http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article4749183.ece

Dreadful.

What in the world happened to these people?

The PC police have taken over. Tehy go so far to not offend anyone that they wind up hurting themselves. Sad.

Why is this such a bad thing?

From the article:

"Sheikh Faiz-ul-Aqtab Siddiqi, whose Muslim Arbitration Tribunal runs the courts, said he had taken advantage of a clause in the Arbitration Act 1996.

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 no different than any court of arbitration in this country, or even those that wish to have their case settled by "Judge Judy".

This is just the logical consequence of britain's way of dealing with immigrant communities. They have always been advocating a community system where people are not supposed to mix in an egalitarian society, but are supposed to coexist while keeping a strong cultural cohesion.
This systemm has benefits and drawbacks. Personnally I think it will eventually cause more trouble ti british society than benefits.

This is no different than any court of arbitration in this country, or even those that wish to have their case settled by "Judge Judy".

True, but I'm unaware of any arbitrators in this country who base their decisions on anything other than U.S. common law.

I have mixed feelings about this.

Why is this such a bad thing?
"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.

In the six cases of domestic violence, Siddiqi said the judges ordered the husbands to take anger management classes and mentoring from community elders. There was no further punishment.

In each case, the women subsequently withdrew the complaints they had lodged with the police and the police stopped their investigations."

It is a way for Muslim men to bring their backwards sexism to Britain. Sharia law cannot be tolerated by Britain if it hopes to defend its citizens' rights.

We're right behind 'em. The US & England are both proving to be countries that court a nauseatingly diverse grab bag of useless, genetic party favors that our respective governments are letting overrun their own citizens. Welcome to the "free" world, circa 1990 +.

In short, Britain's forgotten WHY they adopted those laws in the first place, hence their little foray into the wonderful world of Muslim law.

Of course, on a side note, I'm glad to hear they're even bigger whores than we are, but as I already said above, we're undoubtedly next. It's just a matter of time now.

Why is this such a bad thing?
Uhh, maybe because it's not their fucking country!?!? It they want law to be adjudicated in Muslim courts, then perhaps they should, I don't know.....go home.
This is no different than any court of arbitration in this country, or even those that wish to have their case settled by "Judge Judy".
Yes, it is. You see, Judge Judy still abides by something called U.S. law, because, as Americans, we're still under the impression that our brand of jurisprudence is fairly good, and all.

You can't be serious with this, Vile. If you are, then you're a flat-out threat to this country, and I'm not kidding. What do you have against assimilation? We're here to be a welcome mat - not a door mat.

A welcome mat is a door mat, dude.

We're here to have a welcome mat, not be one.

Okay, that was a better way to put it. Thanks.

Not for nothing, but I'm certainly glad you were able to figure out what I was trying to say.

Uhh, maybe because it's not their fucking country!?!?

Are you sure? I don't recall the article talking about anyone's citizenship status.


It they want law to be adjudicated in Muslim courts, then perhaps they should, I don't know.....go home.

Maybe they are home.


Yes, it is. You see, Judge Judy still abides by something called U.S. law, because, as Americans, we're still under the impression that our brand of jurisprudence is fairly good, and all.

And I would agree.


You can't be serious with this, Vile. If you are, then you're a flat-out threat to this country, and I'm not kidding. What do you have against assimilation? We're here to be a welcome mat - not a door mat.

*chuckles* I see...because I don't feel as threatened as you by a an arbitration system that will never affect me, I'm a "threat" to this country. Frankly, you sound like SMW here. :)

A few points. The system is completely voluntary. Both parties must first agree to have their case handled in this way, and I trust that the participants are aware of the vagaries of sharia law and are willing to abide by them. If sharia typically favors men over women, I may not agree with that, but I trust that any woman who chooses to have her case adjudicated under sharia law is aware of that, and is making an informed choice. I would think that anyone who is in favor of smaller government, and the right of individuals to make their own choices free of government regulation, would be in favor of having more such choices to make. I'm also in favor of measures that reduce the load on our overburdened legal system, and I see this as a largely harmless one. I would also point out that it saves the taxpayers money, and I'm certainly in favor of that.

Lastly, I'd like to say that concern over this idea is largely Islamophobia. For many years now, Jewish couples in the US have been going to Jewish courts of arbitration to have their divorces settled outside of the US legal system. These decisions are binding, provided both parties agree to this arrangement beforehand, and the divorces are settled according to Jewish legal traditions. I don't think this has caused any major problems in this country, nor has it undermined our judicial system in any way, and fears that sharia will become the law of the land in this country are simply absurd.

True, but I'm unaware of any arbitrators in this country who base their decisions on anything other than U.S. common law.

Well, I'm not so sure. The organization that deals with Jewish divorces is called Beth Din.

Here's a link to the Pre-nuptual Arbitration Agreement form they have their clients fill out.

http://www.rabbis.org/pdfs/Halachic%20Prenuptial%20Arbitration%20Agreement.pd f

I could be wrong, but if you look at the bottom of page one, there are options that the couple can agree to, and one of the options appears to be to have your arbitration handled under US marriage laws, or not. I'm assuming the "not" would be to have your case decided based on Rabbinical law.

A few points. The system is completely voluntary. Both parties must first agree to have their case handled in this way, and I trust that the participants are aware of the vagaries of sharia law and are willing to abide by them. If sharia typically favors men over women, I may not agree with that, but I trust that any woman who chooses to have her case adjudicated under sharia law is aware of that, and is making an informed choice. I would think that anyone who is in favor of smaller government, and the right of individuals to make their own choices free of government regulation, would be in favor of having more such choices to make. I'm also in favor of measures that reduce the load on our overburdened legal system, and I see this as a largely harmless one. I would also point out that it saves the taxpayers money, and I'm certainly in favor of that.One thing you forgot to mention. Women are treated lower than second class citizens by followers of sharia law. If we're allowing that law to decide cases in this country, we are in effect, taking away any hope of them being treated fairly and putting a lot of strain on these women. If they refuse to allow the law of their people to decide their case, do you think they will be treated by the community fairly? I dont think so, personally.









Lastly, I'd like to say that concern over this idea is largely Islamophobia. For many years now, Jewish couples in the US have been going to Jewish courts of arbitration to have their divorces settled outside of the US legal system. These decisions are binding, provided both parties agree to this arrangement beforehand, and the divorces are settled according to Jewish legal traditions. I don't think this has caused any major problems in this country, nor has it undermined our judicial system in any way, and fears that sharia will become the law of the land in this country are simply absurd.Is it Islamophobia to believe that sharia law will become the law of SOME in this land? I dont think so. You're in America, live by OUR laws or gtfo.

One thing you forgot to mention. Women are treated lower than second class citizens by followers of sharia law. If we're allowing that law to decide cases in this country, we are in effect, taking away any hope of them being treated fairly and putting a lot of strain on these women. If they refuse to allow the law of their people to decide their case, do you think they will be treated by the community fairly? I dont think so, personally.

Here's where I disagree with you. "We" aren't doing anything more than allowing our citizens, or resident aliens, to make an informed choice for themselves.


Is it Islamophobia to believe that sharia law will become the law of SOME in this land? I dont think so.

I do. A phobia is typically described as "an unreasonable fear". What exactly are you afraid of? Being forced into following sharia law? It's an honest question, HaVoK. What bad things will happen here if we allow this to happen in this country.


You're in America, live by OUR laws or gtfo.

One of our most basic laws is the right to worship how we see fit, and if that means a person feels his marriage is a matter between him or herself and God, and such disputes should be handled by a religious court, I have no fear of that. It doesn't matter to me if the court is Muslim, or Jewish, or a group of tribal elders on a Native American reservation. It's no threat to me, or this country.

Frankly, you sound like SMW here. :)
Ouch! FYI - that was lower than being called a threat, dude. :bat:

Maybe they are home.
C'mon, Vile. I wouldn't rent a room from you and then proceed to make structural changes to that area your house. It's still YOUR home, isn't it, or did you lose your say when I signed the lease? Why not just write different rules for everyone - then we can ALL be happy!!!

That's ridiculous, at best.
A few points. The system is completely voluntary.
Uh oh, looks like we're dealing with the Jack Kevorkian defense... :eek:
Lastly, I'd like to say that concern over this idea is largely Islamophobia.
Oh, so you're fine with stoning gays or lopping off arms as long as it's consensual? Where do we draw the line? Speaking of which, there's a reason westerners look down on that kinda shit, Vile - it doesn't fly in civilized society, and it damn well shouldn't. We BUILT the society THEY wanna live in - the least they can do is live by our rules. You know, it comes down to that whole, like, 'when in Rome' thing...
For many years now, Jewish couples in the US have been going to Jewish courts of arbitration to have their divorces settled outside of the US legal system.
Here's where we go seriously awry; you're talking about divorce court, not "criminal" court. Big difference. As I said before, if you wanna live by another system's laws, then move back to your shithole, and stop bothering us with your brand of backwards 'diversity'. As far as I'm concerned.....this isn't crazy; THIS.....IS.....SPARTA! ::and down the well you go, you slimy, hunchbacked Persian::

C'mon, Vile. I wouldn't rent a room from you and then proceed to make structural changes to that area your house. It's still YOUR home, isn't it, or did you lose your say when I signed the lease? Why not just write different rules for everyone - then we can ALL be happy!!!
You automatically assume that they're immigrants invading the country. What if they're citizens? Even regardless of how long they've been in the country, citizens are citizens. It's beyond wrong to classify citizens into second class groups based on how long their family has been in the country. Beyond that, what if they're not naturalized citizens? What if they're second generation or more citizens, born in the country? The problem is not that they're "new", because they may not be, it's because they happen to have a different religion than you. What's the point of communities if they're forced to follow the culture of the neighboring community? Which culture is better?
I do however think that these courts need to be policed by British judges. Just because you happen to have a religion does not mean that it puts you above the law and allows you to disregard generally accepted basic rights. It's the idea that you can arbitrate amongst yourselves as long as it doesn't interfere with the law. In the US it would be as long as you don't violate the constitution, or well accepted precedent. However because of our constitution this would never be accepted in the US. Separation of Church and State would prevent it, they don't quite have that over there.

Interesting thread.
My thougts would be that in America, as well as anywhere else, ALL individuals are judged by the same judical system.

You automatically assume that they're immigrants invading the country.
Not at all. If that's the way you took it, I didn't mean for you to. I just want them to abide by the same rules. That's not an unreasonable request.
What if they're citizens?
Then act like citizens. I'm not encroaching on your religious freedom with that expectation. If you wanna fuck blowup goats, then fuck blowup goats - I couldn't care less. BUT...if you want me to "accept" your religious right to fuck live goats, then step into my office, Achmed. We don't do things like that around here. You see, we respect that animal's right to a clean ass, just like we respect our system of jurisprudence, which, believe it or not, was in play long before your ass showed up, so deal with it.
It's beyond wrong to classify citizens into second class groups based on how long their family has been in the country.
By asking them to adhere to your laws, no one's treating them like a "second-class" citizen. That's PAINFULLY obvious.
What's the point of communities if they're forced to follow the culture of the neighboring community? Which culture is better?
It's not about which culture is "better" - it's about assimilating into the culture you've chosen to live in.
I do however think that these courts need to be policed by British judges.
Uh, yeah.
Just because you happen to have a religion does not mean that it puts you above the law and allows you to disregard generally accepted basic rights. It's the idea that you can arbitrate amongst yourselves as long as it doesn't interfere with the law.
With regards to criminal law, it doesn't matter - you either follow the law of the land, or you get out, period. It's not subject to interpretation. If you don't like it, well, you can always renounce your citizenship (which I sincerely doubt you care much about outside of fattening your wallet) and go home.
Separation of Church and State would prevent it, they don't quite have that over there.
The reason we did that is BECAUSE of England. Go figure. I wonder if that's what they call "righteous" retribution?

Interesting thread.
My thougts would be that in America, as well as anywhere else, ALL individuals are judged by the same judical system.
Typically, yes.

C'mon, Vile. I wouldn't rent a room from you and then proceed to make structural changes to that area your house. It's still YOUR home, isn't it, or did you lose your say when I signed the lease? Why not just write different rules for everyone - then we can ALL be happy!!!

As Blib correctly points out, if they're citizens, they're not "renting".


Oh, so you're fine with stoning gays or lopping off arms as long as it's consensual?

No, but since that's not happening in Britain, and it wouldn't happen here either, you're statement is just an absurd attempt to be inflammatory.


Where do we draw the line?

Hopefully somewhere before limbs are lost. ;)


Speaking of which, there's a reason westerners look down on that kinda shit, Vile - it doesn't fly in civilized society, and it damn well shouldn't. We BUILT the society THEY wanna live in - the least they can do is live by our rules. You know, it comes down to that whole, like, 'when in Rome' thing...

Are you saying the US isn't a "civilized society"?


Here's where we go seriously awry; you're talking about divorce court, not "criminal" court. Big difference.

Yes there is a difference, and I fail to see why you think criminal matters are handled by courts of arbitration. Now, the article posted earlier did mention something about some cases of "domestic violence", but I'm not clear they were referring to criminal offenses. In this country, courts of arbitration don't handle criminal offenses, and I don't think anyone is advocating that. Certainly not I. The issues handled by such courts are those issues which are typically sent to "Family Court" in this country.


As I said before, if you wanna live by another system's laws, then move back to your shithole, and stop bothering us with your brand of backwards 'diversity'. As far as I'm concerned.....this isn't crazy; THIS.....IS.....SPARTA! ::and down the well you go, you slimy, hunchbacked Persian::

Perhaps you'd like to deport some of our Jewish citizens to Israel? Or is it just the Muslims who want to do this that should be "sent home"?

As Blib correctly points out, if they're citizens, they're not "renting".
Semantics; we're ALL renters. If we fail to live up to the system's requirements, we're punished, end of story.

Nice dodge, BTW. ;)
Are you saying the US isn't a "civilized society"?
No more so or less so than any other western nation.
Yes there is a difference, and I fail to see why you think criminal matters are handled by courts of arbitration.
From the article: "Siddiqi said he expected the courts to handle a greater number of “smaller” criminal cases in coming years as more Muslim clients approach them. “All we are doing is regulating community affairs in these cases,” said Siddiqi, chairman of the governing council of the tribunal."
Now, the article posted earlier did mention something about some cases of "domestic violence", but I'm not clear they were referring to criminal offenses.
What would you consider it??? :confused: A man beating one of his wives is unacceptable, period. And what the hell is a "nuisance neighbour", and why are they being held to the standard of Muslim law (enforced by the British authorities with the citizen's tax dollars, no less)? This whole thing stinks to high Mecca.
Perhaps you'd like to deport some of our Jewish citizens to Israel? Or is it just the Muslims who want to do this that should be "sent home"?
According to that article, I see them as wanting to institute two very different systems of arbitration.