...the shariah in England. This guy is a freaking hero. Europe needs more people like him for telling the truth about that blight that is Islam. It's like me speaking really. Go Pat Condell. France needs someone like you.


Link here

---------------------------


De Gaulle to the General Koenig, Norman hero of Bir Hakeim: "Hear and tell your troops: the whole of France is watching you, you are our pride."[

Like it, fair play to him.

@Eryx, mate you should check out Richard Dawkins instead he is much much more educated on this issue and the problems with religion in general. We have posted many videos of him in the religious subforum especially Koz4k.

I like this guy as well but he is mostly just articulate, he is not such a good debunker.



http://www.republicbroadcasting.org/

"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for
people we despise, we don't believe in it at all."

-Noam Chomsky

France needs someone like you.

There is plenty. Each time some religious cross the line they pop up. Else better left the religious alone as long as they don't piss people off with there faith or give lessons of moral.
In France the situation is much better than in Britain. Here publicly promoting the shariah is simply unthinkable and would be a political suicide.

This is how terrorists are treated in Britain,



--------------------------------------------

What a cock. He’s got a few things right but in general he is just yet another jumped up comedian who thinks he can play politics but hasn’t bothered to do the required research before stepping up onto his pedestal. Shariah in the UK is NOT a reflection of the law in Saudi Arabia nor are the principals of these laws enshrined in any UK legislation. What is in place is simply a matter of mediation, an option which is protected by UK law regardless of the principals behind it so long as ALL parties agree to it and the resulting decisions do not contradict UK law. This can’t be used to prosecute thieves or stone women who show a wrist or any of that crap. It is also possible to challenge any decision in British courts, contrary to what he is babbling on about, or in cases where a binding contract is not signed to just ignore it!

Far from being an erosion of British principles it is actually upholding them. To allow Jews or Christians or whoever to mediate according to their own beliefs (which we do) but to ban Muslims from doing the same would be contradictory to what, imho, the UK stands for both in principal and in law.

I agree with him in that I am sick of having Islam and anything about it rammed down my throat but my suggestion would be for him to maybe stop going on about it. Most of the stuff we hear about is coming from non Muslims whinging and the odd bad, and often exaggerated, decision of some company or council to ban something because they’re scared of offending Muslims.

I hate comedians who think that a stage and a microphone means their opinion matters more than anyone else, shut up and tell us a ****ing joke!






www.unmanneduk.150m.com

BRITONS,
DO YOUR BIT
SIGN THIS PETITION!
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/forces-support

You know, I wonder, I have heard that you hear people 'whining' about the problems being caused in the UK but mostly on the Internet. I find it ironic that the only medium where you can actually 'whine' about these things is on the Internet for the fear of some sort of reprisal.

Shariah in the UK is NOT a reflection of the law in Saudi Arabia nor are the principals of these laws enshrined in any UK legislation.

I think the more pressing concern is that this was bank rolled by Saudi Arabia. Point being, the Saudi government threw money around and hey presto.

I'm just surprised in this day and age we allow for religious laws to be given the same sort of recognition as the Laws of the Nation. This is clearly the remnants of the past appeasement process of decentralised law makers from the Monarchical era (most European nations practised as such).

I would say it's high time to curtail and further centralise and consolidate the secular laws, rather then appeasing minority (or majority) religious laws.

Siege of Tobruk - One German POW said: "I cannot understand you Australians. In Poland, France, and Belgium, once the tanks got through the soldiers took it for granted that they were beaten. But you are like demons. The tanks break through and your infantry still keep fighting." Rommel wrote of seeing "a batch of some fifty or sixty Australian prisoners ... marched off close behind us—immensely big and powerful men, who without question represented an elite formation of the British Empire, a fact that was also evident in battle."

Sometimes when I read such posts or hear populists in the media or in the streets, I feel like in less than a decade I'll have to wear a yellow crescent on my clothes when I'll be outdoor...

The difference with WW2, it's that this time we won't be like the jews waiting to be sent to camps like cattle almost doing nothing!



FREE EASTERN TURKISTAN

Quote: I find it ironic that the only medium where you can actually 'whine' about these things is on the Internet for the fear of some sort of reprisal.

But it’s not. It’s in the papers, in the TV, in the Commons, in the Lords and of course you’re free to talk about what you like in private.

Quote: I think the more pressing concern is that this was bank rolled by Saudi Arabia.

What was? British law that has been around for hundreds of years? With regards to Shariah law there’s no bankrolling to be done.

Quote: I'm just surprised in this day and age we allow for religious laws to be given the same sort of recognition as the Laws of the Nation.

We haven’t and we don’t plan to, that’s the point. What Muslims can do is go to a third party mediator, as ANYONE can, and have certain civil disputes settled on their own terms, again as ANYONE can do, which in this case are Shariah. Common law ALWAYS takes precedence and no one can be forced into one of these courts against their will.


He is talking rubbish, facts are facts and he has mentioned precious few in this video. If we ban Shariah law being allowed in private mediations then we must get rid of all mediation.







www.unmanneduk.150m.com

BRITONS,
DO YOUR BIT
SIGN THIS PETITION!
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/forces-support

Quote: @Eryx, mate you should check out Richard Dawkins instead he is much much more educated on this issue and the problems with religion in general. We have posted many videos of him in the religious subforum especially Koz4k.

When I was doing a youtube search on pat Condell, a link on Dawkins was returned as well. The guy is brilliant.

He is talking rubbish, facts are facts and he has mentioned precious few in this video. If we ban Shariah law being allowed in private mediations then we must get rid of all mediation.

You need to take a holistic approach to this and ignore the details. Shariah law in England is setting a bad precedence. If you let the fabric of your society imbibes some elements of a law that has violated basic human rights wolrd wide, then don't be suprised when, for instance, imams cover up cases of child abuse.



---------------------------


De Gaulle to the General Koenig, Norman hero of Bir Hakeim: "Hear and tell your troops: the whole of France is watching you, you are our pride."[

He is talking rubbish, facts are facts and he has mentioned precious few in this video. If we ban Shariah law being allowed in private mediations then we must get rid of all mediation.

That's the point, you should rid yourself of it.

With regards to Shariah law there’s no bankrolling to be done.

There had to be. It was sudden and quick.

Siege of Tobruk - One German POW said: "I cannot understand you Australians. In Poland, France, and Belgium, once the tanks got through the soldiers took it for granted that they were beaten. But you are like demons. The tanks break through and your infantry still keep fighting." Rommel wrote of seeing "a batch of some fifty or sixty Australian prisoners ... marched off close behind us—immensely big and powerful men, who without question represented an elite formation of the British Empire, a fact that was also evident in battle."

Quote: You need to take a holistic approach to this and ignore the details. Shariah law in England is setting a bad precedence. If you let the fabric of your society imbibes some elements of a law that has violated basic human rights wolrd wide, then don't be suprised when, for instance, imams cover up cases of child abuse.

I don’t think it is setting a precedence, I would say Beth Dins did that over 200 years ago. Any religious laws have dodgy aspects due to the very fact that they are based on thousand year old + outdated dogma but so long as they don’t step outside common law then there is no reason to curtail their use by those who wish to use them. Of course there is a chance that this could spread into more grey areas but that is where strong, honest leadership steps in and draws the line.

I won’t be surprised when an Imam is found to have covered up cases of abuse but mainly because some already do. Stopping the legitimate practice of Shariah law would not do anything to stop this; those who want to go whole hog and stone their wife will do so anyway. These people will go to Imams who, practicing outside the law, share their interpretations of Shariah (and there is far from a consensus on Shariah). But crucially those who don’t share these views or don’t really know much about Shariah will also be forced to go to these people if no alternative is available.

There is also the legitimate complaint that the UK allows other religions to practice aspects of their laws but won’t allow Islam to do so. If I were a Muslim, especially a Muslim on the edge, I wouldn’t take such hypocrisy well. There is a danger of such a ban being ammunition for the nutcases out there.


Rzecz

Quote: That's the point, you should rid yourself of it.

Get rid of all forms of private mediation? Why? We have had it for hundreds of years, it has worked well and keeps pressure off the courts. Why get rid of it now just because someone wants to use Islamic principles?

Quote: There had to be. It was sudden and quick.

It didn’t happen suddenly, the discussion has been going on for at least a couple of years and that’s only since I’ve been following it. And what are they paying for? I don’t know of any huge lobby groups that have sprung up.




www.unmanneduk.150m.com

BRITONS,
DO YOUR BIT
SIGN THIS PETITION!
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/forces-support

Get rid of all forms of private mediation? Why? We have had it for hundreds of years

Takes pressure of the courts? The major crimes and such are still taken care of, putting a few more divorces through the courts or some minor infringements wouldn't cause some sort of overload.

We have had a lot of things for hundreds of years, there is a whole history to these mediations, I'm opposed to them for those reasons.

It didn’t happen suddenly, the discussion has been going on for at least a couple of years and that’s only since I’ve been following it. And what are they paying for? I don’t know of any huge lobby groups that have sprung up.

Saudi's bank roll most "Islamic Councils of 'Enter nation of choice'" (or at least funds are found from bank accounts). From what I know it was about 2 years before it got accepted.

Not too long ago Saudi money was found in councils in Australia.

Siege of Tobruk - One German POW said: "I cannot understand you Australians. In Poland, France, and Belgium, once the tanks got through the soldiers took it for granted that they were beaten. But you are like demons. The tanks break through and your infantry still keep fighting." Rommel wrote of seeing "a batch of some fifty or sixty Australian prisoners ... marched off close behind us—immensely big and powerful men, who without question represented an elite formation of the British Empire, a fact that was also evident in battle."

Obviously we’re not talking about the legal system collapsing but nevertheless it would cost more and put more pressure on them.

Quote: there is a whole history to these mediations, I'm opposed to them for those reasons.

Can you cite anything?

Quote: Saudi's bank roll most "Islamic Councils of 'Enter nation of choice'"

But really you don’t have anything connecting Saudi money to this decision?

They may contribute to some Islamic council but in the UK the MCB hasn’t been very vocal about this. Most of the discussion has been generated by polls and private individuals (most of the major cases being non Muslims!).




www.unmanneduk.150m.com

BRITONS,
DO YOUR BIT
SIGN THIS PETITION!
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/forces-support

Pat Condell is good, a Dutch website called 'geenstijl' often refers to him (I'm sure Koz will know the site). You wouldn't imagine the load of hatred he receives from ALL religious groups... well, monotheistic religions anyway.

Quote:RM-Nod ... Shariah in the UK is NOT a reflection of the law in Saudi Arabia nor are the principals of these laws enshrined in any UK legislation. What is in place is simply a matter of mediation, an option which is protected by UK law regardless of the principals behind it so long as ALL parties agree to it and the resulting decisions do not contradict UK law. This can’t be used to prosecute thieves or stone women who show a wrist or any of that crap. It is also possible to challenge any decision in British courts, contrary to what he is babbling on about, or in cases where a binding contract is not signed to just ignore it! Far from being an erosion of British principles it is actually upholding them. To allow Jews or Christians or whoever to mediate according to their own beliefs (which we do) but to ban Muslims from doing the same would be contradictory to what, imho, the UK stands for both in principal and in law.

There is no doubt what Brits like you stand for: spineless idiocy.

Soon Rm-nod and the rest of the UK group will make some typical idiotic thread about what country in the imperial adventure of Afghanistan or Iraq is "pulling their weight or not" as allies of NATO, etc..

One global humanity for one global market.

Of course no self respecting Euro-leftist/multi-culturalist will admit such a maxim drives the mass immigration, because then they cannot pretend to be "progressive" by supporting such immigration. Western European countries that adopted mass immigration(a la USA, Canada, Australia; vast countries that were conquered by peoples of European stock from native aborginals of low population density) did so in periods of economic boom. But what happens when the boom is gone? Is the problem just that there is a manpower shortage or that in general native populations in the richer countries will not have many children due to their modern bourgoise ideals?

Europeans must ask themselves if they want "one global humanity" in their cities or if they want to actually perserve their own national and regional cultures, by curbing the high level of immigration(legal and illegal) effective immediately. Sadly I know the European political culture of failure will continue to follow the unstated ideal: "one global humanity, for one global market, and that humanity will take root in every European city, displacing the national population".

And do not worry in the UK, this lumpen mass can have the the UK's courts even allow meditation to the traditiona of their religious faith to help make global humanity in the UK's towns and cities, and for Brits like RM-nod to be proud for it.



Sig:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:Mundine: <a href="http://www.network54.com/Forum/248068/thread/1218331962/</a" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.network54.com/Forum/248068/thread/1218331962/</a>; I thought that this might be just Turkish journalists creating a bullsh*it story also. Probably is seeing as our journalists lie a lot.

Can you cite anything?

'Mediations' (along with other privileges) were a form of special privileges granted by a King/Monarch as a means of autonomy to a minority he/she wished to protect, which allowed them to use their own religious/tribal laws within a realm.

As you would know, European Kingdoms were far more decentralised and 'Common Law' was introduced as a means to centralise the various feudal fiefs laws into one coherent Law of the Realm. However, Common law did allow for local laws and special autonomy laws to persist as a means of making a smoother transition and to keep 'minorities' from rebellion.

Good example is the Welsh and Irish which had their own laws with a super imposed Common Law system.

My problem is that in a modern nation state, no minority, religious or otherwise deserves to be treated as 'special' above the majority. It is my belief all should face the same equal court and there shouldn't be some side 'rulings' (call it mediation) just because their religion so states. Especially when this minority starts to make up a large section of the population, this can only make them think they are separate to the majority.

Siege of Tobruk - One German POW said: "I cannot understand you Australians. In Poland, France, and Belgium, once the tanks got through the soldiers took it for granted that they were beaten. But you are like demons. The tanks break through and your infantry still keep fighting." Rommel wrote of seeing "a batch of some fifty or sixty Australian prisoners ... marched off close behind us—immensely big and powerful men, who without question represented an elite formation of the British Empire, a fact that was also evident in battle."

Nikephoros

Or maybe I’m just not prone to knee jerk reactions? Maybe I look at a subject, do some research and find out the truth behind it instead of agreeing with the nearest opinionated pundit because I’m too lazy or stupid to formulate my own opinion?

I know exactly what has been proposed, I know exactly what it means and I know exactly what the precedents are. If you want to debate the relative merits of allowing this or indeed banning it then go ahead but since all you can muster is “you stand for spineless idiocy” I’ll take it that you actually have bugger all to say on the subject.

Oh and don’t presume to know my views on anything unless I tell you what they are. For your information I am opposed to the modern idea of multiculturalism and am glad the government is introducing a points system for immigrants.



Rzecz;

There is no special treatment for any group, firstly it can not be used to mediate between an individual and the state (e.g. to bind the state to Shariah principles for example) so there is no way a Muslim could get a better deal from his local council or anything like that. Secondly any terms used by one person can be used by another regardless of what they call it. The process has absolutely no effect on anyone except those who choose to use it and it is a free choice. It’s just a method of allowing individuals to sort out their problems on their own without the state getting involved. How would this make anyone “special”?

As I said if your fears were correct then why haven’t we had such problems with the Jewish population who have had their own religious courts for many, many years?




www.unmanneduk.150m.com

BRITONS,
DO YOUR BIT
SIGN THIS PETITION!
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/forces-support

RM-NOD, "global humanity" immigration concept is already in the United Kingdom and most of Western Europe(exported and fully dysfunctioning in Greece too, unfortunately).

Quote:Rm-Nod I know exactly what has been proposed, I know exactly what it means and I know exactly what the precedents are.

The increasing precedent is that more and more "global hummanity" is expanding in the UK(and not just there but in all Western Europe). And now global humanity can have precedence to its own cultural moores, ethics, rites respected, at the cost of the host country(UK in this case) and its internal customs, ethics and rites. This is the type of immigration ethos of USA, Australia, Canada, etc.



Sig:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:Mundine: http://www.network54.com/Forum/248068/thread/1218331962/ I thought that this might be just Turkish journalists creating a bullsh*it story also. Probably is seeing as our journalists lie a lot.

Which is why we shouldn’t have things like faith schools which do only serve to split communities, from birth, down religious, cultural and more often than not ethnic lines.

However these Shariah courts would not mean that Muslims could disengage from the British legal system. As I said the precedent of courts such as the Jewish Beth Din show that these can be allowed without much impact on the nation and local communities. On the other hand openly allowing other groups their own religious mediators but not Muslims would send an obvious message that society just doesn’t like Muslims. That certainly wouldn’t be very helpful.

We therefore have two choices, either allow Shariah or ban private mediation altogether. Given the benefits of mediation to the country and the lack of any evidence that it has caused any significant problems then I don’t see the latter as a sensible option.




www.unmanneduk.150m.com

BRITONS,
DO YOUR BIT
SIGN THIS PETITION!
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/forces-support

Totally agree with Mike, what better way to create Muslim extremists in the UK than to give them a subset of rights everyone else has, on the grounds that we disagree with some Islamic countries laws. This would be like the US saying nobody can ever drive there if they originate from a country which uses kmh rather than mph for speed markings.


"He lives in a world where concept is reality..."

i destroyed this guy on you tube ill post it soon my e mails and his responses he has had a few second thoughts im waiting for his response

You destroyed him?

Siege of Tobruk - One German POW said: "I cannot understand you Australians. In Poland, France, and Belgium, once the tanks got through the soldiers took it for granted that they were beaten. But you are like demons. The tanks break through and your infantry still keep fighting." Rommel wrote of seeing "a batch of some fifty or sixty Australian prisoners ... marched off close behind us—immensely big and powerful men, who without question represented an elite formation of the British Empire, a fact that was also evident in battle."

//

One global humanity for one global market.

//

Sounds suicidal to Me. I am 100% against it.

I know who I am.

I know where I am from.

I am proud of my ancient heritage and the accomplishments of my forebears and countrymen.

We will maintain our identity, We will maintain our culture.

We will fight and die and worst of all: Kill, to maintain the continuity of our institutions.

All nationalists in all countries can agree on those statements.

There are few peoples who do not have their own countries, those that do not .. must fight for their place in the world.

We will not accept or permit the slow undoing of our institutions, nor neglect the sacrifices of our ancestors which have brought us the land and prosperity we presently enjoy.

Humanism/Socialism/Communism/Marxism/Extremist Environmentalism/Liberalism and Islamism. The lines between these movements are becoming blurred; as they are all either connected or connecting.

All of these movements will fail as they are becoming more and more exposed by the day.. the hypocrisy of their ideals is becoming apparent to the majority of our populations. A right wind is blowing all across Europe and the West in general.

We will not accept or permit ourselves to become minorities in our own countries, when the very people who we are allowing in.. do not subscribe to the same views. I cannot own land in Asia and many parts in Africa. No Asian or African should likewise be able to own land in our countries until the laws change in theirs. There are many such laws.. for example business ownership in China (51% chinese owned) amongst many many others which discriminate against us.

We should not give rights to foreigners which we ourselves do not enjoy in their own countries. That is only fair.

-- Dee

Anyone who believes in freedom of speech (like myself); will probably love Pat Condell.

I myself am a big fan.

-- Dee

destroyed is an expression ie won the argument hands down ive been busy lately but will send my e mail and chat transcripts up online when i can either in this thread or a new one