Sharia Law UK.

[old.Tohtori]

Well f*ck me and call me pretty, i have to agree with tris-...

In reagrds to the "psych is a psych is a psych" thing. To degrees ofcourse, like, severe mental issues and slight mental issues(quite common in this forum).

 

[tierk]

so why should each be treated differently?

you say only peadophiles should be killed.
if a schizophrenic goes out and rapes a kid and kills her because he believes if he doesnt, the earth will explode, should he be killed? he isnt a peadophile after all.

Ok if i need to expalin this for you then i guess that

You're an idiot.

Doesnt even begin to describe you. You sure come across as a dummy to be honest and i find it hard to believe that you are studying at any reputable university for law.

Oh and try to keep on topic unless off course you have run out of things to say now that you have given us the benefit of your infinte wisdom.

 

[tris-]

ive lost my argument and i cannot think of anything to reply with, so have random insult #347

thought as much.

im not sure why youd bring my university into it. but my course leader was an advisor to the government and helped one of the newer EU countries to integrate into the EU with regards to consumer law.

but please stay on topic ffs

 

[tierk]

Originally Posted by .......
ive lost my argument and i cannot think of anything to reply with, so have random insult #347....

Maybe you should change that to read.......

I have no argument except some random racist shit to talk about and now that i have been shown to be the prick that i am i will try and twist and turn in any which way i can worm myself to try and make out that i have some semblance of intelligence.....

If on topic in this thread in your little pea brain is talking about peadophilia and the way it should or shouldnt be treated, i again question what sort of university has accepted you on a course to study law as you dont have the simple ability of reading.

...but my course leader was an advisor to the government and helped one of the newer EU countries to integrate into the EU with regards to consumer law.......

Amazing really amazing no seriously i am so impressed, i am guessing that this makes you some kind of brain box right?

 

[old.Tohtori]

tierk, if you can't explain why one brain defect is different from another, and decide the only reasonable solution is to insult someone, then it's not tris- who is acting the "idiot".

Not saying you are, but you might want to try and reason and explain your side of the view.

 

[tris-]

Maybe you should change that to read.......

If on topic in this thread in your little pea brain is talking about peadophilia and the way it should or shouldnt be treated, i again question what sort of university has accepted you on a course to study law as you dont have the simple ability of reading.



Amazing really amazing no seriously i am so impressed, i am guessing that this makes you some kind of brain box right?

what was that, i cant read you see.

tierk, if you can't explain why one brain defect is different from another, and decide the only reasonable solution is to insult someone, then it's not tris- who is acting the "idiot".

Not saying you are, but you might want to try and reason and explain your side of the view.

you dont understand.
you can have an opinion, but if you need to explain it then the person asking for an explanation is the one in the wrong.
plus the more insults you throw, the more factual your opinion must be. its common internet logic man!

 

[tierk]

tierk, if you can't explain why one brain defect is different from another......

Ok here we go then, i will keep it as simple as possible. A pedo fucks little boys and girls and there are no known treatments that will stop them from doing what they do, short of locking there arses up for ever. I personally find the actions of child molesters to be totally unacceptable and feel that they should be killed outright. No exceptions and no second chances you molest kids and you get it.

A number of proposed treatment techniques for pedophilia have been developed. In 1981, writer David Crawford reported that the success rate of these therapies was very low. Dr. Fred Berlin, founder of the Johns Hopkins Sexual Disorders Clinic, believed pedophilia could "indeed be successfully treated," if only the medical community would give it more attention. More recently, Dr. Berlin has concluded that, as a sexuality, pedophilia cannot be cured.

I should probably clarify that i dont advocate that we should kill all people that have thoughts about fucking little boys or girls but rather those that are actually fulfilling these fantasies and getting caught.

Also its a illness that makes the person who suffers from it target the most vulnerable in society and has the most devastating effects on their lives. A person who is schizophrenic doesnt specifically go out and target little kids and takes pictures of them and does god knows what else.

I person that is schizophrenic can have treatment and can also, with the aid of drugs be able to fuction in society. They do have relapses but this is usually due to them not taking their medication.

.....but you might want to try and reason and explain your side of the view.

The guy is a moron through and through and he has proven it over a number of threads. From the thread about helping total strangers through to this one.

 

[tris-]

if only i could read, id be able to see what shitty insults youre throwing about

 

[old.Tohtori]

Ok here we go t*snip*

To your first part, yes, treatments have failed and have a low success rate at the moment and YES, it's not curable as a sexuality at the moment.

But, i believe we have other things in this world that are "untreatable", can't remember if HIV is one of them(haven't checked the latest sci), and as such, we shouldn't stop trying to cure ANY decease. Right?

So if we kill every paedophile in the world, why would we need to cure it? We wouldn't. So much easier and cheaper to off them right? Wrong. Because by that logic(which you didn't suggest), we should kill all people with possible life threatening(to others) deceases and just forget the cure.

The only reason why peadophilia is the "kill them!" deseace around, is because it targets kids. Ofcourse, BAD BAD thing, no question, but it's still a deseace and as such, they have equal "right" to be cured. Or that failing, be treated as ill people in regards to finding a cure.

About other deseaces being less harmful, well, who's to say a kids life is worth more then that of a suicidal person? Or a homocidal maniac killing adult peple?

Now...

The guy is a moron through and through and he has proven it over a number of threads. From the thread about helping total strangers through to this one.

This is not a good way to go, as it completely and utterly destroys any argument/reasoning you make as it makes you sound like a "person hater".

 

[tierk]

....So if we kill every paedophile in the world, why would we need to cure it? We wouldn't. So much easier and cheaper to off them right? .......

That about sums it up.

....This is not a good way to go, as it completely and utterly destroys any argument/reasoning you make as it makes you sound like a "person hater".

LOL what are you on? I just call it as i see it.

 

[old.Tohtori]

That about sums it up.

Well, then i assume you think we should get rid of HIV patients, maniacs, any people who are potentially dangerous and just kill them? If you read my reasoning on why it's a bad idea to kill everyone.

LOL what are you on? I just call it as i see it.

There you go again, saying i'm "on" something when i simply say that it's better to try and discuss things without calling others idiots and morons.

When you say "tris- is always a moron", anything you discuss with him will be looked upon on the basis that you "hate" him.

 

[Dukat]

I dont live in the UK anymore for me to be able to see if the usual media bias is at work on this issue. The article i have linked for you though is pretty clear tbh and if one reads the article in question it shold be pretty clear that it isnt the way that some of the people on here are making out.

Why not actually find out what is being discussed. I am just curious to know where exactly you have read up on this matter as your quote above. seems so far removed from what is being posted on all the normal news pages.

I dont understand what the problem is in bringing a few things that will, in all seriousness, not have any effect on the way that you, or anyone else that cares, for that matter. Who cares where the law is from so long as it is applied in a sensible way and improves the quality of life for people.

How is any of this going to have any effect on anything that in anway relates to a loss of freedom for anyone? Its a debate the man is trying to start, a debate in a country that is supposed to be fair and free. Not fair, free and Christian.

I dont know if you are aware of this or not but the UK population is currently running between 2-3 million muslims.

Quite frankly neither did i, infact i would go as far as to say that i was 99.99% certain that a large segment of the OT community and the nation at lasrge would react in the same way as you (amongest others) did.

How can you agree or diagree about a subject when you quite clearly didnt even know what the guy was saying?

Well considering that you didnt even take the time to find out what the mans opinion is how on earth can you tell if his opinion is shit?

Yes you are abso-fucking-lootly right. I just wish people posting crap like this would be able to understand that exact point. Seeing as the vaste majority of the people that it is aimed at would probably have to head off to Bradford or Birmngham.

Well, you took that post apart pretty well eh?

I'm not flaming here. I'm not saying "get the fucking muslims out" and I am not, I think, being unfair in what I'm saying.

I read about this on the BBC news website. I also heard a couple of radio reports which went along the same lines as what I read.

I wasnt stating the guys opinion was shit, I was saying if his opinion is shit, and quite frankly, even if his opinion isnt shit, people still have the right to comment about it.

I agree with your sentiments about whats wrong with the changes if its improving the law, infact I'm pretty sure I did actually say something to that effect - that the changes may actually make things better - in my post, you seem to have avoided quoting this.

How is this going to affect our freedom you ask? Well this goes back to the fact that people who hear the reports take it 'as read' and perhaps dont understand the finer points of sharia law, and only hear about it from various TV programs and news reports about women being covered up and people being killed for blasphemy. This is wrong, you know it, but joe public has his own perceptions of what "sharia law" entails and is too busy trying to stop what they perceive as this attack on thier freedom to take the time to actually research the ins and outs of the fact.

This is wrong, I agree, but its also understandable giving the circumstances.

I dont see how my initial reaction was wrong in any real way, I wasnt particularly being unfair to muslims, to the faith or anything, infact the only real insult I made was toward the bishop and his statements as quoted by the BBC website.

What I really dont understand though, is if you expected this sort of response from people here, and knew that the news articles were overhyping the whole thing, why did you post a link to one of the more biased ones instead of to one of these factual articles you have referred to? Or make some sort of reference to the fact in your original post? Do you enjoy this? I sure as hell dont.

 

[tierk]

Well, you took that post apart pretty well eh?...

lol sorry i have a tendency to go on a bit dont i?

...I'm pretty sure I did actually say something to that effect - that the changes may actually make things better - in my post, you seem to have avoided quoting this....

Yes you do indeed and respect to you for it.

... What I really dont understand though, is if you expected this sort of response from people here, and knew that the news articles were overhyping the whole thing, why did you post a link to one of the more biased ones instead of to one of these factual articles you have referred to? Or make some sort of reference to the fact in your original post? Do you enjoy this? I sure as hell dont.

Well it was something that has been mentioned before on a couple of other threads and seeing as the Arch Bishop of Canterbury decided to open the topic up its something that i thought would be worth discussing (didnt want to derail an earlier topic by going off on a tangent).

I knew that i would get a certain reaction from certain quarters but thought it worthwhile regardless of this as i was sure that once we got past the "they can all fuck off back to where they came from" we might get some good debate going. Which it did indeed do so with the very nice post by ChronicTank and the responses to this.

There is no harm in talking about these things and the level of abuse being hurled at Doctor Rowan are quite frankly wide of the mark.

I dont understand what the big problem is with debating issues like this in modern Britain. Why should it be such a big problem for people to just talk about this issue? Its not like it will happen any time soon and will not even affect the vaste majority of peoples lives.

... why did you post a link to one of the more biased ones.....

To be honest i dont find anything in the article that is in the least bit biased or in anyway misrepresenting what he was saying.

 

[old.Tohtori]

More about the subject at hand.

I think, from "their" side of view; it would be nice to integrate some of their customs and as such, laws into the community they live in. I think anyone would like for their place of residence to become more like "back home".

From UK point of view; Yes, can see why it would feel as a "bad idea" and if an UK patron would come to Finland and want to be judged by their customs, it would also cause a bit of a debate. Personally, it's all the same to me, as i don't intend to break the law and those who do, as long as it's not towards me as such, it's their business. Yes, basically, if someone wants to rob a bank, go ahead. Shooting people and such aside ofcourse, but, then again, we shoot other people for "legit reasons" anyhoo on this globe.

All in all, it's, like i said, a nice idea, but with people being patriotic, people wanting to preserve their ways, it's not going to happen.

The best way, for all nations, would be to come up with some form of just and reasonable "world wide law system", but that would take quite some thinking and teethgrinding to become a reality.

 

[tierk]

BBC NEWS | UK | Religious courts already in use

Just as Mey pointed out earlier, they are already here - religous courts.

 

[Hawkwind]

Find me one example of people being let off with breaking a law because they are a muslim, or any faith for that matter, or is this just empty rhetoric because you just like hating on people because of their religious background? (this isnt the first thread you have posted such drivvel).

I remember watching the BBC news a while back about the protests in London for the cartoons of the prophet Mohammed. A large number of Muslim protestors carrying placards proclaiming voilence and death towards the cartoonist. Clearly in breach of several laws.

Nearby there was a small anti protest loby with placards about freedom of speech. Who got arrested?

On Topic: Why should the UK adobt any part of Sharia Law. Our law system is progressive and changes over time due to the changes in society. Why should a predomanently Christian country change its laws at all. We are a lot more welcomming of other cultures and religions than most countries. Don't even get me started on the shit hole that is Saudia Arabia, the homeland of Islam.

I live in a Muslim country albeit a progressive one with very relaxed laws on alcohol etc. But as an expat we know the dangers of straying away from the law. Do drugs or drink and drive here and get caught, you are in a knightmare senario. Expats have been beaten and raped in jail. The jails here are no fun parks like Europe with 16-20 to a cell. If you choose to live in country with different values and laws you do it by choice. I don't expect the UAE to change laws for me and neither should minorities in the UK.

I know they mainly want Sharia Law for contracts ect. But I want to know what is wrong with the contract laws in place? Why can't they accept the laws of the country they and their families chose to live in.

 

[old.Tohtori]

I remember watching the BBC news a while back about the protests in London for the cartoons of the prophet Mohammed. A large number of Muslim protestors carrying placards proclaiming voilence and death towards the cartoonist. Clearly in breach of several laws.

Nearby there was a small anti protest loby with placards about freedom of speech. Who got arrested?

Have to say to this, who gives a f*ck really about if a guy is arrested for holding a sign or not? Some "laws" are just crazy in the head really.

 

[Hawkwind]

Have to say to this, who gives a f*ck really about if a guy is arrested for holding a sign or not? Some "laws" are just crazy in the head really.

Wasn't the point though. Personally I don't a give a f*ck if some idiot wants to walk around with a sign asking for the head of some cartoonist. What annoys me is the length to which the UK government and police give in to this crap.

 

[Chronictank]

I remember watching the BBC news a while back about the protests in London for the cartoons of the prophet Mohammed. A large number of Muslim protestors carrying placards proclaiming voilence and death towards the cartoonist. Clearly in breach of several laws.

Nearby there was a small anti protest loby with placards about freedom of speech. Who got arrested?

Police later said two men had been arrested near the embassy during the protest.

"They were arrested to prevent a breach of the peace, after a search by officers found leaflets including cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed," a Met spokeswoman said.

BBC NEWS | UK | Cartoon protest slogans condemned
And then 4 more a few days after
BBC NEWS | UK | Four men jailed over cartoon demo

No different form the number of arrests at any BNP rally

On Topic: Why should the UK adobt any part of Sharia Law. Our law system is progressive and changes over time due to the changes in society. Why should a predomanently Christian country change its laws at all.

Surely you see the problem with your own statement?
A sentance before you say that the law is progressive, then you say it should'nt be
A progressive system is not scared to change to incorporate 'better' parts of other systems, the very fact so many people here have taken the same line (which as no logic i can see, could you please elaborate as i really cant see your POV), shows how un-progessive you want the system to be

The source of law should have nothing to do with anything, the only reason so many people are up-in-arms over it is because it is from a Islamic country so it must be bad right?
Seriously i expected it from some people, but i am kind of surprised at it coming from you

I would like to re-itterate that this is not about scrapping the system and switching to another, its about taking some parts of another sytsem which are, by some, regarded as better and integrating them into our own. That is a progressive system, not the one you are describing

Equal rights, unfair laws and all that doesn't even come into it as you aren't taking the whole system (unless ofc someone wants that in which case its a different debate altogether) rather than elements deemed superior to our own

 

[old.Tohtori]

Wasn't the point though. Personally I don't a give a f*ck if some idiot wants to walk around with a sign asking for the head of some cartoonist. What annoys me is the length to which the UK government and police give in to this crap.

Yeah, fair enough point. Still stand by what i said, but, also you are right in a sense.

Some places we need to bring the hammer down more and somewhere we need to bring it down a bit less, makes for a bit better world.

 

[Platin]

I'm not brittish, so I'm not going to get into the discussion. I just want to ask a few questions:

1. If you allow muslims, then shouldn't jews, hindus, sikhs and other minority groups be allowed to influence the judicial system on the same aspects?
2. The foundation of principles in the judicialsystem is that it's inpartial and neutral.
Chronictank brought up an example, one was:

Like i mentioend above, sentancing done by the victim rather than a judge. While in cases where victims want vengence there is likely to be the maximum sentence (which isnt a bad thing seeing as they did the crime), crimes by accident such as when that dog killed their grandkid the victim has the choice to be leniant and forgive them rather than automatically being given the minimum sentance
Their pentalty structure is broken down into 3 parts:
1. Hadd [plural Hudud] Crimes (most serious).
They have automatic sentancing for
-Murder;
-Theft
-Adultery
-Defamation

Except for the obvious, you have another problem:

Who should the laws apply to, if 10% of the population want a diffrent common law (which is based on religious values), but the others doesn't - should one group be treated diffrently? If a conflict arises between the two parties, which laws should apply?

Maybe you'll have three separate system within the civil law(common law), and three diffrent parties. How will you do then? Roll a dice?

The only realistic solution would be to rewrite the laws so that everybody would be happy...which is impossible because it would be such a controversy.

Somebody also mentioned that Brittain would have 75% muslims in 100 years, in which case the laws would be the least of your problems.

 

[Chronictank]

I'm not brittish, so I'm not going to get into the discussion. I just want to ask a few questions:

1. If you allow muslims, then shouldn't jews, hindus, sikhs and other minority groups be allowed to influence the judicial system on the same aspects?
2. The foundation of principles in the judicialsystem is that it's inpartial and neutral.
Chronictank brought up an example, one was:

Like i mentioend above, sentancing done by the victim rather than a judge. While in cases where victims want vengence there is likely to be the maximum sentence (which isnt a bad thing seeing as they did the crime), crimes by accident such as when that dog killed their grandkid the victim has the choice to be leniant and forgive them rather than automatically being given the minimum sentance
Their pentalty structure is broken down into 3 parts:
1. Hadd [plural Hudud] Crimes (most serious).
They have automatic sentancing for
-Murder;
-Theft
-Adultery
-Defamation

Except for the obvious, you have another problem:

Who should the laws apply to, if 10% of the population want a diffrent common law (which is based on religious values), but the others doesn't - should one group be treated diffrently? If a conflict arises between the two parties, which laws should apply?

Maybe you'll have three separate system within the civil law(common law), and three diffrent parties. How will you do then? Roll a dice?

The only realistic solution would be to rewrite the laws so that everybody would be happy...which is impossible because it would be such a controversy.

Somebody also mentioned that Brittain would have 75% muslims in 100 years, in which case the laws would be the least of your problems.

I am talking about applying it to everyone, just to clarify that