but even then.... why are you saying law in arabic? are you not speaking english? you still haven't specified what law you are talking about. in arabic we say al sharia al islamiya. islamic law. what you call sharia law we call islamic law. because sharia law is law law. no such thing as law law. capish?

Islamic law, where the Qur'an replaces the law of the land (like the sharia courts in Britain).

well at least you're not one of those people who thinks muslims are trying to take over your country and islamisize it up

True. Because the Japanese won't let you.

i remember showing this video to my parents a while ago, we were laughing so much at how paranoid this guy sounds

Lmao you're the funniest member here bro.

So...every law that exists and has existed is undemocratic.

With it being enforced (oh no!) on Muslims only, that means that the people who live by its standards are those who already know what they're in for.

So let me know when you find a good answer.

Tsk tsk and you call yourself educated?

Thanks you might not like my next analysis though, I was pro EU because it makes the most economic sense in the long run, and I admit I was actually floored that Brexit won, but it has now confirmed something I have felt for a long time....

Politics is not longer about left versus right, it's about nationalism versus multi nationalism, and the UK has just delivered the first counter blow.

Up until Jeremy Corbyn was elected head of the labour party, you pretty much had similar policies between Labour and the Conservatives on free trade, immigration & the EU, and then along comes Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage, and boom! the UK's out.

Cameron is the first casualty of this counter movement, and while before I thought that the likely hood of a Trump Presidency would be slim, it is possible Hillary could be the second.

Eh... I don't know about that. Trump has focused on it because, face it, yelling about immigration and terrorism and such-like is exciting and news worthy, but that doesn't mean that it even comes close to encapsulating all of the policies that it takes to build an administration.

Nationaism vs. Anti-Nationalism doesn't account for universal healthcare or gay marriage. It doesn't handle police brutality or taxation. Nor does it encapsulate gun control or free speech.

Now, left vs right can't conceptualize these thing all that well either on its own -- I doubt anything could --, but that doesn't mean it's not a useful paradime. Plus, it mostly seems like the people who argue against it do so because the comparaison isn't particularly flattering of their position.

Disclaimer: By left vs. right, I don't mean American two party politics, which is bad and should feel bad.

I disagree Trump is popular because he's playing the nationalist card, if he came in with the same policies as Jeb Bush and Rubio I doubt he would be hear today.

The UK referendum and populist parties growing throughout Europe and North America are a backlash against immigration, free trade, foreign intervention in the Middle East and elsewhere. Issues that populists like Boris, Farage, Trump, Wilders, Le Pen, and other nationalist leaders all champion.

Nationalism transcends left right issues because both the left and the right can be nationalist or multi nationalist (Sanders vs Clinton) (Trump vs Bush)
(Boris vs Cameron) and one could argue (Corbyn vs Blair)

Nationalists have a tendency to shift left on economic issues, note that Trump has said he won't touch medicaid or social security, something the Koch brothers would like to privatize, who are definitely multi nationalist.

On social issues I take your point, but gay marriage and gun control is superficial to the average american when they've lost their $24 dollar an hour job at the plant, and find themselves working for $12 dollars at the Home Depot.

This is the defining issue of our time. The UK didn't separate because they didn't like it's policies on health care and gay marriage, they separated over the issues of self government, immigration and free trade.

I love you^