• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

British Values

Kirran

Premium Member
Did you read Article 2? Notice nothing about refugees nor immigrants are contained within. Hence subjective values are being imposed upon other people then they are called out for violating those imposed values.

Going against the grain is not a treaty violation. It is a fallacious ad populum argument. They are being penalized for practicing sovereignty.

This is the problem with the EU. It's leaders act like it a nation unto itself when it isn't. Hence why the EU dictates are authoritarian and undemocratic. No one elected any of those officials to the EU parliament yet it is telling elected officials what to do in their own nations.

I did! It was nice. I understood that. But the law is largely in the interpretation, and I can certainly see how it can be read in such a way.

Again, I think if most people in the club interpret something one way, and decide you're going against the ethos, then you're out, that's reasonable.

I agree with you regarding the undemocratic, bureaucratic and unaccountable nature of the EU's hierarchy though. I'm an anarchist-sympathiser, after all.
 

Shad

Veteran Member
I did! It was nice. I understood that. But the law is largely in the interpretation, and I can certainly see how it can be read in such a way.

Again, I think if most people in the club interpret something one way, and decide you're going against the ethos, then you're out, that's reasonable.

The problem is that the so-called ethos is being used ad-hoc. Interpretive law is the worse kind as it enable agenda and bias to distort a law.

I agree with you regarding the undemocratic, bureaucratic and unaccountable nature of the EU's hierarchy though. I'm an anarchist-sympathiser, after all.

Do consider this when looking at why some nations are fighting again EU edicts
 

Kirran

Premium Member
The problem is that the so-called ethos is being used ad-hoc. Interpretive law is the worse kind as it enable agenda and bias to distort a law.

Well one has to interpret law, don't you think?

I think it seems fair that if countries don't like what the EU has turned out to be regarding sharing the load of refugee intake etc, then they should leave. There's no reason the majority should allow for such churlishness.

Do consider this when looking at why some nations are fighting again EU edicts

Of course! I just don't agree with the motives. I don't agree with many people's disagreements with the EU, but I have my own separate disagreements with it.
 

Shad

Veteran Member
Well one has to interpret law, don't you think?

No that is only one view regarding application of law. Another is textualism which I support.

I think it seems fair that if countries don't like what the EU has turned out to be regarding sharing the load of refugee intake etc, then they should leave. There's no reason the majority should allow for such churlishness.

Leave over an EU edict which it can fight? Why?

Tyranny of the majority to boot.
 

Shad

Veteran Member
And Hungary isn't breaking that?:confused:

Nope. Nothing about immigration, refugees, EU edicts. Do note how the EU is not "respecting" the values of "democracy" when Hungry and Poland elected leaders to block the immigration waves and certain member states plan to pass on their self-imposed obligations onto the others. Toss in Italy as well.
 

Altfish

Veteran Member
Nope. Nothing about immigration, refugees, EU edicts. Do note how the EU is not "respecting" the values of "democracy" when Hungry and Poland elected leaders to block the immigration waves and certain member states plan to pass on their self-imposed obligations onto the others. Toss in Italy as well.
When you join a club that has 'rules', you have to abide by those rules irrespective of what your current opinions are. It is nothing to do with '"respecting" the values of "democracy"' and all to do with sticking to the rules.
When you are in a club you argue to change the rules.
 

Kirran

Premium Member
@Shad yeah, I think Altfish makes sense: you follow the majority rule, but campaign to change it. Like, if weed is illegal in a country you don't smoke it anyway, you campaign to change it but follow in the meantime.

Also I am unconvinced that there isn't ALWAYS interpretation involved to some degree.
 

Anthem

Active Member
Nope. Nothing about immigration, refugees, EU edicts. Do note how the EU is not "respecting" the values of "democracy" when Hungry and Poland elected leaders to block the immigration waves and certain member states plan to pass on their self-imposed obligations onto the others. Toss in Italy as well.
"The Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities. These values are common to the Member States in a society in which pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between women and men prevail."

download-65.jpg
 

The Emperor of Mankind

Currently the galaxy's spookiest paraplegic
Lesser men than Tommy Robinson would have been mentally and physically broken by the way he was treated by our prison system. The way he was treated is no doubt acceptable in Islamic societies but it should not be acceptable to any right minded person.

I don't believe he was really treated as badly as he claims. For one thing he wasn't sent to a Muslim-majority prison (there are none in the UK) and that (along with his history of being a deceitful prick) is enough to cast doubt on the rest of his story.


Is being kept in solitary confinement an acceptable means of avoiding being forcibly converted to Islam when serving a prison sentence?

It's an acceptable form of punishment.


This has been going on for a long time. I am surprised that you had not heard about it. I agree with UKIP, it is time it stopped.

Britain’s jails facing ‘growing problem’ of forced conversion to

You actually posted a link that wasn't from the right-wing echo chamber you post from all the time; it was from the Independent. I'd like to positively reinforce this into a more common occurrence. No condescension or sarcasm intended; I'm being sincere just now and to prove it I'm giving your post a 'Useful' rating just for this.

Interestingly enough, the Independent ran a similarly themed article just last night. Interesting timing.



I am outraged about the abuse of children by white men in frocks. The Catholic church knew what was going on and did nothing to stop it just like the Islamic communities that acted in the same way, but did the police know what was going on. If they had known they would have done something to stop it.

The police and social services knew what was happening to those white girls but did nothing to stop it because they were afraid of being called names.

That's great and I'm glad we agree on this. The thing is with Catholic priestly abuse is I think the police did know in a few instances and they were persuaded by the Church to let them handle it internally. Probably not as many as Rochdale though.

That said, it's the attitude and policies of UKIP & the EDL that cause me concern and are dog-whistling. They go out of their way to mention the Rochdale grooming gangs but ignore the Catholic Church completely even though they're a far bigger source of the problem. It makes them come across as white-knight-ish and as if they're using the Rochdale incidents as an excuse to pick on Muslims/brown people. They're on a very inconsistent platform. I hope you can see why the rest of us see it this way.

Also, in the case of the EDL and that senior member who was found guilty of serial child abuse, Yaxley-Lennon's silence on the subject is deafening. If he condemns child abuse why didn't he condemn this guy?



He did. Yaxley-Lennon was sent down for pulling the exact same stunt a year prior to being sent to prison this time. The judge told him to not do it again and gave him a suspended sentence. So what does he do? Ignores the judge's instructions and jeopardises the integrity of the trial. It displayed a contempt of court and that's what turned his suspended sentence into a live sentence.
 

Shad

Veteran Member
"The Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities. These values are common to the Member States in a society in which pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between women and men prevail."

Yet you can not cite any violation. You just assert it. Make an argument and try again.
 

Shad

Veteran Member
@Shad yeah, I think Altfish makes sense: you follow the majority rule, but campaign to change it. Like, if weed is illegal in a country you don't smoke it anyway, you campaign to change it but follow in the meantime.

Tyranny of the majority then. Are Dems rolling over as they are not the majority?

Regarding weed. It is being made legal here because law enforcement can not stop it nor the profits from it. Ergo people were not following the law anyways. The amount of people have been increasing for decades. The law is not popular.

More so there are some laws you fight against by refusing compliance. Non-compliance is why some laws are overturned. Civil disobedience


Also I am unconvinced that there isn't ALWAYS interpretation involved to some degree.

Not with textualism. If its not in black and white its not in the law
 

Shad

Veteran Member
When you join a club that has 'rules', you have to abide by those rules irrespective of what your current opinions are.

Said rule is not on the book. Said rule violated existing treaties.

It is nothing to do with '"respecting" the values of "democracy"' and all to do with sticking to the rules.

Nonsense. Hungry had a democratic election which gave power to those leaders fighting the EU. So yes the EU only respects democracy when it over something they agree with.

When you are in a club you argue to change the rules.

It is not about a rule change but a conflict with an existing treaty and sovereignty issues.
 

Kirran

Premium Member
Tyranny of the majority then. Are Dems rolling over as they are not the majority?

Regarding weed. It is being made legal here because law enforcement can not stop it nor the profits from it. Ergo people were not following the law anyways. The amount of people have been increasing for decades. The law is not popular.

More so there are some laws you fight against by refusing compliance. Non-compliance is why some laws are overturned. Civil disobedience

Not with textualism. If its not in black and white its not in the law

Yeah, fair enough. We just have different views of this particular set of decrees and the appropriate response to them I guess.

R.e. textualism - I guess that doesn't apply in this case!
 

Shad

Veteran Member
Yeah, fair enough. We just have different views of this particular set of decrees and the appropriate response to them I guess.

Yah I am not keen on bureaucratic oligarchies calling the shots. Same with the UN

R.e. textualism - I guess that doesn't apply in this case!

It is not being used in this case by those in charge of said laws.
 
Top