Pat Condell

[xoxoxoBruce]

Pat Condell is a Brit... a Brit with an opinion I totally agree with, on what's going on in Europe... and Saudi Arabia.
And he's got that Brit voice that's so easy to listen to.

http://dotsub.com/view/84f5c72d-b0ba...3-8cc40995e011

[TheMercenary]

To bad our sense of diplomacy and need for oil prevents us from telling SA that.

[Trilby]

I give that the claps!

[DanaC]

I was slightly irritated by his asertions that we've had Muslims refusing to do various bits of their jobs because of their 'precious faith'. We have also had Christians refusing to do various things because of their faith; and also insisting on doing inappropriate things because of their faith.

The problem isn't Islam, the problem is faith/religion. The difference being that we are nominally a Christian country so we don't get so het up when it's a Christian refusing to treat a homosexual/do the paperwork for an adoption by a homosexual couple. And if a Christian is being disciplined by their workplace for, for instance, insisting on giving religous advice to atheist parents of sick children, the tone of the news reports is on the shoddy treatment of said Christian, rather than the right of the parents not to have christianity rammed down their throats at an emotionally difficult time.

I have no love of Saudi Arabia. I agree with some of what this man says about that country and about the ludicrous nature of any complaint made by them about 'human rights'. But much of what he says is just Islamophobic and bigotted shit. There is an argument to say that Moslems are being denied religious freedom, in ways that would have Christians marching in the streets if it was applied to them. France is talking about banning the veil ffs. However much I despise that article of dress, it is as wrong to say they shouldn't be able to wear it, as it would be to say Hassidic Jews should be legally prevented from wearing gloves or that Sikhs should have to cut their hair.

[TheMercenary]

But don't you think that the more radical elements (Christian or Muslim) are taking full advantage of and exploiting the freedoms offered to them by Western complacancy? Shouldn't the religious freedoms offered to any group be at least expected to respond in kind through open acceptance of others?

[DanaC]

I do think so yes. Which is why i said I agree with some of what he said. But most of what he said was racist, bigotted anti-multiculturalism. I hear that sort of shit all the time on the doorstep from BNP supporters. They say things like: we're second class citizens in our own country (we aren't). Moslems get what they want because they make a fuss (they don't, no more than any other group). We can't even have Christmas decorations up in Bradford anymore because it might 'offend' the moslems (bollocks. I know this to be untrue. They still have the decorations every Christmas). If you're asian you can just walk into the benefits office and they'll sort you out straight away, but if you're white they ignore you (complete crap). Asians get given massive houses for their extended families, that they bring over (nonsense; they're just as likely to be housed in inappriately small houses as anyone else). And a bunch of other stuff about how we bend over backwards to accomodate moslems (we fucking well don't).

His comment about Ken Livingstone is the big clue here. 'The Mad Mullah of multiculturalism'. In other words a Mayor who promoted tolerance and cross faith/community understanding. Well, what a bastard he was eh? To promote multi-cultural understanding in the world's most culturally diverse city.

*shakes head* This man is just a right-wing bigot who doesn't like moslems.

We haven't bent over backwards to accomodate moslems, we've targetted them disprportionately in stop and search; wrongly arrested many (shot a couple of them during said arrests) on the basis of flawed intellgience and provided them with inadequate protection against the massive rise in racist attacks on moslem individuals and businesses. They are the one group which it is culturally acceptable to attack in britain. because it's a 'faith' and not a 'race' people can be out and out twats and still claim not to be racist. The BNP leaders can make speeches in which moslems are referred to as an infestation of cockroaches ('and what do we do with cockroaches?' he asks the gathered supporters?) and the law does nothing because it isn't directed at a 'race'. If that speech had been about Jews or 'Pakistanis' or 'Sikhs' he'd have been convicted under british law. But because it's directed at 'moslems' it's fine.

British Moslems are under siege in this country and that's just fine and dandy. People can claim what they like about us bending over backwards and changing our way of life to accomodate them but it's 99% bullshit. Most of the moslem communities have higher levels of unemployment and deprivation than other communities and are subject to greater levels of police and civilian harrassment.

[skysidhe]

Doesn't seem fair that we have Fox News and they have Pat Condell.

At least he seems to smile but then a comedian would do that.
Here is his web page.
http://www.patcondell.net/

There is a new video dated 1/14/2010. Underneath the video is a link for a petition to sign against Sharia Law in the UK.

What is Sharia law Dana as you see it?

[DanaC]

Sharia law? It's a set of rules and regulations governing private life and based upon a misogynistic and superstitious interpretation of an outdated religious text. Pretty much like any religiously derived 'law'.

The idea of having 'Sharia courts' in the UK has been blown up out of all proportion. There is no suggestion at all that Sharia law would be introduced in such a manner as to carry the weight of actual law. Sharia courts would be there to provide judgements on family and civil matters for the moslem community in much the same way as similar 'courts' do for the Jewish community. In other words, offering arbitration in matters of divorce and civil disputes based on their own cultural and religious sensibilities to those who wanted to make use of such a body. It would not in anyway outweigh or sit in a similar legal position to the judgements of actual courts.

[Big Sarge]

There is a big difference between Sharia courts and Rabbinical courts. Sharia courts do not recognize the rights of women. I have seen young girls that were doused with boiling water as punishment for a mother's offense for not showing respect. Plus, I have seen the mutilated/disfigured bodies after a Sharia court ruling of death.

[TheMercenary]

The introduction of Sharia courts in the UK is one step closer to full implementation of Sharia Law within the Muslim communities. The idea that it would be only partially implemented is a dangerous step towards further oppression of women of Muslim faith in the UK. IMHO.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by DanaC

There is an argument to say that Moslems are being denied religious freedom, in ways that would have
Christians marching in the streets if it was applied to them.

I agree it would have the christians marching, protesting ... not bombing. . .

France is talking about banning the veil ffs. However much I despise that article of dress, it is as wrong to say they shouldn't be able to wear it, as it would be to say Hassidic Jews should be legally prevented from wearing gloves or that Sikhs should have to cut their hair.

The issue is one of safety and known terrorists being able to conceal their faces behind the veil. Gloves? Cutting their hair? You are totally missing the point. C'mon.

Originally Posted by Big Sarge

There is a big difference between Sharia courts and Rabbinical courts. Sharia courts do not recognize the rights of women. I have seen young girls that were doused with boiling water as punishment for a mother's offense for not showing respect. Plus, I have seen the mutilated/disfigured bodies after a Sharia court ruling of death.

Womenn have few, if any, rights in a Hassidic Beth Din (rabbinical court). There was a recent case in NYC where a woman was thrown out of her house and lost custody of her children because her former husband thought she was being too "provocative" in public.

Neither these rabbinical courts or Sharia law have any legal authority that extends beyond civil matters.

Freedom of religion in the US, UK, or other western democracies requires acknowledging the worst of those practices as part of that religion as long as they do not violate criminal law and regardless of how other countries act.

Originally Posted by classicman

The issue is one of safety and known terrorists being able to conceal their faces behind the veil. Gloves? Cutting their hair? You are totally missing the point. C'mon.

A Sikh can hide a weapon in a turban. Orthodox Jews...probably not so much under a yarmulke, but a small vial of a deadly chemical?

It is not so easy to draw a line between personal protected freedoms that are at the very foundation of western society and national security, nor should it be. When we begin to tilt too much in the favor of national security, we threaten more personal liberties than just one religions practice.

[SamIam]

The problem is fundamentalism of any flavor. I deplore Christian fundamentalists as well as Muslim ones. Fundamentalism seems to be about withdrawing into a bunker where no intelligent thought is tolerated and lobbing bombs out at the rest of the world. I think fundamentalists are scared, mean little people. Its the hell fire and brimstone folks who make more enlightened Christians cringe. I think the same is true for Muslims. I wish all these people could be weeded out somehow and put on a desert island where they could eliminate each other and leave the rest of us alone.

[Big Sarge]

Redux - if you think Sharia Law only applies in civil matters, then you haven't spent much time in Southwest Asia. I guess the court ordered public gang rapes will be a big hit in the UK.