[Closed] Cause for concern?

This thread is indeed a cause for concern. Anyone who wishes to avoid a turgid fight to the death between the usual champions of all that is righteous and the neaderthal paranoia of the Sun/Mail massive, should CLOSE THE THREAD NOW.

trailmonkey - did you read any of it?

I have no problem with it all, I mean UK law will stop anything illegal from going on

Sorry but this is the U.K. with U.K. and European law not Iran or Afghanistan.

Islam is more than a religion it is a way of life.

You go to any country and respect the country's law-not create your own.

I personally see it as a virus spreading across the world which might make me look a racist but I'm tolerant to the point where people are judged by a panel of religous nutters.

You can see why people vote BNP now. They feel threatened by this. They need to prevent these courts to stop hatred.

Islam should also be tolerant of anyone non muslim and treat women equally.

I normally get accused of being a PC-mad liberal on here, but I have to say this does concern me. I don't really think it's compatible with our own society and ideals.

anagallis_arvensis - glad you're assured by this!

I'm not too sure what the issue is here. Plenty of religions and organisations have there own dispute resolution systems. There's nothing to stop you setting up a STW court, and demanding people who have gears have their propety confiscated. Of course the people who have there propety confiscated have to consent and are quite enitled to say sod this, I'm going to a proper court. Which is the same in this case.
Jewish courts have existed in this country for ages, but the religion isn't are current favourite to fear and hate, so it's not so newsworthy 🙂

Sharia Law in UK and Europe - "thin end of the wedge" some might say

Do you know what I find more concerning? The fact that I can't find the report on-line anywhere, not even on the Civitas Website, it would be nice to be able to read the report without having to rely on a distorted media view

[url= http://www.civitas.org.uk/press/prcs91.php ]press release[/url]

Zaskar, the claim that this why people voted BNP is totally bogus, this is never going to impact on white racist non-muslims, this is all about protecting vulnerable women from abuse by their husbands who use Sharia Law to their advantage, disclaimer - I'm no expert, I've skim read the press release and occasionally watch newsnight 🙂

The author has previously been accused of faking evidence in his research. But assuming it was true, would you find it concerning?

I'm not worried at all about it having an impact on me personally no. Why would it?

Denis MacEoin seems to be rather well respected but outspoken and therefore he's bound to attract controversy, he has admitted he is a supporter of Israel and therefore you could be forgiven for thinking there may be some anti-islam bias. If you read the press release it's clear his main concern is how these courts will treat women and how that is incompatible and possibly illegal under our supposedly equitable legal system.

I think it does cause separation and anger at Islam in society Nick and does contribute to hatred. I don't think thats why the BNP won seats recenlty but does contribute to it.

Only because it's reported in such a way by the media, classic headline in the Wail '

Britain has 85 sharia courts: The astonishing spread of the Islamic justice behind closed doors

anagallis_arvensis - Member

I have no problem with it all, I mean UK law will stop anything illegal from going on

Erm, NO!! (Sheesh, the naivety!)

Sharia courts should be banned!

When you live in the UK you abide by the laws of the UK - period!

A tolerant society has allowed Sharia law to come about in Europe, it is not healthy, not rational, it's plain discriminatory! IT'S POSITIVELY MEDIEVAL!

The teachings of Islam are at odds with the ways of a fair, modern society. There is no place for it in Europe. The more you hear about the abuse of women, the hatred towards Jews, homosexuals etc, the more you realise that the Quran is a book about hate!

But why single out Islam? I don't see that any religion can justify it's existence. There can be no faith better, more valid, more justified than the next! It's pure discriminatory nonsense based on unfounded myths. Rule by fear - bullshit!

[url=

Christianity falls flat on it's face when challenged by science[/url]

Rowan Williams controversially said that it was inevitable that Sharia law will become incorporated into British Law -- ERM NO! YOU NUMPTY ARCH BISHOP! He patronisingly trys to make us feel stupid by using a bunch of big words and confuses people by making a simple subject seem inexorably complex to the point that we should "faithfully" except it. Like we're a bunch of lost sheep who can't think for ourselves. Tosh!

Religion totally sucks!

There has to be one set of laws for EVERYBODY, no special exceptions! I can envisage Sharia being used to influence British Law. In effect, giving a so called minority group special privilges. Is that fair??

I predict there will be major conflict in Europe in the next 20 years as a result of allowing in the "Trojan Horse" of Islam. There is no such thing as Islaminc fundamentalism, just Islam.

We need a peaceful co-operative society that does not strive to divide itself. Religion is the biggest threat to peace and stability in this region.

Whats this thread about?

Not another crap scaremongering thread about this.

Believe it or not, not every dispute is settled by the UK courts. You can choose to resolve one by arbitration, mediation, employment tribunal or a host of other alternative options. There are no headlines about "mediation undermines the UK legal system" because people CHOOSE to do it, just as they might choose to go before a Sharia court.

Get your facts straight before you start jumping in with xenophobic bullshit.

[i]There is no such thing as Islaminc fundamentalism, just Islam[/i]
Righto, so there's no difference betwen sufism and say wahhabism then?

Mr Agreeable - you're right, except that the Muslim community is rather close knit and closed to non-muslims (that's a generalisation I know), the problem I have with the report, or at least the press release, is that it does place emphasis on Sharia Law's incompatibility with UK law, which risks overshadowing the very real and unpleasant aspect of Islam's sexual inequality and how those women who live in this environment may not feel able to say 'I don't want to accept the Arbitration ruling.'

There are no headlines about "mediation undermines the UK legal system" because people CHOOSE to do it, just as they might choose to go before a Sharia court.

The rules surrounding the mediation or arbitration examples you give are not binding in the same way as Sharia courts. All of your examples are transparent and are based on the UK legal system, not a separate basis in law. Nor do they deal with criminal matters which are dealt with via the judicial system in the UK. This is an important point you are overlooking.
Sharia law aims to offer a faith based system of law that deals with the whole range of criminal and civil matters and can divert resources and make criminal judgements based on faith and the subjective interpretation of a few people (men)
Lets also not forget it hands out penalties such as amputations, stonings as well as countless other medieval and appalling punishments.

Hmm, much as I detest the Mail et al and think there is a large helping of xenophobia involved in this, I also think some liberal people are seemingly blind to worryingly anti-liberal aspects of Islam.

tyger has posted this sort of thing before.

All of your examples are transparent

Not sure what you mean by that. Arbitration, once the parties consent to it, is binding. Mediation agreements are usually confidential. Both can result in decisions and agreements that are outside the scope of statute law.

As for decisions being incompatible with UK law on the grounds of illegality or inequality, again, you're missing the point, which is that the parties consent to it. I don't like the thought of people willingly giving up their rights under UK and international law, but it happens. What do you do, interfere with these people's rights further?

And when you refer to sentences of execution and the like, you're not talking about the UK, are you?

But let's say, for arguments sake, that a woman lives in an extremely male-dominated community, and doesn't really want to go to the sharia court, knowing that she will probably not be treated fairly, but feels massive pressure to do so anyway.

You happy with that?

tyger has posted this sort of thing before.

ah yes.

http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/anyone-else-received-this-email

🙁

agenda?

I also think some liberal people are seemingly blind to worryingly anti-liberal aspects of Islam.

People get confused between a religion and the practices of an oppressive regime. It's like saying that every time the US executes a child or a mentally ill person, they're doing it in accordance with Christian law. This might be true in a sense but really it's just painting a distorted picture of a generally f--ked-up society.

Edit: Actually I'm doing the US a disservice, as it's been illegal to execute someone who was a child at the time they committed their crime since 2005. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roper_v._Simmons

They're still executing mentally ill people though.

agenda?

Insecure Christian with an axe to grind.

<sighs deeply and ignores thread>

PS: Tyger, you haven't by any chance sent money to someone recently who is managing an £8.6 million bequest in your favour ?

People get confused between a religion and the practices of an oppressive regime. It's like saying that every time the US executes a child or a mentally ill person, they're doing it in accordance with Christian law.

Except its not. The US legal system does not justify execution on the basis of Christian teachings. I agree to an extent but you can't just say everything's fine just because some people get over-excited about it.

I'm not one to point fingers, but is tyger not borderline "[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incitement_to_ethnic_or_racial_hatred ]insighting racial hatred[/url]" with this, along with his other posts?

I haven't noticed any of the other threads, but posting a link to a news story and making a thread called 'cause for concern?' doesn't seem to be inciting racial hatred to me. That seems like exactly the kind of over-reaction that lets the likes of the BNP claim they are being victimized by 'PC gone mad' nutty liberals.

I haven't noticed any of the other threads,

Well I suggest you have a look in his back history.

http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/profile/tyger

It's pretty clear he's drip dripping nasty racist stuff under the guise of "ooh, er, what do people think about this".

Very sad indeed.

The US legal system does not justify execution on the basis of Christian teachings.

You really think that religious teaching and organisations have no bearing over the decision of many US states to retain the death penalty?

As has been said earlier in this thread many organisations have their own laws and justice systems. These courts can issue fines, suspensions and other penalties, but have to be subservient to the law of the land. All penalties are voluntary - i.e. if you leave the organisation you are not bound by them.

Notable examples are:

The Church of England
The Catholic Church
The Football Association
The British Cycling Federation

Not sure what you mean by that. Arbitration, once the parties consent to it, is binding. Mediation agreements are usually confidential. Both can result in decisions and agreements that are outside the scope of statute law.

As for decisions being incompatible with UK law on the grounds of illegality or inequality, again, you're missing the point, which is that the parties consent to it. I don't like the thought of people willingly giving up their rights under UK and international law, but it happens. What do you do, interfere with these people's rights further?

I am unaware of a single voluntary example of arbitration leading to a criminal conviction, can you name one?
Parties may consent however when it is clear that people feel forced into entering into the process through social and religious pressure should we stand idly by when the likely outcome is skewed towards the male? In a sophisticated democracy I think it is incumbent on us to intervene.

You really think that religious teaching and organisations have no bearing over the decision of many US states to retain the death penalty?

But you are moving the goalposts. Religious influence in the US on the creation and enforcement of laws is well know and is also to be criticized. However we do not have American citizens in the UK claiming that those laws be implemented here.

You really think that religious teaching and organisations have no bearing over the decision of many US states to retain the death penalty?

No, but seperation of church and state is enshrined in the US constitution. They don't let Pat Roberton try and sentence people.

It's pretty clear he's drip dripping nasty racist stuff under the guise of "ooh, er, what do people think about this".

Brant you are out of order trying to marginalize what many on here consider a valid subject for debate.
Dont try to force subjects off limits by creating a false impression of racism.
We are all old enough and ugly enough to have a grown up debate about this and I for one have had my views changed through some excellent arguments well put by people on this website.

grumm - Member

But let's say, for arguments sake, that a woman lives in an extremely male-dominated community, and doesn't really want to go to the sharia court, knowing that she will probably not be treated fairly, but feels massive pressure to do so anyway.

You happy with that?

Does a Sharia court recognise her as a human being, or something less than human? Medieval clap trap - ban Shari Law in Europe!

Ok, let's not worry about this subject.

Let's get rid of democracy. So what's it to be? A facist dictatorship, or communist dictatorship? Can't see a lot of difference in the two. They are both about economic failure, opression and lack of freedom, just like a certain religion we know when it's taken for what it is!

Surfer, can you give me an example of a Sharia court in the UK that has handed down a criminal ruling, which the UK authorities have then enforced? Are there thieves out there who are currently having their hands amputated on the NHS?

Do you even know the difference between criminal and civil law? Or between statute law, court decisions and other forms of dispute resolution?

Perhaps I'm being unfair, and all the people worrying about the erosion of Muslim women's rights are also firing off letters of protest to embassies or manning refuges for domestic abuse victims. But for the OP, and the likes of the Mail, this is far less to do with protecting people's rights, and more to do with having an arbitrary enemy to be scared of. As Bill Hicks said, you gotta have an enemy.

people worrying about the erosion of Muslim women's rights

Erosion?? That implies that they once had some!

You really think that religious teaching and organisations have no bearing over the decision of many US states to retain the death penalty?

No, but seperation of church and state is enshrined in the US constitution. They don't let Pat Roberton try and sentence people.

Grumm, Mr Agreeable is right IMO on this matter. Despite the US being secular religion is hugely influential in law making and enforcement in the US. Witness until recently the banning of stem cell research in some states which has set back this most important of research for years.
Despite the UK being non secular ironically I think religion has a slightly smaller role.

But for the OP, and the likes of the Mail, this is far less to do with protecting people's rights, and more to do with having an arbitrary enemy to be scared of.

That might be true, but it seems your opposition to that is causing you to defend the indefensible.

You gives a flying arse what some religous nutters do as long as they dont break the laws of the UK I couldnt care less....its not a real court guys!! No worse than Christians IMO

Spongebob, you've decided that Muslim women are treated appallingly across the world (a questionable position but who am I to try and argue you out of it.) So what are you doing about it?

Grumm, Mr Agreeable is right IMO on this matter. Despite the US being secular religion is hugely influential in law making and enforcement in the US. Witness until recently the banning of stem cell research in some states which has set back this most important of research for years.
Despite the UK being non secular ironically I think religion has a slightly smaller role.

I never said it wasn't highly influential and wrong, but again, there are no christian leaders in official positions of responsibility making legal judgements on people in America, is there?

Surfer, can you give me an example of a Sharia court in the UK that has handed down a criminal ruling, which the UK authorities have then enforced? Are there thieves out there who are currently having their hands amputated on the NHS?

No. However I can provide chapter and verse of the appaling treatment of women in other countries whose law is based on sharia including the mutiliation and murder of children. Islam makes no secret of the fact that Sharia law should exist along with its punishments in the UK also.

Do you even know the difference between criminal and civil law? Or between statute law, court decisions and other forms of dispute resolution?

Yes I do. Why do you ask?

Perhaps I'm being unfair, and all the people worrying about the erosion of Muslim women's rights are also firing off letters of protest to embassies or manning refuges for domestic abuse victims. But for the OP, and the likes of the Mail, this is far less to do with protecting people's rights, and more to do with having an arbitrary enemy to be scared of. As Bill Hicks said, you gotta have an enemy.

The latter part is probably right however the former I fail to grasp your point. Is it the often argued point that beacause there are victims of abuse in the UK and because mistreatment takes place in other countries then nobody can argue against a form of law that is misogynistic and medial? I though I had dispensed with that argument earlier?

it seems your opposition to that is causing you to defend the indefensible.

Bearing in mind that we're talking about Sharia law in the UK here, not the atrocities that happen in other countries, what is so "indefensible" about a decision that those affected by it consent to? I understand your comments about people being pressurised into this but they do still have the full protection of UK law to fall back on.

there are no christian leaders in official positions of responsibility

Bill Clinton? George Bush?

there are no christian leaders in official positions of responsibility making legal judgements on people in America, is there?

Up until recently the highest office in the land intervened to influence policy!

Bill Clinton? George Bush?

Christian leaders as in priests, cardinals etc - official representatives of the church being allowed to rule on legal matters. This is a bit of a red herring anyway tbh

Bearing in mind that we're talking about Sharia law in the UK here, not the atrocities that happen in other countries, what is so "indefensible" about a decision that those affected by it consent to? I understand your comments about people being pressurised into this but they do still have the full protection of UK law to fall back on.

So you are quite happy with a system which classifies women as inferior and having less rights than men?

OK, does this worry you at all?

According to a survey by Policy Exchange of the views of UK muslims - '36% of 16-24 year olds believe if a
Muslim converts to another religion they should be punished by death'

So what do you do? Tell them they're a bunch of freakish rag-heads and their religion should be banned?

Do most members of our society treat women as equal? Why do you think we have anti-discimination laws in the first place?

Not sure what that sort of stat adds, 100% of me thinks that the kids who park up in Corbett Wood Carpark for a snog and a couple of spliffs then proceed to throw all the crap out of the window should be flogged, doesn't mean it's going to happen.

So what do you do? Tell them they're a bunch of freakish rag-heads and their religion should be banned?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm suggesting, because it's only possibly to either have the viewpoint that everything is fine, or that they are evil and should be banned. 🙄

Does most of society treat women as equal? Why do you think we have anti-discimination laws in the first place?

Erm no but we have come a long way towards equality - accepting a system that reverses that trend doesn't seem like a great plan really.

Anyone here start conversations with the words "I'm not a racist but..." ?

Not sure what that sort of stat adds

I'm saying that dismissing any kind of criticism of Islam as automatically xenophobic is unhelpful and counter-productive, and that there are aspects of Islam that are concerning. There are many different strains of Islam but unfortunately for various reasons the most radical ones are the fastest-growing.

Amazing, I am normally accused of being a loony lefty, but I'm now being called a racist for criticizing a deeply illiberal religious system. Yowzers. 🙂

accepting a system that reverses that trend

That decision is up to the individuals, not the government.

You have to accept that "freedom" for some people doesn't necessarily mean "doing what I think would be right for them". There's a convent across the road from where I live. Perhaps I should start campaigning to have it shut down? 🙄

Fair enough, I just think you let yourself down by posting a blatently inflamatory statistic, sort of thing the BNP and Daily Mail lap up.

All religon removes an element of responsibility from the follower and places it in the hands of God or Allah, until Muslims and Christians relinquish dogmatic fundamental attitudes (go on believing in a supreme being if you like) then we are not going to get anywhere.

Fair enough, I just think you let yourself down by posting a blatently inflamatory statistic, sort of thing the BNP and Daily Mail lap up.

The fact that the BNP and Daily Mail lap it up doesn't necessarily mean it should be ignored though does it?

All religon removes an element of responsibility from the follower and places it in the hands of God or Allah, until Muslims and Christians relinquish dogmatic fundamental attitudes (go on believing in a supreme being if you like) then we are not going to get anywhere.

Yup but then there isn't a fast-growing radical fundamentalist christian movement in the uk that I am aware of. If there is then that would worry me too.

What am I doing about the abuses Muslim women are suffering?

I am voicing my opinion, making people think about what is fair and reasonable, right here, right now.

My little voice doesn't count for much, but the more people openly discuss matters, even if it's only on an MTB forum, the more we will understand each other.

This is a significant issue about human rights, if it wasn't, we'd be talking about something else wouldn't we?

Like it or not, this influences the wider community. Grass roots debate is a healthy thing and it has to start somewhere. Have you heard of "six degrees"? Look it up if you haven't. The internet is a powerful medium. It can reach all corners of the connected world in milliseconds.

Who knows where the influence of a little thread like this might end up.

Am I going to become an activist and go and champion a cause? NO! You get victimised if you do things like that. I am jsut contributing to a thread. That's enough.

I'm all about free thinking and free speech. I deplore anyone who stifles either of these.

That decision is up to the individuals, not the government.

Thats incorrect. In the UK the elected Government decides what laws we adhere to not individuals or groups.

You have to accept that "freedom" for some people doesn't necessarily mean "doing what I think would be right for them". There's a convent across the road from where I live. Perhaps I should start campaigning to have it shut down?

I'm not sure what campaigning against the convent across the road has got to do with it however "we" make value judgements all the time and politicians make judgements that impact us all. Like it or not people decide what is "good for us" Freedom is an interesting concept however I think in this example its freedom for some and subjugation for others.

Thats incorrect. In the UK the elected Government decides what laws we adhere to not individuals or groups.

Actually it's Parliament

The fact that the BNP and Daily Mail lap it up doesn't necessarily mean it should be ignored though does it?

Yep pretty much

Grumm, if the fundamentalist thing bothers you, I've known fundamentalist Christians (as in the sort of people who believe that gays are evil, etc.) who at some point reappraised their beliefs and took a step back from the full-on bigoted looniness. I personally think people are much less likely to do this when they are typecast as outlaws and threats to society.

The fact that the BNP and Daily Mail lap it up doesn't necessarily mean it should be ignored though does it?

I think it should be checked for validity before being disseminated futher.

I'm saying that dismissing any kind of criticism of Islam as automatically xenophobic is unhelpful and counter-productive, and that there are aspects of Islam that are concerning.

Coming from a Muslim background, I'd agree with that. I personally have several issues with aspects of Islamic faith and culture, which is why I've chosen not to follow it, as my Path. But I have simliar feelings about Christianity, and a host of other religions, too.

Islam, if is to progress in the West, must be adaptable and flexible. This will lead to schisms between hard-liners and Liberals, the same as Christianity, Judaism, etc. There are anyway different sects within Islam, some more 'liberal' than others.

I am not happy with the idea that many women feel compelled to wear burkas. But it should be their choice, and theirs' alone, to wear or not.

I don't see why the pub should shut early on a Sunday, or that other shops shut early or are not even open. And if you pay a cheque in on Friday, it will be bloody next Thursday before it's cleared. bung it in on a Monday, and it's cleared by Thursday anyway.

And have you ever tried to get a Latka, or some pickled Herring, on a Saturday in Stamford Hill?? 😯

Christianity is in fact the religion that causes the most unnecessary restrictions in the UK, anyway. It's just that as our Law has evolved around Christian philosophy, most people fail to notice this.

I have no problem with the Sharia Law courts that operate here. They are not dissimliar to the Jewish ones, which preside over very simliar issues. UK Law has precedent over all other 'Laws', anyway.

Inertesting fact about Islam: Women were allowed to own property and laynd, long before they were under Christian rule...

There are many different strains of Islam but unfortunately for various reasons the most radical ones are the fastest-growing.

I'm saying that dismissing any kind of criticism of Islam as automatically xenophobic is unhelpful and counter-productive, and that there are aspects of Islam that are concerning.

Coming from a Muslim background, I'd agree with that. I personally have several issues with aspects of Islamic faith and culture, which is why I've chosen not to follow it, as my Path. But I have simliar feelings about Christianity, and a host of other religions, too.

Islam, if is to progress in the West, must be adaptable and flexible. This will lead to schisms between hard-liners and Liberals, the same as Christianity, Judaism, etc. There are anyway different sects within Islam, some more 'liberal' than others. Islam must allow itself to be open to criticism of the way it operates, and look to ways of reconciling difficulties in it's practice, and within the society it exists.

I am not happy with the idea that many women feel compelled to wear burkas. But it should be their choice, and theirs' alone, to wear or not.

I don't see why the pub should shut early on a Sunday, or that other shops shut early or are not even open. And if you pay a cheque in on Friday, it will be bloody next Thursday before it's cleared. Bung it in on a Monday, and it's cleared by Thursday anyway. Stupid bloody outdated Sunday trading laws...

And have you ever tried to get a Latka, or some pickled Herring, on a Saturday in Stamford Hill?? 😯

Christianity is in fact the religion that causes the most unnecessary restrictions in the UK, anyway. It's just that as our Law has evolved around Christian philosophy, most people fail to notice this.

I have no problem with the Sharia Law courts that operate here. They are not dissimliar to the Jewish ones, which preside over very simliar issues. UK Law has precedent over all other 'Laws', anyway.

Inertesting fact about Islam: Women were allowed to own property and laynd, long before they were under Christian rule...

There are many different strains of Islam but unfortunately for various reasons the most radical ones are the fastest-growing.

I personally think people are much less likely to do this when they are typecast as outlaws and threats to society.

So be nice to them in the hope they will become more mainstream?

I'm not sure what campaigning against the convent across the road has got to do with it

Well you could argue that living your life as a nun is an imposition on their personal freedoms. I think you'd be right. Thing is, they have chosen to do it and can opt out of it at any time, even though their peers and their value systems might not make that an easy decision.

Actually it's Parliament

I stand corrected.

Well you could argue that living your life as a nun is an imposition on their personal freedoms. I think you'd be right. Thing is, they have chosen to do it and can opt out of it at any time, even though their peers and their value systems might not make that an easy decision.

OK. Campaign away. However by referencing examples of other religions, oppression, brutality and mistreatment is immaterial. They are wrong also!

Women were allowed to own property and laynd, long before they were under Christian rule...

And it's ironic that for a religion that's constantly described as "medieval" and backward, it was a civilising influence on Western Europe for hundreds of years.

[img] [/img]

They are wrong also!

But you don't get sensationalist news stories about them. Or Christians (oh the irony) popping up to condemn the inequality built in to their own faith.

And it's ironic that for a religion that's constantly described as "medieval" and backward, it was a civilising influence on Western Europe for hundreds of years.

Yes, unfortunately its overriding focus on religion has stifled its cultural and economic development for a long time.

But you don't get sensationalist news stories about them. Or Christians (oh the irony) popping up to condemn the inequality built in to their own faith.

Less so in the mainstream right wing press however if you look you will see references to terrible things happening in the name of Christianity. They will seldom be reported in the Daily Mail however take a look at RichardDawkins.net. On there you will see countless examples of the evil of religion at work.
This thread is about Sharia law however.

Just found the report on the Policy Exchange Website, quite interesting.

[url= http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/news/news.cgi?id=130 ]Government policy towards Muslims is sharpening[/url]

1003 Muslims questioned. Indicates that young people are more radical than older generations, not exactly a suprise is it? I was more radical at 19 than I am at 39, although I didn't express it through relgion.

Biggest problem I have with this report is again it's emphasising a perception that may or may not be true, that is that the radicalisation is growing.

Policy Exchange release a major new survey on the attitudes of Muslims in Britain and the reasons behind the rise in Islamic fundamentalism amongst the younger generation.

But it doesn't report on a rise it just compares young people with old people, it doesn't compare 18-24 year olds 5 years ago to 18-24 year olds today, so it's bogus!

[i]But it doesn't report on a rise it just compares young people with old people, it doesn't compare 18-24 year olds 5 years ago to 18-24 year olds today, so it's bogus! [/i]

What you need is a more objective metric, say the amount of buses blown up by UK islamists in the last 5 years, compared to the 5 before.
😉