1. Comment #258370 by dochmbi on October 2, 2008 at 12:25 am

Lol are you asking us to boycot youtube and google? Google yeah fine I can boycot that, there's MSN live search (even though that sucks) but I really need my youtube.

It's really bad though how much of a monopoly youtube has. There are competitors, yes, but those don't have all the vids youtube has.

Imo it's vital to not have any monopolies on the internet because that jeopardizes freedom of
speech because then those big websites can control what content is allowed and what is not.

Btw, the petition link is broken.

Other Comments by dochmbi

2. Comment #258371 by OverUsedChewToy on October 2, 2008 at 12:28 am

Uploading the video to my account as I'm typing this!

Other Comments by OverUsedChewToy

3. Comment #258372 by madame_zora on October 2, 2008 at 12:28 am

I agree- I'll post it on myspace and elsewhere. We should also all petition google directly to intervene with youtube's censorship policies which have caused ongoing controversy, we're only powerless when we're silent, which is all too often. Wish I lived in the UK, but opposing sharia law is doubly important to fundamentalist America where it could actually take root. We've got to make a stand before it gets here, or it's over for the world.

Other Comments by madame_zora

4. Comment #258374 by OverUsedChewToy on October 2, 2008 at 12:42 am

Video available on my account:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JsANQ0osBns

Other Comments by OverUsedChewToy

5. Comment #258376 by sby on October 2, 2008 at 12:45 am

"...that entire country [Saudi Arabia] is mentally ill."

That's got to be pretty close to hate speech, surely? More importantly, it isn't true.

Other Comments by sby

6. Comment #258377 by OverUsedChewToy on October 2, 2008 at 12:49 am

"
That's got to be pretty close to hate speech, surely? More importantly, it isn't true. "

Even though I disagree with Pat's assertion, that has nothing on most of the religious on there who don't get touched.

Other Comments by OverUsedChewToy

7. Comment #258378 by ColdFusionLazarus on October 2, 2008 at 12:50 am

Nope. I can't use the link either, so haven't been able to sign the petition this morning

Other Comments by ColdFusionLazarus

8. Comment #258380 by Adrian Bartholomew on October 2, 2008 at 12:55 am

http://tinyurl.com/54h77h
That goes to the petition

Other Comments by Adrian Bartholomew

9. Comment #258382 by Yeti on October 2, 2008 at 1:01 am

The UK gov petition appears to have been removed. Surprise surprise...

Other Comments by Yeti

10. Comment #258383 by ColdFusionLazarus on October 2, 2008 at 1:03 am

Petition signed

Other Comments by ColdFusionLazarus

11. Comment #258384 by JAMCAM87 on October 2, 2008 at 1:10 am

Wow, getting banned for critisizing Sharia! I bet there are klu klux klan vids and Nazi vids which haven't been banned.

Anyway, signed the petition.

Other Comments by JAMCAM87

12. Comment #258386 by CJ22 on October 2, 2008 at 1:16 am

The petition won't have been removed (they're 'pre-approved' so to speak). I suggest the link is just bad.

Here you go:
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/sharialawuk/

Other Comments by CJ22

13. Comment #258387 by zecat on October 2, 2008 at 1:17 am

Did they give the reason why this video was removed?

Other Comments by zecat

14. Comment #258388 by JAMCAM87 on October 2, 2008 at 1:17 am

What's all this "in honour of" rubbish, he hasn't died or anything.

Other Comments by JAMCAM87

15. Comment #258390 by Monosilabbiq on October 2, 2008 at 1:19 am

I have just signed the petition on the No10 web site using the link above although I had to search for the individual petition. Sadly this Blairite pretence at "listening to the public" will result in a standard response in a few days time that they have considered it and they are going to do nothing. The same as the petition on removing religion based schooling.

Pat's comments should be considered as hate speech. But that is becasue he hates the islamisation of Britain. As I understand the law in Britain it does not constitute "Hate Speech" which is punishable in the courts as he does not incite anything other than ridicule, disapproval and the desire for the re-establishment of commonly held ideals of British justice.

Can anyone give me a link to a route to the YouTube complaints desk ?

Other Comments by Monosilabbiq

16. Comment #258392 by Verylee on October 2, 2008 at 1:21 am

Comment #258377 by OverUsedChewToy

that has nothing on most of the religious on there who don't get touched.

I wondered that myself.
Not being able to understand Arabic, Pashtun or indeed any of the predominately Islamic languages, I wondered how many vids were up extolling the virtues of jihad, death to the infidel, female circumcision etc. I will never know, and therefore would not be able to petition/threaten YouTube to remove them. Those who do understand probably do not issue threats or petitions as they either agree with them or value free speech.

Other Comments by Verylee

17. Comment #258393 by fsm1965 on October 2, 2008 at 1:23 am

the petition link is as follows:

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/sharialawuk/

btw, only open to uk citizens

Other Comments by fsm1965

18. Comment #258395 by gcdavis on October 2, 2008 at 1:25 am

SPINELESS!!
What price freedom of speech?
Boycott YouTube/Google
This is not China!!
Email UK newspapers, this must not go unreported

Admin: I think this demands an alert on this site with a list of all other video hosting sites so that we can make sure Pat's insights are out there

Other Comments by gcdavis

19. Comment #258400 by Jonesie on October 2, 2008 at 1:47 am

Video available on my account:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hozQeqR1aXg

Other Comments by Jonesie

20. Comment #258401 by Peacebeuponme on October 2, 2008 at 1:50 am

Is there a way of complaining about banning Pat Condell without also signing up to the Sharia Law petition?

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

21. Comment #258402 by gcdavis on October 2, 2008 at 1:50 am

Jonesie or anybody!

I am currently uploading the 30 meg file to YouTube, it is going very slowly even on 8 meg broadband, is there any smarter way of doing this?

Now sorted
http://www.youtube.com/my_videos?pi=0&ps=20&sf=added&sa=0&sq=&dm=1

Other Comments by gcdavis

22. Comment #258409 by tieInterceptor on October 2, 2008 at 2:00 am

this is pathetic, I wonder what criteria got Pat Condell's video put down?

probably the fact that videos like that get youtube.com banned in entire Islamic countries.

money talks, and pc correctness too.

Other Comments by tieInterceptor

23. Comment #258411 by Chris Davis on October 2, 2008 at 2:04 am

Comment #258390 by Monosilabb

Sadly this Blairite pretence at "listening to the public" will result in a standard response in a few days time that they have considered it and they are going to do nothing. The same as the petition on removing religion based schooling.

Well of course they're not going to go 'Oh! Ok, we didn't know you wanted that - we'll fix it at once!' And yes - if there's a response at all it'll be in weaselspeak.

But someone, somewhere, will take note of the number of signatories, and if they're sufficiently large the message will get through that this is An Issue That Needs to Be Addressed. It'll be slow, and no-one will be happy, but things move in the right direction eventually - unless, like marijuana, there are reasons to buck rationality.

CD

Other Comments by Chris Davis

24. Comment #258412 by Steve Zara on October 2, 2008 at 2:08 am

I don't much like Pat Condell's simplistic rants, but banning him was wrong.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

25. Comment #258413 by LeighVenus on October 2, 2008 at 2:09 am

Posted a link to the video and petition on facebook, my two-pence-worth.

Other Comments by LeighVenus

26. Comment #258414 by Diacanu on October 2, 2008 at 2:10 am

Steve-

Look, I know, I'm better, but I keep telling you, I'm too ugly for Youtube.
I'm sticking to text, you'll just have to accept that.
;)

Other Comments by Diacanu

27. Comment #258415 by Dactylorhiza on October 2, 2008 at 2:16 am

I am not british, so the best i can do is tell all of my friends who are, on youtube and elsewhere to sign the petition. I hope 'Rational tube' grows to be as large as youtube so we dont have worry about the censorship of videos about religion or science.

Other Comments by Dactylorhiza

28. Comment #258416 by beanson on October 2, 2008 at 2:17 am

'In honour of Pat Condell'



lols

what a martyr

don't really think I can do without google or youtube- sorry

(did sign petition though)

Other Comments by beanson

29. Comment #258419 by Peacebeuponme on October 2, 2008 at 2:25 am

Steve

I don't much like Pat Condell's simplistic rants, but banning him was wrong.

Right there with you brother, but we are swiming against the tide of Pat appreciation on this site.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

30. Comment #258420 by stephenray on October 2, 2008 at 2:29 am

As usual I enjoyed Pat Condell's video. However, I won't be signing the petition. Here's why.

Mediation must be available to the parties in a dispute as a matter of principle; if for no other reason that court proceedings can be prohibitively expensive. If the parties choose to use sharia law as the guiding principle for that mediation then there are good arguments for saying that they should be allowed so to do. (Torah law, in the shape of Beth Din judgments, has long been utilised in the UK as a basis for mediation without exciting any particular protest.)

There must be prior agreement between the parties to the use of some principle other than english law for mediation purposes; the result is a type of contract in which the parties bind themselves to accept the decision of the mediatior.

If the outcome is not acceptable then it is possible to apply to court for the mediation decision to be overturned provided that the applicant is prepared to risk the additional expense of a claim in damages for breach of contract.

This is not to say that any attempts to coerce persons (e.g. women) to agree to mediation by way of sharia law is to be accepted, let alone encouraged; but we must be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath water.

There are, IMHO, strong reasons for arguing that no rules other than english law should be available for the resolution of FAMILY disputes (i.e. those affecting marriage and children) but that is not the same as rejecting the principle of voluntary mediation altogether. The justification for this is the children are not in a position to consent or otherwise to the use of sharia law, and should benefit simply from the general law of England and Wales (and Scotland). I would sign that petition.

Another point.

Pat says: "Some idiot from Saudi Arabia is being allowed to sue..."

That's a mischaracterisation. Any person can, at any time within the applicable limitation period, bring a claim against any other person. (Certain persons are immune from certain suits, but that's a principle of extremely limited effect.) It is fatuous to suggest that there should be some preliminary process by which a claim must be assessed against some scale of 'properness' to determine whether it should be allowed or not. The proof of the pudding is whether the claim will be successful, and for that the determination of the court must be awaited. Defendants are able to apply for summary judgment in the claim on the bases (amongst others) that the claim is frivolous, or vexatious, or discloses no claim known to law. Pat Condell's words could only make sense if there was some sort of panel which decides whether a person is to be 'allowed' to start a claim, or not. That would effectively usurp the function of the court in determining questions of fact and law.

I do agree, however, with Condell's point that the claimant in question is being disingenuous to the point of absurdity.

Other Comments by stephenray

31. Comment #258423 by rod-the-farmer on October 2, 2008 at 2:34 am

Tried to sign the petition, but as someone else has noted, it is only available to British citizens. As a colonial, I could not even claim expatriate-ness. Tried to complain to YouTube, could not find the link in the article. Am I missing something ?.

Other Comments by rod-the-farmer

32. Comment #258424 by Peacebeuponme on October 2, 2008 at 2:35 am

stephenray

That sums up my feelings about Sharia (with the exception of the bit about marriage: I agree that English Law has to be used where children are involved) quite nicely.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

33. Comment #258425 by Heretic on October 2, 2008 at 2:35 am

I signed the petition a while ago, but I don't think I'll be boycotting Google or Youtube - Unless millions of people were to do so, it would make little difference (unfortuanatly). I will upload Pats video on my YT page.

Other Comments by Heretic

34. Comment #258431 by Ian on October 2, 2008 at 2:54 am

Thank you for this.

I have of course, signed the petition and let a comment on Youtube under the username Darwinian1859.

Other Comments by Ian

35. Comment #258434 by Adamus on October 2, 2008 at 3:01 am

The video doesn't appear to have sound. Is that just me?

Other Comments by Adamus

36. Comment #258435 by managementboy on October 2, 2008 at 3:03 am

I want to show my support of freedom of speech buy putting my money where my mouth is! I am all for freedom of religion. I do not always agree with what Pat says; I don't agree at all with sharia law. But when anyone starts censoring someone for their opinions my blood starts to boil. I will not tolerate this behavior by a company that brags that it "does no evil". Until the Pat Condell video is unblocked by YouTube I will not use ANY of the products provided by Google. I will not click on any advertisement provided by Google Adverts. I will stop using, Google News, Maps and Reader.

And if that was all, it seems that the censorship is endemic, especially hitting atheists/agnostics. Please view the videos from TheAmazingAtheist on this topic. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58WKrwSUsD4

Other Comments by managementboy

37. Comment #258436 by Bertybob on October 2, 2008 at 3:04 am

The writer does not ask any of us to stop using Google or YouTube, he (or she) only states what they personally will do.

Read what is being asked, before moaning about being asked to do something you are not being asked to do!!

Other Comments by Bertybob

38. Comment #258437 by rod-the-farmer on October 2, 2008 at 3:06 am

Re #30. Comment #258420 by stephenray
I disagree strongly.

If the parties choose to use sharia law as the guiding principle for that mediation then there are good arguments for saying that they should be allowed so to do. (Torah law, in the shape of Beth Din judgments, has long been utilised in the UK as a basis for mediation without exciting any particular protest.)

The only "argument" I can think of is diplomatic immunity.

There must be prior agreement between the parties to the use of some principle other than english law for mediation purposes; the result is a type of contract in which the parties bind themselves to accept the decision of the mediator.

Why is it necessary to depart from English common law ? Why should country A with a long history of local jurisprudence have to import a legal system from country B, just because there happen to be immigrants from country B residing there ? Please explain where there is a gap that requires the importation of foreign legal thinking. Many of us here have read or seen instances where it certainly appears that women are NOT treated equally in the laws of some muslim societies. And even if you don't agree with this last statement, please show us the gap that shariah law would fill. English common law has been a model for many other countries, on which to base their own systems. I am trying to think if any muslim country has done so. None come to mind. It is therefore "foreign". So why import their legal system, even in part ? When you emigrate to a new country, you sign up to adopt their various systems of living, holus bolus. Like the "god of the gaps", please show us the "law for the gaps". Immigrants don't get to say,

"I don't like your legal system of many hundreds of years. I want to bring my old system with me, from a different culture."

BTW, Ontario (Canada) had also allowed a separate arbitration system for those of the Jewish faith. When the issue of shariah courts was first raised for Ontario, there was such an outcry that in a spirit of fairness, shariah courts were denied, and the Jewish system was closed down.

Other Comments by rod-the-farmer

39. Comment #258441 by hungarianelephant on October 2, 2008 at 3:11 am

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Stop Islamic Sharia Law being used in Great Britain.

Could someone who has signed this petition please explain to me exactly what this means?

I'm in broad agreement with stephenray and Peacebeuponme. I simply don't see why people should be allowed to resolve their disputes by arbitration under Norwegian law or a best-of-37 game of Rock Paper Scissors, but not allowed to do the same thing if the boo-word "Sharia" is invoked.

That said, Pat Condell is quite entitled to his view, and the removal of his video from YouTube is a disgrace.

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

40. Comment #258443 by decius on October 2, 2008 at 3:14 am

Comment #258420 by stephenray

You totally miss the point.

Women may be coerced in private to submit to sharia courts, through violence, peer-pressure, disinformation etc. The only way to assure that this doesn't happen is to guarantee them the FULL PROTECTION of the British law.

Stop apologising for fucking Islam, for goodness sake. There is no 'baby' there, there is an abomination.

Other Comments by decius

41. Comment #258444 by jay2001 on October 2, 2008 at 3:15 am

Available on my account too shortly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDUlk5UMQlo

Other Comments by jay2001

42. Comment #258446 by Peacebeuponme on October 2, 2008 at 3:22 am

Decius

You have just noted the crux of the argument. I think me, stephenray and hungarianelephant would all agree that any form of coercion is contrary to English Law and should invalidate proceedings.

But any arbitration agreed voluntary should not be any business of ours.

btw - I actually think a best of 37 rock paper scissors wouldn't be a bad way to resolve a dispute!

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

43. Comment #258448 by Chris Walsh on October 2, 2008 at 3:24 am

Just signed the petition...

Other Comments by Chris Walsh

44. Comment #258449 by hungarianelephant on October 2, 2008 at 3:25 am

40. Comment #258443 by decius on October 2, 2008 at 3:14 am

Women may be coerced in private to submit to sharia courts, through violence, peer-pressure, disinformation etc. The only way to assure that this doesn't happen is to guarantee them the FULL PROTECTION of the British law.

If they are coerced, the agreement to arbitrate is voidable (in England - I can't speak for Scotland which has a bizarre system all of its own). They can get a civil court to overrule the Sharia court. If women were being denied equal legal protection I would be the first to complain. But they aren't.

EDIT: Peace, for family disputes, I once suggested that the couple be locked in a room with ten days' food, an ounce of hash and a packet of Rizlas, and be allowed out when they have come to an amicable agreement. No one has yet explained to me why this is stupid.

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

45. Comment #258450 by Peacebeuponme on October 2, 2008 at 3:26 am

rod-the-farmer

You misrepresent the issue here. The Sharia courts are not contrary to English Law. They operate under the rules of arbitrage set out in the Arbitration Act.

There was a worrying post from Epeeist concerning Sharia getting involved in criminal cases (specifically domestic violence). I would be vehemently opposed to that as then Sharia would be superceding English Law. But for arbitration, this is a non-issue.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

46. Comment #258451 by Steve Zara on October 2, 2008 at 3:26 am

Comment #258446 by Peacebeuponme

A better analogy would be rock/paper/scissors where women only get half as many goes, and homosexuals get none.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

47. Comment #258454 by hungarianelephant on October 2, 2008 at 3:28 am

46. Comment #258451 by Steve Zara on October 2, 2008 at 3:26 am

A better analogy would be rock/paper/scissors where women only get half as many goes, and homosexuals get none.

Why?

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

48. Comment #258455 by Peacebeuponme on October 2, 2008 at 3:28 am

Steve

Well if women or homosexuals agree to such a biased system they would only have themselves to blame. They do not have to submit to Sharia.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

49. Comment #258459 by OverUsedChewToy on October 2, 2008 at 3:45 am

"Not being able to understand Arabic, Pashtun or indeed any of the predominately Islamic languages, I wondered how many vids were up extolling the virtues of jihad, death to the infidel, female circumcision etc. I will never know, and therefore would not be able to petition/threaten YouTube to remove them. Those who do understand probably do not issue threats or petitions as they either agree with them or value free speech. " (forgot how to put that quote block thingy)

You don't need to go so far as to search for videos in another language, there's plenty enough in (often poorly articulated) English.

Other Comments by OverUsedChewToy

50. Comment #258460 by stephenray on October 2, 2008 at 3:53 am

Rod-the-farmer:

I disagree strongly.

Excellent!!

The only 'argument' I can think of is diplomatic immunity.

The argument goes back to theory of law. The applicability of a legal system must be by consent; any legal system which does not enjoy the consent of the persons subject to the law will be in disrepute and, eventually, futile. So if people wish to apply sharia law to their, e.g., business disputes, partnership disputes, then providing that both parties agree to the mediation process, why not?

Why is it necessary to depart from English common law ?

I presume you mean english law generally. 'Common law' is amended both by statute and equity to provide the overall legal system of england and wales.

Why should country A with a long history of local jurisprudence have to import a legal system from country B...

That isn't what is happening. People domiciled in the UK are choosing to apply different principles to the resolution of their disputes. Outside of sharia advocates this might be because, e.g., a court claim will eventually declare a winner and a loser (assuming two parties initially) whereas arbitration or mediation can disapply the strict law of the land and produce a compromise with no winner or loser. To apply a rule which doesn't allow disputers to choose sharia principles but does allow all other mediation principles will be difficult to formulate at best.

Please explain where there is a gap that requires the importation of foreign legal thinking.

There isn't. The issue is the question of how disputes are resolved. Strict application of law is only one method.

Many of us here have read or seen instances where it certainly appears that women are NOT treated equally in the laws of some muslim societies.

I did say I would support a rule that no family disputes could be settled by sharia law.

However, there are other issues. For example, sharia (allegedly) places the same weight on a man's evidence as on that of two women. A mediated dispute which applied that rule could be reviewed by a court if required.

Immigrants don't get to say,

"I don't like your legal system of many hundreds of years. I want to bring my old system with me, from a different culture."

Well, in fact, they do. Even if it requires, for example, several generations until the immigrants start to have an impact on parliamentary debates, and therefore on legislation. Law is not frozen at a given moment, to be applied from that moment onward, otherwise we wouldn't know what to do about web site disputes and on-line defamation.

BTW, Ontario (Canada) had also allowed a separate arbitration system for those of the Jewish faith. When the issue of shariah courts was first raised for Ontario, there was such an outcry that in a spirit of fairness, shariah courts were denied, and the Jewish system was closed down.

I can't comment on what happened in Ontario because I don't know the details. The basis of my decision not to sign the petition is this:

"To apply a rule which doesn't allow disputers to choose sharia principles but does allow all other mediation principles will be difficult to formulate at best" and "I would support a rule that no family disputes could be settled by sharia law."

Contradictory though that might be...

Other Comments by stephenray