Islam and English law..

[Zamo]

No they don't. You've just made that up.

 

If they were subject to the same sort of scrutiny and sanction then they wouldn't allowed to practice because Sharia practices discrimination. A blind eye is being turned. There are plenty of examples out there for the sort of discriminatory decision they make.

[Cyclone]

Nobody wants them to be free of scrutiny. Both L00b and myself suggested that greater scrutiny and monitoring might be an effective change to make, unlike banning which wouldn't work.

[Zamo]

 

I think you're mistaken though that the non religious are subject to any laws that the religious are not.

 

I gave you three examples off the top of my head that prove the religious are exempt from laws that the non-religious (individual or organisation) are not. There is no mistake.

 

In the case of a sexist muslim court, the participants are free to walk away and use a real court. They are only there in a voluntary capacity.

If you have a dispute with someone and decided that (for some reason) the UKIP leadership will arbitrate, you suffer from a similar kind of prejudice. And as it's entirely voluntary arbitration there is no law to stop them giving out biased "decisions".

 

People are free to walk away from an employer not paying a fair wage but we still have laws that we enforce a minimum wage. Should we get rid of the minimum wage and 'free' people to choose what they are willing to accept? It is the same principle, should the state interfere or leave people 'free' to do as they wish? One or the other please... not one rule for the non-religious and no rule for the religious.

 

Yes, but you can't explain how you could actually implement this in a way that didn't simply make the situation worse.

 

Can you explain how it will make it worse? Does it make it worse (drive it underground) to ban adults from having sex with children?

 

Tolerating the discrimination of Sharia is going to make things worse. Unless mainstream Muslims reject this form of intolerant Islam then it has no hope of addressing the extremism problem it has. And unless it address the extremism problem things are going to get a lot worse for Muslims.

 

The state cannot stop individuals holding discriminatory views. Lots of people want to discriminate against Muslims, other people discriminate against women.

If you ban a voluntary arbitration service you will achieve nothing except have the arbitration happen in secret, with even LESS scrutiny.

 

Scrutiny without sanction is pointless. If there is any scrutiny of Sharia courts then it is isn't being accompanied by sanction because they continue to practice their religiously inspired discrimination without impediment. Sanction will drive some of it underground but it will also encourage much needed reform of the religion... a step in the right direction.

[Cyclone]

I HAVE explained how it will make it worse. You disagree, which you're entitled to do.

I also addressed your paedophilia comparison.

 

The changes you propose won't encourage reform, they are more likely to encourage a sense of being attacked and the subsequent radicalisation that this encourages.

[mafya]

"You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye. Matthew 7:5

It does indeed, in its own limited way: terrorists have to wear backpacks or the like, instead of hiding under burkas

 

Let's not forget, in passing, that Islamic terrorism is an old issue in France. Very old. Pre-dating 9/11 and 7/7 by decades. In that context, burka wearing is only a very recent (and extremely limited) societal development. Which the previous government sought to make still-birthed before it would amplify further.

 

It's also worth putting that ban in the context of the decades-old banning of any ostentatious religious signs (of any religion, including Jewish and Catholic) in public schools and, for civil servants, public buildings. In that context, the Burka ban is only very recent, and merely an extension of the secular principles that underpin the republic: France is a tolerant and free country, you can be a Muslim and practice without any problem, and that's been the case for decades and longer. Just don't go ramming it down people's throats.

 

It's not hard to grasp.

Subject at all times to the will and mores of the society within which that path is followed, which are at all times codified as that society's law.

 

is the bit you missed

 

I'm finding the anti-Burka ban stance of some pro-Brexit posters amusing, when they're the first to vociferate about the democratic weight and relevance of the EU referendum outcome in discussions with remainers. The tabling and subsequent voting of the Burka ban was just as much of a democratic expression of French people through their elected MPs, and there is no popular appetite for a repeal whatsoever. Quite the contrary, in view of the latest Burkini affair.

 

But that said, that the measure was even considered, and the ostracizing component of the measure, can be laid fully and squarely at the feet of Muslim extremism.

 

I have little doubt that Muslims are being increasingly scapegoated, reprehensibly. But then, they as western communities have been warned awhile by many to sort out (or at least help sort out) their extremism problem. Maybe they have done so, but it's not been enough. Now it's getting to be too late: that Burkini ban should, and likely would, never have happened...had there been no Charlie, no Paris in November, no Nice this summer <etc.> It's only going to get worse from here on in.

 

My bold=

How many of the recent attacks in France have been carried out by extremists wearing burkas?

If France thinks that banning items of clothing is going to stop terrorism then it needs to have a rethink as this is actually turning non extremist people against them too.

[L00b]

How many of the recent attacks in France have been carried out by extremists wearing burkas?

None.

 

That's the whole point (wear one anywhere outside your own home or private property, and you'd get pounced on by the police...you can guess how much terrorists would want to attract attention to themselves with wearing one, can't you?)

 

You seem to have completely missed it.

If France thinks that banning items of clothing is going to stop terrorism then it needs to have a rethink as this is actually turning non extremist people against them too.

Rest assured, it doesn't. Only reduce a risk factor, amongst so many others.

 

By the way, it's not only burkas to which this ban applies, but anything else with the same function of dissimulating facial features.

 

Just thought you'd like to know.

[Solomon1]

My bold=

How many of the recent attacks in France have been carried out by extremists wearing burkas?

If France thinks that banning items of clothing is going to stop terrorism then it needs to have a rethink as this is actually turning non extremist people against them too.

 

Was just thinking this yesterday

 

David Lisnard is King of Ignorance!

[Zamo]

I HAVE explained how it will make it worse. You disagree, which you're entitled to do.

I also addressed your paedophilia comparison.

 

The changes you propose won't encourage reform, they are more likely to encourage a sense of being attacked and the subsequent radicalisation that this encourages.

 

Ignoring the discrimination that is taught by Islam and enforced by Sharia has not proven to be a very successful strategy for preventing radicalisation has it? More Muslim youth have gone to fight for extremist causes than have signed up to fight for this country. Islamic terrorist attacks are increasing. Burkas are now a common sight when once they were rare. Yet you want us to carry on looking the other way in case it we make them more angry and radical? Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is the definition of insanity. We need to do something different.

 

Islam needs to change and forcing the followers (and the followers of other religions) to comply with British value and laws (nothing more than we expect everyone else to) would be a push in the right direction. Seriously, if Muslims don't do something to reform beliefs and practices then there will be no end to the extremism and indiscriminate reprisals against Muslims are inevitable... and do you think Muslims will ignore those saying 'it isn't all of them'?

[Solomon1]

Zamo, you really think that poking

 

An already marginalised community

 

Will MAKE them comply?

 

It will achieve the exact opposite.

[Zamo]

Zamo, you really think that poking

 

An already marginalised community

 

Will MAKE them comply?

 

It will achieve the exact opposite.

 

They can comply or face the same sanctions that non-religious people, groups and organisations face. They can get with the programme or marginalise themselves further... isn't that the free choice tzijlstra is so keen on?

 

I do not accept the argument that we must treat Muslims different because they will attack us more if we don't... whether it is true or not. Challenging and sanctioning discriminatory practices may initially result in some 'defending the cause' but most Muslims will not be up for a fight and will either accept the need to make adjustments to their beliefs and practice (helping to reduce the extremism) or they will choose to leave. That would be a welcome development.

 

Islamic extremism is pushing us down a path that ultimately ends with the violent rejection of Muslims in the West. Only Muslims can get us off the path because only they can do something about the extremism that is a by-product of their religion. If we do not push them to reform (and asking them to comply with the same laws, rules and regulations as the rest of us isn't much of an ask/push) then we seal their fate.