PDA

View Full Version : Britain legalizes sharia courts



Jester814
09-14-2008, 20:14
ISLAMIC law has been officially adopted in Britain, with sharia courts given powers to rule on Muslim civil cases.

The government has quietly sanctioned the powers for sharia judges to rule on cases ranging from divorce and financial disputes to those involving domestic violence.

Read the rest in the link...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article4749183.ece

What a sad day.

Lethn
09-14-2008, 20:16
That's it, I'm moving to Sweden now, fuck getting an internship here.

Fro
09-14-2008, 20:16
oh shit, here we go.... Villa should be upset, he know has slightly less material to troll with.

DR.NUMBERS
09-14-2008, 20:19
ISLAMIC law has been officially adopted in Britain, with sharia courts given powers to rule on Muslim civil cases.

The government has quietly sanctioned the powers for sharia judges to rule on cases ranging from divorce and financial disputes to those involving domestic violence.

Read the rest in the link...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article4749183.ece

What a sad day.
Can non-Muslims ask for a trial in a sharia court/with sharia law? Or does it only work one way? Also, what if a woman wants to file for divorce under regular law and the husband wants to file under sharia law?


EDIT: NM,

"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. "

Largion
09-14-2008, 20:19
That's it, I'm moving to Sweden now, fuck getting an internship here.

No you stay outside this borders!

Drunkenork
09-14-2008, 20:20
oh shit, here we go.... Villa should be upset, he know has slightly less material to troll with.

lawl

Fro
09-14-2008, 20:21
That's it, I'm moving to Sweden now, fuck getting an internship here.

Stand and fight you coward!!! We didn't get a huge empire by running away. no we stood in a line and got shot at like real men.

Mippoose
09-14-2008, 20:23
Britain sucks.

This is proof.

DR.NUMBERS
09-14-2008, 20:25
That's it, I'm moving to Sweden now, fuck getting an internship here.

Sweden is going the same way. Despite objections by the police, the politicians often give Muslim immigrants special preference.

Also, FRA law there is pretty bad too. Most of the world is fucked as far as Civil Rights are concerned.

Spineless_DoO
09-14-2008, 20:25
All I have to say is

HAHAHhahahahahHAHAHHAHAHAhhahhahahahahah hahahahHAHAHhahahahahHAHAHHAHAHAhhahhaha hahahahhahahahHAHAHhahahahahHAHAHHAHHAHA HhahahahahHAHAHHAHAHAhhahhahahahahahhaha hahAHAhhahhahahahahahhahahahHAHAHhahahah ahHAHAHHAHAHAhhahhahahahahahhahahahHAHAH hahahahahHAHAHHAHAHAhhahhHAHAHhahahahahH AHAHHAHAHAhhahhahahahahahhahahahahahahah ahhahahahHAHAHhahahahahHAHAHHAHAHAhhahha hahahahahhahahahHAHAHhahahahahHAHAHHAHAH Ahhahhahahahahahhahahah!

Oh many I almost lost my beer reading that. What fucking tools. The English have just lost all rights to comment on anything outside of there own country or in it for that matter.

Lysandor
09-14-2008, 20:26
I thought the UK wasn't a pussy nation.

Oh well.

Helgeran
09-14-2008, 20:26
This is bollocks. They are retarded if they allow those retards any legal power.

TheHardProblem
09-14-2008, 20:26
Remember folks, this only means you'll be trialed under sharia law if you CHOOSE TO DO SO, good old britain law is still there floating above it... at least that's how I understood it.

Spineless_DoO
09-14-2008, 20:27
Stand and fight you coward!!! We didn't get a huge empire by running away. no we stood in a line and got shot at like real men.

Considering most of the army you all had back then was filled with slaves from other nations under the thumb I find your post pretty funny.

Fro
09-14-2008, 20:28
All I have to say is

HAHAHhahahahahHAHAHHAHAHAhhahhahahahahah hahahahHAHAHhahahahahHAHAHHAHAHAhhahhaha hahahahhahahahHAHAHhahahahahHAHAHHAHHAHA HhahahahahHAHAHHAHAHAhhahhahahahahahhaha hahAHAhhahhahahahahahhahahahHAHAHhahahah ahHAHAHHAHAHAhhahhahahahahahhahahahHAHAH hahahahahHAHAHHAHAHAhhahhHAHAHhahahahahH AHAHHAHAHAhhahhahahahahahhahahahahahahah ahhahahahHAHAHhahahahahHAHAHHAHAHAhhahha hahahahahhahahahHAHAHhahahahahHAHAHHAHAH Ahhahhahahahahahhahahah!

Oh many I almost lost my beer reading that. What fucking tools. The English have just lost all rights to comment on anything outside of there own country or in it for that matter.

How so?


I thought the UK wasn't a pussy nation.

So did i, seems i was wrong.

Oh well.


This is bollocks. They are retarded if they allow those retards any legal power.

Its getting out of hand now. I haven't got a problem with muslims but religous law is bullshit.

Jester814
09-14-2008, 20:28
"Political Correctness" is starting to tear at the threads of the entire world. Common sense is absolutely fucking gone at this point, and I only see it getting worse before something significant happens to make it better.

DR.NUMBERS
09-14-2008, 20:30
Remember folks, this only means you'll be trialed under sharia law if you CHOOSE TO DO SO, good old britain law is still there floating above it... at least that's how I understood it.

What if non-Muslims want to be tried in a Sharia court is that allowed?

If not, that's messed up.

Offering certain people 2 systems of law and others only 1 is fucked beyond belief. Discrimination of the highest degree.

What if the Sharia ruling are more lenient than the regular courts, wouldn't everyone just want to be tried by a Sharia court?

Drunkenork
09-14-2008, 20:30
All I have to say is

HAHAHhahahahahHAHAHHAHAHAhhahhahahahahah hahahahHAHAHhahahahahHAHAHHAHAHAhhahhaha hahahahhahahahHAHAHhahahahahHAHAHHAHHAHA HhahahahahHAHAHHAHAHAhhahhahahahahahhaha hahAHAhhahhahahahahahhahahahHAHAHhahahah ahHAHAHHAHAHAhhahhahahahahahhahahahHAHAH hahahahahHAHAHHAHAHAhhahhHAHAHhahahahahH AHAHHAHAHAhhahhahahahahahhahahahahahahah ahhahahahHAHAHhahahahahHAHAHHAHAHAhhahha hahahahahhahahahHAHAHhahahahahHAHAHHAHAH Ahhahhahahahahahhahahah!

Oh many I almost lost my beer reading that. What fucking tools. The English have just lost all rights to comment on anything outside of there own country or in it for that matter.

True.

Septus
09-14-2008, 20:31
I don't see the problem. If two people consent to a civil trial in a sharia court, they can. Whoop dee doo.

Drunkenork
09-14-2008, 20:31
"Political Correctness" is starting to tear at the threads of the entire world. Common sense is absolutely fucking gone at this point, and I only see it getting worse before something significant happens to make it better.

Well said.

Septus
09-14-2008, 20:32
What if the Sharia ruling are more lenient than the regular courts, wouldn't everyone just want to be tried by a Sharia court?

BOTH parties have to want it. If it's lenient on the defendant, then the plaintiff would not consent.

Fro
09-14-2008, 20:35
Considering most of the army you all had back then was filled with slaves from other nations under the thumb I find your post pretty funny.

Nana nana na I cant hear you!

DR.NUMBERS
09-14-2008, 20:36
BOTH parties have to want it. If it's lenient on the defendant, then the plaintiff would not consent.

As long as they are open to anyone regardless of race or religion and both parties have to agree then that is fine. There is no problem.

If its only open to people of a certain religion then its messed up.

Septus
09-14-2008, 20:38
As long as they are open to anyone regardless of race or religion and both parties have to agree then that is fine. There is no problem.

If its only open to people of a certain religion then its messed up.

Kind of like disallowing marriage for gays on the basis of religion?

But yeah, I agree it would be bullshit if a sect of people had more options than another sect with regards to law.

Spineless_DoO
09-14-2008, 20:42
Kind of like disallowing marriage for gays on the basis of religion?

But yeah, I agree it would be bullshit if a sect of people had more options than another sect with regards to law.

I think the real threat here is the fact that being muslim, I might add is not a religion but a doctrine of war and law is now allowing certain people to walk over written law in England. This foot in the door is just the start. Entire communities will centralise around this and it will grow. The key is not letting it happen in the first place but its apparently to late for that.

Gibsnag
09-14-2008, 20:42
Considering that, as the article states, there are equivalent Jewish courts in England and have been for a long time I don't see a problem with it. Until I got to this bit:



ISLAMIC law has been officially adopted in Britain, with sharia courts given powers to rule on Muslim civil cases.




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'm sorry, how is domestic violence a motherfucking civil matter? This is not some business rivalry, noisy neighbours or a messy divorce. Its some douchebag beating his wife up, how the fuck is that a civil matter?

Traep
09-14-2008, 20:43
As long as they are open to anyone regardless of race or religion and both parties have to agree then that is fine. There is no problem.

If its only open to people of a certain religion then its messed up.

Doesn't sound like it would be restricted to Muslims but I don't see why non-Muslims would ever go to those courts anyway.

This part:

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.

And this part:

Jewish Beth Din courts operate under the same provision in the Arbitration Act and resolve civil cases, ranging from divorce to business disputes. They have existed in Britain for more than 100 years, and previously operated under a precursor to the act.

Make me think that this isn't a big deal at all. Off the top of my head, I can't think of a way in which these courts could gain power outside of Muslims who voluntarily choose to go to them.

There's this part too:

If it is true that these tribunals are passing binding decisions in the areas of family and criminal law, I would like to know which courts are enforcing them because I would consider such action unlawful.

That makes it sound like they're also restricted to specific types of disputes. As a headline this all sounds horrible but otherwise, eh.

Traep
09-14-2008, 20:46
I'm sorry, how is domestic violence a motherfucking civil matter? This is not some business rivalry, noisy neighbours or a messy divorce. Its some douchebag beating his wife up, how the fuck is that a civil matter?

Yeah, but that beaten wife has to agree to go to a court where she's almost definitely going to lose. If she's that dumb that's her problem.

TheHardProblem
09-14-2008, 20:49
Remember folks, this only means you'll be trialed under sharia law if you CHOOSE TO DO SO, good old britain law is still there floating above it... at least that's how I understood it.

I have to quote myself first, and second, I was playing devil's advocate in case of raging rants unknown to this fact, could've been embarrasing.

Thirdly, I'm absolutely appaled by this decision, sharia law is sexist and racist, let me just quote someone who makes a clear case on why Britain should not want this:


The theory behind approval for this is that the participants are taking part in these agreements of their own free will.

But what of an immigrant who might be used to religious courts in their homeland and has no knowledge that they have rights and recourse under English law?

Similarly, what of those who might be threatened with violence or "honour" killings if they do not submit to a religious court?

And what of those who are threatened with being cast out of their communities or made apostate?

What are people to do when they might not even speak the language, have no friends outside their own closed community or have been taught from birth that God's word, as delivered by the preacher, is law?

Big Gus is correct. At it's worst, this is vigilantism. Even at it's best it is a bully's charter that will allow exploitation of the fears and ignorance some of the most vulnerable people in our society.

Surely, a civilised society should be protecting and helping such people not turning it's back on them and handing them over to vicious self-serving beardy creeps.

Worse, behind it lies the deeply offensive implication that some members of our society are in some way not good enough for or do not deserve our laws.

It's one step short of outright racism. Shame on us.


I expect a complete 180 in a very short time on this decision, I'm reading lots of comments on this thing by brits, and a majority has stated he/she will be voting BNP,

Gibsnag
09-14-2008, 20:50
Yeah, but that beaten wife has to agree to go to a court where she's almost definitely going to lose. If she's that dumb that's her problem.

Thats irrelevant. Assaulting someone is not a civil matter, its fucking criminal. The law should protect vulnerable people like the victims of domestic abuse.

Lethn
09-14-2008, 20:51
"Political Correctness" is starting to tear at the threads of the entire world. Common sense is absolutely fucking gone at this point, and I only see it getting worse before something significant happens to make it better.

viva la revolution? :D Oil running out? Nuclear Apocolypse? I could think of a few :p

DR.NUMBERS
09-14-2008, 20:54
Yeah, but that beaten wife has to agree to go to a court where she's almost definitely going to lose. If she's that dumb that's her problem.

Lol

Traep
09-14-2008, 21:00
Thirdly, I'm absolutely appaled by this decision, sharia law is sexist and racist, let me just quote someone who makes a clear case on why Britain should not want this:

Wouldn't all those problems still be problems without Sharia courts? Those same people could just be intimidated out of going to court at all or voluntarily following the judgment of Sharia law.


Thats irrelevant. Assaulting someone is not a civil matter, its fucking criminal. The law should protect vulnerable people like the victims of domestic abuse.

What do you mean? It's not irrelevant at all. The victim would still be protected just the same as anyone else if they wanted to go to a regular court. They're not being denied protection under English law.

Fro
09-14-2008, 21:02
I expect a complete 180 in a very short time on this decision, I'm reading lots of comments on this thing by brits, and a majority has stated he/she will be voting BNP,

And things go from bad to worse...

Agge
09-14-2008, 21:03
Well I be damned.

And hear I thought this would never realy happen anywhere in europe, shit, somone is gonna be al like "I told you soo" now.

Fuck fuck fuck.

It's not that I got anything against, well I was about to lie now, ofcourse I got something against muslims. I got something against AL religiuse fuckers, and religion has nothing to do in court.

Keep your lala-land to yourself.

Fuck you uk, fuck you.

Toilet
09-14-2008, 21:04
And things go from bad to worse...

It has to get worse to get better

Fro
09-14-2008, 21:05
It has to get worse to get better

No it doesn't

Drunkenork
09-14-2008, 21:05
lol?

TheHardProblem
09-14-2008, 21:06
Wouldn't all those problems still be problems without Sharia courts? Those same people could just be intimidated out of going to court at all or voluntarily following the judgment of Sharia law.

Irrelevant to the discussion, sure there are problems, but thats not being disussed now, the issue is that adding sharia courts will not solve them, on the contrary.



What do you mean? It's not irrelevant at all. The victim would still be protected just the same as anyone else if they wanted to go to a regular court. They're not being denied protection under English law.
Let me quote yet again, hopefully you understand:


But what of an immigrant who might be used to religious courts in their homeland and has no knowledge that they have rights and recourse under English law?

Similarly, what of those who might be threatened with violence or "honour" killings if they do not submit to a religious court?

And what of those who are threatened with being cast out of their communities or made apostate?

What are people to do when they might not even speak the language, have no friends outside their own closed community or have been taught from birth that God's word, as delivered by the preacher, is law?

TheHardProblem
09-14-2008, 21:10
And things go from bad to worse...
Well, hopefully they won't get too powerfull, but enough so to get the message across on the sickness thats apparent within British politics.
I draw a parralel with the Dutch party PVV led by Geert Wilders, he has 8 seats in government, and while I don't agree with most of the stuff in his party policy, I am in a way OK with him sitting there, cause he's putting the rest on the edge of their seat during debates. Making them think harder on certain issues and figuring out the logical fallacies and factual errors that loom on both sides.

Gibsnag
09-14-2008, 21:11
What do you mean? It's not irrelevant at all. The victim would still be protected just the same as anyone else if they wanted to go to a regular court. They're not being denied protection under English law.

It is irrelevant because these courts (just like the Jewish equivalent) are supposed to only deal with Civil matters. That is their entire purpose and design. Battery is not a civil matter and therefore shouldn't be dealt with by these "courts".

How fucking easy do you think it'd be for the victim of domestic abuse to actually go against what her husband wanted? If he told her to agree to a Sharia trial then she'd fucking well agree with it or get another beating.

Durindana
09-14-2008, 21:12
Yeah, but that beaten wife has to agree to go to a court where she's almost definitely going to lose. If she's that dumb that's her problem.

More like, if she's terrified of retribution by her asshole male relatives. Parliament is fucking insane if they think this isn't a massive invitation for abuse and intimidation of women into "agreeing" to shari'a jurisdiction

Scully
09-14-2008, 21:15
Fucking religion, go away.

Slypieguy
09-14-2008, 21:37
ROFL I thought this was a joke, England for the fucking lose

Traep
09-14-2008, 21:40
Irrelevant to the discussion, sure there are problems, but thats not being disussed now, the issue is that adding sharia courts will not solve them, on the contrary.

You're all over the place here. It's not irrelevant to the discussion. You listed a bunch of problems that would supposedly be created by having Sharia courts but all those problems would exist regardless. Showing me that quote again doesn't change that.


It is irrelevant because these courts (just like the Jewish equivalent) are supposed to only deal with Civil matters. That is their entire purpose and design. Battery is not a civil matter and therefore shouldn't be dealt with by these "courts".

How fucking easy do you think it'd be for the victim of domestic abuse to actually go against what her husband wanted? If he told her to agree to a Sharia trial then she'd fucking well agree with it or get another beating.

It's not irrelevant. Is this the twilight zone or something? It would be about as easy for what you described to happen as it would be for the same husband to threaten his wife not to go to court at all. Allowing Sharia courts' decisions to be enforced doesn't add to that problem at all.


More like, if she's terrified of retribution by her asshole male relatives. Parliament is fucking insane if they think this isn't a massive invitation for abuse and intimidation of women into "agreeing" to shari'a jurisdiction

See the response I gave to Gibsnag.

You guys need to look at the cause and effect relationship of these things a little closer. Domestic abuse isn't promoted because Sharia courts are given relevance now. Those who would beat their wife or whatever would do it either way and would use the same methods of keeping the wife from doing anything about it either way.

Dazarthas
09-14-2008, 21:45
The UK government is dumber than America's now? However long this has been true, this is official confirmation. Religious law is horrible.

Durindana
09-14-2008, 21:45
You're all over the place here. It's not irrelevant to the discussion. You listed a bunch of problems that would supposedly be created by having Sharia courts but all those problems would exist regardless. Showing me that quote again doesn't change that.



It's not irrelevant. Is this the twilight zone or something? It would be about as easy for what you described to happen as it would be for the same husband to threaten his wife not to go to court at all. Allowing Sharia courts' decisions to be enforced doesn't add to that problem at all.



See the response I gave to Gibsnag.

You guys need to look at the cause and effect relationship of these things a little closer. Domestic abuse isn't promoted because Sharia courts are given relevance now. Those who would beat their wife or whatever would do it either way and would use the same methods of keeping the wife from doing anything about it either way.

I know a great deal, to be frank, about the problems of forced arbitration, e.g. in employment contracts, versus having recourse to the civil justice system. This is the same issue, in a much more serious, much more dangerous context.

Traep
09-14-2008, 21:52
I know a great deal, to be frank, about the problems of forced arbitration, e.g. in employment contracts, versus having recourse to the civil justice system. This is the same issue, in a much more serious, much more dangerous context.

You still aren't addressing the fact that if these people are forced into arbitration they would only be forced into silence in the absence of Sharia courts.

Gibsnag
09-14-2008, 21:56
You still aren't addressing the fact that if these people are forced into arbitration they would only be forced into silence in the absence of Sharia courts.

This is so much bullshit. The police had an ongoing investigations in the six quoted cased. After the Sharia "court" made their ruling the police dropped their investigations. If the courts didn't exist then the police would have brought charges against the douche bag husbands.

Kusghuul
09-14-2008, 22:01
This is bollocks. How the fuck did this happen? At least the Shadow Home Secretary said it was appaling.

Traep
09-14-2008, 22:04
This is so much bullshit. The police had an ongoing investigations in the six quoted cased. After the Sharia "court" made their ruling the police dropped their investigations. If the courts didn't exist then the police would have brought charges against the douche bag husbands.

Finally, a valid point.

I don't know how the legal system works in England so are you saying that the government prosecutes people for domestic violence regardless of whether the victim presses charges?

Gibsnag
09-14-2008, 22:05
This is bollocks. How the fuck did this happen? At least the Shadow Home Secretary said it was appaling.

Its a sad day for our country when the Tories are the voice of reason.


Finally, a valid point.

I don't know how the legal system works in England so are you saying that the government prosecutes people for domestic violence regardless of whether the victim presses charges?

Ehhh, I'm not sure. I hope that they would, especially in the case of domestic abuse, where the person raising charges has often been mentally and physically subjugated by the focus of the investigation for many years. Its not the same as two guys getting into a fight and then neither deciding to press charges, or something like that.

Paralda
09-14-2008, 22:07
Eh, it's only legally binding if both parties agree to it. Still, sucks to be British. Then again, it already did.

Bodu
09-14-2008, 22:08
It can't be any worse than Judge Judy /shrug

Lethn
09-14-2008, 22:09
Finally, a valid point.

I don't know how the legal system works in England so are you saying that the government prosecutes people for domestic violence regardless of whether the victim presses charges?

I don't normally say this about civil servants but I have to say compared to maybe Japan and other countries ( sure other people will be able to clarify ) Britain actually has some of the most professional police in the entire world, if you look at t.v shows that have the car chases on and compare the way the British Police handle things they'd get a lot more done if they had more freedom to enforce laws.

Honestly, I think that's the first time I've actually ever defended the government, but that's one of the best points about this country, our police force would be awesome if they didn't have to deal with so much shit from religions and politicians, you would almost never see a good police officer here jump to conclusions or just arrest people on sight etc.

Yes I know there are a few examples out there but I'm talking generally, hell here's an example two police officers came walking by when they heard us training with weaponry and asked what was going on, guy in charge explained that we were just training for re-enactment and had already obtained permission from the land owners, they just smiled and nodded then walked off again, pretty damn sure if it'd had been america or somewhere else they'd have drawn guns on us and told us to ge on the ground.

Most of the police officers that come by anyway leave us alone because they knew about us.

Hemlawk
09-14-2008, 22:09
Thats what Britian gets for not winning the crusades....

TheHardProblem
09-14-2008, 22:16
You still aren't addressing the fact that if these people are forced into arbitration they would only be forced into silence in the absence of Sharia courts.

I'm not saying forced silence/abuse will happen more or less with sharia, I'm saying sharia give a false pretense of justice while in reality Sharia is racist and sexist. This puts a bomb under all those organisations and initiatives who try to help all those who are oppressed, the stopping of funding, lessened public interest for the issue etc.
The obvious excuse that general public will be led to believe, next to the "cultural and religious right" argument (PUKE), will probably be that the islamic woman will be strengthend in her rights by sharia. (DOUBLE PUKE)
In the meanwhile, oppresion is still going on and we're all further away from a real solution.

unforgivable.

wowsa0
09-14-2008, 22:16
provided that both parties in the dispute agree to give it the power to rule on their case.

I think that is the key sentence in that article.

TheHardProblem
09-14-2008, 22:21
I think that is the key sentence in that article.

you might think it is, but it's not, try readin the whole thread.

kingpin
09-14-2008, 22:23
so all this muslim whining finally pays off, and to one of the strongest of europe too.

what can i say. europe slowly becomes what others want instead of its citizens. and what do we get back? honestly what the fuck do we get back?

pff i am dissapointed.

Traep
09-14-2008, 22:23
This puts a bomb under all those organisations and initiatives who try to help all those who are oppressed, the stopping of funding, lessened public interest for the issue etc.

Maybe I'm just optimistic but I don't see this being the case. It could turn out that way, but there doesn't appear to be a strong reason to believe that it would. Organizations who have a goal of lowering domestic violence will still want to lower domestic violence. I would be more inclined to believe that they would spend a lot of time trying to educate Muslim women about their options.

tallefred
09-14-2008, 22:26
I don't want to hear any more shit about America from you guys. You guys should have a revolution, it worked for us... kinda.

Zuku
09-14-2008, 22:26
you might think it is, but it's not, try readin the whole thread.

No, actually you posted a long list of "what if's" created by someone else. You could make a list like that for anything. That doesn't mean it's connected to reality.

Those sharia courts are arbitration courts of civil law. That's it. They do not subborn criminal law. Someone stated a case of spousal abuse that ended up in a sharia court. A spousal abuse case can have two aspects: the criminal aspect tried by the state and a civil aspect where one party sues another. Only the civil aspect would possibly be subject to arbitration.

Delthayre
09-14-2008, 22:30
Given the existence of parallel Jewish courts, the limited jurisdiction of the courts and that the courts have jurisdiction only if both parties accept it, I don't regard this as either egregious or wrong. There is need, I think that the jurisdiction over domestic abuse cases be changed and perhaps that some other court be given a discretionary power to review at least some cases tried in these courts given that Shariah law seems at best indifferent and quite probably hostile to the rights of women and because there might be social pressure that could impel some people to agree to Shariah law jurisdiction even if ordinary English law would offer a better venue.

Half of the replies to this thread seem to be born of people seeing the word, "muslim," and losing much of their restraint and sensibility about anything that followed.

Desperado[1G]
09-14-2008, 22:30
How far are you boys willing to bend over to keep the muslims at bay?

This "optional civil court" is nothing but divisive. The way I see it, if you live in England, you answer to english law and english courts.

I don't see the point, besides the obvious politically correct kowtowing bullshit.

Zuku
09-14-2008, 22:33
;1693795']How far are you boys willing to bend over to keep the muslims at bay?

This "optional civil court" is nothing but divisive. The way I see it, if you live in England, you answer to english law and english courts.

I don't see the point, besides the obvious politically correct kowtowing bullshit.

You've obviously missed the posts describing a parallel Jewish court.

Thread full of drama queens.

Spineless_DoO
09-14-2008, 22:34
;1693795']How far are you boys willing to bend over to keep the muslims at bay?

This "optional civil court" is nothing but divisive. The way I see it, if you live in England, you answer to english law and english courts.

I don't see the point, besides the obvious politically correct kowtowing bullshit.

Well thats up to the English to decide. Lets see how they handle this. When I retire I would imagine this will still go on. Hell the EU happened but mostly because the English elites are raping everyone but it still happened.

Delthayre
09-14-2008, 22:34
;1693795']
This "optional civil court" is nothing but divisive. The way I see it, if you live in England, you answer to english law and english courts.

Unless you're Jewish, in which case you might also answer to a Beth Din court, which has been possible for nearly a century, under similar circumstances.

Desperado[1G]
09-14-2008, 22:34
Same thing applies. What is the point of a jewish court?

Kusghuul
09-14-2008, 22:36
Its a sad day for our country when the Tories are the voice of reason.


Tories are still not getting my vote, nor are Labour. But admittedly, it seems as if it happened behind somebody's back.

Gibsnag
09-14-2008, 22:40
Those sharia courts are arbitration courts of civil law. That's it. They do not subborn criminal law. Someone stated a case of spousal abuse that ended up in a sharia court. A spousal abuse case can have two aspects: the criminal aspect tried by the state and a civil aspect where one party sues another. Only the civil aspect would possibly be subject to arbitration.

Then why wasn't anything actually done by the criminal side?


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

I don't give a shit how people want to arbitrate their personal civil affairs, but these spouse abuse cases reek of injustice.

TheHardProblem
09-14-2008, 22:42
No, actually you posted a long list of "what if's" created by someone else. You could make a list like that for anything. That doesn't mean it's connected to reality.


Oh ffs, I can't believe I'm being called out for providing evidence on this issue or that anyone is defending sharia courts for that matter. Try reading a newspaper ??? But I guess the trouble is that you don't live in Europe, or Britain.

Durindana
09-14-2008, 22:55
You've obviously missed the posts describing a parallel Jewish court.

Thread full of drama queens.

:bang:

Wake me up when Judaism and Jewish law acquire anything close to the well-deserved reputation that Islamic states have for barbaric, unacceptable treatment of women and "infidels."

Or for a quicker lesson for you: try violating a few minor criminal laws in Israel.

Now try doing the same things in Saudi Arabia.

From one, you'll come out alive and you may even be treated justly.

From the other, you won't get either.

Exidium
09-14-2008, 22:57
something needs to be done about this. This is abuse of the system and allowing muslims to beat their wives plain and simple. They have their own rules on spouse abuse, that as long as it is below the shoulders and above the waist? they can beat their wives open handed or with belts (things that sting but do not break bones).

Basically they have legalized things that objective courts would punish for. The saddest part of all is democrats in America (primarily women) sympathize with muslims and argue that they aren't violent and blah blah blah. They will learn...

Judaism on the other hand is a peaceful religion. I was apart of it for about 20 years (at least it is in the USA). I know that zionism is a different story. Your typical Jew is very liberal, very open minded and follows the golden rule because that is what is ingrained in Temple every Sunday. Tzedakah is very important which means doing something charitable for others. When muslims start doing shit like this and stop subjugating women I will stop thinking they are scum of the fucking earth.

Lethn
09-14-2008, 23:00
I don't want to hear any more shit about America from you guys. You guys should have a revolution, it worked for us... kinda.

America's in need of sme serious revolution as well really yet again, hopefully Ron Paul will help with that, but at this point I'd say Cuba is better than most countries right now and that's a communist country.

Spineless_DoO
09-14-2008, 23:12
America's in need of sme serious revolution as well really yet again, hopefully Ron Paul will help with that, but at this point I'd say Cuba is better than most countries right now and that's a communist country.

True but we have to get the English elites out of our fiscal system before that can happen.

Slypieguy
09-14-2008, 23:12
You've obviously missed the posts describing a parallel Jewish court.

Thread full of drama queens.

LOL and that makes it all better? I guess they better make a Buddhist court too while they're at it? Loss of sovereignty is loss of sovereignty is loss of sovereignty. Fucking fail for the Brits

Spikey
09-14-2008, 23:22
This really doesnt make much different. English law is always above it, this is only if both parties agree to it. And if some retarded dipshit muslim woman doesnt mind being beaten up and agrees to half assed sharia law then why do I give a fuck.

Edit: Although to be honest I'd rather not let the muslim scum infesting our country have anything, but doesn't seem like that'll happen because of our pussified government. Meh, I'll be leaving this country to live elsewhere in the next ten years then the sand ******* can have it.

Bodu
09-14-2008, 23:29
We have legally binding arbitrators in the US as well. Muslims could set up an arbitration company here in the US... as long as they don't preclude non-Muslims from using their service.


In other words... 99% of this thread is retarded.

Spikey
09-14-2008, 23:31
How fucking easy do you think it'd be for the victim of domestic abuse to actually go against what her husband wanted? If he told her to agree to a Sharia trial then she'd fucking well agree with it or get another beating.

The same could be said about making her go to a normal court, you retard. He could say pull out and drop charges and she would. It's a choice to use these courts, not an enforced rule, and the English courts only let them have it because they pull out from using English courts.

Do you really think if there was a murder the English courts would leave it down to Sharia? No. They are used for matters where the parties can drop charges and use these if they want.

it's really not a big deal at all.

palo god
09-14-2008, 23:38
ISLAMIC law has been officially adopted in Britain, with sharia courts given powers to rule on Muslim civil cases.

The government has quietly sanctioned the powers for sharia judges to rule on cases ranging from divorce and financial disputes to those involving domestic violence.

Read the rest in the link...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article4749183.ece

What a sad day.

Thankfully I'm not a brit.

Lindorn
09-14-2008, 23:43
That's scary. I hope you Brits can put a stop to this kind of thing. I know in a lot of ways you guys are like us and have your nuts in a vice. Man this sucks.

Nafelos
09-14-2008, 23:50
Thank God we have separation of church and state here in America.

Dimgo
09-14-2008, 23:57
speaking for brazil :

We are no longer allies

Jackhowitzer
09-15-2008, 00:13
ISLAMIC law has been officially adopted in Britain, with sharia courts given powers to rule on Muslim civil cases.

The government has quietly sanctioned the powers for sharia judges to rule on cases ranging from divorce and financial disputes to those involving domestic violence.

Read the rest in the link...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article4749183.ece

What a sad day.

From reading what you've put in your post, it sounds like this just applies to Muslim's. I'm assuming you can choose between a Sharia judge, or a ye ole British judge.

Incanam
09-15-2008, 00:16
The title of the thread made me think "OMG, you're serious?" Now I know it was overexaggerated.

Vanno
09-15-2008, 00:16
Gg Uk.

Enerzeal
09-15-2008, 00:24
No matter how little this will effect non-muslims, and how it wont change my way of life in the slightest, its still bad news. Great Britain once upon a time though of its self as a powerful empire. What are we now? We are the sex bitch of political correctness.

Jackhowitzer
09-15-2008, 00:26
A bit melodramatic eh?



(talking about this entire thread)

Slypieguy
09-15-2008, 00:27
Exaggerated or not, you can't say that isn't a step in the absolutely wrong direction

Badem
09-15-2008, 00:32
*sigh*

I didnt even get past the first page on this, before I got bored of teh screams from people who have no understanding of legal courts and there ilk in the UK

In the UK we have had jewish courts in place for many many years for civil cases etc between jewish parties

All this is doing is allowing Islamic parties to settle their disputes as they do within Sharia law, as long sa it does not breech UK law

So for example, there will be no stoning , beheading etc, there will also be unable to use the old 'I divorce you X3" in order to get divorced

Though having said this, I am personally not in favor of it. plain and simple, it ahs been taken entirley out of context

After allif we went to an islamic country would we be fee to insist on being tried under UK law? (not that it would work due to Sharia law be super strict)

The stupid Human Rights laws that have been brought into effect in europe and corrupted beyond belief by the fucking Politically correect bunch have perverted modern society

Examples of this are the stupidity of councils questioning single people inparks (in case they are peodophiles), Parents screaming at someone taking a picture of their own child,

Also the lack of English speaking people who have taken over sections of communities and made them no go areas ...
*sigh*
Modern society fucking sucks...

Incanam
09-15-2008, 03:47
Exaggerated or not, you can't say that isn't a step in the absolutely wrong direction

Meh, I don't see it as that big of a deal really. It only effects Muslims really as arbitration.

If you want to be mad, be mad at some British group changing the three little pigs to thee little (some other animal) because pigs could be offensive to Muslims. That IMO, is not right.

This however is just fine.

Septus
09-15-2008, 03:58
Exaggerated or not, you can't say that isn't a step in the absolutely wrong direction

Well at least they're not trying to teach little children the world was pulled out of a magic hat, and man was molded out of sand. (and not just their own children, but your children as well).

I have no problem with how people go about resolving CIVIL DISPUTES. Most people avoid court - if they want their religious leaders to resolve them, why should I give a shit?

As for all the whining about how women would be man handled into going into Shariah courts... How is that any different from being man handled into staying quiet? In both cases, the woman in question could file charges against the man.

verlox2
09-15-2008, 04:05
And now begins the tribulation....

Slypieguy
09-15-2008, 04:09
I have no problem with how people go about resolving CIVIL DISPUTES. Most people avoid court - if they want their religious leaders to resolve them, why should I give a shit?


Because judgments by a court or arbitration are backed by the state, and I don't want my state backing rulings based on sharia law

Incanam
09-15-2008, 04:21
Because judgments by a court or arbitration are backed by the state, and I don't want my state backing rulings based on sharia law

IT's no different than regular arbitration other than the method used, which again doesn't affect you. Freedom of religion (which for this purpose will include Atheism even though some disagree with that) still applies, because you aren't being forced into anything.

Slypieguy
09-15-2008, 04:36
IT's no different than regular arbitration other than the method used, which again doesn't affect you. Freedom of religion (which for this purpose will include Atheism even though some disagree with that) still applies, because you aren't being forced into anything.

The law of the land should be as uniform as possible. It indirectly affects me by having a less efficient and cohesive judicial system.

surGeonFFS
09-15-2008, 04:37
And just when you thought Britain couldn't suck any more....

Kheiron
09-15-2008, 05:16
Nah, fuck it all.

Screw this PC, nutt cupping, democracy crap right out the window and get back to the basics of conquering and genocide.

DEHB
09-15-2008, 05:44
Exaggerated or not, you can't say that isn't a step in the absolutely wrong direction

Agreed...imagine what it'll be like once they're the majority and have most of the political power. :eek:

Septus
09-15-2008, 06:08
The law of the land should be as uniform as possible. It indirectly affects me by having a less efficient and cohesive judicial system.

I thought you were one of those who wanted more laws to be decided at the state/local level.

Now you're for uniformity?

Amaryl
09-15-2008, 09:03
to be honest, what if the on the case of heritage, one of the women hadn't accepted the sharia court? would the court have ruled as if the nonagreeing daughter didn't exist, due to silencing or the fact, that not every single familymember needs to give his or her approval.

and even without that, how the fuck can sharia courts give twice as much to sons then to daughters while the normal English law gives everyone an equal share? that just doesn't make any fucking sense and shouldn't be allowed.

I'll look forward to when english courts and sharia courts will get head to head on issues like this, and whine silently in a corner when yet again, sharia law will prevail, since people need to have some arbitrary respect for other religions.

Kusghuul
09-15-2008, 09:40
All this is doing is allowing Islamic parties to settle their disputes as they do within Sharia law, as long sa it does not breech UK law


But that's the problem. Women don't have equal rights in Sharia courts when it comes to inheritance and such.

iLoveMonkeys
09-15-2008, 09:52
haha rolf april fools, oh wait FUCK

Carbonlegend
09-15-2008, 10:20
All I have to say is

HAHAHhahahahahHAHAHHAHAHAhhahhahahahahah hahahahHAHAHhahahahahHAHAHHAHAHAhhahhaha hahahahhahahahHAHAHhahahahahHAHAHHAHHAHA HhahahahahHAHAHHAHAHAhhahhahahahahahhaha hahAHAhhahhahahahahahhahahahHAHAHhahahah ahHAHAHHAHAHAhhahhahahahahahhahahahHAHAH hahahahahHAHAHHAHAHAhhahhHAHAHhahahahahH AHAHHAHAHAhhahhahahahahahhahahahahahahah ahhahahahHAHAHhahahahahHAHAHHAHAHAhhahha hahahahahhahahahHAHAHhahahahahHAHAHHAHAH Ahhahhahahahahahhahahah!

Oh many I almost lost my beer reading that. What fucking tools. The English have just lost all rights to comment on anything outside of there own country or in it for that matter.

So obviously you should go read that article ( wall of text to the illiterate like this cock sucker) and then change said statement above for accuracy.

Spinewire
09-15-2008, 12:13
Being part of this court is optional, they can just tell them to fuck of and not be a part of it, also it is no different to the Jewish Beth Din courts so i don't see why you all have a your cry face on, it's not as if it can effect anyone that does not want it to.

Yasmira
09-15-2008, 12:20
But that's the problem. Women don't have equal rights in Sharia courts when it comes to inheritance and such.

That's because men are religiously obliged to provide for the family. A woman is not. Any money a woman comes into, whether from inheritance or a job, is hers to keep and do with how she pleases.

Kusghuul
09-15-2008, 12:21
That's because men are religiously obliged to provide for the family. A woman is not. Any money a woman comes into, whether from inheritance or a job, is hers to keep and do with how she pleases.

But from experience, I know they don't always do that.

Spinewire
09-15-2008, 12:23
But from experience, I know they don't always do that.
hence the courts

Kusghuul
09-15-2008, 12:30
hence the courts

A woman from a deeply religious Muslim family telling her husband to fuck off when he tells her about splitting their loot in a Sharia court? Severed social ties, anyone? And I do not believe for a second those courts are fair. Imams (whom I'm presuming are the judges) aren't known for their willingness to split loot equally between men and women. I do know it's optional to go to the court, but I'm pretty sure there'll be a few who don't do so willingly. In addition, if you read the article, you'll see women weren't getting the same inheritance as men, and that's just an example.

Eskareon
09-15-2008, 12:35
The societal pressures in religious sub-cultures can be very strong. A lot of people are going to feel forced into choosing a sharia court to avoid being outlawed by their own sub-community. We'd be foolish to think that everyone who attends a sharia court will do so voluntarily.

Spinewire
09-15-2008, 12:41
A woman from a deeply religious Muslim family telling her husband to fuck off when he tells her about splitting their loot in a Sharia court? Severed social ties, anyone? And I do not believe for a second those courts are fair. Imams (whom I'm presuming are the judges) aren't known for their willingness to split loot equally between men and women. I do know it's optional to go to the court, but I'm pretty sure there'll be a few who don't do so willingly. In addition, if you read the article, you'll see women weren't getting the same inheritance as men, and that's just an example.


The societal pressures in religious sub-cultures can be very strong. A lot of people are going to feel forced into choosing a sharia court to avoid being outlawed by their own sub-community. We'd be foolish to think that everyone who attends a sharia court will do so voluntarily.

fuck them

Kusghuul
09-15-2008, 12:45
fuck them

True, but Glasgow's got enough sectarian violence as it is. Us Christians are beating the shit out of each other, nevermind getting the Muslims involved!

J2dabizzle
09-15-2008, 12:46
I think this is bullshit i mean what happened to all being equal under the rule of law. British law.

Spinewire
09-15-2008, 12:48
The jews have had their courts for ages why no tears over that?

Kusghuul
09-15-2008, 12:52
The jews have had their courts for ages why no tears over that?

Not the same amount of social pressure, I believe. And without being an expert, I believe they're more gender-neutral than Sharia courts.

Eskareon
09-15-2008, 12:58
The jews have had their courts for ages why no tears over that?

Because I didn't know about it.

Morthor
09-15-2008, 13:24
Lol, I didnt even know about this..

Well a few months back there was something about this in the news about how some court cases were fucked up because of this but I did'nt expect the law to be adopted.

I'm all for a diverse culture and shit, but you have to draw the line somewhere for god's sake.

Largion
09-15-2008, 13:31
Lol, I didnt even know about this..

Well a few months back there was something about this in the news about how some court cases were fucked up because of this but I did'nt expect the law to be adopted.

I'm all for a diverse culture and shit, but you have to draw the line somewhere for god's sake.

Or you will declare jihad?

Morthor
09-15-2008, 13:36
Or you will declare jihad?

I will declare jihad? I dont have a clue what you are talking about Largion

Largion
09-15-2008, 13:40
I will declare jihad? I dont have a clue what you are talking about Largion

Was a joke about you getting angry and declare jihad when they walked over you'r line on diversed culture. ;)

Morthor
09-15-2008, 13:45
It seems I failed this thread.. :(

Pcheez
09-15-2008, 14:03
Its perfectly logical tbh.

Should two muslims agree to be tried under muslim law, it is their right.

Now the british courts should have overruling authority on the shariah courts in case it deems punishments passed on are not severe enough, or in breach of human rights conventions.

Im curious however, how will they deal with rape for example.

Under sharia, a female must have FOUR males witness to the rape in order for there to be a case at all. Failing that, she has no case. And, even if the offenders are found guilty, she will receive a flogging sentence for being a slut.

Also another thing is, Males = 2x Females in any and all court cases. The testimonial of a female is worth half that of a male. 1 male has the right of inheritance of 2 females.


Muslim marriage is in fact, a contract, which is explicitly called "Akd Nikah" or in english " Fucking contract" . What the bride and groom sign is just that. And as any contract, there is a cancellation clause. This means, a man can say "should we wish to divorce, i pay you 1£ and you are out of my life".

If they get married with that in the contract, and they divorce, all she gets from the divorce is her birthday suit and 1£. Women of pure muslim upbringing are broken from the start and their place is in the house, barefoot and pregnant, never saying "No" to the husband. Sad but true. Oh she gets company too, 3 other women to share her husband lol.

So as it was said, women can be coerced into agreeing to shariah just to get screwed in a divorce case.


Now i know from experience, there are cases where it is actually BETTER to be tried under sharia law than common law.

One example was here in the emirates, a woman;s husband died and the insurance company wanted to give her the 100,000$ life insurance payout.

She said no, and went to the shariah courts. She was christian, but all she had to do is say "I swear there is no god but the one god, and mohammed is the prophet of god" (Rough translation) in front of a sheikh, and bam, she just became muslim, and can take the insurance company to court under sharia.

The court ruled that the insurance company owed her the price of 100 camels, of both sexes, of varying age and stature.

This meant young camels worth a lot, old camels worth... a lot, race camels, etc. The total price tag of the 100 camels amounted to 2.3 million USD, and that is what the court ruled in her favor.


Now seeing as how both partiies have to agree to be subject to sharia, the last example wont work in england.



I raelly dont know, sharia law has some extreme and medieval punishments that do not even fly here in the emirates, let alone england. I see no real benefit from it to any muslim that has been in england long enough to evolve past the restrictions imposed on them by religion, one of which is being subject to the curious phenomenon that is sharia courts.

Ziegler
09-15-2008, 14:06
Yes I know there are a few examples out there but I'm talking generally, hell here's an example two police officers came walking by when they heard us training with weaponry and asked what was going on, guy in charge explained that we were just training for re-enactment and had already obtained permission from the land owners, they just smiled and nodded then walked off again, pretty damn sure if it'd had been america or somewhere else they'd have drawn guns on us and told us to ge on the ground.

Nah..well, at least not in my neck of the woods....the police probably wouldnt investigate unless someone reported it, and that isnt likely outside of city limits.

:bang:

Wake me up when Judaism and Jewish law acquire anything close to the well-deserved reputation that Islamic states have for barbaric, unacceptable treatment of women and "infidels."

Or for a quicker lesson for you: try violating a few minor criminal laws in Israel.

Now try doing the same things in Saudi Arabia.

From one, you'll come out alive and you may even be treated justly.

From the other, you won't get either.

If you managed to come out alive, you would be lucky.
What about divorce..civil matter, but dont they still believe in killing adulterous wives? Doesnt that mean they would have the validation of the British government?




something needs to be done about this. This is abuse of the system and allowing muslims to beat their wives plain and simple. They have their own rules on spouse abuse, that as long as it is below the shoulders and above the waist? they can beat their wives open handed or with belts (things that sting but do not break bones).

Basically they have legalized things that objective courts would punish for. The saddest part of all is democrats in America (primarily women) sympathize with muslims and argue that they aren't violent and blah blah blah. They will learn...

Judaism on the other hand is a peaceful religion. I was apart of it for about 20 years (at least it is in the USA). I know that zionism is a different story. Your typical Jew is very liberal, very open minded and follows the golden rule because that is what is ingrained in Temple every Sunday. Tzedakah is very important which means doing something charitable for others. When muslims start doing shit like this and stop subjugating women I will stop thinking they are scum of the fucking earth.


The point is this.
Sharia is a religion based law.
The british government has now given it validation.
I suggest watching this video from this article (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,303381,00.html)

And spare the fox news BS..the video was made for PBS who refused to run it.

Vanth
09-15-2008, 15:44
I find it incredible how few of you actually bothered to read the article. All the information is there - all you need to do is read it, but no, ignorance and bigotry are seemingly infinitely more attractive.

This "court" is nothing new - it has existed for over 100 years. It isn't even really a court - it is an arbitration procedure for civil disputes. Anyone can do it, irrespective of religion and it has nothing to do with religion unless the users make it so. It does not in any way make the users immune to the rulings of the normal UK courts.

To all the US patriots decrying this, would you regard it a loss of US sovereignty if two Muslims in the US made a binding legal contract? Because that is in essence all this is.

Jezrith
09-15-2008, 15:55
Do you nimrods that have your panties in a bunch even understand what arbitration means in a legal sense?

Kaitsuh
09-15-2008, 16:03
I find it incredible how few of you actually bothered to read the article. All the information is there - all you need to do is read it, but no, ignorance and bigotry are seemingly infinitely more attractive.

This "court" is nothing new - it has existed for over 100 years. It isn't even really a court - it is an arbitration procedure for civil disputes. Anyone can do it, irrespective of religion and it has nothing to do with religion unless the users make it so. It does not in any way make the users immune to the rulings of the normal UK courts.

To all the US patriots decrying this, would you regard it a loss of US sovereignty if two Muslims in the US made a binding legal contract? Because that is in essence all this is.

More like you're not getting it. Like people said earlier in the thread, not every muslim wants to take part in this. But they will most certainly be forced into it, or they will lose all connections to their family and the community. Giving it legal power like this makes it the de facto procedure in the muslim communities.

If the women in those domestic violence cases would have demanded equal rights in an actual court, the husbands would have been held accountable, but the women would have been cast out of the family and community. So they just rather continue taking the beatings, abuse and ridiculous human rights violations than lose everyone they know. Though the women probably all got beaten half to death anyways for even bringing it up in the first place, no matter which court they took the case into.

It's the same cult principle as Jehova's Witnesses for example, any attempt to leave or defy the religion will get you thrown out of the community and no one may speak to you again. Nobody wants to lose everyone they know and love over "small" things like that.

This might still be a small step, let's not forget what they're allowed to do in actual Muslim states. Why would they settle for small things like legal arbitration forever, they will demand the full deal later on. Can someone say an actual reason why anything like this even in the smallest of form should be allowed into the legal system?

Ziegler
09-15-2008, 16:12
While, yes this is only for arbitration, according to us infidels.


But islam is about controlling the populace and killing the infidels. Now the Imams will tell the muslims to go to the infidels courts for any reason would be against allah's will. And this gives them the validity to say so. No it isnt supposed to be that far reaching, but they will make it so over the course of time. The idea being, once they get all muslims to use this court, then they will start pressuring any case involved with muslims be ajudicated through muslim courts. Same as money dealings and they are requiring international banks to meet sharia laws now.

Islam is a theocracy...a religion to rule the people, one of those steps is to take over the ajudication of the laws. Feel free to think it is nothing to worry about.

Youknowho
09-15-2008, 16:22
While, yes this is only for arbitration, according to us infidels.


But islam is about controlling the populace and killing the infidels. Now the Imams will tell the muslims to go to the infidels courts for any reason would be against allah's will. And this gives them the validity to say so. No it isnt supposed to be that far reaching, but they will make it so over the course of time. The idea being, once they get all muslims to use this court, then they will start pressuring any case involved with muslims be ajudicated through muslim courts. Same as money dealings and they are requiring international banks to meet sharia laws now.

Islam is a theocracy...a religion to rule the people, one of those steps is to take over the ajudication of the laws. Feel free to think it is nothing to worry about.

I suppose Christians wouldn't be so bold as to want their views to be legislated.......... oh wait.

Jezrith
09-15-2008, 16:40
While, yes this is only for arbitration, according to us infidels.


Actually its according to people who understand how the western legal systems works.



But islam is about controlling the populace and killing the infidels. Now the Imams will tell the muslims to go to the infidels courts for any reason would be against allah's will. And this gives them the validity to say so.


They have always had validity in saying so. Also, you can use, and have always been able to use any arbitration service you want to resolve civil issue without going to a court if both parties agree to it. That said, no ruling from any arbitration service can ever break any criminal law statutes, if it does the ruling is null and void.



Islam is a theocracy...a religion to rule the people, one of those steps is to take over the ajudication of the laws. Feel free to think it is nothing to worry about.

I was going to say feel free to be completely clueless about how law works, but its clear you already do.

Blodpls
09-15-2008, 16:49
This is disgraceful, British law for hundreds of years has had the principle that there is one legal system that is applicable to everyone.

People who move to the UK know this and should respect it.

I would not emigrate to Pakistan and think that I can set up my own legal system.

I do not blame Muslims in the UK for this, I blame the misguided and dangerous left wing element in the UK's political parties and civil service.

The people who sanctioned this should have their heads put on sticks outside the Tower of London like we used to do to traitors.

Ziegler
09-15-2008, 17:17
I suppose Christians wouldn't be so bold as to want their views to be legislated.......... oh wait.

hmm..let's see....what is that mantra I hear all the time to tear down christian beliefs in the states? Seperation of chruch and state.....oh now I recall, that only applies when tearing down christianity...it doesnt apply to any other religions.

Jezrith: You have no clue obviously, this isnt about the actual laws or what arbitration is. It's about giving a religion that wants to destroy western civlization, a voice in the courts as an authority..no matter how small it is, it is a foot in the door. :bang:

Jezrith
09-15-2008, 17:32
Jezrith: You have no clue obviously,


Considering I understand the difference between criminal law, civil law, and contract law, I'd say I'm about the only one in this thread that does have a fucking clue. You are obviously are not equipped with any of this knowledge, and therefore are the last person who should be calling anyone clueless.



this isnt about the actual laws or what arbitration is.


BWAHAHA! A.K.A. - "Its not about you know 'real' things like the actual law, or what is actually happening. Its about this made up version of things I have in my head because I know nothing about how the legal system works.



It's about giving a religion that wants to destroy western civlization, a voice in the courts as an authority..no matter how small it is, it is a foot in the door.


Lol! What voice do you think they actually have now, and in what courts do they have this "voice"? Do you even understand the difference between different court types?

Drunkenork
09-15-2008, 17:36
Do you nimrods that have your panties in a bunch even understand what arbitration means in a legal sense?

lol

Gibsnag
09-15-2008, 17:41
Considering I understand the difference between criminal law, civil law, and contract law, I'd say I'm about the only one in this thread that does have a fucking clue. You are obviously are not equipped with any of this knowledge, and therefore are the last person who should be calling anyone clueless.

Then why did six domestic abuse cases get brought before these courts, surely domestic abuse is a criminal matter? I have no issue with them as an arbitration court for civil matters, but I just cannot comprehend how they got within 100 miles of a domestic abuse case.

Ziegler
09-15-2008, 17:42
:bang:?? :bang:

You must be a lawyer...nobody else I know is that stupid or dense. Again...it's not about how miniscule their actual power is in the court system,their power has been validated by the state. Yes, they are no different than any other arbitration...except that they have a political and religious motivation to tear down the government and take it over. But you go ahead and think it is nothing. The french thought it was nothing to say muslims girls couldnt wear their masks to school....Dutch newpaper comic thought it was nothing to publish a cartoon spoofing Muhamed. It's exactly what they want...lilly livered limp wristed biatches like you to turn a blind eye til it's too late.

Drake Whitewood
09-15-2008, 17:46
Exaggerated or not, you can't say that isn't a step in the absolutely wrong direction

Which makes me wonder, what's the next step going to be?

Incrementalism for the Endgame Win.

Spinewire
09-15-2008, 17:50
It's exactly what they want...lilly livered limp wristed biatches like you to turn a blind eye til it's too late.
lol? Jezrith a lilly livered limp wristed bitch? Sorry i don't buy it....

It's a well known fact he eats lead and shits out justice, criminal, civil or any other flavour.

Drunkenork
09-15-2008, 17:52
You must be a lawyer...nobody else I know is that stupid or dense. Again...it's not about how miniscule their actual power is in the court system,their power has been validated by the state. Yes, they are no different than any other arbitration...except that they have a political and religious motivation to tear down the government and take it over. But you go ahead and think it is nothing. The french thought it was nothing to say muslims girls couldnt wear their masks to school....Dutch newpaper comic thought it was nothing to publish a cartoon spoofing Muhamed. It's exactly what they want...lilly livered limp wristed biatches like you to turn a blind eye til it's too late.

Very good point.

Spinewire
09-15-2008, 17:58
Very good point.
Where? I didn't see it, all i saw was a paranoid rant.

Tdog
09-15-2008, 18:04
Thank God we have separation of church and state here in America.

Lol in theory we do. In practice I don't think so.
Aborition laws?
"In god we trust" on our money.
Stem Cell research laws?
many other examples out there.

I wish American truly had separation of church and state but we do not thanks to presidents like our current one and others that have forgotten what America truly stands for. FREEDOM for the PEOPLE.

Drunkenork
09-15-2008, 18:08
Lol in theory we do. In practice I don't think so.
Aborition laws?
"In god we trust" on our money.
Stem Cell research laws?
many other examples out there.

I wish American truly had separation of church and state but we do not thanks to presidents like our current one and others that have forgotten what America truly stands for. FREEDOM for the PEOPLE.

LOL you can't blame the current president for that lol. The president doesn't create all law lol.

Jezrith
09-15-2008, 18:12
You must be a lawyer...


Nope not a lawyer, but I don't need to be to you know, actually teach myself about the subject instead of being a twit who is oblivious.



nobody else I know is that stupid or dense.


Even though I'm not a lawyer this part is just fucking hilarious! Yeah, lawyers when talking about law are obviously going to be stupid and dense concerning the subject. Just like doctors are when they are talking about anatomy, or when those physicists talk about physics. Yeah all of those idiots clearly are stupid and dense when it comes to a subject they have been studying for most of their adults lives. Moron.



Again...it's not about how miniscule their actual power is in the court system,their power has been validated by the state. Yes, they are no different than any other arbitration...except that they have a political and religious motivation to tear down the government and take it over.


It doesn't matter what their motivations are, their rulings are always going to be subservient to British Criminal Law among other British laws. They can't do shit. If you had any idea about the reality of the situation you would already know this.



But you go ahead and think it is nothing.


I will, because unlike you, I actually know what words like "arbitration" and "civil law" mean.



The french thought it was nothing to say muslims girls couldnt wear their masks to school....Dutch newpaper comic thought it was nothing to publish a cartoon spoofing Muhamed. It's exactly what they want...


And you keep playing the ignorant twit that has no idea what he is talking about, and about as knowledgeable on the issue as a fucking tree stump. At least you have this role down quite nicely.



lilly livered limp wristed biatches like you to turn a blind eye til it's too late.


Awww how cute! Such big words for such a wittle boy! I can see you're almost ready to use real "big boy" sentences.



Then why did six domestic abuse cases get brought before these courts, surely domestic abuse is a criminal matter? I have no issue with them as an arbitration court for civil matters, but I just cannot comprehend how they got within 100 miles of a domestic abuse case.


That article is just a bunch of hot air to get retards all up in arms and it misrepresents a lot of things to do so. You can have a civil suit resulting from domestic violence, but that doesn't preclude criminal prosecution. The judgment rendered under the civil suit has no bearing on any verdict given from criminal proceeding that may go forward. The reverse of this is true as well. Are you familiar with the O.J. Simpson case? He beat the criminal case, but lost the civil suit? The arbitration would just take the place of the civil suit if both parties agreed. Its standard western legal stuff that has been in use for decades, if not centuries.

Villa
09-15-2008, 18:23
Not fair.
I went to bed early like a good Muslim yesterday and missed this thread.
CBA to read through so many pages, but I'm going to assume something wonderful happened in Britain right?

Jezrith
09-15-2008, 18:26
Not fair.
I'm going to assume something wonderful happened in Britain right?


Nope, you are still live under the oppressive thumbs of the infidels and the Great Satan. Much ado about nothing, move along, nothing to see here.

Spinewire
09-15-2008, 18:27
Not fair.
I went to bed early like a good Muslim yesterday and missed this thread.
CBA to read through so many pages, but I'm going to assume something wonderful happened in Britain right?
a token gesture, you have missed nothing

Tdog
09-15-2008, 18:37
LOL you can't blame the current president for that lol. The president doesn't create all law lol.

Well this president vetoed the Stem Cell Research bill twice. This research alone could help millions of sick and dieing people. It could also advance our Medical care beyond anything we have every dreamed of.

I know the president doesn't create all law but he is vetoing anything that does not fit into his personal views, instead of what is best for the people of America.

Villa
09-15-2008, 18:40
Nope, you are still live under the oppressive thumbs of the infidels and the Great Satan. Much ado about nothing, move along, nothing to see here.
Damn, when will my people be free?

holychicken
09-15-2008, 19:15
I am sorry, but this makes all the insults thrown at American politics by Brits look beyond stupid.

Drunkenork
09-15-2008, 19:25
Well this president vetoed the Stem Cell Research bill twice. This research alone could help millions of sick and dieing people. It could also advance our Medical care beyond anything we have every dreamed of.

I know the president doesn't create all law but he is vetoing anything that does not fit into his personal views, instead of what is best for the people of America.

Best for America according to your opinion. And it was not -all- stem cell research, just infant fetus.

Spinewire
09-15-2008, 19:25
I am sorry, but this makes all the insults thrown at American politics by Brits look beyond stupid.
You're a retard...

holychicken
09-15-2008, 19:38
You're a retard...
I am? Shit.

Well, I guess all I can do now is


TIMMMMAAAAAAHHHHH!!!

Drunkenork
09-15-2008, 19:39
rawl

DipMode
09-15-2008, 19:39
Demographically speaking, all of europe is fukd. With "europeons" have a 1.3 birth rate per couple while muslims are 6.7 and have unchecked immigration.

Democracy will allow the most populous the right to change all laws to sharia.

Ziegler
09-15-2008, 19:44
Well this president vetoed the Stem Cell Research bill twice. This research alone could help millions of sick and dieing people. It could also advance our Medical care beyond anything we have every dreamed of.

vetoed federal funding of such research. There could still be private research.
Linkage (http://newsbatch.com/stemcells.htm)


The decision will certain limit the number of government funded research projects but it has no effect on private stem cell research except that there will be a continuing ban on the cloning of embryos for the purpose of extracting stem cells. Because this technology is so promising, it is likely that there will be privately funded research. Because of the limitations, there is minimal funding for embryonic stem cell research although there is significant funding of other types of research involving stem cells.

Tdog
09-15-2008, 20:18
vetoed federal funding of such research. There could still be private research.
Linkage (http://newsbatch.com/stemcells.htm)

Yes but the goverment fund the dumbest research but does not support something that could be a medical revolution.

I know all to well how great stem cells can be and how much research still needs to be done. My mother had a stem cell transplant to put her cancer in remission, in less then 7 months she was back at work at 100% health.

Stem Cells could be the answer to almost every illness on the planet and it can be used to re-grow limbs and even create orgains.

The point is, if the goverment would put money towards the research it would be done that much faster and could save millions of lifes world wide but know our president is a moron and veto's federal funding.

P.S. My spelling and grammer suck, I already know thanks.

Fro
09-15-2008, 20:19
I am sorry, but this makes all the insults thrown at American politics by Brits look beyond stupid.

We call you fat nad stupid mainly how does this affect that?

Drunkenork
09-15-2008, 20:25
Yes but the goverment fund the dumbest research but does not support something that could be a medical revolution.

I know all to well how great stem cells can be and how much research still needs to be done. My mother had a stem cell transplant to put her cancer in remission, in less then 7 months she was back at work at 100% health.

Stem Cells could be the answer to almost every illness on the planet and it can be used to re-grow limbs and even create orgains.

The point is, if the goverment would put money towards the research it would be done that much faster and could save millions of lifes world wide but know our president is a moron and veto's federal funding.

P.S. My spelling and grammer suck, I already know thanks.

Why does it need to be gov't funded? I don't get it.... And you completely rolled over what anyone just said just because you have a personal beef with Bush.

holychicken
09-15-2008, 20:32
We call you fat nad stupid mainly how does this affect that?
You calling anyone stupid looks pretty stupid. There is not a single American on this board who has a worse command of the English language than you . . . and that is saying a lot because there are some dumb Americans on this board.

Beorg
09-15-2008, 20:34
Its getting out of hand now. I haven't got a problem with muslims but religous law is bullshit.

I agree. Giving a religion its own court is rubbish. On some matters like divorce, I can see how it would clash with religion a bit, but that does not warrant this.

Spinewire
09-15-2008, 20:42
You calling anyone stupid looks pretty stupid. There is not a single American on this board who has a worse command of the English language than you . . . and that is saying a lot because there are some dumb Americans on this board.
i bet his french is better than yours

Beorg
09-15-2008, 20:44
You calling anyone stupid looks pretty stupid. There is not a single American on this board who has a worse command of the English language than you . . . and that is saying a lot because there are some dumb Americans on this board.

What about RealBigDeal?

Flinging insults is just as stupid, my friend. It would have been best not to stir this cauldron.

Drake Whitewood
09-15-2008, 20:48
Yes but the goverment fund the dumbest research but does not support something that could be a medical revolution.

I know all to well how great stem cells can be and how much research still needs to be done. My mother had a stem cell transplant to put her cancer in remission, in less then 7 months she was back at work at 100% health.

Stem Cells could be the answer to almost every illness on the planet and it can be used to re-grow limbs and even create orgains.

The point is, if the goverment would put money towards the research it would be done that much faster and could save millions of lifes world wide but know our president is a moron and veto's federal funding.

P.S. My spelling and grammer suck, I already know thanks.

If there was reasonable hope that a "Medical Revolution" could be achieved through embryonic stem cell research, Big Medicene would be funding it out the wazoo. They're the ones that stand to gain the most from the research. If they're not interested, it must not be that great of a bet.

Tdog
09-15-2008, 20:53
Why does it need to be gov't funded? I don't get it.... And you completely rolled over what anyone just said just because you have a personal beef with Bush.

Well this topic has been covered pretty well and I am sorry for derailing the thread.

Ziegler
09-15-2008, 20:56
P.S. My spelling and grammer suck, I already know thanks.

Not a forum nazi.

Why cant private investors do this?
Why cant any number of the foreign medical systems research into this? I mean, they are a damned site better than the US, just ask any Euro or Canuck.
Why is it so bad that the government doesnt want to give federal money to private research institutes, who if sucessful, will not give away the knowledge freely?

holychicken
09-15-2008, 21:36
What about RealBigDeal?

Flinging insults is just as stupid, my friend. It would have been best not to stir this cauldron.
Cauldron? I didn't realize Fro-enchy was fat. You would think that the amount of time he spends calling Americans fat, he would be as thin as a rail.

Bamboopanda
09-16-2008, 00:54
I think the real threat here is the fact that being muslim, I might add is not a religion but a doctrine of war and law is now allowing certain people to walk over written law in England. This foot in the door is just the start. Entire communities will centralise around this and it will grow. The key is not letting it happen in the first place but its apparently to late for that.

Think of it this way, you will then get them all into self imposed gettos ready to be harvested once they piss off all those jolly good english soldiers who have spent the last few years seeing first hand what a shit pile these people make out of a country. Its one thing to see it and say oh well, it's their own culture/country, its quite another to see it start to form in your own country.

I cannot wait for something like this to pass in the U.S. I'm not one who normally is for genocide, but as soon as I see them get any special treatment, I go hunting again.

Barbarossa
09-16-2008, 00:57
Sounds like the new British national anthem will be this in a few years.

"God Save The Sheik"

Salo
09-16-2008, 00:57
I cannot wait for something like this to pass in the U.S. I'm not one who normally is for genocide, but as soon as I see them get any special treatment, I go hunting again.


That's some fucked up shit, right there.


This is a storm in a teacup. It is a voluntary arbitration body, designed to deal with civil matters. The fact that it has strayed onto domestic violence, which is very much not a civil matter is troubling. But then that wouldn't make it unique amongst British institutions, that it has a worrying relationship with domestic or sexual violence.

The idea that this represents some 'foothold in the door' for an international Kaliphate is so laughable it's frightening how easily people leap onto it. This does not threaten our freedom. As a body it sits beneath and within the law, not outside or alongside it. It is a recognition of the cultural appropriateness of communities arbitrating for themselves in matters most consider deeply private. It is no more an attack on our freedom than is the specialist banking services offered to moslem borrowers where no interest is charged.

DeathByCactus
09-16-2008, 01:59
Give it time, they will want more power, then one day they will piss and moan their way up to capitol cases. "I hereby sentence you to death by stoning for adultery!" jk jk.

Sounds to me like a Judge Judy kind of thing. Dunno, as long as the Brits are trying it out first.

Mulambo
09-16-2008, 02:02
It says both parties have to agree on it. I hope there is always one party that disagrees.

Salo
09-16-2008, 02:48
If you look at how sharia courts work in other places around the world, there's huge variance. I know whenever I heard the term 'sharia court' I had in my head an image of some seriously fucked up bearded guys passing sentence of brutal death on some illiterate skinny country lass for getting raped. I saw a programme recently that threw an interesting light on them though.

Yeah, there are some places where it corresponds to that picture, but in places like Pakistan, for example, particularly in the urban areas, they're a very mundane affair. There was some fly on the wall footage of goings on, including a very vocal lady demanding (and getting) better child maintenance from her divorced husband, and another woman being granted a divorce because her husband had failed to tell her he was infertile prior to the marriage. There were also a bunch of really mundane little things. The waiting room scene and the bits in the office reminded me a great deal of the magistrates courts over here.

DeathByCactus
09-16-2008, 03:47
Salo... Stop making it sound normal. I was content with my twisted view before hand :P.

I agree, I don't think it will be bad for them in the long run. I have been out of touch with the cultural issues between the standard british population and the rising influx of war escapees, but it seems that this might do some good in qenching some of the, "You don't care about us," attitude.

My curiousity is what happens when/if they are allowed to oversee major criminal cases. What if there is bias, at which point what happens to the appeals? Once things are set in Sharia, can it be brought back over to the normal circuit courts?

Only reason why I pose this, is I would hate to see families threatened over in Iraq or Afgan or Iran to get relatives in Britian to succumb to Sharia court.

Slypieguy
09-16-2008, 03:51
I thought you were one of those who wanted more laws to be decided at the state/local level.

Now you're for uniformity?

Sharia law being optional would disrupt uniformity at the local level as well

terafis
09-16-2008, 03:54
Why should a western country allow trial under Sharia courts, and yet Arab countries are under no obligation to try a westerner under their own countries law?

If anyone immigrates to a new country, then they DAMN WELL should respect and accept that country's legal system.

Bamboopanda
09-16-2008, 03:56
That's some fucked up shit, right there.

This is a storm in a teacup.

You have obviously never been over to an shitty country where Sharia law exists. Go buy a ticket and live there for at least six months, you will come back and say yea, they are just like us. That is why you will be willing to kill them without mercy (if you have a spine)when you see them come here and try to try that shit. You know that all the other people just like 'us' will be pushovers and allow it to happen because it does not affect them. Untill it is too late.

Even Turkeys military is ready to kill anyone in their own government who push's THAT agenda too damned hard. And they are in that part of the world WITH that culture, does that not say something to you?

Fucked up or not, I've seen life and do not have some rainbow colored glass's to look thru anymore. I am not letting my children live in a new middle-east. I don't give a fuck about 'fair' either, so like it or not, I would suggest you not let it happen, because men like me do exist.

DeathByCactus
09-16-2008, 04:23
You have obviously never been over to an shitty country where Sharia law exists. Go buy a ticket and live there for at least six months, you will come back and say yea, they are just like us. That is why you will be willing to kill them without mercy (if you have a spine)when you see them come here and try to try that shit. You know that all the other people just like 'us' will be pushovers and allow it to happen because it does not affect them. Untill it is too late.

Even Turkeys military is ready to kill anyone in their own government who push's THAT agenda too damned hard. And they are in that part of the world WITH that culture, does that not say something to you?

Fucked up or not, I've seen life and do not have some rainbow colored glass's to look thru anymore. I am not letting my children live in a new middle-east. I don't give a fuck about 'fair' either, so like it or not, I would suggest you not let it happen, because men like me do exist.

lol ^^^ srsly? :rolleyes:

Your not gonna let your children grow up while your in jail for the rest of your life either so spare us the tough guy act.

It won't pass here, because people like me will be writing senators and generally harassing government officials via mail and email. Along with other normal and capable people (hopefully). That and the US Gov is mostly a Christian based Gov so that wouldn't work here. Not in the land of the "Free."

Using 2 systems of Government does nothing but divide people further. However it will be interesting to see how it turns out over there.

EDIT: Personally I think it is all bullshit anyway. Because of Separation of Church and State it would be impossible to setup a strict religious court system.

Elemancer
09-16-2008, 05:05
Sharia law being optional would disrupt uniformity at the local level as well

I've actually mulled over the idea of being subjugated to the court of your choosing, afterall, why does location dictate which laws you must obey? Is it for the sake of order? If so, why don't we just have one universal and uniform code of justice? Furthermore, you're forced to obey the laws of a given entity if you simply do business there. Is that fair if you have completely different cultures (Take Blue laws for an example)? To me, civil libertarians might actually learn a thing or two from this. Aside from the fact that good old Britain is being taken over by muslims...this could open the door for the anarcho-capitalist bunch.

Slypieguy
09-16-2008, 07:02
I've actually mulled over the idea of being subjugated to the court of your choosing, afterall, why does location dictate which laws you must obey? Is it for the sake of order? If so, why don't we just have one universal and uniform code of justice? Furthermore, you're forced to obey the laws of a given entity if you simply do business there. Is that fair if you have completely different cultures (Take Blue laws for an example)? To me, civil libertarians might actually learn a thing or two from this. Aside from the fact that good old Britain is being taken over by muslims...this could open the door for the anarcho-capitalist bunch.

Were you asking me a question? lol

Septus
09-16-2008, 07:44
Sharia law being optional would disrupt uniformity at the local level as well

Actually it would allow for ideal diversity. A common law, with various competing systems for people to use as they see fit.

Imagine if the system in question was not shariah law, but some competing system derived from the native population.

Would you still be opposed, or would be applauding its inception as analogous to the idea of competing currencies?

palo god
09-16-2008, 07:52
Actually it would allow for ideal diversity. A common law, with various competing systems for people to use as they see fit.

Imagine if the system in question was not shariah law, but some competing system derived from the native population.

Would you still be opposed, or would be applauding its inception as analogous to the idea of competing currencies?

I would still be apposed to it.

Slypieguy
09-16-2008, 08:19
Actually it would allow for ideal diversity. A common law, with various competing systems for people to use as they see fit.


That's an oxymoron. Common law by definition needs to be as uniform as possible.



Imagine if the system in question was not shariah law, but some competing system derived from the native population.

Would you still be opposed, or would be applauding its inception as analogous to the idea of competing currencies?

No, I would say the exact same thing. The competing currencies analogy doesn't really fit (and even if it did, I've never said I was in favor of competing currencies :p )

Salo
09-16-2008, 09:18
Nobody is being 'tried' by Sharia courts in the Uk. This is an arbitration body it is there for civil matters not judicial.

And the idea that our country is being 'taken over' by muslims is bloody ridiculous. They are a minority population. Other settled minority communities have been given similar consideration as has been pointed out (the Jewish arbitration bodies).


Fucked up or not, I've seen life and do not have some rainbow colored glass's to look thru anymore. I am not letting my children live in a new middle-east. I don't give a fuck about 'fair' either, so like it or not, I would suggest you not let it happen, because men like me do exist.

I have seen life also. I have no rainbow coloured glasses. I also don't have glasses that are muddied over with racist bullshit.

fRdz
09-16-2008, 09:25
Why?!

I have lost all my respect for the UK - no wonder Norway is trying to break off from the European landmass, it will take some time but one day we will be an island on our own!

Spineless_DoO
09-16-2008, 10:33
Nobody is being 'tried' by Sharia courts in the Uk. This is an arbitration body it is there for civil matters not judicial.

And the idea that our country is being 'taken over' by muslims is bloody ridiculous. They are a minority population. Other settled minority communities have been given similar consideration as has been pointed out (the Jewish arbitration bodies).



I have seen life also. I have no rainbow coloured glasses. I also don't have glasses that are muddied over with racist bullshit.

I would go as far to say the problems muslims are creating and the great devide they are pushing in both England and France if anything is a push to "take over" by stepping past the common law and dictate there own.

Spinewire
09-16-2008, 10:46
I would go as far to say the problems muslims are creating and the great devide they are pushing in both England and France if anything is a push to "take over" by stepping past the common law and dictate there own.
seriously.....

What are you on about? Dictate there own law?

You lot are just fucking idiots, whats is going on here is nothing new, the jews have done it, i could go and do it if i wanted to... Muslims are not taking over the courts and cutting peoples hands off. You are all just having a racist knee jerk reaction without any grasp of what is really going on.

There are a number of halakha courts representing different interpretations of Jewish law in america for fuck sake —Agudath Israel of America, Beth Din of America, etc. These halakha courts are already functioning within the legal system of the U.S.

It would seem that faith based arbitration is an existing part of our and your legal system, and that considering sharia as somehow less acceptable than halakha has no basis in anything other than you being racist fucktards.

Tharkon Fargor
09-16-2008, 12:43
That's it, I'm moving to Sweden now, fuck getting an internship here.

lol.

You won't belive this but I met an American in my Hostel the past week who was trying to get asylum in Sweden from America.

We welcome brits to.

But we'd prefer it if you just blew up the parlaiment house as they do in V.

Cheers.

Ziegler
09-16-2008, 14:09
You are all just having a racist knee jerk reaction without any grasp of what is really going on.
it's not racist when you are predjudiced against a religion.


There are a number of halakha courts representing different interpretations of Jewish law in america for fuck sake —Agudath Israel of America, Beth Din of America, etc. These halakha courts are already functioning within the legal system of the U.S.
You know, if the jews still enforced their archaic and barbaric laws on their followers, this might be relevant.


It would seem that faith based arbitration is an existing part of our and your legal system, and that considering sharia as somehow less acceptable than halakha has no basis in anything other than you being racist fucktards.
Or it could be that sharia is part of the teachings that include good stuff like...if you arent muslim you have 3 choices, become muslim, become a secondary human in all ways to any muslim, or die. Last time I checked, jews dont kill those who leave the jewish faith or riot in the streets when a cartoon is made about Moses.



You won't belive this but I met an American in my Hostel the past week who was trying to get asylum in Sweden from America.

We welcome brits to.

But we'd prefer it if you just blew up the parlaiment house as they do in V.

Cheers.

And just how easily is it to get citizenship in Sweden?

antihero-zero
11-09-2008, 00:14
I'm sorry, how is domestic violence a motherfucking civil matter? This is not some business rivalry, noisy neighbours or a messy divorce. Its some douchebag beating his wife up, how the fuck is that a civil matter?

Unfortunately, it sort of is. Police officers are at some of their greatest risk in domestic violence cases from the very women they are attempting to protect. Unfortunately, these are not rationale situations. I'm not making that information up, ask some local PD about it, but go with the city guys who do a lot of that work, not some rural traffic cop.

slugy
11-09-2008, 00:32
/care

this does not affect me in any way, shape or form.

also, i think some of you are very racist.

tarsus
11-09-2008, 00:45
I don't understand why this is such a big deal. It's basically like going to a third party to settle the dispute instead of the government, except that their system is probably gonna be tax payer funded which I would care about, but it's the fucking UK and they're already spending happy so who gives a fuck?

In America you can chose to settle a dispute by going to your Priest or Minister or whatever instead of going to the civil courts. There's nothing stopping folks from doing it. If both parties agree it doesn't effect anyone else at all. This isn't criminal proceedings, it's just settling shit like that guy needs to pay me this much because he accidentally broke my vase or he wrote that I was a pederass and I demand payment for libel.

Yasmira
11-09-2008, 01:12
I don't understand why this is such a big deal.

Because dem ay-rabs our the devil and our takin over by killin dem good Christian babies.

I know now-a-days Muslim = brown = terrorist = demon = kill them all, but let's for once use some reason. Jews have had the same arrangement in the UK for more than a hundred years. All it is now that people who went to an imam to settle domestic disputes can now use his verdict as law-binding. Felonies will still be tried in British secular courts. And all punishments/dealings cannot violate British law.