Should white people go back to Europe?

Post Reply New Topic

I don't think you understand the gravity of the situation. 40 percent support for Sharia is a *massive* problem. Even a tenth of that, 4 percent, is still a *serious* problem.



Anything less than 99 percent worries me. That is a *hell* of a lot of people being arch enemies of the freedom of speech. And that was just *one* of the polls.



BS.

Why are they hidden from view? The police are having extreme difficulty in getting access to these tribunals. This isn't a Beth Din-type situation. That's why they're so secretive about it! If the police can't get access to these tribunals, and they're not properly mediated, who knows what is actually taking place there?

Also, this:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2179041/You-use-sharia-law-divorce-deal-Muslim-hospital-consultant-told-pay-ex-wife-maintenance-despite-claims-owes-Islamic-rules.html

Thank goodness sanity prevailed.

One Law for All - a secular anti-Sharia organisation that is closely aligned with ex-Muslims (who are killed under Sharia in many Islamic countries for apostasy) - heavily disputes Sharia courts in the UK. An interview with Maryam Namazie, the head of the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain, is here.

40% of British Muslims are calling for Sharia is an immense issue. If 40% of white Brits openly said that they supported the National Front, how would it look to everyone else if someone piped up that 60% don't? Do you know what it would look like? Abject apologetics. The only difference is demographics.

I think a lot of British Muslims are probably immensely naïve about what Sharia actually is and would do anything to be rid of it if it was actually imposed on them, but Jesus Christ.

Setting up one's own tribunals, and thus one's own justice system, with one's own laws and penalties . . . is that not a form of treason?

My native blood tells me to stay my Irish blood tells me to go to Ireland ahh f*ck it ill go to either Canada or Japan.

The Japanese are, from what I can tell, quite a closed and xenophobic society compared to the likes of many Western countries (not a bad thing from my point of view). Non-Japanese are always considered outsiders, even if they've lived there for their whole lives and speak Japanese perfectly and understand the culture very thoroughly.

I've heard that the Japanese are very supportive of Westerners trying to speak Japanese, as long as they are not very good at it. When one reaches a certain level of fluency, it begins to make them uncomfortable.
The Amish also will consider a convert to be an outsider for his/her entire life, just in case you were thinking of going that route.

I honestly dont think it would make much of a difference since as an aspie I already feel like an outsider at home. I can be an English teacher and make it out fine in Japan. Otherwise id just get my degree here first so I already have a carreer to support me living there.

It can actually be easier to be an Aspie in a foreign country. Aspie traits are often misinterpreted as cultural differences or language-barrier issues.

It isn't 40% support for sharia though, it's 40% support for sharia in areas where a majority of people want it. That's still not a good thing, but we cannot say if those people are like "yeah, go sharia!" or "I don't think sharia is good and I will try and convince people of that view but I would begrudgingly accept it being introduced in my ward if a local referendum was done and the support was overwhelming because I value democracy".


You have to take into account the "don't knows", which I think was 2-5%, and those who refused to answer, which I think was a steady 1% for every question. However, I agree that it is a worrying minority, though it should be emphasised that it is a minority, less than one in five Muslims. If 18% of Muslims (3% of the UK population) think that violence against innocent diplomats is not wrong in certain situations, that's about 325,000 people, which seems very worrying, until you compare that to say, BNP votes in the last general election, a little over half a million. The BNP and these radical Muslims are issues, but they are not well supported enough to influence law and they are grossly unpopular. 1 in 120 people voted for the BNP (that includes children and those who did not vote) compared to 1 in 200 radical (by this measure) Muslims. It's pretty hard to have less of a political impact than the BNP.

It isn't directly comparable, but would you like to guess what percentage of Australians valued free speech over the "right" to not be offended? http://www.ipa.org.au/sectors/ideas-lib ... e-offended Obviously those people weren't saying that violence against innocent people was not wrong

Nope, do your research. I got that from a pdf posted by Tequila, http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/ShariaLaw ... ForAll.pdf

Your link there backs me up- even the Daily Mail admits that these are nothing more than kangaroo mediators that aren't legally binding.

If a user on here was saying that white people in the UK were ruining the country because 40% of them supported the national front, I would protest that it was totally unreasonable to accuse me, a white Brit, of ruining the country as I don't support the National Front, BNP, EDL or any similar organisations, and neither do 60% of white Brits. Exactly the same principle- don't tar a majority because of the beliefs of a majority. A better parallel question would be "if the BNP won a local council election, should they be allowed to govern?"

No. The Football Association have one, for example, as do. It isn't a "justice system", it's a way of resolving civil squabbles. These courts are "allowed" to mediate issues of divorce and child care and similar. They are subordinate to the "mainstream" civil courts and their judgements are not binding (though any freely entered into agreement mediated by these tribunals will be valued by a mainstream court if it comes before them).

First they came for...

But seriously, If you live in a country, and that country has parliamentary sovereignty, and you introduce a local system of law which completely abrogates *national* laws, doesn't that make you an enemy of the state?



Still less than 90 percent. It took only 19 people to carry out the September 11 attacks, so I consider myself well in my right to be worried about the number of adherents to Islam that disagree with the concepts of freedom and democracy. If one percent of one percent of the 325,000 people thinking that violence against innocent diplomats is not wrong (and now I am being optimistic) choose to act on their conviction (32-33 individuals), then there will be blood.



*Begins writing a reply, but then reaches an epiphany: Why spend time arguing that Australia isn't comparable to segregated enclaves in Europe imposing Sharia on its inhabitants?*



Double BS. And I am tired of being accused of a lack of knowledge about Islam by people who *actually* lack a knowledge about Islam. Offended? By all means, fight back...

By the way, see pages 13-15 and 115-116 in the paper you referred to yourself. How nice.

Need I remind you that the entire concept of "both parties agree" loses a lot of its meaning when the concept of gender equality is flushed down the drain by Sharia?

I am not accusing you of lacking knowledge about Islam, I am accusing you of lacking knowledge about the role of Sharia in the UK. You have even admitted yourself that you don't know much about this.

I deliberately included the "both parties agree" phrase to show that "agreements" where the woman is coerced or forced into signing the document in a Sharia court will not be legally binding.

We live in a dynamic world. The contributions by both you and Tequila have expanded my knowledge. And I find no reason to modify my beliefs in the face of these contributions.

I find it somewhat naive, however, that you assume the concept of Sharia to be essentially different in UK compared to other countries. If you are referring to the different hadith in Sunni and Shia Islam, then I might stand corrected, however. But my initial reading of these two major branches in Islam suggests that it is not a difference which makes a difference.

If you are referring to the Ahmadi (who had to move their headquarters from Lahore to London because of Islamic persecution) I might accept your point, but I doubt you possess such an in-depth knowledge of Islam.



BS.

I strongly suspect something is being lost in translation here.

It isn't that Sharia law is somehow different here. The groups that want it implemented are quite clear that that isn't the case, it is absolute and eternal.

What is different is this:
- Sharia law has no legal standing
- Anything which contradicts our laws is still illegal
- The "Sharia courts" are not courts, and their judgements are not legally binding
- The "Sharia courts" cannot deal with criminal cases (such as murder, fraud and domestic violence), these are still dealt with by the legal system
- The police still enforce the law in every part of the country- there is no looking the other way because "that's a zone where the Sharia police look after it".
- We have a system in the UK called Alternative Dispute Resolution, which is often used prior to civil cases (trespassing, libel, divorce disputes, etc.) to settle it "out of court" without incurring the high legal costs of a Civil Court.
- In ADR, a third party acts as either a mediator or an arbitrator.
- "Sharia" tribunals are allowed to act as mediation (i.e. helping the parties see common ground) but not to make decisions (arbitrate).
- The results of these mediations are not legally binding, but just like a man who is arrested and remains silent undermines his case in criminal court, someone who freely agrees with something in a mediation will have undermined their standing in a civil court
- There have been accusations that the "Sharia" courts are technically acting as arbitrators as they are telling people what is right under Sharia rather than helping them compromise.

That is very different to most Muslim countries where Sharia is the basis for most if not all criminal and civil law and a major part of government.

Well they were from Asia and a lot of people think they walked across what became part of Russia. But some archaeologists believe that people resembling Australian aborigines were the first inhabitants of the Americas. If that's true then I guess everybody has to leave.

Try being a non-Muslim in many Muslim countries. In fact, try enjoying the same rights you do in the West in most Muslim countries without them being taken away at a whim at any time. If you look at the OIC, how many of the countries in it would you actually want to go even visit for a nice holiday, let alone live in? Not many, and definitely no more than a handful of those 57 countries. It's almost like a who's-who of the world's religious hellholes (but not quite - there are a fair few Christian ones too).

Try looking at the Christian minorities across North Africa, in Iraq and Pakistan and see how they are treated. When they are not being murdered and brutalised, they are fleeing in droves and have been for decades. Jewish populations have been eradicated from several Muslim countries, and they were small to start with. Look at the massive exodus of Jews from all across North Africa and the Middle East since the end of World War II and the foundation of the State of Israel - more Jews had to leave the North African countries (due to a mixture of voluntarily going to Israel, fleeing in fear of their safety, and open violence) than Palestinians fled Israel.

The largest Jewish minority in the Middle East outside Israel is in Iran. Iranian Jews used to number the best part of 80,000 or so only a few decades ago. Now, there are 9,000 left - mainly the elderly and those too poor (or stubborn) to leave. Most of the other Persian Jews went to Israel or the U.S. All the other Arab countries have pretty much killed off or forced their Jews to flee under a disgusting, decades-long regime of Islamic anti-Semitism.

There was a recent protest in London by Pakistani Christians against the ongoing campaign of persecution of their co-religionists back home in Pakistan:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4EfYI5tm3E[/youtube]

As I have said - I'm not a believer in religion. Any religion, whether Christianity, Islam, Judaism and all the rest but people shouldn't be persecuted for their religious beliefs. Open criticism, mockery and ridicule is a completely different thing (and those people of faith should have the same right to respond with mockery of their own, as long as they don't carry out violence, form mobs, and so on and so forth).



If you search for something like that, you will get the counterjihad bloggers - some of whom are admittedly insanely paranoid and extreme (wanting to deport all Muslims from Europe, that sort of intolerant filth). What's being said is not that it's being imposed in Europe - yet - but that's becoming an increasing feature in many Muslim communities in the UK in that they're ignoring the law of the countries in which they reside and taking on their own legal system instead, which often directly contradicts and is opposed to secular UK law. In practice, although UK law isn't being directly usurped, in practice it is if it's adhered to in tight-knit communities amongst women especially who can't speak English and don't feel able to access their legal rights due to community/family pressure and control or religious indoctrination and the like.

Just because it's in the Daily Mail doesn't mean it isn't true. I know the Daily Mail and facts often are two different things, but don't simply rubbish the idea of something outright because it was printed in the Daily Mail. Many, many other news sources - even the BBC! - are mentioning this sort of stuff now, especially about Sharia.

If you're genuinely interested in the subject, I suggest you get in touch with the likes of CEMB and the One Law for All campaign and see what they say. These aren't your EDL types (both organisations are revolted by EDL-style bigotry, making the point that organisations like the EDL and the BNP and other far-right organisations - along with the UAF/SWP, the Islam-appeasing/supporting (far) left and hardline Muslims - make polarisation and conflict a lot more likely and a lot less easier to resolve) but people who want secular law to apply to everyone. Many of the people involved in One Law for All are ex-Muslims (the founder is a communist ex-Muslim from Iran; she's not bad looking for her age, he says pointedly! ) and the CEMB is an ex-Muslim organisation. If you're interested in what they have to say, I heartily recommend talking to them. They agree with what I say to the hilt.

The hatred and antipathy shown to these organisations by many Muslims is obvious when you consider that the punishment for apostasy in Sharia is execution and this is routinely carried out in numerous Islamic countries.



You realise that if white Brits had anywhere near that level of support for "sending the 'Pakis' home" type policies (and voting accordingly), the far-left would probably be trying to declare all-out war on the British public?

You're indulging in transparent and pathetic minimisation. It won't wash.



Proof please? For British Muslims?

I ask again: are you feckin' serious?! That's still an awful lot of people.

Even if so, I want you to show me proof.

The facts are staring you blatantly, unquestionably, totally, completely, irrefutably in the face, yet you choose to ignore them. This is a sizeable chunk of the Muslim population at large openly telling you that they hate your society, have no intention whatsoever of integrating and want to replace it with their own, Islamic society.



Again - proof. And for British Muslims please, not some unsubstantiated nonsense from around the world plucked off some anti-Israel/anti-Semitic website like Juan Cole.



For British Muslims?

I suppose about 360,000+ people (the Muslim population is growing at around ten times the rate of the rest of the UK population) thinking it's alright to kill people who disagree with Islam is alright then. Sieg Heil, anybody?

If you can't see a major, major problem with your line of thinking, I worry for the idiots in power. I worry that serious ethnic/sectarian conflict will break out at some point if nothing is done and, as always, it will be the thugs on all sides that win.



So about 400,000 people think it's alright to unleash violence against targets in the name of Allah if a bearded buffoon says so.

Jesus Henry Christ.



120,000 people. The population of my home city of Preston. I was out there today - quite a lot of people there, speaking "communal" languages, not English.



A quarter of a million people sympathise with people who want to murder their fellow citizens purely on a religious basis.

Muslims are growing at ten times the rate of the rest of the UK population. In twenty years, there will be well over six million Muslims in Britain. They will be easily able to wield serious power if left unchecked.



Yes. Do you know what we call these people, me old mucker? We call them neo-Nazis, Nazi sympathisers, white supremacists and the like. Outside of Combat 18 or November 9th Society meetings, these people are treated as a social and cultural disease. The lowest of the low. Scum. Vermin. A mindset, if ever there were one, that should be eradicated.

This isn't the case in Islam and, in the Arab world, Holocaust denial and anti-Semitism are considered totally normal and mainstream ideologies. This kind of thinking has repeatedly made its presence known in European countries, in hardline mosques and attacks on Jews in England and in other European countries.

I can carry on all evening if going through your minimisationist taqqiya attitude if you like but I don't see the point.

Last edited by Tequila on 10 Oct 2012, 5:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Nothing is lost in translation (I understand the English language quite well - for instance - Sharia *law* is a pleonasm, your post contained a grammatically incorrect double posting of the word "that"; having a sentence like this: "someone who freely agrees with something in a mediation will have undermined their standing in a civil court is also grammatically incorrect, as "their" is a plural term (his/her would be a proper term); The police still enforce the law in every part of the country - is also grammatical incorrect, as "The Police" is a singular term, and the term ought to be "enforces").

My knowledge of Islam just leads me to be *extremely* sceptical of anyone claiming that Sharia respects the law of the lands. What looks fine on paper is not necessarily fine in the real world.

Are you claiming that every women wearing the niqab does so voluntarily as well?

Oh, and trolling is a art.