Current security alert

imom1406 said:
Always_a_Civvy said:
imom1406 said:
...I live in England under English Law. English Law and the legislative process is already over complex and creaking at the seams. How would you legislate and police the law? More resources? A second Tier police force, even worse...more lawyers...it is an utterly ridiculous notion. And there is no mandate for it!! There is more of a mandate for an English parliament (but that is a whole new discussion)...
Before the Reformation this is what happened in the UK and throughout most of Europe, but it was Canon Law applied to the laity. This after all was the basis of the witchcraft trails and the Inquisition - the Church accused and the State punished, financed by the local community and the victims assets, which were confiscated. Today non-Christians in Britain are still subject to Canon Law in a more subtle way, enshrined in domestic law. Christian norms, as Blackstone observed, are the cornerstone of our legal system. Think of the Education Act 1948 or the Christian definition of marriage (grounded in Pagan Roman Law) as between one man and one woman and patriarchy. All there are the legal enforcement of Christian Law upon both Christian and non-believers alike.

Those Muslims advocating at applying Sharia jurisprudence in Family Law (& elsewhere) within their community ahve met with opposition within their own community where this idea remains highly controversial and is opposed by the majority. Sadly we focus on the demands of one section of the Muslim community.
Thanks for that....my main issues was operating what would be a two teir legal system....the likely cost and which would take precedent in a conflict..Muslim/non-muslim marriages....what would happen there....?

As our laws have been built on precedent over 2000 years, and they have changed slowly and organically, i just seem completely unworkable. I would have to be state funded, linked into our appeals system.....or you operate a state within a state...that works....just ask Lebanon!
There certainly must be questions about quite how deep the desire for any aspects of Shara Law amongst the Muslim community is. I do however have a suspicion that a significant proportion would have a desire to have aspects of their religious law apply in the area of family law, wheteher this would be a majority of course is an other matter.

AAC has a point on the underlying Christian aspects of some of our civil law which will always provide a source of conflict not only with immigrants who are not Christian but also with those of us who are non religious. Various parts of the church make loud noises when changes to family law are proposed, why should not other groups with diffrent views do the same.

I would suggest that in the area of family law there may well be ways of making Sharia Law or at least Sharia based law available for those who want it, and that this would have little or no impact on any one else.

For myself I would far rather see the last vestiges of religious law removed from the legal system entirely, including the various rights and priviledges certain religious organisations have obtained over the years. That of course is yet another problem. In the meantime if the clamour for aspects of Sharia law to be applied in areas of family law is big enough then perhaps we should let those who find these rules desirable use them.

Peter
 

imom1406

War Hero
For myself I would far rather see the last vestiges of religious law removed from the legal system entirely, including the various rights and priviledges certain religious organisations have obtained over the years. That of course is yet another problem. In the meantime if the clamour for aspects of Sharia law to be applied in areas of family law is big enough then perhaps we should let those who find these rules desirable use them.

Peter[/quote]

Absolutely agree on the religious point, but "law" is written into statute by the legislature..maybe the use of bylaws may be a way forward!
 

janner

MIA
Book Reviewer
imom1406 said:
For myself I would far rather see the last vestiges of religious law removed from the legal system entirely, including the various rights and priviledges certain religious organisations have obtained over the years. That of course is yet another problem. In the meantime if the clamour for aspects of Sharia law to be applied in areas of family law is big enough then perhaps we should let those who find these rules desirable use them.

Peter
Absolutely agree on the religious point, but "law" is written into statute by the legislature..maybe the use of bylaws may be a way forward![/quote]

The last thing this country needs is more laws, whilst quite happy for anyone to practise their own religious beliefs, I am totally against allowing any changes to the law of the land to allow different groups to practise their own form of legal system.

If you come to any country and wish to reside there you must expect to be subject to the law of the land, certainly you should not expect to be able to set up your own republic within the host country.

To take it a stage further, I, and I suspect many others object to my hard earned tax money being handed out to the work shy and those that have not contributed (I am not talking about those unable to contribute through disabilities). Why should immigrants and those who refuse to work be given something for nothing. So I am asking that the law be changed so that I can decide where my money is spent. Is there any chance of this?
 
Having travelled back to Heathrow from Cyprus last Wed evening, the day before this all kicked off, I was amazed to hear the complaints from many in the queue for passport control about the "ridiculous" amount of time it takes for people to be processed. Granted there might have been more immigration officers on duty than the two I saw, but the responsibility placed on them demands a high level of suspicion. It was also interesting to note the accents making these observations, mostly Brits but some South Africans, Jewish people in traditional clothing and some others, for whom nothing was good enough. For my part, despite my opinion that Israel was a huge mistake on the part of the world, the Israeli method of flight security, i.e. searching everything and everybody, is the right way. So what if it takes longer to travel, it's a much safer experience because of it.
 
I see they are seriously considering profiling travellers, great idea, long overdue. The security I went through last year in Israel was second to none, but like everything else in UK ie. leaves on the train lines, a smattering of snow or a heatwave, we are totally un prepared, bit embarrasing really....
Sooner we stop patting down 80 year old white grannies and stopping turban wearers and other similar types the better. I am sure even the "innocent" ones will not cry too much over this, they know it is their people doing all this. If white skinhead males were responsible for these attacks and plots then i would be just as happy to see all of them go through extra security, myself included.
But it isn't, so stop all the muslim and arab looking ones.
Before it's too late eh?
 
Maxi 77 said:
For myself I would far rather see the last vestiges of religious law removed from the legal system entirely, including the various rights and priviledges certain religious organisations have obtained over the years. That of course is yet another problem. In the meantime if the clamour for aspects of Sharia law to be applied in areas of family law is big enough then perhaps we should let those who find these rules desirable use them.

Peter
imom1406 said:
Absolutely agree on the religious point, but "law" is written into statute by the legislature..maybe the use of bylaws may be a way forward!

The last thing this country needs is more laws, whilst quite happy for anyone to practise their own religious beliefs, I am totally against allowing any changes to the law of the land to allow different groups to practise their own form of legal system.
Janner said:
If you come to any country and wish to reside there you must expect to be subject to the law of the land, certainly you should not expect to be able to set up your own republic within the host country.

To take it a stage further, I, and I suspect many others object to my hard earned tax money being handed out to the work shy and those that have not contributed (I am not talking about those unable to contribute through disabilities). Why should immigrants and those who refuse to work be given something for nothing. So I am asking that the law be changed so that I can decide where my money is spent. Is there any chance of this?
As yes Janner, but the problem is that most of those who have chosen alternative religious lifestyles were born here and belong here. I agree with Peter that ideally the laws would be secularised, but in practice that is unlikely to happen. Both the Labour and Conservative Parties are committed at the moment for extending religious priviledges, and logically this must mean that at some time the state must give recognition of Muslim and other religious demands (as will inevitably follow, once the concession has been made) for additional special rights and their own, parallel or semi-integrated legal system. Obviously national law would have to take precidence, but already too many opt outs from existing legislation has been made to religious groups to accomodate their ideological beliefs. Allowing them to discriminate against gays in the provision of goods & services, as looks likely, is just one aspect of this. If this is allowed then how can you justify preventing Muslims regulating their own community, which simply takes the process to the next logical stage. After all, the Government's concession on allowing religious groups to discriminate against gays in employment set the original precident - imagine if they had done that when they introduced the Race Relations Act? This government cannot go back - they have established the precident of tolerating extending legal immunities and special rights for those with a religious ideological viewpoint. The interesting question is why limit it to those who hold strong religious beliefs? I've known Marxists who hold their political beliefs just as sincerely and strongly. We are on the dangerous path to legal fragmentation - but it is inevitable. For the record I would like as a gay man to live under gay laws which would enforce anti-hate legislation rather than paying lip service to it when the crunch comes. I want a seperate state for us - our own Israel - where we can go from any part of the World and have a criminal justice & legal system that defends us rather than one that most of us simply regard as irrelevant as it protects the religious haters especially at our expense - and I don't mean the financial variety.

End of rant and apologies for wandering off topic again!

Steve.

Oh and what evidence do I have of my penultimate statement: just personal experience.
 
Lingyai said:
.
But it isn't, so stop all the muslim and arab looking ones.
Before it's too late eh?
And what about the muslims who don't look like muslims or arabs, how do you deal with them, after all some of those arrested this time round were European converts. The problem with profiling is it gives a false sense of security and the terrorists will exploit this weakness, just as they exploit any other weakness they find.

The only realy effective measure is to randomly select passengers so that the terrorst knows that he may be selected for detailed checking no matter how good his cover is.

Peter
 
rosinacarley said:
Better to be late in this world than early in the next my dad says!
Or best being ten minutes late than ten years early.

Well the sis in law took her dear departed mother home to Northern Ireland .

The casket [she was cremated] was refused entry onto the aircraft must go in the hold they where told and even then they where not to sure about letting it go there. After a while a sniffer dog FINALLY appeared had a good sniff and they where told ok you can carry it on board. It was all wrapped up so not to alarm the other passengers. Aircraft departed late! I believe the airline was told about the trip but it is out of there hands.

They became celebrities on landing in Northern Ireland and where interviwed as part of a tv pgm probably entitled "STOP THE WORLD I WANT TO GET OFF"
 
Backpacker1uk said:
rosinacarley said:
Better to be late in this world than early in the next my dad says!
Or best being ten minutes late than ten years early.

Well the sis in law took her dear departed mother home to Northern Ireland .

The casket [she was cremated] was refused entry onto the aircraft must go in the hold they where told and even then they where not to sure about letting it go there. After a while a sniffer dog FINALLY appeared had a good sniff and they where told ok you can carry it on board. It was all wrapped up so not to alarm the other passengers. Aircraft departed late! I believe the airline was told about the trip but it is out of there hands.

They became celebrities on landing in Northern Ireland and where interviwed as part of a tv pgm probably entitled "STOP THE WORLD I WANT TO GET OFF"
How insensitive, why did they just not get the dog immediately ...
 

Latest Threads

Top