›

Political Question For UK Strutters(NRR)

RockadelicRockadelic Out Digging 13,993 Posts
edited April 2008 in Strut Central
Just got done reading a long interview with Member of Parliment, Dr. Liam Fox.I'm curious to know what the average Joe on the street thinks about him and his politics?

  Comments

  • simsim 16 Posts
    He's a Conservative, infact worse than that, he's Shadow Defence Minister I think - so I instictively hate him and everything he stands for.

    looks like a smarmy little shit anyway.

    What was he going on about in this interview?
  • magpaulmagpaul 1,314 Posts
    I wouldn't assume the average person would be familiar with him minus his leadership bid when he came 3rd.

    The profile of your average Tory politician is pretty low if you ain't a former leader or a hanger-on from the old days.
  • RockadelicRockadelic Out Digging 13,993 Posts
    He's a Conservative, infact worse than that, he's Shadow Defence Minister I think - so I instictively hate him and everything he stands for.

    looks like a smarmy little shit anyway.

    What was he going on about in this interview?

    He was discussing the upcoming U.S. Presidential election and stated that the UK is willing to support whichever candidate wins......he also suggested that while Barack has stated he will pull troops out of Iraq, it's easier said than done and he didn't think it would happen.

    There was also mention of a British Cardinal who said that he felt that Sharia Law could be accepted as part of the UK Judicial System which he was obviously against.

    Thanks to both of you for the comments.
  • Danno3000Danno3000 2,850 Posts


    There was also mention of a British Cardinal who said that he felt that Sharia Law could be accepted as part of the UK Judicial System which he was obviously against.


    I think your referring to a lecture given by the Archbishop of Canterbury, the head of the Church of England. The speech was academic and not intended for consumption by the popular media, which shows incredibly bad judgement on the Williams's part since any talk of integrating Sharia law into the English law is bound to attract attention. Anyway, as I understand it there was nothing especially sensational and it was actually fairy abstract and not at all worth the commotion it caused.
  • DocMcCoyDocMcCoy "Go and laugh in your own country!" 5,915 Posts
    It was worth some attention - but not for the sharia law bits which were essentially fairly innocuous and would amount to some recognition for what is in any case the de facto position i.e. lots of muslims go to the imam to help them settle disputes before they go to the lawyers. That happens anyway, but it was blown entirely out of proportion by a rabid press who dislikes him for being a fusty old academic. He mentioned it context of allowing, for instance, christian doctors to opt out of treatments which they had objections to (far more problematic suggestion IMO), and when he was called on to explain the whole thing on the radio he said some far more troubling stuff, viz. that the concept of one law for everyone who lives in a given place was not necessarily fair if it meant that some religious people had to obey elements of civil law that they had religious objections to. He wasn't calling for public stoning, an actually had said very little about sharia law.
    At the point (an interview for the Today programme on radio 4) that he was called on to explain himself, he was basically saying any and all religious people - but especially christian doctors who disagreed with abortion, that was the example he returned to - should perhaps be given a religious opt-out on elements of the law which they didn't like, and that 'one law for all' perhaps wasn't a good idea. All of which is genuinely objectionable, (far more objectionable than the initial observation that, since many muslims would ask the imam to sort out civil disputes before engaging a lawyer, you might as well admit that there are certain sorts of civil dispute the imam might be entitled to sort out, providing it stays within the overall framework of civil law), and actually does open the door to arguments for all sorts of shit.

    As for the Tory mentioned, he was, is and always will be a despicable little shit, in my view.

    I will heartily cosign the previous UK posters' opinions of Liam Fox. From Rock's brief summary of his coments, it's not clear whether he's implying that the British government will unquestioningly fall in line with whatever policy the next Prez has vis-a-vis Iraq, or if he means that a future Tory government would do likewise. Either way, there seems little point in reading too much into his comments at the moment - he's currently in opposition and is set to remain there for a few more years at least, so he can't speak on current government policy with any authority whatsoever.

    Rowan Williams has had a bit of a rough ride from the press since becoming AoC, largely (imo) because he seems keen to be seen as something of a progressive, which doesn't generally go down too well with the Church of England (once famously referred to as "the Tory Party at prayer"). Nevertheless, he didn't do himself any favours with the way he approached this particular topic. One of the things he said was that certain sections of society have trouble relating to the law in this country. Yeah, they do - we call those people "criminals".

    I live in a part of London where Islamist outfits like Hizb-ut-Tahrir, Jamaat-e-Islami and al-Mujahiroun are all quite active so, as you can imagine, there's probably considerable enthusiasm for any suggestion (taken out of context or otherwise) by the head of the C of E that certain religious groups ought to be able to treat the law in the same way as they'd order a "choose your own toppings" pizza, picking the things they like and ignoring anything that isn't to their taste. I mean, there's plenty in UK law that I find objectionable, but the one reassuring thing about it as a whole is that, irrespective of our means, colour, creed and background, we're all subject to it and, in the normal order of things, we all have to abide by it. It isn't always even-handed - in fact, sometimes it doesn't seem to be even-handed at all - but in principle at least, it applies to everybody that lives here, and I don't believe that your faith should give you any special dispensation to disregard those aspects of it you don't like.
Sign In or Register to comment.