The Hazards of Belief

Michael OBrien · 17-02-2016 11:19AM

robindch wrote: »

Jewish-controlled schools in London have been removing images of women from school books, deleting references to "christmas", refusing to allow pupils to speak with female government inspectors, not teaching the kids English and generally acting the maggot:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/london-orthodox-jewish-schools-removing-images-of-women-and-the-mention-of-christmas-a6877941.html

The full reports on the two schools from the above article are below and paint an unpleasant picture:

http://reports.ofsted.gov.uk/inspection-reports/find-inspection-report/provider/ELS/100289
http://reports.ofsted.gov.uk/inspection-reports/find-inspection-report/provider/ELS/131170

Can't help but wonder where are the protests from other religious schools + organizations claiming "persecution" and "war on christmas".

I am amazed that these schools are allowed at all, they wilfully damage human society.
The Beis Aharon School charges close to 3k sterling per student and has nearly 350 students. They earn over a million sterling a year in student fees.
And they don't want to teach the kids how to integrate or even appreciate the society they are going to live in.

Absolam · 17-02-2016 11:21AM

silverharp wrote: »

All couples are subject to the law and if the law was broken they would be separated. Its possible for an ethnic Danish girl under the age of consent to end up being taken advantage of in a similar way , the courts would intervene regardless of her view.

The Danish Minister gave no indication that she even thought any law might have been broken, she quite specifically said "It is completely unacceptable that there are currently minors within the Danish asylum system living with their spouses or partners and I have asked the Danish Immigration Service to immediately put a stop to it". Not illegal... unacceptable. Are you aware of any of the refugees breaking laws that would cause them to be separated? Maybe there was some due process, a guilty of a crime verdict somewhere that we haven't heard about?

silverharp wrote: »

These people at the end of the day chose to go to Denmark , and its up to them to decide if the compromises are worth it. From the Dane's perspective, individuals like this might end up being permanent residents so I'd argue that its in Denmark's interests to enforce Danish cultural norms where the law is being broken.

These people at the end of the day didn't choose to go to Denmark; they're refugees fleeing a war. Should they ever decide they want to be permanent residents they will have to integrate, but even so I haven't heard the Danish authorities are generally known to separate couples who are considered to be 'unacceptable'. Have you?

Michael OBrien · 17-02-2016 11:26AM

Absolam wrote: »

The Danish Minister gave no indication that she even thought any law might have been broken, she quite specifically said "It is completely unacceptable that there are currently minors within the Danish asylum system living with their spouses or partners and I have asked the Danish Immigration Service to immediately put a stop to it". Not illegal... unacceptable. Are you aware of any of the refugees breaking laws that would cause them to be separated? Maybe there was some due process, a guilty of a crime verdict somewhere that we haven't heard about?

These people at the end of the day didn't choose to go to Denmark; they're refugees fleeing a war.

Having sex with minors is illegal in denmark isn't it. Case closed. So what if child molesters are fleeing a war, they are still child molesters. Children are groomed in those societies to think it normal to marry and have sex with adults, it does not make it acceptable, and certainly not legal when they come to any civilised country.

Here is a Nat Geo doc on child marriage.

Also many of the reasons for child marriage does not apply when in Denmark.

JPNelsforearm · 17-02-2016 11:31AM

Michael OBrien wrote: »

Having sex with minors is illegal in denmark isn't it. Case closed. So what if child molesters are fleeing a war, they are still child molesters. Children are groomed in those societies to think it normal to marry and have sex with adults, it does not make it acceptable, and certainly not legal when they come to any civilised country.

Its ok, its Islam.

silverharp · 17-02-2016 11:36AM

Absolam wrote: »

The Danish Minister gave no indication that she even thought any law might have been broken, she quite specifically said "It is completely unacceptable that there are currently minors within the Danish asylum system living with their spouses or partners and I have asked the Danish Immigration Service to immediately put a stop to it". Not illegal... unacceptable. Are you aware of any of the refugees breaking laws that would cause them to be separated? Maybe there was some due process, a guilty of a crime verdict somewhere that we haven't heard about?

These people at the end of the day didn't choose to go to Denmark; they're refugees fleeing a war. Should they ever decide they want to be permanent residents they will have to integrate, but even so I haven't heard the Danish authorities are generally known to separate couples who are considered to be 'unacceptable'. Have you?

Having sex with a minor is a crime . if a Danish teacher tried to run off with a primary school pupil the police would be called in. In the refugee cases the cultural understanding might go as far as deporting the husbands instead of actually prosecuting them which might be a reasonable compromise.

Michael OBrien · 17-02-2016 11:39AM

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Its ok, its Islam.

Much as I despise Islam, it is NOT just 'Islam', it is an interpretation of Islam that is used to support the practice. It is NOT mandated in the quran, which is the central and immutable holy work they have. Slavery yes, child brides, not so much.
The issue is Muhammed married a six year old and had sex with her at nine and those that see him as a paragon to follow, use that to justify child brides, but the practice predates Islam.

When people say something objectionable is Islam, even sarcastically, they are not being helpful as it is not entirely accurate. Because it is not ENTIRELY accurate, Muslims can declare their religion is not the cause of it (which is true historically, but not socially).

recedite · 17-02-2016 11:44AM

Absolam wrote: »

What are we specifying as the home country here; the country they arrived in, or the country they originated from?

I meant the country they arrived in.

Absolam wrote: »

There is no law of the land that says they cannot live together; no one has demonstrated that they are having a sexual relationship..

Lets look at what is happening; the Danes observe a child in the care or captivity of a man who is not the father of that child.
Danes attempt to move the child into care.
Man says "you can't do that, shes my wife. We're married. Its all legit under Sharia Law."
Danes say "f**k off you paedophile, were taking her into care".

Well done, the Danes.

silverharp · 17-02-2016 11:48AM

Michael OBrien wrote: »

Much as I despise Islam, it is NOT just 'Islam', it is an interpretation of Islam that is USSR to support the practice. It is NOT mandated in the quran, which is the central and immutable holy work they have. Slavery yes, child brides, not so much.
The issue is Muhammed married a six year old and had sex with her at nine and those that see him as a paragon to follow, use that to justify child brides, but the practice predates Islam.

When people say something objectionable is Islam, even sarcastically, they are not being helpful as it is not entirely accurate. Because it is not ENTIRELY accurate, Muslims can declare their religion is not the cause of it (which is true historically, but not socially).

Mandated means you must do something. In Islam there are passages about when it is acceptable which is basically after puberty begins. Their religion backs up the practice. In Britain an undercover reporter got about 1 in 3 imams to agree to perform an underage marriage. So there is certainly a doctrinal issue here

Michael OBrien · 17-02-2016 11:57AM

silverharp wrote: »

Mandated means you must do something. In Islam there are passages about when it is acceptable which is basically after puberty begins. Their religion backs up the practice. In Britain an undercover reporter got about 1 in 3 imams to agree to perform an underage marriage. So there is certainly a doctrinal issue here

Islam includes the Hadiths, which have some horrible statements, including what you may refer to. HOWEVER hadiths are not universally accepted as mandated Islam, some don't accept any of them, most muslims accept only some hadiths as reliable. If hadiths contradict the quran they are discredited in the eyes of many.

Now I have not memorised the quran, although I have read it, which is what I mentioned, not any Islamic text, but where does it support child brides there?

There are many many muslims that do not support child marriages, and can justify that textually. The practice does predate Islam, and has non theological reasons for it too, including protecting the child from OTHER child molesters, settling debts, family alliance formations, etc.

I never said that those that practice it cannot find justifications for it through Islam, only that it is an interpretation, not a core tenant in Islam.

Criticism of islam needs to be factual for it to be useful in challenging it. That is why I tried to clarify the issue.

Also Imams are in no way religiously infallible. There is no central authority in Islam, and an imam can be self appointed. Its like a protestant calling himself a pastor, it does not make him an expert in his religion. Finally 1 out of 3? That is hardly saying much. I am not surprised that some imams support it, in some ways. Most muslims are incredibly ignorant about their own texts.

silverharp · 17-02-2016 12:10PM

Michael OBrien wrote: »

Islam includes the Hadiths, which have some horrible statements, including what you may refer to. HOWEVER hadiths are not universally accepted as mandated Islam, some don't accept any of them, most muslims accept only some hadiths as reliable. If hadiths contradict the quran they are discredited in the eyes of many.

Now I have not memorised the quran, although I have read it, which is what I mentioned, not any Islamic text, but where does it support child brides there?

There are many many muslims that do not support child marriages, and can justify that textually. The practice does predate Islam, and has non theological reasons for it too, including protecting the child from OTHER child molesters, settling debts, family alliance formations, etc.

I never said that those that practice it cannot find justifications for it through Islam, only that it is an interpretation, not a core tenant in Islam.

Criticism of islam needs to be factual for it to be useful in challenging it. That is why I tried to clarify the issue.

Also Imams are in no way religiously infallible. There is no central authority in Islam, and an imam can be self appointed. Its like a protestant calling himself a pastor, it does not make him an expert in his religion. Finally 1 out of 3? That is hardly saying much. I am not surprised that some imams support it, in some ways. Most muslims are incredibly ignorant about their own texts.

What about 65.4 doesn't that give rules for when a prepubescent girl can remarry after being divorced?

Absolam · 17-02-2016 12:17PM

Michael OBrien wrote: »

Having sex with minors is illegal in denmark isn't it. Case closed.

Right. Because someone knows that's happening, right? There's nobody making assumptions before the fact here? It's just... the Minister didn't mention anyone having sex with minors, did she?

Michael OBrien wrote: »

So what if child molesters are fleeing a war, they are still child molesters. Children are groomed in those societies to think it normal to marry and have sex with adults, it does not make it acceptable, and certainly not legal when they come to any civilised country.

I think if you were following the conversation you might have picked up on the fact that what we think is 'normal' is a fairly unusual position; it is normal for sexually mature animals to have sex, including humans, and it has been acceptable even in western europe until relatively recently. No one is debating the legality of the situation, other than whether these refugees have actually done anything illegal. As for any civilised countries; that's a matter of perspective. Some might consider it uncivilised to separate a mother from her husband and children without her having commited a crime.

Michael OBrien wrote: »

Here is a Nat Geo doc on child marriage.
Also many of the reasons for child marriage does not apply when in Denmark.

Sure. Though no one is claiming they should be allowed to get married in Denmark, or even than Denmark should recognise their marriages, are they?

Absolam · 17-02-2016 12:22PM

silverharp wrote: »

Having sex with a minor is a crime . if a Danish teacher tried to run off with a primary school pupil the police would be called in. In the refugee cases the cultural understanding might go as far as deporting the husbands instead of actually prosecuting them which might be a reasonable compromise.

I'm pretty sure I mentioned it already, but I don't think the Danish Minister said anything about having sex with a minor? In fact I'm certain she didn't. No one has claimed that anyone actually had sex with a minor; the Minister is separating these couples (as I quoted, in my post that you just reproduced) because it was 'unacceptable'. Actually, I think I said all that in the post you quoted. Have you since discovered that any of the refugees being separated from their spouses has been prosecuted for (or even charged with) the crime of having sex with a minor?

Michael OBrien · 17-02-2016 12:25PM

silverharp wrote: »

What about 65.4 doesn't that give rules for when a prepubescent girl can remarry after being divorced?

"And those who no longer expect menstruation among your women - if you doubt, then their period is three months, and [also for] those who have not menstruated. And for those who are pregnant, their term is until they give birth. And whoever fears Allah - He will make for him of his matter ease."

Here is a quote from a muslim on that topic, that makes sense to me.

"Part 2: The Misconception about Verse 4, Chapter 65

And those who no longer expect menstruation among your women - if you doubt, then their (waiting) period is three months (relating to divorce), and [also for] those who did not menstruate. And for those who are pregnant, their term is until they give birth. (Quran, 65:4)

Here, traditional voices would have you believe that “those who did not menstruate” refers to prepubescent girls who have not “yet” attained puberty, thereby concluding that Islam permits child marriage. What is shameful is that they deliberately add the word “yet” to justify their medieval thought, which is to be found nowhere in the Arabic text of the verse.

Let’s dissect the verse, shall we? The verse starts off by discussing the waiting period for women who have ceased to menstruate, in the case of a divorce. Therefore, it has laid the context of adult women who are of menstruating age. Obviously then, “those who did not menstruate” is from the context of adult women who are supposed to menstruate, but did not do so. This medical condition is called Amenorrhea where a woman does not have menstrual periods. The waiting period for such women, then, is the same – 3 months."

Michael OBrien · 17-02-2016 12:38PM

Absolam wrote: »

Though no one is claiming they should be allowed to get married in Denmark, or even than Denmark should recognise their marriages, are they?

If they don't recognise their marriages, then an adult (usually much older) living with a minor, with the attitude of having sexual rights to her, is a problem that denmark would address.

The issue is not that the couple committed a crime PREVIOUSLY, as that practice was permitted in the other country. It is that they cannot live together NOW as the husband would commit child molestation in denmark as part of his marriage contract.

Do you think that the husband will not have SEX with the child in denmark?
That is the issue. Separation is one solution that would protect the minor from abuse.

silverharp · 17-02-2016 12:41PM

Michael OBrien wrote: »

"And those who no longer expect menstruation among your women - if you doubt, then their period is three months, and [also for] those who have not menstruated. And for those who are pregnant, their term is until they give birth. And whoever fears Allah - He will make for him of his matter ease."

Here is a quote from a muslim on that topic, that makes sense to me.

"Part 2: The Misconception about Verse 4, Chapter 65

And those who no longer expect menstruation among your women - if you doubt, then their (waiting) period is three months (relating to divorce), and [also for] those who did not menstruate. And for those who are pregnant, their term is until they give birth. (Quran, 65:4)

Here, traditional voices would have you believe that “those who did not menstruate” refers to prepubescent girls who have not “yet” attained puberty, thereby concluding that Islam permits child marriage. What is shameful is that they deliberately add the word “yet” to justify their medieval thought, which is to be found nowhere in the Arabic text of the verse.

Let’s dissect the verse, shall we? The verse starts off by discussing the waiting period for women who have ceased to menstruate, in the case of a divorce. Therefore, it has laid the context of adult women who are of menstruating age. Obviously then, “those who did not menstruate” is from the context of adult women who are supposed to menstruate, but did not do so. This medical condition is called Amenorrhea where a woman does not have menstrual periods. The waiting period for such women, then, is the same – 3 months."

I believe there is a hadith where Mohammed is asked what non menstrusted means and he replies due to their young age. It would also explain why sharia law does not set a minimum age.
At the end of the day its not me you have to convince . as long as the thinking within Islam is that it was acceptable when the Quran was written, which is a reasonable view given the time, then its an issue.
We are agreed that this is a human inspired book made up of thinking of the time. The problem is it lacks a Jesus character to put a lid on the violent and more barbaric aims if Islam. Good luck trying to come up with an uber liberal interpretation , but there will always be a market for a back to basics literal translation.

Michael OBrien · 17-02-2016 12:56PM

silverharp wrote: »

I believe there is a hadith where Mohammed is asked what non menstrusted means and he replies due to their young age. It would also explain why sharia law does not set a minimum age.
At the end of the day its not me you have to convince . as long as the thinking within Islam is that it was acceptable when the Quran was written, which is a reasonable view given the time, then its an issue.
We are agreed that this is a human inspired book made up of thinking of the time. The problem is it lacks a Jesus character to put a lid on the violent and more barbaric aims if Islam. Good luck trying to come up with an uber liberal interpretation , but there will always be a market for a back to basics literal translation.

Ok several issues here.
Hadiths were written up to 200 years after Mo lived. They are rumours and chinese whispers in many cases, often politically added to suit the time.
It is a serious error to think that ANY reference to what Mo said is what actually happened. Similar to the famous jesus story of the stoning of the woman. That was a later addition according to scholars. In other words, just made up.

There is no universal sharia law. You are referring to one interpretation of sharia law. Also sharia law, by its VERY nature, must not contradict the quran. If it does, it is not authentic.

It is also a false criticism of Islam (and any religion) to say that because it happened back then and seen as normal (which it was) then that carries forward to today. NO.
That is a strawman and you will not be taken seriously if you try to bring that to the table in any discussion about Islam. Hadiths can be viewed as a relic of the time, that is true. The quran is a different animal and that is where the argument gets tricky as it is both man made and believed theologically to be eternal and written originally by god and simply copied by man.

Jesus is one of the prophets of Islam, FYI. The quran mentions jesus far more than it does Mo. You are again thinking of the hadiths.
This is the issue here, the hadiths are NOT equal to the quran, not even close.

Nor am I seeking to be a 'liberal'. I despise Islam, as I do all the abrahamic faiths. There are many problems with the quran itself. The issue here is that child marriages are not drawn from the quran if you actually read it without adding undue bias to it.

My response about the surah shows no part taken out of context, does it? It comes from a muslim, so it is not me making stuff up.
Show me what part of the surah my response fails to address? Is it a fair response?
Changing your mind on that topic is a move in the right direction. EVERY mind that is changed is a move in the right direction.

I don't deny that there are plenty of muslims that do use Islam to justify their actions (as the link admits too, to its credit). But since MOST muslims are illiterate (over 60% cannot read) and MOST muslims have no concept of textual analysis, other than being spoonfed by their local lmam, it is dangerous to mix Islamic practice with textual support for that practice.

silverharp · 17-02-2016 01:47PM

Michael OBrien wrote: »

Ok several issues here.
Hadiths were written up to 200 years after Mo lived. They are rumours and chinese whispers in many cases, often politically added to suit the time.
It is a serious error to think that ANY reference to what Mo said is what actually happened. Similar to the famous jesus story of the stoning of the woman. That was a later addition according to scholars. In other words, just made up.

There is no universal sharia law. You are referring to one interpretation of sharia law. Also sharia law, by its VERY nature, must not contradict the quran. If it does, it is not authentic.

It is also a false criticism of Islam (and any religion) to say that because it happened back then and seen as normal (which it was) then that carries forward to today. NO.
That is a strawman and you will not be taken seriously if you try to bring that to the table in any discussion about Islam. Hadiths can be viewed as a relic of the time, that is true. The quran is a different animal and that is where the argument gets tricky as it is both man made and believed theologically to be eternal and written originally by god and simply copied by man.

Jesus is one of the prophets of Islam, FYI. The quran mentions jesus far more than it does Mo. You are again thinking of the hadiths.
This is the issue here, the hadiths are NOT equal to the quran, not even close.

Nor am I seeking to be a 'liberal'. I despise Islam, as I do all the abrahamic faiths. There are many problems with the quran itself. The issue here is that child marriages are not drawn from the quran if you actually read it without adding undue bias to it.

My response about the surah shows no part taken out of context, does it? It comes from a muslim, so it is not me making stuff up.
Show me what part of the surah my response fails to address? Is it a fair response?
Changing your mind on that topic is a move in the right direction. EVERY mind that is changed is a move in the right direction.

I don't deny that there are plenty of muslims that do use Islam to justify their actions (as the link admits too, to its credit). But since MOST muslims are illiterate (over 60% cannot read) and MOST muslims have no concept of textual analysis, other than being spoonfed by their local lmam, it is dangerous to mix Islamic practice with textual support for that practice.

back to that verse it is perfectly reasonable to read it as talking about girls who have not reached puberty. Plenty of Qurans even clarify it in annotations or the sentence reads "..not yet". Its not plausible that they would be concerned about adult women who never have

If Islam could agree that the Hadiths are of their time that would be great, as of now that is not a popular view so it forms part of the founding documents as far as Muslims are concerned

I'll have to re watch this this evening, but "the Masked Arab" is an ex Muslim and he puts out some good videos , I remember it putting a strong case together

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LE3QARjIZg

jackofalltrades · 17-02-2016 02:03PM

Absolam wrote: »

These people at the end of the day didn't choose to go to Denmark; they're refugees fleeing a war.

They did choose to go to Denmark though.
They could have stayed in a refugee camp or moved to a country that is more tolerant of their situation.
The country that you live in's law and rules apply to you, regardless of the choice that you had in being there.

JPNelsforearm · 17-02-2016 02:17PM

jackofalltrades wrote: »

They did choose to go to Denmark though.
They could have stayed in a refugee camp or moved to a country that is more tolerant of their situation.
The country that you live in's law and rules apply to you, regardless of the choice that you had in being there.

Exactly, the onus is on Europeans to adapt, and the responsibility placed on Europe, they could simply move to any of the wealthy or even peaceful Islamic states. But they choose not to.

Michael OBrien · 17-02-2016 02:37PM

silverharp wrote: »

back to that verse it is perfectly reasonable to read it as talking about girls who have not reached puberty. Plenty of Qurans even clarify it in annotations or the sentence reads "..not yet". Its not plausible that they would be concerned about adult women who never have

If Islam could agree that the Hadiths are of their time that would be great, as of now that is not a popular view so it forms part of the founding documents as far as Muslims are concerned

I'll have to re watch this this evening, but "the Masked Arab" is an ex Muslim and he puts out some good videos , I remember it putting a strong case together

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LE3QARjIZg

I do like that guy's videos, and I do agree with his views on the way the quran was interpreted by others. The issue I had was the "yet" part, which was not shown in the translations I read. The text does include what I mentioned too, about women who have not menstruated, but I do agree that the commentaries do seem to lump in girls too into that group.
The original point of these commands in the quran was to address pregnancies from the previous husbands, which of course, would not apply to children who have not menstruated (but would not exclude children that were old enough to have).
Thanks for the link. I had forgotten about the tasfirs.

MrPudding · 17-02-2016 04:26PM

An interesting article, the comments are a must read.

MrP

Nodin · 17-02-2016 05:16PM

Its been said that some of the lifeboats from the titanic were brought to America on the ships that brought the survivors, but that these were quickly destroyed by people taking bits as souvenirs.

Here, it would seem, poor aul Pope Frank almost meets a similar fate
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...per/?tid=sm_fb

recedite · 17-02-2016 07:54PM

MrPudding wrote: »

An interesting article, the comments are a must read.

The bill does not force transgender students to use facilities based on the sex they were assigned at birth but calls for school to make “reasonable accommodations”, such as setting aside unisex or staff bathrooms and locker rooms.

Are we supposed to be outraged at this, or is it a good thing?

Absolam · 17-02-2016 11:26PM

Michael OBrien wrote: »

If they don't recognise their marriages, then an adult (usually much older) living with a minor, with the attitude of having sexual rights to her, is a problem that denmark would address.

Because the Danish goverment has developed some method of determing that that person has 'the attitude of having sexual rights to her'? Actually, is there a law in Denmark against having 'the attitude of having sexual rights to her'? Becuase I have a suspicion there isn't...

Michael OBrien wrote: »

The issue is not that the couple committed a crime PREVIOUSLY, as that practice was permitted in the other country. It is that they cannot live together NOW as the husband would commit child molestation in denmark as part of his marriage contract.

Actually, the issue is the couple is being separated without any evidence of a crime being committed in Denmark being presented, something that wouldn't happen to any couples that aren't refugees in Denmark. Whether the husband would commit child molestation is as relevant as it is to any man in the street someone thinks would do it, which is to say he hasn't done it and can't be separated from his family just because someone thinks he would.

Michael OBrien wrote: »

Do you think that the husband will not have SEX with the child in denmark? That is the issue. Separation is one solution that would protect the minor from abuse.

I think everyone is innocent until proven guilty, a maxim that supposedly applies to everyone in Denmark, but apparently excludes refugees.

Absolam · 17-02-2016 11:44PM

recedite wrote: »

Lets look at what is happening; the Danes observe a child in the care or captivity of a man who is not the father of that child.
Danes attempt to move the child into care.
Man says "you can't do that, shes my wife. We're married. Its all legit under Sharia Law."
Danes say "f**k off you paedophile, were taking her into care".
Well done, the Danes.

Let's take another (less biased) look.
We've no reason to think this person is in the captivity of anyone, do we?
We've no reason to think the Danes are trying to move them into care either, do we?
We don't even have a reason to think the Danes are dumb enough to imagine that young adults that marry in other countries all marry paedophiles, do we?
All we know is that the Danish Minister (for Integration!) intends to separate the couples because she feels it's "unacceptable that minors should live with their spouses".

Well done, the Danes?

Absolam · 18-02-2016 12:00AM

jackofalltrades wrote: »

They did choose to go to Denmark though.
They could have stayed in a refugee camp or moved to a country that is more tolerant of their situation.
The country that you live in's law and rules apply to you, regardless of the choice that you had in being there.

They are in a refugee camp, it's in Denmark. Where they want to be (other than at home in their own country without being bombed and shot at) hasn't been specified; they may have wanted to go to Sweden, or the UK, or just about anywhere. Give that Denmark’s immigration ministry has published advertisements in Lebanese media aimed at discouraging migrants from coming to the country, and has publicly declared it's intention to relieve refugees of their valuables I very much doubt it's most refugees destination of choice. These are people seeking asylum from a war, not economic migrants looking for someone to separate them from both their families and their possessions.

Certainly, if Denmark had a law which does not allow couples to be together, they'd have to abide by it, like the rest of the people in Denmark. It doesn't though, does it?

jackofalltrades · 18-02-2016 01:58AM

Absolam wrote: »

They are in a refugee camp, it's in Denmark.

When I said refugee camps I talking about camps in Syria and in neighbouring countries.

Where they want to be (other than at home in their own country without being bombed and shot at) hasn't been specified; they may have wanted to go to Sweden, or the UK, or just about anywhere.
Give that Denmark’s immigration ministry has published advertisements in Lebanese media aimed at discouraging migrants from coming to the country, and has publicly declared it's intention to relieve refugees of their valuables I very much doubt it's most refugees destination of choice. These are people seeking asylum from a war, not economic migrants.

If the don't want to be in Denmark, then why did they claim asylum in Denmark?
They're there because they chose to be there.
They're choosing Denmark for economic and social reasons.
If they don't like the way Denmark cares for minors, then they they should pick a country that has more lax child protection laws.
Your argument that they don't chose to be in Denmark is nonsense.

Certainly, if Denmark had a law which does not allow couples to be together, they'd have to abide by it, like the rest of the people in Denmark. It doesn't though, does it?

It has laws protecting children and rightly so.

Absolam · 18-02-2016 02:07AM

jackofalltrades wrote: »

When I said refugee camps I talking about camps in Syria and in neighbouring countries.

Ah... but you said 'refugee camps', which is where the refugees are. Still, is there a reason to think they cease to be refugees if they get more than a certain distance from the conflict they're fleeing?

jackofalltrades wrote: »

If the don't want to be in Denmark, then why did they claim asylum in Denmark?
They're there because they chose to be there.
They're choosing Denmark for economic and social reasons.
If they don't like the way Denmark cares for minors, then they they should pick a country that has more lax child protection laws.
Your argument that they don't chose to be in Denmark is nonsense.

Well my argument is that where they want to be (other than at home in their own country without being bombed and shot at) hasn't been specified; I'm not making any assumptions about that, but apparently you are.

jackofalltrades wrote: »

It has laws protecting children and rightly so.

Which of them specifies refugee couples must be separated without evidence of a crime being committed?

kylith · 18-02-2016 09:05AM

Absolam wrote: »

All we know is that the Danish Minister (for Integration!) intends to separate the couples because she feels it's "unacceptable that minors should live with their spouses".

But under Danish law a minor cannot have a spouse. Therefore it's not a situation of separating spouses, it's a situation where a female minor is living with a man who is neither a parent nor legal gaurdian and whose only claim on her is an invalid marriage certificate.

Now, I'm not a social worker, but I don't believe that authorities are keen on letting randomers care for children they're not related to, especially if he's of the opinion that she's his wife, which at least implies a sexual element to the relationship.

18-02-2016 09:19AM

I assume the Danish Government has the power to, and has in the past, taken children out of the custody of adults that they deem to be abusing them. I also assume that in some of those cases, those adults were actually parents of the children and so had a legally recognisable bond with the child.

I therefore see no issue with the Danish Government taking children out of the custody of other adults (without a recognisable legal bond) who's relationship is also deemed as abusive.

The Hazards of Belief

Comments