Slashdot Mirror

There are over a billion Muslims. Mostly in India and Indonesia. If you don't think that the ones committing all the violence are a fringe group, then you are vastly underestimating the damage a billion people could do, if they really wanted to.

Based on polls, it isn't fringe group of muslims who support violence. By definition, fringe group would constitute a fraction of a percentage of the people. Here's just a sampling of the opinion polls:

Pew Global: 68% of Palestinian Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified.
43% of Nigerian Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified.
38% of Lebanese Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified.
15% of Egyptian Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified.
13% of Indonesian Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified.
12% of Jordanian Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified.
7% of Muslim Israelis say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified.
http://cnsnews.com/node/53865 (Pew Global Attitudes Project September, 2009)

Center for Social Cohesion: One Third of British Muslim students support killing for Islam (Wikileaks cable)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...

Policy Exchange: One third of British Muslims believe anyone who leaves Islam should be killed
http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/...

NOP Research: 78% of British Muslims support punishing the publishers of Muhammad cartoons;
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories...
http://www.webcitation.org/5xk...

NOP Research: Hardcore Islamists comprise 9% of Britain's Muslim population;
Another 29% would "aggressively defend" Islam;
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories...
http://www.webcitation.org/5xk...

Pew Research (2010): 84% of Egyptian Muslims support the death penalty for leaving Islam
86% of Jordanian Muslims support the death penalty for leaving Islam
30% of Indonesian Muslims support the death penalty for leaving Islam
76% of Pakistanis support death the penalty for leaving Islam
51% of Nigerian Muslims support the death penalty for leaving Islam
http://pewglobal.org/2010/12/0...

Data shows otherwise. Actually counted air time.

Whilst skipping over the £9m propaganda leaflet of course. "Doubting the former"? Here's the data.

Sure.

There is no diminished negotiating power, it's the opposite.

Policy Exchange: One third of British Muslims believe anyone who leaves Islam should be killed
http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/...

Which is why at the very least I want sharia proscribed in my country and at the very most the same done for islam, because there is no truth or value to it. If I were religious I'd say it's demonic.

In the UK we follow the idea of policing by consent. The principle is that the police are not above other citizens but work with and for them. This is why they do not carry firearms as standard because that breaks this social contract that they are our equals, rather than there to control us. The firearms come out when they are dealing with someone who themselves have firearms. I'll admit this has been corrupted somewhat since 9/11 where we do have officers patrolling some airports with guns, but for the most part it's still very much intact.

Have a look here for the list of principles:

http://www.civitas.org.uk/pubs/policeNine.php

Countries like the US could learn lessons from this, there are simply too many powerful police and police related units (TSA, DHS, FBI, etc.) with too much power over the populace which has led to a decade of abuse against citizens that have been permitted by successive governments ranging from warrantless wiretaps, far too heavy handed use of SWAT teams and national security letters. Absolutely law enforcement in America needs to remember who it serves - the people.

From the second Kerr link:

Why are you hearing that Swartz faced 35 or 50 years if it was not true? First, government press releases like to trumpet the maximum theoretical numbers. Authors of the press releases will just count up the crimes and the add up the theoretical maximum punishments while largely or completely ignoring the reality of the likely much lower sentence. The practice is generally justified by its possible general deterrent value: perhaps word of the high punishment faced in theory will get to others who might commit the crime and will scare them away. And unfortunately, uninformed reporters who are new to the crime beat sometimes pick up that number and report it as truth. A lot of people repeat it, as they figure it must be right if it was in the news. And some people who know better but want you to have a particular view of the case repeat it, too. But don’t be fooled. Actual sentences are usually way way off of the cumulative maximum punishments.

So if it serves as a deterrent we should be fooled, but if it applies to ourselves we shouldn't be? Personally I would be scared shitless if I saw the DOJ itself make statements like that about me. Just be truthful. The US already is highly punitive [pdf, see page 11-12] compared to other western countries (27 times as high as where I live). If that by itself doesn't work as a deterrent then exaggerations probably won't do much either, apart from increasing the likelihood of people killing themselves.

If bullying is part of the system, then yes, the system should be targeted. But not just by outsiders, the prosecuters themselves should have opposed the system instead of participating in the bullying. And as they did participate they should be targeted as part of the system.

It's the erosion of authority

The civilian population already have authority over the police - the only reason they are able to police us is because we consent to it; the principle of "policing by consent" is a very important one, at least here in the UK; it's part of the reason why our cops are still unarmed.

Where consumers in the US have a wide range of drugs available to them European consumers are far more restricted in their choice. Although countries with nationalised health services believe that their healthcare systems prioritise the interest of citizens, HTA is in fact used as a precursor to supply-side restrictions on pricing and reimbursement.

Here are some other good articles:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2009/02/Comparative-Effectiveness-in-Health-Care-Reform-Lessons-from-Abroad#_ftn32
http://www.adamsmith.org/publications/health/funding-uk-healthcare/
http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/hpcgSystems.pdf

Well, if I am cherry-picking then Germany is cherry-picking and it's cherries are mighty tasty.

EU law overrides any laws of the country. It's the priniciple of supremacy of the EU. If a member state contravenes EU law it can be punished with fines.

Oh, and IANAL.

We do ignore them, thats why they resort to the semtex vests you mentioned.

Most europeans think all religons should be entirely from the state and politics. This means that sharia law or however its spelt is pretty unlikely to ever come to pass here.

* The US healthcare system is not free market, so much as fascistic. It's a rat's nest of politicized regulation and taxes, costing $169 billion annually.

* Swiss healthcare features both universal care and private providers. It provides a means-tested entitlement to those who can't afford care, while allowing those who can afford it to choose competing private insurers. It does require everyone to have health insurance [*], but under this system, such a requirement works.

[*] This does offend my libertarian sensibilities, but I think it's utterly irresponsible for an individual to not have health insurance and force people to give them emergency care, lest they die in the streets.

> Socialised health care delivers better value for money because of the enormous purchasing power of the government. The NHS can purchase millions of shots in one go.

That's the good side of the NHS. The dark side of the NHS is quotas -- because of budget limitations they have very long waiting lists, and Brits have recently taken to travelling to South Africa or India for care that they need urgently. Doctors are less willing to recommend surgery and more willing to tell the patient to wait the problem out.

Another dark side is cost control. Cost control sounds great in theory but in practice means keeping salaries for health workers down, and getting by with inadequate staff. This has led to poorly maintained hospitals in many areas, and the current MRSA scare in the UK.

Finally, because of the pay issue, the best and brightest doctors have emigrated, often to America. The NHS (as I'm sure anyone who's been following the UK carbombers story will know) is quite dependent on foreign doctors because they find they pay scales attractive. (This isn't to say recruiting foreign doctors is bad, just that the pay is better elsewhere.) IMHO this is one reason why a lot of brilliant Brits my age have chosen careers like law or business.

Anyway, some form of universal health care is good to have, but if anyone thinks the NHS is a paragon, please think again (or ask some Brits who're -- unlike the chap in Sicko -- not Labour Party ideologues). And also, consider the Swiss model, which is pretty similar to the Mass. model: it gives a high degree of choice while charging transparently and competitively for health insurance, thus creating market pressure to keep costs down.

Sorry to reply twice, but I just skimmed a blog article that helps put the violence and outrage in context

http://www.civitas.org.uk/blog/archives/2006/02/if _theres_hell_below_is_this_where_we_shall_all_be_s pending_xmas_.html

Basically, the writer contends that a bunch of Danish Imams took these cartoons (plus others) on a 'tour' of the Middle East to whip up some fury.

Now the really interesting part is when this blogger explains why they did this. He thinks it is because Denmark is going to become chair of the UN Security Council... and guess who is getting referred to the Security Council?

Iran.

Read his conclusions, he makes an interesting argument.

1. More laws
2. More crimes
3. More criminals
4. More prisoners
5. £39k per prisoner
6. ???
7. More money for the State.

"Double check your statistics. I think you'll find that crime in gun-free Europe is actually higher than in the US. Gun control is bad."

I am not out to bash the US, but according to all sources I have found the US hava a higher crime rate, as well as more people in prison than Europe.
For example, I found this graphical comparison between the US and the UK, byt Civitas
According to that crime rates are a lot higher in the US and have been since the middle of the sixties.
Just check my links...

Anyway, the obvious conclusion would be that gun control is good. However there may be other explanations for the differences. I am no expert on gun control.

But I am a little suspicious of the fact that you have a lot higher crime rate than just about all other western countries.

"Double check your statistics. I think you'll find that crime in gun-free Europe is actually higher than in the US. Gun control is bad."

I am not out to bash the US, but according to all sources I have found the US hava a higher crime rate, as well as more people in prison than Europe.
For example, I found this graphical comparison between the US and the UK, byt Civitas
According to that crime rates are a lot higher in the US and have been since the middle of the sixties.
Just check my links...

Anyway, the obvious conclusion would be that gun control is good. However there may be other explanations for the differences. I am no expert on gun control.

But I am a little suspicious of the fact that you have a lot higher crime rate than just about all other western countries.

"Double check your statistics. I think you'll find that crime in gun-free Europe is actually higher than in the US. Gun control is bad."

I am not out to bash the US, but according to all sources I have found the US hava a higher crime rate, as well as more people in prison than Europe.
For example, I found this graphical comparison between the US and the UK, byt Civitas
According to that crime rates are a lot higher in the US and have been since the middle of the sixties.
Just check my links...

Anyway, the obvious conclusion would be that gun control is good. However there may be other explanations for the differences. I am no expert on gun control.

But I am a little suspicious of the fact that you have a lot higher crime rate than just about all other western countries.