T Nation

Britan Adopts Sharia Law

Oh boy! This little tidbit makes me want to emigrate to England:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,422661,00.html

Are the nuts?! To give the imbeciles any legal authority is to pretty much hold the British populous hostage.

Who ever allowed this to happen should be charged with treason and shot.

Under the act, the sharia courts are classified as arbitration tribunals. The rulings of arbitration tribunals are binding in law, provided that both parties in the dispute agree to give it the power to rule on their case.

If either party disagrees, the tribunal’s rulings are worthless. So it’s not going to affect anyone who’s unwilling to submit to their rulings.

I wonder if the government will use these to keep lists of people who don’t fully appreciate the freedom that living in the UK provides them…

We have binding arbitration in Canada. Personally I would never use it. The omission of an appeal process flaws it to no end.

Is this available to Christian, or whatever, communities? Their own version, of course.

[quote]pookie wrote:
Under the act, the sharia courts are classified as arbitration tribunals. The rulings of arbitration tribunals are binding in law, provided that both parties in the dispute agree to give it the power to rule on their case.

If either party disagrees, the tribunal’s rulings are worthless. So it’s not going to affect anyone who’s unwilling to submit to their rulings.

I wonder if the government will use these to keep lists of people who don’t fully appreciate the freedom that living in the UK provides them…

[/quote]

Perhaps, but it is a foot in the door for religious law to intermingle with the law of the state. This blurs the lines between religious law and British law, it will not be long before somebody tries to enforce this crap on non-islamic citizens. This is a bad, bad thing…

This is all because the Jews used their influence to set up Beth Din courts. It set the legal precedent for a religion based parrallel legal system.

These sharia courts are not just arbitration courts either, they have been ruling on serious criminal cases.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Is this available to Christian, or whatever, communities? Their own version, of course.[/quote]

Yes, it’s available for Jewish communities for long time as well - look up Beth Din courts. Don’t know if the Christians have their own version, but I guess the CoE is much busier getting their stance on homosexuality sorted at the moment.

Otherwise, they are covered under the Arbitration Act, and they only cover civil cases, in which both parties have agreed to accept the arbitration. Otherwise it’s off to the real courts.

So I can assure you, no one’s being stoned any time soon - well I guess not in a literal sense anyway. :wink:

I find the article in the Times actually quite balanced for once:

Makkun

I will read the Times article later on, but for now I don’t like it for the fact the some people, who have their roots in a certain community, will have a hard time “refusing”, to face the Imam. For example, for the same reason many people consider a marriage in Germany incomplete without a priest’s blessing.

[quote]makkun wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Is this available to Christian, or whatever, communities? Their own version, of course.

Yes, it’s available for Jewish communities for long time as well - look up Beth Din courts. Don’t know if the Christians have their own version, but I guess the CoE is much busier getting their stance on homosexuality sorted at the moment.

Otherwise, they are covered under the Arbitration Act, and they only cover civil cases, in which both parties have agreed to accept the arbitration. Otherwise it’s off to the real courts.

So I can assure you, no one’s being stoned any time soon - well I guess not in a literal sense anyway. :wink:

I find the article in the Times actually quite balanced for once:

Makkun[/quote]

They haven’t publicly authorized stoning yet, but if you read the article you will see that they have already ruled on several domestic violence cases. They also have ruled on an assault where a young man was stabbed with a knife.

Sharia is very discriminatory to women and the courts have handed down decisions that would be illegal under British law because they were discriminatory.

This is nothing less than the government giving legal sanction to mysogeny in order to appease the muslims so they don’t go setting more bombs off.

[quote]pookie wrote:
Under the act, the sharia courts are classified as arbitration tribunals. The rulings of arbitration tribunals are binding in law, provided that both parties in the dispute agree to give it the power to rule on their case.

If either party disagrees, the tribunal’s rulings are worthless. So it’s not going to affect anyone who’s unwilling to submit to their rulings.

I wonder if the government will use these to keep lists of people who don’t fully appreciate the freedom that living in the UK provides them…

[/quote]
Judge Judy, et al, is the same concept. It is voluntary. Competition is always a good thing. Imagine what happens to government power should everyone decide to use independent arbitration to settle disputes. Carry it further and imagine what it would be like if private police were also free to compete with government police.

[quote][i]There are concerns that women who agree to go to tribunal courts are getting worse deals because Islamic law favours men.

Siddiqi said that in a recent inheritance dispute handled by the court in Nuneaton, the estate of a Midlands man was divided between three daughters and two sons.

The judges on the panel gave the sons twice as much as the daughters, in accordance with sharia. Had the family gone to a normal British court, the daughters would have got equal amounts.

In the six cases of domestic violence, Siddiqi said the judges ordered the husbands to take anger management classes and mentoring from community elders. There was no further punishment.

In each case, the women subsequently withdrew the complaints they had lodged with the police and the police stopped their investigations.

Siddiqi said that in the domestic violence cases, the advantage was that marriages were saved and couples given a second chance.[/i][/quote]

What utter shit. If you want Sharia law, stay in whatever god-forsaken hell hole you crawled out of instead of forcing your beliefs on others.

Just wait, pretty soon Common Law will be abolished and Britain will become an Islamic State. The law governing the people should be free of religious interference. Holy freaking shit.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pookie wrote:
Under the act, the sharia courts are classified as arbitration tribunals. The rulings of arbitration tribunals are binding in law, provided that both parties in the dispute agree to give it the power to rule on their case.

If either party disagrees, the tribunal’s rulings are worthless. So it’s not going to affect anyone who’s unwilling to submit to their rulings.

I wonder if the government will use these to keep lists of people who don’t fully appreciate the freedom that living in the UK provides them…

Judge Judy, et al, is the same concept. It is voluntary. Competition is always a good thing. Imagine what happens to government power should everyone decide to use independent arbitration to settle disputes. Carry it further and imagine what it would be like if private police were also free to compete with government police.
[/quote]

No it is not the same concept at all. Judge Judy, Judge Mathis etc… happen to be real judges. Their decisions have basis in law.

The Sharia courts rulings are being recognized by the real courts as legally binding.

Then there is the concept of mutual agreement. Those members of the muslim community who are the most vulnerable like women can now be bullied into the sharia court where they will not get fair treatment.

The whole thing is an abomonation that the British people do not support. This is why the government have kept it secret.

It undescores what I have said before. The Muslims have got to be eliminated from our societies and we have to do it now before they become even more entrenched and the situation becomes even difficult to rectify.

[quote]Sifu wrote:
The whole thing is an abomonation that the British people do not support. This is why the government have kept it secret.
[/quote]
Right.

Any idea how to do that?
I believe you’ve got but one option.
Change their mentality. Fill their heads with western ideas. Make them as english as possible (that includes closing down these horrible courts).

But apart from that?
Really, what do you suggest?

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Sifu wrote:
The whole thing is an abomonation that the British people do not support. This is why the government have kept it secret.

Right.

It undescores what I have said before. The Muslims have got to be eliminated from our societies and we have to do it now before they become even more entrenched and the situation becomes even difficult to rectify.

Any idea how to do that?
I believe you’ve got but one option.
Change their mentality. Fill their heads with western ideas. Make them as english as possible (that includes closing down these horrible courts).

But apart from that?
Really, what do you suggest?
[/quote]

From memory I think Sifu likes the idea of internment camps, although I’m not sure whether he’s thinking along the lines of Gitmo or Belsen.

[quote]ninearms wrote:
[…]

From memory I think Sifu likes the idea of internment camps, although I’m not sure whether he’s thinking along the lines of Gitmo or Belsen. [/quote]

No, you’re wrong there. In fact Sifu likes using the nazi ‘argument’ against his opponents when it fits him - which is why I don’t debate with him anymore - and I think his views are wildly xenophobic and ill-informed; but he is no nazi and he doesn’t stand in any form for their ‘ideas’.

Makkkun

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Sifu wrote:
The whole thing is an abomonation that the British people do not support. This is why the government have kept it secret.

Right.

It undescores what I have said before. The Muslims have got to be eliminated from our societies and we have to do it now before they become even more entrenched and the situation becomes even difficult to rectify.

Any idea how to do that?
I believe you’ve got but one option.
Change their mentality. Fill their heads with western ideas. Make them as english as possible (that includes closing down these horrible courts).

But apart from that?
Really, what do you suggest?
[/quote]

Thinking that we can somehow “fix” islam is very naive. Mohammad is the foundation that islam is built upon. Muslims view mohammad as the perfect role model to emulate. This perfect role model used violence to force his religion onto others and committed numerous crimes against humanity. You cannot “fix” that. The best we can expect from muslims is that they will live in denial or somehow overlook their perfect role models bad behaviour and not follow his example. Then if they have children we have to pray and hope they don’t follow mohammads example either.

They are the enemy in our midst. We need to minimise then eliminate this threat. The first place to start would be to immediately stop immigration from muslim countries. Right now the labour party has a policy of unlimited immigration that is adding to the problem instead of containing it and eliminating it.

Then they need to get a handle on the ones who are already in the country. A good place to start would be to compile a database of all the ones who are not happy living in a socially liberal western society then round them up and put them on a boat back to the old country where they will be much happier.

They also neeed to change the laws to stop catering to them. ie Polygamy is illegal in Britain, but muslim men are allowed to claim up to four wives as welfare dependents. The British people are paying muslims to breed and add to the problem which is only going to make things worse.

They also need to repeal the human rights act so that the countries of Europe can have control over who comes to their countries and who can stay. There are millions of muslims in Europe right now and they can’t even get rid of some of the very worst ones. ie Right now Osama Bin Ladens main man in Europe is more or less free to live in London and is being paid over $90,000 a year in welfare because he can’t be sent back to Jordan,which is where he came from because he is wanted for crimes there and the Europeans are afraid he will get punished.

I don’t understand. Why is England ‘assimilating’ in their own country? Should it not be the other way around? I don’t feel given the circumstances that it would be an overreaction to say this is a dangerous slippery slope. This is an example I think of the most prevalent impotence of Europe.

[quote]makkun wrote:
ninearms wrote:
[…]

From memory I think Sifu likes the idea of internment camps, although I’m not sure whether he’s thinking along the lines of Gitmo or Belsen.

No, you’re wrong there. In fact Sifu likes using the nazi ‘argument’ against his opponents when it fits him - which is why I don’t debate with him anymore - and I think his views are wildly xenophobic and ill-informed; but he is no nazi and he doesn’t stand in any form for their ‘ideas’.

Makkkun[/quote]

Actually I am not all that keen on the idea of internment camps. I was just trying to be nice and water things down because I realize that most people are having a hard time getting their heads around the nature of the threat we face and what it is going to take to solve it.

What we need to do is seperate ourselves from the muslims. The best way to do it is send them back to where they came from. Internment camps would only be needed for those who we could not send somewhere else.

You say I am a xenophobe and ill informed yet you don’t say how. What I am Makkun is a realist. I am being realistic when I say that worshipping a man who tortured, raped, murdered and kept slaves is worshipping evil. It is not my fault that all muslims worship evil.

Now if you would like to argue that mohammads actions were not bad in any way and in fact were divinely inspired we can have that debate. I am sure there are a few others on this board who would to care to add their input.

[quote]Sifu wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pookie wrote:
Under the act, the sharia courts are classified as arbitration tribunals. The rulings of arbitration tribunals are binding in law, provided that both parties in the dispute agree to give it the power to rule on their case.

If either party disagrees, the tribunal’s rulings are worthless. So it’s not going to affect anyone who’s unwilling to submit to their rulings.

I wonder if the government will use these to keep lists of people who don’t fully appreciate the freedom that living in the UK provides them…

Judge Judy, et al, is the same concept. It is voluntary. Competition is always a good thing. Imagine what happens to government power should everyone decide to use independent arbitration to settle disputes. Carry it further and imagine what it would be like if private police were also free to compete with government police.

No it is not the same concept at all. Judge Judy, Judge Mathis etc… happen to be real judges. Their decisions have basis in law.

[/quote]

The question is, what laws are their decisions based upon? In a lot of cases it is based on law systems that are not used in the states the courts reside in, especially in trade disputes.

Then the sharia is a system of laws, whether you like it or not.