Britain now has 85 Sharia law courts..

[OpenMind]

Originally Posted by spot

If you say so, abbey, if you say so. I can't for the life of me see why you or anyone else should have a problem with it. Two groups decide they'll be content with the ruling of an arbitration court and go to it for judgement.

There are lots of arbitration courts and they've been in existence for specific religious systems for over a century in the UK, it's old hat. Suddenly the press has latched onto the fact that some of them apply an Islamic system of law. What possible difference is there between that and, for example, applying Beth Din arbitration based on Jewish law in the UK? That was started in the 1800s here and it's run uninterruptedly ever since.

The decisions of both groups are enforceable under UK law because all parties agree in advance to be bound by it. Bloody disgraceful? Which - the Muslim part or both parts, Muslim and Jewish alike?

Irrespective of what the two groups agree to, they are still bound by UK law. If the decisions made in these courts are illegal, they cannot be enforced by law.

[spot]

Originally Posted by OpenMind

Irrespective of what the two groups agree to, they are still bound by UK law. If the decisions made in these courts are illegal, they cannot be enforced by law.

I think perhaps you'd need to point me at an example so I can understand what "illegal" means in this context. As I say, Beth Din has been adjudicating for over a hundred years. When has a UK court overturned one of their decisions? If I read that I'll have a better idea of what you're trying to claim. Perhaps it's an appeal court saying the process was flawed? I'll need to read what you find, in order to know.

Or, of course, a Muslim example would do just as well.

[OpenMind]

Originally Posted by spot

I think perhaps you'd need to point me at an example so I can understand what "illegal" means in this context. As I say, Beth Din has been adjudicating for over a hundred years. When has a UK court overturned one of their decisions? If I read that I'll have a better idea of what you're trying to claim. Perhaps it's an appeal court saying the process was flawed? I'll need to read what you find, in order to know.

Or, of course, a Muslim example would do just as well.

Illegal means unlawful.
There are examples given in the news article.

[spot]

Originally Posted by OpenMind

Illegal means unlawful.
There are examples given in the news article.

Oh come on, if it's that easy to show one then copy/paste it into the thread so we both know what we're each talking about. I have no clue at all so far.

[OpenMind]

Originally Posted by spot

Oh come on, if it's that easy to show one then copy/paste it into the thread so we both know what we're each talking about. I have no clue at all so far.

Do it yourself Spot. You're the one contesting what others are saying.

[spot]

Originally Posted by OpenMind

Do it yourself Spot. You're the one contesting what others are saying.

It's the years-old problem of being sent to find something I don't think exists by someone who claims to know exactly where to find it. There are rules of civil conduct on forums too, you know.

[Bruv]

Thankyou spot, I am of the same opinion as you.....but not as educated or eloquent.

I might very well cut and paste to another forum....if you dont mind ?

Even if you do mind....its done.

[OpenMind]

Originally Posted by spot

It's the years-old problem of being sent to find something I don't think exists by someone who claims to know exactly where to find it. There are rules of civil conduct on forums too, you know.

I simply refuse to be your lackey, Spot. If you don't want to do it yourself, you'll have to find someone else to do your legwork.
Are you also suggesting that I have been uncivil here?

[Bruv]

Originally Posted by OpenMind

Irrespective of what the two groups agree to, they are still bound by UK law. If the decisions made in these courts are illegal, they cannot be enforced by law.

Is not the second sentence contradicting the first ?

[spot]

Originally Posted by OpenMind

I simply refuse to be your lackey, Spot. If you don't want to do it yourself, you'll have to find someone else to do your legwork.
Are you also suggesting that I have been uncivil here?

Merely that you've been inaccurate. And yes, refusing to produce a source of what you're claiming when you also say it's blindingly obvious where it exists is pretty uncivil and rather pointless into the bargain, it ruins your position. You've made a claim I find untenable and blithely saying "go find a negative" is an age-old brush-off. Anastrophe used to use it continually.