It's the nature of the actions that is the crux of my point. Actions such as forbidding certain foods, certain dress codes and other such issues that affect the individual are not in themselves illegal. Enforcing such prohibitions through social censure or ostracisation are not necessarily illegal. Attempting to enforce judgements through violence, or threats of violence, are indeed illegal actions, by reference to the law of the land. The law of the land has its practical basis in the idea of rule by consent. As a society, we consent to these laws even if, as individuals, we occasionally take issue with them. Sharia is like a law of the land, in that sections of Islamic populations consent to them. Where the laws conflict with the established laws of a nation, such as those of the UK, established law takes precedent (until such time as the Democratic process changes those laws). Where there is no direct conflict with established law, we have to be careful. We don't yet live in a totalitarian society (such as we may experience in an Islamic country) so we need to think carefully about how we direct minorities in they way they wish to conduct their lives.
Absolutely. Consent is crucial to morality and ethics, and for that reason is a major factor in our laws. The problem here is the bit where you say, "... sections of Islamic populations consent to them." The men whom Sharia allows to take more than their share, to abuse young girls, to beat their wives, to lie to children, to control others' lives - those men consent, to be sure. It is the other sections of the populations I am concerned with: the threatened, the abused, the dispossessed, the deceived, and the raped - how can they be said to 'consent'? The underlying problem is that Islam and Sharia explicitly repudiate consent as a basis for morality or law. Arbitrary rules are simply imposed on everyone, regardless if they consent or not. That is why Sharia is repugnant.
I'm not arguing against your position. Sharia ought to be repugnant to any thinking, reasoning human being. It discriminates, it promotes human rights violations and is the enemy of any right-thinking person - both in its goals and where it is permitted to take effect. I just wanted something more than a blanket statement that UK society shouldn't allow Sharia to exist in the UK. More than just a statement that could be misconstrued as purely racist (to the fevered imagination). I think this has been achieved, to a certain extent.
Thank you, Loz. Just to deal with the point about being "racist": people of any race can be and are Muslims. People of any race can be in favour of imposing Sharia on others. And people of all races can and do oppose this. Racism has absolutely nothing to do with the issue - that allegation is just an obvious and feeble smear.
I use the term racist in a loose sense, and in a sense that most people grasp. To be more accurate and concise, I would say "prejudiced" or "religiously intolerant". If I could be bothered. You on the other hand - disingenuous much. You can't demolish an valid argument where the underlying principle is sound, on the basis that a term that is widely (mis)used is inaccurate. Sit on the naughty step, Pete
The term "racist" has only one clear and well-known meaning, namely prejudiced against people on account of their racial origin or skin colour. If you really want to use the word in some different sense to mean something else unique to you, that's your privilege. It's a bit Alice in Wonderland, though.
You know, all this time and I am the only person on the planet to have used the term racism instead of the term religious intolerance. Alice in Wonderland indeed.
Are you actually suggesting, seriously, that disapproving of a religious doctrine is "racist"? If so (and I think you are probably pulling my leg) that would make you the only person on the planet.
I am not seriously suggesting any such thing. I'm not even suggesting it in jest. I've often seen people apply the racism label to what is actually religious intolerance. I've seen it happen here, in this forum. I am almost certain that you have seen it too, as I have a recollection of you attempting to correct the poster's use of the word. I have no evidence of this, and trust me, no interest in trying to dig any up, but I am satisfied that you have done so, in the past. Thus, this is not news to you, no matter how much you profess a sense of shock and dismay over the matter. I am a little more accepting of people's linguistic fauxes pas and inexactitudes than you (regularly) appear to be ... to the extent that I sometimes adopt them for my own. Unfortunately, I offered no caveat when I mentioned "racism" earlier - I used it in a sense that I knew people would understand without qualification. I realise now that this laziness on my part has hurt you in some way and I can only apologise.
which bit didnt you like baldyboy? the bit where a minority group with such crazy views towards the own people became a majority group and forced their laws on others.?
The English language has a wealth of words to allow most things to be described very precisely, and we often have two or more words meaning the same thing. The misuse of the words "racist" and "racism" are a major problem, and Pete is right to point this out. It's a serious accusation these days, so it should not be made incorrectly. There are many trivial errors made commonly these days (e.g. "bun fight" which as far as I know means a celebration, not a conflict), some errors which can cause huge offence (e.g. "slut" which used to mean "slovely woman" rather than "promiscuous woman"), and others which form part of an insidious brainwashing of people along the lines of 1984 "Newspeak" - "racist" falls into that last category. It is not "racist" to be predjudiced against members of a different religion, residents of a different part of the UK from that which you live in, or against those who choose to travel around and live in caravans! It may be predjudice, but racism it is not. I think this is relevant to the political debate we'll see over the next month - some UKIP policy may be incorrectly criticised as "racist", where it might be (subject to debate) appropriate to use the word "xenophobic" (I think that is the right word for predjudice against those of a different nationality).
I'll only add to what Recidivist excellently put by stating that the effects of racism (prejudice against ethnicity or race) and those of religious intolerance are broadly the same, and equally undesirable for thinking, rational people. The terms themselves are not interchangeable and I apologise for my laziness in expressing myself earlier. (That said, I still believe there's a few who will read this and think, "What the hell's the difference?".)
Very decent of you. The is so little between us there is a severe risk we may fall into serious agreement. Recent posts have greatly clarified this. Religious believers who undergo criticism for their doctrines often find they have no valid response to the criticisms, being unable to defend the indefensible, yet are unwilling to relinquish their beliefs (Cognitive dissonance) - so they adopt the tactic of smearing their opponent. Calling someone a "racist" is a way of forcing them onto the back foot; their attention is diverted into denying and trying to disprove the smear. It is true that, as you say, this tactic has been used many times, and it is true that I have previously come across this false and deliberately misleading use of "racist". If I encounter it again, I shall again point out how incorrect it is. I am not personally hurt by any of this. In debate if your opponent is reduced to making falsified personal smears, instead of relevant arguments, that means you are winning. When it comes to linguistic inexactitudes, I don't trouble about peoples' spelling, grammar, punctuation or syntax errors. False use of words in order to smear people however is worth commenting on I think.
*light dawns* Wait. You didn't think I was somehow calling you a racist, Pete? Because that was not the case. I wouldn't even call you religiously intolerant - it's very clear to me that you tolerate religion (more or less)
Well, OK. But you did post the following: "I use the term racist in a loose sense, and in a sense that most people grasp. To be more accurate and concise, I would say "prejudiced" or "religiously intolerant". If I could be bothered. You on the other hand - disingenuous much. You can't demolish an valid argument where the underlying principle is sound, on the basis that a term that is widely (mis)used is inaccurate. Sit on the naughty step, Pete " It is an obscure post, and not at all easy to construe what you meant by it.
My "valid argument" was that condemning Sharia without being specific about what is wrong with it is itself wrong. Just because I used the word "racist" instead of a more accurate term doesn't invalidate my intent, only what said. I suggested that people would call it "racist" (note, I suggested that "people" may do so, not that I would call it such). As we both know, I should have used the term "religiously intolerant" but I genuinely believe that people would have used "racist".
An interesting debate. My first point would be, would most people in the UK (non-Muslims, then) like to have Sharia law as the law of the land? Would you? If the answer to this is no, then you already know what is wrong with it. The most obvious thing is that it is discriminatory between the sexes, but there is no doubt a whole host of other things. So the second point is, should people in the UK be able to have recourse to Sharia courts, even if the majority of the inhabitants of the islands think it is a second-rate legal system? Loz's point of view appears to be that to allow this is religiously tolerant, not his problem directly, so the answer should be yes. Fair enough. Some strains of Islam are perfectly happy with bigamy (as are Mormons). So should that also be part of British culture? Should we allow bigamy in the UK because it seems to suit some minorities? Some African minorities believe in witchcraft and that also comes with attendant punishments for the guilty. So, on the basis of religious tolerance, should we allow this? Straw men, no doubt, but they serve to illustrate my point. The legal system and system of governance in the UK has been fought for for centuries so that we may have the freedoms we have. The majority of the country - the vast majority - believe that they are just and reasonable. Why should we permit a cancer of medievalist thought to take hold and proliferate in the UK on the grounds of religious tolerance? This is just wishy-washy liberal crap. Why is it OK to try to further education for women in Afghanistan (one of the few achievements of the Western "occupation"), when it seems to go against the way they choose to run their society, and then admit a "justice" system on UK shores which discriminates against women? It makes no sense. It seems to me that when equality for women is improving in the UK (and great strides have been made in the previous decades), when rights for homosexuals have also made great progress, it is wholly reprehensible to give legitimacy to a justice system which is anathema to the majority of UK citizens just because a section of the population is totally brainwashed into believing medieval mumbo jumbo. The UK should be trying to enlighten its inhabitants, not roll over and give equal weight to outmoded prejudices. And I would contend that strict observance of Islam (not to say strict observance of Christianity - cf its views on homosexuals and women bishops) is full of prejudices.
I would be surprised to learn that Sharia is not already amongst us, here in the UK. Making "judgements", carrying out "sentences" and "encouraging" its followers to obey its "laws". The question seems to be, should there be public acknowledgement of its existence and public approval? Sharia has its roots in religious practice and the UK has a policy of religious tolerance. There are other religions that are "tolerated" in the UK but they do not have carte blanche for all their practices, so there is precedent. The problem, in a nutshell, is can Sharia exist in any meaningful way, if it is drastically curtailed by real laws - those in statute. That's a reasonably easy question to answer. But - is that the real question?
People should be free to go for arbitration in whatever form they wish to take it, whether that be from a religious court such as Beth Din or Sharia courts or advice from a parish priest or any other organisation of any description, as long as both parties are not under any form of coercion I see no problem with it at all, in fact it could be argued that local courts can help foster community spirit. What these groups or organisations cannot do is make judgements that contradict the actual law, whether all parties agree or not so there should be clear guidelines as to what circumstances they can pronounce upon and there should be some form of legal presence or training for anyone that dishes out these judgements.
I reckon Islam tends to curtail women's rights as a matter of course. So half the Islamic population is being coerced. There will also be a lot of family pressure brought to bear, or community pressure, so that is still coercion. Frankly, if everyone is so happy and getting on so well, and there is no friction, why are people seeking arbitration from a court, Sharia or otherwise, in any case? There is clearly disagreement, and that probably goes hand in glove with coercion.
