I don't know. We already have many (secular) alternative justice systems in the UK. One of the most widely publicised ones is called the FA. The FA hands down "justice" or - to satisfy the pedants - enforces its rules on issues that arguably belong in the legitimate legal system of the UK. Those who watch football will see examples of common assault which never appear to get as far as a police investigation, let alone the CPS. All the participants have signed up to this "voluntary" system and abide by it (with or without publicly complaining about it). There are many differences between the FA's system and the real legal system - those who are interested in such things will remember the John Terry incident well. However, the FA's discipline system is voluntary (although compulsory if you want to live and work within the FA framework). If a section of society wants to employ their own rulebook, there is precedent, as above. If people want Sharia Law to govern them, they should be free to elect to do so but only if and where it does not conflict with the real law of the land. It must be voluntary, to the extent that you may genuinely choose to be a part of it or not. There are wrinkles and difficulties here pertaining to child-rearing and indoctrination but that will be an issue whether we publicly accept the concept of Sharia Law or not. Personally, what I know of Sharia is repugnant to me and goes against every concept of decency and liberty that I believe in- but is it up to me to decide whether other people can belong to the Sharia "club"?
finm! What? Don't you believe in democracy? Shame on you. Majority rules! There's a hint of Darwinism in all of this. If the kind of clods that would subject themselves to Sharia can compete successfully with thinking, reasoning human beings well - evolution in action, baby!
When your car is keyed or bike vandalized/stolen which system would you like to see employed to punish the little toe rag?
To me this is just another example of govt looking to spy and also add fear to control the massess. They want a nation of snitches and cap-doffers who follow blindly what they are told. And ONLY the English are following. Similarly, if my son was ANY other nationality than English, he could get upto 5600 grant from the Welsh assembly (who pays for that?!) to go to Bangor. If he was ANY other nationality than English or Northern Irish he could go to uni in Scotland for a fraction of the cost, almost zero in comparison, than he is. Face it: we are fucked. Let sheer tights law come in, who cares?! And all we have to stand up for us is Etonian twats with privileged backgrounds, racists who use our flag to identify themselves to making it difficult for the average English person to use it without condemnation (other than one day a year). Or of course UkIP, who are about connected to the working man and average Joe as Joanna Lumley would be to hitler So I'm converting to allah, will be making my missus wear a balaclava (been trying to for years anyway) and taking my new-found rights into the workplace so i can have 5 breaks a day, claim persecution if things don't go my way and offence at anything anyone says
cant imagine a yorksharia man paying $9.50 for anything. and to be honest i would pay a hole lot more to say i wasn't a yorksharia man. who says us Scots are tight.
Good point; we do indeed. Several sports like football, rugby, cricket, tennis, etc have their own governing bodies with their own systems for licencing, sanctions and appeals. For motorsports the ACU and the RAC also has such a system. People can be fined, suspended or ultimately banned from the sport; so the worst that can possibly happen is that the person can no longer participate in their chosen sport. All the processes are carried out within the law of England and Wales, and are subject to the oversight of the courts. Sharia is rather different, and at a more serious level entirely. Sharia bodies (which falsely label themselves "courts") purport to deal with matters of marriage, divorce, children, inheritance, property, etc which are of momentous importance to the individuals concerned. These Sharia bodies apply rules which are explicitly contrary to English law, and contrary to the rules of natural justice. They explicitly refuse to treat all parties before them equally. Their rulings are often backed up by the threat, or the reality, of unlawful violence.
In the case of the FA, the punishments meted out do not always seem to be in line with the law of the land. I accept that there is oversight, carried out by the Police, the CPS and the Courts, but fact remains that there are assaults taking place that could conceivably be prosecuted as affray, ABH or GBH. Instead, they are dealt with by an unconstitutional "authority". There are criminal records that do not come into existence due to this arrangement. I don't consider this to be strictly just, even if the system more-or-less works. Add to this the fact that the FA can effectively bring the Law Courts into disrepute by second-guessing the judgement of a Court of Law (in the case of John Terry). We see how the FA reacts to what it considers "bringing the game into disrepute" when a manager or player second-guesses the FA's judgement. I do not consider the FA to be a responsible body to administer "justice" but people choose to live and work within its framework. The argument that Sharia is a more seriously damaging quasi-legal body hinges on whether it does indeed act contrary to the rule of law. For instance, threatening or carrying out violence, in contravention of the law of the land, cannot be condoned. However, if Sharia is simply unfair to people who chose freely whether they belong to it, and abide by its rules or not ... I find that disagreeable but not actionable. As long as no *real* laws are broken.
Offences of violence or dishonesty can be prosecuted under the laws of E&W, and those convicted of them sent to prison, fined, disqualified from driving, etc. That remains true even if the offence was committed in the context for some sporting activity such as a football match. If the police decide not to investigate some incident, or the CPS decide not to prosecute, that is a matter for them - and they may be publicly criticised on that account. The FA (and other sporting bodies) have no power to decide whether any criminal offence has been committed, no power to cause or prevent a prosecution, and no power to impose punishments except with the consent of those affected, who always have the option of leaving the sport in which event they pass entirely beyond the power of the sporting body. They can only decide, at most, whether the rules of the sport have been broken, and any penalties lie within the sport only. If they exceed their authority or act unreasonably, their decision can be quashed. Boxing provides the starkest example of how violence in sport is seen in law. If A and B step into a boxing ring and A punches B in the head, that is ostensibly assault and battery. But if A were prosecuted, he would have the very good defence that B consented to being punched. Thus prosecutions never take place. However if A shot B in a boxing ring, A would be prosecuted because B did not consent to being shot. Players in field sports are presumed to consent to being tackled, to being hit by the ball, etc.
You don't get stoned to death or have your hands cut off for punching a player in the face tho. Do you
There are many well-authenticated examples of Sharia bodies in the UK taking actions like: purporting to allow old men to "marry" and have sex with girls under the age of 16 purporting to award inheritance of property to males, while excluding females because they are female purporting to award custody of children in divorce to the father while excluding the mother, even when the father has been violent and abusive pretending to be a "court" and telling participants untruthfully that they have no choice but to submit to its rulings There are many other egregious abuses - look them up for yourself if you wish.
I am well aware of some of the abuses that take place - both within the context of Islam and without it. Sharia "courts" can at least be found guilty of laws governing confidence tricksters, at the very least, in that they fraudulently victimise individuals. The problem is partly that many of the individuals concerned are knowing, willing participants. Others are innocents who lack protection from their parents (because the parents themselves are willing participants). What I am looking for is some legal recourse that is robust and doesn't involve, at its heart, the idea of we don't like your religion as its basis. Westerners need to not descend to the depths that Islam is often guilty of.
The basis of my objection is not "We don't like your religion". People are welcome to believe whatever they like. It is "We don't like the actions you are taking, and we don't like you treating people in an illegal, unjust, unfair, abusive, discriminatory way".
