[SolarCross]

When my thirteen year old is scared of spiders, she is being "pragmatic" according to you.

That depends on the spider...

The 10 Most Dangerous Spiders in the World



Fancy giving a black widow a kiss and cuddle?

[Pants-of-dog]

No minority culture is a threat as long as their numbers remain under 1%

The city I live in has a Chinese population of over 7%! Please explain howmthe Chinese are a threat to me and my city.

or some fool decides minorities have equal rights.

Yes, the people who wrote constitutions and bills of rights are fools! What a great argument!

No doubt the words that say that people should all be treated equally under the law despite the colour of our skin or ethnicity are VERY DANGEROUS.

Minority rights should be respected but they should be secondary to the rights of the cultural majority. There is no sane reason why the majority should sacrifice their beliefs to appease a minority. Why would anyone willingly do this unless they hated their own culture?

Because they are not racist?

So, you think black people should have less rights, I guess.

----------------

That depends on the spider...

The 10 Most Dangerous Spiders in the World



Fancy giving a black widow a kiss and cuddle?

You are either unaware of the fact that Canada has no poisonous spiders, or you think I am Mexican or something. Either way, this comparison only makes sense if you know nothing about geography.

----------------

So, do we have any corroboration for the OP?

[Prosthetic Conscience]

No minority culture is a threat as long as their numbers remain under 1% or some fool decides minorities have equal rights. Minority rights should be respected but they should be secondary to the rights of the cultural majority. There is no sane reason why the majority should sacrifice their beliefs to appease a minority. Why would anyone willingly do this unless they hated their own culture?

I can see it would be just peachy to be a minority in one of your 'citystates'. I hadn't realised that apartheid was an integral part of your plan.

[mikema63]

He's also argued that the city states should be able to commit ethnic cleansing if they wanted.

Yay one degrees idea of freedom

[One Degree]

The city I live in has a Chinese population of over 7%! Please explain howmthe Chinese are a threat to me and my city.



Yes, the people who wrote constitutions and bills of rights are fools! What a great argument!

No doubt the words that say that people should all be treated equally under the law despite the colour of our skin or ethnicity are VERY DANGEROUS.




Because they are not racist?

So, you think black people should have less rights, I guess.

----------------



You are either unaware of the fact that Canada has no poisonous spiders, or you think I am Mexican or something. Either way, this comparison only makes sense if you know nothing about geography.

----------------

So, do we have any corroboration for the OP?

Ah yes, the old 'ignore the point' and argue semantics. Equal rights does not mean you get an equal say. You are distorting the meaning of equal rights. It was never intended to imply identification with a group had any importance. It refers to the individual. Liberals have simply distorted the meaning for their own purpose. You have the same rights because you are an individual. This means if you are a minority you will have less of a voice and have fewer laws passed in your favor. This means 'your group' does not have an equal say. Your views will be secondary to the majority view. Liberals have tried to change this through special interest legislation. This is not Democracy. This is an aberration that must not be allowed to continue any further than it has. Separating equal rights from identity politics would accomplish much more than the aberration you are pursuing. It had it's time and place in history, but attempting to continue it through special interest is destructive. It is time we viewed one another as individuals and returned to majority rule and decentralization.

[SolarCross]

So, do we have any corroboration for the OP?

The video?

The street does look like it is in Britain. The horde of people marching down it look like muslims but it is impossible to say from this little clip why they are marching. The OP title refers to "refugees" but I am not so sure there are that many refugees all in one place to make such a crowd so most likely they are predominantly muslims from the pakistani community which has been rapidly growing in the UK since the 1960s, so not really refugees.

However as your friend Ingliz has already shown sharia already has a limited and narrow application in UK law. There are also activists who campaign for Islam and sharia to find a wider role in the UK, such as Anjem Choudrey's Islam4UK. So the basic claim is not incorrect.

Islamic law is adopted by British legal chiefs

What is Islam4UK?

[One Degree]

I can see it would be just peachy to be a minority in one of your 'citystates'. I hadn't realised that apartheid was an integral part of your plan.

Autonomous communities should have the right to choose anything their citizens want. Your simplistic and minority world view is irrelevant. The fact you and others can only use 'assumed racism' as an argument against local autonomy shows how shallow your reasoning is. Why do you have so little faith in your fellow human? Your moral superiority is the basis of most of the problems the world has faced. You are the problem.

[Saeko]

Autonomous communities should have the right to choose anything their citizens want. Your simplistic and minority world view is irrelevant. The fact you and others can only use 'assumed racism' as an argument against local autonomy shows how shallow your reasoning is. Why do you have so little faith in your fellow human? Your moral superiority is the basis of most of the problems the world has faced. You are the problem.

Even genocide?

[Pants-of-dog]

Ah yes, the old 'ignore the point' and argue semantics. Equal rights does not mean you get an equal say. You are distorting the meaning of equal rights. It was never intended to imply identification with a group had any importance. It refers to the individual. Liberals have simply distorted the meaning for their own purpose. You have the same rights because you are an individual. This means if you are a minority you will have less of a voice and have fewer laws passed in your favor. This means 'your group' does not have an equal say. Your views will be secondary to the majority view.

All you are saying here is that the majority have more power because they are the majority.

This is true but not relevant.

Liberals have tried to change this through special interest legislation.

Such as....?

This is not Democracy. This is an aberration that must not be allowed to continue any further than it has. Separating equal rights from identity politics would accomplish much more than the aberration you are pursuing. It had it's time and place in history, but attempting to continue it through special interest is destructive. It is time we viewed one another as individuals and returned to majority rule and decentralization.

And this whole bit seems pointless except as another tirade against "liberals". Yawn.

The only interesting bit is how you are now championing individual rights when most of the time you go on about how community rights are more important.

Also, you never explained how the Chinese are a threat to me.

Autonomous communities should have the right to choose anything their citizens want. Your simplistic and minority world view is irrelevant. The fact you and others can only use 'assumed racism' as an argument against local autonomy shows how shallow your reasoning is. Why do you have so little faith in your fellow human? Your moral superiority is the basis of most of the problems the world has faced. You are the problem.

....but your moral superiority is somehow awesome? Lol.

How is it morally superior to allow communities to oppress people?

-----------------

The video?

The street does look like it is in Britain. The horde of people marching down it look like muslims but it is impossible to say from this little clip why they are marching. The OP title refers to "refugees" but I am not so sure there are that many refugees all in one place to make such a crowd so most likely they are predominantly muslims from the pakistani community which has been rapidly growing in the UK since the 1960s, so not really refugees.

However as your friend Ingliz has already shown sharia already has a limited and narrow application in UK law. There are also activists who campaign for Islam and sharia to find a wider role in the UK, such as Anjem Choudrey's Islam4UK. So the basic claim is not incorrect.

Islamic law is adopted by British legal chiefs

What is Islam4UK?

The video is apparently from another event altogether, and the claim made by the tweet makes no sense since, as you noted, Sharia already exists in a limited capacity in England.

So let's go with the idea that the OP is made up nonsense.

[skinster]

Igor and other alt-right eejits constantly complain about "fake news" while posting the same.

At least we have a nice display of their desperation.

Sorry to change the subject, but do we actually have any evidence to support or corroborate the story in the OP?

[One Degree]

Even genocide? :?:

Sure, why not.
The problem is most of us have moved beyond caring what our neighbors look like. Liberals continue to use outdated identity politics to get votes at the expense of dividing our country. I am fed up with their centralized utopia. The different groups of people in my community get along great with one another. I don't want to kick them out. I want Washington to quit telling us how we should behave toward one another. We will get along much better without liberal idealism.
Trying to get back on topic, Sharia law sounds like basically 'binding arbitration', but it is in conflict with the cultural majority due to their actual views on marriage etc. It should therefore not be allowed or legally grant greater autonomy to local communities to decide this individually.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

You have the same rights because you are an individual. This means if you are a minority you will have less of a voice and have fewer laws passed in your favor. This means 'your group' does not have an equal say. Your views will be secondary to the majority view.

You don't seem to understand what 'rights' are. They are not about whether laws are passed in your favour. That would be "political power, if you choose to try and exercise it as a bloc". When you said only a fool would say "minorities have equal rights", everyone took that as you saying individuals belonging to minorities should have lesser rights than those belonging to a majority.

[Saeko]

Sure, why not.

And then you wonder why people call you a nazi, OneReich...

[SolarCross]

The video is apparently from another event altogether, and the claim made by the tweet makes no sense since, as you noted, Sharia already exists in a limited capacity in England.

So let's go with the idea that the OP is made up nonsense.

Well sure the video doesn't seem to be connected to the title claim at all and the tweet refers to "refugees" when I think "muslims" would be more accurate. So I agree that the tweet is a poor quality sound bite which is, let's face it, pretty typical of twitter tweets.

Sharia at present has some official recognition of over civil matters like divorce and inheritance, so basically functioning as a sub-set of contract law, but even in that minor capacity it is not without its controversies, particularly regarding the status of women. There are vectors within the muslim community that want to widen that thin end of the wedge to make it used for criminal law in the uk, to override the existing law of the land. We can see from muslim majority countries what that would mean.

So yeah it is a trivial tweet but the subject to which it ineptly points does exist and is problematic.

[One Degree]

You don't seem to understand what 'rights' are. They are not about whether laws are passed in your favour. That would be "political power, if you choose to try and exercise it as a bloc". When you said only a fool would say "minorities have equal rights", everyone took that as you saying individuals belonging to minorities should have lesser rights than those belonging to a majority.

In a real democracy, your rights come from the majority opinion. Liberal arguments are they come from somewhere else. This is nonsense. You are attempting to force reality to adhere to your idealism.
World history should make it very clear your rights come from the government. Any other rights are imaginary and only useful for changing the government. I am not the one who does not understand what rights really are.
Obsession with racism blinds people to what I am actually saying. I have moved past their silly arguments. I am tired of hearing about how racist I am when I have no interest in racism. I believe in equality of individuals and that includes calling an individual from a different race a worthless bastard if he is and he should not hide behind his race to avoid the truth.

[Pants-of-dog]

Well sure the video doesn't seem to be connected to the title claim at all and the tweet refers to "refugees" when I think "muslims" would be more accurate. So I agree that the tweet is a poor quality sound bite which is, let's face it, pretty typical of twitter tweets.

Let me put this way:

Are Muslims marching in the streets demanding an implementation of Sharia as the law of the land in the UK?

The answer seems to be no. The tweet seems to be saying yes.

This is fake news.

Sharia at present has some official recognition of over civil matters like divorce and inheritance, so basically functioning as a sub-set of contract law, but even in that minor capacity it is not without it's controversies, particularly regarding the status of women.

Yes. Like the Beth Din.

There are vectors within the muslim community that want to widen that thin end of the wedge to make it used for criminal law in the uk, to override the existing law of the land. We can see from muslim majority countries what that would mean.

Who are these people? Are they a significant portion of the population? A majority that can vote it into power?

Are they rich? Can they use their wealth as leverage to make laws that are favourable to them, or change laws altogether?

Do they hold a disproportionate number of positions of power in society? Are they senior government officials? Hold a high position in the majority religion? Own media networks?

Or are they poor immigrants who are also visible minorities? Do they have trouble finding a job, much less imposing laws?

So yeah it is a trivial tweet but the subject to which it ineptly points does exist and is problematic.

The relative importance of the tweet and the subject are a matter of opinion, it seems.

[ingliz]

Who are these people?

On British Islam: Religion, Law and Everyday Practice in Shari'a Councils

Recorded on 10 May 2016 at Wolfson Theatre, New Academic Building, LSE

In this talk, John Bowen examines the history and everyday workings of Islamic Institutions in Britain, with a focus on shari’a councils. Bowen highlights British Muslims’ efforts to create institutions that make sense in both Islamic and British terms. This balancing act is rarely acknowledged in Britain—or elsewhere.

John Bowen is Dunbar-Van Cleve Professor of Arts and Sciences in the Department of Anthropology at Washington University in St Louis.

[SolarCross]

Let me put this way:

Are Muslims marching in the streets demanding an implementation of Sharia as the law of the land in the UK?

The answer seems to be no. The tweet seems to be saying yes.

This is fake news.

It's not so much fake news as old news. Choudrey and his Islam4UK planned a "massive" march in 2009 demanding sharia for the uk (as in full sharia - criminal code and all). Choudrey cancelled it, claiming the EDL and BNP had made death & bomb threats.

Now Muslims demand full Sharia law

Yes. Like the Beth Din.

Maybe, though since they as community don't cause any trouble there is no one looking at them to really say or complain.

Who are these people? Are they a significant portion of the population? A majority that can vote it into power?

Are they rich? Can they use their wealth as leverage to make laws that are favourable to them, or change laws altogether?

Do they hold a disproportionate number of positions of power in society? Are they senior government officials? Hold a high position in the majority religion? Own media networks?

Or are they poor immigrants who are also visible minorities? Do they have trouble finding a job, much less imposing laws?

There are around 3 million muslims in Britain most of them from pakistan originally. They are starting to seep into the UK's political establishment: the current Mayor of London, innumerable county councillors, some MPs even some Lords...

It's a religious block on an rapid rise in numbers and influence. Salafism in particular has rich friends abroad in the Gulf States.

They are not so poor and pitiable as you would like us to believe. Leaving aside the terrorism issue their demographic weight is growing and that brings issues of its own.

[Pants-of-dog]

It's not so much fake news as old news. Choudrey and his Islam4UK planned a "massive" march in 2009 demanding sharia for the uk (as in full sharia - criminal code and all). Choudrey cancelled it, claiming the EDL and BNP had made death & bomb threats.

Now Muslims demand full Sharia law

So, not only did this street protest not happen, but it has never actually happpened in the past either.

How does that mean that the claim that it happened is not fake news?

Maybe, though since they as community don't cause any trouble there is no one looking at them to really say or complain.

Or, there is a double standard.

There are around 3 million muslims in Britain most of them from pakistan originally. They are starting to seep into the UK's political establishment: the current Mayor of London, innumerable county councillors, some MPs even some Lords...

It's a religious block on an rapid rise in numbers and influence. Salafism in particular has rich friends abroad in the Gulf States.

They are not so poor and pitiable as you would like us to believe. Leaving aside the terrorism issue their demographic weight is growing and that brings issues of its own.

This answers none of my questions. Who are these peoplewho want to i oose Sharia and what chance do they have of imposing it?

According to your own link, most Muslims do not want Sharia in the U.K..

[SolarCross]

So, not only did this street protest not happen, but it has never actually happpened in the past either.

How does that mean that the claim that it happened is not fake news?

If we are going to split hairs, then I can play too: the title of the OP says "begin to protest for the implementation of Sharia Law". That needn't be restricted to marches but any kind of activism from pamphlets to vigilante patrols to terrorism. Also "begin" suggests the protest in incomplete thus one aborted march does not complete it.

Or, there is a double standard.

Well I don't know that there is, I have never heard of Beth Din before and I still can't summon up the interest to compare them with sharia councils. They aren't causing any trouble and they aren't a threat to UK security so why should I concern myself with them? Even if it is true that women have a lower status under their jurisprudence then even if they were allowed to go full bore jewish law I doubt we would see honour killings, beheadings, stoning and the like. You are trying to compare apples to Rottweilers.

This answers none of my questions. Who are these peoplewho want to i oose Sharia and what chance do they have of imposing it?

According to your own link, most Muslims do not want Sharia in the U.K..

In another thread you posted Pew research that shows that the vast majority of muslims in muslim majority countries support Sharia as the law of the land for all people (even non muslims) in that country, it also shows that in countries where muslims are not the majority then fewer muslims support sharia. It seems from this data that the higher the % of muslims the more muslims want sharia and that is full sharia including criminal code and applied to non-muslims as well as nominal muslims.

The more of them there are the more confident they are about who they are and getting what they want. We are already seeing this begin to happen in the UK with the likes of Choudrey and Islam4UK. Muslims are only like 5% of the population across the UK but they tend to flock together so in the parts of the country where they congregate they can make up very much higher % of the local population. In those areas they feel very confident, they don't feel like guests who should behave themselves well towards their hosts, they feel like masters of their own turf whose wishes should be respected by others. 30 years ago there were no sharia councils at all and no muslims even the devout ones would dare of suggest it. Now their numbers are great enough that in certain areas they can ask for it and get it. If the numbers continue to grow, as seems likely, then won't be asking they will be ordering.

You are defending their interests because like a lot of leftists, like Galloway and Corbyn, you see them as a cheap and easy source of votes for the left. While their numbers are low they will ride on any opening to power they can take, so yes while their numbers are low they will vote for leftists. But once they have enough people they will vote for their own and not your own. Then they will forget the left and vote Islamist and then the left will be dhimmis along with the right.