Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I don't want to start anything but with reference to the original topic - chill out guys! Caaalm C'mon, David Cameron has already lead a 5/6 Conservative government for 5 years and he isn't doing too badly. He has cut the deficit by a bit and our economy is growing again. The loss of a few Lib Dem ministers from the previous coalition cabinet does not mean that we are suddenly going to become a far-right extremist society and start persecuting everyone we can see. Perhaps we should all just take a step back...
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by The_Internet)
    Really?

    It was all over the news at one point:



    Granted, they were a response to the "Muslim patrol" but they still happened

    Somewhat recently



    Calling it "Muslim occupied East London" Nope. Not religiously aggravating at al!
    take control of (a place, especially a country) by military conquest or settlement.
    [COLOR=#878787 !important]"Syria was occupied by France under a League of Nations mandate"[/COLOR]

    settlement can mean occupy. In this case, 12% of london is muslim. I do not agree that london is occupied but it's easy to argue that technically, it is. It depends what percent you call, occupied.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by balanced)
    take control of (a place, especially a country) by military conquest or settlement.
    [color=#878787 !important]"Syria was occupied by France under a League of Nations mandate"[/color]


    settlement can mean occupy. In this case, 12% of london is muslim. I do not agree that london is occupied but it's easy to argue that technically, it is. It depends what percent you call, occupied.
    You bold-ed the bit about "settlement" but you didn't bold the crucial part of that definition which is "take control of" No one "takes control of" stuff just by living there... Otherwise, my town would be "English occupied"

    Your post messed up, but I can see it when I reply. The other words don't really fit either...
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    Your 40% statistic is the sort of wild thing the right wing media throw around, which is hard to interpret. What does that mean exactly? That they want non-Muslims to be under Shariah? Or just Muslims? Do they mean 100% Saudi-style Shariah, or some variant? Shariah courts already exist in the UK and some Muslims use them, mainly to settle civil disputes with other Muslims and in marriage, divorce and inheritance issues. Why is that so dangerous?

    Knee-jerk reaction is not useful as a guide to action and seeking to play the right wing tabloid/Daily Mail game is just pathetic.
    I'm talking about wanting to replace British law with Sharia law. Anyone who is anything but disgusted at that proposition is suspicious, just as anybody who isn't disgusted at the proposition that British law should be replaced by feudalism or fascism is suspicious. "Sharia" family courts which comply with British law are obviously fine, by definition (unless the law needs to be changed).

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...law-in-UK.html

    Your options here are either to accuse them of outright lying, or to concede that a significant minority of British Muslims believe in ideas which are anathema to modern democrats like you and me.

    If it's the latter, then you must admit that I, and by extension David Cameron, have a point.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lerjj)
    Yes, by presenting a clearly better alternative. Not by arresting people who say that Sharia is a good idea.

    Also depraved means 'morally corrupt; perverted' which basically means it has a whole lot of sexual connotations that make it a really weird word to apply to a nation.
    I'm applying it to the dictators who ran the nation, not the nation itself ("nation" can refer to all kinds of things, such as populations, traditions, cultures etc. - that is not what I'm attacking). Many dictators are depraved in a sexual way, such as Gaddafi, who raped young men and women in a weird "rape chamber" (http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/1.570727). Others are depraved in the sense that they are morally reprehensible in other ways. Anyway it's just a word.

    We already offer a better alternative to Sharia. It's called democracy. It's been in the making since the 18th century and before.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Big up the riots!!
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by felamaslen)
    I'm talking about wanting to replace British law with Sharia law. Anyone who is anything but disgusted at that proposition is suspicious, just as anybody who isn't disgusted at the proposition that British law should be replaced by feudalism or fascism is suspicious. "Sharia" family courts which comply with British law are obviously fine, by definition (unless the law needs to be changed).

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...law-in-UK.html

    Your options here are either to accuse them of outright lying, or to concede that a significant minority of British Muslims believe in ideas which are anathema to modern democrats like you and me.

    If it's the latter, then you must admit that I, and by extension David Cameron, have a point.
    You might be saying "the UK" but the poll says "parts of the UK", or at least, the Telegraph says the poll says that, but we aren't allowed to see what the actual question was. Maybe the question was "would you like to see Sharia law in your neighbourhood?" or something like that.

    Not to mention that poll was in 2006 and although it has been a favourite of EDL/UKIP types ever since, lots of other research has failed to confirm it.

    This research is interesting which shows that Muslims around the world are generally “most comfortable with its application in cases of family or property disputes” when asked about Shariah.
    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05/01/study-where-do-muslims-really-stand-on-shariah-law/
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    You might be saying "the UK" but the poll says "parts of the UK", or at least, the Telegraph says the poll says that, but we aren't allowed to see what the actual question was. Maybe the question was "would you like to see Sharia law in your neighbourhood?" or something like that.

    Not to mention that poll was in 2006 and although it has been a favourite of EDL/UKIP types ever since, lots of other research has failed to confirm it.

    This research is interesting which shows that Muslims around the world are generally “most comfortable with its application in cases of family or property disputes” when asked about Shariah.
    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05/01/study-where-do-muslims-really-stand-on-shariah-law/
    I don't think "parts of the UK" makes it any less sinister. The point of common law is that everybody is equal under it - to treat Muslims differently from everyone else, to subject them to a barbaric law - is sinister. (Of course, if true Sharia was implemented, Muslims would have slightly more rights than everyone else, not having to pay the jizya.)

    Plenty of Pew polls have shown some quite pessimistic statistics if you're talking about Islamic-majority countries:

    http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/t...iety-overview/

    (Just for example: 40% in both Afghanistan and Palestine, two of the worst offenders, say terrorism is justified.)
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Hilarious hearing Labour voters slam Cameron for intrusive policies like Labour under Blair/Brown wasn't the epitome of this sort of thing.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KimKallstrom)
    Hilarious hearing Labour voters slam Cameron for intrusive policies like Labour under Blair/Brown wasn't the epitome of this sort of thing.

    You idiots have short memories,
    "To all you Tory tirbalists out there, imagine if Blair or Brown has said this with all that ID card *******s? You would be goign woppy. Or will you defend a Prime Minister of this country saying even if you obey the law you are not safe, just because he is a Tory?" - Me in this thread on first page

    Well? Are you goign woppy? Or is woppiness only for when labour do this ****? I go woppy no matter what colour of the party.

    I'm no defender of labour on this stuff. If you think the cons with their lib dem sidekicks have been been a bastion of libertarian principles... what planet are you living on?

    My memory is fine. By the way I was a supporter of Charles Kennedy's lib dems in thye New labour years and even supported Nick clegg :eek: So even if I was old enough then I wouldn't have been voting labour.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    The stupid thing is, "as long as you obey the law we will leave you alone" has been one of the one redeeming things of the conservative party. Even if it meant freedom to exploit an underclass/working class. There isn't even that now. Like what David Mitchell said, "it's like the latest Lord Ashcroft report found 90% of Britains are evil" Stripping people of their human rights and kicking disabled people down a set of stairs is an election winning strategy.

    Misanthropic mode activated.
    You can obey the law and still preach hatred, extremism etc. The idea isn't to stop people talking against the party or whatever people seem to think, it's to stop extremism and the radicalisation of young school children.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by The_Internet)
    You bold-ed the bit about "settlement" but you didn't bold the crucial part of that definition which is "take control of" No one "takes control of" stuff just by living there... Otherwise, my town would be "English occupied"

    Your post messed up, but I can see it when I reply. The other words don't really fit either...
    your town is english occupied, well done. It's either taking control of by military force, or by settlement.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    yikes
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by balanced)
    your town is english occupied, well done. It's either taking control of by military force, or by settlement.
    Well if that's your view on things, then it is "Military force" considering the MOD are around the corner
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Cameron is comic book villain confirmed.
 
 
 

3,546

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should universities take a stronger line on drugs?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.