Jump to content
Unexplained Mysteries uses cookies. By using the site you consent to our use of cookies as per our Cookie Policy.
Close X
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
RoofGardener

The Fall of France

39 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

RoofGardener
14 minutes ago, Likely Guy said:

Well, I don;t know, There are 98 separate First Nations in Canada and they seem to manage, That and surely Bosnian, Syrian, Jordanian, etc. Muslims don't all go to separate mosques. I realize that there are different sects and language groups to consider but I don't see how it would be unmanageable. Like I said, I don't know.

Hmmm.. fair point Likely Guy. 

To pick at ONE point, however.... how many of the First Nations have a religious system that requires - through their common (?) core scripture - that the existing order of Canada be overthrown, and replaced by a new system of law. (which is agreed by almost all of the "98 seperate" First Nations ? 

And how many of those 98 Nations require that the "new order" require everybody to convert to their religious beliefs ? 

I really struggle to see how the "98 Nations" example is relevant to the current situation ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
odas
16 minutes ago, Likely Guy said:

Well, I don;t know, There are 98 separate First Nations in Canada and they seem to manage, That and surely Bosnian, Syrian, Jordanian, etc. Muslims don't all go to separate mosques. I realize that there are different sects and language groups to consider but I don't see how it would be unmanageable. Like I said, I don't know.

Well, many of those do go to their own mosques. It really depends on your geographic background. Than there is the language barrier. Way to many things to list. I do not want to say it is impossible but history gives me a clue.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Likely Guy
2 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Hmmm.. fair point Likely Guy. 

To pick at ONE point, however.... how many of the First Nations have a religious system that requires - through their common (?) core scripture - that the existing order of Canada be overthrown, and replaced by a new system of law. (which is agreed by almost all of the "98 seperate" First Nations ? 

And how many of those 98 Nations require that the "new order" require everybody to convert to their religious beliefs ? 

I really struggle to see how the "98 Nations" example is relevant to the current situation ? 

I thought you said ONE point. :D

Relevant in the sense that it's more of a tribunal, or court of arbitration with the right to appeal to a recognized higher civil court. That court would have to be secular, of course.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
odas
5 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Hmmm.. fair point Likely Guy. 

To pick at ONE point, however.... how many of the First Nations have a religious system that requires - through their common (?) core scripture - that the existing order of Canada be overthrown, and replaced by a new system of law. (which is agreed by almost all of the "98 seperate" First Nations ? 

And how many of those 98 Nations require that the "new order" require everybody to convert to their religious beliefs ? 

I really struggle to see how the "98 Nations" example is relevant to the current situation ? 

Aaaaaand then there is a post like this.

I just explained why it would not work. Because of the different nationalities, languages, cultural differences...and you put us again all in one basket. Way to go pontiac.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dark_Grey

Why can't they be satisfied with the existing rule of law in France, which applies to all citizens equally? Why try to change or amend the courts of the country you immigrated to? After Charlie Hebdo, I would be worried about further Islamic expansion in to your country's laws. A liberal government will silence anti-Sharia locals which increases the risk of civil war even further.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek

yes, please France do that, show the world once again how multiculturalism kills the country, as if we needed anymore proof

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Black Red Devil

Here's an interesting analysis done by a Senior Lecturer of the University of Queensland which is displayed on the Australian Govt website.  There are cases for and against Sharia Law in western/secular societies (and let's be clear this would only adjudicate on Family and general relationship matters as described in the article), which include exactly what Odas touched on, the diversity of the various groups and their interpretation of Islamic Law.  But IMO the main risk is that this would create a marginalised and enclosed Islamic society where interventions from the local Police and/or populace would become unwelcomed and possibly seen as acts of hostility towards Muslims.

link

I've changed my opinion on immigration over time and whilst I still agree on multiculturalism, it has to be controlled to avoid offsetting the balance and immigrants/refugees have to be vetted.  In a multicultural society a person brings their culture and attributes, but they don't shove it down everybody elses throats and they tow the line with the Law of the land where they're living.  Therefore, there should be one Law for all based on western society moral values IMO.

Edited by Black Red Devil
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hetrodoxly
19 hours ago, Likely Guy said:

And within accepted tribunal laws, I can;t see how sharia laws can't be accepted. Yes, barring large scale laws and issues.

It's simply accepted mediation.

It would work fine as long as you're not bothered about women's rights.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
odas
2 hours ago, Black Red Devil said:

Here's an interesting analysis done by a Senior Lecturer of the University of Queensland which is displayed on the Australian Govt website.  There are cases for and against Sharia Law in western/secular societies (and let's be clear this would only adjudicate on Family and general relationship matters as described in the article), which include exactly what Odas touched on, the diversity of the various groups and their interpretation of Islamic Law.  But IMO the main risk is that this would create a marginalised and enclosed Islamic society where interventions from the local Police and/or populace would become unwelcomed and possibly seen as acts of hostility towards Muslims.

link

I've changed my opinion on immigration over time and whilst I still agree on multiculturalism, it has to be controlled to avoid offsetting the balance and immigrants/refugees have to be vetted.  In a multicultural society a person brings their culture and attributes, but they don't shove it down everybody elses throats and they tow the line with the Law of the land where they're living.  Therefore, there should be one Law for all based on western society moral values IMO.

Correct. I have not change my view on immigration. I always maintained that politics is in the way of propper intergration. It is perfectly fine to look after minorities, to help new immigrants start a new life in a new country. But this can not happen by restricting rights to the majority or domestic people. When I go visit a country then I want to ecperience the domestic culture reardless if the country is England or Saudi Arabia.

And we can not just blame one side of the politic structure. Dems and Cons are not too far away in this regard. But it is competely wrong to look to the far right or left for a solution. They do not have one unless it is bloodshed.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Likely Guy
2 hours ago, hetrodoxly said:

It would work fine as long as you're not bothered about women's rights.

The patriarchal system is a definite worry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
godnodog

I seriously doubt France or any EU country would allow this to happen, because its a slipery slope when to decide what court decides what, and if one side doesnt like it to whom will they appeal, or about complaining their human rights are not being respected etc etc etc

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
On 2017-11-21 at 9:45 PM, Setton said:

Agreed, which is why it's important not to take sensationalist headlines at face value. 

I gave the academics proposal exactly the consideration it deserves - none. This is just somebody wanting to be radical and get noticed. Don't help him with that. 

My concern here isn't with the (clearly ridiculous) proposal but that people misrepresenting it, especially when it's so easy to argue against, actually increases the chances of it happening. 

That was my thought. I read the article and couldn't work out what the fuss was about. It was just some professor making a wild, unrealistic suggestion. 

On 2017-11-21 at 7:44 PM, RoofGardener said:

Well, you're in good company. No major newspaper or media outlet (at time of posting) has covered this story. 

Why would they? Should the wild opinions and suggestions of all people be given a voice in news outlets?

I'm maybe missing something vital here, and I guess I might find out after reading the comments, but for me this doesn't seem like it's even worthy of discussing. It's a ridiculous idea that would never happen.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
On 2017-11-30 at 9:11 PM, Dark_Grey said:

Why can't they be satisfied with the existing rule of law in France, which applies to all citizens equally?

70% of them are (according to the one poll referenced). And I suspect that the next generation will see that number grow far, far higher.

On 2017-12-3 at 0:39 AM, bmk1245 said:

Main point: if destructive ideology can't live in other societies, whos fault it is? Destructive ideology (islam), period.

Islam seems to do fine generally, just like all religions. You get idiots, but they are not representative of the whole. 

Edited by ExpandMyMind
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saru
7 hours ago, ExpandMyMind said:

I read the article and couldn't work out what the fuss was about. It was just some professor making a wild, unrealistic suggestion. 

I'm maybe missing something vital here, and I guess I might find out after reading the comments, but for me this doesn't seem like it's even worthy of discussing. It's a ridiculous idea that would never happen.

I tend to agree, and there is a considerable potential here for this topic to be misinterpreted or the story misrepresented.

Suffice to say - France is not falling, there isn't going to be a civil war and the dual judiciary system is not going to happen.

Given some of the comments that have already had to be removed from this thread - I can't see any advantage in leaving this open.

Closed.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.