Scotsgait - the independent community for Scotland

Levenax wrote:
Robin wrote:
Such scaremongering rubbish is pretty typical of the neocon lobby.

On International Women's Day we should perhaps take a less self-satisfied view of our so-called liberated treatment of women in our own part of the world.

And as far as our own treatment of religious minorities, homosexuals and so forth, we have more than enough examples of intolerance and even downright demonisation in this forum, of which the above is one.

Ah Robin, limp liberals get into a right fankle over this issue. They beat the drum for equality yet don't want to confront the big issue that's challenging democracy in the UK. It's undeniable that islam has no time for equal rights for women and does in fact regard them as their husband's or guardian's chattles. The penalty in islam for homosexualism or apostasy is death and there are numerous examples of that penalty being inflicted.

Surely you're not seriously suggesting that we should be afraid of the death penalty being reintroduced in this country through the back door because of sharia law?


No women sit in sharia courts and all imams are men. That's why we should be very wary indeed about allowing islam, or indeed religion of any sort to taint the functions of the law.


Women are not allowed to become Catholic priests, either. So what? Should we also ban Catholics?


Treatment of minorities in the UK is far from perfect but we have much to be proud of despite the fact that we defer to the preferences of immigrants far too much. We still have much work to do to ensure that women get equal representation in Westminster although Holyrood is setting them a good example. There are now more women than men graduating with medical and law degrees and given time the new intake will rise to fill their rightful place at the top of the professions. Our concerns in the areas of equality and diversity should be to ensure that the majority of the population i.e. women, get the chances they deserve. That consideration should come well ahead of any desire to increase the numbers of ethnic minority types.

In what way are the claims of women and of ethnic minorities (which for some obscure reason you lump together with immigrants) in conflict? There have been ethnic minorities in this country from time immemorial, and none of us living in these islands can produce a non-immigrant pedigree that would stand up in a court of whatever persuasion.

By what practical method would you seek to prevent the numbers of 'ethnic minority types' increasing? Compulsory sterilisation?

Why, is it that in every other country in the EU whether you live in the country or emigrate into that country you obey the laws of that country?

Australia Canada all say if you live in our country then you respect the laws and customs of our country and live by them.

What makes our country so different?

Why do other people from other countries feel they can bring their customs and ways to our country with no respect given to the laws and customs that have prevailed in our country for generations?

Is it that they feel they have such a grip on our country financially that they can now dictate how our country is run?

Is it that we are so afraid of the accusation that we are not a multi racial country that we are afraid to stand up, be counted, and state that we do not want to live in a country that loses its national identity?

Why should we be afraid of stating that we want to keep our national identity, which is certainly not perfect but is our national identity?

If we do not at this stage say aloud that we do want to keep our national identity what happens when we have more of another nationality living in our country than we have of people who are indigenous to our country.

Do we then allow our country to be no longer Scotland or England or Britain do we simply say OK we will quietly disappear and forget we were ever Scottish or British, just take our country and do as you will with it. Do we say we will not worship our religion?


www.christianlegalcentre.com/

www.christianlegalcentre.com/view.php?id=866

Do we say we will allow other nationalities to own everything in our country, which includes our gas and electricity, and hold us to ransom over the price.

Do we just say - say nothing because others will say that to say something is a disgrace and we are making others feel uncomfortable or unwanted or that we are racially prejudiced,

What others think is their problem but I am willing to say aloud that I have very real concerns about any other system of law used in this country. I have real concerns that we are losing everything in this country that made it great in the past.

The thought that I would condone some mass system of sterilisation is not only insulting to the people of this country. But is also the real scaremongering that goes on when others believe that this discussion should take place and is not anti Islam or anti any thing else it is simply that I do not want to lose a great country.

I would and did think it just as wrong that the British moved into other countries and tried to take them over. My greatest ever hero is Ghandi a man who with real peace in his heart took his country back using peaceful methods.

Think logically about how this country is run. The vote decides all and if enough voters voted for the death penalty it would come back.

If enough voters decided that women should wear a headscarf then they would, If enough voters decided that women should lose the vote then they would.

Robin T Cox wrote:
Levenax wrote:
Robin wrote:
...and we have little to worry about and much to gain from it.

Unless of course you're a woman or a homosexualist or an apostate. In fact one person could be all three at once! Very haraam - eh.
Then be afraid, very afraid.

Such scaremongering rubbish is pretty typical of the neocon lobby.

On International Women's Day we should perhaps take a less self-satisfied view of our so-called liberated treatment of women in our own part of the world.


There is a big difference between fighting for equal pay and opportunities in this country and the suffering, abuse and oppression that women experience in so many Islamic countries.

On International Women's day, we should celebrate how far we have come and look at how much further some women still have to go.

Robin wrote:
[quote]Women are not allowed to become Catholic priests, either. So what? Should we also ban Catholics?[quote]

Now you're just being silly However I would be in favour of legislation that required women to be given equal access to all positions in the RC church (and any other church or religion).


Robin wrote:
By what practical method would you seek to prevent the numbers of 'ethnic minority types' increasing? Compulsory sterilisation?

They breed faster than whites and that's a fact. However what I was advocating was making sure that women had equal opportunities and access in every area of our society before worrying about how many sikh judges or muslim MPs there were.

Tibbie Dunbar wrote:
Robin T Cox wrote:
Levenax wrote:
Robin wrote:
...and we have little to worry about and much to gain from it.

Unless of course you're a woman or a homosexualist or an apostate. In fact one person could be all three at once! Very haraam - eh.
Then be afraid, very afraid.

Such scaremongering rubbish is pretty typical of the neocon lobby.

On International Women's Day we should perhaps take a less self-satisfied view of our so-called liberated treatment of women in our own part of the world.


There is a big difference between fighting for equal pay and opportunities in this country and the suffering, abuse and oppression that women experience in so many Islamic countries.

On International Women's day, we should celebrate how far we have come and look at how much further some women still have to go.

Women suffer from abuse and oppression here, too, you know.

So do let's try not to take a 'holier than thou' attitude when it comes to comparing our own 'superior' civilisation to that of other people who live in other parts of the world.

We are all human beings, after all, and a woman's a woman for 'a that, too.

Levenax wrote:

No women sit in sharia courts and all imams are men. That's why we should be very wary indeed about allowing islam, or indeed religion of any sort to taint the functions of the law.
Robin wrote:
Women are not allowed to become Catholic priests, either. So what? Should we also ban Catholics?
Levenax wrote:
Now you're just being silly However I would be in favour of legislation that required women to be given equal access to all positions in the RC church (and any other church or religion).

Robin wrote:
By what practical method would you seek to prevent the numbers of 'ethnic minority types' increasing? Compulsory sterilisation?

They breed faster than whites and that's a fact. However what I was advocating was making sure that women had equal opportunities and access in every area of our society before worrying about how many sikh judges or muslim MPs there were.

Why can't we multi-task? After all, I hear that most women are pretty good at multi-tasking.

I think what you're really suggesting here is that there isn't a cat's chance in hell that women will ever be equal in our society, and therefore we needn't bother about ethnic preferences when it comes to the ways people choose to settle legal disputes out of court. You may be right about the former, although overly pessimistic perhaps. But the latter is a non sequitur, I fear.

Robin wrote:
I think what you're really suggesting here is that there isn't a cat's chance in hell that women will ever be equal in our society, and therefore we needn't bother about ethnic preferences when it comes to the ways people choose to settle legal disputes out of court. You may be right about the former, although overly pessimistic perhaps. But the latter is a non sequitur, I fear.

I think women can become equal partners in society. Remember when women had to leave the teaching profession when they got married or when some tosser told Barbara Castle on TV that "she was only a woman" when talking about introducing the breathalyser? These days are long gone. When we've got more women in positions of influence in the government it'll be much less likely that we'll be railroaded into wars.
Ethnic preferences are one thing but every decision that so called courts arrive at must be fully compliant with UK law. They must never be permitted to discriminate against women, as rabbinical and sharia bodies routinely do now.
Women of my acquaintance get really hacked off when there's lots of publicity about equal opportunities for ethnic minorities. They argue that the first concern of the government should be making sure that the majority of the population i.e. women, get fair treatment.
We've seen recently what a mire the Met Police got themselves into by positive discrimination in favour of foreigners. It's obvious that no good will come of promoting only on the basis of race or skin colour as they stupidly did with the criminal Desai who led them a merry dance on the false basis of institutional racism - whatever that is.