Hostage situation in French church

Widdershins · 27-07-2016 04:24PM

RustyNut wrote: »

Much the same problems that us Irish were causing when the provos were bombing the Uk, killing turists in Holland lobing morters in Germany etc. At least the British Dutch Germans didnt make the logical fail of thinking that because the bomber is irish that all Irish are bombers.

You're making the ''logical fail'' of ignoring the salient point of mass immigration .

ohnonotgmail · 27-07-2016 04:25PM

RustyNut wrote: »

Much the same problems that us Irish were causing when the provos were bombing the Uk, killing turists in Holland lobing morters in Germany etc. At least the British Dutch Germans didnt make the logical fail of thinking that because the bomber is irish that all Irish are bombers.

you'll have to remind me of the terrorist atrocities committed by irish muslims.

Gatling · 27-07-2016 04:26PM

2nd attacker apparently identified with a French surname papillon

Dyr · 27-07-2016 04:27PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

what problem is our muslim population causing us?

The ones that are here or the ones that are now over in the middle east a-jihading?

Just say no to importing wahabbi nutty bars. Plenty of sane populations we can choose from

boat_builder · 27-07-2016 04:29PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

what problem is our muslim population causing us?

we dont know yet , thats not the point anyway , an increased muslim population will lead to a change in the charechter of the nation , i only need look to predominantly muslim nations to know i have no desire for this

Widdershins · 27-07-2016 04:31PM

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

What are you on about?

I didn't know what the terminology was so I looked it up. Apparently you knew less. Except from the Independent , Sunday 23 March 2014:

Islamic law is to be effectively enshrined in the British legal system for the first time under guidelines for solicitors on drawing up “Sharia compliant” wills.

Under guidance produced by The Law Society, High Street solicitors will be able to compose Islamic wills that refuse women an equal share of inheritances and discount non-believers entirely, the Sunday Telegraph reported.

The recommendations can also prevent illegitimate children, as well as those who have been adopted, from being included in an inheritance.

Nicholas Fluck, president of The Law Society told the newspaper that the document, which would be recognised by Britain’s courts, would promote “good practice” in applying Islamic principles in the British legal system.

But some lawyers have described the recommendations as “astonishing” and campaigners have warned that the move marks a step towards a “parallel legal system” for Britain’s Muslim communities.
Baroness Cox, a cross-bench peer leading a Parliamentary campaign to protect women from discrimination authorised on the basis of religion, including from unofficial Sharia courts in Britain, told the Sunday Telegraph it was a “deeply disturbing” development.

And she pledged to raise the issue with ministers. “This violates everything that we stand for,” she said.

“It would make the Suffragettes turn in their graves.”

The guidelines were quietly published this month and distributed to lawyers in England and Wales to “assist solicitors who have been instructed to prepare a valid will, which follows Sharia succession rules” while remaining valid under British law.

In one section it is stated: “The male heirs in most cases receive double the amount inherited by a female heir of the same class. Non-Muslims may not inherit at all, and only Muslim marriages are recognised.

“Similarly, a divorced spouse is no longer a Sharia heir, as the entitlement depends on a valid Muslim marriage existing at the date of death.”

And in another section it suggests amending clauses which define the terms “children” or “issue” to ensure that illegitimate or adopted offspring are excluded from the inheritance.

The guidelines also suggest that many Muslim clients may wish to have a declaration of faith at the start of their will, which can be worded appropriately with help from the local mosque.

ohnonotgmail · 27-07-2016 04:31PM

boat_builder wrote: »

we dont know yet , thats not the point anyway , an increased muslim population will lead to a change in the charechter of the nation , i only need look to predominantly muslim nations to know i have no desire for this

so we should only allow immigrants that will maintain the character of the nation? well that narrows things down a lot.

boat_builder · 27-07-2016 04:31PM

RustyNut wrote: »

Much the same problems that us Irish were causing when the provos were bombing the Uk, killing turists in Holland lobing morters in Germany etc. At least the British Dutch Germans didnt make the logical fail of thinking that because the bomber is irish that all Irish are bombers.

its a bogus comparison , the IRA has a very specific political objective , even you destroy IS and all islamic terror groups , a rise in the muslim population of the country would change the charechter of the country

muslim nations can live as they wish , its not my place to tell them to allow gay marriage etc but i have no desire to see ireland become like dubai or malaysia , let alone iran or egypt

boat_builder · 27-07-2016 04:33PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

so we should only allow immigrants that will maintain the character of the nation? well that narrows things down a lot.

well i would prefer we only allowed in immigrants who are unlikely to make very different demands and live in a very different manner

the poles or danes are a lot more like us than syrians or pakistanis

ohnonotgmail · 27-07-2016 04:34PM

Widdershins wrote: »

I didn't know what the terminology was so I looked it up. Apparently you knew less. Except from the Independent , Sunday 23 March 2014:

Islamic law is to be effectively enshrined in the British legal system for the first time under guidelines for solicitors on drawing up “Sharia compliant” wills.

Under guidance produced by The Law Society, High Street solicitors will be able to compose Islamic wills that refuse women an equal share of inheritances and discount non-believers entirely, the Sunday Telegraph reported.

The recommendations can also prevent illegitimate children, as well as those who have been adopted, from being included in an inheritance.

Nicholas Fluck, president of The Law Society told the newspaper that the document, which would be recognised by Britain’s courts, would promote “good practice” in applying Islamic principles in the British legal system.

But some lawyers have described the recommendations as “astonishing” and campaigners have warned that the move marks a step towards a “parallel legal system” for Britain’s Muslim communities.
Baroness Cox, a cross-bench peer leading a Parliamentary campaign to protect women from discrimination authorised on the basis of religion, including from unofficial Sharia courts in Britain, told the Sunday Telegraph it was a “deeply disturbing” development.

And she pledged to raise the issue with ministers. “This violates everything that we stand for,” she said.

“It would make the Suffragettes turn in their graves.”

The guidelines were quietly published this month and distributed to lawyers in England and Wales to “assist solicitors who have been instructed to prepare a valid will, which follows Sharia succession rules” while remaining valid under British law.

In one section it is stated: “The male heirs in most cases receive double the amount inherited by a female heir of the same class. Non-Muslims may not inherit at all, and only Muslim marriages are recognised.

“Similarly, a divorced spouse is no longer a Sharia heir, as the entitlement depends on a valid Muslim marriage existing at the date of death.”

And in another section it suggests amending clauses which define the terms “children” or “issue” to ensure that illegitimate or adopted offspring are excluded from the inheritance.

The guidelines also suggest that many Muslim clients may wish to have a declaration of faith at the start of their will, which can be worded appropriately with help from the local mosque.

you're out of date. that was withdrawn a few months later. and it didnt involve a change in the legal system or the law.

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/nov/24/law-society-withdraws-guidance-sharia-wills

ohnonotgmail · 27-07-2016 04:35PM

boat_builder wrote: »

well i would prefer we only allowed in immigrants who are unlikely to make very different demands and live in a very different manner

the poles or danes are a lot more like us than syrians or pakistanis

i dont know how danes or poles are relevant. we cant keep them out even if we wanted to.

unseenfootage · 27-07-2016 04:37PM

Bambi wrote: »

The ones that are here or the ones that are now over in the middle east a-jihading?

Just say no to importing wahabbi nutty bars. Plenty of sane populations we can choose from

Should we say no to importing wahabbi oil and gas too?
Likewise, should we say no to exporting our beef, technology and high tech services to wahabbi countries?
I guess we'd have to stop importing their all the wahabi students, doctors, engineers and IT professionals too right?

RustyNut · 27-07-2016 04:37PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you'll have to remind me of the terrorist atrocities committed by irish muslims.

I don't think I said they committed any. That's the point. "The Irish" weren't the problem, the provos were. "The Muslims " aren't the problem isis are. Some posters don't seem to be able to differentiate.

27-07-2016 04:37PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

that is not what i'm saying at all. sharia law would be unconstitutional.

There is plenty in Sharia Law that would not be unconstitutional. Sharia can and does run parallel to other Common Law legal systems.

I can't think of any reason why an Irish Government couldn't institute Islamic councils offering legally binding arbitration, with jurisdiction over certain areas of private and commercial life, such as family law and business contracts.

In fact, it may well already be possible for such Councils to establish themselves in this country without Government sanction, similar to the situation in the United Kingdom.

I do not intend this to come across as a shrill, alarmist cry against migration. I welcome immigration from across the Arab world. But I do think we have to be mindful about integration, and be wary of such quasi-legal systems establishing themselves in this country.

Widdershins · 27-07-2016 04:37PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you're out of date. that was withdrawn a few months later. and it didnt involve a change in the legal system or the law.

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/nov/24/law-society-withdraws-guidance-sharia-wills

Shame nobody had a clue it had happened at all and that it can happen and said I had ''made it up'' though. I don't believe I said it involved a change in the legal system.

unseenfootage · 27-07-2016 04:39PM

boat_builder wrote: »

well i would prefer we only allowed in immigrants who are unlikely to make very different demands and live in a very different manner

the poles or danes are a lot more like us than syrians or pakistanis

Your counterparts across the pond, in the UK just voted to get rid of them poles and them danes.

ohnonotgmail · 27-07-2016 04:39PM

Widdershins wrote: »

Shame nobody had a clue it had happened at all and that it can happen and said I had ''made it up'' though. I don't believe I said it involved a change in the legal system.

well you mentioned a change in the british constitution. which doesnt exist. and if it did exist this wouldnt have been a change in it. as it was entirely irrelevant to what you asked i'm not surprised nobody mentioned it.

Venom · 27-07-2016 04:42PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you're out of date. that was withdrawn a few months later. and it didnt involve a change in the legal system or the law.

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/nov/24/law-society-withdraws-guidance-sharia-wills

It's the fact the legal system even considered it to such an extent is the issue. Can you really not see that?

Widdershins · 27-07-2016 04:43PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

well you mentioned a change in the british constitution. which doesnt exist. and if it did exist this wouldnt have been a change in it. as it was entirely irrelevant to what you asked i'm not surprised nobody mentioned it.

Not at all . I'm sure anyone of minimal intelligence would have understand what I was getting at regardless of the inclusion of the word ''constitution'' when clearly it is a question about the influence of sharia law-which was evidently relevant to judge by the article .

boat_builder · 27-07-2016 04:44PM

unseenfootage wrote: »

Your counterparts across the pond, in the UK just voted to get rid of them poles and them danes.

well the poles have driven wages for unskilled workers through the floor so it makes sense that a brickie in manchester would prefer a less free movement of labour policy

ohnonotgmail · 27-07-2016 04:44PM

Venom wrote: »

It's the fact the legal system even considered it to such an extent is the issue. Can you really not see that?

it wasnt a change to the legal system. it was advice to solicitors from the Law Society on how to draw up wills in accordance with sharia law but also stay within british law.

boat_builder · 27-07-2016 04:45PM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

There is plenty in Sharia Law that would not be unconstitutional. Sharia can and does run parallel to other Common Law legal systems.

I can't think of any reason why an Irish Government couldn't institute Islamic councils offering legally binding arbitration, with jurisdiction over certain areas of private and commercial life, such as family law and business contracts.

In fact, it may well already be possible for such Councils to establish themselves in this country without Government sanction, similar to the situation in the United Kingdom.

I do not intend this to come across as a shrill, alarmist cry against migration. I welcome immigration from across the Arab world. But I do think we have to be mindful about integration, and be wary of such quasi-legal systems establishing themselves in this country.

why exactly do you " welcome immigration from across the arab world " ?

ohnonotgmail · 27-07-2016 04:46PM

Widdershins wrote: »

Not at all . I'm sure anyone of minimal intelligence would have understand what I was getting at regardless of the inclusion of the word ''constitution'' when clearly it is a question about the influence of sharia law-which was evidently relevant to judge by the article .

well i suppose people could have read your mind and extrapolate from constitution to legal system but even then the article isnt relevant as it didnt involve a change to the legal system or the law.

ohnonotgmail · 27-07-2016 04:48PM

unseenfootage wrote: »

Your counterparts across the pond, in the UK just voted to get rid of them poles and them danes.

in fairness those polish lads can drink you under the table. probably best if we got rid of them as well in case we get a reputation as lightweights.

Widdershins · 27-07-2016 04:50PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

well i suppose people could have read your mind and extrapolate from constitution to legal system but even then the article isnt relevant as it didnt involve a change to the legal system or the law.

It involved provision for islamic traditional legal practice within or alongside the legal system, therefore, sharia law influenced british legal practice . Semantics won't diminish that .

ohnonotgmail · 27-07-2016 04:53PM

Widdershins wrote: »

It involved provision for islamic traditional legal practice within or alongside the legal system, therefore, sharia law influenced british legal practice . Semantics won't diminish that .

It didnt do that at all. it was guidance from the professional body for solicitors on how inheritance works in sharia law. it didnt change anything in regards to legal practice.

27-07-2016 04:53PM

boat_builder wrote: »

why exactly do you " welcome immigration from across the arab world " ?

The bias of selfishness. I like Arabic history, literature, I am trying to learn Persian, I like meeting these people. Like a lot of people, I think diversity is generally an excellent thing for humanity.

I'm still hugely skeptical of Islam and I think it's had a seriously deleterious effect on the Arab world & its contribution to civilization. I'm not saying we should just give everyone a free pass. We can still take care, and we ought to take special care in relation to immigration from Syria, Iraq and the GCC.

boat_builder · 27-07-2016 04:56PM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

The bias of selfishness. I like Arabic history, literature, I am trying to learn Persian, I like meeting these people. Like a lot of people, I think diversity is generally an excellent thing for humanity.

I'm still hugely skeptical of Islam and I think it's had a seriously deleterious effect on the Arab world & its contribution to civilization. I'm not saying we should just give everyone a free pass. We can still take care, and we ought to take special care in relation to immigration from Syria, Iraq and the GCC.

is it not possible to study arab culture and persian culture from afar ?

Bubbaclaus · 27-07-2016 04:57PM

Widdershins wrote: »

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

What are you on about?

I didn't know what the terminology was so I looked it up. Apparently you knew less. Except from the Independent , Sunday 23 March 2014:

Islamic law is to be effectively enshrined in the British legal system for the first time under guidelines for solicitors on drawing up Sharia compliant wills.

Under guidance produced by The Law Society, High Street solicitors will be able to compose Islamic wills that refuse women an equal share of inheritances and discount non-believers entirely, the Sunday Telegraph reported.

The recommendations can also prevent illegitimate children, as well as those who have been adopted, from being included in an inheritance.

Nicholas Fluck, president of The Law Society told the newspaper that the document, which would be recognised by Britain s courts, would promote good practice in applying Islamic principles in the British legal system.

But some lawyers have described the recommendations as astonishing and campaigners have warned that the move marks a step towards a parallel legal system for Britain s Muslim communities.
Baroness Cox, a cross-bench peer leading a Parliamentary campaign to protect women from discrimination authorised on the basis of religion, including from unofficial Sharia courts in Britain, told the Sunday Telegraph it was a deeply disturbing development.

And she pledged to raise the issue with ministers. This violates everything that we stand for, she said.

It would make the Suffragettes turn in their graves.

The guidelines were quietly published this month and distributed to lawyers in England and Wales to assist solicitors who have been instructed to prepare a valid will, which follows Sharia succession rules while remaining valid under British law.

In one section it is stated: The male heirs in most cases receive double the amount inherited by a female heir of the same class. Non-Muslims may not inherit at all, and only Muslim marriages are recognised.

Similarly, a divorced spouse is no longer a Sharia heir, as the entitlement depends on a valid Muslim marriage existing at the date of death.

And in another section it suggests amending clauses which define the terms children or issue to ensure that illegitimate or adopted offspring are excluded from the inheritance.

The guidelines also suggest that many Muslim clients may wish to have a declaration of faith at the start of their will, which can be worded appropriately with help from the local mosque.

So you've gone from saying it's part of their constitution (which doesn't even exist) to posting an article from the independent about some guidelines from the law society which were withdrawn?

Widdershins · 27-07-2016 04:58PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

It didnt do that at all. it was guidance from the professional body for solicitors on how inheritance works in sharia law. it didnt change anything in regards to legal practice.

It changed legal practice with regards to the entitlement of divorced muslim women and 'illegitimate' and female offspring within the context of inheritance but that's no big deal I take it?

Hostage situation in French church

Comments