necrophilia law for husbands in Egypt...
Discussion
TheHeretic said:
How has it been forced onto us in civil form?
It's here, quietly introduced to please what must number a handful of Muslim men who pushed for it. When it goes against a pretty fundamental part of exisiting British law and the way of life, I see that as a big change, and one that was never needed, but of course, religion is very good at shouting for exemption and getting it. So forced into being the start of a two tier legal system, if that is you don't believe in time that the same tiny number of men will then start to push for more and more exemptions letting it grow. I can't think of a reason why it's needed and what good it does. Mr_B said:
It's here, quietly introduced to please what must number a handful of Muslim men who pushed for it. When it goes against a pretty fundamental part of exisiting British law and the way of life, I see that as a big change, and one that was never needed, but of course, religion is very good at shouting for exemption and getting it. So forced into being the start of a two tier legal system, if that is you don't believe in time that the same tiny number of men will then start to push for more and more exemptions letting it grow. I can't think of a reason why it's needed and what good it does.
Sorry, but can you show me where Sharia law is being forced on the British public? It is voluntary, (and I am no fan of that either, particularly for women, but that is a different thread), just like the Jewish system. It is not forced on anyone. You may argue, of you wish, that it is coming, but until that happens, no-one of forcing anything upon anyone. Marf said:
Actually I'm not, I will though say I'm against any form of religious law operating in this country even on a voluntary basis, and further ask you how you feel about Hassidic law being forced upon the country in a civil form in the same voluntary way as Sharia?
What Thunderfoot is talking about is not the same as what you and I are discussing here. He is talking about Sharia as seen in Saudi, not the Sharia-lite that operates in this country just as Hassidic law does.
My point to Thunderfoot was that if there were a group or political movement trying to enforce Saudi style Sharia on the UK, no one in their right mind would bend over and take it and there would likely be civil war to protect the British way of life and the legal system that it operates within.
My worry is like any creeping new law, it starts out small until you are used to it then grows and gets more powerful little by little.What Thunderfoot is talking about is not the same as what you and I are discussing here. He is talking about Sharia as seen in Saudi, not the Sharia-lite that operates in this country just as Hassidic law does.
My point to Thunderfoot was that if there were a group or political movement trying to enforce Saudi style Sharia on the UK, no one in their right mind would bend over and take it and there would likely be civil war to protect the British way of life and the legal system that it operates within.
Civil Sharia may be here now where people can go voluntarily - although I'd debate some of that if I thought Muslim women were equals - but do you think it will always just stay as it is ? No one will push for more expemptions or to make it more binding over established British law ? That's my doubt. I doubt already that its fair in civil form, but then I'm not bound by it and can't really help people who want to subscribe to such a religious based law.
I also just can't help think that why many Muslims rightfully fight racism in the UK, wanting special laws and exemptions to basics like British law doesn't help anyone integrate.
TheHeretic said:
Sorry, but can you show me where Sharia law is being forced on the British public? It is voluntary, (and I am no fan of that either, particularly for women, but that is a different thread), just like the Jewish system. It is not forced on anyone. You may argue, of you wish, that it is coming, but until that happens, no-one of forcing anything upon anyone.
I tried to explain to you that I see things like British law as fundamental, not something to be changed lightly. When a tiny number of people get that changed on just religious grounds and and it becomes possible, I don't see that as much else as being forced. There is a fair system in place alreay that works for anyone in the UK. Introducing another system which you can make a strong case for not treating everyone totally equally is not something that was ever openly debated or voted on. I see few more basic fundamental parts to the UK than it's binding law for everyone.
It does amuse me a little when people work themselves up over interent privacy laws or similar and rant and rave about them not being fair, but because something like Sharia is religious based, people feel they can't speak out on that, probably because they have to type for ever defending their view against being racist.
Mr_B said:
I tried to explain to you that I see things like British law as fundamental, not something to be changed lightly. When a tiny number of people get that changed on just religious grounds and and it becomes possible, I don't see that as much else as being forced.
There is a fair system in place alreay that works for anyone in the UK. Introducing another system which you can make a strong case for not treating everyone totally equally is not something that was ever openly debated or voted on. I see few more basic fundamental parts to the UK than it's binding law for everyone.
It does amuse me a little when people work themselves up over interent privacy laws or similar and rant and rave about them not being fair, but because something like Sharia is religious based, people feel they can't speak out on that, probably because they have to type for ever defending their view against being racist.
Trust me, I am very outspoken about religion, and have opposition to the voluntary courts, as I said. I have no qualms about giving religion and its practices 2 barrwls. However, Sharia courst are not being forced on the British public. That is all. Anything else is either speculation, or false. There is a fair system in place alreay that works for anyone in the UK. Introducing another system which you can make a strong case for not treating everyone totally equally is not something that was ever openly debated or voted on. I see few more basic fundamental parts to the UK than it's binding law for everyone.
It does amuse me a little when people work themselves up over interent privacy laws or similar and rant and rave about them not being fair, but because something like Sharia is religious based, people feel they can't speak out on that, probably because they have to type for ever defending their view against being racist.
TheHeretic said:
Trust me, I am very outspoken about religion, and have opposition to the voluntary courts, as I said. I have no qualms about giving religion and its practices 2 barrwls. However, Sharia courst are not being forced on the British public. That is all. Anything else is either speculation, or false.
Except they are alreay here and operating. If you feel they were not forced on you, that's your view, but I say they already have been. I don't really see a change of something so basic and fundamental as British law which should apply to all, now being split ( however small at first and if it does go further )down on religious grounds.If it were a small point of law in another area such as tax law or something, I may be able to challenge it in court, where it comes to religion I doubt I would have any chance, another area where I would just be stuck with it and feel it forced on me.
If you shout and moan about laws such as the recent internet privacy laws being proposed and think that's being forced upon you and not needed, then changing basic British law here must be no different, except religion changes everything, no ?
Mr_B said:
TheHeretic said:
Sorry, but can you show me where Sharia law is being forced on the British public? It is voluntary, (and I am no fan of that either, particularly for women, but that is a different thread), just like the Jewish system. It is not forced on anyone. You may argue, of you wish, that it is coming, but until that happens, no-one of forcing anything upon anyone.
I tried to explain to you that I see things like British law as fundamental, not something to be changed lightly. When a tiny number of people get that changed on just religious grounds and and it becomes possible, I don't see that as much else as being forced. There is a fair system in place alreay that works for anyone in the UK. Introducing another system which you can make a strong case for not treating everyone totally equally is not something that was ever openly debated or voted on. I see few more basic fundamental parts to the UK than it's binding law for everyone.
It does amuse me a little when people work themselves up over interent privacy laws or similar and rant and rave about them not being fair, but because something like Sharia is religious based, people feel they can't speak out on that, probably because they have to type for ever defending their view against being racist.
smileymikey said:
I believe the guy was having to defend himself against accusations of being racist because of his comments about Muslims in Egypt having thousands of children so that they can come over here and claim our benefits....not because of any well considered observation about the erosion of the British civil legal system.
Indeed, something I don't agree with and didnt comment on in any way and unrelated to anything I said. I only argued the point from another member who started to talk about Sharia in the UK.Mr_B said:
If it were a small point of law in another area such as tax law or something
But it's not, it's purely for civil matters and it's just a method of arbitration. As long as both parties agree, I don't see any problem with who they choose to pass judgement, and I think the discussion about Sharia or Beth din creeping up to somehow take precedent over our present legal system is a bit fictitious as it's fairly clear where the line is between legal and civil matters.
MX7 said:
But it's not, it's purely for civil matters and it's just a method of arbitration.
As long as both parties agree, I don't see any problem with who they choose to pass judgement, and I think the discussion about Sharia or Beth din creeping up to somehow take precedent over our present legal system is a bit fictitious as it's fairly clear where the line is between legal and civil matters.
This. It's not taking the place of established British law anymore than Relate is.As long as both parties agree, I don't see any problem with who they choose to pass judgement, and I think the discussion about Sharia or Beth din creeping up to somehow take precedent over our present legal system is a bit fictitious as it's fairly clear where the line is between legal and civil matters.
MX7 said:
But it's not, it's purely for civil matters and it's just a method of arbitration.
As long as both parties agree, I don't see any problem with who they choose to pass judgement, and I think the discussion about Sharia or Beth din creeping up to somehow take precedent over our present legal system is a bit fictitious as it's fairly clear where the line is between legal and civil matters.
You would rather have to accept you then believe that Muslim women have exactly the same freedoms as they currently do under British law.As long as both parties agree, I don't see any problem with who they choose to pass judgement, and I think the discussion about Sharia or Beth din creeping up to somehow take precedent over our present legal system is a bit fictitious as it's fairly clear where the line is between legal and civil matters.
Do you think Muslim women would be treated exactly the same in a civil Sharia court as a British court of law ? If you have one system is as reasonably fair as it can be for it. It doesn't discriminate against women, religion or their adherence to religious rules. Why have a two tier system ?
I know you are going to cry out that it is not voluntary and no one is forced to go so it's all fine and that I should ignore this. Well, I would, but when I see stories every day in the news about honor killings of women,arranged marriges, forced genital mutilation of thousands of Muslim girls and women walking around in bed sheets with a tiny slit in them to see where they are going, I think maybe Muslim women who are even born here or 2nd generation British are not so free and maybe that some have no choice to go and settle as these voluntary courts.
Do you believe there is not a single case where Muslim women would be discriminated against over that of a normal court of law ? How much discrimination is it worth to keep the few people ( men I'm willing to bet ) that pushed for these courts happy ? Tell me if you see Muslim women in the UK as free as your average non Muslim woman, basically, justify why these courts are needed.
Mr B, you are arguing about another issue, one of culture, rather than the law. The subject of Islamic women being forced to do stuff in their culture has been discussed before, and even on this thread, in reply to yourself, I have mentioned it, but that is beside the point. If Islamic women are being forced via peer pressure, or family pressure, to use the sharia voluntary courts, then that is a culture issue, NOT a law issue.
You seem to be wanting to mix 2 separate issues I to one in order to make out that Sharia law is being forced on the British public. It is not. If you want a discussion of Islamic women, then there is a whole debate worth having on the subject. Using it in this context is wrong, in my opinion.
You seem to be wanting to mix 2 separate issues I to one in order to make out that Sharia law is being forced on the British public. It is not. If you want a discussion of Islamic women, then there is a whole debate worth having on the subject. Using it in this context is wrong, in my opinion.
TheHeretic said:
Mr_B said:
I tried to explain to you that I see things like British law as fundamental, not something to be changed lightly. When a tiny number of people get that changed on just religious grounds and and it becomes possible, I don't see that as much else as being forced.
There is a fair system in place alreay that works for anyone in the UK. Introducing another system which you can make a strong case for not treating everyone totally equally is not something that was ever openly debated or voted on. I see few more basic fundamental parts to the UK than it's binding law for everyone.
It does amuse me a little when people work themselves up over interent privacy laws or similar and rant and rave about them not being fair, but because something like Sharia is religious based, people feel they can't speak out on that, probably because they have to type for ever defending their view against being racist.
Trust me, I am very outspoken about religion, and have opposition to the voluntary courts, as I said. I have no qualms about giving religion and its practices 2 barrwls. However, Sharia courst are not being forced on the British public. That is all. Anything else is either speculation, or false. There is a fair system in place alreay that works for anyone in the UK. Introducing another system which you can make a strong case for not treating everyone totally equally is not something that was ever openly debated or voted on. I see few more basic fundamental parts to the UK than it's binding law for everyone.
It does amuse me a little when people work themselves up over interent privacy laws or similar and rant and rave about them not being fair, but because something like Sharia is religious based, people feel they can't speak out on that, probably because they have to type for ever defending their view against being racist.
carmonk said:
If I were to stoop to being very pedantic... oh go on then. Most Muslims in the UK are British so it's probably best to word the distinction with 'non-Muslims', as in, Sharia isn't being forced on non-Muslims in the UK. And maybe add 'not for want of trying' at the end too.
Of the Muslim culture is a
hole enough to force women to do stuff, then as I said, that is a culture issue, not a law issue. There is nothing in the law that obliges anyone to use them. TheHeretic said:
Mr B, you are arguing about another issue, one of culture, rather than the law. The subject of Islamic women being forced to do stuff in their culture has been discussed before, and even on this thread, in reply to yourself, I have mentioned it, but that is beside the point. If Islamic women are being forced via peer pressure, or family pressure, to use the sharia voluntary courts, then that is a culture issue, NOT a law issue.
You seem to be wanting to mix 2 separate issues I to one in order to make out that Sharia law is being forced on the British public. It is not. If you want a discussion of Islamic women, then there is a whole debate worth having on the subject. Using it in this context is wrong, in my opinion.
It very much is a law issue as women in this country have rights. You still do not answer why these are needed. Why open up another court of law in which we both know full well women will be discriminated against more so than existing British Law ? There was no reason at all to change the existing system which was never going to better it, but could only make it worse by being religious based. This I'm afraid was nothing other than a step backwards for the rights of Muslim women who should be protected by the law of the land. It's not wanted, it's not needed, it's a step backwards and tell me who got any say in opening up a new avenue of discrimination ?You seem to be wanting to mix 2 separate issues I to one in order to make out that Sharia law is being forced on the British public. It is not. If you want a discussion of Islamic women, then there is a whole debate worth having on the subject. Using it in this context is wrong, in my opinion.
TheHeretic said:
carmonk said:
If I were to stoop to being very pedantic... oh go on then. Most Muslims in the UK are British so it's probably best to word the distinction with 'non-Muslims', as in, Sharia isn't being forced on non-Muslims in the UK. And maybe add 'not for want of trying' at the end too.
Of the Muslim culture is ahole enough to force women to do stuff, then as I said, that is a culture issue, not a law issue. There is nothing in the law that obliges anyone to use them. Mr_B said:
It very much is a law issue as women in this country have rights. You still do not answer why these are needed. Why open up another court of law in which we both know full well women will be discriminated against more so than existing British Law ? There was no reason at all to change the existing system which was never going to better it, but could only make it worse by being religious based. This I'm afraid was nothing other than a step backwards for the rights of Muslim women who should be protected by the law of the land. It's not wanted, it's not needed, it's a step backwards and tell me who got any say in opening up a new avenue of discrimination ?
You see to think I am pro religion or something. You could not be further from the truth. I simply do not agree that sharia is being forced upon the British public, as per your original statement. The law does not say they are forced, therefore they are not forced to. If you want to address attitudes to women inmislam, that is an entirely different issue. Islamic women ARE protected by the law of the land. If they are beaten, they should report it. If they are being forced to vote certain ways, then it is in their power not to. It is a CULTURE thing, not a law thing. Address the culture, not the law. There are already laws in place to stop oppression.TheHeretic said:
You see to think I am pro religion or something. You could not be further from the truth. I simply do not agree that sharia is being forced upon the British public, as per your original statement. The law does not say they are forced, therefore they are not forced to. If you want to address attitudes to women inmislam, that is an entirely different issue. Islamic women ARE protected by the law of the land. If they are beaten, they should report it. If they are being forced to vote certain ways, then it is in their power not to. It is a CULTURE thing, not a law thing. Address the culture, not the law. There are already laws in place to stop oppression.
I rather meant that Sharia had been forced as acceptable to everyone in the country, and not that anyone was forced to use it by law. Being forced to use it because of Islamic culture in the UK is another , but still related, issue. I personally think Sharia goes against some pretty core values that have made up the UK today. Allowing that to go unchallenged is something I think the UK should find shameful,that is why I feel it was forced on everyone, and to just let that happen is not good. Like I said, if it were challenged now, you wouldn't stand a hope of getting it banned, it would be forced upon everyone again, because even if you are not a muslim that might use the court, it can still go against all you believe.
Yes indeed, there are many laws to stop oppresion in the UK, and for equality. That does beg the question as to why you would open up such an avenue for some to ride over that given the related culture issue as you put it.
Mr_B said:
You would rather have to accept you then believe that Muslim women have exactly the same freedoms as they currently do under British law.
Do you think Muslim women would be treated exactly the same in a civil Sharia court as a British court of law ? If you have one system is as reasonably fair as it can be for it. It doesn't discriminate against women, religion or their adherence to religious rules. Why have a two tier system ?
I think this is your mistake. It isn't a two tier system, it's a multi tire system.Do you think Muslim women would be treated exactly the same in a civil Sharia court as a British court of law ? If you have one system is as reasonably fair as it can be for it. It doesn't discriminate against women, religion or their adherence to religious rules. Why have a two tier system ?
Any civil dispute can be arbitrated by anyone, be it Bernie Ecclestone, Judge Judy or Simon Cowell. Once a law is broken, there is only one authority.
Mr_B said:
I know you are going to cry out that it is not voluntary and no one is forced to go so it's all fine and that I should ignore this.
I take it that you mean it is voluntary?Mr_B said:
Well, I would, but when I see stories every day in the news about honor killings of women,arranged marriges, forced genital mutilation of thousands of Muslim girls and women walking around in bed sheets with a tiny slit in them to see where they are going, I think maybe Muslim women who are even born here or 2nd generation British are not so free and maybe that some have no choice to go and settle as these voluntary courts.
Do you believe there is not a single case where Muslim women would be discriminated against over that of a normal court of law ? How much discrimination is it worth to keep the few people ( men I'm willing to bet ) that pushed for these courts happy ? Tell me if you see Muslim women in the UK as free as your average non Muslim woman, basically, justify why these courts are needed.
I have no experience of them, so I can't give any answer. Perhaps you could cite some examples instead of citing, what I believe is, nothing more that a hunch.Do you believe there is not a single case where Muslim women would be discriminated against over that of a normal court of law ? How much discrimination is it worth to keep the few people ( men I'm willing to bet ) that pushed for these courts happy ? Tell me if you see Muslim women in the UK as free as your average non Muslim woman, basically, justify why these courts are needed.
If it's as bad as you say, there must be well publicised examples, in which case Muslim women would reject the process, and instead opt for a conventional court.
Either way, I don't see any indication of it encroaching on our legal system.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff