Some UK Muslims think “concentration camps” are close

RDM_83 again · 19-12-2015 11:49am

Frank Grimes wrote: »

As Nodin pointed out, it was primarily targeting niqabs.

Headscarves were banned in public schools under a separate law, your interpretation of Islam is irrelevant to those who are being targeted under these laws.

They are examples of discriminatory laws passed that target Muslims, just because you agree with them doesn't change this fact.

Nodin wrote: »

Less than 2,000 were believed to wear it, so I'd suggest that's all rather a nonsense. It was pandering to the right to gain votes back from the NF. Never a good idea.

I don't get your logic, in the current threads about refugees/migration your both leaning heavily judgments on international law and the ECHR.
Either the ECHR is fallible and sometimes makes judgments that are deeply flawed as seems to be your view here, or its infallible which seems to be your view on other threads when people raise problems with it.
Which is it because at the minute it seems to be an exercise in hypocrisy.

Frank Grimes · 19-12-2015 12:19pm

RDM_83 again wrote: »

I don't get your logic, in the current threads about refugees/migration your both leaning heavily judgments on international law and the ECHR.
Either the ECHR is fallible and sometimes makes judgments that are deeply flawed as seems to be your view here, or its infallible which seems to be your view on other threads when people raise problems with it.
Which is it because at the minute it seems to be an exercise in hypocrisy.

I've only mentioned international law (that I can recall) in the context of obligations to accept refugees, I never mentioned anything about the ECHR (that I can recall) nor did I ever (to my recollection) state that international law and/or the ECHR are infallible. If you want to have a go at something I post at least address it rather than throwing around vague 'accusations' about what I post in other threads.

RDM_83 again · 19-12-2015 12:38pm

Frank Grimes wrote: »

I've only mentioned international law (that I can recall) in the context of obligations to accept refugees, I never mentioned anything about the ECHR (that I can recall) nor did I ever (to my recollection) state that international law and/or the ECHR are infallible. If you want to have a go at something I post at least address it rather than throwing around vague 'accusations' about what I post in other threads.

Yeah apologies actually it was a different poster

marmurr1916 wrote: »

EU law says that an asylum seeker's claim should normally be dealt with in the EU country in which they first arrived. For example, if an asylum seeker arrives first in Greece, Greece should normally deal with the asylum seeker's case.

However, the same EU law also gives an EU country in which an asylum seeker subsequently travels to the right to waive this requirement. For example, if an an asylum seeker arrives first in Greece, then travels to Germany, Germany can choose to deal with that asylum seeker's case if it wants to.

In reality, EU states that aren't the first country of arrival can choose whether or not to deal with an asylum claim and this choice is given to them by EU law.

In addition, every EU member state is also a member of the Council of Europe, a non-EU organisation that has drawn up the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms, better known as the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The court that regulates the ECHR is the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR).

The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that asylum seekers who travelled to Belgium could not be transferred back to Greece because of the poor conditions faced by asylum seekers in Greece, thus breaching their human rights.

Similarly, the ECtHR ruled that asylum seekers could not be transferred back to Italy from Switzerland (not an EU member but voluntarily adheres to the Dublin Convention rules) because of poor conditions faced by asylum seekers in Italy, thus breaching their human rights.

Therefore, the law (both EU law and European human rights law) does NOT require all asylum seekers to be returned to the EU country they first arrived in and gives them protection from being returned to European countries that fail to meet basic human rights standards.

EU law (the 'Dublin Convention') permits any EU country to choose whether or not to deal with claims from asylum seekers who arrived first in another EU country.

European human rights law prevents asylum seekers from being returned to European countries whose treatment of asylum seekers does not meet basic human rights standards.

View still stands about Nodin though as he thanked this post

Nodin · 19-12-2015 12:56pm

RDM_83 again wrote: »

I don't get your logic, in the current threads about refugees/migration your both leaning heavily judgments on international law and the ECHR.
Either the ECHR is fallible and sometimes makes judgments that are deeply flawed as seems to be your view here, or its infallible which seems to be your view on other threads when people raise problems with it.
Which is it because at the minute it seems to be an exercise in hypocrisy.

Just because it isn't ruled discriminatory in law doesn't mean it isn't discriminatory in fact.

wakka12 · 19-12-2015 1:17pm

Alexis Sanchez wrote: »

Not this shíte again. France banned ALL garments that obscures a person's appearance in public places. It includes masks, helmets and balaclavas. The ban does not specifically target Islamic headwear.

Ireland needs to introduce a similar law for public buildings, like post offices, so thieves can be identified by CCTV, or else there's no point in having CCTV.

http://www.france24.com/en/20100210-two-burqa-clad-robbers-hold-post-office-near-paris

Im undecided as to whether I agree with the ban or not, but this argument just reminds me a lot of the marriage referendum argument. People said the ban on same sex marriage was for everyone, therefore straight people can't marry the same gender either = equal rights. But thats bull****, only gay people want to marry the same sex.
And its the same with muslims in Europe, as far as I know they are the only cultural group who wear garments that cover the face as part of their religious identity during normal daily life. So the ban only affects muslims..

ilkhanid · 19-12-2015 2:27pm

Nodin wrote: »

Just because it isn't ruled discriminatory in law doesn't mean it isn't discriminatory in fact.

The garment itself is discriminatory. It discriminates against women.

jackofalltrades · 19-12-2015 3:28pm

Nodin wrote: »

Just because it isn't ruled discriminatory in law doesn't mean it isn't discriminatory in fact.

Nodin Fact

A fact that has been disproven in the highest court in Europe, but that may still be sort of a fact.

wakka12 wrote: »

Im undecided as to whether I agree with the ban or not, but this argument just reminds me a lot of the marriage referendum argument. People said the ban on same sex marriage was for everyone, therefore straight people can't marry the same gender either = equal rights. But thats bull****, only gay people want to marry the same sex.
And its the same with muslims in Europe, as far as I know they are the only cultural group who wear garments that cover the face as part of their religious identity during normal daily life. So the ban only affects muslims..

There's a Jewish sect in which women wear the Burqa, so it's not just a tiny minority of Muslim women that this law well affect.

Nodin · 19-12-2015 4:14pm

ilkhanid wrote: »

The garment itself is discriminatory. It discriminates against women.

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Nodin Fact

A fact that has been disproven in the highest court in Europe, but that may still be sort of a fact.

There's a Jewish sect in which women wear the Burqa, so it's not just a tiny minority of Muslim women that this law well affect.

I refer ye both to the rather lucid point made in post 276.

Nodin · 19-12-2015 4:37pm

Muslims have no grounds to worry....despite Britain First, Pegida, the NF, the Northern League, the PVV, the SD, attacks on mosques, endless internet yammer, lies, demonization, a swiss minaret ban.......

kettlehead · 19-12-2015 4:54pm

Nodin wrote: »

Muslims have no grounds to worry....despite Britain First, Pegida, the NF, the Northern League, the PVV, the SD, attacks on mosques, endless internet yammer, lies, demonization, a swiss minaret ban.......

The Paris massacre, the Charlie Hebdo murders, the Copenhagen attacks, the grooming gangs operating throughout the UK, the fact that 5000 European Muslims joined ISIS, the radical Mosques and so on and so forth. Yet, if non Muslims bring up their very real fears and concerns they are labelled "Islamophobic". I think the aforementioned are a bit more serious than "internet yammer" and legal political parties.

Nodin · 19-12-2015 5:03pm

kettlehead wrote: »

The Paris massacre, the Charlie Hebdo murders, the Copenhagen attacks, the grooming gangs operating throughout the UK, the fact that 5000 European Muslims joined ISIS, the radical Mosques and so on and so forth. Yet, if non Muslims bring up their very real fears and concerns they are labelled "Islamophobic". I think the aforementioned are a bit more serious than "internet yammer" and legal political parties.

That reminds me of a quote
"The Jews should ask, Why us? It is not for me to ask that question. Maybe it’s how they have acted over the thousands of years. Maybe it is all our fault. Our Riga tour includes the NKVD headquarters, and the Skirotawa train station, where Jews also played a role."

http://www.jpost.com/Not-Just-News/Q-and-A-with-Holocaust-denier-David-Irving-Im-not-an-anti-Semite-yet-415004

kettlehead · 19-12-2015 5:08pm

Comparing what happened to the Jews during the Holocaust to the situation with Muslims today. An absurd comparison to try and make.

Speaking of Jews, they fear the rise of antisemitism due to the influx of Muslims. They question whether they have a future in Europe.

http://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/Chief-Rabbi-of-Brussels-There-is-no-future-for-Jews-in-Europe-435069

mynameis905 · 19-12-2015 5:10pm

a

kettlehead wrote: »

The Paris massacre, the Charlie Hebdo murders, the Copenhagen attacks, the grooming gangs operating throughout the UK, the fact that 5000 European Muslims joined ISIS, the radical Mosques and so on and so forth. Yet, if non Muslims bring up their very real fears and concerns they are labelled "Islamophobic". I think the aforementioned are a bit more serious than "internet yammer" and legal political parties.

+1

It's all Islamophobia this and minority rights that as long as they're in a minority. Visit any Muslim state to witness what happens in countries where Islam is the dominant religion. All those bastions of freedom, liberal values and tolerance like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan etc.

Islam, like all religions is a cancer on society. We'll be far better off as a species when this fairy tale nonsense is relegated to the history books. We should follow the Swiss and French - ban the wearing of burqas and construction of minarets and make sure our schools are aggressively secular.

suicide_circus · 19-12-2015 5:24pm

Islamophobia is a word used to blur the line between the people and the faith. It implies that if you have a problem with the faith that you have a problem with all Muslims. It's designed to shut down discourse and debate.

mynameis905 · 19-12-2015 5:28pm

suicide_circus wrote: »

Islamophobia is a word used to blur the line between the people and the faith. It implies that if you have a problem with the faith that you have a problem with all Muslims. It's designed to shut down discourse and debate.

Absolutely yes. It's the same with the conflation of criticism of Zionism/Israel with anti-semitism.

Nodin · 19-12-2015 5:31pm

kettlehead wrote: »

Comparing what happened to the Jews during the Holocaust to the situation with Muslims today. ............

I didn't compare it to the holocaust, and Irving was speaking in regards to treatment of Jews over History.

You've asked more or less the same question irving asked. You use the same "logic".

Nodin · 19-12-2015 5:32pm

mynameis905 wrote: »

a

+1

It's all Islamophobia this and minority rights that as long as they're in a minority. Visit any Muslim state to witness what happens in countries where Islam is the dominant religion. All those bastions of freedom, liberal values and tolerance like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan etc.

Islam, like all religions is a cancer on society. We'll be far better off as a species when this fairy tale nonsense is relegated to the history books. We should follow the Swiss and French - ban the wearing of burqas and construction of minarets and make sure our schools are aggressively secular.

Good thing theres no stereotyping and targeting of muslims going on. Otherwise they might have cause to worry.

The_Valeyard · 19-12-2015 5:49pm

mynameis905 wrote: »

a

Islam, like all religions is a cancer on society. We'll be far better off as a species when this fairy tale nonsense is relegated to the history books. We should follow the Swiss and French - ban the wearing of burqas and construction of minarets and make sure our schools are aggressively secular.

But this viewpoint is just as extreme as as fundamentalist religions?? Same sides of a coin. Your just replacing extreme religion with extreme secularism (your version of it). Making schools aggressively secular is equally as bad as faith schooling. This is not the way to go.

mynameis905 · 19-12-2015 5:57pm

The_Valeyard wrote: »

But this viewpoint is just as extreme as as fundamentalist religions?? Same sides of a coin. Your just replacing extreme religion with extreme secularism (your version of it). Making schools aggressively secular is equally as bad as faith schooling. This is not the way to go.

No it's not. The other subjects that are taught in schools have an actual basis in reality. The idea that religion is taught as fact based on words scribbled down by an illiterate goat herder 1400 years ago is laughable. We teach children about science, mathematics & biology and in the next class they learn fairy stories about the existence of heaven and hell and omnipotent sky gods. How can that possibly make sense?

You provide me with any evidence that some form of supernatural deity exists and I'll recant in a heartbeat.

wakka12 · 19-12-2015 5:58pm

The_Valeyard wrote: »

But this viewpoint is just as extreme as as fundamentalist religions?? Same sides of a coin. Your just replacing extreme religion with extreme secularism (your version of it). Making schools aggressively secular is equally as bad as faith schooling. This is not the way to go.

How is that in any way the same? Why should it be considered okay for religion to be combined with education just because thats how its always been? There is no reason to argue that religion should be involved in the education system. If you want to practise religion go to a religious institute , not an educational one.. There are different entities and should be treated as such

suicide_circus · 19-12-2015 5:59pm

If parents want to teach their children absurd and contradictory narratives about the nature of existance that's one thing but the state should not be involved. What next?

"After PE we have double Alchemy"

"Look mam, I got a B in phrenology!"

Nodin · 19-12-2015 6:10pm

suicide_circus wrote: »

If parents want to teach their children absurd and contradictory narratives about the nature of existance that's one thing but the state should not be involved. What next?

"After PE we have double Alchemy"

"Look mam, I got a B in phrenology!"

Are you saying my masters on the fore bump of the corkonian cranium is "absurd"?

The_Valeyard · 19-12-2015 6:11pm

mynameis905 wrote: »

No it's not. The other subjects that are taught in schools have an actual basis in reality. The idea that religion is taught as fact based on words scribbled down by an illiterate goat herder 1400 years ago is laughable. We teach children about science, mathematics & biology and in the next class they learn fairy stories about the existence of heaven and hell and omnipotent sky gods. How can that possibly make sense?

You provide me with any evidence that some form of supernatural deity exists and I'll recant in a heartbeat.

Lack of evidence is not evidence and I am under no obligation from your ranting to provide you 'evidence' of a God of Gods, that was not the point I was making. You are just avoiding the point that your view of secularism is just as dangerous and laughable as that of fundamental {insert religion here}. We all believe in a fair and equal society, but your posts read about 'fairytales' religion is a 'cancer' they are not posts about tolerance, they are the same viewpoints to that of Isis or other extremists, "they do not believe /or believe in A,B, C that makes them the enemy or illogical creatures" Madness. In a planet that has a vast religious viewpoint in near 7 billion people, to simply dismiss there religious backgrounds as laughable and pathetic, comes across very smug and equal to that of other extremist viewpoints.

wakka12 wrote: »

How is that in any way the same? Why should it be considered okay for religion to be combined with education just because thats how its always been? There is no reason to argue that religion should be involved in the education system. If you want to practise religion go to a religious institute , not an educational one.. There are different entities and should be treated as such

Considering that billions of people believe in some sort of religion, it is essential that children learn what these cultures and people believe in, otherwise ignorance and hatred takes hold. To look down at these religions as fairytales or hocus pocus is simply insulting to many people, like the way you might find their attitudes towards atheists or non believers as disgusting and ill informed.

The Randy Riverbeast · 19-12-2015 6:16pm

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Considering that billions of people believe in some sort of religion, it is essential that children learn what these cultures and people believe in, otherwise ignorance and hatred takes hold. To look down at these religions as fairytales or hocus pocus is simply insulting to many people, like the way you might find their attitudes towards atheists or non believers as disgusting and ill informed.

Isn't that what most religions think of and teach about each other?

Frank Grimes · 19-12-2015 6:20pm

mynameis905 wrote: »

We should follow the Swiss and French - ban the wearing of burqas and construction of minarets and make sure our schools are aggressively secular.

What do you think will be achieved by doing something like this?

Nodin · 19-12-2015 6:24pm

Frank Grimes wrote: »

What do you think will be achieved by doing something like this?

It will obviously stop the spread of Islam, just like the various laws against Catholicism turned Ireland into the staunch Episcopalian nation it is today.

suicide_circus · 19-12-2015 6:27pm

Frank Grimes wrote: »

What do you think will be achieved by doing something like this?

Well indeed, it has to be all or nothing

mynameis905 · 19-12-2015 6:32pm

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Lack of evidence is not evidence

Have a read about Russell's Teapot

The burden of proof lies on the person making the claim. You claim there is a God. I refute your claim so to further your argument (should you wish to) you need to provide evidence of the existence of one. Obviously you can't. In the absence of any evidence any logical thinker will naturally lean towards atheism.

The_Valeyard wrote: »

I am under no obligation from your ranting to provide you 'evidence' of a God of Gods, that was not the point I was making.

I wasn't asking you to provide evidence. Doesn't really matter to me whether you believe or not.

The_Valeyard wrote: »

You are just avoiding the point that your view of secularism is just as dangerous and laughable as that of fundamental {insert religion here}

You're making the laughable claim that secularism is dangerous. Can you provide me with some evidence and facts to back it up?

The_Valeyard wrote: »

We all believe in a fair and equal society

Except most of the worlds major religions. Homophobia, discrimination, capital punishment & misogyny are deeply entrenched in all of the Abrahamic faiths.

The_Valeyard wrote: »

but your posts read about 'fairytales' religion is a 'cancer' they are not posts about tolerance, they are the same viewpoints to that of Isis or other extremists

Right, because everyone knows that atheists are trying to establish a caliphate in the Middle East and in the process kill thousands, sell women into slavery, throw homosexuals from buildings and generally bring as much misery to the human race as possible. Is that seriously the best argument you can come up with?

The_Valeyard wrote: »

"they do not believe /or believe in A,B, C that makes them the enemy or illogical creatures"

I don't consider religious people in and of themselves to be the 'enemy'. Illogical? Yes.

The_Valeyard wrote: »

In a planet that has a vast religious viewpoint in near 7 billion people, to simply dismiss there religious backgrounds as laughable and pathetic, comes across very smug and equal to that of other extremist viewpoints.

There are also millions and millions of bigots, homophobes, rapists and murders of all faiths and of no faith at all. Since when did the number of people who believe in something make it right?

wakka12 · 19-12-2015 6:42pm

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Lack of evidence is not evidence and I am under no obligation from your ranting to provide you 'evidence' of a God of Gods, that was not the point I was making. You are just avoiding the point that your view of secularism is just as dangerous and laughable as that of fundamental {insert religion here}. We all believe in a fair and equal society, but your posts read about 'fairytales' religion is a 'cancer' they are not posts about tolerance, they are the same viewpoints to that of Isis or other extremists, "they do not believe /or believe in A,B, C that makes them the enemy or illogical creatures" Madness. In a planet that has a vast religious viewpoint in near 7 billion people, to simply dismiss there religious backgrounds as laughable and pathetic, comes across very smug and equal to that of other extremist viewpoints.

Considering that billions of people believe in some sort of religion, it is essential that children learn what these cultures and people believe in, otherwise ignorance and hatred takes hold. To look down at these religions as fairytales or hocus pocus is simply insulting to many people, like the way you might find their attitudes towards atheists or non believers as disgusting and ill informed.

And because billions of people believe in it doesn't give it any more grounds to be taught in schools. Its a delusion ,literally, a widely followed mass delusion yes but a delusion none the less. And should be a childs choice to follow a religion if they wish to do so, not being forced to from a young age. Children have enough to learn about without filling their heads with myths, why don't we teach them about social issues in society, or gardening , or outdoor survival. You know something useful and beneficial.

The_Valeyard · 19-12-2015 6:46pm

mynameis905 wrote: »

Have a read about Russell's Teapot

The burden of proof lies on the person making the claim. You claim there is a God. I refute your claim so to further your argument (should you wish to) you need to provide evidence of the existence of one. Obviously you can't. In the absence of any evidence any logical thinker will naturally lean towards atheism.

I never claimed to be a believer or non believer that was your assumption of the debate. Using Russell Teapot is not an appropriate response as it simply starts a whole new argument surrounding Abiogenesis. Nor is your point consistent with the topic of the thread, just an attempt to take the conversation away from it.

I wasn't asking you to provide evidence. Doesn't really matter to me whether you believe or not.

Sure.

You're making the laughable claim that secularism is dangerous. Can you provide me with some evidence and facts to back it up?

Soviet Union, Mao's China, Pol Pots Cambodia. Pluralism is a much more correct approach, than your rash and absurd notion of more or less condemning religion to the home, as if it were a plague, or to use your language 'cancer'

Except most of the worlds major religions. Homophobia, discrimination, capital punishment & misogyny are deeply entrenched in all of the Abrahamic faiths.

Ah, so blame the religion and not the culture surrounding that faith which naturally influenced that particular faith.

Right, because everyone knows that atheists are trying to establish a caliphate in the Middle East and in the process kill thousands, sell women into slavery, throw homosexuals from buildings and generally bring as much misery to the human race as possible. Is that seriously the best argument you can come up with?

No but atheists in the past have tried to adopted religious free states leading to the murder and torture of millions throughout the world.

I don't consider religious people in and of themselves to be the 'enemy'. Illogical? Yes.

Religions are not illogical nor are the people who follow them, to view billions of people as illogical for believing in the idea of a higher power is absurd just because you do not share those beliefs.

There are also millions and millions of bigots, homophobes, rapists and murders of all faiths and of no faith at all. Since when did the number of people who believe in something make it right?

multi post, not working correctly.

Some UK Muslims think “concentration camps” are close

Comments