• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

UK Will not tolerate extremists

joG said:
Which is really quite okay, as long as they only reprimand and do not stone the girl. In Germany I have seen reports that actual punishments were dealt out and executed.
Click to expand...

I haven't heard of those cases, but if that were to take place I'd argue that those involved should be prosecuted and the court in question closed down.

But most of Europe is playing to a street that, if it is as strong as the amount of populism and propaganda indicates the politicians want us to feel it is, then we are in hot water.
Click to expand...
Fear is the most powerful tool politicians can wield; keep them frightened, keep them docile, keep them paying out for ever more repressive policing and security apparatus.
 
Andalublue said:
So what are you suggesting? Yes to Beth Din? No to Shari'a?
Click to expand...

I would say "no" to both, regardless of the numbers, as the core concept of allowing seperate societies is not a good idea. But.. I could grudgingly accept voluntary Sharia, Beth Din, or a Christian pseudo equivelant* appealing to only a 100,000 or so people as the threat to social stability is less.

*no true equivelant exists in Christianity, though some Amish here in the US have voluntary unrecognized psuedo courts based on church teachings.

Andalublue said:
Which is what we've seen, but the government hasn't explained how they are going to prevent that happening.
Click to expand...
That is amazing that they tolerate it. As a side note, there have been problems with a few US public funded charter schools going "off the reservation" but that was in the promotion of ethnic identity as "education", not religous seperatism. The handful of schools in question here quickly folded after getting their funding yanked.
 
Last edited:
Cryptic said:
I would say "no" to both, regardless of the numbers, as the core concept of allowing seperate societies is not a good idea. But.. I could grudgingly accept voluntary Sharia, Beth Din, or a Christian pseudo equivelant* appealing to only a 100,000 or so people as the threat to social stability is less.

*no true equivelant exists in Christianity, though some Amish here in the US have voluntary unrecognized psuedo courts based on church teachings.
Click to expand...

Well, there are Ecclesiastical Courts in Britain, which rule on religious matters within the CofE.

I think that you either allow all or none. Deciding that you'll tolerate those of small minorities, but not of large ones, doesn't fly.
 
Andalublue said:
Well, there are Ecclesiastical Courts in Britain, which rule on religious matters within the CofE.

I think that you either allow all or none. Deciding that you'll tolerate those of small minorities, but not of large ones, doesn't fly.
Click to expand...

The Catholic church has a long standing similar system, but like the Cof E one, it is for clergy only, and has never been for the general public.

As to allowing either all or none, I agree with you and will quickly pick "none". At the end of the day, seperate courts are a bad idea. How bad can depend on numbers, but the core concept is "bad idea".
 
Andalublue said:
Ha-ha! Now I know it's electioneering. "The Liberals stopped us!"
Click to expand...

You don't think the Liberals have had any effect, on the Conservative government?
 
Andalublue said:
No, it isn't, but then again, it's also very vague. She doesn't say how they'd judge what they mean by 'reject our values', nor exactly what she means by 'no longer tolerate'. What will they do? Who will decide? Is she proposing new legislation? If so, what? She won't say, because it's just electioneering..."Read my lips, no more toleration!"
Click to expand...

Would you say Anjem Choundary fits the bill? He rejects everything British, except our benefit system. Funny that.

Anjem Choudary on the Charlie Hebdo attacks: 'Muslims do not believe in the concept of freedom of expression' - People - News - The Independent
 
Andalublue said:
No, not really.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I would hazard an educated guess, that policy would have been a tad more leaning to the right, if left to their own devices.
 
Andalublue said:
So, what would she do about him? What will she bring in to deal with his like? New legislation? If so, what?
Click to expand...

My question was, does he fit the bill?
 
Andalublue said:
Well, forgive me for sounding petty, but my question came first. What should she do about him? New legislation? You first.
Click to expand...

No it didn't.
 
gunner said:
It's not quite that simple. There are reports of women coming off much worse, in some Sharia courts. In addition, I would like to see the evidence that says, all women enter into such a system by their own free will.
Click to expand...

Which reports by whom?
 
gunner said:
That question was towards JOG. Nothing to do with what I'm asking you. So, again, do you feel Choundary fits the bill?
Click to expand...

It depends what you propose to do to him. I'm generally not in favour of removing people's right to free speech unless they are inciting violence, so I'm against holocaust denial being criminalised too. If he encourages people to support ISIS then he should be prosecuted under current legislation. If he's done that, then why haven't they used the incitement to violence or racial hatred laws against him already?

Now are you going to answer my questions?
 
Andalublue said:
It depends what you propose to do to him. I'm generally not in favour of removing people's right to free speech unless they are inciting violence, so I'm against holocaust denial being criminalised too. If he encourages people to support ISIS then he should be prosecuted under current legislation. If he's done that, then why haven't they used the incitement to violence or racial hatred laws against him already?

Now are you going to answer my questions?
Click to expand...

I don't like the idea of a prerequisite, to the question Andy. Are we not a civilized society? Until now, on the face of it, he looks to have broken every rule in the book. But, as a trained lawyer, he always takes a step back at the right time. May be, a tightening of legislation will close those loop holes. To date, IIRC he has been associated with at least 6 people convicted of terrorism or terrorism related offences.
 
gunner said:
I don't like the idea of a prerequisite, to the question Andy. Are we not a civilized society?
Click to expand...
Such as?

Until now, on the face of it, he looks to have broken every rule in the book. But, as a trained lawyer, he always takes a step back at the right time. May be, a tightening of legislation will close those loop holes. To date, IIRC he has been associated with at least 6 people convicted of terrorism or terrorism related offences.
Click to expand...
Well, either he hasn't broken every rule in the book, or the government has been negligent and incompetent in not bringing him to trial. I have the feeling that more than tightening of legislation is needed. What do you have in mind?
 
gunner said:
To date, IIRC he has been associated with at least 6 people convicted of terrorism or terrorism related offences.
Click to expand...

No offence since I despise the guy as well.... but one thing that really pisses me off and most people (I hope), is guilt by association accusations. By this, I should be locked up because my late mother happened to play bridge with Osama Bin Ladens grandmother 25 years ago... I mean come on.
 
gunner said:
It's not quite that simple. There are reports of women coming off much worse, in some Sharia courts. In addition, I would like to see the evidence that says, all women enter into such a system by their own free will.
Click to expand...

I never made a claim so I don't need to give any evidence.

Get off my case.
 
Luftwaffe said:
I never made a claim so I don't need to give any evidence.

Get off my case.
Click to expand...

Calm down. I never said anything about you providing evidence. And I don't think one interaction between us constitutes as me being 'on your case'.
 
PeteEU said:
No offence since I despise the guy as well.... but one thing that really pisses me off and most people (I hope), is guilt by association accusations. By this, I should be locked up because my late mother happened to play bridge with Osama Bin Ladens grandmother 25 years ago... I mean come on.
Click to expand...

I don't think this particular person is guilty by way of association. That is not how it works, with Choundary. If anything, it's totally the other way around. He draws in the 'lost souls ' and converts them to his particular doctrine. So I don't see it as an association offence.
 
gunner said:
Calm down. I never said anything about you providing evidence. And I don't think one interaction between us constitutes as me being 'on your case'.
Click to expand...

hmmmm. True, I may have looked at this the wrong way. But then again...

gunner said:
It's not quite that simple. There are reports of women coming off much worse, in some Sharia courts. In addition, I would like to see the evidence that says, all women enter into such a system by their own free will.
Click to expand...
 
Luftwaffe said:
hmmmm. True, I may have looked at this the wrong way. But then again...
Click to expand...

Again, I wasn't suggesting you had to provide the evidence. Take it as a 'thought out loud' that went into my reply.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom