Imagine you are a brick lane shopkeeper. Would you be bricking it that one night a few masked guys are going to break into your house and give you forty lashes?? or worse??
Lol no, of course not. I'd imagine they'd fear far worse. But speech threatening violence against a group is illegal in this country and whilst we should remain as liberal as possible the law should definitely be used as judiciously as possible to go after ne'er do wells.
No, he isn't, Mr. Ninoinoz. The Syrian people began a civil protest movement which escalated into civil war. Claiming Cameron's responsible for the Syrian civil war is bonkers.
But he is most certainly contributing to it. And most certainly encouraged it after his "success" in Libya.
And helping the side doing the anti-Christian attrocities (see previous links).
No, he isn't, Mr. Ninoinoz. The Syrian people began a civil protest movement which escalated into civil war. Claiming Cameron's responsible for the Syrian civil war is bonkers.
I fear there will be lawsuits against churches. Unfortunately the rights agenda that seems to hold sway is less about common sense compromise and more about a pissing contest of whose rights matter more.
The rights agenda is simply about Who governs Whom.
The British liberal establishment's capitulation to the bigotry of alien religious fanatics is shocking to be behold..
It's only shocking if you forget how the establishment reacted to book burning on the streets of our cities several decades ago. People - particularly Labour MPs who should have known better (Roy Hattersley, for instance) and Germaine Greer and others - were all too quick to say that the book should not have been published and that self-censorship was necessary so as to avoid "offence", such "offence" to be defined entirely subjectively by the "victim" and were generally less than full-hearted in their defence of free speech and telling Muslims that if they didn't like the book they didn't have to read it and, for good measure, that they needed to grow up and stop being cry-babies who threatened violence.
And the Islamists learnt that if they pushed and threatened violence they got what they wanted. See, for instance, the even more pusillanimous and cowardly response to the Danish cartoons and the turning of a blind eye to sharia courts, which deprive British women of their legal rights under family law.
Good luck with that one Santa Thomas, if a seven year old cannot play with it, watch it, drink it or eat it when they open it on Christmas day they will not be impressed!
I have solved my Christmas shopping conundrum (i.e. I hate doing it) by giving everyone posh wine, including my 7 year old daughter (she can lay it down until she is 18).
As for gay "marriage" not being anti-Christian, I await the lawsuit against churches.
How is gay marriage anti-Christian but not anti-Muslim?
In practical terms, because the Gay rights crowd won't have the courage of their convictions to challenge the group more prone to violent threats and actions.
I think there is more to it than that.
The reason Cameron has really annoyed Christians is that the Conservative Party is supposed to be their champion, fighting their corner so to speak.
He has completely relinquished that role (and 10-20% of the electorate) to chase after the Centre or Centre-Left vote. Take a look at the Godless Xmas card he's sent out. Virtually identical design to Miliband's and Clegg's.
Muslims are well-organised with a strong group identity and dominate large sections of the Labour Party. The moment the Conservative Party stopped representing Christians, secularists had a free unopposed run against them.
Not to worry, Cameron will lose the next election heavily due to his cluelessness and social conservatives will regain control of the party.
Incidentally, there are encouraging signs in this country that Muslims and Christians are uniting in the cause of their religious freedoms. This can only increase as the liberals they thought were their friends are shown up to be just as racist as the NF/BNP, but rather better at hiding it. Until now.
I would have thought Shariah councils believe they are thought of as the council by many people in the area
I've asked Tower Hamlets on twitter...
Its nothing to do with what most British citizens would think of as the council, ie a democratically elected body for everyone in the borough, it is a Shariah council set up by strict muslims (and only for muslims)
But it is an example of the segregation that takes place in Tower Hamlets, the most lauded borough on this website (by people that probably have never been there).
The British liberal establishment's capitulation to the bigotry of alien religious fanatics is shocking to be behold..
It's only shocking if you forget how the establishment reacted to book burning on the streets of our cities several decades ago. People - particularly Labour MPs who should have known better (Roy Hattersley, for instance) and Germaine Greer and others - were all too quick to say that the book should not have been published and that self-censorship was necessary so as to avoid "offence", such "offence" to be defined entirely subjectively by the "victim" and were generally less than full-hearted in their defence of free speech and telling Muslims that if they didn't like the book they didn't have to read it and, for good measure, that they needed to grow up and stop being cry-babies who threatened violence.
And the Islamists learnt that if they pushed and threatened violence they got what they wanted. See, for instance, the even more pusillanimous and cowardly response to the Danish cartoons and the turning of a blind eye to sharia courts, which deprive British women of their legal rights under family law.
Agree with you entirely except for the bit about Hattersley knowing better. His deplorable behaviour over Rushdie merely revealed him to be what he always was: a blundering and pompous buffoon and intellectual lightweight.
I would have thought Shariah councils believe they are thought of as the council by many people in the area
I've asked Tower Hamlets on twitter...
Its nothing to do with what most British citizens would think of as the council, ie a democratically elected body for everyone in the borough, it is a Shariah council set up by strict muslims.
But it is an example of the segregation that takes place in Tower Hamlets, the most lauded borough on this website (by people that probably have never been there).
While I also deplore the segragation, haven't we allowed religious Jewish courts in North London that allow people with civil disputes to opt out of out existing legal system. (And, of course, binding arbitration courts in business - adminstered by people whose employment and loyalties are not to the state.)
To put it another way, are we sure we're opposing this because we don't want people using alternate systems for their civil disputes - rather than because the people are Muslim.
Remember "racist tram woman"? That sad, drunk single mother in Croydon who ranted about immigrants? She was very unpleasant but did not actually threaten violence; yet she was immediately arrested and spent several weeks remanded in custody.
Choudary, by contrast, clearly incites violence, praises terrorists, applauds racist assaults, and stokes ethnic hatred - and walks the streets untouched.
It's just f*cking ridiculous. I may do a blog comparing them.
Anyone who threatens violence should indeed be prosecuted IMO. But there is a clear mutual benefit derived by the tabloids and Choudhary - he knows that if he says something outrageous he'll get lavish coverage, they give it to him because it sells papers. I remember his thoughts on something or other once got a full front page in the Express, and here he is again holding forth, courtesy of the Mail. Do they give you or me or anyone else who is sometimes vaguely sensible (note the compliment!) the opportunity to splash our views?
There are a number of people in Britain who basically appear to be bonkers. None of them should get any media attention whatever, except on page 17 to say they've been prosecuted if they actually break the law.
Although utterly distasteful Choudhary can protest about what he likes.
However from the mail article "warned restaurants and shops in the Brick Lane area that they face 40 lashes if they continue to sell the product" that by my book is hate speech
"Hate speech is, outside the law, communication that vilifies a person or a group based on discrimination against that person or group.[1][2]"against off license owners and staff.
It should be dealth with as such, and the book thrown at Choudhary.
I'd have thought that it's more clearly a threat of violence and should be prosecuted as such.
Ignoring it - on the Nick Palmer basis that it will give him publicity - is pathetic. He threatens violence. He should be prosecuted, just as I would be, if I wandered into my local shops and threatened them with a punch in the mouth if they didn't stop selling some product I objected to.
We need to take the initiative against these people so that they realise we're serious about stamping out this sort of behaviour, that we're not going to tolerate it any more or turn a blind eye to it and that they're not going to get a free pass anymore by shrieking about their so-called religious sensitivities.
I remember a few ties a few months back but no Tory leads just yet. There were markets on a Tory lead by the year end I believe? The odds seem value to me at the time but I think only Avery is very confident now.
I would have thought Shariah councils believe they are thought of as the council by many people in the area
I've asked Tower Hamlets on twitter...
Its nothing to do with what most British citizens would think of as the council, ie a democratically elected body for everyone in the borough, it is a Shariah council set up by strict muslims (and only for muslims)
But it is an example of the segregation that takes place in Tower Hamlets, the most lauded borough on this website (by people that probably have never been there).
But they are using the name of Tower Hamlets council, and I'd think they would want to know about it.
As for gay "marriage" not being anti-Christian, I await the lawsuit against churches.
How is gay marriage anti-Christian but not anti-Muslim?
In practical terms, because the Gay rights crowd won't have the courage of their convictions to challenge the group more prone to violent threats and actions.
I think there is more to it than that.
The reason Cameron has really annoyed Christians is that the Conservative Party is supposed to be their champion, fighting their corner so to speak.
He has completely relinquished that role (and 10-20% of the electorate) to chase after the Centre or Centre-Left vote. Take a look at the Godless Xmas card he's sent out. Virtually identical design to Miliband's and Clegg's.
Muslims are well-organised with a strong group identity and dominate large sections of the Labour Party. The moment the Conservative Party stopped representing Christians, secularists had a free unopposed run against them.
Not to worry, Cameron will lose the next election heavily due to his cluelessness and social conservatives will regain control of the party.
Incidentally, there are encouraging signs in this country that Muslims and Christians are uniting in the cause of their religious freedoms. This can only increase as the liberals they thought were their friends are shown up to be just as racist as the NF/BNP, but rather better at hiding it. Until now.
I don't agree that the introduction of gay marriage necessarily infringes the rights of Christians (we'll have to wait for the inevitable litigation to see if it does). On the face of it, it doesn't do so.
Nonetheless, there's no doubt at all that many Christian Conservative voters took it as a poke in the eye from Cameron.
I'm in deep trouble if there's a lower order England fightback and an Oz collapse but realistically that's not looking to be a worry I did stay up into the night tinkering on Betfair in-play though and came out in slightly positive territory.
Another innings goes by and my double century ticket looks more and more useless.
Raceclear haven't exactly contributed to the mortgage repayment fund today either. Ahem.
Wash your mouth out Geoff. Tsk.
I'm an Englishman and I'm backing England to turn this around*
*hope more than expectation but I am getting up at 2.30am to watch the first session.
But I'm a Gibraltarian gambler so I'm just chasing the money rather than a result. I'll be awake to watch it too, though, as a fan of the great game.
I think the last time Gib won anything overseas was Miss World 2009
I would have thought Shariah councils believe they are thought of as the council by many people in the area
I've asked Tower Hamlets on twitter...
Its nothing to do with what most British citizens would think of as the council, ie a democratically elected body for everyone in the borough, it is a Shariah council set up by strict muslims.
But it is an example of the segregation that takes place in Tower Hamlets, the most lauded borough on this website (by people that probably have never been there).
While I also deplore the segragation, haven't we allowed religious Jewish courts in North London that allow people with civil disputes to opt out of out existing legal system. (And, of course, binding arbitration courts in business - adminstered by people whose employment and loyalties are not to the state.)
To put it another way, are we sure we're opposing this because we don't want people using alternate systems for their civil disputes - rather than because the people are Muslim.
I oppose shariah courts because they deprive British women - who happen to be Muslim - of their rights under British law.
Anyone can agree to settle a civil commercial dispute according to whatever law they choose, provided this is freely agreed but this does not - and should not - apply to family law disputes. Sharia law is objectionable precisely because it is not compatible with British law I.e. women and children are deprived of their rights, even if criminal offences may have been committed (domestic violence).
"allow people with civil disputes to opt out of out existing legal system"
Should never have been allowed to happen with any groups of people IMO. Once you concede the principle it's a slippery slope.
How would you propose to stop people agreeing to binding arbitration of any sort? I mean you can obviously choose not to recognise the outcome but to actually stop them from voluntarily agreeing to arbitration in the first place?
It is also the case that Jewish courts explicitly state that their judgments, which only relate to a limited range of religious matters, are only binding and enforceable once validated by the English courts. They do not exclude English law jurisdiction, which is what sharia courts seek to do.
Absolutely ridiculous decision by Gove in preventing an existing Kent grammar school from creating a satellite school in Sevenoaks (which presently has no grammar school at all). He has just provided yet another reason for Tories to move to UKIP! If the existing legislation does not allow for it then he should change it http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/education/article3948912.ece
For those arguing about the trumping of rights and legal actions, there's vindication for the "it's a slippery slope" brigade in the USA it seems.
Yesterday's Brown v. Buhman decision in Utah says that the legal reasoning for same-sex marriage also applies to polygamy (ruling here) Utah had to outlaw polygamy in 1896 to become a State but this ruling (which will be appealed, natch) overturns the criminal offence entirely.
The stated aim of the lawsuit (and so far they're winning) is the full legalisation of polygyny, polyandry *and* polyamory. Churches may get busier, it seems...
I'm in deep trouble if there's a lower order England fightback and an Oz collapse but realistically that's not looking to be a worry I did stay up into the night tinkering on Betfair in-play though and came out in slightly positive territory.
Another innings goes by and my double century ticket looks more and more useless.
Raceclear haven't exactly contributed to the mortgage repayment fund today either. Ahem.
Wash your mouth out Geoff. Tsk.
I'm an Englishman and I'm backing England to turn this around*
*hope more than expectation but I am getting up at 2.30am to watch the first session.
But I'm a Gibraltarian gambler so I'm just chasing the money rather than a result. I'll be awake to watch it too, though, as a fan of the great game.
I think the last time Gib won anything overseas was Miss World 2009
You did manage to draw your first official international football match
"allow people with civil disputes to opt out of out existing legal system"
Should never have been allowed to happen with any groups of people IMO. Once you concede the principle it's a slippery slope.
Quite right. And aren't these 'Sharia Courts' institutionally anti-female? You can see what will happen. A woman will be obliged to attend one because of 'pressure' from her 'community' and will be roundly stitched up. It's shameful that the Left is giving succour to the formation of quasi-judicial entities that draw on medieval hogwash to subjugate women.
While I also deplore the segragation, haven't we allowed religious Jewish courts in North London that allow people with civil disputes to opt out of out existing legal system. (And, of course, binding arbitration courts in business - adminstered by people whose employment and loyalties are not to the state.)
To put it another way, are we sure we're opposing this because we don't want people using alternate systems for their civil disputes - rather than because the people are Muslim.
While I also deplore the segragation, haven't we allowed religious Jewish courts in North London that allow people with civil disputes to opt out of out existing legal system. (And, of course, binding arbitration courts in business - adminstered by people whose employment and loyalties are not to the state.)
To put it another way, are we sure we're opposing this because we don't want people using alternate systems for their civil disputes - rather than because the people are Muslim.
Its not worth pussyfooting around, I will hold my hands up and say I probably do oppose it more because it is Muslim, but it is a kind of self justifying argument, because I don't see any other religion or group of people doing things like bombing trains, cutting heads off soldiers etc etc except muslims, and the kind of Muslims that want Shariah Law are the kind that sympathise with the people that carried out those acts.
I can see the logic in what you say, but it leads us to tolerating the intolerant in the name of tolerance for fear of offending anyone.
I don't remember the Jewish population causing the aggro that muslims have if I am honest so am more likely to cut them some slack, if it were mine to cut.
***DISCLAIMER*** I blatantly obviously know that not all muslims are like this, it is a small minority, Im not talking about anyones wife blah blah blah
Read Enoch Powells speech "The Road To National Suicide". Those who make excuses for this are fanning the flames in areas where it may kick off.
"allow people with civil disputes to opt out of out existing legal system"
Should never have been allowed to happen with any groups of people IMO. Once you concede the principle it's a slippery slope.
While I tend to agree, the problem is that - as you say - it's a slippery slope.
When you sign up to an on-line bookmaker (IIRC), then the T&Cs say that you cannot go through the UK legal system to resolve differences, and instead must use the Independent Betting Adjudication Service Ltd. In other words, you have chosen to opt out of the existing legal system. If you don't accept this opt-out, the bookmaker simply will not deal with you.
Now, if two Jewish traders in Golders Green agree to use their local Rabbinical Court for arbitration if a disagreement ensures, then surely it's their right?
(See where we're going with slippery...)
What about for a couple who get married in a Synagogue and agree as part of the marriage contract to refer any disagreements to the Rabbinical Court? (See: http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed111507 for an example)
It's a tough one: if two people agree to use a non-state court for arbitration, then how can we stop them? The question I think is one of primacy - it should be impossible for said courts to over-rule the law of the state in any way, and there should always be the right to appeal to the courts of the land, and the courts of the land should have the right (but not the obligation) to ignore the decisions of non-state arbitration. But I think, IIRC, that that is roughly the state we're in now. One of our resident lawyers (Sean_F, life_in_a...) can probably enlighten us.
Fascinating article by Tim Montgomerie stating we do not have 3 main parties anymore, but really 4 - Solidarity (incorporating Ed Miliband, Brown, Cable, Lucas and Salmond); the Liberals (incorporating Blair, Clegg, Osborne and David Miliband); the Nationals (Cameron and most of the Tories); and the Freedom Party (incorporating Farage and UKIP and right-wing Tories like Redwood and Tebbit) http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/article3948772.ece
I'd have thought that it's more clearly a threat of violence and should be prosecuted as such.
Ignoring it - on the Nick Palmer basis that it will give him publicity - is pathetic.
Didnt Nick's post say precisely the opposite - "Anyone who threatens violence should indeed be prosecuted IMO"
He did. I stand corrected. Apologies to Nick P.
I was responding to his earlier point that Choudry is just a publicity seeker. He may well be that but he is a menace if he threatens or icites others to threaten violence. We ignored Abu Hamza on the same basis for years and years and while we were ignoring him he was committing serious criminal offences for which, thank God, he is now in prison.
Just because a man's a fool doesn't means that he's not also dangerous.
Also, have we sorted out the technical problems with pb yet? It takes me about 20 minutes to troll through previous threads to get to the present thread at present
"allow people with civil disputes to opt out of out existing legal system"
Should never have been allowed to happen with any groups of people IMO. Once you concede the principle it's a slippery slope.
While I tend to agree, the problem is that - as you say - it's a slippery slope.
When you sign up to an on-line bookmaker (IIRC), then the T&Cs say that you cannot go through the UK legal system to resolve differences, and instead must use the Independent Betting Adjudication Service Ltd. In other words, you have chosen to opt out of the existing legal system. If you don't accept this opt-out, the bookmaker simply will not deal with you.
Now, if two Jewish traders in Golders Green agree to use their local Rabbinical Court for arbitration if a disagreement ensures, then surely it's their right?
(See where we're going with slippery...)
What about for a couple who get married in a Synagogue and agree as part of the marriage contract to refer any disagreements to the Rabbinical Court? (See: http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed111507 for an example)
It's a tough one: if two people agree to use a non-state court for arbitration, then how can we stop them? The question I think is one of primacy - it should be impossible for said courts to over-rule the law of the state in any way, and there should always be the right to appeal to the courts of the land, and the courts of the land should have the right (but not the obligation) to ignore the decisions of non-state arbitration. But I think, IIRC, that that is roughly the state we're in now. One of our resident lawyers (Sean_F, life_in_a...) can probably enlighten us.
I've answered your point already. But to be clear the Arbitration Act does not permit private parties to exclude the jurisdiction of English law in criminal and family law matters. Informal - and, therefore, not legally valid - sharia courts seek to do just that.
I'd have thought that it's more clearly a threat of violence and should be prosecuted as such.
Ignoring it - on the Nick Palmer basis that it will give him publicity - is pathetic.
Didnt Nick's post say precisely the opposite - "Anyone who threatens violence should indeed be prosecuted IMO"
He did. I stand corrected. Apologies to Nick P.
I was responding to his earlier point that Choudry is just a publicity seeker. He may well be that but he is a menace if he threatens or icites others to threaten violence. We ignored Abu Hamza on the same basis for years and years and while we were ignoring him he was committing serious criminal offences for which, thank God, he is now in prison.
Just because a man's a fool doesn't means that he's not also dangerous.
Thanks, Cyclefree and Neil. And yes, I agree that foolish people can be dangerous and should be prosecuted if they are. But that should not be an occasion to indulge them in lavishly publicising their views. (That applies, all the more, to the man on trial for beheading.) It merely encourages copycats.
The reason Cameron has really annoyed Christians is that the Conservative Party is supposed to be their champion, fighting their corner so to speak.
Cameron hasn't annoyed this Christian, so please don't think that you speak for all of us who follow Jesus, Ninoinoz. In what way does same-sex marriage being legal impinge on the lives and the rights of Christians who believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman?
It's worth saying that by no means all Christians think sex should just be woman-man but, even among those who do, why should others be constrained by that morality? I say hooray for Cameron being liberal and letting adults decide how they want to live, when there's no demonstrable impact on others!
BBC now broadcasting 'Mandela The Homecoming', including a tribute from the leader of the SA Communist Party at his Memorial. While some coverage is appropriate, and I will watch the Funeral tomorrow, I think we can safely say their coverage of the death of a foreign leader of old age is greater than that they gave to the passing of Thatcher, our greatest post-war PM. I also highly doubt they would have broadcast any tributes from, say, a representative of the BNP to Thatcher either
"allow people with civil disputes to opt out of out existing legal system"
Should never have been allowed to happen with any groups of people IMO. Once you concede the principle it's a slippery slope.
While I tend to agree, the problem is that - as you say - it's a slippery slope.
When you sign up to an on-line bookmaker (IIRC), then the T&Cs say that you cannot go through the UK legal system to resolve differences, and instead must use the Independent Betting Adjudication Service Ltd. In other words, you have chosen to opt out of the existing legal system. If you don't accept this opt-out, the bookmaker simply will not deal with you.
Now, if two Jewish traders in Golders Green agree to use their local Rabbinical Court for arbitration if a disagreement ensures, then surely it's their right?
(See where we're going with slippery...)
What about for a couple who get married in a Synagogue and agree as part of the marriage contract to refer any disagreements to the Rabbinical Court? (See: http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed111507 for an example)
It's a tough one: if two people agree to use a non-state court for arbitration, then how can we stop them? The question I think is one of primacy - it should be impossible for said courts to over-rule the law of the state in any way, and there should always be the right to appeal to the courts of the land, and the courts of the land should have the right (but not the obligation) to ignore the decisions of non-state arbitration. But I think, IIRC, that that is roughly the state we're in now. One of our resident lawyers (Sean_F, life_in_a...) can probably enlighten us.
I think you're basically correct. Arbitration can't oust the jurisdiction of the courts. Nothing prevents a Muslim or Jewish woman from seeking a divorce before an English court. And her divorce is then valid according to English law. But, her own people may still deem her to be married. The civil law can't change that perception.
SouthCoastKevin Indeed, shrewd Christians recognise the problem at the moment is not gay marriage, but people not getting married at all, the more people in a committed relationship can get married the better, and it also means the gay community becomes more mainstream with families and responsibilities like any other, especially with gay adoption and surrogate mothers and sperm donors now becoming common
"allow people with civil disputes to opt out of out existing legal system"
Should never have been allowed to happen with any groups of people IMO. Once you concede the principle it's a slippery slope.
While I tend to agree, the problem is that - as you say - it's a slippery slope.
When you sign up to an on-line bookmaker (IIRC), then the T&Cs say that you cannot go through the UK legal system to resolve differences, and instead must use the Independent Betting Adjudication Service Ltd. In other words, you have chosen to opt out of the existing legal system. If you don't accept this opt-out, the bookmaker simply will not deal with you.
Now, if two Jewish traders in Golders Green agree to use their local Rabbinical Court for arbitration if a disagreement ensures, then surely it's their right?
(See where we're going with slippery...)
What about for a couple who get married in a Synagogue and agree as part of the marriage contract to refer any disagreements to the Rabbinical Court? (See: http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed111507 for an example)
It's a tough one: if two people agree to use a non-state court for arbitration, then how can we stop them? The question I think is one of primacy - it should be impossible for said courts to over-rule the law of the state in any way, and there should always be the right to appeal to the courts of the land, and the courts of the land should have the right (but not the obligation) to ignore the decisions of non-state arbitration. But I think, IIRC, that that is roughly the state we're in now. One of our resident lawyers (Sean_F, life_in_a...) can probably enlighten us.
I think you're basically correct. Arbitration can't oust the jurisdiction of the courts. Nothing prevents a Muslim or Jewish woman from seeking a divorce before an English court. And her divorce is then valid according to English law. But, her own people may still deem her to be married. The civil law can't change that perception.
"But, her own people may still deem her to be married."
Precisely the point.
Shariah Law is only able to be suggested in places like Tower Hamlets because it has an audience. Supply & Demand transcends even the most divided & segregated of London Boroughs.
Excuse makers fuel the fire. It should be nipped in the bud. Make a new law to make the punishment more severe or else watch a country split into many fragments.. then what might happen I wonder....
I am a Christian, and quite happy with Gay Marriage being legal. It is not something that I am bothered about at all in either direction.
Idiots like Anjem Choudhary do not represent all muslims, and Ninoinoz does not represent all Christians, and no political party represents Christians in the UK. I know good, thoughtful, passionate Christians from all 4 major parties. Long may it stay that way!
The reason Cameron has really annoyed Christians is that the Conservative Party is supposed to be their champion, fighting their corner so to speak.
Cameron hasn't annoyed this Christian, so please don't think that you speak for all of us who follow Jesus, Ninoinoz. In what way does same-sex marriage being legal impinge on the lives and the rights of Christians who believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman?
It's worth saying that by no means all Christians think sex should just be woman-man but, even among those who do, why should others be constrained by that morality? I say hooray for Cameron being liberal and letting adults decide how they want to live, when there's no demonstrable impact on others!
The British liberal establishment's capitulation to the bigotry of alien religious fanatics is shocking to be behold..
It's only shocking if you forget how the establishment reacted to book burning on the streets of our cities several decades ago. People - particularly Labour MPs who should have known better (Roy Hattersley, for instance) and Germaine Greer and others - were all too quick to say that the book should not have been published and that self-censorship was necessary so as to avoid "offence", such "offence" to be defined entirely subjectively by the "victim" and were generally less than full-hearted in their defence of free speech and telling Muslims that if they didn't like the book they didn't have to read it and, for good measure, that they needed to grow up and stop being cry-babies who threatened violence.
And the Islamists learnt that if they pushed and threatened violence they got what they wanted. See, for instance, the even more pusillanimous and cowardly response to the Danish cartoons and the turning of a blind eye to sharia courts, which deprive British women of their legal rights under family law.
Just asked Mrs scrapheap if she'd like me to treat her to joining the Tory party as a Xmas present. Didn't go down particularly positively... honestly women are a mystery sometimes aren't they? spurs pj's it is then for her.
"allow people with civil disputes to opt out of out existing legal system"
Should never have been allowed to happen with any groups of people IMO. Once you concede the principle it's a slippery slope.
While I tend to agree, the problem is that - as you say - it's a slippery slope.
When you sign up to an on-line bookmaker (IIRC), then the T&Cs say that you cannot go through the UK legal system to resolve differences, and instead must use the Independent Betting Adjudication Service Ltd. In other words, you have chosen to opt out of the existing legal system. If you don't accept this opt-out, the bookmaker simply will not deal with you.
Now, if two Jewish traders in Golders Green agree to use their local Rabbinical Court for arbitration if a disagreement ensures, then surely it's their right?
(See where we're going with slippery...)
What about for a couple who get married in a Synagogue and agree as part of the marriage contract to refer any disagreements to the Rabbinical Court? (See: http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed111507 for an example)
It's a tough one: if two people agree to use a non-state court for arbitration, then how can we stop them? The question I think is one of primacy - it should be impossible for said courts to over-rule the law of the state in any way, and there should always be the right to appeal to the courts of the land, and the courts of the land should have the right (but not the obligation) to ignore the decisions of non-state arbitration. But I think, IIRC, that that is roughly the state we're in now. One of our resident lawyers (Sean_F, life_in_a...) can probably enlighten us.
I think you're basically correct. Arbitration can't oust the jurisdiction of the courts. Nothing prevents a Muslim or Jewish woman from seeking a divorce before an English court. And her divorce is then valid according to English law. But, her own people may still deem her to be married. The civil law can't change that perception.
"But, her own people may still deem her to be married."
Precisely the point.
Shariah Law is only able to be suggested in places like Tower Hamlets because it has an audience. Supply & Demand transcends even the most divided & segregated of London Boroughs.
Excuse makers fuel the fire. It should be nipped in the bud. Make a new law to make the punishment more severe or else watch a country split into many fragments.. then what might happen I wonder....
I don't know how you can - or ought - to alter that.
In medieval Europe, Christian countries with Muslim or Jewish minorities granted wide powers to their religious leaders to govern them. That's not the case in UK. But, they still have moral authority. One can't legislate to make people think differently.
Just asked Mrs scrapheap if she'd like me to treat her to joining the Tory party as a Xmas present. Didn't go down particularly positively... honestly women are a mystery sometimes aren't they? spurs pj's it is then for her.
I'll surprise her and do both and maybe pay for our wills to be updated too... putty in my hands then.
Ah, you want to make that a criminal offence? Interesting.
Yes indeed. I am surprised its not already.
Is it good for harmony in "diverse" places? Is it in the greater good to have one law for one and one for another?
Even Lord Lester, an architect of multiculturalism, sees it as an unwanted side effect of mass immigration
"the model we had was everyone would share the broad values of being British, what we did not expect was that there would be those who would unwisely suggest that, for example, Shariah Law should be applied in this country"
Andrew Hawkins @Andrew_ComRes 3m ComRes/S Mirror/IoS: David Cameron tops poll for the politician people wd most want to deport to Australia http://ht.ly/rLLs1
Now obviously he's a useless fake shallow bloated fop-porpoise, but that seems a bit harsh, no one deserves that.
I think George Osborne would be a very attentive and generous dinner host. Maybe the Lefties on PB should try the process of growing up a little. Not all meals come wrapped in yesterdays newspaper.
"allow people with civil disputes to opt out of out existing legal system"
Should never have been allowed to happen with any groups of people IMO. Once you concede the principle it's a slippery slope.
While I tend to agree, the problem is that - as you say - it's a slippery slope.
When you sign up to an on-line bookmaker (IIRC), then the T&Cs say that you cannot go through the UK legal system to resolve differences, and instead must use the Independent Betting Adjudication Service Ltd. In other words, you have chosen to opt out of the existing legal system. If you don't accept this opt-out, the bookmaker simply will not deal with you.
Now, if two Jewish traders in Golders Green agree to use their local Rabbinical Court for arbitration if a disagreement ensures, then surely it's their right?
(See where we're going with slippery...)
What about for a couple who get married in a Synagogue and agree as part of the marriage contract to refer any disagreements to the Rabbinical Court? (See: http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed111507 for an example)
It's a tough one: if two people agree to use a non-state court for arbitration, then how can we stop them? The question I think is one of primacy - it should be impossible for said courts to over-rule the law of the state in any way, and there should always be the right to appeal to the courts of the land, and the courts of the land should have the right (but not the obligation) to ignore the decisions of non-state arbitration. But I think, IIRC, that that is roughly the state we're in now. One of our resident lawyers (Sean_F, life_in_a...) can probably enlighten us.
I think you're basically correct. Arbitration can't oust the jurisdiction of the courts. Nothing prevents a Muslim or Jewish woman from seeking a divorce before an English court. And her divorce is then valid according to English law. But, her own people may still deem her to be married. The civil law can't change that perception.
"But, her own people may still deem her to be married."
Precisely the point.
Shariah Law is only able to be suggested in places like Tower Hamlets because it has an audience. Supply & Demand transcends even the most divided & segregated of London Boroughs.
Excuse makers fuel the fire. It should be nipped in the bud. Make a new law to make the punishment more severe or else watch a country split into many fragments.. then what might happen I wonder....
I don't know how you can - or ought - to alter that.
In medieval Europe, Christian countries with Muslim or Jewish minorities granted wide powers to their religious leaders to govern them. That's not the case in UK. But, they still have moral authority. One can't legislate to make people think differently.
"One can't legislate to make people think differently"
I guess the problem would be one of 'scope'. Having a 'sharia' court that arbitrated over business disputes between Muslims on Brick Lane would be difficult to ban, as it would essentially be disallowing commercial entities from using arbitration.
Wouldn't the simplest way be say that non-official courts have arbitration power only, and only concerning commercial disputes, and that they specifically have no jurisdiction over matters of family law?
Even here, the issue - as Sean Fear rightly pointed out- is that you cannot stop Scientologists from going through a Scientology wedding ceremony and being recognised as married, even if only by the Scientology community. You can't legislate people's beliefs.
Andrew Hawkins @Andrew_ComRes 3m ComRes/S Mirror/IoS: David Cameron tops poll for the politician people wd most want to deport to Australia http://ht.ly/rLLs1
Now obviously he's a useless fake shallow bloated fop-porpoise, but that seems a bit harsh, no one deserves that.
More than 50% usually detest whoever is running the country.
I guess the problem would be one of 'scope'. Having a 'sharia' court that arbitrated over business disputes between Muslims on Brick Lane would be difficult to ban, as it would essentially be disallowing commercial entities from using arbitration.
Wouldn't the simplest way be say that non-official courts have arbitration power only, and only concerning commercial disputes, and that they specifically have no jurisdiction over matters of family law?
Even here, the issue - as Sean Fear rightly pointed out- is that you cannot stop Scientologists from going through a Scientology wedding ceremony and being recognised as married, even if only by the Scientology community. You can't legislate people's beliefs.
Indeed. I regard a scientologist wedding as being ridiculous. Bu if two scientologists regards themselves a ps being married to each other, I can't undo their belief.
Quite like Spurs tomorrow at 6/4,should be evens Also toying with a long odds home team treble, Villa and Norwich also look overpriced
For once I agree with you tim - Times Fink Tank gives Spurs 53% chance of win and that takes no account of injuries. No Gerrard and Liverpool are going to get over-run in midfield - I would give Spurs a 55% to 60% chance of winning.
But I would be careful of your treble because I doubt Man Utd will lose.
Just asked Mrs scrapheap if she'd like me to treat her to joining the Tory party as a Xmas present. Didn't go down particularly positively... honestly women are a mystery sometimes aren't they? spurs pj's it is then for her.
A few years ago for Valentine's Day, I promised my then girlfriend a present no other woman had ever received on Valentine's Day.
I gave her a bottle of toilet duck.
Remarkably she remained my girlfriend for another two years.
Anyone who has been to Brick Lane will know just how unlikely it is that it will go dry.
Have you ever visited the restaurant that has a mural of Princess Diana's head bursting out of the River Ganges?
I don't think I have ever had anything better than an average curry in Brick Lane.
Hate the hassle of the people trying to get you in their particular restaurant too.
If I am ever in the area will give it a go.
One of the guys who works for me and lives in Southend goes all the way to Warwick for the weekend several times a year justl to visit an excellent Indian Restaurant he found there
I think George Osborne would be a very attentive and generous dinner host. Maybe the Lefties on PB should try the process of growing up a little. Not all meals come wrapped in yesterdays newspaper.
Indeed, I'd have dinner with him gladly. Would be fun, especially if he started miscounting his drinks like ONS says he does the deficit.
I guess the problem would be one of 'scope'. Having a 'sharia' court that arbitrated over business disputes between Muslims on Brick Lane would be difficult to ban, as it would essentially be disallowing commercial entities from using arbitration.
Wouldn't the simplest way be say that non-official courts have arbitration power only, and only concerning commercial disputes, and that they specifically have no jurisdiction over matters of family law?
Even here, the issue - as Sean Fear rightly pointed out- is that you cannot stop Scientologists from going through a Scientology wedding ceremony and being recognised as married, even if only by the Scientology community. You can't legislate people's beliefs.
I'm not denying it is a complex problem, and of course I think it is the fault of politicians from long ago who allowed it to happen despite warnings.
The problem with a lot of the arguments I hear on the site is that they shy away from saying what the problem really is.. a few wacky idiots here and there are manageable, but Shariah Law is being taken seriously by the fastest growing religion in the country, one whose extremists don't recognise the difference between our military soldiers and themselves as self styled soldiers etc... to unwillingly coin a phrase, they don't play by the same rules as those which the UK is governed by. I fear reasonable people will be undone by their own reasonableness.
So a hard hitting, controversial law, or watch the place go up in smoke
More Enoch Im afraid, but this is the last part of a BBC documentary about his speech, and the talking heads are the Liberal intelligencia.. .Lord Lester, Frank Field... they are admitting they got it wrong, even Roy Jenkins is quoted as saying he got it wrong
I really recommend anyone interested in this subject watches this
Andrew Hawkins @Andrew_ComRes 3m ComRes/S Mirror/IoS: David Cameron tops poll for the politician people wd most want to deport to Australia http://ht.ly/rLLs1
Now obviously he's a useless fake shallow bloated fop-porpoise, but that seems a bit harsh, no one deserves that.
Cameron tops poll on who to deport 20%
but Cameron tops poll on who to run the country 25%
Fascinating article by Tim Montgomerie stating we do not have 3 main parties anymore, but really 4 - Solidarity (incorporating Ed Miliband, Brown, Cable, Lucas and Salmond); the Liberals (incorporating Blair, Clegg, Osborne and David Miliband); the Nationals (Cameron and most of the Tories); and the Freedom Party (incorporating Farage and UKIP and right-wing Tories like Redwood and Tebbit) http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/article3948772.ece
1) Nomenklatura party 2) Bankster party 3) Bit of Both party 4) Neither
Ah, you want to make that a criminal offence? Interesting.
Yes indeed. I am surprised its not already.
Is it good for harmony in "diverse" places? Is it in the greater good to have one law for one and one for another?
Even Lord Lester, an architect of multiculturalism, sees it as an unwanted side effect of mass immigration
"the model we had was everyone would share the broad values of being British, what we did not expect was that there would be those who would unwisely suggest that, for example, Shariah Law should be applied in this country"
Shame people like him didn't think about that before.
Andrew Hawkins @Andrew_ComRes 3m ComRes/S Mirror/IoS: David Cameron tops poll for the politician people wd most want to deport to Australia http://ht.ly/rLLs1
Now obviously he's a useless fake shallow bloated fop-porpoise, but that seems a bit harsh, no one deserves that.
You seem a tad intemperate. Sticks and stones x2
Quite like Spurs tomorrow at 6/4,should be evens Also toying with a long odds home team treble, Villa and Norwich also look overpriced
Makes a change to agree with you and to hope you are right in a prediction.... massive if we do win against a top 10 team... I quite fancy us but it's spurs, you can always rely on then to let you down....
Anyone who has been to Brick Lane will know just how unlikely it is that it will go dry.
Have you ever visited the restaurant that has a mural of Princess Diana's head bursting out of the River Ganges?
I don't think I have ever had anything better than an average curry in Brick Lane.
Hate the hassle of the people trying to get you in their particular restaurant too.
If I am ever in the area will give it a go.
One of the guys who works for me and lives in Southend goes all the way to Warwick for the weekend several times a year justl to visit an excellent Indian Restaurant he found there
Who would you prefer to deport to better weather non-broken economy amazing landscape natural resources on tap Australia? As a punishment? I'd deport me.
Ah, you want to make that a criminal offence? Interesting.
Yes indeed. I am surprised its not already.
Is it good for harmony in "diverse" places? Is it in the greater good to have one law for one and one for another?
Even Lord Lester, an architect of multiculturalism, sees it as an unwanted side effect of mass immigration
"the model we had was everyone would share the broad values of being British, what we did not expect was that there would be those who would unwisely suggest that, for example, Shariah Law should be applied in this country"
Shame people like him didn't think about that before.
Who would you prefer to deport to better weather non-broken economy amazing landscape natural resources on tap Australia? As a punishment? I'd deport me.
Desert. Meteorological and cultural. You are welcome to it
I know a few people sitting on 1000/1 Everton betting slips, 500/1 for a second place. Wish I was one of them. Martinez is not only one of the most decent men in football he's also a massive talent. ManU perhaps should've realised what they missed.
Had a great last day in the trfr window too, might have lost delefou for a while though today.
Comments
And helping the side doing the anti-Christian attrocities (see previous links).
And the Islamists learnt that if they pushed and threatened violence they got what they wanted. See, for instance, the even more pusillanimous and cowardly response to the Danish cartoons and the turning of a blind eye to sharia courts, which deprive British women of their legal rights under family law.
The reason Cameron has really annoyed Christians is that the Conservative Party is supposed to be their champion, fighting their corner so to speak.
He has completely relinquished that role (and 10-20% of the electorate) to chase after the Centre or Centre-Left vote. Take a look at the Godless Xmas card he's sent out. Virtually identical design to Miliband's and Clegg's.
Muslims are well-organised with a strong group identity and dominate large sections of the Labour Party. The moment the Conservative Party stopped representing Christians, secularists had a free unopposed run against them.
Not to worry, Cameron will lose the next election heavily due to his cluelessness and social conservatives will regain control of the party.
Incidentally, there are encouraging signs in this country that Muslims and Christians are uniting in the cause of their religious freedoms. This can only increase as the liberals they thought were their friends are shown up to be just as racist as the NF/BNP, but rather better at hiding it. Until now.
But it is an example of the segregation that takes place in Tower Hamlets, the most lauded borough on this website (by people that probably have never been there).
http://ukipnw.org.uk/anti-ukip-satire-show-under-fire/
Show should be allowed but not really funded with taxpayers' wonga.
To put it another way, are we sure we're opposing this because we don't want people using alternate systems for their civil disputes - rather than because the people are Muslim.
Ignoring it - on the Nick Palmer basis that it will give him publicity - is pathetic. He threatens violence. He should be prosecuted, just as I would be, if I wandered into my local shops and threatened them with a punch in the mouth if they didn't stop selling some product I objected to.
We need to take the initiative against these people so that they realise we're serious about stamping out this sort of behaviour, that we're not going to tolerate it any more or turn a blind eye to it and that they're not going to get a free pass anymore by shrieking about their so-called religious sensitivities.
Nonetheless, there's no doubt at all that many Christian Conservative voters took it as a poke in the eye from Cameron.
Should never have been allowed to happen with any groups of people IMO. Once you concede the principle it's a slippery slope.
Anyone can agree to settle a civil commercial dispute according to whatever law they choose, provided this is freely agreed but this does not - and should not - apply to family law disputes. Sharia law is objectionable precisely because it is not compatible with British law I.e. women and children are deprived of their rights, even if criminal offences may have been committed (domestic violence).
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/education/article3948912.ece
Yesterday's Brown v. Buhman decision in Utah says that the legal reasoning for same-sex marriage also applies to polygamy (ruling here) Utah had to outlaw polygamy in 1896 to become a State but this ruling (which will be appealed, natch) overturns the criminal offence entirely.
The stated aim of the lawsuit (and so far they're winning) is the full legalisation of polygyny, polyandry *and* polyamory. Churches may get busier, it seems...
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/cartoons/cartoons_of_the_week/index.html
When you sign up to an on-line bookmaker (IIRC), then the T&Cs say that you cannot go through the UK legal system to resolve differences, and instead must use the Independent Betting Adjudication Service Ltd. In other words, you have chosen to opt out of the existing legal system. If you don't accept this opt-out, the bookmaker simply will not deal with you.
Now, if two Jewish traders in Golders Green agree to use their local Rabbinical Court for arbitration if a disagreement ensures, then surely it's their right?
(See where we're going with slippery...)
What about for a couple who get married in a Synagogue and agree as part of the marriage contract to refer any disagreements to the Rabbinical Court? (See: http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed111507 for an example)
It's a tough one: if two people agree to use a non-state court for arbitration, then how can we stop them? The question I think is one of primacy - it should be impossible for said courts to over-rule the law of the state in any way, and there should always be the right to appeal to the courts of the land, and the courts of the land should have the right (but not the obligation) to ignore the decisions of non-state arbitration. But I think, IIRC, that that is roughly the state we're in now. One of our resident lawyers (Sean_F, life_in_a...) can probably enlighten us.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/article3948772.ece
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/12/13/huckabee-says-he-may-make-another-run-for-gop-presidential-nod/
I was responding to his earlier point that Choudry is just a publicity seeker. He may well be that but he is a menace if he threatens or icites others to threaten violence. We ignored Abu Hamza on the same basis for years and years and while we were ignoring him he was committing serious criminal offences for which, thank God, he is now in prison.
Just because a man's a fool doesn't means that he's not also dangerous.
I guess his Danish PM wife will prefer taking snapshots with Obama rather than moving to Aberavon (if/when she loses the next election there).
It's worth saying that by no means all Christians think sex should just be woman-man but, even among those who do, why should others be constrained by that morality? I say hooray for Cameron being liberal and letting adults decide how they want to live, when there's no demonstrable impact on others!
BBC now broadcasting 'Mandela The Homecoming', including a tribute from the leader of the SA Communist Party at his Memorial. While some coverage is appropriate, and I will watch the Funeral tomorrow, I think we can safely say their coverage of the death of a foreign leader of old age is greater than that they gave to the passing of Thatcher, our greatest post-war PM. I also highly doubt they would have broadcast any tributes from, say, a representative of the BNP to Thatcher either
Precisely the point.
Shariah Law is only able to be suggested in places like Tower Hamlets because it has an audience. Supply & Demand transcends even the most divided & segregated of London Boroughs.
Excuse makers fuel the fire. It should be nipped in the bud. Make a new law to make the punishment more severe or else watch a country split into many fragments.. then what might happen I wonder....
Hate the hassle of the people trying to get you in their particular restaurant too.
Idiots like Anjem Choudhary do not represent all muslims, and Ninoinoz does not represent all Christians, and no political party represents Christians in the UK. I know good, thoughtful, passionate Christians from all 4 major parties. Long may it stay that way!
Coalition 38%
Labour 37%
Tory/UKIP 47%
Progressives 44%
http://www.greatfoodmag.co.uk/a-spicy-stroll-along-leicesters-golden-mile/
And it is Hindu, so no Choudhary dodging required!
In medieval Europe, Christian countries with Muslim or Jewish minorities granted wide powers to their religious leaders to govern them. That's not the case in UK. But, they still have moral authority. One can't legislate to make people think differently.
Is it good for harmony in "diverse" places? Is it in the greater good to have one law for one and one for another?
Even Lord Lester, an architect of multiculturalism, sees it as an unwanted side effect of mass immigration
"the model we had was everyone would share the broad values of being British, what we did not expect was that there would be those who would unwisely suggest that, for example, Shariah Law should be applied in this country"
Really?
Plenty of people are having a good go at it
Wouldn't the simplest way be say that non-official courts have arbitration power only, and only concerning commercial disputes, and that they specifically have no jurisdiction over matters of family law?
Even here, the issue - as Sean Fear rightly pointed out- is that you cannot stop Scientologists from going through a Scientology wedding ceremony and being recognised as married, even if only by the Scientology community. You can't legislate people's beliefs.
But I would be careful of your treble because I doubt Man Utd will lose.
I gave her a bottle of toilet duck.
Remarkably she remained my girlfriend for another two years.
One of the guys who works for me and lives in Southend goes all the way to Warwick for the weekend several times a year justl to visit an excellent Indian Restaurant he found there
The problem with a lot of the arguments I hear on the site is that they shy away from saying what the problem really is.. a few wacky idiots here and there are manageable, but Shariah Law is being taken seriously by the fastest growing religion in the country, one whose extremists don't recognise the difference between our military soldiers and themselves as self styled soldiers etc... to unwillingly coin a phrase, they don't play by the same rules as those which the UK is governed by. I fear reasonable people will be undone by their own reasonableness.
So a hard hitting, controversial law, or watch the place go up in smoke
More Enoch Im afraid, but this is the last part of a BBC documentary about his speech, and the talking heads are the Liberal intelligencia.. .Lord Lester, Frank Field... they are admitting they got it wrong, even Roy Jenkins is quoted as saying he got it wrong
I really recommend anyone interested in this subject watches this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCgHh29Vhhg
David Cameron 20%
Ed Miliband 18%
Nigel Farage 16%
Clegg 11%
Osborne 10%
DK 26%
DC 11%
Ed 10%
Farage 9%
Clegg 8%
Ossy 1%
DK 60%
but Cameron tops poll on who to run the country 25%
tim likes selective quotes.....
2) Bankster party
3) Bit of Both party
4) Neither
I'd deport me.
Bulldog spirit.