Canadian Honor Killings - Guilty
Discussion
MX7 said:
King Herald said:
Sharia law is taking over in small enclaves in the UK.
Only if you read the Daily Mail.Though not legal, I am pretty sure they do like most UK scumbags do, and simply ignore the law.
Growing use of Sharia by UK Muslims
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16522447
King Herald said:
Hmm, BBC is the first result in Google, but the Daily Wail comes soon after, and the Grauniad.
Though not legal, I am pretty sure they do like most UK scumbags do, and simply ignore the law.
Growing use of Sharia by UK Muslims
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16522447
It can't take precedent over UK law, and both parties have to agree to enter, so we still have a very long way until we have Sharia, or any other enclaves.Though not legal, I am pretty sure they do like most UK scumbags do, and simply ignore the law.
Growing use of Sharia by UK Muslims
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16522447
stitched said:
Love it, would only work for a generation though. How many of the criminal 'gangsta' types are the progeny of immigrants who came here to work hard , many parents are utterly appalled by the behavior of their offspring.
This is a very valid point but it could be argued that the children move into this position because that of their parents is so disparete to mainstream society and this leaves them not fitting comfortably into either camps and disenfranchised.If you cite the East African Indians who arrived through the 60s after being expelled from Tanzania, Kenya and Uganda they have fitted brilliantly into British society. They arrived with a work ethic and a recognition that outside of their front doors their children needed to blend in and understand UK society as best as possible and also that education was everything. To me they are an example of just how beneficial and important immigration to a island such as Britain can be.
The key is to ensure that any system does not alienate groups such as this but discourages those of a different mentality.
(1)The current Canadian government is taking a hard look at immigration, and is going to skew eligibility to people with skills relevant to the needs of the country. Canada needs immigration, but clearly it should be people who can help build the economy.
(2) I have not seen any evidence at all that this appalling crime was defended by anyone other than those at the trial Clearly, "honour" killing go on to this day, but they are certainly not acceptable here on any basis, the the sentence was the maximum allowed by the law.
(3) While Canada is a country were individual cultures are welcomed, this does not extend to breaching the rule of law. Very recently. the Immigration Minister issued instructions that any woman applying for citizenship would have to attend the ceremony without wearing a burka, as Canada requires full facial identification. There was a debate a few years ago as to the role (if any) of Sharia law in Canada. There were those who had proposed some sort of parallel court system. However, this notion failed and it would receive short shrift in the current political environment.
In short, I see no evidence here that this kind of savagery has any defenders in the name of culture. What is disturbing is the the son was well educated ( in Canada), well travelled, and still actively participated.
Here is a fairly typical view, with some of the details of the way it went down:
http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1123947--diman...
(2) I have not seen any evidence at all that this appalling crime was defended by anyone other than those at the trial Clearly, "honour" killing go on to this day, but they are certainly not acceptable here on any basis, the the sentence was the maximum allowed by the law.
(3) While Canada is a country were individual cultures are welcomed, this does not extend to breaching the rule of law. Very recently. the Immigration Minister issued instructions that any woman applying for citizenship would have to attend the ceremony without wearing a burka, as Canada requires full facial identification. There was a debate a few years ago as to the role (if any) of Sharia law in Canada. There were those who had proposed some sort of parallel court system. However, this notion failed and it would receive short shrift in the current political environment.
In short, I see no evidence here that this kind of savagery has any defenders in the name of culture. What is disturbing is the the son was well educated ( in Canada), well travelled, and still actively participated.
Here is a fairly typical view, with some of the details of the way it went down:
http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1123947--diman...
Edited by RDMcG on Tuesday 31st January 15:06
Absolutely integration is the key. Which is not to say immigrants must become white British, our culture changes over time, modified by the baggage people bring but no one should be allowed to create ghettos or enclaves of old insular country backwardness.
"But Canadian some commentators have seized on the Shafia case as an example where immigrants aren't required to integrate enough. They have broadly criticized Canadian public services, including teachers and police, for not intervening when the girls complained of their father's sometimes-violent discipline. An editorial in the right-of-center National Post newspaper framed the Shafia girls as victims of Canada's "perverse national habit" of emphasizing "multicultural propriety" over individual welfare.
Alia Hogben, executive director of the Canadian Council of Muslim Women, believes "the system" failed the three because they were treated as "exotic" minorities rather than "ordinary" Canadians."
To be fair I think it necessary to quote the paragraph above it to set that 2nd quote in context.
And Is she saying much the same thing as the right of center think tank, perhaps coming from the same direction? that authorities are frightened to take action for fear of being accused by the hand wringers, special pleaders, or the multiculturalists (separate but equal variety) and those politically motivated happy to howl authorities, as "racist".
Always puzzles me why people come to western liberal democracies for a better life, and then try to set up their own little enclave of old country.
So NOT exclusively an issue with Islam/muslim, but coincidence or not, it does seem to be prevalent amongst immigrants from poor, non western, patriarchal societies. Cultures where men have created a culture/society for themselves and brainwashed everyone from birth, that that's just the way it is, then they come west, can't handle the freedom/rights/education their women see and want to take, and lose it when they find they are only equal and unable to "command". This guy knows it's nothing to do with honour and everything to do with power, or rather his shock of being powerless but rationalises it in his own mind (indeed so do the handwringers) with some medieval (by our standards) cultural throwback.
The only way to reduce this problem in western countries is to avoid the ghettoisation of communities in the first place (possibly too late), and integrate.
Indeed forced integration, with no special allowances, or provision in our society, for their old country if necessary.
Or return them whence they came.
"But Canadian some commentators have seized on the Shafia case as an example where immigrants aren't required to integrate enough. They have broadly criticized Canadian public services, including teachers and police, for not intervening when the girls complained of their father's sometimes-violent discipline. An editorial in the right-of-center National Post newspaper framed the Shafia girls as victims of Canada's "perverse national habit" of emphasizing "multicultural propriety" over individual welfare.
Alia Hogben, executive director of the Canadian Council of Muslim Women, believes "the system" failed the three because they were treated as "exotic" minorities rather than "ordinary" Canadians."
To be fair I think it necessary to quote the paragraph above it to set that 2nd quote in context.
And Is she saying much the same thing as the right of center think tank, perhaps coming from the same direction? that authorities are frightened to take action for fear of being accused by the hand wringers, special pleaders, or the multiculturalists (separate but equal variety) and those politically motivated happy to howl authorities, as "racist".
Always puzzles me why people come to western liberal democracies for a better life, and then try to set up their own little enclave of old country.
So NOT exclusively an issue with Islam/muslim, but coincidence or not, it does seem to be prevalent amongst immigrants from poor, non western, patriarchal societies. Cultures where men have created a culture/society for themselves and brainwashed everyone from birth, that that's just the way it is, then they come west, can't handle the freedom/rights/education their women see and want to take, and lose it when they find they are only equal and unable to "command". This guy knows it's nothing to do with honour and everything to do with power, or rather his shock of being powerless but rationalises it in his own mind (indeed so do the handwringers) with some medieval (by our standards) cultural throwback.
The only way to reduce this problem in western countries is to avoid the ghettoisation of communities in the first place (possibly too late), and integrate.
Indeed forced integration, with no special allowances, or provision in our society, for their old country if necessary.
Or return them whence they came.
Northern Munkee said:
Absolutely integration is the key. Which is not to say immigrants must become white British, our culture changes over time, modified by the baggage people bring but no one should be allowed to create ghettos or enclaves of old insular country backwardness.
"But Canadian some commentators have seized on the Shafia case as an example where immigrants aren't required to integrate enough. They have broadly criticized Canadian public services, including teachers and police, for not intervening when the girls complained of their father's sometimes-violent discipline. An editorial in the right-of-center National Post newspaper framed the Shafia girls as victims of Canada's "perverse national habit" of emphasizing "multicultural propriety" over individual welfare.
Alia Hogben, executive director of the Canadian Council of Muslim Women, believes "the system" failed the three because they were treated as "exotic" minorities rather than "ordinary" Canadians."
To be fair I think it necessary to quote the paragraph above it to set that 2nd quote in context.
And Is she saying much the same thing as the right of center think tank, perhaps coming from the same direction? that authorities are frightened to take action for fear of being accused by the hand wringers, special pleaders, or the multiculturalists (separate but equal variety) and those politically motivated happy to howl authorities, as "racist".
Always puzzles me why people come to western liberal democracies for a better life, and then try to set up their own little enclave of old country.
So NOT exclusively an issue with Islam/muslim, but coincidence or not, it does seem to be prevalent amongst immigrants from poor, non western, patriarchal societies. Cultures where men have created a culture/society for themselves and brainwashed everyone from birth, that that's just the way it is, then they come west, can't handle the freedom/rights/education their women see and want to take, and lose it when they find they are only equal and unable to "command". This guy knows it's nothing to do with honour and everything to do with power, or rather his shock of being powerless but rationalises it in his own mind (indeed so do the handwringers) with some medieval (by our standards) cultural throwback.
The only way to reduce this problem in western countries is to avoid the ghettoisation of communities in the first place (possibly too late), and integrate.
Indeed forced integration, with no special allowances, or provision in our society, for their old country if necessary.
Or return them whence they came.
On the face of it, that seems reasonable. But this isn't so much a simple disparity of cultures as a difference between savagery and civilisation. I no more want to integrate with these people than I want to stir my own s"But Canadian some commentators have seized on the Shafia case as an example where immigrants aren't required to integrate enough. They have broadly criticized Canadian public services, including teachers and police, for not intervening when the girls complained of their father's sometimes-violent discipline. An editorial in the right-of-center National Post newspaper framed the Shafia girls as victims of Canada's "perverse national habit" of emphasizing "multicultural propriety" over individual welfare.
Alia Hogben, executive director of the Canadian Council of Muslim Women, believes "the system" failed the three because they were treated as "exotic" minorities rather than "ordinary" Canadians."
To be fair I think it necessary to quote the paragraph above it to set that 2nd quote in context.
And Is she saying much the same thing as the right of center think tank, perhaps coming from the same direction? that authorities are frightened to take action for fear of being accused by the hand wringers, special pleaders, or the multiculturalists (separate but equal variety) and those politically motivated happy to howl authorities, as "racist".
Always puzzles me why people come to western liberal democracies for a better life, and then try to set up their own little enclave of old country.
So NOT exclusively an issue with Islam/muslim, but coincidence or not, it does seem to be prevalent amongst immigrants from poor, non western, patriarchal societies. Cultures where men have created a culture/society for themselves and brainwashed everyone from birth, that that's just the way it is, then they come west, can't handle the freedom/rights/education their women see and want to take, and lose it when they find they are only equal and unable to "command". This guy knows it's nothing to do with honour and everything to do with power, or rather his shock of being powerless but rationalises it in his own mind (indeed so do the handwringers) with some medieval (by our standards) cultural throwback.
The only way to reduce this problem in western countries is to avoid the ghettoisation of communities in the first place (possibly too late), and integrate.
Indeed forced integration, with no special allowances, or provision in our society, for their old country if necessary.
Or return them whence they came.
t into my Weetabix of a morning. The plain truth is some cultures are not ready to integrate with the West, and that's that.Northern Munkee said:
The only way to reduce this problem in western countries is to avoid the ghettoisation of communities in the first place (possibly too late), and integrate.
Firstly, I hate the term ghetto in today's guise. It's overly emotive and inaccurate for what happens now, but ignoring that, how do you stop it?People come here for economic reasons, and they will, by definition, have to start in cheaper areas. Not only that, but all groups tend to stick together voluntarily, be it Kiwis in Earls Court or Jews in Golders Green, so should we deny them the right to do that?
carmonk said:
On the face of it, that seems reasonable. But this isn't so much a simple disparity of cultures as a difference between savagery and civilisation. I no more want to integrate with these people than I want to stir my own st into my Weetabix of a morning. The plain truth is some cultures are not ready to integrate with the West, and that's that.
I'm suggesting this guys attitude is on the extreme fringe, most cultures would not countenance, nor most educated men of whatever culture would countenance, killing your own child rather than lose status/face/power, its only 100yrs since universal sufferage in the UK, and probably not much more from when it might have happened with the odd nutter here, and western cultures have had some odd abhorant extremes, jonestown.t into my Weetabix of a morning. The plain truth is some cultures are not ready to integrate with the West, and that's that.But I take your point.
I am always stunned by these cases on a number of levels but in one aspect I get completely lost.
How is it less shameful to kill and be sent to prison for killing your daughter than for her to have a boyfriend.
Surely no civilised person in any community thinks its more acceptable to kill someone than have them go out with someone they love?
How is it less shameful to kill and be sent to prison for killing your daughter than for her to have a boyfriend.
Surely no civilised person in any community thinks its more acceptable to kill someone than have them go out with someone they love?
carmonk said:
On the face of it, that seems reasonable. But this isn't so much a simple disparity of cultures as a difference between savagery and civilisation. I no more want to integrate with these people than I want to stir my own st into my Weetabix of a morning. The plain truth is some cultures are not ready to integrate with the West, and that's that.
It isn't really a disparity of culture so much as a disparity of individuals. I wonder how many sex pests us civilized British have exported to Thailand, or how many armed robbers we've exported to Spain? Do you think the Thais and Spanish should judge UK culture based on these particular immigrants?t into my Weetabix of a morning. The plain truth is some cultures are not ready to integrate with the West, and that's that.The difference between savagery and civilization exists on a personal level. Fred West, Harold Shipman and many others have proved that the UK is just as capable of producing monsters as any other culture. This 'honour' killing is to muslims what Fred West is to UK culture, something to be abhorred and punished.
Tartan Pixie said:
It isn't really a disparity of culture so much as a disparity of individuals. I wonder how many sex pests us civilized British have exported to Thailand, or how many armed robbers we've exported to Spain? Do you think the Thais and Spanish should judge UK culture based on these particular immigrants?
The difference between savagery and civilization exists on a personal level. Fred West, Harold Shipman and many others have proved that the UK is just as capable of producing monsters as any other culture. This 'honour' killing is to muslims what Fred West is to UK culture, something to be abhorred and punished.
I know the Spanish do see us as drunken violent thugs. This though isn't a one off, Fred West style, psycho killer, this is a cultural thing that has its prioritties all screwed up. And this is probably more about a geographic background of tradition than a muslim thing. The difference between savagery and civilization exists on a personal level. Fred West, Harold Shipman and many others have proved that the UK is just as capable of producing monsters as any other culture. This 'honour' killing is to muslims what Fred West is to UK culture, something to be abhorred and punished.
Not many moroccans seem to end up in court over this do they?
Tartan Pixie said:
carmonk said:
On the face of it, that seems reasonable. But this isn't so much a simple disparity of cultures as a difference between savagery and civilisation. I no more want to integrate with these people than I want to stir my own st into my Weetabix of a morning. The plain truth is some cultures are not ready to integrate with the West, and that's that.
It isn't really a disparity of culture so much as a disparity of individuals. I wonder how many sex pests us civilized British have exported to Thailand, or how many armed robbers we've exported to Spain? Do you think the Thais and Spanish should judge UK culture based on these particular immigrants?t into my Weetabix of a morning. The plain truth is some cultures are not ready to integrate with the West, and that's that.The difference between savagery and civilization exists on a personal level. Fred West, Harold Shipman and many others have proved that the UK is just as capable of producing monsters as any other culture. This 'honour' killing is to muslims what Fred West is to UK culture, something to be abhorred and punished.
Tartan Pixie said:
It isn't really a disparity of culture so much as a disparity of individuals. I wonder how many sex pests us civilized British have exported to Thailand, or how many armed robbers we've exported to Spain? Do you think the Thais and Spanish should judge UK culture based on these particular immigrants?
The difference between savagery and civilization exists on a personal level. Fred West, Harold Shipman and many others have proved that the UK is just as capable of producing monsters as any other culture. This 'honour' killing is to muslims what Fred West is to UK culture, something to be abhorred and punished.
Are you being serious? We had Shipman and West, so there is no difference between our culture and theirs? The difference between savagery and civilization exists on a personal level. Fred West, Harold Shipman and many others have proved that the UK is just as capable of producing monsters as any other culture. This 'honour' killing is to muslims what Fred West is to UK culture, something to be abhorred and punished.
There are murderers everywhere, but it would be idiotic to suggest that there is no variation in culture based on that.
MX7 said:
Firstly, I hate the term ghetto in today's guise. It's overly emotive and inaccurate for what happens now, but ignoring that, how do you stop it?
People come here for economic reasons, and they will, by definition, have to start in cheaper areas. Not only that, but all groups tend to stick together voluntarily, be it Kiwis in Earls Court or Jews in Golders Green, so should we deny them the right to do that?
Simply I don't think you can. People come here for economic reasons, and they will, by definition, have to start in cheaper areas. Not only that, but all groups tend to stick together voluntarily, be it Kiwis in Earls Court or Jews in Golders Green, so should we deny them the right to do that?
But where to start?
It doesn't help matters that the world is a much smaller place, both in terms of travel, mass communication & sheer numbers, and there is a level (numbers) of immigration that this country to some degree is struggling to cope, in terms of pressure on public services (health, education, welfare) and accompanying tensions. Let's not kid ourselves. The UK is keeping a lid on it to a degree, and coping as well as anyone/probably better than anyone.
But we should have only allowed in "economic" migrants of the brightest and the best kind, now that is finally a points based system, who would have been educated in the first place, but depending on when you want to start your history timeline, we find ourselves victims/accident of our own history and hindsight is a wonderful thing.
Right now we should take back control of our own borders, including EU migration. We're a small country and more densely populated than almost any other.
Given we start from where we are, we can only attack the sort of problem outlined in this case through the children themselves and our education system, and we will run these sort of cases until the children, exposed to our society, are parents themselves, ghettoisation is more than where you live, and is as much in the mind, to integrate into the wider society, we should make English the only language spoken in school (except for languages teaching). Schools would be secular, which means religious trappings will have to be dropped, school uniform all round.
Laws and their application regarding race and race hate crimes will have to be strong and rigouressly applied.
Entry to the UK for long term residency would have to include a language test. If you can't speak the native language you have ghettoised yourself from the outset, never mind where you live. Chances are if you can speak English you are educated sufficently already to know that this kind of barbarism is not acceptable in any society. Further language classes a condition of entry if the test is easy to get in.
And then maybe after a generation, another culture, and it's best bits would be assimilated, and "Britain" would be enriched by the bits and pieces of that culture that adds to or compliments the existing one.
I'm sure historically speaking some of the Jewish integration may not have been easy, similarly the Irish, carribean, and all the others etc, etc. Not sure about Kiwis not least because we share much of the same common heritage, western, christian, English speaking...
I can only speak loosely to post WW2 polish immigration they were happy, in the circumstances, to be here, and though they kept a strong community in my part of the world, they did not create nor were forced in exclusive conclave, learnt the language lived & worked side by side, not without some prejudice, until their children were British/English, with Polish heritage, rather than a double barrelled identity. That said there numbers were smaller and easier to integrate, culturally had more things in common to begin with, similar church, not that religion is important in itself, and the country was perhaps still fundamentally richer, and not as populace, so not the pressure on resources and jobs.
Anyway, this is a walking on eggshell topic so that's enough of me.
I am a muslim and I am appalled by this. As are all of my friends and every single person I know in the community. Same for all the British muslims who are my friends. Indonesians, check. Pakistanis, Indians, Chechens, Turks, Moroccans, Libyans, Saudis, Yemenis living here in the US or in Canada or in England or back in the native countries--all of them feel the same way as I do. A couple of Afghans I know in the US--the same. I cannot begin to imagine the level of depravity that would lead you to kill another human. For any reason. I don't believe in the death penalty, but I don't believe the killers here have any useful purpose on this earth--I would exile them to an island where the wildlife would quickly make a nice meal out of them.
It is a cultural thing in some muslim societies, as well as some other backwards societies (Hindus and Sikhs and Muslims in India, for instance, some parts of Africa, and yes, Judaism too etc.), and these cultures need to be dragged into the 21st century. I think that can only happen by refuting people who promote such views from the very beginning, and making sure that there are plenty of normal cultural influences. TV programmes, posters, etc., at every corner, debates by educated people, deep exposure to how normal societies live, an environment that encourages finding common ground rather than focusing on differences, etc. And life imprisonment with no publicity whatsoever for the kind of people who agree with honour killings. For this to happen, the governments need to be in agreement. Unfortunately, a lot of governments are on tenuous footing, and are propped up by the religious quarter, and the radical elements will quickly bring about their downfall if they openly went against established tradition, even though in reality it is not the mainstream way of thinking, just the most radical extension of the culture. It is a bit like the Wahhabis having an undue influence in Saudi politics.
So, with respect to immigration, I would like to think that the vast majority of muslim immigrants are like me (though many could remain more religious--me, I don't really believe in a beardy fellow floating around on clouds). It's deeply disturbing to see cases like this, and makes me wonder if I am in the minority or if cases like this in the press create a skewed perspective.
Also, the measures being proposed above (5 years this, 5000 pounds that, english fluency): Actually, quite a few such measures already exist, and I don't believe any of them will prevent people like these from cheating the system somehow and still getting in. It's all about economic opportunity and as long as that exists, people will jump the hurdles necessary to get in, and governments that need workers in various segments of society will allow them to come in. Eradicating mentality like this requires much earlier, much deeper intervention, and much stricter screening to keep out elements with these tendencies.
I personally think that all western countries' immigration policies should have this provision:
Any citizen who espouses beliefs (that fellow citizens believe he will act upon) such as honour killings, whether as a joke or in seriousness, will be immediately placed in custody and evaluated for such tendencies. If, after multiple reviews, he is judged likely to carry out an honour killing, or other such act that goes against the values of a civilized, modern, society, he shall be stripped of citizenship, placed on a permanent no-entry list, deported to his country of origin, and the endangered members of the family will be placed in protective custody.
It won't fix everything, but it should cut down on the number of such horrific cases.
Two interesting snippets
It is a cultural thing in some muslim societies, as well as some other backwards societies (Hindus and Sikhs and Muslims in India, for instance, some parts of Africa, and yes, Judaism too etc.), and these cultures need to be dragged into the 21st century. I think that can only happen by refuting people who promote such views from the very beginning, and making sure that there are plenty of normal cultural influences. TV programmes, posters, etc., at every corner, debates by educated people, deep exposure to how normal societies live, an environment that encourages finding common ground rather than focusing on differences, etc. And life imprisonment with no publicity whatsoever for the kind of people who agree with honour killings. For this to happen, the governments need to be in agreement. Unfortunately, a lot of governments are on tenuous footing, and are propped up by the religious quarter, and the radical elements will quickly bring about their downfall if they openly went against established tradition, even though in reality it is not the mainstream way of thinking, just the most radical extension of the culture. It is a bit like the Wahhabis having an undue influence in Saudi politics.
So, with respect to immigration, I would like to think that the vast majority of muslim immigrants are like me (though many could remain more religious--me, I don't really believe in a beardy fellow floating around on clouds). It's deeply disturbing to see cases like this, and makes me wonder if I am in the minority or if cases like this in the press create a skewed perspective.
Also, the measures being proposed above (5 years this, 5000 pounds that, english fluency): Actually, quite a few such measures already exist, and I don't believe any of them will prevent people like these from cheating the system somehow and still getting in. It's all about economic opportunity and as long as that exists, people will jump the hurdles necessary to get in, and governments that need workers in various segments of society will allow them to come in. Eradicating mentality like this requires much earlier, much deeper intervention, and much stricter screening to keep out elements with these tendencies.
I personally think that all western countries' immigration policies should have this provision:
Any citizen who espouses beliefs (that fellow citizens believe he will act upon) such as honour killings, whether as a joke or in seriousness, will be immediately placed in custody and evaluated for such tendencies. If, after multiple reviews, he is judged likely to carry out an honour killing, or other such act that goes against the values of a civilized, modern, society, he shall be stripped of citizenship, placed on a permanent no-entry list, deported to his country of origin, and the endangered members of the family will be placed in protective custody.
It won't fix everything, but it should cut down on the number of such horrific cases.
Two interesting snippets
Wikipedia article on honour killings said:
According to Dr. Shahrzad Mojab, a University of Toronto professor of women’s studies, followers of Hinduism, Islam, Judaism and Christianity have used their religions as a rationale to commit honour killings. However, Mojab stated that honor killings don't have "any definite connection with religion at all." She also pointed out that honor killings have been practised before any major religion came into existence.
Tahira Shaid Khan, a professor of women’s issues at Aga Khan University, notes that there is nothing in the Qur'an that permits or sanctions honor killings.[26] The first and most basic right in the Qur'an that every Muslim is expected to follow is, in fact, the right to life.
Tahira Shaid Khan, a professor of women’s issues at Aga Khan University, notes that there is nothing in the Qur'an that permits or sanctions honor killings.[26] The first and most basic right in the Qur'an that every Muslim is expected to follow is, in fact, the right to life.
Qur'an said:
That if anyone slays a human being – unless it be [in punishment] for murder or for spreading corruption on earth – it shall be as though he had slain all mankind; whereas, if anyone saves a life, it shall be as though he had saved the lives of all mankind.
Edited by just me on Tuesday 31st January 18:39
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Of course, but they are being opportunist, we are being foolish. A day at Terminal 3 is a depressing sight, you want to get a huge dollop of super glue and put it on all the entry doors. Any government that has super hard line attitude on inward immigration will be respected by nearly everyone, including the immigrants who are here.
This country needs to heal from its financial woes, a 5 year moratorium on immigration would be good.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff