Europe submits voluntarily

[DrZoidberg]

It's not for lack of trying. UK needs to change their laws to catch it. In the UK if the whole family keeps their trap shut about it nobody can get nailed for it. France has no problems prosecuting and charging parents with it. Their the parents are responsible for the well being of their child. If they send their kids to Africa and they are mutilated the parents should have known better and are persecuted for it. Also lose custody of the child.

So there's obviously no problem fixing this legally. It's simply a political thing. Sweden has similar laws to the UK. So we also fail to prosecute the parents.

Yup, we need a legal change. I often wonder what's stopping politicians from passing these laws. We have a model that works, France. So why not do the same in Sweden? Year after year goes by and nothing happens. I wonder if we (as in the Swedes in general) want to stop it, or if we just love being horrified about it, so we just let it go on? So we get to get angry and upset on social media and cry about it now and again and feel morally superior. Because I'm struggling to find an explanation as to why we aren't stopping it.

It's a matter of enforcement as it is illegal. Some go abroad.
https://www.gov.uk/female-genital-mutilation-help-advice

It doesn't matter how illegal something is if you can't prove guilt. In the UK they struggle with it. As far as I know the UK still haven't managed to convict anybody for it yet? So it's obviously not a good law.

 

[whichphilosophy]

It's a matter of enforcement as it is illegal. Some go abroad.
https://www.gov.uk/female-genital-mutilation-help-advice

It doesn't matter how illegal something is if you can't prove guilt. In the UK they struggle with it. As far as I know the UK still haven't managed to convict anybody for it yet? So it's obviously not a good law.

This is VERY true. Some view the law as seeing what you can get away with.

Proving is the key thing after taking these to court. Taking to court and charging is an issue. Therefore the methods of enforcement and prosecution would have to be reviewed. The problem is the current asinine government and the Blair one that proceeded are and were incapable of doing anything in such matters.

 

[DrZoidberg]

It doesn't matter how illegal something is if you can't prove guilt. In the UK they struggle with it. As far as I know the UK still haven't managed to convict anybody for it yet? So it's obviously not a good law.

This is VERY true. Some view the law as seeing what you can get away with.

Proving is the key thing after taking these to court. Taking to court and charging is an issue. Therefore the methods of enforcement and prosecution would have to be reviewed. The problem is the current asinine government and the Blair one that proceeded are and were incapable of doing anything in such matters.

What? No. The only thing that needs to be changed is the laws. The judicial branch of government is just a machine. It's supposed to be a blind and stupid machine that slavishly follows the law. If the judicial system isn't convicting people for FGM, the problem is always the law.

 

[angelo]

What is more troubling is the fact that FGM is illegal in the United Kingdom, and more than 100 girls per week are being treated in hospitals, yet no one has ever been charged for it.

It's not for lack of trying. UK needs to change their laws to catch it. In the UK if the whole family keeps their trap shut about it nobody can get nailed for it. France has no problems prosecuting and charging parents with it. Their the parents are responsible for the well being of their child. If they send their kids to Africa and they are mutilated the parents should have known better and are persecuted for it. Also lose custody of the child.

So there's obviously no problem fixing this legally. It's simply a political thing. Sweden has similar laws to the UK. So we also fail to prosecute the parents.

Yup, we need a legal change. I often wonder what's stopping politicians from passing these laws. We have a model that works, France. So why not do the same in Sweden? Year after year goes by and nothing happens. I wonder if we (as in the Swedes in general) want to stop it, or if we just love being horrified about it, so we just let it go on? So we get to get angry and upset on social media and cry about it now and again and feel morally superior. Because I'm struggling to find an explanation as to why we aren't stopping it.

What's stopping it is political correctness, and the fear of being labelled Islamophobic, or worse, racial slurs.

 

[angelo]

This is VERY true. Some view the law as seeing what you can get away with.

Proving is the key thing after taking these to court. Taking to court and charging is an issue. Therefore the methods of enforcement and prosecution would have to be reviewed. The problem is the current asinine government and the Blair one that proceeded are and were incapable of doing anything in such matters.

What? No. The only thing that needs to be changed is the laws. The judicial branch of government is just a machine. It's supposed to be a blind and stupid machine that slavishly follows the law. If the judicial system isn't convicting people for FGM, the problem is always the law.

No! The problem as always is Islam and it's apologists!

 

[DrZoidberg]

It's not for lack of trying. UK needs to change their laws to catch it. In the UK if the whole family keeps their trap shut about it nobody can get nailed for it. France has no problems prosecuting and charging parents with it. Their the parents are responsible for the well being of their child. If they send their kids to Africa and they are mutilated the parents should have known better and are persecuted for it. Also lose custody of the child.

So there's obviously no problem fixing this legally. It's simply a political thing. Sweden has similar laws to the UK. So we also fail to prosecute the parents.

Yup, we need a legal change. I often wonder what's stopping politicians from passing these laws. We have a model that works, France. So why not do the same in Sweden? Year after year goes by and nothing happens. I wonder if we (as in the Swedes in general) want to stop it, or if we just love being horrified about it, so we just let it go on? So we get to get angry and upset on social media and cry about it now and again and feel morally superior. Because I'm struggling to find an explanation as to why we aren't stopping it.

What's stopping it is political correctness, and the fear of being labelled Islamophobic, or worse, racial slurs.

I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous. The politically correct opinion, everywhere is to be against FGM. Here's a challenge to you, try finding a liberal who supports FGM, or who thinks its a quaint cultural practice somehow. FGM also isn't an Islamic practice. It's an sub-Saharan African practice. Ethiopian Christians have done quite cheerfully for thousands of years. So how has Nigerian and Ghanian Voddoo cultists. So how the flying fuck could it be Islamophobic to be against FGM? I also don't understand how fear of racism enters into this? If anything fear of being branded racists should make us protect all children, just as much, regardless of skin color. No?

All the evidence is against you Angelo.

We already have laws against FGM. They were all passed with near unanimous support. So we obviously had no problems passing them. So that's not the problem. The problem is constructing these laws in a smart way as to stop it. This is where we, (Sweden and the UK) have failed, but France has succeeded. We just need to do whatever France is doing.

Racism might be the reason we're not fixing this? Perhaps we just don't care enough about east African blacks to generate the political will to push these laws through. Because France has obviously proved there is a way.

 

[DrZoidberg]

What? No. The only thing that needs to be changed is the laws. The judicial branch of government is just a machine. It's supposed to be a blind and stupid machine that slavishly follows the law. If the judicial system isn't convicting people for FGM, the problem is always the law.

No! The problem as always is Islam and it's apologists!

The topic is how Montesquieu's system of separation of powers work. How exactly does Islam enter into this? As far as I know the theoretical foundation for the modern democratic state is the same today as it was in 1748, when he wrote his famous book on how the judicial branch of government should function. France wasn't exactly overrun by Muslims back then. Please elaborate wtf you are talking about?

 

[DrZoidberg]

It's also worth mentioning that both the UK and Sweden are breaking EU law by not being more vigilant against FGM.

Article 38 – Female genital mutilation
* Parties shall take the necessary legislative or other measures to ensure that the following intentional conducts are criminalised:
* excising, infibulating or performing any other mutilation to the whole or any part of a woman’s labia majora, labia minora or clitoris;
* coercing or procuring a woman to undergo any of the acts listed in point a;
* inciting, coercing or procuring a girl to undergo any of the acts listed in point a.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conve..._violence_against_women_and_domestic_violence

While the UK and Sweden have laws against it, they're not effective, (since nobody has been convicted) which could be argued aren't laws against it at all.

 

[angelo]

No! The problem as always is Islam and it's apologists!

The topic is how Montesquieu's system of separation of powers work. How exactly does Islam enter into this? As far as I know the theoretical foundation for the modern democratic state is the same today as it was in 1748, when he wrote his famous book on how the judicial branch of government should function. France wasn't exactly overrun by Muslims back then. Please elaborate wtf you are talking about?

Democratic State and Islam is not compatible! It shouldn't ever be used in the same sentence!

 

[angelo]

It's also worth mentioning that both the UK and Sweden are breaking EU law by not being more vigilant against FGM.

Article 38 – Female genital mutilation
* Parties shall take the necessary legislative or other measures to ensure that the following intentional conducts are criminalised:
* excising, infibulating or performing any other mutilation to the whole or any part of a woman’s labia majora, labia minora or clitoris;
* coercing or procuring a woman to undergo any of the acts listed in point a;
* inciting, coercing or procuring a girl to undergo any of the acts listed in point a.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conve..._violence_against_women_and_domestic_violence

While the UK and Sweden have laws against it, they're not effective, (since nobody has been convicted) which could be argued aren't laws against it at all.

Again, the reason the law isn't enforced is because of " political correctness " which prefers to protect anything Islamic rather than a victim.

 

[DrZoidberg]

The topic is how Montesquieu's system of separation of powers work. How exactly does Islam enter into this? As far as I know the theoretical foundation for the modern democratic state is the same today as it was in 1748, when he wrote his famous book on how the judicial branch of government should function. France wasn't exactly overrun by Muslims back then. Please elaborate wtf you are talking about?

Democratic State and Islam is not compatible! It shouldn't ever be used in the same sentence!

You just did. You used them in the same sentence. I don't think you know how sentences work.

 

[DrZoidberg]

It's also worth mentioning that both the UK and Sweden are breaking EU law by not being more vigilant against FGM.




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conve..._violence_against_women_and_domestic_violence

While the UK and Sweden have laws against it, they're not effective, (since nobody has been convicted) which could be argued aren't laws against it at all.

Again, the reason the law isn't enforced is because of " political correctness " which prefers to protect anything Islamic rather than a victim.

You're not making any sense. You sound like a manic conspiracy theory nutcase, unable to construct coherent sentences. Do you have Tourettes by any chance?

 

[TSwizzle]

What? No. The only thing that needs to be changed is the laws. The judicial branch of government is just a machine. It's supposed to be a blind and stupid machine that slavishly follows the law. If the judicial system isn't convicting people for FGM, the problem is always the law.

Except that the judicial system is not a machine, it is made up of human beings. Human beings that slavishly follow the orthodoxy of political correctness. The political correctness that allowed scores of vulnerable white infidel girls to be sexually abused by muslim men in places like Rotherham. So what chance have the rest of the women got ? Who's organizing a women's march for these tricky subjects ? Still too busy obsessing over Trump's locker room banter I expect.

 

[Derec]

You just did. You used them in the same sentence. I don't think you know how sentences work.

I don't think you know how figures of speech work.

 

[whichphilosophy]

This is VERY true. Some view the law as seeing what you can get away with.

Proving is the key thing after taking these to court. Taking to court and charging is an issue. Therefore the methods of enforcement and prosecution would have to be reviewed. The problem is the current asinine government and the Blair one that proceeded are and were incapable of doing anything in such matters.

What? No. The only thing that needs to be changed is the laws. The judicial branch of government is just a machine. It's supposed to be a blind and stupid machine that slavishly follows the law. If the judicial system isn't convicting people for FGM, the problem is always the law.

And there is worse (brought to me by Muslim/non Muslim reformists).

https://www.theguardian.com/society...e-in-forced-marriage-counselling-for-children

NSPCC reports large rise in forced marriage counselling for children
Charity’s figures show number of sessions provided has nearly quadrupled in five years, with potential victims as young as 13

 

[bilby]

Based on his history in this thread, it is safe to assume that any statistics or numbers presented by angelo have a better than even chance of being completely wrong.

I can't be bothered trying to check anymore; in the absence of him quoting and linking to reputable sources, I'm just going to assume that the data he presents is false.

Yes, it's better that it's swept under the carpet isn't it!
Any source that finds the opposite of what politically correct and most left leaning ideologues is quickly dubbed racist or islamaphobes! Even Pew and various government agencies must have got it wrong. Muslims are a peaceful people who have contributed greatly to the world and Western culture.
Large dollap of sarcasm anyone?

There's nothing to sweep under the carpet. Terrorism in Australia is basically non-existent; Even if we count all of the incidents that didn't happen, but that the authorities claim to have foiled, this is simply a non-threat.

You cannot possibly be such a craven coward as to actually feel threatened by terrorism in Australia; You can only manage to be scared of terrorism by having a totally inaccurate idea of its prevalence.

Of course, it's hardly surprising that you imagine this threat to be real, even though it demonstrably is not.

We tend to assess the likelihood of a particular event according to its "salience" – how well we remember hearing of similar events in the past and how much notice we took of them.

Trouble is, most of what we know about what's happening beyond our personal experience comes to us from the news media, and the media focus almost exclusively on happenings that are highly unusual, ignoring the everyday occurrences.

They do so because they know this is what we find most interesting. They tell us more about the bad things that happen than the good things for the same reason.

The media know how worried and upset we get by terrorist attacks, so they give saturation coverage to attacks occurring almost anywhere in the world.

The unfortunate consequence is we can't help but acquire an exaggerated impression of how common terrorist incidents are and how likely it is one could affect us.

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/the-threat-of-terrorism-in-australia-is-a-scam-that-costs-us-dearly-20170725-gxi2nk.html

It's an excellent article; You should read it. And then read it again. And then stop dismissing it out of hand, and read it a third time.

As an ordinary Australian, you would have to be batshit crazy to be frightened of the Australian police. And yet you are at FAR greater risk of being killed by a policeman, as an innocent bystander in Australia, than you are of being killed by a terrorist.

 

[barbos]

Who needs terrorism in Australia when every spider wants you dead already?

 

[whichphilosophy]

Yes, it's better that it's swept under the carpet isn't it!
Any source that finds the opposite of what politically correct and most left leaning ideologues is quickly dubbed racist or islamaphobes! Even Pew and various government agencies must have got it wrong. Muslims are a peaceful people who have contributed greatly to the world and Western culture.
Large dollap of sarcasm anyone?

There's nothing to sweep under the carpet. Terrorism in Australia is basically non-existent; Even if we count all of the incidents that didn't happen, but that the authorities claim to have foiled, this is simply a non-threat.

You cannot possibly be such a craven coward as to actually feel threatened by terrorism in Australia; You can only manage to be scared of terrorism by having a totally inaccurate idea of its prevalence.

Of course, it's hardly surprising that you imagine this threat to be real, even though it demonstrably is not.

We tend to assess the likelihood of a particular event according to its "salience" – how well we remember hearing of similar events in the past and how much notice we took of them.

Trouble is, most of what we know about what's happening beyond our personal experience comes to us from the news media, and the media focus almost exclusively on happenings that are highly unusual, ignoring the everyday occurrences.

They do so because they know this is what we find most interesting. They tell us more about the bad things that happen than the good things for the same reason.

The media know how worried and upset we get by terrorist attacks, so they give saturation coverage to attacks occurring almost anywhere in the world.

The unfortunate consequence is we can't help but acquire an exaggerated impression of how common terrorist incidents are and how likely it is one could affect us.

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/the-threat-of-terrorism-in-australia-is-a-scam-that-costs-us-dearly-20170725-gxi2nk.html

It's an excellent article; You should read it. And then read it again. And then stop dismissing it out of hand, and read it a third time.

As an ordinary Australian, you would have to be batshit crazy to be frightened of the Australian police. And yet you are at FAR greater risk of being killed by a policeman, as an innocent bystander in Australia, than you are of being killed by a terrorist.

Terrorism can't be a scam if 14 incidents were intercepted. Are you suggesting Australia does nothing because of A self-contracting article by Ross Gitins who clearly doesn't know what he is talking about.

In fact just 4 days ago police foiled another attempt
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...t-to-bomb-an-airplane/?utm_term=.ce8cb83e788b

Australian authorities said they thwarted an elaborate “Islamic-inspired” terrorist plot to bring down an airplane and arrested four men during raids in four suburbs outside Sydney.

Another article in 2015 below:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-31900876
Australian counter-terror police 'stopping 400 per day'

Australian police are stopping hundreds of people every day at airports in an attempt to prevent would-be jihadists leaving the country.
A new counter-terror unit conducted nearly 76,000 "real-time" stops - more than 400 per day - at eight airports between August and February.
The screenings are not random. Counter-terror police are targeting potentially suspicious travellers.
Around 90 Australians are believed to be fighting in the Middle East.
The Border Force Counter-Terrorism Unit (CTU) is a new unit designed to tackle extremists attempting to leave the country and join terror groups such as Islamic State (IS).


A problem worse than the threat of terrorism is complacency. Australia appears to have been successful at prevention. That does not mean we have serious problems as a result of global terrorism.

 

[DrZoidberg]

You just did. You used them in the same sentence. I don't think you know how sentences work.

I don't think you know how figures of speech work.

I don't think he was making a figure of speech. Well... he was. But did it wrong. Using expressions wrongly always has a comedic effect.

 

[DrZoidberg]

What? No. The only thing that needs to be changed is the laws. The judicial branch of government is just a machine. It's supposed to be a blind and stupid machine that slavishly follows the law. If the judicial system isn't convicting people for FGM, the problem is always the law.

Except that the judicial system is not a machine, it is made up of human beings. Human beings that slavishly follow the orthodoxy of political correctness. The political correctness that allowed scores of vulnerable white infidel girls to be sexually abused by muslim men in places like Rotherham. So what chance have the rest of the women got ? Who's organizing a women's march for these tricky subjects ? Still too busy obsessing over Trump's locker room banter I expect.

Sure, it's not an actual machine. But it's supposed to try to be as much as possible.

I think you're wrong. The newspapers are constantly printing articles where people are outraged over various legal rulings. The police has always been notoriously bad at being politically correct. It doesn't seem like that's the kind of people attracted to working as cops. When it comes to communication the police should of course be extremely politically correct. Hence all the asskissy bullshit communiques and press conferences.

Nah, the judicial system is very unpolitically correct, to the point where it's a problem. That's been the case since Beccaria got to put his ideas into practice. The Rotherham scandal doesn't disprove that. It just shows that there's regional differences.