British PM says multiculturalism has failed

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Yes... the uk is just a small step away from BNP takeover. Did you know that it is the law here to shave your head and put on jackboots before you go to work?

Joke all you want. Geert Wilders is the man in Holland these days, and imo Holland is the better for it.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Sure... if you're a fascist.

The BNP does not have mainstream political authority. Not even remotely close.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Sure... if you're a fascist.

The BNP does not have mainstream political authority. Not even remotely close.

Netherlands, France, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Germany, Italy, Belgium...times are changing in Europe...and it's about time. All those country's are taking a more right wing stance against immigration and for good reason.

[elmcitymaven 9,711]

Sure... if you're a fascist.

The BNP does not have mainstream political authority. Not even remotely close.

I long for the boot on my neck, anyway, so I'm waiting for the BNP to take over and then spread their disease over the Atlantic.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Netherlands, France, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Germany, Italy, Belgium...times are changing in Europe...and it's about time. All those country's are taking a more right wing stance against immigration and for good reason.

Not as much as you think.

I long for the boot on my neck, anyway, so I'm waiting for the BNP to take over and then spread their disease over the Atlantic.

Yeah the shaved head and swastika neck tattoo are very 'in' right now

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Netherlands, France, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Germany, Italy, Belgium...times are changing in Europe...and it's about time. All those country's are taking a more right wing stance against immigration and for good reason.

Being a rigidly racist country that doesn't like the people they used to oppress as colonialists coming to live among them is nothing to brag about. It only proves that the only time you like multiculturalism is when you're occupying their countries. Frankly, MENA and Asian countries should kick Europeans who won't assimilate out of their countries, too, like they did in the late 1950's and early 60's.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Being a rigidly racist country that doesn't like the people they used to oppress as colonialists coming to live among them is nothing to brag about. It only proves that the only time you like multiculturalism is when you're occupying their countries. Frankly, MENA and Asian countries should kick Europeans who won't assimilate out of their countries, too, like they did in the late 1950's and early 60's.

You want to tell me just how well multiculturalism is working in MENA country's ? Let's see...Saudi Arabia maybe ? Or Egypt...maybe Syria or Jordan eh...or even Yemen....

While your at it, you show me the numbers of Europeans and North Americans immigrating to those country's...LEGAL immigration, and I'l post the numbers of Muslims from the MENA country's that have immigrated to western Europe and North America.

How much you want to bet that the numbers aren't even close...I'm going to say MILLIONS apart.

Edited February 6, 2011 by Why_Me

[sandinista! 1,816]

Maybe if Europeans wouldn't have slaughtered each other like animals during not one, but two world wars, they wouldnt have needed to import cheap labor sources from the third world. And maybe if they had had an ounce of foresight when they created their immigration policies they wouldn't be in the state they are now. Whatever problems they have are hugely a part of their own making.

You want to tell me just how well multiculturalism is working in MENA country's ? Let's see...Saudi Arabia maybe ? Or Egypt...maybe Syria or Jordan eh...or even Yemen....

While your at it, you show me the numbers of Europeans and North Americans immigrating to those country's...LEGAL immigration, and I'l post the numbers of Muslims from the MENA country's that have immigrated to western Europe and North America.

How much you want to bet that the numbers aren't even close...I'm going to say MILLIONS apart.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Reported.

Additionally, you dont have the first clue what yr talking about. Beth din of America has been around for years, acting as arbitrators using Jewish law, presiding over Jewish divorces, etc. The Jews participating are just as American as anyone else, and have every right to participate in these kinds of proceedings where their religious views are accommodated. If an American Jew doesn't want their divorce or other issue handled by the Beth din, then it doesn't have to be, they can go to regular family court or a secular arbitrator. It should be no different for Muslims.

Reported for what ? Because you don't like what you read ? lol ?

[Sofiyya 1,687]

You want to tell me just how well multiculturalism is working in MENA country's ? Let's see...Saudi Arabia maybe ? Or Egypt...maybe Syria or Jordan eh...or even Yemen....

While your at it, you show me the numbers of Europeans and North Americans immigrating to those country's...LEGAL immigration, and I'l post the numbers of Muslims from the MENA country's that have immigrated to western Europe and North America.

How much you want to bet that the numbers aren't even close...I'm going to say MILLIONS apart.

Not that you know much about any of that, but I'll let you start posting your info, as it is. In the meantime, here's a link to a Columbia Law Review article, "IS THIS ARBITRATION?: RELIGIOUS TRIBUNALS, JUDICIAL REVIEW, AND DUE PROCESS" and an excerpt from the article re your earlier request. It provides an example and description of the use of religious tribunals and Sharia in the US that is not necessarily in line with my views. I hope you know legalese better than you know Islam or the US justice system. You'll need to read from the beginning for it to make sense.

B. Religious Tribunals

In the United States, Christian, Jewish, and Muslim panels adjudicate disputes, though they vary in frequency and formality. Tribunals in other religions are also surfacing. This subsection describes Christian, Jewish, and Muslim panels, but the issues these panels raise apply to any religious tribunal.

1. Christian Panels. — Christian dispute resolution dates back hundreds of years; in the Middle Ages, popes settled disputes between sovereigns. In the United States, organizations like Peacemaker Ministries provide adjudicatory services based on the teachings of Jesus Christ and the New Testament; this organization serves as one example of a contemporary Christian tribunal.

Founded in 1982, Peacemaker Ministries mediates conflicts, and, absent resolution, submits disputes to its affiliate, the Institute for Christian Conciliation (ICC), for arbitration. Disputes involve religious issues, including doctrinal schism, and secular issues, like patent infringement and nuisance torts.

Courts treat these panels under the FAA or UAA, and ICC advertises itself as capable of receiving enforcement. Scholars note that where “the judicial system is increasingly supportive of ADR . . . many judges have welcomed [Christian] conciliation as a valuable component of the overall ADR mix.”

ICC allows parties to participate in panel selection, but requires that all conciliators affirm a Statement of Faith. ICC panels consider secular law, but “the Holy Scriptures (the Bible) shall be the supreme authority governing every aspect of the conciliation process.”

ICC rules also include provisions that mirror nonreligious arbitration guidelines, like notice, opportunity to appeal, and some discovery. The overarching principles of these Christian panels command that resolution be in accord with the Bible, because “peacemaking is an essential ministry of the local church, not a task reserved for . . . lawyers.”

2. Islamic Panels. — The absence of permanent clergy around whom to establish courts has factored into the lack of permanent Muslim courts in the United States. Likewise, involving third parties to decide disputes is generally viewed with disfavor, leading American Muslims to prefer mediation, where parties resolve disputes themselves.

Still, disputes have been submitted to imams at local U.S. mosques; disputes have included “family disagreements, inheritance, business disputes, marriage, and divorce issues.” While one commentator characterizes resolution of these disputes as “enormous successes,” the process is informal, closed and secret, and lacks uniform rules and procedures. Nevertheless, divorces and other disputes resolved by Islamic authorities can receive enforcement in secular courts. Members of the American Muslim community have sought to establish well-organized panels similar to those in Canada, making it instructive to consider the Canadian Muslim panels.

In Canadian Muslim tribunals, imams apply sharia to the procedural and substantive issues of disputes. Sharia is not a formal code, but rather a discussion of duties under Islamic teachings. It draws upon several sources for its principles: the Koran, the Sunna, Ijima, and Kiyas.

At least four distinct schools of interpretation have developed from these sources, but parties may choose which school will govern a dispute. Additionally, parties can appear with lawyers, and follow the judge selection process where each party chooses one judge, and the two judges then together select the third.

3. Jewish Panels. — Historical evidence documents that Jewish courts—Beth Din—have existed for at least a thousand years, and have operated throughout Europe from the Middle Ages through today.

In the United States, rabbis at Orthodox synagogues established local tribunals, while national associations of Jewish synagogues created dispute resolution boards. As a result, a large number of U.S. cities have many Jewish courts.

Judges apply halacha—Jewish law—but the procedures of each panel differ. Generally, the court consists of three judges, usually rabbis, who need no formal qualifications. Traditionally, litigants were discouraged from using counsel, but no consensus exists over whether representation is permitted.

This sectarian nature makes each panel differ, with its “own local rules, hours, fee schedules, and legal requirements which are often unfamiliar to [parties].”

Institutional panels include the Beth Din of America (BDA) and the Jewish Conciliation Board (JCB). These tribunals hear cases including, among others, contract and corporate claims, employment disputes, and inheritance disputes.

Although these panels deviate from strict religious doctrine and have rules that conform to statutes, not all panels do so, particularly localized ad hoc tribunals.

Across the spectrum judges still apply Jewish law to all disputes. Jewish law may, however, conflict with secular law; for instance, strict Jewish law categorically excludes women from serving as judges, and, along with the handicapped, minors, and others, excludes women from testifying as witnesses. Likewise, panels may reach decisions that contravene secular law.

Regardless, courts treat these decisions and panels under arbitration statutes. The unifying theme of these panels is that faith has a definitive role in the selection of judges, who in turn apply religious doctrine to settle disputes. Although panels may consider secular law, contradictory religious tenets may override civil law, which is a principle itself derived from religious doctrine. Courts in the United Kingdom and Australia have refused to enforce decisions that conflict with secular law, but some courts in the United States have enforced such decisions.

As one author has noted, “[F]rom the perspective of the secular law system [a religious tribunal] is nothing more than private arbitration.” By treating these panels as arbitrations, courts posit that they avoid Religion Clause doctrine limitations, because review under the FAA and UAA appears limited to issues that do not implicate religious questions.

Edited February 6, 2011 by Sofiyya

[sandinista! 1,816]

Reported for what ? Because you don't like what you read ? lol ?

It's not yr opinion I take issue with, I already trounced it. It's the pejoritive slur you used.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

It's not yr opinion I take issue with, I already trounced it. It's the pejoritive slur you used.

You didn't trounce anything. And as far as crying...you don't see me reporting Soffiya for calling me "Why_Ne"...for the fact I'm not a cry baby who can't take the heat.

And don't blame two world wars for the fact Muslim immigrants..legal and illegal have pushed it too far in western Europe. It's not Europe's fault that there's so many crazy's trying to kill journalist, bomb planes, rioting, burning cars, etc...

Facts are facts and no matter how you try and twist it the facts still remain the same. Now trounce that.