” profound one, and obvious”

I don’t agree that profound and obvious go together.

I think Common Law (or common lore, meaning custom and practice?) is rather older than the Norman conquest.

I’m not familiar with the history of tensions between whether the Monarch was above the law or not, but I believe they went on for some time.

Then read and understand. The principle was thereby established that this country was hence forth to be a country of Law. The English Common Law has developed progressively by practice over the intervening centuries. That 1215 was then and this is now depends on understanding that rather basic fact. Magna Carta was not a system or framework but a beginning.

English society developed from this basic principle. It is an essential concept to the inhabitants of this island (and an important influence internationally) that this legal framework is always developing alongside society not above and out of reach of it. It is progressive in nature. That is one of several important differences which are the grounds of much discussion on these threads in regard to Islam. The difference is clearly a profound one, and obvious.

I also have a rather different take on young muslim women rejecting male attention. A friend explained an incident outside an FE college. A youth asked her the time. Apparently the code is (or was about 15 years ago!) if the woman answers in English she just might be interested, in any other language is tantamount to “urinate elsewhere”.

My friend answered in one of several languages that she speaks, but doesn’t write and carried on walking to her work. Why some kid thought she might fancy him was a surprise!

Bare arms? Who mentioned bare arms?

Let me explain.

My point was that the BBC sanctioned this piece of cultural relativity nonsense (in fact it did not discuss the short film at all). The aggressive behaviour of the male was not an issue, apparently. The film’s message was plain; it was the females ‘inaction’ which occasioned the unwelcome attentions of this male character – behaviour which was magically transformed as soon as the female became a properly attired Moslem woman by covering her hair and upper body in cloth. It could not have been more explicit. The male’s reactions were most significant. Faced with an observant and modestly dressed Moslem he became absurdly apologetic and presumably went elsewhere to practice his chat up lines on a non observant or more compliant female victim.

(Subtext: Women bring on these unwelcome advances by their behaviour and so must be controlled. No such restriction or restraint is made upon male behaviour. This on the BBC in 2008 made by a young and one must suppose UK born and bred Moslem.)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/listen_again/default.stm

Here is Chris Grayling on the Today prog

Ah yes, the Mary Whitehouse approach to fighting Islamism. Ban this guy and ban Geert Wilders. Let’s not have a rational examination but teach all of our children the “true” BBC sanctioned nature of Jihad,
http://tinyurl.com/cumvvr

After all, thought becomes reality, control thoughts with censorship and the problem goes away.

Eliminate secularism and let the government control and steward Islam, then our multicultural utopia can be maintained, and immigration policies that would make our proudly tolerant politicians look intolerant need not even be rationally discussed. We’ll just ban people who advocate them too. We’ll make Muslim immigrants loyal to Britain by having them sit a test whereby they have to memorise the date of the Magna Carta, be able to recite the names of all of the Queen’s corgis and produce the recipe for Yorkshire pudding without consulting a cook book. Do it properly and the anti liberty ring wing of the Daily Mail might be towed along with the anti liberty left.

But of course we can’t ban the Koran and Hadith that’s racist.

That’ll work.

Larkers, I would be very worried if it didn’t.

Headscarf and bare arms? An observant Muslim woman? Not in all my years of living in a London borough with a large Muslim population.

Yes. Gender enslavement as feminist self-realisation.

You can grind a human being down until they actually agree to first enter, and then to close and lock the door on their own cage.

Veiled Muslim women are to women’s rights what scab labourers are to striking unionised workers.

They cheapen and bid down the value of ALL women and ultimately all human beings.

Their willingness to “submit” and to embrace their status as a mere ’sub-male’ marks them as an affront to all human dignity.

A women in a niqab or a burkha is as obscene as a women can be.

They are little more than the enablers of pedophiles, women who’ll hand over their underage daughters to perverse adult men even though they know deep-down that such things are completely wrong.

The very core of their being, thus, is a festering knot of self-loathing and self-hatred that precludes ANY chance of emancipation.