Berty talks about Sharia Law and Courts (2500 hits)
Category: NoneRating: 0.6 on 249 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by Berty (View user info) at 2008-12-11 06:18:57 EST
There's been a bit of concern lately about all this so I'm going to unmuddy the waters a little.
Some basic bullet points:
-Sharia law does not mean that brown folk can shoot white people with impunity; we are limited to a quota of 10 per month which is very strictly enforced.
-Since the introduction of Sharia Law, Great Britian's courts have become far lest congested with divorce proceedings as now all you need to do to get divorced is tap on the top of your spouse's head and say "I hate you!" 3 times. Of course, there are cases where a magistrate has to get involded when a wife has put her hands over her ears and shouted "la, la, la, not listening!".
Seriously though, it's not that big of a deal. Ever heard of Jeth Din? Those are special courts for Judaism. I bet you never even heard of them and feel totally uncompelled to give a fuck. That is because they don't impact on your life whatsoever and they've been around for donkeys years.
Sharia Law in the UK is about setting up a community hearing. It is a way for a community, for members whithin a community, to settle disputes. They're still answerable to parliament. They're an option, you can choose to go through civil statutes if you like, for muslims who wish to settle civil disputes in that manner.
So there it is. Don't be paranoid and don't be a dick about it. Easy.
User Reviews
Submitted by RoadSong (user info) at 2009-07-02 14:26:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Typo. "Intelligent". I keyboard like a chimp on crack.
Submitted by RoadSong (user info) at 2009-07-02 14:12:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
1.I was one of those child brides people hear about married in the State of Utah when I was 14 years old.
2.I went to jail multiple times during the civil rights struggles in the USA.
3.I tried to read and understand all of this post and the bajillion comments on this post.
4.It has given me a headache and I need rootbeer.
5.I find it admirable that you are posting messages here that cause so much controversy. Stirring things up is a good thing when the subject matter is an intellegent discourse of opinions.
Submitted by messmind (user info) at 2009-02-10 13:29:33 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
http://www.ubersite.com/m/121066#2858459
Submitted by JoeyG (user info) at 2008-12-23 11:00:29 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Spam (user info) at 2008-12-23 15:47:21 GMT (#)
Ranking: 2
What's with all the hate?
Bunch of fucking cunts.
ps. merry xmas.
wankers.
-----------
what he said.
Submitted by Spam (user info) at 2008-12-23 10:47:21 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
What's with all the hate?
I don't know... You go away for a few weeks and all of the imbeciles start getting all uppity and above their station and shit and start making inane comments about their superiors just because they think he won't hear them.
Well I did, and Fuck You All. Bunch of fucking cunts.
ps. merry xmas.
wankers.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2008-12-17 03:39:21 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Not really. Only a few people have opinions on sharia law, but loads of people have opinions on hummus.
Submitted by shadow (user info) at 2008-12-16 21:49:41 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
For as much argument as this post generated, it's been beaten out of the top spot by "I like hummus" which also has more reviews.
Odd, no?
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2008-12-16 10:55:23 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2008-12-16 10:39:32 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Another aspect of all of this is that this recent legislation is part of a framework of community initatives designed to engage residents of the islamic community and the various ethnic backgrounds that encompasses.
There are many goals for these projects; primarily though they're about urban regeneration with secondary objectives rooted in counter-terroirism, raising education targets and social intergration. Seems to be working quite well, all in all. We're doing loads better than the French anyway.
-------
Admirabel goals, but I fail to see how allowing people special courts based on admittedly sexist and religious rules will bring about social integration with a less sexist and religious society.
That would be like saying you could increase integration in the US in the 60's by having black only courts.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2008-12-16 10:39:32 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Another aspect of all of this is that this recent legislation is part of a framework of community initatives designed to engage residents of the islamic community and the various ethnic backgrounds that encompasses.
There are many goals for these projects; primarily though they're about urban regeneration with secondary objectives rooted in counter-terroirism, raising education targets and social intergration. Seems to be working quite well, all in all. We're doing loads better than the French anyway.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2008-12-16 08:35:00 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Pentameter (user info) at 2008-12-15 17:10:16 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
And by the way, if you don't think American courts are biased you're even more naive than I thought. In most rape cases the defense will pull every and any person from the victim's past in order to prove that she had it coming to her. Or how about male judges who won't allow the word rape to be used in court? Give me a fucking break dude.
---------------
Once again you are arguing against points I didn't make.
Laws in courts in the UK aren't inherently biased as they are in Sharia courts. Same with the US. Individuals may do slimy things, having better lawyers (ie being rich) helps, juries (and to a lesser extent judges) have prejudice, but walking into a court your word isn't valued less by law because of your genetalia. Your rightsd aren't less because of your genetalia.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2008-12-16 08:24:32 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Pentameter (user info) at 2008-12-15 17:07:23 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I think the fact of the matter is that you're a racist, ethnocentric sexist in sheep's clothing. Men and women are coerced into things they don't want to do every day and in every country. Stop making Muslim women out to be helpless victims. It's nauseating.
----------------
Too bad you think this based out of comments you obviously made up in your head as oppposed to what I actually said.
I never said muslims women are any more likely to be helpless victims than any other women. If you weren't so blinded by trying to pretend that every culture is completely equal in every aspect you would see that. If you have a women, in any community, who for some reason is afraid to offend the community she may be forced to make bad decisions. Regular courts aren't perfect but they do provide more protection for women than sharia courts. If you can't see how an inherently sexist court can be used to hurt a woman who may feel she has to go to them or offend her community you are just plain dumb.
What is nauseating is some cunt who claims to be for womans rights but is perfectly willing to sweep those rights under the carpet if the people asking for it are brown and read from an "foreign" religious book. These courts are wrong. They would be just as wrong if it was christians who were asking for them if they had clear double standards for women.
Ethnocentric? Probably. You come talk to me after you have lived in countries where religious freedom and equal rights aren't the law of the land, and then tell me the way of life in the west isn't better. It may still be far from perfect, and we have plenty of assholes who don't get it, but yes I think it is better.
Anyway I will take the label of ethnocentric, or "cultural imperialist" any day if it means I don't feel guilty or not cultural sensitive enough when I can see opression and label it as such.
Submitted by EmissionImpossible (user info) at 2008-12-16 06:09:36 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Bullet points
blah
blah
fucking
blah
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2008-12-16 04:55:40 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I'm sleepy. What happened in the last 40 replies? Can someone give me bullet points?
Submitted by haikumikoo (user info) at 2008-12-15 17:36:03 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Pentameterowned.
Submitted by Pentameter (user info) at 2008-12-15 17:10:16 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
And by the way, if you don't think American courts are biased you're even more naive than I thought. In most rape cases the defense will pull every and any person from the victim's past in order to prove that she had it coming to her. Or how about male judges who won't allow the word rape to be used in court? Give me a fucking break dude.
Submitted by Pentameter (user info) at 2008-12-15 17:07:23 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I think the fact of the matter is that you're a racist, ethnocentric sexist in sheep's clothing. Men and women are coerced into things they don't want to do every day and in every country. Stop making Muslim women out to be helpless victims. It's nauseating.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2008-12-15 16:59:07 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Pentameter (user info) at 2008-12-15 15:27:03 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Let's put it this way...I learned that viewing Muslim women as victims is a bad idea. There's this idea that their husbands lock them in their houses and beat them and rape them and that they need to be saved and freed from their burqas. In 98% of the cases, this is not even remotely true. I'm willing to bet that the same amount of American and Muslim women suffer at the hands of their significant others. Your view is actually racist, because in your quest to save Muslim women you're painting all Muslims as violent raping murdering maniacs. It's imperialistic. It's sexist because you think that a Muslim woman can't stand up for herself and that she needs someone to save her.
---------------------
Sorry but where did I say all muslims are violent raping murdering maniacs? Nowhere have I argued that.
I stated way down on the thread that most muslims women might very well want to go to the sharia court and aren't pressured into it. But unless you know beyond a shadow of a doubt that they aren't coerced, and that they completely understand the different level of rights they get in Sharia vs regular courts why would you allow an outlet for them to be taken advantage of.
It is amazing how peopel will bend over backwards to defend courts that are inherently biased to avoid being "imperialistic". I for one would rather be imperalistic than support women being opressed.
Submitted by forensicgirl3 (user info) at 2008-12-15 15:27:59 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Pentameter (user info) at 2008-12-15 14:11:15 CST (#)
Ranking: 0
This is totally unrelated to the ongoing conversation that has totally undermined me getting any work done today, but who heard of or gave a shit about sharia law or honor killings before September 11, 2001?
===
I first heard of it when I had to write an undergrad paper on the role and view of psychology in different cultures. That was before 9/11.
Submitted by Pentameter (user info) at 2008-12-15 15:27:03 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2008-12-15 15:10:53 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Pentameter (user info) at 2008-12-15 14:59:17 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
See dude, the issue here is that you can't change this shit with the blink of an eye. You're proposing that you can. You need to be more realistic and get your head out of the clouds. Fighting for equality is a long, hard road that takes generations. You can get rid of the courts but there will still be honor killings. There will still be daughters getting less of an inheritance than their brothers. There will still be women who are beaten. There will still be gays who are killed. Thieves will still have their hands cut off. By the way, in England, the people who have been brought to trial and found guilty of things like honor killings have gone to jail. They haven't received a free pass because of their religious beliefs.
I am against sexism and I do consider myself a feminist. Any rationale human being will tell you that it takes a long time to shake these kinds of ideas loose from people's minds and hearts. Any feminist will tell you that the fight continues for all of us. The Spanish Inquisition went on for like 400 years and you think that changing a culture's ideology is something that will happen over night? Get real.
-----------
Why don't you re-read what I wrote. You are arguing against statements I never made.
I never once implied that ending these courts would end sexism overnight. Or that they would end honor killings (or that they even allow honor killings). My point is that giving sexism legal backing (which is what these courts do) hampers the fight to end sexism. People fighting for equality in muslims communities have an uphill battle, having courts that enforce that sexism make their fight that much harder.
You aren't against sexism if muslims are doing it or you would be against these courts.
----------------
Let's put it this way...I learned that viewing Muslim women as victims is a bad idea. There's this idea that their husbands lock them in their houses and beat them and rape them and that they need to be saved and freed from their burqas. In 98% of the cases, this is not even remotely true. I'm willing to bet that the same amount of American and Muslim women suffer at the hands of their significant others. Your view is actually racist, because in your quest to save Muslim women you're painting all Muslims as violent raping murdering maniacs. It's imperialistic. It's sexist because you think that a Muslim woman can't stand up for herself and that she needs someone to save her.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2008-12-15 15:17:39 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Pentameter (user info) at 2008-12-15 15:11:15 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
This is totally unrelated to the ongoing conversation that has totally undermined me getting any work done today, but who heard of or gave a shit about sharia law or honor killings before September 11, 2001?
-------------------------
I had heard of shaira law as it relates to women being raped and needing more witnesses and the killing of apostates.
I am not sure of the relevance though.
Who cares if it took atragedy for people to focus on something that is wrong. That doesn't make it any less wrong.
Submitted by Pentameter (user info) at 2008-12-15 15:11:15 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
This is totally unrelated to the ongoing conversation that has totally undermined me getting any work done today, but who heard of or gave a shit about sharia law or honor killings before September 11, 2001?
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2008-12-15 15:10:53 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Pentameter (user info) at 2008-12-15 14:59:17 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
See dude, the issue here is that you can't change this shit with the blink of an eye. You're proposing that you can. You need to be more realistic and get your head out of the clouds. Fighting for equality is a long, hard road that takes generations. You can get rid of the courts but there will still be honor killings. There will still be daughters getting less of an inheritance than their brothers. There will still be women who are beaten. There will still be gays who are killed. Thieves will still have their hands cut off. By the way, in England, the people who have been brought to trial and found guilty of things like honor killings have gone to jail. They haven't received a free pass because of their religious beliefs.
I am against sexism and I do consider myself a feminist. Any rationale human being will tell you that it takes a long time to shake these kinds of ideas loose from people's minds and hearts. Any feminist will tell you that the fight continues for all of us. The Spanish Inquisition went on for like 400 years and you think that changing a culture's ideology is something that will happen over night? Get real.
-----------
Why don't you re-read what I wrote. You are arguing against statements I never made.
I never once implied that ending these courts would end sexism overnight. Or that they would end honor killings (or that they even allow honor killings). My point is that giving sexism legal backing (which is what these courts do) hampers the fight to end sexism. People fighting for equality in muslims communities have an uphill battle, having courts that enforce that sexism make their fight that much harder.
You aren't against sexism if muslims are doing it or you would be against these courts.
Submitted by Pentameter (user info) at 2008-12-15 14:59:17 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2008-12-15 14:41:59 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Pentameter (user info) at 2008-12-15 14:26:04 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
And how you fail to see that some people may feel threatened by a move like that baffles me.
---------
So what. Seriously. Let people feel threatened. Immigrants need to adapt. It is unheard of that they would coe to a new country and get special laws written for them.
"Like I said, people inside the Islamic community are the ones who need to push for equality. Anything from the outside world is viewed as aggression and will only make it harder. Imagine if the courts are poof, gone one day. Do you honestly think people will shrug their shoulders and just move on? Say our government said that the second amendment was dashed and that everyone had to turn their guns in...think people would just turn them in and walk home?"
From the outside world? They moved to countries where equality is the rule of the land and they campaigned to get special courts.
I never said if the sharia courts disappeared one day that it would end sexism, but it would end one form of using the govt to enforce sexism. You can't say you are against sexism and be for courts that enforce it. These courts will perpetuate this way of life and are a slap in the face of modern muslims who don't wan to livew under sharia.
-------------------------
See dude, the issue here is that you can't change this shit with the blink of an eye. You're proposing that you can. You need to be more realistic and get your head out of the clouds. Fighting for equality is a long, hard road that takes generations. You can get rid of the courts but there will still be honor killings. There will still be daughters getting less of an inheritance than their brothers. There will still be women who are beaten. There will still be gays who are killed. Thieves will still have their hands cut off. By the way, in England, the people who have been brought to trial and found guilty of things like honor killings have gone to jail. They haven't received a free pass because of their religious beliefs.
I am against sexism and I do consider myself a feminist. Any rationale human being will tell you that it takes a long time to shake these kinds of ideas loose from people's minds and hearts. Any feminist will tell you that the fight continues for all of us. The Spanish Inquisition went on for like 400 years and you think that changing a culture's ideology is something that will happen over night? Get real.
Submitted by forensicgirl3 (user info) at 2008-12-15 14:48:48 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I've watched some videos and speeches by ex-Islamics. For the most part they were speaking about the extremists, but they warned Western countries that these Fundie Islamics DON'T respect our tolerance and values, but are not above exploiting it for their own agendas.
Because of that, Western countries should stop and consider if when they allow stuff like Sharia courts, they're not just throwing gasoline on a fire.
For some reason, Islamic extremists have become way too powerful in the Islamic religion. Moderate and progressive Muslims don't feel this way, unfortunately they're silenced.
The ones (both Muslims AND Non-Muslims) who are fighting against Sharia and extremism are making steps in the right direction.
If the struggle was only left to those who are Muslim, and the rest of the world doesn't weigh in, I don't see much progression that will happen.
Islamic countries want to belong to the global community. As such, I think it is fair that as part of their inclusion in the global community, they must rid themselves of some of the more barbaric practices.
Whenever anything has changed for the positive, it took many people from many backgrounds. Like the Civil Rights Movement.
So it's going to take progressive Muslims and Non-Muslims to stand together and nip this shit in the bud.
I think that's why there is so many anti-sharia websites and petitions going on.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2008-12-15 14:46:00 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Pentameter (user info) at 2008-12-15 14:26:04 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
It's not like I Dream of Genie where you wiggle your nose and nod your head and everything is wonderful. It's called working with and not against.
-----------
Sorry but you don't solve sexism by allowing sexist courts.
I am not saying run out and burn Korans, but enforcing national laws isn't an attack on their religion.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2008-12-15 14:41:59 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Pentameter (user info) at 2008-12-15 14:26:04 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
And how you fail to see that some people may feel threatened by a move like that baffles me.
---------
So what. Seriously. Let people feel threatened. Immigrants need to adapt. It is unheard of that they would coe to a new country and get special laws written for them.
"Like I said, people inside the Islamic community are the ones who need to push for equality. Anything from the outside world is viewed as aggression and will only make it harder. Imagine if the courts are poof, gone one day. Do you honestly think people will shrug their shoulders and just move on? Say our government said that the second amendment was dashed and that everyone had to turn their guns in...think people would just turn them in and walk home?"
From the outside world? They moved to countries where equality is the rule of the land and they campaigned to get special courts.
I never said if the sharia courts disappeared one day that it would end sexism, but it would end one form of using the govt to enforce sexism. You can't say you are against sexism and be for courts that enforce it. These courts will perpetuate this way of life and are a slap in the face of modern muslims who don't wan to livew under sharia.
Submitted by Pentameter (user info) at 2008-12-15 14:26:04 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2008-12-15 14:08:17 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Pentameter (user info) at 2008-12-15 13:44:47 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
If it were a case of stop the courts, stop the misogyny then I would be all for it. Unfortunately, it's got to be from the inside out instead of from the outside in.
------------------
Stopping these courts won't end all misogyny in the islamic community but it is a step in the right direction. It eliminates govt support for rulings based on misogynistic laws. How you fail to see that as a step in the right direction baffles me.
---------------------
And how you fail to see that some people may feel threatened by a move like that baffles me. Like I said, people inside the Islamic community are the ones who need to push for equality. Anything from the outside world is viewed as aggression and will only make it harder. Imagine if the courts are poof, gone one day. Do you honestly think people will shrug their shoulders and just move on? Say our government said that the second amendment was dashed and that everyone had to turn their guns in...think people would just turn them in and walk home?
It's not like I Dream of Genie where you wiggle your nose and nod your head and everything is wonderful. It's called working with and not against.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2008-12-15 14:08:17 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Pentameter (user info) at 2008-12-15 13:44:47 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
If it were a case of stop the courts, stop the misogyny then I would be all for it. Unfortunately, it's got to be from the inside out instead of from the outside in.
------------------
Stopping these courts won't end all misogyny in the islamic community but it is a step in the right direction. It eliminates govt support for rulings based on misogynistic laws. How you fail to see that as a step in the right direction baffles me.
Submitted by Pentameter (user info) at 2008-12-15 13:44:47 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by forensicgirl3 (user info) at 2008-12-15 12:16:42 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Pentameter (user info) at 2008-12-15 11:11:16 CST (#)
Ranking: 0
The issue is such that the courts are the least of the problem. When someone is determined they'll do anything even if it's against the law. The point is that you have an entire religion that's misogynistic and changing that kind of viewpoint is going to be no small task. Think of all the hardcore Christians and their gay bashing, or think of all those hardcore Christians that think it's all right to murder abortion doctors. It's an insanely deep and complex issue that will take generations to solve.
===
Absolutely. And this (Sharia Law debate) is a small step towards solving it. There are progressive and moderate Muslims who wouldn't weep if Sharia was done away with.
-----------
If it were a case of stop the courts, stop the misogyny then I would be all for it. Unfortunately, it's got to be from the inside out instead of from the outside in. There are so many women working for equality in the Islam community and I think that they are the ones who'll have the greatest impact on changing that ideology. There are a lot of men in the Islam Community fighting for women's rights at well. I think they deserve the opportunity to at least start trying to change the way men and some women view women in their society.
I just think this is an issue that is going to take more than knocking down a statue in a town square, you know?
Submitted by Fey (user info) at 2008-12-15 13:08:08 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I do NOT have the energy to read through the comments on this most heated post, because I'm going to be pessimist and guess that many of the crazy right-wing American contingent dropped by to spew bile on anything remotely resembling tolerance or acceptance, but I just want to say that even if you are occasionally a caustic and arbitrary person, Berty, you strike me as someone who makes sense.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2008-12-15 12:21:57 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2008-12-15 12:06:44 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I dunno if muslims would see sharia courts as inherently 'biased' as such - just culturally accurate.
My argument was that courts in the west represent the general view just as much as theirs do. It is cultural imperialism to argue that your general view is in some way superior.
Regardless of how I feel on Sharia law - i think they're entitled to their opinions.
---------------
I don't care if they see it as inherently 'biased'. By western definitions it is. They moved to a western country.
Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becoes a crime when applied to evil" Sorry that you can't see equal rights for people regardless of sex or religion should should be a universal standard. Tell me was it cultural imperialism for the Brits to protest slavery in the US? It is it cultural imperialism to protest the treatment of migrant workers in Dubai? Is it cultural imperialism to say that genital mutilation is wrong? What you call cucltural imperialism I call not being a hypocrit. All people should possess the rights I enjoy.
their opinions, yes. Hence as I said repeatedly lett hem do what they wish, but don't allow govt bodies to put force behind what their religion wants them to do.
Submitted by forensicgirl3 (user info) at 2008-12-15 12:16:42 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Pentameter (user info) at 2008-12-15 11:11:16 CST (#)
Ranking: 0
The issue is such that the courts are the least of the problem. When someone is determined they'll do anything even if it's against the law. The point is that you have an entire religion that's misogynistic and changing that kind of viewpoint is going to be no small task. Think of all the hardcore Christians and their gay bashing, or think of all those hardcore Christians that think it's all right to murder abortion doctors. It's an insanely deep and complex issue that will take generations to solve.
===
Absolutely. And this (Sharia Law debate) is a small step towards solving it. There are progressive and moderate Muslims who wouldn't weep if Sharia was done away with.
Submitted by Pentameter (user info) at 2008-12-15 12:11:16 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
The issue is such that the courts are the least of the problem. When someone is determined they'll do anything even if it's against the law. The point is that you have an entire religion that's misogynistic and changing that kind of viewpoint is going to be no small task. Think of all the hardcore Christians and their gay bashing, or think of all those hardcore Christians that think it's all right to murder abortion doctors. It's an insanely deep and complex issue that will take generations to solve.
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2008-12-15 12:06:44 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I dunno if muslims would see sharia courts as inherently 'biased' as such - just culturally accurate.
My argument was that courts in the west represent the general view just as much as theirs do. It is cultural imperialism to argue that your general view is in some way superior.
Regardless of how I feel on Sharia law - i think they're entitled to their opinions.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2008-12-15 11:57:02 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2008-12-15 11:45:02 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Let me ask you, in a custody case, who is the child invariably given to. Is this a sexist decision? Or do you think mothers are more important than fathers in raising a child?
-------------
One argument is that men tend to work while more mothers stay at home, so giving them the child makes more sense. I think we all know how that isn't as true as it used to be.
I know where you are going wiht this and it is a dead end. Just because regular courts aren't perfect doesn't mean you should allow courts that are inherently biased (two srongs don;t make a right). If something is wroing in the regular courts people should try and fix it, not use that as an excuse to allow courts that are more biased in another direction.
Submitted by forensicgirl3 (user info) at 2008-12-15 11:49:40 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Historically this has been so and continues to be. It's despicable because a lot of mothers who are unfit are given custody. There is a growing men's movement here that working to counter some of that.
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2008-12-15 11:45:02 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
So since courts aren't perfect we should allow courts that are biased right off the back?
I agree that courts tend to support one group more than others, but the laws aren't written to give benefit to one party right off the bat. there is no justification for giving govt backing for sexist laws, unless as I said before, cultural sensitivity is a greater goal than equality.
---
Let me ask you, in a custody case, who is the child invariably given to. Is this a sexist decision? Or do you think mothers are more important than fathers in raising a child?
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2008-12-15 11:44:02 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Forensic:
Courts here have heirarchy - I'm sure they do there too.
The lowest level courts are bound by the rulings of the higher courts.
A magistrate (very low level) is bound by precedent of higher levels, so it would be with Sharia courts. They cannot condemn someone to death because higher levels preclude that as a sentencing option.
Sovereignty rests with the highest court, in our case, europe, then the house of lords and so on down to the lowliest Sharia court.
Submitted by forensicgirl3 (user info) at 2008-12-15 11:38:54 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Ok, so where are you going to draw the line? You haven't drawn it with them insisting on having their Sharia courts for domestic and property cases.
So, when they start demanding that honor killings should be allowed because Sharia law allows for it and after all, it's their religion and culture, your government should allow that as well?
What if a young Islamic man is sentenced to death because he blasphemes? That's part of Sharia law too. Will your government allow that?
If you say no, you'll not allow that, what are you basing your criteria on? It's Sharia Law afterall. You allowed some of it, why not all of it? What will you tell the bullying Imams who are beating their fists and screaming discrimination and hate when you deny them?
Stuff like this never starts off full tilt. It comes on slowly and insidiously.
When people immigrate to another country, there should be some expectation of assimilation. Most immigrants manage to keep their cultural identity and assimilate just fine.
Would you immigrate to a predominiately Islamic country and expect them to honor your British ways?
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2008-12-15 11:34:20 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2008-12-15 11:25:13 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Surely this applies to all courts though - where the rich are supported over the poor, the white over the black.
----------------
Really?
So since courts aren't perfect we should allow courts that are biased right off the back?
I agree that courts tend to support one group more than others, but the laws aren't written to give benefit to one party right off the bat. there is no justification for giving govt backing for sexist laws, unless as I said before, cultural sensitivity is a greater goal than equality.
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2008-12-15 11:25:13 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Unless you can prove without a shadow of a doubt that every single women who will ever set foot in those courts does so without threats from her family/community and with full knowledge of the different treatment she will be given there then they shouldn't be allowed. The govt should never lend its support to a set of laws that are inherently opposed the basis of its own laws. Only in a perfect world can you assume that women go into these courts with full knowledge of their differences and without pressure, since we all know we don't live in a perfect world, why set up a system that is designed to go against women? The only reason I can see people supporting these courts is because they think "cultural sensitivity" as a goal for society trumps equality and protecting the most vulnerable members of society.
---
Surely this applies to all courts though - where the rich are supported over the poor, the white over the black.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2008-12-15 11:21:55 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2008-12-15 11:09:55 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Female circumcision is also practised by Christians in Africa. And there are also huge differences between men and women in these countries. Just pointing out it's not a strictly Muslim thing.
----------------
This may be true, but I have yet to see a chritian scholar from those areas explain how the teachings of Jesus back those practises.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2008-12-15 11:19:59 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2008-12-15 11:09:55 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
These courts are voluntary. You yourself would not be bound by them. If they want to respect their heritage, then let them. They're not forcing it down your neck in the slightest. Christ, isn't that what you stand for anyway Indo? Let people do what they like?
-----------------
Not forcing it down my neck but they are forcing it down the neck of women in their community.
Let them respect their heritage, but don't give govt backing to decisions based on a sexist mysognistic religion. If some girl thinks she shouldn't get as much inheritance as her brother because she doesn't have a penis fine by me, let her give some of the money to her brother but don't set up a court she could be coerced into agreeing to where she doesn't have the same legal rights.
Unless you can prove without a shadow of a doubt that every single women who will ever set foot in those courts does so without threats from her family/community and with full knowledge of the different treatment she will be given there then they shouldn't be allowed. The govt should never lend its support to a set of laws that are inherently opposed the basis of its own laws. Only in a perfect world can you assume that women go into these courts with full knowledge of their differences and without pressure, since we all know we don't live in a perfect world, why set up a system that is designed to go against women? The only reason I can see people supporting these courts is because they think "cultural sensitivity" as a goal for society trumps equality and protecting the most vulnerable members of society.
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2008-12-15 11:09:55 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
They are "eastern things" that are backed by Islamic law.
I know there are Islamic scholars who will disagree, but for every western or modern Islamic scholar you can find who says these things are wrong in Islam, you have 10 scholars in Islamic countries saying they are right.
As for the topic at hand, Sharia courts, women don't have the same rights as man. I don't care if you think that is because they are based on "eastern tecahings" as opposed to "muslim teachings" we in th ewest know this as wrong, and should do everything we can to discourage it short of limiting religious freedom. Setting up courts where this sort of discrimination is the rule does the opposite of discouraging it.
---
Female circumcision is also practised by Christians in Africa. And there are also huge differences between men and women in these countries. Just pointing out it's not a strictly Muslim thing.
These courts are voluntary. You yourself would not be bound by them. If they want to respect their heritage, then let them. They're not forcing it down your neck in the slightest. Christ, isn't that what you stand for anyway Indo? Let people do what they like?
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2008-12-15 10:57:38 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Pentameter (user info) at 2008-12-15 10:43:46 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2008-12-15 10:30:30 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
These people are different. They have always been different. You may not like it, there's lots about it I don't like, but blaming Islam for all of this is silly.
-----------------
And this is my point exactly. You can't make a zebra change its stripes.
-------------------------
Sorry but that is complete BS. It is one thing to say you can't get a foreign nation to act like you want, but if they come to your country that is a whole other story. If people can;t change and accept that all religions, and all people are equal, then they shouldn;t be allowed in to a western country.
As to if Islam is to blame for opression of women, who cares. Lets say for the sake of argument that it isn't. These Islamic courts still encourage it, so it doesn't matter if Islam is the real source when Islam is how the opression is carried out.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2008-12-15 10:48:03 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2008-12-15 10:30:30 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Also, things like female circumcision, which are strongly associated with Islam in fact pre-date that religion. Many of the traits we find so distasteful, disrespect of women etc are pretty much eastern things, as opposed to muslim things.
----------
They are "eastern things" that are backed by Islamic law.
I know there are Islamic scholars who will disagree, but for every western or modern Islamic scholar you can find who says these things are wrong in Islam, you have 10 scholars in Islamic countries saying they are right.
As for the topic at hand, Sharia courts, women don't have the same rights as man. I don't care if you think that is because they are based on "eastern tecahings" as opposed to "muslim teachings" we in th ewest know this as wrong, and should do everything we can to discourage it short of limiting religious freedom. Setting up courts where this sort of discrimination is the rule does the opposite of discouraging it.
Submitted by Pentameter (user info) at 2008-12-15 10:43:46 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2008-12-15 10:30:30 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
These people are different. They have always been different. You may not like it, there's lots about it I don't like, but blaming Islam for all of this is silly.
-----------------
And this is my point exactly. You can't make a zebra change its stripes.
Submitted by Pentameter (user info) at 2008-12-15 10:38:21 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Actually, Mohammed combined the monotheistic views of Christianity, Zoroastrianism and the hanif religion and added his own prophecies to it. Abraham could actually be called the founding father of Islam to anyone who wants to be technical because his writings on the hanif religion greatly influenced Mohammed. He was a pre-Islamic Arab. Pre-Islamic Arabs rejected the idols and had a monotheistic view, so they were actually practicing an ancient form of Islam.
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2008-12-15 10:31:03 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
god forbid there be a single instance of a Jew or a Christian stoning a woman for adultery...
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2008-12-15 10:30:30 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Also, things like female circumcision, which are strongly associated with Islam in fact pre-date that religion. Many of the traits we find so distasteful, disrespect of women etc are pretty much eastern things, as opposed to muslim things.
These people are different. They have always been different. You may not like it, there's lots about it I don't like, but blaming Islam for all of this is silly.
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2008-12-15 10:26:55 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Dark ages etc - christianity in britain, even in Norman times (1066AD+) was still full of pagan religion.
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2008-12-15 10:24:32 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Katy, when was christianity accepted in europe?
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2008-12-15 09:33:31 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Pentameter (user info) at 2008-12-13 08:25:49 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
The United States has been around for like what, 230+ years? Compared to the Middle East we're like a day old baby. Their way of life has been what it is since before Jesus came on the scene. You need to understand that their religion is the most important thing in their lives. It is an integral part of their day to day living, from what they eat to when they need to stop and pray to how they're supposed to dress. A change in laws is not going to change their ideology.
------------
islam has only been around for about 1400 years so that's after jesus. it's only been around as a noticeable religion for about a thousand. so while the us is new comparatively, europe is not, including britain which still had a lot of leftover structure from the romans. since sharia law is almost completely open to interpretation and does not have clarifications written down to pass on to future generations unlike laws on constitutions and state/national statutes there is nothing stopping a particularly belligerent imam for damning a woman right out of the community or for blessing her brother if he kills her when she's raped. modesty and adherence is subjective with only one text and no editing allowed. the bedouin and middle eastern cultures may have been there for thousands of years, and a code of hammurabi kind of eye for an eye justice system was also there, but women and children were not so objectified and still aren't in places where islam has less of a hold on the people.
islam is a relatively new religion and is a lot harsher and less open to being codified than what was there before.
Submitted by Pentameter (user info) at 2008-12-15 08:57:55 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2008-12-13 10:03:54 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Just because something is wrong in the world doesn't mean we should accept it.
------------
And just because it's wrong doesn't mean that you can change it either.
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2008-12-13 21:15:08 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
clotheads are smelly
Submitted by TheUniter (user info) at 2008-12-13 17:59:20 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
.
Submitted by TheUniter (user info) at 2008-12-13 17:59:09 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2008-12-13 10:03:54 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Pentameter (user info) at 2008-12-13 08:25:49 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Uh, I said that I don't think that kind of shit is cool at all. I find that kind of shit abhorrent and do agree that it would be nice if that kind of crap could be nipped in the bud. But here's the thing - their religion IS their law, whether it has the backing of the real actual law or not. The concept of church and state being separate is relatively new to the world. The United States has been around for like what, 230+ years? Compared to the Middle East we're like a day old baby. Their way of life has been what it is since before Jesus came on the scene. You need to understand that their religion is the most important thing in their lives. It is an integral part of their day to day living, from what they eat to when they need to stop and pray to how they're supposed to dress. A change in laws is not going to change their ideology.
The best part is that since the war in Iraq, women have never been more oppressed. Saddam Hussein allowed women to go to school and to get jobs. For a time those women couldn't even leave their homes for fear of being kidnapped because the extremists were "running" the joint, so you tell me how fighting for their rights has helped them. Women rights are being violated all over the world, from women having their genitals mutilated in Africa to the sex slave trade in Thailand and even in this country, where sexism is still running rampant. You sound like a feminist so I'm sure you knew this already. Did you know that in the United States pharmacists deny women the right to purchase the morning after pill because of their religious beliefs? Separation of church and state doesn't happen here all the time either, and most of the time American men just kind of laugh it off and make fun of women here for wanting to have an equal footing.
<insert rape joke here>
-----------
Their religion is their law for only the most religious groups. I lived in muslim countries for almost four years. Just because people can't eat pork and pray five times a day doesn't make them that different. Think of how many ignorant people you know. Just as many muslims are ignorant. They don't do things, not because they think it is wrong, but because the community won't allow them.
End tangent. Anyway I don't think these courts are the end of the world but they are a step in the wrong direction. I fucking hate pharmacists who won't do their job, knowing how thw whore trade in thailand actually works gives me stomach aches (especially because I used to partake in them). You are bring up very different issues. going into Iraq, women opressed in america are all something else. Just because something is wrong in the world doesn't mean we should accept it.
Submitted by Pentameter (user info) at 2008-12-13 08:25:49 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2008-12-12 16:01:07 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Pentameter (user info) at 2008-12-12 12:40:02 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Can't we all just get along?
But anyway, while I as an American female don't really jive with the fact that Muslim women's rights are severely limited, I also understand that many Muslim women are all right with it. I'm not all right with the violence against these women by any means. I do think that people have the right to be happy and that no one should stop them from choosing something different for themselves. A person's well being should not be threatened at any time.
Ask a Muslim woman how she feels about western women fighting for her rights and I guarantee that she will not be happy about it. I've had the pleasure of getting to know a Muslim girl and let me tell you, she is one tough cookie. She has taught me a lot about what it means to be a Muslim woman and how as westerns we misinterpret a lot of things.
---------
I am sure this 13 yr old who was stoned to death didn't want anyone fighting for their rights.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7708169.stm
I can respect a women living in the west who CHOOSES to wear a burka. It is a huge pain in the ass and shows a committment to their faith. But just because some women do doesn't mean that others aren't forced to, or that others don't want people to give them a choice. I knew plenty of girls in Egypt who didn't want to get married because then their family would make them wear a scarf all the time. I knew a mexican girl who made the mistake of marrying an egyptian and living in Egypt. Her husband didn't give her too much crap for not wearing one (don't know about his family) but all the egyptian guys I worked with would call her a whore for not wearing one.
Anyway my point is I am fine with people choosing to do things for the religion, but we shouldn't give churches the backing of the law to enforce those things.
-----------------------
Uh, I said that I don't think that kind of shit is cool at all. I find that kind of shit abhorrent and do agree that it would be nice if that kind of crap could be nipped in the bud. But here's the thing - their religion IS their law, whether it has the backing of the real actual law or not. The concept of church and state being separate is relatively new to the world. The United States has been around for like what, 230+ years? Compared to the Middle East we're like a day old baby. Their way of life has been what it is since before Jesus came on the scene. You need to understand that their religion is the most important thing in their lives. It is an integral part of their day to day living, from what they eat to when they need to stop and pray to how they're supposed to dress. A change in laws is not going to change their ideology.
The best part is that since the war in Iraq, women have never been more oppressed. Saddam Hussein allowed women to go to school and to get jobs. For a time those women couldn't even leave their homes for fear of being kidnapped because the extremists were "running" the joint, so you tell me how fighting for their rights has helped them. Women rights are being violated all over the world, from women having their genitals mutilated in Africa to the sex slave trade in Thailand and even in this country, where sexism is still running rampant. You sound like a feminist so I'm sure you knew this already. Did you know that in the United States pharmacists deny women the right to purchase the morning after pill because of their religious beliefs? Separation of church and state doesn't happen here all the time either, and most of the time American men just kind of laugh it off and make fun of women here for wanting to have an equal footing.
<insert rape joke here>
Submitted by Replen (user info) at 2008-12-13 03:38:56 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
No Comment
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2008-12-12 16:01:07 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Pentameter (user info) at 2008-12-12 12:40:02 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Can't we all just get along?
But anyway, while I as an American female don't really jive with the fact that Muslim women's rights are severely limited, I also understand that many Muslim women are all right with it. I'm not all right with the violence against these women by any means. I do think that people have the right to be happy and that no one should stop them from choosing something different for themselves. A person's well being should not be threatened at any time.
Ask a Muslim woman how she feels about western women fighting for her rights and I guarantee that she will not be happy about it. I've had the pleasure of getting to know a Muslim girl and let me tell you, she is one tough cookie. She has taught me a lot about what it means to be a Muslim woman and how as westerns we misinterpret a lot of things.
---------
I am sure this 13 yr old who was stoned to death didn't want anyone fighting for their rights.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7708169.stm
I can respect a women living in the west who CHOOSES to wear a burka. It is a huge pain in the ass and shows a committment to their faith. But just because some women do doesn't mean that others aren't forced to, or that others don't want people to give them a choice. I knew plenty of girls in Egypt who didn't want to get married because then their family would make them wear a scarf all the time. I knew a mexican girl who made the mistake of marrying an egyptian and living in Egypt. Her husband didn't give her too much crap for not wearing one (don't know about his family) but all the egyptian guys I worked with would call her a whore for not wearing one.
Anyway my point is I am fine with people choosing to do things for the religion, but we shouldn't give churches the backing of the law to enforce those things.
Submitted by Pentameter (user info) at 2008-12-12 12:40:02 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Can't we all just get along?
But anyway, while I as an American female don't really jive with the fact that Muslim women's rights are severely limited, I also understand that many Muslim women are all right with it. I'm not all right with the violence against these women by any means. I do think that people have the right to be happy and that no one should stop them from choosing something different for themselves. A person's well being should not be threatened at any time.
Ask a Muslim woman how she feels about western women fighting for her rights and I guarantee that she will not be happy about it. I've had the pleasure of getting to know a Muslim girl and let me tell you, she is one tough cookie. She has taught me a lot about what it means to be a Muslim woman and how as westerns we misinterpret a lot of things.
Submitted by Barnymeinhoff (user info) at 2008-12-12 10:29:16 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2008-12-12 10:18:31 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2008-12-11 11:31:25 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Indoninja is a racist and despises the concepts of multiculturalism and ethnic intergration.
------------
Really?
That is your argument?
First off sharia courts are the opposite of ethnic integration. They provide an outlet for people not to integrate.
How fucked in the head do you have to be to call someone racist when they think that all people should be subject to the same laws? Hurl whatever insults you want, but at the end of the day you support a system that assists in opression of women.
/I do despise multiculturalism as a goal
Submitted by mystiamoon (user info) at 2008-12-12 04:58:46 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
WTF happened in here???
<runs away>
Submitted by Dervel (user info) at 2008-12-12 04:11:50 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2008-12-11 16:58:26 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
They picked on me?
That Dervel sucks, fucks and gobbles tractors.
---
I wouldn't say we picked on you, breadpie, we just debated chopping your head off with a guillotine and making you the joke of a "humorous" board game. All friendly like.
And what's wrong with tractors?
Submitted by shadow (user info) at 2008-12-11 19:11:55 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
There are no arguments I can state here that have not already been touched on, or covered in depth. As such the only idea I can add, and I admit that it is entirely too broad to be taken as a single statement (but I'm doing it anyway because it's late and I owe the boss overtime), is this:
Human rights trump Religious rights. Period.
You have the freedom to choose, to pray, to read and interpret any text you like, so long as this does not cause suffering amongst humans. Beyond that, I have no opinion.
So, if you want to abolish Sharia Law, you simply must provide examples (not hypothetical or suggested) of how, where, and why abuses happen. You must have evidence, otherwise it seems to be one empty gesture (an overturnable ruling) against another (whinging about overturnable ruling).
In principle, I have no issue with a group self-ruling in private matters. Where abuses cause suffering, there do I disagree.
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2008-12-11 16:58:26 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
They picked on me?
That Dervel sucks, fucks and gobbles tractors.
Submitted by forensicgirl3 (user info) at 2008-12-11 16:55:58 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Fuck Groucho
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2008-12-11 16:54:56 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by forensicgirl3 (user info) at 2008-12-11 16:52:54 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Because of this, I've been listening to 80's hair band metal.
If you're tuning in late, here's a summary.
I put a link up on the uberboard.
Berty made a post saying relax, and don't be a paranoid dick.
Then a debate over what Sharia Law actually is ensued.
Then a debate over whether we should interfere with another culture's ways.
Then the Brits started picking on Red and talking about board games and cocaine.
I thought to myself, "What the hell were you thinking putting that link on a place like Uber?!"
Then came the 80's hair band metal.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You're going to be having dinner with Groucho TONIGHT if you don't shut the heck up.
Submitted by forensicgirl3 (user info) at 2008-12-11 16:52:54 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Because of this, I've been listening to 80's hair band metal.
If you're tuning in late, here's a summary.
I put a link up on the uberboard.
Berty made a post saying relax, and don't be a paranoid dick.
Then a debate over what Sharia Law actually is ensued.
Then a debate over whether we should interfere with another culture's ways.
Then the Brits started picking on Red and talking about board games and cocaine.
I thought to myself, "What the hell were you thinking putting that link on a place like Uber?!"
Then came the 80's hair band metal.
Submitted by Spuzzum (user info) at 2008-12-11 16:49:23 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
No Comment
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2008-12-11 16:44:00 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by sandmantate (user info) at 2008-12-11 15:24:44 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2008-12-11 13:10:24 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
I'd though that, given the context of this post and everything that was said prior to the little snippet you cut out, that even a particularly slow child could follow such reasoning. I'd wager I was right, but given that this is uber, I probably should have dumbed it down even more.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm confused...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You're going to be having dinner with Groucho TONIGHT if you don't shut the hell up.
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2008-12-11 16:39:59 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by haikumikoo (user info) at 2008-12-11 14:59:29 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2008-12-11 14:13:58 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
Submitted by haikumikoo (user info) at 2008-12-11 13:13:32 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Not to mention that you were adding commentary to what Forensic was saying, who seems to very much support changing the way the rest of the world does things, which as Berty already pointed out is somewhat admirable, but I personally feel uncomfortable with that sort of thing. Especially considering the foreign policy of my own country, etc...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I can't pretend to speak for FG, but it is my understanding that she was asking Bertram if cultural traits like genocide should be allowed (in Britain or the UK) under the "cultural and religious freedoms" he was speaking of.
As an example, she posed genocide. Let's say you have a Shiite neighborhood in one part of Bumfuck, IA and a Sunii neighborhood two blocks down, is it ethical and for them to go to war and slaughter each other simply because it's part of their "cultural color"? The example I posed was FGM. If you have someone living next door to you who wants to slice off his daughter's clitoris (something that would ordinarilly be illegal in the extreme), should he be allowed to do so because it's "his religious right"?
Global policies are a different issue.
=====
>>>When I clicked on this post for the first time it had 140+ reviews, fifty or so of which I skimmed. I haven't reread her review but it seemed to me that she was suggesting we shouldn't allow genocide to continue in Africa, even if she was saying would it be okay for us to allow genocide in the U.S. because of cultural traits...I mean wow, that's pretty fucking offensive.<<<
I don't think she was saying either of those things. I think (again, not putting words in her mouth) that she was saying we should NOT allow genocide because of cultural traits. I am fairly certain that genocide was an example of a trait we should NOT follow.
>>Seriously, if you're going to say genocide is a cultural trait of Africa, then you can say the same thing about the U.S. in reference to what we did to American Indians. That's irrelevant, however.<<
Yes, it pretty much is. So I don't see why you're even mentioning it.
>>I am for the most part of the opinion that one should have to follow the same laws that everyone else in that particular country does, it gets far more complicated than the way you've presented it though. I'll try to present things that have actually happened as opposed to proposing the hypothetical.
??In Nebraska in the mid-90s (I think, the years and state might be off...), an immigrant from Iraq arranged a wedding between his two oldest daughters and two other Iraqi immigrants. The daughters were in about the 12-15 age range, I believe, and the men were in their late 20s to early 30s. They were charged with rape, child abuse, etc... Do I find what they were attempting to do disgusting? An emphatic yes. However, I also realize that they've been doing this shit for thousands years, and given their particular culture and religious beliefs I can see how they would be outraged as well. Then again, if they're going to come to America they had damn well better learn our way of doing things and follow along, right?
Probably, but take another case in which a British woman teaching 7-year olds in Sudan asked them to name a class teddy bear. They chose the name Mohammad which is blasphemous, obviously being an extremely serious crime in Sudan. She was imprisoned, and sentenced to either 6 months in prison or a public lashing. Should she have known better? Granted, there is a huge difference between giving a class a teddy bear and forcing 12-15 year old girls to marry men 15-20 years older than them. I'm sure there are much better examples to illustrate my point, but this is what comes to mind immediately. <<
I see where this is supposed to go.
Iccy: But it is reasonable to protect the physical and emotional well-being of children. It is not reasonable to pelt someone with rocks over what they named a teddy bear.
Haik: But imagine it from THEIR point of view. THey probably see stoning people over teddy bears as just as logical as protecting children from rape and molestation.
Which is fine, really, because I am saying that we should not expect American laws to apply in Pakistan, the Sudan, Thailand, or any other nation real or imagined. Are they likely to open up US courts anytime soon? No. Why should the logic be any different here?
Think about it this way... should people be allowed to have sex with nine year olds? Beat their wives? Drive on the wrong side of the road? No. So why should they get special dispensations simply because they're from another culture?
>>I wasn't trying to tie global and domestic policies together as the same issue, my point was that I feel uncomfortable criticizing what's happening in other countries, or signing internet petitions, given the state and recent actions of my own country.<<
Then don't. I'm not asking you to.
>>It gets worse when I wonder how drastically different my values and beliefs would be were I born into a different culture, etc... <<
You could say that about anything. Oh how my beliefs would be different if I grew up in a world where stoning people for naming their teddybear "Mohammed" was normal. Oh how my life would be different if I grew up in a world where people worshipped Cthulhu and wore shoes on their head and spoke with their feet.
Submitted by haikumikoo (user info) at 2008-12-11 15:28:46 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by forensicgirl3 (user info) at 2008-12-11 12:26:06 PST (#)
Ranking: 0
"I still believe that we need to put pressure on OUR country to stop committing what I find to be atrocious (not to mention expensive) acts, not only before we focus on what other countries or tribes are doing, but before we have the right to even begin to question them. "
I'm with you there when it comes to us getting our own house in order.
My panties are in a bunch because (in Britian) Muslims are immigrating to a Western country and basically demanding that they be allowed to bring their law with them.
You wouldn't move to an Islamic country and expect to bring your Western laws with you. That's kind of what they're doing in Britian.
===
Yes, I understand that and don't disagree, the dealing with our own country first bit was more in reference to your comment about western nations coming together to end genocide in Africa.
Submitted by forensicgirl3 (user info) at 2008-12-11 15:26:06 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
"I still believe that we need to put pressure on OUR country to stop committing what I find to be atrocious (not to mention expensive) acts, not only before we focus on what other countries or tribes are doing, but before we have the right to even begin to question them. "
I'm with you there when it comes to us getting our own house in order.
My panties are in a bunch because (in Britian) Muslims are immigrating to a Western country and basically demanding that they be allowed to bring their law with them.
You wouldn't move to an Islamic country and expect to bring your Western laws with you. That's kind of what they're doing in Britian.
Submitted by sandmantate (user info) at 2008-12-11 15:24:44 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2008-12-11 13:10:24 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
I'd though that, given the context of this post and everything that was said prior to the little snippet you cut out, that even a particularly slow child could follow such reasoning. I'd wager I was right, but given that this is uber, I probably should have dumbed it down even more.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm confused...
Submitted by haikumikoo (user info) at 2008-12-11 15:17:55 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by forensicgirl3 (user info) at 2008-12-11 12:11:39 PST (#)
Ranking: 0
haikumikoo
For clarification, I was asking Berty a rhetorical question as he was taking the stance that it (Sharia Law) is Islamic culture and as such should be tolerated as much as possible so that they can keep their culture even if they relocate to a Western country.
My rhetorical question was concerning other cultures' practices. If you have two immigrants from warring African tribes and since it is part of these particular tribe's cultures to try to kill the other, should that be winked at?
I was not being racist by saying all African tribes attempt to commit genocide on one another.
-----
My bad.
===
But some African tribes are committing genocide in Africa right now. Forget the US, but I think most developed countries frown on this behavior. So should all the various countries leave each other alone when human rights are violated?
The USA should not be the moral police. Nor should Britian. Rather nations should stand together against other nations that routinely practice human rights violations.
Obviously that's not happening. But that is a different discussion altogether.
-----
I still have a problem with this. Obviously I don't condone genocide and like most people, find it to be incredibly disturbing. I still believe that we need to put pressure on OUR country to stop committing what I find to be atrocious (not to mention expensive) acts, not only before we focus on what other countries or tribes are doing, but before we have the right to even begin to question them.
So, basically, if you want me to sign any petitions you had better help put Ron Paul in the oval office first. I can wait four years.
Submitted by forensicgirl3 (user info) at 2008-12-11 15:11:39 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
haikumikoo
For clarification, I was asking Berty a rhetorical question as he was taking the stance that it (Sharia Law) is Islamic culture and as such should be tolerated as much as possible so that they can keep their culture even if they relocate to a Western country.
My rhetorical question was concerning other cultures' practices. If you have two immigrants from warring African tribes and since it is part of these particular tribe's cultures to try to kill the other, should that be winked at?
I was not being racist by saying all African tribes attempt to commit genocide on one another.
But some African tribes are committing genocide in Africa right now. Forget the US, but I think most developed countries frown on this behavior. So should all the various countries leave each other alone when human rights are violated?
The USA should not be the moral police. Nor should Britian. Rather nations should stand together against other nations that routinely practice human rights violations.
Obviously that's not happening. But that is a different discussion altogether.
Submitted by haikumikoo (user info) at 2008-12-11 15:10:15 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2008-12-11 11:29:31 PST (#)
Ranking: 0
Am I wrong in assuming that they can go and live in Bumfuck, Egypt, where people are free to hit each other with rocks for not wearing the proper burkha? Did I miss something about Mussalmen being illegally detained and forced at gunpoint to stay in Britain and watch Shirley Valentine?
=====
Okay, but again what about the British woman I mentioned? To us the difference between giving a teddy bear to a class and essentially raping pre-teens is great. But if you simplify it they are similar issues. In both cases, an immigrant is tried under that country's law, of which most natives are in support of. In both cases, foreign countries are outraged at the way their kinsman are being treated.
It's not just about what we find moral or the need for everyone to follow the same laws to preserve our social structure, we also have to deal with the countries these immigrants come from and our handling of them...even though it does seem to me that a country should place more importance on upholding the law and preserving the rights of their citizens.
Submitted by haikumikoo (user info) at 2008-12-11 14:59:29 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2008-12-11 14:13:58 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
Submitted by haikumikoo (user info) at 2008-12-11 13:13:32 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Not to mention that you were adding commentary to what Forensic was saying, who seems to very much support changing the way the rest of the world does things, which as Berty already pointed out is somewhat admirable, but I personally feel uncomfortable with that sort of thing. Especially considering the foreign policy of my own country, etc...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I can't pretend to speak for FG, but it is my understanding that she was asking Bertram if cultural traits like genocide should be allowed (in Britain or the UK) under the "cultural and religious freedoms" he was speaking of.
As an example, she posed genocide. Let's say you have a Shiite neighborhood in one part of Bumfuck, IA and a Sunii neighborhood two blocks down, is it ethical and for them to go to war and slaughter each other simply because it's part of their "cultural color"? The example I posed was FGM. If you have someone living next door to you who wants to slice off his daughter's clitoris (something that would ordinarilly be illegal in the extreme), should he be allowed to do so because it's "his religious right"?
Global policies are a different issue.
=====
When I clicked on this post for the first time it had 140+ reviews, fifty or so of which I skimmed. I haven't reread her review but it seemed to me that she was suggesting we shouldn't allow genocide to continue in Africa, even if she was saying would it be okay for us to allow genocide in the U.S. because of cultural traits...I mean wow, that's pretty fucking offensive. Seriously, if you're going to say genocide is a cultural trait of Africa, then you can say the same thing about the U.S. in reference to what we did to American Indians. That's irrelevant, however.
I am for the most part of the opinion that one should have to follow the same laws that everyone else in that particular country does, it gets far more complicated than the way you've presented it though. I'll try to present things that have actually happened as opposed to proposing the hypothetical.
I'm not going to google it, but you can probably find it rather easily. In Nebraska in the mid-90s (I think, the years and state might be off...), an immigrant from Iraq arranged a wedding between his two oldest daughters and two other Iraqi immigrants. The daughters were in about the 12-15 age range, I believe, and the men were in their late 20s to early 30s. They were charged with rape, child abuse, etc... Do I find what they were attempting to do disgusting? An emphatic yes. However, I also realize that they've been doing this shit for thousands years, and given their particular culture and religious beliefs I can see how they would be outraged as well. Then again, if they're going to come to America they had damn well better learn our way of doing things and follow along, right?
Probably, but take another case in which a British woman teaching 7-year olds in Sudan asked them to name a class teddy bear. They chose the name Mohammad which is blasphemous, obviously being an extremely serious crime in Sudan. She was imprisoned, and sentenced to either 6 months in prison or a public lashing. Should she have known better? Granted, there is a huge difference between giving a class a teddy bear and forcing 12-15 year old girls to marry men 15-20 years older than them. I'm sure there are much better examples to illustrate my point, but this is what comes to mind immediately.
I wasn't trying to tie global and domestic policies together as the same issue, my point was that I feel uncomfortable criticizing what's happening in other countries, or signing internet petitions, given the state and recent actions of my own country. It gets worse when I wonder how drastically different my values and beliefs would be were I born into a different culture, etc...
Submitted by forensicgirl3 (user info) at 2008-12-11 14:57:07 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Yes but if she wants to continue living as a Muslim, she must comply with her father's or husband's demands.
It doesn't go very well for a Muslim woman if she rebels.
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2008-12-11 14:45:53 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
but a woman can get legal advice and appeal. Surely
Submitted by forensicgirl3 (user info) at 2008-12-11 14:38:02 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Speaking only of the Sharia courts in Britian...
Yes, but what if you're a woman who is being abused by her husband?
Or, what if you're a woman who is trying to get an equal share of her inheritance? Sharia law says she's only entitled half than what her brothers get.
What if you're a woman who wants her case tried in the secular courts but your husband says that your case will be heard in the Sharia court? As a Muslim woman, your husband's word is final. So, you go into the court knowing you're going to get screwed or worse.
Sharia Law is discriminatory. So although you might think it would be less messy to have your Islamic community handle your problems, it only is "fair" if you're a man.
We won't go into Sharia Law in actual Islamic countries.
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2008-12-11 14:37:39 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Seriously, let's just legalize everything backwards and "cultural". Druids can impale people on pine trees. People of Nordic descent can legally pillage monestaries the first and third weekends in June. Witch burning and dung for dinner will be the A&F of high culture. The oil fields (and everything between Araby and the Bible Belt) will burn in the 2009 Summer Crusades.
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2008-12-11 14:32:47 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by forensicgirl3 (user info) at 2008-12-11 19:29:27 GMT (#)
Ranking: 0
In theory, yes, Red. Problem is, a lot of times the victim of Sharia Law won't appeal because of intimidation and they might have been intimidated into going with the Sharia court in the first place.
---
I'd be tempted to give this court a go first, likely to be cheaper - if I don't like the judgement, I'd appeal.
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2008-12-11 14:29:31 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Am I wrong in assuming that they can go and live in Bumfuck, Egypt, where people are free to hit each other with rocks for not wearing the proper burkha? Did I miss something about Mussalmen being illegally detained and forced at gunpoint to stay in Britain and watch Shirley Valentine?
Submitted by forensicgirl3 (user info) at 2008-12-11 14:29:27 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
In theory, yes, Red. Problem is, a lot of times the victim of Sharia Law won't appeal because of intimidation and they might have been intimidated into going with the Sharia court in the first place.
Submitted by forensicgirl3 (user info) at 2008-12-11 14:27:27 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Shit. I'm sorry I put the fucking link on the board. Day-um.
I'm going to go listen to 80's hair band metal now. It just seems the right thing to do.
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2008-12-11 14:26:24 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Am I wrong in assuming a person can always appeal the ruling of a Sharia court and appeal to a higher court i.e a county court.
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2008-12-11 14:23:29 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Sorry, meant US, not UK
Submitted by c1ndy (user info) at 2008-12-11 14:18:57 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2008-12-11 14:13:58 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
Submitted by haikumikoo (user info) at 2008-12-11 13:13:32 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Not to mention that you were adding commentary to what Forensic was saying, who seems to very much support changing the way the rest of the world does things, which as Berty already pointed out is somewhat admirable, but I personally feel uncomfortable with that sort of thing. Especially considering the foreign policy of my own country, etc...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I can't pretend to speak for FG, but it is my understanding that she was asking Bertram if cultural traits like genocide should be allowed (in Britain or the UK) under the "cultural and religious freedoms" he was speaking of.
As an example, she posed genocide. Let's say you have a Shiite neighborhood in one part of Bumfuck, IA and a Sunii neighborhood two blocks down, is it ethical and for them to go to war and slaughter each other simply because it's part of their "cultural color"? The example I posed was FGM. If you have someone living next door to you who wants to slice off his daughter's clitoris (something that would ordinarilly be illegal in the extreme), should he be allowed to do so because it's "his religious right"?
Global policies are a different issue.
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2008-12-11 14:06:06 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
Ranking: 2
That makes perfect sense, Icarus, as the poster is British, and referring to Sharia law in British courts.
But what you said is cool too.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Right. And if you read below we each briefly touched on the particulars of British and American governance. As such, we were not discussing a specific country, but what we each think a secular constitutionally-based government should be. Savvy?
Submitted by FilledwithHate (user info) at 2008-12-11 13:54:07 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
No one gives a shit about the UK.
On the other hand, I did find the cartoon amusing.
-1 + 1 = 0
Submitted by EmissionImpossible (user info) at 2008-12-11 13:25:28 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by orph (user info) at 2008-12-11 17:35:35 GMT (#)
Ranking: 0
All wonderful points Berty, but...
I think, fuck em.
------------
*bends over*
Submitted by Fungah (user info) at 2008-12-11 13:19:12 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
CLICK ON THIS ONE IS WHAT I MEANT TO SAY.
LEARN ABOUT ISLAM.
http://www.ubersite.com/m/120195
Submitted by Fungah (user info) at 2008-12-11 13:18:42 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
ERRRR
RAPE!!!!
http://www.ubersite.com/m/120195
Submitted by Fungah (user info) at 2008-12-11 13:18:07 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
No Comment
Submitted by Fungah (user info) at 2008-12-11 13:17:58 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
RAPE!!!!!!!!!!
http://www.ubersite.com/m/120188
Submitted by haikumikoo (user info) at 2008-12-11 13:13:32 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Not to mention that you were adding commentary to what Forensic was saying, who seems to very much support changing the way the rest of the world does things, which as Berty already pointed out is somewhat admirable, but I personally feel uncomfortable with that sort of thing. Especially considering the foreign policy of my own country, etc...
Submitted by haikumikoo (user info) at 2008-12-11 13:11:25 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
That makes perfect sense, Icarus, as the poster is British, and referring to Sharia law in British courts.
But what you said is cool too.
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2008-12-11 13:10:24 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by haikumikoo (user info) at 2008-12-11 13:00:39 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2008-12-11 05:40:22 PST (#)
Ranking: -1
You think we should just mind our own business when it comes to how other cultures conduct themselves? Ok, so you're fine with genocide amongst some African tribes I assume? Hey, that's just the way their culture is, you know.
----------------------
Or hey, how's about we offer certain Muslims the right to mutilate their children's genitals? After all, Jews have the bris, do they not? I mean, what's the difference between a surgical snip off the top and renoving the clitoris and sewing the vagina shut?
Total freedom isn't just total chaos; it's total idiocy. You need standardized, secular laws. They might not be perfect, but you need them so that society as an entity functions.
=====
Are you suggesting that the U.S.A. enforce a set of global law? What a wonderful idea, our past attempts to police the world have worked out beautifully.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. By "we" I mean "us". As in the United States. As in the laws that WE, as a nation, apply to OUR citizens that live within OUR borders. I'd though that, given the context of this post and evberything that was said prior to the little snippet you cut out, that even a particularly slow child could follow such reasoning. I'd wager I was right, but given that this is uber, I probably should have dumbed it down even more.
Submitted by haikumikoo (user info) at 2008-12-11 13:00:39 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2008-12-11 05:40:22 PST (#)
Ranking: -1
You think we should just mind our own business when it comes to how other cultures conduct themselves? Ok, so you're fine with genocide amongst some African tribes I assume? Hey, that's just the way their culture is, you know.
----------------------
Or hey, how's about we offer certain Muslims the right to mutilate their children's genitals? After all, Jews have the bris, do they not? I mean, what's the difference between a surgical snip off the top and renoving the clitoris and sewing the vagina shut?
Total freedom isn't just total chaos; it's total idiocy. You need standardized, secular laws. They might not be perfect, but you need them so that society as an entity functions.
=====
Are you suggesting that the U.S.A. enforce a set of global law? What a wonderful idea, our past attempts to police the world have worked out beautifully.
What I find interesting, in reference to female circumcision, is that there are women in those cultures that despise western feminists who try to invade and change their culture. And don't try to make me out to be an advocate of female circumcision because I feel uncomfortable forcing more western values on the rest of the world.
It would seem it would be more productive for you to focus more on what our country does, things like sending troops all over the fucking world, wasting money and lives. Good thing we have Obama to save us now, right? Sure, he essentially said the same exact fucking thing about Iraq as Bush has been saying (in that they both have said we need to withdraw responsibly, and have refused to give an actual time table, or even a guesstimate, but Obama said change so it's cool).
Oh man, this omelet is sooo good.
Submitted by orph (user info) at 2008-12-11 12:35:35 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
All wonderful points Berty, but...
I think, fuck em. If I went to UAE to live, I would not expect even my most minor of civil infractions to be dealt with by British justice, so why the hell should it work that way here?
It may seem more civilised, but I do not agree - and I also do not agree with the jew versions either, or the buddhist, or the zorastrian courts either.
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2008-12-11 12:14:58 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2008-12-11 11:53:35 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Icarus, that is a very interesting point. Inion was talking about that earlier and I must say that does give me pause.
On the one hand what you've got there is the nanny state rushing in to supervise even the most trivial of civil proceedings, but on the other hand you have the potential for vulnerable people slipping through the cracks.
Sharia courts will be assessed by having random case files pulled by the British Legal System who will basically audit the courts and the magistrates.
Ultimately though you could argue either way. Personally I am of the opinion that yes, some people will fall through the cracks but at the end of the day the safegaurd of having right of appeal and the social cohesion it will lend to islamic communities far outweigh any negative conesquences.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's be fair. As an educated male,it's easy for you to call these people acceptable cassualties, just as it is easy for you to tell me that they have both the ability and power and education to make the decisions.
Let's also be fair in stating that what you are talking about are not miniscule cracks in the floor, but a well-engineered pitfall that has evolved over centuries for one purpose. The bulk of Muslim society does not intend women to make their own decisions. It does not intend for them to have the resources to make decisions, and it does not intend for them to be emotionally capable of doing so. So it would only be fair to assert that it won't just be a few women, but the majority of women who will fall victim to these laws.
Now, if our premise is that the dignity and "cohesion" of Mussulman communities trumps all, and should take precedence over the rights of these women and the cohesion of a secular society and system of laws. If the assumption here is that Mussalman society should be treated as some sort of ape exhibit, and that the social structure should not be upset as the poor creatures would be too weak to deal with the realities of the modern world, then I would have to agree with you that Shaira law is the best way to go.
Submitted by HeyJude (user info) at 2008-12-11 12:05:44 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
No Comment
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2008-12-11 12:01:02 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Perhaps he tested your drain pipe theory on your behalf?
I guess this means I can keep the Babylon 5 DVD's he sent me.
Clouds, silver linings, etc.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2008-12-11 12:00:09 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Red is normally about. I mean, he's a media studies teacher. It isn't like he works for a living.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2008-12-11 11:59:11 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
yessss
This year has been a success afterall!
Submitted by forensicgirl3 (user info) at 2008-12-11 11:58:55 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
<lying> Ah. I understand. </lying>
Submitted by Dervel (user info) at 2008-12-11 11:56:52 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Where is he anyway? I'm surprised he's not here mumbling on about goiters and arguing with the fish about the BBC.
Ridiculous fellow really. Poor chap. Tssk.
I'll make you a Fintan soon enough Bertrude.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2008-12-11 11:56:20 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by forensicgirl3 (user info) at 2008-12-11 11:52:24 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Wait, why would you need cocaine for a game of "Jakes and Ladders?"
-----------
To make Spam happy. Duh.
Have you ever tried playing snakes and ladders with a miserable cunt? It is more work than play.
Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2008-12-11 11:55:10 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2008-12-11 10:25:55 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
Submitted by kaos-king (user info) at 2008-12-11 10:07:53 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
We can NOT allow the Muslims an inch more of influence.
Just as we can NOT allow the Christians, the Jews, or any other religion another inch more of influence.
If anything, we SHOULD be actively acting to wipe away their stain from humanity.
And through our inaction, the disease of religion festers on...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oy, now. I'm of a religious bent. If you have a religion or culture you're proud of, I'm all for it. By all means, participate in parades and community functions, attend church/mosque/temple/whatnot, and most importantly, believe. But you have to obey certain rules of common sense and civil necessity. As a (quasi) Catholic I can't go about slaughtering Saracens and dumping my feces into the streets simply because my ancestors did so some thousand years ago.
Religion is not the issue as atheists have been just as radical and ridiculous in THEIR beliefs. The "higher cause" (whether that be progress or 'reason' or a deity) is just an excuse people use to justify behaving badly. The issue here is that we need a common set of laws that apply to all people, and that no race or creed should be allowed extra leeway simply because their great-great-grandad was allowed to behave like a twat back in the Olde Country.
-----
I admire your efforts, but you can't talk sense with some people once you admit to being even slightly religious. Only the enlightened atheists know what is best for humanity.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2008-12-11 11:54:33 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Dervel (user info) at 2008-12-11 11:49:55 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Berty was talking about Spam trying to go up Jake in a game of "Jakes and ladders".
Not in an actual physical sense.
---------
Actually I did. Jake's neck would probably snap like a twiglet, but it would be a worthy sacrifice if it meant bringing back Fintan the Ferret.
Submitted by Dervel (user info) at 2008-12-11 11:54:22 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
It's got pictures of Jake on it.
You need mind bleach to deal with it.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2008-12-11 11:53:35 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Icarus, that is a very interesting point. Inion was talking about that earlier and I must say that does give me pause.
On the one hand what you've got there is the nanny state rushing in to supervise even the most trivial of civil proceedings, but on the other hand you have the potential for vulnerable people slipping through the cracks.
Sharia courts will be assessed by having random case files pulled by the British Legal System who will basically audit the courts and the magistrates.
Ultimately though you could argue either way. Personally I am of the opinion that yes, some people will fall through the cracks but at the end of the day the safegaurd of having right of appeal and the social cohesion it will lend to islamic communities far outweigh any negative conesquences.
Submitted by forensicgirl3 (user info) at 2008-12-11 11:52:24 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Wait, why would you need cocaine for a game of "Jakes and Ladders?"
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2008-12-11 11:52:09 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
If they bring Sharia to the US, I'm appealing to the Supreme Court to revive the Crusades. After all, what's more cultural and picturesque than knights in shining armor... shit-faced drunk sacking churches, burning crops, and slaughtering peasants? It will be great for the economy, and will give Chrysler and GM something to do as the demand for armor rises.
Not to mention it will kill all those "3rd world barbarians"... eh, Bertram?
Submitted by forensicgirl3 (user info) at 2008-12-11 11:50:46 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
See?! Thank you, Dervel. I just needed clarification.
Submitted by Dervel (user info) at 2008-12-11 11:49:55 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Berty was talking about Spam trying to go up Jake in a game of "Jakes and ladders".
Not in an actual physical sense.
Submitted by forensicgirl3 (user info) at 2008-12-11 11:46:18 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
No Em. Brits and Yanks are two peoples seperated by a common language.
Translation: SOMETIMES I CAN'T UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING!
I'm a Yank. Dumb it down a bit.
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2008-12-11 11:45:32 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
>>God, you people are all so "us against them" and ready to assume the worst. These are your countrymen you're talking about.<<
Yes. So are the angry mobs with pitchforks and torches. There's a difference between a constitutional system and mob rule.
>>I keep repeating that but nobody listens. THE SHARIA COURTS ARE RATHER FRIVOLOUS. IT IS LIKE A POLICE MAN THAT CAN ONLY ARREST YOU IF HE GETS YOUR PERMISSION.<<
What exactly does freeom mean here? Take a woman from a society where women mean approximately shit. All her life, her decisions have been made by either her father, her elder brother, or her husband. The fear of her gender or standing out in any way have been so deeply engrained that she can't leave her home without being covered head to ankle lest PEOPLE PELT HER WITH ROCKS.
Now plop her down in Leeds.
Is it feasible to expect this individual to say "no" to Muslim law? No, it isn't. That's why you don't want separate Muslim, or Catholic, or Mormon or Jewish laws in a secular society. You want a controlled system that will at least attempt to give her an advocate that will act in her personal best interests.
Submitted by EmissionImpossible (user info) at 2008-12-11 11:44:44 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
oh now Forensic gets REALLY interested, backsides and coke....tsk what a perverted she devil
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2008-12-11 11:44:03 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Whatever.
Sharia law in a civilised country will operate differently to sharia law operating in a barbaric 3rd world country. Or Saudi Arabia/UAE. Same as how law operates differently in different countries.
Sharia law courts are low courts. Civil disputes. It is basically an alternative for solicitors who want to give each other lots of letters at the same time rather than using the post service. We aren't talking about jurisdiction over theft or murder law. We aren't talking about letting overprotective muslim father's having their daughter's boyfriend sentanced to death.
I am drawing a distinction between sharia law in Britian or a theoretical US sharia law and sharia law in a place like Pakistan.
Submitted by forensicgirl3 (user info) at 2008-12-11 11:43:15 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Who is trying to crawl up Jake's backside and what about cocaine?
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2008-12-11 11:38:33 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
We should play that at the next Ubercon. Watching Spamial trying to get up Jake would be hilarious.
He would need a lot of cocaine to manage that, even in the unlikely event that he has actually lost some weight.
Submitted by sandmantate (user info) at 2008-12-11 11:38:09 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2008-12-11 11:31:25 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
... alright I need to take a moment here to just sumarise why you're all worried. Please correct me if I'm mistaken.
Forensic and Inion disaprove of Sharia law on principle because of its gender bias.
Icarus is worried about the integrity of the Scottish court in the face of sharia court.
Indoninja is a racist and despises the concepts of multiculturalism and ethnic intergration.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another God-damn list I didn't make.
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2008-12-11 11:37:29 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
yeah the basic insanity of sharia law is a problem.
Submitted by sandmantate (user info) at 2008-12-11 11:37:08 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2008-12-11 11:24:19 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2008-12-11 11:16:44 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I'm making a joke about how all the states have their own courts and statutes, Sandman.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Which are trumped by federal law and remain (at least in theory) secular in nature. While some states push the ticket with things like "blue light" laws, yes. No system is perfect. But at least there's a sound structure for redressing these issues. People have the right to rule themselves within secular Constitutional limits.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I already said that, you malnourished fuckstick. All your good arguments are stolen from me.
Submitted by forensicgirl3 (user info) at 2008-12-11 11:36:03 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
No, I don't disapprove of Sharia Law because of its gender bias. I disapprove of Sharia Law because it is in opposition of basic human rights.
I'd be just as outraged if a Muslim male is punished for blasphemy by being executed.
Submitted by Dervel (user info) at 2008-12-11 11:34:36 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
The drain pipe would be an extension of the existing stock.
Ahahahahaha! An idea has formed! A shit one, admittedly.
Jakes and ladders! Replace all the snakes with preposterously long necks.
Family fun, ages 3 and above.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2008-12-11 11:31:25 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
... alright I need to take a moment here to just sumarise why you're all worried. Please correct me if I'm mistaken.
Forensic and Inion disaprove of Sharia law on principle because of its gender bias.
Icarus is worried about the integrity of the Scottish court in the face of sharia court.
Indoninja is a racist and despises the concepts of multiculturalism and ethnic intergration.
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2008-12-11 11:24:19 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2008-12-11 11:16:44 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I'm making a joke about how all the states have their own courts and statutes, Sandman.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Which are trumped by federal law and remain (at least in theory) secular in nature. While some states push the ticket with things like "blue light" laws, yes. No system is perfect. But at least there's a sound structure for redressing these issues. People have the right to rule themselves within secular Constitutional limits.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2008-12-11 11:23:41 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
That's something of a larger philosophical question, Katy. It is a good question, but I'm gonna have to eschew trying to answer it as part of all this.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2008-12-11 11:20:30 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Dervel (user info) at 2008-12-11 11:13:23 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I think this has gone off on a tangent for far too long now, resolution please.
Would the guillotine need drain pipes?
-----------
I can't see why a regular guilotine wouldn't do the job. I mean, it's got that stock thing in it to hold the head in place hasn't it?
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2008-12-11 11:20:19 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2008-12-11 11:15:57 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
God, you people are all so "us against them" and ready to assume the worst. These are your countrymen you're talking about.
These courts operate openly, at least towards the government. If a party wants to appeal through the British courts, then they can.
I keep repeating that but nobody listens. THE SHARIA COURTS ARE RATHER FRIVOLOUS. IT IS LIKE A POLICE MAN THAT CAN ONLY ARREST YOU IF HE GETS YOUR PERMISSION.
--------
so if i was a partially brainwashed woman that's told she will be ousted from the community for failure to obey, what's my level of competency to consent?
Submitted by sandmantate (user info) at 2008-12-11 11:19:42 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2008-12-11 11:16:44 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I'm making a joke about how all the states have their own courts and statutes, Sandman.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See, it would be a joke because the State Laws may not surpass or overturn the Federal laws. The Constitution allows the states to govern themselves under the umbrella guidelines of Federal Law.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2008-12-11 11:16:44 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I'm making a joke about how all the states have their own courts and statutes, Sandman.
Submitted by sandmantate (user info) at 2008-12-11 11:16:18 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2008-12-11 11:09:34 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
ASSUME THE POSITION, YOU RACIST WHORE.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AHA! A FLAW IN YOUR LOGIC! YOU CANNOT REFER TO ME -A TRUE MAN- IN THE MANNER OF A WOMAN! UNDER THIS LAW, YOU ARE NOW TO BE STONED!
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2008-12-11 11:15:57 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
God, you people are all so "us against them" and ready to assume the worst. These are your countrymen you're talking about.
These courts operate openly, at least towards the government. If a party wants to appeal through the British courts, then they can.
I keep repeating that but nobody listens. THE SHARIA COURTS ARE RATHER FRIVOLOUS. IT IS LIKE A POLICE MAN THAT CAN ONLY ARREST YOU IF HE GETS YOUR PERMISSION.
Submitted by sandmantate (user info) at 2008-12-11 11:14:20 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2008-12-11 11:03:46 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Allowing communities to operate their own weird little courts has been going on in America since its inception.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow, I may be showing a high level of ignorance, but I'm going to have to ask you to cite some sources on this statement.
Submitted by Dervel (user info) at 2008-12-11 11:13:23 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I think this has gone off on a tangent for far too long now, resolution please.
Would the guillotine need drain pipes?
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2008-12-11 11:09:34 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by sandmantate (user info) at 2008-12-11 10:40:09 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2008-12-11 10:07:27 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by sandmantate (user info) at 2008-12-11 09:33:58 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2008-12-11 09:28:59 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by sandmantate (user info) at 2008-12-11 09:22:27 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Since when is beating your wife illegal?
*shifty glance*
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SO THAT'S WHERE SUSIE_DERKINS HAS BEEN, YOU MONSTER!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE, MUDBLOOD!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MY RELIGION/CULTURE ALLOWS ME TO BE JUDGE, JURY AND SPANISH INQUISITIONER BASED SOLELY ON CONJECTURE AND SPECULATION. ACCORDING TO SHARIA LAW I GET TO CUT OFF YOUR HEAD, PUT A STAKE THROUGH YOUR HEART, STUFF YOUR COLON FULL OF GARLIC AND SEW IT SHUT!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BASED ON YOUR LOGIC, AND THE KNOWLEDGE THAT ANY PROTEST FROM ME WOULD BE VIEWED AS RACIAL AND RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE, I GUESS THAT I MUST ACCEPT THAT I AM FUCKED!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASSUME THE POSITION, YOU RACIST WHORE.
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2008-12-11 11:07:16 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2008-12-11 10:38:58 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
>>We live in a free society, where people can persue their religious ideals free from persecution. That, fundamentally, is what the establishment of sharia court is all about. To allow communities to make rulings based on their own bizarre fetishes, bound by the law of our state.<<
Right.So some groups will be allowed to marry 12-year-old girls and prohibit their females from seeking higher education. Others will be allowed to evict anyone who doesn't follow their religious ways, or isn't in the good graces of the elder council. Still others will be allowed to live completely off of what they are allowed to pilfer from neighboring communities as -- after all-- thievery is a valid and colorful part of some cultures. And the goal here is that people don't get persecuted. And this somehow makes sense in your over inflated beach ball of a head.
You see, Bertram, "freedom from persecution" doesn't just mean the persecution of the government. It alo means the persecution of the hysterical (to you I guess picturesque) mob with the pitchforks and flaming religious icons.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2008-12-11 11:05:21 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2008-12-11 10:57:55 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Alright, those are good points Inion. The thing is though that, and this may sound remarkable, some women are muslims! By choice!
---------------
If, and this is a big if every single woman who ever entered a sharia court did so completely of her own free will and complete knowledge of how she would be treated differently than in a regular court that would be one thing. I wouldn't have a sbig a problem with it. I still think it is wrong to put the weight of the govt behind religious decisions.
However unless you live with your head up your ass in fantasy land you know that women will be coerced into these courts. Why even allow the opportunity for people to be taken advantage of in courts like this.
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2008-12-11 11:04:47 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2008-12-11 10:57:55 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Also the magistrates that make the sharia rulings are British muslims. They're as english as I am. Still, any ruling by the sharia court can be appealed through the British courts.
--------
unless they consider themselves muslims before britons.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2008-12-11 11:03:46 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Y'all getting carried away by the fact that courts in backwaters like Azabijahn are a bollocks. The same is true of backwaters everywhere; be they ruled by islamic law or not.
Allowing communities to operate their own weird little courts has been going on in America since its inception. I don't get what all you lot are so worried about. If you're worried about inequality in backwater nations, join Amnesty International.
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2008-12-11 11:02:42 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
most people are not exactly in a religion by choice, per se. i mean of course there's a self-guidance thing going to stay with it but most people are just what they were raised to be. if women weren't raised to think their only value is as their father's or husband's property do you think they'd really choose that on their own in large numbers?
most people check the box of their parents' religion. a lot of people circulate within different branches of it, but conversion to an outside belief system isn't all that common when you put things under broader headings like christian, jewish, muslim, hindu, buddhist, etc.
Submitted by forensicgirl3 (user info) at 2008-12-11 10:59:19 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
All your hating on Sharia law does, though, is make a mockery of that religious freedom. Why, were I not already demonstrating my moral superiority, I would feel quite ashamed in your shoes.
===
Yay! More sarcasm.
I personally am not morally "superior" to anyone else. I do however try to follow a moral code that IS superior to that of, in this case, the barbaric Islamic Sharia Law.
When having religious freedom means getting to toss the basic human rights of those in your religion out the window, then that religion should be treated with hostility. And yes, mocked. And also to be confined by secular law.
This very discussion would earn all of us a death sentence in some Islamic countries. How 'bout that?
It must be terribly exhausting to be so morally superior to everyone else.
Submitted by F.J.Bell (user info) at 2008-12-11 10:59:15 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/60/HP_chilli_sauce.jpg
I don't think it's very well-travelled...
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2008-12-11 10:57:55 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Alright, those are good points Inion. The thing is though that, and this may sound remarkable, some women are muslims! By choice!
Submitting to a sharia court ruling is voluntary, but the sharia court are still bound by legislation regarding the protection of children so alimony is paid.
HOWEVER, some would argue that British courts are biased against men in proceedings deciding custody of the child. Just saying.
Also the magistrates that make the sharia rulings are British muslims. They're as english as I am. Still, any ruling by the sharia court can be appealed through the British courts.
Like I said, it's a non issue.
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2008-12-11 10:56:52 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
i haven't seen a chili one. now i'm disappointed :(
Submitted by EmissionImpossible (user info) at 2008-12-11 10:55:43 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
berty is trying to say he desn't give a rats arse about Shakira law, her hips dont lie.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2008-12-11 10:54:18 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2008-12-11 10:38:58 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
You see, this is exactly the kind of problem this hysteria causes; that something quite innocent gets tarred as intollerant because of it's association with a load of backwards 3rd world countries.
Some people are dicks, but that's political. We live in a free society, where people can persue their religious ideals free from persecution. That, fundamentally, is what the establishment of sharia court is all about. To allow communities to make rulings based on their own bizarre fetishes, bound by the law of our state.
All your hating on Sharia law does, though, is make a mockery of that religious freedom. Why, were I not already demonstrating my moral superiority, I would feel quite ashamed in your shoes.
--------------------------------
Basing inheritance and the value of ones testimony on someones sex is innocent?
Sharia courts give legal backing to religious decisions. It gives legal backing to religious courts that people are coerced into.
Law is about defending the rights of everyone, not about codifying whatever mysoginistic practices one group likes. Religious freedom is about practicing your religion how you want. If the court decides that a brother and sister share their fathers wealth 50/50 that is justice, that is fair. the women being allowed to give some to her brother because sharia says it is the right thing to so it religious freedom.
The bottom line is that you support a system that allows women to be abused or forced into bad judgments because you think culture and religion trumps human rights (but only if it is a foreign culture or religion).
Submitted by EmissionImpossible (user info) at 2008-12-11 10:54:08 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
ignore fruity flavoured or curry or anything else for that matter, the original is the ONLY one
Submitted by F.J.Bell (user info) at 2008-12-11 10:52:06 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Absolutely rank. The chilli one's not bad. But Original and Fruity are the stand-outs of the HP stable.
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2008-12-11 10:50:28 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
bell, how's the curry hp? is it shit?
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2008-12-11 10:49:06 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2008-12-11 10:45:55 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Oh pish tosh. Like I said; sharia rulings, as they are in the UK, are for very minor civil disputes. It's not about a massive upheaval of the legal system. Quite the opposite really.
Seriously, stop being dicks about muslims. George Bush is going home, so you can go back to being indifferent about this stuff.
Inion, how much easier would a divorce be if you could just settle it in the court of the Wu-Tang Clan?
--------
as the woman i'd really hate to see what a misogynistic ruling would do for my finances. the process may be a serious pain but there's a reason it's there. and a woman in sharia law does not have the same rights in divorce as a man. she can lose her children. she can't divorce him for the same reasons he can divorce her. she can't divorce him by pronouncing "i divorce you" three times. that right is reserved for the husband. and it has to be in front of a male witness. even the catholic process for annulment is more involved than a muslim divorce proceeding.
and again, if shara rulings were not contrary, or even outside of, british law why would they need permission to operate?
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2008-12-11 10:46:11 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
plus the bottle is green. i have a thing against green when it's not a vegetable.
i don't have much sausage. if i have eggs i usually have a little slice of ham which is already sweet.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2008-12-11 10:45:55 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Oh pish tosh. Like I said; sharia rulings, as they are in the UK, are for very minor civil disputes. It's not about a massive upheaval of the legal system. Quite the opposite really.
Seriously, stop being dicks about muslims. George Bush is going home, so you can go back to being indifferent about this stuff.
Inion, how much easier would a divorce be if you could just settle it in the court of the Wu-Tang Clan?
Submitted by F.J.Bell (user info) at 2008-12-11 10:44:37 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Perhaps not with eggs. Brown sauce and eggs do together like a horse and carriage.
Try HP Fruity with some bacon, or sausages. I have to admit that I shared your reservations when I first saw it, but it's actually a fine addition to the HP brand.
Submitted by Dervel (user info) at 2008-12-11 10:43:25 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I still don't get the cartoon. :o(
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2008-12-11 10:42:51 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
i cannot bring myself to try it bell. plus i don't think it would go with my eggs as well.
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2008-12-11 10:41:48 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
if sharia law and rulings were not contrary to current british laws they would not permission to go about their own business. that is worrying.
Submitted by F.J.Bell (user info) at 2008-12-11 10:40:45 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Fruity HP sauce is divine.
Submitted by sandmantate (user info) at 2008-12-11 10:40:09 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2008-12-11 10:07:27 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by sandmantate (user info) at 2008-12-11 09:33:58 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2008-12-11 09:28:59 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by sandmantate (user info) at 2008-12-11 09:22:27 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Since when is beating your wife illegal?
*shifty glance*
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SO THAT'S WHERE SUSIE_DERKINS HAS BEEN, YOU MONSTER!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE, MUDBLOOD!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MY RELIGION/CULTURE ALLOWS ME TO BE JUDGE, JURY AND SPANISH INQUISITIONER BASED SOLELY ON CONJECTURE AND SPECULATION. ACCORDING TO SHARIA LAW I GET TO CUT OFF YOUR HEAD, PUT A STAKE THROUGH YOUR HEART, STUFF YOUR COLON FULL OF GARLIC AND SEW IT SHUT!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BASED ON YOUR LOGIC, AND THE KNOWLEDGE THAT ANY PROTEST FROM ME WOULD BE VIEWED AS RACIAL AND RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE, I GUESS THAT I MUST ACCEPT THAT I AM FUCKED!
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2008-12-11 10:38:58 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
You see, this is exactly the kind of problem this hysteria causes; that something quite innocent gets tarred as intollerant because of it's association with a load of backwards 3rd world countries.
Some people are dicks, but that's political. We live in a free society, where people can persue their religious ideals free from persecution. That, fundamentally, is what the establishment of sharia court is all about. To allow communities to make rulings based on their own bizarre fetishes, bound by the law of our state.
All your hating on Sharia law does, though, is make a mockery of that religious freedom. Why, were I not already demonstrating my moral superiority, I would feel quite ashamed in your shoes.
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2008-12-11 10:37:10 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
i saw those on the counter of this uk import store i go to. only fucking place for miles that carries hp sauce that isn't "fruity" flavored. i don't even want to know what that tastes like.
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2008-12-11 10:35:34 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
As long as you pronounce is Old-ee, I don't think the gaffers will care. On a related note, I picked up several reproduction pieces of eight for $1.50. The real things range from $200 to $800 usually, depending upon the condition they are in :(
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2008-12-11 10:33:22 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
icarus, i believe it's YE olde country.
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2008-12-11 10:25:55 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
Submitted by kaos-king (user info) at 2008-12-11 10:07:53 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
We can NOT allow the Muslims an inch more of influence.
Just as we can NOT allow the Christians, the Jews, or any other religion another inch more of influence.
If anything, we SHOULD be actively acting to wipe away their stain from humanity.
We SHOULD be actively forcing these primitive practices back into the pages of history books.
But no...
We're suppose to be the "Tolerant" ones, those who are "Culturally Sensitive."
And through our inaction, the disease of religion festers on...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oy, now. I'm of a religious bent. If you have a religion or culture you're proud of, I'm all for it. By all means, participate in parades and community functions, attend church/mosque/temple/whatnot, and most importantly, believe. But you have to obey certain rules of common sense and civil necessity. As a (quasi) Catholic I can't go about slaughtering Saracens and dumping my feces into the streets simply because my ancestors did so some thousand years ago.
Religion is not the issue as atheists have been just as radical and ridiculous in THEIR beliefs. The "higher cause" (whether that be progress or 'reason' or a deity) is just an excuse people use to justify behaving badly. The issue here is that we need a common set of laws that apply to all people, and that no race or creed should be allowed extra leeway simply because their great-great-grandad was allowed to behave like a twat back in the Olde Country.
Bertram is being a pretentious, contrary cunt. It's what philosophical types do. This is why he doesn't respond when you:
A. Confront him dead-on
B. Are not posessed of a vagina.
After all, the only reason people become philosophers is to try to get chicks.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2008-12-11 10:21:05 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Dervel (user info) at 2008-12-11 10:11:48 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
What the fuck are you talking about? I've not said anything anywhere near that.
Implying sharia law and honour killings are inexplicably related IS racist.
Live with it, Dr Goebbels.
-------------
Kaos, I think he was sayng that comparing the two was racist, and it was berty who was being racist.
But the fact is that they are related. If they are related in that Shaira law is the source for honor killings is another debate (imho it depends on the interpretation of the individual muslim, many popular muslim leaders will say it is called for in some cases, ie apostasy).
In this discussion they are related in that if you have a community where they happen people will feel pressure to go to sharia courts to avoid them. Although I don't think that was what you were talking about.
Submitted by Dervel (user info) at 2008-12-11 10:11:48 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by kaos-king (user info) at 2008-12-11 10:01:01 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
Wait a minute... (I can't believe I'm doing this)
Because Indo doesn't support a way of life he finds barbaric, unjust & reprehensible... he's a racist?
So you're saying we must be blindly tolerant of ALL THINGS? All faiths, cultures, societies, everything living in harmony?
Yeah... that would be great. Too bad that will only happen when one of the Zealot group slaughter everybody else not EXACTLY like them.
---
What the fuck are you talking about? I've not said anything anywhere near that.
Implying sharia law and honour killings are inexplicably related IS racist.
Live with it, Dr Goebbels.
Submitted by kaos-king (user info) at 2008-12-11 10:07:53 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
We can NOT allow the Muslims an inch more of influence.
Just as we can NOT allow the Christians, the Jews, or any other religion another inch more of influence.
If anything, we SHOULD be actively acting to wipe away their stain from humanity.
We SHOULD be actively forcing these primitive practices back into the pages of history books.
But no...
We're suppose to be the "Tolerant" ones, those who are "Culturally Sensitive."
And through our inaction, the disease of religion festers on...
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2008-12-11 10:07:27 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by sandmantate (user info) at 2008-12-11 09:33:58 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2008-12-11 09:28:59 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by sandmantate (user info) at 2008-12-11 09:22:27 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Since when is beating your wife illegal?
*shifty glance*
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SO THAT'S WHERE SUSIE_DERKINS HAS BEEN, YOU MONSTER!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE, MUDBLOOD!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MY RELIGION/CULTURE ALLOWS ME TO BE JUDGE, JURY AND SPANISH INQUISITIONER BASED SOLELY ON CONJECTURE AND SPECULATION. ACCORDING TO SHARIA LAW I GET TO CUT OFF YOUR HEAD, PUT A STAKE THROUGH YOUR HEART, STUFF YOUR COLON FULL OF GARLIC AND SEW IT SHUT!
Submitted by kaos-king (user info) at 2008-12-11 10:01:01 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
Submitted by Dervel (user info) at 2008-12-11 09:53:48 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Secondly, omg racist.
___________________________
Wait a minute... (I can't believe I'm doing this)
Because Indo doesn't support a way of life he finds barbaric, unjust & reprehensible... he's a racist?
So you're saying we must be blindly tolerant of ALL THINGS? All faiths, cultures, societies, everything living in harmony?
Yeah... that would be great. Too bad that will only happen when one of the Zealot group slaughter everybody else not EXACTLY like them.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2008-12-11 09:54:14 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2008-12-11 09:47:58 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
First off you are ignoring the social pressure that even "god natured" form would force women into an unfair ruling.
----------
WTF, this is what happens when I type fast.
First off you are ignoring the social pressure that even *in* "go*o*d natured" form would force women into an unfair ruling.
Anyway your head is completely up your ass on this one.
At the very best it is a way for people to refuse to let go of a mysognistic way of life, and a state backed way to force other to follow it.
Submitted by Dervel (user info) at 2008-12-11 09:53:48 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Now I may not be a big city lawyer, but I believe honour killings are illegal in the UK and therefore wouldn't be permitted in a sharia law court in the UK.
Secondly, omg racist.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2008-12-11 09:47:58 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2008-12-11 09:18:16 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Both parties have to agree to appear in the court, Indo.
----------------------
Are you intentionally trying to be obtuse?
First off you are ignoring the social pressure that even "god natured" form would force women into an unfair ruling. You are also ignoring the real threats of violence in the forms of honor killings. You are ignoring those who would be coerced into these courts by all the behavior from the neighborhood that would happen between those extremes.
I don't doubt some (maybe even many) of the people who would use these courts would choose to freely. But law should be about defending those in the worst situation, those that have the fewest choices. And until you can be sure there is no coersion to use these courts, until you can remove pressure fromt he community to use these courts you are punishing the weakest members of this community.
Submitted by Dervel (user info) at 2008-12-11 09:47:54 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Jeff Din exists though.
Submitted by Dervel (user info) at 2008-12-11 09:47:05 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I think Berty is refering to Sharia Law in the UK, where it's an option.
It has to operate inside UK law so the humanitarian issues don't exist.
Submitted by kaos-king (user info) at 2008-12-11 09:42:53 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
Aww, god be damned - I'm going to agree with Indo.
Berty, I've never seen you so incredibly WRONG before.
I don't care if it's faith based, I don't care if it's another culture. I'm tired of being the tolerant one.
To turn a blind eye to suffering & injustice anywhere, for any reason is wrong.
It can be Pakistan, China or Nigeria; these people need not exist in the 21st century. But no... we have to be "Culturally Sensitive."
Bullshit.
Submitted by Dervel (user info) at 2008-12-11 09:41:43 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Turns out that Jeff Din not only exists, but is half pumpkin.
Science gone mad I shouldn't wonder.
http://en-gb.facebook.com/people/Jeff-Din/567271975
I blame the gypsies, they're a real problem for this sort of caper.
Submitted by F.J.Bell (user info) at 2008-12-11 09:39:46 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I don't care what anyone apart from Berty says.
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2008-12-11 09:39:06 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2008-12-11 09:27:11 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Right, you link to a proper biased survey there Inion.
If we asked a bunch of people if they thought killing for their country or family was justified, should we treat all those who answer 'yes' as being prospective murderers?
-------
sure, why not? if you're family's attacked and you kill someone in their defense i think that's excusable. if your country is attacked (on your own soil) killing someone if excusable. and before it gets asked, no i don't support the war, yes we are invaders.
killing in the name of your belief system when it goes beyond the laws of the land you live in that were democratically voted for by all (as much as possible) citizens is inexcusable in all cases. maiming, killing, torturing in the name of any religion or state is inexcusable. i don't even believe in the death penalty i'd rather take life in prison, even for the worst offenders. i understand how some people can support that. i don't think any one religion has the right to decide or subvert a secular court that was placed there by the collective or majority.
it's one thing to go to your priest, pastor, rabbi, imam, life coach, guru whatever and expect domestic counseling. it is another to have any conflict at all between your god's laws and the laws of the country you live in. sharia law, in an apparently common enough streak to be noticed, conflicts. and if it was just about divorce and domestic problems then it wouldn't need definition as i'm sure they already have muslim organizations for that and british court systems that help with paperwork.
i do not believe religious texts should usurp process from secular law. it's too subjective and there's less due process.
Submitted by sandmantate (user info) at 2008-12-11 09:33:58 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2008-12-11 09:28:59 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by sandmantate (user info) at 2008-12-11 09:22:27 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Since when is beating your wife illegal?
*shifty glance*
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SO THAT'S WHERE SUSIE_DERKINS HAS BEEN, YOU MONSTER!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE, MUDBLOOD!
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2008-12-11 09:30:43 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2008-12-11 09:11:03 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
You talk about opression of women, you talk about the 'forced marriage unit' and yet all these things can happen to women of all manner of ethnic, national and religious backgrounds. You only seem to care when the dreaded muslims are involved.
What about gypsies? They opress their women folk and will even abduct them from schools or universities. Why aren't you banging a drum for them?
-------------------------
No I only "seem" to care when someone comes along and says it is ok to back these things up by law.
If people were posting on here, seriously, that men should have more rights than women I would tell them they are an idiot, it doesn't matter wehat the religion is. That is your fucking problem. You have no problem with opression as long as it is another culture. That is fucked up. I am sure you think I sleep in an american flag blanket, pray to the US everyday, think that western way of life is the greatest in the world and america is its crown. It isn't true I realize we have problems and aren't perfect. But even for the sake of argument it was true, I would still be more rational than you because I can look at a system that judges one on their sex and see it is wrong, but you can't do that.
I am not banging a drum for gypsies because you didn't post about them having their own laws.
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2008-12-11 09:28:59 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by sandmantate (user info) at 2008-12-11 09:22:27 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Since when is beating your wife illegal?
*shifty glance*
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SO THAT'S WHERE SUSIE_DERKINS HAS BEEN, YOU MONSTER!
Submitted by Dervel (user info) at 2008-12-11 09:28:30 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Who know Bertrude, who knows.
But he's got lots of people all uppity, damn you Jeff Din!
"The only person who has ever discussed the problem of gypsies" Hitler did too. Though possibly not on ubersite.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2008-12-11 09:27:11 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Right, you link to a proper biased survey there Inion.
If we asked a bunch of people if they thought killing for their country or family was justified, should we treat all those who answer 'yes' as being prospective murderers?
Submitted by GodChicken (user info) at 2008-12-11 09:26:55 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
it's a slippery slope problem, berty.
Once you give them legitimacy in the first place, it will not be long before you have an entire subset of your society that refuses to obey or even treat with secular law on ethical grounds. It will be a problem of massive proportions, because it will give a rubber stamp approval on actions OK under Sharia law, but not under secular. They'll be arrested, imprisoned, and riots and protests will take place because hey, our religious leader says it was alright to do that.
Secular law, whether it is corrupt or not, is at least "good enough for everybody" Martin Luther King here in the US civil rights movement was very careful to make the distinction that he was fighting unjust secular law to everyone's benefit, not leading a religious crusade to save the black man. See his "Letter from Birmingham Jail" as an example.
You do not want jurisprudence based on "eye for an eye" out of the bible any more than you want it based on "kill or enslave unbelievers"
Yes, I have my own copy of the Quran. It was given to me by the Islamic University at the grand mosque in Bahrain, where they train their muezzin. It was an interesting visit.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2008-12-11 09:25:02 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Dervel (user info) at 2008-12-11 09:23:56 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I thought the post was about paranoid racists being a dick about it?
And Jeff Din.
-----------------------------
Who is Jeff Din? Is that like Gunga Din?
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2008-12-11 09:24:18 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
well religious laws with jews hasn't resulted in throwing acid in school girls' faces. and outside of israel you don't hear so much about jewish violence.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4407115.ece
if it was just the domestic counseling aspect maybe people would be a little less freaked out about sharia law but it's not so nice when you read all the rules and realize it's open to interpretation in very violent ways. i doubt with a first iteration of its go in england it'll be drastic but do you want to open up those doors?
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2008-12-11 09:24:12 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Bollocks. The only person who has ever discussed the problem of gypsies with anything even approaching seriousness on this website is me and even I don't care. I only ever mention them so I can laugh at the Italians.
Submitted by Dervel (user info) at 2008-12-11 09:23:56 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I thought the post was about paranoid racists being a dick about it?
And Jeff Din.
Submitted by mystiamoon (user info) at 2008-12-11 09:23:19 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by sandmantate (user info) at 2008-12-11 09:22:27 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2008-12-11 09:16:52 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2008-12-11 06:32:52 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Thats just it though, it doesn't impact on your way of life one iota.
------------------
Neither does a man beating his wife, but that doesn't mean that the law shoudl back institutions that support it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Since when is beating your wife illegal?
*shifty glance*
Submitted by Fungah (user info) at 2008-12-11 09:22:21 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I really don't see how implementing this system of law could not, in any way, be a terrible, terrible idea.
Submitted by sandmantate (user info) at 2008-12-11 09:20:59 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by forensicgirl3 (user info) at 2008-12-11 09:18:49 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2008-12-11 08:11:03 CST (#)
Ranking: 0
Indo, what would I do without you rushing to my rescue to prove my point with your own unintentional socratic argument?
You talk about opression of women, you talk about the 'forced marriage unit' and yet all these things can happen to women of all manner of ethnic, national and religious backgrounds. You only seem to care when the dreaded muslims are involved.
What about gypsies? They opress their women folk and will even abduct them from schools or universities. Why aren't you banging a drum for them?
====
Well, we could but the post was about Sharia Law.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Damnit, Death, I already said that, but I used more words!
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2008-12-11 09:18:50 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Dervel (user info) at 2008-12-11 09:17:42 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Gypsies eat hedgehogs and live in horses.
--------------
It is true. They are abominable.
Submitted by forensicgirl3 (user info) at 2008-12-11 09:18:49 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2008-12-11 08:11:03 CST (#)
Ranking: 0
Indo, what would I do without you rushing to my rescue to prove my point with your own unintentional socratic argument?
You talk about opression of women, you talk about the 'forced marriage unit' and yet all these things can happen to women of all manner of ethnic, national and religious backgrounds. You only seem to care when the dreaded muslims are involved.
What about gypsies? They opress their women folk and will even abduct them from schools or universities. Why aren't you banging a drum for them?
====
Well, we could but the post was about Sharia Law.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2008-12-11 09:18:16 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Both parties have to agree to appear in the court, Indo.
Submitted by Dervel (user info) at 2008-12-11 09:17:42 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Gypsies eat hedgehogs and live in horses.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2008-12-11 09:17:33 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
aight, aight. Imo put on my robe and wizard hat and explain it in a manner you can understand.
I cast civil law of the dispute upon your hedge.
you counter with "you don't have any money for a lawyer!"
I counter counter with "oh yeah!?"
You play the "we both po' blacks in Harlam, we ain't got no money foo'" card (yet we still have hedges)
so I says to you "well Mabel, we can settle this in the community court! If you win, you can keep your encroaching hedge, but if I win you have to cut it down!
So we go to court and argue about a hedge and, amazingly, the US constitution does not burst into flames, the seas do not boil and dogs and cats don't start mating to fill the world with dots.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2008-12-11 09:16:52 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2008-12-11 06:32:52 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Thats just it though, it doesn't impact on your way of life one iota.
------------------
Neither does a man beating his wife, but that doesn't mean that the law shoudl back institutions that support it.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2008-12-11 08:41:12 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
They'd taken the whole thing out of context. It wasn't about allowing muslims to be subject to special laws, it wasn't even about changing UK legislation. It was just about having a dude with a big beard hearing civil disagreements.
It is like getting angry about people collecting stamps.
---------------------
Except that the dude with the big beard after he has made hisdecision has the backing of the regular UK courts. And that the dude with a beard thinks a woman doesn't have as many rights, doesn't deserve as much in settlements, and their word is less than that of a mans.
when did famlies of stam collectors get their own courts? When did stamp collectors force women into marriage and beat or kill women who don't follow the stamp collector code?
Submitted by sandmantate (user info) at 2008-12-11 09:16:10 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2008-12-11 09:11:03 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
What about gypsies? They opress their women folk and will even abduct them from schools or universities. Why aren't you banging a drum for them?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At this point, you are just muddying the water. The Gypsies are presently trying to set up a secondary court system applicable only to them. When cults get a bug up their ass in the states, we eventually raid them and remove the women and children from harms way. Is it safe to assume that the same happens to the Gypsies?
The point is this- all human oppression is wrong. However, you're comparing apples to oranges.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2008-12-11 09:11:03 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Indo, what would I do without you rushing to my rescue to prove my point with your own unintentional socratic argument?
You talk about opression of women, you talk about the 'forced marriage unit' and yet all these things can happen to women of all manner of ethnic, national and religious backgrounds. You only seem to care when the dreaded muslims are involved.
What about gypsies? They opress their women folk and will even abduct them from schools or universities. Why aren't you banging a drum for them?
Submitted by sandmantate (user info) at 2008-12-11 09:10:19 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
The main problem I have with something like this is the chruch/state issue. I'm not going to pretend to know Englands stance on separation, however this is not a good thing. You don't want religion and law mixing. That's exactly what Sharia Law is. Religion as Law is oppressive, and violent.
Indo makes a good point- if you want to get divorced according to an ancient fantasy book, then go to Arbitration. The world does not need to start setting up a secondary law system, and we shouldn't be afraid to stand up to the Islamic religion and tell them to back the fuck off. They have countries that are already set up with the law system that they proclaim to love. They can move back to the desert.
I'm not trying to come off as religiously insensitive, but I don't expect to be able to move to a Communist state and try to set up a court system that benefits my American ideals. They shouldn't expect to move to a foreign country and try to set up an independent Court System. Whether it's 'no big deal' or not.
Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2008-12-11 09:07:54 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2008-12-11 08:23:52 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Forensic, you're concerned about injustice which is admirable. There are lots of countries, however, which have unjust and biased courts which do not operate to sharia law.
-----
The U.S., for example...
Submitted by forensicgirl3 (user info) at 2008-12-11 09:07:40 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
He's the fellow who sells merchandise out of his trunk. That is if the Po-Po isn't around.
Submitted by Dervel (user info) at 2008-12-11 09:04:49 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Jeff Din?
Wossat?
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2008-12-11 09:00:04 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Seriously though, it's not that big of a deal. Ever heard of Jeth Din? Those are special courts for Judaism. I bet you never even heard of them and feel totally uncompelled to give a fuck. That is because they don't impact on your life whatsoever and they've been around for donkeys years.
-----------------
That is because I have never heard of a Forced Marriage Unit going after Jews who send underaged girls to the "old country" to marry their cousin.
That is because I have never heard of honor killings for jews who don't follow their families wishes.
For the recors I think Jeth Din is wrong. If you feel the need to settle divorces, custody etc according to some religious book, go to arbitration, or just get a lawyer to draw up a contract that follows that book.
The problem with Shaira courts is worse for three reasons.
1 - It is far more sexist than Jewish courts.
2 - There has never been a movement in jewish communities to have "jewish law" be the law of the land.
3 - There is a clear record of women being coerced and opressed in Islamic communities in the UK. Giving them this tool puts legal weight behind some forms of this opression, and does nothing to preven peopl from being coerced into these courts.
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2008-12-11 08:57:23 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2008-12-11 08:41:12 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Not at all. I am a humanist, so is Forensic. She's just gotten confused by all the mad things people are saying about Islam and stuff. I remember hearing about this on the news, before it was ratified, and just shrugged. Next thing I know I'm hearing about people from all across the land arguing about it.
They'd taken the whole thing out of context. It wasn't about allowing muslims to be subject to special laws, it wasn't even about changing UK legislation. It was just about having a dude with a big beard hearing civil disagreements.
It is like getting angry about people collecting stamps.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree for once.
When you put things in the proper context of some pompous douche sitting comfortably in front of his computer, completely unaffected by the world at large, wearing fluffy slippers and a terrycloth bathrobe with the telly going in the background, almost everything seems philisophical.
The end of the world, in fact, seems like a grand idea in that context as, if nothing else, it will kill the contextual douche.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2008-12-11 08:56:47 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
The precedent has already been set.
Look. I hate the idea of community as much as you do, but it's what people want and it's harmless. I know that you're worried about kids and women being maligned in these insidious courts of awfulness, but they can just go to the state talk to them.
A far more serious concern would be something like domestic violence in the first world. That two out of five women will suffer sexual abuse at some point in their lives. That there are video cameras on our streets but not in our homes, keeping us safe from ourselves and loved ones.
Sharia law though? It's a non-issue.
Submitted by forensicgirl3 (user info) at 2008-12-11 08:48:16 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Uh no. I'm not confused. I know that most of what people know about any particular touchy subject is the extreme, sensationalistic press given to it.
So I looked into the matter as much as I could.
It's the precedence this is setting that I'm concerned about.
Submitted by Dervel (user info) at 2008-12-11 08:47:48 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
But who watches the watchmen?
Huzzah for Vimes and that farting dragon!
"Soley" I think it was called.
Submitted by Darth_Famine (user info) at 2008-12-11 08:45:50 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
heh
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2008-12-11 08:42:57 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
There may be something in that, Icy. To quote Terry Pratchett;
"If we must have crime then let us, at least, have organised crime."
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2008-12-11 08:41:12 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by EmissionImpossible (user info) at 2008-12-11 08:35:36 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I think this may have to be a agree to disagree situation.......
----------------------
Not at all. I am a humanist, so is Forensic. She's just gotten confused by all the mad things people are saying about Islam and stuff. I remember hearing about this on the news, before it was ratified, and just shrugged. Next thing I know I'm hearing about people from all across the land arguing about it.
They'd taken the whole thing out of context. It wasn't about allowing muslims to be subject to special laws, it wasn't even about changing UK legislation. It was just about having a dude with a big beard hearing civil disagreements.
It is like getting angry about people collecting stamps.
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2008-12-11 08:40:22 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
You think we should just mind our own business when it comes to how other cultures conduct themselves? Ok, so you're fine with genocide amongst some African tribes I assume? Hey, that's just the way their culture is, you know.
----------------------
Or Mormon elders to marry 12-year-olds. Or various cults/splinter groups to kill themselves and their spouses because Jesus will be travelling on board the Starship Enterprise in the tail of the Hail Bop comet. Or hey, how's about we offer certain Muslims the right to mutilate their children's genitals? After all, Jews have the bris, do they not? I mean, what's the difference between a surgical snip off the top and renoving the clitoris and sewing the vagina shut?
Hey, maybe we should allow gangs (registered of course) to rape, rob, and murder so many people a year. There could be seasons and they could have a quota just like hunters. It would make it so much easier on the courts an the legal systems.
Total freedom isn't just total chaos; it's total idiocy. You need standardized, secular laws. They might not be perfect, but you need them so that society as an entity functions.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2008-12-11 08:38:03 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I still admire your stand, Forensic, in spite of your racial handicap. Still, sharia law and even the church of Islam is merely a political entity. Same as the Catholic church or Scientology.
Churches are about 2 things; communities and ideology. Sharia law is, fundamentally (ha ha), concerned with the communal aspect of the church followers. People who're into religion are, usually, more into the community than the ideology and people who're into community love having their own little clubs.
*shrug*
Like I say, it doesn't impact on you or me at the end of the day. Weird though it all is.
Submitted by EmissionImpossible (user info) at 2008-12-11 08:35:36 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I think this may have to be a agree to disagree situation.......
Submitted by forensicgirl3 (user info) at 2008-12-11 08:32:17 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
You don't have to worry. It's not the 5 Jewish Bankers or the Saudi Conspiracy trying to take anything away from you.
===
Oh! Sarcasm. Fantastic.
Yes, I'm a white, racist, Redneck who thinks them Kikes and Towelheads are tryin' to take mah shit.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2008-12-11 08:28:21 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Right, in trying not to say too much I have said too little. I'll try again.
I hear that you're concerned about human and women's rights, but sharia law, sharia courts, are just little places where couples can argue in front of their neighbours and neighbours can argue about hedges. It is like Jerry Springer.
You don't have to worry. It's not the 5 Jewish Bankers or the Saudi Conspiracy trying to take anything away from you.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2008-12-11 08:23:52 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Forensic, you're concerned about injustice which is admirable. There are lots of countries, however, which have unjust and biased courts which do not operate to sharia law.
Intergrating communities and different creeds is hard and knee jerk reactions don't help.
Submitted by monkeyswithguns (user info) at 2008-12-11 08:01:42 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Awesome comic.
Submitted by woolfe (user info) at 2008-12-11 08:01:17 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
all muslims should be shot on site.
Submitted by Dervel (user info) at 2008-12-11 08:00:04 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Forensic, please refer to cartoon.
Submitted by forensicgirl3 (user info) at 2008-12-11 07:52:48 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
"Don't be paranoid and don't be a dick about it."
I'm assuming this was directed towards me. Ok, let's see if I'm being paranoid and/or a dick about this.
"Sharia law does not mean that brown folk can shoot white people with impunity; we are limited to a quota of 10 per month which is very strictly enforced."
>Where the hell did you get the idea that's what people think Sharia Law means?
"Since the introduction of Sharia Law, Great Britian's courts have become far lest congested with divorce proceedings as now all you need to do to get divorced is tap on the top of your spouse's head and say "I hate you!" 3 times. Of course, there are cases where a magistrate has to get involded when a wife has put her hands over her ears and shouted "la, la, la, not listening!".
>Divorce proceedings are not the only cases that Sharia Law courts deal with. There are also property cases. Women only receive half of property under Sharia Law. If an Islamic father dies, his son(s) automatically receive twice the inheritance than his daughter(s). In cases of domestic violence, how can an abuse victim receive justice when Sharia Law says it is acceptable for a man to beat his wife? It says so in the Quran.
Furthermore, in traditional Islamic marriages, the male is the final word in all decisions. If an Islamic woman wants here case tried in a secular court, but her husband demands the case to be tried in a Sharia court, she must comply. Sharia Law tends to favor the male.
Also, the testimony of a woman's testimony is considered half that than of a man. So if a woman testifies to something and is in opposition to that of a man, the man's testimony is given more weight.
"Seriously though, it's not that big of a deal. Ever heard of Jeth Din? Those are special courts for Judaism. I bet you never even heard of them and feel totally uncompelled to give a fuck. That is because they don't impact on your life whatsoever and they've been around for donkeys years."
>Yes I have heard of Beth Din. But Beth Din was not the subject of your post or the link I put on the board. For you to assume 1) that I've never heard of it and 2) that I don't give a fuck about it, is wrong.
"Sharia Law in the UK is about setting up a community hearing. It is a way for a community, for members whithin a community, to settle disputes. They're still answerable to parliament. They're an option, you can choose to go through civil statutes if you like, for muslims who wish to settle civil disputes in that manner."
>True. But Islamic fundamentalists who demanded Sharia courts to be set up in the first place strongly encourage Muslims to use these courts that have shown to be biased and discriminatory.
From what I hear, there has been a case (secular) that a Muslim man brought before British court in which he was suing a shop owner for selling alcohol. That offended the religious sensibilities of the Muslim man.
I assume you are responding to the issue of Sharia courts just in Britian. Fortunately Sharia courts in Britian are only allowed a few civil cases to be heard. Not so in many other parts of the world where Sharia Law demands death for adultery, death for apostacy, floggings or death for fornication, death for homosexuality, mutilations of theives, stonings, and beheadings.
So, you think everyone is getting paranoid and being a "dick" over Sharia Law. Interesting since there are anti-Sharia law websites all over the internet that denounce Sharia law as barbaric and horrible. Many of these websites are created by your countrymen and even some Islamics themselves who want to rid their culture of it.
You think we should just mind our own business when it comes to how other cultures conduct themselves? Ok, so you're fine with genocide amongst some African tribes I assume? Hey, that's just the way their culture is, you know.
Submitted by Dervel (user info) at 2008-12-11 07:51:37 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
No hats. Just a desk and my trusty ladybird book on engineering.
Talking of hats, what are those hats on electric chairs called? Apolloaf would need one the size of a wok.
<Resists stir-fry gags>
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2008-12-11 07:46:35 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Like a rapper or something.
Submitted by EmissionImpossible (user info) at 2008-12-11 07:44:48 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Dervel and Berty, sitting in a tree, m-a-s-t-u-rb-a ting
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2008-12-11 07:41:35 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
You're an engineer? I thought you were involved in something more intangible; like marketing or something. If I'm completely honest, I wasn't certain if you didn't have some manner of job where you're required to wear a hat.
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2008-12-11 07:38:42 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
WHY THANK YOU, WIKIPEDIA!
Submitted by Dervel (user info) at 2008-12-11 07:28:47 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I am, as it happens.
I was thinking the drain pipes would be used as a guide.
See in Disneys Robin Hood, Hiss the snake moves his middle out of the way of pointy swords.
I think drain pipes would stop that being reproduced in gangly neck form.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2008-12-11 07:23:04 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I am not an engineer, Dervel, but I don't see how a drain pipe would be neccesary or helpful unless you're worried about the audience getting spattered. For that though I think you'd be better off giving out those cheap cagouls they have at Alton Towers.
Submitted by Dervel (user info) at 2008-12-11 07:19:20 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Would they not have top modify the guillotine though? Add bits of drain pipe and the like?
I may do another Fintan.
But not till we guillotine Breadpies.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2008-12-11 07:11:57 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by EmissionImpossible (user info) at 2008-12-11 06:59:51 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Hmmm that cartoon isn't of quite the same quality as mine. huh
--------------------
The only comic that could be said to be better than yours is Fintan the Ferret. Dervel will never pen another one though because he is a git.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2008-12-11 07:10:21 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
The comic is called Bear & Kitten.
As for the other thing, well, think about it. If he had no neck at all, like Spam, then it would be impossible to guilotine him in any kind of conventional manner. You'd have to use the machine as a sort of scalping device.
Red would go in there fine though, like a twig in a... er... like a twig in a broken analogy.
Submitted by EmissionImpossible (user info) at 2008-12-11 06:59:51 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Hmmm that cartoon isn't of quite the same quality as mine. huh
Submitted by Dervel (user info) at 2008-12-11 06:56:21 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Are they cats or bears?
On a different note, if you were to guillotine Red, would his ridiculously long neck be a help or a hindrance to the process?
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2008-12-11 06:51:42 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Dervel (user info) at 2008-12-11 06:48:41 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I don't get the cartoon.
----------------
That is because you are pure and uncontaminated by the awful, sweaty, places of the night.
You should totally do Fintan the Ferrett again. With your skill and me bigging you up, you'll be the wealthiest man in Ipswich or wherever it is that you live.
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2008-12-11 06:49:32 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Agreed
Submitted by Dervel (user info) at 2008-12-11 06:48:41 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I don't get the cartoon.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2008-12-11 06:41:31 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Skrappy, your power of summarisation is as acute now as it ever was.
Submitted by skrapmetal (user info) at 2008-12-11 06:37:46 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
This reads a lot like "Nothing to see here, move along".
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2008-12-11 06:32:52 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Thats just it though, it doesn't impact on your way of life one iota.
Submitted by Phallic_Cymbals (user info) at 2008-12-11 06:27:17 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
You're not thinking about our way of life, berty. Our way of life must be maintained at all costs. This is why i will send my 6 year old child to work in a mill for 72 hours a week and ensure that at least 60% of my progeny die from the plague or tuberculosis.