Sharia law in UK 'unavoidable'

[Karamazov]

The Archbishop of Canterbury says the adoption of certain aspects of Sharia law in the UK "seems unavoidable". (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7232661.stm)

An approach to law which simply said - there's one law for everybody - I think that's a bit of a danger.

I wish I was making this up.

[Yellowman]

Not a minute to soon. Let's cut some chavy hands off, after all they do all the stealing.

[IrishWhiskey]

He stresses that "nobody in their right mind would want to see in this country the kind of inhumanity that's sometimes been associated with the practice of the law in some Islamic states; the extreme punishments, the attitudes to women as well".Dr Williams noted that Orthodox Jewish courts already operated, and that the law accommodated the anti-abortion views of some Christians.

"The whole idea that there are perfectly proper ways the law of the land pays respect to custom and community, that's already there," he said.

People may legally devise their own way to settle a dispute in front of an agreed third party as long as both sides agree to the process.

Muslim Sharia courts and the Jewish Beth Din which already exist in the UK come into this category. So whats the controversy again?

[Yellowman]

So whats the controversy again?

Teh Islam! Teh Sharia Law! Beheadings in the streets and a lot of people with only one hand! The end of the UK as we know...

Basically it's the usual British Media Hysteria.

[J Arcane]

The Archbishop of Canterbury says the adoption of certain aspects of Sharia law in the UK "seems unavoidable".Not a minute to soon. Let's cut some chavy hands off, after all they do all the stealing.
That is an idiotic misreading of the actual text and context of the article.

What he's saying is that it may be advisable to allow Muslim citizens to go to their own Sharia courts for certain kinds of disputes, rather than the British court system.

The same thing is done for Jews in Britain and the US in some areas.

[Yellowman]

That is an idiotic misreading of the actual text and context of the article.


Actually, it was a joke, moron.

[Heretic Machine]

Sooo... they want to let some religonuts play Judge Judy, basically?

[Yellowman]

Sooo... they want to let some religonuts play Judge Judy, basically?

Nice, so that's what you think of Islam eh? All their laws must be stupid and backward because they are from poor smelly places filled with sand? Do you know that if America followed Sharia law you wouldn't be in the debt crisis you are in now?

[Heretic Machine]

Nice, so that's what you think of Islam eh?

Yup... and Christianity, Catholicism, Judaism, Buddhism, Scientology, New-Ager bullshit... etc.

[J Arcane]

Yup... and Christianity, Catholicism, Judaism, Buddhism, Scientology, New-Ager bullshit... etc.
Nothing like a little ignorant bigotry to get the day rolling, eh?

[Lord_Don]

I hate to sound like an asshole but I agree with Heretic. Your fucking religious beliefs have no place in my secular law.

(Not YOU specifically, Yellowman. An understood you.)

[Heretic Machine]

Nothing like a little ignorant bigotry to get the day rolling, eh?

Rationality = Bigotry?

Anyhow... I don't see how this is a big deal. As long as people aren't getting their hands chopped off, or selling their daughters, you could probably do the same thing in the US by getting people to sign contracts saying that you'd submit to the judgment of these guys. Hence the Judge Judy comparison. I'm assuming that you have to go before this "court" and basically do the same thing.

[GrinR]

This has never happened before, oh wait yes it has.

[Beelzebud]

RTFA

Well at least the U.S. isn't alone in sensational headlines that mislead.

[Esquilax1138]

Nice, so that's what you think of Islam eh? All their laws must be stupid and backward because they are from poor smelly places filled with sand? Do you know that if America followed Sharia law you wouldn't be in the debt crisis you are in now? Ever heard of non-usury borrowing?

Islam is the worst kind of poison for the mind, and should be outlawed, right up there with scientology. Or if you want to live under islamic law, move to an islamic country and stay the hell out of western countries. We don't want islam here, we got our own crazies we have to deal with thanks.

And if you want to live under gods laws, shoot yourself and move to heaven and leave the rest of us alone.

[snubber]

Hey I agree with Heretic Machine, too, especially as what he said isn't bigotry.

[J Arcane]

I hate to sound like an asshole but I agree with Heretic. Your fucking religious beliefs have no place in my secular law.

(Not YOU specifically, Yellowman. An understood you.)
Not to repeat Beelzubud, but, RTFA.

This has nothing to do with implementing Sharia in the British legal system.

[Schnoogs]

So whats the controversy again?

Got to love tolerance for intolerance.

Only a complete moron (liberal) thinks this is the end of this issue...this is simply step one towards the inevitable showdown between the west and Islam in Europe.

[J Arcane]

Hey I agree with Heretic Machine, too, especially as what he said isn't bigotry.
So, what you're saying is that it's cool to make ignorant attacks on an entire group of people, so long as it's a religious group?

Or are we opening up the door for ignorant attacks on everyone? Got any further commentary on those evil Gypsies perhaps?

[Heretic Machine]

Got to love tolerance for intolerance.

Only a complete moron (liberal) thinks this is the end of this issue...this is simply step one towards the inevitable showdown between the west and Islam in Europe.

I love it when Republicans pull out their rebranded helter skelter bullshit, it's great.

[Lord_Don]

http://img95.imageshack.us/img95/2551/threaddeliversxz1.jpg

[Dr.Finger]

Heh. This is the ad on this particular post.

http://aycu28.webshots.com/image/44067/2004435309050937772_rs.jpg

Sorry for the big image.

[Esquilax1138]

Or are we opening up the door for ignorant attacks on everyone? Got any further commentary on those evil Gypsies perhaps?

This is a forum on teh internetz, of course it's fine to attack people randomly. See any of the 360 vs PS3 vs PC is dead threads. Isn't this why we are here? :D

And don't get us started on those gypsies... *shakes fist*

[Johan]

Sooo... they want to let some religonuts play Judge Judy, basically?

Yup... and Christianity, Catholicism, Judaism, Buddhism, Scientology, New-Ager bullshit... etc.

In all seriousness, I want to say I admire your logical consistency.

Others could do with a dose of the same...

[Lord_Don]

In all seriousness, I want to say I admire your logical consistency.

Others could do with a dose of the same...

Exactly, the whole mote/beam thing.

[Blue]

Yup... and Christianity, Catholicismt... etc.

Those two aren't the same thing?

[Lord_Don]

Those two aren't the same thing?

Leave now, Blue, while you still can.

[Lithium Flower]

What a way to make my first post on a forum I've been frequenting a while... but here goes:

As someone who has been studying the Law of England and Wales for most of my adult life, the Archbishop's statement is being taken out of context.

The English Legal system, and in fact all other legal systems around the western world encourage and facilitate arbitration in civil and commercial matters. Out-of-court settlements between parties have been acceptable in family law, succession law, even criminal matters and have been a part of western jurisprudence for decades.

If the Archbishop feels that a quasi-judicial body should be set up to mediate between parties on the basis of Islamic Law in the same vein, which would then be given the force of law, it would not be a stranger to English Law at all. It will only streamline and facilitate a procedure courts are often forced to go through anyway when called to adjudicate upon matters in which both parties belong to a specific religious doctrine: that of having to determine the law in question and then applying it for the parties. Having a dedicated body to do this, with the right expertise, will in turn lead to lower costs for all concerned which is always a good thing.

[Dr.Finger]

I thought this was really bad until I had a quiet moment to read the article. It's not too bad except for one point But Dr Williams said an approach to law which simply said "there's one law for everybody and that's all there is to be said, and anything else that commands your loyalty or allegiance is completely irrelevant in the processes of the courts - I think that's a bit of a danger".These religious courts cannot replace secular courts, only act alongside them. For things like divorce and mediation, fine. But if a muslim commits a crime, they get hauled into real court just like anyone else.

[Blue]

Leave now, Blue, while you still can.

I'm going to a showing of Blade Runner in about 30 minutes so I figured I could cram as much in as I could in that half-hour. But your way is probably much much healthier.

[H.Bogard]

Islam is the worst kind of poison for the mind, and should be outlawed, right up there with scientology.


Proven. You know nothing about Islamic law.

http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/9290/fishfailrz5.jpg

[Heretic Machine]

I thought this was really bad until I had a quiet moment to read the article. It's not too bad except for one point These religious courts cannot replace secular courts, only act alongside them. For things like divorce and mediation, fine. But if a muslim commits a crime, they get hauled into real court just like anyone else.

Well, I think that is the idea, civil matters not criminal; which two parties are free to work out themselves to begin with. We turn it into bad day-time TV shows here in the US, why not let the religonuts work it out within their organizations if they choose to do so? Hell, I think Masons might do that already, in disputes among themselves... could be wrong though.

[Johan]

I think it's perfectly acceptable to allow parties with a shared mutual belief system to utilize a parallel court system for civil proceedings.

Why should I care if my Muslim neighbor's daughters and/or wife cannot leave the home without a male relative? (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article3321637.ece) Big deal, right?!? I don't care. Live as you see fit. Criminal cases? Criminal court. Civil? Knock yourself (and your wife and kids) out.

[roboninja]

I thought this was really bad until I had a quiet moment to read the article. It's not too bad except for one point These religious courts cannot replace secular courts, only act alongside them. For things like divorce and mediation, fine. But if a muslim commits a crime, they get hauled into real court just like anyone else.

Precisely my stance. If these are simply civil matters between two agreeable parties, this type of thing might have some merit. But once an actual law of the land is violated, these systems must go out the window, and the secular courts take over. Anything else is lunacy.

I am not just saying that because this is Islam, either. If the Jewish courts mentioned in the article overstep these boundaries, that should stop as well.

[Dr.Finger]

That said, the religious courts can only be used in civil matters and only when both parties agree. No criminal cases, no forcing matters into the court.

Of course my guess is that those stipulations won't last in this case.

[bKangy]

Only a complete moron (liberal) thinks this is the end of this issue...this is simply step one towards the inevitable showdown between the west and Islam in Europe.

I normally enjoy your posting, but fuck that and the racist rhetoric of it. It implies that deep down, Muslims just want to fuck us over. But I think better of my friends than that. You might live a sheltered life, but the problems of segregation and alienation of Muslim youth are in part views like this. Treating British Muslims like shit will breed radicals, and it will not solve anything long term.

In reality, it's simply extending a common practice enjoyed by Christian, Jews and others in this country. Idiotic scaremongers instead use it as a tool to yet again divide us. By refusing to integrate, we construct the invisible walls of the ethnic ghettos in modern Britain. The faster people get the common sense and courage to talk to fellow Brits, the faster this nonsense will fall behind us.

[Heretic Machine]

That said, the religious courts can only be used in civil matters and only when both parties agree. No criminal cases, no forcing matters into the court.

Of course my guess is that those stipulations won't last in this case.

Don't tell me you buy into the idea that Islam is actually taking over Europe?

[Lord_Don]

I think it's perfectly acceptable to allow parties with a shared mutual belief system to utilize a parallel court system for civil proceedings.

After reading the article and few comments I can agree that civil cases between parties that both follow said religious belief should be fine, as long as it doesn't go against the law of the land.

It might be goofy to me but both parties agree, why not.

[Oxonian]

Dr Williams noted that Orthodox Jewish courts already operated, and that the law accommodated the anti-abortion views of some Christians.
I'm not sure if I understand what this means. Is he saying that, because abortions are not mandatory, the law is "accomodating" the views of anti-abortionists?

Dr Williams argues that adopting parts of Islamic Sharia law would help maintain social cohesion.

For example, Muslims could choose to have marital disputes or financial matters dealt with in a Sharia court.
Obviously, people can choose to have their disputes arbitrated by an entity other than a court of law. If I think my sister owes me money, we might agree to let our mother decide whether the claim is valid or not rather than making a federal case out of it. But if our mother says my sister doesn't owe anything, and I don't like that decision, I can still file a legal suit. Thus, the courts are the ultimate authority, although my sister and I might agree to avoid appealing our claims to that authority and instead find some other means of resolving our disagreement.

So if Dr. Williams is simply saying that Muslims might choose not to take advantage of the British legal system for some claims, that's plausible and not a cause for concern. But that's hardly "sharia law," at least as most people describe it. "Sharia law," as I understand it, is the replacement of the ordinary legal system with a different system predicated on Muslim teachings. If my sister and I were subject to Sharia law, and I didn't like the imam's judgment in the case, I would have no recourse to the ordinary legal system.

Now, it's possible in some sorts of cases for both parties to voluntarily submit themselves to binding arbitration -- that is, they agree that Person X (who could be a cleric, a teacher, or just someone they respect) will decide the issue, and they voluntarily surrender the right to seek recourse to the ordinary legal system. And there are good reasons for permitting such agreements. But this sort of thing needs to be closely monitored, because there's a significant danger that one party may be subject to unconscionable pressure, that the parties will have a poor understanding of their legal rights, or that non-parties may have interests that would be inadequately protected by a binding arbitration agreement. To take just one example, look at marital disputes. Marital disputes usually involve two parties -- the husband and wife -- but they often involve non-parties who have significant interests in the dispute, e.g., the children of the marriage. A couple cannot be permitted to submit to binding arbitration of a divorce if the arbiter doesn't require an adequate level of child support. At the very least, the children should be appointed a guardian ad litem to review the arbiter's decision and consider whether formal litigation is necessary to protect the children's interests.

[IrishWhiskey]

I'm not sure if I understand what this means. Is he saying that, because abortions are not mandatory, the law is "accomodating" the views of anti-abortionists?

I think he's more referring to the sorts of cases where government officials or funded hospitals with religious affiliation aren't required to do something that goes against their beliefs. Maybe not that specifically, but there are cases where the government makes exceptions for beliefs that don't particularly harm others, or hinder the operation. You know what I mean. There's a case I studied about that on the tip of my tongue, but I'm blanking at the moment.

Obviously, people can choose to have their disputes arbitrated by an entity other than a court of law. If I think my sister owes me money, we might agree to let our mother decide whether the claim is valid or not rather than making a federal case out of it. But if our mother says my sister doesn't owe anything, and I don't like that decision, I can still file a legal suit. Thus, the courts are the ultimate authority, although my sister and I might agree to avoid appealing our claims to that authority and instead find some other means of resolving our disagreement.It seems like he's suggesting is that they make those religious arbitration courts somewhat official, or recommend them in some instances, partly so that the religious courts don't run counter to established law. Legitimizing them so as to make sure that if those sorts of decisions are happening, the court system can keep an eye on it.

But that's hardly "sharia law," at least as most people describe it. "Sharia law," as I understand it, is the replacement of the ordinary legal system with a different system predicated on Muslim teachings. If my sister and I were subject to Sharia law, and I didn't like the imam's judgment in the case, I would have no recourse to the ordinary legal system. But that's not what he's talking about. They might be how you and I commonly think of it, but for millions of Muslims living their lives across the world in non-Sharia countries, they live their lives by certain principles, just as Jews would the Talmud, without it being the official state law.

[Dr.Finger]

Don't tell me you buy into the idea that Islam is actually taking over Europe?Not totally. But I do know from personal experience, and the experience of friends and family in Europe, that some places already take Shari'a too far. The bad stuff may not be officially allowed, but it's unofficially rampant. A dear friend of mine is a nurse in Paris and she has some absolute horror stories.

[IrishWhiskey]

Not totally. But I do know from personal experience, and the experience of friends and family in Europe, that some places already take Shari'a too far. The bad stuff may not be officially allowed, but it's unofficially rampant. A dear friend of mine is a nurse in Paris and she has some absolute horror stories.Thats part of the guys point in the article. Immigrants coming in can sometimes bring norms of intolerance and oppression that don't fit into the new society. Rather than forcing the practices underground into closed communities, you set up official religious arbitration courts, so that people can solve these conflicts in the open without breaking the law.

[Heretic Machine]

Not totally. But I do know from personal experience, and the experience of friends and family in Europe, that some places already take Shari'a too far. The bad stuff may not be officially allowed, but it's unofficially rampant. A dear friend of mine is a nurse in Paris and she has some absolute horror stories.

Yes, I'm sure that happens, but the best we can hope for is that it will be lost once a few generations live in a culture that doesn't suck.

[Dr.Finger]

Thats part of the guys point in the article. Immigrants coming in can sometimes bring norms of intolerance and oppression that don't fit into the new society. Rather than forcing the practices underground into closed communities, you set up official religious arbitration courts, so that people can solve these conflicts in the open without breaking the law.Open? Where did you see open? I'm fairly certain that, like the Orthodox jewish courts, the Shari'a courts would be closed to the public.

Yes, I'm sure that happens, but the best we can hope for is that it will be lost once a few generations live in a culture that doesn't suck.It's England. They get 6 days of sun a year, think the height of cuisine is boiled sausage and erroneously call soccer football. They don't know anything but suck. :cool:

[DangerousDaze]

It's England. They get 6 days of sun a year, think the height of cuisine is boiled sausage and erroneously call soccer football. They don't know anything but suck. :cool:

Must. Resist. Urge. To kill!

I don't support this one little bit. The law of the land is the law of the land. If you live in that land then you will live by its rules. Period.

[Johan]

I don't support this one little bit. The law of the land is the law of the land. If you live in that land then you will live by its rules. Period.

That's extremely intolerant of you.

Just saying.

[Heretic Machine]

Banner ads are getting weirder, and weirder...

http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/imgad?id=CMS50qW_k42ggwEQoAEY2AQyCOfieT-SomBu

[Johan]

Banner ads are getting weirder, and weirder...

Firefox.

Adblock filterset
Adblock

No banner ads.

[Heretic Machine]

Firefox.

Adblock filterset
Adblock

No banner ads.

I've got it, I just don't use it on EvAv. I try to click on one or two a day.

[drakkarim]

I tend to agree that for some civil matters there's no reason why certain parties can't settle matters themselves.

Problem of course happens when people start arguing as to which system should be used for a particular case, especially when one or the other would better serve one of the parties. Also, what happens when the children/relatives of affected parties don't agree with the decision and want to take the matter to the 'other' court system?

This could be perceived as racist, but my general compass is telling me that all the noise in the UK about the Islam/Western clash seems to be pointing at the Islam groups wanting more and more power in terms of applying their beliefs/ways onto everyone else.

I mean if you're not happy with the way the UK/Western world runs, why the fuck do you go there? Ok Ok, i suppose the western world has it coming to it for doing the same shit hundreds of years ago with its fucking crusades and conversions, then again, i guess they're still doing the same shit in africa right now aren't they? so then again, fuck em, if they succeed in the UK, all the more power to them, I guess we'll be next :)

[DangerousDaze]

That's extremely intolerant of you.

Just saying.

Look, I know you're just having a laugh, but this isn't a laughing matter. And if you're being serious then your response was flippant at best.

If certain groups in Britain wish to solve their differences amicably without resorting to the law then that's fine, whether they're religious groups, social groups, or whatever. I don't have a problem with that. That doesn't imply that Sharia law (or the local cricket club's law) has been incorporated into British law.

The law itself, however, must not be bent to fit one group's viewpoint, it should reflect the entire society equally and it should apply to everyone in that society equally.

This whole thing is driven by the fact that Christian adoption agencies want the legal right not to place children with single-sex parents and currently UK law forbids that. They know that no one gives a flying fuck about Christian beliefs so they're relying on the FUD surrounding Islam to bring the issue firmly into the forefront (which they've obviously succeeded in doing). Eventually the argument will come back around to Christian rights, or lack thereof.

[Heretic Machine]

Look, I know you're just having a laugh, but this isn't a laughing matter. And if you're being serious then your response was flippant at best.

If certain groups in Britain wish to solve their differences amicably without resorting to the law then that's fine, whether they're religious groups, social groups, or whatever. I don't have a problem with that. That doesn't imply that Sharia law (or the local cricket club's law) has been incorporated into British law.

The law itself, however, must not be bent to fit one group's viewpoint, it should reflect the entire society equally and it should apply to everyone in that society equally.

This whole thing is driven by the fact that Christian adoption agencies want the legal right not to place children with single-sex parents and currently UK law forbids that. They know that no one gives a flying fuck about Christian beliefs so they're relying on the FUD surrounding Islam to bring the issue firmly into the forefront (which they've obviously succeeded in doing). Eventually the argument will come back around to Christian rights, or lack thereof.

There is always a story behind the story... *sigh*

[Johan]

I've got it, I just don't use it on EvAv. I try to click on one or two a day.

Funding the site...gotcha.

Look, I know you're just having a laugh, but this isn't a laughing matter. And if you're being serious then your response was flippant at best.

I just don't give a shit. That sums it up. You can do whatever the hell you like in your own country. It's up to you all, not me. I have no horse in such a "race."

The law itself, however, must not be bent to fit one group's viewpoint, it should reflect the entire society equally...

Well, now that's just bullshit.

Unless everyone suddenly agrees on what the legal limits should be within society (which is, essentially, a moral question of drawing boundaries around behavior), then it is IMPOSSIBLE that the law would "reflect the entire society equally."

There are always winners and losers as regards legislation of laws. Your task is to determine whose toes will get cropped by the lines you draw, and whose behavioral/societal expectations will win out.

Sharia? Go for it. I don't give a fuck.

[DangerousDaze]

I just don't give a shit.

Then stay out of the fucking thread if you've got nothing to contribute! You just come across as a "post count +1" tosser. Again.

[Lunar Blue]

Yes, I'm sure that happens, but the best we can hope for is that it will be lost once a few generations live in a culture that doesn't suck.

I try to stay out of these threads because I don't personally like being called a racist fuck but here goes. My absolute belief is NO, it won't be lost on itself. What you have to understand is that the muslims migrating to western countries come in hordes and they stay together, not to forget they also breed like hell. Britain, France, Sweden ect. are filling up on islamist ghettos where a white man (or any "heretic" for that matter) has no business being. The mainstream media has finally began reporting on concerning crime stats with 1/3 of violent and rape crimes committed by "immigrants" or people with "immigrant background". This isn't just a collision of cultures, you ask me, it's a fucking attack of one culture against another. It's an orchestrated attack by the intolerance of Islam against people of other faiths or no faith at all. I hate the fear mongering as much as anyone but this is a legit concern and I'm not the only one who has it:

One fifth of children from ethnic "minorities" (quotation marks by me) (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=AJX2RALNMX45BQFIQMFSFFOAVCBQ 0IV0?xml=/news/2007/09/27/nschools127.xml)
English a minority language in 1,300 schools (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=OSHD0ILFN3AVXQFIQMFSFGGAVCBQ 0IV0?xml=/news/2007/12/17/nschool117.xml)
Muslim schools to conduct own inspections (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=GRLY1VQPCWHFBQFIQMFCFFWAVCBQ YIV0?xml=/news/2008/01/31/nschools131.xml)
Migrants and the murder rate (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article2980432.ece)
Youth gangs triple child murder rate (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=XRP4KTWMZJ3C3QFIQMFSFF4AVCBQ 0IV0?xml=/news/2008/01/27/ngang127.xml)
Migrant arrests seen to strain police resources (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=4V1YOAIT0QOCHQFIQMGCFFWAVCBQ UIV0?xml=/news/2008/01/28/npolice128.xml)
Violence against police sees sick days soar (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=5FMD4OO3TCJIPQFIQMFSFFOAVCBQ 0IV0?xml=/news/2008/01/02/npolice102.xml)

And these are all from just Britain alone. Personally, I'm concerned about what this will escalate to when the statistics get worse. Because, as far as I know, there is no living organism on this planet that will give out it's living habitat or die without putting up a fight.

[donkeydrop]

So whats the controversy again?

The comparisons you're quoting are utter garbage:

"Dr Williams noted that Orthodox Jewish courts already operated, and that the law accommodated the anti-abortion views of some Christians."

The Beth Din is a Jewish court that has no legal power whatever. You go to them if you need a ruling on whether some food is kosher or if you adopt a baby and want it to be declared Jewish. It has nothing to do with civil laws.

And as for accommodating anti-abortion views, well, I'm pretty sure that outside of China there's nowhere in the world they actually force women to have an abortion against their will. I guess that's "accommodating anti-abortion" views lol.

It's not as if the negative reaction is specifically directed at Muslims. Imagine if he suggested that the Catholic church should be able to enforce it's laws in some communities, and they then forbade women from getting an abortion (which is basically the situation in Ireland). Is that democracy? Is that something that could ever be accepted in the US? People would be burning down the Capital.

[Johan]

Then stay out of the fucking thread if you've got nothing to contribute! You just come across as a "post count +1" tosser. Again.

Oh, I did contribute. I pointed out this bullshit from you:

The law itself, however, must not be bent to fit one group's viewpoint, it should reflect the entire society equally...

You did a good job of supporting that ridiculous statement.

Oh, I mean...you didn't.

This isn't just a collision of cultures, you ask me, it's a fucking attack of one culture against another...Personally, I'm concerned about what this will escalate to when the statistics get worse.

Quite an intolerant position for such a liberal continent with such progressive societies; especially considering you opened the door...the BARN door...as well as your pockets, with generous welfare support. How can it be an "attack" when they were invited?

Meh. Your problem.

[GAThrawn]

I think in any secular society separation of religious law from the laws of the land is a good rule of thumb - given the complexities that it could introduce.

With that said the British should be wary of anyone named Rowan....

http://i258.photobucket.com/albums/hh255/GAThrawn/CARmageddon1591.jpg

[DangerousDaze]

Quite an intolerant position for such a liberal continent with such progressive societies; especially considering you opened the door...the BARN door...as well as your pockets, with generous welfare support. How can it be an "attack" when they were invited?

Meh. Your problem.
My post was not anti-Muslim at all. I'm ok with Sharia courts to the same extent as Jewish courts - if both parties agree to go before such courts and abide by their decisions then what right do I have to say otherwise?

I disagree with religious law being built into the nation's law as a whole. Which leads me on to this:Unless everyone suddenly agrees on what the legal limits should be within society (which is, essentially, a moral question of drawing boundaries around behavior), then it is IMPOSSIBLE that the law would "reflect the entire society equally."There's this thing called "Parliament" in the UK. You might have heard of it. The people within Parliament are elected by the nation to represent it on activities such as law-making. These people are chosen from a cross-section of society as a whole to represent the masses.

Let me try and simplify it for you so you can quickly type out a glib response or insult and clock up one more post:

1) Society elects parliament
2) Parliament makes law
3) Law reflects society

Trying to shoe-horn religious laws into that structure isn't going to work.

[Tel Prydain]

I swear, people’s tolerance for intolerance is the bane of Europe.

[bKangy]

Words

Woah. I see what you're saying but it's just not the right attitude to have towards your fellow man. What's happening in Britain and in somewhat similar ways around Europe isn't some attack unless you force it to be. If you don't try and break up ghettos, and you truly believe you have no common ground with Muslims in your area, you will be seperated. Likewise if you just treat them with dignity and any common respect, it will be remembered, and while they might not "conform" entirely in a cultural sense, the next generation if raised to have a healthy relationship with other racial groups in a nation will. Immigration does need to be sorted of course, but you should not isolate and alienate those already here. Instead, deal with the challenge with a view to the future.

Oh, and most of those links to British media are utter shit, sorry. A lot of those reporting that 1 in 5 children is of an ethnic minority in schools is hardly surprising, it's the third generation of post-war migrants from the British Empire becoming settled, welcomed and successful. Crime is often worse amongst ethnic minorities because they are still isolated etc, it's no surprise that poverty breeds crime, nor is it a surprise that in inner city schools where ethnic minorities tend to be more focused that their native language becomes more used.

[Oxonian]

Likewise if you just treat them with dignity and any common respect, it will be remembered, and while they might not "conform" entirely in a cultural sense, the next generation if raised to have a healthy relationship with other racial groups in a nation will.
I think this is a somewhat rosy scenario, or at least not wholly practical. Let us take a single ordinary Briton. He is willing to tolerate Muslim immigrants, but he also knows that some of his countrymen are not nearly as liberal-minded as he is. No matter how decent our Briton is to the Muslims he meets, those Muslims will probably experience some racism or Islamophobia at the hands of other Britons. And since people tend to remember the one asshole they meet in a given day rather than the 100 decent folks they also met, those Muslims may well develop an abiding resentment of Britons no matter what our decent Briton does.

It would be nice to think that, if you are just nice to other people, they will be nice to you. And sometimes that even works. But it's hardly reliable. The last time someone went around being tolerant of everyone around him, we nailed him to a fucking cross for being a preachy asshole.

[bKangy]

]

It would be nice to think that, if you are just nice to other people, they will be nice to you. And sometimes that even works. But it's hardly reliable. The last time someone went around being tolerant of everyone around him, we nailed him to a fucking cross for being a preachy asshole.

Of course, there's always some horrid, horrid assholes out there, but it'd be pretty messed up if I just considered the problem out of my hands and gave up. I just wish somebody would stand up and start talking about this, instead of droning on about solutions that avoid actually solving anything. I remember a few years ago my friends were slightly intolerant of Muslims, but I've always made it clear I didn't like that and made my argument, and if every tolerant person just keeps on making their case and such, we'll end the isolation in a generation or two. Until then, we just need to deal with it as a self-created problem.

[Ancalagon]

Of course, there's always some horrid, horrid assholes out there, but it'd be pretty messed up if I just considered the problem out of my hands and gave up. I just wish somebody would stand up and start talking about this, instead of droning on about solutions that avoid actually solving anything. I remember a few years ago my friends were slightly intolerant of Muslims, but I've always made it clear I didn't like that and made my argument, and if every tolerant person just keeps on making their case and such, we'll end the isolation in a generation or two. Until then, we just need to deal with it as a self-created problem.

Frankly, as good as your intentions may be, I dont think they are practical.

The problems...

1. There are more Islamic fundamentalists who are willing to become terrorists than anyone else.

Yes I know that America is killing Muslim people in Iraq and Afghanistan. But not civilians. they dont terrorize civilian populations and kill innocent people. Islamic fundamentalists do, and in my opinion, not enough normal Muslim people condemn these acts. Salman Rushdie has death threats, for being knighted, because his work isnt popular there. Hello, this is the 21st century, that isnt how we do things.

You know, before I moved to London, I was liberal in this regard. But as soon as I realized my life was in danger because I happened to live in London, I decided anyone who would want to suicide bomb me is my enemy. Anyone who stands by while his brother performs such an act is little better.

2. Islamic communities are very tightly knit, and seldom accept outsiders or associate with outsiders

What this does is cause a problem when you want society to become integrated. You picture a society where Muslim, Christian, Jew all become so integrated that no one can tell the difference anymore and no one cares to. In practice, that doesnt happen.

I dont know how much scope and authority the proposed Sharia law courts will have. But even if they settle minor domestic disputes, will they uphold British law? What if a women is raped while sitting in a car with a man she is not married to? Under some Islamic laws, she would be imprisoned. Can we not afford all women the same protection while they live in our country? There is also the case of the honour killings.

I do agree with you bKangy, in that we need solutions, and good ones. But the government needs to crackdown in a big way - the police dont get the support they need at all.

[Johan]

1) Society elects parliament
2) Parliament makes law
3) Law reflects society

Really now? Your parliament is elected? Your entire parliament is composed of people who are elected by the public, and therefore are beholden to and represent their constituents the voters?

Have you studied your governmental system? :confused:

[Lunar Blue]

Woah. I see what you're saying but it's just not the right attitude to have towards your fellow man. What's happening in Britain and in somewhat similar ways around Europe isn't some attack unless you force it to be. If you don't try and break up ghettos, and you truly believe you have no common ground with Muslims in your area, you will be seperated.

Ancalagon pretty much hit in in the head above: the problem doesn't lie within the main population. If you asked 5 years ago what a native Fin thought about muslims, they probably had no definitive answer. Today, it's most likely negative. During the few last years (gang)rapes and violent crimes among (Islamist) immigrants have risen rapidly, and during the last year the media has awoken as well to report about them. I'm cool with being tolerant but I don't see how I can respect or tolerate someone who thinks I'm the fucking devil for not believing in Allah or taking a damn bankloan. What do you think, isn't a century long battle for gender equality something worth defending? I think it was DangerousDaze who already said it, the natives DON'T assimilate to the immigrants, it's the other way. If you don't like beer in the milkshop, GET THE FUCK OUT.

[Magnanimous Gnome]

Got to love tolerance for intolerance.

Only a complete moron (liberal) thinks this is the end of this issue...this is simply step one towards the inevitable showdown between the west and Islam in Europe.



Conservatives: Bringing tolerance to the world since....well....never.

[Magnanimous Gnome]

And as for accommodating anti-abortion views, well, I'm pretty sure that outside of China there's nowhere in the world they actually force women to have an abortion against their will. I guess that's "accommodating anti-abortion" views lol.


No, what that means is that Christian/Catholic run hospitals and clinics do not have to perform abortions, birth control, or other procedures that they do not agree with.

I have a great example of this - my mom wanted to get herself "fixed" after my sister was born, but the local Catholic controlled hospital wouldn't do it, so my mom had to drive 120 miles to get the procedure done. Fucking stupid IMHO, but there you go. :p

[Lord_Don]

Our fathers and grandfathers hated black people so I think I'll keep hating black people too, nothing we can do about it, too much intertia.

[DangerousDaze]

Really now? Your parliament is elected? Your entire parliament is composed of people who are elected by the public, and therefore are beholden to and represent their constituents the voters?

Have you studied your governmental system? :confused:

I assume you're referring to the House of Lords in an effort to distract the conversation into some territory where you believe you can increase your post count to still further reaches.

The House of Lords is an anachronism and is currently under review. It is not as powerful as the House of Commons and there is one important point to make in this respect: The House of Commons (the elected house) can reject outright any bill proposed by the House of Lords, but the House of Lords can only amend a bill proposed by the House of Commons. Additionally, if the House of Lords refuses to play ball then the House of Commons can overrule them anyway.

Shall we talk about sport next?

[Johan]

Shall we talk about sport next?

We can talk about how you guys have fucked up football! :D

Actually, if you believe that it is possible for the laws of a society to equally represent society, then I believe you are high. There will always be winners and losers in legislation, whether that legislation winds its way through your parliament or our congress.

Great example? Abortion. It is impossible to equally represent society in abortion, as there are at least two camps diametrically opposed to one another (and many other intermediate camps); one says there should be no abortions (perhaps with exceptions for rape/incest/medical complications) and the other says abortion on demand should be allowed.

There's no middle ground for those two values. There are some people who stand on the middle ground in their own views, but people from either of those camps will continue to wage legislative war to defeat the other.

Laws, like most things in politics, don't represent society equally. In fact, it's impossible. They can be wielded/applied equally/fairly, but the boundaries they draw will always piss off some while making others happy. If laws did treat everyone equally, England would have sharia NOW because a segment of your society wants it YESTERDAY.

Go Giants. :D I love that New England lost.

[DangerousDaze]

Your argument against law isn't entirely valid because if you look deeper I think you'll find that it's an argument against an elected minority making decisions for the majority in general. That's the price we pay for living in a "modern" democracy. Who knows, in the future we may all get instant voting a la Zardoz (remember that? :) )

Abortion is a good example to choose and fits well with the topic at hand. In the UK abortion has been legalised because the majority of the population wish it to be. Many religious groups would prefer abortion to be illegal and if Sharia law is ever written into the law of the land their case against abortion will be bolstered.

This is precisely why the law should not be altered to recognise the viewpoint of minorities.

You'll note that this wasn't a Muslim asking for this. Islam already respects the law of land of whatever country it is practiced. It doesn't need to be enshrined in this way.

[TrackZero]

The Archbishop of Canterbury says the adoption of certain aspects of Sharia law in the UK "seems unavoidable". (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7232661.stm)



I wish I was making this up.

Too bad they can't just be like us Canadians. Spend lots of time pretending to consider it, and then shoot it down and say "fuck, NO". No reasonable person should expect to have a different legal system implemented for them when they move to another country, period.

[TrackZero]

We can talk about how you guys have fucked up football! :D

Actually, if you believe that it is possible for the laws of a society to equally represent society, then I believe you are high. There will always be winners and losers in legislation, whether that legislation winds its way through your parliament or our congress.

Great example? Abortion. It is impossible to equally represent society in abortion, as there are at least two camps diametrically opposed to one another (and many other intermediate camps); one says there should be no abortions (perhaps with exceptions for rape/incest/medical complications) and the other says abortion on demand should be allowed.

There's no middle ground for those two values. There are some people who stand on the middle ground in their own views, but people from either of those camps will continue to wage legislative war to defeat the other.

Laws, like most things in politics, don't represent society equally. In fact, it's impossible. They can be wielded/applied equally/fairly, but the boundaries they draw will always piss off some while making others happy. If laws did treat everyone equally, England would have sharia NOW because a segment of your society wants it YESTERDAY.

Go Giants. :D I love that New England lost.

While I think your example is fine and what not, you're losing me here. How is comparing abortion laws, which passed by majority, to Sharia law, which does not have majority in any way a good comparison?

[Johan]

Abortion is a good example to choose and fits well with the topic at hand. In the UK abortion has been legalised because the majority of the population wish it to be.

That is precisely my point, however.

No society can equally represent all groups within it through the laws of the land. The only question remains whose toes get smashed, and by how much...

While I think your example is fine and what not, you're losing me here. How is comparing abortion laws, which passed by majority, to Sharia law, which does not have majority in any way a good comparison?

DD said:

The law itself, however, must not be bent to fit one group's viewpoint, it should reflect the entire society equally...

That's just impossible. Pick a law, and I can find people within society who feel that it doesn't reflect their viewpoint. ANY law; and I do truly mean ANY law. There are people who advocate for anything you can imagine...

The law doesn't represent all of society equally. It represents the will of those who have been able to control the legislative levers to actually pass the laws. That's usually the majority, but not always when deals get brokered politically.

Someone always loses. Someone always wins.

[DangerousDaze]

That is precisely my point, however.

No society can equally represent all groups within it through the laws of the land. The only question remains whose toes get smashed, and by how much...



Comment coming...

Well, yeah, majority rule applies only to the majority. But in this case the majority have no need for Sharia law.

[DSSJ]

I live in Austria, it's the little country next to Germany.

Our government seems to think very digital. Either you are totally tolerant towards anything or you are a nazi. There seems to be nothing in between.

This kind of thinking, as you all will understand, makes the majority of us very happy when dealing with immigrants.

Wanna hear some funny laws? Like if you robbed on the street and 3 people can identify the guy who did it, if it's an immigrant who stole your wallet you won't get it back even if the police catches the guy. Want to know why?
Because YOU need to prove that it really is yours. Even if your drivers licence (with your picture) is in it, even if three people saw how you got robbed and tell the police about it.

YOU have to prove before a court that you really got robbed if someone has YOUR wallet. Nice, yes?

With such laws in place and people in your neighborhood who come to your country but don't give a shit about your laws or can't be bothered to learn your language (some of our schools are thinking about hiring translators) it's really hard to stay tolerant.

And Lunar Blue is right. In european countrys the crime rate among immigrants is on the rise and on the other side neo-nazis become a bigger problem every year too.

I think the current course, tolerance for whatever the price may be, is just generating more problems as every year the extreme right wing parties get more and more pissed off people on their side.

Please excuse spelling and grammar as english is not my first language.

[Johan]

Please excuse spelling and grammar as english is not my first language.

You did just fine communicating your point. My German is much, much worse than your English!

[TrackZero]

What this does is cause a problem when you want society to become integrated. You picture a society where Muslim, Christian, Jew all become so integrated that no one can tell the difference anymore and no one cares to. In practice, that doesnt happen.

Actually it does. You should come by our office sometime. Religion is a secondary matter and rarely on mind (unless I'm describing how good a Baconator is.....mmmm). Immigrants are in part shaped by the society they move into, and by their children as they grow up in the new country. And in the case of Toronto, while there are a lot of immigrants, there's even more descendants of them (i.e. parents were immigrants, but they're totally Canadian). We've got people from every religion under the sun, many I'd never heard of until I met the people/went wikipedia searching later.

I recall a conversation I had with a Indian co-worker who was the most "hardcore Muslim" we'd had at the office (and we've got a lot of Muslims). He was outraged the first time we discussed how when his daughter grew up she'd probably not agree with his values. I explained to him "Dude, she'll grow up here, she'll be Canadian. She will not think like you do, and the more pressure you put on her, the more she'll just reject you in the end. Just go with it and support what she wants to do growing up, you can't control her.". Needless to say, he wasn't happy to hear that (he went on some tirade about moving her back to India for University or something when she got that age). But it only took two years of her growing up for him to turn into a complete softie and admit that he'll be keeping her in Canada until she's done university, then it's up to her.

Anyways, I'm getting off point. I think the integration of immigrants is sure, part on the immigrant themselves, but also largely the onus is on the society they're going into to accept them (I'm not talking about giving them a separate legal system though, I just mean socially). If you don't want to "fear" the people coming in but instead accept them and get them on your team, you don't really run into the issues some people in here are freaking out about.

I mean, put yourself in the immigrants shoes. You show up in a new city, legally, find out your work qualifications are worth jack and shit, get a job below your station, have your neighbours give you "the eye" all the time, and be treated like a "lesser" citizen. Are you going to want to adapt to them? Fuck no. You're going to cluster with any people from your home country you can find and get some bit of happiness. That's the scenario that's happening in parts of the states, and then you blame the immigrant as if it's his fault he's not being your buddy. You can clearly see how big of an impact society's own attitudes will have on your new fellow citizen and getting him to "join in". Toronto's living proof that cultural "pools" can work just fine, so long as it's handled the right way.

[DSSJ]

Thanks. I don't want to sound racist and I'm all for being equal, but it just gets me going sometimes how my government handles the things.

It's like they still try to show that WWII is over by ignoring some flaws in their own politics. This is a very difficult topic, in Austria as well as in Germany. It just sucks for the younger generations.

[TheFlyingOrc]

Rationality = Bigotry?

Rationalism is an inconsistent worldview, as it states "everything must be proven" without bothering to prove that statement.

Slut.

[Johan]

Toronto's living proof that cultural "pools" can work just fine, so long as it's handled the right way.

You do know what people do in pools, don't you? :eek:

peepee

[TrackZero]

Our government seems to think very digital. Either you are totally tolerant towards anything or you are a nazi. There seems to be nothing in between.

Just so you know, I think you mean "binary" not "digital". ;) Just a tip (your English is good, I'm just letting you know that mistake).



Wanna hear some funny laws?

YOU have to prove before a court that you really got robbed if someone has YOUR wallet. Nice, yes?

And this law is specific for immigrants? How does that make sense? Why would you enact such a law, as it's giving special treatment. You can't blame that resentment on the immigrant, it's your own legal systems stupid fault.


With such laws in place and people in your neighborhood who come to your country but don't give a shit about your laws or can't be bothered to learn your language (some of our schools are thinking about hiring translators) it's really hard to stay tolerant.

I think the current course, tolerance for whatever the price may be, is just generating more problems as every year the extreme right wing parties get more and more pissed off people on their side.

Now why in the world would the crime rate be higher for immigrants than for native Austrians? There's always a reason for that, if you look beyond the lazy excuse of racism. And chances are it's your own fault (by the way you treat immigrants), or that the statistics aren't different, you just want to perceive them as such. There's nothing more outstanding in a human being to watch, then when they invite someone into their country, and subsequently turn on them without a valid reason. Ain't hypocrisy fun?

[TrackZero]

You do know what people do in pools, don't you? :eek:

peepee

#Johan logic v 1.3

if (valid_right_wing_arguement != 1)
{
ran(1..100)
printf(childish_comeback_array(x));
} elsif {
ran(1..100)
printf(try_not_to_come_across_as_weak_in_front_of_ commie_liberals_array(x));
}

if (proof_liberals_are_right == 1)
{
loop
ran(1..100)
printf(childish_comeback_and_mention_abortion_rand omly_array(x));
end loop
}

# end logic

[TrackZero]

That's just impossible. Pick a law, and I can find people within society who feel that it doesn't reflect their viewpoint. ANY law; and I do truly mean ANY law. There are people who advocate for anything you can imagine...

The law doesn't represent all of society equally. It represents the will of those who have been able to control the legislative levers to actually pass the laws. That's usually the majority, but not always when deals get brokered politically.

Someone always loses. Someone always wins.

Ah, well then I agree. Unless it's some kind of uber-rare case where everyone actually does win.

[TrackZero]

Thanks. I don't want to sound racist and I'm all for being equal, but it just gets me going sometimes how my government handles the things.

It's like they still try to show that WWII is over by ignoring some flaws in their own politics. This is a very difficult topic, in Austria as well as in Germany. It just sucks for the younger generations.

Yeah man, I can't comprehend how it must be growing up in a country after THAT. Especially when you had nothing to do with it. Sucks.

[DSSJ]

Just so you know, I think you mean "binary" not "digital". ;) Just a tip (your English is good, I'm just letting you know that mistake).

Yep, that's what i meant. Thanks for the correction.



And this law is specific for immigrants? How does that make sense? Why would you enact such a law, as it's giving special treatment. You can't blame that resentment on the immigrant, it's your own legal systems stupid fault.


As far as I know it is indeed only for immigrants. I think it's part of some kind of protection program. A co-worker personally experienced this and I was like "What the fuck?" too when she told me.

I think it is stupid.


Now why in the world would the crime rate be higher for immigrants than for native Austrians? There's always a reason for that, if you look beyond the lazy excuse of racism. And chances are it's your own fault (by the way you treat immigrants), or that the statistics aren't different, you just want to perceive them as such. There's nothing more outstanding in a human being to watch, then when they invite someone into their country, and subsequently turn on them without a valid reason. Ain't hypocrisy fun?

You are right it's not only the immigrants fault. A criminal is a criminal, but the way it is handled in my country is very poor. It is in fact an excuse that you are not born in this country, an excuse which can save you some years of jail if you are lucky.

It's not like this in every case but it happens.

I think another reason might be that our government tries to adapt to immigrants and not to integrate them.

Overall I would like to see more integration work done and a more equal treatment in general.

The funny thing is that I say that and I'm no immigrant. If you know our social system you can make quite some money if you were not born here.

[Johan]

Johan logic

The two do not compute, according to many! I'm okay with that, however; quite okay with it.

Edit at below:
Really off topic question - Johan, do you pronounce the "J" in your name? or is it pronounced as a "Y"?

Most people pronounce it "d" for dick, or "a" for ass...or "t" for troll.

Since I'm Swedish, it sounds like a "y". YO-han. :)

[Ancalagon]

Really off topic question - Johan, do you pronounce the "J" in your name? or is it pronounced as a "Y"?

[J Arcane]

I assume you're referring to the House of Lords in an effort to distract the conversation into some territory where you believe you can increase your post count to still further reaches.

The House of Lords is an anachronism and is currently under review. It is not as powerful as the House of Commons and there is one important point to make in this respect: The House of Commons (the elected house) can reject outright any bill proposed by the House of Lords, but the House of Lords can only amend a bill proposed by the House of Commons. Additionally, if the House of Lords refuses to play ball then the House of Commons can overrule them anyway.


Shall we talk about sport next?
I actually always rather liked the concept of the House of Lords as practiced in the modern era. The concept of an appointed legislative house offers an interesting balance against the elected House of Commons. The nice thing, in theory, about the House of Lords, is that not having been elected or having to worry about being elected means a Lord can get away with trying to push for a lot of things in the government that an elected official would be shit scared to try.


It's sort of like having a house that acts much like the US Supreme Court. Sure, no doubt appointees are put in the HoL for political reasons as often as meritocratic ones, but once there, they have the potential to surprise because they're basically there for life.

I know it's the hot stuff with all the young people these days to want to basically dismantle the whole thing, but to me, I think simply removing heredity from the proceedings is sufficient.

[Oxonian]

This is precisely why the law should not be altered to recognise the viewpoint of minorities.
It's very easy to say the law should not be altered to recognize the viewpoint of the minority if you are in the majority. When my favored policy is the majority view, I too get a warm and fuzzy feeling about majority rule. Instead, you should try considering some passionately held view of yours that is unpopular in your country. If the majority of your countrymen suddenly decided that abortion was wrong, should it be banned? Or if the majority of your countrymen decided they were going to turn all of the courts into Sharia courts, would that be good?

[mkelehan]

So, does this mean Gypsies get to steal? Because, their laws say they get to steal from outsiders because Jesus told them they could. Not making this up.

[Johan]

So, does this mean Gypsies get to steal?

Anyone can steal. You just have to be willing to take it on the chin if you're caught, bad boy!

*I do not condone stealing. I haven't stolen anything since <date redacted>*

[DangerousDaze]

It's very easy to say the law should not be altered to recognize the viewpoint of the minority if you are in the majority. When my favored policy is the majority view, I too get a warm and fuzzy feeling about majority rule. Instead, you should try considering some passionately held view of yours that is unpopular in your country. If the majority of your countrymen suddenly decided that abortion was wrong, should it be banned? Or if the majority of your countrymen decided they were going to turn all of the courts into Sharia courts, would that be good?

As I said to Johan, this isn't an argument against lawmaking but against democratic government itself; the minority making decisions for the majority. You have to accept that the people you elect will, the majority of the time, make the right decision for the majority of the people. If every so often they get it wrong, well, that's the price you pay. It's a fair price, imo.

[Lord_Don]

If every so often they get it wrong, well, that's the price you pay. It's a fair price, imo.

Yeah if they get it wrong it's not like it's law....

wait...

[Oxonian]

As I said to Johan, this isn't an argument against lawmaking but against democratic government itself
Well... yeah. I'm American. We tend to take a dim view of majoritarianism. That's why we've got the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, staggered Senate terms, an independent judiciary, federalism... If we had absolute majority rule in this country, the 51% of people who voted for Bush in 2004 would have gotten absolutely everything they wanted.

You guys granted Scotland and Wales their own legislatures, and Northern Ireland has a complicated system of its own. Are you suggesting that Scots should have learned to accept that their favored tax and education policies would have been consistently overruled by the larger population of Englishmen?

[TrackZero]

I think another reason might be that our government tries to adapt to immigrants and not to integrate them.

Overall I would like to see more integration work done and a more equal treatment in general.

The funny thing is that I say that and I'm no immigrant. If you know our social system you can make quite some money if you were not born here.

Ah, that's hitting the nail on the head then. It has to be equal treatment across the board, and make them integrate to you, not vice versa. Now, granted, there should be social programs to assist people new to the country to adjust, but beyond that, you'd be setting a bad precedent.

[TrackZero]

If we had absolute majority rule in this country, the 51% of people who voted for Bush in 2004 would have gotten absolutely everything they wanted.


Heh, I really hope that was sarcasm.

[Johan]

Well... yeah. I'm American. We tend to take a dim view of majoritarianism. That's why we've got the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, staggered Senate terms, an independent judiciary, federalism... If we had absolute majority rule in this country, the 51% of people who voted for Bush in 2004 would have gotten absolutely everything they wanted.

You guys granted Scotland and Wales their own legislatures, and Northern Ireland has a complicated system of its own. Are you suggesting that Scots should have learned to accept that their favored tax and education policies would have been consistently overruled by the larger population of Englishmen?

I just marvel...

you blow me the hell away; right out of the water.

Love reading your stuff.

[DangerousDaze]

Well... yeah. I'm American. We tend to take a dim view of majoritarianism. That's why we've got the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, staggered Senate terms, an independent judiciary, federalism... If we had absolute majority rule in this country, the 51% of people who voted for Bush in 2004 would have gotten absolutely everything they wanted.Yeah, and where does all that get you? Can you say your system of government is any better (or worse :p)? I don't think so. It's about the most twisted, commercialised, media-driven system in the world.

You guys granted Scotland and Wales their own legislatures, and Northern Ireland has a complicated system of its own.Well, Scotland is devolved where Wales isn't, but carry on.Are you suggesting that Scots should have learned to accept that their favored tax and education policies would have been consistently overruled by the larger population of Englishmen?What's your point here? Scotland is devolved...

[Schnoogs]

Yeah, and where does all that get you?

A new president in a year...

[Oxonian]

My point is that Scotland for a long time favored higher taxes and more education spending. But they were a relatively small minority of Britons, so whenever Scottish MPs asked for that, the majority shouted them down. You say that this was a "fair price to pay," but why? Yes, Scots are a minority, and since they are a minority, they probably cannot and should not get everything they desire. But neither does that mean the majority (read: the English) should get to ride roughshod over them. By devolving some powers to the Scottish legislature, your government struck a worthwhile compromise: it altered the law, devolving some powers to Scotland, to accomodate the views of the minority. The Scots haven't gotten everything they wanted, but they haven't been totally shut out of policymaking like they were when they were consistently outvoted in Westminster.

I'm probably not going to think of a better way of putting this than Madison did:
It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure... Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit. In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature, where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger; and as, in the latter state, even the stronger individuals are prompted, by the uncertainty of their condition, to submit to a government which may protect the weak as well as themselves; so, in the former state, will the more powerful factions or parties be gradnally induced, by a like motive, to wish for a government which will protect all parties, the weaker as well as the more powerful.

Although I actually tend to prefer Hamilton's formulation, being an inveterate Hamilton fanboi (I'll spare the quote box):
Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and private faith, and of public and personal liberty, that our governments are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority... When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens. To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed.

[DangerousDaze]

If what you're saying is "democracy isn't perfect" then I agree, but who was it who said "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others."? ;)

[Voodoo]

#Johan logic v 1.3

if (valid_right_wing_arguement != 1)
{
ran(1..100)
printf(childish_comeback_array(x));
} elsif {
ran(1..100)
printf(try_not_to_come_across_as_weak_in_front_of_ commie_liberals_array(x));
}

if (proof_liberals_are_right == 1)
{
loop
ran(1..100)
printf(childish_comeback_and_mention_abortion_rand omly_array(x));
end loop
}

# end logic

God damn it that is awesome. By the way, does that happen to be an actual language? I like the syntax it uses.

[Ancalagon]

God damn it that is awesome. By the way, does that happen to be an actual language? I like the syntax it uses.

It could be badly written C++ - its missing many semi colons. I also dont recognize the ran(1..100) statement - i'd expect that in VB which has such notations for collections.

[blackzc]

This is going to be big in the next 30 years. There probably will be civil war, honestly id imagine the powers that be are planning on what to do. Mexicans immigrating the the US isnt a problem since we share lots of values that we ourselves have forgotten, im glad they are here.


This isnt the first time this has happened. People wont let their country be overrun by values that are not their own. Its going to be very nasty when the average person on the street has had enough

http://jillosophy.blogspot.com/2007/05/if-europe-succumbs-to-jihad-then.html

This one is good to.

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2007/03/is-european-civil-war-inevitable-by.html

I read this awhile back, read the whole thing it pretty much sums it up.

[Johan]

http://jillosophy.blogspot.com/2007/05/if-europe-succumbs-to-jihad-then.html

This one is good to.

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2007/03/is-european-civil-war-inevitable-by.html

I read this awhile back, read the whole thing it pretty much sums it up.

Demographics is destiny. That has been coming for some time now.

European welfare payments and tolerance will eventually rot their societies from the inside out.

[Ancalagon]

Demographics is destiny. That has been coming for some time now.

European welfare payments and tolerance will eventually rot their societies from the inside out.

Liberals are shocked when I say that welfare creates the very problem it is trying to solve.

but it does - it encourages dependance on the state. get people involved in the economy and they will be uplifted. its simple economics.

[IrishWhiskey]

Liberals are shocked when I say that welfare creates the very problem it is trying to solve.Oh my stars and garters!!! *Passes out, requires smelling salts*

but it does - it encourages dependance on the state. get people involved in the economy and they will be uplifted. its simple economics.You know what else is simple economics? That some kids of homeless parents or drug addicts die of starvation. That those with mental disabilities die off due to uselessness.

Even ignoring the "welfare to work" programs started by Clinton, its true that in any welfare system, some unworthy people will benefit. Just like there are unworthy seniors getting benefits from social security. And yet if our society wants to accept morality rather than efficiency at any cost, thats how it sometimes has to be. We can be Randians who ignore the suffering of innocents so as not to waste a penny of Paris Hilton's trust fund, or we can try and find a way to fairly balance "I am my brothers keeper" with a capitalist creed that lead to child labor and slavery. Its the muddy middle, that leads to uncomfortable and difficult moral and practical questions, but is also the only way to not be a monster.

[Ancalagon]

You know what else is simple economics? That some kids of homeless parents or drug addicts die of starvation. That those with mental disabilities die off due to uselessness.

Even ignoring the "welfare to work" programs started by Clinton, its true that in any welfare system, some unworthy people will benefit. Just like there are unworthy seniors getting benefits from social security. And yet if our society wants to accept morality rather than efficiency at any cost, thats how it sometimes has to be. We can be Randians who ignore the suffering of innocents so as not to waste a penny of Paris Hilton's trust fund, or we can try and find a way to fairly balance "I am my brothers keeper" with a capitalist creed that lead to child labor and slavery. Its the muddy middle, that leads to uncomfortable and difficult moral and practical questions, but is also the only way to not be a monster.

I'm not suggesting we stop welfare for the elderly and the infirm. I'm suggesting we stop it for those too lazy to work, who form the majority of those on welfare.

yes, kids from broken homes need support.

I'm not suggesting we do anything harsh or cruel. But if you carry on offering welfare to people you encourage them to be dependant on it. Its how humans are.

A friend of mine told me that someone she knew said the term used was "workshy". hes feeling workshy, doesnt want to work. Well excuse me for being heartless but I work hard for my living, I dont see why someone who is feeling "workshy" but who is in all other respects completely fine should benefit while doing nothing.

[IrishWhiskey]

I'm not suggesting we stop welfare for the elderly and the infirm. I'm suggesting we stop it for those too lazy to work, who form the majority of those on welfare.

yes, kids from broken homes need support.

I'm not suggesting we do anything harsh or cruel. But if you carry on offering welfare to people you encourage them to be dependant on it. Its how humans are.That's true, and a very reasonable response.

The main two problems with welfare are incidental effects and accuracy. Incidental effects refers to the "lazy" or otherwise irresponsible people who should be denied welfare, but in doing so it does hurt innocents, like the aforementioned kids and other dependents. We don't really have a way to keep lazy parents from collecting checks, while having the kids educated and fed. The latter refers to our flawed systems sometimes inaccuracies in distinguishing a hardworking person with disadvantages or disabled person, from a lazy person.

I think it should be the goal of welfare systems to try and rout out the latter. Unfortunately while we can get better at it, its never perfect and often comes at the expense of the innocent. I think your argument is a good one in terms of welfare supervision and reform, just not in terms of abolition.