Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.

As has also been repeated in this thread, the application of pressure from a person's family or peers could well force them to use this court instead of a standard civil court for arbitration and given the views of many that the Sharia court's bias is against certain groups, they will receive less justice or impartiality.

This is really an issue for Family Law, as I really don't see coercion being a likely factor in a businessman agreeing to have his contract dispute taken to a Sharia court. But when a marriage breaks down, it seems likely that a Muslim woman might be coerced by friends and family to resolve the matter in a Sharia court.

Not that the rights of the woman are, in my mind, the biggest issue in Sharia courts resolving disputrs over marriage breakups. The bigger issue is children. because those children didn't agree to Sharia arbitration (and they can't, being under 18). Yet the move to a Sharia courtcould result in them surrending some of their rights, because under secular Family Law the courts are required first and foremost to consider the rights of the child, but under Sharia courts several things are considered before the welfare of the child.

At which point I thuink the sensible conclusion is to start considering how you might stop Sharia law from having any implementation in Family Law. This is a fairly difficult issue, you can ban arbitration from having any religious element but exactly where does religion start and end? What if a legally qualified Imam set up a nominally secular court of arbitration... would he be stopped?

The better approach, to my mind, is to focus on having all Family Law matters resolved through normal courts, not through arbitration. At which point you're looking at Sharia courts that really do consist of nothing more than people having an option to voluntarily agree to use this form of arbitration to settle contract disputes and property damage claims, and is that a problem for anyone?

The complicating factor is the role secular arbitration plays in Family Law - how important is it in achieving fast outcomes for parties, and how important is it in reducing the workload on the Family Court?

sebster wrote:You continue to pretend that Sharia law as it exists in the UK is the same as Sharia law as it exists elsewhere in the world.

You continue to pretend that it isn't.

Considering a third of all Muslim students in the UK believe that it's okay to kill in the name of Islam, I don't think you'll have any problem finding Muslims firmly convinced that Allah's law (Sharia) supersedes man's law (civil and legal).

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.

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).

Melissia wrote:You continue to pretend that it isn't.

Considering a third of all Muslim students in the UK believe that it's okay to kill in the name of Islam, I don't think you'll have any problem finding Muslims firmly convinced that Allah's law (Sharia) supersedes man's law (civil and legal).

That's all just nonsense. I can't say it any more clearly, at some point you're going to have to open up and start thinking about things other people are telling you. Sharia law as practiced in the UK is a real thing, with real world powers and limitations. These powers are not defined, controlled, or influenced in any way by what random people might believe.

You need to go and read and find out what Sharia law in the UK actually means, what it can and can't do, and most importantly you need to learn about what laws underpin the idea of private arbitration, and how those laws mean that a private court of arbitration can't become anything other than what it is.


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.

Melissia wrote:

sebster wrote:You continue to pretend that Sharia law as it exists in the UK is the same as Sharia law as it exists elsewhere in the world.

You continue to pretend that it isn't.

Considering a third of all Muslim students in the UK believe that it's okay to kill in the name of Islam, I don't think you'll have any problem finding Muslims firmly convinced that Allah's law (Sharia) supersedes man's law (civil and legal).

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.

sebster wrote:These powers are not defined, controlled, or influenced in any way by what random people might believe.

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

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.

sebster wrote:In the context of your fear blah biddy blee

Claiming that my hatred of Sharia law no matter where it is applied is fear is paramount to trolling. No, I oppose it whether or not it will effect me directly on principle because of its misogynistic, homophobic, and xenophobic nature. Even if I was given a Farseer-esque glimpse the future and I knew nothing bad came out of it, I would still oppose Sharia law.

If you wish to continue claiming that I am "afraid", frankly, I would say that you're amusingly naive. A Muslim immigrant community with their own community-based court of elders isn't going to suddenly forget about all parts of Sharia law that apply to what we call criminal cases. And sure as hell these elders aren't going to give up their power over their community and the people in it just because what happened crossed the line into criminal behavior.

The culture of one's native country, its laws, its customs, etc., collectively is something that is not easily forgotten by immigrants. Texans have learned that well enough-- even with a relatively similar culture, there were still striking differences in attitude towards laws, bribery, and crime in general. Nevermind the differences between Western and Islamic culture, collectively (nevermind the nuances between the various western and islamic cultures)...

A vague terror threat? How many thousands have been killed by terrorists?

I really love how you say "Oh, well, hey guys, bad things will exist in Islam no matter what we do."

That doesn't mean you endorse it and allow it into your country.


Edit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4FpTvp0tgs&NR=1

Yeah Seb I really cant agree with your premise here, the document at onelawforall.org seemed to be extrememly thorough and pretty clear to me, and i trust the source, its hardly a right wing organisation.

I really dont believe that because it is Sharia in the UK, it is vastly different to Sharia elsewhere in the world.

The report concluded overwhelmingly that the whole system is at polar opposites with British common and civil law, and the human rights laws that we are supposed to care so much about.

Ketara wrote:
But then to perfectly frank, what is the point of using states as a standard of measurement? If you fail to take into account factors in other nations that can be causative of misogny, in what way is even including other nations as a your requirement for 'evidence' even meaningful?

When you test for the effect of X in a given population you create a control group that is identical to the test group save for the absence of X. The nations that are not Islamic are the control group, the Islamic nations are the test group. The point here is to demonstrate that states that are predominantly Islamic display a greater degree of misogyny than states that are otherwise as close to identical as can be expected.

This is the only way to establish causality in research. It is an incredibly difficult thing to do. It is supposed to be an incredibly difficult thing to do. There are weaknesses in this method when it is applied to social disciplines. Weaknesses primarily related to the massive number of variables, but it is better to be uncertain than wrong.

Ketara wrote:
I'm sorry, I genuinely believe your requirement for evidence deeply flawed from several angles. By eliminating all other variables from your comparisons, you render them meaningless as things to compare to.

No, that's wrong. You don't test specific variables by including other ones. You clearly do not understand test methodology.

Ketara wrote:
Also

all Islamic states are more misogynistic than non-Islamic states of similar development

strikes me as flawed, because you require them to be 'more misogynistic'. If we recognise that there are degrees of misogynism, as you yourself have stated, then why should Islam have to be 'more' misognistic than other misogynistic states in order to count as being misogynistic by Western standards? For example, assuming the western moral standard, Let us say an Islamic man beats his wife for cheating, and a Chinese man shoots her. The fact the Chinese man is more misogynistic does not prove the Islam not to be misogynistic, rather just that the people in China are moreso.

Good God man, this isn't that complicated. The argument began over whether or not Islam was incompatible with Western values because it was somehow biased towards misogyny. I pointed out that Western values are often quite tolerant of misogyny, having once been largely based on it. Indeed, as I've said, every culture in the world is misogynistic in the sense that they all exhibit such behavior even if not en masse. As such, it is not enough to say that Islam is misogynistic, and therefore incompatible with Western values, because such an argument would imply that Western values themselves are incompatible with Western values. As such, in order to demonstrate that Islam was so misogynistic as to be incompatible with Western values one would have to demonstrate that it was more misogynistic than other states that are not Islamic that have no such issues.

Again, the point is to test whether or not Islam causes misogyny, which is another way of claiming that Islam is misogynistic, to a degree that is beyond the extent to which Western values, or other values, cause misogyny. Simply saying that X causes misogyny is irrelevant, because literally anything can, and has, caused misogyny.

Melissia wrote:Claiming that my hatred of Sharia law no matter where it is applied is fear is paramount to trolling. No, I oppose it whether or not it will effect me directly on principle because of its misogynistic, homophobic, and xenophobic nature.

So that's your new effort, now? I point out that your last post made no sense in the context of this thread , and so your pick out the word 'fear' and try to spin that into some kind of rant.

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.

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.

Even if I was given a Farseer-esque glimpse the future and I knew nothing bad came out of it, I would still oppose Sharia law.

But here's the thing that's become really obvious and really sad over the course of this thread - you have no understanding of what Sharia law is in the UK, and you have no interest in learning what it is.

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.

If Sharia law in the UK doesn't effect gender and gay equality in the UK, well that'd stop you feeling good doing all that ranting, so instead you just ignore that, and keep on ranting. So I point it out again, and you ignore it again, and repeat over and over and over...

Well stop it, take your good intentions and self-satisfaction off to some place where you might actually impact gender and gay rights, and stop playing make believe with real world situations. All you're doing is fething up any effort to actually reform Sharia courts.

A Muslim immigrant community with their own community-based court of elders isn't going to suddenly forget about all parts of Sharia law that apply to what we call criminal cases.

No, as I explained earlier that's silly. Their powers aren't based on what they'd like them to be, they're based on specific limitations placed in the Arbitration Act, based on the very real and unversally acknowledged difference between civil and criminal law. If you had any understanding of the law on any level you'd know this, if you have no such understanding you need to go away and learn something.

And sure as hell these elders aren't going to give up their power over their community and the people in it just because what happened crossed the line into criminal behavior.

These courts cannot rule on civil matters. The distinction is clear, and widely known, and the processes for criminal matters reaching a court are utterly different to civil matters. Your concern here makes no sense.

The culture of one's native country, its laws, its customs, etc., collectively is something that is not easily forgotten by immigrants. Texans have learned that well enough-- even with a relatively similar culture, there were still striking differences in attitude towards laws, bribery, and crime in general. Nevermind the differences between Western and Islamic culture, collectively (nevermind the nuances between the various western and islamic cultures)...

Yes, there are differences. These differences do not in any way, shape or form change the plain letter of the law. A criminal matter is a matter for the state to prosecute, which is does through criminal courts. A civil matter is a matter for the individual to pursue, through civil courts or through arbitration, if both parties agree.

Worrying that this court would suddenly start hearing criminal matters makes no sense, and would be equivalent to worrying that a Family Court might suddenly decide to ignore the scope of it's authority and start conducting trials for treason.

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.

No, that's not logical. It would be logical (well, rational) to look at the thing in question. After all, not all Sharia courts are the same.

The stance you're espousing is tantamount to looking at other black people because you're not familiar with the black man that moved in next door. Its not racism, but its very, very close.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
As has also been repeated in this thread, the application of pressure from a person's family or peers could well force them to use this court instead of a standard civil court for arbitration and given the views of many that the Sharia court's bias is against certain groups, they will receive less justice or impartiality.

Most courts are biased against thieves, but who will weep for them?

Claiming that bias is bad where a court is concerned is really, really foolish. All courts are biased because they have to be, judgment requires it.

Amaya wrote:A vague terror threat? How many thousands have been killed by terrorists?

There is, of course, a real terror threat from Islam. But that threat has no relation to Sharia courts, which is why the threat you've presented it as in this thread has remained very vague. If there was any connection, even a plausible future connection, between Sharia courts and Islamic terror you would have given that but there isn't, so instead you kept it all at a very vague level.

I really love how you say "Oh, well, hey guys, bad things will exist in Islam no matter what we do."

That doesn't mean you endorse it and allow it into your country.

I didn't say that, I didn't say anything that sounded anything like that, and you know I didn't.

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.

Because you did your very best to get confused by the first time, I'll expand that by pointing out there are lots of things we can do to combat Islamic terrorism. We do many of those things, and we could do many more. Allowing or banning Sharia courts in the UK is not one of those things.

Now, please, show some intellectual honesty and address the actual argument I have made.

Melissia wrote:
Considering a third of all Muslim students in the UK believe that it's okay to kill in the name of Islam, I don't think you'll have any problem finding Muslims firmly convinced that Allah's law (Sharia) supersedes man's law (civil and legal).

So?

Do you really think that banning Sharia will make these Muslims less willing to kill in the name of Allah?

Do you really think that these Muslims that believe that Sharia supersedes national law will care that its banned?

mattyrm wrote:Yeah Seb I really cant agree with your premise here, the document at onelawforall.org seemed to be extrememly thorough and pretty clear to me, and i trust the source, its hardly a right wing organisation.

The issue isn't that it's coming from a right wing organisation, or even that it's wrong. I agree that there are problems with Sharia courts. The issue is simply that we need to argue based on what the Sharia courts in the UK actually are, not on what Sharia law is in another country, or on what Sharia could become if we pretended that courts didn't have clearly coded limitations to their scope and authority.

I really dont believe that because it is Sharia in the UK, it is vastly different to Sharia elsewhere in the world.

Nah, they're not different because one is in the UK, they're difference because the scope and powers of each court is entirely different. In Iran the Sharia courts have the scope to rule on criminal matters and give punishments, and parties including government can bring actions against individuals without their consent. In the UK they're limited to civil matters, and only if both parties agree to use them to resolve the issue.

The report concluded overwhelmingly that the whole system is at polar opposites with British common and civil law, and the human rights laws that we are supposed to care so much about.

But here's the thing, if two private individuals agree to have a civil matter resolved in whatever manner they decide, who fething cares what standard they choose? They could agree to an arm wrestle for all I care.

Matters of family law, where children are involved and a closed community could likely coerce one party into arbitration are an entirely different matter, though.

MeanGreenStompa 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.

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).

'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.

Melissia wrote:

sebster wrote:You continue to pretend that Sharia law as it exists in the UK is the same as Sharia law as it exists elsewhere in the world.

You continue to pretend that it isn't.

OK Melissia, from your position in Texas, can you please give explain how Sharia 'Law' (read: arbitration) in the UK is identical to Sharia Law in countries governed by it? If you can't back up statements then it's no more than school-playground-style "No! You're a poo-poo head!" comments, adding nothing to the debate and reducing your credibility.

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.

Melissia wrote:Considering a third of all Muslim students in the UK believe that it's okay to kill in the name of Islam, I don't think you'll have any problem finding Muslims firmly convinced that Allah's law (Sharia) supersedes man's law (civil and legal).

For the fiftieth time in the thread: So what?! Murder is illegal in the UK, just because a few people think it should be allowed doesn't mean it will be, and if they try it then they will be tried for it. 70% of UK citizens believe paedophiles should be executed, and 82% think Raoul Moat was innocent.* Jade Goody thought Norfolk was a country all on its own,** what people think isn't going to affect what is.



*Statistics I made up.
**True

Wow. Some peoples rudeness to other peoples knowledge (or lack thereof) screams of superiority issues, and a screen to hide behind whilst inflicting the world with thier self aggrandisement.

Take a chill pill out there - and stop attacks.

And as far as the OP goes - No. Not a good idea.

As soon as religion(any) enters legal systems (whether it be civil etc) it is cause for SERIOUS concern.

akira5665 wrote:
Take a chill pill out there - and stop attacks.

Please. And this includes "subtle" put downs and digs about other posters intelligence, understanding, amount of opposable thumbs, naivety and so on. Much obliged.

sebster wrote:

Amaya wrote:A vague terror threat? How many thousands have been killed by terrorists?

There is, of course, a real terror threat from Islam. But that threat has no relation to Sharia courts, which is why the threat you've presented it as in this thread has remained very vague. If there was any connection, even a plausible future connection, between Sharia courts and Islamic terror you would have given that but there isn't, so instead you kept it all at a very vague level.

More people tend to be killed by little things like wars and invasions, famine, homelessness and starvation as well as abortion* than terrorism.


*that depends on your view if its a person obviously

Phototoxin wrote:More people tend to be killed by little things like wars and invasions, famine, homelessness and starvation as well as abortion* than terrorism.


*that depends on your view if its a person obviously

What does this have to do with anything?

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


I also couldn't care less.


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. These are religious nutjobs we're talking about. In the US, we have to fight religious nutjobs tooth and nail to make sure they don't enforce the full force of Christian law so that we can maintain our current level of freedoms. They're bonkers for Jesus, or bonkers for Mohammad, and they want you to be too, feth civil rights and everything it stands for unless it is supported by their chosen holy book.

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.

Albatross wrote: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.

That does not mean the UK has to endorse their religious beliefs.

Melissia wrote:

Albatross wrote: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.

That does not mean the UK has to endorse their religious beliefs.

Do you consider letting a person practice their religion in accordance with UK law an endorsement? Would you rather we just burned copies of the Koran?

Albatross wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Albatross wrote: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.

That does not mean the UK has to endorse their religious beliefs.

Do you consider letting a person practice their religion in accordance with UK law an endorsement? Would you rather we just burned copies of the Koran?

I consider the act of condoning Sharia law courts an endorsement.

I don't know if I worded it properly, but there you go, I think it's a very bad idea. One could also point towards cults in the US where they use their own law system, which is legal for civil matters, but then they use that insularity the system provides to hide anything illegal going on so that they can use their law to cover criminal matters too.

Melissia wrote:

Albatross wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Albatross wrote: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.

That does not mean the UK has to endorse their religious beliefs.

Do you consider letting a person practice their religion in accordance with UK law an endorsement? Would you rather we just burned copies of the Koran?

I consider the act of condoning Sharia law courts an endorsement.

I don't know if I worded it properly, but there you go, I think it's a very bad idea. One could also point towards cults in the US where they use their own law system, which is legal for civil matters, but then they use that insularity the system provides to hide anything illegal going on so that they can use their law to cover criminal matters too.

If I give the someone the freedom to do something, and they use that freedom to do something bad, am I endorsing that bad thing?

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).

Albatross wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Albatross wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Albatross wrote: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.

That does not mean the UK has to endorse their religious beliefs.

Do you consider letting a person practice their religion in accordance with UK law an endorsement? Would you rather we just burned copies of the Koran?

I consider the act of condoning Sharia law courts an endorsement.

I don't know if I worded it properly, but there you go, I think it's a very bad idea. One could also point towards cults in the US where they use their own law system, which is legal for civil matters, but then they use that insularity the system provides to hide anything illegal going on so that they can use their law to cover criminal matters too.

If I give the someone the freedom to do something, and they use that freedom to do something bad, am I endorsing that bad thing?

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