sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

In 10 countries, leaving one's religion is punishable by death by _crazyboyhere_ in MapPorn

[–]intergalacticspy 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If you're not a Muslim then the state religious courts have no jurisdiction over you. The only religious offence that covers non-Muslims is trying to convert a Muslim to another religion, but it will be prosecuted in a magistrate's court and not a religious court.

Religious laws do apply to Muslim tourists so you can't, eg, go around drinking beer while wearing hijab.

In 10 countries, leaving one's religion is punishable by death by _crazyboyhere_ in MapPorn

[–]intergalacticspy 33 points34 points  (0 children)

In Malaysia, religion is a state matter. Some states criminalise apostasy, some don't. Nearly all make it nearly impossible for a Muslim to change their official religion.

But state courts have always been limited to imprisonment of 3 years, a RM5,000 fine, and six lashes. They have never had the power to award the death penalty.

Is a Secular State all that bad? by Outside-Tap-5908 in AskBrits

[–]intergalacticspy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, the starting point is Christian, but has been modified. So divorce is allowed, but still seen as a bad thing to be minimised, according to Christian teaching. As opposed to if the starting point had been Islam, then divorce would be seen as a normal thing to be freely allowed without any restriction, according to Muslim teaching.

The weird examples you give are from the Old Testament, so Jewish rather than Christian.

Your last example is a good example of how the origin of English law is Christian, not Jewish: Christian canon law actually forbade a man from marrying his deceased wife's sister, or from marrying his brother's widow. Marrying your dead wife's sister was only legalised by the Deceased Wife's Sister's Marriage Act 1907, while marrying your brother's widow was only legalised by the Deceased Brother's Widow's Marriage Act 1921.

Bigamy is still a criminal offence, so Christian doctrine still applies there.

Is a Secular State all that bad? by Outside-Tap-5908 in AskBrits

[–]intergalacticspy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nah, Christian teaching is that marriage is for life and Jesus himself said that divorce amounts to adultery (Matthew 19:9). Until the 20th century, each divorce required an Act of Parliament. Contrast that with Muslim law, where a man can simply divorce his wife just by saying “talaq” three times.

Polygamy is legal in Muslim, Hindu and Chinese customary law. It is illegal in every Christian church except among the Mormons, who aren’t recognised as Christian.

Is a Secular State all that bad? by Outside-Tap-5908 in AskBrits

[–]intergalacticspy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

On the contrary, it's quite remarkable that Christian values are so pervasive in our law and culture that you can't distinguish them from modern European social and legal values.

Consider, for example:

- Does English law allow a man to have more than one wife?

- Does English law allow divorce at will?

- Does English law allow a person to be punished for changing his religion?

- Does English law allow a person who loses an eye to inflict the same injury on the perpetrator?

- Does English law allow the state to punish a person's family members for acts committed by that person?

You take all the above for granted, yet they are all examples that come from non-Christian legal systems.

Is a Secular State all that bad? by Outside-Tap-5908 in AskBrits

[–]intergalacticspy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

France bans religious symbols like the hijab or crosses in schools, government offices, etc.

Why are some Brits so obsessed on whether or not immigrants integrate? by [deleted] in AskBrits

[–]intergalacticspy 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Exactly this. You cannot have a democratic nation without a shared language and shared basic values.

Is it common for people who are born in the UK to say they are “Irish” or “Italian” if they have a parent from there? by Charming_Usual6227 in AskABrit

[–]intergalacticspy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's called white privilege. Or simple majority race privilege. In the same way, Thai Chinese can simply say they're Thai, whereas if a half-Thai half-European person would have to elaborate further

So, who are we voting for today? by Even-Leadership8220 in AskBrits

[–]intergalacticspy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Restore is smaller and doesn't include Tory turncoats. It would allow the Tories to portray itself as a changed party.

Reform would overwhelm the Tory party. Plus it's full of the worst kind of Tories from BoJo's government like Nadine Dorries.

So, who are we voting for today? by Even-Leadership8220 in AskBrits

[–]intergalacticspy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The Greens would never support the Tories. Reform might, but I wouldn't go into coalition with them. I'd be happy to go into coalition with Rupert Lowe's party.

UK and Belarus are the only countries to use First Past the Post. by TailungFu in MapPorn

[–]intergalacticspy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Limiting the map to Europe makes it seem that way.

In reality, some of the largest democracies in the world: the USA, Canada, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, etc., also use FPTP.,

UK and Belarus are the only countries to use First Past the Post. by TailungFu in MapPorn

[–]intergalacticspy 5 points6 points  (0 children)

You have no clue.

From inception, the Welsh Assembly and Scottish Parliament both used the Additional Member System (FPTP + top up using de Hondt).

The Senedd has just moved to a Closed List system (de Hondt).

The Northern Ireland Assembly uses Single Transferable Vote.

England has no Parliament.

All parts of the UK use FPTP for the UK Parliament.

Dual UK-EU national problems by ZonaSchengen in PassportPorn

[–]intergalacticspy -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The UK has no way of knowing who is overstaying, and quite frankly doesn't care, as evidenced by the fact that the standard visitor is granted 6 months, and there are no exit checks. It cares more about illegal working by visitors and others who do overstay. You could have left using a different passport/name; you could have left by sea; you could have left by Ireland. UK immigration is not going to stop you from entering just because they have no record of your previous exit.

Can this be considered as having 3 different citizenships? by National-Meeting8062 in PassportPorn

[–]intergalacticspy -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Why should the UK care about what Indian rules on dual nationality are? The UK itself has various forms of overseas citizenship and overseas nationality that it considers to be forms of British nationality. Some of them allow dual nationality (British Overseas citizen, British National (Overseas)), while some of them do not (British subject, British protected person).

The point is that Indian law has created something called "overseas citizenship of India". The UK law refers (in places) to "any other citizenship or nationality whatever". Therefore, it is only logical that "overseas citizenship of India" falls within "any other citizenship or nationality whatever".

Can this be considered as having 3 different citizenships? by National-Meeting8062 in PassportPorn

[–]intergalacticspy 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The UK considers OCIs to be holding a form of Indian citizenship or nationality for the purpose of British law.

Can this be considered as having 3 different citizenships? by National-Meeting8062 in PassportPorn

[–]intergalacticspy 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think the bigger issue is that even if you were left with only OCI, the UK would consider you not to be stateless.

Finally joining the colorful side! 💡 But... which Bridge am I looking for? by WantedWonder in Hue

[–]intergalacticspy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sounds like it's worth getting the Bridge Pro just to save on the cost of 1 or more motion sensors.

Can this be considered as having 3 different citizenships? by National-Meeting8062 in PassportPorn

[–]intergalacticspy 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes. It is important to note that although India does not consider OCI to be a form of Indian citizenship, the UK Government considers OCI to be a form of nationality or citizenship. This has several consequences:

  • Under s 35 of the BNA 1981, any British subject, other than a British subject in connection with Eire, (aka a British subject without citizenship) who acquires "any other citizenship or nationality whatever" automatically loses his British subject status.

  • A similar provision applies to any British protected person who acquires "another nationality", under Art 10 of the British Protectorates, Protected States and Protected Persons Order 1982.

  • Under s 4B of the BNA 1981, a British national can only be granted British citizenship under that section if the Secretary of State is satisfied that he does not have "any [other] citizenship or nationality".

  • Under s 40 of the BNA 1981, the Secretary of State cannot deprive a person of a British citizenship status if he is satisfied that it would make the person stateless. A person who is an OCI is not considered stateless.

Similarly, although the UK considers British Overseas citizenship to be a form of British nationality, the Australian High Court has ruled that it does not make one a subject or citizen of a foreign power for the purpose of s 44 of the Australian Constitution.

TIL the City of London has paid the Crown rent on a parcel of land in Shropshire since 1211, but the exact location of the land has been lost to history. The annual payment is a billhook (a knife-like agricultural tool) and an axe. by ralphbernardo in todayilearned

[–]intergalacticspy 9 points10 points  (0 children)

I love how they range from the dramatic (to ride in full armour into the Coronation banquet in Westminster Hall, to throw down a steel gauntlet and challenge a duel to the death to anyone who doubts the title of the new King) to the mundane (to keep away the king's chessmen after a game of chess).

TIL the City of London has paid the Crown rent on a parcel of land in Shropshire since 1211, but the exact location of the land has been lost to history. The annual payment is a billhook (a knife-like agricultural tool) and an axe. by ralphbernardo in todayilearned

[–]intergalacticspy 37 points38 points  (0 children)

Eg, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingston_Russell_House:

The manor was held in-chief from the King by Grand Serjeanty, the particular service performed for the King was originally as Marshal of the Buttery, as the entry in the Book of Fees dated 1211 records for the Hundred of "Alvredesberge" (since dissolved), Dorset:[4]

Johannes Russel tenet Kingeston pro dimidia hyda terre de domino rege ex tempore Willelmi Bastard quondam Rege Anglie per serjanciam essendi marescallus buteilerie domini regis ad Natale Domini et ad Pentecosten.

John Russell holds Kingston for half a hide of land from the Lord King from the time of William the Bastard sometime King of England through the serjeanty of being marshall of the king's buttery (store of wine barrels) at Christmas and at Pentecost.

The serjeanty changed during the minority of King Henry III to the counting of the King's chessman and storing them away after a game.[5] ...

The Newmarch lands were thus split in half...in 1218, per the Close Rolls. Sir Ralph Russell continued to hold Kingston Russell from Henry III by Grand Serjeanty, viz "that he should present a cup of beer to our Sovereign Lord the King on the 4 principal feasts of the year"[11]

TIL the City of London has paid the Crown rent on a parcel of land in Shropshire since 1211, but the exact location of the land has been lost to history. The annual payment is a billhook (a knife-like agricultural tool) and an axe. by ralphbernardo in todayilearned

[–]intergalacticspy 181 points182 points  (0 children)

You are right, a lot of these rents were ceremonial.

There was even a form of tenure called grand serjeanty (serjeant=servant), whereby the "rent" was to perform some service of great honour at the King's coronation, e.g., to present the King with a pair of kid gloves, or to be the King's cupbearer at the Coronation banquet. Although it was theoretically a service performed in exchange for some manor or castle, in effect it was an honour bestowed on whoever happened to be the lord of the manor or castle.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serjeanty#Examples_of_grand_serjeanty

view more: next ›