|
|
Post by VirtualStranger on Jun 8, 2011 11:13:29 GMT -5
The whole Sharia thing is a complete red herring used to fan xenophobia. No western government is going to adopt Sharia law, being concerned about Sharia is stupid and paranoid. It is nothing but a pointless exercise that pits citizens of a country against each other. Modern McCarthyism. Really? Because I thought that Islamists were trying to get it implemented into law. You seem to "think" a lot of things that aren't true. |
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Jun 8, 2011 12:15:35 GMT -5
Where? Give me a goddamn link. Give me an example of this happening someplace like Australia, the US, Canada, or the UK. ETA: I don't know about the other nations, but here in the States, Sharia law is already outlawed due to the first amendment. ...To be honest, I've only seen unreliable places like Fox talk about this. But that's all my dad ever gives me, and I don't care about news in the first place, so it's not like I ever check the news for stuff. This is a serious problem. Stop it. Stop relying upon sources you know are bad. And if you can't be arsed to look up information on something, you shouldn't hold a strong opinion on it. You are way too aggressive, especially since you don't know what you are talking about and cannot/will not back up your statements. You are very young, you need to stop being so opinionated and actually find the information you need to form intelligent opinions in the first place. You know how you laugh at people like stormfront and the flat earth society? If you make inaccurate statements like Islamists imposing Sharia law in western nations, then people will laugh at you for the same reasons and will be right to do so. Just, go out and learn. I don't care what your political views are, just be able to back them up with factual statements and logic. Right now, you just can't do it and are opening yourself up to be mocked. |
|
|
|
Post by jackmann on Jun 8, 2011 13:21:49 GMT -5
I'm honestly more concerned about Christians attempting to enforce biblical laws in the US, which is much more likely.
And yes, Chagen, I can provide sources. You need only ask.
|
|
|
|
Post by Thejebusfire on Jun 8, 2011 14:56:27 GMT -5
"We are opposed to a dual legal system, i.e. we oppose introduction of Sharia law in Australia. We will educate people about the implications of radical Islamic teaching. We advocate no Centrelink benefits for polygamists." This is all good. Not sure why most people oppose it. You should not bring backwards and outdated religious law into a secular court system. EVER. Why do liberals fawn all over Sharia, and then scream and moan whenever Christianity tries to influence the law? Both should not be tolerated in an impartial and secular court system. Because Christians are trying to implement their way of life on the rest of America. Muslims aren't trying to trying to put their Koran in courthouses, they aren't trying to push their version of creation into our schools, nor are Muslims picketing the funerals of soldiers. |
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Jun 8, 2011 17:08:22 GMT -5
"We are opposed to a dual legal system, i.e. we oppose introduction of Sharia law in Australia. We will educate people about the implications of radical Islamic teaching. We advocate no Centrelink benefits for polygamists." This is all good. Not sure why most people oppose it. You should not bring backwards and outdated religious law into a secular court system. EVER. Why do liberals fawn all over Sharia, and then scream and moan whenever Christianity tries to influence the law? Both should not be tolerated in an impartial and secular court system. Christians currently strongly (and unconstitutionally, in the US) influence the standard law, particularly civil law. For instance, many states (illegally, as I said) ban atheists from being elected, due to Christian persecution of atheists. I think this is a bad thing. There are also seperate courts for some religious minorities (Jews and what have you), notably in Canada. Some Muslims have pointed to this, saying that they don't agree with the religions of Christianity and (as other religions are allowed to get around the religious civil law) they should be allowed to have their own courts. They have been wildly unsuccessful everywhere, forever. I think a more effective solution would be to repeal the religious elements of all law. But this won't happen. We have to accept that many people will, on this basis, challenge the legitimacy of the law. |
|
|
|
Post by tolpuddlemartyr on Jun 8, 2011 18:40:42 GMT -5
Too bad the liberals on this board are too enamored in their own self-righteousness (AKA "Bullshit") to see that. Oh well. I am one of the few conservatives on this board, after all. Your Fox-news definitions of liberal and conservative are laughable here, people on this board vary hugely in their levels of social and economic conservatism and/or liberalism. Try ASKING people what they believe before you impose your cookie-cutter stereotypes on to them. "We are opposed to a dual legal system, i.e. we oppose introduction of Sharia law in Australia. We will educate people about the implications of radical Islamic teaching. We advocate no Centrelink benefits for polygamists." This is all good. Not sure why most people oppose it.. The proposal to deny centerlink benefits to polygamists is just idiotic, suddenly everyone going to apply for the dole will mysteriously be single! You want to deny government befefits to people on the basis of who they fuck? Good luck with that can of worms. Also, as an ex-resident of Moreland, Melbourne's largest Arab and Afghani neighborhood I can tell you that most of the folks there were trying to get away from repressive regimes and are quite happy with Australia's mostly liberal legal system. To be honest, I've only seen unreliable places like Fox talk about this. So your source of information about this is the least reliable shibboleth of Murdoch's tabloid empire? I really suggest you broaden your sources because that one does not have a stellar reputation for being "fair and balanced". You didn't answer my question earlier, ARE you just trying to shock the squares here? Because your recent posting history looks a lot like trolling for a fight to me! |
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Jun 8, 2011 19:01:14 GMT -5
Chagen's banned for violating the "don't be a dick rule."
|
|
|
|
Post by tolpuddlemartyr on Jun 8, 2011 19:03:48 GMT -5
Not before time. Sorry about your hatchlings man, I did click them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Jun 8, 2011 19:05:53 GMT -5
Not before time. Sorry about your hatchlings man, I did click them. Eh? They're hidden, not dead. They get sick from too many views and clicks. They have to rest for a bit. |
|
|
|
Post by shadoom2 on Jun 8, 2011 19:25:40 GMT -5
Why would anyone be worried about this new group of idiots? One Nation only lasted about five years, and at least their leader seemed to be mentally stable. I'd give this party 3 years max before it destroys itself.
EDIT: And how are their policies different from the current Liberal ones?
|
|
|
|
Post by tolpuddlemartyr on Jun 8, 2011 20:02:23 GMT -5
One Nation lasted long enough to strongly influence John Howard's policy on refugees and mandatory detention. The nutters usually do burn themselves out but that doesn't mean they can't royally fuck things up for some in the meantime. The Tea Party in the US are in the process of doing this now. They got themselves elected in a lot of areas and our now busily making life miserable for their constituents.
|
|
|
|
Post by shadoom2 on Jun 8, 2011 20:31:25 GMT -5
We would have gone down the asylum seeker detention road anyway, mandatory off-shore processing is the only effective way we've found to stop people smuggling boats, and once 9/11 got the xenophobia ball rolling it was inevitable that someone would use a 'hard-line on refugees' approach to win an election.
And the US is completely different, since they have optional voting the moderates have less influence than in Australia, so the extremists are much less likely to be drowned out. One Nation only ever got 2 federal seats in Australia, while the Tea Baggers have a lot more in the US.
|
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Jun 8, 2011 22:43:58 GMT -5
We would have gone down the asylum seeker detention road anyway, mandatory off-shore processing is the only effective way we've found to stop people smuggling boats I hate this argument. It bugs me greatly. There is correlatory suggestion that boat arrivals reduced between 2001 and 2007. But there is no real believable argument in favour of causation of asylum reduction by that policy. Firstly, it's important to note that asylum seeking worldwide decreased by half between 2001 and 2006. So we should be expecting a 50% reduction in boat arrivals without any policy effect. Second, most people measure selectively. If you measure from the peak in 2001 (under Howard), the policy does look fantastically effective. But if you compare the, say, 2003 rate with a 1995 rate, they're virtually the same. The thing about 2001 was that the year was an unrepresentative spike in asylum arrivals, noot a background rate. That spike went away no quicker than it arrived. That suggests that the spike was caused by inherent global problems (the Afghanistan War) rather than policy. Boat arrivals, after all, peaked under an already brutal policy of mandatory, indefinate detention. That policy, the most brutal in the First world, didn't stop thousands of boats arriving in Australia under Howard. A rational refugee, when looking at Australia under the pre-Pacific Solution, would go somewhere else- like New Zealand*. Or they might come by plane rather than boat. But they didn't. Under mandatory detention, more asylum seekers tried to come to Australia, not less. So if asylum seekers were rationally informed about Australian policy, they'd not come here anyway. That implies that the immigration rate is determined by global circumstances, not government policy. It doesn't matter what the goverment does; Afghan farmers won't hear about it. The last point is that the policy is ridiculously inhumane. That's the point- abuse people so badly they don't come to Australia and our burden is shifted to some other country. It's also bizarre; why do we hate people who come by boat, but not plane? In short, GRRRRRR. * Further evidence that the pacific solution had no effect; New Zealand had no spike in asylum seekers, even though that's what you'd expect. |
|
|
|
Post by tolpuddlemartyr on Jun 9, 2011 4:21:19 GMT -5
Mandatory off-shore processing is the only effective way we've found to stop people smuggling boats Except it didn't. |
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Jun 9, 2011 5:34:45 GMT -5
Mandatory off-shore processing is the only effective way we've found to stop people smuggling boats Except it didn't. A much more concise analysis, I think. |
|
