Islamic law adopted in Britain

[Anguille]

arbitrating civil disputes as observed by legal precedence. If you want to privately take your conflicting party to church and hash it out then so be it. Having the GOV validate this process is over the line. We should have a common application of legal precedence and stop pretending that any sample of the population gets special consideration. Saving money at the cost of the first amendment? sorry. Religious organizations can do good for the community without the gov RESPECTING THEIR ESTABLISHMENT. And, thankfully, this is a British problem and not one that has festered here. I don't approve of any dogma based affiliation with our laws be they muslim, jewish, christian or buddhist.

I don't see how this would compromise the First Amendment if it were instituted here. No one is forced to seek alternate arbitration. A person always has recourse to government arbitrators. If arbitration fails, it goes to court. It seems to me that this is an experiment that is, so far, showing good results.
Except in your case, the uproar seems to be because Muslims are involved. No one, beside you, is objecting to Jews or anyone else having the same prerogative. I would hope proper supervision of these alternate abitrators is going on. I don't deny there aren't possibilities for abuse, as in any legal procedure.
Like I said earlier, this is essentially no different than what Judge Judy does.

 

[Shogun]

I don't see how this would compromise the First Amendment if it were instituted here. No one is forced to seek alternate arbitration. A person always has recourse to government arbitrators. If arbitration fails, it goes to court. It seems to me that this is an experiment that is, so far, showing good results.
Except in your case, the uproar seems to be because Muslims are involved. No one, beside you, is objecting to Jews or anyone else having the same prerogative. I would hope proper supervision of these alternate abitrators is going on. I don't deny there aren't possibilities for abuse, as in any legal procedure.
Like I said earlier, this is essentially no different than what Judge Judy does.

It's the establishment of religion as a legal precedence, ang. forced to participate or not we don't let a segment of the population abide by their own rules despite a common legal standard. If an Amish dude kills then an Amish dude still gets put into prison. good results is a matter of opinion. I'd say that anything that erodes the first amendment is not a good result.

and no, it's not merely because muslims are involved. for christs fucking sake I'm one of the loudest defenders of muslims versus jews and christians on this board. BUT, their dogma does not apply to OUR legal standard. none of them do.

Judge Judy abides by a non-dogma infused legal standard. What she does doesn't directly conflict with our first amendment. You need to read it for yourself real quick?

 

[roomy]

arbitrating civil disputes as observed by legal precedence. If you want to privately take your conflicting party to church and hash it out then so be it. Having the GOV validate this process is over the line. We should have a common application of legal precedence and stop pretending that any sample of the population gets special consideration. Saving money at the cost of the first amendment? sorry. Religious organizations can do good for the community without the gov RESPECTING THEIR ESTABLISHMENT. And, thankfully, this is a British problem and not one that has festered here. I don't approve of any dogma based affiliation with our laws be they muslim, jewish, christian or buddhist.

It is not a problem to/for us at all.The muslims are an ignorant bunch of morons that need to be led by the hand.We are allowing them to arbitrate among themselves usually in neighbour and family disputes.If they can agree about who owns the most glass beads and whose side of the garden the fence is on without clogging up our courts I am all for it.It makes the idiots feel important and it saves the country money and manpower.

 

[AllieBaba]

If you don't know what you're talking about, it's better to keep your mouth shut and appear foolish, rather than opening it and proving it beyond doubt!

Read my frigging post again!!! Then perhaps it may dawn on you that there is no law specifically for muslims. They are making use of a clause in the Arbitration Act, made law in 1996, that allows ANYONE of ANY RACE, COLOUR or RELIGION to set up an arbitration tribunal to rule on family disputes. The rulings of which are enforceable in a legal court.



It's compulsory under the national curriculum, ignoramus!!!:

The Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families (Ed Balls): More than 1,500 students have now had the opportunity to visit the concentration camps at Auschwitz-Birkenau as a result of the work of the Holocaust Educational Trust and to build on the learning that they have received through the national curriculum about the horrors of the holocaust and the lessons that we should learn from it. I can announce today that we will allocate £4.65 million for the next three years to ensure that that work can continue. I can also reassure my hon. Friend that a proper evaluation of the funding on those trips, as well as of their impact on young people’s citizenship and their understanding of the world, will be built into the HET’s work as part of that three-year funding.

House of Commons Hansard Debates for 04 Feb 2008 (pt 0002)


If you want to take a pop at my country MAKE SURE YOU HAVE YOUR FUCKING facts right!!!!!!!

As always, I wonder why thin-skinned brits feel compelled to criticize our country and engage in our politics, while at the same time declaring their own off-limits.

 

[Bootneck]

As always, I wonder why thin-skinned brits feel compelled to criticize our country and engage in our politics, while at the same time declaring their own off-limits.

Well AB, this Brit is not thin skinned, and you'll not find one post of mine that criticises your country. You'll also find that I don't involve myself in your politics!! Take a look before opening that cakehole of yours!

This particular thread is about MY country and it is some of you that are criticizing IT.

Don't associate me with that dickhead Collins who is not British anyway.

I come here for some escapism, a bit of banter and a different perspective. OK honey!

 

[Bootneck]

Bootneck, your posts are informative and interesting. You are clearly smarter than the average bear. It never crossed my mind that you might be a woman but all the same, you are articulate and don't suffer fools gladly so I if you were a woman, I would be very proud to have you as a member of my sex

Anguille, thank you for that....and flattery will get you everywhere!

 

[Anguille]

It's the establishment of religion as a legal precedence, ang. forced to participate or not we don't let a segment of the population abide by their own rules despite a common legal standard. If an Amish dude kills then an Amish dude still gets put into prison. good results is a matter of opinion. I'd say that anything that erodes the first amendment is not a good result.

and no, it's not merely because muslims are involved. for christs fucking sake I'm one of the loudest defenders of muslims versus jews and christians on this board. BUT, their dogma does not apply to OUR legal standard. none of them do.

Judge Judy abides by a non-dogma infused legal standard. What she does doesn't directly conflict with our first amendment. You need to read it for yourself real quick?

Shogun, This isn't about rules and some segment of the population abiding by their own rules. This is about A-R-B-I-T-R-A-T-I-O-N. No laws are being changed. England is not adopting Sharia or Jewish law. Murder and other criminal cases don't go to arbitration, doofus!

Citizens are free to arbitrate their civil disputes before bringing a civil case before a judge. If both parties agree to use a certain arbitrator in hopes of reaching an agreement satisfactory to both and therefore avoiding a costly and timeconsuming lawsuit, how does this harm anyone or jeopardize seperation of church and state?

The only thing that might be in conflict is if the arbitrators provided by the religious organizations are allowed to conduct arbitration on government property or are paid by the government. That would be a violation of the First Amendment, IMO.

 

[Bootneck]

Check the avatar Anguille - RM Commando. Nick "Bootneck" (Brit slang for RM Commando). A bloke I went through recruit training with had a father who was a former RM Commando, very nice man and as tough as a bag of nails.

Yep, the term bootneck goes way back to the days of sail. It comes from the leather stock worn around the neck. Sailors used to suggest that Marines cut a strip from around the top of a sea boot to serve the purpose.

 

[Shogun]

Shogun, This isn't about rules and some segment of the population abiding by their own rules. This is about A-R-B-I-T-R-A-T-I-O-N. No laws are being changed. England is not adopting Sharia or Jewish law. Murder and other criminal cases don't go to arbitration, doofus!

Citizens are free to arbitrate their civil disputes before bringing a civil case before a judge. If both parties agree to use a certain arbitrator in hopes of reaching an agreement satisfactory to both and therefore avoiding a costly and timeconsuming lawsuit, how does this harm anyone or jeopardize seperation of church and state?

The only thing that might be in conflict is if the arbitrators provided by the religious organizations are allowed to conduct arbitration on government property or are paid by the government. That would be a violation of the First Amendment, IMO.

arbitration still requires a LEGAL PRECEDENT in order to have any validity to a legal outcome. In my opinion, this would conflict with the first amendment. By validating such religious input we declare a precedence that our dogma junkies would hone in on. It's not like there is no record of thumpers insisting that there is, or should be, christian input where there should not be (according to the constitution.


You disagree. fair enough. I can live with that.

 

[Diuretic]

Yep, the term bootneck goes way back to the days of sail. It comes from the leather stock worn around the neck. Sailors used to suggest that Marines cut a strip from around the top of a sea boot to serve the purpose.

I didn't know the origin of the nickname, that's interesting, thanks for the info.

 

[Diuretic]

I don't know if arbitration needs a legal precedent, particularly if it's voluntary. If an arbitration process requires a formal ruling that binds the party and is imposed by the arbitrator, yes, I think it does require a legal precedent. As I understand the British arbitration tribunals they're voluntary. If no agreement can be reached or someone breaks the agreement then I think the next stop is the courts. But if the agreement is reached and holds then there's no need for a formal court order.

 

[Anguille]

arbitration still requires a LEGAL PRECEDENT in order to have any validity to a legal outcome. In my opinion, this would conflict with the first amendment. By validating such religious input we declare a precedence that our dogma junkies would hone in on. It's not like there is no record of thumpers insisting that there is, or should be, christian input where there should not be (according to the constitution.


You disagree. fair enough. I can live with that.

Could you really call it a legal precedent? Seeing as it's a separate alternative to the court process? Anyway, I am just as concerned as you are about religious dogma infecting our legal system and compromising our constitutional rights.

I just don't see how the legal system could in anyway be tainted by permitting this, not the way requiring jurors to swear to god is still done in some US courtrooms.

 

[Anguille]

It is not a problem to/for us at all.The muslims are an ignorant bunch of morons that need to be led by the hand.We are allowing them to arbitrate among themselves usually in neighbour and family disputes.If they can agree about who owns the most glass beads and whose side of the garden the fence is on without clogging up our courts I am all for it.It makes the idiots feel important and it saves the country money and manpower.

While I'd hardly put it in those words, there is some truth to what you say. The justice system is overloaded in the US and no doubt is also in the UK.
I think this is also a harmless and cost free way in which to placate some of the religious fruitcakes who think that a secular government means their rights are being infringed on.

 

[CactusCarlos]

Let me explain something to retarded jesus freak americans....

It is alot more embarassing than admitting to being a transvestite.

....

Do you understand that jesus freak americans?

Maybe you're grumpy because your corset it too tight?

 

[KittenKoder]

Somehow my linker went to the wrong thread.

 

[GEORGE ORWELL]

WHAT IS BEST: CHRISTIAN CENSORSHIP? JEWISH CENSORSHIP? ISLAMIC CENSORSHIP? What's so strange about adopting Islamic laws? As kids to make us Kosher Christians we were forced into Sunday School to make good kids out of us. There we learned that Moses tolerated no opposition and killed all those who did. If anyone of us objected we were punished. All our Censorship laws stem from the Jewish Bible. Whole of Europe has them. All of Europe has Limited Censorship. We are told all of them love it. In fact, we are reminded it is the best Europe got. And then there is that American Censorship you read about above if you can read German. Germany gives you 5 years prison for doubting. Two years prison if you say someone's grandmother picked her nose in Church and here offspring objects. These laws were introduced by the Jewish lobby. And we are told no one objects. They all love it. So maybe they will love Islamic laws just as much. Perhaps even more?

 

[Charles Stucker]

What I want to know is what happens when someone is executed for apostasy because they converted away from Islam?
That is another of the dirty little truths about Sharia that Islamists like to hide - they murder anyone born to Islam who tries to convert to a different religion.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

This is a good point. I just don't see what the hysteria. No one HAS TO go to this religious tribunal. The British courts are always an option.

yea.. but.. were this to happen in the US i'd say my rebuttal would be that there should BE NO religious option that is an alternate to state law reflecting the federal constitution.


Thank the flying spaghetti monster for the first amendment.


oh, and for the brits in this thread.. Was it not Brittain's saturation of dogma in public law that causes people to flee to THIS continent? just checking.

You know there already is, right? Beth Din courts have existed in Brooklyn for a very long time.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

What I want to know is what happens when someone is executed for apostasy because they converted away from Islam?
That is another of the dirty little truths about Sharia that Islamists like to hide - they murder anyone born to Islam who tries to convert to a different religion.

And Charles wins the "I forgot to read the thread before I posted in it" award. These courts do not supersede British law. If someone is put to death for Apostasy, they will be prosecuted by the British Legal System.

 

[Charles Stucker]

What I want to know is what happens when someone is executed for apostasy because they converted away from Islam?
That is another of the dirty little truths about Sharia that Islamists like to hide - they murder anyone born to Islam who tries to convert to a different religion.

And Charles wins the "I forgot to read the thread before I posted in it" award. These courts do not supersede British law. If someone is put to death for Apostasy, they will be prosecuted by the British Legal System.

Wrong, I did read the thread. But the British have allowed so many radical Islamists into their country they may need to purge them all or risk such a future. This is another step toward Islam taking over Britain and forcibly converting the entire population to their beliefs. Anyone who cannot see that is wearing blinders