In response to the third attack since March, and revealing 5 other credible plots were stopped by police, British PM Theresa May establishes a multi-point plan to deal with "Islamist extremism" and "Islamist inspired terrorism".
1) Turn people's minds away from violence. British, pluralistic values are superior to those espoused by the "preachers and supporters of hate"
2) Calling for a multi-national effort to end internet safe havens for hate speech and propaganda. (This one will garner a lot of attention and I suspect most of the debate will center on this point)
3) Ending the " far too much tolerance of extremism in our country.
"So we need to become far more robust in identifying it and stamping it out — across the public sector and across society. That will require some difficult and often embarrassing conversations, but the whole of our country needs to come together to take on this extremism — and we need to live our lives not in a series of separated, segregated communities but as one truly United Kingdom."
4) Reviewing the counter-terrorism resources and powers to ensure they have what they need.
As part of her conclusion she says:
""Since the emergence of the threat from Islamist-inspired terrorism, our country has made significant progress in disrupting plots and protecting the public. But it is time to say enough is enough. Everybody needs to go about their lives as they normally would. Our society should continue to function in accordance with our values. But when it comes to taking on extremism and terrorism, things need to change."
Also, a Canadian was among the 7 killed yesterday.
__________________
"OOOOOOHHHHHHH those Russians" - Boney M
She should start with shutting down the various illegal sharia courts throughout the UK, I'm sure her London mayor Sadiq Khan could point out a few of them for her.
Personally I am open to listening to anybody viewpoint, no matter how far along the political spectrum it may be, but i agree it is time to make a real effort to ry and stop this kind of crap that kills and maims and kills random civilians.
__________________
If I do not come back avenge my death
She should start with shutting down the various illegal sharia courts throughout the UK, I'm sure her London mayor Sadiq Khan could point out a few of them for her.
Despite the dubious assertion that Sadiq Khan is somehow complicit in these courts and your misunderstanding of their legal standing or purpose (goes well with "Imam" and calling sharia law a singular, proving hate is born from ignorance), it is actually being investigated to see if it's an issue:
Quote:
Similarly, the government now says that "there is evidence of a problem, but we have an inadequate understanding of all the issues involved". It has commissioned a review into whether Sharia is being "misused or applied in a way which is incompatible with the law", to report in 2017.
Instead if a study to figure if it's being "misused", just ban it outright. Britain has a court system and it only needs one. There is zero benefit to allowing certain people to implement their own legal system and enforce it themselves.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to llwhiteoutll For This Useful Post:
Despite the dubious assertion that Sadiq Khan is somehow complicit in these courts and your misunderstanding of their legal standing or purpose (goes well with "Imam" and calling sharia law a singular, proving hate is born from ignorance), it is actually being investigated to see if it's an issue:
Instead if a study to figure if it's being "misused", just ban it outright. Britain has a court system and it only needs one. There is zero benefit to allowing certain people to implement their own legal system and enforce it themselves.
Muslim people don't want to be segregated but yet they allow these secret laws to rule their lives.
The degree as to the validity of the existence, or extent, of these "sharia courts" can be debated. However, I'm not sure how anyone who supports the modern secular state as a construct can defend a religious legal system being applied in any manner.
The Following User Says Thank You to nik- For This Useful Post:
The degree as to the validity of the existence, or extent, of these "sharia courts" can be debated. However, I'm not sure how anyone who supports the modern secular state as a construct can defend a religious legal system being applied in any manner.
It's less black and white when the thing is essentially an arbitration, into which you enter by agreement and are bound according to that agreement. You can contract into just about anything, within the bounds of public policy.
Of course, there are doctrines of unconscionability that come into play there, as well as undue influence, which may be applicable in certain cases before these courts too - i.e. where a person's participation may be to some degree a result of social coercion.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
The degree as to the validity of the existence, or extent, of these "sharia courts" can be debated. However, I'm not sure how anyone who supports the modern secular state as a construct can defend a religious legal system being applied in any manner.
Freedom of religion. People have the right to subjugate themselves to all sorts of things, including religious rulings, as long as those are not in conflict with actual legal courts. In other words, as long as the court isn't ordering anyone to break laws, it's not that easy to crack down on them legally even if there is moral reasons to do so. Mostly there isn't.
Shariah "courts" is often a somewhat misleading term, at least in many western countries. It's not like it's an actual court, just people asking for guidance or arbitration from a spiritual leader, no more and no less. (Personally I find it a terrible idea, but then again I'm an atheist so what do I know.)
Voluntary courts in general are not that uncommon in the West. Any system where two sides agree to obey the rulings of a third party arbitrator is essentially a court. Sports has all sorts of courts which can pass judgments on things such as who can work where and how much money someone should get. Many Christian churches have some kind of an internal court system to pass judgment on their own staff.
I'm not saying that sharia courts can't be a highly problematic phenomenon, and I strongly agree that they should be examined and supervised. I'm just saying it's not a simple issue.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Itse For This Useful Post:
Exactly - in the ideal world there would be no Sharia (or other religious) courts. However, there's really no legitimate path to preventing people from subjugating themselves to their own religious nonsense, short of abrogating freedom of religion as a principle. Doing that would effectively be criminalizing an entire mode of thought, and criminalizing modes of thought (even those we're pretty sure are generally unhelpful) is, in my view, a terrible idea.
So as long as these things are voluntary and are not enforced using state coercive methods (that is, you can't call the police or go to normal court to have an order of a sharia court enforced), it's pretty much a bullet that has to be bit. The key there is "voluntary" - there are probably many instances where participation isn't truly voluntary, and where a person is trapped by culture, family, and other social constraints from exempting themselves from the process. If that were serious and prevalent enough it might be a reason in itself to shut those courts down, but it's hard to figure that out.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
She should start with shutting down the various illegal sharia courts throughout the UK, I'm sure her London mayor Sadiq Khan could point out a few of them for her.
Will that apply to other religious courts as well?
This is getting ridiculous. Terrorism is a tactical strategy, not part of any religion or even ideology. It's a tactic for those without a military to inflict damage against their foe. You want terrorism to end, let people in their own countries decide their own cultural and social standards. If you truly believe we are a sectarian country, then make it abundantly clear to all citizens that religious courts are null and void in our society. No exceptions. Period. Build the wall... of separation between church and state and penalize anyone who tries otherwise.
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
+1 for the discussion of terrorism to be a discussion of tactical warfare.
Motivation for committing terrorism is separate from acts of terrorism, and it's difficult to conflate the two without losing both topics in the process.
Religious and non-religious motivation for acts of terrorism has sufficient history that we don't need to conflate the religion with the act.
I'd much rather focus on the world order that helps fund and deflects criticism of the wahabism that is largely responsible for the majority of 21st century acts of terror.
As I've said before, if the IRA were better funded they would be spreading their terrorism to other places. One of the reasons the IRA has difficulty recruiting is because there are other, better things to do that follow religious dogma into violence.
What the #### are we doing as a society when we sell arms contracts to THE chief sponsors of international terrorism in the world?
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Flash Walken For This Useful Post:
What the #### are we doing as a society when we sell arms contracts to THE chief sponsors of international terrorism in the world?
Babysitting the ####ty Kraft Dinner someone made a long time ago. No one wants to even eat it anymore, but if we don't tend to it, it's going to make a mess all over the stove.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to nik- For This Useful Post:
Theresa May on London attacks: Enough is Enough
