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.

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.