Britain now has 85 Sharia law courts..
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Britain now has 85 Sharia law courts..
Britain has 85 sharia courts: The astonishing spread of the Islamic justice behind closed doors | Mail Online
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
Britain now has 85 Sharia law courts..
Bloody disgraceful!
Britain now has 85 Sharia law courts..
The responsibility for this lies at the door of our government. But we are too divided to do anything about it.
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Britain now has 85 Sharia law courts..
OpenMind;1211203 wrote: The responsibility for this lies at the door of our government. But we are too divided to do anything about it.
It's too late isn't it?
While it's easy to scream rascism at the BNP, they had warned of this over and over albiet in a pillock type way by Nick griffin.
The Government has allowed this under nooooooooo Labour and now we can not object because we may offend the muslims.
Any objection to futher Sharia law and increasing numbers of these courts will be seen as racism and our gutless mainstream parties are too nervous to intervene for fear of being labelled rascist by the loony left.
It's too late isn't it?
While it's easy to scream rascism at the BNP, they had warned of this over and over albiet in a pillock type way by Nick griffin.
The Government has allowed this under nooooooooo Labour and now we can not object because we may offend the muslims.
Any objection to futher Sharia law and increasing numbers of these courts will be seen as racism and our gutless mainstream parties are too nervous to intervene for fear of being labelled rascist by the loony left.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
Britain now has 85 Sharia law courts..
Politically correct, culturally sensitive, mealy mouthed, weak, wimpy, stupid... western culture seems doomed, doesn't it - mainly because nobody wants to stand up and say it has any value.. We just seem to prefer to turn the other cheek always, make allowances, be tolerant of everything and then some, bend over backwards and ask nicely to be shafted... sigh.
Chinese Australia is very much preferable to being forced into a burka and locked up in a joyless wave of protective purity. Emigrate now!!!
Chinese Australia is very much preferable to being forced into a burka and locked up in a joyless wave of protective purity. Emigrate now!!!
"Life is too short to ski with ugly men"
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Britain now has 85 Sharia law courts..
AussiePam;1211243 wrote: Politically correct, culturally sensitive, mealy mouthed, weak, wimpy, stupid... western culture seems doomed, doesn't it - mainly because nobody wants to stand up and say it has any value.. We just seem to prefer to turn the other cheek always, make allowances, be tolerant of everything and then some, bend over backwards and ask nicely to be shafted... sigh.
Chinese Australia is very much preferable to being forced into a burka and locked up in a joyless wave of protective purity. Emigrate now!!!
Pam...... You only have to look at the way some treated me on this forum when i announced i was against mass immigration and defended SOME of the BNP policy to understand the very real fear that the gutless majority in this country have yet will not confront.
What made the BNP actually get 1 million votes in the Euro elections? Has 1 million people suddenly turned rascist in this country? No...... they are sick to death of mainstream politicians who are too gutless to approach mass immigration. God forbid, like myself, you announce that you believe immigration should be curbed with strict qualifications to live here, oh dear god, you are automatically a Neo-Nazi fascist Rascist thug. Well, who's having the last laugh now? Nick Griffin must be chortling in glee....... (well he alrready is ).
Is he a rascist pillock?
Move over Pam....... I'm on my way to Aus.
Chinese Australia is very much preferable to being forced into a burka and locked up in a joyless wave of protective purity. Emigrate now!!!
Pam...... You only have to look at the way some treated me on this forum when i announced i was against mass immigration and defended SOME of the BNP policy to understand the very real fear that the gutless majority in this country have yet will not confront.
What made the BNP actually get 1 million votes in the Euro elections? Has 1 million people suddenly turned rascist in this country? No...... they are sick to death of mainstream politicians who are too gutless to approach mass immigration. God forbid, like myself, you announce that you believe immigration should be curbed with strict qualifications to live here, oh dear god, you are automatically a Neo-Nazi fascist Rascist thug. Well, who's having the last laugh now? Nick Griffin must be chortling in glee....... (well he alrready is ).
Is he a rascist pillock?
Move over Pam....... I'm on my way to Aus.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
Britain now has 85 Sharia law courts..
oscar;1211228 wrote: It's too late isn't it?
While it's easy to scream rascism at the BNP, they had warned of this over and over albiet in a pillock type way by Nick griffin.
The Government has allowed this under nooooooooo Labour and now we can not object because we may offend the muslims.
Any objection to futher Sharia law and increasing numbers of these courts will be seen as racism and our gutless mainstream parties are too nervous to intervene for fear of being labelled rascist by the loony left.
It's not all accreditable to New Labour. The policies of the government since the 2nd World War have led to this situation we have now. It suits them and capitalism by having a source of cheap labour to draw on. It also keeps the people divided and thus prevents another uprising as no one group is strong enough to do anything.
The expenses scandal has shown how corrupt our government and politicians are. Do we stand up and demand changes? Nope. We mutter and mumble among ourselves but let them carry on.
While it's easy to scream rascism at the BNP, they had warned of this over and over albiet in a pillock type way by Nick griffin.
The Government has allowed this under nooooooooo Labour and now we can not object because we may offend the muslims.
Any objection to futher Sharia law and increasing numbers of these courts will be seen as racism and our gutless mainstream parties are too nervous to intervene for fear of being labelled rascist by the loony left.
It's not all accreditable to New Labour. The policies of the government since the 2nd World War have led to this situation we have now. It suits them and capitalism by having a source of cheap labour to draw on. It also keeps the people divided and thus prevents another uprising as no one group is strong enough to do anything.
The expenses scandal has shown how corrupt our government and politicians are. Do we stand up and demand changes? Nope. We mutter and mumble among ourselves but let them carry on.
Britain now has 85 Sharia law courts..
When European powers went out to exploit and civilise the rest of the world, they probably never thought a day of reckoning would come - that empire might fade away and colonialism might come home to roost.. isn't that where the problem started?
"Life is too short to ski with ugly men"
-
Bill Sikes
- Posts: 5515
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am
Britain now has 85 Sharia law courts..
.... and they're *all* subordinate to established UK law.
-
Bill Sikes
- Posts: 5515
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am
Britain now has 85 Sharia law courts..
oscar;1211228 wrote: IWhile it's easy to scream rascism at the BNP
It is. They are.
It is. They are.
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Britain now has 85 Sharia law courts..
Bill Sikes;1211461 wrote: It is. They are.
Some Members of the BNP are rascist..... not all. You can not say that with conviction until you have met every one of the voters.
Some Members of the BNP are rascist..... not all. You can not say that with conviction until you have met every one of the voters.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
-
Bill Sikes
- Posts: 5515
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am
Britain now has 85 Sharia law courts..
oscar;1211471 wrote: COLOR="Red"]I]Some Members of the BNP are rascist..... not all. You can not say that with conviction until you have met every one of the voters.
I do not *need* to meet every single one, and I certainly wouldn't *want* to.
The BNP is intrinsically racist, and they, their supporters, and hangers on, are among the most repulsive people on the planet.
I do not *need* to meet every single one, and I certainly wouldn't *want* to.
The BNP is intrinsically racist, and they, their supporters, and hangers on, are among the most repulsive people on the planet.
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Britain now has 85 Sharia law courts..
Bill Sikes;1211598 wrote: I do not *need* to meet every single one, and I certainly wouldn't *want* to.
The BNP is intrinsically racist, and they, their supporters, and hangers on, are among the most repulsive people on the planet. 1 million votes in the Euro elections say different.
The BNP is intrinsically racist, and they, their supporters, and hangers on, are among the most repulsive people on the planet. 1 million votes in the Euro elections say different.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
-
Bill Sikes
- Posts: 5515
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am
Britain now has 85 Sharia law courts..
oscar;1211608 wrote: 1 million votes in the Euro elections say different.
Don't be daft. The BNP is intrinsically racist, and they, their supporters, and hangers on, are among the most repulsive people on the planet. Your above statement, which is mildly inaccurate in any case, does not change that fact.
Don't be daft. The BNP is intrinsically racist, and they, their supporters, and hangers on, are among the most repulsive people on the planet. Your above statement, which is mildly inaccurate in any case, does not change that fact.
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Britain now has 85 Sharia law courts..
Bill Sikes;1211614 wrote: Don't be daft. The BNP is intrinsically racist, and they, their supporters, and hangers on, are among the most repulsive people on the planet. Your above statement, which is mildly inaccurate in any case, does not change that fact.
I don't think i have ever witnessed such mass hysteria by prominent MP's who fund and support the UAF and the media pre election to the BNP. There is just as much bigotry by the un-imformed about the BNP as there is inside the BNP.
I don't think i have ever witnessed such mass hysteria by prominent MP's who fund and support the UAF and the media pre election to the BNP. There is just as much bigotry by the un-imformed about the BNP as there is inside the BNP.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
Britain now has 85 Sharia law courts..
Bill Sikes;1211456 wrote: .... and they're *all* subordinate to established UK law.
Everyone in the UK is subordinate to the law. However, the law is a social process and can be changed.
Everyone in the UK is subordinate to the law. However, the law is a social process and can be changed.
-
Bill Sikes
- Posts: 5515
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am
Britain now has 85 Sharia law courts..
oscar;1211625 wrote: I don't think i have ever witnessed such mass hysteria by prominent MP's who fund and support the UAF and the media pre election to the BNP. There is just as much bigotry by the un-imformed about the BNP as there is inside the BNP.
You seem to me to be a BNP supporter, or at least an apologist.
Just because two groups are bad does not make either one acceptable.
The BNP is intrinsically racist, and they, their supporters, and hangers on, are among the most repulsive people on the planet. To be against such people is entirely right.
You seem to me to be a BNP supporter, or at least an apologist.
Just because two groups are bad does not make either one acceptable.
The BNP is intrinsically racist, and they, their supporters, and hangers on, are among the most repulsive people on the planet. To be against such people is entirely right.
-
Bill Sikes
- Posts: 5515
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am
Britain now has 85 Sharia law courts..
OpenMind;1211717 wrote: Everyone in the UK is subordinate to the law. However, the law is a social process and can be changed.
Have you a point to make?
Have you a point to make?
Britain now has 85 Sharia law courts..
abbey;1211179 wrote: Bloody disgraceful!
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?
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?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Britain now has 85 Sharia law courts..
Bill Sikes;1211739 wrote: Have you a point to make?
Perhaps it's too obvious for you.
Perhaps it's too obvious for you.
Britain now has 85 Sharia law courts..
spot;1211747 wrote: 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.
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.
Britain now has 85 Sharia law courts..
OpenMind;1211760 wrote: 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.
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.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Britain now has 85 Sharia law courts..
spot;1211763 wrote: 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.
Or, of course, a Muslim example would do just as well.
Illegal means unlawful.
There are examples given in the news article.
Britain now has 85 Sharia law courts..
OpenMind;1211768 wrote: 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.
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.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Britain now has 85 Sharia law courts..
spot;1211771 wrote: 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.
Do it yourself Spot. You're the one contesting what others are saying.
Britain now has 85 Sharia law courts..
OpenMind;1211772 wrote: 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.
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.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Britain now has 85 Sharia law courts..
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.
I might very well cut and paste to another forum....if you dont mind ?
Even if you do mind....its done.
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
Britain now has 85 Sharia law courts..
spot;1211774 wrote: 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?
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?
Britain now has 85 Sharia law courts..
OpenMind;1211760 wrote: 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 ?
Is not the second sentence contradicting the first ?
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
Britain now has 85 Sharia law courts..
OpenMind;1211783 wrote: 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.
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.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Britain now has 85 Sharia law courts..
Bruv;1211787 wrote: Is not the second sentence contradicting the first ?
I do not see a contradiction but I can rephrase it if you prefer.
The Sharia courts are subject to UK law. Any rulings and decisions made in these courts are likewise subject to UK law.
I do not see a contradiction but I can rephrase it if you prefer.
The Sharia courts are subject to UK law. Any rulings and decisions made in these courts are likewise subject to UK law.
Britain now has 85 Sharia law courts..
spot;1211788 wrote: 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.
What I have claimed is common knowledge. If you are claiming that the Sharia courts are not subject to UK law, then the ball is in your court to produce the 'evidence'.
What I have claimed is common knowledge. If you are claiming that the Sharia courts are not subject to UK law, then the ball is in your court to produce the 'evidence'.
Britain now has 85 Sharia law courts..
OpenMind;1211791 wrote: What I have claimed is common knowledge. If you are claiming that the Sharia courts are not subject to UK law, then the ball is in your court to produce the 'evidence'.
How can I? The question you're inviting me to demonstrate is a negative.
Be sensible, you've said you've an exact knowledge of where examples can be quoted from, what's unreasonable about just posting one so we can take this further? I doubt it exists. I would appreciate the chance of seeing what it is you're describing as "illegal".
"What I have claimed is common knowledge" is no indication of accuracy, the entire thread's a perfect demonstration of that already. "If you are claiming that the Sharia courts are not subject to UK law" is deflection, I've not said that in the slightest. You've said "If the decisions made in these courts are illegal, they cannot be enforced by law" and I've asked for an example and you've said "There are examples given in the news article". I don't think there are. That's the issue between us at the moment.
How can I? The question you're inviting me to demonstrate is a negative.
Be sensible, you've said you've an exact knowledge of where examples can be quoted from, what's unreasonable about just posting one so we can take this further? I doubt it exists. I would appreciate the chance of seeing what it is you're describing as "illegal".
"What I have claimed is common knowledge" is no indication of accuracy, the entire thread's a perfect demonstration of that already. "If you are claiming that the Sharia courts are not subject to UK law" is deflection, I've not said that in the slightest. You've said "If the decisions made in these courts are illegal, they cannot be enforced by law" and I've asked for an example and you've said "There are examples given in the news article". I don't think there are. That's the issue between us at the moment.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Britain now has 85 Sharia law courts..
spot;1211794 wrote: How can I? The question you're inviting me to demonstrate is a negative.
Be sensible, you've said you've an exact knowledge of where examples can be quoted from, what's unreasonable about just posting one so we can take this further? I doubt it exists. I would appreciate the chance of seeing what it is you're describing as "illegal".
"What I have claimed is common knowledge" is no indication of accuracy, the entire thread's a perfect demonstration of that already. "If you are claiming that the Sharia courts are not subject to UK law" is deflection, I've not said that in the slightest. You've said "If the decisions made in these courts are illegal, they cannot be enforced by law" and I've asked for an example and you've said "There are examples given in the news article". I don't think there are. That's the issue between us at the moment.
Quote:
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.
I cannot see anything in my post that you quoted above (highlighted by me in red) that is not common knowledge unless the Sharia courts have a special dispensation to operate irrespectively of UK law. What exactly do you expect me to look up and quote for you? I'm sure you have a dictionary if you need to know what illegal means.
Now, I am going to bed. You are stretching semanticism to the extreme to keep this argument running.
Be sensible, you've said you've an exact knowledge of where examples can be quoted from, what's unreasonable about just posting one so we can take this further? I doubt it exists. I would appreciate the chance of seeing what it is you're describing as "illegal".
"What I have claimed is common knowledge" is no indication of accuracy, the entire thread's a perfect demonstration of that already. "If you are claiming that the Sharia courts are not subject to UK law" is deflection, I've not said that in the slightest. You've said "If the decisions made in these courts are illegal, they cannot be enforced by law" and I've asked for an example and you've said "There are examples given in the news article". I don't think there are. That's the issue between us at the moment.
Quote:
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.
I cannot see anything in my post that you quoted above (highlighted by me in red) that is not common knowledge unless the Sharia courts have a special dispensation to operate irrespectively of UK law. What exactly do you expect me to look up and quote for you? I'm sure you have a dictionary if you need to know what illegal means.
Now, I am going to bed. You are stretching semanticism to the extreme to keep this argument running.
-
Bill Sikes
- Posts: 5515
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am
Britain now has 85 Sharia law courts..
Originally Posted by Bill Sikes:
> Have you a point to make?
OpenMind;1211757 wrote: Perhaps it's too obvious for you.
So, you haven't got any point to make - yours is a crap answer, by the way.
> Have you a point to make?
OpenMind;1211757 wrote: Perhaps it's too obvious for you.
So, you haven't got any point to make - yours is a crap answer, by the way.
Britain now has 85 Sharia law courts..
OpenMind;1211796 wrote: I cannot see anything in my post that you quoted above (highlighted by me in red) that is not common knowledge unless the Sharia courts have a special dispensation to operate irrespectively of UK law.
Now, I am going to bed. You are stretching semanticism to the extreme to keep this argument running.
I'm doing nothing of the sort. I had my fill of this sort of smug mocking treatment from anastrophe. I'd dutifully go and find what he might be thinking of and he'd laugh back - complete with grinning smileys - that it wasn't what he was talking about, and send me off to get another and another indefinitely. Yes, it's uncivil of you. First you say you have the evidence, then you won't produce it for examination and tell me to find something I've described as non-existent. Anyone with an ounce of sense can see the imbalance involved in that.
Now, I am going to bed. You are stretching semanticism to the extreme to keep this argument running.
I'm doing nothing of the sort. I had my fill of this sort of smug mocking treatment from anastrophe. I'd dutifully go and find what he might be thinking of and he'd laugh back - complete with grinning smileys - that it wasn't what he was talking about, and send me off to get another and another indefinitely. Yes, it's uncivil of you. First you say you have the evidence, then you won't produce it for examination and tell me to find something I've described as non-existent. Anyone with an ounce of sense can see the imbalance involved in that.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
Bill Sikes
- Posts: 5515
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am
Britain now has 85 Sharia law courts..
OpenMind;1211790 wrote: The Sharia courts are subject to UK law.
That's what I said way back there, isn't it.
That's what I said way back there, isn't it.
-
Bill Sikes
- Posts: 5515
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am
Britain now has 85 Sharia law courts..
OpenMind;1211796 wrote: Now, I am going to bed.
*Great* get-out!
*Great* get-out!
Britain now has 85 Sharia law courts..
spot;1211747 wrote: 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?
One difference could be that if these courts deal with family law, women and children's issues - it is only men deciding their fates.
I don't have a problem with two groups deciding they'll be content with the ruling of an arbitration court and going to it for judgment. I might though have a problem if one of the groups was not freely deciding, not properly represented, not considered equal under the arbitration court's charter.
To flesh out your example - it might be like a worker who'd been injured in the workplace having no option but agree to go before a court of judges representing employers only.
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?
One difference could be that if these courts deal with family law, women and children's issues - it is only men deciding their fates.
I don't have a problem with two groups deciding they'll be content with the ruling of an arbitration court and going to it for judgment. I might though have a problem if one of the groups was not freely deciding, not properly represented, not considered equal under the arbitration court's charter.
To flesh out your example - it might be like a worker who'd been injured in the workplace having no option but agree to go before a court of judges representing employers only.
"Life is too short to ski with ugly men"
Britain now has 85 Sharia law courts..
Bill Sikes;1211797 wrote: Originally Posted by Bill Sikes:
> Have you a point to make?
So, you haven't got any point to make - yours is a crap answer, by the way.
So is yours (by the way).
> Have you a point to make?
So, you haven't got any point to make - yours is a crap answer, by the way.
So is yours (by the way).
Britain now has 85 Sharia law courts..
spot;1211798 wrote: I'm doing nothing of the sort. I had my fill of this sort of smug mocking treatment from anastrophe. I'd dutifully go and find what he might be thinking of and he'd laugh back - complete with grinning smileys - that it wasn't what he was talking about, and send me off to get another and another indefinitely. Yes, it's uncivil of you. First you say you have the evidence, then you won't produce it for examination and tell me to find something I've described as non-existent. Anyone with an ounce of sense can see the imbalance involved in that.
Unless you know that the Sharia courts are not sunject to UK law, you're arguing for the sake of arguing. You're like a spider bot.
Unless you know that the Sharia courts are not sunject to UK law, you're arguing for the sake of arguing. You're like a spider bot.
Britain now has 85 Sharia law courts..
Bill Sikes;1211800 wrote: *Great* get-out!
Is it your self perceived duty to be obnoxious or were you raised that way?
Is it your self perceived duty to be obnoxious or were you raised that way?
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Britain now has 85 Sharia law courts..
Bill Sikes;1211738 wrote: You seem to me to be a BNP supporter, or at least an apologist.
Just because two groups are bad does not make either one acceptable.
The BNP is intrinsically racist, and they, their supporters, and hangers on, are among the most repulsive people on the planet. To be against such people is entirely right.
I very thoroughly researched the BNP including going to meetings and meeting some prominent members. I was expecting the stero-type skinhead thug as most assume they are and was shocked to find that most are quite 'normal'. There are many decent people in the BNP who are just genuinly concerned for their country and see no future with mainstream Parties. Everything i have seen relating to Nick Griffin is blatently heavilly edited. Yes, there are hardcore rascists in the BNP who made the switch from the National Front but it's wrong to assume all votors are 'intrinsically rascist, revolting and hanger-on'.
Just because two groups are bad does not make either one acceptable.
The BNP is intrinsically racist, and they, their supporters, and hangers on, are among the most repulsive people on the planet. To be against such people is entirely right.
I very thoroughly researched the BNP including going to meetings and meeting some prominent members. I was expecting the stero-type skinhead thug as most assume they are and was shocked to find that most are quite 'normal'. There are many decent people in the BNP who are just genuinly concerned for their country and see no future with mainstream Parties. Everything i have seen relating to Nick Griffin is blatently heavilly edited. Yes, there are hardcore rascists in the BNP who made the switch from the National Front but it's wrong to assume all votors are 'intrinsically rascist, revolting and hanger-on'.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
-
Bill Sikes
- Posts: 5515
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am
Britain now has 85 Sharia law courts..
OpenMind;1211853 wrote: Is it your self perceived duty to be obnoxious or were you raised that way?
Sound and fury, but no content. Oh well.
Sound and fury, but no content. Oh well.
-
Bill Sikes
- Posts: 5515
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am
Britain now has 85 Sharia law courts..
oscar;1211901 wrote: I very thoroughly researched the BNP including going to meetings and meeting some prominent members.
*plonk*
*plonk*
Britain now has 85 Sharia law courts..
OpenMind;1211851 wrote: Unless you know that the Sharia courts are not sunject to UK law, you're arguing for the sake of arguing. You're like a spider bot.
Of course these courts are entirely subject to UK law, I've not for a moment disputed it and you're distracting attention from my actual question by suggesting I did. Here's the question:spot wrote: [quote= 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.That's simple enough - you're saying "If the decisions made in these courts are illegal, they cannot be enforced by law", suggesting that an arbitration court has judged contrary to UK law, and I'm asking for an instance where they've done it because I don't think they do. When you offer me one we can discuss what the reason was, whether it was that the overturning of the judgement was on the basis of legality or of procedure. I'm quite interested to find out. You claim that "There are examples given in the news article" but I can't see any and you're refusing to bring the relevant text into the thread for some reason I can't fathom.
Of course these courts are entirely subject to UK law, I've not for a moment disputed it and you're distracting attention from my actual question by suggesting I did. Here's the question:spot wrote: [quote= 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.That's simple enough - you're saying "If the decisions made in these courts are illegal, they cannot be enforced by law", suggesting that an arbitration court has judged contrary to UK law, and I'm asking for an instance where they've done it because I don't think they do. When you offer me one we can discuss what the reason was, whether it was that the overturning of the judgement was on the basis of legality or of procedure. I'm quite interested to find out. You claim that "There are examples given in the news article" but I can't see any and you're refusing to bring the relevant text into the thread for some reason I can't fathom.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Britain now has 85 Sharia law courts..
AussiePam;1211821 wrote: One difference could be that if these courts deal with family law, women and children's issues - it is only men deciding their fates.
I don't have a problem with two groups deciding they'll be content with the ruling of an arbitration court and going to it for judgment. I might though have a problem if one of the groups was not freely deciding, not properly represented, not considered equal under the arbitration court's charter.
To flesh out your example - it might be like a worker who'd been injured in the workplace having no option but agree to go before a court of judges representing employers only.
That's your interpretation, the "judges representing employers only". I don't think it holds water. We happen to differ on that.
If either party refuses the to put the case before the arbitration court then the arbitration court can't hear it and the normal civil process proceeds to trial under the appropriate civil court.
You're saying that the women are pressured into accepting arbitration but that's no different to hearings before the Beth Din - social pressure's put on members of that community with the sanction of disapproval and perhaps ostracism if they refuse to apply to the religious court for judgement. It's the nature of communities.
Jehovah's Witnesses or Plymouth Brethren regularly get ostracised for refusing to submit to community judgement or to abide by the local rules of the community. John Wesley regularly threw out half the congregation wherever he visited, when he found backsliding. It's how communities operate. They're all male-dominated too.
I don't have a problem with two groups deciding they'll be content with the ruling of an arbitration court and going to it for judgment. I might though have a problem if one of the groups was not freely deciding, not properly represented, not considered equal under the arbitration court's charter.
To flesh out your example - it might be like a worker who'd been injured in the workplace having no option but agree to go before a court of judges representing employers only.
That's your interpretation, the "judges representing employers only". I don't think it holds water. We happen to differ on that.
If either party refuses the to put the case before the arbitration court then the arbitration court can't hear it and the normal civil process proceeds to trial under the appropriate civil court.
You're saying that the women are pressured into accepting arbitration but that's no different to hearings before the Beth Din - social pressure's put on members of that community with the sanction of disapproval and perhaps ostracism if they refuse to apply to the religious court for judgement. It's the nature of communities.
Jehovah's Witnesses or Plymouth Brethren regularly get ostracised for refusing to submit to community judgement or to abide by the local rules of the community. John Wesley regularly threw out half the congregation wherever he visited, when he found backsliding. It's how communities operate. They're all male-dominated too.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Britain now has 85 Sharia law courts..
spot;1212598 wrote: That's your interpretation, the "judges representing employers only". I don't think it holds water. We happen to differ on that.
If either party refuses the to put the case before the arbitration court then the arbitration court can't hear it and the normal civil process proceeds to trial under the appropriate civil court.
You're saying that the women are pressured into accepting arbitration but that's no different to hearings before the Beth Din - social pressure's put on members of that community with the sanction of disapproval and perhaps ostracism if they refuse to apply to the religious court for judgement. It's the nature of communities.
Jehovah's Witnesses or Plymouth Brethren regularly get ostracised for refusing to submit to community judgement or to abide by the local rules of the community. John Wesley regularly threw out half the congregation wherever he visited, when he found backsliding. It's how communities operate. They're all male-dominated too.
1 Yes - except that I'm saying it's likely they will be pressured... which is a bit different.
2 Possibly - and shameful if it's true - but this thread is about Sharia courts in the UK.
If either party refuses the to put the case before the arbitration court then the arbitration court can't hear it and the normal civil process proceeds to trial under the appropriate civil court.
You're saying that the women are pressured into accepting arbitration but that's no different to hearings before the Beth Din - social pressure's put on members of that community with the sanction of disapproval and perhaps ostracism if they refuse to apply to the religious court for judgement. It's the nature of communities.
Jehovah's Witnesses or Plymouth Brethren regularly get ostracised for refusing to submit to community judgement or to abide by the local rules of the community. John Wesley regularly threw out half the congregation wherever he visited, when he found backsliding. It's how communities operate. They're all male-dominated too.
1 Yes - except that I'm saying it's likely they will be pressured... which is a bit different.
2 Possibly - and shameful if it's true - but this thread is about Sharia courts in the UK.
"Life is too short to ski with ugly men"
Britain now has 85 Sharia law courts..
AussiePam;1212626 wrote: 1 Yes - except that I'm saying it's likely they will be pressured... which is a bit different.
2 Possibly - and shameful if it's true - but this thread is about Sharia courts in the UK.
And is it your position that just the Muslim arbitration courts, which are male-dominated courts hearing civil cases and where where the community pressurises women into using them, are disreputable and should be disempowered?
Or is it that all religious arbitration courts which are male-dominated and where where the community pressurises women into using them are disreputable and should be disempowered?
The first being a discriminatory poisition, in my opinion, and the second a perfectly ethical one.
Only you're going to **** off a whole stack of other people if you go with the second, since they regard their arbitration courts as a major part of their community life, just as the Muslims do with theirs.
I'd be interested to hear from you though - first option or second?
2 Possibly - and shameful if it's true - but this thread is about Sharia courts in the UK.
And is it your position that just the Muslim arbitration courts, which are male-dominated courts hearing civil cases and where where the community pressurises women into using them, are disreputable and should be disempowered?
Or is it that all religious arbitration courts which are male-dominated and where where the community pressurises women into using them are disreputable and should be disempowered?
The first being a discriminatory poisition, in my opinion, and the second a perfectly ethical one.
Only you're going to **** off a whole stack of other people if you go with the second, since they regard their arbitration courts as a major part of their community life, just as the Muslims do with theirs.
I'd be interested to hear from you though - first option or second?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Britain now has 85 Sharia law courts..
spot;1212632 wrote: And is it your position that just the Muslim arbitration courts, which are male-dominated courts hearing civil cases and where where the community pressurises women into using them, are disreputable and should be disempowered?
Or is it that all religious arbitration courts which are male-dominated and where where the community pressurises women into using them are disreputable and should be disempowered?
The first being a discriminatory poisition, in my opinion, and the second a perfectly ethical one.
Only you're going to **** off a whole stack of other people if you go with the second, since they regard their arbitration courts as a major part of their community life, just as the Muslims do with theirs.
I'd be interested to hear from you though - first option or second?
I'll take the ethical position - but I appreciate that you're using this as a technique to water down the issue at hand.
Sure there are probably many other little self-appointed secret star chambers laying down the law according to their more or less enlightened worldview. Toss all of them out. I'm for transparency. I support the view that justice should not only be done but should be seen to be done, for all, in the light of day.
I think it is not irrelevant to add that the penalties inflicted on women in particular, but others too, for not submitting to the males with power over them would appear to be rather more dire in some religious constructs than in others.
Or is it that all religious arbitration courts which are male-dominated and where where the community pressurises women into using them are disreputable and should be disempowered?
The first being a discriminatory poisition, in my opinion, and the second a perfectly ethical one.
Only you're going to **** off a whole stack of other people if you go with the second, since they regard their arbitration courts as a major part of their community life, just as the Muslims do with theirs.
I'd be interested to hear from you though - first option or second?
I'll take the ethical position - but I appreciate that you're using this as a technique to water down the issue at hand.
Sure there are probably many other little self-appointed secret star chambers laying down the law according to their more or less enlightened worldview. Toss all of them out. I'm for transparency. I support the view that justice should not only be done but should be seen to be done, for all, in the light of day.
I think it is not irrelevant to add that the penalties inflicted on women in particular, but others too, for not submitting to the males with power over them would appear to be rather more dire in some religious constructs than in others.
"Life is too short to ski with ugly men"