Well, Frank Miller's outright said that he aimed to antagonize Iran in revenge for 9/11, so "mission accomplished"!
|
Yea. Sure. A city (or a section of a city, or whatever) should apologize for the actions of an industry that happens to be located there. Whatever.
But more to the topic: Did the movie industy apologize for making Hitler's Germany look bad, no. Did the movie industry apologize for all the racial analogies in the oringinal King Kong, no. Did the movie industry apologize to all the physically and mentally handicapped they made fun of over the years, no. Did the movie industry apologize for all the sequals to the Pirates of the Caribbean or Back to the Future movies, no. Did the movie industry apologize to the Orcish-Americans for the LotR movies, no.
What makes Iran so special that they feel they deserve an apology from the movie industry for? Their job is to entertain. Sometimes they make good movies, sometimes they do not. Sometimes they villinize those that deserve to be, sometimes they do not. If someone cannot tell the difference between a movie and reality, you should not have kids, let alone run a country.
Suggest you look at the Sharia law and Blasphemy Law that the UN will be making legally binding(It is already legal just not binding) to ALL it member states. After that EVERYONE will be require to apologize and EVERYONE blasphemy over religious belief could face prison. ANY kind of blasphemy so you laugh at a crudely made statue of a saint or some prophet no matter what reason they could bring a charge against you.
The one thing we must keep free is the freedom of speak dont lose that right, or there will never be freedom to anyone.
Portella,
The UN can't impose anything on anyone. If it could, the US would be bound by the convention on human rights which it has refused to apply as it outlaws the death penalty (making America one of the more honest countries in the world as numerous dictatorships with capital punishments and a record of human rights abuses that put even the overinflated accusations against the US to shame but have signed up).Besides that, such a resolution can be vetoed by any of the permanent five ((USA, UK, France, China and Russia) none of whom accept Sharia and so would almost certainly resist this.
So even if the UN wanted to, and I can well believe it would try in an attempt to force people to be nice, it cannot actually make the laws of any country unless they sign up to it.
EDIT: This concludes the threadjacking. I hope.
|
S
e
o
n
i
Yea. Sure. A city (or a section of a city, or whatever) should apologize for the actions of an industry that happens to be located there. Whatever.
But more to the topic: Did the movie industy apologize for making Hitler's Germany look bad, no. Did the movie industry apologize for all the racial analogies in the oringinal King Kong, no. Did the movie industry apologize to all the physically and mentally handicapped they made fun of over the years, no. Did the movie industry apologize for all the sequals to the Pirates of the Caribbean or Back to the Future movies, no. Did the movie industry apologize to the Orcish-Americans for the LotR movies, no.
What makes Iran so special that they feel they deserve an apology from the movie industry for? Their job is to entertain. Sometimes they make good movies, sometimes they do not. Sometimes they villinize those that deserve to be, sometimes they do not. If someone cannot tell the difference between a movie and reality, you should not have kids, let alone run a country.
Suggest you look at the Sharia law and Blasphemy Law that the UN will be making legally binding(It is already legal just not binding) to ALL it member states. After that EVERYONE will be require to apologize and EVERYONE blasphemy over religious belief could face prison. ANY kind of blasphemy so you laugh at a crudely made statue of a saint or some prophet no matter what reason they could bring a charge against you.
The one thing we must keep free is the freedom of speak dont lose that right, or there will never be freedom to anyone.
Portella,
The UN can't impose anything on anyone. If it could, the US would be bound by the convention on human rights which it has refused to apply as it outlaws the death penalty (making America one of the more honest countries in the world as numerous dictatorships with capital punishments and a record of human rights abuses that put even the overinflated accusations against the US to...
I hope so the thought of the UN making into binding decision to all its member states scares me. They may not be able to enforce it but the "victims" of blasphemy (so they say) can take the government(s) to the UN courts. Where it could be force to pay for damages and even jail individuals.
|
|
S
e
o
n
iYea. Sure. A city (or a section of a city, or whatever) should apologize for the actions of an industry that happens to be located there. Whatever.
But more to the topic: Did the movie industy apologize for making Hitler's Germany look bad, no. Did the movie industry apologize for all the racial analogies in the oringinal King Kong, no. Did the movie industry apologize to all the physically and mentally handicapped they made fun of over the years, no. Did the movie industry apologize for all the sequals to the Pirates of the Caribbean or Back to the Future movies, no. Did the movie industry apologize to the Orcish-Americans for the LotR movies, no.
What makes Iran so special that they feel they deserve an apology from the movie industry for? Their job is to entertain. Sometimes they make good movies, sometimes they do not. Sometimes they villinize those that deserve to be, sometimes they do not. If someone cannot tell the difference between a movie and reality, you should not have kids, let alone run a country.
Suggest you look at the Sharia law and Blasphemy Law that the UN will be making legally binding(It is already legal just not binding) to ALL it member states. After that EVERYONE will be require to apologize and EVERYONE blasphemy over religious belief could face prison. ANY kind of blasphemy so you laugh at a crudely made statue of a saint or some prophet no matter what reason they could bring a charge against you.
The one thing we must keep free is the freedom of speak dont lose that right, or there will never be freedom to anyone.
Portella,
The UN can't impose anything on anyone. If it could, the US would be bound by the convention on human rights which it has refused to apply as it outlaws the death penalty (making America one of the more honest countries in the world as numerous dictatorships with capital punishments and a record of human rights abuses that put even the...
There is only one UN Court, the International Criminal Court. It only applies to countries that have signed up for it, so US citizens would be immune. It also can only be invoked if the country's own courts have been prevented from getting involved. Given it's generally dealing with genocide, and it's got a pretty full docket, I doubt it will have time, even if it had inclination, to get involved in such trivial matters.
It is worrying, but only in the sense that people believe free speech shouldn't apply to their sacred cows while it should to everyone else's. This will not happen. Any one of the big five is going to stop it for their own reasons, even if the general assembly issues a non-binding resolution.
|
|
S
e
o
n
iThank you, you have put my worries to rest. at least at the UN level, as the sharia law is already part of the british law and i would not like to see anything else further being made part of it.
Sharia is most certainly not part of British Law. Where did you get that idea? We allow certain financial instruments that comply with Sharia (in addition to normal banking law) and allow people the OPTION of taking as divorce proceeding to a Sharia body rather than through the courts, but it isn't part of the general law, it's an alternative mechanism if people want it. It does not apply to criminal or civil law outside these very limited exceptions. In short, you can still blaspheme against Allah as much as you can against Christ, which is to say quite a lot. At least legally, you still have to contend with religious lunatics trying to kill you, but that's not something the law can do anything about as killing people's already strongly discouraged.
|
|
Sharia is most certainly not part of British Law. Where did you get that idea? We allow certain financial instruments that comply with Sharia (in addition to normal banking law) and allow people the OPTION of taking as divorce proceeding to a Sharia body rather than through the courts, but it isn't part of the general law, it's an alternative mechanism if people want it. It does not apply to criminal or civil law outside these very limited exceptions. In short, you can still blaspheme against Allah as much as you can against Christ, which is to say quite a lot. At least legally, you still have to contend with religious lunatics trying to kill you, but that's not something the law can do anything about as killing people's already strongly discouraged.S
e
o
n
iThank you, you have put my worries to rest. at least at the UN level, as the sharia law is already part of the british law and i would not like to see anything else further being made part of it.
Arbitration Act 1996
any how you are right i feel a bit misguided now.
Anyhow they may be not part but they are allowed to operate under british law or rather on the side of british law. many injustice have already been done in sharia courts in the UK specially towards woman.
|
|
Sharia is most certainly not part of British Law. Where did you get that idea? We allow certain financial instruments that comply with Sharia (in addition to normal banking law) and allow people the OPTION of taking as divorce proceeding to a Sharia body rather than through the courts, but it isn't part of the general law, it's an alternative mechanism if people want it. It does not apply to criminal or civil law outside these very limited exceptions. In short, you can still blaspheme against Allah as much as you can against Christ, which is to say quite a lot. At least legally, you still have to contend with religious lunatics trying to kill you, but that's not something the law can do anything about as killing people's already strongly discouraged.S
e
o
n
iThank you, you have put my worries to rest. at least at the UN level, as the sharia law is already part of the british law and i would not like to see anything else further being made part of it.
Arbitration Act 1996
any how you are right i feel a bit misguided now.
Anyhow they may be not part but they are allowed to operate under british law or rather on the side of british law. many injustice have already been done in sharia courts in the UK specially towards woman.
As I understand it, and I'm not anything like an expert, they can appeal to the traditional UK courts as well. It's also true that traditional UK courts have performed many injustices. But in all cases, Sharia is only used if both parties consent. Now, there is certainly a potential issue of forced consent, but I'm not sure how that could be worked around.
I'm still waiting for Hollywood to apologise for U571, by the way. ;-)
EDIT: Jewish religious courts are empowered under the same legislation. As long as they abide by UK law, aren't involved in criminal law, and are only used with mutual consent, I can't see why either shouldn't be allowed.
|
|
Sharia is most certainly not part of British Law. Where did you get that idea? We allow certain financial instruments that comply with Sharia (in addition to normal banking law) and allow people the OPTION of taking as divorce proceeding to a Sharia body rather than through the courts, but it isn't part of the general law, it's an alternative mechanism if people want it. It does not apply to criminal or civil law outside these very limited exceptions. In short, you can still blaspheme against Allah as much as you can against Christ, which is to say quite a lot. At least legally, you still have to contend with religious lunatics trying to kill you, but that's not something the law can do anything about as killing people's already strongly discouraged.S
e
o
n
iThank you, you have put my worries to rest. at least at the UN level, as the sharia law is already part of the british law and i would not like to see anything else further being made part of it.
Arbitration Act 1996
any how you are right i feel a bit misguided now.
Anyhow they may be not part but they are allowed to operate under british law or rather on the side of british law. many injustice have already been done in sharia courts in the UK specially towards woman.
As I understand it, and I'm not anything like an expert, they can appeal to the traditional UK courts as well. It's also true that traditional UK courts have performed many injustices. But in all cases, Sharia is only used if both parties consent. Now, there is certainly a potential issue of forced consent, but I'm not sure how that could be worked around.
I'm still waiting for Hollywood to apologise for U571, by the way. ;-)
EDIT: Jewish religious courts are empowered under the same legislation. As long as they abide by UK law, aren't involved in criminal law, and are only used with mutual consent, I can't see why either shouldn't be allowed.
-- snippet
in a recent inheritance dispute handled by the court in Nuneaton, the estate of a Midlands man was divided between three daughters and two sons.
The judges on the panel gave the sons twice as much as the daughters, in accordance with sharia. Had the family gone to a normal British court, the daughters would have got equal amounts.
In the six cases of domestic violence, the judges ordered the husbands to take anger management classes and mentoring from community elders. There was no further punishment.
In each case, the women subsequently withdrew the complaints they had lodged with the police and the police stopped their investigations.
-- end of snippet
If they are abiding to british law why even have a separate court then. I jsut dont think this segregation is required or even wanted.
|
|
Sharia is most certainly not part of British Law. Where did you get that idea? We allow certain financial instruments that comply with Sharia (in addition to normal banking law) and allow people the OPTION of taking as divorce proceeding to a Sharia body rather than through the courts, but it isn't part of the general law, it's an alternative mechanism if people want it. It does not apply to criminal or civil law outside these very limited exceptions. In short, you can still blaspheme against Allah as much as you can against Christ, which is to say quite a lot. At least legally, you still have to contend with religious lunatics trying to kill you, but that's not something the law can do anything about as killing people's already strongly discouraged.
As I understand it, and I'm not anything like an expert, they can appeal to the traditional UK courts as well. It's also true that traditional UK courts have performed many injustices. But in all cases, Sharia is only used if both parties consent. Now, there is certainly a potential issue of forced consent, but I'm not sure how that could be worked around.
Are you sure about the status, in fact if not in law?
Are you sure about handling the consequences?Are you sure about the collateral effects being "strongly discouraged"?
Also, there is a difference between allowing a religious court granting a religious divorce and bypassing a civil court granting a civil divorce according to the laws of a nation.
|
|
Sharia is most certainly not part of British Law. Where did you get that idea? We allow certain financial instruments that comply with Sharia (in addition to normal banking law) and allow people the OPTION of taking as divorce proceeding to a Sharia body rather than through the courts, but it isn't part of the general law, it's an alternative mechanism if people want it. It does not apply to criminal or civil law outside these very limited exceptions. In short, you can still blaspheme against Allah as much as you can against Christ, which is to say quite a lot. At least legally, you still have to contend with religious lunatics trying to kill you, but that's not something the law can do anything about as killing people's already strongly discouraged.As I understand it, and I'm not anything like an expert, they can appeal to the traditional UK courts as well. It's also true that traditional UK courts have performed many injustices. But in all cases, Sharia is only used if both parties consent. Now, there is certainly a potential issue of forced consent, but I'm not sure how that could be worked around.Are you sure about the status, in fact if not in law?
Are you sure about handling the consequences?
Are you sure about the collateral effects being "strongly discouraged"?Also, there is a difference between allowing a religious court granting a religious divorce and bypassing a civil court granting a civil divorce according to the laws of a nation.
Yes, Sam, I am sure that murder is strongly discouraged under UK law. The whole "minimum sentence of life imprisonment" thing sort of gives it away.
Secondly, Sharia courts are not bypassing civil courts any more than the Jewish religious courts which are also legalised under that system do. Do you want them banned as well, or is it ok for Jews to have arbitration provided by their religious authorities if ALL parties consent to it, but not Musalims? It is simply an arbiter of civil disputes. What makes it so scary to you compared to the other arbiters?
|
|
Yes, Sam, I am sure that murder is strongly discouraged under UK law. The whole "minimum sentence of life imprisonment" thing sort of gives it away.
Looking at those articles, apparently some Britons are not as convinced.
Secondly, Sharia courts are not bypassing civil courts any more than the Jewish religious courts which are also legalised under that system do. Do you want them banned as well, or is it ok for Jews to have arbitration provided by their religious authorities if ALL parties consent to it, but not Musalims? It is simply an arbiter of civil disputes. What makes it so scary to you compared to the other arbiters?
Once again:
There is a difference between a religious divorce for religious purposes and bypassing civil divorce.In fact it would not be OK for Jews, or Christians, or Hindus, or anyone else, to be able to interfere with the general legal provisions regarding divorce, any more than it is for Muslims to be able to do so.
Then again, if you do not care about issues of guardianship, child support, and inheritance, it would of course not be an issue. Many people do consider those relevant issues, and so take it more seriously.
Likewise the significant issues with "Sharia compliant financing" that are casually handwaved off.
|
|
Yes, Sam, I am sure that murder is strongly discouraged under UK law. The whole "minimum sentence of life imprisonment" thing sort of gives it away.Looking at those articles, apparently some Britons are not as convinced.
Secondly, Sharia courts are not bypassing civil courts any more than the Jewish religious courts which are also legalised under that system do. Do you want them banned as well, or is it ok for Jews to have arbitration provided by their religious authorities if ALL parties consent to it, but not Musalims? It is simply an arbiter of civil disputes. What makes it so scary to you compared to the other arbiters?Once again:
There is a difference between a religious divorce for religious purposes and bypassing civil divorce.In fact it would not be OK for Jews, or Christians, or Hindus, or anyone else, to be able to interfere with the general legal provisions regarding divorce, any more than it is for Muslims to be able to do so.
Then again, if you do not care about issues of guardianship, child support, and inheritance, it would of course not be an issue. Many people do consider those relevant issues, and so take it more seriously.
Likewise the significant issues with "Sharia compliant financing" that are casually handwaved off.
Sam,
There are problems with everything you mentioned in normal divorces, too. This is a choice. If people don't like the outcomes of Sharia divorces, they are perfectly free not to take part and to get a normal divorce. I don't deny that by my standards, Sharia courts are backwards and come to insane judgments, but California voted to amend its constitution to guarantee bigotry, so it's not like Sharia is alone in being backwards and insane by my standards.And yes, some people do disagree. Some people think the Earth is flat. You cannot stop some people being stupid. The law, however, is pretty clear, regardless of whether an unspecified number of people think differently.
They should apologize for every occasion she had access to a microphone.
|
|
Sam,
There are problems with everything you mentioned in normal divorces, too. This is a choice. If people don't like the outcomes of Sharia divorces, they are perfectly free not to take part and to get a normal divorce. I don't deny that by my standards, Sharia courts are backwards and come to insane judgments, but California voted to amend its constitution to guarantee bigotry, so it's not like Sharia is alone in being backwards and insane by my standards.
They are not.
Sharia has specific, unalterable, rules for who gets custody and when, and what money and property a wife gets. Those are absolute, and the only thing the court does is recognize the divorce and enforce the rules.As for getting a normal divorce, you casually and severely understimate community pressure.
Demanding a secular divorce very likely means expulsion from your community. WIth sharia, it has a high probability of also meaning death.
If the law of a country is so feeble as to be unable to prevent that, then you are either looking at total submission to sharia, or a failed state.
And yes, some people do disagree. Some people think the Earth is flat. You cannot stop some people being stupid. The law, however, is pretty clear, regardless of whether an unspecified number of people think differently.
This is not believing the earth is flat.
This is a failure of government to guarantee equal protection to everyone.Peculiar how you find it atrocious in California but transcendent in England.
They should apologize for every occasion she had access to a microphone.
You think if you handed Paris Hilton a 9" microphone she'd apologize with it?
I don't see any way to comment on this...I just...no, I really don't. But you probably can think of lots of reasons why...
|
|
Sam,
There are problems with everything you mentioned in normal divorces, too. This is a choice. If people don't like the outcomes of Sharia divorces, they are perfectly free not to take part and to get a normal divorce. I don't deny that by my standards, Sharia courts are backwards and come to insane judgments, but California voted to amend its constitution to guarantee bigotry, so it's not like Sharia is alone in being backwards and insane by my standards.They are not.
Sharia has specific, unalterable, rules for who gets custody and when, and what money and property a wife gets. Those are absolute, and the only thing the court does is recognize the divorce and enforce the rules.As for getting a normal divorce, you casually and severely understimate community pressure.
Demanding a secular divorce very likely means expulsion from your community. WIth sharia, it has a high probability of also meaning death.
If the law of a country is so feeble as to be unable to prevent that, then you are either looking at total submission to sharia, or a failed state.And yes, some people do disagree. Some people think the Earth is flat. You cannot stop some people being stupid. The law, however, is pretty clear, regardless of whether an unspecified number of people think differently.This is not believing the earth is flat.
This is a failure of government to guarantee equal protection to everyone.
Peculiar how you find it atrocious in California but transcendent in England.
In California it is being imposed on people by others; in England, it is being allowed and people are given a choice. I don't blithely disregard community pressure, in fact I even conceded it when I was talking to Portella, I just don't see a good solution to it. But there's clearly no point discussing further as your definition of 'discussion' appears to be 'browbeat the other guy until he admits you're always right'. I have no further desire to hit that particular brick wall with my head. Good day.
|
Sam,
There are problems with everything you mentioned in normal divorces, too. This is a choice. If people don't like the outcomes of Sharia divorces, they are perfectly free not to take part and to get a normal divorce. I don't deny that by my standards, Sharia courts are backwards and come to insane judgments, but California voted to amend its constitution to guarantee bigotry, so it's not like Sharia is alone in being backwards and insane by my standards.They are not.
Sharia has specific, unalterable, rules for who gets custody and when, and what money and property a wife gets. Those are absolute, and the only thing the court does is recognize the divorce and enforce the rules.As for getting a normal divorce, you casually and severely understimate community pressure.
Demanding a secular divorce very likely means expulsion from your community. WIth sharia, it has a high probability of also meaning death.
If the law of a country is so feeble as to be unable to prevent that, then you are either looking at total submission to sharia, or a failed state.And yes, some people do disagree. Some people think the Earth is flat. You cannot stop some people being stupid. The law, however, is pretty clear, regardless of whether an unspecified number of people think differently.This is not believing the earth is flat.
This is a failure of government to guarantee equal protection to everyone.
Peculiar how you find it atrocious in California but transcendent in England.
Sam, with respect, I don't think you actually have a full grasp of the facts here. Given your strong pro-Zionist/Jewish bent I have a very strong notion you have absolutely no first hand knowledge of what happens in Muslim communities, and you are simply trading off second-hand "knowledge" and obvious truism (in all communities there are strong cultural pressures to do this or that, especially when they are a minority - that doubtless includes Hassidic jews too, amongst others). Calling Britain a failed state over this is a pitiful joke (especially coming from a country where the death penalty has been suspended in loads of states because, well, they're not really sure these guys got fair trials) - Somalia is a failed state.
My personal view on this is that the UK has gone too far in multiculturalism, and part of the reason why we have problems with home-grown Islamic terror is because we don't attempt to assimilate other cultures very hard (unlike the US) but reasons for that are partly historic (Empire and all). But I also just read about a scandal in the US where, because judges are effectively elected politicians, some bunch have been sending kids to juvenile detention centres because they got kickbacks. Nice. But I don't assume that the US is a failed state because of it.
Can we get back to jokes please?
|
|
In California it is being imposed on people by others; in England, it is being allowed and people are given a choice. I don't blithely disregard community pressure, in fact I even conceded it when I was talking to Portella, I just don't see a good solution to it. But there's clearly no point discussing further as your definition of 'discussion' appears to be 'browbeat the other guy until he admits you're always right'. I have no further desire to hit that particular brick wall with my head. Good day.
Allowing something like that means it very much is being imposed on people, just as other "accommodations" are imposed on people who may want something different, or who may, by the same reasoning, be entitled to the same accomodation but are denied it out of a desperate attempt to placate one group.
That you see no good solution other than submission is obvious.|
|
Sam, with respect, I don't think you actually have a full grasp of the facts here. Given your strong pro-Zionist/Jewish bent I have a very strong notion you have absolutely no first hand knowledge of what happens in Muslim communities, and you are simply trading off second-hand "knowledge" and obvious truism (in all communities there are strong cultural pressures to do this or that, especially when they are a minority - that doubtless includes Hassidic jews too, amongst others). Calling Britain a failed state over this is a pitiful joke (especially coming from a country where the death penalty has been suspended in loads of states because, well, they're not really sure these guys got fair trials) - Somalia is a failed state.
If you had respect Aubrey, you would investigate those links I have provided. There are more than a few from English newspapers and blogs. To suggest it is only my point of view, and that view is limited, is quite disingenuous.
Nor is the suggestion that a country forced to cede a dual justice system a failed state outrageous. You mention Somalia, I counter with Pakistan. Armed attacks on touring cricket teams are definitely not "cricket" for sustainable states, what then massive surges in rape statistics?My personal view on this is that the UK has gone too far in multiculturalism, and part of the reason why we have problems with home-grown Islamic terror is because we don't attempt to assimilate other cultures very hard (unlike the US) but reasons for that are partly historic (Empire and all). But I also just read about a scandal in the US where, because judges are effectively elected politicians, some bunch have been sending kids to juvenile detention centres because they got kickbacks. Nice. But I don't assume that the US is a failed state because of it.
And yet they are being sent to prison.
And yet a perverted Hassidic rabbi is on trial in NYC for sexually abusing his daughter.And yet the Archbishop of Canterbury continues to advocate for the full establishment of a dual system of laws, including sharia, in the U.K.
One might surmise there is a difference between those.
One might also surmise there is a difference between say banning someone coming to peacefully address your government while simultaneously welcoming people coming to incite violence, and finding that somehow acceptable compared to a court case involving evolving standards of access to marriage.
Can we get back to jokes please?
Why?
Because making fun of the U.S. regarding this is acceptable, but making fun of the U.K. over its quirks is not?
I'd also like Mel Brooks to apologize for never making History of the World: Part II.
I agree. Part One was one of the funniest movies ever made(Pawn, jump queen! Hilarious.). There should have been a sequel.
As much as those in Hollywood can be real jerks sometimes, we have freedom of speech in this country and I will stand by it no matter what. Iran and some odd 40 Islamic nations have passed a resolution in the UN to curb free speech, making it a crime to say anything against "religion" namely Islam. This resolution encourages countries to make laws which will make it illegal to say anything against Islam, truth or not.
Honestly, I think Hollywood should collectively pull down its pants and send a giant picture of thousands of full moons to Iran.
Hollywood should apologize to the world for damage to the climate caused by putting out such a tremendous load of crap each year.
But ... then we'd be bored stiff, as all of about ... 3 movies would release every decade. And no TV, there wouldn't be enough to keep a single network on the air all day.
But ... then we'd be bored stiff, as all of about ... 3 movies would release every decade. And no TV, there wouldn't be enough to keep a single network on the air all day.Hollywood should apologize to the world for damage to the climate caused by putting out such a tremendous load of crap each year.
I think Hollywood should apologise for "Chick Flicks" and the Howling 3.
|
But ... then we'd be bored stiff, as all of about ... 3 movies would release every decade. And no TV, there wouldn't be enough to keep a single network on the air all day.Hollywood should apologize to the world for damage to the climate caused by putting out such a tremendous load of crap each year.
Thats what reruns are for.
|
And yet the Archbishop of Canterbury continues to advocate for the full establishment of a dual system of laws, including sharia, in the U.K.
This is.. inaccurate, to say the least. What the Archbishop of Canterbury was arguing for was the Muslim religious 'courts' in the UK to be on the same level as other religious 'courts' in the UK, such as Jewish ones. These courts are there to decide upon certain matters, such as divorces between two members of the congregation. However, ANY suggestion they make is not enforceable in law, and settlements they put forward have to go to our actual courts to be looked at, and then approved.
Rowen Williams actually argued against much of the excesses of Sharia law, saying that "In some of the ways it has been codified and practised across the world, it has been appalling and applied to women in places like Saudi Arabia, it is grim."
Personally, I don't see an issue with it. None of the various religious courts have binding powers, and are closer to arbitration panels. Jews in the UK already have these, so why not Muslims?
|
|
This is.. inaccurate, to say the least. What the Archbishop of Canterbury was arguing for was the Muslim religious 'courts' in the UK to be on the same level as other religious 'courts' in the UK, such as Jewish ones. These courts are there to decide upon certain matters, such as divorces between two members of the congregation. However, ANY suggestion they make is not enforceable in law, and settlements they put forward have to go to our actual courts to be looked at, and then approved.
"An approach to law which simply said - there's one law for everybody - I think that's a bit of a danger" - Rowan Williams
"The service provided by the Beth Din is best described as binding civil arbitration, and they do not seek to replace the state's civil courts." - Comment on Jewish religious courts
Binding arbitration means it would have the force of law.
Rowen Williams actually argued against much of the excesses of Sharia law, saying that "In some of the ways it has been codified and practised across the world, it has been appalling and applied to women in places like Saudi Arabia, it is grim."
Indeed.
Yet the reason he gives for doing so is"Dr Rowan Williams told Radio 4's World at One that the UK has to "face up to the fact" that some of its citizens do not relate to the British legal system.Dr Williams argues that adopting parts of Islamic Sharia law would help maintain social cohesion."
How then when they assert an inability to relate to the criminal law system? How many parts would be necessary for social cohesion then?
Personally, I don't see an issue with it. None of the various religious courts have binding powers, and are closer to arbitration panels. Jews in the UK already have these, so why not Muslims?
You do not.
Others do not.Still others remain concerned:
"But Douglas Murray, the director of the Centre for Social Cohesion, said: "He has started a process which is deeply dangerous, damaging to Britain and to Muslim women in Britain."
And others fully opposed to the concept.
I want Hollywood to apologize for never making a sequel to Remo Williams: The Adventure Begins.
I'd also like Mel Brooks to apologize for never making History of the World: Part II.
And Hollywood should also apologize for never filming Buckaroo Banzai Against the World Crime League.
|
|
Firstly, these courts running under the arbitration act are only binding if both parties agree to listen to them. Any truly unjust sentences would not be allowed by our courts.
Secondly, those courts can only arbitrate on civil matters, such as divorce. Some unofficial sharia courts have heard matters on things as critical to the security of Britain as nuisance neighbours, the wearing of wigs and inheritance matters.
Thirdly, many UK citizens do not relate to the legal system. Is Rowan Williams wrong for saying this? It is sad that they do, but more should be done to integrate them. Rowan Williams suggestion of giving sharia courts the same legal rights as Beth Din courts might work. Certainly something has to be tried.
|
|
Thirdly, many UK citizens do not relate to the legal system. Is Rowan Williams wrong for saying this? It is sad that they do, but more should be done to integrate them. Rowan Williams suggestion of giving sharia courts the same legal rights as Beth Din courts might work. Certainly something has to be tried.
You cannot integrate by segregating.
|
|
Sam, with respect, I don't think you actually have a full grasp of the facts here. Given your strong pro-Zionist/Jewish bent I have a very strong notion you have absolutely no first hand knowledge of what happens in Muslim communities, and you are simply trading off second-hand "knowledge" and obvious truism (in all communities there are strong cultural pressures to do this or that, especially when they are a minority - that doubtless includes Hassidic jews too, amongst others). Calling Britain a failed state over this is a pitiful joke (especially coming from a country where the death penalty has been suspended in loads of states because, well, they're not really sure these guys got fair trials) - Somalia is a failed state.
If you had respect Aubrey, you would investigate those links I have provided. There are more than a few from English newspapers and blogs. To suggest it is only my point of view, and that view is limited, is quite disingenuous.
Nor is the suggestion that a country forced to cede a dual justice system a failed state outrageous. You mention Somalia, I counter with Pakistan. Armed attacks on touring cricket teams are definitely not "cricket" for sustainable states, what then massive surges in rape statistics?
Ah, so you read it in a newspaper? Well, excuse me, it must be true, then.
Grow up, do you think I was born yesterday? No, I don't have much respect for you Sam, since you ask. I know plenty of Muslims, and consider several to be friends - they are not a single bloc with unified views, but they in fact pretty diverse in outlook and nature. I have been to Muslim weddings, and I discussed these sorts of issues with them. As with most things, you take a few extreme examples and then apply it to everyone.
The problem in Pakistan is a hell of a lot more complicated than the application of Sharia law (which is not universal there anyway - they have a justice system pretty similar to the UK one due to the colonial influence) but instead is much more to do with the Pakistan intelligence agencies encouraging extremists in Kashmir and the Taliban as a "strategic counterweight" to India - sowing the wind and reaping the whirlwind. As for the rape statistics - these are dubious at best. If you are seriously talking about rape statistics in Pakistan, then I would doubly be doubtful about them given that it is a fairly traditional society. It could be that women are feeling more empowered to speak out, leading to rape being more frequently reported rather than an increase in incidence. I don't know, and neither do you.
My personal view on this is that the UK has gone too far in multiculturalism, and part of the reason why we have problems with home-grown Islamic terror is because we don't attempt to assimilate other cultures very hard (unlike the US) but reasons for that are partly historic (Empire and all). But I also just read about a scandal in the US where, because judges are effectively elected politicians, some bunch have been sending kids to juvenile detention centres because they got kickbacks. Nice. But I don't assume that the US is a failed state because of it.
And yet they are being sent to prison.
And yet a perverted Hassidic rabbi is on trial in NYC for sexually abusing his daughter.
And yet the Archbishop of Canterbury continues to advocate for the full establishment of a dual system of laws, including sharia, in the U.K.
One might surmise there is a difference between those.
One might also surmise there is a difference between say banning someone coming to peacefully address your government while simultaneously welcoming people coming to incite violence, and finding that somehow acceptable compared to a court case involving evolving standards of access to marriage.
The Archbishop's views are much more nuanced than that, and if you are getting this from a British newspaper you can bet that that nuance is totally lost amid sensationalism. Williams is a subtle academic and so he is not some bearded Islamicist (though he is bearded, of course) looking for force Islam down people's throats. His views, as I understand them, are partly about equality (given that Jewish courts are given sway over some family law matters, so why not extend that to Islamic courts too?) and partly about the debate concerning multiculturalism. It is also worth pointing out that in the UK there is no separation between Church and State - we have an established Church of England, for example, which can be seen as disadvantaging other religions - Willaim's was also making the points in ithe spirit of interfaith dialogue. What I do not think Williams ever advocated was imposing Sharia, in all its forms, upon Muslims or anyone else. Personally, I think all religion is total b!@%@$~s, so I don't really agree with Williams, Islamic scholars or anyone on this stuff. But where it is harmless (and the Church of England is deeply harmless) I don't have a problem with it.
Your comments about the pervert rabbi - criminal law is always the puview of the State, and it is in the UK. So he would be treated the same as in NY. As for the kids in jail, they are suing for miscarriage of justice. The point I was making was that because of on percieved flaw in UK justice (not even really justice in the criminal sense, since it is civil law) you busily bandied round the term "failed state". I was simply pointing out that the US system has its own flaws.
I assume that your comments about someone coming to address the government and getting banned are about the Dutch guy. I don't agree that he should have been banned, but the government here got twitchy (they have also banned some moderate Islamic speakers too). I didn't vote for this goverment either - like I say, you should not assume that all UK people think in a bloc either.
Out of curiosity, what are your views on the religious parties in Israel, many of whom are very pro the settler movement that causes a lot of the problems for Israel (most of the settlers are very religious, whereas most non-settler Israelis are pretty secular)? Do you think they are unacceptable in the influence they have over the Israeli polity?
Can we get back to jokes please?
Why?
Because making fun of the U.S. regarding this is acceptable, but making fun of the U.K. over its quirks is not?
I wasn't making fun of the US - I was pointing our your errors.
I miss the jokes, they were fun.
I miss the jokes, they were fun.
Nobody ever misses me.
I'm still waiting for an apology for the movie Donovan's Reef, when Hollywood thought it would be clever to pair me with a leading lady who was half my age. Damn that made me look old.
Yesterday an aide to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad demanded that Hollywood apologize to Iran for such unfair depictions as Not Without My Daughter and The 300. So what do you think? Should Hollywood apologize to Iran?
I don't know about 300, since I haven't seen it. However, Not Without My Daughter was released in 1991. Asking Hollywood to apologize for it now is like asking your sister to apologize for kicking you in the shins 20 years ago. Also, the movie was based on an autobiography of the same name. I don't know what liberties Hollywood took with the story, since I haven't read the book it's based on. However, if it's anywhere close to an accurate reflection of the book, then I don't Hollywood should be faulted with trying to represent visually what another person claims is an historical account.
In any event, I think there are plenty of contemporary movies that could justifiably be called out for unfairly depicting people of Middle Eastern descent. The movie, Vantage Point, certainly comes readily to mind. Maybe they didn't ask Hollywood to apologize for it is because it sucked.
|
|
Ah, so you read it in a newspaper? Well, excuse me, it must be true, then.
Grow up, do you think I was born yesterday? No, I don't have much respect for you Sam, since you ask. I know plenty of Muslims, and consider several to be friends - they are not a single bloc with unified views, but they in fact pretty diverse in outlook and nature. I have been to Muslim weddings, and I discussed these sorts of issues with them. As with most things, you take a few extreme examples and then apply it to everyone.
And you heard it from some random person walking down the street so it must be true then?
Apparently you were born yesterday if you think that proves there is no problem, or that there are people that have significant issues with it.As for extreme examples and applying them to everyone, that is what this thread is about in the first place. A single country demanding apologies for a few movies from an entire industry. But then dobule standards are great for you.
The problem in Pakistan is a hell of a lot more complicated than the application of Sharia law (which is not universal there anyway - they have a justice system pretty similar to the UK one due to the colonial influence) but instead is much more to do with the Pakistan intelligence agencies encouraging extremists in Kashmir and the Taliban as a "strategic counterweight" to India - sowing the wind and reaping the whirlwind. As for the rape statistics - these are dubious at best. If you are seriously talking about rape statistics in Pakistan, then I would doubly be doubtful about them given that it is a fairly traditional society. It could be that women are feeling more empowered to speak out, leading to rape being more frequently reported rather than an increase in incidence. I don't know, and neither do you.
Gee, where to start with this one?
First you blithely accept "encouraging" pyschopaths who are murdering people with abandon as a political tactic. Yes, I "read it in a newspaper" the number of entertainers and teachers being murdered by "extremists", the number of women and girls raped and burned with acid by them, the number of aid workers kidnapped and their heads sawn off while alive, all by these people.Then there is you equally sneering dismissal of rape. So you do not know if it is just more people reporting it or more rapes being committed, but that is enough for you to completely ignore the disproprotionate number of people of a specific group involved. The fact that rape as such a tactic has been openly advocated by terrorist groups is no doubt mere coincidence to you. You refuse to address it, callously sacrificing all of the women involved, in your quest to avoid condemning people. And you consider this noble.
I assume that your comments about someone coming to address the government and getting banned are about the Dutch guy. I don't agree that he should have been banned, but the government here got twitchy (they have also banned some moderate Islamic speakers too). I didn't vote for this goverment either - like I say, you should not assume that all UK people think in a bloc either.
Why did they get twitchy?
Because a Muslim threatened to raise a mob of 10,000.Whether you voted for the government or not, ignoring that key fact is sanctioning its decision.
Out of curiosity, what are your views on the religious parties in Israel, many of whom are very pro the settler movement that causes a lot of the problems for Israel (most of the settlers are very religious, whereas most non-settler Israelis are pretty secular)? Do you think they are unacceptable in the influence they have over the Israeli polity?
Out of curiosity, how does that justify what various Islamic groups are doing?
How does that explain this happy fellow?That is where you fail, and fail horribly. You think that by pointing out that someone else might not be perfect you can silence anyone condemning a particular group of vicious criminals.
Do I think it is unfortunate that orthodox political parties have control over Judaism in Israel?
Yes I do.
Have I ever heard of an Orthodox religious court ordering the gang rape of a girl because someone walked with the "wrong person", or the murder of a couple because they married without approval, or any of the excesses that you condemn me for pointing out?
No, I have not.
Have you?
Out of curiosity, where are your objections and denunciations of the events in Darfur, the Swat Valley, or even the rioting in Malmo? Do you think they are unacceptable at all, and should be discussed in public, and on an international level?
I wasn't making fun of the US - I was pointing our your errors.
My horrible errors of thinking women should have rights and similar unreasonable concepts.
Yes, do please continue pointing them out to everyone.Mention anything to do with Iran, or Islam, and Sam will pop up.
Perhaps if Iran and Islamists did not treat things like freedom of expression as horrific crimes while treating genocide of Muslims as reserved religious privilege I would not feel the need to pop up.
Those jokes raped me and you think they were fun. You disgust me.
You had it coming. Just look how you were dressed.