tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post7456092647145439298..comments2024-03-04T17:54:32.559+00:00Comments on Iain Dale's Diary: Who Will Rid Us of This Idiotic Priest?Iain Dalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03270146219458384372noreply@blogger.comBlogger123125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-60064628932924284362008-02-09T22:01:00.000+00:002008-02-09T22:01:00.000+00:00verity said "Stan!! - and a woman's testimony in c...verity said "Stan!! - and a woman's testimony in court is worth exactly half that of a man. Her inheritance can only, by law, be half that of her brothers or any other male. If she is raped, she requires four male witnesses to the rape (how surreal is that?) or she will be charged with adultery and stoned to death or hanged."<BR/><BR/>verity said: "Absolutely nowhere did I indicate that I though Archbishop DooLally called for the full implementation of sharia.."<BR/><BR/>In reality, Williams made it clear that he was against the sort of punishments supported by "Islamic primitivists" and that there was absolutely no place for them in the UK. As such, your decision to bring up stoning in a thread about what Williams said was at best ignorant and at worst grossly misleading and deliberately inflammatory.<BR/><BR/>You position now appears to be that it's OK for Jewish people to have voluntary courts which can be legally binding in some circumstances but that Muslims cannot be trusted in a similar way. If you want to tar several million people with vastly different views with the same prejudiced brush, that's your right. <BR/><BR/>Your numerous angry comments on these threads merely confirm what you have already admitted: you're an Islamaphobe. While phobia comes from Greek, it is generally accepted that a phobia in modern usage is an <A HREF="http://www.thefreedictionary.com/phobic" REL="nofollow">irrational </A>fear of something. Even a stopped clock tells the right time sometimes.<BR/><BR/>Goodbye.<BR/><BR/>On a general point to everyone else, in this thread, I have attempted to defend Williams right not to be wildly misrepresented. Funnily enough, that right seems to have been trampled mostly by people who claim to care a great deal about British rights.Garryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08188217045700587288noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-12235092962387503592008-02-09T19:37:00.000+00:002008-02-09T19:37:00.000+00:00Garry - Your level of miscomprehension is a real a...Garry - Your level of miscomprehension is a real award-winner.<BR/><BR/><I>Have you read the Archbishop's speech, verity? I suspect not. If you had, you might not be continuing to pedal the ridiculous notion that he called for a full implementation of Sharia as you seem to understand it.</I><BR/><BR/>Absolutely nowhere did I indicate that I though Archbishop DooLally called for the full implementation of sharia. Your notion borders on lunacy. Clearly, that was not what this moonbat was saying. He was saying certain aspects could be available - which is ridiculous, but then so is he - and islamics could opt in or out as they wanted.<BR/><BR/>This is where this man's latent insanity comes in. He thinks an islamic can "opt out" of sharia if it's available. This is exactly why the muslim women in Ontario, to whom I referred earlier, fought with such tenacity against bringing in the availability of sharia. They triumphed because they put so much energy into fighting it.<BR/><BR/>I am indifferent about whether you read my posts or not, but if you comment on them, it would save everyone's time if you read and understood them first.<BR/><BR/>Your miscomprehension of what I posted is moonbattery of the highest order.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-75765971200142100272008-02-09T17:32:00.000+00:002008-02-09T17:32:00.000+00:00I find it very strange that those who would defend...I find it very strange that those who would defend the Archbishop keep referring to the speech made at the Temple Church and conveniently overlooking that the controversial remarks were actually made in the BBC Radio 4 World at One Interview.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-66964855441708521732008-02-09T09:51:00.000+00:002008-02-09T09:51:00.000+00:00Rowan Williams may be daft but Murphy O'Connor is ...Rowan Williams may be daft but Murphy O'Connor is straight out personally evil - those thinking about defecting should be aware of the nature of the man who leads that one:<BR/>http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/reports/archive/features/paedophile_priests.shtmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-42805899545031869652008-02-08T23:16:00.000+00:002008-02-08T23:16:00.000+00:00I didnt know he had made a speech until today. I h...I didnt know he had made a speech until today. I heard his interview on the BBC and quoted from it in my original post.Iain Dalehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03270146219458384372noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-6918308380085676142008-02-08T23:13:00.000+00:002008-02-08T23:13:00.000+00:00Since verity has made several contributions to the...Since verity has made several contributions to the other thread since I posed the question, I think it's safe to assume that she has not read the speech.<BR/><BR/>By golly but she's got strong opinion on it though.<BR/><BR/>Did you read the speech, Iain?Garryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08188217045700587288noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-15273540856260981032008-02-08T18:51:00.000+00:002008-02-08T18:51:00.000+00:00Have you read the Archbishop's speech, verity? I s...Have you read the Archbishop's speech, verity? I suspect not.<BR/><BR/>If you had, you might not be continuing to pedal the ridiculous notion that he called for a full implementation of Sharia as you seem to understand it. He suggested that Muslims could voluntarily agree to be bound by Sharia rulings on certain, carefully chosen civil matters. He did not claim that these ruling should overrule English law. <BR/><BR/>What he actually said, as opposed to what you seem to think he said, is very much comparable with the way Beth Din works.Garryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08188217045700587288noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-80893995282804438412008-02-08T17:57:00.000+00:002008-02-08T17:57:00.000+00:00Oh, God! (How appropriate ...) but I am sick to de...Oh, God! (How appropriate ...) but I am sick to death of comparisons with the Beth Din. I'm not Jewish, but several Jews on various sites have explained Beth Din. Please, please, please stop confusing this with sharia. There are no points of similarity. You people are getting muddled. Please read what various Jews have written here and on DK to understand the limitations of Beth Din.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-20506238053924168902008-02-08T16:48:00.000+00:002008-02-08T16:48:00.000+00:00@ judith and oscarThere are two issues here; the p...@ judith and oscar<BR/><BR/>There are two issues here; the principle and the extent to which the principle applies.<BR/><BR/>On the principle, Shadow community cohesion minister Baroness Warsi told BBC News 24 that "Dr Williams seems to be suggesting that there should be two systems of law, running alongside each other, almost parallel, and for people to be offered the choice of opting into one or the other. That is unacceptable."<BR/><BR/>This is in line with Iain's stated view above and that of many commenters here. The fact is, however, that this principle already applies. Jewish Beth Din courts for civil disputes operate in exactly this way. To be consistent, those who take this view should be calling for this separate arrangement to be stopped. Somehow, however, I don't imagine that'll be happening. <BR/><BR/>Williams did suggest that the extent to which the already established principle applies might be extended in a very limited and careful way in relation to civil matters only. And, just as is the case currently with voluntary submission to the judgements of Beth Din courts, he stressed that the law of the land should be available to any Muslim who wanted it.<BR/><BR/>The widespread misrepresentation and anger this has caused is genuinely frightening.<BR/><BR/>@ Iain<BR/><BR/>I appreciate that you're under no obligation to answer questions left here but can I ask again whether you've had second thoughts about this post, particularly in light of some of the comments it has attracted? There's an obvious reason why I chose to mention Jewish courts. I've always thought that unthinking prejudice and stigmatisation of people because of their cultural and religious beliefs (and our poor understanding of them) is not something which should be encouraged. Judging by this post and the comments you are happy to leave unchallenged, it appears that you do not share this view.Garryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08188217045700587288noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-14140225220314979822008-02-08T16:07:00.000+00:002008-02-08T16:07:00.000+00:00Truth seems to be the first casualty of any well-w...Truth seems to be the first casualty of any well-whipped tabloid mob. Those interested in truth---instead of rank ignorant emotion--can look here---http://www.cofe.anglican.org/news/canterbury_crown_appointments_commission_membership.html...to note the very limited power of a PM in appointing an ABC. PM effectively has only 2 names for choice from which he picks one. So if anybody is responsible for presence of Rowan on that short list, it is not TB but Crown Appointments Commission.<BR/><BR/>Secondly, it amazes me that people who are completely ignorant of all the intricacies and balancing going on in the worlwide Anglican communinion (of which ABC is fulcrum), as 10-year Lambenth Conference approaches in 1998, call for ditching of ABC at this most inopportune of times. This would be devastating for the Anglican Communion, one of England's best, and still-surviving legacies to the world. And all this from a crowd that claims to be proud of the legacies of empire, et al. Once again, ignorance of English history and heritage rears its head in this of all places!!!HM Stanleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14229047652893990522noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-35344457570245136372008-02-08T15:42:00.000+00:002008-02-08T15:42:00.000+00:00Eccles, I appreciate the very valid points you mak...Eccles, I appreciate the very valid points you make, BUT the difference with those points and the Archbishop's apparent suggestions is perhaps that we can discuss the bribery case, and taxation of non-doms, without the fear that Islamist fanaticism incites - for good reason.<BR/><BR/>I know some of the thoughts of moderate (and devout) Muslims, as they are welcome visitors to my home, and we have had interesting talks over many years about all faiths and their place in a Western democracy.<BR/><BR/>The problem is with the resurgence of Islam as the 'world-dominator' - I would be equally frightened if the Catholic Church were to suddenly give birth to modern-day Savonarolas and revisit the appalling excesses of the Inquisition.<BR/><BR/>I hope you do not consider my posts as being hate-filled, as such is not my intention.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-18427003028306372002008-02-08T15:15:00.000+00:002008-02-08T15:15:00.000+00:00This seems to be a convincing argument why Prime M...This seems to be a convincing argument <A HREF="http://thelakelanderblog.blogspot.com/2008/02/convincing-argument.html" REL="nofollow">why Prime Ministers should not have the power to appoint the Archbishop of Canterbury </A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-3082520852913472892008-02-08T14:45:00.000+00:002008-02-08T14:45:00.000+00:00“The law is created by society to protect itself a...“The law is created by society to protect itself against those who would do that society some harm. If we are now going to have or indeed already do have different sections of society where different laws apply or perhaps different methods of applying laws”<BR/><BR/>This comment on the CIF site. seems to get to the core issue and is, apparently (if I’ve interpreted it correctly), arguing from the principle that the law in this country not only should apply equally to all but that it actually does.<BR/><BR/>From this basic principle the argument then follows that separate laws should not exist for separate interests. From that position, of principle, it then follows that the system of law cannot and should not be undermined by having a different set of laws for either a particular group - religious or otherwise - or a specific context - religious or otherwise.<BR/><BR/>This is where we now hit problems.<BR/><BR/>The first problem is that as far as these principles go, assuming they are principled arguments, the pass has been sold long ago. <BR/><BR/>It has already been pointed out that some minority religious groups are allowed to practice their own laws in certain specific and restricted contexts. It is also a reality that the majority religious grouping in the UK, along with a number of other smaller religious groups, has separate privileges under law which allow them to run their own schools. Furthermore there are some religious groups who are allowed to teach creationism in the classroom and which are in receipt, through the PFI type schemes used to construct them, of public taxpayers money in which to practice this.<BR/><BR/>However, it is not only religious groups who are currently receiving special dispensation under law which undermines the principle being argued of equality under the law for all and no special law for one specific group.<BR/><BR/>Only this morning, in another item of news, an unelected Government Minister – a businessman by the name of Digby Jones - is effectively arguing to maintain separate tax laws for non-domestic domiciles (do they not have their streets swept, bins emptied and enjoy all the benefits paid for by our taxes? Why should they not make a contribution and be vociferously challenged for not doing so?) and no one screams from the rooftops about our way of life and our law being undermined by having separate laws applied to this specific group of people.<BR/><BR/>Again, the Government prevents the CPS from pursuing a bribery case involving a major corporation and no one dare speak the reality that this undermines the principle of the law applying equally to all or that one group is being given special treatment.<BR/><BR/>And, of course, the risk of being labelled "anti-american" stops any suggestion that the one way extradition treaty, in which British citizens, born and/or living in the UK, can be extradited at whim of a foreign government but that Government’s citizens are not subject to the same principles of equality under the law, undermines this principle.<BR/><BR/>So I have a question. I’d be obliged if any or all of those screaming blue murder over this issue would answer.<BR/><BR/>Why is it that vitriol is being spewed over this issue, which is after all theoretical at the moment, and people are hanging their hat on the principle of equality under the law over it, yet there is a deafening silence over the very real breaches of this principle which is claimed is important, some of which are outlined above?<BR/><BR/>Are rich people/businessmen who try to hold the country to ransom over paying their fair share of taxes more deserving of special treatment under the law then religious groups? Do corporations operating here who bribe their way to contracts with other Governments deserve no less attention than has been given here? <BR/><BR/>After all, these are real instances of the principles, which are suddenly held to be sacrosanct, being breached rather than theoretical ones.<BR/><BR/>Is not the two minute hate session over this hypothetical idea alongside the total silence over the very real occurrences of there being one law for one group of people and another law for the rest of us not evidence of gross hypocrisy?<BR/><BR/>I’d welcome some rational response to this apparent conundrum and contradiction.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-46945542439793578612008-02-08T14:14:00.000+00:002008-02-08T14:14:00.000+00:00High Priest of mumbo jumbo. I think it was Cheste...High Priest of mumbo jumbo. I think it was Chesterton who coined this phrase which fits the man and his comments well.Cameron Rosehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02513671209079713899noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-33283476826969831862008-02-08T12:12:00.000+00:002008-02-08T12:12:00.000+00:00The bearded old goat is a self-loathing fifth colu...The bearded old goat is a self-loathing fifth columnist.<BR/><BR/>Do not think for a moment that the Brown government would distance themselves had there not been such an uproar. His lickspittles are trying to bend our systems to accommodate Sharia. Who is applying the pressure? Why bother? The MCB must have Brown's nuts in a mangle. That, or Jack "shit" Straw fears for his seat.<BR/><BR/>Both, I reckon.Roger Thornhillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01153744692290896812noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-2742015132485113872008-02-08T12:09:00.000+00:002008-02-08T12:09:00.000+00:00Having thought about this overnight, and read Cran...Having thought about this overnight, and read Cranmer this morning, as well as penning my own thoughts, I think that Williams is just talking the bloody obvious!<BR/><BR/>Consider how our laws have already accommodated Sikh customs, and how Labour has now legitimised polygamy, it's only a matter of time before they allow more creeping legislation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-30923445470576406552008-02-08T11:53:00.000+00:002008-02-08T11:53:00.000+00:00What do you expect when Bish was appointed by the ...What do you expect when Bish was appointed by the opposing religious force?!<BR/><BR/>Oh, that's Catholic Tony Blair as opposed to Satan. Thought I better make that clear.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-16772043004030491202008-02-08T11:03:00.000+00:002008-02-08T11:03:00.000+00:00Having looked at this in some detail, I don't thin...Having looked at this in some detail, I don't think that the Archbishop has said anything new. Yes, he was unclear and his ideas lack any detail; but the extent of what he said reflected, in my view, what can be done now (and what has been capable of being done for more than 10 years).<BR/><BR/>Yes, the Archbishop has been both foolish and lacking in the care and thought that one would have hoped he would taken over what would, inevitably, be considered controversial by some journalists who, as usual, don't appear to be able to discuss matters either sensibly or dispassionately.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-8405690906010265962008-02-08T10:04:00.000+00:002008-02-08T10:04:00.000+00:00"One country, one law, British law"No there's not...."One country, one law, British law"<BR/><BR/>No there's not.<BR/><BR/>"...and anyone who does not wish to live under it should leave."<BR/><BR/>Which would be everyone since there is Northern Ireland law, Scots law, the law of England and Wales and Military law.<BR/><BR/>Bye!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-79707183377084950422008-02-08T09:59:00.000+00:002008-02-08T09:59:00.000+00:00"If he is advocating a selective opt-out from the ..."If he is advocating a selective opt-out from the legal system then he is barking mad!"<BR/><BR/>Rubbish! Wendy Alexander has benefited quite well from the Electoral Commission opting out of the legal system.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-38154064070576469832008-02-08T09:53:00.000+00:002008-02-08T09:53:00.000+00:00The point is not whether Williams is advocating a ...The point is not whether Williams is advocating a separate civil law or a separate criminal law - the distinction is irrelevant. What he is advocating is a separate LAW. And that is completly unacceptable. Period.Paddy Briggshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17847108655078927970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-67553182292581171492008-02-08T09:28:00.000+00:002008-02-08T09:28:00.000+00:00This man was appointed by a covert Catholic Blair ...This man was appointed by a covert Catholic Blair to destroy the church of England world wide and he's doing it. Wake up everyone! By the way I'm going to form my own religious cult and if I get enough people interested I'm going to set up my own legal code anyone interested in joining? It's clearly one great big free for all!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-40081459166272692092008-02-08T09:25:00.000+00:002008-02-08T09:25:00.000+00:00Judith makes the case very well - either Rowan Wil...Judith makes the case very well - either Rowan Williams was saying nothing at all - advocating a system that already exists (as apologists for him on this site seem to be saying) or he was arguing for extending existing powers. From what I understood (and I admit for a supposedly "intelligent" man the Archbishop manages to make remarkably scrambled speeches) Williams was advocating - indeed saying it was "inevitable" that there should be an enlargement of powers of sharia law in this country that would operate as an alternative, parallel legal system. If he wasn't saying that - then why make the speech at all? And by the way the idea you can somehow introduce 'sharia lite' - taking out all the bits people don't like is naive in the extreme.Oscar Millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09423019456579337438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-23449446562813691152008-02-08T09:15:00.000+00:002008-02-08T09:15:00.000+00:00FWIW The Archbishop of Canterbury was right to set...FWIW <B>The Archbishop of Canterbury was right to set out the inevitable outcome of the Government's current immigration policy</B>.<BR/><BR/>With the number of muslim immigrants increasing each year, and the fact that their birthrate greatly outnumbers that of the settled population, it will not be long before Islam becomes the majority religion of the British people.<BR/><BR/>Let no-one forget that Islam teaches its adherents to eradicate all other systems of religious belief by deception where possible, using violence as necessary.<BR/><BR/>Thank God the Archbishop had the courage to warn us of the way our sociey is heading.Battersea Boyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11723753302380776426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-20299629398351760712008-02-08T08:48:00.000+00:002008-02-08T08:48:00.000+00:00Of course Cardinal O'Connor's church runs a parall...Of course Cardinal O'Connor's church runs a parallel system of law in the U.K. using a foreign language and controlled from a foreign country. Perhaps Ian should oppose that too.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com