Sharia courts operating in Britain.

[Michael]

You know, I posted this in anther thread and I think it illustrates the point now. The ideology of White Supremacy is a long and enduring beleif system. Should we have All White Courts that settle points of difference between White Supremacists because they don't trust Darky up there ruling down on them? Well? I certainly don't think so and I don't f*cking care how old the beleif is. BUT I bet sure as Hell a lot of WASPs think that's a swell idea. Just as there are a lot of Religious people who think they'd best be the ones doling out their own laws concerning their own people.

Just because we're multicultural does not mean anything goes. Far from it. We have to work harder than ever to integrate. This means having the guts to stand up and say: Your White Supremacy Bull Shit is Unacceptable.

The only way to tackle that problem is head on with effective education and propaganda.

Michael

 

[Asguard]

michael i will ask you again,
what is the difference between the jewish courts which have been operating for the last 100 years and these courts?

 

[Michael]

And I'll say again, They Should Be Private As Well! I didn't know there were Jewish Courts - if I had, I'd have complained about them as well!!

So, let me reiterate, I see no difference. It is fine for Private Superstitious Organizations to issue private rulings so long as they don't break Civil Law but I do not support Private Superstitious Organizations become equal with Civil Law.

That's My Opinion and I haven't heard an argument that will change it yet. Sure it may be that in 3 generations Muslims realize Shiara Law is bull shit and shun it but I fail to see WHY Shiara Law must be legally binding for that to occur? Why not simply let them go to their Courts of Superstitions and when they get a ruling they don't like - SIMPLY DON'T FOLLOW the FINDING! Then they will of course turn to a Civil Court for Arbitration and in this way come to realize Courts of Superstition are not worth while.

Done and Done,
Michael

 

[Asguard]

why dont i belive you?

i asked you specifically about jewish courts and i get one line and then a rant about sharia.

i wonder are you muslim?
do you have any muslim friends?

what exactly gives you ANY experiance to pass judgment on them?
sam has said that she would be happy to work under sharia law and SHE not YOU is much more likly to actually know what the fuck she is talking about

futher more i notice you have COMPLEATLY ignored what i posted about aborigionals

 

[Michael]

Asguard,

I'll try to answer your questions one at a time.

1) I do not agree that as a society we should have "Jewish" (or any other religous / superstitious courts). I think this segregates one people from the other and I think it is wrong. It can lead to a notion of "US" -vs- "THEM" which believe it or not, I think is not a good thing. I think history bears this out.

I was once in a MI Supreme Magistrates house when I over heard her on a call. She said, something along the lines of: No, if he's not Jewish I will not support him for Magistrate. I was pretty pissed off. What does being Jewish have to do with whether or not someone will make a good Civil Servant?

So, again, I do not support Superstitious Jewish Courts.

2) Do I have any muslim friends? Yes, I'm having a beer with my friend Mohammad this Friday. I just got off the phone a minute ago.

3) What exactly gives you ANY experience to pass judgment on them? I'm not sure if I understand this question.

4) SAM has said that she would be happy to work under sharia law and SHE not YOU is much more likly to actually know what the fuck she is talking about. Fine she can do so in her country. When she comes to Japan she will work under Japanese Law and in China under Chinese Law and in Australia under Australian Law. If I go to Iran then I will work under Sharia Law.

5) I notice you have COMPLEATLY ignored what i posted about aborigionals. I said, I don't think that the present system of things is working well for aboriginals and I would like to see more integration of Aboriginals into mainstream Australia. A lot of people are working hard to make things better and for my part I think more integration and better education is the key to success.

No more dole too. I grew up on welfare and can safely say it destroys people's lives.

 

[Tiassa]

Don't inflate what you hate

This part of your argument is a fallacy.

The point is not how old the faith is. Anyway, one could argue we should have Courts based on ancient Athenian Law, Hindu Law, Shinto Law, Buddhist Law ... .... etc.... I simply disagree.

And I think you're being disingenuous to declare a fallacy over multiple considerations and then only attempt to address one.

That’s my opinion I have laid out my rational, you very well can think me an intolerant ass for thinking it, but in the end I will stand by the notion that Superstitious Courts whether they be CoS, Islam, Tao, Jewish, Christian or what have you should NOT be enforced by the State. If they want to have them for themselves THAT'S FINE.

I think your low regard for religion challenges your ability to make a rational argument. You seem to be pursuing an antagonistic course instead of one intended to address the legitimate issues surrounding the notion of Sharia courts.

Here's an example of why mixing Religious Law with Civil Law sucks salty balls and why the argument that because a Superstition is 1200 years old it is any more valid than 50 year old superstitious bullshit and what ultimately can happen when Civil secular governments mix up with Superstitious Belief:
3) Indonesia bans Islamic sect

Indonesia's Attorney General has banned a controversial Islamic sect from practising in the country. But the government has stopped short of disbanding the Ahmadiyah sect altogether.

It should be noted, this was a Muslims ruling against fellow Muslims. There's no West, no East, no Hindu, no colonization, no Jews, no one to blame. This is exactly what's wrong with Shiara Law in Britain.

Not only are you restricting yourself to only one aspect of the difference between Scientology and other religions, your statement that, "This is exactly what's wrong with Sharia Law in Britain", makes absolutely no sense. The Chinese ban Chinese religions. The Catholics persecute Catholic churches.

You're trying to have a specific argument that, in the end, is utterly impotent. Quite clearly, the British are determined to do this, and unless someone comes up with a binding legal reason they should not, that's all there is to it. So instead of making silly comparisons of CoS (a drunken boast), FSM (a matter of spite), and Jedi (a matter of spite) to Islam (a classic religion with long history, deep influence, and broad application), you would serve your own sense of outrage better by finding something of a rational argument.

If this move by the British simply cannot be stopped, perhaps you might shift your efforts to understanding its impact in order to take part in sociopolitical damage control. For myself, I don't intend to become an expert in British history and jurisprudence just to take up this issue. They have a nation of their own. They have an empire. They can take care of themselves. And if things go as poorly as I expect, there will be a lot of work for them to do in the aftermath, as well as a hell of a lot for the rest of us to learn. I'm sorry if that just isn't enough for you, but the idea that the British government seems to be in error by undertaking this experiment simply does not justify your choice to simmer in anger in order that you can feel angry for being angered.

It is not the fact that you have an opinion that would make you an intolerant ass. Rather, it would be the suggestion—dripping from your posts—that your opinion is all there is to the matter.

Seriously, man, it's hard to sympathize with that kind of attitude. Sure, there's a problem. But it's not simply two sides, pro and con. In other words, don't seek to exacerbate what frustrates you; all you accomplish is empowering it.

 

[Michael]

Tiassa,

One problem I find with your posts is they’re too well written. It’s as if you have actually taken the time to think about the situation and then written something. THIS makes for very difficult debating on Sciforums! I kind of remember acting similarly, a long, long, long time ago. Then, when I got tired bumping my head into the wall called SAM I quite
Haaa!
So, thanks, I appreciate your post

And I think you're being disingenuous to declare a fallacy over multiple considerations and then only attempt to address one.

Yes, I didn’t quite disagree with the remainder of your post.

And, I’m not against religion per say and that includes religious belief. As a matter of fact, in a couple of months, I’ll spend a few weeks in a temple with a friend whose father is a Priest. Which is always good fun for an atheist

I understand that, on some level, superstition and otherwise similar beliefs (including religion, but also ideas like luck and destiny) somehow benefit society as a whole. If you don’t truly believe you will be first across the finish line, then you won’t be. Belief is important.

But, to me, this is an ill conceived experiment; a bad precedent to set and the wrong direction to take. There’s too much at stake. And if things go very badly, it won’t be Sharia Britain.

 

[lucifers angel]

Sharia courts operating in Britain.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2957428/Sharia-law-courts-operating-in-Britain.html

This is hard to believe.

if they are just for muslims and not for westerners then why not?

westerners cannot be punished under sharia law, its not our religion or our culture

 

[Challenger78]

well if they were here they would still be subject to the law of the land and that includes the sexual discrimination act

BTW aborigional cultural courts operate here as well and are quite effective because they dont have the same adverserial complex system that the regular legal system uses

I think we can work something out, establish a heirarchy. Have the federal courts higher than the Sharia courts.

 

[Steve100]

if they are just for muslims and not for westerners then why not?

westerners cannot be punished under sharia law, its not our religion or our culture

They can find Muslims guilty and not guilty.
That's a problem.

 

[John99]

michael i will ask you again,
what is the difference between the jewish courts which have been operating for the last 100 years and these courts?

What Jewish courts? I never heard of this. Never heard f any of this stuff. England should shit or get off the pot.

 

[Pandaemoni]

You know, I posted this in anther thread and I think it illustrates the point now. The ideology of White Supremacy is a long and enduring beleif system. Should we have All White Courts that settle points of difference between White Supremacists because they don't trust Darky up there ruling down on them?

If two white men agree to submit their dispute to an arbitrator and abide by his decision, in most western countries they are free to do so. In fact, in most they are encouraged to do so, since it saves the states the cost of using their courts' time. If they want to get together and talk through tehir dispute and sign a settlement agreement, most courts will enforce that too.

 

[Michael]

Yes, but at some time they enter the public domain (for example, by registering their written document to the civil courts) and that's when it becomes a mater of the State and is legally binding.

I personally believe it will turn out bad for both the British and the British that happen to also be Muslim, but meh ... whatever, it's their country, if the British think it's a great idea ... well, they can continue to do whatever they think is best. I'm happy I don't live there.


I'm curious, perhaps Muslims can go to Arabic Islamic schools? Ones that teach creation over evolution. We can sit here and hypothesize that perhaps one day, they maybe just might return to the British public school system after realizing what their religous schooling is teaching them is wrong.

Think that's going to happen?

Or, how about this: Perhaps it's time for Muslims to have a separate Parliament? At least in Londonstan. You know, so that in a generation or two they might maybe think that their Shiara government doesn't govern all that well, and maybe they might come running back to the British Civil system?

Next, how about the Muslims enclaves vote in a separate tax system? One that's based on Shirai. The non-Muslims can pay their non-Muslim tax and the Muslims can pay their Muslims taxes and this will fund the all Muslim paramillitary/police force that can police Londonstan. I mean, hey, now non-muslim Londoners won't have to worry about paying Muslims the dole anymore - their new Islamic Parliament will take care of it.

AND... in this way maybe, after a few decade when Londonstan had rotted into an Islamic cesspool of fundamental Islamics reminiscence of Pakistan THEN, maybe then, they might, maybe, possibly could, decide to rejoin the British system?

Just ask the Muslims wanting their own separate states in Norther India, Western China, Southern Thailand, Southern Philippines, Northern Nigeria, Southern Russia, Eastern Europe, Northern Cyprus, etc.. etc.. etc... ... yeah, History shows it's just a wonderful thing to allow Muslims to begin to segregate themselves from the main society. Yup, just wonderful.

2012 - the goal for the mega-Mosque to be built next to the Olympic stadium. Just wonderful. Can't wait to see those Olympics. Haaaa! Hahahahahaaaa.... (sorry... pffffff)

Lastly, and to return to the point about Scientology, I do believe if one religion has a separate court system then ALL recognized religions should have said separate court systems. That includes the Jedi, who ARE a recognized religion in Britain. If British think this is all well and good then yeah, let's sit back and watch. History suggests that, following a purge, Islam will banned in Britain, well, we'll see how it goes.


Run the Experiment,
Michael

 

[(Q)]

If two white men agree to submit their dispute to an arbitrator and abide by his decision, in most western countries they are free to do so. In fact, in most they are encouraged to do so, since it saves the states the cost of using their courts' time. If they want to get together and talk through tehir dispute and sign a settlement agreement, most courts will enforce that too.

While I would agree with that statement, the only issue is what is offered as arbitration.

Would there be disparity between a Muslim man and woman seeking arbitration based on Islam as opposed to a Western man and woman seeking arbitration based on the facts, if the two scenarios were somewhat equivalent?

 

[Pandaemoni]

While I would agree with that statement, the only issue is what is offered as arbitration.

Would there be disparity between a Muslim man and woman seeking arbitration based on Islam as opposed to a Western man and woman seeking arbitration based on the facts, if the two scenarios were somewhat equivalent?

There is no hard and fast rule in arbitrations that sets the rule of decision, so two parties can in fact decide that English law, oir New York law, or Russian law governs their dispute (or Sharia). While a court might think twice when it came to Sharia, no court would ever question the use of, say, Indonesian law, if the parties agreed to it and told the arbitrator to abide by it. You usually cannot take matters of family law to arbitration, but it's not such a stretch to do so so long as it is voluntary for those involved, the main problem being that coercion can be subtle.

 

[Challenger78]

Here in Australia, I think the Family courts are seperate from the heirarchy of courts.

We could have sharia courts operating here, but they would have to be subordinate to the Federal court. An appeal process would have to be set up.

 

[John99]

An I always thought that in order for justice to be fair for everyone, everyone should be under the same set of laws. I guess the people who meet the criteria will have a choice of which court to use.

 

[codanblad]

An I always thought that in order for justice to be fair for everyone, everyone should be under the same set of laws. I guess the people who meet the criteria will have a choice of which court to use.

that's my concern, its going against rule of law. unless sharia courts are open to everyone, muslims get more options than everyone else.

 

[CheskiChips]

that's my concern, its going against rule of law. unless sharia courts are open to everyone, muslims get more options than everyone else.

Good point, is it truly equality then?

Should a person be forced to early in life choose to use one or another? By say...age 25 choose whether or not they will use Sharia or Civil? After that they cannot change their mind without filling out 250k papers and paying a heavy fine.

 

[Asguard]

again what about the jewish courts which have been running for 100 years CheskiChips, codanblad.

now i agree with john to some extent, for instance its unfair that defacto couples cant access the family court currently (there is a bill to fix this before the house, actually im lissioning to it in the commity right now) and insted have to deal throught the expencive and non user friendly supreme court for family law matters with regard to them. The irony is that this bill is actually ment to fix discrimination against same sex couples but in order to do this they have to fix the laws relating to defacto couples