Sharia Law SHOULD be Used in Britain

[u]Sharia law SHOULD be used in Britain, says UK’s top judge[/u]

The most senior judge in England yesterday gave his blessing to the use of sharia law to resolve disputes among Muslims.

Lord Chief Justice Lord Phillips said that Islamic legal principles could be employed to deal with family and marital arguments and to regulate finance.

He declared: 'Those entering into a contractual agreement can agree that the agreement shall be governed by a law other than English law.’

In his speech at an East London mosque, Lord Phillips signalled approval of sharia principles as long as punishments - and divorce rulings - complied with the law of the land.

But his remarks, which back the informal sharia courts operated by numerous mosques, provoked a barrage of criticism.

Lawyers warned that family and marital disputes settled by sharia could disadvantage women or the vulnerable.

Tories said that legal equality must be respected and that rulings incompatible with English law should never be enforceable.

Lord Phillips spoke five months after Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams suggested Islamic law could govern marital law, financial transactions and arbitration in disputes.

The Lord Chief Justice said yesterday of the Archbishop’s views: ‘It was not very radical to advocate embracing sharia law in the context of family disputes’.

He added there is ‘widespread misunderstanding as to the nature of sharia law’.

I don’t know about anyone else, but we should do whatever it takes to keep this from happening in America. It would be the end of freedom as we know it.

Fuck that. One law for all works nicely for me. If they don’t want English law, they shouldn’t have moved there.

Fucking cunts.

[quote]Chewie wrote:

He declared: 'Those entering into a contractual agreement can agree that the agreement shall be governed by a law other than English law.’
[/quote]

Doesn’t this just open the gates for contracts to be drafted under whichever governments laws that suit them the best?

[quote]sands wrote:
Chewie wrote:

He declared: 'Those entering into a contractual agreement can agree that the agreement shall be governed by a law other than English law.’

Doesn’t this just open the gates for contracts to be drafted under whichever governments laws that suit them the best?[/quote]

Yes. That is a BAD thing.

[quote]Chewie wrote:
sands wrote:
Chewie wrote:

He declared: 'Those entering into a contractual agreement can agree that the agreement shall be governed by a law other than English law.’

Doesn’t this just open the gates for contracts to be drafted under whichever governments laws that suit them the best?

Yes. That is a BAD thing. [/quote]

…and it’s coming across the ocean. When Ted Kennedy redid the immigration policies of the United States, it was geared to let in more people who would vote Democratic — uneducated tribes and semi-literate innumerate savages. They gather in cities and vote for the guy who gives them the ‘goodies’.

Sharia Law WILL come here.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Chewie wrote:
sands wrote:
Chewie wrote:

He declared: 'Those entering into a contractual agreement can agree that the agreement shall be governed by a law other than English law.’

Doesn’t this just open the gates for contracts to be drafted under whichever governments laws that suit them the best?

Yes. That is a BAD thing.

…and it’s coming across the ocean. When Ted Kennedy redid the immigration policies of the United States, it was geared to let in more people who would vote Democratic — uneducated tribes and semi-literate innumerate savages. They gather in cities and vote for the guy who gives them the ‘goodies’.

Sharia Law WILL come here.

[/quote]That plus the impending carbon global socialism means the freedom that we once loved is in grave danger.

Lets hope more people awaken and realize what a threat this kind of stuff is to our way of life. Wait! I know, B. Hussein Obama has all the answers, our diplomacy will be more powerful than our army. Seriously? Would JFK let this stuff happen? The Democrats of old were farther to the Right the today’s Republicans.

Back on topic.

Just last week we had Jordanian courts extended their rule beyond their borders. I guess we better buy a Koran and learn Farsi. If Sharia Law can be adopted in the UK, how does this affect us? This is similar to sticking your hand in a pot of water and watching it begin to boil and not realizing that you need to pull it out. If one of our strongest allies let this happen, who are we going to have left?

This may be true but I doubt in the way he thinks. If most people understood sharia law and what he is proposing, he will be looking for work.

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Fuck that. One law for all works nicely for me. If they don’t want English law, they shouldn’t have moved there.

Fucking cunts.[/quote]

Quoted for truth a justice.

If the point is that one can use a set of standards to govern contracts between consenting individuals, and as long as those standards are not contrary to the law they should be enforceable - I see no problem.

[quote]nephorm wrote:
If the point is that one can use a set of standards to govern contracts between consenting individuals, and as long as those standards are not contrary to the law they should be enforceable - I see no problem.[/quote]

The problem is that Sharia is so loosely defined by different sects of Islam that at least of of said sects will be contrary to common law.

[quote]Makavali wrote:
nephorm wrote:
If the point is that one can use a set of standards to govern contracts between consenting individuals, and as long as those standards are not contrary to the law they should be enforceable - I see no problem.

The problem is that Sharia is so loosely defined by different sects of Islam that at least of of said sects will be contrary to common law.[/quote]

But [quote]In his speech at an East London mosque, Lord Phillips signalled approval of sharia principles as long as punishments - and divorce rulings - complied with the law of the land.
[/quote]

I haven’t read the speech yet… I will get back to this after I have.

Oh, I missed that bit. But then what was the point? It’s like saying “you can do this your way, but if it’s not done our way then you can’t do it your way”.

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Fuck that. One law for all works nicely for me. If they don’t want English law, they shouldn’t have moved there.

Fucking cunts.[/quote]

I totally aggree, there are plenty of countries in the world where this law is openly practiced.

If people want Sharia law so badly, they should move to a country where it’s already in play.

LR

Funny! The BBC titled Sharia law ‘could have UK role’.

And I’ll take its word over that of Chewie’s rag any time of the day.

I honestly don’t get what’s all the fuss’ about. Sharia court have been operating in Britain before I was even born. Just like British Courts have been arbitrating in cases where Jewish religious law applied. The option of mediation is part and parcel of the British legal system, and if you don’t like the idea, then the debate should be about this fundamental particularity, not about religious laws. English law trumps any other in the UK (well, with the exception of Scottish law, the Channel Islands law and God knows what else). So, I don’t really get what the big deal is here? Please tell me.

But don’t let tangible arguments rain down on your hate-fest…

[quote]nephorm wrote:
Makavali wrote:
nephorm wrote:
If the point is that one can use a set of standards to govern contracts between consenting individuals, and as long as those standards are not contrary to the law they should be enforceable - I see no problem.

The problem is that Sharia is so loosely defined by different sects of Islam that at least of of said sects will be contrary to common law.

But In his speech at an East London mosque, Lord Phillips signalled approval of sharia principles as long as punishments - and divorce rulings - complied with the law of the land.

I haven’t read the speech yet… I will get back to this after I have.[/quote]

I haven’t read the speech either, but in the last couple years there was talk of Sharia law being allowed in Ontario. It was for the most part squashed since there were concerns that the Islamic community’s pressure on women to conform to the law at the time marriage is entered into.

So even though the adults are consenting, there is potential that one party (most likely the woman) has been “pressured” to conform, whether that pressure be direct or indirect.

That said, if at the time of divorce, or another civil dispute, both parties choose Sharia Law, the court may uphold the “decision” if both paries agree to it. I’m thinking the Judge in question may mean something similar.

Religious courts already in use
By Nick Tarry
BBC News

"[…]It has often been remarked on how similar Muslims and Jews are in many of their traditions, such as food laws, burial rites and language, and this case could prove no exception. Jewish courts are in daily use in Britain, and have been for centuries.

British Jews, particularly the orthodox, will frequently turn to their own religious courts, the Beth Din, to resolve civil disputes, covering issues as diverse as business and divorce.[…]

The service provided by the Beth Din is best described as binding civil arbitration, and they do not seek to replace the state’s civil courts.[…]

All criminal matters are reserved for the UK’s state courts, and there is no appetite for change."

[quote]nephorm wrote:
If the point is that one can use a set of standards to govern contracts between consenting individuals, and as long as those standards are not contrary to the law they should be enforceable - I see no problem.[/quote]

The problem lies when the word law is used. How do you choose what law applies to you?

In areas of England where Sharia law prevails, are non-Muslims going to have to pay taxes for not being Muslims like is exercised under Sharia law? Will your freedom be imposed upon if you happen to commit a crime under Sharia law that is not one of English law?

[quote]lixy wrote:
Funny! The BBC titled Sharia law ‘could have UK role’.

And I’ll take its word over that of Chewie’s rag any time of the day.

I honestly don’t get what’s all the fuss’ about. Sharia court have been operating in Britain before I was even born. Just like British Courts have been arbitrating in cases where Jewish religious law applied. The option of mediation is part and parcel of the British legal system, and if you don’t like the idea, then the debate should be about this fundamental particularity, not about religious laws. English law trumps any other in the UK (well, with the exception of Scottish law, the Channel Islands law and God knows what else). So, I don’t really get what the big deal is here? Please tell me.

But don’t let tangible arguments rain down on your hate-fest…[/quote]

It’s not a hate-fest. We don’t want Sharia law impending on our freedom. It is that simple. Your ‘tangible’ argument is nothing more than rationalizing and trying to cover up the truth about what is happening.

Another BIG deal is that the US was founded on a major principle of separation of Church and State and this gives a leg up to one religion and intertwines their religion in state.

Another thing. America was founded on Judeo-Christian ideals, not religion, but ideals. Sharia law challenges the ideals that our country was founded upon and we want to maintain our identity/culture. Why does this happening in England matter to us? Because it is getting closer to our doorstep, that’s why.

[quote]Chewie wrote:
The problem lies when the word law is used. How do you choose what law applies to you?
[/quote]

Jews follow the Torah, Muslims follow Sharia. You choose in the sense that you agree to terms for arbitration.

Judge Judy is no longer a real judge. Her “court” is only arbitration. But two people with a dispute go before her and agree to abide by her decisions. They are not compelled to, but they choose to. Having entered into the contract, they are then bound by the results, except for where those results conflict with the law of the state (such as when she made a custody “ruling” that was clearly outside of the parameters of the arbitration). In this sense, I see no conflict.

[quote]lixy wrote:
Funny! The BBC titled Sharia law ‘could have UK role’.

And I’ll take its word over that of Chewie’s rag any time of the day.

I honestly don’t get what’s all the fuss’ about. Sharia court have been operating in Britain before I was even born. Just like British Courts have been arbitrating in cases where Jewish religious law applied. The option of mediation is part and parcel of the British legal system, and if you don’t like the idea, then the debate should be about this fundamental particularity, not about religious laws. English law trumps any other in the UK (well, with the exception of Scottish law, the Channel Islands law and God knows what else). So, I don’t really get what the big deal is here? Please tell me.

But don’t let tangible arguments rain down on your hate-fest…[/quote]

Of course you prefer the BBC they support the islamisation of Britain. I don’t care if people want to use a religious court in order to arbitrate contracts, it’s their choice. But there should be strict limits on what can be arbitrated.

Actually in Britain sharia does trump British law in certain cases. ie Polygmy is illegal in Britain, but muslims (and only the muslims) can claim up to four wives as dependents when applying for welfare. It is not fair that the government rewards muslims for doing something that is illegal for everyone else.