Islamaphobiaphobia in Britain...?

Here is a piece from the New York Times, although you can't trust the reporting from this paper...

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/h/nidal_malik_hasan/index.html

The conclusions of the report echoed a Pentagon review released in 2010 that detailed a systemic breakdown within the military that permitted Major Hasan to advance through the ranks despite concerns that he embraced violent Islamic extremism.
Among the findings, the senators said, was that government officials knew Major Hasan had communicated with Anwar al-Awlaki, a radical cleric and terrorism suspect now residing in Yemen, but failed to alert the Army of this fact; that from 2003 to 2009, when he was a psychiatric resident at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, he openly suggested that revenge might be a defense for the Sept. 11 attacks; and that he spoke defensively about Osama bin Laden.

The following quote from the article is why you can't trust the NYT as a paper...

Yet the gunman and his motive remain an enigma
 
Yet the gunman and his motive remain an enigma. No emotion or hint of the defendant’s thoughts flickered across his pale features, as more than two dozen other soldiers and civilians spoke under oath about their struggle to survive in the terrifying minutes after he yelled “Allahu akbar!” — “God is great” in Arabic — and started shooting.

Context is important, Bill. So are word meanings. An enigma is something hard to understand or explain. That doesn't mean said something is unknown. Big difference there.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
 
Last edited:
It's an entomology thing ... see what I did there? :lol: Yeah, double word-play attack! :D
 
Here is a piece from the New York Times, although you can't trust the reporting from this paper...

ROFL This bit of advice from the person who uses Brietbart's web site as a source for so much of his information. Thanks for the laugh, Billi :)
 
Actually, that was probably a reaction to this...

http://www.wnd.com/2003/10/21551/

O'CONNOR: U.S. MUST RELY ON FOREIGN LAW

Justice says, 'The impressions we create in this world are important'

American courts need to pay more attention to international legal decisions to help create a more favorable impression abroad, said U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor at an awards dinner in Atlanta.

he 73-year-old justice and some of her high court colleagues have made similar appeals to foreign law, not only in speeches and interviews, but in some of their legal opinions. Her most recent public remarks came at a dinner Tuesday sponsored by the Atlanta-based Southern Center for International Studies.
The occasion was the center’s presentation to her of its World Justice Award.
O’Connor told the audience, according to the Atlanta paper, the U.S. judicial system generally gives a favorable impression worldwide, “but when it comes to the impression created by the treatment of foreign and international law and the United States court, the jury is still out.”
She cited two recent Supreme Court cases that illustrate the increased willingness of U.S. courts to take international law into account in its decisions.

The steps taken may have been premature but it is obvious that some judges don't get the whole U.S. constitution as the supreme law of the land. If representatives or senators want to make a foreign law legitimate here, they can submit it through the legislative process. Judges aren't supposed to use foreign laws to make their decisions, even and especially shariah. This step merely goes there to make it clear to judges before they start acting silly.
 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18117529

Interesting and refreshing to hear such relatively straight talking from a politician - being in the Lords helps in shaking off the party shackles and speaking more plainly of course.

It is good to hear someone speaking plainly. The whole situation needs to be looked at not just a bit here, a bit there. Focusing only on the race issue clouds the care issue and vice versa. There needs to be a proper inquiry with a remit to look at every factor without any hysteria, bias or preconceived ideas.
 
The nerve of some people, demanding our citizens be held to our laws...

Umm religious law has never been used instead of civil law. In fact, this is one of the reasons so many are wondering why our government is using religious belief to decide who can marry. No one is trying to replace our civil law with Sharia law. This is a fake issue, used to frighten men and women who can't think critically and to play to a minority of the Kansas Republican base that is anti-Islam. This is just fear mongering.

It is also lawmakers wasting time and tax dollars. There is no need for this law at all, but Kansas does need to balance its' budget, repair infrastructure, hire teachers, etc. Instead of taking care of the things they need to take care of, they are debating and passing useless bills that aren't needed.

Sharia law is used by many Muslims in Kansas and elsewhere as a way to live thier life. If they have a dispute, they use Sharia law and an Imam to settle the dispute. You know, trying to settle it before going to court spending more tax payer dollars. You'd think conservatives would be all about Muslims trying to settle thier differences through thier mosque, instead of wasting tax dollars, but I guess the Islamaphobe has a greater hold on a few of them.

By the way, other religions also have mechanisms in place to mediate disputes using thier own laws and religious beliefs, like Judaism or Catholism. Why are those religions not being talked about as wanting to take over America's civil law code?
 
Just to remind you that it was actual judges, at the Supreme Court no less, who believe they should be able to base their rulings on foriegn law instead of the United States constitution, the supreme law of the land...

Actually, that was probably a reaction to this...

http://www.wnd.com/2003/10/21551/


O'CONNOR: U.S. MUST RELY ON FOREIGN LAW

Justice says, 'The impressions we create in this world are important'




American courts need to pay more attention to international legal decisions to help create a more favorable impression abroad, said U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor at an awards dinner in Atlanta.

he 73-year-old justice and some of her high court colleagues have made similar appeals to foreign law, not only in speeches and interviews, but in some of their legal opinions. Her most recent public remarks came at a dinner Tuesday sponsored by the Atlanta-based Southern Center for International Studies.
The occasion was the center’s presentation to her of its World Justice Award.
O’Connor told the audience, according to the Atlanta paper, the U.S. judicial system generally gives a favorable impression worldwide, “but when it comes to the impression created by the treatment of foreign and international law and the United States court, the jury is still out.”
She cited two recent Supreme Court cases that illustrate the increased willingness of U.S. courts to take international law into account in its decisions.



So...it isn't unreasonble to think that if American Supreme court justices are not going to do their job properly, that some action needed to be taken at the local level to head off any future problem. The idea of previous "precedent" in law makes it important to get ahead of the curve on any new trend in the law. That is all this state did, and it isn't unreasonable. The islamaphobiaphobics aren't the best judges of what should or shouldn't be done to safeguard our legal institutions from judges who don't respect the U.S. constititution.
 
I must admitt an error. Religion has replaced much of our civil law...Judeo-Christian religion. I have to wonder what would happen if legislatures started fixing that?

This Sharia law is a non-issue. There is no need for it. The use is just more fear tactics. Pointing out that a judge has ruled in a way you don't like just makes you like everyone else in the country. Stop using it to support more fear mongering please.
 
Umm religious law has never been used instead of civil law.

Incorrect. That was one of the many lessons learned from the sex scandal in the Archdiocese of Boston. The abusing priests were shuffled around from place to place and never prosecuted. The ringleader, Bernard Cardinal Law, a man with deeper political connections than the Mayor of Boston, was never prosecuted and simply whisked away to a posh job at the Vatican...Safely outside the jurisdiction of state and federal Law Enforcement.

Now in Philadelphia there is a case where a TSA agent is a former priest, dismissed for molesting children. Because the matter was handled by the church and not prosecuted by the local law, he passed the background check required for TSA agents. TSA says he is primarily checking baggage and won't usually be touching children, so that makes it OK, right?
 
Carol, that was NOT a case of religious law superseding civil law. Where in the Catholic cannons is child molestation approved? It was a case of men with too much power getting away with criminal behaviour because other people did not want to take them on. Happens a lot and has nothing to do with religion.
 
Back
Top