• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Inside Britain's sharia courts

starcitizen said:
Once again these Sharia tribunals are given an air of legitimacy under the arbitration act of 1996 and they are exceeding their jurisdiction and these women generally don't speak English let alone understand the finer points of the law especially since their own families and communities are lying to them and even when/if they do they are being forced to use them and abide by their decisions under the threats of violence, murder, and being ostracized by their families and communities.
Click to expand...
None of that changes anything in the fact that in Britain the law of the land supersedes anything else.

I'd personally be all for abolishing these arbitration things totally. Of necessity that would also include any church court and of course the Beth Din.
 
Gardener said:
I often wonder whether it has to do with age and education. I am 60, and cut my political teeth in the 60s and 70s. Most of my friends likewise, and most have Masters or phds while remaining true to the same liberal values of the era. Not a one of them talks like those here who see their mission as championing Islam.

Between the hopelessly uneducated and the ultra-conformist products of an educational system more concerned with indoctrination than truth, it seems liberalism has all but disappeared.
Click to expand...

Who here champions Islam?
 
mak2 said:
Yea, give examples on this thread of posters championing Islam.
Click to expand...

All those here who support the sharia courts are supporting the Islamist mission.

Complete ignorance is no excuse.
 
mak2 said:
Who here champions Islam?
Click to expand...
Ah, but this is not about factuality, it's about perception doanchaknow?

Obviously anyone objecting to wholesale condemnation of a whole set of people (communality of same arising from adherence to whatever) is championing their cause of communality.

Right?

Nope, utter bullcrap but when opinions are already formed, who the heck cares?
 
mak2 said:
Yea, give examples on this thread of posters championing Islam.
Click to expand...
Let's see if even one name is offered.

Mind you I've been asked by the poster whether I'm not really an Islamist so maybe you can do with me. :mrgreen:
 
Gardener said:
All those here who support the sharia courts are supporting the Islamist mission.

Complete ignorance is no excuse.
Click to expand...

I am simply questioning the conservative hysteria about creeping sharia. I am sure in the right wing reality questioning a conservarive thought is tantamount to supporting Islam. But it isnt. Perhaps you should reconsider who is really indoctrinated.
 
Chagos said:
Ah, but this is not about factuality, it's about perception doanchaknow?

Obviously anyone objecting to wholesale condemnation of a whole set of people (communality of same arising from adherence to whatever) is championing their cause of communality.

Right?

Nope, utter bullcrap but when opinions are already formed, who the heck cares?
Click to expand...


Not a single one of you has countered ANYTHING the more knowledgeable people have offered by way of the discriminatory nature of the Sharia jurisprudence you defend.

Taken as such, that indicates tacit approval.
 
:lamo:lamo:lamo

I've just stated my stance of finding the abolishment of arbitration courts (all of them) desirable and a mere 8 post back at that. Addressing their religious nature specifically.

Reading comprehension issues as well, dearie me. :mrgreen:
 
mak2 said:
I am simply questioning the conservative hysteria about creeping sharia. I am sure in the right wing reality questioning a conservarive thought is tantamount to supporting Islam. But it isnt. Perhaps you should reconsider who is really indoctrinated.
Click to expand...

"conservative hysteria"

It is obvious that you do not understand the meaning of conservative much less hysteria.

You are defending a system of jurisprudence that discriminates against women for no other reason than you have an extraordinarily simple-minded view of the world where you do not evaluate a situation based upon whether or not it actually conforms to liberal ideals, but only by whether or not you view it according to a very primitive left/right schism. You are not supporting liberalism here, obviously so because you defend misogyny, but only acting as an anti-conservative.

The truth of the matter is that the implementation of sharia is an example of an extreme conservatism -- so extreme that it seeks to conserve 7th century cultural mores -- and it is only your profound ignorance as to what the political terms actually mean that has led you to defend it.

I am not a right winger, even if you lack the ability to comprehend what political terms mean.
 
Gardener said:
"conservative hysteria"

It is obvious that you do not understand the meaning of conservative much less hysteria.

You are defending a system of jurisprudence that discriminates against women for no other reason than you have an extraordinarily simple-minded view of the world where you do not evaluate a situation based upon whether or not it actually conforms to liberal ideals, but only by whether or not you view it according to a very primitive left/right schism. You are not supporting liberalism here, obviously so because you defend misogyny, but only acting as an anti-conservative.

The truth of the matter is that the implementation of sharia is an example of an extreme conservatism -- so extreme that it seeks to conserve 7th century cultural mores -- and it is only your profound ignorance as to what the political terms actually mean that has led you to defend it.

I am not a right winger, even if you lack the ability to comprehend what political terms mean.
Click to expand...

I am not defending anything. I am scoffing at the RW conservative or whatever hysteria about creeping sharia. I am sure Muslim womens rights somewhere in Europe is not really the concern here.
 
mak2 said:
I am not defending anything. I am scoffing at the RW conservative or whatever hysteria about creeping sharia. I am sure Muslim womens rights somewhere in Europe is not really the concern here.
Click to expand...

Again, you are at it with this extremely simple-minded framing device.

You only know what dogmatic positions you are supposed to support, but have absolutely no understanding as to why, least of which having anything to do with liberalism.

Women's rights ARE the issue here. DUH!
 
starcitizen said:
Once again they are exceeding their authority, breaking British law, handling criminal cases, and women are being forced to use them and abide by their decisions under the threat of violence, murder, and being ostracized by their families and communities!
Click to expand...

Let me prick your fantasy balloon with a fact injection.

" ...Some campaigners worry about using mediation by religious bodies to work out agreements about children and finances after a marriage breaks down. In 2014 Baroness Cox, a member of the House of Lords, tried to introduce a law to ensure that women aren’t disadvantaged in mediation by religious bodies, and make clear that they aren’t a court.

But, formally, this is already the case.

While feuding couples have to at least consider mediation before going to court, it doesn’t override family law. A court has to sign off on any agreement made after divorce for it to be legally binding, and won’t do so if the judge thinks it’s unfair.

In 2013, the High Court was asked by an Orthodox Jewish couple to accept the ruling of a Jewish religious court on post-divorce family arrangements. The judge said that while the agreement would carry weight, it would be non-binding—neither party could get around English law by agreeing to abide by the decision of another tribunal.

Rather than open the door to “Sharia divorces”, as some newspapers reported, the judgment confirmed that agreements made in a religious form are ultimately subject to English law. ... "

https://fullfact.org/law/uk_sharia_courts-39429
 
Manc Skipper said:
Let me prick your fantasy balloon with a fact injection.

" ...Some campaigners worry about using mediation by religious bodies to work out agreements about children and finances after a marriage breaks down. In 2014 Baroness Cox, a member of the House of Lords, tried to introduce a law to ensure that women aren’t disadvantaged in mediation by religious bodies, and make clear that they aren’t a court.

But, formally, this is already the case.

While feuding couples have to at least consider mediation before going to court, it doesn’t override family law. A court has to sign off on any agreement made after divorce for it to be legally binding, and won’t do so if the judge thinks it’s unfair.

In 2013, the High Court was asked by an Orthodox Jewish couple to accept the ruling of a Jewish religious court on post-divorce family arrangements. The judge said that while the agreement would carry weight, it would be non-binding—neither party could get around English law by agreeing to abide by the decision of another tribunal.

Rather than open the door to “Sharia divorces”, as some newspapers reported, the judgment confirmed that agreements made in a religious form are ultimately subject to English law. ... "

https://fullfact.org/law/uk_sharia_courts-39429
Click to expand...
Oh ferchrissake, stop it.

The feast of goodwill is upon us, if it were designed to celebrate your disgusting agenda it would be called "bubble pop".

On which note, have a good one. ;)
 
Chagos said:
None of that changes anything in the fact that in Britain the law of the land supersedes anything else.

I'd personally be all for abolishing these arbitration things totally. Of necessity that would also include any church court and of course the Beth Din.
Click to expand...

Are the catholic and Jewish arbitration courts exceeding their authority and are people being forced to use them and abide by their decisions? If not then it would appear you're throwing the baby out with the bath water.
 
Chagos said:
Ah, but this is not about factuality, it's about perception doanchaknow?

Obviously anyone objecting to wholesale condemnation of a whole set of people (communality of same arising from adherence to whatever) is championing their cause of communality.

Right?

Nope, utter bullcrap but when opinions are already formed, who the heck cares?
Click to expand...

This is a systemic problem with the sharia tribunals I have already posted the quotes from the President of the tribunal system calling for the legalization of rape and a chairmen on the tribunal board calling for the legalization of domestic violence. These are salafist created and operated institutions these problems are not the exception they are the rule.
 
Manc Skipper said:
Let me prick your fantasy balloon with a fact injection.

" ...Some campaigners worry about using mediation by religious bodies to work out agreements about children and finances after a marriage breaks down. In 2014 Baroness Cox, a member of the House of Lords, tried to introduce a law to ensure that women aren’t disadvantaged in mediation by religious bodies, and make clear that they aren’t a court.

But, formally, this is already the case.
Click to expand...

But in formally and in reality it is not the case as has been proven to you over and over.
 
That's a legal opinion you are dismissing in preference to your paranoid fantasy.
 
starcitizen said:
Are the catholic and Jewish arbitration courts exceeding their authority and are people being forced to use them and abide by their decisions? If not then it would appear you're throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Click to expand...
The UK has something of an issue in that it cannot exactly define itself as being completely secular (no constitutional separation of church and state, alone by lack of any such constitution altogether). Nevertheless I'm fairly certain that the legal beagles could cook something up for throwing all the "religious within keeping of common law" verdicts out for good.

If you want to make a special "te absolvo" for those not fitting your favorite black beast image, you've missed the point of everything I've said.

Ever heard of equality?

But, just to address your puerile attempt at white-washing the more favorite, how many Catholics do you know that have ever succeeded in having their church's verdict (for instance of non-recognition of their civil divorce) negated by civil law (again)? IOW where does the Vatican law comply with the law of the land here?

A classical case of Rome superseding Britain, certainly to a devout Catholic.
 
starcitizen said:
This is a systemic problem with the sharia tribunals I have already posted the quotes from the President of the tribunal system calling for the legalization of rape and a chairmen on the tribunal board calling for the legalization of domestic violence. These are salafist created and operated institutions these problems are not the exception they are the rule.
Click to expand...
I've already addressed the religious courts of any denomination, you bringing this up as response to my post is simply stupid.

It's not pertinent to the issue raised and addressed of championship of Islam.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Which proves that mere facts can't puncture that fantasy balloon. Fantasies are, after all, far more persuasive than facts.
Click to expand...

You mean, like the fantasy that this does not violate the principle of the separation of religion and politics, or the fantasy that the women coerced into submitting to them are doing so voluntarily or the fantasy that the Imams steeped in Sharia law are going to completely change the way they do business as if by magic?

Yes, those are some mighty powerful fantasies that the non liberal portion of the left has embraced. Rather than paranoid, I would call them schizoid, though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom