she was breastfeeding on the opposite ground: that refreshments weren't allowed in the House. (Though I'd have thought that an equal if not better ground was that only members and Commons officials are supposed to be allowed past the Bar of the House).
It is no coincidence that the first thing religious bigots do when they get into power is to limit womens' freedoms. Control of clothing is one way of doing that. It's a point which an awful lot of men find hard to understand. I can remember the debates in the 1970s about trying to get it across to the police and others that how a woman was dressed was not some sort of excuse or justification for rape/assault. It was hard work getting people to realise that a woman's clothing should not be used to justify male misbehaviour. The burqa is the reverse of that: an assumption that a woman is somehow - by her dress - responsible for a man's behaviour, that a man is unable to control himself or be expected to behave in a civilised way and that women must be covered up to prevent incontinently lustful men from gazing on the possession of another.
"It is no coincidence that the first thing religious bigots do when they get into power is to limit womens' freedoms. Control of clothing is one way of doing that."
Womens dress in the west is pretty well unique in the last two thousand years in its revealingness. Nothing like a bikini or tight clothes now worn has been seen since the latter days of Greece or Rome (at least outside elite aristocratic circles).
Peter Hitchens has pointed out that, other than face covering, modern devout muslim dress is little different "modesty" wise to womens dress in Europe prior to world war one (even in regards to "Burkini" swim suits.
It could easily be argued that the west has become decadent and hedonistic and the modest dress of Muslim Women (when not taken to extremes) is a most commendable example to us all (
Being provocative, a culture that allows women to dress revealingly and provocatively and those who use this freedom in conjunction with their sexuality to manipulate men have huge power over (the majority of) men and also gives those women who are most precocious an advantage over other women.
As with all these things a balance is required.
I think it is actually the implicit reproof of the wests godlessness and hedonism that is implicit in muslim womens dress that causes such outrage against muslims. Terrorism is a red herring.
That is a very European imperialistic take on women's clothing throughout the ages. There are plenty societies in Africa, Asia, polynesia and the Americas where scanty clothing for women was the norm.
These are not 'fundamentalist' aberrations, death penalties 'committed by fanatics who don't represent their religion'. This is the basic law of many 'moderate' Muslim states. Fuck the lot of them say I.
I think we should have the same attitude towards those countries that great homosexuals and women as second class citizens as we did towards those who treated black people that way.
So we should invade them and have Brits with feathery caps running the place for their own good?
We still are a bit imperialist here in the UK arn't we?
Not sure that's why we did imperialism. I think he is referring to economic sanctions (edit: spoke to soon.. not sure what he's referring to then!)
Although I'm fairly sure that we had good relations with the US before the 1960s...
Yes, probably overlooked for strategic reasons. It's weird to think segregation ended only 50 odd years ago.
Be intriguing to compare convictions for FGM to convictions for living up to Cameron's dictum on Twitter.
While I think it is vile and rightly illegal in the UK, what F*** business of ours is it if other countries permit the practice. Or is the sovereignty of nations only valid when they act like good Guardian readers.
Let it not be forgotten that the British Empire was far more a moralising guardianista crusade to civilize primative people than a bunch of right wing thugs looting for their own gain.
But that argument is coming close to justification of slavery and other things so long as we don't do it.
In the modern world, there is the concept of universal human rights which does, under international law, transcend national sovereignty.
Just the modern excuse to carry being imperialist while pretending we are not imperialist.
We decide our values are superior and we will impose it on countries that disagree. Two hundred years it was about imposing "Christian Civilization" on "primative" people for their own good, now it is about imposing human rights on them for their own good.
I'm not necessarily saying our values are not superior - I'm just calling out the hypocracy of the stop the war lefty types.
Also it is just this attitude that resulted in Iraq.
So, to be clear, for you there are no universal rights. And if there were slavery in, say, Saudi Arabia, you'd think that was none of our business?
There IS slavery in Saudi Arabia.
So, again, as you seem to be avoiding the question, for you there are no universal rights? People who are abused by their own governments should have no defenders whatsoever?
These are not 'fundamentalist' aberrations, death penalties 'committed by fanatics who don't represent their religion'. This is the basic law of many 'moderate' Muslim states. Fuck the lot of them say I.
I think we should have the same attitude towards those countries that great homosexuals and women as second class citizens as we did towards those who treated black people that way.
Trump's speech on this is interesting (no really it is...).
Just as we won the Cold War, in part, by exposing the evils of communism and the virtues of free markets, so too must we take on the ideology of Radical Islam.
While my opponent accepted millions of dollars in Foundation donations from countries where being gay is an offense punishable by prison or death, my Administration will speak out against the oppression of women, gays and people of different faith.
How does that go down with some at least of his supporters?
Be intriguing to compare convictions for FGM to convictions for living up to Cameron's dictum on Twitter.
While I think it is vile and rightly illegal in the UK, what F*** business of ours is it if other countries permit the practice. Or is the sovereignty of nations only valid when they act like good Guardian readers.
Let it not be forgotten that the British Empire was far more a moralising guardianista crusade to civilize primative people than a bunch of right wing thugs looting for their own gain.
But that argument is coming close to justification of slavery and other things so long as we don't do it.
In the modern world, there is the concept of universal human rights which does, under international law, transcend national sovereignty.
I'm not at all sure about that. Different nations have very different attitudes, and I'd be reluctant to assert there's one common standard that every nation must adhere to. I don't think that people serving prison sentences should have the vote, for example. The ECHR disagrees, but I think a sovereign Parliament is entitled to uphold the ban. I think there are dozens of issues, like abortion, the death penalty, hunting, physical chastisement of children, gay marriage, divorce etc on which different societies can come to different conclusions.
Banning breastfeeding in your restaurant isn't just your concern; it's a matter of potential discrimination against customers.
An establishment should have the right to ban such activities if it wishes to.
'Such activities'? A baby who needs feeding? No, it shouldn't.
Indeed, the idea of banning a baby from eating in a restaurant is particularly absurd. Thankfully we have laws preventing such idiocy.
I seem to recall Betty Boothroyd ordering a female MP out of the Chamber when she was breastfeeding on the opposite ground: that refreshments weren't allowed in the House. (Though I'd have thought that an equal if not better ground was that only members and Commons officials are supposed to be allowed past the Bar of the House).
Are we really going to have crying babies in the House of Commons? Although I suppose you wouldn't be able to hear them during PMQs
These are not 'fundamentalist' aberrations, death penalties 'committed by fanatics who don't represent their religion'. This is the basic law of many 'moderate' Muslim states. Fuck the lot of them say I.
I think we should have the same attitude towards those countries that great homosexuals and women as second class citizens as we did towards those who treated black people that way.
So we should invade them and have Brits with feathery caps running the place for their own good?
We still are a bit imperialist here in the UK arn't we?
Not sure that's why we did imperialism. I think he is referring to economic sanctions (edit: spoke to soon.. not sure what he's referring to then!)
Although I'm fairly sure that we had good relations with the US before the 1960s...
In the 50s the US used financial sanctions against us to impose their will in the world. Some good relations...
Be intriguing to compare convictions for FGM to convictions for living up to Cameron's dictum on Twitter.
While I think it is vile and rightly illegal in the UK, what F*** business of ours is it if other countries permit the practice. Or is the sovereignty of nations only valid when they act like good Guardian readers.
Let it not be forgotten that the British Empire was far more a moralising guardianista crusade to civilize primative people than a bunch of right wing thugs looting for their own gain.
But that argument is coming close to justification of slavery and other things so long as we don't do it.
In the modern world, there is the concept of universal human rights which does, under international law, transcend national sovereignty.
Just the modern excuse to carry being imperialist while pretending we are not imperialist.
We decide our values are superior and we will impose it on countries that disagree. Two hundred years it was about imposing "Christian Civilization" on "primative" people for their own good, now it is about imposing human rights on them for their own good.
I'm not necessarily saying our values are not superior - I'm just calling out the hypocracy of the stop the war lefty types.
Also it is just this attitude that resulted in Iraq.
So, to be clear, for you there are no universal rights. And if there were slavery in, say, Saudi Arabia, you'd think that was none of our business? That we'd have no moral responsibility to act?
If we really care about these things there are things we can do without invading and imposing our culture. For example, we can decide not to give major sporting events to countries like Qatar and Russia. And if the organisation running said event does so anyway, we can pull out of it and go our own way.
That we didn't pull out of FIFA means we have no right to complain.
Be intriguing to compare convictions for FGM to convictions for living up to Cameron's dictum on Twitter.
While I think it is vile and rightly illegal in the UK, what F*** business of ours is it if other countries permit the practice. Or is the sovereignty of nations only valid when they act like good Guardian readers.
Let it not be forgotten that the British Empire was far more a moralising guardianista crusade to civilize primative people than a bunch of right wing thugs looting for their own gain.
But that argument is coming close to justification of slavery and other things so long as we don't do it.
In the modern world, there is the concept of universal human rights which does, under international law, transcend national sovereignty.
I'm not at all sure about that. Different nations have very different attitudes, and I'd be reluctant to assert there's one common standard that every nation must adhere to. I don't think that people serving prison sentences should have the vote, for example. The ECHR disagrees, but I think a sovereign Parliament is entitled to uphold the ban. I think there are dozens of issues, like abortion, the death penalty, hunting, physical chastisement of children, gay marriage, divorce etc on which different societies can come to different conclusions.
I think you are talking about something different - yes, there are cultural differences reflected in each nation's laws as they effect economic, social and cultural rights. But there are also Universal Rights, fully established in international law, to which all countries of the UN subscribe and which the UN extends to all countries including non-members.
Let me refer you to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Sounds like Rio have been naughty with respect to the Paralympics. Had this funding gap become known before the Olympics began, there would have been called for Rio to lose both games.
"It is no coincidence that the first thing religious bigots do when they get into power is to limit womens' freedoms. Control of clothing is one way of doing that."
Womens dress in the west is pretty well unique in the last two thousand years in its revealingness. Nothing like a bikini or tight clothes now worn has been seen since the latter days of Greece or Rome (at least outside elite aristocratic circles).
Peter Hitchens has pointed out that, other than face covering, modern devout muslim dress is little different "modesty" wise to womens dress in Europe prior to world war one (even in regards to "Burkini" swim suits.
It could easily be argued that the west has become decadent and hedonistic and the modest dress of Muslim Women (when not taken to extremes) is a most commendable example to us all (
Being provocative, a culture that allows women to dress revealingly and provocatively and those who use this freedom in conjunction with their sexuality to manipulate men have huge power over (the majority of) men and also gives those women who are most precocious an advantage over other women.
As with all these things a balance is required.
I think it is actually the implicit reproof of the wests godlessness and hedonism that is implicit in muslim womens dress that causes such outrage against muslims. Terrorism is a red herring.
That is a very European imperialistic take on women's clothing throughout the ages. There are plenty societies in Africa, Asia, polynesia and the Americas where scanty clothing for women was the norm.
I thought that one would be provocative :-)
I recall reading that the early settlers in the US went to quite extreme levels to stop their women defecting to indian tribes.
Among the attractions was that the clothing was far more comfortable!
Be intriguing to compare convictions for FGM to convictions for living up to Cameron's dictum on Twitter.
While I think it is vile and rightly illegal in the UK, what F*** business of ours is it if other countries permit the practice. Or is the sovereignty of nations only valid when they act like good Guardian readers.
Let it not be forgotten that the British Empire was far more a moralising guardianista crusade to civilize primative people than a bunch of right wing thugs looting for their own gain.
But that argument is coming close to justification of slavery and other things so long as we don't do it.
In the modern world, there is the concept of universal human rights which does, under international law, transcend national sovereignty.
Just the modern excuse to carry being imperialist while pretending we are not imperialist.
We decide our values are superior and we will impose it on countries that disagree. Two hundred years it was about imposing "Christian Civilization" on "primative" people for their own good, now it is about imposing human rights on them for their own good.
I'm not necessarily saying our values are not superior - I'm just calling out the hypocracy of the stop the war lefty types.
Also it is just this attitude that resulted in Iraq.
So, to be clear, for you there are no universal rights. And if there were slavery in, say, Saudi Arabia, you'd think that was none of our business?
There IS slavery in Saudi Arabia.
So, again, as you seem to be avoiding the question, for you there are no universal rights? People who are abused by their own governments should have no defenders whatsoever?
And upon what authority do you claim the right to impose universal rights on humanity?
These are not 'fundamentalist' aberrations, death penalties 'committed by fanatics who don't represent their religion'. This is the basic law of many 'moderate' Muslim states. Fuck the lot of them say I.
I think we should have the same attitude towards those countries that great homosexuals and women as second class citizens as we did towards those who treated black people that way.
So we should invade them and have Brits with feathery caps running the place for their own good?
We still are a bit imperialist here in the UK arn't we?
Not sure that's why we did imperialism. I think he is referring to economic sanctions (edit: spoke to soon.. not sure what he's referring to then!)
Although I'm fairly sure that we had good relations with the US before the 1960s...
Yes, probably overlooked for strategic reasons. It's weird to think segregation ended only 50 odd years ago.
Be intriguing to compare convictions for FGM to convictions for living up to Cameron's dictum on Twitter.
While I think it is vile and rightly illegal in the UK, what F*** business of ours is it if other countries permit the practice. Or is the sovereignty of nations only valid when they act like good Guardian readers.
Let it not be forgotten that the British Empire was far more a moralising guardianista crusade to civilize primative people than a bunch of right wing thugs looting for their own gain.
But that argument is coming close to justification of slavery and other things so long as we don't do it.
In the modern world, there is the concept of universal human rights which does, under international law, transcend national sovereignty.
Just the modern excuse to carry being imperialist while pretending we are not imperialist.
We decide our values are superior and we will impose it on countries that disagree. Two hundred years it was about imposing "Christian Civilization" on "primative" people for their own good, now it is about imposing human rights on them for their own good.
I'm not necessarily saying our values are not superior - I'm just calling out the hypocracy of the stop the war lefty types.
Also it is just this attitude that resulted in Iraq.
So, to be clear, for you there are no universal rights. And if there were slavery in, say, Saudi Arabia, you'd think that was none of our business? That we'd have no moral responsibility to act?
If we really care about these things there are things we can do without invading and imposing our culture. For example, we can decide not to give major sporting events to countries like Qatar and Russia. And if the organisation running said event does so anyway, we can pull out of it and go our own way.
That we didn't pull out of FIFA means we have no right to complain.
I don't advocate invasion.
What I am talking about is the existence of international law pertaining to universal human rights, and the ridiculousness of the idea that, if today there was an institutionalized international trade in slavery, it would not be our collective obligation as civilized people to oppose that trade and to try to bring it to a halt.
And, to you last point, simply failing to exercise an obligation or a right do not make that right or obligation disappear.
Be intriguing to compare convictions for FGM to convictions for living up to Cameron's dictum on Twitter.
While I think it is vile and rightly illegal in the UK, what F*** business of ours is it if other countries permit the practice. Or is the sovereignty of nations only valid when they act like good Guardian readers.
Let it not be forgotten that the British Empire was far more a moralising guardianista crusade to civilize primative people than a bunch of right wing thugs looting for their own gain.
But that argument is coming close to justification of slavery and other things so long as we don't do it.
In the modern world, there is the concept of universal human rights which does, under international law, transcend national sovereignty.
Just the modern excuse to carry being imperialist while pretending we are not imperialist.
We decide our values are superior and we will impose it on countries that disagree. Two hundred years it was about imposing "Christian Civilization" on "primative" people for their own good, now it is about imposing human rights on them for their own good.
I'm not necessarily saying our values are not superior - I'm just calling out the hypocracy of the stop the war lefty types.
Also it is just this attitude that resulted in Iraq.
Mr. Bedfordshire, If and when the muslims become a majority in Britain and Islam is rampant, don't come to PB crying when some islamic judge has your tongue pulled out or your hand cut off for some minor infringment.
Be intriguing to compare convictions for FGM to convictions for living up to Cameron's dictum on Twitter.
While I think it is vile and rightly illegal in the UK, what F*** business of ours is it if other countries permit the practice. Or is the sovereignty of nations only valid when they act like good Guardian readers.
Let it not be forgotten that the British Empire was far more a moralising guardianista crusade to civilize primative people than a bunch of right wing thugs looting for their own gain.
But that argument is coming close to justification of slavery and other things so long as we don't do it.
In the modern world, there is the concept of universal human rights which does, under international law, transcend national sovereignty.
I'm not at all sure about that. Different nations have very different attitudes, and I'd be reluctant to assert there's one common standard that every nation must adhere to. I don't think that people serving prison sentences should have the vote, for example. The ECHR disagrees, but I think a sovereign Parliament is entitled to uphold the ban. I think there are dozens of issues, like abortion, the death penalty, hunting, physical chastisement of children, gay marriage, divorce etc on which different societies can come to different conclusions.
I think you are talking about something different - yes, there are cultural differences reflected in each nation's laws as they effect economic, social and cultural rights. But there are also Universal Rights, fully established in international law, to which all countries of the UN subscribe and which the UN extends to all countries including non-members.
Let me refer you to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The UN is not sovereign, has no means of enforcement, and every nation differs over what that declaration means in practice. Nutty Special Rapporteurs are endlessly denouncing the UK over our alleged breach of this declaration, and rightly get ignored.
It is no coincidence that the first thing religious bigots do when they get into power is to limit womens' freedoms. Control of clothing is one way of doing that. It's a point which an awful lot of men find hard to understand. I can remember the debates in the 1970s about trying to get it across to the police and others that how a woman was dressed was not some sort of excuse or justification for rape/assault. It was hard work getting people to realise that a woman's clothing should not be used to justify male misbehaviour. The burqa is the reverse of that: an assumption that a woman is somehow - by her dress - responsible for a man's behaviour, that a man is unable to control himself or be expected to behave in a civilised way and that women must be covered up to prevent incontinently lustful men from gazing on the possession of another.
"It is no coincidence that the first thing religious bigots do when they get into power is to limit womens' freedoms. Control of clothing is one way of doing that."
Womens dress in the west is pretty well unique in the last two thousand years in its revealingness. Nothing like a bikini or tight clothes now worn has been seen since the latter days of Greece or Rome (at least outside elite aristocratic circles).
Peter Hitchens has pointed out that, other than face covering, modern devout muslim dress is little different "modesty" wise to womens dress in Europe prior to world war one (even in regards to "Burkini" swim suits.
It could easily be argued that the west has become decadent and hedonistic and the modest dress of Muslim Women (when not taken to extremes) is a most commendable example to us all (
Being provocative, a culture that allows women to dress revealingly and provocatively and those who use this freedom in conjunction with their sexuality to manipulate men have huge power over (the majority of) men and also gives those women who are most precocious an advantage over other women.
As with all these things a balance is required.
I think it is actually the implicit reproof of the wests godlessness and hedonism that is implicit in muslim womens dress that causes such outrage against muslims. Terrorism is a red herring.
These are not 'fundamentalist' aberrations, death penalties 'committed by fanatics who don't represent their religion'. This is the basic law of many 'moderate' Muslim states. Fuck the lot of them say I.
I think we should have the same attitude towards those countries that great homosexuals and women as second class citizens as we did towards those who treated black people that way.
So we should invade them and have Brits with feathery caps running the place for their own good?
We still are a bit imperialist here in the UK arn't we?
Not sure that's why we did imperialism. I think he is referring to economic sanctions (edit: spoke to soon.. not sure what he's referring to then!)
Although I'm fairly sure that we had good relations with the US before the 1960s...
Yes, probably overlooked for strategic reasons. It's weird to think segregation ended only 50 odd years ago.
And I don't recall any sanctions on China....
Clearly I misspoke about what I thought rcs1000 meant, given he replied saying he wasn't referring to government action (as my edit made clear).
Be intriguing to compare convictions for FGM to convictions for living up to Cameron's dictum on Twitter.
While I think it is vile and rightly illegal in the UK, what F*** business of ours is it if other countries permit the practice. Or is the sovereignty of nations only valid when they act like good Guardian readers.
Let it not be forgotten that the British Empire was far more a moralising guardianista crusade to civilize primative people than a bunch of right wing thugs looting for their own gain.
But that argument is coming close to justification of slavery and other things so long as we don't do it.
In the modern world, there is the concept of universal human rights which does, under international law, transcend national sovereignty.
I'm not at all sure about that. Different nations have very different attitudes, and I'd be reluctant to assert there's one common standard that every nation must adhere to. I don't think that people serving prison sentences should have the vote, for example. The ECHR disagrees, but I think a sovereign Parliament is entitled to uphold the ban. I think there are dozens of issues, like abortion, the death penalty, hunting, physical chastisement of children, gay marriage, divorce etc on which different societies can come to different conclusions.
I think you are talking about something different - yes, there are cultural differences reflected in each nation's laws as they effect economic, social and cultural rights. But there are also Universal Rights, fully established in international law, to which all countries of the UN subscribe and which the UN extends to all countries including non-members.
Let me refer you to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The UN is not sovereign, has no means of enforcement, and every nation differs over what that declaration means in practice. Nutty Special Rapporteurs are endlessly denouncing the UK over our alleged breach of this declaration, and rightly get ignored.
This is turning into a silly argument. On certain issues, particularly acting under Chapter VII of the Charter, the UN is sovereign and under that chapter has the power to enforce. What tends to be lacking is the will.
Be intriguing to compare convictions for FGM to convictions for living up to Cameron's dictum on Twitter.
While I think it is vile and rightly illegal in the UK, what F*** business of ours is it if other countries permit the practice. Or is the sovereignty of nations only valid when they act like good Guardian readers.
Let it not be forgotten that the British Empire was far more a moralising guardianista crusade to civilize primative people than a bunch of right wing thugs looting for their own gain.
But that argument is coming close to justification of slavery and other things so long as we don't do it.
In the modern world, there is the concept of universal human rights which does, under international law, transcend national sovereignty.
Just the modern excuse to carry being imperialist while pretending we are not imperialist.
We decide our values are superior and we will impose it on countries that disagree. Two hundred years it was about imposing "Christian Civilization" on "primative" people for their own good, now it is about imposing human rights on them for their own good.
I'm not necessarily saying our values are not superior - I'm just calling out the hypocracy of the stop the war lefty types.
Also it is just this attitude that resulted in Iraq.
So, to be clear, for you there are no universal rights. And if there were slavery in, say, Saudi Arabia, you'd think that was none of our business?
There IS slavery in Saudi Arabia.
So, again, as you seem to be avoiding the question, for you there are no universal rights? People who are abused by their own governments should have no defenders whatsoever?
And upon what authority do you claim the right to impose universal rights on humanity?
I don't claim the authority. The UN has, as has each nation which has become a member of the UN.
Be intriguing to compare convictions for FGM to convictions for living up to Cameron's dictum on Twitter.
While I think it is vile and rightly illegal in the UK, what F*** business of ours is it if other countries permit the practice. Or is the sovereignty of nations only valid when they act like good Guardian readers.
Let it not be forgotten that the British Empire was far more a moralising guardianista crusade to civilize primative people than a bunch of right wing thugs looting for their own gain.
But that argument is coming close to justification of slavery and other things so long as we don't do it.
In the modern world, there is the concept of universal human rights which does, under international law, transcend national sovereignty.
Just the modern excuse to carry being imperialist while pretending we are not imperialist.
We decide our values are superior and we will impose it on countries that disagree. Two hundred years it was about imposing "Christian Civilization" on "primative" people for their own good, now it is about imposing human rights on them for their own good.
I'm not necessarily saying our values are not superior - I'm just calling out the hypocracy of the stop the war lefty types.
Also it is just this attitude that resulted in Iraq.
Mr. Bedfordshire, If and when the muslims become a majority in Britain and Islam is rampant, don't come to PB crying when some islamic judge has your tongue pulled out or your hand cut off for some minor infringment.
If Parliament sees fit to amputate hands for theft then so be it. Sovereignty is Sovereignty and if you don't like it vote them out.
Be intriguing to compare convictions for FGM to convictions for living up to Cameron's dictum on Twitter.
While I think it is vile and rightly illegal in the UK, what F*** business of ours is it if other countries permit the practice. Or is the sovereignty of nations only valid when they act like good Guardian readers.
Let it not be forgotten that the British Empire was far more a moralising guardianista crusade to civilize primative people than a bunch of right wing thugs looting for their own gain.
But that argument is coming close to justification of slavery and other things so long as we don't do it.
In the modern world, there is the concept of universal human rights which does, under international law, transcend national sovereignty.
Just the modern excuse to carry being imperialist while pretending we are not imperialist.
We decide our values are superior and we will impose it on countries that disagree. Two hundred years it was about imposing "Christian Civilization" on "primative" people for their own good, now it is about imposing human rights on them for their own good.
I'm not necessarily saying our values are not superior - I'm just calling out the hypocracy of the stop the war lefty types.
Also it is just this attitude that resulted in Iraq.
Mr. Bedfordshire, If and when the muslims become a majority in Britain and Islam is rampant, don't come to PB crying when some islamic judge has your tongue pulled out or your hand cut off for some minor infringment.
If Parliament sees fit to amputate hands for theft then so be it. Sovereignty is Sovereignty and if you don't like it vote them out.
What if Parliament decided that no elections was the way forward? How are you going to vote them out then?
I find this whole conversation on human rights somewhat amusing. In general, I am very hesitant to support them. But the absolute lack on any moral compass in the comments is leaving this atheist flabbergasted.
Be intriguing to compare convictions for FGM to convictions for living up to Cameron's dictum on Twitter.
While I think it is vile and rightly illegal in the UK, what F*** business of ours is it if other countries permit the practice. Or is the sovereignty of nations only valid when they act like good Guardian readers.
Let it not be forgotten that the British Empire was far more a moralising guardianista crusade to civilize primative people than a bunch of right wing thugs looting for their own gain.
But that argument is coming close to justification of slavery and other things so long as we don't do it.
In the modern world, there is the concept of universal human rights which does, under international law, transcend national sovereignty.
Just the modern excuse to carry being imperialist while pretending we are not imperialist.
We decide our values are superior and we will impose it on countries that disagree. Two hundred years it was about imposing "Christian Civilization" on "primative" people for their own good, now it is about imposing human rights on them for their own good.
I'm not necessarily saying our values are not superior - I'm just calling out the hypocracy of the stop the war lefty types.
Also it is just this attitude that resulted in Iraq.
So, to be clear, for you there are no universal rights. And if there were slavery in, say, Saudi Arabia, you'd think that was none of our business? That we'd have no moral responsibility to act?
If we really care about these things there are things we can do without invading and imposing our culture. For example, we can decide not to give major sporting events to countries like Qatar and Russia. And if the organisation running said event does so anyway, we can pull out of it and go our own way.
That we didn't pull out of FIFA means we have no right to complain.
There's got to be a reasonable chance the next two World Cups don't go ahead as planned.
England 2018 sounds good, we could host the WC at almost no notice if required, if Russia or Qatar fail to deliver.
Be intriguing to compare convictions for FGM to convictions for living up to Cameron's dictum on Twitter.
While I think it is vile and rightly illegal in the UK, what F*** business of ours is it if other countries permit the practice. Or is the sovereignty of nations only valid when they act like good Guardian readers.
Let it not be forgotten that the British Empire was far more a moralising guardianista crusade to civilize primative people than a bunch of right wing thugs looting for their own gain.
But that argument is coming close to justification of slavery and other things so long as we don't do it.
In the modern world, there is the concept of universal human rights which does, under international law, transcend national sovereignty.
Just the modern excuse to carry being imperialist while pretending we are not imperialist.
We decide our values are superior and we will impose it on countries that disagree. Two hundred years it was about imposing "Christian Civilization" on "primative" people for their own good, now it is about imposing human rights on them for their own good.
I'm not necessarily saying our values are not superior - I'm just calling out the hypocracy of the stop the war lefty types.
Also it is just this attitude that resulted in Iraq.
So, to be clear, for you there are no universal rights. And if there were slavery in, say, Saudi Arabia, you'd think that was none of our business?
There IS slavery in Saudi Arabia.
So, again, as you seem to be avoiding the question, for you there are no universal rights? People who are abused by their own governments should have no defenders whatsoever?
And upon what authority do you claim the right to impose universal rights on humanity?
I don't claim the authority. The UN has, as has each nation which has become a member of the UN.
So what authority do you have other than expelling them from the UN for breaching UN rules.
And what authority do you have over nations who choose not to join the UN.
(but for our security council veto I would favour a referendum on Brexiting the corrupt circus known as the UN as well as the EU)
"It is no coincidence that the first thing religious bigots do when they get into power is to limit womens' freedoms. Control of clothing is one way of doing that."
Womens dress in the west is pretty well unique in the last two thousand years in its revealingness. Nothing like a bikini or tight clothes now worn has been seen since the latter days of Greece or Rome (at least outside elite aristocratic circles).
Peter Hitchens has pointed out that, other than face covering, modern devout muslim dress is little different "modesty" wise to womens dress in Europe prior to world war one (even in regards to "Burkini" swim suits.
It could easily be argued that the west has become decadent and hedonistic and the modest dress of Muslim Women (when not taken to extremes) is a most commendable example to us all (
Being provocative, a culture that allows women to dress revealingly and provocatively and those who use this freedom in conjunction with their sexuality to manipulate men have huge power over (the majority of) men and also gives those women who are most precocious an advantage over other women.
As with all these things a balance is required.
I think it is actually the implicit reproof of the wests godlessness and hedonism that is implicit in muslim womens dress that causes such outrage against muslims. Terrorism is a red herring.
That is a very European imperialistic take on women's clothing throughout the ages. There are plenty societies in Africa, Asia, polynesia and the Americas where scanty clothing for women was the norm.
I thought that one would be provocative :-)
I recall reading that the early settlers in the US went to quite extreme levels to stop their women defecting to indian tribes.
Among the attractions was that the clothing was far more comfortable!
A rigorous debate is (nearly) always invigorating. Thanks. But I have to do some work now.
Be intriguing to compare convictions for FGM to convictions for living up to Cameron's dictum on Twitter.
While I think it is vile and rightly illegal in the UK, what F*** business of ours is it if other countries permit the practice. Or is the sovereignty of nations only valid when they act like good Guardian readers.
Let it not be forgotten that the British Empire was far more a moralising guardianista crusade to civilize primative people than a bunch of right wing thugs looting for their own gain.
But that argument is coming close to justification of slavery and other things so long as we don't do it.
In the modern world, there is the concept of universal human rights which does, under international law, transcend national sovereignty.
Just the modern excuse to carry being imperialist while pretending we are not imperialist.
We decide our values are superior and we will impose it on countries that disagree. Two hundred years it was about imposing "Christian Civilization" on "primative" people for their own good, now it is about imposing human rights on them for their own good.
I'm not necessarily saying our values are not superior - I'm just calling out the hypocracy of the stop the war lefty types.
Also it is just this attitude that resulted in Iraq.
Mr. Bedfordshire, If and when the muslims become a majority in Britain and Islam is rampant, don't come to PB crying when some islamic judge has your tongue pulled out or your hand cut off for some minor infringment.
If Parliament sees fit to amputate hands for theft then so be it. Sovereignty is Sovereignty and if you don't like it vote them out.
What if Parliament decided that no elections was the way forward? How are you going to vote them out then?
That is why HM Queen is commander in chief of the armed forces not parliament.
Be intriguing to compare convictions for FGM to convictions for living up to Cameron's dictum on Twitter.
While I think it is vile and rightly illegal in the UK, what F*** business of ours is it if other countries permit the practice. Or is the sovereignty of nations only valid when they act like good Guardian readers.
Let it not be forgotten that the British Empire was far more a moralising guardianista crusade to civilize primative people than a bunch of right wing thugs looting for their own gain.
But that argument is coming close to justification of slavery and other things so long as we don't do it.
In the modern world, there is the concept of universal human rights which does, under international law, transcend national sovereignty.
Just the modern excuse to carry being imperialist while pretending we are not imperialist.
We decide our values are superior and we will impose it on countries that disagree. Two hundred years it was about imposing "Christian Civilization" on "primative" people for their own good, now it is about imposing human rights on them for their own good.
I'm not necessarily saying our values are not superior - I'm just calling out the hypocracy of the stop the war lefty types.
Also it is just this attitude that resulted in Iraq.
Mr. Bedfordshire, If and when the muslims become a majority in Britain and Islam is rampant, don't come to PB crying when some islamic judge has your tongue pulled out or your hand cut off for some minor infringment.
If Parliament sees fit to amputate hands for theft then so be it. Sovereignty is Sovereignty and if you don't like it vote them out.
What if Parliament decided that no elections was the way forward? How are you going to vote them out then?
That is why HM Queen is commander in chief of the armed forces not parliament.
And what if HM Queen doesn't like the idea of chopping off hands but parliament is jolly keen on it?
Be intriguing to compare convictions for FGM to convictions for living up to Cameron's dictum on Twitter.
While I think it is vile and rightly illegal in the UK, what F*** business of ours is it if other countries permit the practice. Or is the sovereignty of nations only valid when they act like good Guardian readers.
Let it not be forgotten that the British Empire was far more a moralising guardianista crusade to civilize primative people than a bunch of right wing thugs looting for their own gain.
But that argument is coming close to justification of slavery and other things so long as we don't do it.
In the modern world, there is the concept of universal human rights which does, under international law, transcend national sovereignty.
Just the modern excuse to carry being imperialist while pretending we are not imperialist.
We decide our values are superior and we will impose it on countries that disagree. Two hundred years it was about imposing "Christian Civilization" on "primative" people for their own good, now it is about imposing human rights on them for their own good.
I'm not necessarily saying our values are not superior - I'm just calling out the hypocracy of the stop the war lefty types.
Also it is just this attitude that resulted in Iraq.
Mr. Bedfordshire, If and when the muslims become a majority in Britain and Islam is rampant, don't come to PB crying when some islamic judge has your tongue pulled out or your hand cut off for some minor infringment.
If Parliament sees fit to amputate hands for theft then so be it. Sovereignty is Sovereignty and if you don't like it vote them out.
What if Parliament decided that no elections was the way forward? How are you going to vote them out then?
That is why HM Queen is commander in chief of the armed forces not parliament.
But the forces might like the new punishment for theft....
and Parliament could simply vote the Monarchy out of existence.
Be intriguing to compare convictions for FGM to convictions for living up to Cameron's dictum on Twitter.
While I think it is vile and rightly illegal in the UK, what F*** business of ours is it if other countries permit the practice. Or is the sovereignty of nations only valid when they act like good Guardian readers.
Let it not be forgotten that the British Empire was far more a moralising guardianista crusade to civilize primative people than a bunch of right wing thugs looting for their own gain.
But that argument is coming close to justification of slavery and other things so long as we don't do it.
In the modern world, there is the concept of universal human rights which does, under international law, transcend national sovereignty.
Just the modern excuse to carry being imperialist while pretending we are not imperialist.
We decide our values are superior and we will impose it on countries that disagree. Two hundred years it was about imposing "Christian Civilization" on "primative" people for their own good, now it is about imposing human rights on them for their own good.
I'm not necessarily saying our values are not superior - I'm just calling out the hypocracy of the stop the war lefty types.
Also it is just this attitude that resulted in Iraq.
Mr. Bedfordshire, If and when the muslims become a majority in Britain and Islam is rampant, don't come to PB crying when some islamic judge has your tongue pulled out or your hand cut off for some minor infringment.
If Parliament sees fit to amputate hands for theft then so be it. Sovereignty is Sovereignty and if you don't like it vote them out.
OMG!!! The man really is an idiot if he thinks that Shia will allow such a thing as parliament and votes. Democracy will be truly dead!
''Covering the face, on the other hand, is a different matter because as well as frequently being a tool of oppression.''
If women are being forced to wear it, that's an issue.
If it's a women's free choice to wear it, and they are always choosing to do so in our society, then that's also an issue.
The burqa is simply not an item of clothing. It is freighted with meaning, religious and cultural meaning. So wearing it is not like someone choosing to wear a shell suit or hat.
These two quotes sum up the issues, I
It's so easy to criticise other people's cultures from the viewpoint of the "religion" of individual "freedom". That last sentence is totally specious. A hijab is basically a wimple - it covers the hair and the neck and sternum. Someone feels threatened? Really?
Islam is a sexist religion isn't it?
Most religions are sexist. Ever read the story of Adam and Eve?
Be intriguing to compare convictions for FGM to convictions for living up to Cameron's dictum on Twitter.
While I think it is vile and rightly illegal in the UK, what F*** business of ours is it if other countries permit
But that argument is coming close to justification of slavery and other things so long as we don't do it.
In the modern world, there is the concept of universal human rights which does, under international law, transcend national sovereignty.
Just the modern excuse to carry being imperialist while pretending we are not imperialist.
We not necessarily saying our values are not superior - I'm just calling out the hypocracy of the stop the war lefty types.
Also it is just this attitude that resulted in Iraq.
Mr. Bedfordshire, If and when the muslims become a majority in Britain and Islam is rampant, don't come to PB crying when some islamic judge has your tongue pulled out or your hand cut off for some minor infringment.
If Parliament sees fit to amputate hands for theft then so be it. Sovereignty is Sovereignty and if you don't like it vote them out.
What if Parliament decided that no elections was the way forward? How are you going to vote them out then?
Voting them out after your hands have been chopped off may be difficult too
Be intriguing to compare convictions for FGM to convictions for living up to Cameron's dictum on Twitter.
While I think it is vile and rightly illegal in the UK, what F*** business of ours is it if other countries permit the practice. Or is the sovereignty of nations only valid when they act like good Guardian readers.
Let it not be forgotten that the British Empire was far more a moralising guardianista crusade to civilize primative people than a bunch of right wing thugs looting for their own gain.
But that argument is coming close to justification of slavery and other things so long as we don't do it.
In the modern world, there is the concept of universal human rights which does, under international law, transcend national sovereignty.
Just the modern excuse to carry being imperialist while pretending we are not imperialist.
We decide our values are superior and we will impose it on countries that disagree. Two hundred years it was about imposing "Christian Civilization" on "primative" people for their own good, now it is about imposing human rights on them for their own good.
I'm not necessarily saying our values are not superior - I'm just calling out the hypocracy of the stop the war lefty types.
Also it is just this attitude that resulted in Iraq.
Mr. Bedfordshire, If and when the muslims become a majority in Britain and Islam is rampant, don't come to PB crying when some islamic judge has your tongue pulled out or your hand cut off for some minor infringment.
If Parliament sees fit to amputate hands for theft then so be it. Sovereignty is Sovereignty and if you don't like it vote them out.
What if Parliament decided that no elections was the way forward? How are you going to vote them out then?
That is why HM Queen is commander in chief of the armed forces not parliament.
And what if HM Queen doesn't like the idea of chopping off hands but parliament is jolly keen on it?
She can veto the bill, in extremis.
(This would be more appropriate to the 'no elections' bill suggested earlier).
"It is no coincidence that the first thing religious bigots do when they get into power is to limit womens' freedoms. Control of clothing is one way of doing that."
Womens dress in the west is pretty well unique in the last two thousand years in its revealingness. Nothing like a bikini or tight clothes now worn has been seen since the latter days of Greece or Rome (at least outside elite aristocratic circles).
Peter Hitchens has pointed out that, other than face covering, modern devout muslim dress is little different "modesty" wise to womens dress in Europe prior to world war one (even in regards to "Burkini" swim suits.
It could easily be argued that the west has become decadent and hedonistic and the modest dress of Muslim Women (when not taken to extremes) is a most commendable example to us all (
Being provocative, a culture that allows women to dress revealingly and provocatively and those who use this freedom in conjunction with their sexuality to manipulate men have huge power over (the majority of) men and also gives those women who are most precocious an advantage over other women.
As with all these things a balance is required.
I think it is actually the implicit reproof of the wests godlessness and hedonism that is implicit in muslim womens dress that causes such outrage against muslims. Terrorism is a red herring.
One would expect to find, then, that the Amish cause similar outrage amongst the wider communities where they live. Is that so?
I think the only comparison I know of is that of convents, where the nuns don't seem to cause outrage amongst their wider communities.
But that argument is coming close to justification of slavery and other things so long as we don't do it.
In the modern world, there is the concept of universal human rights which does, under international law, transcend national sovereignty.
Just the modern excuse to carry being imperialist while pretending we are not imperialist.
We decide our values are superior and we will impose it on countries that disagree. Two hundred years it was about imposing "Christian Civilization" on "primative" people for their own good, now it is about imposing human rights on them for their own good.
I'm not necessarily saying our values are not superior - I'm just calling out the hypocracy of the stop the war lefty types.
Also it is just this attitude that resulted in Iraq.
Mr. Bedfordshire, If and when the muslims become a majority in Britain and Islam is rampant, don't come to PB crying when some islamic judge has your tongue pulled out or your hand cut off for some minor infringment.
If Parliament sees fit to amputate hands for theft then so be it. Sovereignty is Sovereignty and if you don't like it vote them out.
What if Parliament decided that no elections was the way forward? How are you going to vote them out then?
That is why HM Queen is commander in chief of the armed forces not parliament.
And what if HM Queen doesn't like the idea of chopping off hands but parliament is jolly keen on it?
Theoretically she can dissolve parliament or refuse to give the act Royal Assent.
In practice this is only going to occur if she would be sure of carrying the day and having popular and armed forces support. So it would only happen for example if a parliament tried to do something very extreme like repealing the Representation of tbe People act.
I doubt she would interfere over hand chopping. Parliament has legislated for equally gruesome punishments in the past - and have you seen how many supportive comments from non muslims about hand chopping you get in the Daily Mail when they report such things...Its the only language they understand...
And what if HM Queen doesn't like the idea of chopping off hands but parliament is jolly keen on it?
Theoretically she can dissolve parliament or refuse to give the act Royal Assent.
In practice this is only going to occur if she would be sure of carrying the day and having popular and armed forces support. So it would only happen for example if a parliament tried to do something very extreme like repealing the Representation of tbe People act.
HM has lost the prerogative power of dissolving Parliament, thanks to the crappy Fixed Term Parliaments Act.
"It is no coincidence that the first thing religious bigots do when they get into power is to limit womens' freedoms. Control of clothing is one way of doing that."
Womens dress in the west is pretty well unique in the last two thousand years in its revealingness. Nothing like a bikini or tight clothes now worn has been seen since the latter days of Greece or Rome (at least outside elite aristocratic circles).
Peter Hitchens has pointed out that, other than face covering, modern devout muslim dress is little different "modesty" wise to womens dress in Europe prior to world war one (even in regards to "Burkini" swim suits.
It could easily be argued that the west has become decadent and hedonistic and the modest dress of Muslim Women (when not taken to extremes) is a most commendable example to us all (
Being provocative, a culture that allows women to dress revealingly and provocatively and those who use this freedom in conjunction with their sexuality to manipulate men have huge power over (the majority of) men and also gives those women who are most precocious an advantage over other women.
As with all these things a balance is required.
I think it is actually the implicit reproof of the wests godlessness and hedonism that is implicit in muslim womens dress that causes such outrage against muslims. Terrorism is a red herring.
One would expect to find, then, that the Amish cause similar outrage amongst the wider communities where they live. Is that so?
I think the only comparison I know of is that of convents, where the nuns don't seem to cause outrage amongst their wider communities.
"It is no coincidence that the first thing religious bigots do when they get into power is to limit womens' freedoms. Control of clothing is one way of doing that."
Womens dress in the west is pretty well unique in the last two thousand years in its revealingness. Nothing like a bikini or tight clothes now worn has been seen since the latter days of Greece or Rome (at least outside elite aristocratic circles).
Peter Hitchens has pointed out that, other than face covering, modern devout muslim dress is little different "modesty" wise to womens dress in Europe prior to world war one (even in regards to "Burkini" swim suits.
It could easily be argued that the west has become decadent and hedonistic and the modest dress of Muslim Women (when not taken to extremes) is a most commendable example to us all (
Being provocative, a culture that allows women to dress revealingly and provocatively and those who use this freedom in conjunction with their sexuality to manipulate men have huge power over (the majority of) men and also gives those women who are most precocious an advantage over other women.
As with all these things a balance is required.
I think it is actually the implicit reproof of the wests godlessness and hedonism that is implicit in muslim womens dress that causes such outrage against muslims. Terrorism is a red herring.
One would expect to find, then, that the Amish cause similar outrage amongst the wider communities where they live. Is that so?
I think the only comparison I know of is that of convents, where the nuns don't seem to cause outrage amongst their wider communities.
(and good evening, everyone)
Not many Amish -or nuns - in London.
I think you'll find that there are more nuns in London than you realise.
"It is no coincidence that the first thing religious bigots do when they get into power is to limit womens' freedoms. Control of clothing is one way of doing that."
Womens dress in the west is pretty well unique in the last two thousand years in its revealingness. Nothing like a bikini or tight clothes now worn has been seen since the latter days of Greece or Rome (at least outside elite aristocratic circles).
Peter Hitchens has pointed out that, other than face covering, modern devout muslim dress is little different "modesty" wise to womens dress in Europe prior to world war one (even in regards to "Burkini" swim suits.
It could easily be argued that the west has become decadent and hedonistic and the modest dress of Muslim Women (when not taken to extremes) is a most commendable example to us all (
Being provocative, a culture that allows women to dress revealingly and provocatively and those who use this freedom in conjunction with their sexuality to manipulate men have huge power over (the majority of) men and also gives those women who are most precocious an advantage over other women.
As with all these things a balance is required.
I think it is actually the implicit reproof of the wests godlessness and hedonism that is implicit in muslim womens dress that causes such outrage against muslims. Terrorism is a red herring.
One would expect to find, then, that the Amish cause similar outrage amongst the wider communities where they live. Is that so?
I think the only comparison I know of is that of convents, where the nuns don't seem to cause outrage amongst their wider communities.
(and good evening, everyone)
Not many Amish -or nuns - in London.
Sadly, the Nun's habit has to be discarded. It is proof that they are oppressed by the church.
Be intriguing to compare convictions for FGM to convictions for living up to Cameron's dictum on Twitter.
While I think it is vile and rightly illegal in the UK, what F*** business of ours is it if other countries permit the practice. Or is the sovereignty of nations only valid when they act like good Guardian readers.
Let it not be forgotten that the British Empire was far more a moralising guardianista crusade to civilize primative people than a bunch of right wing thugs looting for their own gain.
But that argument is coming close to justification of slavery and other things so long as we don't do it.
In the modern world, there is the concept of universal human rights which does, under international law, transcend national sovereignty.
Just the modern excuse to carry being imperialist while pretending we are not imperialist.
We decide our values are superior and we will impose it on countries that disagree. Two hundred years it was about imposing "Christian Civilization" on "primative" people for their own good, now it is about imposing human rights on them for their own good.
I'm not necessarily saying our values are not superior - I'm just calling out the hypocracy of the stop the war lefty types.
Also it is just this attitude that resulted in Iraq.
Mr. Bedfordshire, If and when the muslims become a majority in Britain and Islam is rampant, don't come to PB crying when some islamic judge has your tongue pulled out or your hand cut off for some minor infringment.
If Parliament sees fit to amputate hands for theft then so be it. Sovereignty is Sovereignty and if you don't like it vote them out.
I sincerely hope that there aren't that many people whose idea of British Values encompasses such an extreme form of cultural relativism.
"It is no coincidence that the first thing religious bigots do when they get into power is to limit womens' freedoms. Control of clothing is one way of doing that."
Womens dress in the west is pretty well unique in the last two thousand years in its revealingness. Nothing like a bikini or tight clothes now worn has been seen since the latter days of Greece or Rome (at least outside elite aristocratic circles).
Peter Hitchens has pointed out that, other than face covering, modern devout muslim dress is little different "modesty" wise to womens dress in Europe prior to world war one (even in regards to "Burkini" swim suits.
It could easily be argued that the west has become decadent and hedonistic and the modest dress of Muslim Women (when not taken to extremes) is a most commendable example to us all (
Being provocative, a culture that allows women to dress revealingly and provocatively and those who use this freedom in conjunction with their sexuality to manipulate men have huge power over (the majority of) men and also gives those women who are most precocious an advantage over other women.
As with all these things a balance is required.
I think it is actually the implicit reproof of the wests godlessness and hedonism that is implicit in muslim womens dress that causes such outrage against muslims. Terrorism is a red herring.
Yes, Western dress was, um, traditional, until relatively recently. But that was because we were under the yoke of religion and patriarchy - and good riddance. It is good to remember how we used to dress in order not to get too uppity about how some Muslims and others still dress - but anyone who is preoccupied with how much Western women supposedly underdress really needs to get a life. Enjoy the view, re-engage brain and move on.
Comments
It is an interesting dilemma.
Womens dress in the west is pretty well unique in the last two thousand years in its revealingness. Nothing like a bikini or tight clothes now worn has been seen since the latter days of Greece or Rome (at least outside elite aristocratic circles).
Peter Hitchens has pointed out that, other than face covering, modern devout muslim dress is little different "modesty" wise to womens dress in Europe prior to world war one (even in regards to "Burkini" swim suits.
It could easily be argued that the west has become decadent and hedonistic and the modest dress of Muslim Women (when not taken to extremes) is a most commendable example to us all (
Being provocative, a culture that allows women to dress revealingly and provocatively and those who use this freedom in conjunction with their sexuality to manipulate men have huge power over (the majority of) men and also gives those women who are most precocious an advantage over other women.
As with all these things a balance is required.
I think it is actually the implicit reproof of the wests godlessness and hedonism that is implicit in muslim womens dress that causes such outrage against muslims. Terrorism is a red herring.
https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/DJT_Radical_Islam_Speech.pdf
Just as we won the Cold War, in part, by exposing the evils of communism and the virtues of free markets, so too must we take on the ideology of Radical Islam.
While my opponent accepted millions of dollars in Foundation donations from countries where being gay is an offense punishable by prison or death, my Administration will speak out against the oppression of women, gays and people of different faith.
We still are a bit imperialist here in the UK arn't we?
In the modern world, there is the concept of universal human rights which does, under international law, transcend national sovereignty.
We decide our values are superior and we will impose it on countries that disagree. Two hundred years it was about imposing "Christian Civilization" on "primative" people for their own good, now it is about imposing human rights on them for their own good.
I'm not necessarily saying our values are not superior - I'm just calling out the hypocracy of the stop the war lefty types.
Also it is just this attitude that resulted in Iraq.
On a related note, there's a new Worms game out. Tony Blair should like it. It's called Worms WMD.
Eh? Are you putting in an entry for Pseuds Corner?
And of course men from these modest God-fearing societies have never been known to take advantage of Western society to go whoring and drinking and the rest of it, oh no.
I despise the burqa and the attitudes that go with it. They are saying a great big fuck you to our society and our way of life. And I say it back to them, in spades.
I bet Blair's favourite weapon is the airstrike.
That we didn't pull out of FIFA means we have no right to complain.
Let me refer you to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights#Significance_and_legal_effect
Text at:
http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/
I recall reading that the early settlers in the US went to quite extreme levels to stop their women defecting to indian tribes.
Among the attractions was that the clothing was far more comfortable!
What I am talking about is the existence of international law pertaining to universal human rights, and the ridiculousness of the idea that, if today there was an institutionalized international trade in slavery, it would not be our collective obligation as civilized people to oppose that trade and to try to bring it to a halt.
And, to you last point, simply failing to exercise an obligation or a right do not make that right or obligation disappear.
England 2018 sounds good, we could host the WC at almost no notice if required, if Russia or Qatar fail to deliver.
And what authority do you have over nations who choose not to join the UN.
(but for our security council veto I would favour a referendum on Brexiting the corrupt circus known as the UN as well as the EU)
Con 38% (n/c)
Lab 30% (-1)
UKIP 13% (n/c)
LD 9% (+1)
Oth 11%
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/jmwlsfmd1k/TimesResults_160817_VI_Trackers.pdf
and Parliament could simply vote the Monarchy out of existence.
(This would be more appropriate to the 'no elections' bill suggested earlier).
I think the only comparison I know of is that of convents, where the nuns don't seem to cause outrage amongst their wider communities.
(and good evening, everyone)
Wonder if we have any more medals yet?
"Claret is liquor for boys; port for men; but he who aspires to be a hero must drink brandy"
Samuel Johnson
Quattrospaudet ballet...Chinese must be delighted for Nick Skelton. Heh!!
*with the aid of a horse I should add.
Remainers split Labour 44% Tory 26% LD 12% SNP 10% Green 6% UKIP O%.
Leavers split Tory 48% UKIP 27% Labour 15% LD 4% SNP 4% Green 2%
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/jmwlsfmd1k/TimesResults_160817_VI_Trackers.pdf
Truly we are the nation of the rohirrim!