Echoes #fundie

Echoes #fundie acapella.harmony-central.com

[I think that what the OP doesn't realise is that the UK is effectively a post-religious society, and has been since the 1950s. That's incomprehensible to many Americans, but it's true.]

This is true...Has England gotten any better? hell no! ...

and just like the 'sissy-pants' Neville Chamberlain coward at the feet of Hitler as pompous Adolph laughed in his face, so, now, England has coward collectively giving SPECIAL 'Sharia Law' priviledges to Muslims Why can't they just live under the same law in England as everyone else?

and the Muslims will not stop there these people don't know how and don't care how to live in peace...they have *NEVER* demonstrated peaceful living in any situation where they are collected throughout their history. They don't create 'civilizations' or 'societies' they create training camps to teach their kids how to kill and blow-up innocent people (that they call infidels)

*IF* these animals can demonstrate that they can live in peace with other human beings...(again, which they NEVER have)...then their would be no problem...

But, as it is, THEY are the one's bringing hatred, bigotry and violence every where they go. Threats, murder and terrorism follow closely behind

40 comments

old comment by

There is no Sharia Law in England. The Sharia courts some ignorants like to provide as evidence of the "O noes muslins be taking over!!!11!!!1" are just another form of ADR which is perfectly legal and has been part of the law since the Arbitration Act 1996. According to the law, Sharia courts are perfectly legal and are bound by Common Law jurisdictions. They are no different than the thousand upon thousand of ADR and arbitration tribunals we find in the UK, however, because they are geared towards Muslims, unlike the others geared towards unions and Jews, we have to be afraid of them and ban them. Banning them would be unlawful. Hows that for irony...

old comment by solomongrundy

As stupid as most of the OP is the part about Sharia Law is right.

There should be ONE law in the UK, you shouldn't be able to opt for an alternative legal system. Particularly as women are BEATEN into accepting Sharia Law. I know as well as you do that no woman would be tried in a 'court' where her word will be worth half a man's if she wasn't intimidated into it.

Warning: Godwin coming up...
We appeased the Nazis in the nineteen-thirties and saw the consequence.
Appeasing the Islamic fascists will have the same result.

And I consider myself liberal, I have no idea what the far right's views on this are.

Edited to reply to xplicit_UK,

Beth Din courts have no business operating in the UK either. Either the civil and criminal law of the UK applies to all or it may as well apply to no-one.

old comment by

@solomongrundy:

Thats a fun theory, unfortunately it doesnt stand up in practice. Women are not beaten into accepting Sharia courts. Just like women arent beaten into accepting Beth Din courts that follow a law according to which women cant inherit anything. The rule you bring up relates to the way Muslims live there lives. It is a direction designed to secure the preservation of testimony relating to civil transactions, which requires that they must be reduced to writing, and which, unfortunately, is sometimes mistakenly seized upon as evidence of discrimination against females. The direction is as follows:

“Procure two witnesses from among your men; and if two men be not available, then one man and two women, of such as you like as witnesses, so that if either of the two women should be in danger of forgetting, the other may refresh her memory.” (2:283)

First of all this verse relates to financial transactions and not with every single matter. Secondly, it calls upon the testimony of 2 men instead of 1 man whereas it doesn't say that two women should testify, rather, it says that only 1 woman testifies. Thirdly, in the case of male witnesses their memory of a transaction that they attest as witnesses would be refreshed when they met socially and the transaction was recalled for one reason or another. In the case of a document recording a transaction, which is attested by one male and one female witness, the female witness would not normally have frequent occasion to meet the male witness and talk to him, so that there would be little chance of her memory of the transaction being refreshed. To overcome this lack of opportunity of refreshing the memory, it is provided that where only one male witness is available two female witnesses may be called upon so that, in the very words of the text, one may refresh the memory of the other. This provision is concerned only with the preservation of evidence, and does not deal with the weight to be attached to the testimony of a male or female witness. Ofcourse, this wouldnt apply if this was an agreement between women. There would be no need for a male witness.

And like I said before: There is no Sharia Law in England. The Sharia courts some ignorants like to provide as evidence of the "O noes muslins be taking over!!!11!!!1" are just another form of ADR which is perfectly legal and has been part of the law since the Arbitration Act 1996. According to the law, Sharia courts are perfectly legal and are bound by Common Law jurisdictions. They are no different than the thousand upon thousand of ADR and arbitration tribunals we find in the UK, however, because they are geared towards Muslims, unlike the others geared towards unions and Jews, we have to be afraid of them and ban them. Banning them would be unlawful. Hows that for irony...

old comment by solomongrundy

Anonymous #954940 wrote

The Sharia courts some ignorants like to provide as evidence of the "O noes muslins be taking over!!!11!!!1" are just another form of ADR

You (deliberately?) miss my point. There shouldn't be ANY form of ADR (Alternate Dispute Resolution) in the UK.

Everyone should be equal before the law. One law, for all.

If you don't like that then live somewhere else. There are plenty of countries with Sharia Law I'm sure you'd be happier in. Of course, they're all repressive backward hell-holes with not the least idea of democracy so you won't be able to disagree with anyone in the way we're doing now but I'm sure that won't worry you.

old comment by rw23

@solomongrundy: "You (deliberately?) miss my point. There shouldn't be ANY form of ADR (Alternate Dispute Resolution) in the UK."

ADR is a means by which some civil disputes may be resolved without troubling the (very busy) standard court system. The Jewish and Islamic 'courts' cater to appropriate cultural and religious traditions where English (and Welsh) law has not been violated. If, for example, a Muslim woman wishes to divorce her husband in a manner consistent with her beliefs and cultural background, she may apply to an ADR court (which may or may not be Sharia-based; cultural backgrounds also vary enormously) for the divorce process to be resolved, rather than take the standard secular route. If either party is not satisfied by the resultant ruling (and neither are forced to participate) they may drop the entire process and go through the standard court system like the rest of us.

The idea is to accommodate cultural and religious differences without overloading the already stressed civil courts. As far as the law is concerned, it's a sort of no-contest agreement (in terms of that divorce example) which reaches them rather than the usual time and expense-laden argument. It's really little different to two people agreeing to let a neutral but non-official arbiter help them to a conclusion; that doesn't always work out but when it does it saves us taxpayers a lot of money. Of course it's no more likely to be 100% just than any other human system, but that's not a disqualifier when adults are walking into something with their eyes open.

Personally I think it's a very civilised way of dealing with a small set of civil situations. I'd certainly want it to be available to me if I, as an atheist, found myself facing, say, a divorce in an overtly Christian and Biblical-literalist state court system.

old comment by Stimbo

The official UK Government position regarding Sharia law, in a response to a recent petition:

"Shari’a law is the code of personal religious law governing the conduct of Muslims. It can extend into all aspects of people’s lives personal, religious, family, civil and criminal.

Shari’a law is not part of the law of England and Wales. The Government does not intend to change this position in relation to the whole or part of the United Kingdom. However, provided an activity prescribed by Shari’a law does not contravene the law of England and Wales, there is nothing to prohibit it. Muslims can, for example, wear traditional dress and follow dietary rules. They are completely free to worship in the way that they want.

There can never be reliance on the fact that an act is permitted under Shari’a law as a justification for committing what is, under the law of England and Wales, a criminal act. Nor, for example, could someone expect a civil court, in reaching a decision on a contractual case under English or Scottish law, to apply the principles of Shari’a law.

Criminal matters, both small and serious, will always be heard in a Crown or Magistrate’s Court in England and Wales, and in Sheriff’s Courts in Scotland. The decisions made in an alternative court will not be recognised."

http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page17960

old comment by Darwin's Bullfrog

This is true...Has England gotten any better? hell no! ...

Hell yes. Standards of living, life expectancy, civil freedoms, etc. are all improved since the Fifties.

and just like the 'sissy-pants' Neville Chamberlain coward at the feet of Hitler as pompous Adolph laughed in his face, so, now, England has coward collectively giving SPECIAL 'Sharia Law' priviledges to Muslims

No we haven't. That must be the echo coming out of your ass you're hearing. Oh, and it's "cowered".

Why can't they just live under the same law in England as everyone else?

They do you retard.

and the Muslims will not stop there these people don't know how and don't care how to live in peace...they have *NEVER* demonstrated peaceful living in any situation where they are collected throughout their history.

So the peaceful mostly-Muslim community in which I live is what? A figment of my atheist imagination?

They don't create 'civilizations' or 'societies' they create training camps to teach their kids how to kill and blow-up innocent people (that they call infidels)

Admit it; you're pleased about that. You like having an enemy so you can cream your pants about the forthcoming Armageddon.

*IF* these animals can demonstrate that they can live in peace with other human beings...(again, which they NEVER have)...then their would be no problem...

I guess there's no problem then, because my neighbours are perfectly nice. Or, just maybe, the world is a little bit more complex than that.

But, as it is, THEY are the one's bringing hatred, bigotry and violence every where they go. Threats, murder and terrorism follow closely behind

Did this post really come from a site called Harmony Central? This week's irony award goes to...

old comment by

If any European person were to emmigrate to a Middle Eastern country and expect that country to provide any kind of dispute resolution or legal process that accommodates his or her Western values, s/he would be labeled arrogant and bigoted. Yet Middle-Easterners come into Europe, expect European courts to alter their rules and traditions to suit them, and again, it's the Europeans who are labeled arrogant, bigoted and xenophobic for objecting to it. Typical fucking double-standard.

It doesn't matter HOW insignificant the disputes solved in Sharia or other ADR courts is. If you have asked a country to take you in as an immigrant, you have an obligation to accept the laws, traditions, and cultural practices, as far as the courts go, as your own. It's called ASSIMILATION. It's also called RESPECT for the country and the people who have been good enough to take you in. You want Sharia law or Sharia divorce? GTFO of Europe and go live in a Muslim country.

old comment by

@Glock 20:

Israel banned the Arab parties.

Also, thats like saying that Spain is at war. Or that India is at war. Insurgencies and or resistance can be found everywhere on the earth, from every religious and or social group. Doesnt mean all thos countries are warlike or at war with everyone else.

@#955834:

These ADR tribunals and courts ARE part of UK law. They abide by the Common Law Jurisdictions! Banning them would be AGAINST the law. If you dont want ADR campaign to get the law changed. Ofcourse the law wont be changed because the unions will crush you before you even get to the social and religious groups. ADR was implemented to relieve the stress, financial and otherwise, placed upon the conventional courts. Yes, you can settle disputes in ADR, but that doesnt set them apart from UK Law, they are a part of it. That is something most people dont seem to understand.