Originally Posted by Padre

The PC of the day - and other pragmatics - usually dictate what laws are enfornced and what ones are not - and to what extent. England has been making a rod for its own back for some time now in relation to a too-open door policy, and its culture and security have suffered.

Right. And the EU laws which top ours are a problem - for example the Human Rights issue means that we are continually prevented from deporting, and those taking action are continually sued and decisions overturned. Our Government displays ridiculous compliance and weakness. These are not just troublemakers we are dealing with; these are the major recruiters and organisers of the to and fro terrorist training trips to Pakistan etc. Many of them are wanted fro terrorist crimes in other countries, including US, some already under guilty convictions; but we are impotent thereby.

Not wanting to divert from the thread, but we Brits allowed the EU to trump our own laws by not holding the govt accountable. Not one govt has hel a plebiscite over the EU, but let it ride until the next general election. The opposition parties don't drag the dirty washing out in case they get in and get a chance to ride the gravy train. So it is the electorate that is reponsible failed to exercise control of the government - but then they're all the same anyway.

Back to the thread, the laws of the land are there to be applied to all people equally - regardless of race, religion, orientation etc. These are fundamental rights that are granted to all , the UK is a democracy after all and supposedly allows freedom of expression.

The inability of the authorities to enforce the laws of the land is more problematical, is it due to a lack of will, lack of resources or politcal direction? If it was political direction, then I'm sure that it would've come out by now - freedom of speech and all that!

Much as I dislike the views of the radicals, they are allowed a voice, but it is the silent majority that needs to be energised to speak out - then they can drown out the radicals, for ever, but political apathy is another of our traits.

I think the gov't should push for some sort of amendment to their terrorist act(s) that can tie acts of inciting various fervor as treason and severe punishments especially with that article. Omg, there has to be a line drawn somewhere and really, what is up with these 'islamic' converts? once everyone else is dead or under control, they would be next. Idiocy never ceases to amaze me The use of religion as a power base and platform has been used many times to gather and control others and until it's undermined with something better, it will continue to attract many in need.

Any act of treason should be punishable by death, (I.E. the Walker bunch back in the 80's) For both Military and civilian persons, any American who claims "Islamic convert" who uses that religion for anything but self peace should be striped of his rights, and his citizenship and sent over to the nearest Islamic country. Kinda like the one down in NC right now, he wants to be a Muslim, send him to live with the Muslims.

It may sound harsh to some people, but, I've been shot at by "peace loving people " enough in my life

Can't quote the correct scripture, but, In the end times, right will be wrong, and wrong will be right, and, it's proving to be true. Watch and listen.

It would be great if they could only allow 'religious speech' to be spoken on or outside of 'religious' property rather than freely 'roam'.

Well, this is a pure politic problem.

Even the most extremists among us have rights. And the state have to guarantee that the laws are respected and that the citizens on its territory are equal.

If we start to take off the rights of the Muslims because of the global war on terrorism... it will have serious consequences.

On a symbolic point of view, it will mean that we are at war against the Muslims... While we are not at war against Muslims. We are at war against terrorism.

Some people in our countries mix Islam with Islamism and Islamism with terrorism... It's not that simple.

And errors in judgement will only lead to more terrorism. And we dont want that. We just cant afford to harm innocent people.

And these communities are very complex. Because the individuals have very different political stances.
If having some opinions was a crime... It would be very hard to find the real bad guys in the mass... They look alike, they support each others on some areas... They fight each others on other areas... It's very complex.

And the real problem, is that this threatening stance some of us take toward Muslims pushs the Muslims that are closer to us to hide... There is a LOT of moderate Muslims who are perfectly good citizens or even better citizens than the average who are hiding in the big mass to not get attention.

Only the mosts extremists dare to take their nose outside... There is risks, but hey, they are extremists, they dont care... And the more difficult it is outside, the more extremist they have to be...

And this is what causes problems.

Should I quote Jesus? telling you that there is no merit in loving those who love you?
Because it's exactly that...

As the Mail revealed last month, there are already at least 85 sharia courts in the UK. These courts rule on civil matters, such as divorce and financial disputes, and make a mockery of the principle that there should be one law for all Britons

Cant start, just avoiding flaming and bad language...

I dont know. I mean why not? Why not having different laws in one country?

A country is just a territory. Different people? then different laws. Muslim marriage is different from the British mariage. So I see no problems in letting specialized courts intervene in such maters.

See this like a different contract. I dont see anything shocking in this.

And I think that the UK are pretty advanced in these topics. But of course, to avoid disputes and conflicts, they have one universal that rules the others laws if there is a problem...

I think it's a good thing.

It would be easy to use these different courts for ones to secure their own benefits and self interests, if they *convert*, wouldn't it? unless these courts follow the *hosting* nations' own laws, then yes, different courts can prove to be useful.