which is why there need to be rules in place as to what non standard courts can pass judgement on. Sharia isn't only about stoning and cutting off hands for shoplifting and religious courts aren't only about Sharia law. There are long established Beth Din courts in this country That applies to any court whether it's secular, religious or a military court. I don't understand your point.
I can easily imagine situations where community members are coerced into attending a Sharia court because "it is the way we people do things" or something similar. There is a simple way to avoid the problem - get rid of Sharia arbitration. What is so hard to understand about this? You live in the UK, and there is one law - UK law. Why should there be any others? It's not a question of religion, ultimately, is it? It's indicative of a mindset that refuses to integrate with the country of adoption. My view of this is simple - go and live somewhere where you feel more at home if you don't want to integrate. I chose to live in Switzerland. I have adopted its customs, learnt its language(s) adopted its food, made friends with its people. I don't live in some ex-pat enclave speaking only English and demanding that my disputes should be settled according to English law. Somehow though, as soon at it's Islam being discussed, it's a special case. I would contend that Islamic terrorism has achieved far more than people are prepared to admit. There is a genuine fear of antagonising people of Islamic faith for fear or some sort of retribution. Tolerance goes both ways. Immigrants should be tolerant of the country they have chosen to live in, and respect its customs and laws.
I can't resist passing this on: Lloyds Bank accused of religious discrimination over free overdrafts on Islamic accounts - Home News - UK - The Independent I can't be bothered to look at the Lloyds website to see what the terms of the account are, but I imagine that the truth is that it simply does not allow an overdraft... in which case it's a non-story (assuming that they can arrange for the account to bounce any transactions which would take it into the red)?
Your conflation of Islamic terrorism with civil courts offering arbitration on neighbours disputing their dogs barking or kids playing loud music at night is either deliberately ignoring the point about the law of the land taking primacy and not being able to issue judgement counter to the law or or you wrongly equate all Muslims with being terrorists. They aren't. Not all terrorists are Muslims either. Community courts could actually increase people's access to independent arbitration as costs would be lower, they could feel more comfortable in familiar surroundings and access could be quicker. The Tabloid scaremongering has done more to promote an entirely unfounded fear of antagonising people of Islamic faith, 99.9% of whom just want to get on with their lives in the same way that 99.9% of Irish people in the seventies wanted to get on with life.
2 points to make here: 1. You wrongly surmise, I feel, that I have something against Muslims. I don't. And I am perfectly aware that most aren't terrorists (although the % having some degree of sympathy for the 9/11 attacks was vastly superior to 0.1% of the Muslim population of Britain). And of course, many are perfectly well integrated into the life of the UK. But I stand by my remark that the authorities are wary of antagonising Muslims. Maybe that is because they have a significant vocal and extremist minority, far more so than vocal and extremist Christian minorities in the UK. "Some of my best friends are Muslims". Actually, they aren't, but I've worked with some happily enough and their religion wasn't even a talking point - they were in no way different to my other colleagues. 2. I don't agree with your main point. I don't think that alternative justice systems should be set up in the UK on cost grounds and your remark "they could feel more comfortable in familiar surroundings" simply serves to illustrate my point. Why aren't normal British surroundings familiar to them? God knows, most should be pretty familiar with Britain by now, unless they are living in some Muslim ghetto with no interest in what goes on outside it. And if they are recently arrived immigrants, then they should be given the impression that they have arrived in Britain and are no longer in Pakistan or the Middle East. A willingness to integrate should be a sine qua non for all immigrants to Britain, be they from Poland, China or Pakistan. I also feel exactly the same about immigrants to Switzerland and find the quantity of English-only speaking ex-pats who make no attempt to integrate with the indigenous population deeply annoying.
BBC News - Egypt: Brotherhood's Badie among mass death sentences I know that this is no laughing matter, but you have to admit that the name "Mohammed Badie" raises a smile.
I'll happily concede that you dn't have an issue with Muslims and it wasn't my intention to suggest you did, I feel you give too much credence to the press reports of "Muslim offence" and think that in the main all minority groups, be they ethnic, religious or social are tolerated and tolerant by and of everyone else. All groups have a small number or dickheads (Technical term) that let the vast majority of their colleagues down. The point about feeling more comfortable in familiar surroundings doesn't just apply to Muslims, it could equally well apply to Mrs Miggins who wants to get her neighbour to cut back his Leylandii so her grandchildren can play in the sun light. Courts are scary intimidating places and if she can get the same judgement from father O'Flaherty or Imam Fawaz or Rabbi Goldsmith then it's going to be a more comfortable and less stressful experience for everyone.
Today I attended a demonstration at the HQ of the Law Society in Chancery Lane, with a large number of other people. Its purpose was to oppose the recent publication by the Law Society of guidance to solicitors about drawing up Sharia wills. Testators are, of course, free and entitled to leave their property to whomever they choose, and to exclude whomever they choose. Solicitors are, of course, bound to follow the client's instructions even if they are discriminatory, prejudiced, or unreasonable (so long as they are not actually illegal). No dispute thus far. The issue concerns a client who wants to make a discriminatory will but instead of explaining exactly what he wants, he asks the solicitor to work out all the discriminatory details for him under Sharia. The Law Society has issued guidance setting out how to do just that, and has chosen to base it on one of the more extreme and rigid strands of Sharia. What the Law Society should have done is either (a) proposed advising clients to be reasonable; or (b) proposed advising clients to seek advice from a Sharia expert; or (c) stayed silent on the issue.
This is truly bizarre. It is religious courts which are scary, intimidating places because they are grotesquely and deliberately unfair. Concepts like fairness, equality, natural justice, and consent are alien to them. Try telling a woman who has just had her children taken away from her, or been deprived of an inheritance, or been forced to return to an abusive husband, that the experience was "more comfortable and less stressful".
A few years ago, I saw a lump of an Iranian trial on TV. It was like something out of Franz Kafka - a sort of strange shouting match between people milling about in a room. There didn't seem to be much protocol, and naturally there was no jury. It was just some old geezer stitching up a rather unhappy woman (surprise surprise). He was the "judge". I sincerely hope I never find myself on trial for anything, but if I do, I hope it isn't in Iran or a similar country.
I take it you either missed or ignored the bit about guidelines and rules and not being allowed to contradict the law?
If Sharia "courts" in the UK didn't contradict UK law, there wouldn't be a problem, but actually they often do. Perhaps you missed or ignored that bit ...?
If motorists in the UK didn't contradict UK law, there wouldn't be a problem, but actually they often do. Perhaps you missed or ignored that ...? Feel free to miss the point of this analogy.
OK, it seems you are drawing an analogy between (a) private individuals who sometimes break criminal laws, and (b) bodies pretending to be courts which enforce theological non-laws on other people. You're right, I did miss that analogy.
I cant believe we are even entertaining anything what so ever to do with Sharia law in this country. Can you imagine if we went over to an Islamic state and suddenly announced that we want some weird medieval Christian law in place. The fucking backwards fucktards would publicly behead us. I weep for what will become of this country as we are being attacked from the inside. Its happening now, look at the recent story around the schools in the midlands.. BBC News - 'Islamic takeover plot' in Birmingham schools investigated and those are only the ones we know about. I bet that's just the tip of the iceberg Just waiting until we have a Muslim Prime minister.. we will be screwed then. We fought 2 World wars to save this country and now we are just giving in. And don't say anything because you will be branded a racist. Well screw you Islam fucking screw you. Take your Mohammed and Allah and get the fuck out Rant over
I know you're brighter than that. I also knew you'd try some misdirection in response. If you are prepared to address the analogy that I *am clearly* drawing, feel free to post on that. In the meantime, have fun with your straw man and pretended ignorance. Personally, I would hate to see Sharia gain any kind of authoritarian foothold in this country. I don't trust it and it seems to promote values that are contrary to much of what I believe in. As things stand, I am certain that Sharia is alive and well and living in the UK. The "courts" are probably being run in secret wherever the proceedings would run afoul of UK law. If everyone is happy for it to remain underground, I see no reason to give it official sanction in this country. If however, it is desirable to have some sort of legal, public oversight over such courts, is there a case for some form of adoption of it, along the lines of ACAS and other arbitration services?
Bowing down again to the eternally offended ones I see Subway removes pork from stores after 'strong demand' from Muslims | Mail Online Pass the blood presure tablets please
Or Company responds to customer feedback in free market shock horror. Nothing to see here, put the outrage bus back in the shed.
