ASEAN LEADERS ARE BARKING AT THE WRONG TREE WITH THE WRONG CAUSE AND WRONG OBJECTIVE

ASEAN LEADERS ARE BARKING AT THE WRONG TREE 

WITH THE WRONG CAUSE AND WRONG OBJECTIVE

 

ASEAN leaders are complaining about the convenient way to solve the Rohingya problem.

But for the Rohingyas or Burmese Muslims or Christian Chins/Karens/Kachins and Buddhist Mons/Shans/Burmese etc AND the NLDS  and political opponents and armed rebel groups_

Whether the SPDC would accept them back is not their main concern. What is the consequences after repatriation is their only problem.

Jailed? Tortured? Is the main concern for all but ‘Village arrest’ (for Rohingyas only) is the problem.

No democracy, no Human Rights, no political life, no respect for the Rights of religious minorities and Ethnic minorities is their main concern.

But the lack of development, economic problems back home are the most important fact for all of them.

There is no clear cut line to DEFINE OR CATEGORIZE THEM INTO POLITICAL OR ECONOMIC MIGRANTS. 

Continue reading

Look Burmese Democrats, are UK Politicians really secular?

Look Burmese Democrats!

are UK Politicians really secular?

Burmese opposition used not very secular UK Politicians to shutup Burmese Muslim grieviences. Burmese opposition activists and journalists pointed at the so called democratic SECULAR UK government and politicians but they failed to see or are blinded that although British  Politicians claimed to be secular,  they used this LAME EXCUSE to shutout other religious practices except Christian and Judism.  

In the democracy index, analysed in The Economist’s annual publication, The World in 2007 that grades 167 countries out of 192 independent states according to their degree of democracy. Among the “Full democracies” Britain is 23rd. Not impressive at all!

Do you know what my favourit hero, young Saya Daw U Ottama’s (named Mg Paw Tun) advise to his brother (Tun Kyaw Aung) ,

“Young brother, in any exam you have to aim for the first position.”

And he threw away his second prize medal for the fifth Std. awarded by British District Chief, into the Kaladan river. So no need to look up at how UK treat its non Christian citizens according to U Ottama’s wise advice. No need to copy them!

Christian British have the upper hand so they pretend to put religion out of politics jut to maintain the Status pro! Look how they treat the British Muslims with contempt. Britain’s democracy on religion is just a shit you all Burmese Democrats wish to copy for Buddhist Burma?

We want full democracy; respecting the Human Rights of all the citizens irrespective of race, religion or creed. And the Individual freedom in the corruption free Myanmar. May be I am day dreaming a Utopia.

Secular = 

(A)adj.

  1. Worldly rather than spiritual.
  2. Not specifically relating to religion or to a religious body: secular music.
  3. Relating to or advocating secularism.
  4. Not bound by monastic restrictions, especially not belonging to a religious order. Used of the clergy.

 (B) Noun.

  1. Religious skepticism or indifference.
  2. The view that religious considerations should be excluded from civil affairs or public education.

Secularism was the word adopted by George Jacob Holyoake in the early 1850s to describe a system of morals and social action shaped exclusively by this-worldly considerations, irrespective of religious beliefs. The word was derived from the secular education movement for the complete separation of religious teaching from other forms of education.
 

But we could see the hypocrisy when  they could print or publish Islam bashing articles in their web pages and newspapers.

Hypocrisy = Noun, pl. -sies.

  1. The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.
  2. An act or instance of such falseness.

[Middle English ipocrisie, from Old French, from Late Latin hypocrisis, play-acting, pretense, from Greek hupokrisis, from hupokrīnesthai, to play a part, pretend : hupo-, hypo- + krīnesthai, to explain, middle voice of krīnein, to decide, judge.]

 

br-par-cr-2.png

Anti Heathrow expansion protesters hang banners from

Parliament building in London, Britain, 27 February 2008. …
 

br-par-cr.png

bishop.jpgDr. Geoffrey Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the most senior figure in the Church of England, has faced a barrage of criticism since making the remarks, first in a BBC interview and then in a speech at the Royal Courts of Justice, that the adoption of Sharia law in Britain seemed “unavoidable”.

According to Lambeth Palace, the archbishop “sought carefully to explore the limits of a unitary and secular legal system in the presence of an increasingly plural (including religiously plural) society and to see how such a unitary system might be able to accommodate religious claims”. His lecture was “well-researched” and involved consultation with legal experts, especially people with knowledge and experience of Jewish and Islamic legal systems.

sharia councils in some places already exist informally. “It might be better to formalise them under British law, to make sure they do correspond to British law. But there are real practical difficulties.”

Stephen Lowe, the Bishop of Hulme, condemned the “kneejerk” response to the remarks as a “shame on our nation”.He told Radio 4’s The World at One: “We have probably one of the greatest and the brightest archbishops of Canterbury we have had for many a long day. The way he has been ridiculed, lampooned and treated by some people and indeed some of the media … is quite disgraceful.”

Tariq Ramadan, professor of Islamic studies at Oxford University, who was quoted at length by Williams, said: “These kinds of statements just feed the fears of fellow citizens and I really think we, as Muslims, need to … abide by the common law. And within these latitudes there are possibilities for us to be faithful to Islamic principles.”

With his plea for recognition of the Muslim legal system in Britain, the archbishop of Canterbury has outraged his people. The comments delighted some Muslims, but outraged many others in Britain.

The Sun tabloid labeled him a “a dangerous threat to our nation,” and the Daily Express wrote that he had capitulated to Muslim extremists. The tabloids used words such as “outcry” and “rage” to describe the public reaction and called for him to resign.

The archbishop, leader of the world’s 80 million Anglicans, had suggested that Shariah, the Islamic legal code, should be introduced in Great Britain — at least parts of it. He said that religious judges should be allowed to make rulings on some civil matters and that British courts should recognize those decisions — in cases dealing with marriage, divorce or disputes, for example.

“The prime minister believes British law should apply in this country, based on British values,” the spokesperson for Prime Minister Gordon Brown coolly commented. Culture Secretary Andy Burnham labeled it “a recipe for disaster.”

Shariah is a touchy subject in the debate about the role of Islam. And to the horror of the British public, opinion polls taken of the country’s Muslim residents show that up to 40 percent want the right to apply Islamic justice in their areas of residence.

A system of “Shariah councils” has long existed in Britain where Muslims can go to seek rulings on marital issues and other disputes. Although these rulings are not binding in any way under British law, many Muslim families still observe and adhere to them.

While Williams has since been backed by other senior bishops, the media’s reaction has been poisonous, drawing lurid headlines accusing him of everything from cowardice to tacit support for Islamic terror. Some editorialists have called for him to resign, but the Church of England said Sunday he would not do so.

The REAL IDIOT John O’ Sullivan wrote in New York Post on Thursday, February 14, 2008

Now, there’s space in British law for private arbitration, as Rowan Williams said. Businesses sometimes build it into contracts; Jewish courts have long handled disputes that both parties voluntarily submit to them for resolution. (SHIT, JEW LAWS ARE OK in SECULAR UK but Muslims are not allowed to practice according to their own Laws!)

I heard on the BBC that British legal system is based on BIBLE (is this secular?) and could not accept the Islamic Laws.

 After all these racist Britishs were the ones who already had the experience of Islamic Religious laws as Customary Laws in their Muslim Colonies, to name a few even Burma, India, Malaysia etc.. Now only all the UK government and Law makers are acting fool, dumb or idiotic of their historical experiences.

Medical bodies investigate and punish breaches of professional ethics.

The IDIOT John O’ Sullivan insulted the Bishop.

Alas, in the course of persuading both sides not to push their disputes to the point of breaking up Anglicanism, Rowan Williams as primate (first bishop among equals), has repeatedly turned the other cheek – and repeatedly got slapped by both sides. More, he has shown a genius for putting his foot in it with ill-judged public statements – for instance, that terrorists “can have serious moral goals” or that Western market transactions might be “acts of aggression” against the world’s poor – that then require several rounds of further explanation.

One Sharia “court” in a London suburb, Leyton, has reportedly more than 7,000 divorces.

If UK is truely secular, could you explain the following_

Mohamed Abdel Moneim Fayed, widely known as Mohamed Al Fayed,  an Egyptian businessman and billionaire. He is the owner of Harrods department store in Knightsbridge, the English Premiership football team Fulham Football Club and other business interests. His fifth child, Dodi from Al Fayed’s first marriage was killed with Diana, Princess of Wales and Henri Paul, the driver of the car and employee of the Fayed-owned Hôtel Ritz Paris, during the infamous car crash in Paris, 1997.

He arrived in Britain in 1974 .

In 1979, Al Fayed bought the Hôtel Ritz Paris, and restored it to its former glory for which he was made a Chevalier of the Legion of Honour (Legion d’Honneur) by the then President of France, Francois Mitterand.

 In 1985, he and his brother Ali Al-Fayed bought House of Fraser, a group that included the famous London store Harrods, for £615m. 

For years, Al Fayed unsuccessfully sought British citizenship, despite having four British children and paying millions in taxes; also donating vast sums to charities including Great Ormond Street Hospital. Both Labour and Conservative Home Secretaries repeatedly rejected his applications on the grounds that he was not of good character. He took the matter to court, but failed.

When we heard the news of our Burmese Buddhists and Christians easily getting PR and Citizenships, we wonder whether Al Fayed was denied citizenship just because of his faith, ISLAM.

Al Fayed’s eldest son, Dodi had a close relationship with Diana, Princess of Wales. Both were killed in a car crash in Paris on 31 August 1997. Al Fayed has since made repeated allegations that the deaths were not accidental but rather the result of a wide-ranging conspiracy involving Prince Philip and MI6. We need to consider whether his accusations were possible or not as we could not get any prove from any side. But there is no smoke without fire. If Dodi were a Christian, who knows the fairytale could end with they live happily together… 

And just look at the Anglo-Burmans in GREAT SACULAR England_

Margaret Thatcher introduced a new laws for British citizenship  in the year 1982. Where although the grandfather was three quarters English and his teenager child is still classified Anglo-Burman whereas the father, whose ID goes back to before the new law was introduced, was not.

It is of course absurd and patently unjust but I dare say that although it effects Burmese British all of you just keep quiet!. It’s as if the Burmese military regime had taken its cue from Margaret Thatcher’s new laws for British citizenship introduced in the same year 1982.

The new citizenship effecting on Burmese

and favour the EU (READ:ALL CHRISTIANS)

jacqui_smith.jpg(Non EU) Foreigners living in Britain will be expected to go through a new expanded citizenship process or leave the country, under new plans outlined by ministers today.

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said she wanted to end the situation where foreign nationals “languish in limbo” by living here but not adapting to the British way of life.

Even the ultra-wealthy – (Ha Ha like Al Fayed) who can currently avoid some of the conditions imposed on less well-off immigrants – will be expected to apply for British nationality or permanent residence.

“You will not be able to languish in limbo. Once your period of temporary residence comes to an end you will need to apply for the next stage or leave.”

Winning citizenship will take at least six years from the point someone arrives in the UK, a year longer than at present because of a new stage of “probationary citizenship”.

The probation period will last 12 months if the foreigner takes part in community activities such as volunteering, charity fund-raising, running a sports team or playgroup, or working as a school governor.

Migrants who do not take part in community work will have to wait longer – the existing five years plus a minimum of three years’ probation.

This type of community work may even be made compulsory, said a Green Paper published today.

The rules will not apply to Europeans –

including those from the eastern European countries

which recently joined the EU.

But Ms Smith also announced a new review of access to welfare payments, such as child benefit, by people from other European Economic Area countries.

Ms Smith went on: “I don’t think it is a good thing to have people who are permanently living here but have not taken that step towards permanent citizenship.”

Full access to benefits – such as jobseeker’s allowance and income support – will no longer be granted after a person has been in the UK for five years.

Applicants will instead have to wait until they have completed their probationary period.

New conditions will be introduced on winning British citizenship, such as an emphasis on being law-abiding. (For EU members no need  to be a LAW -ABIDING  person?)

If human rights laws prevented someone with a criminal record from being removed from Britain, they would have to serve five years’ probationary citizenship, it added.

Minor offenders could have to serve three years’ probationary citizenship, and extra time could also be imposed on applicants who had been convicted of violent, drug or sex offences.

Parents whose children commit crime could be barred from citizenship or permanent residence in the UK, the document suggested.

“If people won’t play by the rules in this country their journey to citizenship should be halted or slowed down,” said Ms Smith.

A new fund financed by a surcharge on immigration applications will be set up to give cash to areas of the country which experience problems due to immigration – such as over-subscribed schools.

The fund is expected to raise tens of millions of pounds a year.

A draft Bill based on today’s proposals is due this summer with full legislation expected in November.

Changes will apply to new arrivals after the new laws are passed, and not to foreigners already living in the UK, so reforms are only likely to affect migrants arriving from 2010.