British liberals attack family for being conservatives

[Shadowmelded]

This
Also this
THink this is hilarious and wrong buti have to add a few BS sites

From the daily mail article that is more opinion and conjecture than anything:

But the vast majority of British Muslims are offended by such hardline rules. Mohammed Illyas, general secretary of Waltham Forest mosque, has stated clearly: ‘We condemn these kinds of views, and if they come to the mosque preaching this kind of thing, they would be thrown out.’

From the BBC article:

But the informal councils have no legal powers and they cannot impose any penalties.

They deal with civil cases alone, but many Muslims are choosing to voluntarily accept rulings made by the scholars.

and the last article is just pathetically hillarious:

In one British nursing home, the non-Muslim residents were obligated to forgo bacon in their meals in deference to Islamic halal demands.

Oh no, NOT BACON, THIS IS TOTALLY THE FAULT OF SHARIA LAW, ohwait it's probably just the typical anti-muslim sentiment being disguised behind a feeble claim of some legal coup to mask the signs of bigotry.

[Archlen]

I agree that Sharia law shouldn't supplant local law, but that BBC article you linked only spoke of cases between Muslims. If that Daily Mail article is to be believed, then I would agree that there is a problem.

Daily Mail article is referencing a Muslim group called "Muslims against crusades" handing out and posting leaflets

One vid here http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=nohBfJCHzsE

Daily Mail as a credible source of information is almost laughable. It exaggerates and sensationalizes to get read more. I used to live in the referenced place anyway in Walthamstow, none of my friends have ever been subject to a forced sharia law upon them

[Nakura Chambers]

Interesting, and yet letting 2 men adopt a child is perfectly fine. Wouldn't influnce or confuse a small child at all.

I support gay rights, but you make a valid point. I find it hypocritical that some people here think it's "good" and "tolerant" to prevent someone from adopting children for their political beliefs, yet they think preventing adoption based on sexuality is "intolerant."

Don't get me wrong, I think preventing adoption based on sexuality is intolerant, but so is preventing adoption based on someone having different views.

---------- Post added 2012-11-25 at 04:06 PM ----------

The issue was letting a couple who are part of an anti-multicultural party raise multicultural children.

Children aren't born "multicultural." If they are raised to be British, they will be British. If they are raised to be Pakistani, they will be Pakistani. There is no "multicultural child," at least not until after they have been indoctrinated.

[Kraenen]

I support gay rights, but you make a valid point. I find it hypocritical that some people here think it's "good" and "tolerant" to prevent someone from adopting children for their political beliefs, yet they think preventing adoption based on sexuality is "intolerant."

Don't get me wrong, I think preventing adoption based on sexuality is intolerant, but so is preventing adoption based on someone having different views.

It is intolerant. Different views is not. Someone who has views that are heavily authoritarian, regressive, and damaging to the emotional and intellectual growth of the child would destroy that kid's potential. I think preventing an adoption in that case would be right.

[Tayace]

Sorry but I have enough work to do pointing out the stupidity of the media in Canada and the United States to get involved in British issues right now. But I will say this. Normally when right wingers complain, the facts are all out of context in a giant angry finger point-fest.

[Activi-T]

I support gay rights, but you make a valid point. I find it hypocritical that some people here think it's "good" and "tolerant" to prevent someone from adopting children for their political beliefs, yet they think preventing adoption based on sexuality is "intolerant."

Don't get me wrong, I think preventing adoption based on sexuality is intolerant, but so is preventing adoption based on someone having different views.

---------- Post added 2012-11-25 at 04:06 PM ----------



Children aren't born "multicultural." If they are raised to be British, they will be British. If they are raised to be Pakistani, they will be Pakistani. There is no "multicultural child," at least not until after they have been indoctrinated.

Firstly I have to mention that these children were being fostered, I.e. being looked after by the state. Not being adopted, I.e. becoming the permanent owners of the children (for want of a better phrasing). While some cases of fostering lead to adoption it's more often than not a case of a third party, designated by the State, looking after a person's child until either circumstances change or they come of legal age.

So just to reiterate. The council wasn't preventing them from adopting, just fostering and just these specific children.

[Nakura Chambers]

its not that bad... have you been reading daily mail recently?

certain areas have large ammounts of immigrants, around London and Birmingham mostly i believe, but according to wikipedia its still 92% white British, its no way near as bad as certain media makes it out to be. and i think Indians are the 2nd biggest group of people.

I think he was more alluding to the fact that Islam is quickly spreading throughout Europe and it has been predicted that it will eventually become the majority, should current rates continue. It's not just immigration though, high birth rates among Muslims also play a large part in this.

I'm not saying that the rise of Islam in Europe is "good" or "bad," I'm just pointing this out. Some of the Muslims are integrating, however there is a good deal of them who aren't integrating into society. The governments of many European countries haven't done much, if anything, to stop multiculturalism; in many cases, the European governments even encourage it. Just some food for thought.

[Activi-T]

The way I see it is, if they want to live here, they have to accept the laws we have in place, otherwise they can get the fuck out.

Im not gona move to the middle east and demand they let me sodomize their women and eat bacon, so why do they get to change our laws ect.

Pitchfork down Tommo The majority don't actually want to change our laws and they certainly don't get to.

[Shadowmelded]

The way I see it is, if they want to live here, they have to accept the laws we have in place, otherwise they can get the fuck out.

Im not gona move to the middle east and demand they let me sodomize their women and eat bacon, so why do they get to change our laws ect.

They do have to accept the laws we have in place. The bbc article stated it; they have no legal authority and do not have the ability to award damages or punishments. They are considered an arbitration court much like the Jewish Beth Din. People acting of their own accord undertaking actions that don't breach the law which happen to coincide with islamic scholars' opinions on legal matters is not breaking the law. It's only civil cases (not criminal) and if people were so inclined they could still be brought before the British legal system, especially if the law actually has been broken. There is no clause that gives them a free pass.

[Nakura Chambers]

Bullshit.

Sharia courts don't have any legal authority and are only practiced by those that want to operate by it's rulings. They also only deal with civil cases.

Unless you live in Tower Hamlets.

[Shadowmelded]

Unless you live in Tower Hamlets.

Nowhere in the article does it say that sharia law supersedes British Law.

[Nakura Chambers]

It is intolerant. Different views is not. Someone who has views that are heavily authoritarian, regressive, and damaging to the emotional and intellectual growth of the child would destroy that kid's potential. I think preventing an adoption in that case would be right.

UKIP isn't any of those things though. And even if someone did hold "authoritarian" or "regressive" political views, I don't see how that is any of the government's business. There is a reason we use the secret ballot, it is to prevent individuals with 'non-mainstream' political views from being ostracized or discriminated against.

---------- Post added 2012-11-25 at 04:28 PM ----------

Nowhere in the article does it say that sharia law supersedes British Law.

Not 'legally' but as stated in the article, there are other factors at work here, some of which may very well be 'illegal.'

---------- Post added 2012-11-25 at 04:29 PM ----------

Firstly I have to mention that these children were being fostered, I.e. being looked after by the state. Not being adopted, I.e. becoming the permanent owners of the children (for want of a better phrasing). While some cases of fostering lead to adoption it's more often than not a case of a third party, designated by the State, looking after a person's child until either circumstances change or they come of legal age.

So just to reiterate. The council wasn't preventing them from adopting, just fostering and just these specific children.

My mistake, sorry. How would fostering them in a British cultural environment be "wrong" though?

---------- Post added 2012-11-25 at 04:30 PM ----------

Englands 3rd largest party is incredibly racist? even American Republicans arent quite as racist as people are making that group seem

The British National Party is Britain's fifth largest party and does have some serious "racist" elements. Though I'm not even sure the term "racist" would be appropriate to describe the BNP, since they also dislike "non-British" whites.

[Shadowmelded]

Not 'legally' but as stated in the article, there are other factors at work here, some of which may very well be 'illegal.

Which has nothing to do with islam and more to do with a coordinated group with malicious intent and plenty of funding. It could have been any group. Also since I seem to be doing this a lot tonight, from your very own article;

Turnout, at 25.6%, was astonishingly low, with most voters (particularly the white majority, and they still are a majority) unaware of, indifferent to or turned off by the process. Lutfur’s 23,000-odd votes are only about 13 per cent of Tower Hamlets’ electorate.

There is no "islamisation of Britain" just corrupt individuals interfering with the political process.

[Kraenen]

UKIP isn't any of those things though. And even if someone did hold "authoritarian" or "regressive" political views, I don't see how that is any of the government's business. There is a reason we use the secret ballot, it is to prevent individuals with 'non-mainstream' political views from being ostracized or discriminated against.

---------- Post added 2012-11-25 at 04:28 PM ----------



Not 'legally' but as stated in the article, there are other factors at work here, some of which may very well be 'illegal.'

---------- Post added 2012-11-25 at 04:29 PM ----------



My mistake, sorry. How would fostering them in a British cultural environment be "wrong" though?

---------- Post added 2012-11-25 at 04:30 PM ----------



The British National Party is Britain's fifth largest party and does have some serious "racist" elements. Though I'm not even sure the term "racist" would be appropriate to describe the BNP, since they also dislike "non-British" whites.

I wasn't arguing against the UKIP though, I was arguing against your point that just because people have different views they shouldn't be denied a child. And the gov. isn't a part of this: it's between the agency and the people adopting, and the agency must make a moral decision and judge the potential parents based on what I outlined.

---------- Post added 2012-11-25 at 10:34 PM ----------

Which has nothing to do with islam and more to do with a coordinated group with malicious intent and plenty of funding. It could have been any group. Also since I seem to be doing this a lot tonight, from your very own article;



There is no "islamisation of Britain" just corrupt individuals interfering with the political process.

Sharia has nothing to do with Islam?

[Shadowmelded]

Sharia has nothing to do with Islam?

What? That's not what I said. I said the article linked has nothing to do with islam, and the subject of the article was the acquirement of a mayoral position through potentially illegal means that swazi was trying to pass off as "Illegal by British Law but muslims aren't following British law" when this case actually has nothing to do with islam and more to do with corruption.

Holy run-on sentence batman.

[Activi-T]

My mistake, sorry. How would fostering them in a British cultural environment be "wrong" though?

It wouldn't be "wrong" to foster them into a 'British cultural environment' at all. What would be wrong, and what the council obviously feared would happen, is that the children's cultural heritage wouldn't be taught or talked about at all. Which is why they chose to move them to an alternate foster family, as the needs of the children are paramount.

[Nakura Chambers]

It wouldn't be "wrong" to foster them into a 'British cultural environment' at all. What would be wrong, and what the council obviously feared would happen, is that the children's cultural heritage wouldn't be taught or talked about at all. Which is why they chose to move them to an alternate foster family, as the needs of the children are paramount.

Opposing multiculturalism doesn't mean that you are going to ignore your genealogy. For instance, I recognize that my ancestors were Scottish and I find Scottish culture fascinating.

[Shadowmelded]

Opposing multiculturalism doesn't mean that you are going to ignore your genealogy. For instance, I recognize that my ancestors were Scottish and I find Scottish culture fascinating.

It wasn't their genealogy, the foster parents were white British who opposed multi-culturalism, the children were not. There is a great risk that they would most likely not teach the children of their heritage and the council deemed it sufficient enough to not grant them guardianship.

[Nakura Chambers]

Which has nothing to do with islam and more to do with a coordinated group with malicious intent and plenty of funding. It could have been any group. Also since I seem to be doing this a lot tonight, from your very own article;



There is no "islamisation of Britain" just corrupt individuals interfering with the political process.

This coordinated group has an Islamist ideology and came to power with the intent of implementing Islamist policies. Granted, the same thing could happen with just about any group of people. It should be of great concern that this has happened.

[Grizzly Willy]

This coordinated group has an Islamist ideology and came to power with the intent of implementing Islamist policies. Granted, the same thing could happen with just about any group of people. It should be of great concern that this has happened.

Then you're conflating Islamic extremists with the Muslim population as a whole. I could make the argument that we need to be worried about Christianity because of the efforts by the Discovery Institute to impose their views on Intelligent Design upon our schools.

I don't, however, because I know that the few don't represent the whole.