Israel judicial system is one of the finest in the world. Their leniency towards the Palestinians has been/is remarkable.
Home | Israel judicial system is one of the finest in the world. Their leniency towards the Palestinians has been/is remarkable.
Fair enough.
Yes. Of course. Please enlighten us with your wit and wisdom as to which laws you're referring to? I'm sure you've got them written down in your little notebook in front of you.Originally posted by muslim4israel2
Nah, the laws in the EU are civilized, then theres Israel.
While you're at it, care to comment on the comparison of law and government between Israel and, oh, I don't know, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon, Algeria, Iran, Iraq and even the cute little Emerate fifedomes?
I live in the EU-I'm not aware of the integrals of the Arab legal systems-sure its not as bad as your making out. Loads of Westerners live in the UAE.
The JDL would be useful if it played the role of a Jewish militia protecting Jewish meetings, marches, etc. for example.
Terrorist acts are only detrimental to Jews. What purpose does it serve to blow up a mosque? This is crazy.
They do, because they hope to make money so they are willing to put up with some nonsense. I spoke to a woman last week who had recently returned from a teaching contract there. It wasn't so good as she hoped, but it was endurable. Then again, she didn't have the pleasure of interacting with the legal system, which is often a nightmare for Westerners.Originally posted by muslim4israel2
I live in the EU-I'm not aware of the integrals of the Arab legal systems-sure its not as bad as your making out. Loads of Westerners live in the UAE.
I see here that Dubai is considered the most liberal of the Arab emirates.
The Straits Times
Sunday, March 31, 2002
Dubai - The highest court here has ruled that a husband
has the right to beat his wife to discipline her, but she
in turn has the right to divorce should she suffer any
injury.
The court in the most liberal of the seven states that
make up the United Arab Emirates said beating of a wife
was permissible provided it was not 'so severe as to
damage her bones or deform her body', the Gulf News daily
reported yesterday.
A wife, however, has the right to ask her husband for a
divorce 'if he injures her, either by word or action'.
...
(See the article reposted at http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...&output=gplain )
I think most of the civilized world does not agree that wife-beating, even "mild," should be sanctioned, but in Dubai it's clearly different. On the other hand, I suppose one should be grateful that a divorce is possible if there is lasting injury. I see no mention of a criminal penalty for harm caused by wife-beating. And as noted, this is the most liberal Arab emirate.
When did Jeremy Paxman join this forum?
Two people are arraigned on charges for conspiring to blow up a mosque. How do you know the allegations are true? Please point me to information that show they were convicted of blowing up a mosque.Originally posted by aid
The JDL would be useful if it played the role of a Jewish militia protecting Jewish meetings, marches, etc. for example.
Terrorist acts are only detrimental to Jews. What purpose does it serve to blow up a mosque? This is crazy.
This leads me to other questions:
Should mosques in the US be allowed tax free status and at the same time be allowed to purvey anti-Semitism or hatred against the west?
Should neo-nazis or skinheads be allowed to hold demonstrations or marches? The police (paid for by taxpayers) are always there to police these events.
Should free speech and freedom of assembly be guarded under the Constitution under any circumstances?
The other day I looked at a news site in Europe. There was a young man that wore a small Star of David on his jacket and he was asked to remove it because it was provocative.
Dubai - The highest court here has ruled that a husband
has the right to beat his wife to discipline her, but she
in turn has the right to divorce should she suffer any
injury.
What do you think that they do to children in that neck of the woods?
They suffer from beatings, genocide from the law and gross sexual abuse.
What legal recourse do they have? NONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I don't know if it's tue. I do know that terrorist acts against non-combatants are counterproductve.Originally posted by L@mplighterM
Two people are arraigned on charges for conspiring to blow up a mosque. How do you know the allegations are true? Please point me to information that show they were convicted of blowing up a mosque.
This leads me to other questions:
Should mosques in the US be allowed tax free status and at the same time be allowed to purvey anti-Semitism or hatred against the west?
Should neo-nazis or skinheads be allowed to hold demonstrations or marches? The police (paid for by taxpayers) are always there to police these events.
Should free speech and freedom of assembly be guarded under the Constitution under any circumstances?
The other day I looked at a news site in Europe. There was a young man that wore a small Star of David on his jacket and he was asked to remove it because it was provocative.
If it were up to me, I would charge all these mosques with terrorist incitement.
Demonstrations of neo-nazis - this is a sticky point in the US political system. This is where the JDL could be useful - have a counter-demonstration with the protection of a few tough guys.
Right now, the JDL would be come very handy in France, protecting Jews, not attacking Arabs.
This is all I am saying.
Apart from excercising my right to freedom of speech which the Founding Fathers garuanteed, and which L@mpLighter now finds himself questioning, I also enter this thread to do L@mpLighter, and any other parties involved, a favour, by Addressing his Questioning of Freedom.
--------------------------------------------------
"Two people are arraigned on charges for conspiring to blow up a mosque. How do you know the allegations are true? Please point me to information that show they were convicted of blowing up a mosque. "
Sure: (The attempt was in LA).
-- http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-121301jdl.story
-- http://www.jewsweek.com/society/190.htm
Also, perhaps you would care to take a look at the Institution that actually arrested them:
-- www.fbi.gov
"Should mosques in the US be allowed tax free status and at the same time be allowed to purvey anti-Semitism or hatred against the west? "
In other words: Should the (a) government tax you if they dont like what you say?
"Should neo-nazis or skinheads be allowed to hold demonstrations or marches? The police (paid for by taxpayers) are always there to police these events. "
Lest you forget, Skinheads pay their taxes too. More to the point however, is this - Meet the US Constitution, Ammendment number 1:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
It does not say (and rightly so), that if you do not particularly like the swastika & shaved head combo, that they be banned.
"Should free speech and freedom of assembly be guarded under the Constitution under any circumstances?"
Should you be allowed to ask this?
-----------------------------------------------------
It is quite prudent, to never let any Questioning of freedom go about unchallenged. This is why I took the liberty of addressing L@mpLighter's questions/statements. Other statements made on this board can at often times be flatly wrong, but they are simply concretes, which can easily be debunked upon serious scrutiny. His questions however pertained to an actual Fundamental premise - Mans' freedom.
L@mpLighter certainly isn't the first person to question freedom however. Others have beat him to it. Hitler and Saddam come to mind. The former managed to strip away a certain peoples' freedoms, and then proceeded to slaughter 6 million innocents, while the latter's record is still in the making.
Ironically however, L@mpLighter is utterly blind to the Light from the L@mp which Lady Liberty holds up. This light is Freedom - It was the product of the rational thinking from the men of the Enlightenment, recognised, framed, and implemented by the Founding Fathers, and now etched in stone within the latest flowering of Western Civilisation - The United States of America.
Last edited by A-Palestinian; 04-12-2002 at 10:45 AM.
"In other words: Should the (a) government tax you if they dont like what you say?"
No, the question is different.
Should government tolerate direct incitement to violence and terrorism, whatever is the source.
Freedom of expression does not include incitement to kill. These are two different things.
Long before the first attack on the WTC, for example, "shekh" Abdul Rachman (the one in Santa Claus hat) was doing just that.
Had he been prosecuted before the first WTC atack, it would not have happened, along with 9/11.
The Constitution of the United States isn’t etched in stone. There have been amendments made during the course of time. This is a process that changes the document but still leaves peoples rights in place.Originally posted by A-Palestinian
Apart from excercising my right to freedom of speech which the Founding Fathers garuanteed, and which L@mpLighter now finds himself questioning, I also enter this thread to do L@mpLighter, and any other parties involved, a favour, by Addressing his Questioning of Freedom.
--------------------------------------------------
"Two people are arraigned on charges for conspiring to blow up a mosque. How do you know the allegations are true? Please point me to information that show they were convicted of blowing up a mosque. "
Sure: (The attempt was in LA).
-- http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-121301jdl.story
-- http://www.jewsweek.com/society/190.htm
Also, perhaps you would care to take a look at the Institution that actually arrested them:
-- www.fbi.gov
"Should mosques in the US be allowed tax free status and at the same time be allowed to purvey anti-Semitism or hatred against the west? "
In other words: Should the (a) government tax you if they dont like what you say?
"Should neo-nazis or skinheads be allowed to hold demonstrations or marches? The police (paid for by taxpayers) are always there to police these events. "
Lest you forget, Skinheads pay their taxes too. More to the point however, is this - Meet the US Constitution, Ammendment number 1:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
It does not say (and rightly so), that if you do not particularly like the swastika & shaved head combo, that they be banned.
"Should free speech and freedom of assembly be guarded under the Constitution under any circumstances?"
Should you be allowed to ask this?
-----------------------------------------------------
It is quite prudent, to never let any Questioning of freedom go about unchallenged. This is why I took the liberty of addressing L@mpLighter's questions/statements. Other statements made on this board can at often times be flatly wrong, but they are simply concretes, which can easily be debunked upon serious scrutiny. His questions however pertained to an actual Fundamental premise - Mans' freedom.
L@mpLighter certainly isn't the first person to question freedom however. Others have beat him to it. Hitler and Saddam come to mind. The former managed to strip away a certain peoples' freedoms, and then proceeded to slaughter 6 million innocents, while the latter's record is still in the making.
Ironically however, L@mpLighter is utterly blind to the Light from the L@mp which Lady Liberty holds up. This light is Freedom - It was the product of the rational thinking from the men of the Enlightenment, recognised, framed, and implemented by the Founding Fathers, and now etched in stone within the latest flowering of Western Civilisation - The United States of America.
If it was the will of the people there could be changes made. Further more and more countries are developing hate laws. As a matter of fact individuals have/are being charged with hate crimes in the US.
There’s also incitement to commit hate crimes etc.
Read your own LINK there was no attempt to blow up anything.
L@mpLighter says:
"The Constitution of the United States isn’t etched in stone. "
But then says:
"This is a process that changes the document but still leaves peoples rights in place . " (Bold Mine).
It changes but still "leaves peoples rights in place"? Obviously, an outright contradiction. As standing, your second statement outright contradicts your first.
The whole reason, it is called a "Constitution", is because certain fundamentals cannot be changed. What is indeed etched in stone is the Bill of Rights - included in the US constitution as the Prelude.
"If it was the will of the people there could be changes made. "
False . It is because of this above flawed premise, that you thus make flawed concrete conclusions, like your first paragraph. Actually, the US in NOT a Democracy - it is a Republic. There is a *very* stark difference between the two. In more detail, the US is a Constitutionaly Limited Republic.
-- In a Democracy, the will of the people is the law. Thus, if 9 out of 10 people vote to kill the tenth, then it is *legal*.
(Rule of the people).
-- In a CLR however, if 9 out of 10 people vote to kill the tenth, is it *illegal*, because the Constitution would forbid it. (Rule of Fundamentals).
Nazi Germany was a Democracy. Hitler was Voted into power. The US is not.
So yes the Fundamentals of our freedom are indeed etched in stone.
"Further more and more countries are developing hate laws. "
So what? What bearing does this have on the points I addressed for you in your original post? (Hate crime laws are actually un-constitutional, but thats not relavant here). As it stands, this statement is a Non-Sequitor.
"As a matter of fact individuals have/are being charged with hate crimes in the US. "
No one is denying racist crimes are comminted, but again, thats a Non-Sequitor.
"There’s also incitement to commit hate crimes etc. "
Yet again, it is not being denied. Non-Sequitor.
"Read your own LINK there was no attempt to blow up anything. "
Yes. And the Pope isn't Catholic.
On a final note :
-- Do not confuse electing Leaders with electing Laws. In a Democracy, both are allowed. In a Republic, just the former.
-- Your current post is replete with Non-Sequitors. (Irrelevancies). You have made no mention of your own statements in your prior post, which I pointed out as wrong and dangerous. Either correct them, or retract them. Ignoring them wont make them go away.
Its unlikely that an Israeli would contradict himself.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks