http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20090629/tuk-85-sharia-courts-in-uk-says-report-6323e80.html
Chat Forum
[closed]
Cause for concern?
-
Posted 2 years ago #
-
This thread is indeed a cause for concern. Anyone who wishes to avoid a turgid fight to the death between the usual champions of all that is righteous and the neaderthal paranoia of the Sun/Mail massive, should CLOSE THE THREAD NOW.
Posted 2 years ago # -
trailmonkey - did you read any of it?
Posted 2 years ago # -
I have no problem with it all, I mean UK law will stop anything illegal from going on
Posted 2 years ago # -
Sorry but this is the U.K. with U.K. and European law not Iran or Afghanistan.
Islam is more than a religion it is a way of life.
You go to any country and respect the country's law-not create your own.
I personally see it as a virus spreading across the world which might make me look a racist but I'm tolerant to the point where people are judged by a panel of religous nutters.
You can see why people vote BNP now. They feel threatened by this. They need to prevent these courts to stop hatred.
Islam should also be tolerant of anyone non muslim and treat women equally.
Posted 2 years ago # -
I normally get accused of being a PC-mad liberal on here, but I have to say this does concern me. I don't really think it's compatible with our own society and ideals.
Posted 2 years ago # -
anagallis_arvensis - glad you're assured by this!
Posted 2 years ago # -
I'm not too sure what the issue is here. Plenty of religions and organisations have there own dispute resolution systems. There's nothing to stop you setting up a STW court, and demanding people who have gears have their propety confiscated. Of course the people who have there propety confiscated have to consent and are quite enitled to say sod this, I'm going to a proper court. Which is the same in this case.
Jewish courts have existed in this country for ages, but the religion isn't are current favourite to fear and hate, so it's not so newsworthy
Posted 2 years ago # -
Sharia Law in UK and Europe - "thin end of the wedge" some might say
Posted 2 years ago # -
Do you know what I find more concerning? The fact that I can't find the report on-line anywhere, not even on the Civitas Website, it would be nice to be able to read the report without having to rely on a distorted media view
Posted 2 years ago # -
Zaskar, the claim that this why people voted BNP is totally bogus, this is never going to impact on white racist non-muslims, this is all about protecting vulnerable women from abuse by their husbands who use Sharia Law to their advantage, disclaimer - I'm no expert, I've skim read the press release and occasionally watch newsnight
Posted 2 years ago # -
The author has previously been accused of faking evidence in his research. But assuming it was true, would you find it concerning?
Posted 2 years ago # -
I'm not worried at all about it having an impact on me personally no. Why would it?
Denis MacEoin seems to be rather well respected but outspoken and therefore he's bound to attract controversy, he has admitted he is a supporter of Israel and therefore you could be forgiven for thinking there may be some anti-islam bias. If you read the press release it's clear his main concern is how these courts will treat women and how that is incompatible and possibly illegal under our supposedly equitable legal system.
Posted 2 years ago # -
I think it does cause separation and anger at Islam in society Nick and does contribute to hatred. I don't think thats why the BNP won seats recenlty but does contribute to it.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Only because it's reported in such a way by the media, classic headline in the Wail '
Britain has 85 sharia courts: The astonishing spread of the Islamic justice behind closed doors
just enforces the fear that Islam is taking over.Posted 2 years ago # -
anagallis_arvensis - Member
I have no problem with it all, I mean UK law will stop anything illegal from going on
Erm, NO!! (Sheesh, the naivety!)
Sharia courts should be banned!
When you live in the UK you abide by the laws of the UK - period!
A tolerant society has allowed Sharia law to come about in Europe, it is not healthy, not rational, it's plain discriminatory! IT'S POSITIVELY MEDIEVAL!
The teachings of Islam are at odds with the ways of a fair, modern society. There is no place for it in Europe. The more you hear about the abuse of women, the hatred towards Jews, homosexuals etc, the more you realise that the Quran is a book about hate!
But why single out Islam? I don't see that any religion can justify it's existence. There can be no faith better, more valid, more justified than the next! It's pure discriminatory nonsense based on unfounded myths. Rule by fear - bullshit!
Christianity falls flat on it's face when challenged by science
Rowan Williams controversially said that it was inevitable that Sharia law will become incorporated into British Law -- ERM NO! YOU NUMPTY ARCH BISHOP! He patronisingly trys to make us feel stupid by using a bunch of big words and confuses people by making a simple subject seem inexorably complex to the point that we should "faithfully" except it. Like we're a bunch of lost sheep who can't think for ourselves. Tosh!
Religion totally sucks!
There has to be one set of laws for EVERYBODY, no special exceptions! I can envisage Sharia being used to influence British Law. In effect, giving a so called minority group special privilges. Is that fair??
I predict there will be major conflict in Europe in the next 20 years as a result of allowing in the "Trojan Horse" of Islam. There is no such thing as Islaminc fundamentalism, just Islam.
We need a peaceful co-operative society that does not strive to divide itself. Religion is the biggest threat to peace and stability in this region.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Whats this thread about?
Posted 2 years ago # -
Not another crap scaremongering thread about this.
Believe it or not, not every dispute is settled by the UK courts. You can choose to resolve one by arbitration, mediation, employment tribunal or a host of other alternative options. There are no headlines about "mediation undermines the UK legal system" because people CHOOSE to do it, just as they might choose to go before a Sharia court.
Get your facts straight before you start jumping in with xenophobic bullshit.
Posted 2 years ago # -
There is no such thing as Islaminc fundamentalism, just Islam
Righto, so there's no difference betwen sufism and say wahhabism then?Posted 2 years ago # -
Mr Agreeable - you're right, except that the Muslim community is rather close knit and closed to non-muslims (that's a generalisation I know), the problem I have with the report, or at least the press release, is that it does place emphasis on Sharia Law's incompatibility with UK law, which risks overshadowing the very real and unpleasant aspect of Islam's sexual inequality and how those women who live in this environment may not feel able to say 'I don't want to accept the Arbitration ruling.'
Posted 2 years ago # -
There are no headlines about "mediation undermines the UK legal system" because people CHOOSE to do it, just as they might choose to go before a Sharia court.
The rules surrounding the mediation or arbitration examples you give are not binding in the same way as Sharia courts. All of your examples are transparent and are based on the UK legal system, not a separate basis in law. Nor do they deal with criminal matters which are dealt with via the judicial system in the UK. This is an important point you are overlooking.
Sharia law aims to offer a faith based system of law that deals with the whole range of criminal and civil matters and can divert resources and make criminal judgements based on faith and the subjective interpretation of a few people (men)
Lets also not forget it hands out penalties such as amputations, stonings as well as countless other medieval and appalling punishments.Posted 2 years ago # -
Hmm, much as I detest the Mail et al and think there is a large helping of xenophobia involved in this, I also think some liberal people are seemingly blind to worryingly anti-liberal aspects of Islam.
Posted 2 years ago # -
tyger has posted this sort of thing before.
Posted 2 years ago # -
All of your examples are transparent
Not sure what you mean by that. Arbitration, once the parties consent to it, is binding. Mediation agreements are usually confidential. Both can result in decisions and agreements that are outside the scope of statute law.
As for decisions being incompatible with UK law on the grounds of illegality or inequality, again, you're missing the point, which is that the parties consent to it. I don't like the thought of people willingly giving up their rights under UK and international law, but it happens. What do you do, interfere with these people's rights further?
And when you refer to sentences of execution and the like, you're not talking about the UK, are you?
Posted 2 years ago # -
But let's say, for arguments sake, that a woman lives in an extremely male-dominated community, and doesn't really want to go to the sharia court, knowing that she will probably not be treated fairly, but feels massive pressure to do so anyway.
You happy with that?
Posted 2 years ago # -
tyger has posted this sort of thing before.
ah yes.
http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/anyone-else-received-this-email
agenda?
Posted 2 years ago # -
I also think some liberal people are seemingly blind to worryingly anti-liberal aspects of Islam.
People get confused between a religion and the practices of an oppressive regime. It's like saying that every time the US executes a child or a mentally ill person, they're doing it in accordance with Christian law. This might be true in a sense but really it's just painting a distorted picture of a generally f--ked-up society.
Edit: Actually I'm doing the US a disservice, as it's been illegal to execute someone who was a child at the time they committed their crime since 2005. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roper_v._Simmons
They're still executing mentally ill people though.
Posted 2 years ago # -
agenda?
Insecure Christian with an axe to grind.
Posted 2 years ago # -
<sighs deeply and ignores thread>
Posted 2 years ago # -
PS: Tyger, you haven't by any chance sent money to someone recently who is managing an £8.6 million bequest in your favour ?
Posted 2 years ago # -
People get confused between a religion and the practices of an oppressive regime. It's like saying that every time the US executes a child or a mentally ill person, they're doing it in accordance with Christian law.
Except its not. The US legal system does not justify execution on the basis of Christian teachings. I agree to an extent but you can't just say everything's fine just because some people get over-excited about it.
Posted 2 years ago # -
I'm not one to point fingers, but is tyger not borderline "insighting racial hatred" with this, along with his other posts?
Posted 2 years ago # -
I haven't noticed any of the other threads, but posting a link to a news story and making a thread called 'cause for concern?' doesn't seem to be inciting racial hatred to me. That seems like exactly the kind of over-reaction that lets the likes of the BNP claim they are being victimized by 'PC gone mad' nutty liberals.
Posted 2 years ago # -
I haven't noticed any of the other threads,
Well I suggest you have a look in his back history.
http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/profile/tyger
It's pretty clear he's drip dripping nasty racist stuff under the guise of "ooh, er, what do people think about this".
Very sad indeed.
Posted 2 years ago # -
The US legal system does not justify execution on the basis of Christian teachings.
You really think that religious teaching and organisations have no bearing over the decision of many US states to retain the death penalty?
Posted 2 years ago # -
As has been said earlier in this thread many organisations have their own laws and justice systems. These courts can issue fines, suspensions and other penalties, but have to be subservient to the law of the land. All penalties are voluntary - i.e. if you leave the organisation you are not bound by them.
Notable examples are:
The Church of England
The Catholic Church
The Football Association
The British Cycling FederationPosted 2 years ago # -
Not sure what you mean by that. Arbitration, once the parties consent to it, is binding. Mediation agreements are usually confidential. Both can result in decisions and agreements that are outside the scope of statute law.
As for decisions being incompatible with UK law on the grounds of illegality or inequality, again, you're missing the point, which is that the parties consent to it. I don't like the thought of people willingly giving up their rights under UK and international law, but it happens. What do you do, interfere with these people's rights further?
I am unaware of a single voluntary example of arbitration leading to a criminal conviction, can you name one?
Parties may consent however when it is clear that people feel forced into entering into the process through social and religious pressure should we stand idly by when the likely outcome is skewed towards the male? In a sophisticated democracy I think it is incumbent on us to intervene.Posted 2 years ago # -
You really think that religious teaching and organisations have no bearing over the decision of many US states to retain the death penalty?
But you are moving the goalposts. Religious influence in the US on the creation and enforcement of laws is well know and is also to be criticized. However we do not have American citizens in the UK claiming that those laws be implemented here.
Posted 2 years ago # -
You really think that religious teaching and organisations have no bearing over the decision of many US states to retain the death penalty?
No, but seperation of church and state is enshrined in the US constitution. They don't let Pat Roberton try and sentence people.
Posted 2 years ago # -
It's pretty clear he's drip dripping nasty racist stuff under the guise of "ooh, er, what do people think about this".
Brant you are out of order trying to marginalize what many on here consider a valid subject for debate.
Dont try to force subjects off limits by creating a false impression of racism.
We are all old enough and ugly enough to have a grown up debate about this and I for one have had my views changed through some excellent arguments well put by people on this website.Posted 2 years ago #
Topic Closed
This topic has been closed to new replies.
