|
Post by rentedmule on Dec 7, 2014 9:18:29 GMT -5
I admit, I give a very large Hoot about that 'silly little island'. Every prosperous society on this earth does also.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2014 9:28:47 GMT -5
I admit, I give a very large Hoot about that 'silly little island'. Every prosperous society on this earth does also. Some people have just got to hate I guess.
|
|
|
Déjà vu
Dec 7, 2014 11:03:10 GMT -5
Post by rentedmule on Dec 7, 2014 11:03:10 GMT -5
I admit, I give a very large Hoot about that 'silly little island'. Every prosperous society on this earth does also. And the ones who don't give a hoot just aren't paying attention.
|
|
|
Déjà vu
Dec 7, 2014 11:07:22 GMT -5
Post by Ranger John on Dec 7, 2014 11:07:22 GMT -5
Of course you do. Given the state of Britain, I don't wonder why. Why would anyone give a hoot over that silly little island? What am I missing here? Because they have nukes? And sharia law is seeping into their legal system? And because they are still one of the planets major economies?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Déjà vu
Dec 7, 2014 11:19:54 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2014 11:19:54 GMT -5
Why would anyone give a hoot over that silly little island? What am I missing here? Because they have nukes? And sharia law is seeping into their legal system? And because they are still one of the planets major economies? I'd be very interested to learn which sharia law/s have crept into the British Law of the land exactly... very interested indeed.
|
|
|
Déjà vu
Dec 7, 2014 12:46:17 GMT -5
Post by vosa on Dec 7, 2014 12:46:17 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Déjà vu
Dec 7, 2014 14:01:46 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2014 14:01:46 GMT -5
Thank you for your Googling and copy/pasting on Ranger John's behalf. However, I am sorry because you either missed my point or didn't understand it. There has not been one British law that has been changed or usurped by sharia law that affects a British subject. Any sharia law/clause has no validity if the subject does not accept it, unless of course the subject has contravened an existing or established law. We've been here before vosa, you can Google until you are blue in the face, sharia has not yet usurped or changed the British Law of the Land for any British subject who does not accept it.
|
|
|
Déjà vu
Dec 7, 2014 17:14:10 GMT -5
Post by vosa on Dec 7, 2014 17:14:10 GMT -5
Thank you for your Googling and copy/pasting on Ranger John's behalf. However, I am sorry because you either missed my point or didn't understand it. There has not been one British law that has been changed or usurped by sharia law that affects a British subject. Any sharia law/clause has no validity if the subject does not accept it, unless of course the subject has contravened an existing or established law. We've been here before vosa, you can Google until you are blue in the face, sharia has not yet usurped or changed the British Law of the Land for any British subject who does not accept it. I doubt your sincerity. But then you've never been a sincere person have you? You're obsession with Googling and copying & pasting is a classic example of the triumph of form over substance. Your devotion to ignorance is a very sad story.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Déjà vu
Dec 7, 2014 17:27:20 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2014 17:27:20 GMT -5
Thank you for your Googling and copy/pasting on Ranger John's behalf. However, I am sorry because you either missed my point or didn't understand it. There has not been one British law that has been changed or usurped by sharia law that affects a British subject. Any sharia law/clause has no validity if the subject does not accept it, unless of course the subject has contravened an existing or established law. We've been here before vosa, you can Google until you are blue in the face, sharia has not yet usurped or changed the British Law of the Land for any British subject who does not accept it. I doubt your sincerity. But then you've never been a sincere person have you?You're obsession with Googling and copying & pasting is a classic example of the triumph of form over substance. Your devotion to ignorance is a very sad story.Why the totally unnecessary ad hominem attack? I mentioned your googling and pasting because you have done just that, without even reading or understanding what you were posting, this is something that you frequently do. Would you like to try again to challenge my assertion that: There has not been one British law that has been changed or usurped by sharia law that affects a British subject. Any sharia law/clause has no validity if the subject does not accept it, unless of course the subject has contravened an existing or established British law statute. Or will you just go for another personal attack?
|
|
|
Déjà vu
Dec 7, 2014 17:27:38 GMT -5
Post by Evil Yoda on Dec 7, 2014 17:27:38 GMT -5
There has not been one British law that has been changed or usurped by sharia law that affects a British subject. Any sharia law/clause has no validity if the subject does not accept it, unless of course the subject has contravened an existing or established law. I read the first link. It's about wills. It is basically an instruction sheet for disinheriting female heirs under Sharia rules. For example, a Muslim father would disinherit his daughter if she left the Muslim faith. It's not illegal but it's a scummy thing to do to your daughter. Pretty much every time I read about the Muslim faith I come away shaking my head and wondering how people can yoke themselves to a set of rules that enshrine unfair treatment. And in this context, I really wonder why the British legal profession would want to facilitate this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Déjà vu
Dec 7, 2014 17:37:18 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2014 17:37:18 GMT -5
There has not been one British law that has been changed or usurped by sharia law that affects a British subject. Any sharia law/clause has no validity if the subject does not accept it, unless of course the subject has contravened an existing or established law. I read the first link. It's about wills. It is basically an instruction sheet for disinheriting female heirs under Sharia rules. For example, a Muslim father would disinherit his daughter if she left the Muslim faith. It's not illegal but it's a scummy thing to do to your daughter. Pretty much every time I read about the Muslim faith I come away shaking my head and wondering how people can yoke themselves to a set of rules that enshrine unfair treatment. And in this context, I really wonder why the British legal profession would want to facilitate this.Please show me where British Law does "facilitate this". There is no independant sharia law that can be applied to a British subject if he or she does not accept it. The British Law of the land is supreme in all instances. If immigrant Muslims want to be judged under sharia law in the UK and that judgement does not breach any existing British law, hunky dory, best of luck to them.
|
|
|
Déjà vu
Dec 7, 2014 18:09:02 GMT -5
Post by harryreid on Dec 7, 2014 18:09:02 GMT -5
Why would anyone give a hoot over that silly little island? What am I missing here? Ask Dilbert, or one of his many alias' , That "silly little island" always got up his hooter too. Wouldn't know but who cares what a insignificant marble thief cares?
|
|
|
Déjà vu
Dec 7, 2014 18:11:17 GMT -5
Post by harryreid on Dec 7, 2014 18:11:17 GMT -5
Why would anyone give a hoot over that silly little island? What am I missing here? Because they have nukes? And sharia law is seeping into their legal system? And because they are still one of the planets major economies? Let it seep, they reap what they sow.......... odd it's THEY that created the Jewish State by their non stop meddling and some of them are the biggest haters there are.
|
|
|
Déjà vu
Dec 7, 2014 18:26:06 GMT -5
Post by aboutwell on Dec 7, 2014 18:26:06 GMT -5
Thank you for your Googling and copy/pasting on Ranger John's behalf. He's practicing his "intrinsic value"...
|
|
|
Déjà vu
Dec 7, 2014 18:30:52 GMT -5
Post by Evil Yoda on Dec 7, 2014 18:30:52 GMT -5
Please show me where British Law does "facilitate this". I did not say that British law facilitated it. Indeed, you bolded the relevant sentence. I said the British legal profession is issuing guidelines to facilitate it. That being the collection of lawyers (I think solicitors would the relevant group on matters of estate, but I can never keep those two subsets of lawyer straight) who handle legal matters for Brits. There is no independant sharia law that can be applied to a British subject if he or she does not accept it. The British Law of the land is supreme in all instances. Is this wholly true? Sharia law actively encourages men to treat women as second class citizens (indeed, this appears to be a core philosophy of Islam), and some of those women are surely British citizens. I regard it as a gray area, since a father could, without involving Sharia law at all, treat his daughter as a second class citizen. Indeed, in both the UK and the US this was commonplace until around a century ago. I just don't see the point of encouraging this sort of behavior. A concrete example would be disinheriting a daughter because she's a daughter, and not a son. If immigrant Muslims want to be judged under sharia law in the UK and that judgement does not breach any existing British law, hunky dory, best of luck to them. My opinion is that pressure should be placed on immigrants to abandon their old culture, which after all they left, and embrace the culture of the people where they live. This applies to all immigrants, as I would expect to adapt to the culture of a foreign nation should I move there. I believe the government should actively encourage such assimilation. In this particular case I don't regard Muslim culture as of much value and do not see the benefit in fostering it. Indeed, I think Western nations should discourage it within their borders. Muslims don't have to come here if they don't like that. Kinda tired of bending over backward to show that everyone's culture has value, and doubly-so in those cases where that's not actually true.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Déjà vu
Dec 7, 2014 20:28:03 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2014 20:28:03 GMT -5
Ask Dilbert, or one of his many alias' , That "silly little island" always got up his hooter too. Wouldn't know but who cares what a insignificant marble thief cares? Well you obviously do but then we've been there before eh!? Will you be posting pictures of Charles in a kilt any time soon?
|
|
|
Déjà vu
Dec 7, 2014 22:14:31 GMT -5
Post by redleg on Dec 7, 2014 22:14:31 GMT -5
Of course you do. Given the state of Britain, I don't wonder why. Why would anyone give a hoot over that silly little island? What am I missing here? Personally? Because many of my ancestors came from there, they informed our Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and much of our law. And they have been staunch allies, at least since the turn of the 20th Century. The fall into abject servitude and willing descent into slavery is nauseating, especially since we have many in our government doing their best to send us down into the same abyss.
|
|
|
Déjà vu
Dec 7, 2014 22:17:56 GMT -5
Post by redleg on Dec 7, 2014 22:17:56 GMT -5
Thank you for your Googling and copy/pasting on Ranger John's behalf. However, I am sorry because you either missed my point or didn't understand it. There has not been one British law that has been changed or usurped by sharia law that affects a British subject. Any sharia law/clause has no validity if the subject does not accept it, unless of course the subject has contravened an existing or established law. We've been here before vosa, you can Google until you are blue in the face, sharia has not yet usurped or changed the British Law of the Land for any British subject who does not accept it. We've had this dance before, and you are just as wrong now as you were then. You have a dual system of laws now, one for some Brits, and one for those subject to Shari'a. Whether they 'agree' or not, Britons are being subject to Shari'a, which means they are not subject to British law. Yet. Since Shari'a is taking over Britain, it won't be long, especially since there are so many Britons willing to surrender regardless of who they are surrendering to. Churchill must be livid.
|
|
|
Déjà vu
Dec 7, 2014 22:36:00 GMT -5
Post by harryreid on Dec 7, 2014 22:36:00 GMT -5
Wouldn't know but who cares what a insignificant marble thief cares? Well you obviously do but then we've been there before eh!? Will you be posting pictures of Charles in a kilt any time soon?The visual of a man wearing his man cup purse on the outside is nauseating, no thanks!
|
|
|
Post by harryreid on Dec 8, 2014 3:15:56 GMT -5
Because they have nukes? And sharia law is seeping into their legal system? And because they are still one of the planets major economies? I'd be very interested to learn which sharia law/s have crept into the British Law of the land exactly... very interested indeed. Coming to a man in a skirt near you! www.nytimes.com/2014/12/08/world/british-principal-who-resigned-believes-he-was-seen-as-a-threat.html?_r=0 It had pressed him, unsuccessfully, to replace some courses with Islamic and Arabic studies, segregate girls and boys and drop a citizenship class on tolerance and democracy in Britain.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 8, 2014 9:08:28 GMT -5
Thank you for your Googling and copy/pasting on Ranger John's behalf. However, I am sorry because you either missed my point or didn't understand it. There has not been one British law that has been changed or usurped by sharia law that affects a British subject. Any sharia law/clause has no validity if the subject does not accept it, unless of course the subject has contravened an existing or established law. We've been here before vosa, you can Google until you are blue in the face, sharia has not yet usurped or changed the British Law of the Land for any British subject who does not accept it. We've had this dance before, and you are just as wrong now as you were then. You have a dual system of laws now, one for some Brits, and one for those subject to Shari'a. Whether they 'agree' or not, Britons are being subject to Shari'a, which means they are not subject to British law. Yet. Since Shari'a is taking over Britain, it won't be long, especially since there are so many Britons willing to surrender regardless of who they are surrendering to. Churchill must be livid. And as before, you are dancing with two left feet and are still as wrong now as you were then and will always be. There is only one Law of the Land in Britain. All other 'laws', byelaws, religious 'laws' and conditions are subject to it and subservient to it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 8, 2014 9:11:09 GMT -5
Well you obviously do but then we've been there before eh!? Will you be posting pictures of Charles in a kilt any time soon?The visual of a man wearing his man cup purse on the outside is nauseating, no thanks! Ah, 'tis you... I will remind you of your post here when you start posting your silly pictures again. Good day to you.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 8, 2014 9:18:37 GMT -5
Indeed, and some 'academies have been closed down for doing or attempting to do just that. Like redleg and Co, you need to read further and not just that which sates your xenophobia in general and anglophobia in particular.
|
|
|
Déjà vu
Dec 8, 2014 10:07:48 GMT -5
Post by redleg on Dec 8, 2014 10:07:48 GMT -5
We've had this dance before, and you are just as wrong now as you were then. You have a dual system of laws now, one for some Brits, and one for those subject to Shari'a. Whether they 'agree' or not, Britons are being subject to Shari'a, which means they are not subject to British law. Yet. Since Shari'a is taking over Britain, it won't be long, especially since there are so many Britons willing to surrender regardless of who they are surrendering to. Churchill must be livid. And as before, you are dancing with two left feet and are still as wrong now as you were then and will always be. There is only one Law of the Land in Britain. All other 'laws', byelaws, religious 'laws' and conditions are subject to it and subservient to it. Not when one can be judged by Shari'a. That means that Shari'a has displaced British law anywhere it's used in place of that law. What is happening is that Muslims are setting up separate, and equal, fiefdoms within Britain. How long before your government succumbs to the demands by Muslims that only Shari'a be allowed within their enclaves? That they are not subject to British law?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Déjà vu
Dec 8, 2014 11:39:32 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Dec 8, 2014 11:39:32 GMT -5
And as before, you are dancing with two left feet and are still as wrong now as you were then and will always be. There is only one Law of the Land in Britain. All other 'laws', byelaws, religious 'laws' and conditions are subject to it and subservient to it. Not when one can be judged by Shari'a. That means that Shari'a has displaced British law anywhere it's used in place of that law. What is happening is that Muslims are setting up separate, and equal, fiefdoms within Britain. How long before your government succumbs to the demands by Muslims that only Shari'a be allowed within their enclaves? That they are not subject to British law? That is the most idiotic statement. Unless you can specifically point to a case where sharia law has been applied above the British law of the land you are just being incredibly stupid and obtuse. You really should grow up if you want to try and debate with the ones that do know what they are talking about. Yep, a most incredibly stupid statement indeed.
|
|