Hostage situation in French church

Widdershins · 27-07-2016 05:02PM

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

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doesn't even exist) to posting an article from the independent about some guidelines from the law society which were withdrawn?

No . Do you realise the difference between asking a question and making a statement ? And I also said ''I'm no expert & don't know the correct terminology ''. The Independent refers to ''Islamic law is to be effectively enshrined in the British legal system''. The fact that it was withdrawn doesn't negate the fact that it happened .

ohnonotgmail · 27-07-2016 05:02PM

Widdershins wrote: »

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?

it didnt change any legal practice. People in britain could already bequeath their assets in accordance with sharia rules. the guidance just explained to solicitors what those rules are. I suggest you read the article i linked to. they make this quite explicit.

ohnonotgmail · 27-07-2016 05:05PM

Widdershins wrote: »

No . Do you realise the difference between asking a question and making a statement ? And I also said ''I'm no expert & don't know the correct terminology ''. The Independent refers to ''Islamic law is to be effectively enshrined in the British legal system''. The fact that it was withdrawn doesn't negate the fact that it happened .

the independent can refer to whatever it likes. doesnt make it correct. nothing changed with regards to the law regarding wills to accomodate sharia. their was nothing to withdraw. what was withdrawn was advice to solicitors.

you should also bear mind that whenever a newspaper uses the word "effectively" they generally mean it isnt but want to try and stir things up.

Widdershins · 27-07-2016 05:06PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

it didnt change any legal practice. People in britain could already bequeath their assets in accordance with sharia rules. the guidance just explained to solicitors what those rules are. I suggest you read the article i linked to. they make this quite explicit.

Ordinarily a will made to exclude people for those reasons can be contested. And there were warnings of a parallel legal system before it was withdraw . You can disagree on the importance of it.

ohnonotgmail · 27-07-2016 05:08PM

Widdershins wrote: »

Ordinarily a will made to exclude people for those reasons can be contested. And there were warnings of a parallel legal system before it was withdraw . You can disagree on the importance of it.

any will can be contested. whether it is drawn up under sharia rules or not makes no difference to that. there was no parallel legal system. there was no change in the law. you dont seem to understand that.

Bubbaclaus · 27-07-2016 05:09PM

Widdershins wrote: »

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

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?

No . Do you realise the difference between asking a question and making a statement ? And I also said ''I'm no expert & don't know the correct terminology ''. The Independent refers to ''Islamic law is to be effectively enshrined in the British legal system''. The fact that it was withdrawn doesn't negate the fact that it happened .

It had no effect on the British legal system. The Law Society does not have the power to create or change any laws. It was merely guidance released by the society to its members on how to draft such documents. I think you need to brush up on how legal systems work before digging any deeper holes for yourself.

Dyr · 27-07-2016 05:12PM

unseenfootage wrote: »

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?

Goods and services don't have beliefs, mentalist or otherwise.

Though we're mostly into russian gas I believe. Most of our oil comes from Norway, Denmark and The UK

Like I said, no shortage of sane populations with 20th century attitudes towards women etc. that we can pick from when required.

jmayo · 27-07-2016 05:13PM

unseenfootage wrote: »

I am a big fan of diversity, especially in Ireland.
If it weren't for diversity.
The Irish would still be eating bacon, cabbage and potato.

You mean if it wasn't for diversity the Irish would be eating oatmeal and bacon.
As far as I know the Romans, Greeks and Anglo Saxons cultivated cabbage.
The round head of cabbage appeared in 14th century England AFAIK.

The English also gave us the potato.

Granted they did rule over us, often not very nicely, for 800 years in return.

Should we embrace a caliphate in return for hummus, falafel, ful, tabouleh, labaneh, and baba ghanoush ?

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.

You are free to go visit.
Knock yourself out.

You think that islam has had a "deleterious effect on the Arab world & its contribution to civilization", but yet you state you "welcome immigration from across the Arab world".

Do you think they will just leave all those "deleterious effects" of islam at the customs point in Dublin Airport or Rosslare ?

BTW why not include Egypt (muslim brotherhood), Saudi (the home of all those 911 terrorists and good old Osama), Yemen, as countries whose immigrants we should beware of ?

PS you do know that Persians/Iranians are not Arabs ?

Widdershins · 27-07-2016 05:15PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

the independent can refer to whatever it likes. doesnt make it correct. nothing changed with regards to the law regarding wills to accomodate sharia. their was nothing to withdraw. what was withdrawn was advice to solicitors.

you should also bear mind that whenever a newspaper uses the word "effectively" they generally mean it isnt but want to try and stir things up.

Was the advice pertaining to sharia marriages which are bigamous (or can be),can have underage brides, and would such marriages have been legal had the advice not been withdrawn ? and can the listed people contest a will they were excluded from if that will was made under the sharia rules?

A Little Pony · 27-07-2016 05:17PM

unseenfootage wrote: »

Turns out, according to a Daily Mail report that one of the attackers was linked to a white French jihadi - Maxime Hauchard , a convert from Catholicism, who fought for ISIS in Syria.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3708394/Two-men-armed-knives-people-hostage-French-church.html

Any idea how many white European ISIS terrorists there are who are radicalizing their countrymen?

Absolute traitors. Should be strung up for that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCn0ptz8xMY

ohnonotgmail · 27-07-2016 05:19PM

Widdershins wrote: »

Was the advice pertaining to sharia marriages which are bigamous (or can be),can have underage brides, and would such marriages have been legal had the advice not been withdrawn ? and can the listed people contest a will they were excluded from if that will was made under the sharia rules?

the advice was not related to marriages or underage brides. anybody excluded from a will can contest it. nothing changed with this. absolutely nothing. you dont seem to be able to accept that so i'll leave it here.

unseenfootage · 27-07-2016 05:19PM

A Little Pony wrote: »

Absolute traitors. Should be strung up for that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCn0ptz8xMY

Tommy Robinson?

Why would I want to listen to a racist ex con?

Widdershins · 27-07-2016 05:21PM

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

It had no effect on the British legal system. It was merely guidance released by the society to its members on how to draft such documents.

Which documents ? How would marriage documents differ if drawn up according to this advice on sharia law? Would they have included clauses that allowed the husband to divorce the wife easily bubut required the wife to secure the husbands permission to divorce, as that seems to be the way with sharia law ? Why else was there a need for advice on drawing documents differently to the usual way ?

A Little Pony · 27-07-2016 05:22PM

unseenfootage wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

Absolute traitors. Should be strung up for that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCn0ptz8xMY

Tommy Robinson?

Why would I want to listen to a racist ex con?

He hates Islam and not race. Can't say I disagreed with anything he said on this interview and the presenter. Our Western leaders are either incompetent or letting it happen.

unseenfootage · 27-07-2016 05:22PM

jmayo wrote: »

Should we embrace a caliphate in return for hummus, falafel, ful, tabouleh, labaneh, and baba ghanoush ?

No need to/
You can probably pick those up at the local tescos. :P

ohnonotgmail · 27-07-2016 05:25PM

Widdershins wrote: »

Which documents ? How would marriage documents differ if drawn up according to this advice on sharia law? Would they have included clauses that allowed the husband to divorce the wife easily bubut required the wife to secure the husbands permission to divorce, as that seems to be the way with sharia law ? Why else was there a need for advice on drawing documents differently to the usual way ?

ok. for the last time. this was advice regarding the drawing up of wills. no mention of marriage documents. now you're just making stuff up to be outraged about.

ohnonotgmail · 27-07-2016 05:26PM

unseenfootage wrote: »

No need to/
You can probably pick those up at the local tescos. :P

aldi or lidl are probably better bets.

Widdershins · 27-07-2016 05:35PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

ok. for the last time. this was advice regarding the drawing up of wills. no mention of marriage documents. now you're just making stuff up to be outraged about.

i haven't read all the comment yet so I haven't seen ''for the first time '' yet, now you're just projecting your feelings again as nobody's outraged at all .You should calm down about people asking questions , we can't all be experts. sharia law is an ugly business and if it's still confined to sharia courts dotted around UK and not actually /yet part of official law, brilliant !

Alive1 · 27-07-2016 05:39PM

Jesus. wrote: »

Why wouldn't we?

And what would you do about both those Muslims that now hold Irish citizenship and indeed the growing number of native Irish Muslim converts and their Muslim children?

Alive1 · 27-07-2016 05:40PM

boat_builder wrote: »

self preservation

Pathetic

DEFTLEFTHAND · 27-07-2016 05:42PM

unseenfootage wrote: »

Tommy Robinson?

Why would I want to listen to a racist ex con?

I used to think he was a racist also before I listened to him speak on the Dave Rubin show. The fact that members of his own family are mixed kind of messed with that label a bit for me.

I realised that I actually never heard him speak before I just went along with what I was told about him and took it at face value. In short he despises the radical Islamic ideology which he saw fostered on the streets of his home town of Luton, when he spoke out about it he was subjected to intimidation, attacks and a smear campaign.

I understand that it's easy to dismiss him as a working class yobo (thats what I did) but I found that his views were totally misrepresented to me by others.

silverharp · 27-07-2016 05:42PM

Your Face wrote: »

Is there anything to be said for another mass.

that was a horrible comment

Bubbaclaus · 27-07-2016 05:44PM

Widdershins wrote: »

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

It had no effect on the British legal system. It was merely guidance released by the society to its members on how to draft such documents.

Which documents ? How would marriage documents differ if drawn up according to this advice on sharia law? Would they have included clauses that allowed the husband to divorce the wife easily bubut required the wife to secure the husbands permission to divorce, as that seems to be the way with sharia law ? Why else was there a need for advice on drawing documents differently to the usual way ?

You appear to think the law society are the legislators. They are not.

27-07-2016 05:46PM

unseenfootage wrote: »

Tommy Robinson?

Why would I want to listen to a racist ex con?

He's not a racist. You've no evidence of this and very liberal of you to dismiss anyone who spent time in prison. So much for rehabilitation and second chances, even for something as minor as insurance fraud.

Widdershins · 27-07-2016 05:47PM

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

You appear to think the law society are the legislators. They are not.

No I presume the advice derives from them . I'm not interested in the finite workings. As long as sharia is confined to sharia courts (which are morally repugnant anyway ) that's fine

Alive1 · 27-07-2016 05:49PM

boat_builder wrote: »

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

What character of the country?
The character that allowed women to die by denying them life saving medical tratment on the basis that "this is a Catholic country"?
Thats a character that needs changing!

Alive1 · 27-07-2016 05:51PM

boat_builder wrote: »

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

Do you have one single shred of empirical evidence for that, because so far nobody else has been able to find any.

Alive1 · 27-07-2016 05:53PM

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 .

The same applies for Judaism and indeed other religions both in the UK and throughout Europe.
But you concentrate only on Islam, why???

Widdershins · 27-07-2016 05:55PM

Alive1 wrote: »

What character of the country?
The character that allowed women to die by denying them life saving medical tratment on the basis that "this is a Catholic country"?
Thats a character that needs changing!

That bit does for certain but how is mass immigration going to do that ? If the predominant religion is muslim how will that positively influence the woman's rights situation ?

27-07-2016 05:55PM

jmayo wrote: »

You think that islam has had a "deleterious effect on the Arab world & its contribution to civilization", but yet you state you "welcome immigration from across the Arab world".

Yes.

I qualified that statement by saying we ought to 'take care' when admitting immigrants from across the Arab world. Economic activation and a basic level of cultural assimilation ought to be pursued; anybody incapable of meeting basic standards in these regards, or who fails to maintain a good character, should have no place in this society.

BTW why not include Egypt (muslim brotherhood), Saudi (the home of all those 911 terrorists and good old Osama), Yemen, as countries whose immigrants we should beware of ?

Saudi is in the GCC, but it wasn't an exhaustive list.

PS you do know that Persians/Iranians are not Arabs ?

Of course, although Syrians aren't exactly Arabs either, but that's not really here nor there. I'm not convinced we ought to be especially concerned about immigration from Iran, though; mostly because it just isn't a big issue right now in terms of numbers of migrants, and because extremist groups in Iran don't appear to represent a present danger to any European country.

Hostage situation in French church

Comments