How much would EU citizenship be worth to you?

TrickyTree83

Nothing at all. I'm perfectly happy, isolated in little england

wotsthat wrote: »

The Quran is only the word of god because 'the man' says so. Christianity is pretty much the same side of the same coin i.e. a different man interprets what god wants so he can get people to behave in the way he would like them to.

I reject being told how to behave by either. There's also a real irony in crediting a religion with the spawning of western liberal democracies.

The point I was trying to make (which is massively off-topic) is that I'm cynical about the motives of people who point out things about others that are incompatible with a liberal democracy. Much of the time it's not only because they reject what the man says but also because they want them to do what a different man says. Burkha bans are a good example. One man says you must wear one and another says you mustn't. Women should be allowed to wear whatever they like.

If a woman (or man) decides to walk three steps behind their spouse because someone in charge has told them to and it's not what they want to do then they are fools rather than a threat to society.

You're describing a utopia where people do as they please (within the law I'd expect), and I would totally agree with you that our aim should be a libertarian society. However those who follow these dogmatic patriarchal religious rules will feel it's a right for them to oppress women and sexuality that doesn't conform to their world view/beliefs. You say it's up to them, which is right they could denounce these views, but it's not right to allow oppression of these people to go unchecked in a democracy that purports to protect the rights of all citizens because the perpetrators hold those beliefs and will not denounce them.

An extreme example to make the point, someone could create a religion that believes that everyone from Bromsgrove should be a slave to the rest of us. They might not achieve their goal but they would discriminate against the people of Bromsgrove purely based on their belief that they are a sub-class of human - is that right or wrong?

(apologies to anyone from Bromsgrove)

mwpt

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

You're describing a utopia where people do as they please (within the law I'd expect), and I would totally agree with you that our aim should be a libertarian society. However those who follow these dogmatic patriarchal religious rules will feel it's a right for them to oppress women and sexuality that doesn't conform to their world view/beliefs. You say it's up to them, which is right they could denounce these views, but it's not right to allow oppression of these people to go unchecked in a democracy that purports to protect the rights of all citizens because the perpetrators hold those beliefs and will not denounce them.

An extreme example to make the point, someone could create a religion that believes that everyone from Bromsgrove should be a slave to the rest of us. They might not achieve their goal but they would discriminate against the people of Bromsgrove purely based on their belief that they are a sub-class of human - is that right or wrong?

(apologies to anyone from Bromsgrove)

You seem very anxious about all this. What are you doing about it?

TrickyTree83

Nothing at all. I'm perfectly happy, isolated in little england

mwpt wrote: »

You seem very anxious about all this. What are you doing about it?

Talking about it, breaking the mould that it's a taboo subject.

Topics like racism are on a plateau of discussion that Islamic discrimination of women and !!!!!exuals has yet to reach because it hides behind the term Islamophobia.

mrginge

Nothing at all. I'm perfectly happy, isolated in little england

wotsthat wrote: »

If a woman (or man) decides to walk three steps behind their spouse because someone in charge has told them to and it's not what they want to do then they are fools rather than a threat to society.

Your description of individuals who have been oppressed as 'fools' may be considered slightly offensive to some.

gadgetmind

£1000 per year

Conrad wrote: »

PThe FTSE 250 indicates investors have great confidence going forwards

Not when you correct for the massive drop in sterling, which only perked up a little when it was mooted that we might pay for access to the single market.

wotsthat

£100 per year

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

You're describing a utopia where people do as they please (within the law I'd expect), and I would totally agree with you that our aim should be a libertarian society. However those who follow these dogmatic patriarchal religious rules will feel it's a right for them to oppress women and sexuality that doesn't conform to their world view/beliefs. You say it's up to them, which is right they could denounce these views, but it's not right to allow oppression of these people to go unchecked in a democracy that purports to protect the rights of all citizens because the perpetrators hold those beliefs and will not denounce them.

Doesn't UK law* already adequately deal with these issues? Or should it be strengthened to make walking three paces behind your spouse illegal?

* yet another man dicating behaviour.

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

An extreme example to make the point, someone could create a religion that believes that everyone from Bromsgrove should be a slave to the rest of us. They might not achieve their goal but they would discriminate against the people of Bromsgrove purely based on their belief that they are a sub-class of human - is that right or wrong?

(apologies to anyone from Bromsgrove)

If enough people believe then decisions about whether it's right or wrong would be made by the creator of the new religion. I hope for the sake of the good people of Bromsgrove he turns out to be one of the benevolent religious zealots.

wotsthat

£100 per year

mrginge wrote: »

Your description of individuals who have been oppressed as 'fools' may be considered slightly offensive to some.

So what should I do? Allow my behaviour to be modified because 'some' might use my words out of context to feign offence and shut me up?

TrickyTree83

Nothing at all. I'm perfectly happy, isolated in little england

wotsthat wrote: »

Doesn't UK law* already adequately deal with these issues? Or should it be strengthened to make walking three paces behind your spouse illegal?

* yet another man dicating behaviour.



If enough people believe then decisions about whether it's right or wrong would be made by the creator of the new religion. I hope for the sake of the good people of Bromsgrove he turns out to be one of the benevolent religious zealots.

Clearly the laws do not when LGBT groups, women's rights groups and the media tentatively talk about the oppression that Muslim LGBT people and women face, tentatively for fear of being branded anti-Islamic.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/an-open-letter-to-muslim-men-from-an-angry-muslim-woman-a6961706.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1195052/Why-I-British-Muslim-woman-want-burkha-banned-streets.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35338413

https://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2013/05/17/uk-women-converts-to-islam-discover-abuse-and-oppression/

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/may/07/muslims-britain-france-germany-!!!!!exuality

http://www.islamic.org.uk/!!!!!ex.html

Take a look at the Islamic countries in the world, where the Quran rules, are the rights of women and !!!!!exuals protected there? Or are they persecuted and oppressed?

mayonnaise

EU negotiators will offer Brits an individual opt-in to remain EU citizens, chief negotiator confirms

Exclusive: Guy Verhofstadt has fast-tracked the plan and will include it in his mandate

Mr Verhofstadt said the “very important” proposal had “captured the imagination and hopes” of many British people who wished to retain their rights as EU citizens and would be in his negotiating mandate.

The proposal could potentially give Brits who live and work across borders a workaround to the disruption caused by the Leave vote – and young people looking to flee an increasingly isolated UK greater choice over where to move to.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-citizenship-keep-freedom-of-movement-guy-verhofstadt-chief-negotiator-opt-in-passports-a7465271.html
Good news.

gadgetmind

£1000 per year

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Take a look at the Islamic countries in the world, where the Quran rules, are the rights of women and !!!!!exuals protected there? Or are they persecuted and oppressed?

It's called leading by example. The way to tackle intolerance and oppression is to be open and inclusive, and it very much isn't to become intolerant and oppressive yourself.