If you could introduce or change one law in 2019...

..what would it be?

In my country, your country, or elsewhere?

If it were my country, I would amend the Constitution to eliminate the electoral collage, thereby finally making the United States a real democracy.

Then, I would equalize the representation per senator per congress person. In Wyoming a senator only represents 284,150 people, while in California a senator must represent 18,670,995 people.

Original Quill wrote:In my country, your country, or elsewhere?

If it were my country, I would amend the Constitution to eliminate the electoral collage, thereby finally making the United States a real democracy.

In whichever country you reside in Quill.

I started the thread but I am having to give this some thought.

End sharia law globally

Prohibit media publishing deliberate lies, false information and fake news to suit their own agenda.
Punishment - closure of said media.

what didge said

Thor wrote:End sharia law globally

Surely we can only make a law that affects the country in which you live.
As Sharia lawis already prohibited in the UK, it doesn't require a second prohibition.

introduce a law scrapping the outdated and much misused human rights act, and introduce a "British bill of rights and responsibilities" which would have to be taught in schools.

Andy wrote:Prohibit media publishing deliberate lies, false information and fake news to suit their own agenda.
Punishment - closure of said media.

And who, exactly, decides just  what is "a deliberate lie"? Who decides what information is "false"? And who decides what is and what is not "fake news"?

I see you, for instance, regularly condemning as "Daily Mail lies" articles that are nothing of the sort; they are personal opinions of (usually freelance and always by-lined) columnists who are paid to publish those opinions because readers like to read them, whether they agree with them or not.

Others condemn Daily Mirror or Guardian articles in the same way.

Your definition of "false information" can be far different to that of someone else who chooses to refer to alternative but equally legitimate sources and, who does not necessarily believe in what you choose to believe in.

As for "fake news", that is far more the preserve of the social media than established mainstream news outlets and appears to be quite ungovernable.

And so far as your demand for the "punishment" of allegedly offending media by compulsory closure is concerned...isn't that just how the ruling party of the Third Reich dealt with any publication or writer whose so-called "lies, false information of fake news" ran counter to Nazi Party philosophy and diktat?

Only the Labour Party prints the truth, [according to Andy]

PS, what Vic says .

Andy wrote:

Thor wrote:End sharia law globally

Surely we can only make a law that affects the country in which you live.
As Sharia lawis already prohibited in the UK, it doesn't require a second prohibition.

Read again

That is what I would change

And would have far more reaching effects that any of the other answers

It would help many countries under oppression from such a warped barbaric law system

So I answered the question asked.

Nobody set any parameters, which you are trying to do

Andy wrote:Prohibit media publishing deliberate lies, false information and fake news to suit their own agenda.
Punishment - closure of said media.

Yeah, but that flies in the face of freedom of expression, which should always be promoted.

What would be better would be to teach people how to evaluate the information put out by various media outlets so they can decide for themselves how much trust they put into different media companies.

Andy wrote:Prohibit media publishing deliberate lies, false information and fake news to suit their own agenda.
Punishment - closure of said media.

Which ones do you mean? The ones you don’t like as opposed to the ones you do like?
Can you be specific?

If tommy had said that he’d have been hung, drawn and quartered.

Very true Eddie !

Andy wrote:

Thor wrote:End sharia law globally

Surely we can only make a law that affects the country in which you live.
As Sharia lawis already prohibited in the UK, it doesn't require a second prohibition.

The Islamic Sharia Council says its aim is for the principles of sharia to be eventually recognised in English law.

The group says: “Though the Council is not yet legally recognised by the authorities in the UK, the fact that it is already established, and is gradually gaining ground among the Muslim community, and the satisfaction attained by those who seek its ruling, are all preparatory steps towards the final goal of gaining the confidence of the host community in the soundness of the Islamic legal system and the help and insight they could gain from it.”

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-qa-sharia-law-uk

eddie wrote:

Andy wrote:Prohibit media publishing deliberate lies, false information and fake news to suit their own agenda.
Punishment - closure of said media.

Which ones do you mean? The ones you don’t like as opposed to the ones you do like?
Can you be specific?

If tommy had said that he’d have been hung, drawn and quartered.

Hanged, drawn and quartered

HoratioTarr wrote:

Andy wrote:

Thor wrote:End sharia law globally

Surely we can only make a law that affects the country in which you live.
As Sharia lawis already prohibited in the UK, it doesn't require a second prohibition.

The Islamic Sharia Council says its aim is for the principles of sharia to be eventually recognised in English law.

The group says: “Though the Council is not yet legally recognised by the authorities in the UK, the fact that it is already established, and is gradually gaining ground among the Muslim community, and the satisfaction attained by those who seek its ruling, are all preparatory steps towards the final goal of gaining the confidence of the host community in the soundness of the Islamic legal system and the help and insight they could gain from it.”

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-qa-sharia-law-uk

Isn't that just providing a means where people who want to settle a dispute with Sharia are allowed to do so if all parties consent to it?

I'd change the law that says you can't come to England to live with your wife and look for work without having 44,000 pounds in savings.

Isn't that about two years' worth of a good salary? I'd make it smaller at the very least, and include a provision that you're not eligible for benefits until you've lived there for at least three years or so.

HoratioTarr wrote:

eddie wrote:

Andy wrote:Prohibit media publishing deliberate lies, false information and fake news to suit their own agenda.
Punishment - closure of said media.

Which ones do you mean? The ones you don’t like as opposed to the ones you do like?
Can you be specific?

If tommy had said that he’d have been hung, drawn and quartered.

Hanged, drawn and quartered

Yeah, I did wonder about that....

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:I'd change the law that says you can't come to England to live with your wife and look for work without having 44,000 pounds in savings.

Isn't that about two years' worth of a good salary? I'd make it smaller at the very least, and include a provision that you're not eligible for benefits until you've lived there for at least three years or so.

Perhaps you should fix your pants loose?

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

The Islamic Sharia Council says its aim is for the principles of sharia to be eventually recognised in English law.

The group says: “Though the Council is not yet legally recognised by the authorities in the UK, the fact that it is already established, and is gradually gaining ground among the Muslim community, and the satisfaction attained by those who seek its ruling, are all preparatory steps towards the final goal of gaining the confidence of the host community in the soundness of the Islamic legal system and the help and insight they could gain from it.”

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-qa-sharia-law-uk

Isn't that just providing a means where people who want to settle a dispute with Sharia are allowed to do so if all parties consent to it?

You mean where Muslim women are constantly discriminated against?

How about you stop being such a dummy for once and start acting like an athiest

The law of the land is what should settle disputes, if anyone wants to abide by different laws they should go live in a country where it's enforced.

Ben wrote:Isn't that just providing a means where people who want to settle a dispute with Sharia are allowed to do so if all parties consent to it?

Yes, it's founded in the right to contract.  I've tried cases in an American court, where two Japanese companies have contracted to decide their dispute by Japanese law. The law says you can contract to anything, as long as it isn't an illegal objective.  So, for example, you can contract to settle a dispute by Scottish law, but you can't contract to rob a bank.

Thus, by a process of deduction, if Sharia law is illegal, that makes Islamic culture illegal.  We've come a long way from live and let live, eh?

Syl wrote:The law of the land is what should settle disputes, if anyone wants to abide by different laws they should go live in a  country where it's enforced.

I may be wrong, but I believe there are limited aspects of Sharia Law that can be applied in this country on a legally consensual basis, including usuary and certain domestic matters.

Usuary, the unethical or immoral lending of money particularly on unfair and punitive terms, I can well understand even if I shudder at the thought of the the principle of any of Sharia Law becoming legally enforceable in the UK. There are, after all, established Asian banks that operate on the principle, and Muslims should, IMO, have a right to do business with them including the taking out of loans.

Domestic matters are - again IMO - more contentious because no follower of the Muslim faith resident in this country, no matter how fundamental, should be permitted ever to assume the right to beat his wife/partner for whatever reason, or to force her to accept any form of humiliating subservience. The same goes for enforced marriages.

UK criminal and civil law, in these instances, should always take absolute priority, and if the perpetrator doesn't like it he is more than welcome to fuck off to some shithole of a country where such medieval and barbaric practices are the norm.

I would also be worried at the thought that some Imams are "qualified" to act as de facto judges in this country. The very thought that the disgusting, evil bastard Abu Hamza could, even by the most extreme stretch of the imagination, might have been permitted to sit in judgement even on a financial or domestic issue in this country is totally abhorrent.

Thor wrote:

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:

Isn't that just providing a means where people who want to settle a dispute with Sharia are allowed to do so if all parties consent to it?

You mean where Muslim women are constantly discriminated against?

How about you stop being such a dummy for once and start acting like an athiest

Someone actually gave me a red, for calling out Bens warped and quite frankly double standards being that he is an athiest, trying to defend Sharia law



I guess those who did, clearly defend religious laws

I stand against all such religious laws, but its interesting to see yet again Liberals expose being illiberal by defending sharia law

Of course any laws based religiously in the US and Christian based, would find ben certainly speak out against

Hence Liberals turn into illiberals through double standards when it comes to Islam

Didge wrote:I guess those who did, clearly defend religious laws

Not at all. The issue is, you are against religious laws. There is a big difference.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:I guess those who did, clearly defend religious laws

Not at all.  The issue is, you are against religious laws.  There is a big difference.

Really, then why come out with claptrap saying that being against sharia law, would be against islamic culture?

That is again horsehit

Does being against Torah law, mean being against Jewish culture?

How about Catholcism law

Is that being against a catholic culture?

You see, you just talk utter shit at the best of the time

The point is, any Christian belief being imposed on people in America would see me and Ben united against this. When it comes to sharia law, Ben does a u-turn and tries to defend

hence double standard

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Syl wrote:The law of the land is what should settle disputes, if anyone wants to abide by different laws they should go live in a  country where it's enforced.

I may be wrong, but I believe there are limited aspects of Sharia Law that can be applied in this country on a legally consensual basis, including usuary and certain domestic matters.

Usuary, the unethical or immoral lending of money particularly on unfair and punitive terms, I can well understand even if I shudder at the thought of the the principle of any of Sharia Law becoming legally enforceable in the UK. There are, after all, established Asian banks that operate on the principle, and Muslims should, IMO, have a right to do business with them including the taking out of loans.

Domestic matters are - again IMO - more contentious because no follower of the Muslim faith resident in this country, no matter how fundamental, should be permitted ever to assume the right to beat his wife/partner for whatever reason, or to force her to accept any form of humiliating subservience. The same goes for enforced marriages.

UK criminal and civil law, in these instances, should always take absolute priority, and if the perpetrator doesn't like it he is more than welcome to fuck off to some shithole of a country where such medieval and barbaric practices are the norm.

I  would also be worried at the thought that some Imams are "qualified" to act as de facto judges in this country. The very thought that the disgusting, evil bastard Abu Hamza could, even by the most extreme stretch of the imagination, might have been permitted to sit in judgement even  on a financial or domestic issue in this country is totally abhorrent.

Interesting.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16522447

Didge wrote:Really, then why come out with claptrap saying that being against sharia law, would be against islamic culture?

Gd question.  It allows me to focus on that point.

Generally, parties go to court where an incident or accident happened.  The evidence is most likely where the wreck, or whatever, took place.  That jurisdiction also has the police and investigators who investigated the matter.  You generally go to court where the accident or incident is.

It's a common practice to go into the courts of another country, and ask that country to apply the laws of another nation.  Contracts between participants can specify a 'choice of law' clause, where the choice of adjudicatory law can be agreed to by the parties.  If there is a continuing relationship between the parties, they can specify a choice-of-law provision before the fact, in a contract.  If it's something unanticipated, the parties can still chose to adjudicate according to another jurisdiction's law.  After all, the courts say, the parties own the dispute.

So, if one is telling all the world that one cannot choose Sharia law, one are telling litigants they can't even have their own dispute.  The host nation is interfering with the dispute of two independent litigants.  That means that the host nation is making a claim, if not as to property, then as to something.

To say that Sharia law cannot be practiced, even when litigants stipulate to it, is to say the host nation takes an interest in the litigation.  The only time, normally, that a host nation will disallow a stipulated provision of an agreement between litigants, is when the object is illegal.  Otherwise, the host nation has no interest or claim.

The prohibition going the the very choice of law, that must mean the Sharia law is prohibited…or, that is to say, illegal.  Sharia law is the core by which the Muslim religion abides itself.  If the very law is outlawed, the host nation must be saying that the culture itself is illegal.  To deny a culture it’s law, is to deny the culture.  So, the host nation has be asserting a claim that Muslim culture is illegal.

interesting logic quill, but what when the judgement and penalty of one cultures law is at variance with the law or even sensibilities of the host nation??? After all sharia law calls for the death penalty for the most trivial of reasons. Let alone its many other injustices

Lord Foul wrote:interesting logic quill, but what when the judgement and penalty of one cultures law is at variance with the law or even sensibilities of the host nation??? After all sharia law calls for the death penalty for the most trivial of reasons. Let alone its many other injustices

You don't condemn the law or the culture. You condemn the actions that Sharia law calls for. If Sharia law calls for whipping, you say...no, no whipping, we don't allow that. If Sharia law calls for forced marriage, you say...no, no forced marriage, we don't allow that. You condemn and prohibit what you can condemn and prohibit, without throwing out the baby with the bath.

With each issue, you simply tell them no, no [insert the activity], we don't allow that. That way, you are keeping it on the level where you, the government, have a right to legislate. You're not stepping over the line, prohibiting religions, prohibiting cultural matters.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:Really, then why come out with claptrap saying that being against sharia law, would be against islamic culture?

Gd question.  It allows me to focus on that point.


The prohibition going the the very choice of law, that must mean the Sharia law is prohibited…or, that is to say, illegal.  Sharia law is the core by which the Muslim religion abides itself.  If the very law is outlawed, the host nation must be saying that the culture itself is illegal.  To deny a culture it’s law, is to deny the culture.  So, the host nation has be asserting a claim that Muslim culture is illegal.

I have to say that is the most dumbest reasoning I have ever heard, which again has no legal or reasoning

Sharia law is itself a later manifiestation to Islam. So to say its very core being denied, is denying the culture, is you arguing that Sharia law is essential to Islam. Based off no legal or historical context

Again that does not mean that the culture of Islam is illegal and again you do not apply the same dumb reasoning towards any other religious group

So your whole thought process falls down, being the fact that you have now decided what Islam is based upon

Has to be the poorest Islamic apologist bullshit argument I have heard yet

It also is you again simple making shit up to defend sharia law

Which is what this really is about

Original Quill wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:interesting logic quill, but what when the judgement and penalty of one cultures law is at variance with the law or even sensibilities of the host nation??? After all sharia law calls for the death penalty for the most trivial of reasons. Let alone its many other injustices

You don't condemn the law or the culture.  You condemn the actions that Sharia law calls for.  If Sharia law calls for whipping, you say...no, no whipping, we don't allow that.     If Sharia law calls for forced marriage, you say...no, no forced marriage, we don't allow that.     You condemn and prohibit what you can condemn and prohibit, without throwing out the baby with the bath.

With each issue, you simply tell them   no, no [insert the activity], we don't allow that.  That way, you are keeping it on the level where you, the government, have a right to legislate.  You're not stepping over the line, prohibiting religions, prohibiting cultural matters.

So you simple say no sharia law, as sharia law goes against many secular laws in the west

How does that pan out for Bosnian Muslims thathave no shaira law for you?

I love fucking with complete dummies



You completely contradicted your last post

Didge wrote:So you simple say no sharia law, as sharia law goes against many secular laws in the west

You would outlaw a culture, when only certain consequences are objectionable?  Your wholesale answers exhibit an imprecise overkill.  Did you ever study Hitler?  See, Alan Bullock, Hitler: A Study in Tyranny (1952).

And sober up.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:So you simple say no sharia law, as sharia law goes against many secular laws in the west

You would outlaw a culture, when only certain consequences are objectionable?  Your wholesale answers exhibit an imprecise overkill.  Did you ever study Hitler?  See, Alan Bullock, Hitler: A Study in Tyranny (1952).

And sober up.  

And quill moves the goalposts when shown up lol

Never claimed any of the above, you just made it up, because yet again I made you look a complete dick

Original Quill wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:interesting logic quill, but what when the judgement and penalty of one cultures law is at variance with the law or even sensibilities of the host nation??? After all sharia law calls for the death penalty for the most trivial of reasons. Let alone its many other injustices

You don't condemn the law or the culture.  You condemn the actions that Sharia law calls for.  If Sharia law calls for whipping, you say...no, no whipping, we don't allow that.    and they will say, well, we do as it is part of the Sharia If Sharia law calls for forced marriage, you say...no, no forced marriage, we don't allow that.     and they will say, well, we do as it is part of the Sharia You condemn and prohibit what you can condemn and prohibit, without throwing out the baby with the bath.

With each issue, you simply tell them   no, no [insert the activity], we don't allow that.  That way, you are keeping it on the level where you, the government, have a right to legislate.  You're not stepping over the line, prohibiting religions, prohibiting cultural matters.

This has to be one of the most foolish posts you have ever made, quill

are you seriously that naive?

It seems like it, going by his posts lately !

gelico wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You don't condemn the law or the culture.  You condemn the actions that Sharia law calls for.  If Sharia law calls for whipping, you say...no, no whipping, we don't allow that.    and they will say,  well, we do as it is part of the Sharia If Sharia law calls for forced marriage, you say...no, no forced marriage, we don't allow that.     and they will say,  well, we do as it is part of the Sharia  You condemn and prohibit what you can condemn and prohibit, without throwing out the baby with the bath.

With each issue, you simply tell them   no, no [insert the activity], we don't allow that.  That way, you are keeping it on the level where you, the government, have a right to legislate.  You're not stepping over the line, prohibiting religions, prohibiting cultural matters.

This has to be one of the most foolish posts you have ever made, quill

are you seriously that naive?

C'mon gelli, you can do better than that. Talk about the topic, not your interlocutor.

The tactic of prohibiting actions, and not ideas, has been a part of legislative wisdom since the Roman days. It's the foundation of freedom of speech, religion, politics...or even, casual talk.

With regard to religion, you don't say there will be no more Islam. But you do say there will be no more forced marriages.

A classic manifestation of this took place in this country, with the LDS community, up until 1920. The Mormons allowed, indeed encouraged plural marriages, and marriage to post-pubescent children (9 - 19), as a part of their religion. Around 1920 the the government outlawed these practices. They didn't outlaw the religion; they outlawed the practices of plural marriages and post-pubescent child marriages. The Islamic version of this would be, not to outlaw Islam or Sharia law, but to prohibit the practices within the religion that offend the conscience. Then you walk away with perfectly clean hands on the religious question...they just can't perform actions that are prohibited.

Clever, eh? You don't outlaw the religion, but you do outlaw the practices. If you outlaw the religion, you are violating the freedom of religion tenet...and who knows, next might be Christianity. So, you avoid the religious quagmire, and effect the same results. To the matter at hand: you don't outlaw Sharia law...you outlaw the practices that are illegal. Face it, geli, that's all you care about anyway.