Britain adopts Sharia law. Is this true?

[Fragony]

Yes, that is true, what you said doesn't matter, since you backed up one claim by bringing up a completely different issue

Closing the backdoor only to open up the gate, bravo. Sweden is like the Netherlands 20 years ago, it makes all the same mistakes in the same repressive climate of political correctness. Opium for the elite, most swedes I know don't support this. Not a single one in fact.

[HoreTore]

Like almost every other issue, bringing in plenty of cheap labour is about money, not "political correctness". But hey, if you want to live in your own world, that's all fine by me.

[Fragony]

Like almost every other issue, bringing in plenty of cheap labour is about money, not "political correctness". But hey, if you want to live in your own world, that's all fine by me.

'The 37,000 people expected to enter under the new rules includes not only those seeking work permits, but also their families and relatives.'

'After the change, employers themselves will be able to determine if they wish to hire someone.'

[Tribesman]

oddly enough, in my thirty odd years of experience it has always been left-wingers that have moaned about jews.

Hore answers that nonsense well .
Moaning about Israel ..... a wide poloitical spectrum of democratic countries and parties throughout the western world .
Moaning about Jews ...crazy right wingers and nationalists
Though I might as well add that apart from the Harding/Cox vote the majority of Jewish voters have always voted for the american left .

[Rhyfelwyr]

Though I might as well add that apart from the Harding/Cox vote the majority of Jewish voters have always voted for the american left .

Part of Trotsky's global Jewish communist conspiracy of course.

[KukriKhan]

After 7 pages, I just couldn't take it anymore. I changed the thread title to Britain adopts Sharia law. Is this true?.

and wonder if the discussion will ever return to topic.

In the US, I point out, at city, county, state and national levels, "arbitration panels" are used frequently to resolve civil and minor (non-felony) criminal disputes, to save the money and trouble attendant to formal court proceedings. This has been so for at least the past 50 years here, and those panels often rely on interest (read: religious) groups to do the task for cheap. Their judgments and procedures are administratively reviewed by a court, for compliance with law. I myself got divorced in Tampa, Florida using an abritrator, who was, incidentally, some kinda Southern Baptist minister. He opened and closed his 'proceedings' with a prayer.

So, did Hillsboro County, Florida adopt Southern Baptist law? No. It accepted the free services of a volunteer minister to arbitrate and resolve a (hopefully) minor legal concern, to which Deborah and I both had consented. Two weeks later, I got the notarized Review of Dissolution of Marriage Proceedings, signed by some Judge I'd never met face-to-face.

(note: I got screwed in that settlement, BTW; it seemed like the right thing to do at the time.)

I also point to all those "People's Court" TV shows here in the US, where the litigants agree to have their dispute arbitrated by a non-sworn Judge, in return for 15 minutes of TV face time.

In summary: Sharia standards? Maybe. But they've got a built-in review process to prevent abuse, just like we do. And it's worked for years with the Jewish 'courts'.

No prob, sez I.

[Big_John]

great calamity! our mods have become thrall to the indelible seduction of misogyny!

[Husar]

Kukri, you just proved that Americans are a bunch of bible-thumping religionists, that southern baptists go to hell, that your judges are blind to what's going on and that people get screwed in divorces, I don't see how that is positive in any way.

[JR-]

Hore answers that nonsense well .
Moaning about Israel ..... a wide poloitical spectrum of democratic countries and parties throughout the western world .
Moaning about Jews ...crazy right wingers and nationalists
Though I might as well add that apart from the Harding/Cox vote the majority of Jewish voters have always voted for the american left .

Horetore doesn't answer; "that nonsense well"

Horetore raises a valid point in question, to which i can answer that i do not confuse the two.

In my experience the very large majority of whingeing about jews has come from the left.

BTW, does adding a boat load of to every comment add greater gravitas or some moral weight to the core of your 'retort'?

[InsaneApache]

You should have gone to see judge Judy mate.

I think that there s concern about how fair sharia courts are to women. They appear to have a built in prejudice against them. I live in a city that is roughly 1/4 to 1/3 occupied by south Asian moslems (the currys are delicious BTW ) and I have known and worked with both males and females of south asian descent.

As I posted earlier on in this thread, there are differences in the way that the lads and lasses are treated. I made the comparison with the Greeks I know on Corfu.

Now one of the problems inherent in the shaia system proposed/introduced is the free and willing bit. It would take a very strong willed girl to go against her father or husband if he insisted on resolving any disputes using the sharia courts. There doesn't have to be any threats of violence or anything so blatent. The cultural pressure of itself would be more than enough to force compliance. I'll give an example of my own personal experience.

Many years ago I knew a young lass from one of my suppliers. All my suppliers were Asians and I got on very well with them, often blagging a curry after I had completed a deal. This young girl was about 22 years old or so and I might add one hell of a looker. My wife and I befriended her and she often came to our house for a chat and a meal. One day she turned up with a lad. An Asian lad. She asked us not to tell her brother, who was one of our suppliers, that she was with this young man. We asked her why and she told us that she would be killed if her brother found out that she was seeing her beau.

I simply did not believe it. I had known her brother, in a business capacity, for about 5 years at that time. She became very agitated and pleaded with us not to say anything. We agreed. She had been promised to a cousin in her tribal village and if her family had found out, well, she feared for her life.

A few months later when we went to buy some stock, we went to her brothers showroom and she wasn't there. Her brother said that she had gone 'home' to marry her cousin. She was as westernized as you can get. Educated, articulate and intelligent. She obviously didn't want to marry her cousin but was compelled to by family and cultural circumstance.

You might say what has this got to do with the thread topic. I tell this tale to show that women from these backgrounds have little say in where they go, who with and what they do. Given this pressure I seriously doubt that there would be anything approaching free and willing participation for the female respondants in a sharia court.

[KukriKhan]

Thanks, InsaneApache, I think I see now: the second-class citizenship of women within that system (presumeably) prevents the 'free and willing' consent necessary (and that I was afforded, in my own example) for democratic justice to be done.

What a pickle that presents, then, eh? How to allow one group to participate in the arbitration system, while disallowing another?

[Fragony]

Allowing is giving it ligitimacy. We must be completily immune to cultural sensetivities and customs.

[Tribesman]

BTW, does adding a boat load of to every comment add greater gravitas or some moral weight to the core of your 'retort'?

What it does is save the use of a lot of words that could be taken as insulting . The more it gets the more ridiculous I think the quote is , when it gets to the whole really big pile of laughing smilies it means that the quote must have been written by a brainless idiot who hasn't the faintest idea what they are on about and most probably doesn't even understand what they have written .

[Fragony]

The more it gets the more ridiculous

Incidently that is how I feel we should deal with the situation InsaneApache described, redicule the *bleep* out of them and their ancient ways, shred it to tiny little bits untill they grow numb, and up to the point where they start enjoying it. So very impolite to think something is rediculous while pretending to respect it.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Haha Fragony I'm still ahead of you, I got four in another thread IIRC.

[Fragony]

Ha I must have enough to support a small town by now when you add them up. Generous he is indeed.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Haha Fragony I'm still ahead of you, I got four in another thread IIRC.

I think that I've literally gotten over 100 in a single thread. I wear it as a badge that I'm doing something right.

CR is beating us all.

[JR-]

What it does is save the use of a lot of words that could be taken as insulting . The more it gets the more ridiculous I think the quote is , when it gets to the whole really big pile of laughing smilies it means that the quote must have been written by a brainless idiot who hasn't the faintest idea what they are on about and most probably doesn't even understand what they have written .

ah, there i was thinking it might be an artful way of dissuading the casual reader from actually assessing the worth of your response by implying such a magnificent and overwhelmingly retort........?

[Rhyfelwyr]

What it does is save the use of a lot of words that could be taken as insulting . The more it gets the more ridiculous I think the quote is , when it gets to the whole really big pile of laughing smilies it means that the quote must have been written by a brainless idiot who hasn't the faintest idea what they are on about and most probably doesn't even understand what they have written .

And so by displaying the perceived stupidity of others posts through a rating system of laughing smilies how do you think you are acutally contributing anything yourself?

[Viking]

[...]

Aaaaanyway, I think IA is onto something.

[Fragony]

Into something, it's called reality geez.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Thanks, InsaneApache, I think I see now: the second-class citizenship of women within that system (presumeably) prevents the 'free and willing' consent necessary (and that I was afforded, in my own example) for democratic justice to be done.

What a pickle that presents, then, eh? How to allow one group to participate in the arbitration system, while disallowing another?

I agree that IA provides a vivid example of the problem with Sharia law courts. As for deciding what extra-legal arbitration systems to allow, it seems to me there are three options:
1)Disallow everything.
2)Allow some, but discriminate based on what sort of religious law and culture would be fully compatible with the country's justice system.
3)Allow everything because you're too scared or politically correct to stand up to any minority interest group.

Britain seems to be doing 3), I'd say it should use option 2).

when it gets to the whole really big pile of laughing smilies it means that the quote must have been written by a brainless idiot who hasn't the faintest idea what they are on about and most probably doesn't even understand what they have written .

Ironic, then, that the excess of smilies is closely associated with yourself.

Haha Fragony I'm still ahead of you, I got four in another thread IIRC.

It's funnest when he unloads a bunch of the laughing smilies, then you reply, and then you never see him discuss that topic ever again.

CR

[Louis VI the Fat]

You might say what has this got to do with the thread topic.

Lovely post. And it has got everything to do with what we're dealing with here.

I don't know many Asians ('South Asians' in US English). But it all sounds so very familiar to the situation with Maghreb immigrants. I work with a woman from Morocco. As westernised as can be. Bloody hot to boot. I even had the privilige of seeing her on the beach - which still gives me plenty of uneasy nights.

Then, seemingly out of the blue, one day she announced she was getting married. To whom? Her cousin straight from the Rif mountains. As backward as can be. I think he's semi-literate. Not that I've ever seen him, the poor girl is living two lives, trying to keep them strictly separate. The one thing she has going for herself, is that she still works. The ridiculous sod at home is not capable of providing for himself or her, so she gets to do it for him.

Her life is not a disaster. She's not hopelessly abused or controlled. She still wears tight jeans and make-up to work. (Proudly sharing my creepy sexist side here ) But how she's not getting schizophrenic is beyond me. How can you live in two worlds like this, with separate circles of friends, contradictory values?
She can't settle in either world. There are things she doesn't share. I never hear about her home, I don't know if she's got a happy marriage, I wasn't invited to the wedding - none of us were - which besides was a traditional one in Morocco. We didn't even know about it until it happened.

The tragedy perpetuates itself. If she ever gets children, her husband will probably insist on marrying them off to yet more relatives from his village. Probably have been promised to them already. And the nonsense starts all over again.


It's not a British example, and Asians are not Africans, but the problems are to a fair extent universal. We could ask about Turks in Germany and the situation would be eerily similar again. The one in my example is smart and strong-willed enough to stand up to any hypothetical Sharia arbitration. Integrated well-enough to know her rghts and her way to real courts. What is striking, is that she still ended up in a marriage with her cousin, whose education is seemingly limited to learning to drive mule-carts. What if she was the semi-literate immigrant? What, of women, or men, who are not capable of standing up for themselves?

Would Sharia arbitration be at all meaningful for these people? No, I think not. And if that is too patronising or discriminating, why not stop thinking about it from a Muslim perspective, and think of it from a British perspective. Is this sort of arbitration - shock! - meaningful for Britain? No, I think not. Sharia has no place in Britain. To make a horribly racist, elitist and imperialist comment: common law and equality for the UK! Equality before the law for all British!


Asians in Britian - I enjoyed this nice little gem: Bend it like Beckham. No Big Drama, just an upbeat movie about a teen girl stuck between family and the UK.

[JR-]

good post, tend to agree.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Oh, tribesy, you're so cute.

Anyways, Louis puts forth another good argument against sharia courts. But the supporters seem to have changed their minds or run off already.

CR

[Tribesman]

Anyways, Louis puts forth another good argument against sharia courts. But the supporters seem to have changed their minds or run off already.

No he doesn't , because he mentions common law , the common law is actually worse for the women ...they have bugger all claim , its traditional
Conservative values and all that , like the "christian" churches who in their marriage ceromony proclaim that the womans role in married life is to stay at home and raise the chidlren ...kinda like them eagle forums eh .

[InsaneApache]

C'mon Tribes you can do better than that mate. You had a minute dig at an excellent post by Louis and then forget to refute his assertions.

Whilst you're about it, you're welcome to deconstruct mine as well.

[HoreTore]

Britain seems to be doing 3), I'd say it should use option 2).

Uhm..... They are doing #2, since the proposed system is fully compatible with the current legal system....

[ICantSpellDawg]

Well come on Tuff you have shown that you know **** all about Afghanistan or Pakistan (or Iraq), your knowledge of the coilition is on an equally retarded basis , you havn't even got a clue what you own militaries views on the topic are and you resort to crazy xenophobic shite as a comeback , if that ain't lauughable then I don't know what is .

Excellent.
Does anyone else agree with this characterization?

Would Sharia arbitration be at all meaningful for these people? No, I think not. And if that is too patronising or discriminating, why not stop thinking about it from a Muslim perspective, and think of it from a British perspective. Is this sort of arbitration - shock! - meaningful for Britain? No, I think not. Sharia has no place in Britain. To make a horribly racist, elitist and imperialist comment: common law and equality for the UK! Equality before the law for all British!

Good Post.

[Banquo's Ghost]

There are some excellent posts in this thread, but a great deal of pointless provocation as well.

Please can we build on the former and cut the latter out. There is no need to respond to trolling.

Thank you kindly.