PDA

View Full Version : Sharia law to be enshrined in Britain.


Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5

cavortingcheetah
23rd Mar 2014, 23:44
Discrimination against women aside, for there are many who do not disagree with such an attitude, this guidance on the part of the Law Society will effectively enshrine Sharia Law into the British Law of Probate and Inheritance. The ramifications will be significant and the extensions and consequences far reaching. Will wills now be religion specific as well as gender orientated and what would be the ramifications for an existing testament following a small dalliance with a faith other than the one professed at the time of execution?
Ho! There will be bloodshed over this one. Something for the animal rights people to chew over perhaps?

Law Society publishes practice note on Sharia wills and inheritance rules - The Law Society (http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/news/press-releases/law-society-publishes-practice-note-on-sharia-wills-and-inheritance-rules/)

Alternatively, read all about it here:

Islamic law to be enshrined in British law as solicitors get guidelines on 'Sharia compliant' wills - Home News - UK - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/islamic-law-to-be-enshrined-in-british-law-as-solicitors-get-guidelines-on-sharia-compliant-wills-9210682.html)

Mind you though, Britain is not alone in being a western country that might well profit from some of the more cut and thrust aspects of this particular legal system.
It's a little known facet of Sharia Law in relation to some crimes that: For the first offence, the right hand, for the second the left foot and for the third, prison until you die.

defizr
23rd Mar 2014, 23:57
It's a little known facet of Sharia Law in relation to some crimes that: For the first offence, the right hand, for the second the left foot and for the third, prison until you die.

If you're gay they just push a wall on top of you and crush you to death.

awblain
24th Mar 2014, 00:04
Making bizarre and divisive wills is a longstanding tradition.

Handling the contesting of the same is good business for members of the Law Society. Heap on some anti-discrimination legislation to skirt, and add some dodgy witnesses to find, and it's going to be a nice little earner.

PTT
24th Mar 2014, 00:06
Did you read the practice note at all? It's not "enshrining" anything, and the Independent article starts with
"Islamic law is to be effectively enshrined in the British legal system..."
That's not the same as actually being enshrined in the British legal system.

Basically nothing has changed at all. All British laws must be adhered to above all else. The practice note is purely advice for solicitors dealing with clients where Sharia (Muslim) succession rules may be relevant, and is offered as best practice to ensure that solicitors do not fall foul of conflict of law rules.

The OP and the article in the Independent are blowing this out of proportion, and the headlines to both are misleading, probably intentionally.

cavortingcheetah
24th Mar 2014, 00:10
The legal distinction between effective and actual is mere word play or in this case perhaps, sword play.

Go2matt
24th Mar 2014, 00:20
British tabloid sensationalism

We can already dictate who leave and who we don't leave to.

Jeez I can leave everything to the local cats home if I want.

galaxy flyer
24th Mar 2014, 01:20
awblain,

Take guns off the table and you can make sense.

This "legal" silliness is look into Europe's future when the Muslims are twice as large a segment of the populace and "old Europe" doesn't have the moral courage or physical will to stop it.

GF

oldpax
24th Mar 2014, 02:09
I thought they were supposed to integrate into OUR way of life?Why should they need sharia ,is it because its slanted towards males?

onetrack
24th Mar 2014, 02:55
It's commonly known as infiltration and takeover by stealth and gradual increments, the oldest trick in the book.

chevvron
24th Mar 2014, 04:52
As the BNP say in their manifesto, 'creeping Islamisation'.

Lantern10
24th Mar 2014, 05:20
Divide and conquer.

The start of a very slippery slope.:ouch:

Krystal n chips
24th Mar 2014, 06:52
Phew !.......the Law changes with such rapidity these days !.....well to judge from the histrionics on here, you could easily get this impression

As "ignorance is no excuse", how does Sharia law stand on say, the Mince pie Act, or riding a push bike with no reflector plate, let alone crossing a pelican crossing when the red warning symbol is displayed ?.

The devil is invariably in the detail in the legal world, so it's vitally important that the UK population as a whole be made aware as to the impact Sharia law will have on them.

Hence the queries above.

onetrack
24th Mar 2014, 07:51
Krystal - The Imams will advise you that they are the Law, and that those laws you speak of, have no authority under Allah, as only Allah's Laws need to be obeyed - and those Imams will give you your guidance on the interpretation of any of your inquiries, regarding any laws. :suspect:

Keep one thing uppermost in mind - Islam is Law, Religion, Instruction, Regulation, Control, and Domination, all rolled up into one - and you hand over all power and personal freedoms to undemocratic, unelected Imams, when you agree to accommodate any part of Sharia Law.

We in the West, fought all our wars over separation of State and Religion, Independence of the Judiciary, and Independence of the Executive, around 400 to 600 years ago.
We don't have perfect systems of Govt, but they're workable, and they provide for vast amounts of personal freedoms.

Any attempt to accommodate Sharia Law means rolling back the clock to the Dark Ages.

Captain Sand Dune
24th Mar 2014, 07:56
If this is the way you guys are heading.......well, you're screwed.
I say that with a sense of sadness as I have fond memories of my visits to the UK.

500N
24th Mar 2014, 08:00
CSD

Spot on :ok:


As per Lantern

"The start of a very slippery slope.:ouch:"



This has been tried in Aus a few times and squashed and I can't see it getting up any time soon.

PTT
24th Mar 2014, 09:17
The legal distinction between effective and actual is mere word play or in this case perhaps, sword play.The legal people didn't use "effectively" though, the journalistic people did. That's a HUGE distinction.

There is no change to UK law here, merely advice for solicitors on people who might wish to disburse their estate in accordance with Sharia law (over which UK law has primacy).

Capetonian
24th Mar 2014, 09:23
It is ironic that some people come to the UK for protection from the 'harsh' regimes in their own countries, and that may include Sharia law, and yet they want their new country to selectively apply those parts of Sharia that suit them. Not that they are hypocrites of course .........

awblain
24th Mar 2014, 10:53
The Imams will advise you that they are the Law, and that those laws you speak of, have no authority under Allah, as only Allah's Laws need to be obeyed

They'll tell you that their main man ascended to heaven on a winged horse too.
That's every bit as true.

Should individuals willingly choose a set of these goons to be arbitrators in their civil legal cases, then more fool them. But, they do have that option.

Issues of family law in the UK have been settled by jewish religious courts for well over a century.

This is neither new nor interesting. The only concern is for the coercion of parties whose interests are not served by going to these various types of superstitious courts (i.e. women and children) to do so. If they freely choose to go that way, then that's their problem.

Tankertrashnav
24th Mar 2014, 11:43
Nothing to see here, move along please, come on ladies and gentlemen, haven't you got homes to go to :*

Sallyann1234
24th Mar 2014, 11:47
I'm as concerned about sharia law as anyone, but that headline is misleading.

This isn't about introducing any sort of law at all - only parliament can do that. It's about lawyers writing wills to meet the requirements of the individual while still being valid within UK laws. That's something they should be doing for anyone of any religion or none.

cavortingcheetah
24th Mar 2014, 12:44
The Law Society issues guidelines to solicitors to aid them in the creation of wills so as to facilitate the incorporation of elements of gender discrimination. It's difficult to see that there will not be test cases and challenges based upon the legal precedences set by the issuance and implementation of such discriminatory guidelines by the Law Society itself. As is often the way with test cases, it seems quite plausible to speculate that an element of gender discriminatory law, in this case Sharia Law, will eventually, effectively and actually become a reality.

defizr
24th Mar 2014, 12:57
Beth Din anyone?

PTT
24th Mar 2014, 13:01
cheetah, wtf are you talking about? A person can give out his or her estate as they so desire regardless of gender. That is still the case.

Private jet
24th Mar 2014, 13:08
Lawyers are basically legal system mercenaries imo, and this will generate fees for their profession in the long run. (Got to make up for those legal aid cutbacks you know....)

onetrack
24th Mar 2014, 13:49
Sallyann1234 - But you've nailed the vital area of conflict. When a valid UK law conflicts with the Law of Allah, guess whose Law rules under Sharia Law??
So here we have the crux of the problem.
The Imam can advise the Islamic follower, that they have no need to follow the UK law, as it's the law of Man, and not the Law of Allah.
There's no prize for guessing what comes after that?

awblain
24th Mar 2014, 13:57
What happens after that?

They can't get probate approval, and so they can't dispose of the estate.

What works in the court of Allah isn't going to help in getting the assets of the deceased out of Barclays.

Perhaps a charitable contribution to the mosque might be a useful way to reduce Inheritance Taxes though? Perhaps I smell a conflict of interest on behalf of some advisers?

Tankertrashnav
24th Mar 2014, 14:01
There's no prize for guessing what comes after that

Yes, if it is a criminal matter, the matter is dealt with in the courts and if convicted, the offender is punished accordingly. If you have an actual example of a Muslim being spared prosecution for a criminal offence because he/she claimed they were following Sharia law, then I would like to see it. Actual case please - not just "a man in a pub told me..."

Do I get a prize?

Of course in this particular molehill which has been made into a mountain, Sharia law merely dictates how legacies can be distributed, so nothing to do with criminal law in any case.

Sallyann1234
24th Mar 2014, 15:11
Sorry onetrack but you are talking about something very different.
Start a new thread about sharia law if you want, but the present issue has nothing to do with it other than the highly emotive and entirely incorrect headlines.

ORAC
24th Mar 2014, 15:31
Sharia law for wills - and then what? (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/10717676/Sharia-law-for-wills-and-then-what.html) By Sadikur Rahman

The Law Society’s decision to issue a practice note to solicitors who may be interested in drafting “Sharia-compliant” wills for their Muslim clients is shocking. Even before we consider the technical issues surrounding the drafting of wills and gender discrimination inherent in Sharia inheritance provisions, the Law Society seems to be endorsing different sets of a laws for different groups of people. The idea of equality before the law is being dangerously undermined.

In Britain, unless you draw up a will, your estate on death will be distributed according to the rules of intestacy. I accept that people can do whatever they want with their assets, and it has always been the case that a lawyer must follow the client’s instructions. But this guidance legitimises discrimination towards women, “illegitimate” and adopted children, and non-Muslim partners or offspring who may be the result of inter-marriage.

The key paragraph states: “The male heirs in most cases receive double the amount inherited by a female heir of the same class. Non-Muslims may not inherit at all, and only Muslim marriages are recognised. Similarly, a divorced spouse is no longer a Sharia heir, as the entitlement depends on a valid Muslim marriage existing at the date of death.” It adds: “This means you should amend or delete some standard will clauses. For example, you should consider excluding the provisions of s33 of the Wills Act 1837, because these operate to pass a gift to the children of a deceased 'descendant’. Under Sharia rules, the children of a deceased heir have no entitlement, although they can benefit from the freely disposable third [the third of an estate that can be given to non-heirs or charities]. Similarly, you should amend clauses which define the term 'children’ or 'issue’ to exclude those who are illegitimate or adopted.”

It is hard to overstate how irrational this is. The guidance advises solicitors how to discriminate and avoid equality legislation and, moreover, discriminates on its completion. Of course, a person has always been able to distribute their assets in any way they choose, and a Muslim may legally have done so according to Sharia principles without letting the lawyer know the basis of the instructions. But the difference now is that a solicitor could offer this service and develop a product specifically designed for a Muslim client who wants to distribute their assets according to their religious requirement.

There seems to be no recognition of the fact that solicitors are being asked to use and accommodate instructions that, in any other circumstances, would be socially unacceptable. Suppose a client instructed that their assets should not go to a relative because they happened to be of a different race or religion. Would that be acceptable?

Moreover, is there now to be pressure applied for assets to be distributed according to Sharia law on the death of a Muslim person who died intestate? Will the authorities, perversely, then be expected to use these principles, at the risk of acting discriminatorily themselves? Anyone who thinks this is far-fetched need only to look to a recent supreme court decision in Greece, where this is exactly what happened.

Even accepting that testators have the right to act in a discriminatory fashion with their assets if they choose to, this guidance encourages solicitors to adopt a separate approach to clients who are deemed “different” – in this case, clients who are Muslim. This is what is known as the “racism of lower expectations”.

Furthermore, the Law Society has set the scene for further disharmony. The guidance also states that “there are specific differences between Sunni and Shia rules on succession. These differences are not covered in this practice note.”
In time, will the Law Society publish different guidance for different branches of Islam? Or different religions? Should it be the role of a secular organisation such as the Law Society to take a view on theological matters?

This raises serious questions about professional ethics and the role of the Law Society. The guidance seems not to recognise that there is a serious potential conflict between the code of conduct for solicitors and the guidance. Here is what the code – which all solicitors must abide by – says about equality and diversity: “As a matter of general law, you must comply with requirements set out in legislation – including the Equality Act 2010 – as well as the conduct duties contained in this chapter.”

In other words, it makes clear that solicitors cannot discriminate; yet this new guidance encourages us to facilitate discrimination in advising Muslim clients on how to draft their wills in way that is incompatible with equality legislation. This is a dangerous precedent and legitimises a discriminatory practice that, without this guidance, clients may have been embarrassed to ask about. The Law Society’s endorsement normalises it and makes it acceptable. That, in turn, will make it easier for calls to be made for such rules to be formalised, thereby opening the way for Sharia to permeate other areas, such as family law. The guidance should be withdrawn.

Sadikur Rahman is a solicitor and a member of the Lawyers Secular Society

500N
24th Mar 2014, 15:42
"That, in turn, will make it easier for calls to be made for such rules to be formalised, thereby opening the way for Sharia to permeate other areas, such as family law. The guidance should be withdrawn."

+ 1

Sharia law permeates by stealth !


If you don't kick up a stink about this, it makes it easier for them next time.

Octopussy2
24th Mar 2014, 15:45
The fact is, generally speaking, you're able to bequeath your assets as you see fit, so anyone wanting to follow Sharia inheritance rules has been free to do so. The headlines are indeed hysterical and misleading.

That said, I think it's regrettable that the Law Society issued these guidelines. Although they do not "enshrine" anything, they seem to me to promote values which are opposed to those commonly held in the UK in the 21st century.

cavortingcheetah
24th Mar 2014, 16:18
One of the problems that might just arise will be gender discrimination in distributions in the case of intestacy. It could be problematic under the new guidance from the Law Society when male relatives in particular prove that the deceased was a follower of Islam and claim Sharia inheritance rights to the prejudice of female relatives living. The Equality Act of 2010, the Wills Act of 1837 and the present guidance are incompatible to say the least. Arguments in law based upon Sharia practice will enter soon enough into the proceedings in British courts. To that extent Sharia has been enshrined in British law. A precedent has been set and legal precedents are the stuff from which common law has historically been fashioned and created.

thing
24th Mar 2014, 16:22
If you have an actual example of a Muslim being spared prosecution for a criminal offence because he/she claimed they were following Sharia law,

Not a criminal offence as such, I believe it's a civil offence commited here. Nontheless, a surprising and disturbing verdict.

Muslim is spared a speeding ban so he can drive between his two wives | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-557331/Muslim-spared-speeding-ban-drive-wives.html)

sitigeltfel
24th Mar 2014, 16:25
Not a criminal offence as such, I believe it's a civil offence commited here. Nontheless, a surprising and disturbing verdict.

Muslim is spared a speeding ban so he can drive between his two wives | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-557331/Muslim-spared-speeding-ban-drive-wives.html)

Speeding is wrong, but bigamy OK :confused:

Octopussy2
24th Mar 2014, 16:31
The fact that the Law Society decides to publish guidelines on an issue has, frankly, no bearing on its legal status. Notwithstanding this publication, it would always have been open to muslims to argue that Sharia principles should apply in a case of intestacy. The prospects of successfully arguing that? Zilch, realistically (and no, I don't care if there was a case in Greece where that happened. It's not a persuasive authority!)

MadsDad
24th Mar 2014, 16:31
Orac, you say the Law Society seems to be endorsing different sets of a laws for different groups of people

That is not what is being said. There is one set of law regarding testate law and, should anyone die without leaving a will, those laws will be applied irrespective of religion. What the article was about was getting the wording right for particular ways of leaving your money if you so wish.

As for Sharia Law it has been, as said earlier, a recognised conciliation method for some time (along with Jewish and Sikh equivalents I believe). Not previously mentioned though are Sharia loans and mortgages, available to Moslems. These have no interest attached (that being forbidden). But, before anyone gets too excited, they do cost along the way.

ORAC
24th Mar 2014, 16:38
That is not what is being said. That is what is being said, not by I, but by Sadikur Rahman, a solicitor who has read the guidance. If you feel professionally qualified to gainsay him I would be grateful for confirmation that you have both read the guidance and have superior professional qualifications in this area of expertise; in which case I will accept your point.

Else I must question the basis of your dismissal of his professional opinion.

awblain
24th Mar 2014, 16:50
It still doesn't really make any difference.

If someone wants to make a discriminatory, small-minded and pre-medieval disbursement of their assets after their death, then they are free to do so.

They must write a legal will in such terms and would expect to pay some money to a Law Society member to ensure it's valid.

If they die intestate then the normal legal rules apply, not some imaginary hoohah from a bunch of guys in a mosque.

I can certainly understand why Mr Rahman objects to a member of the Law Society aiding and abetting such hoohah, but income is income, and the more bizarre the will you'd like, the more it's likely to earn for its writer - either pre or post mortem.

MadsDad
24th Mar 2014, 17:15
Sorry, been prepping veg for tea.

Orac, what I am saying is there are NOT two sets of law in England (nearly said 'in the UK' and there are multiple sets there). Sadikur Rahman is, as you say, a solicitor. He has read the guidance and has formed an opinion from it. He may argue his opinion in front of the relevant courts but it it up to the courts to judge and either agree or disagree with his opinion based on their interpretation of the law as argued. And their opinion wins at that stage. Mr. Rahman may then, if he disagrees, appeal that judgement and the whole process continues at various levels until, possibly, the Supreme Court passes its judgement. But they are all arguing the same statute law.

(For info. I have not read the full guidance, merely Mr. Rahmans notes on it. And my legal qualifications are somewhat lacking, since I merely did an A Level course).

Tankertrashnav
24th Mar 2014, 23:46
Speeding is wrong, but bigamy OK :confused:

No, bigamy is not ok under English law (or Scottish and Northern Irish law as far as I know). Thus a Muslim man may have four wives according to Islamic tradition, but only the first wife can have any legal status in this country. If he attempted to marry any of his other wives in a civil ceremony in this country he would be guilty of the offence of bigamy.

(PS - He can also get done for speeding!)

cavortingcheetah
25th Mar 2014, 07:37
(PS - He can also get done for speeding!)
Seemingly, and by the grace of Allah and a British bench, not always so:
It rather looks as though the jolly old crafty Muslim not so Muselmann can have the whizz bangs and fornications too.

Muslim is spared a speeding ban so he can drive between his two wives - News - London Evening Standard (http://www.standard.co.uk/news/muslim-is-spared-a-speeding-ban-so-he-can-drive-between-his-two-wives-6687095.html)

Krystal n chips
25th Mar 2014, 07:58
" Seemingly, and by the grace of Allah and a British bench, not always so:
It rather looks as though the jolly old crafty Muslim not so Muselmann can have the whizz bangs and fornications too

Now you mention it, with regard to speeding offences, by some strange oversight you seem to have forgotten about those more affluent members of our society who can, and do, afford the fees of specialist m'learned friends in order to retain their licences.

Of course, the fact they may not be Muslim could simply just be a happy coincidence !......unless, of course, you can prove otherwise and also make the case as to why these more affluent people are not castigated in the same manner you, and others, choose to on here.

Speeding is speeding after all....is it not ?

Suffolk Lad
25th Mar 2014, 08:20
I had always thought that bigamy was illegal in the UK. If it is, then clearly English law is saying that it does not recognise Muslim marriages otherwise all these chaps saying they have two wives or more would be asked to divorce all bar one before they come to the UK. Those who were born here / live here and marry a second wife would be tried for bigamy if we recognised their marriage as being more than shacked up. If that is so then maybe you do need some Sharia training in the matter of wills if Muslim wives hold no legal status in English law to insure lawyers at least include them in the will by name even if they get nothing.

Flying Lawyer
25th Mar 2014, 09:14
MadsDadThere is one set of law regarding testate law and, should anyone die without leaving a will, those laws will be applied irrespective of religion.
What the article was about was getting the wording right for particular ways of leaving your money if you so wish.
You are correct.


ORAC That is what is being said, not by I, but by Sadikur Rahman, a solicitor who has read the guidance. If you feel professionally qualified to gainsay him I would be grateful for confirmation that you have both read the guidance and have superior professional qualifications in this area of expertise; in which case I will accept your point.
Else I must question the basis of your dismissal of his professional opinion.
I see nothing in Mr Rahman's article that amounts to a "professional opinion" in the usual meaning of that term.
It is merely the personal opinion about what is or is not 'socially acceptable' of someone who happens to be a solicitor. He also appears to have an agenda as a member of some organisation called the Lawyers Secular Society.
As PTT pointed out (post 4), the practice note doesn't enshrine anything into our law and, as Sallyann1234 said (post 20):
This isn't about introducing any sort of law at all - only parliament can do that. It's about lawyers writing wills to meet the requirements of the individual while still being valid within UK laws. That's something they should be doing for anyone of any religion or none.


The title of this thread, and some newspaper headlines, are grossly misleading.



FL

Tankertrashnav
25th Mar 2014, 17:27
When I am following a thread on Rumours and News, or Military Aircrew, I tend to give more weight to posts made by experienced aircrew, rather than by some teenage boy who has a flight simulator app on his computer.

Similarly on here I will tend to give more weight to a post from a lawyer than some of the tripe that gets posted by people who appear to have done their legal training by reading the Daily Mail :*

cavortingcheetah
25th Mar 2014, 21:05
Perhaps the grossly misleading disambiguation of the original thread can be elucidated or at least briefly illuminated by a piffling punctuational suggestion?

Sharia law to be enshrined in Britain?

Sallyann1234
25th Mar 2014, 21:39
Sharia law to be enshrined in Britain?

Allow me to correct that for you.

Sharia law not to be enshrined in Britain!

vee-tail-1
25th Mar 2014, 21:49
'Enshrined' or not Sharia now exists in the consciousness of UK citizens, including lawyers and law makers.

The process of Creeping Normalcy means that Muslims, mosques, Sharia, and veiled women will be accepted by future generations as a normal part of British culture.

Islam proceeds by stealth, a small change at a time, the metaphor of the slowly boiling frog comes to mind.

Mr Chips
25th Mar 2014, 22:23
So the Flying Lawyer commenting above doesn't put your mind at rest Vee Tail? How shocking. :hmm:

vee-tail-1
25th Mar 2014, 22:31
Flying Lawyer uses a well aimed rifle, never a scatter gun. It is indeed reassuring to know he is on the case. :ok:

Bronx
25th Mar 2014, 23:44
He also appears to have an agenda as a member of some organisation called the Lawyers Secular Society.


From their website ->:Our campaign calling on the Law Society to withdraw their practice note giving guidance on “Sharia compliant” wills is gathering pace.

We are very grateful to everyone who has helped us spread the message......... and we are delighted that this story has been picked up so quickly by the national media.

:rolleyes:

Tankertrashnav
26th Mar 2014, 00:00
The process of Creeping Normalcy means that Muslims, mosques, Sharia, and veiled women will be accepted by future generations as a normal part of British culture.

In the same way that Jews, synagogues, kosher food rules, married women wearing wigs and orthodox men wearing Homburg hats and ringlets are already accepted? I see no objection to any of the four things you mention, with the proviso that sharia must remain restricted to civil matters between Muslims, and does not in any way replace or override current UK laws.

One thing I do object to most strongly, however, is that word "normalcy" :eek:

Normality, please!

vee-tail-1
26th Mar 2014, 00:27
Yes a rather unpleasing word ... blame Jared Diamond.

So TTN you will be on the other side of the barricades when civil unrest leads to wide spread violence?

Sallyann1234
26th Mar 2014, 00:28
Ttn
Please allow me to applaud your post
:ok::ok::ok::ok::ok::ok:

onetrack
26th Mar 2014, 00:42
History records amply that Islam is diametrically opposed to Christianity, and has zero tolerance for Christianity.
If you are a trained lawyer, please give your legal interpretation or definition of "infidel". :suspect:

Islamic cultures are characterised by lawlessness, intolerance, and a total lack of democratic governance as the real governing power is subtly diverted to unelected imams.
These imams owe nothing to anyone and have complete power over their adherents and the ability to interpret Islamic religious texts as they see fit.

The basis of civilised, peaceful society is adherence to man-made laws that are introduced to protect personal freedoms and to prevent general lawlessness.

As imams are free to advise their adherents that they have no obligation to follow any man-made law, because it conflicts with Allahs Law, then lawlessness abounds.

Gradual acceptance of polygamy, gradual acceptance of "unimportant" parts of Sharia Law, and gradual acquiescence to Islamic demands for watering-down of laws that do not agree with Islamic Law, is the "wide path that leadeth to destruction". :suspect:

I shouldn't have to present those countries that currently embrace Islamic Law, as classic examples where personal freedoms are non-existent, intolerance is the rule, lawlessness abounds, intransigent governance is the order of the day, and terrorism and indiscriminate murder abounds.

The introduction of Jewish religion into the equation is a misleading angle, as Judaism and Christianity are not diametrically opposed, despite the grating differences in interpretation and belief in either the Old or New Testaments.

defizr
26th Mar 2014, 00:47
Beth Din anyone?

vee-tail-1
26th Mar 2014, 01:16
Sharia is like a Muslim shopping list, and Islam uses democracy like a supermarket trolley. When reaching its destination it throws the trolley away.

awblain
26th Mar 2014, 01:16
Beth din? Don't mind if I do. Binding arbitration?

onetrack
26th Mar 2014, 01:39
I don't know about the fairness and impartiality of Beth Din - but there's always the witchdoctor, I guess. :)

Before you go to court, ask the witchdoctor, says Kenya's top judge - The West Australian (http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/offbeat/a/22171303/before-you-go-to-court-ask-the-witchdoctor-says-kenyas-top-judge/)

Beth Din bias slammed in court (https://www.jewishnews.net.au/beth-din-bias-slammed-in-court/30964)

Cacophonix
26th Mar 2014, 01:45
Remember that the British judicial system is biased and pretty hopeless really. Look at the judge in the de Menzies case?

Tied up with the police... (I know)...

How many hours can you waste with Scotland Yard...?

Caco

PTT
26th Mar 2014, 06:31
What I find amazing about the slippery slope argument that people like v-t-1 are making is that even that doesn't exist. There is no change to British law here: nobody is able to do anything they weren't able to do before. The slope, as such, doesn't exist in this instance.

ORAC
26th Mar 2014, 06:39
First it becomes accepted; then a norm, then it is incorporated into the law (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1031611/Sharia-law-SHOULD-used-Britain-says-UKs-judge.html), then it becomes the law.

And as I have said previously I am also in favour of withdrawal of the recognition of Jewish courts; there are than enough examples of iniquitous divorce and custody cases dragging on for years through a mysoginistic theocracy where the women involved have only a theoretical, but practically zero, opportunity to appeal outside their family and culture.

At a certain stage tolerance of difference becomes acquiescence to inequality and abuse - as in the total lack of any prosecutions in regards to FGM (http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/dec/18/fgm-inquiry-lack-prosecution-uk-female-genital-mutilation) of many years.

Krystal n chips
26th Mar 2014, 07:00
Alas,

" Sharia is like a Muslim shopping list, and Islam uses democracy like a supermarket trolley. When reaching its destination it throws the trolley away.

The Offa's Dyke EDL West Wales Peoples Imperial Army Detachment's latest communiques suggest the offerings from the Intel.cell ( singular ) are unlikely to be recorded in any reference to "Great Political and Social Analogies".

ORAC
26th Mar 2014, 07:46
I believe it to be a reference to a quote from Recep Erdogan when he mayor of Istanbul. With his increasingly autocratic and Islamic rule as Turkish Prime Minister perhaps it might be taken as more than a rhetorical device....

Bloomberg: (http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-04/arabs-battling-regimes-see-erdogan-s-muslim-democracy-in-turkey-as-model.html)

......They often cite a comment Erdogan made when he was mayor of Istanbul in the 1990s, calling democracy “a train that takes you to your destination, and then you get off.”

PTT
26th Mar 2014, 08:26
ORAC, that's a slippery slope fallacy if ever I saw one. It has always been accepted so long as it is subservient to UK law. It even says as much in the Daily Fail article you quoted:
In his speech at an East London mosque, Lord Phillips signalled approval of sharia principles as long as punishments - and divorce rulings - complied with the law of the land.

Flying Lawyer
26th Mar 2014, 08:57
ORAC
First it becomes accepted; then a norm, then it is incorporated into the law, then it becomes the law.
If you are interested in what the then Lord Chief Justice actually said the full speech is:Here (http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Speeches/lcj_equality_before_the_law_030708.pdf).

Those capable of reading the speech with an open mind will readily see that some sections of the press and various protest groups distorted, for their own purposes, what the LCJ said.


FL

thing
26th Mar 2014, 09:11
Similarly on here I will tend to give more weight to a post from a lawyer than some of the tripe that gets posted by people who appear to have done their legal training by reading the Daily MailCome on TTN, where's the fun if everyone agreed? There would be some wonderful threads wouldn't there.

#1 'I think that Muslims are taking over the country'.

#2 'I agree.'

#3 'I agree'

#1 'Er, OK.'


#1 'I think that Daz is better than Persil.'

#2 'I agree'

#3 'I agree'

#1 '.....shit :(.....'

cavortingcheetah
26th Mar 2014, 15:47
This from the speech by the then Chief Justice.

....If I may summarise the message that I have sought to give, the courts of this country offer the same justice to all who come before them, regardless of gender, race or creed. The point is sometimes made that this is not easy to accept when the judiciary is not representative of those whom they are judging. Judges are now appointed by an independent appointment Commission and they are appointed on merit. The Equal Treatment Advisory Committee, whose members represent all parts of the legal profession, is working hard to assist judges in recognising the role of social and cultural differences in the determination of cases before them. There has, however, been a dearth of applicants from the ethnic minorities for appointment to the bench. Both the Appointments Commission and the judiciary are concerned about this. I have no doubt that there are, in the Muslim community, many men and women alike who would make outstanding lawyers and outstanding judges. It is important that they should recognise that they have a valuable potential role to play as judges, administering the law of this country to all who come before them, without fear or favour affection or ill-will.....

An unrepresentative legal system struggling to recognise the role of social and cultural differences in the determination of cases before the judiciary?
Doesn't that sound like a justification for the absorption, into the British legal system, of various aspects of the legal system prevailing in another culture or society? That might be Sharia?

Perhaps it should be said at this stage that Sharia Law has much to commend it over the gross complexities of the indigenous legal system where, although judges might administer the law, the penalties can be as different for the same offence as rape is from a pat on the bottom.

PTT
26th Mar 2014, 16:06
Sounds more like you are desperately trying to justify your over-reaction.

cavortingcheetah
26th Mar 2014, 16:14
From #1:

...Ho! There will be bloodshed over this one. Something for the animal rights people to chew over perhaps?...

Perhaps a trifle over reactive in terms of keen anticipation but hardly desperate.

Octopussy2
26th Mar 2014, 16:15
Doesn't that sound like a justification for the absorption, into the British legal system, of various aspects of the legal system prevailing in another culture or society? That might be Sharia?
No, it doesn't.

Oooh, I've never managed to make that quote thing work before!!

cavortingcheetah
26th Mar 2014, 16:18
I have a lot of trouble with quote things. That's why I usually stick to rumours, which usually never get quoted out of context.

Tankertrashnav
26th Mar 2014, 16:43
I have a lot of trouble with quote things. That's why I usually stick to rumours, which usually never get quoted out of context.

Then you should get on up to R & N at the top of the page.

Until they actually find bits of that aircraft there's still plenty of scope for rumour - eg I don't think the alien abduction aspect has been adequately covered.

Go on, get on up there - I've heard a rumour that the mods welcome further contributions, as they are on piecework ;)

cavortingcheetah
26th Mar 2014, 17:18
It's rumoured, from Kuala Lumpur, that the Malaysian government, in an act of reciprocity following the recent speech (six years ago) of the then British Lord Chief Justice, are about to incorporate further elements of English law into their legal system. Such a diversification of legal principles will recognise the cultural and social benefits that the ex patriate Christian community bring to the country. The penalties for public fornication, drunken hooliganism, idolatrous behaviour and blasphemy will be reduced.

vee-tail-1
26th Mar 2014, 20:26
I have no doubt that there are, in the Muslim community, many men and women alike who would make outstanding lawyers and outstanding judges.

We live in a country where the rule of law is based on Judeo/Christian principles.

How could a practising Muslim judge deal with a disparity between the Judeo/Christian law of the land and Sharia?

Would a Muslim judge deal only with Muslims?

Should an English or Welsh person brought before a court with a Muslim judge, have the right to request other judge or another court?

If denied that request would the English or Welsh person have recourse to human rights laws?

Seems to me the LCJs speech could open a big can of worms. :(

defizr
26th Mar 2014, 20:49
We live in a country where the rule of law is based on Judeo/Christian principles.

We live in a country where the rule of law is based on Acts of Parliament which apply to all regardless of their religion. Judges of all religions have to swear an oath. The only difference is the deity that they invoke when they swear that oath. Those who do not have a deity may affirm.

"Judicial oath
“I, _________ , do swear by Almighty God that I will well and truly serve our Sovereign Lady Queen Elizabeth the Second in the office of ________ , and I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this realm, without fear or favour, affection or ill will.""

Other acceptable forms of the oaths above
Hindu
Members of the Hindu faith will omit the words “I swear by Almighty God” and substitute the words “I swear by Gita”.

Jew
Members of the Jewish faith use the oaths above although some may wish to affirm.

Muslim
Members of the Muslim faith will omit the words “ I swear by Almighty God” and substitute the words “I swear by Allah”.

Sikh
Members of the Sikh faith will omit the words “I swear by Almighty God” and substitute the words “I swear by Guru Nanak”.

From judiciary.gov.uk

Judges, Tribunals and Magistrates | Introduction to the justice system | Oaths (http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/about-the-judiciary/introduction-to-justice-system/oaths)

vee-tail-1
26th Mar 2014, 22:33
GITA:
If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don’t deal in lies,
Or being hated, don’t give way to hating,
And yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise:

GURU NANAK:
Help those in need of help.
Earn an honest living.
Control your ego and base desires, and live a happy life.

ALLAH:
Kill the infidels.
If you catch a thief cut off the right hand and the left foot.
He who insults Allah will suffer eternal fire.
Allah prepares a painful place for those who disobey
Control your women and animals well, for Allah rewards a just man.
Etc …

JUDEO / CHRISTIAN GOD:
Love one another. Stop doing bad things. Make a real confession and you will be saved.

One of the deities used for swearing of oaths gives rise to a fear that the respective judge might give controversial judgements? :hmm:

Mr Chips
26th Mar 2014, 22:56
Yeah VeeTail, Judeo Christian God never told anyone to stone gays, adulterers etc? Have you actually read a bible?

Oh gosh, I hope we have no Muslim Police Officers, they won't arrest people. oh, wait......

Keef
26th Mar 2014, 23:05
Have you actually read a bible?

Yep. Just the odd occasion, you know...
You're right about not telling anyone to stone gays. See John 8. 3-11.

I don't see any objection to the religion (or lack of) of a judge, as long as he/she upholds the law correctly and impartially. I'm sure they all do.

cavortingcheetah
26th Mar 2014, 23:05
One wonders, as one does, which came first, stoning gays and adulterers or the ten commandments?

Keef
26th Mar 2014, 23:18
Stoning people who were different, I suspect. Mankind's been at it most of the time since forever.

There's nothing in the ten commandments about stoning anyone.

cavortingcheetah
26th Mar 2014, 23:37
Rule VI applies?
But of course stoning, especially at the hands of the righteous, is not killing for killing requires the shedding of blood and a well lobbed stone draws non as the flesh is crushed from within.

awblain
26th Mar 2014, 23:39
We live in a country where the rule of law is based on Judeo/Christian principles.

We absolutely do not. The rule of law is based on history, evidence and good practice, not on nonsense and folklore.

cavortingcheetah
26th Mar 2014, 23:51
All of which goes to explain why people from all over the world flock to England for divorce settlements, libel claims and legal aid, or perhaps that's just folklore?

Matari
27th Mar 2014, 00:04
Like helicopter rotor dynamics, the history of western civilization is a fascinating field of study. However, neither subjects are understood through superficial, sophomoric readings from pop culture or lectures from tired, 1960's pony-tailed professors.

awblain
27th Mar 2014, 00:06
Libel, certainly - since the non-Scottish UK has a very easy ride for allegers of libel, and some judges seem to be keen to hawk their wares in this area.

My "folklore" referred to superstitious ideas (of any strain) being involved in law, and not to the long tradition of being able to rely on the rule of law in England wherever your dispute originated.

Keef
27th Mar 2014, 00:11
Awblain lives in the USA, where the law is different. I don't know much about the law there, other than that it seems to vary from state to state and there are some of the same gloriously wacky ones that exist in English law.

UK law is based on Judeo-Christian principles but there's a vast body of later law that incorporates a wide variety of concepts. After that, I defer to the experts.

I don't know what "Rule VI" is, or what the shedding or otherwise of blood has to do with killing. The ten commandments are pretty clear: "לא תרצח׃" is as close to "You shall not murder" as I can get.

thing
27th Mar 2014, 00:21
Like helicopter rotor dynamics, the history of western civilization is a fascinating field of study. Surely one of the best comparisons I've ever seen...,:):D

meadowrun
27th Mar 2014, 00:26
Please keep religion in it's place - not in courts or public schools. It has a place in houses of worship and as a guidance to live a good life. Do not inflict it on others.

Deteriorata - YouTube

Suffolk Lad
27th Mar 2014, 02:02
English law actually has its origins in common law which was an Anglo Saxon set of procedures to deal with complaints a lot of this involved compensation and reparation. This was then modified by the Normans and by all succeeding changes in government. Canon law and Roman Law was used by the early church but didn't really become incorporated into common law. So is our law based on Judeo Christian values, not really it adopted some of those values but its origins are more local and based on grievance and then the Norman centralisation of Government and upholding the Norman power base.

There is a lot more to it than that of course but that is the essence of English law's origin.

rh200
27th Mar 2014, 04:23
We absolutely do not. The rule of law is based on history, evidence and good practice, not on nonsense and folklore.

Actually laws in most countrys are derived as a function of the dominate belief system, hence they evolved around Christian beliefs in our case.

You can see this in various trivial examples like gay issues, multiple partners in marriage, beastiality, honor killings in the case of others, what stage your society is up to in relation to conjugal rights etc etc.

There is a basic kernel if you will that is common, but in essence most of the laws revolve around morality or the perception of it, anothers words the concept of right or wrong from the populations stand point.

Krystal n chips
27th Mar 2014, 06:52
" Seems to me the LCJs speech could open a big can of worms."

Hope, as they say, does indeed spring eternal in the tundra of West Wales. Hope that is for civil unrest and various other non existent threats.

Sadly. it would appear, despite explanations from the legal profession on here, who actually know what they are talking about, the ability to comprehend the facts, not the hyperbole, is proving an obstacle when it is patently obvious that we are not about to be subjected to stoning to death for jaywalking as a principle of UK law.

Now, Rule V1.....presumably followed by Rule V2 and Rule "rotate, positive rate of climb, gear up " . at some point.....

What, exactly, is this Rule V1 and from which Rule Book does it emanate ?.....just so we can all spend a few minutes becoming familiar with the text and overall contents you understand.

cavortingcheetah
27th Mar 2014, 08:06
I suppose yes, Rule V1 would be the start of the ascension after a moderately good life as a Christian.
Rule VI, however, in the King James version, states: thou shalt not kill.

PTT
27th Mar 2014, 08:49
Rule VI applies?
But of course stoning, especially at the hands of the righteous, is not killing for killing requires the shedding of blood and a well lobbed stone draws non as the flesh is crushed from within.So poisoning would be ok too, then?

ORAC
27th Mar 2014, 09:03
Bigamy/polygamy in the UK? No problem as long as you fly out and have the wedding and honeymoon somewhere sunny like the Maldives (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_polygamy#Countries_that_recognize_polygamous _marriages). It seems only having the actual ceremony in the UK is illegal. You can even claim benefits. The downside is multiple MiLs......

Findlaw UK - Bigamy (http://www.findlaw.co.uk/law/family/other_family_law_topics/500406.html)

What if a person legally married in the UK marries someone else abroad?

Being married to more than one person at a time is recognised in England and Wales if it took place in a country that allows marriages of this kind (not in the UK) and both parties were legally free to marry in this way. Therefore, if someone legally enters the UK and already has three wives under a foreign law, then they will not be considered to be committing an offence in the UK (provided they do not enter into another marriage ceremony within the UK).

However, this may also mean that someone who is legally married in the UK could potentially marry someone else abroad, as marrying abroad means that the offence of bigamy under UK law is not applicable. However, he or she may be guilty of an offence overseas depending on whether the county he or she marries in criminalizes polygamy.

The Immigration Rules state that a person should not be granted a UK spousal visa if their marriage to the UK sponsor is polygamous and there is another person living with the sponsor in the UK who is also their husband or wife. Therefore, a man married in the UK cannot obtain a spouse visa to bring a second wife into Britain.

In 2008, the UK government gave the go-ahead for husbands with multiple wives to claim extra welfare benefits (http://www.standard.co.uk/news/muslim-husbands-with-more-than-one-wife-to-get-extra-benefits-as-ministers-recognise-polygamy-6619260.html), so long as the weddings took place in countries where the arrangement is legal (as is permitted under Islamic law).

awblain
27th Mar 2014, 09:25
Yes, Matari…. there's a whole lot of things you seem to have missed out on in school. At least you got an A in parroting unthinking rightwing $%^^*#(s.

awblain
27th Mar 2014, 09:28
Law is not based on iron-age superstition, it's based on principles of justice and evidence. Places where it is based on superstition, like Saudi Arabia, don't do so well in terms of following the principles of the rule of law.

The triumph of the west is that its institutions are evidence-based not faith-based.

cavortingcheetah
27th Mar 2014, 10:39
But, not to put too disingenuous a facet on the supposed diamond that is British justice; isn't the common law based upon case law and that in itself represents nothing more than the countless decisions of adjudicators, of one sort or another, who have gone before?

awblain
27th Mar 2014, 11:48
In the UK, there's an element of legislation and an element of previous rulings, and since there's been effective international standards, that's been recently incorporated too. The UK system is very flexible, which encourages justice tourists to chance their arm for libel, and also makes it a friendly place for international contracts to be drawn up and their disputes to be settled.

What happens in civil cases about weird requests for inheritances isn't likely to lead to hands being lopped off in the town square for petty theft. It's been about 700 years since that kind of malarkey was allowed.

defizr
27th Mar 2014, 12:03
GITA:
If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don’t deal in lies,
Or being hated, don’t give way to hating,
And yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise:

GURU NANAK:
Help those in need of help.
Earn an honest living.
Control your ego and base desires, and live a happy life.

ALLAH:
Kill the infidels.
If you catch a thief cut off the right hand and the left foot.
He who insults Allah will suffer eternal fire.
Allah prepares a painful place for those who disobey
Control your women and animals well, for Allah rewards a just man.
Etc …

JUDEO / CHRISTIAN GOD:
Love one another. Stop doing bad things. Make a real confession and you will be saved.

One of the deities used for swearing of oaths gives rise to a fear that the respective judge might give controversial judgements?

“I, _________ , do swear ......... that I will well and truly serve our Sovereign Lady Queen Elizabeth the Second in the office of ________ , and I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this realm, without fear or favour, affection or ill will.""

defizr
27th Mar 2014, 12:10
GITA:
If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don’t deal in lies,
Or being hated, don’t give way to hating,
And yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise:


Why are you quoting Kipling when talking about Hindus? Did he write the Bhagavad Gita?

cavortingcheetah
27th Mar 2014, 12:32
Kipling paraphrased the Gita, the relevant lines of which begin thus:
"If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster/ And treat those two impostors just the same,"
He also knew how to wield a good cigar.

defizr
28th Mar 2014, 01:17
Kipling paraphrased the Gita, the relevant lines of which begin thus:

According to one one 'well known' Indian historian (Khushwant Singh 1915-2014). The Bhagavad Gita predates Singh and Kipling by around 1800 years.

vee-tail-1
28th Mar 2014, 10:41
The questions posed in post # 76 ?? :hmm:

PTT
28th Mar 2014, 10:48
How could a practising Muslim judge deal with a disparity between the Judeo/Christian law of the land and Sharia?By applying UK law.
Would a Muslim judge deal only with Muslims? No. Why would he when he is applying UK law?
Should an English or Welsh person brought before a court with a Muslim judge, have the right to request other judge or another court?No. The appeals process applies when the person feels UK law is not followed. If UK law is followed then the beliefs of the judge are irrelevant.
If denied that request would the English or Welsh person have recourse to human rights laws? No. See above.

awblain
28th Mar 2014, 11:45
Right, PTT, but be careful with the "UK Law". The 14th century Edwards never got their teeth into Scotland.

The appeals process applies in all cases that the parties think they have grounds, and the system agrees. There is no reason to think that the superstitious heritage of judges would affect their judgement.

If it did, they'd be out on their be-wigged ear immediately.

The only inconsistency with the rule of law is that senior judges share benches in the House of Lords with a bunch of superstitious mumblers in pointy hats, and a single guy from a different strain who wears a little cap. This is most inappropriate and really should be corrected.

pr00ne
28th Mar 2014, 11:48
Vee-tail-1,

Firstly, we do NOT live in a country where the rule of law is based on Judeo/Christian principles. In all my time at the bar I have never once come across any reference to the existence or otherwise of a supreme being that has had an iota of influence on what I was doing.

Secondly, what on earth do you mean by a “Muslim Judge”? There is no such thing in the eyes of the law.

Having read this in full I have to agree with numerous other posters who have challenged the basis of the original posters statement. I also disagree with the long statement made by the other solicitor on here, this does NOT present me with any kind of problem or issue in how I relate to the law. As a personal statement of their concerns it is fine, but that's all it is, a personal statement about how they feel this 'advice' makes them feel. It has no affect on the law whatsoever.


PTT has neatly summed up your questions from post no. 76.

Anyone who is making a mischevious attempt to be alarmist about this is merely stoking up racial disharmony in pursuit of their warped personal agenda.

In this country there is NO such thing as Sharia law.

PTT
28th Mar 2014, 11:59
share benches in the House of Lords with a bunch of superstitious mumblers in pointy hats, and a single guy from a different strain who wears a little cap. This is most inappropriate and really should be corrected. Absolutely. Freedom from religion, please.

awblain
28th Mar 2014, 12:08
pr00ne,

In this country there is NO such thing as Sharia law.

Not in terms of legislation, or the judiciary, no, I agree there isn't. But there is a system of rules out there in the world that can be labelled that way.

I understand that people are free to make contracts under whatever odd terms they like, and to arrange to settle disputes using whatever arbitrator they agree to.

If that happens to be a pre-medieval document, and a self-aggrandized guy with a beard who's perhaps likely to rule arbitrarily against a woman plaintiff, and yet she openly and freely decides to go down that route, then more fool her, and so be it.

The key question would be: was she misadvised, coerced or incompetent to do her legal business in a system that disadvantages her, and perhaps even more importantly, her children?

rh200
28th Mar 2014, 14:09
Firstly, we do NOT live in a country where the rule of law is based on Judeo/Christian principles
[email protected]
Mental dwarfs, thats the problem when dealing with people who want to reinforce a argument with their own predefined view.

Our laws are based on values, those values are originally based upon the dominate belief system. You only need a bit of common sense to know that.

The most obvious of these are to do with sex etc. There are countless outdated law, that every now and then come to light and get purged.

Just because its not specifically state that its based on religious values doesn't mean they are not. A deeper understanding of how they come about is needed.

awblain
28th Mar 2014, 14:37
Some laws are indeed based on superstition - selling school books on a Sunday, getting stoned for adultery, that kind of thing - but "The Law" is not.

The rule of men in big fancy hats, not the rule of law, is what the superstitious generally want. And who claim to speak for the superstitious? To quote Neil Minchin: "self-aggrandized bigots in stupid f#@$ing hats".

Individual laws that incorporate superstitious nonsense are fortunately today laughed at, at least in the civilized world. But don't forget the dead and dispossessed from ages past who were persecuted by the superstitious for making too much sense.

vee-tail-1
28th Mar 2014, 16:47
Firstly, we do NOT live in a country where the rule of law is based on Judeo/Christian principles.
That is total bull***t and whoever you are you should be ashamed of yourself. (Unless of course you have some kind of self loathing destructive agenda for our country?)
Our whole culture, way of life, morality, religious and secular viewpoint has been shaped and defined by Judeo/Christian values. That in this country we are now rapidly veering away from those values and principles is also true.

My question is simple. Since a practising Muslim holds Islam and Allah to trump all other authority. How would a Muslim Judge reconcile a clash between the law of England & Wales and his Muslim beliefs?

PTT
28th Mar 2014, 16:57
Since a practising Muslim holds Islam and Allah to trump all other authority. How would a Muslim Judge reconcile a clash between the law of England & Wales and his Muslim beliefs?The premise is faulty. Not all Muslims hold Islam to trump other authority any more than all Catholics hold the Pope to.

Either way, who cares so long as he does the job properly?

awblain
28th Mar 2014, 17:02
A judge doesn't succumb to prejudice, based on either his/her personal superstition, or any superstitions of the parties in court. If they did, then appeals would succeed, and a judge would be fired.

The rule of law, gradually established over almost nine centuries, is much more important than incantations and fairies, of whatever type they are and however fervently they are mumbled/invoked.

It is somewhat embarrassing that the UK has a head of state who must claim to be openly superstitious, and any sort of role for superstition in government. However, this does seem to inoculate against taking any notice of superstition - of any sort - in public life. Contrast the US, where the population is much more heavily steeped in superstition, despite a formally and clearly secular state.

To protect against the unlikely risk of a new superstition taking over, perhaps the best plan would be to be sure to get rid of the mumbo jumbo associated with the traditional one.

vee-tail-1
28th Mar 2014, 17:30
Not all Muslims hold Islam to trump other authority any more than all Catholics hold the Pope to.
Sigh! ... Islam is a POLITICAL SYSTEM to which all Muslims belong. It is NOT the same as the Catholic religion.

Islam has the aim of World domination, and needs to replace Western democracy to advance its agenda.

Infiltration is an effective method: The other methods we know well :yuk:
Infiltration of vital organisations like Law, the media, the CPS, education, police, the NHS, local government, politics, ....

Knowing this agenda, what insanity to appoint a Muslim as a judge. Indeed what insanity to have already appointed a Muslim as chief prosecutor for the CPS. Same insanity in many other organisations including the Conservative party, and the BBC.

I am not sure whether ignorance, naivety, bloody mindedness, or a deliberate wish for self destruction is the current replacement for those old Judeo/Christian values ... but it sure isn't pretty.

Krystal n chips
28th Mar 2014, 18:03
In a carefully timed move, astute tactician that he is, the Grand Commander- in- Chief for Life and the Hereafter ( subject to confirmation ) of the West Wales EDL Free Peoples Democratic Liberation Army, issues the following communique :

" We, the above, have gained valuable insights as to out innermost souls and beings, pledged as we are to the defence of the Nation and the ever increasing threat of invasion. We achieved this objective through the process of introspective analysis and the results, I am proud to say, can now be viewed by the global audience we wish to attract "

" (Unless of course you have some kind of self loathing destructive agenda for our country?)

He further issued a grave warning about insurgents now operating behind the lines

"Infiltration is an effective method: The other methods we know well
Infiltration of vital organisations like Law, the media, the CPS, education, police, the NHS, local government, politics, ....


Does this include the ice cream, hotdog and burger sellers on Tenby beach then?.....your military expertise must surely have alerted you to the fact, the most innocuous of individuals can also be the most lethal and effective insurgent.

Finally, and ever helpful you understand, as you are no doubt aware, British Summertime commences Saturday night / Sunday morning.....so I take it you will be conducting a week's, at the bare minimum, training in order that the troops can distinguish between G.M.T and "Zulu" time ?

PTT
28th Mar 2014, 18:04
I find myself wondering how many Muslims you know. I know plenty - my father is one along with many other family members. My mother's side is Catholic, btw, so I do have a good basis for the comparison I made.

What you are describing is not Islam but Islamism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamism). They are very different and need to be separated in order to have a rational conversation about them. Islam is a religion; Islamism is an ideology.

Given the above, there is no issue with appointing a Muslim judge.

El Grifo
28th Mar 2014, 18:14
Some laws are indeed based on superstition - selling school books on a Sunday, getting stoned for adultery, that kind of thing

For sure awblain, if I was considering committing adultery, I would certainly have to be VERY stoned !!

El G.

Octopussy2
28th Mar 2014, 18:21
PTT your chances of having a rational conversation with that individual? As the old saying goes, you've got 2 hopes...

awblain you're starting to protest too much. I'll pray for you :p

(actually I'm serious about the last part)

onetrack
29th Mar 2014, 01:29
Of course, we won't even go into the area where a British Muslim military commander is appointed to lead British troops into military action against a basically Muslim country. Fort Hood, anyone?? :suspect:

The future of a country is how cohesive its social, political and religious structures are. Embracing Islamic leaders in a society that is diametrically opposed to Islamic aims and belief structure is a recipe for disaster.

Despite awblains sneering dismissal of spiritual beliefs, a vast number of people in the world still feel the need for the support of a spiritual belief in their daily lives.

Flying Lawyer
29th Mar 2014, 02:40
awblainThe only inconsistency with the rule of law is that senior judges share benches in the House of Lords with a bunch of superstitious mumblers in pointy hats, and a single guy from a different strain who wears a little cap. This is most inappropriate and really should be corrected.
Senior judges have not sat in the House of Lords since 2009.

a bunch of superstitious mumblers in pointy hats I assume, from your reference to 'pointy hats', that you mean the bishops.
Why do you refer to them in such an offensive terms?
Why do you feel the need to be so offensive about Christians? :confused:


vee-tail-1We live in a country where the rule of law is based on Judeo/Christian principles.
If you mean that our law (England & Wales, and Scotland) was founded upon Judeo/Christian values, I agree.
If you mean our law now is based upon Judeo/Christian values then that is incorrect.
Contrary to what had been held in previous cases, the House of Lords rejected the proposition that Christianity is part of the law of England in 1917.
Rightly or wrongly, our law is now entirely secular. Although the 1917 decision was significant, it arguably had less practical effect than several (highly publicised) court decisions in the late 20th century and continuing into this century which concerned Christians trying to live and work according to their faith. Parliament has placed many legal restrictions upon their freedom to do so. The restrictions have nothing to do with Islam.

You appear to be unable, or unwilling, to understand the stark difference between Muslims and Islamic extremists.
Your wild and inaccurate assertions about Muslims do nothing for your credibility. Krystal n chips is one of the last contributors to JB with whom I would wish to be associated but, on this occasion, he has a point. Ironically, although you appear to be poles apart on social and political issues, you have much in common.


FL

PTT
29th Mar 2014, 08:19
onetrack - again, please try to see the distinction between Islam and Islamism. They are not the same thing.

Flying Lawyer - is a factual reference to the shape of a hat worn by a religious leader offensive to those whom they lead? And frankly I'd rather they weren't in the Lords either.

ORAC
29th Mar 2014, 08:43
A little light.

Minority legal orders in the UK: Minorities, pluralism and the law (https://www.britac.ac.uk/policy/Minority-legal-orders.cfm)

Sharia law, the Arbitration Act 1996 and the Arbitration and Mediation Services (Equality) Bill (http://www.lawandreligionuk.com/2012/10/24/sharia-law-the-arbitration-act-1996-and-the-arbitration-and-mediation-services-equality-bill/)

cavortingcheetah
29th Mar 2014, 08:47
The distinction between Islam and Islamism was neatly paralleled in the recent debate between Farage and Clegg.
Both are Europeans.
Only one of them refuses you the opportunity to disagree in a democratic manner with his doctrine of righteousness.

PTT
29th Mar 2014, 09:45
Not really, cheetah. Islam is not a political system; Islamism is.

Flying Lawyer
29th Mar 2014, 10:43
PTTFlying Lawyer - is a factual reference to the shape of a hat worn by a religious leader offensive to those whom they lead?
The comment was, and was intended to be, offensive.
I can't speak for those whom they lead because I'm not a member of the Church of England.
It was also inaccurate: Bishops wear mitres on ceremonial occasions; they do not wear them when sitting in the House of Lords.And frankly I'd rather they weren't in the Lords either.I think the Archbishop of Canterbury should continue to be an ex officio member because it reflects our constitution. (An established Church of England and its Supreme Governor as Monarch and Head of State.) I'm indifferent about the others.


ORAC A little light.If you mean more opinions bring more light, then I agree. They are the opinions of various people who don't, as far as I'm aware, post in Jetblast.
However, they are merely opinions, no more.


FL

PTT
29th Mar 2014, 11:48
I'm not sure if it was intended to be offensive. Certainly it's dismissive of the basis of such power, but I don't see that as being offensive as it is a true statement of opinion.
Of course the law currently states that if a statement is deemed offensive by anyone then it is an offence, so if you deem it so then it is offensive. It's a damned stupid law, though, and one I have no issues breaking.

Flying Lawyer
29th Mar 2014, 13:41
I'm not sure if it was intended to be offensive. Fair enough. I am.
Certainly it's dismissive of the basis of such power, but I don't see that as being offensive Nor do I.
Of course the law currently states that if a statement is deemed offensive by anyone then it is an offence I am not aware of that offence.
Where can I find it?

(The Report of the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry published in 1999 defined a racist incident as: "... any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person" and that definition has been widely, but not universally, accepted. However, incident and offence are different.)

BenThere
29th Mar 2014, 15:24
Our collective obsession with racism has inhibited rational thought and social policy for a generation.

awblain revels in being offensive. Visit the Detroit thread. Cocksure and myopic posters like him come and go, generally flaming out when seriously challenged with logic and forbearance. They generally cannot sustain their shallow premises for long.

Thanks for taking issue, Flying Lawyer.

PTT
29th Mar 2014, 16:01
I was referring to the Public Order Act section 5, but a little research shows that "insulting" was removed from that in Dec 2012. This is not yet updated on the Public Order Act 1986 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64) page:
(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—

(a)uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or

(b)displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,

within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.

BenThere
29th Mar 2014, 16:08
Would it apply to signs I've seen like "Freedom Go To Hell" and "Behead those who insult the Prophet"?

Not that I think it should, as I'm a proponent of free speech. But I assert that the rights ought to be extended to those who aren't Islamist as well.

PTT
29th Mar 2014, 16:10
I would hope so. I would want all such laws to be applied equally if we have to have them.

Personally I don't think anyone has a right to not be offended. Seems we are of a mind on that one.

Flying Lawyer
29th Mar 2014, 16:56
PTT

As you say, "insulting" has been removed from the offence created by s. 5 of the Public Order Act.
However, you misunderstand what has to be proved before someone is guilty of the offence.
The Court has to be satisfied that the conduct falls within (a) or (b).
It is not sufficient that someone was likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress. That is just one element of the offence.

FL

PTT
29th Mar 2014, 18:03
No, I understand what has to be proved. Neither a nor b state to whom the words must be considered "threatening, abusive or insulting".

We are now definitely off topic!

Flying Lawyer
29th Mar 2014, 18:25
With respect, you don't understand. If you did, you wouldn't have said: "Neither a nor b state to whom the words must be considered "threatening, abusive or insulting".

As I said in my previous post:The Court has to be satisfied that the conduct falls within (a) or (b).

I agree we're off topic but I don't want others who may read this to think that (as you asserted earlier) "the law currently states that if a statement is deemed offensive by anyone then it is an offence."
That is not correct. It doesn't.

FL

PTT
29th Mar 2014, 18:29
Ah - I should have said "may be considered an offence". My point was that it does not have to be intended to be insulting.

BenThere
29th Mar 2014, 18:40
I've got a huge problem with "being insulted" as a cause at law.

Free speech includes the right to insult.

You can insult me. I can insult you. If you limit that, you have to get into the minutiae of what is permissible and what is not in terms of degrees of insult.

I'd rather have robust right to free speech; to say what I will with utter disregard of potential state suppression.

Let me deal personally with the consequences of what I say as I interact with society. But don't try to stifle my right to say it. None of you are competent to decide what I should and should not think and say.

fitliker
29th Mar 2014, 21:02
Then it depends on what constitutes an insult .




If you are speaking the truth ,how could anyone take offence at that ?


:)

vee-tail-1
30th Mar 2014, 00:29
You appear to be unable, or unwilling, to understand the stark difference between Muslims and Islamic extremists.

Are We Losing The War For The Soul Of Islam? | Standpoint (http://standpointmag.co.uk/node/5250)

There are essentially three Islams. There is the Islam of the Koran, Hadith and life of Muhammad. Then there is the extrapolation of this into the system of law known as Sharia. And then there is a third Islam — Muslims themselves, what they do and how they live ….

Flying Lawyer. This essay by Douglas Murray explains my attitude to Muslims and my fear for the future of Europe and the UK.

PTT
30th Mar 2014, 00:38
From the same author in the same magazine (http://www.standpointmag.co.uk/node/251/full):
there are a considerable number of reasons to be fearful of some – though certainly not all – aspects and versions of Islam
Perfectly reasonable, and I would add that I would find the same thing reasonable if said about Christianity or Judaism (specifically, fundamentalism of any stripe).

Perhaps discriminating between moderates and fundamentalists would help you?

vee-tail-1
30th Mar 2014, 01:21
Perfectly reasonable, and I would add that I would find the same thing reasonable if said about Christianity or Judaism (specifically, fundamentalism of any stripe).

What nonsense! ... there are NO fundamentalist Jews or Christians in UK ... Killing, maiming, bombing, are exclusively Muslim traits as well you know.

PTT
Want to be accepted in secular Britain? Stop building mosques, stop creating foreign ghettos in our cities, stop trying to change us, but instead change yourselves.

Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain (http://ex-muslim.org.uk/)

Most Brits are secular now, come join us ...

PTT
30th Mar 2014, 02:07
there are NO fundamentalist Jews or Christians in UK
Did I say "in the UK"? No, I did not.
Killing, maiming, bombing, are exclusively Muslim traits as well you know.Erm, no. Utter nonsense. The Lords' Resistance Army springs to mind, as do the Kingdom of Israel group. More terror attacks were committed in the US by Jewish than by Islamic extremists between 1980 and 2005 (source (http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/01/not-all-terrorists-are-muslims/)).
I'm not downplaying, excusing or apologising for attacks by Islamic terrorists, simply pointing out the disparity in your finger-pointing.
Want to be accepted in secular Britain? Stop building mosques, stop creating foreign ghettos in our cities, stop trying to change us, but instead change yourselves.Why only mosques? Why not Churches, Mandirs, Buddhist temples and Synagogues too? You said secular (which I am all for), so why the concentration only on Islam?
As for "trying to change us", the sooner those Jehovas Witnesses stop knocking on my door the better (although I admit that it can be fun...).

Krystal n chips
30th Mar 2014, 06:30
" Krystal n chips is one of the last contributors to JB with whom I would wish to be associated but, on this occasion, he has a point."



FL,

Thank you for your moral support and your perception that I have a point.

I generally do.

Whether you approve, understand, or disagree however is unlikely to have any bearing on views I express on JB, irrespective of the topic or whether the thread is light hearted, humourous or serious.

As for the rather sweeping statement about association with me, you won't mind me saying the sentiment is reciprocated.



" Ironically, although you appear to be poles apart on social and political issues, you have much in common.


With all due respect, I could argue that ( as I believe they say in your profession ) you are correct in the first part of your statement, but woefully inaccurate in the latter in that you appear to be unable to distinguish between an extremist and a centre left pragmatist.

This is the second time you have elected to post a view about me which is personal it seems.

I am not in the least concerned by this, however, I would be intrigued as to why, given your standing, you have opted to do so.

You commented in your defence of SASless, about whom my views remain the same, that I had a few prejudices. Which is true, I do.

It would appear from your two posts directed to and about me, you also suffer from the same human frailtie.

Flying Lawyer
30th Mar 2014, 23:37
Krystal

My concern not to be associated with you has nothing whatsoever to do with any social or political views you have expressed. (I agree with you on some occasions.) It has everything to do with your attitude towards people who don't share your views; in particular, but not exhaustively, your rudeness.

I do not have a prejudice against you. A prejudice is a preconceived opinion not based upon reason or experience. My opinion is based upon reading many of your posts over several years.
During my career I have encountered people whose intellectual ability has left me humbled and in awe. In stark contrast, and notwithstanding the extraordinarily pretentious language you adopt, and your frequent attempts to cast doubt upon the intellectual capacity of those with whom you disagree, I have yet to see any foundation for the air of superiority you habitually try to create.


FL

Krystal n chips
31st Mar 2014, 06:07
FL

Thank you for your reply.

When I have time, I feel a little insight may be relevant in respect of your perceptions, some of which are correct, others however, are as wide as the mark as is possible.

PTT
31st Mar 2014, 07:18
Perhaps not every single one, but the majority of indoctrinated believers in both instances, most certainly do.I think this rather depends on what you mean by "indoctrinated believers". My initial reading is that it means "fanatics", which makes your statement a tautology. Either way, my comment was comparative rather than absolute.

cavortingcheetah
31st Mar 2014, 07:18
In terms of the extraordinarily accurate theory propounded by Jorge de Santayana the whole business is easily enough explained.
The prophet Muhammad lived six hundred years after the prophet Jesus Christ.
Six hundred years ago, in 1478, the Spanish Inquisition was established. One of the prime functions of this inquisition was to regulate the orthodoxy of Islamic converts to Christianity. It was an intolerant and brutal organisation and bears comparison with other extremist groups throughout history, dedicated to enforcing their own beliefs upon others by any means available.
From this it may be deduced that comparison of the two faiths under discussion and their historical proselytising progress reveals that in six hundred years time Islam, with one or two pockets of resistance, might arrive at the same state of vacuous indisposition as the Christian church finds itself today. Where that will find the Anglican or the Roman, God alone knows!

PTT
31st Mar 2014, 07:26
Got a link to his theory, or a book where one might find it?

cavortingcheetah
31st Mar 2014, 08:20
The Definitive Athenauem,
cavortingcheetah.
Divine Publishing.
20th Century Folio Edition.
Numerous reprints.

awblain
31st Mar 2014, 10:57
Senior judges have not sat in the House of Lords since 2009.

Jeez. Senior judges out, but pointy-hatted mumblers still in. What a nightmare for rationality.

The Law Lords do remain Lords, even though the venue for their legal work has has moved from The House of Lords to the UK Supreme Court.

And why do I refer to bishops as pointy-hatted superstitious mumblers? Because it's an accurate description. If non-pointy-hatted superstitious mumblers don't like being diagnosed as such, then tough luck. They have a freedom to carry out their superstitious activities, but they have no right to avoid ridicule as a result, especially if their superstitions affect their normal activities or their view of evidence-based living, and most importantly if they lobby for the restriction of the freedoms of others based on reported historical pronouncements of imaginary friends in the sky. The weekend's arrival of same-sex marriage, lobbied against by many of these unelected PHSMs, would suggest that their time in parliament should be curtailed immediately lest they seek to erode any more freedoms.

Keef
31st Mar 2014, 11:13
My goodness me, awblain, how you do protest!

Do you know any of these bishops who you so like to malign? I've met many: they are without exception very wise and sensible people, and they certainly don't mumble. I find them and their principles and motivation to be first rate: I'm sure they provide excellent, wise and appropriate input in the House of Lords.

I'm not sure how yours can be an accurate description. Perhaps you would like to name the bishop you have met and how you came to define him as a pointy-hatted superstitious mumbler.

I appreciate that for the nascent pseudo-intellectual in the 21st century, it is essential to obtain "street cred" by muttering random illogical and ill-founded insults against the established faiths. I read and sigh at the regular repetition of "sky fairies" and "imaginary friends" in here. It's a sort of mantra for those who wish to cause offence for no other reason than it's required by their gang.

I would suggest that, if you can take time out of your busy PPRuNe schedule, you do some reading about what exactly these bishops and their assistant teams believe, do, and stand for. You may find that your attitude to them will change more than a little.

PTT
31st Mar 2014, 11:29
It's offensive to not want your unfounded beliefs to have an effect on the way I live my life, is it Keef?

I'm not doubting that the Church (and other religious organisations) has done good along with the bad it has done. I am stating that I don't want secular laws decided by religious offices.

Keef
31st Mar 2014, 11:38
I don't think my beliefs have any effect on the way you live your life, PTT. I do take offence at the unwarranted suggestion that they are "unfounded", though.

awblain
31st Mar 2014, 11:55
Yes, Keef. I protest loudly against superstition in public. Whether it's being propagated by nice Anglican tea-and-cakes clerics in rural parsonages, christalibangelical crackpots in US megachurches, bishops legislating in the UK where their differently-superstitious colleagues are not permitted to, Roman organized criminals and money-launderers, or by various nasty stone-throwing violence-inciting middle-eastern demagogs.

They're all spouting unevidenced nonsense, and leeching on poor irrational folk.

Until last weekend, same-sex partners were unable to get married in the UK.
Why? Clerics, and their apologists, which include no-doubt nice and charming people like you.

Your beliefs are not founded on evidence. They're founded on what your parents and prior clerics have told you. Your imaginary friends are their imaginary friends. If you'd been born in Tibet, you'd probably be all into lamas and reincarnation instead, if it had been rural Australia, you'd singing along lines; as it is, you're into incense and tea and cakes. Hopefully these are all harmless hobbies, but perhaps not so much to those same-sex partners, and certainly not justifying state support.

PTT
31st Mar 2014, 12:04
I don't think my beliefs have any effect on the way you live your life, PTT.Some people in the house of Lords are there solely on the basis of their position within a religious organisation. I'd say that qualifies. The individuals themselves may be eminently qualified and suitable to sit there on their own merits, but that is not how they got there or what they represent: they represent the Church. As such, they have a profound effect on how I live my life since they do important things like decide laws.
I do take offence at the unwarranted suggestion that they are "unfounded", though. How would you prefer I state it? Founded on a lack of evidence? Beliefs are based on faith; faith is, by definition, not based on evidence. For me, anything based on a lack of evidence is unfounded. If that offends you then I suggest that is your own issue, and that perhaps you need to look a little more closely at the basis of your faith.

Keef
31st Mar 2014, 12:21
So you don't actually know any bishops, then, awblain. Let me assure you that they very rarely wear their pointy hats, that they most certainly do not mumble, and that they are almost without exception wise and capable people. We need more of their caring wisdom.

They most certainly do NOT spout "unevidenced nonsense" - as you would know if you knew any bishops. They most certainly do NOT "leech on poor irrational folk". On the contrary: the church has some involvement in caring for "poor irrational folk" - Google "Ipswich Winter Night Shelter" as one example of many.

No, I didn't learn from my parents and prior clerics. While many do, I didn't. I learned from books and from academics. I was ably supported by parents and clerics, but not taught by them.

Your assertion of "no evidence" doesn't coincide with mine - but that argument has been thoroughly worn out on here: the "search" tool will find all the arguments from both sides. Repeating them will achieve little.

No incense here, and I don't drink tea, but the occasional cake doesn't come amiss. I wasn't born in Tibet or Australia, but I do know some very saintly and wise Tibetans and (even) Australians.

State support? We don't get any state support. We pay VAT on stuff we buy, so we support the state, and paid clergy pay income tax. Likewise (for example) the town pastors in Ipswich support the state (unpaid) - ask the local police what they think.

Same-sex partners? Where did I say anything against them? I have an "honorary daughter" who is in a very happy same-sex relationship. Her parents (atheists both) disowned her when she revealed her sexuality. My daughter was a close friend of hers, so the decision was easy.

In short, less diatribe and more understanding would help.

Keef
31st Mar 2014, 12:29
Some people in the house of Lords are there solely on the basis of their position within a religious organisation. I'd say that qualifies. The individuals themselves may be eminently qualified and suitable to sit there on their own merits, but that is not how they got there or what they represent: they represent the Church. As such, they have a profound effect on how I live my life since they do important things like decide laws.

Indeed, but that's the system we have. There are also politicians in the House of Lords who got their because their party leader chose to appoint them. Most of those are also wise people, and between them they do a good job. I doubt if the Lords Spiritual or Temporal have a profound effect on how you live your life: they certainly don't on mine.


How would you prefer I state it? Founded on a lack of evidence? Beliefs are based on faith; faith is, by definition, not based on evidence. For me, anything based on a lack of evidence is unfounded. If that offends you then I suggest that is your own issue, and that perhaps you need to look a little more closely at the basis of your faith.

I've looked pretty closely at it, actually. Faith, for me, is based on evidence and interpretation. I certainly do not accept that anything based on lack of evidence is "unfounded". You may wish to think about that.

awblain
31st Mar 2014, 12:32
If you are indeed all good with peoples' freedom of expression (which is excellent, and not the superstitious standard), then perhaps you should have gotten hold of a pointy hat in years past, and used it to shout some sense into your bishopy friends' ears.

That way, your daughter's friend's civil rights might have been established rather earlier than last Saturday

No state-support? - allowing clerics into the House of Lords, the Church Commissioners to masquerade as a charity, exemption for superstitious employers from equality legislation? You don't actually get paid out of taxes, but it's a special status.

So, get your big-gold-hatted chums to cancel all that, and we'd be good.

As to evidence. You can very fervently believe in all manner of nonsense, but that doesn't change what it is: tall fairy tales. Does your god not value honesty?

PTT
31st Mar 2014, 12:41
Indeed, but that's the system we have.Best it stays like that then, right? Or, perhaps, it should be reviewed as anachronistic. :rolleyes:
Are you really advocating simply accepting the system we have?
You may think they do a good job, and I'm sure many do. That's not the question, though. The point is that the Lords Spiritual represent the Church within the state and therefore have distinct influence (despite your protestations otherwise).
I've looked pretty closely at it, actually. Faith, for me, is based on evidence and interpretation. I certainly do not accept that anything based on lack of evidence is "unfounded". You may wish to think about that. Thought about it plenty, thanks. A life built on the basis of evidence which cannot be reproduced or shown is, to borrow the parable, a house built on sand: the foundations are shifting and unstable while purporting to be fixed; as such, it cannot hope to manage those changes.
A life built on the openness of mind which allows paradigm shifts is still shifting, but it knows and admits it shifts: it's a Winnebago :ok:

MagnusP
31st Mar 2014, 12:47
Best it stays like that then, right? Or, perhaps, it should be reviewed as anachronistic.

Well, they chucked out the hereditary peers as an anachronism. Mind you, they replaced them with party placemen and women.

Fox3WheresMyBanana
31st Mar 2014, 13:01
Here is a question to be posed to all religious people. Would you vote to establish your God's Laws as the national laws? The problem here is that, even if one particular religion is in the majority, and thus the process is democratic, every other religion and especially the secularists are going to regard a lot of your laws & punishments as the tyranny of the majority. I would regard this as particularly true in Islamic countries. Blasphemy carrying the death penalty in Pakistan would be an example, as would laws on homosexuality, almost anything to do with women's rights, etc.
This is the root of the problem I feel. Essentially, there are several things I consider perfectly respectable, and which are currently legal in most Western countries, which would get me executed under Sharia Law. Some of them would have got me executed by the Spanish Inquisition also. Not wishing to point out the obvious, but any religious group has got to expect a bit of resistance from secularists in these circumstances.

vee-tail-1
31st Mar 2014, 13:06
Time for me at least to show a little humility.

I did indeed forget N Ireland when asserting there are no Jewish or Christian fundamentalists in the UK.

But the seemingly ever present possibility of spontaneous or planned violence in NI is what I fear may happen in mainland UK. Particularly if the growing Muslim population with it’s creeping Islamisation continues.

It is one thing to have an opinion about the future, based on what seems to me to be the likely outcomes of present actions. But it is another thing to present hard evidence and facts to support that opinion.

Nevertheless evidence is out there if one cares to look.

There used to be a thriving working class in the UK … they made things before CAD/CAM and robots took away the need for manual labour.

The decline and destruction of heavy industry did away with many working class communities, and jobs for younger less intellectual people have become scarce. People who came from generations of skilled workers were no longer needed.
Only the low pay low status, cleaning, crop picking, bed pan emptying, dirty jobs remained. Proud people refused to do rubbish jobs and so the politicians imported foreign immigrants who would do the work for rubbish wages. But the politicians did not foresee the results of bringing in immigrants whose culture, values, religion, and ways of life were so different and indeed incompatible with our own western society.
But the politicians did not care, did not give a damn, and the rest as they say is history …

So where do we find that evidence? …
Try looking at the still remaining white working class communities throughout the UK and you will see the conflict. Those workers are living at the front line of the clash between different values.

Their traditional homes and districts in UK towns and cities have become unrecognisable, yet they are not giving up the fight.

In every surviving community and elsewhere reports are coming in of incidents, of damaging local council decisions, of items in local newspapers, of protests and demonstrations, of corruption, etc.

These reports rarely reach national news, but all are sent to one organisation which examines and checks, discarding those that are lacking in facts, pictures, authenticity, and truth.

That organisation needs to be scrupulously truthful since it is widely reviled as a ‘racist’ ‘Islamophobic’ ‘far right’ violent group of ignorant thugs.

Sometimes truth is found in public libraries, but sometimes truth can be found in public lavatories … no matter truth is always truth.

awblain
31st Mar 2014, 13:12
That's a good point, Fox.

While Keef's yelling through his fancy new gold trumpet into the bishops' shell-likes about his adoptive daughter's retrospective civil rights, he could ask them to make sure blasphemy laws are removed from the statute books too. It is the 21st century after all.

Omnipotent, omniscient beings really ought to be able to look after themselves. Or are thunderbolts not what they used to be?

In the real world, though, it is fortunate that clear and well-accepted international standards of legal rights in Europe would prevent a successful prosecution for blasphemy in the 21st century.

Human progress might have been retarded for a few centuries by the self-aggrandized forces of reaction in big gold hats, but we're finally doing better now.

Fox3WheresMyBanana
31st Mar 2014, 13:29
awblain - I have a lot of respect for Keef's views, and although I am an agnostic I think he is justified, scientifically, in believing.
My point is simply that when a Muslim says "I want Sharia Law" to an adulterer, or a homosexual, or a number of others, it is identical to saying "I want you killed"; and it's difficult to be more offensive than that in every sense of the word.

sitigeltfel
31st Mar 2014, 13:31
In the real world, though, it is fortunate that clear and well-accepted international standards of legal rights in Europe would prevent a successful prosecution for blasphemy in the 21st century.

There is a large demographic in Europe who do not give a stuff about the continents legal and human rights. Blaspheme against their cult and some of them will just pop round and kill you.

Octopussy2
31st Mar 2014, 13:31
Erm, a quick google reveals that blasphemy and blasphemous liable have not been offences since 2008...but don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant.

PTT
31st Mar 2014, 13:35
I think he is justified, scientifically, in believing.How, exactly, are you defining "scientifically" in that sentence, and in what manner do you assert that definition applies?

awblain
31st Mar 2014, 13:50
Fox, There's a wide range of "laws" under "Sharia". Extremists of all superstitions are prone to mouth off against various groups, which is why there's a real law, unburdened by such unjust ideas as religious discrimination, and upheld justly without such prejudice.

There's always a distinction between respecting a person's right to speak, and the need to correct the nonsensical stuff that they sometimes come out with. Even the most fervent belief by the very nicest people is worth absolute zero in the absence of evidence. That's the key thing - if your argument's ever based on "faith" - by very definition in the absence of evidence - then it cannot be allowed to stand unchallenged as fact. The best it can ever be is unproven.
That's not to disparage the utility of imagination and intuition, but in the real world, those valid mental tools need solid evidential backing before action is taken.

Sitigelfel, Then they, their inciters and their aiders and abetters should expect especially severe sentences.

Octopussy, a better google reveals these absurd laws are still not cleared up in either Northern Ireland or Scotland. Although, because the law is sophisticated enough to handle this, I don't expect a return to burnings at the stake anytime soon. The Northern Irish situation is awkward, because of the lack of legal tools to handle bitter internecine fighting and provocation between ethnically indistinguishable groups.

Keef
31st Mar 2014, 15:07
Thank you again for proof that a moderate should never debate with extremists - he'll be caught in the crossfire from both extremes!

Thank you also to awblain for the fancy new gold trumpet: I'll pass it on to my musical friend over the road.

awblain
31st Mar 2014, 15:31
A mitre's probably not the best shape for tonal quality, but if you cut the end off and shout loudly enough, it'll hopefully get the message into even the most obtuse bishop.

And please don't play the martyr - the burden of proof is on the claimant. You like your faith, and that's a private good, but don't defend those who share it being given any legislative authority. If they are we might all be in the burning/stoning firing line at some point, as many were in the past.

cavortingcheetah
31st Mar 2014, 16:11
26 members numbered as bishops out of a total of approximately 778 who sit in the Lords is hardly an excessive loading of intellect and education especially when one considers that there are 99 peers who are Liberal Democrats.

awblain
31st Mar 2014, 16:26
26 bishops. 1 rabbi. No other superstitious affiliates.

It would be a much better idea to take a thoroughly even-handed "interfaith" view and remove all of these superstition-based appointments. If it turns out that any of these bishops fulfill a useful role, then in principle they could be re-appointed… in just the same was as Liberal Democrats.

I assume that the instigators of this discussion wouldn't want the numbers of Lords to be bulked out with new appointees, selected to reflect the distribution of superstitions in the UK as a whole? (Which is all well and good, since superstitious heritage should have no place in the law or legislature.)

In any case, an extra 20-or-so catholics, ~10 moslems, a couple of hindus, and - to truly reflect the interests of the whole community - the best part of 150 non-religious would probably be far too many extras in a chamber that's already under pressure to slim down.

cavortingcheetah
31st Mar 2014, 17:12
The Lords is stuffed full of superstitious affiliates. Sometimes, when visiting England, I used to shoot with one prominent elected cross bencher. He was an excellent example of dedication to the concept of his own superiority. In reality he was altogether a rather poorer specimen than was his own opinion of himself. Such was his superstitious affiliation.
That of course is a personal opinion and as such is completely inoffensive. Were I to publish such a paragraph, in a reputable journal rather than a rumour mill, with the man's name attached, it could become an offensive example of opinion. Similarly, a declaration that someone should be put to death for this or that particular reason is nothing more than an expression of personal opinion.

defizr
31st Mar 2014, 17:31
26 bishops. 1 rabbi. No other superstitious affiliates.

If there need to be religious people in the Lords can't we just have one of each? Surely that's all that's needed to put their point of view over.

cavortingcheetah
31st Mar 2014, 17:34
Then you should have at least one hard line Sharia Imam, with turban head gear no doubt.

Flying Lawyer
31st Mar 2014, 18:00
awblain
The Law Lords do remain Lords, even though the venue for their legal work has has moved from The House of Lords to the UK Supreme Court.

It was not simply a change of venue. The judicial role of the House of Lords ended in 2009.

Justices of the Supreme Court who are also members of the House of Lords are disqualified from sitting or voting in the House of Lords until they retire.
When they retire they can, if they wish, return to the House of Lords as full Members.


Perhaps the bigger question is whether, in a democracy, there should be an unelected second chamber at all.

defizr
31st Mar 2014, 18:00
Then you should have at least one hard line Sharia Imam, with turban head gear no doubt.

Why? We don't have Christian fundamentalists. We could have a Sufi Muslim together with a Theravada Buddhist, a Jain, a Hindu - perhaps a Jedi Knight. BTW Muslims don't wear turbans - that's Sikhs.

Krystal n chips
31st Mar 2014, 18:04
" That organisation needs to be scrupulously truthful since it is widely reviled as a ‘racist’ ‘Islamophobic’ ‘far right’ violent group of ignorant thugs."


That's got to be one of the most factual comments you have ever posted although I think it's fair to say the little bit about "scrupulously truthful" is a vivid stretch of the imagination.

On the other hand, with regard to what preceded it.....

"That was, a Party Political Broadcast on behalf of the EDL".

How's the recruitment drive going ?

cavortingcheetah
31st Mar 2014, 18:17
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9w9oKQ_XH9k

defizr
31st Mar 2014, 18:46
That's an imama shareef.

cavortingcheetah
31st Mar 2014, 19:19
The learned scholar is one who is careful lest he interpret the law too skillfully and thereby ensures his enshrinement in folkloric myth.

vee-tail-1
31st Mar 2014, 19:30
There is to be a new law in UK addressing mental cruelty to children.
This youngster appears to be a victim :\

Mr Chips
31st Mar 2014, 20:10
Why do people of faith think that their belief system should have immunity from criticism?

Not sure that anyone has claimed that in this thread, what seems to me to have happened is people like AwBlain, Vee Tail and you John Smith are simply making childish comments, throwing around insults, mixing up religions but not making any cogent arguments. If you engage Keef in a discussion, I am sure you will discover why he is well respected here, and its not simply because he is a chaplain.

To suggest that experienced academics with a good view of morality (Bishops) should not be in the House of Lords without discussing whether the ridiculous political appointees should be there shows that it is just an opportunity to bash religion.

So, any chance of a discussion with less of the insults?

500N
31st Mar 2014, 20:17
"To suggest that experienced academics with a good view of morality (Bishops)"


Might apply to the UK but Bishops (in some religions) in Aus and the US are very much "on the nose" for "covering up" serious transgressions by priests and then hindering investigations and compensation !!!

pr00ne
31st Mar 2014, 21:09
Vee-tail-1,

Well, seeing as I am a practising barrister and an atheist, I really do NOT see why I should be in any way ashamed. The fact that I do not share your superstitions has no bearing on my ability to do my job on behalf of my clients.
I also suggest that you read up on British history.

In answer to your ‘simple’ question, just replace the word Muslim in Muslim Judge with Christian, Atheist , Sikh and ask it again. In the eyes of the law and in the application of the law it does not make one iota of difference.

Oh, and the ‘thriving working class’ of which you speak still does exist in the guise of over two million people who still make things. They just aren't all the colour that I suspect you'd like them to be.

Afraid that someone got there before me with their statement in reference to your last post being a “Party Political Broadcast on behalf of the EDL/BNP.”

onetrack,

Best you address your question to the current serving British military personnel who ARE Muslim.

BenThere,

“Our collective obsession with racism has inhibited rational thought and social policy for a generation.”

Not quite sure what you mean with that statement. Are you saying that it is RIGHT that we should be able to discriminate by race, or that you DO have a right to call a black person a n****r?

Totally agree with you about “being insulted” in law. Stephen Fry has a lot of interesting stuff to say on the not unrelated issue of ‘being offended.”

Fox3Where’sMy Bananana,
A good question to pose to the approx. 25,000 different religions that exist on this earth, ALL of whom say they exclusively are right and everyone else is wrong.
Discrimination and oppression of any kind are fundamentally wrong, dressing them up in a ‘religion’ does not somehow make them right.

Flying Lawyer,

Good question re a second unelected chamber. For some of us the task of reforming that house did not end in 2009.

awblain
31st Mar 2014, 21:29
Flying lawyer/pr00ne,

Tony Blair accidentally did a great deal to enhance the status of appointed legislators/heads of state in the UK. What a huge mistake electors can make.

At least Elizabeth and Charles Windsor are known quantities/dedicated public servants/harmless eccentrics/gentle-more-tea-vicar-defenders-of-the-faiths-plural/not likely to start arbitrary pointless wars/stable-long-term-hands-on-the-tiller/at-least-semi-sane/not unhinged megalomaniacs/would know better than to hand power to Gordon Brown/...

The question is how to appoint fairly, usefully and stop the benches being filling with too large a fraction of has-been/never-were hacks and placepersons?

vee-tail-1
31st Mar 2014, 22:47
Well, seeing as I am a practising barrister and an atheist, I really do NOT see why I should be in any way ashamed. The fact that I do not share your superstitions has no bearing on my ability to do my job on behalf of my clients.
I also suggest that you read up on British history.

prOOne
Politicians sometimes make false accusations and then criticise those falsely accused. Some people in my experience never listen to the spoken word, but 'read between the lines', thus always missing the message.

Please read my words and don't add your own in future. ;)

pr00ne
31st Mar 2014, 22:56
Dear vee-tail-1,

I can tell you with a great deal of sincerity, and a goodly smattering of honesty, that I will NEVER do what the likes of you say.

vee-tail-1
31st Mar 2014, 23:01
Good chap ... now go back and read carefully my rather long post. It contains some wisdom that might help you understand the topic under discussion. :ok:

Flying Lawyer
1st Apr 2014, 00:36
Mr Chips So, any chance of a discussion with less of the insults? Only a very slim chance, if any.
Discussions about religion in Jetblast always include insults.

vee-tail-1
Opinions will obviously differ about the merits of the views you expressed in your long post (165), but it was well argued.

john-smithI find anyone who professes a belief in a supernatural, omniscient being to display childish credulity.I disagree, but am content for you to include me in that category. Religions as institutions, and the individuals who choose to follow them, must expect scorn and ridicule from those of us who do not share their beliefs. They do.
Christians, for example, have been subjected to scorn, ridicule and worse for about 2000 years.
I'm more interested in reasoned arguments but that's probably because I'm a lawyer.

pr00ne
I'm having difficulty reconciling I am a practising barrister with Afraid that someone got there before me with their statement in reference to your last post being a “Party Political Broadcast on behalf of the EDL/BNP.” Surely as a "practising barrister" you are capable of advancing intelligent contrary arguments without resorting to silly comments of that nature?
If vee-tail-1 was a supporter of the EDL or BNP I believe he would say so. He's never given any indication of being afraid to say what he thinks, even when his views might be regarded by some as extreme.
Are you saying that it is RIGHT that we should be able to discriminate by race, or that you DO have a right to call a black person a n****r? BenThere did not say either of those things, nor did he imply them.
I'm surprised that you, as a "practising barrister", are unable to understand what he meant. I thought it was clear.



FL

pr00ne
1st Apr 2014, 01:55
Flying Lawyer,

I guess that you and I are just going to have to disagree about what is and is not a silly comment. I do not come here to exercise my skill in exercising intelligent contrary argument, that's the day job. I also think that we are going to have to remain miles apart on what I do and do not understand.

BenThere
1st Apr 2014, 02:38
Are you saying that it is RIGHT that we should be able to discriminate by race, or that you DO have a right to call a black person a n****r?

That's not at all what I meant, but you manifest the problem by your response.

Flying Lawyer
1st Apr 2014, 07:01
pr00neI do not come here to exercise my skill in exercising intelligent contrary argument, that's the day job.

Thank you for explaining.


FL

500N
1st Apr 2014, 07:03
Are you saying that it is RIGHT that we should be able to discriminate by race, or that you DO have a right to call a black person a n****r?


Blacks do (discriminate by race).

They also call whites "whitey" or "white trash" !

bosnich71
2nd Apr 2014, 09:38
500N .... 24 hours since your post and no reply from the "Lawyers" flying or otherwise.

awblain
2nd Apr 2014, 10:03
Mr En, and his cadres,

Maybe it would take more than a day, even for one highly skilled in rhetoric and evidence and with nothing else to do, to try to make any connection between your completely irrelevant post and the reality faced by disadvantaged groups.

Perhaps our learned friends are also waiting for your colleagues to answer the question about your liking for paraphrasing racial epithets? It has been three days now.

Octopussy2
2nd Apr 2014, 10:04
I suspect there was no response because it's a non-point, which doesn't advance the discussion.

bosnich71
2nd Apr 2014, 10:07
Well it woke you up again anyway.

PTT
2nd Apr 2014, 10:12
500N is missing a "some" in his statement.

It's so obvious it's not worth mentioning unless he is actually claiming that all black people call whites "whitey" or "white trash". To do so would necessitate that he had actually heard every individual black person say such things, which is so patently unfeasible that it simply cannot be his claim, hence the obviousness.

This suggests that bosnich71 is merely trolling. That's backed up by his response to Octopussy2.

bosnich71
2nd Apr 2014, 10:54
PTT .... Awblain may think that my post was 'irrevelent' and that I am a cadre of 500,whatever that means, but if waiting for an answer to 500's entry is trolling then yes I'll put my hand up, and really so what ?

awblain
2nd Apr 2014, 11:01
Bosnich,

For "cadre" you may wish to have a look at the way that official diktats were mouthed uniformly in public during the cultural revolution.

Your spell checker appears to be broken too.

Why don't you chase up the answer to our learned friend's question with your sehrrightwing friend?

PTT
2nd Apr 2014, 11:18
bosnich - it wasn't answered because it doesn't warrant answering. Either he's saying that all black people discriminate by race - a silly assertion for reasons already stated - or that some do, which is entirely true. No answer required.

Mac the Knife
2nd Apr 2014, 13:28
"Perhaps the bigger question is whether, in a democracy, there should be an unelected second chamber at all."

Whatever their merits or demerits, an unelected second chamber is likely to take a more nuanced and impartial point of view that a bunch of people who are principally interested in ensuring their own re-election.

Given the coercive turn that "democracy" seems to be taking, an unelected second chamber seems to me not such a bad idea, acting as a pause for reflection against the increasingly peremptory first.

Mac

:suspect:

cavortingcheetah
2nd Apr 2014, 17:15
The answer that would edify the question is whether, in a democracy, there should be an elected first chamber at all. The democratic electoral process, by its own definition, places upon the citizen a requirement for mental capacity and comprehension which are generally most woefully lacking. That is to say in other words, that the vast majority of the voting public are completely and utterly mentally inadequate for the responsibility required to vote in the first place.
That of course is quite apart from the historical precedent that only those who are tax payers should have a role to play in the election of government.

awblain
2nd Apr 2014, 20:52
Let's not take "historical precedent" too far, or the darker-skinned chaps will have to forgo their wages and lose the option to take their labor elsewhere.

If citizens don't get to vote approximately equally, then we end up in some sort of dictatorship, which has historically not lead to very good outcomes.

Fox3WheresMyBanana
2nd Apr 2014, 22:15
Whatever their merits or demerits, an unelected second chamber is likely to take a more nuanced and impartial point of view that a bunch of people who are principally interested in ensuring their own re-election.

I would agree Mac, except that unelected people are placed in the second chamber by elected politicians interested in ensuring their own legislation gets through, and as a reward to people who aided in ensuring their re-election.
Furthermore I fail to see how, for example, Estelle Morris is any more capable of making useful comments as a Baroness than when she was so incapable (by her own admission) of doing so as a mere Secretary of State for Education, or indeed as Minister for the Arts.

cavortingcheetah
2nd Apr 2014, 22:47
In Roman times, not all of which were characterised by Caligula's antics as played by Malcolm McDowell, only citizens could vote and only tax payers could become citizens. A quite different state from one ruled under Sharia law, where, apparently, sodomy and adultery are illegal unless slaves are used for the relevant purposes.

Tankertrashnav
2nd Apr 2014, 22:47
Fox - I cant help feeling that the Lords was a better place when it was peopled by a bunch of old buffers with massive country estates, loads of cash, and no need whatsoever to toe a party line. That, and the fact they all buggered off to Scotland every summer to catch salmon and slaughter grouse, and to Norfolk every winter to slaughter pheasants, and let the country get on with running itself! Of course in those days they didn't get any expenses, so we saved the £7 million plus that their noble lordships claimed in daily allowances in just six months last year - a lot of it just for signing in for ten minutes to pocket the daily rate of around £300!

bosnich71
2nd Apr 2014, 22:49
Awblin ...

I'll see what I can do about the spell checker.In the meantime lighten up,mate,it's not the end of the world,after all after just one comment from me,on a 6 page blog, I was accused of being a Troll and a member of a Cadre F.F.S.

Fox3WheresMyBanana
2nd Apr 2014, 23:00
TTN - I would agree they were better, but that still rates them as worse than useless in my book.

A better choice for unelected members would be Members of the Order of Merit
Order of Merit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_Merit)
Just have them meet 4-12 times a year, there's a max of 23 (you can exclude Big Ears), have Raymond Blanc cook a bloody good lunch for them, then settle down for some pithy & rigorous reviewing of the Bills.

Sir Magdi, what about this Health Bill?
Won't work - not enough consultants, back to the drawing Board
OK, back to Committee. David, the Arts funding?
Bollocks
No second reading for that one then.

What do you reckon?

500N
2nd Apr 2014, 23:02
Bosnich
You have no hope of AWBlain "lightening up".



PTT
You are correct, I did leave out "some" !

Mac the Knife
3rd Apr 2014, 06:38
"A better choice for unelected members would be Members of the Order of Merit"

Excellent thought.

Mac

:ok:

Tankertrashnav
3rd Apr 2014, 09:20
Another vote for the OM, Fox, great idea. I see that there is only one woman (Betty Boothroyd) so for the vacant 24th seat I'd nominate one of the theatrical dames, such as Judi Dench, or maybe Evelyn Glennie - she could be the token youngster - the rest are all satisfyingly mature!

vee-tail-1
3rd Apr 2014, 10:15
OM in the upper house seems a good idea, but if we are seriously into changes ... How about Neville Shute's idea of more than one vote for exceptional citizens? I seem to remember he suggested everyone would be entitled to one vote, plus up to six more votes for certain qualities. So being widely travelled worth one extra vote. Having made a scientific discovery worth another vote. Created great art worth another vote. Can't remember the other qualities but you get the idea; sort of a meritocratic voting system. Of course compulsory voting would have to be enforced. Certainly better than the form of non democracy we currently suffer.

Fox3WheresMyBanana
3rd Apr 2014, 10:53
I don't think you need more than Betty to ensure women's views are fully represented. It's an Order of Merit, not an Order of Tokenism. If there aren't enough x's, then we need to fix the education and sectors of society that stop x's having opportunities for gaining merit, not promote some less meritorious x. That, after all, is the point of having people to take the 'long view'.

cavortingcheetah
3rd Apr 2014, 13:02
The Order of Merit is the personal gift of the reigning monarch. The restriction of an upper house to those who were the queen's favourites would set an unholy precedent reminiscent of the days of Edward II and that old whoring homosexual, Piers Gaveston.

Lightning Mate
3rd Apr 2014, 16:31
When you vote UKIP.

Tankertrashnav
3rd Apr 2014, 18:21
Authorities have yet to determine if either the letter, or the "Operation Trojan Horse" plot it refers to, are genuine.


Hmm - anyone remember The Protocols of the Elders of Zion?

Tankertrashnav
3rd Apr 2014, 18:26
Can't remember the other qualities but you get the idea; sort of a meritocratic voting system.


The seventh vote was in the personal gift of the monarch - as you will remember the hero of the book, an Australian pilot, got his for saving The Queen from an anti-monarchist bomb plot.

Good book (In the Wet) but Shute didnt get it all right. He predicted a massive collapse in population in the UK in the 80s to the extent that there were empty houses everywhere and you could buy one for a tenner, or somesuch!

vee-tail-1
3rd Apr 2014, 21:10
Yes Shute's 'In The Wet' was a good read. :ok:

But sigh! back on topic ...

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-loans-to-help-muslim-students-go-to-university

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/muslims-in-the-armed-forces--2

Mr Chips
3rd Apr 2014, 21:47
Oh good grief, Muslims at University,Muslims in the army. They'll rise up and rape our government, overthrow our women

oh hang on, wait a minute...

Captain Naveed Muhammad, who has served in the Royal Corps of Signals for 27 years, is a practising Muslim soldier.

27 years? I guess he's playing the long game.....

Fox3WheresMyBanana
3rd Apr 2014, 21:59
The Order of Merit is the personal gift of the reigning monarch. The restriction of an upper house to those who were the queen's favourites would set an unholy precedent reminiscent of the days of Edward II and that old whoring homosexual, Piers Gaveston.

CavortingCheetah - the precedent couldn't be more Holy, She's Head of the Church of England. ;)
Your comments are a criticism of Monarchy primarily, rather than an Order of Merit in general, however the very fact that Queen is outside politics means the list does avoid and always has avoided any taint of politics.
I doubt the Queen is about to bed David Hockney, or perhaps Betty Boothroyd would be a better example.
To be pragmatic for a moment, is there anything you have against the individuals accorded OM? Would you not admit they represent a much better standard of mature excellence than the current Lords (or the Commons for that matter)?

Muslims in the Armed Forces.My experience of the qualities of members of religions other than Christianity in the Armed Forces, on a scale of 0-10, is: Sikhs 9+, Jews 7+ (Av. 8), Muslims -5. It's about the same from teaching.

cavortingcheetah
3rd Apr 2014, 22:38
Fox3WheresMyBanana

There's nothing holy about the Anglican church, founded as it was upon the lust of one syphilitic son of a Welsh traitor, usurper, murderer and desecrator of the last true King of England.
That's a personal opinion of course.
Along the same golden vein of private philosophy, when one looks at the collective rabble that infests the House of Commons one can only despair for the future of a once great country. Despair that is, until the first Saturday morning at a Tesco check out, after which one completely understands why the country chugs along, inexorably, towards yet another Tay Bridge like catastrophe with its electorate crammed, as bovines on the way to slaughter, in the carriages.
The Lords are nothing more than unelected representatives of someone's political or financial obligations to another, a club for favours granted and those received. It is by its very nature, utterly corrupt, save only perhaps for those amongst the Lords Spiritual.
Were Britain to be governed by those who hold the Order of Merit it would be expected that the corruption and infantility so inherent in the present two houses would be done away with. But there is a caveat for you have, by the very nature of the approved and only method of choice of composition of the OM, established what is, for the time being at least, a benevolent dictatorship. That particular form of government though is an excellent one usually producing security and stability for the population it protects.
As for Sikhs, Jews and Muslims, one has always been a great admirer of the first, a benign tolerator of the second and a mistruster of the third.
None of the above is a personal opinion at all, just rambling cuttings from Punch's London Charivari perhaps?

Fox3WheresMyBanana
3rd Apr 2014, 22:46
CC- don't hold back, tell us what you really think.
Do you have any hope for the future, or are you digging trenches and checking the ammo?

cavortingcheetah
3rd Apr 2014, 23:06
But the future is bright with a rosy promised dawn!
Here at last you have the possibility of a burgeoning renaissance of patriotism with the impending rise to prominence of the purple party. Here comes the influential diminution of a vicious and manipulative Euro-Serpent, a Hydra which has its headquarters in Brussels and Strasbourg, split between seats as the monstrous cheeks of the same fundamental backside.
Were that not to be the pathway to the future though, then you are assured of the inexorable rise in influence and authority of Sharia, a system which does at least, although one cannot entirely agree with a certain enthusiasm for certain discriminations inherent in the philosophy, provide stern guidance and swift punishment for the transgressors in society.
UKIP or Sharia, the purple or the green, Britain stands to be a winner either way!

Fox3WheresMyBanana
4th Apr 2014, 00:00
Thank you for reminding me why I emigrated.:ok:

vee-tail-1
4th Apr 2014, 18:04
This was a bit late for April 1st ... :hmm:

The British Muslim is truly one among us ? and proud to be so - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/10742683/The-British-Muslim-is-truly-one-among-us-and-proud-to-be-so.html)

perthsaint
4th Apr 2014, 18:07
Excellent article. Thanks for sharing it.

vee-tail-1
4th Apr 2014, 18:18
Don't miss the comments at the end of the article ... :)

perthsaint
4th Apr 2014, 18:21
Comments from Torygraph readers? Life's too short.

Sop_Monkey
4th Apr 2014, 18:54
Thank Allah (peace be upon him) for the divine law of Sharia. Sort some of these thieves out for starters.

How many politicians we have can work with one hand? Most of them will need to if things keep moving as they seem to be. :}

cavortingcheetah
5th Apr 2014, 07:33
That would be the left hand with which each is working?

Fox3WheresMyBanana
5th Apr 2014, 17:14
This is what you can expect when the Muslims hold sway - Death for a blasphemous text message.
BBC News - Pakistani couple get death sentences for blasphemy (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-26901433)

vee-tail-1
5th Apr 2014, 17:41
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/sharia-compliant-student-finance

Creeping acceptance of Sharia? ....

Krystal n chips
5th Apr 2014, 18:18
" Creeping acceptance of Sharia? "

Not really, although as facile questions go, not surprising you posed it.

More like living in the 21st century and an understanding, along with the implementation, of multiculturalism.

You are unlikely to be involved in the former, at least in social and philosophical contexts .....and understand the latter.

Wingswinger
5th Apr 2014, 18:52
Where have you been K&C, multiculturalism is dead. Trevor Phillips said so.

Fox3WheresMyBanana
5th Apr 2014, 20:30
Speaking of the Dark Ages,
Ebola clinic in Guinea evacuated after attack - World - CBC News (http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/ebola-clinic-in-guinea-evacuated-after-attack-1.2599555)
The locals seem to think that the Medecins Sans Frontieres crowd who've come to help them deal with Ebola have brought the disease with them, and have been stoning them.
Guinea is 85% Muslim.

500N
5th Apr 2014, 20:33
Well, that's really going to help !

awblain
5th Apr 2014, 22:16
Creeping acceptance of Sharia? ....

No, just a practical way to ensure that people who refuse to pay interest on superstitious grounds still get hit by a very impressive loan arrangement fee, that just happens to track the base rate.

In the document:

We know that some students, whose religious beliefs may forbid the taking out of a loan that maked interest, may be unable to take advantage of student loans because of this change. This could make it more difficult for them to get a higher education.

Hmm.. I guess the author of the website never maked education, or was away on the day they did spell checking.

cavortingcheetah
5th Apr 2014, 22:50
European laws on blasphemy and other sundry offences were pretty draconian six hundred years ago in the fifteenth century. Punishments were really quite hideous. Various torture museums doted around the continent testify to enlightened mans delight in pulling pieces of flesh from each other's quivering bodies. Methods of execution then are too numerous to mention and offences which warranted the exaction of such penalties were legion.
Mohammad lived six hundred years after Christ. The European justice and retribution system has had a six hundred year start.

Fox3WheresMyBanana
5th Apr 2014, 23:39
So, that makes a Death sentence for a text message acceptable?

Or are you saying Muslims are still 600 years behind Christians/Athiests?

awblain
6th Apr 2014, 06:34
Mohammad lived six hundred years after Christ. The European justice and retribution system has had a six hundred year start.

Perhaps the only message from this is that clerics - of all superstitions - should be kept clear of meddling in such important matters as justice. Perhaps some buddhists and quakers would be OK to involve.

Evidence isn't something that the superstitious tend to be very good at handling.

vee-tail-1
6th Apr 2014, 08:07
Tell the truth about Islam - YouTube (http://youtu.be/INll6Y5iqbM)

Pat's view ...

vee-tail-1
6th Apr 2014, 08:14
http://i269.photobucket.com/albums/jj71/vee-tail-1/exmuslim_zps7aaca2d8.jpg

An ex Muslim view ...

cavortingcheetah
6th Apr 2014, 08:16
In spite of the considerable achievements of William Penn, Quakers in positions of people control seem to place religious principles first and peoples' lives somewhat second. Redskins, peace pipes and Indian Summers spring to mind.
In spite of what the public might believe, a nastier crowd than a saffron robed one armed with staves and burning brands, is difficult to find, even in North London.
Superstition is one thing, religion, for want of a singular aptly descriptive word, is another. One might as well argue that only proven atheists, those who spend their lives walking under ladders and kicking black cats, should be allowed into the halls of government.

A death sentence for a text message seems somewhat harsh but one is reminded that the Obama administration refused entry, a year or so ago, to a Brit who'd been silly enough to tweet nasty things about the Hawaiian's ancestry. That is no doubt the twenty first century tweeter's definition of a death sentence - no Disneyland!
It's probably worth a Fatwa to say that Muslims are six hundred years behind Christians. Let's rather say that six hundred years ago Christians were doing to the innocents what today they accuse the Muslims of doing.

Wafa Sultan should read some history as to the murders of British and Arabs in Palestine at the hands of the Jewish radical group Irgun.
She should pay pilgrimage to the site of the British Embassy in Rome destroyed by that terrorist group, or pass by Bevingrad where 20 British were blown up by the Jews.
Gypsies, priests, homosexuals, intellectuals, free thinkers and many others have come from the ashes of the Socialist's slaughter without making confrontation violent. The Jews are not innocent of committing atrocities, nor are they unique and neither too were they the only victims.
No one people in the history of the world is innocent of absolutely everything.

awblain
6th Apr 2014, 08:31
I'm quite happy to ensure a more uniform disregard of the opinions of superstitious/religious folk.

Why people will keep banging on about some superstitions more than others, even to the tune of inventing "religion" to describe them, is truly a divine mystery. Killing for a cartoon character. Literally crazy.

Effluent Man
6th Apr 2014, 09:22
My son's Religious Education teacher complained to me that he had said "All religion is a form of mental illness".I said "What's wrong with that?"

awblain
6th Apr 2014, 09:49
What's wrong with that?

That it seems to be remarkably difficult to treat in many cases?
That it's often socially acceptable to display the symptoms openly?
That friends and family often encourage the progress of the illness?
There must be many others. :)

There's also the issue that the symptoms range all the way from harmless delusion (affecting the softer-minded end of the RE teacher spectrum*), to murderous psychosis.

*I know, I know… you need a milliIQometer to get a suitable reading.

Religious Education: a prize oxymoron.

vee-tail-1
6th Apr 2014, 10:13
http://i269.photobucket.com/albums/jj71/vee-tail-1/SevillaNazarenoHLaCarreteria04_zps5653a707.jpg

Echos of Christian religious fanaticism still exist now ...

sitigeltfel
6th Apr 2014, 10:16
Echos of Christian religious fanaticism still exist now ...

Careful now, little children.....

http://timenewsfeed.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/pope-francis-boy.jpg