Hope this catches on in the UK too

[rubato]

http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/nogozones.asp

[rubato]

I see men in fancy dress outfits. Like these:





or these:







or these:





or even these:





People like to dress up and pretend they're someone else, someone important.

And some people are so easily frightened.


yrs,
rubato

[rubato]

NOGO BOZOS!





OMG! The insanity of it all! The brickbats, the banana peels, squirting bouttineers!

We'll never get out of the Big Top with our dignity intact.


yrs,
rubato

[Sue U]

[MajGenl.Meade]

Yes, rubato - that's the ticket. Discredit actual reports by bringing up prior false (or overly hysterical) reports, photographs having nothing to do with the matter and generally sticking your head up your arse. Good job it fits.

In Europe, some Moslem communities are appalled by what many of their young men are doing. But they are doing it and they are doing it more and more frequently. They are not clowns amusing people; they are not Shriners adding to a parade; they are not Black Panthers flexing muscle; they are not even Hells Angels performing random acts of tough. They are seeking to enforce conformity to their own "rules" of dress and conduct by intimidation and violence against all who do not so conform.

Sitting in our safe houses it's so easy to dismiss the difficulties of women and homosexuals in particular who are the principle targets of these thugs. How reassuring it must be to them to know that somewhere in Lala-land, a douche bag is mocking their trouble.

[Sue U]

Yeah, and Muslim men in no way have the power to make women wear burkas if they don't want to....

And you claim to be married?

Besides , what I said was:

Ecclesiastical courts simply do not have the power or the machinery to enforce any of their "orders"; to the extent there is voluntary agreement of the parties to submit to an alternative dispute resolution forum, enforcement depends on contract principles in a secular civil court.

It is extremely unlikely that any Muslim man would be going to a "sharia court" to get an "order" to make his wife wear a burqa -- just as it would be extremely unlikely for a Jewish man to go to a beit din to get an order to make his wife wear a sheitel (wig) or observe other strictures of tzniuth (modesty in dress and general separation of the sexes). Ecclesiastical courts in Western countries pretty much by definition deal with disputes over whether certain actions are permissible under religious law, other issues of religious doctrine, securing a religiously-sanctioned divorce, and in some cases, alternative dispute resolution of civil matters.

[Sue U]

In Europe, some Moslem communities are appalled by what many of their young men are doing. But they are doing it and they are doing it more and more frequently. They are not clowns amusing people; they are not Shriners adding to a parade; they are not Black Panthers flexing muscle; they are not even Hells Angels performing random acts of tough. They are seeking to enforce conformity to their own "rules" of dress and conduct by intimidation and violence against all who do not so conform.

If that is the actual case, then the citizenry should call the real police, whereupon the gangsters would be taken into custody, charged and tried. No need for anyone to cower anywhere; that's why we have a government. But in any event, it has nothing to do with a "shariah court."

[Crackpot]

Yes we all know how well "call the cops" works in our large minority communities.

[MajGenl.Meade]

It's just wilful ignorance and denial, isn't it?

[Sue U]

Yes we all know how well "call the cops" works in our large minority communities.

Is that why we have mutaween roving the streets of Detroit?

Seriously, for as many issues as some (U.S.) police forces have in routine policing of minority communities, if you report that hoodlums are assaulting people and terrorizing the neighborhood, the po-po will come.

[Crackpot]

Often they wait until they just have to clean up the mess.

[Crackpot]

Given a choice between anarchy and order no matter how unjust people will accept the order.

[Sue U]

Given a choice between anarchy and order no matter how unjust people will accept the order.

An apparent contradiction of your earlier assertion.

Often they wait until they just have to clean up the mess.

We are not talking about warring between armed gangs over drug turf. We are talking about a few asshole bullies being a public nuisance.

And in any event, there is no threat of any kind to the citizens of Irving, Texas of being subjected to shariah law, the edicts of a "shariah court" or hectoring by "shariah police." This is all pure and vile fearmongering and bigotry.

[liberty]

Ecclesiastical courts simply do not have the power or the machinery to enforce any of their "orders"; to the extent there is voluntary agreement of the parties to submit to an alternative dispute resolution forum, enforcement depends on contract principles in a secular civil court. If a decision or agreement in an ecclesiastical court violates secular civil law or public policy, it simply will not be enforced by a civil court. If you're Catholic and a church tribunal refuses to grant an annulment, you can still get a divorce (and get re-married) in civil proceedings, the Pope be damned. If you want to sell meat nothing stops you from being a butcher, but if you want it to be certified for sale as Kosher you have to accept the requirements and supervision of the local Vaad. What is the big deal about letting people live by their own religion's rules if they want to?

If a woman wants to accept the verdict of a shariah court that resulted in stoning as punishment for adultery and when the police investigate they find the woman’s signature accepting the punishment. Where would you stand then, just curious?

[Joe Guy]

If a woman wants to accept the verdict of a shariah court that resulted in stoning as punishment for adultery and when the police investigate they find the woman’s signature accepting the punishment. Where would you stand then, just curious?

Probably not anywhere near the woman...

[Big RR]

Ohmygodinheavenwhat'shappening? A government... not.... tolerating.... Shariah law... itstheendofthestupidassliberalworldasweknowit

Liberal world? The US government tolerates RC Canon law (for things like annulments) and similar rabbinical courts (for the same thing). It tolerates religious laws of communities like the mennonites and amish to settle land claims within the community. Kopser laws have bneen made a part of the laws for many states for products so-marked. It allows for all churches (and all other religions/houses of worship) to decide who can or cannot be a member, who can or cannot be employed by the church, and who can or cannot be married in the church. Is Sharia law all that different?

If a woman wants to accept the verdict of a shariah court that resulted in stoning as punishment for adultery and when the police investigate they find the woman’s signature accepting the punishment.

Any government is free to condemn acts they find so heinous that they cannot be consented to--this would well be one of them. Likewise, even if a woman consents to it, a husband/boyfriend can still be prosecuted and punished for beating his wife/girlfriend.

Joe guy--

[MajGenl.Meade]

You missed my shorthand point, Big RR. Sorry. What fascinates me is that a cake decorator is excoriated for not wanting to make a homosexual cake. Government you must interfere! We must step in!

But some Moslems now - they can drag women into shariah court and do whatever they like. Why if those women want to be stoned, then that's fine! Naughty government to interfere! Naughty!

How dare governments even speak of interfering or think of it! We must condemn those governments and post funny pictures of clowns at once!

Sorry - it's arguing from the absurd and I'm just as guilty.... send those rocks to:

[Sue U]

If a woman wants to accept the verdict of a shariah court that resulted in stoning as punishment for adultery and when the police investigate they find the woman’s signature accepting the punishment. Where would you stand then, just curious?

Probably not anywhere near the woman...

Murder and other forms of homicide are still crimes regardless of the victim's alleged "consent." Obviously, the victim is not in a position to testify as to whether such consent was freely given, but beyond that, public policy simply does not allow for private criminal convictions and capital punishment. The same would apply to imprisonment or any other variety of physical punishment.

[Sue U]

You missed my shorthand point, Big RR. Sorry. What fascinates me is that a cake decorator is excoriated for not wanting to make a homosexual cake. Government you must interfere! We must step in!

What, pray tell, is a "homosexual cake"? I did not realize that baked goods were endowed with a sexual orientation. (Except perhaps for that movie involving intimacy with some sort of fruit pie, but that was evidently a case of assault; but I didn't see the film, so really don't know.)

It is obvious that no anti-discrimination law can force bakers or decorators to do anything that wouldn't be done for any other customer. But if a cakery sells product adorned with wedding bells and icing reading "Best wishes, Bill and Mary," there is no reason (other than invidious discrimination) that it should refuse to prepare the same product reading "Best wishes, Bill and Harry."

But some Moslems now - they can drag women into shariah court and do whatever they like. Why if those women want to be stoned, then that's fine! Naughty government to interfere! Naughty!

... said no one, ever.

[Big RR]

You missed my shorthand point, Big RR. Sorry. What fascinates me is that a cake decorator is excoriated for not wanting to make a homosexual cake. Government you must interfere! We must step in!

From the Declaration of Independence: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

Governments protect our rights, and all government licensed businesses must serve all customers or the government should step in to protect the rights of the parties not being served. I would think the requirements to ultimately throw out Jim Crow and allow blacks to eat at the lunch counter proved this. Do you see a difference?

But some Moslems now - they can drag women into shariah court and do whatever they like. Why if those women want to be stoned, then that's fine! Naughty government to interfere! Naughty!

No one is saying anyone, male of female, can be dragged into an Islamic court, and no one is saying the courts can do what they like. However, I maintain that people can choose to have a nongovernmental court settle their disputes; no one can be dragged into an Islamic court. Why people would choose to go to these courts is beyond me, but I maintain they should have the right to if they choose. If someone is forced or dragged into the court when they don't want to use it, then the government should step in to protect their right to refuse. And if someone consents to a crime being committed against them (like stoning), the fact that is permitted under Sharia law doesn't make it any less of a crime.

Sue, you beat me to it.