Ongoing Terrorism/ISIS/al Qaeda Thread

[peter12]

You're also talking about geographically isolated exceptions with 1000s of adherents, while we are talking about a global normalization process with hundreds of millions of adherents.

Typical smoke and mirrors.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by peter12

You're also talking about geographically isolated exceptions with 1000s of adherents, while we are talking about a global normalization process with hundreds of millions of adherents.

Typical smoke and mirrors.

Well I mean scale doesn't really invalidate the principle, but yeah.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I think peter's point is that we're talking about Islam at the moment, so whatever Jews and Mormons are doing is irrelevant to the current topic at hand. Going tu quoque on the discussion isn't constructive.

It's not constructive to exaggerate issues either, like stating sharia law courts exist in the UK as part of jurisprudence.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Well I mean scale doesn't really invalidate the principle, but yeah.

It completely invalidates the scale. It is a common rhetorical trick on this subject to intentionally confuse the exception for the rule.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

It's not constructive to exaggerate issues either, like stating sharia law courts exist in the UK as part of jurisprudence.

Not in a technical way, but absolutely in a cultural way. How do people refuse to see this?

If you have Muslim women pursuing divorce in sharia courts as a matter of course instead of going through the transparent system that is part of established British norms, then how can you say that does not affect the cultural norms of jurisprudence in the long run.

It is a slow decay of the rule of law.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

It's not constructive to exaggerate issues either, like stating sharia law courts exist in the UK as part of jurisprudence.

It's pretty much de facto vs. de jure semantics though.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by peter12

You're also talking about geographically isolated exceptions with 1000s of adherents, while we are talking about a global normalization process with hundreds of millions of adherents.

Typical smoke and mirrors.

Actually were probably talking tens of thousands across the U.S. Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, innumerable other minor Pentecostal churches all practise forms of shunning, the advantage that women in these faiths have is only that they can access a wider secular world so they are not as tied to the religious wackery

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by rubecube

It's pretty much de facto vs. de jure semantics though.

No it's not, there are no sharia courts that have any standing in any way in British family courts, there is one commercial arbitration process, used by about 100 people a year incidentally, that, if agreed by both parties is binding, but there are all kinds of binding arbitration in civil law, this isn't exceptional at all.

[IliketoPuck]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Actually were probably talking tens of thousands across the U.S. Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, innumerable other minor Pentecostal churches all practise forms of shunning, the advantage that women in these faiths have is only that they can access a wider secular world so they are not as tied to the religious wackery

I don't recall many recent headlines with Mormon's or Jehovah's witnesses claiming responsibility for terrorist attacks.

Did I wander into the wrong thread again?

[CliffFletcher]

When Canadian Muslim tried to have Sharia family courts set up, they pointed to the existence of Christian and Jewish family courts, and said it was discriminatory to deny Muslims the same recourse. And they were right, so all of the faith-based courts were abolished. Which is a good thing, IMHO.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by IliketoPuck

I don't recall many recent headlines with Mormon's or Jehovah's witnesses claiming responsibility for terrorist attacks.

Did I wander into the wrong thread again?

Not what we're talking about, although related in a sense.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

No it's not, there are no sharia courts that have any standing in any way in British family courts, there is one commercial arbitration process, used by about 100 people a year incidentally, that, if agreed by both parties is binding, but there are all kinds of binding arbitration in civil law, this isn't exceptional at all.

It should be obvious that it's a very different process if it's a religious tribunal as opposed to one governed by regular, ordinary, predictable law. But if you're right that it's just 100 people a year, that's a good point. Still equally fair to point out that the rule of law is as effective as submission to it - so even if a decision maker's pronouncements aren't technically binding, if everyone in the relevant society treats them like they are, there's no practical difference. That's concerning. Don't just brush off the problem because you don't want it to be a problem.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

When Canadian Muslim tried to have Sharia family courts set up, they pointed to the existence of Christian and Jewish family courts, and said it was discriminatory to deny Muslims the same recourse. And they were right, so all of the faith-based courts we abolished. Which is a good thing, IMHO.

NM, I googled.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

When Canadian Muslim tried to have Sharia family courts set up, they pointed to the existence of Christian and Jewish family courts, and said it was discriminatory to deny Muslims the same recourse. And they were right, so all of the faith-based courts we abolished. Which is a good thing, IMHO.

Ironically the only faith based courts in England that had any standing was the Anglican ecclesiastical courts and they had their powers removed in the nineteenth century I believe, although they still rule on church property law, if you buy a house in the UK you might find yourself liable for a portion of repair costs to your local parish church, there's even specific insurance to cover this.

Sharia courts, like rabbinical and Roman Catholic ecclesiastical courts in the UK are purely private matters, if a couple wanted to apply their ruling to a British court they'd need to have their lawyers approach the court and jointly request it, typically the courts will reject the requests if they think the terms unfair, which happens frequently.

[CaptainCrunch]

I guess this is where this goes

http://www.calgarysun.com/2016/08/10...es-few-details

Terrorist suspect dead in Ontario after confrontation with RCMP. More details expected later today

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I guess this is where this goes

http://www.calgarysun.com/2016/08/10...es-few-details

Terrorist suspect dead in Ontario after confrontation with RCMP. More details expected later today

I was listening to the radio and it was interesting that they made it sound more like a preemptive take down than an actual confrontation. Almost like an assassination of someone they had evidence was about to do something. They said they were watching him for some time and knew he was about to do something, so they took him down.

I guess we will hear more about it at the presser later.

[CaptainCrunch]

I think that's pretty standard procedure. I'm going off of my hazy old person memory, but I still remember when they did the Times Square takedow, and actually let them get to the point where they had set up their vehicle bombs, that had been stuffed with phony explosives given to the terrorists by FBI informants. But with the mass shoot aspect now, I would expect they want to keep these people as isolated as possible when they tighten the noose.

Also those two crazies in Vancouver who wanted to set off pressure cooker bombs were released in vancouver because the police investigation had an element of entrapment in it where they almost encouraged these people to act.

I think they're going to stick to straight simple police work now.

[FlamesAddiction]

Yeah, I don't disagree with the tactic really. Just pleasantly surprised at the take no #### attitude. It has gotten to that point though so I'm not complaining.

[zukes]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I was listening to the radio and it was interesting that they made it sound more like a preemptive take down than an actual confrontation. Almost like an assassination of someone they had evidence was about to do something. They said they were watching him for some time and knew he was about to do something, so they took him down.

I guess we will hear more about it at the presser later.

That's pretty close to home. I live 30 minutes from Strathroy, my in-laws are 10 minutes down the road from there. Glad to see we're not afraid to be pre-emptive if the evidence warrants it.

[peter12]

Oh the suspect was a radical Muslim? I thought he was a shunned Mormon fighting the government on its polyamory laws. Huh, well it takes all sorts.