"10 foreign nationals, who the Home Office says pose a threat to national security, were detained in the UK, pending deportation" – yes, we’re deporting people to be tortured.
If you can’t see why it’s wrong to deport foreigners, even dodgy ones whose opinions you disagree with, to uncivilised hellholes where they torture and murder people for having opinions that the government disagrees with, then there’s no hope for you. Even if we have procured lying guarantees from said uncivilised torturers and murderers that these particular individuals won’t be tortured or murdered…
To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin, if you’re willing to sacrifice liberty for security, I hope you and your family suffer a horrible death at the hands of terrorists.
There is a real problem about how we should deal with these sort of people. They don’t deserve to be tortured or executed, but if they have committed a criminal act (and one that merits being a crime) in their home nation they do deserve to be punished. Letting criminals in the UK, because their government is dishing out punishments that the crime doesn’t deserve, is great for them – but it doesn’t help the rest of us to have these people wandering about here.
I’m not sure what the solution is (other than the old – you can leave if you want, but if you stay in the country it will have to be in jail).
"..we’re deporting people to be tortured".
One can but hope.
I’m sure it would be possible to adjust the rules of jurisdiction so that e.g. Syria could prosecute e.g. Bakri in the British courts, and if convicted he could be sentenced by a British Judge to serve thirty years in British gaols.
If the Syrian state can’t find enough evidence without torture to secure a conviction, they will have learned a salutory lesson about competent policing.
Chris – and those thirty years are paid for by the Syrian government, just to keep the Daily Mail crowd happy… Always have to keep the Daily Mail crowd happy…
I think you might have a problem there, Nosemonkey. Syria may well be willing to pay the costs of keeping someone for 30 years in a Syrian prison. I suspect 30 years in a UK jail might cost a bit extra.
Dear oh dear. I just can’t find it in me to give a stuff about these bastards. Strangely enough I care more about British people who they are a threat to. Ship ’em out. It they’re tortured, that’s the fault of Syria etc, not ours.
Strangely enough I care more about British people who they are a threat to.
Now I’m confused. If it can be demonstrated that they genuinely are "a threat" to British people, why aren’t they tried and locked up over here?
If it requires torture to extract the information which "proves" they are a threat, then how can that information be trusted? (It’s fairly well established that people will falsely incriminate themselves in order to stop being tortured).
Who says they’ll be tortured? I hope you’re not suggesting that Arabs do that kind of thing. How racist.
These are foreign nationals. They have no automatic right to be here, and I don’t want to see taxpayer’s money being wasted on legal aid, benefits and so forth. Out they go, and not before time.
I hope you’re not suggesting that Arabs do that kind of thing. How racist.
Yes, Arabs do that sort of thing. So do non-Arabs. Jews do it, Christians do it, black people and white people do it. Hell, even educated fleas do it.
Ummm.
The point, OP, is that we know certain regimes use torture to extract information and/or confessions. The UK did it until fairly recently (though I suspect certain folk would insist upon calling what the Guildford 4 endured as "harsh treatment" rather than "torture"). I feel it is immoral to voluntarily place anyone (yes, even a convicted serial killing mass-murdering terrorist arsonist) into the hands of a group of people who are likely to use torture.
Well, by your argument, since non-Arabs, Christians etc are just as likely to torture as Arabs, Muslims etc, these people are no safer in Britain than they are in Jordan or whatever. So there’s no danger at all in shipping them out.
I understand that the Jordanian government has ‘given assurances’ that they won’t be ill-treated. Now I hope you’re not suggesting that Arabs lie through their teeth, because that would be naughty.
Are you deliberately misunderstanding my argument OP? Because there’s really nothing more childish.
My point was that "Yes, Arabs do use torture. But so does every ethnic or religious group somewhere on the planet". Not that "All Arabs use torture, as do all non-Arabs everywhere".
It was a refutation of your accusation of racism… i.e. I was saying that the ethnic or religious background of a group of people cannot be relied upon as a yardstick to judge whether or not they will use torture.
Instead one must use empirical evidence on a case-by-case basis. Deportation to Syria may very well result in a person being tortured. Here in 2005, deportation to Turkey (another Islamic state) almost certainly won’t.
Similarly, if you were Irish and arrested under suspicion of terrorist acts in the UK in the 1970s, then you could probably expect to be tortured in some way. Today that’s far less likely.
Do you understand the point now, OP? It is immoral to deliver someone into the hands of would-be torturers, and our analysis of who is likely to be a torturer must be based on current evidence, not ethnic profiling.
Well, I think it just isn’t our problem. Why are these people more likely to be tortured than any other citizens of their hellish countries? And why are we more responsible for them than we are for any other Syrians or Jordanians. We are not. It is up to Syria/Jordan to put their own house in order, nothing at all to do with us, and I don’t want to see one penny of British taxpayer’s money spent on legal fees, food, housing etc for people to whom we owe nothing whatsoever, and who have the potential to do us harm.
Fuck this political stuff, John – it’s Friday and I’ve finished reading Popbitch. Where are the scantily-clad ladies and daft quizzes?
What sort of person wants people to be tortured David?
Actually "hopes for it"?
Ypu need help.
OP, one last time…
The reasons why these individuals may face torture is irrelevant. As I said previously, even if they were convicted of very nasty stuff, that doesn’t make torture morally acceptable. And that they are only suspected of nasty stuff (hence the inability of the UK government to prosecute) surely strengthens that point (in the real world, even if not in the realm of absolute morality).
Those who carry out torture should be condemned for it. By handing individuals over to them, the UK becomes complicit in that torture. That is morally reprehensible.
You say "they aren’t our problem". But they clearly are if you claim (as you do) that they are a threat to the British people. It’s difficult enough to discuss complex issues without one participant constantly shifting position and making self-contradictory claims.
If these people are not a threat to Britain, then deporting them makes precisely zero sense. If they are a threat to Britain, then they are clearly "our problem", and should be dealt with by us, and not by whatever convenient group of people we can ship them out to for torture.
But they aren’t British citizens and don’t have the rights of British citizens.
We’re not going to agree on this, so this no point in discussing this.
Ship them out and don’t waste a penny on them. Fortunately, this is what is happening.
We’re not going to agree on this
You’re right there. It’d be next to impossible for us to agree on this as you’ve made self-contradictory assertions (that they are a threat to the British people, and that they are "not our problem"… clearly any threat to the British people is "our problem")
So for us to agree, I would have to claim to believe two mutually exclusive things. And it’s a bit early in the evening for me to be doing that.
They are a potential threat to us. To prove that they are a threat beyond all reasonable doubt involves a lengthy and expensive legal process paid for by the taxpayer. Rather than this, I say ship them back to where they came from.
What happens to them then is not our problem. It is a matter of total indifference to me what happens to a piece of shit like Abu Qatada – someone who thinks it’s OK to beat wives and stone gays. Let him peddle his shit in Jordan or wherever, and see how he gets on there.
No contradiction though. They are a potential threat. Send them back. What happens then is not our problem.
the right not to have the British government help to prevent you from being tortured if they can is not dependent on being a British citizen as established by the House of Lords in Reg. v Pinochet.
In that case this expulsion is illegal. Well, is it?
Were the facts in that case the same as this? And were we facing any threat from Pinochet here in Britain?
Yes, OK, the threat has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt, it is a potential threat. It has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt that these shitbags will be tortured.
Whatever – I don’t care. Sling them out.
Who says they’ll be tortured? I hope you’re not suggesting that Arabs do that kind of thing. How racist.
OP, it’s pretty common knowledge that Syria is really bad at not torturing people. It ain’t racism, it ain’t because they’re Arabs, it’s just Syria’s human rights record is awful. If you’re not aware of this, or if you’re choosing to ignore it for the sake of making a cheap point, that’s your problem.
Okay, the tone of my last comment was excessively cuntish. Sorry.
I disagree Lorna. The tone was just cuntish enough.
I’m fully aware that Syria has a bad human rights record. However, this applies to all Syrians, not just to any Syrian born mad scrounging mullah who happens to have fetched up in Britain.
We owe no more to these bearded loons than we do to other Syrian, Jordanian or Yemeni citizens who stay put. In fact rather less, because the latter stay put an don’t come here, scrounge benefits and legal fees and plot terroirsm against us.
Send the buggers back.
"However, this applies to all Syrians, not just to any Syrian born mad scrounging mullah who happens to have fetched up in Britain"
I would have thought it fairly obvious that it applies more to those who have chosen to flee Syria for some reason. You seem to be suggesting that a Syrian police officer or a Syrian primary school teacher who has never expressed anti-government sentiments, for example, has as much reason to fear torture as a Syrian asylum seeker who has previously spoken out against the Syrian government.
And that’s just plain silly, no? If we are deporting someone to Syria against their will, it’s more than likely that they’ll be treated harshly than would the average Syrian citizen.
I guess it just comes down to the fact that you’re a moral relativist (we don’t torture over here, but it’s OK for them to do so over there… therefore we suffer no moral taint by delivering someone into their hands) and I’m a moral absoutist (torture is immoral wherever it occurs… therefore to hand someone over to torturers implicates you in their actions). You are willing to involve yourself in torture so long as no blood physically stains your nice carpet.
Wrong again, Mr Bliss. Here’s my modest proposal.
For every Egyptian/Syrian/Yemeni/Jordanian mad Mullah, frothing and plotting over here – yeah, yeah, not proven beyond reasonable doubt – we offer an exchange. A women about to be honour killed. An apostate. A Christian.
All three categories face almost certain hell. Swap ’em. Bring us your poor, your persecuted and dispossessed. And take back your bearded loons. We’ve got enough of our own, born and bred in bloody Beeston. Take a few of them too, and send us a few more apostates, Christians and uppity women.
That is indeed a modest proposal. I assume the choice of the word "modest" was a J.Swift reference and meant to imply utter impracticality as well as a total moral abdication?
Yeah whatever. Send the buggers back.
What does sending "the buggers back" actually achieve, though? Serious question, though I’m probably missing something really obvious. If they’re genuinely a threat to national security themselves personally, then prosecuting them somewhere where we can control the length of their sentence etc makes a lot more sense. (And also is a bit more ethical given, you know, Syrian prisons. I know you don’t care about that, OP, but some of us are quite squicked by the idea.) If they’re just inciting others, I hate to break this to people, but we have internets now, and a few borders are unlikely to make much difference.
(Plus I have this mental image of the game where you all stand around in a circle and chuck a water bomb around faster and faster hoping it won’t explode on you personally. I’m sure it’s a product of my twisted mind, but hey. Means I can’t help thinking there has to be a more sensible way of dealing.)
Sending the buggers back means that they don’t cost us anything in legal aid, benefits, keeping them in prison, surveillance if we haven’t got enough to send them there etc etc – also it acts as a deterrent to other frothing mullahs who are tempted to preach hatred that the same will happen to them.
It is wrong in principle to treat with kid gloves those to whom we owe nothing – and we owe these people no more than we owe any other Syrians etc – and who may well be plotting against us. It sends out signals to those with a primitive mindset (eg many Muslims) that they can get away with stuff.
Ship ’em out. If we’re going to let anyone in from places like Syria, why not women at risk of honour killings, Christians at risk of persecution, apostates, ie people who will be grateful to the West rather than plot against it?
Sending the buggers back means that they don’t cost us anything in legal aid, benefits, keeping them in prison, surveillance if we haven’t got enough to send them there etc etc
But we’ve also got no control over whether they do get prosecuted (if they’ve done anything they can be prosecuted for, of course), how long they’re consequently inactive for, etc. Seems inefficient to chuck them back and hope. I mean, okay, with places like Syria, it’s kind of unlikely that they’ll err on the side of leniency, but you never know. If someone is a genuine threat, giving up all control over what they do seems rather stupid.
If we’re going to let anyone in from places like Syria, why not women at risk of honour killings, Christians at risk of persecution, apostates, ie people who will be grateful to the West rather than plot against it?
Ow. I think we’ve hit an irreconcilable difference here, because when I think about asylum seekers, I’m more concerned with what they’re running from than whether they’re going to be sufficiently grateful. Possibly a bleeding-heart thing, I dunno.
Yes, but we can’t take in the whole population of crap countries. And all Muslim countries, with the possible exception of Turkey, are crap.
So why not, when making a decision, prioritise those who suffer from the particular brand of crap that Islam dishes out. This means women (who have transgressed some ludicrous sexual double standard set by this stupid religion), apostates (who, legally or not face death or persecution) and non-Muslims, mainly Christians, who face the same?
Why the hell take in Muslism who are too Islamic even for Muslim countries to stomach, and who, at the taxpayer’s expense, preach the kind of hatred that would have them killed (quickly if lucky) in their own native hell holes? What’s in it for us?
Yes, but we can’t take in the whole population of crap countries.
I don’t think the entire population of any country is applying for asylum here…
What’s in it for us?
Being as I said a bleeding heart, I can’t really answer that, because it’s not something I consider relevant.
(Hey: we both know you’re a fan of making nasty comments about Muslims, and we both know I feel obliged to refute them, so how about we both don’t bother and avoid the tedium?)
Lorna – the day Muslims stop making ‘nasty’ comments about subjugating infidels, rape victims deserving it, gays deserving stoning, Jews ruling the world while being, bizarrely apes and pigs, is the day I stop telling the truth about them, or, putting on your rose coloured specs ‘saying nasty things’ about them.
OP – the day White People stop making ‘nasty’ comments about subjugating blacks, rape victims deserving it, gays deserving stoning, Jews ruling the world while being, bizarrely apes and pigs, is the day I stop telling the truth about them, or, putting on your rose coloured specs ‘saying nasty things’ about them.
errrr… except of course that I’m white and don’t do any of those things (though the KKK do). Just like the muslims I lived and worked with whilst living in Cairo didn’t.
PS: In your strange world, do Muslim women say rape victims deserve it?
"If it can be demonstrated that they genuinely are "a threat" to British people, why aren’t they tried and locked up over here?"
This "threat" business is nonsense and a distraction. You can’t lock someone up for being "a threat" to people (except the mentally ill). Crimes consist of things you have done, not things you will do or are likely to do. There’s – rightly – considerable suspicion of Minority Report style legal systems.
People can’t usually be prosecuted in the UK for things they have done in other countries. We don’t have the jurisdiction. That’s why these people can’t be tried over here. People who are complete bastards can come to the UK and we can’t do anything about it – so long as they haven’t done anything here yet.
It isn’t impossible that Muslim women have internalised stupid views imposted by the patriarchal religion. So Muslim women going around dressed in sacks presumably think normal women who don’t are tarty, just as many Muslim men do – and therefore more deserving of rape than the sack wearers.
"…presumably think normal women who don’t are tarty…"
"presumably". You haven’t a clue, have you?
Can’t say I’ve ever seen someone dressed in a sack. Burqa, yep. Salwar kameez, yep. Hijab, yep. Jeans and a hoodie, yep. Sack, no, except on those really exciting vertical slides that are great fun except for the friction burns.
And yawn, difference between fundamentalists and religious people, again. C’mon, I’m boring myself here. Quit it.
Well actually wearing a sack is an implicit criticsm of women who don’t.
Anyway, send the buggers back. And let in some normal women from these hell holes who don’t want to dress like black ghosts, but don’t want to get honour killed for not doing.
Why let in bearded loons who want to dress women in sacks? They are no use and they are certainly not ornament.
Send the buggers back, Islam, rape, etc.
Old Repetitive, a soulmate. But my beer is better than yours.
Now for some real repetitive stuff.
Islam is a religion of peace.
Christians have done some bad things too.
It’s all about poverty.
Oooh, you’re a racist.
Oooh, you’re a bigot.
ZZZZ
Old Peculier, seriously, where are these women dressed in sacks? Or dressed like black ghosts – don’t think I’ve ever seen my burqa-wearing colleague in a black sheet with eyeholes drawn on going "woo-woo". (Or objecting to my dress, sexuality, personality, language, views, or ability to walk down the road unmolested, for that matter. These actual real life Muslims are so tiresomely non-crazed, aren’t they?). Are you talking about the figments of your imagination again?
Well actually wearing a sack is an implicit criticsm of women who don’t.
Really? Am I currently making an implicit criticism of women who don’t wear hippie skirts, black vest-tops, specs and fourteen earrings? I’m generally so gobby and explicit in my criticism, but it’s good to keep track of these things.
OP, if you’re so concerned about women, could you explain what, if anything, you have done, or posted, about women in this country – non-Muslim women – who suffer violence, repression or disadvantage on the basis of their gender? Women or girls forced into prostitution; victims of domestic violence; women forced to accept lower pay; women exposed to unaccceptable sexual harrassment in the workplace, at school or college, or on the street; women forced to choose between their children and their job? Women from any number of ethnic minorities who have to put up with particular forms of gender discrimination because of particular social or cultural norms?
Or does your sisterly concern extend only so far as you can attack Muslims with it?
Lorna, not just women… while wearing that hippy skirt you’re criticising all us men too (perhaps with the exception of some psychedelic scotsmen and David Beckham).
It isn’t the same at all. The stupid hijabs and jilbabs that Muslim women wear show that they buy into this sexist nonsense that the religion teaches them that women who don’t wear this shit are fair game.
I’d be happly to see no women in sacks because I’d be happy to see no Islam. The world would be a better place without this vile creed that has caused nothing but problems right since its murdering paedophile prophet started it.
Old Peculier:
It isn’t the same at all
Oh well, I suppose something’s gotta compensate for this stupid white non-Muslim privilege. Sure would be cool to be able to implicitly criticise people with just my clothing, though. I’ll have to stick to slogan t-shirts.
The stupid hijabs and jilbabs that Muslim women wear show that they buy into this sexist nonsense
I am in awe of your psychic skillz. Generally, I wouldn’t presume to say why a woman wore a particular outfit unless I’d actually, y’know, asked her. The ‘women wear particular clothes to send out a signal to the people around them’ school of thought leads to too many nasty conclusions for me to be happy with it (clue: "she was asking for it").
In general, does it occur to you that if you really care so much about these women, you might want to show it by actions other than insulting and patronising them for their religious beliefs? If you’re representative of their friends and supporters, I really do start to feel sorry for them.
paedophile prophet
Look, your going on and on about child abuse might be a valid argument the day you start using the same invective against the Roman Catholic church. Until then, give it a rest.
I’d be happly to see no women in sacks
Well, try the real world for a bit. Because as I said, the only time I’ve seen a woman in an actual sack was when she was going down one of those vertical slides that give you friction burns if you’re not careful. Using stupid names for people’s clothing choices works for school bullies and Trinny and Susannah. Other than that, it’s kind of pathetic.
Jim Bliss:
Well, it wouldn’t be very groovily accepting of me to assume that all you blokes don’t wear hippie skirts, would it? ;)
this stupid white non-Muslim privilege
What’s colour got to do with it. Muslims aren’t a race, though they whine about racism when anyone criticises their stupid beliefs.
Paedophile prophet and the Catholic church – Jesus wasn’t a paedophile. Priests who did this were going against the example of their leader. Muslim men who rape nine year olds are following in the example of their prophet, pervy Mo, who is supposed to be the perfect human being. If you can’t see the difference then you really are a dozy bint and should become a Muslim.
OP: I’ll take that as a yes then.
JohnB: I move that SBBS reviews its Assassination Policy.
OP, you’re actually mental, aren’t you?
Actually, Hell is Other People, my sisterly concern extends to Muslim women who have no choice but to be Muslims. Given that in Muslim countries apostasy is punished very severely, yes these women, who have no choice but to wear sacks, deserve pity.
But western women who have a choice to break free from this nonsense and choose not to exercise it, or worse still ‘Stockholm syndrome’ converts like Yvonne Ridley are just bloody stupid.
So muslim women are either stupid or pitiful, OP? You are Alf Garnet and I claim my 10 pounds.
For those women not in a position to break away, I don’t mean pitiful in the sense of pathetic. They are intelligent human beings in many cases who have no choice but to go around shrouded in black, to be married off to some old goat instead of being educated – and old goat who can divorce her at will and beat her (sanctioned by the Koran) as much has he wants.
But yes, women who choose a religion that treats them like crap must be off their rocker. A bit like a black person joining the BNP.
… Islam, Islam, paedophilia, women’s rights, Islam, Islam,…
Yeah, boring isn’t it, all this paedophilia. I’m sure the little nine year old Iranian girls being legally raped by their dirty old husbands until 2002 found it really tedious and ‘repetitive’.
OP: FUCK OFF AND GET CANCER YOU STUPID BORING IGNORANT RACIST ISLAMOPHOBIC YORKSHIRE DRIED UP CUNT!!!!!
Yorkshire? Now you’ve really gone too far.
What is it about Islam that you like? Your nick suggests that it may be its enlightened attitude to gays or Jews…
And by the way, do you kiss your old mum with that mouth?
On the basis that my enemy’s enemy is my friend, anything you’re against can’t be all bad.
And no, my mother died in 1988.
So you’re in favour of a religion that says a woman’s testimony is worth half that of a man? A religion whose followers have produced nothing original for 1000 years but plenty of terrorism. A religion that kills apostates and gays. A religion that allows wife beating and rape of nine year old girls under the guise of marriage, or if they get raped outside marriage they can be killed for adultery.
For the sake of disagreeing with me – if you can use such a polite term for your tirade of filth – you will back such a despicable ideology? Well done, enlightened one. Like all the other so-called lefties here, you should be so proud of yourselves for defending the most reactionary force on the planet.
For the sake of disagreeing with you luv, I wouldn’t piss on you if you were on fire.
Hmm, very logical.
Again, an interesting choice of nick. How well do you think Rabbi Lionel Blue would fare in a Muslim country as an openly gay jew.
But perhaps that doesn’t bother you, along with honour killing, stoning and all the rest of it. I’m quite flattered that you think disagreeing with me is more important than key ethical principles.
<cite>What’s colour got to do with it.</cite>
Well, quite a lot, if we’re talking about perceptions and privilege, as I was. There’s quite a few white Muslims down my way, but generally, white people aren’t getting shot for looking too much like suicide bombers. Race and religion aren’t inherently connected, but in terms of people’s perceptions, they’re inextricable.
Paedophile prophet and the Catholic church – Jesus wasn’t a paedophile.
The roles of Jesus and Mohammed in their respective religions are completely different, though I don’t know why I’d expect you to realise that. The fact remains that the Roman Catholic church has covered up one hell of a lot of child abuse in the past few decades. To ignore that whilst ranting on about the actions of a prophet several centuries ago is rank hypocrisy.
If you can’t see the difference then you really are a dozy bint and should become a Muslim.
Erm, thanks for that respect for my religious beliefs. I don’t become a Muslim for the fairly simple reason that I don’t believe Allah is God or that Mohammed is his messenger.
In more depth, why do you imply that it is impossible to tolerate a view without subscribing to it? Seems rather insecure to me. I don’t particularly care if people hold beliefs different from me, while hypothetical people who hold the same are likely to get told to piss off and find their own relationship with their own divine, the copycats. Since my path is personal and private, I really don’t have the time to care what the other five billion and whatever people on the planet are doing. I’m not particularly nice, so I’m forced to conclude that this is not a difficult or saintly view to take. Try it sometime.
Sweetheart, you demonstrate with every keystroke that you have no idea what you’re talking about so I’ve stopped bothering to respond to your "argument". I just think you’re funny.
why do you imply that it is impossible to tolerate a view without subscribing to it?
I don’t. I’m not a Buddhist or a Hindu or a Catholic, yet I have no problem with adherents of these religions of any colour. But I have a problem with Islam. Individual Muslims, depending on how bad a dose of Islam they have, can be OK, but Islam is evil. It’s leading figure was a murdering paedophile. Paedophilic priests within the Catholic church are going directly against the teaching of Jesus. Men who rape 9 year olds are conforming to the teachings of Islam, because they are following Mo’s disgusting example. This difference is so obvious that only Islam or knee-jerk liberalism can blind you to it.
Rabbi, alias Katy etc – an even more interesting choice of nick. Given your old mum isn’t around to read your disgusting words – lucky for her – who, or what do you kiss with that mouth, and which part of them?
Incidentally, OP, if your aim is to get women to turn their backs on Islam, why the hell are you telling me to go and join it? A little bit self-defeating, I’d’ve thought…
I don’t [confuse tolerance with adherence].
Well, don’t tell me to go and join a religion just because I tolerate it, then. Sheesh.
Individual Muslims, depending on how bad a dose of Islam they have, can be OK
It’s a bit late to pretend tolerance.
This difference is so obvious
What, between practical and theoretical support? Yeah, bit of a big fucking difference.
who, or what do you kiss with that mouth, and which part of them?
Well, ain’t that a telling response, from someone who a minute ago was insulting Islam for lack of tolerance for alternate sexualities?
Katy, one of the dictionary definitions of "cunt" is "a person one dislikes or finds extremely disagreeable."
I’m not sure there’s a better word for you.
Huis Clos – Dictionary definition or not, it seems that you too, and I thought at one time that you had a brain, are resorting to vile sexist abuse.
What a surprise. From a leftie. Not. You say you once had a Muslim partner. Well it’s rubbed off on you.
Lorna, you’re simply illogical. There is a huge difference between a religion that WORSHIPS a paedophile and a religion some of whose adherents – and it really isn’t loads, have been found guilty of paedophilia. And in the Christian, civilised West, paedophilia is against the law. In savage Muslim countries such as Iran it was legal. But you can’t see the difference.
Well, not worships, since Mohammed does not take the same position in Islam as Jesus does in Christianity. Were you off school the day they taught comparative religion, or something?
Muslims regard Mohammed as the perfect human being for all time. Yes, they don’t regard him as the son of god. But they use, in the sira, which form part of sharia law, Mohammed’s example. The hadith, similarly are accounts of what Mohammed said and did, most of which is pretty vile. This too has a high status in Islam and forms the basis of the four schools of sharia.
Mo’s paedophilic marriage to a nine year old form the basis of the marriage laws in Iran till as late as 2002. Unlike the paedophilic priests you bang on about, this was not covered up as a shameful pervy practice until exposed as such but was enshrined in law as normal.
Lorna, are you American – your lack of irony suggests you may be, but there may be other reasons for this.
OP, how many Muslims do you know who’ve married nine-year-olds, or even want to?
Lorna, are you American – your lack of irony suggests you may be, but there may be other reasons for this.
No, Brummie, but please carry on with the stereotypes, since they’re funny. And hell, being Brummie, I’ve heard them all already.
Not many, Lorna, because here in Britain – sorry for calling you American – you’re failure to pick up on irony led me down that path – marrying nine year olds is illegal. But in the Islamic world – Iran, Saudi, Afganistan, parts of Pakistan and they’re agitating for it in India – they are or until recently have been at it, following the example of Mohammed.
You still don’t say, Lorna, how a religion which has as a major figure and role model, someone who raped a nine year old child, can be benign. Because you can’t, that’s why.
Katy I too, laboured briefly under the misapprehension that you had a brain.
I am offended by your ignorance, your refusal to engage with ideas and arguments, your childishness, your visceral hatred of others for their faith, your bigotry and your swiftness to resort to your own brand of vile abuse.
So you’re offended and I’m offended. Suppose makes us quits!
Because it does not therefore follow that the modern-day adherents of said religion want to do so, nor have you shown that this is the case. And unlike you, I think it’s a serious enough accusation not to be made without evidence. I thought I’d implied it heavily enough, but apparently not.
In a recent pole 60% of UK Muslims said they wanted Sharia law in Britain. Lorna, you probably haven’t much idea what sharia law means, but allowing marriage = rape of nine year old girls is part of it.
Where is the moderate Islam? There are some moderate Muslims, ie Muslims who haven’t got Islam very badly, but if they get it badly, due to some crisis or some ‘grievance’ about their ‘brothers’ in Iraq or ‘Palestine’ or any other crap, they can turn to the real McCoy, with all that entails. Hence the actions of the nice Leeds primary school teacher who liked cricket etc and was a lovely bloke.
Hell – you haven’t engaged with my arguments, still less refuted them. I’m outnumbered here, but my superior intellect and common sense sees me through.
And I’m sure that’s a great comfort to you. Good night!
Indeed it is – sleep well – you’re living in a dream world anyway.
In a recent pole 60% of UK Muslims said they wanted Sharia law in Britain.
Provide a link?
but my superior intellect
The superior intellect that wants to reduce the spread of Islam by telling people to join it. Yeah, right, whatever.
I’m interested to note that you appear to believe that Islam is evil but Christianity is not – e.g. you do not condemn Roman Catholicism. However, if I recall correctly, Lot, when confronted by Angels in Sodom offered his daughter for them to rape. Lot was allowed to escape for being a good man in God’s eyes. If you’re interpreting the religion in a fundemental literal way it seems to imply that raping young women is OK doesn’t it?
Additionally returning to the original topic (fun though this one is), the axiom that you should judge a country by how they treat their prisoners springs to mind. If you believe that we should torture these people, say so. If not, please explain what the difference between torturing them, and sending them to somewhere where we know they will be tortured is?
Lorna, that was a flippant comment. I don’t seriously want you or anybody ever to become Muslim. It would be a stupid thing to do. You obviously don’t understand irony, which is why I thought you were American. But maybe you’re just a bit naive.
Link for the sharia law poll:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/islam/story/0,15568,1362591,00.html
Yes, The Guardian, that right wing fascist organ.
Possibly she enjoys intelligent argument without flippancy…
You obviously don’t understand irony, which is why I thought you were American
I find that when it comes to people talking up ludicrous hate, it’s generally safest to assume they’re always serious, yes.
Link for the sharia law poll:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/islam/story/0,15568,1362591,00.html
Ah, right. 61% want Sharia law where the penalties don’t contravene British law. And, in terms of general fundamentalism versus integration, Alongside these signs of a desire for more recognition of their religion, however, the poll suggests that the Muslim community is perhaps more integrated than many might imagine, with 62% saying they number "a lot or quite a few" non-Muslim people among their closest friends and 35% saying they would consider marrying someone who was not a Muslim.
Congratulations: your own sources don’t support your argument.
What you say about Lot in the Old Testament would be relevant only if rape were sanctioned in Christianity or Judaism today, which it isn’t. By contrast, Sharia is alive and well. Christianity and Judaism have had a reformation. The old testament was superseded by Christianity anyway, and no jews, none at all now stone people etc and haven’t done for around 2000 years.
We owe nothing to these Syrians, Jordanians and Yemenis that have come here to scrounge off us and cause trouble – less than we owe to Syrians etc living in Syria, who are equally likely to be tortured. We can’t justify not letting in anyone from these shit holes if we can justify not sending these shits back.
Alternatively, she parried your flippancy with her own flippancy, thus making her even more ironic than you…
where the penalties don’t contravene British law
Yawn – it was so bleedin’ predictable you’d cling to that.
They support sharia law with penalties. OK they cannot openly support stoning and beheading, but, thicko, they support penalties for lending at interest, drinking alchohol, dressing immodestly, blaspheming the ‘prophet’ adultery, homosexuality, the whole bag of shit. These are not matters which in the UK should carry any penalties at all. These things are and should be legal.
You really are breathtakingly naive. In your wish to think the best of Islam cos you know some nice Muslims or whatever, you really think that there is nothing
wrong with having laws against things that are and should be legal in the UK, as long as we stop short of allowing stoning.
What this means is that instead of being murdered, not allowed under UK law, gays should be fined or imprisoned, penalties which are allowed.
If there is to be no difference at all in the penalties handed out under sharia, why support sharia.
Lorna, you live on a fluffy cloud of pink niceness and really need to wake up.
<cite>What you say about Lot in the Old Testament would be relevant only if rape were sanctioned in Christianity or Judaism today, which it isn’t.</cite>
Then it’s a problem with the countries that do sanction it then, and not with the religion itself. Britain itself had a very young age of consent until around 200 years ago, and some abhorrent religious legislation before that – burning at the stake anyone? Now, if you’re saying that it is a bad thing that these countries have this, yes, I agree and therefore don’t think we should increase their population.
<cite>no jews, none at all now stone people etc and haven’t done for around 2000 years.</cite>
Not all Muslims stone people. Additionally, I’m fairly sure, but not certain, that some Jews have stoned people to death in the last 2000 years, but I can’t give examples off the top of my head.
<cite>We can’t justify not letting in anyone from these shit holes if we can justify not sending these shits back.</cite>
True, we can’t. Therefore, since we can justify not letting these shits back, let’s let anyone who’s going to be tortured come to Britain.
Yawn – it was so bleedin’ predictable you’d cling to that.
What, with it being factually correct and all?
We’re both making assumptions here, granted. You’re assuming that where it contravenes British law but not the penalties thereof, it’ll be done. I’m assuming that where it contravenes British law, in the spirit of not doing stuff that contravenes British law, it won’t be done. My assumption is the one with anything to back it up.
What this means is that instead of being murdered, not allowed under UK law, gays should be fined or imprisoned, penalties which are allowed.
Er, no; surely that’d be theft, illegal imprisonment, whatever.
Lorna, you live on a fluffy cloud of pink niceness
Yeah, and I’m still resorting to rational argument rather than repetitive insults. God, it’s so fabulous on this cloud.
I’m sick of trying to deal with someone whose response to rational argument is repetitive screeched insults. Have fun yelling at the figments of your imagination, cos I’m going to bed.
I support penalties for lending with interest. Shit! Have I been muslim all these years and just not noticed?
62% saying they number "a lot or quite a few" non-Muslim people among their closest friends and 35% saying they would consider marrying someone who was not a Muslim.
That’s supposed to be impressive? Given Muslims are a mere but merciful 4% of the population to have no non-Muslim friends would be quite staggeringly isolationist. Why should they be congratulated. As to the 35% who ‘might consider’ marrying a non- Muslim, one of the many vile things about Islam is that Muslim men can marry non-Muslim women but not vice versa. Given that a non-Muslim liberated and financially independent woman is quite a catch for a low achieving Muslim man, is this surprising? He can sponge off her then marry some ninny from the village back home.
Lorna – just put your leftwing bleeding heart to one side for a second and think logically. If sharia were to make no difference to British law, why would Muslims want it implemented? Why not just follow their religion within the law. They must, logically, want to change the law, otherwise there would be no point in expressing a preference for an alien legal system.
Oh well, la la land it is. The suicide bombers could just as easily have been quakers. The 9/11 hijackers could just as easily have been Amish, or maybe Catholic priests. The Bali bombers – well there’s nasty stuff in Buddhism too.
People are so stupid.
to have no non-Muslim friends would be quite staggeringly isolationist.
Clearly it is not staggeringly isolationist to not have any Muslim friends since otherwise the remaining 38% would not be able to claim as such.
one of the many vile things about Islam is that Muslim men can marry non-Muslim women but not vice versa
I fail to see how this is a problem with Islam and not any other religion. I don’t remember Christainity being any nicer to women.
Just put your leftwing bleeding heart to one side for a second and think logically. If sharia were to make no difference to British law, why would Muslims want it implemented?
Why would it not make any difference to British law? It would mean that for British crimes they would be able to assign their own penalties within their own community. They might also believe that courts would be less discriminate if they only allowed Muslims.
(oh, and apparently, there’s another Andrew who posts here. I’m not him. I’ll change my name to I, Andrew or something.
It would mean that for British crimes they would be able to assign their own penalties within their own community
Eh? So you think it’s OK that Muslims within their ‘community’ should be able to implement different penalties for the same crimes?
Equality before the law is a fundamental principle of British justice. Are you really saying that a Muslim who commits a crime, here in Britain should get a different penalty from a non-Muslim?
I know that’s what some Musims want, but do you, a normal person want this?
Are you really saying that a Muslim who commits a crime, here in Britain should get a different penalty from a non-Muslim?
No, I don’t want that – or rather, until I’ve given it some more thought, I’ll stick with that view (although as a moral relativist I do have some sympathy with the concept of being tried by what you believe to be wrong – but that’s another kettle of fish) but the fact that they want it is nothing to do with their religion. It’s to do with their being a somewhat isolated culture who is feeling more and more unwelcome here (for some reason – can’t think why…). If you offered any isolated culture the chance to make its own laws, they’ll take it. Look at, say, Wales. Or Scotland for that matter, which has its own legal system, with some different laws and punishments (for instance, intoxication is not a defense to murder IIRC). Where do you think the concept of being tried by your peers came from?
Additionally, you have yet to address my argument that it is a problem of the Islamic countries, rather than of Islam. As an addition to it, I’d like to point out that last year I was in Malaysia, an Islamic country. It’s rather nice there, and whilst it has the usual problems you’ll find in any developing country (corrupt police etc) its laws are much like the laws here.
Ah, diddums. Poor Muslims feeling isolated and unwelcome. They could always, duh, stop whingeing and stop fucking blowing us up.
Sharia law, fascism by any other name, has no place in a civilised country, in any shape or form. It makes me sick that on this site, which is supposed to be leftist, people are showing sympathy and understanding for an ideology that contravenes every prinicple that lefties are supposed to hold dear. I’m the only woman here even considering women’s rights as an issue – Lorna’s too far gone in her multi-culturalism to see any problem. Gay rights? Don’t matter. Equality under the law – now even this must give way to the demands of the ‘community’. Stuff those within that community, women forced to dress in sacks, gays, adulteresses etc who would suffer under this reactionary barbaric law.
You leftist are a bunch of morally bankrupt hypocrites.
Andrew – so you went to Malaysia and it was ‘nice’. Big deal. Malaysia has a dhimmi (google it) system that discriminates legally against non-Muslims. It has a whole host of evils deriving from Islam,which I’m too tired to go into. Not as shitty as Saudi, but not as Islamic yet.
And don’t forget that it was the PM of Malaysia that said all the problems in the world were down to the Jews.
I’m pissed off with arguing with morons so I’m going to bed.
OP, you really don’t know what you’re talking about here. There are two very different methods of implementing Sharia. I suspect you are unaware, or choose to deliberately ignore this fact.
The first method is to adopt Sharia as the primary legislature within a community or nation. I worked in Saudi Arabia for several months which is a nation that has – to a significant extent – adopted this principle.
The second method is to adopt Sharia as a secondary legislature. This is how it is implemented in several states in Northern Nigeria for instance, another place I’m familiar with.
There are significant differences between these two approaches and it is intellectual dishonesty to argue against the first, when British muslims are clearly not proposing it.
Of the significant differences, let me point out that the second model does not apply to non-muslims. I can drink alcohol in Northern Nigeria and not be prosecuted (though I wouldn’t, as I don’t drink. Dear God, maybe I am a muslim!) Anyways, Nigerian banks still charge interest on loans taken out by anyone living in the north.
A muslim member of the community caught drinking in a Sharia State, however, would indeed be prosecuted. Not by the federal or state government (both of whom are constitutionally separated from ‘the church’) but by the secondary legislature. One which only applies to members of that community.
Furthermore, a person in a Nigerian Sharia State who commits a crime which contravenes both federal and Sharia law is theoretically (i.e. constitutionally) supposed to be tried by the primary legislature. That often doesn’t happen, but that’s because muslims make up the vast majority of the population of these states, and lines tend to get blurred in Northern Nigeria. That simply wouldn’t happen in a nation where the vast majority of people do not fall under the mandate of the secondary legislature, so there would be no issue regarding people "not being equal under the law" – as it’s defined by the primary legislature.
Contrast all that with Saudi Arabia where I would be imprisoned for drinking alcohol (well, theoretically… in practice I’d likely be deported, ‘cos the Saudis like the Irish… everyone does really) and where the religious police take precedence over the civil guard on most matters of public order (though not in the sphere of business and finance unsurprisingly; the royals ain’t that dumb).
So either you knew all that and were being intellectually dishonest with the ridiculous suggestions that gay people would be fined under British law if muslim communities were to introduce Sharia. Or you didn’t know that and can now revise your opinion.
Incidentally, I fundamentally oppose the introduction of Sharia. I think it’s a fricking mad idea and could end up – for example – persecuting openly gay people who wish to remain part of a muslim community (though I suspect that it would merely be placing a semi-official stamp on what already happens… and you only need to talk to openly gay catholics in Ireland to realise that’s not a uniquely muslim thing). But if you’re going to spend the time lambasting something, you should at least take the time to get your facts right. If Sharia were adopted over here, it wouldn’t apply to you.
Ah, diddums. Poor Muslims feeling isolated and unwelcome.
Are you suggesting I shouldn’t feel sorry for Muslims who attempt to intergrate, by, say, opening a corner shop in a community and are subjected to threats? Are you suggesting I shouldn’t feel sorry for Muslims who, hearing about this don’t risk trying to intergrate?
They could always, duh, stop whingeing and stop fucking blowing us up.
So, "stiff-upper-lip old chap" is it? Instead of "try to make your life more comfortable"?
Yes, all Muslims can stop a few of them blowing us up. Just as being leftwing, I can stop leftist terrorists blowing people up. You need more brushes.
Sharia law, fascism by any other name
Not a politics student then? Fascism is almost nothing to do with Sharia law. It’s an ideology concerned with merging the state and the corporate power, the importance of war to make a country great and strict adherance to the rules of the state. Only in the latter is Sharia similar.
has no place in a civilised country, in any shape or form
Agreed.
people are showing sympathy and understanding for an ideology that contravenes every prinicple that lefties are supposed to hold dear
At no point has anyone here advocated Sharia. We have simply said that Islam is not what causes the evils of totalitarian and authoritarian restrictive rule.
I’m the only woman here even considering women’s rights as an issue – Lorna’s too far gone in her multi-culturalism to see any problem. Gay rights? Don’t matter.
If you knew Lorna, you really wouldn’t say this. She’s a gay feminist and one of the most well-educated I’ve ever met. Now, she does not support Sharia law and does not like any patricial system. However, she does not see Islam as the cause of this merely one of many manifestations – something which I agree with. If you want to stamp out all manifestations of totalitarianism, I agree. However, to say that Islam causes it is, to be blunt, bollocks. It is possible to be Muslim and a liberal lefty, and it is possible to be Christian and a raping murderer. Certain soldiers in Abu Grahib spring to mind.
Equality under the law – now even this must give way to the demands of the ‘community’. Stuff those within that community, women forced to dress in sacks, gays, adulteresses etc who would suffer under this reactionary barbaric law.
I didn’t support that, I didn’t say I did, I didn’t even imply it. in fact, my exact words were "No, I don’t want that." Now, there are pleanty of people who are not muslims who would like to see revealing dress outlawed (see http://loper.org/~george/archives/2005/Feb/977.html), there are pleanty of people who are not muslims wo would like to see gays and alduteresses outlawed. If you already had these beliefs and your religion happened to back them up, wouldn’t you use it as an excuse? A lot of Americans seem to think we should live by the laws laid down in Leviticus don’t they? Now, is that their problem, or Christianity’s?
Bloody hell, 102 comments?
Whose been having a ding dong then?
OP, you naughty naughty woman!
folks there is nothing to see here. Old Peculier is quite itneresting as someone who has managed to take all the rhetoric of anti-Semitism circa the Dreyfus Affair and transpose it into the key of Islam, but this is hardly a popular point of view (it is regarded as borderline loony even by 80% of Harry’s Place) and unlikely to catch on.
I think I’d take torture in a Syrian jail every time rather than endure more 6th form gibberish from OP. Where did I put those jump leads?
The second method is to adopt Sharia as a secondary legislature. This is how it is implemented in several states in Northern Nigeria for instance, another place I’m familiar with.
What the hell difference does it make? The idea of two legal systems is repellent anyway and contravenes the fundamental principle of equality for everyone under the law that you lefties, more than anyone, should be keen on preserving.
The main point, however, is that SHARIA SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED AT ALL in a civilised country like Britain. There is simply no place for it. Even where it is not about stoning it does other things like allow polygamy, forbid interest, woman’s inheritance being half a man’s etc.
If Lorna is one of the more intelligent people you know, then this speaks volumes about you. Like her you have missed the fundamental point that if 60% of British Muslims want sharia, with or without the barbaric hudud laws such as stoning, then 60% of British Muslims want to change UK law in order to introduce laws which, great or small, trivial or not have no place in this country whatsoever.
Dsquared – you’re not too popular at HP either, whereas I have a growing band of non-moonbats, eg Logan, SeanT, Neal, Luke Joshua Scholar, Morgoth and at least five others who see the sense in some if not all of what I’m saying. Even arch lefty America hater SueC has now, by her own admission partly seen the light about Islam, which she puts down to some of the debates I’ve been involved in at HP.
At HP, however, the level of intelligence is far higher than here.
Yawn. Abu graib, paedophile priests – deviate from Christianity. (Since when did Jesus rape a child or torture anyone, or even put panties on someone’s head)
Mohammed himself raped a nine year old and had people tortureed. Raping nine year olds under the guise of marriage does not deviate from Islam, it follows it, as does stoning, flogging and other forms of torture.
No Jews now stone people and haven’t done for 2000 years.
So why do you persist in trolling here?
Dsquared – you’re not too popular at HP either, whereas I have a growing band of non-moonbats, eg Logan, SeanT, Neal, Luke Joshua Scholar, Morgoth and at least five others
Morgoth isn’t a moonbat? It’s been ages since I last read Harry’s Place in any depth, so I suppose he might have reformed, but I distinctly remember having to wipe the foam off my screen every time one of his posts appeared.
Well he’s not a lefty moonbat. Hell – I’m not trolling, I’m presenting arguments which have yet to be refuted. However, there is a saying (in German):
Against stupidity, even the gods fight in vain.
My arguments are pearls before swine, so, you’ll be relieved to hear that I’m not going to be spending much more time on this rubbishy website.
Interesting though that the threads get far more comments when I’m on them! At least I’m not boring.
<cracks knuckles and sits down to type>
OP: I’m not trolling, I’m presenting arguments which have yet to be refuted.
When you can’t even address other people’s points accurately – indeed, when you seem to wilfully misreprsent other posters’ views – how do you expect anyone to agree with this claim? As far I can see, all you’ve ever done is shout back louder; your refusal to distinguish between bad politics and bad religion (it’s the *former* that allows the latter to make people suffer) has gone beyond a joke into dishonesty.
I refer back to one of your posts which held up the (claimed) intellectual poverty of the Muslim world post 16th century as evidence of the religion’s failings, when even if true it would surely be evidence of political failings not religious ones as the religion predated the 1500s. Oh, and the only reason there was a Renaissance was that the knowledge of the Greek and Roman empires went east into Persia, so around 1000 AD their nasty religion obviously didn’t stop Muslims protecting and nurturing some of humanity’s wisdom.
Oh sod it, what’s the point of trying to reason with you …?
ibid: Against stupidity, even the gods fight in vain.
Heh, looks like you and I agree on something at least.
ibid: My arguments are pearls before swine
To plagiarise from Pratchett, that means they’re bits of rubbish coated in congealed stomach secretions… yeah, that sounds about right.
so, you’ll be relieved to hear that I’m not going to be spending much more time on this rubbishy website.
In a way that’s a shame, if only because reading some of the rebuttals of your tantrums has been valuable. Now we’ll have to get back to castigating John B for being nasty to secondary strikers (and wearing sandals, and stroking beards while reading the Grauniad).
ibid: At least I’m not boring.
Well, might I suggest that your arguments – if not you yourself, about whom I know nothing – are very tedious?
Anyway, may you live in interesting times, as my forebears might have said :-)
Well he’s not a lefty moonbat.
He may be a moonbat, but he’s our moonbat!
OP. If you actually read my comment you’d see that I agreed with you that Sharia should not be adopted. I think the idea is fundamentally (pun intended) ridiculous.
However, I still think when discussing these things we should stick to the facts, rather than bizarre and paranoid misrepresentations of them. Your description of how Sharia would be implemented was simply wrong. That doesn’t mean it should be implemented (as I said).
Pointing out the many factual inaccuracies in your argument isn’t the same as disagreeing with the basic premise (that religious law is anathema to an enlightened society). It’s merely searching for some intellectual honesty in debate.
How so? Muslims will implement sharia any way they can. If they have to do it in a small part of a country they will, then this ‘state within a state’ will agitate for independence and start attacking the country whose land it has stolen. (See example of Pakistan.) If, to get sharia through, Muslims have to appropriate Western ideas of free speech, tolerance, democracy etc they will do so, though these go out of the window once sharia is in place. If they can only do it bit by bit – a jilbab here, a ban on ‘Porking Yard’ signs here, objection to a novel there, then they will do so. Then a bit more and a bit more.
No quarter should be give on sharia. No concessions to Muslims ever. Not even small ones.
Hellraiser – you haven’t actually refuted any of my arguments. Muslim early contribution to learning has been much exaggerated. Averroes was practically an apostate. Since then bugger all, zilch, nada. Once the fructifying influence of the conquered dhimmis ceased to operate – penal taxes and deprivations forcing many conversions, Islam, barren as the desert from which it came, produced nothing. Just saying this is all about politics and not about the stultifying effect of the relgion, doesn’t make it so, it just makes you feel better.
Against stupidity, even the gods fight in vain.
How stupid were we – first fighting the Facists, then the Communists, when Muslims were the *real* enemy all along!
No, not stupid, just dealing with one enemy at a time. However, I’d say that while Islam is certainly the enemy, many Muslims haven’t got a really bad dose of it, so they can be OK. Still, no concessions – give ’em an inch and they tend to take a mile. We just don’t have these problems with British Hindus or Jews or Sikhs or Quakers etc.
But the Muslims were there all along. Surely we should have ‘taken them out’ first?
They weren’t a threat before – the backward nature of their religion ensured that they were not advanced enough to be a threat. But because of an undeserved accident of geology, they now have the wealth to buy the technology they couldn’t invent and fund maddrassas spreading 7th century warlike ideologies.
In Britain in the 60s and 70s, Muslims weren’t too much bother and didn’t cause trouble. But then multiculturalism came in and taught them that their culture was just as good as ours. The nail in the coffin was our spinelessness over the Rushdie affair. People started pussyfooting round Muslims, not daring to criticise Islam and they got bolder. There’s a new generation of young Muslims who have the arrogance that this triumphalist religion gives them, and no understanding, as their parents would have, of how much they owe to the West and to Britain. Technology, free speech – all of this they take for granted without valuing the Western ideals from which these come. The enemy are largely within this group.
Surely we could have forseen all this though. It is all written down, after all.
Hey it’s great that this thread is getting so many comments. All down to me. And here’s on more. Hee hee. What would you do without me?
there must be easier and more pleasant ways of getting the attentionyou crave; could you not just walk back and forth in front of a building site?
Ha! Another one. Hee hee!
We can all play that game.
… Islam, Islam, Sharia, Islam, at least I’m not boring, Islam, Islam, and it’s all down to me that these threads are so long, Islam, Islam, Islam, …
Hee hee hee – it’s getting even longer.
Hee hee hee – it’s getting even longer.
Gosh. You don’t get many of those to the pound.
…Islam…
Hey another one. Keep going.