Federal judges block Trump's travel ban

[Niamh.]

(CNN)BREAKING NEWS: A federal judge in Maryland has temporarily blocked the 90-day ban on immigration for citizens of six countries in President Donald Trump's executive order.

Although the ban was already restrained nationwide because of a ruling in Hawaii, the Maryland decision is another blow to Trump's executive order.
ORIGINAL STORY: A federal judge in Hawaii blocked President Donald Trump's new travel ban on Wednesday afternoon, hours before the ban was set to go into effect.
In a 43-page ruling, US District Court Judge Derrick Watson concluded in no uncertain terms that the new executive order failed to pass legal muster at this stage and the state had established "a strong likelihood of success" on their claims of religious discrimination.
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/03/15/politics/travel-ban-blocked/

[Kizzy]

Wait for the toys coming out of the pram now... :joker:

[Livia]

Meanwhile, all the other countries who have simiar bans in place, continue unopposed.

[Kizzy]

Meanwhile, all the other countries who have simiar bans in place, continue unopposed.

Would they be in the 'free world' or not?

[Smithy]

Meanwhile, all the other countries who have simiar bans in place, continue unopposed.

Such as?

[Livia]

Such as?

Japan for one.

[Tom4784]

Japan for one.

You've used this argument multiple times, it's foolishness to compare what was an isolationist country for many years to a country that was purportedly built on freedom.

Like I've said before in response to this flawed argument, it'd be like trying to take focus off Trump's abuses of power by saying 'well, Kim Jong Il is way worse but no one is talking about HIM!'.

[Livia]

I am using a comparison for the sake of debate, Dezzy. You're not in any position to tell me what is a flawed argument and what is not, bearing in mind the tone of your posts.

I will not be replying to you again.

[Tom4784]

I am using a comparison for the sake of debate, Dezzy. You're not in any position to tell me what is a flawed argument and what is not, bearing in mind the tone of your posts.

I will not be replying to you again.

'I'm taking the ball and I'm going HOME!'

It's a flawed comparison for reasons I've stated. If a western country with as much influence as the US did similar things then you'd have a valid comparison otherwise it's just a really terrible example to try and normalise what is a worrying development for a 'free' country.

[Kizzy]

Maybe the west is trying to de-westernise themselves to be more like other governments, what other reason could there be for the regressive lurch?

[the truth]

'I'm taking the ball and I'm going HOME!'

It's a flawed comparison for reasons I've stated. If a western country with as much influence as the US did similar things then you'd have a valid comparison otherwise it's just a really terrible example to try and normalise what is a worrying development for a 'free' country.

Its not flawed at all, it is 100% valid

[Tom4784]

Its not flawed at all, it is 100% valid

You can't compare the US which is a country that was built on the idea of freedom of rights for all and is now sliding towards totalitarianism under Trump to Japan which was built on being isolationist until fairly recently in historical terms but is becoming more progressive as time goes on. It's foolish to compare a country like the US which is sliding backwards to a country like Japan that is making progress.

For comparisons to work there needs to be similarities, like I said before, if you can offer a highly influential Western country that is sliding backwards like the US but it's being ignored in favour of the US then by all means, go ahead.

[smudgie]

This is what is great about true democracy, you are held to account.
Be it the opposition or your own party members, keeps it more sane.

[Niamh.]

This is what is great about true democracy, you are held to account.
Be it the opposition or your own party members, keeps it more sane.

yes indeed

[user104658]

This is what is great about true democracy, you are held to account.

For now. Trump's working on that. So are the Tories.

[jaxie]

This is what is great about true democracy, you are held to account.
Be it the opposition or your own party members, keeps it more sane.

Smart words.

[jaxie]

'I'm taking the ball and I'm going HOME!'

It's a flawed comparison for reasons I've stated. If a western country with as much influence as the US did similar things then you'd have a valid comparison otherwise it's just a really terrible example to try and normalise what is a worrying development for a 'free' country.

What ball? :shrug:

[the truth]

You can't compare the US which is a country that was built on the idea of freedom of rights for all and is now sliding towards totalitarianism under Trump to Japan which was built on being isolationist until fairly recently in historical terms but is becoming more progressive as time goes on. It's foolish to compare a country like the US which is sliding backwards to a country like Japan that is making progress.

For comparisons to work there needs to be similarities, like I said before, if you can offer a highly influential Western country that is sliding backwards like the US but it's being ignored in favour of the US then by all means, go ahead.

Yes of course you can. You just choose what youre getting "outraged" about to fit your own agaends, but you clearly do not apply your beliefs universally.

[jaxie]

Yes of course you can. You just choose what youre getting "outraged" about to fit your own agaends, but you clearly do not apply your beliefs universally.

:thumbs:

[Northern Monkey]

You can't compare the US which is a country that was built on the idea of freedom of rights for all and is now sliding towards totalitarianism under Trump to Japan which was built on being isolationist until fairly recently in historical terms but is becoming more progressive as time goes on. It's foolish to compare a country like the US which is sliding backwards to a country like Japan that is making progress.

For comparisons to work there needs to be similarities, like I said before, if you can offer a highly influential Western country that is sliding backwards like the US but it's being ignored in favour of the US then by all means, go ahead.
So basically a free pass to the majority of the world to act how they want unless it's the US or UK.
Sounds just like something the 'Stop The War Coalition' would spout.

[Niamh.]

So basically a free pass to the majority of the world to act how they want unless it's the US or UK.
Sounds just like something the 'Stop The War Coalition' would spout.
Are the Uk and US the only Western countries now? :idc:

[Northern Monkey]

Are the Uk and US the only Western countries now? :idc:

And Ireland obvs:flowers:

Not the other foreign countries though.They can't even speak English

[Niamh.]

And Ireland obvs:flowers:

Not the other foreign countries though.They can't even speak English
[emoji23]

[Tom4784]

So basically a free pass to the majority of the world to act how they want unless it's the US or UK.
Sounds just like something the 'Stop The War Coalition' would spout.

The comparison makes no sense, for a comparison to work there has to be shared ground between the two examples. The US' situation and status is completely different to that of Japan's and, like I said before, Japan is improving, the US is sliding back. To excuse Trump by saying 'look at Japan' is pretty much like fat shaming an overweight person when they're at the gym.

It's a **** comparison to make for reasons I've stated before (and have yet to be contested).

[Tom4784]

Yes of course you can. You just choose what youre getting "outraged" about to fit your own agaends, but you clearly do not apply your beliefs universally.

Outrage? Who's outraged?

You've yet to provide a reason why they are comparable so I'll assume you've got nothing useful to say on the matter.

[Marsh.]

My god, how embarrassing for him.

Being taught the law by the people he's supposed to be governing. Dickhead.

[Marsh.]

Yes of course you can. You just choose what youre getting "outraged" about to fit your own agaends, but you clearly do not apply your beliefs universally.

You choose what you're outraged about to fit your own a-gender.




GEDDIT?

[Marsh.]

What ball? :shrug:

:joker::joker::joker:

[DemolitionRed]

Who knew, after ranting for 18 months about a Muslim ban...Trump can't quite convince the courts that his travel ban is anything other than a religious ban.

[Brillopad]

You've used this argument multiple times, it's foolishness to compare what was an isolationist country for many years to a country that was purportedly built on freedom.

Like I've said before in response to this flawed argument, it'd be like trying to take focus off Trump's abuses of power by saying 'well, Kim Jong Il is way worse but no one is talking about HIM!'.


That's part of the problem - people should be talking about the likes of him.

[Brillopad]

Would they be in the 'free world' or not?

At this rate we won't have a 'free world'.

[Kazanne]

What is the point of being a president when you cant even put in place laws that you think best for your country, I am no expert on the subject,but what is so wrong with him wanting to be careful who enters his country especially in an age where you cant really trust anyone, Can you imagine another 9/11 when people would then be thinking why let these people in,I am no Trump fan but I do see that the constant backlash is a tad over the top,let him do his job,if he messes up that will be his fault and he will be out,the press /media etc need to calm down,it is them instilling fear into people by printing hearsay and fabrications,you get checked going through airports but any Tom,Dick and harry can enter the country.

[Kizzy]

If it were another 9/11 they wouldn't have the border control issue would they that's the point of a hijack.
Presidents don't like PMs have autocracy, or they shouldn't it's not how a democracy works .

[the truth]

neo liberals have taken over the assylum

[Northern Monkey]

Imo the ban is a step too far.I think heavy vetting is appropriate though.
However.He is fulfilling his election promises and it is what America voted for so if it's what the US democratic process has decided then that it what should happen.

[Brillopad]

If it were another 9/11 they wouldn't have the border control issue would they that's the point of a hijack.
Presidents don't like PMs have autocracy, or they shouldn't it's not how a democracy works .

Why bother with a hijack if you can just walk-in. The easiest method has to be the best from the point of view of potential terrorists.

Instead of calling another mass terrorist attack on American soil another 9/11 it would simply be called something else such as easy peasy 2018 . We need to be reducing the chances of such attacks not making it easier.

[Kizzy]

Imo the ban is a step too far.I think heavy vetting is appropriate though.
However.He is fulfilling his election promises and it is what America voted for so if it's what the US democratic process has decided then that it what should happen.

He can say what he likes prior to the election, once elected like every other elected leader he is bound by the constitution.
Again, that's how democracy works.

[Brillopad]

He can say what he likes prior to the election, once elected like every other elected leader he is bound by the constitution.
Again, that's how democracy works.

Democracy is a word often used when it suits. Plenty of remainers would have ignored and overturned Brexit if they had been give the chance.

[Kizzy]

Why bother with a hijack if you can just walk-in. The easiest method has to be the best from the point of view of potential terrorists.

Instead of calling another mass terrorist attack on American soil another 9/11 it would simply be called something else such as easy peasy 2018 . We need to be reducing the chances of such attacks not making it easier.

My point was.. with 9/11 there was no issue of border control as the plane never has to land does it?
Think of the number of planes that come into US airspace from Muslim countries daily.

[Kizzy]

Democracy is a word often used when it suits. Plenty of remainers would have ignored and overturned Brexit if they had been give the chance.

It's not a word, it's just how we are governed, your opinions on those who voted remain are irrelevant.

[Brillopad]

My point was.. with 9/11 there was no issue of border control as the plane never has to land does it?
Think of the number of planes that come into US airspace from Muslim countries daily.

We have to deal with that with tougher/rigorous security at airports, but border controls are another method of security. These are dangerous times for all of us and the priority should be to protect current citizens.

[jaxie]

It's not a word, it's just how we are governed, your opinions on those who voted remain are irrelevant.

And yet you don't support the democracy of the Scottish vote to remain in the UK, even though they knew a vote on the EU was coming. Democracy isn't for just when it suits you. :nono:

[Jack_]

neo liberals have taken over the assylum

Taken over? They've been in charge for over thirty ****ing years

[Tom4784]

That's part of the problem - people should be talking about the likes of him.

There's basically nothing we can do about Kim Jong Un without potentially starting a load of **** with China since they are allies. All we can really do about Kim Jong Un is hope that it all collapses in on the Kim dynasty before long.

The US is basically like a neighbour a few doors down and unlike pretty much every country there's ever been The US's laws and constitution were built on the idea of freedom for all and Trump is threatening that more than any other president. What happens in the US affects the entirety of the west, if a dangerous idiot gets put in charge then it puts us all in a precarious position.

People keep talking about Trump because he's a threat to us, more than Kim Jong Un and any other poorly thought out comparisons to take attention off Trump.

[Tom4784]

What is the point of being a president when you cant even put in place laws that you think best for your country, I am no expert on the subject,but what is so wrong with him wanting to be careful who enters his country especially in an age where you cant really trust anyone, Can you imagine another 9/11 when people would then be thinking why let these people in,I am no Trump fan but I do see that the constant backlash is a tad over the top,let him do his job,if he messes up that will be his fault and he will be out,the press /media etc need to calm down,it is them instilling fear into people by printing hearsay and fabrications,you get checked going through airports but any Tom,Dick and harry can enter the country.

Because it goes against what the US was built upon and it flies in the face of it's laws and amendments which is why Judges across the US are shooting it down. If you throw out your own freedoms for a sense of false security then the terrorists have already won. The Muslim ban has done nothing and will do nothing to prevent terrorism.

He gets backlash because he's a dangerous idiot that doesn't respect Democracy or the american people and that's apparent by his cabinet. He's out to make things easier for people like himself not for the average US citizen that truly needs the help.

You yourself admitted you aren't an expert on the subject so you really should educate yourself on Trump if you are buying into his bull**** about how it's the media's fault and how they are lying and out to get him. Every time he opens his mouth, fact checkers have a field day. He speaks in nothing but lies and he's constantly caught out. He is getting the same treatment as any other president would if they behaved like he did.

To support Trump is to support Totalitarianism.

[Kizzy]

We have to deal with that with tougher/rigorous security at airports, but border controls are another method of security. These are dangerous times for all of us and the priority should be to protect current citizens.

Can we just clarify that border controls and 9/11 are not comparable?

[Tom4784]

Why bother with a hijack if you can just walk-in. The easiest method has to be the best from the point of view of potential terrorists.

Instead of calling another mass terrorist attack on American soil another 9/11 it would simply be called something else such as easy peasy 2018 . We need to be reducing the chances of such attacks not making it easier.

There's been no terrorist attacks post 9/11 from anyone hailing from any of the banned countries. The ban has no security merit, it is literally just a placebo to pacify ignorant people who voted for Trump because he said he wanted to ban muslims from entering the US.

[Kizzy]

And yet you don't support the democracy of the Scottish vote to remain in the UK, even though they knew a vote on the EU was coming. Democracy isn't for just when it suits you. :nono:

There was a clause for another referendum if there was a significant change, of which brexit would be just that. I don't make the democratically approved rules :/

[Northern Monkey]

Can we just clarify that border controls and 9/11 are not comparable?

How did those terrorists get into the US in the first place?
And didn't some of them even get flying lessons there?

[Brillopad]

There's basically nothing we can do about Kim Jong Un without potentially starting a load of **** with China since they are allies. All we can really do about Kim Jong Un is hope that it all collapses in on the Kim dynasty before long.

The US is basically like a neighbour a few doors down and unlike pretty much every country there's ever been The US's laws and constitution were built on the idea of freedom for all and Trump is threatening that more than any other president. What happens in the US affects the entirety of the west, if a dangerous idiot gets put in charge then it puts us all in a precarious position.

People keep talking about Trump because he's a threat to us, more than Kim Jong Un and any other poorly thought out comparisons to take attention off Trump.

By just letting the likes of dictatorships such China and many Muslim countries off the hook by just accepting that is their way and we can do nothing about it compounds the problem.

These people and their ways need to be challenged as religion is often just used as an excuse to indulge in grotesque, primitive practice and criminal acts. This fear some have of challenging such so-called religious practice is not democratic it is cowardice.

[DemolitionRed]

Imo the ban is a step too far.I think heavy vetting is appropriate though.
However.He is fulfilling his election promises and it is what America voted for so if it's what the US democratic process has decided then that it what should happen.

I can only suggest you read the judgement. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/03/15/us/politics/document-Order.html?_r=1 You might then understand the presidential (not political) basis on which the decision was made.

I'm afraid it's 40 pages, but if you make the effort you might understand what Donald Trump obviously doesn't.

[Kizzy]

How did those terrorists get into the US in the first place?
And didn't some of them even get flying lessons there?

They would have gotten in anyway coming from Saudi and Egypt. Again my point is plane hijacks are not affected by border control.

[Brillopad]

They would have gotten in anyway coming from Saudi and Egypt. Again my point is plane hijacks are not affected by border control.

Well let's add them to the list then. I don't give a damn about business interests and neither should anyone else. Saudi is one of the worst. Having money and therefore considerable access to education certainly hasn't educated the Saudis'.

[Kizzy]

Well let's add them to the list then. I don't give a damn about business interests and neither should anyone else. Saudi is one of the worst. Having money and therefore considerable access to education certainly hasn't educated the Saudis'.

Right, so that's every majority Muslim country in the world...Why not go the whole hog and ban Muslims from anywhere including converts just in case?

[Northern Monkey]

They would have gotten in anyway coming from Saudi and Egypt. Again my point is plane hijacks are not affected by border control.

Well you would hope that they will be vetted.Even from the muslim countries Trump doesn't seem to mind.I can't believe that US border agencies don't check people entering from Saudi or Egypt after 9/11.That would be highly irresponsible.Anyone entering a country is affected by border control.
As i said.I don't agree with the ban or the refugee ban.However vetting is only sensible.

[Tom4784]

By just letting the likes of dictatorships such China and many Muslim countries off the hook by just accepting that is their way and we can do nothing about it compounds the problem.

These people and their ways need to be challenged as religion is often just used as an excuse to indulge in grotesque, primitive practice and criminal acts. This fear some have of challenging such so-called religious practice is not democratic it is cowardice.

We are not responsible for policing the world nor should we force our views and ways onto countries halfway around the world.

To get involved with places like NK could easily spark a series of events that could lead us into WW3.

[Brillopad]

Right, so that's every majority Muslim country in the world...Why not go the whole hog and ban Muslims from anywhere including converts just in case?

What's the alternative. Currently allowing so many into the West poses a Hugh security risk to the safety of everyone in the West. There are 2 main choices as far as I can see - the safety of people in the West or the religious freedoms of those wanting to come to the West.

I certainly don't believe the freedoms/religious freedoms of non-citizens should prevail over the safety of Western citizens in the West. Anything else would be Skewered but politically correct priorities.

The West is only a small part of the world after all.

[Brillopad]

We are not responsible for policing the world nor should we force our views and ways onto countries halfway around the world.

To get involved with places like NK could easily spark a series of events that could lead us into WW3.

We are responsible for those living in the West. That would be a good start - make it clear what we will and won't tolerate in the West. We aren't doing that due to fears of causing offence and intruding on religous freedoms. Why is it our own rights and freedoms that come a poor second with some?

[Tom4784]

We are responsible for those living in the West. That would be a good start - make it clear what we will and won't tolerate in the West. We aren't doing that due to fears of causing offence and intruding on religous freedoms. Why is it our own rights and freedoms that come a poor second with some?

Stop moving the goalposts.

The rest of the post is just hysterical nonsense that has nothing to do with the discussion you raised of forcing our ways onto other countries.

[Kizzy]

What's the alternative. Currently allowing so many into the West poses a Hugh security risk to the safety of everyone in the West. There are 2 main choices as far as I can see - the safety of people in the West or the religious freedoms of those wanting to come to the West.

I certainly don't believe the freedoms/religious freedoms of non-citizens should prevail over the safety of Western citizens in the West. Anything else would be Skewered but politically correct priorities.

The West is only a small part of the world after all.

but hang on, if it's a politician wanting this segregation, does that not make it 'politically correct'?
I see your view as regressive and hysterical, you're coming across as almost paralyzed with fear.

[Brillopad]

Stop changing the goalposts.

The rest of the post is just hysterical nonsense that has nothing to do with the discussion you raised of forcing our ways onto other countries.

Nothing hysterical, just fact. That wasn't exactly what I said. I said we should address the behaviours of other nations, not just ignore them. We cannot do that if we don't address similar behaviours of people living in the West. They are linked.

We can and should address unacceptable practice under our own roofs, so to speak, such as female circumcision, honour killings, forced marriages, female inequality etc. We all know it goes on. It may not be legal but we do little to investigate it and stop it. Many turn a blind eye rather than risk upsetting certain groups it's disgraceful.

[Brillopad]

but hang on, if it's a politician wanting this segregation, does that not make it 'politically correct'?
I see your view as regressive and hysterical, you're coming across as almost paralyzed with fear.

I see the same in you. To me you are fearful of public opinion and being seen as anything other then modern and progressive. At the end of the day 'progressive' is an opinion - what one person sees as progressive another sees as regressive.

[Tom4784]

Nothing hysterical, just fact. That wasn't exactly what I said. I said we should address the behaviours of other nations, not just ignore them. We cannot do that if we don't address similar behaviours of people living in the West. They are linked.

We can and should address unacceptable practice under our own roofs, so to speak, such as female circumcision, honour killings, forced marriages, female inequality etc. We all know it goes on. It may not be legal but we do little to investigate it and stop it. Many turn a blind eye rather than risk upsetting certain groups it's disgraceful.

Learn the difference between facts and opinions. Nothing you said in the post below is a fact.

We are responsible for those living in the West. That would be a good start - make it clear what we will and won't tolerate in the West. We aren't doing that due to fears of causing offence and intruding on religous freedoms. Why is it our own rights and freedoms that come a poor second with some?

You're trying to move the goalposts AGAIN, you said we should basically police the world and now since you don't really have a leg to stand on in that discussion you're returning to the ol' Brillo special of ranting on about Muslims and masking your prejudice as feminism which is nothing but insulting to actual feminists.

[Kizzy]

I see the same in you. To me you are fearful of public opinion and being seen as anything other then modern and progressive. At the end of the day 'progressive' is an opinion - what one person sees as progressive another sees as regressive.

Too right I'm fearful of regression... Who in their right mind would want to go back to the days of segregation?
The view that it is an option is very telling.

[Brillopad]

Too right I'm fearful of regression... Who in their right mind would want to go back to the days of segregation?
The view that it is an option is very telling.

Stop twisting my words - not being prepared to accept misogynistic practice in any circumstances for example is not regressive. In my view tolerating such behaviours in the name of religion is. As I said what is one person's progression is another's regression.

[Brillopad]

Learn the difference between facts and opinions. Nothing you said in the post below is a fact.



You're trying to move the goalposts AGAIN, you said we should basically police the world and now since you don't really have a leg to stand on in that discussion you're returning to the ol' Brillo special of ranting on about Muslims and masking your prejudice as feminism which is nothing but insulting to actual feminists.

What would you know about feminism, you're not a woman. As a woman I have experienced sexism on several occasions which has undoubtedly and understandably helped form my opinions.

I'm not moving anything btw. What we oppose in other counties and then tolerate in our own, for whatever reason, are inextricably linked. Without consistency we have nothing.

Many pay lip-service to something saying a certain practice is wrong but then tolerate it when certain religious groups practice it in their country because they want to be seen as inclusive and progressive. They effectively turn a blind eye because it's the easy option. No time for it personally. I try to practice what I preach.

[Kizzy]

Stop twisting my words - not being prepared to accept misogynistic practice in any circumstances for example is not regressive. In my view tolerating such behaviours in the name of religion is. As I said what is one person's progression is another's regression.

No misogynistic practices have been incorporated into our society... America have a misogynistic president so how you feel about that I don't know, and there are other religions and cultures with as bad or worse attitudes towards women.

[Northern Monkey]

No misogynistic practices have been incorporated into our society... America have a misogynistic president so how you feel about that I don't know, and there are other religions and cultures with as bad or worse attitudes towards women.

Which religions are worse than Islam to women?

Genuinely interested.

(Don't say Scientology)

[Kizzy]

What would you know about feminism, you're not a woman. As a woman I have experienced sexism on several occasions which has undoubtedly and understandably helped form my opinions.

I'm not moving anything btw. What we oppose in other counties and then tolerate in our own, for whatever reason, are inextricably linked. Without consistency we have nothing.

Many pay lip-service to something saying a certain practice is wrong but then tolerate it when certain religious groups practice it in their country because they want to be seen as inclusive and progressive. They effectively turn a blind eye because it's the easy option. No time for it personally. I try to practice what I preach.

Hold the phone...Are you suggesting a man can't know anything about feminism?
Is it some esoteric knowledge you're only privvy to if you have a vagina?

[Kizzy]

Which religions are worse than Islam to women?

Genuinely interested.

(Don't say Scientology)

I said religions and cultures, why don't you have a little google?

[Northern Monkey]

I said religions and cultures, why don't you have a little google?

You informed us of these religions (and cultures).I'm interested in the religion aspect.Which ones?

[Brillopad]

Hold the phone...Are you suggesting a man can't know anything about feminism?
Is it some esoteric knowledge you're only privvy to if you have a vagina?

He can know something but can't experience it like a woman, so therefore cannot attempt to imply he knows better.

[Kizzy]

He can know something but can't experience it like a woman, so therefore cannot attempt to imply he knows better.

And where did he state or imply he knows better? You are bringing feminism up as a crutch for your weak argument, as far as I can see it's just a desperate cover for a colonialist attitude.

[Kizzy]

You informed us of these religions (and cultures).I'm interested in the religion aspect.Which ones?

I did, I made a statement in an earlier post.... however the onus isn't on me to prove myself right, but you to prove me wrong.

[Northern Monkey]

I did, I made a statement in an earlier post.... however the onus isn't on me to prove myself right, but you to prove me wrong.

Ok then.I'll just take your word for it :pat:

[Kizzy]

Ok then.I'll just take your word for it :pat:

Very wise, monkey.

[Tom4784]

What would you know about feminism, you're not a woman. As a woman I have experienced sexism on several occasions which has undoubtedly and understandably helped form my opinions.

I'm not moving anything btw. What we oppose in other counties and then tolerate in our own, for whatever reason, are inextricably linked. Without consistency we have nothing.

Many pay lip-service to something saying a certain practice is wrong but then tolerate it when certain religious groups practice it in their country because they want to be seen as inclusive and progressive. They effectively turn a blind eye because it's the easy option. No time for it personally. I try to practice what I preach.

I'd say I've got more of an appreciation for what feminism actually is than you do given that you cheapen it by using it to attempt to justify your prejudice. I've never, in all the years I've known you, speak about feminism unless you've used it to bash muslims.

I believe in punishing the individual, not guilt by association. A minority is not representative of a whole but you'll use any excuse to paint in broad strokes.

You just want want to police the world and force your views on everyone which, considering your views on 'PC', is so ****ing hypocritical that I can't believe you seriously typed that without any hint of self awareness. You've called me a bigot erroneously in the past for apparently 'not accepting other people's views' because you don't understand the difference between disagreeing with an opinion and shutting it down yet YOU want to march on in to other countries and force your way of thinking on them. It's beyond ridiculous.

I believe that it's wrong for us to thrust our ways onto other countries and expect them to fall in line, who are we to tell anyone in other countries what to think? It's not our place to police the world, countries that aren't as progressive as ours need to catch up at their own pace. It's not something that we can force.

The only person dealing in lip service is you, you claim to be a feminist but you see progressive attitudes as 'regression.' which makes no sense and you often screech that you feel like your opinion is being shut down yet you want to enforce your way of thinking on everyone else. You are a feminist but only when it suits you and you only believe in Freedom of Speech when it suits you too.

[Brillopad]

I'd say I've got more of an appreciation for what feminism actually is than you do given that you cheapen it by using it to attempt to justify your prejudice. I've never, in all the years I've known you, speak about feminism unless you've used it to bash muslims.

I believe in punishing the individual, not guilt by association. A minority is not representative of a whole but you'll use any excuse to paint in broad strokes.

You just want want to police the world and force your views on everyone which, considering your views on 'PC', is so ****ing hypocritical that I can't believe you seriously typed that without any hint of self awareness. You've called me a bigot erroneously in the past for apparently 'not accepting other people's views' because you don't understand the difference between disagreeing with an opinion and shutting it down yet YOU want to march on in to other countries and force your way of thinking on them. It's beyond ridiculous.

I believe that it's wrong for us to thrust our ways onto other countries and expect them to fall in line, who are we to tell anyone in other countries what to think? It's not our place to police the world, countries that aren't as progressive as ours need to catch up at their own pace. It's not something that we can force.

The only person dealing in lip service is you, you claim to be a feminist but you see progressive attitudes as 'regression.' which makes no sense and you often screech that you feel like your opinion is being shut down yet you want to enforce your way of thinking on everyone else. You are a feminist but only when it suits you and you only believe in Freedom of Speech when it suits you too.

You have, as usual, completely twisted my words to suit your own agenda. I do not think we should force our views on other countries, we can't do that - even though we strongly disagree with many of their practices. Sometimes we send our military in when it becomes a humanitarian crisis.

What I said was that if we oppose certain practices in other countries such as female genital mutilation, honour killings and forced marriages we should not tolerate them here for fear of being accused of religious intolerance. Make no mistake that is what we are doing.

These things are going on in Britain ,we all know it , but we do little about it. We do pay lip-service to the wrongs of certain practices but do not do enough to actually stop it. PC gets in the way and we effectively allow girls/women to be abused under our very noses rather than risk offence and rock the boat.

We need to make it perfectly clear to religious groups that if they want to stay in Britain they abide by British laws and do not partipate in any way in these kinds of practices or they will face the consequences. Condoning such practices through inaction is regressive not progressive and not only goes against our own values it makes a mockery of feminism and women's rights. We have regressed to paying lip-service only to women's rights by turning a blind eye to the misogynistic practices carried out in the name of religion right in front of us and that is wrong.

Abandoning our own values to appease certain religious groups within our own societies is not and never will be progressive.

[Tom4784]

You have, as usual, completely twisted my words to suit your own agenda. I do not think we should force our views on other countries, we can't do that - even though we strongly disagree with many of their practices. Sometimes we send our military in when it becomes a humanitarian crisis.

What I said was that if we oppose certain practices in other countries such as female genital mutilation, honour killings and forced marriages we should not tolerate them here for fear of being accused of religious intolerance. Make no mistake that is what we are doing.

These things are going on in Britain ,we all know it , but we do little about it. We do pay lip-service to the wrongs of certain practices but do not do enough to actually stop it. PC gets in the way and we effectively allow girls/women to be abused under our very noses rather than risk offence and rock the boat.

We need to make it perfectly clear to religious groups that if they want to stay in Britain they abide by British laws and do not partipate in any way in these kinds of practices or they will face the consequences. Condoning such practices through inaction is regressive not progressive and not only goes against our own values it makes a mockery of feminism and women's rights. We have regressed to paying lip-service only to women's rights by turning a blind eye to the misogynistic practices carried out in the name of religion right in front of us and that is wrong.

Abandoning our own values to appease certain religious groups within our own societies is not and never will be progressive.

There's a national unit in place for dealing with Forced Marriage (The FMU) and there's more being done to educate hospital staff to report instances of FGM but it's a difficult thing to prevent from happening, same with honour killings, You can't do a whole lot to prevent a violent crime from occurring, Like with any kind of violent crime, you just have to have faith that the investigation will turn up results.

You keep whining that not enough is being done but what would you realistically do? Go on, oh wise Brillo, try offering solutions instead of complaints. It's nothing to do with PC, it's just difficult to prosecute cases of FGM in particular because, like rape, it has a low report rate. You can't prevent Honour Killings from happening just like you can't prevent your average person from killing another. You can only investigate and prosecute it after the fact.

Oh look, another example of you only bringing up feminism as a weapon to attack a group of people with. You speak too much in broad strokes, you blame all muslims for the actions of a few and that attitude causes division. I'm all for educating people but it sounds like you want to treat any and all muslims with suspicion just on the grounds of their religion and that's the real problem and why things won't get better.

Nobody is abandoning their values, that's just another hysterical and emotional response rather than a factual one.