Britain adopts sharia law

I am not making this up.

The Labor government which has been screwing Britain up for a decade or more has now finally committed a Fatal Error. They are allowing Muslim sharia courts to enforce sharia law in Britain.

As if one country can stand with two utterly conflicting systems of law.

Among other things, this means that a poor Pakistani girl being forced into an arranged marriage will, if she appeals to the LAW, will find that she has actually appealed to a Muslim sharia court, which will throw her case out, and she has no right to appeal beyond that.

Could this be the death-knell of the multi-culti Kumbaya mindset?

Or will it lead to the National Health performing free genital mutilations on Muslim girls???

Time will tell...

[ceejay]

Hnery, what are you talking about?

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/31257_Sharia_Courts_in_Britain

and, if you would enjoy some pungent commentary, then this as well:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/31416_Pat_Condell-_Welcome_to_Saudi_Britain

Does it really take an American to point out such things to the British voter?

[Marsilius]

Speaking as one who is actually here in the UK, I can confirm that the government has said it is prepared to allow moslems to settle their own civil (not criminal) disputes in their own courts provided all parties are willing participants AND providing that no UK criminal law has been infringed.

Wherever UK criminal law has been infringed, the state legal process will swing into action just as it does now and will supersede the actions of the voluntary moslem court (which, note, has no jurisdiction whatsoever over non-moslems or anyone else who does not agree to its presiding over their case).

The new system will, in other words, simply deal with civil disputes on a mutually acceptable basis. It thus replicates the arrangements that have long been made by British Jews to settle their private civil disputes internally in Shin Beth courts. And it is not dissimilar, as far as I can see, to Californian law that allows two participants in a civil dispute to mutually agree on an arbiter whose decision they agree will be final - the whole basis that allows the Judge Judy TV show to operate in dear Henry's homeland.

[Brad the Impala]

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/31257_Sharia_Courts_in_Britain

and, if you would enjoy some pungent commentary, then this as well:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/31416_Pat_Condell-_Welcome_to_Saudi_Britain

Does it really take an American to point out such things to the British voter?

If you are a gullible reader of hysterical right wing sites, you become a gullible hysterical fascist.

Despite Marsilius confirming everything I wrote.

If you take the case of a girl being forced into marriage -- and if you assume the families involved have enough power to get the case settled in a sharia court -- it's merely a civil matter, not a criminal one -- then you have a real revolution in British jurisprudence.

Oh, yes, it's all common-sense. Nothing worth seeing here. These aren't the droids you're looking for.

Of course, I believe that ANY parties in disagreement can submit to binding arbitration, but this recognition of sharia law in Britain does not smell like that to me. It smells of Britons caving to Muslims because they are AFRAID of Muslims.

Time will tell.

I have finally been called a fascist!!!!!!!

Leave it to Brad the Dope to win the prize!

YAY!

"being forced" and "consenting to" are thought by most to be contradictory terms.

As Marsillius says Sharia Courts may be used as an arena of arbitration "provided all parties are willing participants AND providing that no UK criminal law has been infringed".
Somebody who asserted to have been forced into a marriage would not be regarded in an English or Scottish Court as a willing participant and might well have grounds for criminal allegations of rape, conspiracy and a number of other serious charges under criminal law depending on what actually happened.

[ceejay]

If you take the case of a girl being forced into marriage -- and if you assume the families involved have enough power to get the case settled in a sharia court -- it's merely a civil matter, not a criminal one -- then you have a real revolution in British jurisprudence.

Not even near to true Henry. The rules of Sharia may be used by an arbitration panel (which is what this is about)

Firstly, a coerced marriage is null under British law - and no arbitration can make it otherwise.

Secondly, coercion beyond what you might call "familial pressure" - imprisonment and/or any sort of violence - is a criminal offence, and totally outsdie the remit of any arbitration.

Thirdly, arbitration requires the consent of both parties - in this case the girl is one, not her family. If she was coerced into the arbitration, then that would be null.

There's not really anything new in this - it has always been open under English law to enter into a contract, or to resolve a dispute under any the rules of any system of law the parties freely agree to - English, French or for that matter Thai or Uzbek - so long as this does not conflict with the laws of England. That's a matter of practicality - there's nothing to stop you setting up an agreement which mirrors, point by point, the rules of a foreign system of law which would then be enforceable under English law.

Arbitration has always been available under English law - the various Acts relating to it have largely been codifications of Common Law. It requires the two parties to a dispute to agree to that dispute being settled by an arbitration panel set up in a way agreed by them. A decision reached by arbitration is final, and enforceable by the courts, but is subject to review by them too. Arbitrators cannot make up the rules as they go along - their powers are strictly circumscribed.

They must act fairly (according to the legal definition of fairness, which is not necessarily the same as the everyday one)
They must conduct the arbitration in accordance with the rules that have been agreed.
They cannot conduct themselves in any way, or arrive at any decision that is contrary to English law.
They cannot in any way condone or exonerate criminal behaviour
They cannot act unless the parties involved have freely agreed to the arbitration, and had the capacity to do so.

If any of the above are breached, then their decisions can, and I am confident will, be struck down in court. The court can also overturn an arbitration on the grounds that it has been decided in a way that is manifestly not in keeping with the facts (although this is a tough test)

Hardly an adoption of Sharia law is it?

Incidentally, you will notice that I have throughout spoken of English law. There is no such thing as British law. Scotland, Northern Ireland or England (together with Wales) could, if they wished adopt Sharia - but none of them have.

There's a "U" in Labour.

Not that the Labour party has much to do with labour -much of the party's core support is from lazy spongers who choose to live a life of unemployed leisure of the back of the working man's taxes.
That's one more reason why our economy is such a mess -billions of pounds spent on people who make no useful contribution to the economy.
The main reason why they have stayed in power for so long is the unwavering support from the Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation.

[Brad the Impala]

I am not making this up.
..

Buit the sites that you read, and choose to believe, are.

I have finally been called a fascist!!!!!!!

Leave it to Brad the Dope to win the prize!

YAY!

Oh for fcuk's sake.

Is your Crown of Thorns complete now Henry?
I'm so happy for you. :thumbleft:

Little Green Nut Balls

[Marsilius]

Of course, I believe that ANY parties in disagreement can submit to binding arbitration, but this recognition of sharia law in Britain does not smell like that to me. It smells of Britons caving to Muslims because they are AFRAID of Muslims.

So I presume, by that logic, that the UK government allows those Shin Beth courts to operate because it is afraid of Jews???

[Lunchtime O'Booze]

this link eventully leads to the Times..another once great newspaper now owned by the Sun King Rupert Murdoch. The report is completely skewered and gives the impression that Sharia Law will operate in the UK.

This is not true..read the report and this is what stands out : 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.

This is simply an extension of tribunals which have operated in the UK for decades..it's a way in which disputes are settled without actually going to court and tying up the court's time and avoiding the extra costs involved. I have been to such a tribunal. Both parties must agree to accept the outcome beforehand and if not, they can go to court.

It's just a simple case of trying to avoid the trouble of appearing in court..which everyone still has the right to do..and settling a dispute in a less formal way.

This report is racist as it implies something else. that is the defintion of racism..to somehow imply that one race is getting an advantage over another ( when the opposite is true) or a report that concentrates on a particular race.

This is not SHARIA LAW strictly speaking..it is one aspect of Sharia Law that gives both parties the opportunity to settle a dispute without formal court proceedings. The similarities between Muslim law and the British law (as law is based upon in the US & UK and the former UK colonies like Canada and Australia) are similar in some aspects and this is one of them .

It's like saying because the sun arises in the Middle East therefore the sun is Muslim.

Will we be able to make the burqua compulsory for all women?

Will we be able to make the burqua compulsory for all women?

Or for all berks - if they have them in HC's size.

[Lunchtime O'Booze]

Will we be able to make the burqua compulsory for all women?

it should be compulsory for you.

If you look at the article in the Times which was the original cause of all this:


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

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

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

And this is exactly why I had my original concerns about this news. In an inheritance case like this, who "consents" to abide by Sharia law? The daughters, who inherit exactly one-half of what a son inherits? And that was why my original reaction was that England would be better served by one, English law, which supports the equality of the sexes and the freedom of religion -- which Sharia law most definitely does not.

But we're not yet at the point where thieves are getting their hands chopped off in London, so my sincere apologies to all.

[Lunchtime O'Booze]

it does indeed say what you write Henry Cate re; inheritance laws but that is the way inheritance law works under Sharia law where the son is always regarded first.

But the point is-English law does apply and is available to every citizen..no person opting to go to a tribunal is forced to-they must agree to be bound by the result beforehand but they will know the consequences and most certainly, women will be aware of a likely outcome. One must assume that they agree with this sytem ie : the law treating sons as more equal than daughters or else they would simply apply under normal British law.

Cohersion to apply under an arbitration court or this new Sharia style tribunal would be treated like any other type of legal intimidation which carries severe penalties.

Honestly-is this any different than say, the Ozarks where brothers are required to mary their next door cousin..and usualy at the age of 12 ?

it does indeed say what you write Henry Cate re; inheritance laws but that is the way inheritance law works under Sharia law where the son is always regarded first.

But the point is-English law does apply and is available to every citizen..no person opting to go to a tribunal is forced to-they must agree to be bound by the result beforehand but they will know the consequences and most certainly, women will be aware of a likely outcome. One must assume that they agree with this sytem ie : the law treating sons as more equal than daughters or else they would simply apply under normal British law.

Cohersion to apply under an arbitration court or this new Sharia style tribunal would be treated like any other type of legal intimidation which carries severe penalties.

Honestly-is this any different than say, the Ozarks where brothers are required to mary their next door cousin..and usualy at the age of 12 ?

So you're happy that England has reached that high ground? :-) (Sorry, I could not resist that one!!)

[Davey612]

I do not have much knowledge about British law and British society. But it seems that the allowance of an arbitration system based on laws derived from religious beliefs destroys the integrity of a nation. After all, the reason why secular laws work is because everyone is viewed the same. If we are going to start setting up legal systems, even among willing participants, they kind of destroy the notion of one country. So, if members of other religions decide that they don't want their affairs to be decided by secular courts, are they then in fact setting up separate legal systems?

Maybe the British public has different views of what constitute unity for the U.K. In the U.S., arbitration is acknowledged, but the arbitrators still have to work within the context of state, federal, or common law. Otherwise, imagine, for example, if members of the Mormom church decide to arbitrate their affairs according to Mormom laws?

Otherwise, imagine, for example, if members of the Mormom church decide to arbitrate their affairs according to Mormom laws?Perhaps you could give us an example of what harm there would be in that. The principle, let's not forget, is that the State law cannot be over-ruled, so that if Mormons wanted to re-introduce polygamy that simply would be outside the power of the Mormon Tribunal and would have no effect. If, on the other hand, there is a dispute between two Mormons about something on which the law does not prescribe a single way of resolving the issue, but their Church does have a view, and both are willing to submit themselves to the Church, I don't see the harm. Many places offer various forms of arbitration without recourse to the expensive Court system - the UK, for example, already has an extensive system for resolving commercial disputes - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitral_tribunal

I'm afraid the problem in the US is a cultural one - there must always be someone to blame! For that, I blame the Puritans

[Davey612]

If, on the other hand, there is a dispute between two Mormons about something on which the law does not prescribe a single way of resolving the issue, but their Church does have a view, and both are willing to submit themselves to the Church, I don't see the harm. Many places offer various forms of arbitration without recourse to the expensive Court system - the UK, for example, already has an extensive system for resolving commercial disputes - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitral_tribunal

I'm afraid the problem in the US is a cultural one - there must always be someone to blame! For that, I blame the Puritans

U.S. specific? Maybe so, specially since the U.S. was originally populated with refugees who sought to practice their versions of religion free of government interference. Maybe that is why we are still having this tension of separating the powers of religion from the ones of government.

However, what is there to start different sects and then say that secular courts have no jurisdictiom because the members consent to settle their differences by their own? So, from civil laws dealing with property, you may easily go to the criminal law arena. So, if members of the same religious group agree that if one kills the other one, the quilty person should be stoned, will that thumb secular criminal laws?

What I am afraid is the creation of separate classes of people when there is no actual need to do so. Anyway, what should I know. From what the board members here seem to imply, it is perfectly ok for such religious tribunals to exist. I personally think that they destroy what a secular state should be.

However, what is there to start different sects and then say that secular courts have no jurisdictiom because the members consent to settle their differences by their own? On what basis would such an assertion be made and carry any weight whatsoever, assuming you mean a decision could be made that contravened the general law? The legislation approving adjudication would govern such scenarios, as it does now

In addition, don't you already have different laws applying - Native Americans can run their own casinos on "their" land, irrespective of what State law may say

This seems to be a knee-jerk reaction to the word "Moslem". It's a bit like all those Americans who are now saying "I'm a life-long Democrat but I can't vote for that Obama; I don't like his stand on some of the issues" when in fact they mean "I'm not voting for him; he's black" - and they're possibly not even admitting to themselves that that's what they mean. (I'm quoting here from online newspaper stories)

[Lunchtime O'Booze]

I do not have much knowledge about British law and British society. But it seems that the allowance of an arbitration system based on laws derived from religious beliefs destroys the integrity of a nation. After all, the reason why secular laws work is because everyone is viewed the same. If we are going to start setting up legal systems, even among willing participants, they kind of destroy the notion of one country. So, if members of other religions decide that they don't want their affairs to be decided by secular courts, are they then in fact setting up separate legal systems?

Maybe the British public has different views of what constitute unity for the U.K. In the U.S., arbitration is acknowledged, but the arbitrators still have to work within the context of state, federal, or common law. Otherwise, imagine, for example, if members of the Mormom church decide to arbitrate their affairs according to Mormom laws?

well you should have ! I see your profile says you are from San Fransisco and all US law and those of former British colonies ( New Zealand, the Bahamas etc)are based upon British law which is far diffrerent to the way the law and courts operate in many Euorpean countries.

Remember : these are tribunals which are common in most countries that follow the British style of law..but I don't know if they have them in the US.

All this involves is the 2 parties agreeing beforehand to sit down-usually in a fairly informal manner in a room with an adjudicator who may be a judge, barrister or lawyer. They can have friends and advisers accompany them. The only requirement is that both parties must agree to accept the outcome and that is to save time by -if one won't accept the decision-then going to court thus running up enormous costs. But they are not forced to attend arbitration.

In some cases in British law a judge may order both parties to arbitration-in an attempt to avoid high legal costs and when that happens and the parties don't agree, they can still go back to court and sue each other accordingly.

In this Sharia case it is a perfect example of how wonderful the British law is at attempting to be fair to all. The inheritance matter is a perfect example even though it appears to discriminate against women ( and they do not have to go to a "Sharia" tribunal) -this accepts that many Muslim woman want to be judged under Sharia law and accept the findings.

It is no diffferent to allowing Muslims to worship in Mosque, Jews in Synagouges, Methodists in Church or Homitern who holds midnight masses with strange old hags in black gowns and attempt to conjur up Beelzebub. No-one is forced to attend any religious ceremoney they do not wish to.(although in Homitern's
case he did sell his soul and that of his first born to the Devil so has no choice-particularly as there will be no baby Homitern obviously he is damned for all time)

## one problem the UK doesn't have is a whole lot of states all with different laws. Although they should of course get out of Northern Ireland and allow that to be governed under Irish law which isn't too disimilar and exquisitley fair as all Irishmen are..and that's from a completey unbiased source.

... I can give is restaurants. The government dictates what sort of meat and vegetables are fit for human consumption, but does not regulate how they must be prepared and eaten. In fact there are kosher and halal butchers who kill animals according to their religious beliefs. Anyone who eats in a kosher restaurant subjects himself, voluntarily, to those rules. However it is not available to a restaurant to start serving, say, rat on the menu, no matter what their beliefs, as that does not fall within the framework of "fit for human consumption"

A better analogy would be the truth. There has been a lot of palaver on this subject, but one statement stands out:


In this Sharia case it is a perfect example of how wonderful the British law is at attempting to be fair to all. The inheritance matter is a perfect example even though it appears to discriminate against women ( and they do not have to go to a "Sharia" tribunal) -this accepts that many Muslim woman want to be judged under Sharia law and accept the findings.

Let's just zero in on this "inheritance matter" and how "wonderful" English law is, in the year 2008.

"British law" is so "wonderful" because it is "fair to all" -- including woman-hating Muslim men.

The poster says that Sharia "appears to discriminate against women." Horse shit! It DOES discriminate against women. It does not APPEAR to do so, it actually DOES SO, on a daily basis. Has our honorable opponent not noticed the rise in "honor" murders -- basically meaning Muslim brothers and fathers killing their own woman for daring to oppose them?

As for "they do not have to go to a Sharia tribunal," you have to realize who you're dealing with here. As the Godfather once said, "Well, up to you. Either your signature goes on this document, or your brains."

So Britain, that sceptred isle, has now established a Special Place for people who do NOT accept the British law. "Hey, Muslim dude. Got a problem with your sister? Bring her over here, and we'll make it all look legal."

On another note, I see that more than 50% of Frenchmen would like to move to America, if it were possible. "But I thought the French were anti-American?" Well, perhaps, until the "youths" began taking over their cities...and some Frenchmen woke up, smelled the coffee, and realized that (somehow) the "youths" were ARMED AND DANGEROUS. Law-abiding Frenchmen of course had no arms and could not buy any.

There is a parallel with Europe as a whole, which has basically disarmed under the American umbrella. Name me a European country (aside from England/Britain) which could actually fight a war. Nope. They all saved that money spent on the military, and spent it on "social programs."

Which brings us back to Barack, once again.

[Lunchtime O'Booze]

now Henry..I know you are really Homintern and everything you say is designed to upset me and prevent me from demanding the so many luncheon dates he owes me.

You are forgetting..whatever one thinks of Sharia Law or the Muslim religion-those who adher to it believe in it. So whatever the good book say, goes.

Just as the Bible says similarly outrageous things about women's status ( although not the Great and First Socialist Jesus Christ who simply said very nice things about us all loving each other)

let's face it Henry-you are that funny old woman with the frizzy grey hair who was featured on television worldwide telling John McCain that she didn't like Barak Obama because he was an Arab..whereupon McCain snatched the microphone and one could see little cogs going heywire in his head and saying.."what the fuck is going on here"?

As for those 50% of Frenchmen who want to move to the USA.- why would'nt' they when they have to suffer that horrible South of France with it's awful beaches and French food and the Mediterranean when they could move to Tuscon ,Cleveland ,Jacksom,Las Vegas and all those fabulousy cities with stupendous restautants ranging from Wendys through to McDonalds , cuisine to melt any Frenchman's palate and most certainly a place that makes San Tropez, Cannes , and lets not forget Paris with all those hideious street side cafes..I can tell you where I'd choose to be..Akron Alabama leaves these places for dead.

But here is another reaon al those frogs want to flea France ( and who wouldn't want to get out of a horrible town like Aige Morte with it's 200 year old stone wall surrounding a charming village and a stupendoeus beach 3 kilos away where thousands of French families bathe completely nude while gangs of French youths wander about, totally unclothed. You just know they would rather be in smog ridden LA !

No Henry,the reason 32 million French citizens want to flee France is because RICHARD PERLE has a house in the South of France !

Surprised nobody picked up this (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article4926612.ece) from last Sunday.

Even a leading Muslim is speaking against it.

[cottmann]

....well you should have ! I see your profile says you are from San Fransisco and all US law and those of former British colonies ( New Zealand, the Bahamas etc)are based upon British law which is far diffrerent to the way the law and courts operate in many Euorpean countries. ......

Actually, the Louisiana Civil Code is based on French, Spanish and German legal codes, dating from the days when Louisiana was a French possession, and not on English common law (and also not on the Code Napoleon).

[Marsilius]

Ah, yes... dear old Louisiana.

So humane and the long-term home to the Angola Three - Robert King Wilkerson (freed in 2001 after 29 years in solitary confinement), Herman Wallace and Albert Woodfox (both spent 36 years in solitary confinement until moved to maximum security accommodation earlier this year).

The US Supreme Court has now ruled that their pending civil suit Wilkerson, Wallace and Woodfox vs. the State of Louisiana has merit to proceed to trial on the grounds that their 30+ years in solitary confinement is "inhumane and unconstitutional." The outcome of this landmark civil case might at last eliminate long term solitary confinement in U.S. prisons.

[Lunchtime O'Booze]

Surprised nobody picked up this (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article4926612.ece) from last Sunday.

Even a leading Muslim is speaking against it.

I'll chastise only very gently 555 for reading an organ owned by the Sun King Rupert Murdoch but I see from the article it's actually a politician ( and a Nu Labour one at that) who is being quoted and as usual, the story implies that because one Muslim says something that means all Muslims are in agreement. A bit like saying all Jews agree etc etc.

In fact he's fairly insulting to the Muslim community by implying they aren't sophisticated enough for this new law system.

And this about a commmunity and religion who were so far advanced whilst out ancestors ( Homitern's etc) were scrabbling about in the filthy mud and eating old leaves of trees !

Perhaps you could give us an example of what harm there would be in that. The principle, let's not forget, is that the State law cannot be over-ruled,

If you're talking about the US, you're wrong. If there is a conflict between Federal law and State law, the Feds win. It's called preemption.

Ah, yes... dear old Louisiana.

So humane and the long-term home to the Angola Three - Robert King Wilkerson (freed in 2001 after 29 years in solitary confinement), Herman Wallace and Albert Woodfox (both spent 36 years in solitary confinement until moved to maximum security accommodation earlier this year).

The US Supreme Court has now ruled that their pending civil suit Wilkerson, Wallace and Woodfox vs. the State of Louisiana has merit to proceed to trial on the grounds that their 30+ years in solitary confinement is "inhumane and unconstitutional." The outcome of this landmark civil case might at last eliminate long term solitary confinement in U.S. prisons.

Well, frankly, I would think that any convict looking for doing "good time" and a quick release -- well, for such a convict, murdering prison guards would not be a very bright idea. Um, cops don't look very kindly on cop-killers.

So if these "Angola 3" managed to screw up their lives by killing a prison guard, and the prison guards retaliated -- not with death, but with lifetime solitary, well, then, who's to blame? Certainly not the killers! :-0 Certainly not the prison guards! :-0 No, it must be "Louisiana" which is to blame, and, once again, personal responsibility is swept out the back door.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angola_3

Why not post an advert for Mumia next time?