Melissia wrote:I don't know the answer to that question. It's more complex than that, as was the post you are responding to (which I probably didn't word right to begin with).

Actually it really isn't that complex at all - that question is the central issue. It is not Sharia which is being endorsed, but freedom. Freedom tends, on occasion, to have some unpleasant consequences, but those consequences are considered 'worth it' by many - take the Westboro situation for example. They are scum, as are (in my opinion) practitioners of Sharia - but if we curtail their freedom where does it stop? Where do you draw the line? Can you outlaw something simply because it's unpleasant? That's dodgy territory, as far as I'm concerned.

On the face of it, women in the UK are free from the coercion to submit to Sharia - of course it doesn't always work out like that, but the mechanisms are there to help women who are trapped in abusive situations. If they aren't able to make use of them... well, that's tough. I feel that we do enough for them in this country, in all honesty. Not only are a myriad of Equality and Diversity resources made available to ethnic minorities, but many immigrants receive taxpayer-funded english lessons. If after all that, a person is not able or willing to seek the help that they need, well then they aren't really our problem.

This is important because Sharia Courts can't contravene UK law, and women who don't wish to submit to them have help there if they need it. So where's the problem?

It's unpleasant? No gak. It's also a matter of choice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
So you're ok with different groups in the UK not being bound by the UK legal system?

Wow! That sounds awful!


Good job that's not happening....

sebster wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Key word here, for me as someone concerned by this, is 'suddenly'. I don't imagine it's going to be sudden, but I am of the belief that now we have gone in binary terms from no sharia court to a sharia court, that court's expansion of portfolio and power is inevitable and that halting it or slowing it will be met at any point with further aggression and pressure from the lobbying groups of Islam (ie loudest = most extreme/hardline).

Either slowly or suddenly, it doesn't matter, expansion is not inevitable, it's impossible. You would need to completely rewrite the Arbitration Act, and completely redefine the idea of arbitration along the way in order to have a private court of arbitration rule along any other than private, civil matters.

Worrying that this Sharia court will suddenly aquire new powers and beginning ruling over people as a new legal body is as sensible as worrying Judge Judy will.

fething seriously, there are real issues with Sharia law and how it interacts with Family Law. Those problems are going to continue and there's never going to be an effective effort at seperating Sharia law from family law in the UK as long as people get distracted by these fantasy problems. We shouldn't be on page 9 of this thread and still explaining over and over again that a private court of arbitration cannot develop powers outside of those granted by the Arbitration Act.

Ok, pause for a moment and consider what you're berating me on here. That these courts are fairly innocuous and that I'm panicking over them. What have I been putting forward in the entire thread for pages? The rights of women under Sharia and their mistreatment. You are telling me not to worry and that I'm ignoring the real issues but then agreeing with me but suggesting that children are at risk of not being considered under Sharia.

I am not concerned with the notion that I will find myself under Sharia law any time soon. I am concerned, I have been concerned throughout the length of time I've been hearing about this, with the welfare of the minorities that might find themselves under the adjudication of these courts and our betrayal as a nation of the principles we espouse about equality and freedom if we facilitate and empower these courts.

As to the court never expanding it's portfolio, how the bloody hell do you know that it can't, that it won't? There is no precedent for this, the Jewish have never had the numbers, lobbyists, extremist movement, hostility or most importantly the inclination, to push the envelope further. Judaism is fairly guarded and certainly non-expansionist. Islam is expansionist, aggressively so.

sebster wrote:

Melissia wrote:A law's effectiveness is only as good as the population's willingness to enforce it.

Yes, that's an important principle when talking the unwillingness of a court to enforce laws on the books. In the context of your fear that private court of arbitration might somehow go and claim greater powers than those provided to it by the Arbitration Act it makes no sense.

Now, seriously, go and read and find out what Sharia law in the UK actually means, what it can and can't do. Go and learn something and stop wasting your time here posting little nonsense replies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Amaya wrote:He refuses to accept that the Muslims who pushed for Sharia law in England are the kin to the same radicals who have been launching terrorist attacks. The majority of Muslim immigrants to England are Arab. The London Subway bombers were essentially refugees who had grown up England, but never developed love for the country and were willing to kill hundreds in the name of Allah. I have no idea why they would allow Sharia courts to open in the following years.

You keep phrasing this in terms of vague terror threats, as if setting up courts of arbitration are somehow tied to every other issue relating to Islam. The end result is that you end up with this kind of reflexive 'they must be stopped!' attitude, and whatever it is they must be stopped from doing is whatever they happen to be doing right now.

You try as hard as possible to consider the actual thing in question, and effectively do little more than keep repeating 'it's Islamic and there are bad Islamic things in the world'. It's an incredibly stupid way of looking at an issue.

Instead, stop and think for a second. Think about how, with or without private courts of arbitration, there will be Islamic terror, and women in Islamic communities will not be treated equally. Once those two obvious things have been properly acknowldeged, you realise how despite their existance, the presence of a private Islamic court of arbitration doesn't actually change them, one way or the other. Think about that, and then realise that your argument in this thread has made absolutely no sense in any way shape or form.

Accept that, and then go and read about the issue, think about it for a while, and try to form a viewpoint that makes some damn sense.

All this is true (as an aside, the UK has very large influxes of muslims from East Africa and the Afghan/Pakistan region, neither of which are 'Arabs', our Islamic makeup is fairly cosmopolitan).

However, with regards the woman's rights abuses within the UK by muslims (I'm not getting into the terror threat issue, I believe it's overblown by massive degrees), I fully accept the fact it will go on with or without the Sharia Court's existence or approval, what I am saying is that the Sharia court will enable it and that by the UK government approving and endorsing Sharia court's powers, the UK state is approving and endorsing these abuses. That is abhorrent to me.

sebster wrote:
First up, yes it's fear. Being concerned about a possible future event is a fear by any sensible definition. Fear, of course, can be perfectly sensible, if there's something to be fearful of.

Agreed, I am certainly fearful of the increasing powers and state support of this fascistic religion. It is a fear founded on what I am presented with on a daily basis from news around the world (from what I consider reasoned media sources), from the experiences recounted to me from abused muslim women I worked with and from the actual words of muslim leadership and the Qur'an.

sebster wrote:
Second up, stop playing these silly games to avoid debating the actual point - there is no way that a private court can expand from it's powers as defined in the Arbitration Act to start hearing criminal matters.
And it really is sad that you have so little interest in learning what the actual powers and limitations of Sharia courts in the UK are. I mean, we're all ignorant about something and that's okay, but to actually choose to reject more knowledge, to simply stop listening when someone describes how a thing actually works, because you like the incorrect version in your head... well, it's sad.
I'm not sure why you've done this. I suspect you really, really like championing gender and gay equality. This is a noble thing, but I wonder if the issue here is that you really like championing the cause more than anything else... so you feel good when rant against Sharia law in the UK, and ultimately feeling good ranting against something else is what it's all about.

Whilst there currently exist no way in law for the expansion of private court, again and again, precedent can still be set. The law is a mutable thing. You keep talking in absolutes that this 'can't happen' and I'm telling you straight that it could. Lobbying and gradual encroachment. The powers and the portfolio of the court, now the court exists, can be increased. There is no written constitution in the UK and all bets are off in terms of movement of the law.

Being concerned about how homosexuals or women may be judged in the Sharia court is perfectly legitimate concern, regardless of actual powers it holds, it is governed by religion, not state law, the religion calls for the death of homosexuals and states the second class treatment of women, this hardly rings endorsement to fair treatment for either group and again reiterates the unsuitability of the Sharia court's endorsement by law.

sebster wrote:
I said that Islamic terror and gender equality in Islam will not be affected whether Sharia courts exist in the UK or not. As such, campaigning against Sharia courts on the grounds that there is Islamic terror in the world is stupid.

Agreed. The terror issue being bandied about is diluting the issue of fairness in Sharia and the treatment of various groups by it.

Ulver wrote:

sebster wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Yet and for the time being.
It remains a new thing to the United Kingdom and so people (fairly logically) refer to it's application in other countries to see how it's working elsewhere. Many of us do not like what we see.

But there is no sensible series of steps to get from Sharia law as it exists in the UK to Sharia law as it exists elsewhere in the world. It exists as part of the UK's statute on arbitration, and it cannot suddenly expand outside of that to become anything like Sharia law as it exists in other countries. Being afraid of that Sharia becoming anything more than a court of arbitration for civil matters is being afraid of a thing that can't happen.

'Not going to be sudden' is an understatement - English Law dates back over 700 years to Magna Carta and forms the basis of many legal systems around the world; do you really think a bit of 'lobbying' is going to change that? Can you imagine how many instruments would have to be repealed for it to even be compatible, including the Murder Act if they were going to legalise honour killings.

Nice strawman argument. Noone in this thread has mentioned the legalisation of honour killings. What on earth are you talking about?!? What I have been talking about would include things like a sexual harassment case brought against an employer where both the employer and employee are muslim, the employer says 'lets take this before the Sharia court and the employee suddenly finds herself under pressure from her own family and peers to be judged by a religious court that doesn't even support her being IN work in the first place and will probably blame her for wearing mascara. If she insists on a state court, she insults her family's religion and may find herself subject to rejection and scorn.

Ulver wrote:
Tell you what, I live between Leeds and Bradford, so I'm probably better placed to observe the effects of Sharia in the UK than you are.

Your geographical location endorses your opinion how? I lived in Bristol up until a month ago, in an area with a very high Pakistani and very very high Somalian population. Does that make me more qualified than you to make a judgement?

Isn't this whole thing really just a glorified way of saying they are going to their priest to try and solve a problem before getting entangled in the state court system, something that people have been doing for a long time? It is voluntary so it isn't like a non-Muslim or Muslim that doesn't want to be part of it has to (in the UK). So a religious person consults their religious leaders on how their religion feels it is best to resolve a conflict, this happened long before Muslims were in the UK.

It's basically a council of elders, not so much a religious authority. It's also incredibly secretive and not open to scrutiny by the public. Which is why the mafia comparison is so apt.

This is a great deal of the reason why you see so many reports of brutal tribal justice in places with Sharia law. Sharia law IS tribal justice.

Ahtman wrote:Isn't this whole thing really just a glorified way of saying they are going to their priest to try and solve a problem before getting entangled in the state court system, something that people have been doing for a long time? It is voluntary so it isn't like a non-Muslim or Muslim that doesn't want to be part of it has to (in the UK). So a religious person consults their religious leaders on how their religion feels it is best to resolve a conflict, this happened long before Muslims were in the UK.

The issue is the government approving of it and legitimising it when we know it will act in a sexist and prejudicial way, things that our democracy is supposedly against. The disapproval is not only of the rulings the court will pass but of it's sanctification by the state.

Does it have full force of law? If someone really doesn't like it can't they still take it to real court? I can't believe that a court couldn't still take the case or vacate a non-governmental court ruling. Sounds alarmist.

Ahtman wrote:Does it have full force of law? If someone really doesn't like it can't they still take it to real court? I can't believe that a court couldn't still take the case or vacate a non-governmental court ruling. Sounds alarmist.

It is a court in the name of the religion, it is governed by the dictates of Islam. If a muslim woman feels she was wrongly treated by it and wishes to take it to a state court, she says to her peers, her family and the world that she is not satisfied by the judgement of the holy and wishes to go to infidels to seek fairness. I would not envy her that given Islam's already poor opinion of her gender's rights.

In fact, if anyone decides to go to a state court after they have recieved the judgement of the Sharia court, they are basically saying they want to go over God's head and ask the infidel for fairness.

It might lead to them getting a better deal, but what reception will it create for them in the Islamic community?

Ahtman wrote:Does it have full force of law? If someone really doesn't like it can't they still take it to real court? I can't believe that a court couldn't still take the case or vacate a non-governmental court ruling. Sounds alarmist.

1: In the context of the community within, if the people who practice it believe it holds the full force of the law, then it effectively does-- IE, if the Elders believe that someone within the community needs to die for the sake of honor, they probably should get the hell out of there and seek government protection. In the greater context of the nation at large, its agreements are binding within the full force of civil law, such as marriage, child custody, property, and so on.

2: If they are not pressured into it by the community in which they live, yes. The problem is that Sharia courts are secretive courts of elders (who are all men-- fathers, uncles, cousins, grandfathers, etc of the victims and perpetrators) that rely on intimidation, familial pressure, and religious pressure to force people to accept their rulings, so going to court is a risky proposition for the person who wants to take action in a legal court as opposed to a Sharia court.

3: A court ruling is only as good as peoples' willingness to follow it.

So no, it doesn't actually have the full weight of law accorded to the states court system.

How come you never complained about the Jewish court systems that have been in place for quite some time? Even in Christian communities the communal pressure to solve problems in house existed as well. The protestations are ringing a little hollow.

Ahtman wrote:So no, it doesn't actually have the full weight of law accorded to the states court system.

How come you never complained about the Jewish court systems that have been in place for quite some time? Even in Christian communities the communal pressure to solve problems in house existed as well. The protestations are ringing a little hollow.

The Jewish courts, like the Jewish community in the British Isles, is not noted for it's hardline prejudices against women. British Jews have integrated and accepted western democratic practices. This is not the case in the Islamic community.

Ahtman wrote:Does it have full force of law? If someone really doesn't like it can't they still take it to real court? I can't believe that a court couldn't still take the case or vacate a non-governmental court ruling. Sounds alarmist.

This is the UK. In the US they can be overturned but typically the courts follow the determinations of the arbitrations. Thats the whole point of arbitrations.

Frazzled wrote:

Ahtman wrote:Does it have full force of law? If someone really doesn't like it can't they still take it to real court? I can't believe that a court couldn't still take the case or vacate a non-governmental court ruling. Sounds alarmist.

This is the UK. In the US they can be overturned but typically the courts follow the determinations of the arbitrations. Thats the whole point of arbitrations.

I'm getting conflicting information here. Is it binding or not?

Its binding unless overturned.

Frazzled wrote:Its binding unless overturned.

Not in the UK - neither party has to abide by a ruling.

Ulver wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Its binding unless overturned.

Not in the UK - neither party has to abide by a ruling.

Interesting, are these courts considered binding or nonbinding arbitration in UK courts?

Ulver wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Its binding unless overturned.

Not in the UK - neither party has to abide by a ruling.

Civil Contempt - UK

Civil contempt

The Crown Prosecution Service wrote:
The distinction between civil contempt and criminal contempt is of largely technical interest only now, as it is clear that, in either case, the contempt must be proved to the criminal standard: beyond reasonable doubt. Criminal contempt includes behaviour which is, albeit not in breach of any specific direction given by the court, intended to interfere with the administration of justice in the proceedings. Civil contempt takes the form of non-compliance with a court order or an undertaking given to the court in lieu of an order. Contempt by breach of an undertaking to the court is not unusual in civil cases but are rare in criminal cases. One example would be where a sentence was mitigated on the basis of an undertaking made by someone to repay money stolen by the defendant. Giving such an undertaking, if it misleads the judge, may amount to a contempt of court and possibly to a criminal offence such as perjury (where the undertaking is given on oath) or perverting the course of justice. Where the conduct may amount to being a distinct criminal offence (particularly where it could amount to perjury, where the defendant has the right to jury trial and there is a statutory requirement for corroborative evidence) it would normally be appropriate to refer the matter to be investigated by the police.

A breach of an undertaking would, of itself however, be a civil contempt even though the undertaking was made to a criminal court. Civil contempt is not a criminal offence, even if committed in connection with a criminal case: Cobra Golf Ltd v Rata [1998] Ch. 109. See also (Archbold 28-39).

Once such a breach has come to light, it is the responsibility of the court to summon the alleged contemner. However, because it is undesirable that the court should then act as prosecutor, and judge, it is appropriate for the CPS to assist by instructing an advocate to place the circumstances of the matter before the court and question the alleged contemner in case of any dispute. Such cases will be very rare but in the event of such an occurrence, steps should be taken to instruct the original advocate at the hearing. The responsibility for providing the CPS with the relevant transcripts and post trial documents lies with the Ministry of Justice.

Wait now its being said there's contempt involved. Thats definitely binding. Is it a binding arbitration standard or not?

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Ulver wrote:

sebster wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Yet and for the time being.
It remains a new thing to the United Kingdom and so people (fairly logically) refer to it's application in other countries to see how it's working elsewhere. Many of us do not like what we see.

But there is no sensible series of steps to get from Sharia law as it exists in the UK to Sharia law as it exists elsewhere in the world. It exists as part of the UK's statute on arbitration, and it cannot suddenly expand outside of that to become anything like Sharia law as it exists in other countries. Being afraid of that Sharia becoming anything more than a court of arbitration for civil matters is being afraid of a thing that can't happen.

'Not going to be sudden' is an understatement - English Law dates back over 700 years to Magna Carta and forms the basis of many legal systems around the world; do you really think a bit of 'lobbying' is going to change that? Can you imagine how many instruments would have to be repealed for it to even be compatible, including the Murder Act if they were going to legalise honour killings.

Nice strawman argument. Noone in this thread has mentioned the legalisation of honour killings. What on earth are you talking about?!? What I have been talking about would include things like a sexual harassment case brought against an employer where both the employer and employee are muslim, the employer says 'lets take this before the Sharia court and the employee suddenly finds herself under pressure from her own family and peers to be judged by a religious court that doesn't even support her being IN work in the first place and will probably blame her for wearing mascara. If she insists on a state court, she insults her family's religion and may find herself subject to rejection and scorn.

Melissia and Amaya keep going on about honour killings, and how Sharia Law in the UK is a bad thing because of honour killings. Or something. Hey, I didn't bring it up.

Why would the employer bring an action in a court? In what circumstances would they be the plaintiff? The employee would need to bring the action, and as sexual harrassment is illegal, that could be heard in a law court.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Ulver wrote:
Tell you what, I live between Leeds and Bradford, so I'm probably better placed to observe the effects of Sharia in the UK than you are.

Your geographical location endorses your opinion how? I lived in Bristol up until a month ago, in an area with a very high Pakistani and very very high Somalian population. Does that make me more qualified than you to make a judgement?

My geographical location allows me a first-hand view of the subject of this thread: Sharia courts in the UK; living in Bristol may make you better placed to see the effects, however it does not in itself make you more qualified. I never claimed to have gained any qualification. It does make me better placed to view the effects in British and Muslim communities in the UK to those 3000 miles away who, incidentally, are not members of a British community themselves.

Unless this topic has deviated on to "Sharia in the modern world overall" in which case I'll address that instead

ULVER you might note MGS is a Brit who just left Haggisland for the US.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Ulver wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Its binding unless overturned.

Not in the UK - neither party has to abide by a ruling.

Civil Contempt - UK

Civil contempt

The Crown Prosecution Service wrote:
The distinction between civil contempt and criminal contempt is of largely technical interest only now, as it is clear that, in either case, the contempt must be proved to the criminal standard: beyond reasonable doubt. Criminal contempt includes behaviour which is, albeit not in breach of any specific direction given by the court, intended to interfere with the administration of justice in the proceedings. Civil contempt takes the form of non-compliance with a court order or an undertaking given to the court in lieu of an order. Contempt by breach of an undertaking to the court is not unusual in civil cases but are rare in criminal cases. One example would be where a sentence was mitigated on the basis of an undertaking made by someone to repay money stolen by the defendant. Giving such an undertaking, if it misleads the judge, may amount to a contempt of court and possibly to a criminal offence such as perjury (where the undertaking is given on oath) or perverting the course of justice. Where the conduct may amount to being a distinct criminal offence (particularly where it could amount to perjury, where the defendant has the right to jury trial and there is a statutory requirement for corroborative evidence) it would normally be appropriate to refer the matter to be investigated by the police.

A breach of an undertaking would, of itself however, be a civil contempt even though the undertaking was made to a criminal court. Civil contempt is not a criminal offence, even if committed in connection with a criminal case: Cobra Golf Ltd v Rata [1998] Ch. 109. See also (Archbold 28-39).

Once such a breach has come to light, it is the responsibility of the court to summon the alleged contemner. However, because it is undesirable that the court should then act as prosecutor, and judge, it is appropriate for the CPS to assist by instructing an advocate to place the circumstances of the matter before the court and question the alleged contemner in case of any dispute. Such cases will be very rare but in the event of such an occurrence, steps should be taken to instruct the original advocate at the hearing. The responsibility for providing the CPS with the relevant transcripts and post trial documents lies with the Ministry of Justice.

I don't know if I'm being thick, just not seeing it or don't understand the quote, but how is it relevant in this case?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:ULVER you might note MGS is a Brit who just left Haggisland for the US.

Yeah, I'm aware. I thought he was from Bristol though, not Scotland.

Its all Haggisland to me

Frazzled wrote:Its all Haggisland to me

Yeah, Frazzled does not care to know the differences between the 5 nations of the United Kingdom, that's ok, I guess his part of Mexico isn't that well educated on foreign geography.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Its all Haggisland to me

Yeah, Frazzled does not care to know the differences between the 5 nations of the United Kingdom, that's ok, I guess his part of Mexico isn't that well educated on foreign geography.

Tejas cares not from whence the rum flows, only that it does.

Ulver wrote:
I don't know if I'm being thick, just not seeing it or don't understand the quote, but how is it relevant in this case?

It means if you fail to comply with the ruling of the civil court, you can be subject to punishment of the Crown court and in certain cases, face imprisonment.
If you don't follow the ruling of the Sharia court, as a civil court, in the UK, you can be served with a court order and sent a penal notice that if you do not comply, you can be imprisoned.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Ulver wrote:
I don't know if I'm being thick, just not seeing it or don't understand the quote, but how is it relevant in this case?

It means if you fail to comply with the ruling of the civil court, you can be subject to punishment of the Crown court and in certain cases, face imprisonment.
If you don't follow the ruling of the Sharia court, as a civil court, in the UK, you can be served with a court order and sent a penal notice that if you do not comply, you can be imprisoned.

Does it count as an actual court or as arbitration MGS? There's a difference.

It's rulings will have the backing of the law of the land once it is recognised. That is the difference between a Sharia court and a bunch of blokes coming to a conclusion around a pub table over a few pints.

It is a court. A Civil Court, not a criminal court, but a court nonetheless.

Frazzled wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Ulver wrote:
I don't know if I'm being thick, just not seeing it or don't understand the quote, but how is it relevant in this case?

It means if you fail to comply with the ruling of the civil court, you can be subject to punishment of the Crown court and in certain cases, face imprisonment.
If you don't follow the ruling of the Sharia court, as a civil court, in the UK, you can be served with a court order and sent a penal notice that if you do not comply, you can be imprisoned.

Does it count as an actual court or as arbitration MGS? There's a difference.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:It's rulings will have the backing of the law of the land once it is recognised. That is the difference between a Sharia court and a bunch of blokes coming to a conclusion around a pub table over a few pints.

It is a court. A Civil Court, not a criminal court, but a court nonetheless.

Contrary to what I've said above and earlier in the thread, MGS is correct (although I'm going from a Daily Fail article, and I can't believe I just said that ) - according the Arbitration act rulings can be enforced by County and High courts. So I retract what I said before

It seems similar to what Australia does in regards to Aboriginals (not sure if this includes Torres Straights Islanders). Both parties can agree to a seperate arbitration process through tribal law. Like Sharia, this is a voluntary process and non-binding. Rulings such as death sentences or severe bodily maiming cannot be passed down, as they contradict Australian law. So the point of raised repeatedly by several posters here regarding honour killings and rulings that contradict British law is likely moot. Doubly so becuase Sharia only deals with civil areas whereas in Australia Tribal Arbitration can deal with both.

As to MGS's point regarding Sharia decisions being fully backed by the law this is incorrect. The decisions of the tribunal can only be upheld by law if they do not contradict British law, and can be challenged in a British court in due course. I can't believe that we're on page 11 and this point is still not getting across.

Emperors Faithful wrote:It seems similar to what Australia does in regards to Aboriginals (not sure if this includes Torres Straights Islanders). Both parties can agree to a seperate arbitration process through tribal law. Like Sharia, this is a voluntary process and non-binding. Rulings such as death sentences or severe bodily maiming cannot be passed down, as they contradict Australian law. So the point of raised repeatedly by several posters here regarding honour killings and rulings that contradict British law is likely moot. Doubly so becuase Sharia only deals with civil areas whereas in Australia Tribal Arbitration can deal with both.

As to MGS's point regarding Sharia decisions being fully backed by the law this is incorrect. The decisions of the tribunal can only be upheld by law if they do not contradict British law, and can be challenged in a British court in due course. I can't believe that we're on page 11 and this point is still not getting across.

First point, no, this is binding as a civil court ruling and subject to criminal court punishment if not adhered to or successfully appealed against.

Second point, of course we are talking about the rulings within the auspices of criminal law, the problem many of us are having is in regard the bias likely to be shown. I can't believe we got to page 11 and you still didn't get that.

shasolenzabi wrote:I wanted to ask if anyone was familiar with the manin New York who beheaded his wife, after a court order, he did so because of it being an "Honor killing" and was okay by sharia law? he found out the hard way that is not a good excuse or allowed by NY law. But this should be mentioned as it does relate to this discussion based on the points I brought up.

I am sorry, but anyone who wants to have a set of laws that allows them to commit murder just because they felt their honor was besmirched by perceived infidelity instead of "moving on" and dealing with it just because it is some part of their religion deserves to be locked away and have their head examined.

I'm guessing you didnt' read the thread? Honour killings and the like are matters of criminal law, and these Sharia courts cannot in any way make a ruling on a criminal matter.

They can make rulings on civil matters where all parties involved agree to have the matter resolved in a Sharia court. That's it. Everything else, such as your mention of honour killings, have nothing to do with Sharia courts as they exist in the UK.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:I fully understand what you people are trying to claim about "Sharia law in the UK". As the mod said, stop trying to claim that I don't.

If you understand they're fundamentally different organisations with entirely different levels of scope and authority, why do you keep forming arguments that pretend they're the same thing?

Oh yes, I understand what you're getting at when you use that term.

You've likely invented some other meaning, but I assure you no such thing was intended. I speak plainly, and as you can see from this thread if I think you're guilty of some failing or another I'll tell you straight up.

I also couldn't care less.

You could, hypothetically, care less about the border between France and Germany. But that border would still exist, and all that happen is that people would quickly see that your stated indifference to the subject would make your opinion on the subject irrelevant.

So yeah, you're free to not care about the difference between Sharia in the UK and Sharia in the greater Islamic world, but the difference is still there, it is a clear and obvious difference.

Because I firmly believe that there is no effective difference, as it is incredibly obvious that they are willing to enforce the FULL extent of Sharia law, not just what what is supposed to be enforced.

It isn't incredibly obvious. In fact, there's been no attempt to make a ruling on a criminal matter, so far from being incredibly obvious, it's actually nothing more than complete fantasy inside your head.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Albatross wrote:The thing is, I don't think anyone here is trying to claim that Sharia Law is a Good Thing, or something to be supported - merely that the amount of hysteria on the subject is largely unwarranted.

I think religious courts are an awful, medieval concept and should be stamped out because they are culturally harmful - that's my personal view on the matter. But I love my country, and being British I accept that people should have the freedom to make stupid religious choices, within reason. That's their right under UK law.

Do I think that Orthodox Jewish women should wear wigs outside of the home and have a separate downstairs bathroom for when they're menstruating? No, that's stupid. It's their right, though. Just as, no matter how much I disagree with it, it is the right of Muslims to use a separate system for civil arbitration, or Islamic banking services, should they choose to. I would rather that wasn't the case, because I think it harms proper integration, but it isn't a threat to British society at all.

They are a minority. They are here because we allow them to be. We could crush them all tomorrow if we decided to, but we are a civilised country, and that means tolerating some outside practices even if we do find those practices repellent on occasion.

Again, that's the price of freedom.

Yeah, well said. Really well said.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:So you're ok with different groups in the UK not being bound by the UK legal system?

They are bound by the UK legal system. We're on page 11 and this has been explained at least a couple of times on every page. Please read, and accept the basic facts of the issue.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Ok, pause for a moment and consider what you're berating me on here.

Sorry, didn't mean to give the impression I was berating you. Maybe my tone from the argument I was having two other people in this thread slipped over. My apologies.

That these courts are fairly innocuous and that I'm panicking over them. What have I been putting forward in the entire thread for pages? The rights of women under Sharia and their mistreatment. You are telling me not to worry and that I'm ignoring the real issues but then agreeing with me but suggesting that children are at risk of not being considered under Sharia.

You were saying you were worried about these courts expanding in power. That is a thing that there is no need to panic over, it's a thing that can't happen. The courts are clearly limited by the Arbitration Act.

My point is that worrying about that distracts from concern and efforts to reform actual problematic areas with Sharia courts, and possibly make it harder to affect actual reform.

As to the court never expanding it's portfolio, how the bloody hell do you know that it can't, that it won't? There is no precedent for this, the Jewish have never had the numbers, lobbyists, extremist movement, hostility or most importantly the inclination, to push the envelope further. Judaism is fairly guarded and certainly non-expansionist. Islam is expansionist, aggressively so.

Because the courts only gained their power by claiming status under the pre-existing Arbitration Act. There is no movement to expand the powers under that act, and no will to do so.

Exactly what set of circumstances would result in the UK passing laws to amends its criminal codes and reform the entire structure of courts, to build an entirely new structure of courts to facilitate two sets of rules. How immense must a lobbying group be to completely reform the legal system in a country?

However, with regards the woman's rights abuses within the UK by muslims (I'm not getting into the terror threat issue, I believe it's overblown by massive degrees), I fully accept the fact it will go on with or without the Sharia Court's existence or approval, what I am saying is that the Sharia court will enable it and that by the UK government approving and endorsing Sharia court's powers, the UK state is approving and endorsing these abuses. That is abhorrent to me.

And I'd agree that an effort to restrict Sharia courts from ruling on matters of family law would a good thing. But that effort is made much less likely to succeed when it

Agreed, I am certainly fearful of the increasing powers and state support of this fascistic religion. It is a fear founded on what I am presented with on a daily basis from news around the world (from what I consider reasoned media sources), from the experiences recounted to me from abused muslim women I worked with and from the actual words of muslim leadership and the Qur'an.

Which is all fair enough. I'm guessing Melissia was trying to read some hint of Islamophobia into my post, for whatever reason, and therefore she railed against the word 'fear', as if it's somehow a bad thing to be afraid of realy threats.

Whilst there currently exist no way in law for the expansion of private court, again and again, precedent can still be set. The law is a mutable thing. You keep talking in absolutes that this 'can't happen' and I'm telling you straight that it could. Lobbying and gradual encroachment. The powers and the portfolio of the court, now the court exists, can be increased. There is no written constitution in the UK and all bets are off in terms of movement of the law.

The law is mutable because of the power of precedent in shaping the common law. But courts of arbitration do not set precedent.

And I still cannot see how Islamic groups could ever achieve the lobbying power necessary to completely reform UK law.

Being concerned about how homosexuals or women may be judged in the Sharia court is perfectly legitimate concern, regardless of actual powers it holds, it is governed by religion, not state law, the religion calls for the death of homosexuals and states the second class treatment of women, this hardly rings endorsement to fair treatment for either group and again reiterates the unsuitability of the Sharia court's endorsement by law.

But this has nothing to do with the actual powers of the court.

Judge Judy could also call for the death of someone who agreed to appear in her court (probably not for homosexuality, more likely for wearing a sideways or something) and it would have the exact same legal ramifications. None.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:Does it have full force of law? If someone really doesn't like it can't they still take it to real court? I can't believe that a court couldn't still take the case or vacate a non-governmental court ruling. Sounds alarmist.

The rulings have the full force of the law. Like a legal decision granted in a lower court, these can be appealed to higher courts.

The rulings made in a court of arbitration have no power to set precedent.

Frazzled wrote:
So you're ok with different groups in the UK not being bound by the UK legal system?

They are bound by UK law, that's what Sebster was discussing when he mentioned the Arbitration Act.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:It's basically a council of elders, not so much a religious authority. It's also incredibly secretive and not open to scrutiny by the public.

Yeah, its a religious authority. That's how religious authority works in Islam. There is no equivalent of Christian clergy.

Melissia wrote:
This is a great deal of the reason why you see so many reports of brutal tribal justice in places with Sharia law. Sharia law IS tribal justice.

No, that's not correct at all. The two things often impact one another, but they aren't the same. Even 15 minutes of research will answer that question for you.

sebster wrote:

Albatross wrote:The thing is, I don't think anyone here is trying to claim that Sharia Law is a Good Thing, or something to be supported - merely that the amount of hysteria on the subject is largely unwarranted.

I think religious courts are an awful, medieval concept and should be stamped out because they are culturally harmful - that's my personal view on the matter. But I love my country, and being British I accept that people should have the freedom to make stupid religious choices, within reason. That's their right under UK law.

They are a minority. They are here because we allow them to be. We could crush them all tomorrow if we decided to, but we are a civilised country, and that means tolerating some outside practices even if we do find those practices repellent on occasion.

Again, that's the price of freedom.

Yeah, well said. Really well said.

It's nice, it's what I absolutely used to believe, but I cannot condone and in fact strongly object, to the facilitation of an unfair court of an unfair religion. Why must we tolerate it? Because people who adhere to it scream that it's non-existence in this country is offensive to them, they are a minority and the sexism and prejudice that will be prevalent in these courts will be offensive to the rest of us, those who adhere to the notions of freedom and liberty our nation is supposed to represent.

If these courts showed the same prejudice to skin colour that they show to gender, would they be allowed? I don't think so.

sebster wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Ok, pause for a moment and consider what you're berating me on here.

Sorry, didn't mean to give the impression I was berating you. Maybe my tone from the argument I was having two other people in this thread slipped over. My apologies.

No problem at all, I was also feeling fairly prickly about the way another person had been corresponding with/patronising me. I've done a lot of soul searching over my feelings towards the religion of Islam, as being prejudicial against a whole group of people like that is in direct conflict with my first instinct/prime beliefs as a left wing tolerant type. I suffer the occasional morality short circuit over it as various points are made and my moral compass wavers. It was disappointing to be dealt with in that fashion by someone who's posts I had previously held in good regard, disappointing but revelatory. Let's you and I continue down this more polite path.

sebster wrote:

That these courts are fairly innocuous and that I'm panicking over them. What have I been putting forward in the entire thread for pages? The rights of women under Sharia and their mistreatment. You are telling me not to worry and that I'm ignoring the real issues but then agreeing with me but suggesting that children are at risk of not being considered under Sharia.

You were saying you were worried about these courts expanding in power. That is a thing that there is no need to panic over, it's a thing that can't happen. The courts are clearly limited by the Arbitration Act.

My point is that worrying about that distracts from concern and efforts to reform actual problematic areas with Sharia courts, and possibly make it harder to affect actual reform.

Acts can and have been amended with frequent and gay abandon throughout legal history. A single high court ruling setting precedent can see the Act being revised and greater power turned over to the Arbitration courts as the direct effect of a case.
I'm puzzled by your repeated insistence that things cannot happen, from where I stand its always been the case that nothing is set in stone. We could see Sharia law invoked in the high courts in the future as mitigation, one ruling on that and it becomes a precedent to be included in full criminal court trials as well.

sebster wrote:

As to the court never expanding it's portfolio, how the bloody hell do you know that it can't, that it won't? There is no precedent for this, the Jewish have never had the numbers, lobbyists, extremist movement, hostility or most importantly the inclination, to push the envelope further. Judaism is fairly guarded and certainly non-expansionist. Islam is expansionist, aggressively so.

Because the courts only gained their power by claiming status under the pre-existing Arbitration Act. There is no movement to expand the powers under that act, and no will to do so.
Exactly what set of circumstances would result in the UK passing laws to amends its criminal codes and reform the entire structure of courts, to build an entirely new structure of courts to facilitate two sets of rules. How immense must a lobbying group be to completely reform the legal system in a country?

By degrees, by inches, now the 'foot is in the door' with these courts. Once the Sharia courts start encountering their legal boundaries and become frustrated at their inability to set out the fullness of their own 'holy' law, then the gradual railing against and pushing for more power will start. Consider why these courts were established in the first place, the desire to convert, the desire for autonomy, the belief in superiority of cause. The pushing and shoving will continue.

sebster wrote:

However, with regards the woman's rights abuses within the UK by muslims (I'm not getting into the terror threat issue, I believe it's overblown by massive degrees), I fully accept the fact it will go on with or without the Sharia Court's existence or approval, what I am saying is that the Sharia court will enable it and that by the UK government approving and endorsing Sharia court's powers, the UK state is approving and endorsing these abuses. That is abhorrent to me.

And I'd agree that an effort to restrict Sharia courts from ruling on matters of family law would a good thing. But that effort is made much less likely to succeed when it

Sorry, you cut yourself off there, I think you might have been allaying to the ability to regulate and alter if the sharia court is 'above ground' rather than acting covertly and being directly blocked. My point is that it won't, those who run it believe it's acting according to the word of their god, that he has said a male child belongs to a man past 7 days old (or weeks or somesuch, I forget). I believe the prejudices existent in the religion, short of the direct British law breaking ones like execution, will continue to operate in these courts.

sebster wrote:

Agreed, I am certainly fearful of the increasing powers and state support of this fascistic religion. It is a fear founded on what I am presented with on a daily basis from news around the world (from what I consider reasoned media sources), from the experiences recounted to me from abused muslim women I worked with and from the actual words of muslim leadership and the Qur'an.

Which is all fair enough. I'm guessing Melissia was trying to read some hint of Islamophobia into my post, for whatever reason, and therefore she railed against the word 'fear', as if it's somehow a bad thing to be afraid of realy threats.

Yeah, my male pride rankles to use the phrase 'it scares me' and perhaps 'I'm highly apprehensive about' would be a truer statement as I'm not up all night shivering and peering out the window for when the scary terrorists come to claim us all.
But I do fear that we risk facilitating that which we say we stand against in an attempt to be tolerant. I think, looking at what I know of Islam (of which I am not a scholar, but I have taken a long hard look to try and find ways to better understand my own rising dislike) that it is something that those who value personal freedom, equality and education should be apprehensive about, it seems geared toward taking down much that I hold dear. If such a movement stands up and repeatedly says 'I am the enemy of what you stand for', I believe that you should, after asking them to knock it off, draw a line and stop letting them treat you and your nation like a doormat.

sebster wrote:

Whilst there currently exist no way in law for the expansion of private court, again and again, precedent can still be set. The law is a mutable thing. You keep talking in absolutes that this 'can't happen' and I'm telling you straight that it could. Lobbying and gradual encroachment. The powers and the portfolio of the court, now the court exists, can be increased. There is no written constitution in the UK and all bets are off in terms of movement of the law.

The law is mutable because of the power of precedent in shaping the common law. But courts of arbitration do not set precedent.

And I still cannot see how Islamic groups could ever achieve the lobbying power necessary to completely reform UK law.

As I see it, lobbying power is not about size of population, it's about making the most noise and being able to utilise notions (right or wrong) of political correctness. And whilst the change won't come in the arbitration court, all it takes is a high court ruling that the Sharia court can rule on a particular instance or circumstance and again, by inches and tiny degrees, we shift a little further down the line.

sebster wrote:

Being concerned about how homosexuals or women may be judged in the Sharia court is perfectly legitimate concern, regardless of actual powers it holds, it is governed by religion, not state law, the religion calls for the death of homosexuals and states the second class treatment of women, this hardly rings endorsement to fair treatment for either group and again reiterates the unsuitability of the Sharia court's endorsement by law.

But this has nothing to do with the actual powers of the court.

Judge Judy could also call for the death of someone who agreed to appear in her court (probably not for homosexuality, more likely for wearing a sideways or something) and it would have the exact same legal ramifications. None.

Sorry, misreading my intended point, I'm saying that all the sabre rattling that the Sharia courts do about their hatreds and wants to execute gays and beat up women for having opinions means that it is a valid point to be concerned about how someone might be treated in the court if there is an allegation of them being gay or a woman...

Also, as an aside since the 'putting to death' bit isn't the point I was making as it's not a concern for me, with the Judge Judy bit, she isn't a religious leader, she can't call for death and have ardent followers of the Cult of Judy hunt some poor bastard down and murder them, Mullahs, Ayatollahs et al can.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:It's nice, it's what I absolutely used to believe, but I cannot condone and in fact strongly object, to the facilitation of an unfair court of an unfair religion. Why must we tolerate it? Because people who adhere to it scream that it's non-existence in this country is offensive to them, they are a minority and the sexism and prejudice that will be prevalent in these courts will be offensive to the rest of us, those who adhere to the notions of freedom and liberty our nation is supposed to represent.

If these courts showed the same prejudice to skin colour that they show to gender, would they be allowed? I don't think so.

But outside of family law, which I agree shouldn't be under the scope of Sharia court arbitration, where does the sexism exhibit itself in the ruling of the court?

No problem at all, I was also feeling fairly prickly about the way another person had been corresponding with/patronising me. I've done a lot of soul searching over my feelings towards the religion of Islam, as being prejudicial against a whole group of people like that is in direct conflict with my first instinct/prime beliefs as a left wing tolerant type. I suffer the occasional morality short circuit over it as various points are made and my moral compass wavers. It was disappointing to be dealt with in that fashion by someone who's posts I had previously held in good regard, disappointing but revelatory. Let's you and I continue down this more polite path.

Cool, text medium and all that.

Acts can and have been amended with frequent and gay abandon throughout legal history. A single high court ruling setting precedent can see the Act being revised and greater power turned over to the Arbitration courts as the direct effect of a case.
I'm puzzled by your repeated insistence that things cannot happen, from where I stand its always been the case that nothing is set in stone. We could see Sharia law invoked in the high courts in the future as mitigation, one ruling on that and it becomes a precedent to be included in full criminal court trials as well.

Sure, acts can be amended, but to do that you need some means of getting the law changed in your favour. Look at the folk in this thread, not one has come in to argue that Sharia courts are a good thing, the most we've seen is people arguing that they're voluntary and it's restricted to civil law so it's up to them. At the same time we've had people who are so hostile to sharia law at large that they've pretended that's what UK sharia law is, just so they could be more hostile to the idea.

The idea of expanding Sharia law is popular among some portion of the Islamic community, and has negligible support elsewhere and an immense amount of outright hostility. It's about as likely a successful lobbying effort as NAMBLA is.

By degrees, by inches, now the 'foot is in the door' with these courts. Once the Sharia courts start encountering their legal boundaries and become frustrated at their inability to set out the fullness of their own 'holy' law, then the gradual railing against and pushing for more power will start. Consider why these courts were established in the first place, the desire to convert, the desire for autonomy, the belief in superiority of cause. The pushing and shoving will continue.

They can push all they want. They got their courts established in the first place because they complied with pre-existing law, to go to the next step they'd need to actually get legal reform past parliament. Getting legal reform passed is an incredibly difficult thing when it's just an update, but when you're changing legal principles to include "it's okay for some peopel to beat their wives" then you've got absolutely no chance.

Sorry, you cut yourself off there, I think you might have been allaying to the ability to regulate and alter if the sharia court is 'above ground' rather than acting covertly and being directly blocked. My point is that it won't, those who run it believe it's acting according to the word of their god, that he has said a male child belongs to a man past 7 days old (or weeks or somesuch, I forget). I believe the prejudices existent in the religion, short of the direct British law breaking ones like execution, will continue to operate in these courts.

Bugger, I've been leaving sentences unfinished a bit lately. Sorry, what I meant to say was that the effort to focus on problem areas that exist right now is harmed by worrying about things that aren't real concerns, such as the injustices of Sharia courts in other countries, or the fear that Sharia courts here might suddenly expand in their powers despite the overwhelming opposition to them.

I think a lot could be achieved by reforming the courts as they presently exist, to ensure children are properly protected in secular courts designed to put their interests first.

Yeah, my male pride rankles to use the phrase 'it scares me' and perhaps 'I'm highly apprehensive about' would be a truer statement as I'm not up all night shivering and peering out the window for when the scary terrorists come to claim us all.
But I do fear that we risk facilitating that which we say we stand against in an attempt to be tolerant. I think, looking at what I know of Islam (of which I am not a scholar, but I have taken a long hard look to try and find ways to better understand my own rising dislike) that it is something that those who value personal freedom, equality and education should be apprehensive about, it seems geared toward taking down much that I hold dear. If such a movement stands up and repeatedly says 'I am the enemy of what you stand for', I believe that you should, after asking them to knock it off, draw a line and stop letting them treat you and your nation like a doormat.

Oh, I certainly agree that there's all kinds of elements of Islam that are a worry. I've always been of the opinion that ultimately the way we go about things is better, so as they're exposed to our society we can pick up the good bits of there's, and they can pick a lot of the good bits of ours. Pretty straight multicultural stuff.

But I do have a fear (there's that word...) that it isn't working like it has in the past, because there is greater scope to be more insular, for whatever reason. Particularly with so many groups setting up their own schools - used to be that no matter what happened at home those kids were part of society for six hours a day, for 12 years, and that made a huge difference. But with private religious schools that exposure isn't there anymore.

I'm not sure what the answer is. I read David Cameron's speach, and I'm quietly confident that whatever he ultimately proposes won't be the answer, but I don't entirely disagree with his sentiment.

As I see it, lobbying power is not about size of population, it's about making the most noise and being able to utilise notions (right or wrong) of political correctness. And whilst the change won't come in the arbitration court, all it takes is a high court ruling that the Sharia court can rule on a particular instance or circumstance and again, by inches and tiny degrees, we shift a little further down the line.

But as I mentioned earlier NAMBLA is pretty loud as well, and their platform is about as popular. Greater Sharia powers for Sharia courts is about as likely as legal marriages for men and young boys.

Sorry, misreading my intended point, I'm saying that all the sabre rattling that the Sharia courts do about their hatreds and wants to execute gays and beat up women for having opinions means that it is a valid point to be concerned about how someone might be treated in the court if there is an allegation of them being gay or a woman...

Sure, which is why I think the court should have it's powers restricted to areas that don't involve gender equity (ie, remove family law). It may be possible that a court could show bias against a person for their gender or sexual preference, and if that happens then then there remains a right of appeal.

Also, as an aside since the 'putting to death' bit isn't the point I was making as it's not a concern for me, with the Judge Judy bit, she isn't a religious leader, she can't call for death and have ardent followers of the Cult of Judy hunt some poor bastard down and murder them, Mullahs, Ayatollahs et al can.

Yeah, the point with Judge Judy is that she's got a court of arbitration, same as a Sharia Court. The chances of her being able to call for the death of someone and have it legally followed are the same as a Sharia court.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:It's nice, it's what I absolutely used to believe, but I cannot condone and in fact strongly object, to the facilitation of an unfair court of an unfair religion. Why must we tolerate it? Because people who adhere to it scream that it's non-existence in this country is offensive to them, they are a minority and the sexism and prejudice that will be prevalent in these courts will be offensive to the rest of us, those who adhere to the notions of freedom and liberty our nation is supposed to represent.

If these courts showed the same prejudice to skin colour that they show to gender, would they be allowed? I don't think so.

There's the concern I have in this debate: "unfair court." Have you anything to support that these courts in the UK are unfair?

Going back to the article I mentioned earlier, it stated that one court had heard six cases of domestic violence and had ruled in favour of the wives in all cases; the husbands had been instructed to attend anger management classes although no further action was taken.

In all honesty, if the religion of Islam had a major "reformation" as has Judaism and Christianity, then this thread may not be necessary. They do need a major re-tooling so that they cease the well news remarked Infatadas and cries for Jihad.

Also, have you seen what has been happening in France and Spain once the "foot is in the door?"

Ulver wrote:
There's the concern I have in this debate: "unfair court." Have you anything to support that these courts in the UK are unfair?

What does it mean to be unfair?

If all cases are judged consistently, then its probably fair to say they were judged fairly.

There's a very strange tendency amongst people to presume that "fair" means "something I like".

If all wife beating is considered acceptable, and all arbitration by judges X following standard Y find that people that beat their wives are not to be punished, then the finding is still fair regardless of whether or not person Z likes it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

shasolenzabi wrote:In all honesty, if the religion of Islam had a major "reformation" as has Judaism and Christianity, then this thread may not be necessary. They do need a major re-tooling so that they cease the well news remarked Infatadas and cries for Jihad.

The Intifadas were cultural events, and not merely Islamic ones.

Jihad is an Arabic word, and not just an Islamic one.

shasolenzabi wrote:
Also, have you seen what has been happening in France and Spain once the "foot is in the door?"

Yeah, those respective 3% and 2% Muslim populations are totally ruining France and Spain.

What other cultures not touched by Islam have Intifadas?

And yet, I have not heard of Coptic Christians(Arabic) use that term before.

I have heard of reports from those countries where there have been riots and complaints of bombings by journalists from there. Just takes a few bad apples to ruin it for the whole bunch.

shasolenzabi wrote:What other cultures not touched by Islam have Intifadas?

And yet, I have not heard of Coptic Christians(Arabic) use that term before.

Intifada means uprising in Arabic. There have been Intifadas in almost every nation on Earth. It is a matter of culture because only Arabic speakers would call an uprising an Intifada.

You haven't heard of a Coptic Intifada because no one in the West wants to admit that the vocabulary describing the evil Muslims is nothing more than a linguistic game.

http://www.arabwestreport.info/node/26926

http://koptikjihad.blogspot.com/2005/07/coptic-intifada.html (note the URL here)

http://www.ordoesitexplode.com/me/2005/01/church_and_stat.html

shasolenzabi wrote:
I have heard of reports from those countries where there have been riots and complaints of bombings by journalists from there. Just takes a few bad apples to ruin it for the whole bunch.

No it doesn't. If it did, then all countries would be ruined. There are murderers everywhere, and yet we don't talk about Belgium being nation of killers.

Like almost all cliches, that is lazy nonsense.

Well the term was used when they declared the death os salman rushdi, that has stuck with me and many others ever since.

Sounds like another organized religion I will not bother with. And will not wish foisted upon me by subtle or hard pressure.

Look how long all Germans were referred to as Nazis after WWII, took time to erase that stigma. Remeber, you are trying to make a point despite the fact that the mass media loves to play the fear factor, but then I do tend to read from more than one news source as I happen to find American media is too dominated by corporate sponsorship to spin the news as their masters see fit.

Enlighten us about Belgium.

Look, likely you do not perceive the extent as to how deep this runs, but also no idea that when the news also catches parades of hundreds of masked "soldiers" with explosives strapped to their bodies, and mobs screaming for blood in the name of their religion, whether it be Islamic of any nation, Christian, Hindu, or Jewish, it is going to make news and be amplified as this is what those folks are like.

My father, a Jew, was good friends with both a Nigerian Muslim and an Egyptian muslim from his job, had them over to the house many times and these were nice guys to know, so they had made a good impression on me in my youth. Then we have these issues of the mob riots and other violence and honestly, look it up, more of these things coming from the Muslim world these days than the old days when the IRA was making news for their bomb attacks.

Soak in some of the news allover, and it happens, Hell we have some scary Christian wackos in the States, and even Neo-nazis s well looking for a chance to make their own little nations where they would rule over others.

I'd like to see a reformation where Islam becomes less radical and militant/expansionistic, and see changes like the way the Christian churches calmed down and ceased trying o hard to dominate the lives of the people of Europe, and launching their Crusades and Inquisitions.

BTW this is an interesting conversation, thank you.

shasolenzabi wrote:Remeber, you are trying to make a point despite the fact that the mass media loves to play the fear factor, but then I do tend to read from more than one news source as I happen to find American media is too dominated by corporate sponsorship to spin the news as their masters see fit.

Mass media is such that you really have no choice but to watch/read it all if you want the whole picture, and then do your own research; of course.

shasolenzabi wrote:
Enlighten us about Belgium.

Great waffles.

But seriously, I just picked a country nominally regarded as benign in order to illustrate my point that all nations suck if we only pay attention to what certain members of them do.

shasolenzabi wrote:
Look, likely you do not perceive the extent as to how deep this runs, but also no idea that when the news also catches parades of hundreds of masked "soldiers" with explosives strapped to their bodies, and mobs screaming for blood in the name of their religion, whether it be Islamic of any nation, Christian, Hindu, or Jewish, it is going to make news and be amplified as this is what those folks are like.

I get paid to study this stuff, and my future livelihood depends on it as well. I'll admit that I'm probably one of the most emotionally sterile people on the planet, perhaps because of studying conflict and terrorism for ~9 years, and that probably explains why I'm so mystified by the generic reaction to guys with bombs strapped to their chests; but I think that there is a real sense in which lots of humans tend to form opinions based on nothing other than circumstantial claims. It is normal, obviously, but also irritating, and so I try and oppose it.

shasolenzabi wrote:
My father, a Jew, was good friends with both a Nigerian Muslim and an Egyptian muslim from his job, had them over to the house many times and these were nice guys to know, so they had made a good impression on me in my youth. Then we have these issues of the mob riots and other violence and honestly, look it up, more of these things coming from the Muslim world these days than the old days when the IRA was making news for their bomb attacks.

Meh, one of my acquaintances was Muslim and from Afghanistan and he tried to rape my former girlfriend. I don't hate him, his understanding of rape was different from ours. I stopped him, told him why what he did was wrong from our position, and then that was the end of it.

shasolenzabi wrote:
Soak in some of the news allover, and it happens, Hell we have some scary Christian wackos in the States, and even Neo-nazis s well looking for a chance to make their own little nations where they would rule over others.

For sure, and I'm equally critical of that sort of thing.

Well, maybe not the attacks against Nazis. There really aren't any redeeming qualities there.

shasolenzabi wrote:
I'd like to see a reformation where Islam becomes less radical and militant/expansionistic, and see changes like the way the Christian churches calmed down and ceased trying o hard to dominate the lives of the people of Europe, and launching their Crusades and Inquisitions.

Central Asia, sans Afghanistan, is a decent example of that. So is Indonesia, though that whole government at gunpoint thing sort of mitigates it.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
First point, no, this is binding as a civil court ruling and subject to criminal court punishment if not adhered to or successfully appealed against.

Let me get this straight. It is enforcable by law...unless they pass a judgement that is unenforcable. This is not really a problem is it? It's also exactly what I said.

Second point, of course we are talking about the rulings within the auspices of criminal law, the problem many of us are having is in regard the bias likely to be shown. I can't believe we got to page 11 and you still didn't get that.

I think you meant to put a not in that above sentence before 'talking', right? I'm not sure, becuase the topic is straying to and fro between civil decisions to honour killings.

As for the element of bias:

1) The process is voluntary

2) The decision can then be challenged in court, especially if there is evidence of bias.

As for the element of bias:

1) The process is voluntary

2) The decision can then be challenged in court, especially if there is evidence of bias.

Thats the problem. Under sharia law, there is prima facae evidence of bias against women. It can't be unbiased.

Against women, against homosexuals, against ex-muslims, and so on and so forth. The link on the first page tells a tale of an assault victim who was severely beaten and there was no criminal charge pressed because the community hid the assault from the authorities and instead used a Sharia court ruling. And yet for some reason people seem to think I'm being unreasonable when I say this not only can happen again, it will.

Well I'm working under the prviso of actual "legally done" civil cases going to this sharia court. It sounds like nightmare number one for women in a divorce and/or child custody situation.

Frankly the entire thought of "separate but equal" courts screams of balkanization. One country, one law for King and peasant. I thought that was the big thing about the British system that evolved.

Frazzled wrote:
Frankly the entire thought of "separate but equal" courts screams of balkanization.

Yes, that sounds terrible. Good job it isn't happening.


Sharia courts are clearly subordinate to the Common Law of the constituent countries of the United Kingdom.

Seriously, I wasn't even interested in Sharia Law until this thread came up a few days ago - even a cursory glance at some of the material I found on it shows that the hysteria some people in this thread are exhibiting is ludicrous. Just look into the situation. Hell, even look at the wiki page if you must.

Melissia wrote:The link on the first page tells a tale of an assault victim who was severely beaten and there was no criminal charge pressed because the community hid the assault from the authorities and instead used a Sharia court ruling. And yet for some reason people seem to think I'm being unreasonable when I say this not only can happen again, it will.

It will also happen in the east-end of London, the council estates of Middlesbrough, and the suburbs of south-central LA. That's just the nature of some communities. It's not the fault of the civil arbitration system they use. A crime was committed. A crime should have been reported*. The victim chose not to report it, and the community sorted out amongst itself.

Stupid? Undoubtedly. Backwards? Definitely.



Limited to Muslims? Sadly not. It's limited largely to the stupid and fearful.



*I just blamed the victim. Somewhere a Gailbraithe got his wings.

Again Alby, if its some form of binding arbitration or meidation then IS happening. They are using rules of evidence, procedure, and presumption that would be clearly different than a UK court. Unless there's evidence that the moderator/court was biased its going to be hard for a civil court to overturn it (it makes them effectively appeals courts). Not saying it can't happen, but am saying its much more difficult than you think. As you note, both parties agreed initially.

Frazzled wrote:
Thats the problem. Under sharia law, there is prima facae evidence of bias against women. It can't be unbiased.

Again, because the law involves judgment it is biased by necessity.

You're not going to complain about the bias US law has against thieves, so why complain about the bias that some types of Sharia has against women?

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Thats the problem. Under sharia law, there is prima facae evidence of bias against women. It can't be unbiased.

Again, because the law involves judgment it is biased by necessity.

You're not going to complain about the bias US law has against thieves, so why complain about the bias that some types of Sharia has against women?

Did you really just make that argument?

I actually asked a question.

Frazzled wrote:Again Alby, if its some form of binding arbitration or meidation then IS happening.

What? A 'separate but equal' legal system? No, that's not happening. It's clearly not equal if it can't process criminal cases.

Ulver wrote:There's the concern I have in this debate: "unfair court." Have you anything to support that these courts in the UK are unfair?

They use Sharia law. Considering women and infidels as inferior beings not worthy of the same protections as men of the True Religion is unfair, at least in my book, and that's fundamental to that disgusting outdated mess. I am of the opinion that no court that treats one gender and those not of a particular religion (and worse those formerly of the 'correct' religion) should have any official sanction at all from any civilized government.

dogma wrote:Meh, one of my acquaintances was Muslim and from Afghanistan and he tried to rape my former girlfriend. I don't hate him, his understanding of rape was different from ours. I stopped him, told him why what he did was wrong from our position, and then that was the end of it.

Personally, I couldin't imagine remaining friends with a rapist, at the very least I'd turn him in to the police and cut off all contact with him. And my 'stopping him' would probably not involve saying something like 'pardon me good sir, you appear to be raping this woman, cease forthwith'.

You're probably envisioning a different sort of attempted rape than what actually happened. He didn't know what he was doing in the sense that he came at her expecting resistance. He was honestly confused, and just sort of fumbling about in a way that made it clear that he had no experience with Western culture (and he didn't).

dogma wrote:You're probably envisioning a different sort of attempted rape than what actually happened. He didn't know what he was doing in the sense that he came at her expecting resistance. He was honestly confused, and just sort of fumbling about in a way that made it clear that he had no experience with Western culture (and he didn't).

Respectfully, that sounds like utter bollocks as the Brits would say.

Frazzled wrote:

dogma wrote:You're probably envisioning a different sort of attempted rape than what actually happened. He didn't know what he was doing in the sense that he came at her expecting resistance. He was honestly confused, and just sort of fumbling about in a way that made it clear that he had no experience with Western culture (and he didn't).

Respectfully, that sounds like utter bollocks as the Brits would say.

I agree with frazzled here...

Having no knowledge of the law is not an excuse to disregard it.

frgsinwntr wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

dogma wrote:You're probably envisioning a different sort of attempted rape than what actually happened. He didn't know what he was doing in the sense that he came at her expecting resistance. He was honestly confused, and just sort of fumbling about in a way that made it clear that he had no experience with Western culture (and he didn't).

Respectfully, that sounds like utter bollocks as the Brits would say.

I agree with frazzled here...

Having no knowledge of the law is not an excuse to disregard it.

Additionally, in what "culture" are you going to expect "resistance?" I know back in the day smack with a stick and drag them into a cave was a time honored tradition, but that went out with the wheel.

sebster wrote:
But outside of family law, which I agree shouldn't be under the scope of Sharia court arbitration, where does the sexism exhibit itself in the ruling of the court?

I would suggest any and all cases where one side is not the same sex as the other is potential for the sexism of Islam to be deployed, whether openly cited or in the underlying mindset of those in the adjudication role.

At the same time we've had people who are so hostile to sharia law at large that they've pretended that's what UK sharia law is, just so they could be more hostile to the idea.

I get the distinct impression from those who've been pushing for these courts that they would, eventually, want them to run like sharia courts in other parts of the world. The courts themselves have already been publishing two sets of outcomes, one that was actually passed and one that they would like to pass if the country wasn't run by those pesky non-believers.

They can push all they want. They got their courts established in the first place because they complied with pre-existing law, to go to the next step they'd need to actually get legal reform past parliament. Getting legal reform passed is an incredibly difficult thing when it's just an update, but when you're changing legal principles to include "it's okay for some peopel to beat their wives" then you've got absolutely no chance.

The sharia courts have already adjudicated in 6 cases of domestic violence. That over-reaches the current extent of a non-islamic civil court.

The Times wrote:Siddiqi said that in a recent inheritance dispute handled by the court in Nuneaton, the estate of a Midlands man was divided between three daughters and two sons.
The judges on the panel gave the sons twice as much as the daughters, in accordance with sharia. Had the family gone to a normal British court, the daughters would have got equal amounts.
In the six cases of domestic violence, Siddiqi said the judges ordered the husbands to take anger management classes and mentoring from community elders. There was no further punishment.
In each case, the women subsequently withdrew the complaints they had lodged with the police and the police stopped their investigations.
Siddiqi said that in the domestic violence cases, the advantage was that marriages were saved and couples given a second chance.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4749183.ece
And that was 2 years ago, time has only entrenched this.

Bugger, I've been leaving sentences unfinished a bit lately. Sorry, what I meant to say was that the effort to focus on problem areas that exist right now is harmed by worrying about things that aren't real concerns, such as the injustices of Sharia courts in other countries, or the fear that Sharia courts here might suddenly expand in their powers despite the overwhelming opposition to them.
I think a lot could be achieved by reforming the courts as they presently exist, to ensure children are properly protected in secular courts designed to put their interests first.

Try doing that and you are, as far as the muslims running these things are concerned, trying to meddle in the written dictate of god and his prophet. Better to just insist they adhere to a British court whilst on British soil. Accommodating religious peculiarity at the expense of established equality and justice are not a way to conduct law.

Oh, I certainly agree that there's all kinds of elements of Islam that are a worry. I've always been of the opinion that ultimately the way we go about things is better, so as they're exposed to our society we can pick up the good bits of there's, and they can pick a lot of the good bits of ours. Pretty straight multicultural stuff.

But I do have a fear (there's that word...) that it isn't working like it has in the past, because there is greater scope to be more insular, for whatever reason. Particularly with so many groups setting up their own schools - used to be that no matter what happened at home those kids were part of society for six hours a day, for 12 years, and that made a huge difference. But with private religious schools that exposure isn't there anymore.

They are taught in these religious schools, in their mosques and now in sharia courts, that our way is fundamentally wrong and ungodly and that we must be forced to their way of thinking. They are becoming more and more a ghettoised sub-culture within the greater society. The more freedoms to do what they want results in more isolation.

I don't think it can last without some form of violent backlash from one side or the other. You're right about schools, one of my best friends in secondary school was the only muslim kid there, an Iraqi boy, his father a doctor fleeing Saddam's regime. It was good for both sides to have exposure to each other. It's like all those repulsively clichéd song lyrics about children ignoring colour. Mixing is good for children. Raising Islamic children behind closed doors, unexposed to the rest of the UK is dangerous.

Greater Sharia powers for Sharia courts is about as likely as legal marriages for men and young boys.

If sharia is already dealing with domestic violence cases, it has over-reached the powers used by the Jewish courts. In all 6 cases reported in that Times report, the marriages were 'saved' and the wife was returned to live with the husband... It speaks volumes to me and reinforces my belief in what's wrong with these courts. Another difference in principles of Beth Din over Sharia is that Beth Din officially recognises the sovereignty of British Law over it's own, Sharia very clearly does not.

Sharia court increasing influence over a wider range of aspects of the daily lives of muslims living in the UK is a forgone conclusion. The wrong in facilitating that is our cross to carry. We have damned those women back to the suffering they sought to escape. That's not just the fault of Islam, that the fault of every do-gooder who believed that ducking a potential accusation of racist was preferable to enabling domestic violence.

Sure, which is why I think the court should have it's powers restricted to areas that don't involve gender equity (ie, remove family law). It may be possible that a court could show bias against a person for their gender or sexual preference, and if that happens then then there remains a right of appeal.

Right to appeal is a difficult thing to monitor, many Islamic women in the UK don't even speak english, they will be unaware of what's available to them. And again, I'll reiterate the point that, unlike the Beth Din, this is a religious ruling before God. Saying you wish to go to the law of the land because you are unsatisfied with the outcome is akin to saying 'I don't like what god has said and I'd like to rely on an infidel's court to over rule it.'

i just learnt that bit about the domestic violence cases and those women's marriages being 'saved'. I am greatly troubled and saddened by it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ulver wrote:
There's the concern I have in this debate: "unfair court." Have you anything to support that these courts in the UK are unfair?

Certainly, they are governed according to Islam. Islam is misogynistic, homophobic and xenophobic.

Examples, in Sharia, a woman's testimony is worth half that of a man's. In Sharia, a man automatically gains custody of male children past suckling and female children past puberty.

Sound fair to you?

Emperors Faithful wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
First point, no, this is binding as a civil court ruling and subject to criminal court punishment if not adhered to or successfully appealed against.

Let me get this straight. It is enforcable by law...unless they pass a judgement that is unenforcable. This is not really a problem is it? It's also exactly what I said.

I've mentioned this a few times in the thread but to reiterate, the court is subject to bias and unfair to certain groups. That is a problem within the greater society that claims to oppose unfair and bias yet enables this medieval idiocy to gain a foothold under the protection of a 'cultural right'.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Second point, of course we are talking about the rulings within the auspices of criminal law, the problem many of us are having is in regard the bias likely to be shown. I can't believe we got to page 11 and you still didn't get that.

I think you meant to put a not in that above sentence before 'talking', right? I'm not sure, becuase the topic is straying to and fro between civil decisions to honour killings.

As for the element of bias:

1) The process is voluntary

2) The decision can then be challenged in court, especially if there is evidence of bias.

With regard your response here, you directly named me and took issue with my point hence my response you've quoted. I have not gone into the issue of honour killings being sanctioned by sharia courts in the uk. Other conversations are taking place in this thread, why didn't you quote them.

As for the element of bias:

1) consider peer pressure, the education and personal freedom of certain of the islamic population and the concept of a religious court then reconsider the term voluntary...

2) refer to point 1 directly above and consider peer pressure etc and the notion of trying to dispute the rulings of a court who base their adjudication in the written word of god.

Yeah, I have to chirp in and say I disagree with my pal Alby here.

I mean, sure, I can see both sides of the argument, but I really think that the whole "freedom of speech" thing can be discounted, for a very simple reason.

Ultimately, we DO decide what is acceptable. It seems to me to be a very naive thing for someone to think. We arent REALLY free are we? Lets be honest. I mean, Americans for some bizarre reason love to chirp on about it with Freedom Radio and Freedom FM and freedom fries etc etc etc (You might think you guys have chilled considering its been three hundred years) but even here in Europe people love going on and on and on about it.

We live in a police state dont we? I mean, If your government decides to do something, they can go right ahead and do it. Sure you might vote them out YEARS later, but they can crack on regardless. Remember how many people were up in arms about Iraq? It makes not a single jot of difference!

Im not an anarchist or some daft hippy, so Im not even going to go on about that point cos its kinda OT, but the whole freedom thing really aint a piece of piss to me, it boils down to this.

Ultimately "they" decide what you can say, and what you cant say. It has been decided that many things are hate speech (even if I think they arent) and are illegal, and many things arent. Such is life, there are rules. Lots and lots of rules.

My point is simply this, we DO decide what you can and cant say. So why not decide on issues like this?

Its not legal for me to say and do lots of things. Why can we not just add this Sharia law crap onto the list of things that we have decided you cannot do?

We decided you cant hate on gays, but we decided that the muslims could have a street party in London to celebrate 9/11.

If it was down to me, sure, we would have total freedom, but we dont. They would be allowed to have their muslim parties to laud the suicide bombers and murderers, and I would be allowed to have a "Blow up your local Mosque" parade, but we arent. So the argument is null and void.

Sharia law sucks balls. If they held a referendum on it, the populous would vote to ban it.

So feth em, lets do it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh and on topic, anyone who wishes may sign this petition, support this noble cause, lets ban this medieval nonsense once and for all.

http://onelawforallpetition.com/onelaw/onela300.php?nr=40155035

Does this mean the UK has to allow Scientology, for instance, to create side courts to arbitrate? Which religions/groups get this priveledge? I am not an expert (I know, shocking) on UK law so I don't how these 'courts' are granted legitimacy.

Beats me mate, Im just in the process of abandoning my long held "everyone should be able to say anything at all" belief for "some people are really doing very well at getting themselves heard but banning people like me from speaking so screw it lets put them in the hurtlocker" world view.

As always, I am pretty sure that Islam is ahead of the curve thanks to many well funded political orginisations, and yes, Scientology should be able to make its own courts as well.

But we both know that wont happen, because Scientology isnt trying to do what Islam is trying to do.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:

Ulver wrote:There's the concern I have in this debate: "unfair court." Have you anything to support that these courts in the UK are unfair?

They use Sharia law. Considering women and infidels as inferior beings not worthy of the same protections as men of the True Religion is unfair, at least in my book, and that's fundamental to that disgusting outdated mess. I am of the opinion that no court that treats one gender and those not of a particular religion (and worse those formerly of the 'correct' religion) should have any official sanction at all from any civilized government.

You chose to delete the rest of my quoted post, stating that out of 6 domestic violence cases, all had been ruled in favour of the women. MGS has handily provided the quote, his post quoted below.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:The sharia courts have already adjudicated in 6 cases of domestic violence. That over-reaches the current extent of a non-islamic civil court.

The Times wrote:Siddiqi said that in a recent inheritance dispute handled by the court in Nuneaton, the estate of a Midlands man was divided between three daughters and two sons.
The judges on the panel gave the sons twice as much as the daughters, in accordance with sharia. Had the family gone to a normal British court, the daughters would have got equal amounts.
In the six cases of domestic violence, Siddiqi said the judges ordered the husbands to take anger management classes and mentoring from community elders. There was no further punishment.
In each case, the women subsequently withdrew the complaints they had lodged with the police and the police stopped their investigations.
Siddiqi said that in the domestic violence cases, the advantage was that marriages were saved and couples given a second chance.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4749183.ece
And that was 2 years ago, time has only entrenched this.

Ulver wrote:
There's the concern I have in this debate: "unfair court." Have you anything to support that these courts in the UK are unfair?

Certainly, they are governed according to Islam. Islam is misogynistic, homophobic and xenophobic.

Examples, in Sharia, a woman's testimony is worth half that of a man's. In Sharia, a man automatically gains custody of male children past suckling and female children past puberty.

Sound fair to you?

As per my response to BoS' post above, 100% of those domestic violence cases were ruled in favour of the women. Of course we have no knowledge of the cases in point, however are we to assume that the women's testimonies were at least twice as strong as the men's, making them at least equal or greater in worth? It certainly doesn't support the claim that Sharia courts are prejudiced against women.

With regards to custody of children, no that doesn't sound fair. However, Fathers 4 Justice claim that English courts bias towards the mothers when awarding custody (and I can believe that - I know (secondhand) of one case where the mother is positively unsuitable to have custody of the children) - does that sound fair? It certainly doesn't count as equality.

mattyrm wrote:We live in a police state dont we?

No we don't, don't be soft http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_state Surveillance state, definitely; treated like children by the government, yes, but we're a long way from being a police state.

Ulver wrote:
You chose to delete the rest of my quoted post, stating that out of 6 domestic violence cases, all had been ruled in favour of the women. MGS has handily provided the quote, his post quoted below.

............. ...........

As per my response to BoS' post above, 100% of those domestic violence cases were ruled in favour of the women. Of course we have no knowledge of the cases in point, however are we to assume that the women's testimonies were at least twice as strong as the men's, making them at least equal or greater in worth? It certainly doesn't support the claim that Sharia courts are prejudiced against women.

With regards to custody of children, no that doesn't sound fair. However, Fathers 4 Justice claim that English courts bias towards the mothers when awarding custody (and I can believe that - I know (secondhand) of one case where the mother is positively unsuitable to have custody of the children) - does that sound fair? It certainly doesn't count as equality.

No where in that article does it say the court ruled in favour of the women. What it said was that the only punishment brought against the men for inflicting physical abuse was to be told to attend an anger management class and that the courts had kept the marriage together because of that.

What I read from that is that the court paid lip service to the notion of punishing the men for their crime and then insisted the woman return to the marital home and continue in the relationship.

6 women sought justice, they were all denied.

The statement of a woman's testimony being worth half that of a man's is established in sharia, don't suggest either that these women 'won' after being told to return to their abusive husbands and continue in a marriage that has so far resulted in physical harm or that because you think they might have won that they were subject to preferential treatment.

With regard the courts in the UK, at the very least there is an attempt at and a supposed striving towards equality in justice and principally above ALL other considerations, the courts of the United Kingdom are supposed to put the welfare of the child as it's Principal Concern in deciding an outcome.

You appear to have totally misread that article.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:6 women sought justice, they were all denied.

The statement of a woman's testimony being worth half that of a man's is established in sharia, don't suggest either that these women 'won' after being told to return to their abusive husbands and continue in a marriage that has so far resulted in physical harm or that because you think they might have won that they were subject to preferential treatment.

With regard the courts in the UK, at the very least there is an attempt at and a supposed striving towards equality in justice and principally above ALL other considerations, the courts of the United Kingdom are supposed to put the welfare of the child as it's Principal Concern in deciding an outcome.

You appear to have totally misread that article.

The women withdrew complaints that they had lodged with police - maybe they wanted to give their husbands a second chance, maybe the anger management courses worked, who knows? I don't. Do you?

There is no obligation for the women to withdraw those complaints; I'm sure you'll claim they were intimidated to do so, but they were strong-willed enough to lodge the complaints in the first place.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:...don't suggest either that these women 'won' after being told to return to their abusive husbands and continue in a marriage that has so far resulted in physical harm...

I can't understand why any woman would return to an abusive partner, but it happens all the time: "He'll change, I know it," "he's a good man really," "deep down he loves me," etc etc. I've seen it and heard it several times before. Women (and men for that matter) want to believe that the person they love will live up to the image they have of them, so don't suggest these women were manacled and dragged back to their prison homes, and don't assume it doesn't happen to Western women. As a female friend of mine once said, "women love a bastard." Sad, but true.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:With regard the courts in the UK, at the very least there is an attempt at and a supposed striving towards equality in justice and principally above ALL other considerations, the courts of the United Kingdom are supposed to put the welfare of the child as it's Principal Concern in deciding an outcome.

You appear to have totally misread that article.

You must realise how thin that sounds:
at the very least
attempt
supposed
striving
towards

It doesn't sound like you believe what you're typing yourself.

You have to realise that yours isn't the only world view - I have not 'misread' the article, I have merely interpreted it differently from you. Most things are open to interpretation (especially non-verbal remote communication, e.g. the Internet) - journalism being a major one.

Just to paraphrase what Albatross said, don't think for one second I'm standing up for Sharia, I pledge no support to any prejudiced organisation.

Ulver wrote:
The women withdrew complaints that they had lodged with police - maybe they wanted to give their husbands a second chance, maybe the anger management courses worked, who knows? I don't. Do you?
There is no obligation for the women to withdraw those complaints; I'm sure you'll claim they were intimidated to do so, but they were strong-willed enough to lodge the complaints in the first place.

Strong willed or desperate...
Then it's referred to the sharia court, the woman can refuse if she wants to and isn't overly bothered about the rejection of her community for not agreeing with God's law.
A woman subjected to abuse goes to the police and is returned to and subject to the adjudication of the very culture that supports her husband's actions.

It is disgusting.

Ulver wrote:
I can't understand why any woman would return to an abusive partner, but it happens all the time: "He'll change, I know it," "he's a good man really," "deep down he loves me," etc etc. I've seen it and heard it several times before. Women (and men for that matter) want to believe that the person they love will live up to the image they have of them, so don't suggest these women were manacled and dragged back to their prison homes, and don't assume it doesn't happen to Western women. As a female friend of mine once said, "women love a bastard." Sad, but true.

I have worked with women who have been abused within muslim homes, I have learnt of the pressures they face and the lack of support they experience. Your response here trivializing this to some squabble is crass, I've seen the scars inflicted on a woman's arms by the rubber hosing she was bound with before being thrown under the stairs for up to 12 hours to lie in her own filth by a muslim husband because she had been speaking to women at the market who'd told her about a college course and she'd asked his permission to take it. Whilst these abuses go on in other parts of the community, it is endorsed or quietly ignored in this community by it's leaders, religious or otherwise.

Many of these women may not know their full rights, may not know the english language well and may believe that, on escaping to report to the western police only to be taken before a sharia court and ordered to continue in the marriage, that all hope was lost and accept their defeat and life of misery.

Imagine you had finally plucked up the courage to go to the police and try to explain your situation, only to be turned over to your family, religious leaders and spouse again, all of whom are far more shamed and outraged at you going outside to seek help than they are about the actual beatings you're getting. These women were betrayed by the system and taken back into the life they valiantly sought to leave.

Ulver wrote:
You must realise how thin that sounds:
at the very least
attempt
supposed
striving
towards

It doesn't sound like you believe what you're typing yourself.

I was constructing the sentence to limit the amount of annoying counter pseudocomparison like your reference to english court bias. It was an effort to wean you off this sideline of apples for oranges.

Ulver wrote:
You have to realise that yours isn't the only world view - I have not 'misread' the article, I have merely interpreted it differently from you. Most things are open to interpretation (especially non-verbal remote communication, e.g. the Internet) - journalism being a major one.
Just to paraphrase what Albatross said, don't think for one second I'm standing up for Sharia, I pledge no support to any prejudiced organisation.

World view is irrelevant here. We are discussing the view of the United Kingdom vs the view of Sharia.

And I do think you're standing up for Sharia, you have just chosen to read an extremely positive outcome from an article that I drew a highly negative outcome from.

In all 6 cases, the men were told to go to anger management and the marriage was 'saved'. So the potentially violent husband and the abused wife were instructed to remain together and you came to the conclusion that in all 6 cases this was because it was what the women had been complaining to the police about all along?

Are you aware that the maintaining of the marriage is the principal concern of the Sharia court in ALL cases like this, regardless of individual circumstance, because it is listed as the principal concern in holy text? The degree of abuse is not relevant to the Sharia adjudicators, only that the marriage remain.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Your response here trivializing this to some squabble is crass,

Trivialising?! How dare you. You think I take domestic abuse lightly? I'm struggling to avoid something that will earn me a ban, so I'm going to leave you to it after this.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Ulver wrote:
You have to realise that yours isn't the only world view...

World view is irrelevant here. We are discussing the view of the United Kingdom vs the view of Sharia.

'World view' means 'your view of the world', it doesn't equate to 'Earth'. Misinterpretation.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
And I do think you're standing up for Sharia, you have just chosen to read an extremely positive outcome from an article that I drew a highly negative outcome from.

I'm gay so no, I'm not standing up for Sharia.

Modqusition on:

In the words of the immortal bard: Everyone needs to mellow the hell out. Lets step back and take a breather before I close the thread and get happy with the BANstick. Thank you for your cooperation.

Deleted by Frazzled. one more chance to mellow out.

And we all know what MGS really meant to say was: Frazzled Mod is bestest Mod!

Somewhat on topic, the first paragraph of this story is laugh out loud funny.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41464521/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/?gt1=43001

BUFFALO, New York — The founder of a Muslim-oriented New York television station was convicted Monday of beheading his wife in 2009 in the studio the couple had opened to counter negative stereotypes of Muslims after the Sept. 11 terror attacks.

I agree with MGS entirely on this issue. I refer you again to the lengthy report you can find here.

I found point 2 particularly interesting. How are the Canadians handling this issue?

http://www.onelawforall.org.uk/new-report-sharia-law-in-britain-a-threat-to-one-law-for-all-and-equal-rights/

The report recommends that Sharia courts be closed on the grounds that they work against rather than for equality, and are incompatible with human rights. Recommendations include:

1.initiating a Human Rights challenge to Muslim Arbitration Tribunals and/or Sharia Councils
2.amending the Arbitration Act under which the Muslim Arbitration Tribunals operate in a similar way to which the Canadian equivalent of the Arbitration Act was amended in 2005 to exclude religious arbitration
3.launching a major and nationwide helpline and information campaign to inform people of their rights under British law
4.proposing legislation under the EU Citizens Rights Initiative to address the issue EU-wide, and
5.strengthening secularism and the separation of religion from the state, the judicial system and education, in order to more fully protect citizenship rights.

mattyrm wrote:

I agree with MGS entirely on this issue.

Here are come the End Times at last...

The first paragraph of the story was funnier than that mate.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:I've mentioned this a few times in the thread but to reiterate, the court is subject to bias and unfair to certain groups. That is a problem within the greater society that claims to oppose unfair and bias yet enables this medieval idiocy to gain a foothold under the protection of a 'cultural right'.

You haven't addressed the point. The British Legal system cannot enforce a decision by a Sharia tribunal that contradicts British law.

If there is an bias against a women (seeing as homosexuals and ex-muslims are unlikely to agree to the process in the first place) which can in fact be enforced by the law then that is perfectly reasonable grounds for an appeal.

Your claim that they are 'gaining a foothold' as if this is some sort of subversive invasion is just the sort of alarmist nonsense that has caused this thread to drag on in a repetitive circle.

With regard your response here, you directly named me and took issue with my point hence my response you've quoted. I have not gone into the issue of honour killings being sanctioned by sharia courts in the uk. Other conversations are taking place in this thread, why didn't you quote them.

Actually, I was asking for clarification as I honestly thought you had made a mistake in your post. I don't know what Melissia is on about. I think s/he just wants to angry. You however, have mentioned domestic abuse. That is a criminal issue, and is not decided on by Sharia law in the England.

As for the element of bias:

1) consider peer pressure, the education and personal freedom of certain of the islamic population and the concept of a religious court then reconsider the term voluntary...

2) refer to point 1 directly above and consider peer pressure etc and the notion of trying to dispute the rulings of a court who base their adjudication in the written word of god.

If there is enough pressure to convince someone to go to a Sharia tribunal (only over civil matters) then there is enough pressure to convince them to not bring up the issue at all. This is not a problem with the Sharia courts, but with the community. And it is not restricted to Muslim communities.




The sad thing is Matty is right. If there was a vote held on whether or not Sharia tribunals as they exist should be close down, I'd bet that the vote in favour of shutting them down would be overwhelming. Precisely becuase of the widespread ignorance on the matter.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

You haven't addressed the point. The British Legal system cannot enforce a decision by a Sharia tribunal that contradicts British law.

When was that the point of the thread?
It was a concern raised by some, I don't think I've raised it myself at any stage. The ordering of death sentences and the like being issued by Sharia courts isn't what bothers me and is in the realms of fantasy for the time being. I have, since the beginning of this thread, voiced concern over a court with prejudices, that operates purely along a religious text's instructions instead of having the influence of circumstance to consider, having a place in the UK legal system.

Emperors Faithful wrote:
If there is an bias against a women (seeing as homosexuals and ex-muslims are unlikely to agree to the process in the first place) which can in fact be enforced by the law then that is perfectly reasonable grounds for an appeal.

I've already stated why appeal isn't an option for many women in the islamic community, several times.

Emperors Faithful wrote:
Your claim that they are 'gaining a foothold' as if this is some sort of subversive invasion is just the sort of alarmist nonsense that has caused this thread to drag on in a repetitive circle.

No, what's causing a repetitive cycle is folks like you hopping in this late in the day and dragging up issues we've already covered off, like the option to appeal for a woman treated unfairly in the court. Read the thread.

Emperors Faithful wrote:
Actually, I was asking for clarification as I honestly thought you had made a mistake in your post. I don't know what Melissia is on about. I think s/he just wants to angry. You however, have mentioned domestic abuse. That is a criminal issue, and is not decided on by Sharia law in the England.

Again, please read the thread, I've just cited an article that states the Sharia court had ruled in 6 cases of domestic violence by 2008, their decisions were that the men attend anger management and the marriages were, in the words of the islamic spokesman, 'saved'.

If there is enough pressure to convince someone to go to a Sharia tribunal (only over civil matters) then there is enough pressure to convince them to not bring up the issue at all. This is not a problem with the Sharia courts, but with the community. And it is not restricted to Muslim communities.

That two families may find themselves in conflict over a marital dispute and the patriarchs of both insist on the matter being resolved in Sharia, where the woman's rights will be secondary but both patriarchs are satisfied that God's law has been done should be a relatively easy scenario to reach.
As to pressure outside of the courts, that is of course, subject to the law of the land, unless instead it's going to be adjudicated on by a court of religion where such pressures are encouraged.

The sad thing is Matty is right. If there was a vote held on whether or not Sharia tribunals as they exist should be close down, I'd bet that the vote in favour of shutting them down would be overwhelming. Precisely becuase of the widespread ignorance on the matter.

You're likely to win that bet, but not for the reason you've convinced yourself of.

Melissia wrote:Against women, against homosexuals, against ex-muslims, and so on and so forth. The link on the first page tells a tale of an assault victim who was severely beaten and there was no criminal charge pressed because the community hid the assault from the authorities and instead used a Sharia court ruling. And yet for some reason people seem to think I'm being unreasonable when I say this not only can happen again, it will.

No, you're being unreasonable when you continuously raise issues that have no place in Sharia courts in the UK. The beating is a criminal matter, and as has been explained to you on many occasions criminal matters are not dealt with in Sharia courts in the UK.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:I get the distinct impression from those who've been pushing for these courts that they would, eventually, want them to run like sharia courts in other parts of the world. The courts themselves have already been publishing two sets of outcomes, one that was actually passed and one that they would like to pass if the country wasn't run by those pesky non-believers.

Sure, they can push but when every man and his dog in the general community is opposed, what good will it do?

The sharia courts have already adjudicated in 6 cases of domestic violence. That over-reaches the current extent of a non-islamic civil court.

The Times wrote:Siddiqi said that in a recent inheritance dispute handled by the court in Nuneaton, the estate of a Midlands man was divided between three daughters and two sons.
The judges on the panel gave the sons twice as much as the daughters, in accordance with sharia. Had the family gone to a normal British court, the daughters would have got equal amounts.
In the six cases of domestic violence, Siddiqi said the judges ordered the husbands to take anger management classes and mentoring from community elders. There was no further punishment.
In each case, the women subsequently withdrew the complaints they had lodged with the police and the police stopped their investigations.
Siddiqi said that in the domestic violence cases, the advantage was that marriages were saved and couples given a second chance.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4749183.ece
And that was 2 years ago, time has only entrenched this.

The criminal cases of domestic assault were dropped because the victims did not want to proceed with the case. That's something that happens constantly, with or without Sharia law.

The instance of the boys getting twice as much as the girls was family law, something I've said from early on should be taken out of the hands of the Sharia court.

Try doing that and you are, as far as the muslims running these things are concerned, trying to meddle in the written dictate of god and his prophet. Better to just insist they adhere to a British court whilst on British soil. Accommodating religious peculiarity at the expense of established equality and justice are not a way to conduct law.

They can be as concerned as they want, and they're welcome to lobby their local members to get them to vote against any move to reform the Arbitration Act. They'll lose though, because there really aren't that many of them, while there are a whole lot of folk who are concerned about the rights of women, and probably even more that'd vote for anything that limit the rights of Muslims.

They are taught in these religious schools, in their mosques and now in sharia courts, that our way is fundamentally wrong and ungodly and that we must be forced to their way of thinking. They are becoming more and more a ghettoised sub-culture within the greater society. The more freedoms to do what they want results in more isolation.

I don't think it can last without some form of violent backlash from one side or the other. You're right about schools, one of my best friends in secondary school was the only muslim kid there, an Iraqi boy, his father a doctor fleeing Saddam's regime. It was good for both sides to have exposure to each other. It's like all those repulsively clichéd song lyrics about children ignoring colour. Mixing is good for children. Raising Islamic children behind closed doors, unexposed to the rest of the UK is dangerous.

Yeah, on the one hand it'd be nice to shut down all religious schools and require everyone to get public education, all kids have to mingle and get along so there's you're melting pot sorted. The problem comes because from the number of outstanding religious schools that provide a really high standard of education, the result is that'd be neither politically viable or a good idea.

At which point you're left with wanting to leave the good schools in place, and get rid of the bad ones. And I've got no idea how that might be attempted.

If sharia is already dealing with domestic violence cases, it has over-reached the powers used by the Jewish courts. In all 6 cases reported in that Times report, the marriages were 'saved' and the wife was returned to live with the husband... It speaks volumes to me and reinforces my belief in what's wrong with these courts. Another difference in principles of Beth Din over Sharia is that Beth Din officially recognises the sovereignty of British Law over it's own, Sharia very clearly does not.

No, they dealt with the civil side of those domestic abuse cases. Police were still capable of pursuing any criminal charges.

Sharia court increasing influence over a wider range of aspects of the daily lives of muslims living in the UK is a forgone conclusion. The wrong in facilitating that is our cross to carry. We have damned those women back to the suffering they sought to escape. That's not just the fault of Islam, that the fault of every do-gooder who believed that ducking a potential accusation of racist was preferable to enabling domestic violence.

I think it's a mistake to assume that one's opponents only believe as they do because of some easy attack, such as wanting to avoid a charge of racism. I certainly know the type you're referring to on the left, who approach each issue with the goal of proving themselves more sanctimonious than anyone else, looking for any element of anything that might be perceived as being somehow intolerant, but while those people can unfortunately dominate and ruin otherwise useful discussion, they aren't the whole of the left.

Right to appeal is a difficult thing to monitor, many Islamic women in the UK don't even speak english, they will be unaware of what's available to them. And again, I'll reiterate the point that, unlike the Beth Din, this is a religious ruling before God. Saying you wish to go to the law of the land because you are unsatisfied with the outcome is akin to saying 'I don't like what god has said and I'd like to rely on an infidel's court to over rule it.'

Sure, but if that's the case, then without Sharia court what are the odds that the woman involved would seek resolution in a secular court?

I just learnt that bit about the domestic violence cases and those women's marriages being 'saved'. I am greatly troubled and saddened by it.

Secular courts won't rule a couple needs to be divorced either. That's entirely dependant on the couple. Given the women in question dropped the criminal matter, I think the odds of this gaining any kind of better resolution in a secular court is unlikely.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mattyrm wrote:We live in a police state dont we? I mean, If your government decides to do something, they can go right ahead and do it. Sure you might vote them out YEARS later, but they can crack on regardless. Remember how many people were up in arms about Iraq? It makes not a single jot of difference!

Well, you're right in that people really don't have that nebulous thing called freedom, but it really isn't a police state. That'd require a police force actively committed to ensuring the stability of the state, likely through a network of informants or secret police spread out in society to uncover resistance cells.

Sharia law sucks balls. If they held a referendum on it, the populous would vote to ban it.

So feth em, lets do it.

Yeah, you absolutely could ban sharia courts, it would be overwhlemingly popular with the general population and fairly easy in terms of the law - you could just

The real question is if you should. If two people want to have a private civil matter resolved by an individual they've chosen, why can't they?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:Does this mean the UK has to allow Scientology, for instance, to create side courts to arbitrate? Which religions/groups get this priveledge? I am not an expert (I know, shocking) on UK law so I don't how these 'courts' are granted legitimacy.

Well, basically anyone can agree to have their private legal matters decided by anyone else. That's basically what arbitration is, and two muslims going in to have their matter decided by a Sharia court is no different to two yahoos going in to Judge Judy's courtroom.

I am also not a lawyer so there might be some requirement for the courts to meet a certain standard, but I've never seen anything like that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mattyrm wrote:Somewhat on topic, the first paragraph of this story is laugh out loud funny.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41464521/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/?gt1=43001

BUFFALO, New York — The founder of a Muslim-oriented New York television station was convicted Monday of beheading his wife in 2009 in the studio the couple had opened to counter negative stereotypes of Muslims after the Sept. 11 terror attacks.

Mwahahahaha!

Wait, now I'm feeling guilty... and now I'm laughing again.

There is a lesson to be learned from this thread. That lesson: please take the time to carefully read the post you are responding to, as well as ones that you are not, before responding -OR- stay out of OT.

Thanks!