Tony Gets Tough!

[Guest]

http://bestsmileys.com/notlistening/2.gif

still awake...

Oh, good.

And I see you followed my link to the fun new smilie site.

So an old dog can learn new tricks.

 

[Guest]

Does he need to change his skin?

Now don't start that!

We still have an unresolved spanking of which to discuss.

 

[vogueboy]

It looks as if you are purposefully setting it to (size 2)?

I believe the default font is size 3. You shouldn't have to do a thing but type and it will come out a bit more readable.

Yeah, you're right I did set to size 2, and now it's too big. Grrr Ok, Umm...Let me think. You said just to leave well enough alone and start typing? Ok, that's what I am doing in this post.

Do I need to change my skin? or just leave well enough alone? (font size)?

Thanks in advance for your help.

 

[Guest]

Yeah, you're right I did set to size 2, and now it's too big. Grrr Ok, Umm...Let me think. You said just to leave well enough alone and start typing? Ok, that's what I am doing in this post.

Do I need to change my skin? or just leave well enough alone? (font size)?

Thanks in advance for your help.

This is great - I think it works just fine.

The "skin" setting is just for you - your personal preferences - how you view the site. No one else will see that but you.

But if you just type and then submit reply, the font size should be ok.

And yes, this was much easier on the eyes, thank you.

And you're welcome!

 

[vogueboy]

Thanks

This is great - I think it works just fine.

The "skin" setting is just for you - your personal preferences - how you view the site. No one else will see that but you.

But if you just type and then submit reply, the font size should be ok.

And yes, this was much easier on the eyes, thank you.

And you're welcome!

Wheww... Thanks, I was getting worried about my size...

 

[Guest]

Wheww... Thanks, I was getting worried about my size...

Laughing -

 

[vogueboy]

From what I undestand, Blair is advocating deportation of immigrants who advocate violence against the British people and government. I don't have any problem with that at all.

As I recall, it's a federal crime in the USA to advocate violent overthrow of the government, and conspiring to do violence is also a felony. Immigrants who are convicted of a felony are subject to prison and/or deportation, and this has always been the case. I don't have a problem with that either.

What I do have a problem with is giving the government permission to search my library and medical records, my financial history, and whatever else they feel like looking at without first demonstrating a just cause, informing the courts as to what they're looking for and why they think I might have it, and obtaining a search warrant. The permission to do all these things is implicit in the Patriot Act, which can thus be used to harass people and go on fishing expeditions into their private lives, 'looking' for anything they happen to find. That's why I oppose it.

Yes, I agree, as it deals with Individuals. Not an entire ethinc group or race.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

How do you guys do gaining citizenship in Britain. I know in America you have to be pimped out to every senator in the Beltway for 20 years and then do to a computer error or decrepit law, reject you anyway and leave you hanging with no way to appeal?

Are you guys better about it and is it easier for someone seking British citizenship to gain it?

Also what constitutes advocacy of force in this case? I know most political organizations use certain terminology when talking about causes: wars, struggles, fights, bringing the issue home, etc... Advocacy of slaughter like the neo-nazi gangs or the whazzisname Earl mentioned is definitely on the list, but whose on the list with them and what type of connection do you need? It seems very open to corruption, especially with the sort of seething Arab-Brit conflict in the British cities. Would being a member of a Palestinian-Brit civil rights organization which mentions bringing power to the people and overthrowing racist laws be used as grounds for removal?

This seems a law open to interpretation, especially after the series of American abuses in similar laws. Consider the recent case where two Arab-Americans (citizens actually) girls in junior-high were sent to Gitmo because one wrote an essay denouncing Palestinian suicide bombings as un-Muslim and cowardly.

Can the same thing happen in Britain especially with the division that the terror-bombings have brought to light? Plus, there will be other non-citizens who will see mere advocates being given the full force of the law while active terrorists like the nazis, hooligans, and IRA are given much more slack. Add a few "accidental" shootings like the poor electrician and some people speaking up a bit angrily (also getting deported) and you end up with some nasty business at the end of the day. Plus it justifies the terrorists. "See the cowardly Brits tear themselves up with fear of our mighty Al-Queda penises, truly we have the biggest cock," they say laughing with repressed sexuality.

Plus, not to diminish Earl's point, but what about dead switches? In those cases, the only way to keep the bomb from blowing up is to not kill the terrorist but attempt to dissuade him from a very long distance. Shooting in the head from point blank range would only kill the 20 innocents including bobbies. It's not an enviable position for sure to not know if by hesitating you are dooming the people around you or if by killing them you are dooming the people around you or if by killing them you are killing an innocent yourself. Still, lying about him being a terrorist in order to cover it up? That was a bit underhanded. A routine check of the corpse would have told them he had no bombs. It shouldn't have taken so many days to come out.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

If I came over to your house and abused your hospitality, sponged off you, constantly insulted you and tried to kill you, you would probably also be unhappy about my presence also.

Ah, that brings back memories of my Freshman year of college. Except he only tried to kill me once (never be on a railing with someone who hates you because you refused to sleep once more in the hallway while he snogged).

And I understand the concept and if it isn't abused and it is done openly and properly it is a very good and proper thing. The only thing is that Britain needs to be careful here or else they'll greatly alienate a core segment of their population which already feels like second-class citizens.

 

[oggbashan]

How do you guys do gaining citizenship in Britain. I know in America you have to be pimped out to every senator in the Beltway for 20 years and then do to a computer error or decrepit law, reject you anyway and leave you hanging with no way to appeal?

Are you guys better about it and is it easier for someone seking British citizenship to gain it?

...

As I understand it, there are several categories involved.

1. Any citizen of the European Union has the right to live and work in the UK. That's it. Any EU citizen is not covered by the categories below.

2. A tourist or student is just that and is expected to leave after a reasonable time and NOT work in the UK.

3. A migrant worker can get temporary permission to stay for a specific job and tourists backpacking around the world who want to work say fruit-picking can get that permission as well.

4. A refugee who is fleeing persecution, if they can prove that they are from a country that would persecute them, and that they are likely to be persecuted, can claim asylum in the UK and will be given permission to stay. That permission may be temporary, subject to review, particularly if the situation in the refugee's home country changes e.g. someone from Afghanistan who was working against the Taleban. That permission is for the refugee's safety. It does NOT necessarily give permission to work in this country and therefore the refugee is supported by the state.

5. An immigrant who comes to the UK without fleeing a threat abroad might be given temporary permission to stay but NOT to work. Gaining a work permit is difficult and requires cooperation from an employer but is possible. An immigrant whose permission to stay has expired or has been withdrawn can still remain if an appeal against that decision has been filed. Only when the whole appeals process has been explored can the immigrant be deported.

6. Those in categories 1-5 above are legitimate and will have declared themselves on entry into the UK by the normal means - airline, ferry, Channel Tunnel. They will have been interviewed or viewed, however briefly, by UK immigration personnel. If not 1 or 2 they will have had their papers endorsed with their status in the UK and may be checked from time to time to see that they are not breaching the conditions of their residence in the UK i.e. working when their permission does not give them the right to work.

7. The largest category are illegal immigrants
- those who came to the UK as apparent tourists or students and remained beyond their permitted time
- those who entered the country by covert means
- those who had permission but that permission has expired or has been withdrawn for cause and no appeal is pending or the last appeal has been denied.

Illegal immigrants, if they declare themselves to the authorities as soon as they arrive in the UK, can ask for permission to stay and can get help from various bodies to present their case.

Permission to remain and citizenship
If an immigrant is granted indefinite permission to remain then that person has a right to stay and work in the UK. Once that status is obtained the immigrant, after a length of time, I think 5 years, can apply for British Citizenship. There are no awkward questions on the constitution - we don't have one. They are expected to declare allegiance but not in the strict form needed in the US. The only bar is likely to be a criminal conviction IN THE UK for a serious offence and what is 'serious' is negotiable. If close relations are already British Citizens then the process is likely to be very easy. The authorities' attitude seems to be that anyone, legally resident in the UK, wanting to be a British Citizen is eligible because they have expressed that desire.

Of course, many countries throughout the world have been part of the British Empire or Commonwealth. British Citizens can be descendants of British Citizens in what are now independent countries. What that sort of British Citizen needs is not citizenship, they already have it, but the right to stay in the UK as a British Citizen. When Idi Amin kicked Asians out of Uganda, the Prime Minister of the day, Ted Heath, made one of his best decisions. He let all of those British Citizens into the UK. They were genuine refugees fleeing persecution but the PM granted them all the right to stay and work in the UK.
It is a regret that we did not take the same decision for the British Citizens of Hong Kong.

To sum up:
Permission to remain is difficult to get. Once it has been obtained, British Citizenship is unnecessary but obtainable with little more than patience with the bureaucracy.

British Citizenship does not necessarily include the right to live in the UK

Refugees or immigrants who have limited permissions to remain are restricted in what they can do.

Illegal immigrants have no rights but can ask for permission and appeal against the decision if the permission is not granted.

Og

 

[amicus]

Og, as always, a thoughtful offering...still, as EU and GB, face 9/11 in your own terms, does it not require somewhat a shift in opinion. e.g. the U.S.A.?

Do we, do you, have or have not, a right to protect ourselves?

And yes, civil liberties are in jeopardy and we need to be alert, both here and there...


amicus...

 

[CharleyH]

ok Earl, back as promised... so deporting foreign nationals "suspected" of terrorist affiliations ….

Does this not breach basic human rights? Is this not a discriminatory act since it only applies to foreign nationals who 'may' or 'may not' be associated with terrorism as opposed to policies of deporting those who have committed actual crimes? Doesn't this contravene basic rights of individuals especially where it concerns law since suspects have not exactly committed a crime?

Certainly, we are only talking about those suspected of being associated with al qaeda, though we do like to throw around the term, 'Foreign National'?

How different is this than the case of the recently murdered Jean Charles de Menezes? So what if, like Maher Arar, (deported to Syria from the US, despite his Canadian passport, then detained and tortured) you are deporting people who have no affiliations with terrorists, whatsoever?

At what cost is this right? Although, I suppose it does make more sense than detaining them in the earlier stated ghettos.

 

[oggbashan]

If there are people 'suspected' of inciting terrorism in the UK that are to be deported, that deportation is likely to be queried by numerous support groups and Her Majesty's Opposition. The latter may be given access to Secret Service information to inform the decision. The checks and balances are still in place.

What is known is that there are people in the UK who have fled here from their own countries because they were facing arrest for supporting 'terrorists'. If that country is not a state persecuting its citizens, why should we allow people to evade trial?

There are also people who want to destroy our state's democratic institutions - not to criticise them, but to DESTROY them and replace them with say Sharia. Should we allow them to advocate destruction of our systems? That is a more difficult call because it covers people on one extreme who want Muslim law to operate in parallel to UK law and on the other extreme who want to have Muslim law for all citizens of the UK and consider that any means justifies that end.

Even advocating parallel laws is an attack on the UK's democracy. That argument was the main reason for the assassination of St. Thomas a Becket - should priests obey civil or religious law? Henry VIII solved that dilemma by making the Church subject to the Crown and it still is.

The UK government has a delicate balancing act to perform between civil liberties and combating those who support terrorists. They have the support of the opposition, but NOT unqualified support. Any action is likely to be examined and criticised if it is disproportionate to the threat.

One thing that is annoying UK's politicians - post 9/11 we signed a reciprocal agreement with the US to facilitate extradition between the two countries. That was to help the war of terror. The US has NOT implemented their side of the agreement and yet has attempted to use it to extradite UK citizens to the US for financial irregularities that are NOT criminal here and are criminal in the US. That is using an anti-terrorist law for the wrong reasons.

Og

 

[Boxlicker101]

I have a hard time figuring out where some posters on this thread are coming from. It seems there are certain individuals in the UK, who are not citizens and don't want to become citizens. For the most part, they are parasites who live off the taxpayers. Not only do they contribute nothing to the country that has, up till now, fed, clothed and housed them, they are loudly advocating murdering the citizens of the UK. This is an extreme case of biting the hand that feeds one.

Up until now, the UK has displayed remarkable forbearance and patience, allowing these parasites to live there and flourish. Until recently, their message of hatred and violence had not been effective but now it has, so the situation is different. The government of the UK is taking steps to kick these persons out. I can't understand why outsiders would object.

Some have said it is discriminatory. Of course it is. Jails and prisons are discriminatory also because they only hold those who have been convictd of crimes. You can't deport native-born citizens because there is no place to deport them to. Many of the deportees are of a certain ethnicity and religion but that has nothing to do with the deportations. Other persons of the same ethnicity and religion are welcome to stay as long as they are decent people. I am of mostly English descent but if I were to go there and act the same way as the deportees do, I would also be imprisoned or kicked out of the country.

Ogg, I have to admit that the US has often been remiss in upholding extradition treaties. Members of the IRA, who committed "political crimes" such as murder or armed robbery were sometimes given a safe haven. At the same time, there are criminals who are wanted by the US who are protectd by European nations. Roman Polansky of France, who molested a 13 year old girl, is one of the most notorious, but there are others who will not be extradited because some European nations believe the American penalties are too harsh.

 

[oggbashan]

I have a hard time figuring out where some posters on this thread are coming from. It seems there are certain individuals in the UK, who are not citizens and don't want to become citizens. For the most part, they are parasites who live off the taxpayers. Not only do they contribute nothing to the country that has, up till now, fed, clothed and housed them, they are loudly advocating murdering the citizens of the UK. This is an extreme case of biting the hand that feeds one.

Up until now, the UK has displayed remarkable forbearance and patience, allowing these parasites to live there and flourish. Until recently, their message of hatred and violence had not been effective but now it has, so the situation is different. The government of the UK is taking steps to kick these persons out. I can't understand why outsiders would object.

Some have said it is discriminatory. Of course it is. Jails and prisons are discriminatory also because they only hold those who have been convictd of crimes. You can't deport native-born citizens because there is no place to deport them to. Many of the deportees are of a certain ethnicity and religion but that has nothing to do with the deportations. Other persons of the same ethnicity and religion are welcome to stay as long as they are decent people. I am of mostly English descent but if I were to go there and act the same way as the deportees do, I would also be imprisoned or kicked out of the country.

Some of the people named as involved with the 21/7 terrorists have had multiple identities and have been claiming benefits in those multiple names.

The intention of the government is to deport those who are actively working to undermine the institutions of the UK while supporting the majority of immigrants who have come to the UK for a better life. Those who are merely critical of the UK's foreign policies are not the threat. Those who want to overthrow the UK's government by terrorism are.

Ogg, I have to admit that the US has often been remiss in upholding extradition treaties. Members of the IRA, who committed "political crimes" such as murder or armed robbery were sometimes given a safe haven. At the same time, there are criminals who are wanted by the US who are protectd by European nations. Roman Polansky of France, who molested a 13 year old girl, is one of the most notorious, but there are others who will not be extradited because some European nations believe the American penalties are too harsh.

The dispute with the US on extradition is about using an anti-terrorism agreement to seek to extradite UK citizens who are not terrorists for a financial management 'crime' that is NOT a crime in the UK. That is very different from the Polansky case.

The distaste in the UK over the treatment of IRA members in the US is a thing of the past. Definitions of 'political' crimes are always difficult between states but how the US Irish community could see the 'Provisional' or 'Real' IRA of the 1970s as descendants of the IRA of the 1910s and 1920s was almost incomprehensible. The old IRA won a free country and then disbanded. The later versions would have appalled the originals.

Og

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Some of the people named as involved with the 21/7 terrorists have had multiple identities and have been claiming benefits in those multiple names.

The intention of the government is to deport those who are actively working to undermine the institutions of the UK while supporting the majority of immigrants who have come to the UK for a better life. Those who are merely critical of the UK's foreign policies are not the threat. Those who want to overthrow the UK's government by terrorism are.



The dispute with the US on extradition is about using an anti-terrorism agreement to seek to extradite UK citizens who are not terrorists for a financial management 'crime' that is NOT a crime in the UK. That is very different from the Polansky case.

The distaste in the UK over the treatment of IRA members in the US is a thing of the past. Definitions of 'political' crimes are always difficult between states but how the US Irish community could see the 'Provisional' or 'Real' IRA of the 1970s as descendants of the IRA of the 1910s and 1920s was almost incomprehensible. The old IRA won a free country and then disbanded. The later versions would have appalled the originals.

Og

Not to threadjack too much, but Ogs, what were the provos? I've heard provisional IRA. Some people say they were the worst of the worst. Others that they were more in line with the originals, confining their attacks to police/military units. I can't seem to find a concensus.

 

[oggbashan]

Not to threadjack too much, but Ogs, what were the provos? I've heard provisional IRA. Some people say they were the worst of the worst. Others that they were more in line with the originals, confining their attacks to police/military units. I can't seem to find a concensus.

The original IRA was the force involved in the Easter Rising of 1916. They were fighting for the independence of Ireland from the British. When the Irish Free State, now Eire, was set up the IRA disbanded, discarded their weapons and became a political party supporting democracy in Eire.

The Provisionals (and other groups) operated against the counties of Ireland that voted to stay with the British (Ulster). At the time the 'Protestants' of Northern Ireland were prepared to fight to stay out of the Irish Free State which they saw as ruled by the Catholic Church. The partition of Ireland into Eire and Ulster left people on the 'wrong' side of the border as such partitions always will. The Catholics in Ulster were oppressed by the Protestants - denied jobs, housing etc. That had been historically true throughout the whole of Ireland - Protestants had owned the land, the factories etc. It wasn't clearcut. Some of the worst landowners at the time of the great famine were actually Catholics.

The Catholic community in Northern Ireland had a genuine grievance. They wanted to aspire to be normal citizens with normal rights. However some of them wanted to be united with Eire. That would have meant that the majority of the citizens of Northern Ireland would have been forced to be a minority in Eire and that they wouldn't accept.

The Provisionals were formed to fight for a United Ireland by force by bombing and assassination - tools the original IRA had used against oppression by the British - and to defend the Catholic community against terrorism from the 'Protestant' paramilitaries, some of whom were also police when not terrorists. The British in Northern Ireland were NOT oppressing the Catholics - the other citizens of Northern Ireland were doing that. The Army was sent in to keep the peace - to stop the armed 'Protestants' killing unarmed 'Catholics'. At first the Army was welcome.

The Provisionals saw their powerbase being eroded by the reasonableness of the British Army's policing. If there was no oppression then there is no support for radicals fighting the oppressors. The Provos, or other splinter groups, provoked the Army by sniping and bombing until the Army retaliated on Bloody Sunday. Who fired first? I don't know.

The Provos bombed civilians and police and soldiers. They shot police and soldiers. They made a bombing campaign in mainland Britain and killed civilians, tourists, and police and soldiers. In Northern Ireland they tried to target the military but civilians also died. For what? Power-sharing was on the table - the right of the minority to veto laws against itself despite always being outvoted by the majority.

The Provos became self-perpetuating. They killed to justify their existence and attempted to provoke their 'Protestant' adversaries to retaliate. Generally the 'Protestant' discipline held but sometimes they too bombed and shot.

The various 'IRAs' whatever they were called in NORTHERN Ireland were fighting to impose a minority's will on a majority. The original IRA were fighting for democratic rights for a majority oppressed by a minority.

Og

 

[Colleen Thomas]

The original IRA was the force involved in the Easter Rising of 1916. They were fighting for the independence of Ireland from the British. When the Irish Free State, now Eire, was set up the IRA disbanded, discarded their weapons and became a political party supporting democracy in Eire.

The Provisionals (and other groups) operated against the counties of Ireland that voted to stay with the British (Ulster). At the time the 'Protestants' of Northern Ireland were prepared to fight to stay out of the Irish Free State which they saw as ruled by the Catholic Church. The partition of Ireland into Eire and Ulster left people on the 'wrong' side of the border as such partitions always will. The Catholics in Ulster were oppressed by the Protestants - denied jobs, housing etc. That had been historically true throughout the whole of Ireland - Protestants had owned the land, the factories etc. It wasn't clearcut. Some of the worst landowners at the time of the great famine were actually Catholics.

The Catholic community in Northern Ireland had a genuine grievance. They wanted to aspire to be normal citizens with normal rights. However some of them wanted to be united with Eire. That would have meant that the majority of the citizens of Northern Ireland would have been forced to be a minority in Eire and that they wouldn't accept.

The Provisionals were formed to fight for a United Ireland by force by bombing and assassination - tools the original IRA had used against oppression by the British - and to defend the Catholic community against terrorism from the 'Protestant' paramilitaries, some of whom were also police when not terrorists. The British in Northern Ireland were NOT oppressing the Catholics - the other citizens of Northern Ireland were doing that. The Army was sent in to keep the peace - to stop the armed 'Protestants' killing unarmed 'Catholics'. At first the Army was welcome.

The Provisionals saw their powerbase being eroded by the reasonableness of the British Army's policing. If there was no oppression then there is no support for radicals fighting the oppressors. The Provos, or other splinter groups, provoked the Army by sniping and bombing until the Army retaliated on Bloody Sunday. Who fired first? I don't know.

The Provos bombed civilians and police and soldiers. They shot police and soldiers. They made a bombing campaign in mainland Britain and killed civilians, tourists, and police and soldiers. In Northern Ireland they tried to target the military but civilians also died. For what? Power-sharing was on the table - the right of the minority to veto laws against itself despite always being outvoted by the majority.

The Provos became self-perpetuating. They killed to justify their existence and attempted to provoke their 'Protestant' adversaries to retaliate. Generally the 'Protestant' discipline held but sometimes they too bombed and shot.

The various 'IRAs' whatever they were called in NORTHERN Ireland were fighting to impose a minority's will on a majority. The original IRA were fighting for democratic rights for a majority oppressed by a minority.

Og

Thanks Ogs.

*HUSG*

end thread jack.

 

[CharleyH]

I have a hard time figuring out where some posters on this thread are coming from. It seems there are certain individuals in the UK, who are not citizens and don't want to become citizens. For the most part, they are parasites who live off the taxpayers. Not only do they contribute nothing to the country that has, up till now, fed, clothed and housed them, they are loudly advocating murdering the citizens of the UK. This is an extreme case of biting the hand that feeds one.

Up until now, the UK has displayed remarkable forbearance and patience, allowing these parasites to live there and flourish. Until recently, their message of hatred and violence had not been effective but now it has, so the situation is different. The government of the UK is taking steps to kick these persons out. I can't understand why outsiders would object.

Some have said it is discriminatory. Of course it is. Jails and prisons are discriminatory also because they only hold those who have been convictd of crimes. You can't deport native-born citizens because there is no place to deport them to. Many of the deportees are of a certain ethnicity and religion but that has nothing to do with the deportations. Other persons of the same ethnicity and religion are welcome to stay as long as they are decent people. I am of mostly English descent but if I were to go there and act the same way as the deportees do, I would also be imprisoned or kicked out of the country.

Ogg, I have to admit that the US has often been remiss in upholding extradition treaties. Members of the IRA, who committed "political crimes" such as murder or armed robbery were sometimes given a safe haven. At the same time, there are criminals who are wanted by the US who are protectd by European nations. Roman Polansky of France, who molested a 13 year old girl, is one of the most notorious, but there are others who will not be extradited because some European nations believe the American penalties are too harsh.

Good GOD! Do you live up your ass Box?

If the UK is anything like Canada, then your statements are SO prejudiced that you need to rethink that you "have a hard time figuring out posters."

And this is only a beginning of what I could say to you!

 

[vogueboy]

If there are people 'suspected' of inciting terrorism in the UK that are to be deported, that deportation is likely to be queried by numerous support groups and Her Majesty's Opposition. The latter may be given access to Secret Service information to inform the decision. The checks and balances are still in place.

What is known is that there are people in the UK who have fled here from their own countries because they were facing arrest for supporting 'terrorists'. If that country is not a state persecuting its citizens, why should we allow people to evade trial?

There are also people who want to destroy our state's democratic institutions - not to criticise them, but to DESTROY them and replace them with say Sharia. Should we allow them to advocate destruction of our systems? That is a more difficult call because it covers people on one extreme who want Muslim law to operate in parallel to UK law and on the other extreme who want to have Muslim law for all citizens of the UK and consider that any means justifies that end.

Even advocating parallel laws is an attack on the UK's democracy. That argument was the main reason for the assassination of St. Thomas a Becket - should priests obey civil or religious law? Henry VIII solved that dilemma by making the Church subject to the Crown and it still is.

The UK government has a delicate balancing act to perform between civil liberties and combating those who support terrorists. They have the support of the opposition, but NOT unqualified support. Any action is likely to be examined and criticised if it is disproportionate to the threat.

One thing that is annoying UK's politicians - post 9/11 we signed a reciprocal agreement with the US to facilitate extradition between the two countries. That was to help the war of terror. The US has NOT implemented their side of the agreement and yet has attempted to use it to extradite UK citizens to the US for financial irregularities that are NOT criminal here and are criminal in the US. That is using an anti-terrorist law for the wrong reasons.

Og

Muslim (Islam) is a religion, UK is a Country.

So what you're saying is that one type of religion is an attack on UK's democracy.

Is that why Protestant and Catholic religions are an attack on UK's democracy as well? And is that why they're subject to the Crown?

You single out 'Muslim Law', yet you omit Protestant and Catholic Laws. Unless it was inferred in your opinion...

If that is the case, then please make it clear to the rest of us that you're not singling out only one religious group.

Your post suggests that the Muslims are the woe to UK Democracy.

Just like the Jews were the woe to German Nationalism. And look where that led...

It only takes one opinion, one idea to rally a nation.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Good GOD! Do you live up your ass Box?

If the UK is anything like Canada, then your statements are SO prejudiced that you need to rethink that you "have a hard time figuring out posters."

And this is only a beginning of what I could say to you!

Charlie, I have just read over all your posts on this thread and, except for the ones about Sarah's ass, they are gibberish. For a while, you rather coyly suggested that you would say what you meant but you haven't yet.

As I understand it, Blair is advocating deporting those foreign nationals who are loudly advocating violence against British citizens, using websites or other public forums. To me, this seems like an eminently sensible idea. Remember, the deportation would only apply to non-citizens. It would only apply to those who are fomenting violence or lawlessness. It probably would not apply to soccer hooligans because their activities are strictly localized and most of them are citizens anyhow.

I see nothing discriminatory about the notion. If there are people who are enjoying the hospitality of a foreign country and they are abusing that hospitality, they should be kicked out. It happens that most of the deportees would be members of a specific religion but that is not discriminatory. They would be judged by their actions, not by their religions. Millions of others who practice that same religion would be unaffected because they are not committing the offenses of the deportees.

If a rabid pro-Catholic were to enter the country from The Republic of Ireland and start trying to induce other Catholics to murder innocents and blow up trains, etc. to get the nation to pass all Catholic dogma as law and to unite Ulster with the ROI, he would probably be tolerated. However, if he were to start having success and terrorists he had trained were murdering people, he would be treated like the others we have been talking about.

It wouldn't be a person's ethnicity or religion, it would be his or her actions, which might include what was said.

 

[Liar]

Muslim is a religion, UK is a Country.

So what you're saying is that one type of religion is an attack on UK's democracy.

Is that why Protestant and Catholic religions are an attack on UK's democracy as well? And is that why they're subject to the Crown?

You single out 'Muslim Law', yet you omit Protestant and Catholic Laws. Unless it was inferred in your opinion...

If that is the case, then please make it clear to the rest of us that you're not singling out only one religious group.

Your post suggests that the Muslims are the woe to UK Democracy.

Just like the Jews were the woe to German Nationalism. And look where that led...

It only takes one opinion, one idea to rally a nation.

How the hell did you draw those conclusions from that post? You seem to read what you wanna read.

 

[vogueboy]

How the hell did you draw those conclusions from that post? You seem to read what you wanna read.

Mmm, Let's see... The 3rd and 4th paragraphs... Maybe I should've just quoted the two instead of the whole post. Then my response is clearer.

 

[Liar]

Mmm, Let's see... The 3rd and 4th paragraphs... Maybe I should've just quoted the two instead of the whole post. Then my response is clearer.

Only by a fraction.

Og can speak for himself I'm certain, but since I'm here, I just have to point out:

- Nowhere did he say that "one type of religion is an attack on UK's democracy". That's your far-out intepretetion.
- In no way did his post suggest that "that the Muslims are the woe to UK Democracy". Equally far-out.

Those who want to make religious law superior to civil UK law, or even equal to civil UK law (because they are in conflict, and we must not compromise with the civil law)... those people are a threat to democracy. Currently, the biggest group advocating this are Muslim fundamentalists. Of course it could just as well have been Catholics, Buddhists or Jedi-worshippers.

The entire jewish people was (for some twisted and delusional reason) the woe of the German Nazis. A very select minority of Muslims are currrently the woe of the UK democracy. Your comparison is so ridiculous it would be funny if I weren't on caffeine withdrawal.

Yes, you seem to read what you wanna read.

 

[oggbashan]

Some extreme 'religious' groups are already banned in the UK and those groups are not Muslim.

In my earlier post I wrote 'replace them with say Sharia'. My argument is equally valid for unreconstructed Communists wanting a workers' revolution or vaguely Christian sects who see any civil state as evil.

The current threat is from those claiming to be Muslim who do not recognise the UK government, or any non-Islamic government, as legitimate. If they are foreigners living in the UK and advocating overthrow of the forms of Government then deporting them is a reasonable act. If they are UK citizens then they could be committing treason. It is one thing to criticise the government of the day or its policies. It is another thing to suggest that the system of government could be improved. It is treason to advocate overthrow of the structures of government by force.

Og