Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Futtocks

EDL Leaders quit

67 posts in this topic

Listening to him and how he's now linked up with former Muslim extremists does make me think that his time in jail has given him time to reflect on what was wrong with his previous message.  Here's a controversial thought for many: what if our justice system does work occasionally?

 

As with other people with criminal pasts, he does deserve a chance to show that he's rehabilitated.

I watched the documentary on extremism in Luton. He came across as a much more complex character than the one dimensional street thug that most view him as. Certainly he has that in his make-up but I doubt that this is all he ever was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

of course it does

of course you can.

 

 

racism is a long time discussion topic on this forum including the aspects of it that you raise: almost entirely in an articulate and informed way. In all the years that this topic has been discussed from a wide range of perspectives and specific subject matters and nobody from whatever viewpoint on this topic that any posters come from would be as ignorant to have the ideas you suggest.. The two scenarios you raise are ridiculous and in my view disingenuous.

Maybe you should get you head out your ass and answer like any normal person and not sound like some long winded lefty bully...you would do well on Planet Rugby forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Listening to him and how he's now linked up with former Muslim extremists does make me think that his time in jail has given him time to reflect on what was wrong with his previous message.  Here's a controversial thought for many: what if our justice system does work occasionally?

 

As with other people with criminal pasts, he does deserve a chance to show that he's rehabilitated.

 

The justice system working occasionally; it would be nice to think so.

He always came across as an immature young man who had fallen into the trap of reacting to complex societal and political problems with a brutally simplistic analysis: it is the fault of them, the very different and visible minority living alongside us. Not the individual radical, not the men and women of bomb, bullet and blade, but the whole community, the men, women and children, old and young. That ancient idea: collective guilt.

And his solution was of equal vintage: the mob. I don't know what Robinson/Lennon had in mind when they came up with the idea of putting some of England's more violent and disaffected people on the streets, but he doesn't seem to have considered why the largest far-right political grouping at the time had shunned the tactic. Or perhaps he did but thought it could be made to work, what with his charisma and that.

 

The fact is that the communities he was blaming, the people he wanted his angry and prejudiced 'street activists' to target, were never going to be intimidated. They, and people from the wider community, were going to react just as vigourously. Which is just what happened. The EDL has been contained, marginalised, and I'm sure that its ex-leaders saw the future as descending into further trouble, both for their 'movement' and themselves personally.

If Robinson/Lennon has come to his senses because of the sanctions applied to him, rather than some sort of personal enlightenment, then fair enough. When I was a young adult in the seventies, when the far-right last used this kind of street agitation, quite a considerable number of people, young people especially, went along with the easy logic of the extremist. It was often quite a straightforward job to persuade them of the error of their prejudices, though. Presenting the alternative arguments, appealing to their innate generosity and tolerance, and exposing the extreme ideologies they were giving their sympathies to, plus a certain, and appropriate, level of pressure, all helped to prise them away. Is this just a more high profile example of that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing with the radicals is that they only exist because of the larger number of conservatives create the environment for them. He had and still has a very good point about Islamist extremism in the UK. It's not just about the radicals. It's also about the parents of the radicals who bring their kids up to shun Western society and they act all astonished when their kid becomes a terrorist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing with the radicals is that they only exist because of the larger number of conservatives create the environment for them. He had and still has a very good point about Islamist extremism in the UK. It's not just about the radicals. It's also about the parents of the radicals who bring their kids up to shun Western society and they act all astonished when their kid becomes a terrorist.

 

 

The thing with the radicals is that they only exist because of the larger number of conservatives create the environment for them. He had and still has a very good point about Islamist extremism in the UK. It's not just about the radicals. It's also about the parents of the radicals who bring their kids up to shun Western society and they act all astonished when their kid becomes a terrorist.

Add in the the blind left wing so called anti fascists like UAF.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Add in the the blind left wing so called anti fascists like UAF.

Yes, dreadful people as bad as the EDL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe you should get you head out your ass and answer like any normal person and not sound like some long winded lefty bully...you would do well on Planet Rugby forum.

 

there's nothing like a well-researched and  evidence-based opinion..and your contribution is exactly that....it's nothing like a well-researched and  evidence-based opinion. Have you considered RL fans as your spiritual home?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know a great deal about Tommy Robinson, but I switched on Newsnight last night to see him being interviewed by Jeremy Paxman.

 

I'm strongly opposed to violent politicised marches in the street that are designed to stir up trouble and hatred, whoever is organising them, and if Robinson is renouncing that activity I'm very glad to see it.

 

His main concern seems to be Sharia Law. If I understood him correctly he is against Sharia Law having any legal standing within British society.

 

Is there anyone on this Forum who believes that Sharia Law should have such a role?

 

I always understood that Sharia Law, according to Islamic teaching, should be applied in an Islamic state, but only in that context.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there anyone on this Forum who believes that Sharia Law should have such a role?

 

Of course it - like any other religiously-inspired law - has no place in this country.

 

I've seen quote after quote of Robinson's where he doesn't mention sharia law at all.  Just Muslims and what they're getting away with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I heard someone say its about settling disputes and family arguments in their commmunity.Sounds like Godfather stuff to me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I myself don't know enough about it,but in our society we cannot have A State within a State

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know a great deal about Tommy Robinson, but I switched on Newsnight last night to see him being interviewed by Jeremy Paxman.

 

I'm strongly opposed to violent politicised marches in the street that are designed to stir up trouble and hatred, whoever is organising them, and if Robinson is renouncing that activity I'm very glad to see it.

 

His main concern seems to be Sharia Law. If I understood him correctly he is against Sharia Law having any legal standing within British society.

 

Is there anyone on this Forum who believes that Sharia Law should have such a role?

 

I always understood that Sharia Law, according to Islamic teaching, should be applied in an Islamic state, but only in that context.

 

Sharia law is as alien to the law of any democracy as bishops sitting in a legislative house by virtue of their position within their sect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I myself don't know enough about it,but in our society we cannot have A State within a State

 

That's devolution ed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there's nothing like a well-researched and  evidence-based opinion..and your contribution is exactly that....it's nothing like a well-researched and  evidence-based opinion. Have you considered RL fans as your spiritual home?

 

 

there's nothing like a well-researched and  evidence-based opinion..and your contribution is exactly that....it's nothing like a well-researched and  evidence-based opinion. Have you considered RL fans as your spiritual home?

Is this an ode from Pam ayres ...tis what tis not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In cases where arbitration is used (family cases, divorce?) you can opt to use Sharia arbitration.  That’s the only Sharia law (officially) used in the UK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In cases where arbitration is used (family cases, divorce?) you can opt to use Sharia arbitration.  That’s the only Sharia law (officially) used in the UK.

Do Sharia arbitration decisions carry legal force?

 

And do all parties to a dispute have to agree to it being referred to Sharia arbitration?

 

Given the way that Sharia gives less weight to the evidence of women (although some people on here may be able to contradict this) I would have thought that women would be better served by English courts and tribunals in disputes rather than Sharia courts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sharia law is as alien to the law of any democracy as bishops sitting in a legislative house by virtue of their position within their sect.

The question of who should sit in the House of Lords is rather different to the issue of whether religious bodies should be able to establish their own courts that overrule what would otherwise be English legal precedent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I always understood that Sharia Law, according to Islamic teaching, should be applied in an Islamic state, but only in that context.

Islamic teaching until recently said that Muslims should live in Islamic states and not move to the lands of the infidels. Hence you are right. Now the scholars have decided that you can move to the lands of the infidels but you should continue to live an Islamic life and thus demand sharia in your new home.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do Sharia arbitration decisions carry legal force?

And do all parties to a dispute have to agree to it being referred to Sharia arbitration?

Given the way that Sharia gives less weight to the evidence of women (although some people on here may be able to contradict this) I would have thought that women would be better served by English courts and tribunals in disputes rather than Sharia courts.

Yes, as do Jewish versions. They are legally arbitration bodies and carry the full force of law if both parties agree to be bound.

It's always surprised me that people get so upset about Muslim courts of arbitration but don't mind Jewish versions. Neither has power over you unless you specifically agree to be bound by their decision when you seek arbitration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why?

Because Muslims find it offensive. Transliterated into Arabic it means one who commits injustice. Accurate language is really quite important - ask a London taxi driver to take you to "Merton" when you really want to go to Morden and you'll end up in the wrong place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The question of who should sit in the House of Lords is rather different to the issue of whether religious bodies should be able to establish their own courts that overrule what would otherwise be English legal precedent.

Two sides I the same coin Martyn. Complete lunacy to for these people to be involved in any law making whatsoever, except the laws which govern their own fantasy led organisations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because Muslims find it offensive. Transliterated into Arabic it means one who commits injustice. Accurate language is really quite important - ask a London taxi driver to take you to "Merton" when you really want to go to Morden and you'll end up in the wrong place.

 

 

Hmm.  I aimed the question at Wolford6, but thanks for your input.  I'm sure that if you could back this up with some evidence then Wolford6 would cease immediately.  I was merely asking why he followed this odd convention when nobody else here seems to.

 

It's not like he posts about the evils of Islam and Muslims all the time or anything, so I'm sure it's just an oversight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The question of who should sit in the House of Lords is rather different to the issue of whether religious bodies should be able to establish their own courts that overrule what would otherwise be English legal precedent.

 

No, it's the same question.  Why should the religious have special privilege to set the laws for the rest of us?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Add in the the blind left wing so called anti fascists like UAF.

 

 

That's like saying rat poison is as bad as the rat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



Rugby League World - June 2017

League Express - Mon 17th July 2017