Pat Condell
 

Pat Condell is a Brit... a Brit with an opinion I totally agree with, on what's going on in Europe... and Saudi Arabia.
And he's got that Brit voice that's so easy to listen to. ;)

http://dotsub.com/view/84f5c72d-b0ba...3-8cc40995e011

To bad our sense of diplomacy and need for oil prevents us from telling SA that.

I give that the claps!

I was slightly irritated by his asertions that we've had Muslims refusing to do various bits of their jobs because of their 'precious faith'. We have also had Christians refusing to do various things because of their faith; and also insisting on doing inappropriate things because of their faith.

The problem isn't Islam, the problem is faith/religion. The difference being that we are nominally a Christian country so we don't get so het up when it's a Christian refusing to treat a homosexual/do the paperwork for an adoption by a homosexual couple. And if a Christian is being disciplined by their workplace for, for instance, insisting on giving religous advice to atheist parents of sick children, the tone of the news reports is on the shoddy treatment of said Christian, rather than the right of the parents not to have christianity rammed down their throats at an emotionally difficult time.

I have no love of Saudi Arabia. I agree with some of what this man says about that country and about the ludicrous nature of any complaint made by them about 'human rights'. But much of what he says is just Islamophobic and bigotted shit. There is an argument to say that Moslems are being denied religious freedom, in ways that would have Christians marching in the streets if it was applied to them. France is talking about banning the veil ffs. However much I despise that article of dress, it is as wrong to say they shouldn't be able to wear it, as it would be to say Hassidic Jews should be legally prevented from wearing gloves or that Sikhs should have to cut their hair.

But don't you think that the more radical elements (Christian or Muslim) are taking full advantage of and exploiting the freedoms offered to them by Western complacancy? Shouldn't the religious freedoms offered to any group be at least expected to respond in kind through open acceptance of others?

I do think so yes. Which is why i said I agree with some of what he said. But most of what he said was racist, bigotted anti-multiculturalism. I hear that sort of shit all the time on the doorstep from BNP supporters. They say things like: we're second class citizens in our own country (we aren't). Moslems get what they want because they make a fuss (they don't, no more than any other group). We can't even have Christmas decorations up in Bradford anymore because it might 'offend' the moslems (bollocks. I know this to be untrue. They still have the decorations every Christmas). If you're asian you can just walk into the benefits office and they'll sort you out straight away, but if you're white they ignore you (complete crap). Asians get given massive houses for their extended families, that they bring over (nonsense; they're just as likely to be housed in inappriately small houses as anyone else). And a bunch of other stuff about how we bend over backwards to accomodate moslems (we fucking well don't).

His comment about Ken Livingstone is the big clue here. 'The Mad Mullah of multiculturalism'. In other words a Mayor who promoted tolerance and cross faith/community understanding. Well, what a bastard he was eh? To promote multi-cultural understanding in the world's most culturally diverse city.

*shakes head* This man is just a right-wing bigot who doesn't like moslems.

We haven't bent over backwards to accomodate moslems, we've targetted them disprportionately in stop and search; wrongly arrested many (shot a couple of them during said arrests) on the basis of flawed intellgience and provided them with inadequate protection against the massive rise in racist attacks on moslem individuals and businesses. They are the one group which it is culturally acceptable to attack in britain. because it's a 'faith' and not a 'race' people can be out and out twats and still claim not to be racist. The BNP leaders can make speeches in which moslems are referred to as an infestation of cockroaches ('and what do we do with cockroaches?' he asks the gathered supporters?) and the law does nothing because it isn't directed at a 'race'. If that speech had been about Jews or 'Pakistanis' or 'Sikhs' he'd have been convicted under british law. But because it's directed at 'moslems' it's fine.

British Moslems are under siege in this country and that's just fine and dandy. People can claim what they like about us bending over backwards and changing our way of life to accomodate them but it's 99% bullshit. Most of the moslem communities have higher levels of unemployment and deprivation than other communities and are subject to greater levels of police and civilian harrassment.

Doesn't seem fair that we have Fox News and they have Pat Condell.

At least he seems to smile but then a comedian would do that.
Here is his web page.
http://www.patcondell.net/

There is a new video dated 1/14/2010. Underneath the video is a link for a petition to sign against Sharia Law in the UK.

What is Sharia law Dana as you see it?

Sharia law? It's a set of rules and regulations governing private life and based upon a misogynistic and superstitious interpretation of an outdated religious text. Pretty much like any religiously derived 'law'.

The idea of having 'Sharia courts' in the UK has been blown up out of all proportion. There is no suggestion at all that Sharia law would be introduced in such a manner as to carry the weight of actual law. Sharia courts would be there to provide judgements on family and civil matters for the moslem community in much the same way as similar 'courts' do for the Jewish community. In other words, offering arbitration in matters of divorce and civil disputes based on their own cultural and religious sensibilities to those who wanted to make use of such a body. It would not in anyway outweigh or sit in a similar legal position to the judgements of actual courts.

There is a big difference between Sharia courts and Rabbinical courts. Sharia courts do not recognize the rights of women. I have seen young girls that were doused with boiling water as punishment for a mother's offense for not showing respect. Plus, I have seen the mutilated/disfigured bodies after a Sharia court ruling of death.

The introduction of Sharia courts in the UK is one step closer to full implementation of Sharia Law within the Muslim communities. The idea that it would be only partially implemented is a dangerous step towards further oppression of women of Muslim faith in the UK. IMHO.

I agree it would have the christians marching, protesting ... not bombing. . .

The issue is one of safety and known terrorists being able to conceal their faces behind the veil. Gloves? Cutting their hair? You are totally missing the point. C'mon.

Womenn have few, if any, rights in a Hassidic Beth Din (rabbinical court). There was a recent case in NYC where a woman was thrown out of her house and lost custody of her children because her former husband thought she was being too "provocative" in public.

Neither these rabbinical courts or Sharia law have any legal authority that extends beyond civil matters.

Freedom of religion in the US, UK, or other western democracies requires acknowledging the worst of those practices as part of that religion as long as they do not violate criminal law and regardless of how other countries act.

A Sikh can hide a weapon in a turban. Orthodox Jews...probably not so much under a yarmulke, but a small vial of a deadly chemical?

It is not so easy to draw a line between personal protected freedoms that are at the very foundation of western society and national security, nor should it be. When we begin to tilt too much in the favor of national security, we threaten more personal liberties than just one religions practice.

The problem is fundamentalism of any flavor. I deplore Christian fundamentalists as well as Muslim ones. Fundamentalism seems to be about withdrawing into a bunker where no intelligent thought is tolerated and lobbing bombs out at the rest of the world. I think fundamentalists are scared, mean little people. Its the hell fire and brimstone folks who make more enlightened Christians cringe. I think the same is true for Muslims. I wish all these people could be weeded out somehow and put on a desert island where they could eliminate each other and leave the rest of us alone. :headshake

Redux - if you think Sharia Law only applies in civil matters, then you haven't spent much time in Southwest Asia. I guess the court ordered public gang rapes will be a big hit in the UK.

As barbaric as I think some components of Sharia law may be, what I said was that in western countries, Sharia law has no legal authority if it crosses the line to criminal acts. Sharia law would not be accepted as a defense of gang rape in a court of law in the UK.

Pat's no fan of Christians either.

It is very easy - the law is based upon hiding ones face - period. That has been done repeatedly. Not anymore - Good for them.

This is akin to wearing a mask while going into a bank - what reaction does that person get?

Why is covering one's face more dangerous than the capacity to hide something under a turban?

In fact, it is probably easier for a man to hide a weapon under a turban than a woman to hide a weapon under a veil.

The first amendment to the Constitution- Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof... - is there to ensure that it is not easy. And there is a reason why it is the first amendment

On another note, the whole English with English subtitles thing is amateurish. It reminds me that I could be reading this rant, as opposed to waiting for him to read it on video.

I didn't hear him say any of those things. You're not reading between the lines, you're inserting whole paragraphs between the lines... paragraphs he didn't say.

I think you're missing his point, Dana. What I get from it, is that the radical Islamics, with the money and power, are pushing into Europe, especially Britain, to make sure the everyday Muslims don't escape their grasp.
The radicals are afraid the everyday Muslims might assimilate, become infected with the British/European concepts of women's rights, and the rights of Christians/Jews/Atheists to do their own thing, rather than submitting to the Clerics edicts.
This is not an attack of your friends, who are just trying to make a living and get by day to day. It's an objection to the radicals with the big bucks, making demands that the Clerics must control society, in every country.

As I think I have already said: Sharia law is misogynistic and founded on a deeply troubling interpretation of an outdated religious text. When it is given the force of law, it has the power to be lethal. Thast's not what is being discussed for the UK, nor is it the whole of Sharia that is vile.

In some moslem countries, where Sharia courts provide a similar function to that which is proposed here, but where theyhave no legal right to impose punishments (in other words where they are simply used to arbitrate in civil and domestic matters) they are also the ones, for example, insisting that an absent father properly provide for his abandoned wife and children. What happens in the rural communities of a theocracy is somewhat distinct from what happens in a metropolitan city in a democracy. It is no more appropriate to use a wide brush with Islam as it is with Christianity. How Sharia manifests itself wiothin different societies is as much to do with the cultural distinctions between said societies as it is anything else.

The idea that this is some slippery slope by which we in the UK will somehow begin to allow rape and flogging as appropriate punishments within any community is, frankly, ridiculous. I understand you've seen some appalling things, Sarge, but your experience of 'the moslem world' is in fact an experience of particular cultures. Not all Islamic cultures are the same. Not all interpretations of Sharia are the same. And no religion or sect is ever going to be able to place their own laws above the laws of the land in Britain. There is no parity.

What there is, is an acceptance, by some, that it is innapropriate for a secular/Christian culture to arbitrate in matters which are for many moslems deeply faith-based. It is also a recognition, by some, that there is cuirrently a great disparity between the religious freedoms and levels of acceptance shown to some faiths and those of other faiths.

The key phrase, Bruce, is when he calls Ken Livingston the 'Mad Mullah of multiculturalism'. In other words, multiculturalism is a failed experiment. It is a common enough argument and these are common enough tropes within the British polity at the moment, that i recognise the code words. You may not.

No, what you're doing is taking that "key phrase", and promptly throwing out his entire 6 minute dissertation, then making up your own scenario about what he's saying and why. Yeah, yeah, I know... I don't see the big picture because i don't live there. Well, that's right, I'm working with what he says, without preconceived notions, as to his purpose and agenda.

I guess you could say so and keep the political machinations of radical Islams in your peripheral vision. Some realities are just too horrible to look square in the face. I get that even if I don't get British code either.

I understand he has a problem with religion as a whole. So do I. But...to stand against 'multiculturalism' is to stand with the right in Britain. It is the Big Issue. There is a huge amount of scaremongering around Islam, and this just feeds straight into it.

But but but, what he's saying in the video... :haha:

Peaceful adherents requesting the respect of their adopted land:

http://cellar.org/2010/islamists.jpg

Scaremongering rightist rabble rouser:

http://cellar.org/2010/scaryrightist.jpg

We get it. The cardigan is a dead giveaway.

The 'British Humanist Association' is the second link on Pat Condell's web page. I am not sure why it would be there if he was against multiculturalism.

The statement by a human rights advocate reads;
"Rights, equality and respect are for people not religions or beliefs." by Maryam Namazie

I guess this is the official position?


[edit- UT you're post made mine moot I think- What a starkly visual photo essay!]

What I object to isn;t what he says about radical Islam. I totally agree with what he says about islam. What i disagree with, and what i think is scaremongering, is the suggestion that we in Europe have been 'pushed around' and made to change the way we do things to accomodate them. That just isn't true. It's this idea that we have somehow been led, by our tolerance, to bend over backwards to accomodate them, and in doing so have endangered ourselves. That isn't true. We haven't. What we have done, is accomodate, within the existing legal frameworks, ordinary moslems' right to practice their religion.

If anything we've been slowly going in the other direction, with more and more attacks on mosques and Islamic communities. From a legislative standpoint, we've increased our ability to protect women and girls against forced marriages and changed the law a number of times regarding foreign spouses.

We have not been pushed into doing things differently at all. And Ken Livingston was a mayor who promoted cross cultural engagement, not the 'mad mulla of Multiculturalism'. There is nothing wrong with multiculturalism. It does not protect anybody's right to break our laws, bomb our buses or abuse their wives.


[eta] there are several Islamist groups in the UK which have been banned. One of them changed its name and was planning a protect march through Wootton Basset; which is where the bodies of fallen service men are brought. The march was banned, though the organisers changed their minds and pulled their plans anyway. The name of that organisation has been added to the list of proscribed organisations. The penalty for being found to be a member of any of these groups carries a ten year prison sentence. So, yes, we have changed our ways in Europe. In britain we've changed our ways since 2000; by making it an imprisonable offence to be a member of certain radical Islamist groups. A legal measure which was brought in 7 years before this video claiming we've bent over backwards to accomodate radical islam was posted. A year before that video was posted an additional piece of legislation was brought in making it possible to automaticaly ban any organisation parented by those on the proscribed list; so it requires only an order, not a fresh law each time. Two years after that video was posted the Swiss were voting on whether or not to ban minarets, and currently the French are discussing the possible banning of the veil.

He's right about radical Islam. He's wrong about Europe's response to it.

OK, you win. Don't you have a research paper to do? :lol:

*grins* ummm....yeah.

You know, that's a good thought. If "rights, equality and respect" are afforded everyone, then their religion/beliefs are their own business and none of mine.
But then again, if they want to behead me for being an infidel, it becomes my business... quickly.

Only if they have the means and opportunity to do it :P

Just them wanting to, should make me vigilant that they don't get the means and opportunity.




Ah, preemptive strike... that's it, nuke 'em... and the whales too! :lol2:

I already answered this - It is to prevent know terrorists from keeping their identities hidden - it has NOTHING to do with concealment of a weapons.

This is in Europe, not the US.

We remain vigilant by using the legal, intel (and military -outside of the borders) tools available.

If those tools need to be extended, it should not be at the expense of personal freedoms, liberties and protections that are at the very foundation of western democracy.

If applied in a sweeping manner, you are including millions who are not know terrorist.

We hear calls from some on the right for similar restrictions in the US.

That's one big IF
Ok lets try it this way - My new religion. lets call it bombism, says I must carry a bomb with me at all times... Should there be any restrictions upon me?

How is a law that is applied to ALL women of a particular religion, not just suspected or know terrorists..a big IF?

The legal system and ultimately, in the US, the Supreme Court, determines what constitutes a legitimate religion under the law.

Since 9/11 the rules in this country changed and they should have. We will lose some personal freedoms for the sake of security. That is just a new fact of life. Our inability to restrict certain freedoms is what got us into much of this mess in the first place.

Dunno about European law, so I cannot say whether or not it is solely applied specifically to their religion, if it is written properly. Then it is the act of concealment not the religion.
So I can be discriminated against because someone else doesn't agree with or believe my religion is "legitimate"? Thanks, thats where I was headed.

But it is applied specifically to one religion of which the vast majority of followers are law-abiding and are not suspected or known terrorists.

That is a silly argument. If you want to rob or murder, the law will discriminate against you.

No...it is not "someone", it is the judiciary that interprets the law of the land unless you dont believe in the legal system.

I don't think so, I read they also prohibited carnival masks on the street.

Well that will take all the fun out of Mardi Gras

No it is applied to everyone.
Incorrect - I never said I wanted to rob or murder anyone. YOU are discriminating against me right now. Why would you say such terrible things about my religious beliefs? Bombism has harmed no one.

I may be wrong, but I think the recent French law applies to wearing masks in public gatherings or protests. The earlier French law applied only to Burkhas in schools.

Sillier.

Courts interpret and discriminate.

If your "religion" is perceived as posing a threat to society then the courts will probably discriminate against you.

Islam is not a security threat to US or European social order...the threat is from those extremists within the religion who abuse it for their own illegitimate purposes.

added:
There are over 1 billion Muslims in the world, the overwhelming majority of whom practice their religion peacefully.

And look who is vehemently opposed to it...
No surprise there

Some Muslims may consider the Burka "a prison" for women...so do I. There are also many Christians and Jews who oppose the more restrictive practices of their extreme orthodoxies.

The courts can also determine if any law has an adverse impact on one segment of society more than society as a whole. either intended or not.

Im not defending burkas. I think the practice is archaic. I am defending religious freedom as practiced by the overwhelming majority of believers who pose no security threat.

ps... Jean-Marie Le Pen (and the extremist National Front Party) is not someone I would ever quote or want to be associated with in any way...but thats just me. :)

I suspect there is more to it than that but it makes good sense for the sake of security. The other option would be to have the ability to stop those individuals whose face is covered them and keeping within their religious practice search or inspect them veil uncovered.

More so than banning carrying briefcases, gym bags or plain old brown paper bags in public? Why is a veil a greater security threat..other than its association with one particular religion?

If there was reason to believe that an individual woman posed a security threat based on intel/surveillance connections to a suspected/known terrorists or the individual's previous writing or actions, etc., I would agree.

Otherwise, IMO, it is infringing on fundamental rights to practice one's religion as one chooses.

Good point. Maybe we should ban rucksacks and underpants?

It obscures facial recognition software, allows men to pose as women when their only goal is to evade capture, and prevents security video from recording them in accordance with the law.

But if men posed as women with their faces covered you would not?

As you pointed out, as long as you do it within the framework of the law, sure. Otherwise comply or go to jail. Pretty simple.

[perv]I would support that[/perv]

:p

So do oversized sunglasses.

Ban?

transvestite with oversized sunglasses. ban 'em

9/11 happened do to an intelligence failure, furthermore, the lose of some of these freedoms haven't stopped other attacks such as the DC sniper or the underwear bomber.

ok then it is solved. Intel informs us that this is happening. Men AND women who are known terrorists are using this means to get around the very sophisticated video and other surveillance equipment and personnel used to keep track of them or restrict their movement.
It has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with the war on terrorism.

no need, neither of those hide the wearers face.

Not true. Facial recognition software is VERY sophisticated.

Not my problem. Sucks to be them. Security will trump any whine about rights; all the time, every time, everywhere.:D