nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Hostage situation in French church

Bob24

Just saw the priest, two nuns, and 2 followers are currently being held hostage in a church in France.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-hostages-idUSKCN1060VA

http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-actu/2016/07/26/97001-20160726FILWWW00078-prise-d-otage-en-cours-dans-une-eglise-de-saint-etienne-du-rouvray-seine-maritime.php

Hopefully not yet another terrorist attack :-/

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

jmayo

unseenfootage wrote: »

Tommy Robinson?

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

Yeah shoot the messenger.

The truth hurts for some.

For instance ...
is he not correct when he says if two white guys went into a mosque and slit the throat of an Imam there would be uproar not just in the country it happened but across the world and muslims would be taking to the streets ?

is he not correct when he says politicians and officials don't care about muslim ghettos because they are not living near them and not faced with the fallout ?

Why are British authorities charging him for incitement to hatred for been pictured in France with a Fook ISIS flag ?

fed up sick and tired

RustyNut wrote: »

Your just making stuff up now. Britain doesn't have a written constitution.

Don't be sneaky. The poster didn't assert a 'written constitution'.

Isn't sharia law already part of the constitutions in some non-mus majority countries ? E.G Britain and Canada ? Or at least there is a major push for it.

So your objection is irrelevant.

Just because Britain doesn't have a codified constitution doesn't mean she doesn't have a constitution. She does. And the poster is quite correct to refer to a British constitution, contrary to your red herring.

Unlike most modern states, Britain does not have a codified constitution but an unwritten one formed of Acts of Parliament, court judgments and conventions. Professor Robert Blackburn explains this system, including Magna Carta’s place within it, and asks whether the UK should now have a written constitution.

For most people, especially abroad, the United Kingdom does not have a constitution at all in the sense most commonly used around the world — a document of fundamental importance setting out the structure of government and its relationship with its citizens. All modern states, saving only the UK, New Zealand and Israel, have adopted a documentary constitution of this kind, the first and most complete model being that of the United States of America in 1788. However, in Britain we certainly say that we have a constitution, but it is one that exists in an abstract sense, comprising a host of diverse laws, practices and conventions that have evolved over a long period of time
- See more at: http://www.bl.uk/magna-carta/articles/britains-unwritten-constitution#sthash.XhtfCuRK.dpuf

http://www.bl.uk/magna-carta/articles/britains-unwritten-constitution

Ulysses Gaze

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!

And Islam will not be the agent of change for that.

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?

Gert Wilders has a policy for this. What it comes down to is banning Islam. He'd ban halal slaughter (but not Kosher), ban building of new Mosques and start tearing current ones down. Ban religious schools and force integration of the sexes everywhere. Ban wearing Islamic garments in public. He even wants to ban the Koran (equating it to Mein Kamp).

Basically, he would make it so intolerable for Muslims to live in Holland that he thinks they would leave of their own volition.

Of course if he did that, he'd make Holland look like that other paragon of Human Rights that tried the same thing.

Angola!

[Deleted User]

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

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

One could quite easily argue that the Law Society has the competence to create law.

What is law? An enforceable obligation between parties? If that's what a law is, and I think it's quite a neat definition, then regulatory bodies and and do create laws, as do delegated authorities, Government ministers, contracting parties, and any arbitration body which imposes certain legally binding obligations, such as a Sharia Council in the United Kingdom.

Lackey

Zxclnic wrote: »

Lackey wrote: »

'Health warning' as to the accuracy of these 'lists', but apparently the two countries with the highest rape figures are the USA and South Africa.
So can we stop associating rape with Muslims.

I appreciate your point, but the rape statistics of the USA and South Africa have absolutley no baring on the fact that rapes in Italy have risen and rapes are being carried out by migrants.

The far right political party have made serious gains in Italy.

Apologies for taking thread off the topic of the poor murdered Priest,
but my original post about rapes were in reply to the poster who said that Italy had not suffered any terrorism despite its migrant intake, and I just cant see why the far right would see such a rise in popularity in Italy if the Ialians are happy with whats happening in their country.

Alive1

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

One could quite easily argue that the Law Society has the competence to create law.

What is law? An enforceable obligation between parties? If that's what a law is, and I think it's quite a neat definition, then regulatory bodies and and do create laws, as do delegated authorities, Government ministers, contracting parties, and any arbitration body which imposes certain legally binding obligations, such as a Sharia Council in the United Kingdom.

You clearly have no idea what the law is, especially in Ireland where no person can sign away their inalienable rights.
The Law Society has no Law making powers whatsoever.

Alive1

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

One could quite easily argue that the Law Society has the competence to create law.

What is law? An enforceable obligation between parties? If that's what a law is, and I think it's quite a neat definition, then regulatory bodies and and do create laws, as do delegated authorities, Government ministers, contracting parties, and any arbitration body which imposes certain legally binding obligations, such as a Sharia Council in the United Kingdom.

You clearly have no idea what the law is, especially in Ireland where no person can sign away their inalienable rights.
You definition of the law is dangerously flawed.
The Law Society has no Law making powers whatsoever.

Alive1

Widdershins wrote: »

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 ?

You chose to miss the point.
A poster continuously infers the character of the country is endanger of change due to immigration, my point is that the character of the country is far from perfect and in need of change.

unseenfootage

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

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.

Check his history.
EDL are confirmed fascist and racist numb nuts. It is probably these bunch of thugs that are beating up non immigrants and Muslims post brexit.
Tommy is a confused and corrupt idiot. He was a joint leader of the racist BFP for a bit.
He was accused of being anti sematic as well.
He is untrustworthy and volatile.
If I wanted to listen to the extreme right wing, there are intelligent people to listen to.

Widdershins

Alive1 wrote: »

You chose to miss the point.
A poster continuously infers the character of the country is endanger of change due to immigration, my point is that the character of the country is far from perfect and in need of change.

No I don't .No country is perfect . you miss the point . the contention is that an excess of migration by one quite drastically different culture can negatively change the character (if you or they want to call it that ). And more social problems to deal with will hinder progress on existing ones.

Widdershins

unseenfootage wrote: »

If I wanted to listen to the extreme right wing, there are intelligent people to listen to.

genuine curiosity -who ?

unseenfootage

Widdershins wrote: »

genuine curiosity -who ?

I don't have to mention who.
My point was simply that Robinson is an idiot.

Curly Judge

Alive1 wrote: »

You chose to miss the point.
A poster continuously infers the character of the country is endanger of change due to immigration, my point is that the character of the country is far from perfect and in need of change.

And the way to change it for the better is to import boatloads of 15th century thinkers?

jmayo

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!

So the solution to moving on from a catholic driven ethos that prevents abortions even in cases of fetal abnormalities or often in cases where there is a danger to the life of a mother is to move towards a society where a large number of people believe that the word of a woman is less than that of a man, homosexuality should be punished, women accused of adultery or sex outside marriage should be punished, women who are raped should be punished or forced to marry their rapist, women should be subservient to men, women should be covered and segregated ?

The amount of self hatred some have and I really think the amount of hatred towards the catholic church is now getting past a bloody joke.

You do know that all the freedoms won in spite of the influence of the catholic church over the years will start being eroded and reversed into something distinctly worse if we just continue growing our muslim population.

Increasing muslim populations are divisive and destablising resulting in ghettoisation, hatred and eventually fundamentalism.

[Deleted User]

Alive1 wrote: »

You clearly have no idea what the law is, especially in Ireland where no person can sign away their inalienable rights.

I am not talking about inalienable rights.

You are confusing primary legislation with the word 'law'.

A law is nothing more than a legal obligation, which can indeed emanate from the Legislature or the Executive, but also can be created between individuals, corporate bodies, firms, or regulatory bodies such as the Law Society or the Bar Council or, in theory, a Sharia Council, so long they follow fair procedures, all parties agree to be bound, and these bodies do not impinge on parties' inalienable rights or act ultra vires.

Alive1

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I am not talking about inalienable rights.

You are confusing primary legislation with the word 'law'.

A law is nothing more than a legal obligation, which can indeed emanate from the Legislature or the Executive, but also can be created between individuals, corporate bodies, firms, or regulatory bodies such as the Law Society or the Bar Council or, in theory, a Sharia Council, so long they follow fair procedures, all parties agree to be bound, and these bodies do not impinge on parties' inalienable rights or act ultra vires.

You are quite wrong.
Law cannot be created between individuals or entities, all that they can create is agreements (contracts) which are wholly unenforceable unless deemed by a court to be in accordance with the law.

Samaris

Surely laws are the framework through which legally binding contracts can be made, but said binding contracts are not actually -laws- themselves.

i.e. A company can make a rule that, oh, workers can't smoke during contracted hours (including breaks). This is not a -law-, and it does not apply outside that company. But it is legally enforceable by the legistlative framework that allows for "a company may make rules affecting their workers and restricting their legal rights within certain bounds (where exercising their legal rights may cause a danger or an inconvenience to the company) as long as they do not obstruct their worker's inalienable rights"*

In that case, the applicable LAW is the one that applies to all the companies in the relevant country/area, but the RULE of the individual company isn't a law in itself.

*Note, this is not the wording of any law, but I'm pretty sure it's hedged around something akin to that.

Alive1

Samaris wrote: »

Surely laws are the framework through which legally binding contracts can be made, but said binding contracts are not actually -laws- themselves.

i.e. A company can make a rule that, oh, workers can't smoke during contracted hours (including breaks). This is not a -law-, and it does not apply outside that company. But it is legally enforceable by the legistlative framework that allows for "a company may make rules affecting their workers and restricting their legal rights within certain bounds (where exercising their legal rights may cause a danger or an inconvenience to the company) as long as they do not obstruct their worker's inalienable rights"*

In that case, the applicable LAW is the one that applies to all the companies in the relevant country/area, but the RULE of the individual company isn't a law in itself.

*Note, this is not the wording of any law, but I'm pretty sure it's hedged around something akin to that.

Again, wrong.
No company has a right nor could seek to enforce a right to as you say "Restrict the legal rights" of their employees.
Nobody other that the courts can restrict the legal rights of any person, and then then save only in accordance with the law either statute, Constitutional , or supra-constitutional.

[Deleted User]

Samaris wrote: »

Surely laws are the framework through which legally binding contracts can be made, but said binding contracts are not actually -laws- themselves.

they are not primary legislation, but they are legal obligations, and as such, constitute law.

The "framework" you mention is simply the legal system through which laws pass, where rights & obligations are conferred by individuals, firms and the State upon one another. There is no meaningful distinction between 'law' and 'lawful obligation'.

There is a big difference between 'law' and 'primary legislation', which perhaps is the source of the confusion.

Samaris

Alive1 wrote: »

Again, wrong.
No company has a right nor could seek to enforce a right to as you say "Restrict the legal rights" of their employees.
Nobody other that the courts can restrict the legal rights of any person, and then then save only in accordance with the law either statute, Constitutional , or supra-constitutional.

What about when the employee has signed a contract agreeing to be bound to the company's rules and working hours, thus restricting their right to wander off when they like (or smoke in their breaktimes!). It's not a law, but it's restricting the legal right of the person to go where they like, when they like. And if the person keeps breaking it, they can be viably dismissed, which will be backed up by the framework of laws of the country which allows these contracts to be made, rules to be stipulated and appropriate punishments for non-conformance.

boat_builder

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!

name a predominantly muslim nation where women have it better than in ireland

Zxclnic

Samaris, Alive 1, and ATNM...stop waving your mickeys about and get back on topic please.

conorhal

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.

Well at least you admit it. The problem with that is the number of people you're willing to throw under the bus for that utter narcissism.
The modern attitude of egotistical consumerist society, that the greater good can be damned as long as I have my fun, will be the ruin of Western Europe yet. And your post is all the more ironic coming from a poster who's username references a Greek general that defeated the Persians at Marathon and drove the East back across the Med.

end of the road

jmayo wrote: »

There are not just my solutions.
Of course we can implement nothing, but throwing out the welcome matt and blaming ourselves for non integration ala yourself.
See how well that has worked out.
Perhaps you can lecture some people in France about your solutions as they await the next attack.

have we blamed ourselves for non-integration? if we have that's news to me. i certainly haven't blamed myself, as i'm not to blame for someone else.

jmayo wrote: »

I think it is time we put the rights of our citizens ahead of the rights of terrorists or would be terrorists.

can't be done, human rights are human rights and are equal.

jmayo wrote: »

Interment can be done and has been done.
It may not always be successful.
Membership or association with terrorist organisations can lead one to being imprisoned and if it did in the case of Adel K an elderly gentleman would be alive today in France.

it can be done if the government is an extremist government, however it is against one's human rights. it has never been successful.

jmayo wrote: »

Why can't they be deported ?
Laws can easily be changed and put aside in event of the greater good.

putting laws asside is terrorism and extremism so any attempt to do it must be faught against. human rights and freedom are more important then non protection from the government.

jmayo wrote: »

I couldn't give two sh**s if you and your fellow thinkers don't mind being blown up.
But I do care about other people and whether or not they are at risk. And get this, more and more people are being to have my point of view.

well you should care. if you want to sign away your freedoms and human rights, that's fine. but do it somewhere else. i'm sure more and more gullible are starting to have your point of view, but rightly they will be scoffed at. freedom tolerence and democracy will win over extremism whether it be far right, far left, or religious. you and your views won't win. extremists won't win.

unseenfootage

He was Algerian so you have the black head part wrong.

The other lad was white.

Do you consider him to have a "dirty white head?"

Tombi!

Let's tone the aul racism down completely

gent9662

Terrible to hear this and disgusting. I find it funny however that the Vatican comes out with a statement stronger than any of the other murders. Should they not have said that they forgive the young men who did this? Is forgiveness not at the core of Catholic belief?

I am being very harsh here but this is the least tragic event of recent days! I'm sorry but what occurred in Nice was a crime of the highest nature but the Pope wasn't as vocal as the statement today.

unseenfootage

WATCH: ISIS Video Shows Normandy Priest Killers Pledging Allegiance to Islamic State

http://heavy.com/news/2016/07/isis-islamic-state-rouen-france-jacques-hamel-adel-kermiche-allegiance-video-full-uncensored-youtube-mp4-download/

[Deleted User]

Racism is ok if the person is a bad person?
Moronic opinion.

unseenfootage

dclane wrote: »

Terrible to hear this and disgusting. I find it funny however that the Vatican comes out with a statement stronger than any of the other murders. Should they not have said that they forgive the young men who did this? Is forgiveness not at the core of Catholic belief?

I am being very harsh here but this is the least tragic event of recent days! I'm sorry but what occurred in Nice was a crime of the highest nature but the Pope wasn't as vocal as the statement today.

It's unreasonable to expect him to condemn every atrocity. More than 50 kurdish supporters were killed in Qamishli Syria, when ISIS targeted a YPG conscription building. That hardly even got a mention.